[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, one absent, please rise to salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Chair recognizes Councilor Caraviello for motion to suspend the rules.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, if I could suspend the rules. All those in favor? All those opposed, motion carries. Mr. President, if we could suspend the rules to bring number 16076.
[Fred Dello Russo]: The motion of Councilor Caraviello to have item number 16076 before us, offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council send condolences to the family of the Honorable Robert Drennan. He is a former member of the Medford City Council and also served as Deputy Mayor. Mr. Drennan was a World War II veteran. and was awarded two battle stars. Mr. Drennan was honored by the French General Consul with a certificate of appreciation for his World War II services and was among the American troops that liberated and debriefed the prisoners at Buchenwald concentration camp. His presence in our community will be missed. We ask that tonight's meeting be held in his honor. Consul. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. Drennan, who passed away this week, is the second — I think just a couple weeks ago, we wished him a happy birthday. And he's the second — he was the second-oldest city councilor next to former Councilor McGlynn. And, you know, along with being a World War II veteran and being involved with the concentration camps, he was a good soldier and a good family man. And I ask that this meeting be dedicated in his honor today, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion that this meeting be dedicated in Councilor Drenna's honor and memory, all those in favor? All those opposed? Please join us in a moment of silence for Deputy Mayor Drenna.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_20]: Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: While we're in the suspension, Mr. President, we have a number of residents that would like to address the council on Toro Ave, Mr. President, if you would allow that.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor. Do they need an introduction, Councilor, for the subject matter? Allow the residents, Mr. President. Presidents of Toro Ave, please present themselves before the rail. Welcome, please state your name and address for the record. William Hanson, 22 Toro Avenue.
[SPEAKER_18]: Peter Holman, Conchita Baudo, 39 Toro Avenue.
[SPEAKER_10]: Patricia Hanson, 22 Toro Avenue.
[SPEAKER_04]: Teresa Eisner, 24 Toro Avenue. He already named me, Conchita Baudo, 39 Toro Avenue.
[Robert Cappucci]: Tom Kubler, 1012 Toro Avenue.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Sean Birmingham, 28, Toroweth. Thank you. The purpose you wish to speak to someone, one person may speak at a time. And please present yourself to the microphone.
[SPEAKER_18]: Peter Hoban, and this is a neighbor living at 39 Toro Ave with Conchita Vado. This was all brought about originally from a zoning petition for a variance by Tufts University and the potential buyers of 21 Toro Avenue. 21 Toro Avenue was a residence that was built in the 1840s. It's a single family historical building and had an original lot of, I'm not sure the exact size, 15,000, 18,000 feet. The variance was brought by potential buyers from Tufts University who were seeking a variance to put two additional houses on Toro Ave. So all the neighbors here who live in the area were up in arms because first, the impact of Toro Ave. to put two additional houses and the parking was horrendous. We also have a situation where on Summer Street, Tufts University owned the old grandfather's house, and if anybody's familiar with what happened with that, after they sold that to contractors, they put two additional residences out there, and the traffic was horrendous. A couple of houses up from that particular house, another historic house was just sold recently. And again, the contractors, they've maxed out the people. Again, not having much experience with dealing with of what we're here for, other than to kind of uniform presentation of the homeowners and residents of Medford, that it would be a tremendous disservice that one, the Tufts University, who, again, picked this house up about 25, 30 years ago, about $26,000, and that we're trying to sell it for a million. That was about a 3,000, 4,000% profit, and I don't blame The contract is that we're looking to buy the house and flip it over and make a million dollars. That's the American way, I understand. The upsetness that certainly Conchetta and I, she's lived in the neighborhood for about 40 plus years. There was an original family that lived there, Priscilla, an elderly woman and her brother. And they took care of the house and they were about fourth or fifth owners of it. It certainly appeared to me, now Tufts, they weren't going to allow the contractors to tear the house down if they had to keep the original lot size student house and keep that. But it would be up to zoning variance for the property to be developed. Again, my concern and certainly most of the people here is the impact to put two additional houses is horrendous on the impact. Again, the other people can address and have the photographs for safety issues. The one thing that I believe, though, ought to be a major concern for MedFed, and it just burns me, and with all due respect to Tusk, my late wife graduated from Tusk grad school. And my younger sister graduated from undergraduate school, so I have no animus against Tufts University. I absolutely have animus against Tufts making a $3,000, $4,000 profit off of the $26,000 to maximize their sale with the idea to develop it. As opposed to Tufts, ought to do the right thing is kind of a fiduciary say, Hey, listen, this house is older than Tufts University. Tufts University is coming up to its 200th anniversary about 1950. Most of us, myself specifically, I don't think I'll be around for that. But it would be nice to think that Tufts didn't think about maximizing 4,000%, 3,000% profit and maybe held on to the place, put up a sign that, hey, Tufts, look what we did for the benefit of the Medford people. We preserved something that was built in 1840 before our university was and preserved it. I think, again, what this isn't about is some hardship owners who are trying to put an extra room or two for their kids to live in a house. This is about a university that has a fiduciary duty, I think, to the community to allow some preservation of history. It's one of the only original sites that they've had, and I suggest that the board consider the people's position on it, that it ought not to be just a profit-orientated And I would defer to my other neighbors here, but that's kind of where we're coming from, more of an equitable argument that certainly Tufts owes to the city of Medford. This body here is representing the city. There's not a whole hell of a lot of places in Medford that can say that they actually look like it was since 1841. And question, does the city of Medford really need two additional apartment buildings and the impact as opposed to like preservation of a historical market?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Was this matter presented by the zoning to the Zoning Board of Appeals?
[SPEAKER_18]: It was, I believe that was.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Have they acted on the matter yet?
[SPEAKER_17]: No, they have not. We're here to talk to the city council and help us, guide us on how to continue with this. At a Medford Historic District Commission in October, They noted that making a historic original house, a single house historic district, the mayor and the city solicitor were in favor of the designation. Okay, and that's the October minutes from the historic commission, historic district commission. And they go on to say that some of the members opposed of it. But what we're here to do is we're here to find out how to go about making this property in its entirety. a historic district. We have 87 signatures so far, just from the Toro Avenue area and a few others, all wanting to help us make this, and the other buildings in the city, are the lots of historic value, over 150 years old, into historic districts. So they've preserved the city. There's also a draft already been prepared by the Historic District Commission, which is here, Um, back in July, I believe it was July that it was formed. I lost the date on it. I lose, you know, I'm not used to doing this stuff. Yeah. July, 2015 in the, in these Massachusetts, historic society, historic commission States in here. that it's one of the few pristine properties in the city and that it should be preserved.
[SPEAKER_10]: And if you're not familiar with what the house looks like, we can pass this around. All right. Thank you. And this is a copy of the $500 survey that the historic district had done on the property. Anything else to add?
[SPEAKER_04]: Why not? I guess the biggest thing, I live right directly across the street from the house. I have for about 18 years. I've lived in Medford most of my life, all my life, I should say, up on Ashcroft Road. One of the biggest reasons why I kept this house or moved into this house was because of the grandeur of this house across the street. And it's not just parking. I own a two-family. I have four cars. It's a driveway or whatever. There's a lot more to it. And I think that's the biggest thing. is this house is a wonderful house. It's sitting there, all the landscaping as you see the pitches, it's a gorgeous house and it should be kept. And just to keep on adding houses onto it. I mean, I'm very involved in Medford. My kids go to Medford High. And it's just part of it. I mean, Medford's a fantastic city. That's why we chose to stay here. That's why we chose to stay there was because of this house and how beautiful the street is. And just to keep what it looks like. You know, I mean, just to keep on adding all these houses just doesn't add any value to Medford at all. Not just our area. You're taking away the historical areas.
[SPEAKER_30]: Hi, my name is Emily McGallony. I live on South Street, right around the corner from Touro Ave. I bought a very old house, 1834. Well, the oldest part is the 1700s. It's on South Street right across from the river. Bought it 18 years ago. I grew up in Medford and came back to Medford after living in the suburbs. As it stands right now, my house can be bought. I have 2 3rds of an acre of land. There's a beautiful Greek Revival house on it. Without any laws protecting these houses in Medford, especially that area, because that was the shipbuilding area. The person who built my house was a shipbuilder. The paintings of his ships are in the Essex Maritime Museum. So as it stands right now, anybody could buy my house, actually tear it down, and build an apartment complex. Because once you own a house, unless it's protected by some kind of historic preservation, an owner has the right to do whatever they want. So I agree that more should be looked into as to how to save. That particular area, like I said, that was—a lot of those homes were built by the shipbuilders. And that's all I want to say. Thank you.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. My name is Robert Pater. I live at Zero Summit Road, a former member of the Zargas Party. First of all, to answer your question, Councilor De La Ruzo, Council President De La Ruzo, the Board of Appeals received a letter from Tufts University through their developers that they have rejected, and they're not going forward with the purchase of the sale of the piece of property. And I would hope it's because at the board of appeals meeting on the night that it took place, there wasn't one person that was there for it from the neighborhood. As a matter of fact, they were all against it. That's number one. Number two, I think the city of Medford has a responsibility. If in fact they do believe in keeping its history and a piece of its history, here's a classic opportunity for them to engage in this particular part. The method historical commission only has $700 a year in its budget. It's a pittance as compared to what the value of properties are here in the city of Medford. And right around the corner, with the demolition delay permit hanging on them, you have another piece of property. It's called the Cabernet House. It's a French colony house. And that's due any day now to come up as an issue of whether it's going to be destroyed with a present purchase for value being a contractor. You know, when you talk about history here in the city of Medford, it isn't that it's on Toroweb or South Street. It's who owns the property. At Tufts University, with a billion-dollar endowment, not a million or a hundred million, a billion-dollar endowment, there is no need right now for them to have this piece of property to be sold. Now, they're getting a little bit tricky with this, because what they're trying to do is sell the property last week on Zillow, advertising it, and then they subsequently changed the language, not to say that it could be subdivided. It's just a single-house piece of property. Now, the single home historical district, that's the terminology that needs to take place. That's what puts the preservation restriction on this piece of property. And Tufts University, if they want to really be the good neighbor, they can come up to the plate. They have two good bites of the apple of this. They can lead on this one here if they want. They can make the application to the Commonwealth of Mass, for which there is a pamphlet that tells you that it's called There is a Difference. It's all from the Mass Historical Society. establishing historical districts, there's a dish they have out on them. What they could do, they could go forward and make this application in behalf of preserving the piece of property. Or in the alternative, what they could do, they could place a restriction on their deed. So any subsequent for value who purchases that, which would be the next person for value, there would be a deed restriction that would be recorded at the Middlesex South Registry of Deeds in perpetuity, which means it could never be subdivided. The house and the land stays as one. And that's all that the neighbors are looking for, to preserve their neighborhood. Because if that does get itself subdivided and other houses go there, you will have an increase in parking, you will have an increase of traffic in the neighborhood for which they don't need at the present time. As members of the Medford City Council, I believe you do. If you really believe in history and preserving it and keeping it as a part of what the city of Medford's all about, You do have a responsibility, and I would probably suggest and ask that you fellows and ladies make a pitch to the Medford Historical Commission to support the residents and the abutters and the people of Medford who want to keep this house as an historical piece of property and for the city of Medford to file with the Commonwealth of Mass Historical Commission. If in fact Tufts University won't do it, in either way, to preserve this as a historical landmark here in the city of Medford. You know, Tufts University, this isn't like new to them. They just got through doing this on grandfather's house on South Street. And fortunately, on this piece of property, the residents are aware, they're smart enough, and they now realize what's going on. That didn't happen on South Street, unfortunately. That happened in the summertime. This one here is a little bit more advanced where the neighborhood was aware of it. And also, if you go to the last meeting and one of the meeting minutes of the historical commission, the meetings of October 29th, 2015, what was presented that time to Tufts University that they would go forward and sell the property with the request of maintaining a historical piece of property, but not to disallow them to subdivide it. And at that point in time, the developer and Tufts was not going to agree with that. It doesn't cost a lot of money to make this filing of this application. And what you're doing is you're preserving something that the city has had. If anybody knows the history of that property, it goes way back, way before 1840. It goes back to two brothers that owned that piece of property, who were involved not only in shipbuilding, but were also involved in marketing, you know, internationally. And as the lady who just came and spoke before us, there are other houses on South Street that don't have an historical designation, and if they lose it, and somebody comes in and buys it, nobody's going to be able to do anything about it, because that's going to be their right to do it, whoever buys it to subdivide it. Taking all of this into consideration, and you might be asking, why are we here tonight? You're here tonight for one reason. The Historical Commission hopefully will have a meeting, because they've been asked to have an emergency meeting, to put a stop to this and have Tufts University put a stop to this, or become a partner so it doesn't get itself subdivided in any shape, manner, or form. Tufts University could sell that property today for a million dollars for whatever it might be. The purchase of a value will give Tufts University the money. They'll make their money. It doesn't make any difference. But to have it with the condition of being subdivided, the question is, I don't believe Tussel's going to get any money back, so why would you want to give an outside developer an opportunity to make that money at the expense of the neighborhood, at the expense of the citizens of Medford, and at the expense of our city's history? It doesn't make any difference. I believe that there are plenty of people out there who would love to buy that house, live in that house knowing it's a piece of Medford, it's a piece of history, and enjoy the land that's around it. It's a unique opportunity that many homes in this community doesn't even have that opportunity. With that being said, I would hope that somebody would be rational enough to realize that these folks aren't here, you know, on a lock. They're here on a mission, and the mission is to employ you as our elected officials to look into this and be a positive and affirmative backer for their position to keep Medford's history alive and well and not to have it deteriorated into a subdivision to be sold off to a developer, for that developer to make money, and again, we lose another piece of Medford's history. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Chair recognizes Councilor Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, it wasn't too long ago where, you know, I sat at those other meetings for Grandfather's House, and we watched as tough steam rolled us over on that. That was another house that should have never been let go. And Councilor Penta's right that if it took some time, you can find a buyer who wants to move into that type of house. And if I recall at the meeting that I went to, the builder was saying that he was going to find a buyer who wanted that type of house, and he pretty much reneged on everything he said on that one there. So I think it's up to Tufts to step up to the plate on this and help the city out. Just should be noted, and again, appreciate the time you've been working with us.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Chair recognizes Vice President Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Dello Russo, and thank you for taking the time to come tonight to explain this all to us. I know a number of emails have been going back and forth. And as of this morning, somebody did respond from the Medford Historical District Commission. So has there been anything of the last few hours with regards to if an emergency meeting will be called? No, we have not.
[Judy Beatrice]: The problem with the emergency meeting is it needs to take notice.
[SPEAKER_17]: William Hanson, 22 Toro. He needs two days public notice in order to have an emergency meeting. He has one of his board members is out of town on vacation. And I don't know how many they need to hold the meeting to begin with.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And then there was a time frame.
[SPEAKER_17]: Monday is the final day for bids for the House, the 22nd, that Tufts has put on it to try to get the final bids in. Now, today we're sitting at the House, and there's probably, I would say, since the weekend, there's probably I don't know, probably 15 families have looked at it, and probably just as many contractors. Measuring the land tonight before we came here, there were people over there measuring the lot to see how they could slice and dice. And that's what we're asking.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And with regards, maybe Council Penta could further explain, with regards to time frames, if the historic commission does complete the application, what's the time frame with regards to, you know... The application, the way it was explained to us,
[Robert Penta]: The fastest they probably think it could be completed by would be within six to seven months, if that would be the case. The quickest and the easiest way to do it would be to have Tufts University, they themselves, recognizing the fact that the neighbors don't want the property subdivided, they could just put an addendum or an attachment to the deed. And while this is taking place, if it takes more than six months to sell the property, the attachments on the deed, it's duly recorded, it's a done deal. And at the same time, the city will have its opportunity to not only do that. You bring up a good question. Because don't let it just be this house. It's all the houses in this, all the historic pieces of property in this city. And it should be something that should be looked at because I don't think you're going to want to deal with this one at a time, maybe every other month or every third or fourth month. I think it's time that the city either takes a real hard look at what it has for its history and its properties and its values and put it all together so you don't have to do that. But to answer your question, six, seven months.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And then nobody spoke, but I know I, when I spoke to Bill and Pat, a few, maybe, A few weeks ago, there was a major congestion problem on that street. That's one of the biggest issues with regards to if you add three more homes there, you're going to add two more homes there, you're going to add another eight cars, and then you really don't have room for it.
[SPEAKER_10]: Their proposal was to do two more curb cuts because they were going to add two more houses next to that house. And so they want to make two more curb cuts to take away more parking. And with Toro Avenue, we have a special restriction. You can only park on the odd side every single winter. You're not allowed to do odd, even like most of the city. And you can only park on that side, and they're taking away more curbs from the side we're supposed to park on. And it's actually part of the Method Scholar, you know, the pathway we have through the, we have all the signs through the city of how to walk. Toro Avenue is part of the pathway that comes right off of Summer Street. It goes right down Toro, right past that historical house for bikers and walkers to enjoy.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Just as one councilor, I'd like to make a motion that we request that Tufts University take a hard look at putting this restriction on. to preserve the area, the neighborhood, the street itself. Obviously, we have parking issues. But to preserve that house, which it seems 87 people on a petition, I as one council, and I'm sure my council colleagues agree, we need to do something from our part. And I think making a recommendation not only to Tufts University, but also to the Historic District Commission to do what they can and hopefully set up an emergency meeting, even if they are missing a member. Obviously, there's a number of people that need to be heard, and something needs to hopefully change. And I agree, it needs to be looked at as a whole, so we don't see this every few months. But right now, we're dealing with this house, and we need to be proactive. Hopefully, the Historic Commission will help us do that.
[Fred Dello Russo]: On the motion of Vice President Lungo-Koehn, Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: I just thank you again for coming out tonight and to have the wealth of knowledge that Council Pat brings us is applauded. But again, I think that I concur with my fellow colleague that we need to reach out to Tufts. I think that seems to be the quickest way and to try to find, put a halt to this and maybe ask them for an extension. as they go through their process to give the city it's time to do its due diligence and to this matter. And then moving forward, I think it's a huge piece. I know that I've talked to a few of the neighbors in the Carbonell house and that same situation. So thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Chair recognizes Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. And I too agree that this is certainly a property that, we should take a look at and we should preserve. Um, I certainly think that a, uh, single district historical home is certainly a, uh, a good approach to protecting the neighborhood. Mr. President, if we think back in Councilor Penta, um, show you, you remember this, um, council paper one four dash six three five. We had some discussion relative to a certain home and you and I worked together to ask the historical district commission to examine all the single family homes. that could potentially be in single home historic districts. And that was back in August of 2014. Mr. President, I'd like to amend the paper and request an update from the Medford Historical District Commission on that request. Pursuant to the guidelines set forth. That matter was number what? That would be number 14-635. 14-635. And it was passed on August 12, 2014. In reviewing the Secretary of State's guideline on ways to establish local historic districts, one of the things that it notes is that it takes about 18 months for the process to be started and finished. And we obviously have a little bit of a different situation in our hands right now. And I think that it's important for us to work with Tufts University and to partner with Tufts University to ensure that there's a deed of restriction on the property, Mr. President, so that we can maintain the integrity of the neighborhood and the integrity of the home. So with that being said, I'm in full support of Councilor Longo's motion, which turned into a resolution. And I'd like to amend it by asking that we get an update from the Medford Historical District Commission relative to that agenda item. Very good.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Chair recognizes Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the neighbors for coming out tonight. You know, we just went through a very important election this past November. And there was a ballot question. relative to Community Preservation Act. And one of the major points of the Community Preservation Act, which was supported by this community, was historic preservation. So that tells me that people in this community want to preserve our history. They don't want to let buildings like on Bradbury, it was one of the first homes built without the use of a nail. It was peg-built, built with pegs back in the 1700s, and it was taken down. And they put it actually, there was just a a vacant lot there for many years. Much of this goes on throughout the community, and unless residents gather together and support the preservation and support the integrity of their neighborhoods, I think we don't hear about it. So I agree with Councilor Longo and Councilor Knight and Councilor Scarpelli on this. We should send a letter immediately to Tufts University. You know, Tufts University, as we heard, their endowment is a billion dollars. and to be good neighbors in this community, which they are on most occasions. I think, Mr. President, that they should hold off for at least a year on this until we're able to, as a community, gather our hands around this and see what direction we go, whether it's the historical home district designation or whether or not the historic district commission wants to put some type of restriction on that property. But clearly, something needs to be done, Mr. President, immediately. And I also — I think we all got an email. I think there's a gentleman in the audience that lives in the area that did a fair amount of work, Mr. Gallback, on the history of this particular piece of property. And I know they mentioned shipbuilding. We all knew the Mystic was popular for shipbuilding and rum and a lot of host of activities. back some 150, 200 years ago. But I think it would be interesting to hear from Mr. Gullback regarding the significance of this property and the fact that the city of Medford really is missing a golden opportunity, not just on this home, but many other homes, Mr. President. You know, I have people that tell me they live, my house is older. I say, when was it built? Oh, 1968 it was built. You know, and people have no concept of, you know, historic the need, Mr. President, for many years. The direction of this city, under the old forefathers, was to rip down the old property and put something up new. Our public library is a perfect scenario, which took place in our public library. And anything we can do to preserve the history that we have in this community, and at the same time moving forward, but preserve what we have, I think we're obligated, Mr. President. So if we can hear from Mr. Goldbach, on the preservation, I'd be interested in hearing.
[Fred Dello Russo]: We will in due course, Councilor. If you could just remind us, your amendment was?
[Michael Marks]: My amendment was more or less to go on with Councilor Longo and Councilor Knight mentioned about, I believe it was sending a letter to Tufts University asking them to hold off on any movement of this particular property until we can, as a community, get our hands around the situation.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So on the motion of Vice President Lungo-Koehn as amended by Councilors Knight and Marks.
[Adam Knight]: Do you have that Mr. Clerk? Mr. President, you know, obviously we want them to slow the sale of the house, but the ultimate goal is to put a restriction on the deed. So if we can't get them to agree to put the restriction on the deed, then the next best step would be to slow the sale down so that we can go through the process of designating this as a single home historic district. Thank you. So I think the first ask should be. to deed the restrictions, and then they can go about their business and sell it tomorrow if the deeded restrictions are in place and the neighborhood's going to remain the same. But if, in fact, they're going to push back on the deeded restrictions, then we might want to ask for a little bit more time until we can turn it into what we need to turn it into.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Thank you, Councilor Knight. The gentleman hasn't had a chance to speak, so you've spoken twice already. The gentleman that spoke. You don't have a point of information.
[Robert Penta]: Thank you. Two points. The president of Tufts university, Walnut Hill royalty, Ian Barber-Rubel, who's the public, they're well aware of what you're talking about, about the restriction. So the ball is well in their court and they've had this information for well over a month. Um, and I, I just think that's important to note. And I, and I think the strength of a roll call vote by the council would be apropos at this point in time. Sorry, I upset your apple cart, Mr. President.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_02]: Thank you, Mr. President and Councilor. My name is Steve Gailbach. Along with my family, I've lived next door to 21 Toro at 11 Toro for the last 10 years, since 2006. I have to admit, I didn't inquire into the history of this property until I attended the hearing at the end of January. I heard quite a bit of fascinating history about it and decided I'm a lawyer. I've done quite a bit of historical research and writing during the course of my career. I guess it was about time to look into this. What I found, frankly, is somewhat different from some of the stories I heard that night. There's far more here. There is stuff that is not in the Medford Histories. I've gone over to the library. I've looked at the histories. And just to give the quick version of it, which I think would be of very much of interest to Tufts University, okay, if you're going to send a letter to them. Okay, there was a historical study done last year at the behest of the Historic District Commission. And it was only able to trace the title of this house back to 1839. I've been to the Registry of Dates now twice in the last couple weeks, and the records there are pretty disorganized and hard to go back beyond 1839. But I just tried something on a flyer. I just wanted to know why it was named for Turo. And I looked in the grantee indexes for the early 1800s under the name Toro. And I could hardly believe what I found. There are a couple dozen deeds starting in 1808. And basically the Toro family owned this neighborhood from the Mystic River, okay, going toward Tufts to the Middlesex Canal. So I wondered, what's the Middlesex Canal? Where was it? I heard about it. I thought it probably followed the river. Makes sense? It didn't. There's an online detailed map prepared just in 2008 for the Massachusetts Historic Commission, and it shows the route of the Middlesex Canal. And is everyone here familiar with Summer Street? So you've got South Street right along and parallel to the river. As you go toward Tufts, the next parallel street to it, is Summer Street, you go past that you have George, okay, Toro Avenue, as you probably know, is just one block long, goes between Summer and South. What is today Summer Street, beginning in the early 1830s, that was the Middlesex Canal. Summer Street follows exactly the path of the Middlesex Canal. And there was a bridge over that canal at Toro Ave, and another bridge over the canal at Main Street. So Toro Ave was pretty important. As best I can figure from the deeds, and I missed one day because I went to the courthouse and it was closed for snow about a week ago, but I'm going to go back tomorrow and I'd be glad to submit the detail. I've got my preliminary report here and I think by the end of the week I could give a council, you know, more detail and then you can decide what you'd like to put into a letter to Tufts. But here's the bottom line. The Toro family has largely been lost to Medford history. You go back to all the histories of Medford and you really find virtually nothing about them. Judah Toro was the most famous Jewish philanthropist in America in the 19th century. Okay? There are books about him in the Library of Congress. I've gotten scans of three of them. Okay? When he died in 1854, his will was so generous that it was published, not just around America, but in foreign countries as an inspiration to people. Okay? Now, nobody has really suspected that Judah Toro had a connection to Medford, because he lived in New Orleans. Funny thing, he grew up in Boston with his brother and sister. He ended up going down to New Orleans, handled that part of the family shipping and merchandise business. His brother Abraham handled the main part from Boston, but he built a second house in Medford. He paid $1,100 in 1808 to buy a major part of our neighborhood. That was a lot of money back then. He had a house, which should be a historic landmark, but it was torn down in the early 1900s to build a series of apartment houses. That's what the Medford historical record volumes say from 100 years ago. Those are probably the triple-deckers that are on Toro Avenue right along South. You have a set of four of them. But there's more, obviously, we need to nail down, but the point is that Abraham Toro died an untimely death in 1822 when he went to the annual military parade in Boston and a cannon shot explosion spooked his horse. He ended up taking a hard fall, compound fracture of his leg. It turned into gangrene and he declared that he'd rather enter heaven with two legs than one. So he did not let the surgeons at Mass General Hospital amputate. He himself had endowed Mass General Hospital with so much money that according to a history in the Library of Congress, it made the director's head spin. His brother Judah, okay, then became owner. of the land in our neighborhood. I don't think anybody's ever known that. There's nothing in the history books, but it's there in the Middlesex Registry of Deeds. And surprisingly, although he spent most of his time in New Orleans, he and his sister Rebecca, who lived in New York, they bought more land to fill out their land holdings. During the 10 to 12 years after their brother's death, and then starting around 1836 to 1840, They sold it off, it got subdivided, and it's what you have now. Okay? Now, the Tufts connection. Judah Turow's will was most famous, and his whole life of philanthropy was famous for being the biggest benefactor of the Unitarian Church in New Orleans. The pastor of that church was a good friend of his. being the biggest benefactor, and it was in his will also, of the Jewish synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, which was the first synagogue in the British colonies, and his dad had been the rabbi there right at the start of the Revolutionary War, and also Mass General Hospital. When you think of Tufts, what was tough started at, as it was the college of the Unitarian Church in Massachusetts, okay? All we're doing here is really asking that what is probably the oldest surviving house on Touro family land, even if it was people after them that built it, plus the land itself, which is the only, you know, nice surviving residential, you know, grassy area other than the public park, which we really appreciate, beautiful park, okay? that that be somehow memorialized, not only for the architecture, which is impressive and old and historic, and that in itself would be ample reason, but this is to memorialize somebody who, he was one of the most important landowners in Medford. His brother was one of the most important citizens and a good friend of Governor Brooks. And there's just a great story to be told here. And in terms of the Jewish philanthropy aspect, Tufts is one of the biggest beneficiaries of generous Jewish philanthropy today. So, I mean, if this isn't a story that, you know, strikes somebody at Tufts, but frankly, they never had a chance to hear it. So, I'd be glad to give the material to counsel. If you want to give it to Tufts, I think somebody over there would pay attention. If you got a billion dollar endowment, What we're talking about is pocket change in terms of impact on the residential value, but it could be huge for their director of fundraising. Okay, that's all.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So on the motion of, did you need to speak one more time, sir? If I could, go ahead.
[SPEAKER_18]: Sure, Peter, just a postscript on that. Just so you're aware, what has been used by Tufts University is for visiting professors. So it's not like that will sit there. I mean, the usage of that house up to about a year ago was visiting professors. So I assume while the interim, something's happening, Tufts could go back and use it for their professorship. It wasn't right now. Although at the time we were there, it was easy. Some visit, they come in and stay a couple years. So it certainly could be used by them.
[George Scarpelli]: Awesome. Councilor Scott-Powell. Mr. President, if we can, maybe with this wonderful information and the history. Maybe we can amend that to maybe meet with Barbara Rebell maybe soon and maybe instead of a letter, not knowing with the time sensitive constraints, maybe meeting with her and maybe she can help us move this along in a more rapid pace to assure that the residents and the history are told. So if we can.
[Fred Dello Russo]: So on the motion for approval by Vice President Lungo-Koehn, as amended, roll call has been requested. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Caraviello?
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Falco? Yes. Councilor Knight?
[SPEAKER_24]: Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Vice President Lungo-Koehn? Yes. Councilor Marks?
[SPEAKER_24]: Yes.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Dello Russo? Yes. Before we call the roll, ma'am, you need to speak.
[Sqp6S0Yyr0A_SPEAKER_04]: I just wanted to say that one of the things I noticed in the listing for that house, we have some, my household has some dear friends who live on Curtis Street, and we're also very concerned about that house. They were not happy with, at all, with what happened to Grandfather's house. So they sent us the listing, and they said, you should buy this house. Because of course, we just randomly buy houses, right? But it was something that we actually thought about. And then we read the listing more carefully, and it says that all of the offers have to be in by Monday, this coming Monday. And we said, oh, there's no way we're going to get it together by then. Now, whoa, that's a lot of feedback. Frankly, we're probably not going to be ready for prime time in time for this house. But it occurs to me that you know who can totally get it together by this coming Monday is people who turn over real estate for a living. They probably have those kinds of packages and money and applications ready to go at a moment's notice. You know who can't probably get it together by Monday is Medford families. If you were looking anyway, then that's one thing. But if somebody were interested in possibly buying that specific place and was going to love it and make it their home and not turn it over and chop it into pieces and stuff like that, then yeah, that's a pretty quick deadline. And I think one of the things that might be worth talking to them about is, You know, you might get some folks who aren't just developers looking to chop it up if you make a deadline later than this coming Monday.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Sure. On the vote of six in the affirmative, one absent, the motion carries. On the motion of Council and I to revert back to the order of regular order of business, all those in favor? All those opposed? Motion carries, 16-071, offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council request that the Salem Street businesses parking lot Have some lights installed. Councilor Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. President, the Salem Street lot that I'm talking about is the one in Method Square, not the one in Haines Square, where all the businesses park now. It's a dark lot. There's no lighting in there. And we just opened up a brand new business next door. You're going to have customers parking in there. And there is no lighting in that whole lot there. It's dark. And I say, especially, you know, during this part of the year, five o'clock and all the business people who are now parked there have nothing to, you know, they can fall. Like I say, and now you have a new business. Let's get, let's get some lights there.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Very good. On the motion for approval by Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Vice President Langer-Kern. All those in favor? All those against? Carries. 16-072 offered by Councilor Marks. Be it resolved that the city solicitor be requested to draft a home rule petition for submission to the general court, providing for the election of a seven-person municipal charter commission to be placed on the ballot at the next general election that will occur on November 8, 2016, thus removing the necessity of first securing the signatures of 15% of the voters in the city who were eligible to vote in the last state election, as is required by General Law, Chapter 43B, Paragraph 3, in that the Municipal Charter Commission, once elected, shall be charged with the duty of recommending revisions and amendments to the present city charter, in that their recommendations include, at a minimum, an amendment to the present city charter, instituting an appointment an appointed committee whose purposes will be to conduct a periodic review of the City Charter. Further, that the Municipal Charter Commission, once elected, will be required to submit its final report of up to five recommendations for revisions or amendments to our present City Charter on or before June 30th, 2020. 2017, and that the recommended revisions or amendments be placed on the ballot for the next municipal election, which will take place in November 7th, 2017. Chair recognizes Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President, and I'm honored tonight to offer this long-awaited resolution regarding charter review within our community. This is actually my third attempt to, before this body, to put forward a resolution dealing with charter review over the last five years. And this resolution is focused on a short end time frame put forth to address the need of charter review. So this is a very focused plan. that this is just the first step, and I hope many steps, to get input from the public and craft a home rule petition that eventually will go to the state legislature for approval. So, I'd like to give just a little background, if I could, and then I know there are a number of people that would like to speak on this issue, and I look forward to the comments that are made tonight, Mr. President. A city charter is the constitution governing the municipal government that defines the powers the citizens agree to give their city government. The charter defines which officials are elected, their term lengths, duties, powers, and responsibilities, and establishes the lines of authority for city departments. Our current city charter calls for a modified Plan A form of government, which was approved under Chapter 605 of the Acts of 1986, some 29 years ago. Once a community has a charter, there is often a provision for the periodic appointment of a charter review committee, whose purpose will be to conduct an examination of the city charter to determine the charter's ongoing utility and accuracy. In the case of our charter, no such provision currently exists. The intent of my resolution is to serve as a launching pad aimed at citizen-driven decision-making regarding how our city is governed, assuring that the charter is working as intended. I'm going to ask, Mr. President, after discussion, that this matter be sent to a Committee of the Whole meeting and that we meet within the next week. And the reason why I ask a week, Mr. President, I know we have a lot going on, get this on the ballot for this upcoming November election, and that is the election of a seven-member board. We're under certain time constraints. And so we have to meet, have a public hearing on this, where we can amend this particular resolution. Anyone familiar with how a home rule petition functions? It typically is originated by the mayor, the executive branch. And then it comes to the council, which is the legislative branch. I'm actually starting the process off, and I had some dialogue and discussion with Mayor Burke, and many of the items that are in my resolution, we found mutual agreement on to move the process forward. I think it's been healthy dialogue under the old administration. If you mention charter change, they wanted a hanger from the highest tree in the city. So I'm glad to see there's some movement now. Like I said, this is just the first step in a process. And I want to thank Solicitor Rumley for his due diligence on checking whether or not we could use a federal state and federal election to put city names on for a charter review commission, which he was told that we can do so. So we're able to do that this November. And I want to thank all the residents over the past probably four or five years now that have gone out, got signatures, gone out, had public meetings, gone out and promoted a review of a charter that hasn't been looked at in 29 years. Any business operating under a business plan that hasn't reviewed their business plan in 29 years, it's safe to say they would no longer be in business. And the City of Medford is no different. This charter is an important document in our city that dictates how government should operate. And at the very least, it deserves to be scrutinized and to allow residents of this community to give input. And finally, their vote — not elected people voting on this. It's not the council. It's not the school committee. It's not the mayor. It's the people of this community who will ultimately vote on whatever ballot questions are offered in the November election of 2017. And that's assuming this process works as it's planned, Mr. President. So, at this point, I would like to hear from my colleagues. and any residents in the community, and to get this well-deserved process moving forward to a point that I think we can all be happy with, and eventually charter review, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Councilor.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Michael Ruggiero]: My name is Michael Ruggiero. I live on 18 Pembroke Street. Thank you for this council for allowing me to speak about charter review. Thank you to Councilor Marks for presenting this resolution. And thank you for allowing me to speak about charter review. Those two words, charter review, sound about as boring as can be. But I assure you, it's perhaps the most important issue facing Medford today. Why? The charter is basically the blueprint of Medford. Well, maybe we'll strike that too. Blueprint also sounds really boring. Let's think about this in terms of biblical terms. The charter is the soul of Medford. Maybe this sounds exaggerated, so let me illustrate an example of how the charter has affected our community. Consider the library. Right now, if you visit the library, you're going to have to walk through a bunch of buckets that are raining water on different parts of the area. The library is leaking. A number of months ago, over 200 or so children's books were destroyed as a result of water. But how does the charter have anything to do with this one example of the leaking library? For years, the library has been continuously underfunded by the city administration, the victim of numerous budget cuts. Things became so lean in 2012 that Medford needed a special waiver from the state to maintain certification despite not meeting basic funding standards. For six years, this process continued. And even though members of the city came to petition city council for help about this issue, and city council continuously voted on improving the situation at the library, nothing was done. The charter, which is the constitution for Medford, as Councilor Marks says, allows the city administration unilateral decisions about funding measures. So, even though all of this issue came up, nothing got done. The issue became so bad that the state actually threatened to pull certification from the library system in Medford, and thankfully, through one last sort of 11th hour measure, a number of residents raised their voice and the city administration finally decided to act. We have a new mayor now, and that's good news. Many people are excited about the opportunity of addressing many of the crumbling buildings throughout our city. But nonetheless, even on the campaign trail, Mayor Burke supported this process. Both candidates did. While I was campaigning, we collected over 1,500 signatures, which is where we're at. We're a little over 1,500 signatures for charter review right now. My group discussed this compromise measure tonight. Overall, we think it's pretty good. A number of members of the group want to discuss clarifications and maybe some reservations about some ideas here. But I want to talk about this in more broad strokes. 1986, a lot has happened since the days of Hulk Hogan. I don't know if you guys remember, but Halley's Comet visited us in 1986. It's going to be visiting us again in 2076. I seriously hope that we can get this issue fast-tracked. There is a number of people that are excited to add their voice to this process, and I thank you so much for bringing this issue up to us.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Welcome. Please state your name and address for the record.
[a52ZUinVlks_SPEAKER_12]: Maxim Weinstein, 57 Ashland Street. As Michael said, I think a number of us do have some questions, some reservations about some of the specific language in this, but I think we're also very thankful to Councilor Marks and to Solicitor Rumley and to the Mayor for considering this and working through Some of the potential issues and and details and just starting the ball rolling I think as Michael said this is something that really is important both in the sense of the potential for positive change in the city, but also simply for reflecting engagement of the community. I think one of the things we've seen in the past year or two, with a new mayor coming in, with some turnover on the council, is that people have started to get re-energized and re-engaged in what's going on in the city. What's really important is for us to embrace that and to make sure that that continues and isn't a flash in the pan that happens once because the mayor of 28 years has stepped down and then disappears again. And one of the ways you do that is by opening up these kinds of discussions like, how is our government structured? How do we get people more involved? What can we change to make for a better future? for the city and for the citizens of the city. So, as I said, I'm really supportive of this effort generally. I think some of the folks behind me are going to get into some of the specifics of some of the reservations and clarifications they're looking for, but I'm really looking forward to this process moving forward. And again, thanks to Councilor Marks for starting the ball rolling.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Welcome. Please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_28]: Thank you. Jay Spaulding, 3610 Mystic Valley Parkway, Medford. And again, I want to thank Councilor Marks for bringing this issue up. This feedback is driving me nuts. How about everybody else? And I have a migraine. OK. So we were very excited about this. Chowder Review is something that is near and dear to all of our hearts, and I think is a foundational bedrock of any community. The fact that there hasn't been Chowder Review in Medford since the 80s is telltale. We had some reservations and some clarifications. And as a former teacher, I made a little T-chart for you. So I'm going to read off a few of the reservations that we had as a group to this discussion. The first was that the proposed issue limits the number of changes that could be made under Charter Review to five, I believe. And we were wondering why there's a limit to the number of changes that the Charter Review Commission, as it were, could recommend and the city residents could vote for. We realized that overhauling the entire government in an Alice of Wonderland state of mind is not something that would be recommended. However, limiting it to five is an arbitrary number. We were wondering if that could be discussed. The second thing... when a blind person writes and can't read their own handwriting. The language requires an appointed person. And what does periodic mean? So, again, there's language in the resolution regarding appointed members. and also periodic charter review. We would love to see something in the charter that stated X number of years, every X number of years, the Medford City Charter were to go under review. We're wondering why this resolution says periodic. I have my guesses, but That clarification would be fantastic. What constitutes a change? Again, with the limit of changes under this resolution, what constitutes a change? Can I turn all of City Council into really cute Labrador retrievers? Right? That's a joke. You can laugh. That wouldn't be a good idea, although retrievers are pretty great. So what's a change? And then what is the legal authority of this commission? So if this resolution were to pass today, if this city council were to agree It would go before the subcommittee of the whole, which city, you know, any member, according to open meeting laws in the state of, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, any resident, anybody in Medford can attend those, but there's no authority for anyone other than the city council to speak at that subcommittee of the whole regarding what the look, the creation of this would be, so share a point of information.
[Adam Knight]: In my experiences, Ms. Baldwin, I have never seen any citizen of the Committee of the Whole be precluded from speaking at any point in time. When the time is appropriate, I've never seen them be precluded from speaking, so I just wanted to... Absolutely.
[SPEAKER_28]: Absolutely, sir. Thank you. And that's not what I was saying, and I have spoken at the Committee of the Whole. I'm saying more the authority to make and change and amend decisions is not something that anybody that has been spearheading charter review would have any authority. So what authority would an elected body of this Charter Review Commission have, so to speak? So, yes, I'm 100% grateful to Councilor Marks. I'm excited that this would be a working, kind of a working relationship between the mayor, the city council, citizens who are in support of charter review and a long-term charter review plan. But we do have some reservations and needs for clarification. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Jay. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: If I could, Mr. President, and I thank the speaker. You know, this document is a working document. And the reason why at the outset, when I started speaking, was to say that I'm not looking for approval tonight by any stretch of the imagination. This is the first step presenting a document that, if you got 20 people in a room, there would have been 20 different documents. So this is the starting point. The reason why it was discussed about limiting the number of changes was the fact that There was some concern that it may get confusing. Just say, because it hasn't been looked at in 29 years, this seven-member elected board comes out and says, you know what? This hasn't been reviewed in so many years. We have 30 ballot questions. At that point, you know, that'd be great that that research and homework was done in the due diligence, but that may pose a problem, having 30 questions on a ballot. And I think one of the speakers prior to this mentioned that This is not like an Alice in Wonderland type chase. This, you know, we're trying to put together some meaningful changes. And I am not opposed to limiting that restriction. But I just so you know where it came from was that we felt that we wanted to try to control the number of questions that would be on the ballot in 2017. Now, maybe that wasn't a good idea, but it opens up conversation now, which I think is great for the community. And I, as one member, am not opposed to having that limit taken off the home rule petition. You also had a question regarding the appointed person and how, why it's periodic, it's listed. And that, again, rather than saying it should be annually, biannually. I heard tonight someone mentioned to me they thought every 10 years we should look at it. And I said, well, I think that sounds a little excessive. But so what I'm saying is everyone has a different opinion. So the fact that we said periodic was just to get the conversation going, knowing that this wasn't the final document that was going to be sent to the state legislature. So I think that was the reasoning behind that. what constitutes a change, in my opinion, anything dealing with the current plan A government, which by the way is not a true plan A government, it's a modified plan A government, which has a host of other governmental issues built into it. And anything from staggering terms to having the city auditor report to the council, to ward representation, to I mean, the list goes on and on. There's a number of things, important issues that, in my opinion, can be changed through this elected body putting this on the ballot. And they have the legal authority of a state statute. And I think that was your last question. So once we create this body, it's no different. The only thing that this differs from is currently right now, if you read the state law, it says that communities are allowed to set up a review commission. It tells you the number. I believe it says seven, what we said, seven members. But it also says that they have up to 18 months to act. And when I looked at it, knowing that the law says you have to get 15% of the elected, 15% of the voters in the community to sign a petition, The Home Rule petition circumvents that. So I know there's been a group for the last several years going out trying to get signatures. We're trying to focus on not the task of getting signatures, but the task of promoting this, the task of putting together a document, and taking away the signature aspect. And just say we went through with the regular process through state statute. You're looking at, by the time I would assume, signatures are received, that this wouldn't be on the ballot until 2017. Then you're looking at an 18-month review process, which is dictated by state law. So you're looking at, potentially, if everything works out perfect, 2019 through 2020 to get something on the ballot. This expedites the process. We're looking at 2017 after public hearings. It doesn't expedite it, meaning there's not going to be involvement. It expedites the signature process. It expedites the amount of time that this body will have to work on it. We put out six months, and the only reason why we put out six months was it worked within the calendar for the clerk to have these names on the ballot. So we could say 12 months, but guess what? Then we're going to have to push it back another year, potentially two years. So the reason why we said six months, we thought that was ample time for this body to get together, have public meetings, gather input, and make recommendations. So like I said, I'm open for any suggestions. I'm hoping we have a Committee of the Whole meeting. Anyone's welcome to speak. If we want to have a meeting here before the podium, I just mentioned Committee of the Whole because that's usually what happens. I'm not opposed to doing it right here at the podium. Maybe next week we could dedicate a portion of the meeting to once again go over charter review. So by no stretch is this a way of circumventing public input. This is all public input. This is initiated by the people. Mark Rumley told me that there's something in the state statute that says no elected officials can actually run for this Charter Review Committee. So anyone thinking, oh, they're going to rig it with all the elected officials, that can't happen, according to the city solicitor. So we're hoping this is an open and notorious process, and I appreciate the questions. Thank you, Mr. President.
[George Scarpelli]: The chair recognizes Councilor Scarpelli. If I can, I want to also thank my fellow colleague, Mr. President, Council Marks. I think this is something that, as we went through the process of our campaign, I think this is something that was in everybody's forefront of their goals. And I did some homework, and what I found what was interesting and might help some of these issues and questions is that this is a process that hasn't been looked at since the 80s, and having amendments of questions limited to whatever it may be is something that could be bothersome. And when you look at what needs to take place in such a daunting task of charter review that hasn't been looked at in so long, I talked to City Councilor in Melrose. I met with the Mayor of Somerville. Something that they've done, and they point to me into a direction that I think would be something we should talk about and maybe investigate and maybe look at this avenue. The Collins Center at UMass Boston for Public Management. I believe we've used that here in Medford to help with some issues with the Housing Authority and other issues, but if you look at the most recent information that I've gotten back is that looking at a process, a daunting process like this, going out to an organization that have gone to numerous communities and kind of narrowed and brought the community in as a professional organization, communities like such as Somerville, Everett, Amesbury, Melrose, They've used the Collins Center to come in and work with your community to really get the finite issues out on the table and it left that, the open and transparent process really to the whole community because that's part of their their workings is going out to the community and doing that type of work that, to be honest with you, committee of seven that are elected as we move forward, giving them the tools that will help the succeed to its fullest. I think it's something we should look into. Um, and again, I, I appreciate and I applaud my, my colleague. And, uh, I know that, you know, Mr. Ruggiero who's been working his tail off, um, you know, to make this, to make this come forth full circle. I think that, you know, let's not try to reinvent the wheel. Let's see, let's investigate as we go into this, into a meeting. And I applaud the committee, the whole meeting and, and look at maybe invite someone from the Collins Center and to talk to us. And, and, and, and even, even if it's not the way to go, but just guide us in that, that, that form that says, this is how we've done it in neighboring communities. And it's daunting, and we don't want anything missed, being that it hasn't been looked at in 30 years. And like I said, I applaud the constituents that have been working together to find the best possible outcome, and I applaud my fellow councilmen who's worked for years to try to get this on the ballot. And I think looking at all the details and making sure that we do this right, and we open it up in a more transparent process I think would be applauded. So thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor. Chair recognizes Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. And just for clarification purposes, I know when Councilor Marks was answering some of the questions, he said, we did it this way, we did it that way. And I just wanted to be clear that Is there a coalition or a group of people that helped put this together? Or is this something that was more driven through feedback that you've received from the constituency and from the conversations that we've had? Or is this something that, you know, there's multiple working parts and working people that are actually working on a working group of some sort?
[Michael Marks]: This was my resolution. So this was strictly my resolution. I did have a conversation knowing that a home rule petition needs to be approved by both the executive branch and the legislative branch. So I did have a conversation with the mayor regarding what some of her concerns would be. And I think this is a compilation of getting the mayor's office and my resolution together. So when we eventually put this all together that we don't have to worry that the executive branch is not on board. And I think that goes a long way in moving this forward. And the city solicitor helped me draft some of the language especially some of the concerns we had regarding how should it be worded and so forth. Because this is a legal document and my request is actually for this to be sent once we approve it to the city solicitor so he can draft a home rule petition, which is a legal document. And that home rule petition, once it's signed by the mayor, will then come back to the council. So like I said, this is only the first step. It still has to get approved by this body, go to the mayor, And then the mayor has to approve it, then come back to the council.
[Adam Knight]: And then come out in the same form it went in as and be approved by the council.
[Michael Marks]: Right, right. And then hopefully the state legislature will feel that this has to be acted upon quickly also.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, council. Councilor Knight.
[Richard Caraviello]: That was it. Chair recognizes Councilor Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. President. I really like Councilor Scarpelli's suggestion of bringing in the call on Senate, where this hasn't been done in so many years, and this group is has been doing it for other cities that may help us get a better handle on what actually needs to be done and more realistic goals than maybe what we know. And they may offer some better suggestions going forward than maybe we were even looking for in the beginning.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor. Welcome. Please state your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_27]: Will Walker, 9 Piedmont Road, Medford. First, I'd like to thank Councilor Marks for bringing this resolution forward. The charter review process that has been underway, I think, has picked up a great deal of steam. And one of the concerns that those of us who have been working on moving it forward have had is that we would like to be doing this with the cooperation of city government. In particular, the Mayor's Office and the City Council. So we're really grateful to see that that progress is actually happening. And recognizing that having multiple and concurrent processes going forward on this can lead to some conflicts and misunderstandings that can confuse especially the citizens as they try to make sense of all of this. I understand that this is going to go to Committee of the Whole if it goes as is, and that that committee would then deliberate on what the actual wording of the thing to be sent to the state legislature would be, and then presumably it would come back to this body to be approved and sent over to the mayor and so forth.
[Michael Marks]: Whatever results from the Committee of the Whole goes to the mayor first. Okay, and then it comes back? The mayor would have to approve it, then it would come back to us, and then it would be sent to the state legislature.
[SPEAKER_27]: With that in mind, as a policy scholar and as someone with a graduate degree in city planning and municipal policy in particular, there are a couple of things that I would request that the committee of the whole considers. One of these has already been discussed, the five change cap. The problem with a cap like that is that it makes the perhaps idealistic assumption that there are only five things that need to be changed. It's a 30-year-old document. A lot has changed in 30 years, as other people have commented, and that limitation can actually wind up hamstringing the process. It was mentioned earlier that there was a concern that there would be five ballot questions. My understanding of how the charter review process goes is once that commission has produced the product of its work, that product is actually a new charter. And then that charter becomes a single ballot question in a yes or no fashion that the voters either approve that new charter, in which case it replaces the old charter, or they do not approve that new charter and the status quo is retained. In that being the case, and the city solicitor would know better than I, that being the case, there isn't any real worry necessarily that there would be so many ballot questions that it could blow the ballot or anything like that. There is, I agree, a concern about getting the job done in six months and getting a thorough job done in six months, but I think that the time limit The sense of urgency there is less important than getting it done and done well. I had a list of things that I wanted to talk about. Many of them have already been addressed. One clarification that has not been addressed is there are multiple paths to charter review. One of them is through the petition process that has been going around and currently, at last count, have 1500 signatures. It assuredly has more than that now. That process winds up having, as I understand it, a greater authority to make changes to the charter than would an appointed body put forward by the city council or the mayor, which would, for obvious reasons of conflict of interest, not be able to, for example, extend city council terms indefinitely into the future, and so on and so forth. home rule petition originates in the City Council and would have to be approved by the Mayor, residents of Medford should have clarified for them whether or not the elected body that would come from this process would be constrained as would an appointed body by the City Council or by the Mayor. In other words, is this merely a novel appointment process and this seven-member body that Councilor Marks proposes here would be unable to make changes to, for example, term limits or other things that would otherwise be restricted? Or do they have, as an elected body, the full power and freedom that would be afforded to the body that would result from the petition process? There is a stipulation in here, and I'm not sure how binding the language of the resolution is on the committee of the whole when they consider the document that they produce on that. But there is a language in here that says, at a minimum, we have this change requiring that the city charter be amended to include this periodic review process. And that review process involves an appointed committee, presumably appointed by the city council or mayor, that would then perform that charter review. That body would most assuredly be limited in its power, which probably makes sense for the periodic process. But the question is, because of the language, at minimum, does that minimum mean here that it has to be exactly that, an appointed committee, or if the seven-member committee decides that actually they would rather that that period of review be done by an elected commission separate from city government, would that meet the standard in this language of the minimum, right? Is that considered a greater or lesser effort for the purposes of this resolution? Last thing, separate ballot questions. Yeah, that's basically what I have. I understand that this is a draft-in-living document that Councilor Marks just put forward, and I think it's a very commendable effort. Certainly, I'm very interested in seeing the final product. The last word that I have on this is that charter review and the processes around it are very, very technical. They're very complex, and they are often very confusing to people who don't study issues of constitutional law and policy structures directly. And especially given that the Massachusetts state law has all of these procedures that look like one another but don't wind up with the same outcomes. To the extent possible that citizens and voters can be informed of what the meaning and significance of this process would be, I think that that would be very useful, especially to those of us who are organizing citizens and gathering signatures to determine whether or not we are satisfied that this process would be sufficient or whether or not we think that we still need something more. Thank you.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Just, uh, I can't answer all the questions. I think maybe some of them might be best directed to the city solicitor. Uh, but, uh, regarding the, uh, one question, uh, the gentleman had regarding the, uh, sentence that says at a minimum, an amendment to the present city charter instituting an appointed committee whose purpose will be to conduct periodic review of the city charter. Um, I think, uh, we felt that, um, no matter what happens with the results and the recommendations that will appear on the ballot, that that one provision automatically is going to be a ballot question. That, I think everyone I've spoken to feels that the one omission when this charter was changed back some years ago from E to A government was the lack of a provision that said this shall be reviewed. And I think at the very, and that's why we worded it that way, can it be changed a little bit? Probably, but we wanted to make sure at a minimum that was going to be part of whatever questions appear on the ballot. And then you mentioned about the elected body. This is a seven member body that's elected by the people. So they will have every authority to go in and make any changes to the current city charter. And that would include ward representation, term limits, anything that exists under the charter. So there's no restrictions within this elected body. So I don't want anyone to think that this is an elected body that we're saying they're elected, but guess what? They're really not. They're really not. They're just people we're putting in there. These are elected people that run for this particular seat. and they'll have all the duly regulated authority to make it move forward charter review questions in the following year. So whatever recommendations they have, they're not going to be reviewed again. There's no review body. There's no one saying, wow, we don't like that, or we don't like that, or guess what? The council really doesn't like that. They appear on the ballot automatically for a decision by the people. And it's my understanding, I know the gentleman mentioned that it could be done. One way is to have just a revision of the charter, and now you have a new charter. So if this was plan A, now we have this plan A. But I'm also under the impression we can offer particular ballot questions, revising the current plan A form of government. And that's the impression I got from the city solicitor. So that was part of the reasoning why, after so many years, that we didn't want leave it open-ended, but because we thought there'd be a slew of ballot questions, and that may get confusing. So in my opinion, but like I said from the beginning, I'm not opposed to removing that language regarding the restrictions on the number of amendments that could be offered.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you, Councilor. Ma'am, welcome. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Hi, I'm Cheryl Rodriguez at 21 Park Street. I have met with the charter group and I was glad to see that possibly we can stop collecting signatures. But I think if you decide to have a meeting on this to change this, I would encourage you to televise this. I know the community of whole meetings are not televised. This is probably one of the largest issues that's being discussed in the city because this will shape our entire city. This charter hasn't been looked at since I was in elementary school. I'm not a young person anymore. So I would not want to see any restrictions on this charter. I would love to see the group elected every time to look at the charter, never appointed. I would also like them to be able to look at everything because personally, I hope that these seven people will not be in agreement on what they want to see in this charter. So if I have my list of five or as a person elected, not saying that, but. I would want to say, well, I don't know if I want to let that person's resolution go through, because that's one less that I can get. So I'm going to fight them tooth and nail. And maybe we're not going to get anywhere. Maybe we're just going to go back and forth. Maybe the things that are going to come out of it are going to be so small that they're not going to make a difference. Maybe the things aren't going to go together. And they're just one will pass and one won't pass. And it won't change anything for the better. Maybe things don't need to be changed that much. I just don't think we should handcuff this group in any way, because we want this charter to be really looked at, because we want our city to be as great as it can be. But thank you for putting on this resolution.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Thank you. Good evening. Welcome. Please state your name and address for the record.
[Robert Cappucci]: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm Rob Capucci of 71 Evans Street. Thank you very much, Councilman Marks, for bringing this up. Always at your best and doing your due diligence. Love to see it. As you know, Dr. Starella and I tried to get the signatures for this about four or five years ago. And then another group led by a former mayor candidate, Anthony D'Antonio, tried as well. And now I'm glad to see that there's a third group trying to get this underway. To be clear, recent municipal election, why I think the mayor is on board with this, and I want to thank her too, is she won a very narrow election, and half of the city voted for Barpenta, who made it, I think, a forefront of his campaign. And with all due respect, I think that's why we're talking about it tonight. I just had to say that. I'm a little squeamish about this Collins, is that what it's called? call-in centre coming in. While I think we should definitely entertain any positive suggestions, this is for Medford. It should be driven by Medford residents, as former Councilor Camuso had once said when this was in discussion before when he was a member of this body, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. Without getting into any kind of quirky jokes or real bad municipal law technicalities, just a plain spoken guy. So I'm going to speak as plain as I can. This city has all of its power centered in the mayor's office. The city council's ultimate power basically is to cut the budget. After 30 years, that has to change. As a former candidate for City Council, I struggled to run citywide. Some candidates have the support of special interest groups, some don't. They're able to raise tens of thousands of dollars. I spent $94.50 in my campaign in 2013. I didn't ask for any money because I knew the special interest groups wouldn't support the kind of initiatives. This is it, folks, people watching, people listening tonight, this is the way to get City government change. It's been 30 years. Councilor Marks brought up some real good things that this can provide. I mean, we're a city with a police station that's falling apart. The force is understaffed. The school is falling apart. The streets and roads are falling apart. One of the speakers spoke tonight about the soul of this city. being the government, government affects the souls of this city. And people that are watching should start calling in and emailing now your state representatives. This should be on the ballot in November. No question about it. Long overdue. Serious changes have to be made in the city of Medford. We've got people coming in here fighting government to keep a historical house in our community. It shouldn't be like that. The bulk of this people want something in Medford. They should get it. They shouldn't have to worry about their kids at school with open doors. And I know this is coming up in future resolutions tonight. But this is the way to do it. We take a good, hard look. at the condition the city's in. We take a good hard look at why it's in that condition and what can be done about it. Changing this city charter is paramount after 30 years. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. Capucci, why are you squeamish about bringing something outside health?
[Robert Cappucci]: I'm not, I'm not squeamish about it. Maybe that was a poor choice of words. Like I said, I definitely would, would welcome.
[Richard Caraviello]: Well, I think Mr. Weinstein brought up a point, what a daunting task this is and maybe some help would be welcome. Right.
[Robert Cappucci]: But at the end of the day, the city gets all its power and all its money from the residents of Medford. Whatever this group comes in and suggests, if it's positive and helpful, yeah, I'd be all for it. But at the end of the day, it should be decided by vote by the citizens of Medford.
[Richard Caraviello]: I agree. But I said, maybe a little guidance might be helpful, too, for all of us.
[Robert Cappucci]: Right. Well, to me, I look at it, it's not rocket science. It's not really rocket science. There's only one lawyer in this group. There's only one lawyer in this group that knows legal. With all due respect, it's been 30 years. There are serious problems in the city. The water pipes, the streets falling apart. We're all in agreement on that.
[Richard Caraviello]: We're all in agreement on that.
[Robert Cappucci]: And power centralized into one office. I mean, I don't see this call-in center coming in and saying anything different than I'm saying right now. I welcome outside help. Absolutely. But at the end of the day, the citizens who live here, work here, die here, pay all the taxes of a property tax that goes up every year. Now a surcharge on that property tax, a meals tax, a sales tax, God knows what else. Some businesses on the brink of closing down because of a three-year bridge project. Something has to be done.
[George Scarpelli]: Just so the discussions I had with the call center, just so you know, they reach out to the community. That's part of their whole, right? So that's, this is, it's exactly what you're saying. You're right. But this is exactly what they do. So maybe as you're going to enter community, the whole meetings, this is something we can entertain and look into. So I think it'll be helpful.
[Robert Cappucci]: I agree.
[George Scarpelli]: And I'm thankful for your suggestion. I appreciate it. But yeah, your, uh, your passion. Thank you very much.
[Robert Cappucci]: I am very passionate about it, but I'm just worried about non-Medford residents coming in. If they're a great group and they've had positive results in other cities, definitely let's look at that. But my main point is at the end of the day, this belongs to Medford.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Good evening, ma'am. Please state your name and address for the record.
[May Marquebreuck]: I'm May Markybrook, 16 Glenwood Ave. Thank you, Councilor Marks, for bringing up this subject. As we all know, we've been 30 years waiting to have a review of our city charter. That's about one-third of my lifetime. And about half, half of your lifetime of the councilors. At any rate, As we have mentioned in this discussion this evening, this subject has come up frequently. And mainly, the residents who have supported change have wanted to have approached this subject by getting signatures. And obviously, that is one option. But it does seem as though that has not been successful thus far. estimate that it would probably require about 9,000 signatures. So what I've noticed in the last few months, three, four, five months, there have been some buzzwords going around the city. Change, transparency. Conversation, I love that one. We're seeing that on the news every night now. Well, we're going to have a conversation and transition. And given the groundswell of interest here that residents have demonstrated, they want to be more actively involved in many things in our city and including the municipal affairs. So I believe this is an ideal time to have this subject come up for conversation. The resolution, as I have heard it discussed and proposed this evening, will be placed on the ballot, if this is approved, be placed on the ballot this year in November. And it would go that the two That would just be to establish a charter commission, nothing more. So as you say, Councilor Marks, that's step number one. Then there would be a participation, obviously, by the residents because it's an elected commission. And then this would allow any recommendations or proposals to be on the ballot in November of 2017. Now, the Mass General Laws, Chapter 43, as you had mentioned, Councilor Marks, offers a number of choices in which a city can be governed. And out of all the cities and towns in the Commonwealth, there are many, many variations of how cities and towns are administered. So I believe this resolution will involve the voters of our community, promote conversation, transparency, and transition. So I encourage us to go forward with this. Thank you very much.
[Judy Beatrice]: My name is Judy Beatrice, 49 Wyman Street, lifelong resident of Medford. I was more than a third of my lifetime have lived through plan E change and that antagonistic event that happened in this one. I agree with a lot of what the different groups have said here. To me, this is about trust. This is about trustworthiness, not only on the part of the citizenry, but also on the part of the council and the mayor. The fact that at least there has been some discussion here between the legislative body and the executive body is a beginning of trust. But in order to trust, we have to also ourselves be trustworthy. That means we have to trust ourselves enough to do the right thing for the right reason at the right time. And I think we're at that time right now, that we now have an opportunity where we can actually make a difference and trust one another to go forward. I brought with me all of the political rhetoric that was in papers and all the flyers that I received. I received nothing in any of these that said we shouldn't go forward with this. I think we have to start trusting one another and have open conversation and go forward. Thank you.
[Henry Miller]: My name is Henry Merowin, 8 Temple Street, Medford. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Again, it's always a pleasure, and I didn't think I was going to live long enough to see this. When we, in 1986, when we started this process, going into charter review, changing the form of government, my age started with three. Now my age started with six and going further. The real question before the council is not who's going to be appointed. It's not how many people is going to be appointed. It's not who's going to. The real question that is in front of you here is try to get us a home petition rule, a house rule petition. That's what we're trying to accomplish. 30 years, we couldn't even talk about charter review. I believe there's about three or four groups who's been working on it. I have seen us going into the charter review, except when somebody needed a raise, we wanted to pay our elected official more money, but we never did it, how the city operates, how we function as a body. Life is full of moment. Right now, this is a moment. This is our moment. This is your moment. I'm supporting this. Why? Because that gave us a start, a beginning. We can take the rest of the conversation. We can go into the debate. But one thing for sure, we have an executive office right now who ran on that motion. The two past candidates ran in that motion. Extraordinary people such as you, I will call our elected official, do extraordinary things. This is your chance to do something real for the city. Just like in 1986, it was historic when we went from E to A, but today, 2016, make it historic to establish a beginning. Let us start somewhere. Let us do something. Don't let me die without seeing a little change in this place. Let's change it. Don't hold it personally. Okay, don't be afraid of the word change. We need change. We have to have change. We get change. We get two new city council today. That's changes, right? We have the past president of the city council who's the mayor today. That's changes. But us, as citizens, us, as elected officials, you, OK? The one I think I voted for almost every single one of you. You owe me something. You owe the city something. Change is going to come. And this is what you do. You legislate. Councils, Scapelli, I can call him one of my sons, OK? So are you. Don't feel bad yet. The point, bringing an outside. body. To do this, it's not going to help us any better. It's just going to keep it and push it another 30 years. I don't have to live 30 years. We saw that as an example on TV3. We bought outside, not even an outside, she was a judge right here in Medford. It took forever. Until today, we're nowhere with it. the body a chance, whether I think Councilman Mark said it clear. He says, well, I don't want it to pass tonight. But guess what? I want it to start somewhere positive tonight. The longer we wait for it to pass, the harder it's going to be for us to go anywhere with it. All we have to do, you have the city council, the mayor, the city solicitor, They're on your side, that's that, and work. And I think I had a private conversation. I went to Suffolk University today. I sat down for three hours reading chapter 43, trying to understand what was in there. What do we do? It's not that hard, OK? So I'll leave it to that. Whether we pass it tonight or we put it on the committee on the whole, it's good. We're going to keep debating on that until we go nowhere with it. We have to do something on it. But I thank you.
[SPEAKER_16]: Hi, my name is Mario Martin at 198 Harvard Street. So I am really astounded to obviously see that today we're talking about charter review. Once again, I mean, we've talked about it quite a few times. But it really feels like today it's going in the right direction. 30 years ago, before I was born, by the way, I just turned 30. Thank you. So before I was born, this was brought up, this was changed, and it was obviously in an effort to change the way the city was going. What it's done is, it's put an extreme amount of stress on one person. Who would want so much stress in one position? The mayor has the city at that time on his, and now at this time, on her shoulders. And it's, I won't say it's a burden, but it's a really, really tough and weighted weight to bear. But today we're talking about it, and it's so much more important because over the past few years, people have been talking about it, gathering signatures, and haven't gotten anywhere with it. Now we have a group of citizens who have said, you know what? I think it's time that we really, really, really seriously take back the true definition of democracy. I think we need more democracy. And this resolution that is being brought forward today by Mr. Marks, Councilor Marks, excuse me, is so much more closer to really, truly living the Medford dream, not so much the American dream, but the Medford dream. It's crucial that we understand that it's not really going to be 6,000 signatures that a bunch of citizens are going to have to go out there and go start collecting. It's more, may need 7,000 signatures because some of those residents aren't registered. So this resolution, thus bypassing the petition of signatures, is really going to help instill that true definition of democracy that we really need here. And this city council should be applauded for bringing this into the consideration finally, after so much time of disagreements between administrations, simply because Without this, we're simply not going to be able to have the city council, the administration in general isn't going to have the tools to be able to govern. I mean, what does the city council really have? All they really vote on is the budget every year. That's it. You've got nothing else. So let's balance the power out a little bit.
[Adam Knight]: I think the role of a councilor is far more expansive than just the approval or the rejection of the budget, Mr. President. We're responsible for the establishment of all our ordinances here in the community. That's a very, very, very large role that we have. One of those big roles would be the zoning ordinances, for example, Mr. President. We just had a group come up here and discuss the zoning problems in their neighborhood and what's happening. So I think to paint the picture as saying the council can't do anything except for pass a budget is not accurate.
[SPEAKER_16]: The role of the council is simply to pass the budget. Because anything else, unfortunately, that is either presented or talked about or is simply put forward to the city council has to be signed by the mayor. So with a balance of power.
[Adam Knight]: I do not believe that that's the case as a matter of fact, Mr. President. I do not believe that's the case. I believe that's inaccurate. you know, if we're going to get up here and talk about the structure of government and how government works, I think it's important that we're informed.
[SPEAKER_16]: Thank you. Um, regardless of which, uh, I truly, I truly want to, you know, congratulate and praise Mr. Mark, uh, excuse me, council Marks for, uh, for just listening to the, listening to the citizens, taking everything that everyone's campaigned on here and bring and bringing it forward. Uh, another thing, Mr. Um, councilor Scarpelli and, Councilor Caraviello was mentioned about the call-in center. I just wanted to say that personally, I disagree with it respectfully. And the reason why I respectfully disagree with it, if it matters, is that, simply put, if we have an elected charter commission, these members of this charter commission are most likely going to be residents who kind of know what's going on in Medford. So these people would have gone through historical changes, know the history, understand what's going on in the community long enough, whereas bringing outside people is a great help and a great suggestion, you know, to kind of like, you know, get the conversation going, I should say. And I think at some point they should be implemented, but no one's gonna know this city, no one's gonna know Medford, no one's gonna help Medford better than the citizens. So respectfully, it's not to undermine anyone or anything, it's just simply saying that I think that the citizens really should say. But overall, I wanted to say thank you, Mr. Marks. And a very special thank you to the city solicitor for both the councilor, Michael Marks, and him working together towards getting this resolution going. Thank you very much.
[George Scarpelli]: If I can just clarify. When we're talking about the Collins Center, people seem to think that what I'm saying, what the Collins Center does, is it eliminates our community. It doesn't. It doesn't. This is a daunting task that hasn't been looked at in 30 years. This is what they do in a number of communities, over 30 communities that they've done this, that have looked in the mirror and done the same thing. And all due respect to the, you know, the microgerios of the world who've worked their tails off to try to get 1,500 signatures, we're going in the right direction. To get the word out, and look at an organization like the Collins Center that work with public management as their profession in working with our community, that doesn't mean it excludes us or our community. It vets a lot of different issues and concerns that we just talked about. The number of amendments, how do we get started, why it takes so long. When you have an organization that's going to come in and aid us and supporting that, and putting things into place in an organized fashion, so then we can look at it diplomatically, so we can look at it with an open mind, so we can look at it where professionals have helped us. No one here has gone through a charter review. They have. As much as I love Medford, I agree it's going to come back to us. It's going to come back what is shared throughout our community. This is an important historical, like we've talked about, historical event if it's done right. So make it clear that this isn't an organization that I'm saying that we're gonna hand it off to somebody and then forget about it. No, I think this is the avenue that's gonna help us drive this initiative, like other communities have done. So if there's any confusion out there, I want to make sure it's clarified. This has nothing to do with alienating our citizens. This is getting them involved. We've already talked about three organizations that have worked their tails off to get this through, and it's gone nowhere. Nothing to get to their fault. They've worked their butts off. But here is something that is historical. Why do it halfway? Why not invest and investigate with an organization that has done this throughout multiple communities and led those communities to best practices for their citizens? That's why we look at an organization like the Collins, it doesn't have to be the Collins Group. Harvard University, Boston University, they all have organizations that we can tap into. And I think, to be honest with you, at many different levels, not just charter review. So thank you, I apologize.
[Anthony D'Antonio]: Anthony D'Antonio, 12 Yale Street. I just truly want to thank Councilor Marks, your persistence on this matter. I know you've been a supporter of this for quite a while and also along with you, Councilor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. I was happy to see that the majority of the councilors that are here this evening, everybody brought this up in their election when they were running for the office. And I think it was a very refreshing thing to see, finally see. This is so important. And I understand the calling center from there. And I know that it's an advisory type of a situation. I mean, because like you say, we don't know everything. We don't know the pitfalls of people that have made changes and then have regretted those changes and have to wait five years to get them back on board. I only look at this as taking the foot off the citizens' chest by changing the charter, because right now there's a lot of things that need to be looked at to help the citizens get along a little bit better, because right now we're inundated with everything. Everything's going up. The costs are going up. This is going up. Schools, infrastructure, everything. This is only a positive step for us. And now that most of you, I'm looking for all your support on this endeavor for the citizens of Medford. Talk the talk, now let's walk the walk. Thank you very much.
[Joe Viglione]: Joseph Villione, 59 Garfield Ave, Medford. I want to thank Councilor Marks, Certainly, Mr. D'Antonio, who worked very tirelessly for this, and Bob Capucci and Dr. Stirella, great, great people. They care about this community. How do we effectively change the charter? Tomorrow, I'm on the radio. People are welcome to call in on bostonfreeradio.com, 1 to 3 p.m. We can use radio and TV to effectively, effectively bring the information to the 58,000 to 60,000 people who live in Medford and the businesses in Medford. Now, you want to talk about the length of time, 30 years. Unbelievable every week. Every week. I cannot. You pay $30,000 for a Councilor and he gets up every single week. 30 grand people. I want you to see that on election day. This is the topic, sir. This is the topic. The time to get things done, 30 years for charter change. In early 2003, I met with the Human Rights Commissioner and the city solicitor about the very thing that can help bring about charter change, and that is TV3. 13 years have gone by. I have fought so hard. I've tried every single angle, but this city just wants to censor. We saw the censorship last week. We see it week after week at this council. Chatter change can happen with access television. Now, today, I paid my 100 bucks and I'm on the mass media exchange. What does that mean? It means Councilor Marks can have a town meeting. He can get these fine people into a town meeting. I can videotape it at one of my six stations, and we can upload it. to the mass media exchange. That means anyone in the country, most notably people in Massachusetts, can upload this program and we can have it on in all the surrounding cities and towns. We can make a point to the new mayor that the promise of access, which she made at the second debate at the high school, She noted after Bob Penta said that he wanted to bring access in January, she said, yes, I'm a proponent of access. Well, your honor, now's your time to be active, not lip service, but active. Because I have waited 13 years, which is an awful long time, to bring information to the city, to help the library, to help the Chevalier, and to help charter review. So we have Boston Free Radio. I want to bring a radio station to Medford, even if it's a for-profit. I'm working on that right now. And our access TV station. That is how we have the conversation. That is how we have the transparency. That is how we move this city forward with television. The media center will be where all the conversation starts on anything. I don't care if it's a garden club or the Chevalier, but charter change is the most important thing right now. And I want to thank you again, Councilor Marks and Councilor Lungo-Koehn. The two of you have been amazing. Keep up the good work, keep up the fight, and don't let them wear you down.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Andrew Castagnetti, Clinton Street, Method Mass. Do I have 10 minutes of time? Is that how it works, the maximum? I'll try to drop the vernacular and keep it real brief. Maybe I'll take one minute and designate it by nine minutes to some other senator. I'll make it very brief. Um, generally speaking, uh, I'm not for or against this so-called charter review. However, I'm sure we should probably review. This hasn't been done in three decades. Um, check out the city's chapter and see if we need to improve it. Um, I mean, after all businesses, corporations, I'm sure they changed their business plans from time to time. So I would think a city that has a lot of public taxpayers, they would want to have better with themselves. Um, if I could throw in an audit, I'd throw it in an audit or two while I'm at it, but I'm not going to bring that up anymore. Um, let's see, maybe one, we could have, we want, okay. On the charter review, some minor changes that might come about, or some may consider them quite major, actually. And I can think of three, top of my head, and some of them have been discussed earlier, and I'm sure many times in the previous days. Number one may want to change, let's see, P-A, so that would be, and I can't read my writing. And the second one could be term limits to get your attention back. And the third one could be what representation, I believe. Yes, thank you, Councilor Marks. And the first one I should read my writing because we may want to change the P-A-P-E. What is it? Thank you. Plan A, Plan E, vice versa.
[Adam Knight]: The way that I read this resolution before me is that it would be amendments to our present city charter, so that I believe would restrict us to amendments just surrounding plan A of government. I'm not the author of the resolution, and again, it's a work in progress. That's the way that I read it.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Right, exactly. It is a work in progress. And I wrote a hormonal petition for some reason. Oh yes, thank you Councilor Marks for bringing up the home rule petition to try to go that route if we get a favorable vote on this. And I believe we should in the manner of fair government. It would be huge because otherwise you need, I believe 20% of the registered voters, which is approximately 4,500, Mr. Finn, I believe. Thank you. And we only have 1,500. So it's such a huge process, as Councilor Marks has alluded to many times. And by the way, I don't know if anyone's remembering this, instead of me getting my owner-occupied real estate tax exemption for the last five years, never got it once, like they do in Somerville, Everett, Malden, but the CPA went on, and we got a 1.5% tax on top of our real estate, minus the exclusion, but the point is, they only needed $1,000 Approximately 500 signatures. Oh, well, I'm sorry. They put that on the ballot, but my friend Sergeant Barry Clemente never told me about when he told me to go vote that was on the back of the ballot to flip it over either. So, I mean, let's call a diamond a diamond here. Something is amiss. I like your rules. I hope Bernie does a better job. We need to stop the corruption from the Head down, as the singers would say. Of course, there's no such thing as a mafia. From the head down, we have to stop the corruption to the state, to the local level. Stop it all.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penter. I live at Zero Summit Road, a former member of this board. Quick correction. I was a member of the Fire Charter Commission. And that Charter Commission was a nine-member board at that time, duly authorized by state law. So if it's seven now, I don't know. That might have to be checked into. But one of the things, we had a book that was submitted at that time regarding the Charter Commission. And it had to be submitted with the majority and a minority report. It had to be resubmitted to the Medford City Council then at that time, and they had to vote it up or down. And at that time, and I know the issues were five, But there were eight things on the ballot question that was incorporated in the ballot summary. And in that ballot summary in the book, it not only included the majority report, it included the minority report. But I want to read one thing that's very important that should be an exact distinction that everybody knows what this charter commission can do. We held at that point in time, 25 committee meetings and six public hearings. And it was all relegated around the following. It says, The one line over here, notice of such public hearings shall be by public, oh wait a minute, not publication. It was over here, I'm sorry. The commission believes that although additional time and repetitive debate was the necessary consequences of such action, the commission and the citizens affected by the recommendations required such courtesies. At that point in time, we were allotted, and again, by state statute, I don't know if it still allows, a legal representative, which would be an attorney at that point in time. We engaged someone who was a professional in the area of charter commission. I think I agree with the folks who believe, whether it be the call-in center or anyone else like that, their recommendations cannot bode the same as Medford citizens who would come forward. The legal person, the legal expertise would take the thoughts and recommendations and put it into the legalese of being in writing. One other question I need to ask you, Councilor Marks, and I thank you for bringing this forward. You used the word appointed. And I'm assuming you mean elected in December, I mean in November, if that's the case. Cause that, that's a huge distinction in terminology.
[Michael Marks]: There's two, there's two aspects. Uh, the elected aspect is the creation in this November election of a seven member board elected. Then we're asking for periodic review by an appointed board after this process takes place. And that was that section that we referred to that said there should be a minimum, at a very minimum, that that'll be one of the questions saying there'll be periodic review. And that's an appointed board, at least the way it stands right now. So there's an elected board that's going to put the ballot questions on. They're going to be elected this November, and the ballot questions will be on if everything works out next November. And then subsequent to that, if everything passes, there will be a provision in there that says there shall be a periodic review. Some people have thrown out different ideas, one year, two year, three. And these are the things that we'll discuss. But it's setting up the framework that says the omission right now that there is no review, we're going to create that.
[Robert Penta]: The unfortunate part, and there was a couple of meetings that were held at the public library as it relates to the reviews. The reviews could only become operative if and when It's presented as a charter commission update to the public. You can have all the reviews you want, but to have it cast in stone three, four or five years, it would be a mandate that would be included. That was one of the terminologies that we try to get into the budget, I mean, into the charter back in 1987, prior to the 1987. Unfortunately, the majority of the members on the board didn't buy into it for whatever the reasons were back then. There were a whole host of things that were discussed that what Councilors, you know, having the city auditor come under the control of the council. because that was a miscue that wasn't found in the legislation. And let me tell you, the law as it's presently written has some grammatical mistakes in it, too, that are just starting to surface now. So this is not going to be just like a very easy task. We went through every single word, every single sentence, the spelling, and the proper pronunciation. in grammatical corrections, excuse me. This is going to take a long time because it's been 33 years and there's a lot of changes that have taken place from 1977 when this first charter commission started by signatures from the street and finally got itself approved back in 1985 on the election ballot, 1986 it became operative with state statute. So I would strongly suggest that the more multiple meetings that you have, the better it's going to be. And even if somebody wants to repeat themselves. And I'll tell you, one of the classic things that took place during our charter meetings were the idea that we could change our minds because of the input that people brought. And the input that people brought could sometimes change your mind. You become so stereotyped through the years because you never had this opportunity to hear somebody else speak or what their ideas might be. Yeah, 30 years is a long time. Some things maybe do stay the same. Maybe some things have changed. But to go forward with change, you have to be willing to adapt and recognize it. Yesterday just doesn't work today. Or maybe some of the things of yesterday are just as good as they are today. You need to get — if this is really going to be successful, you need to have as many meetings open and notorious to the public. We had 25 committee meetings. We had six public hearings. And you couldn't ask for more than that. We had a majority of — there was a nine-member board. The final vote was six to three. Doesn't make any difference. The law allows you to have that. The taxpayers of this community got the booklet, majority, minority report. They got the question in front with all the addendums, the adding and the subtractions to it. That's the game plan. It's going to take an awful lot of time. So I just would strongly suggest that while you're taking this first step and going forward, you've got to keep an open mind to every single possibility that you would want to do with this plan A form of government. And if you're getting a pushback that other people might say, we should review all forms of government, you have to entertain that because that's what a charter review is about. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: Second, Councilman Marks. Motion, move approval.
[SPEAKER_24]: For the Committee of the Whole.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. I think there was some valid issues brought up tonight. And I know I've mentioned the Committee of the Whole meeting. From what I heard tonight, I think residents would like to have this televised. at a meeting, and I would request that we have a public hearing, rather than a committee of the whole meeting, at our next regularly scheduled council meeting. So people can tune in, see what's going on in the process, whether they want to attend the meeting or just listen to it on TV. And that, you know. No, we have, during our regular meeting, we have, like we do with other hearings, we have a hearing on charter review. And then we can get up and discuss the issues. At least it'll be televised. And for those that think that they can't speak during the Committee of the Whole meeting, and maybe some people were shut out at certain meetings, I don't know. And that, I don't want anyone to think that, you know, Committee of the Whole meeting would shut people out. And I think the best place to have it would be up here at the podium. So I would offer that, Mr. President, as a roll call vote. Public meeting.
[Richard Caraviello]: No.
[Michael Marks]: Public hearing be held here next Tuesday night. So we can keep, well not whenever, so we can keep this ball rolling. Amendment to create a public hearing next Tuesday. Right, next Tuesday, 7 o'clock here regarding charter review.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Yes, yes. So it's a petition to draft a, a, um, Mr. President, to draft this home rule petition. So this needs to be tabled, Mr. President, and then we need to have a public hearing on the matter, if that's the councilor's intention. Or the paper can be sent as it is to committee of the whole.
[Michael Marks]: Well, Mr. President, whatever it is, I'm asking for a public hearing next week on the paper. Uh, this paper clearly it's not ready to go anywhere. And if that's the way the council chooses to go, that's fine with me. And then next week will be used to allow people to come up. And, uh, you know, we've all talked about charter review. Uh, let's put it on the table. Let's go through the action items. what's out there, what's outstanding, what we believe needs to be updated, then it gets sent to the city solicitor for a drafting of a home rule petition. That's fine.
[Adam Knight]: An item as imperative, an item as important as our charter shouldn't be something that we're rushing through, Mr. President. I think we can take both, we can go both routes, but I think that at the very least, you know, the council represented that he wanted to have a committee of the whole on the matter. That was something that I could certainly live with. I want to take a little bit more time to digest this, a little bit more time to look at it. It's going to take a long time to become an expert on charters, Mr. President. So with that being said, I would be opposed to having a public hearing next week. I don't think that that's a problem, having a public hearing on the matter, but I think it should be when we're all ready. And I think that we will know when we're all ready when we come out of the Committee of the Whole with some of the questions that we have answered and answered. So with that being said, Mr. President, I'm not going to withdraw my motion to have the matter referred to the Committee of the Whole. I feel as though it's going to be an opportunity for us to educate ourselves and learn a little bit more before we have to come up here and actually take a stance on certain issues and certain aspects of issues, Mr. President. Like I said, I want to become an expert on it before I come up here and deliberate on it.
[Michael Marks]: The Vice President By no means am I trying to jam this down.
[SPEAKER_26]: And I'm not insinuating that you are, Councilor.
[Michael Marks]: I'm sorry to come across that way if I had. Mr. President, this has been a long-going issue for many years. Some of us are new to the Council and some that have been around for a number of years. know this has been on the table for a number of years. I hesitate sending this to Committee of the Whole or subcommittee because honestly, quite frankly, those committees are burial grounds. And we can go right now through the list of things that I've been waiting for on Committee of the Whole meetings. I've been waiting for subcommittee meetings. And quite frankly, I think the best way of doing the people's business is to allow the people to view this, the people that can't come up, to allow them to view this at home, and everyone should be prepared. Go home, do your homework, do your due diligence. Everyone should be prepared to answer the questions of where they stand. That's why we got elected. So, you know, I don't think we're jamming this down anyone's throat. Everyone mentioned this during election, how great charter review is, and you've had plenty of time to do homework. And so I don't think I'm trying to jam this through, Mr. President. From what I heard from residents here tonight is they thought it would be best to have it at an open public meeting, which the Committee of the Whole is too, but a televised meeting, which would allow people from home to view good government in progress. And, you know, I still want to stick with that. You know, this is the first step in many steps. And, you know, if I hear the word daunting task one more time, you have to start somewhere. You have to start somewhere. This is a start. This is not a perfect document. But like I said at the beginning, if you put 20 people in a room, you're going to come out with 20 different documents. This is a starting point. I think it's a good starting point. And I don't see any reason why a public hearing next week, Mr. President, with all the issues still before us, medical marijuana, want to go to taxicab licenses. We can go through the list of things that are outstanding before this council. The Community Preservation Act, which was approved in November. We haven't had any discussion on that. So to say we're going to stick it in a subcommittee or a committee of the whole meeting, I'm not buying it. I've been around here for a while. I'm not buying it. I'm not buying it.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, I'm unsure what's before us to vote on. If there are three separate items, I'm hearing being entertained, committee of the whole, tabling. That was my item and I read, read, read. So I don't know whose motions are whose. I'd like some clarity, Mr. President. And I think in my opinion, the wise move would to be have a discussion in committee of the whole first, have the benefit of the city solicitor's presence for advice on this matter, and then start from there.
[Adam Knight]: Like I said, I mean, you know, I think that this is a matter that's appropriate for Committee of the Whole. If we go into the Committee of the Whole, and like you said, 20 different people go in there with 20 different versions, that's okay. The seven legislators in this community will sit down, and we'll come up with maybe our seven different versions. Then we'll present those, and then we can hammer out the details. We can look at the commonalities and look at the differences, Mr. President. But I think that, you know, in an effort for us to be successful and to do this the right way. I think we need to slow the process down a little bit. I think we need to have a committee of the whole to further discuss our options, to have the solicitor there to provide us with some advice and consent as well.
[Michael Marks]: What I'll do, with respect to my council colleague, slow the process down. It's been 30 years. It's 30 years. Any slower, I got the floor, any slower we'll be going in reverse. So I'm not quite sure how we slow the process down after 30 years.
[Adam Knight]: The process is slowed because there's no community support to gather the signatures. If they got the signatures, the issue would be on the ballot. It wouldn't be a problem. We wouldn't be having this discussion, but there aren't enough signatures. There aren't enough signatures to put the matter on the ballot. And I don't feel comfortable bypassing full participation of the residents in the city of Medford to put an item on the ballot for something that's as significant as charter reform. Mr. President. I just don't feel comfortable doing it. Mr. President. A special end to these auspices. A special end to these auspices.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, with all due respect.
[Adam Knight]: When the council has a closed door meeting and they come up with this, this proposal, which actually.
[Michael Marks]: I'm glad the council has shown its true colors. Which actually. You just said he's opposed to it. Just come up. I'm opposed to this process, absolutely. The truth will set you free, Councilor. I think the paper before the council... If you're against it, you're against it. That's all.
[Adam Knight]: No, the paper before the council... Don't try to slow down the process if you're against it. The paper before the council is based on the theory of charter review. If you're against it, you're against it. Not charter change.
[Michael Marks]: Don't try to slow the process down. Let people know where you stand.
[Adam Knight]: The paper before the council is based on the theory that there's a need for charter change. Not charter review. Which is it? Review or change? If you're against it, you're against it.
[Richard Caraviello]: Just come out and say it.
[Adam Knight]: I'm against the process. I'm against the mechanism that's been presented to us this evening. I absolutely am 110% against that mechanism. I'm not going to be a pot and parcel. All the books are closed door deal that was cut that excludes certain particular portions of the charter, and that defines parameters and limits the scope. Absolutely not. I'm absolutely not going to be supportive of that. Shut his mic off.
[George Scarpelli]: I'll be honest with you, Mr. President. I watched this council work in previous years, and as I went door to door and talking to constituents, one of the biggest things that they talked about every single day is what just went on right there. That's a shame. So I will tell you, I will tell you, I have the floor, thank you. What I want you to know, what I want you to know is I applaud my colleague's passion for what, bringing that forward, bringing it forward. But as a new council, Councilor, who was elected by our constituency, and hopefully some of you in the audience. I don't really, to me the applause is nice, but This isn't a forum for an applause in that sense. I'm looking at doing something that's monumental in this community. And for one, I did some homework today. And I applaud that we should have a meeting. And I want to move this forward. But I have some reservations and some different input from other communities that helped and went through this process already. So as I-
[Michael Marks]: The gentleman has all this information. Why didn't he go to some of these public meetings that have been held for the last three years and present this information he's armed with? I mean, that would be the right thing to do. Why didn't he attend these meetings and present it? So that's great to have information, and I'm glad you're armed with information, but now's the time, the night to act.
[George Scarpelli]: I appreciate the passion, again, but again, When this came forward the other evening, that the councilor explained to me how the process went and how he met with the mayor and how that process went. This is exactly what we didn't want in our community. That a councilor met with the mayor and tried to figure out five amendments. These are issues that we just talked about. So this is the process. I just, I just, when you make, when you're talking about this issue and making,
[Michael Marks]: I don't know why the gentleman would be angry because one of the things he spoke about was increased communication between this branch and the mayor. Now we're increasing communication and people are upset what's going on. Oh my God, people are meeting with the mayor. Oh my God, what's happening? We heard from a person at the podium tonight. What about trust? What about trust? You have every right to meet with the mayor just like I do.
[George Scarpelli]: I don't want banter back and forth in a negative way, because that's what hurts our community. That's what hurts our community. There's so many positives we can go through. And charter review is a positive. And good communication with city government, the constituents in our community that make up our community. This is what we need to work together. This is what we need. So whether one council believes in one thing or the other, there's nothing wrong with that. This is what we were elected for, to have our own opinions. But personally, in my opinion, with such a huge issue in front of us, having this and talking about it in a committee of the whole, which was first presented by this Councilor, I thought it was a very good idea. And if we want to move forward to bring that to the public hearing after that, I welcome it. But I think having that meeting together, so we can vet out so many different issues openly, and then come onto the floor and then share those, I welcome it. But again, I appreciate the passion, but there's a difference between passion and ignorance. Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: You know, I respect my colleague and everything he had to say, but that was a low blow. That was a low blow. That was a low blow. Yeah, you didn't mention names. That was a low blow. Let me tell you. Let me tell you. And Mr. President. Does it make sense to have a Committee of the Whole meeting and then come out and tell people what we did in the Committee of the Whole meeting and have another meeting out here? Does it make sense? It makes sense to have a public — what are people afraid of in this community? To have a public meeting and discuss charter change. Maybe people will know where you stand. God forbid people know where elected people stand on an issue, Mr. President. That's all I have to say.
[Michael Ruggiero]: The Press My name is Michael Ruggiero. I live on 18 Pembroke Street. So taking a step back here, I want to understand what we're advocating for. I'm all for having more conversations about charter review. We've been having them once a month in the Magoon Room in the library. But on the same token, right now, without having the city solicitor actually draft a document, we're just talking. We're not talking about any actual object where we can begin to discuss the pros and the cons of it. Thus, I understand wanting to have more conversation. I think it's a great idea. But referring the issue to the city solicitor for a draft, not the final draft, but for an actual document that we can use as a starting point of charter review. I think overall, everyone agrees that we should have charter review. The question is where we should go now. Well, we don't want this to turn into another point of contention. If we have an object where we can actually discuss, review, at home, doing your homework, We can call other people, see what they think about this document. If we have a draft document in hand, then we'll be able to move forward more adequately. Just a number of people have come here tonight, but you have to understand, for some of them, it's not easy to come to city council chambers. We have a number of members that are disabled. We have a number of members that have difficulty making it from the bus schedule. Now, of course, we don't want to rush into this process overnight, but let's move forward. By referring the issue to the city solicitor, he'll have a draft for us ready next Tuesday. We can look at it online. That's moving forward. Opening up another open-ended conversation, perhaps that could lead to more contentious arguments. Thank you.
[Robert Cappucci]: Thank you, Mr. President. Robert Capucci, 71 Evans Street. We have to have that talking. We have to have that discussion and community input in a public hearing so that the solicitor can take that input and create the document. That's what creates the document. So we can have, you know, definite item a for chatter review to have a discussion and further meetings. As Councilor Penta pointed out, it took 26 meetings and 6 public hearings. That's where it starts. Councilor Marks, 100% behind you. You're absolutely right. We have to have this meeting. It is the City of Medford's government. That's where you start it. That's where it starts and the discussion and the talk. And yeah, everybody's going to have an opinion and there are going to be times of contention That is never ignorance, it's passion. We love our city and the Medford. We want it to work right. Let's have that discussion and invite Medford to this podium to talk about it next Tuesday night. Please, thank you.
[May Marquebreuck]: I really am not sure what to say, but I can't believe what happened here in this council tonight. We should all be working together. And I believe to delay a conversation on this subject, which the citizens and the voters of this city are eager to have, been 30 years. Are we going to wait another 10, 20, 30 years? I don't think so. And I don't think that some of the people, some of the councilors, are hearing the voices in our community. And I believe it would be a disservice. I have been living in this city my entire life, and I am proud of this city, and I am proud of this council, but I'm not proud of it tonight. And I cannot see what could possibly objection be to having a public meeting. This is the first evening that this subject has been brought up in public. It's a huge subject, as you all know, probably more than I do, but it deserves time and it deserves the input from the citizens of this community. And I strongly urge everyone to work together, go forward, And if it means just having one meeting, I, I, I would be totally devastated to hear that this subject is going to be tabled. Well, let's work together on this and let's not get divided. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_16]: Mario Martin, 198 Harvard Street. I want to say I'm really surprised at just what happened here over the last few minutes. It's shocking. Quite frankly, I mean, tonight's the night to make the decision. So whether we take this to a committee of the whole, which a lot of residents won't agree with, because again, as Councilor Mark said, it's going to be buried. And we're just going to waste some more time. but the citizens have been talking about this for years. It's not about tonight. We mentioned this, uh, last year, same time during the previous session and it didn't go and it didn't go anywhere. The only thing we want is democracy. We just want a democratic, uh, way of governing our city. And, and, and, and we want to give the city council and this administration the tools to govern, but you know, just, With all this being said, ignorance is not the subject that this should be going. And tonight isn't about making a decision on whether charter review should be evaluated tonight. It's about bypassing the signatures. It's not about being an expert. You're elected, you should be an expert.
[Adam Knight]: I personally feel as though the initiative petition process is actually the bedrock of the democratic process. And circumventing that process would in itself actually be less democratic than allowing you to go out and collect the signatures.
[SPEAKER_16]: Whether we make a decision at a committee of the whole next week or tonight, the signatures are going to be done. The signatures will be taken and we'll do it on our own.
[SPEAKER_24]: Let him finish. Let him go.
[SPEAKER_16]: That's all I got to say. Whether it's decided upon tonight, tomorrow, next week, next month.
[Adam Knight]: So, Mr. President, my point of information was this. The initiative petition process is actually the bedrock of a democratic foundation, all right, where citizens can actually go collect signatures and force something to be put in the ballot when they feel as though they're not being represented. So to bypass that process, I think, is problematic right now. And I want to weigh it. I want to weigh it, Mr. President. That's where I'm coming from. I certainly think that this is a noble cause. I certainly think that this resolution was based on a theory that there is a need for charter review, and that's something that I don't disagree with. But I do disagree with the process that we're looking at here and bypassing the signature route. Mr. President, I don't know if I'm crazy about that idea. I'd be more inclined to support something that comes from the people, where we have the opportunity to engage full participation, where we know right at first hand, right there, the signatures are there. They're on the ballot. It's going. And that's it. And if we look at the reforms that happened back in 86, it's my understanding, after doing a little bit of a history lesson, Mr. President, that the council refused to put recommendations on the ballot that were made when the signatures were collected. And that's where the problem started. And I might be wrong. I might be wrong. But, you know, Mr. President, that's what I've been looking at. And, you know, I think that, you know, right now, if we're going to be talking about the democratic process, circumventing the signatures is not it.
[SPEAKER_16]: Circumventing. I'm not done yet. Circumventing the signatures. Thank you, Council President. Circumventing the signatures really just shows that this city council is actually paying attention to what the community is saying. And we want a charter review. And whether we get the help of the city council or not, we're going to use the democratic process and our power as citizens to bring a better form of government in this city. And that's what we need. And that's what we want. And that's what we're going to work for. And that's why this is on the table today. Vote with your heart, Councilman.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Councilwoman Harris. Thank you, President Caraviello. I just would ask my council colleagues to maybe entertain a compromise. We have a public meeting next Tuesday. And then I understand we need some digestion and we need some time to sit with the solicitor. So maybe the week after we can sit with the solicitor based on what we heard at the public hearing, based on our recommendations and concerns. And then at that time, he drafts an ordinance and then have a third meeting, hopefully a final meeting, whether that's committee of the whole or, you know, on the floor where we actually will decide whether or not to take a vote on it. I mean, I think that would solve all the problems.
[Adam Knight]: I don't think I was asking for anything different than what counsel just said, Mr. President.
[fRTeqEogCEI_SPEAKER_20]: Leonard Galyona, 86 channel road. I wasn't going to speak tonight, but, um, I've been watching city council meetings for over 50 years as a lifelong resident. And I sat back and said to myself, this is one of the best city council meetings I've seen in many years. I think Councilor Marks has to be applauded for bringing the proposal forward. I think Mayor Stephanie Macchini-Burke and her leadership in terms of a compromise has to be complimented and all the councils have to be complimenting. complement the entertaining charter review, which the people have waited a long time for. And I don't think there's much of a difference between the councilors in terms of how it goes forward. And I think what Councilor Brianna Longo-Curran just offered as an alternative or a compromise is a very good idea. And I would just urge the councilors to—I know there's a lot of passion involved. But we're all professional people here, and you folks were elected to the office, and you're doing a great job. And just tone it down a bit and work together, and I think this thing will move forward on its own. Thank you.
[Michael Ruggiero]: My name is Michael Ruggiero. I live on 18 Pembroke Street. I just want to make a brief clarification to a point that was brought up. We are still collecting signatures. That process hasn't stalled. It hasn't failed. We've collected over 200 just this month, and we had a number of really snowy and rainy days. We will keep getting signatures, whichever process. We want as many people involved in this process as possible. We don't see this as an either-or kind of deal. We want to just get signatures to let people know this is going on, to invite them into the conversation. So I just wanted to make a clarification. We're actually doing really great work. We're moving forward, and I'm really proud of all the people that have collected signatures. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_27]: William Walker, 9 Piedmont Road. I would like to add one more item to my clarifications. My understanding with the The resolution, as it's written in the agenda that I have, and I'm not sure what state it's in right now, is that this is intended to waive the signature requirement, but otherwise continue the process. That process would include whether or not charter review at all happened as a ballot question, as a yes or no proposition to the voters that would then decide whether or not charter review would proceed. At the exact same time as that question is being asked, yes, there are people that are running for the position of commission, but those people may be running in vain if, in fact, a charter review is voted down. If that is not the intention of this resolution, then that should be clarified, because that's the process as it is in state law. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: I think we all got a little lost on this. The intent of the resolution was to request that the solicitor draft a whole new petition. And I think we all got a little bit off track. To try to change, not try to change. That's all we were requesting. So I think everybody got a little sidelined in all the passion that happened over the last ten minutes. Yeah, name and address were the right place.
[Jeanne Martin]: Thank you. Jean Martington, Cumming Street, and I hope to channel May and not some of the other people in this chamber, so I'm going to try to say it calmly. First of all, Mr. Marks, I want to thank you for bringing this forward. This is overdue. It's very much overdue. And the simplest thing is what he just said. Let's keep it simple. Let's do the first thing first, which is to have the solicitor draw up a draft. And the reason why we need to do that is because the psychology of Medford, and I am going to speak on that, and I can do that calmly, is that we have had an A form of government for 30 years. The people have been passive participants in government for 30 years. 30 years of passive government. They don't know how to get involved. They don't know how to come forward. They're afraid to come forward. They've gotten used to not coming forward. And so we have a lot of rectifying to do. And so let's keep it simple. That's why the signatures didn't work. Because the people are passive. And they're afraid. And when people have change come in their face, they're confronted with change and they freak out a little bit. So we have to We have to take this as a process. But the signatures alone isn't going to work. So I thank Mr. Marks for bringing this forward, because the signatures, it's painstakingly slow. And it's too slow for us to change that way. This is a valid option, by the way, as far as I'm concerned. It's in the charter under the mass state laws that we can do it this way. So this is not bypassing the signature process. But it's legitimate. It is bypassing the signature process, and I do understand that, Mr. Knight. But it's a legitimate way to move forward, and it is the way that we need to because the people are not used to participating in the government and local government. And to have a meeting of the whole, you can have a meeting of the whole here in this forum in public.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yes. I think, again, part of the reason we got off track is... Oh, yeah. It's... No, yeah, but we got off track because that's not what the Council of Marks resolution is.
[Jeanne Martin]: Okay. Oh, yes, yes, yes. So thank you for correcting me. And I hope that I was channeling a little bit of May and, and not some of the other folks in the hall tonight. So, cause I look up to her. She's a great role model. Okay. Thank you. That's right.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, two quick comments. Barpenta zero summit road farmer member. You know, I'm standing on this side of the rail, and I feel somewhat vindicated, because when I sat over there, I was watching the same thing people accused me of what took place here tonight. I don't know if it's this. Maybe it's the seat, George. It could be the seat. I don't know, you know? But again, refreshing my memory, going back when we did this, we had conversations like this way back when. when people would come from the audience when they were talking about childhood change. Now, we had big issues back then. It was the former city manager at that time. He was one of the issues. And the other one was taking over the police department, having a police commissioner. That stirred the pot within the city of Medford at that point in time. And that's the reason why the signatures went out. I'm going to disagree with you, Janie. I think signatures or this route, either route works, depending. And they're both legal. So you can't say that they don't work. I would support Council Mark's proposition of having a Committee of the Whole meeting. And Mr. President, even though it's a resolution to have the City of Sicily draft a proposal, in this proposal there are ingredients. And I'm assuming that's what the Committee of the Whole will elicit from the people who will come to the podium, talk about what the ingredients might be, and that's the beginning of getting this process going. Passion ran very deep here tonight. But don't let it interfere with the eye on the prize. And the eye on the prize is making sure that the people of the city have an opportunity to review this charter as many ways as possible. And they're afforded that opportunity to talk about it, to discuss it, and vote on it as many times as need be before the final product is presented to the taxpayers of this community. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: And thank you, Council Member. was being resolved that the city solicitor be requested to draft a home rule petition for submission to the general court, providing for the election of a seven-person municipal charter commission to be placed on the ballot at the next general election that will occur on November 8th. Thus removing the necessity of first securing the signatures of 50% of the voters in the city who were eligible to vote in the last election as required by general laws chapter 43b section 3 in the municipal charter commission. Once elected, shall be charged with the duty of recommending revisions in amendments to the present city charter and their recommendations include, at a minimum, an amendment to the present city charter instituting an appointed committee whose purpose will be to conduct a periodic review of the city charter. that the Municipal Charter Commission, once elected, will be required to submit its final report of up to five recommendations or revisions or amendments to our present city charter on or before June 30th, 2017, and that the recommended revisions or amendments be placed on the ballot for the next municipal election, which will be placed, which will take place on November 7th, 2017. Well, Councilor Marks, your motion is to refer this to the solicitor, correct? No.
[Michael Marks]: I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. President. Ultimately, this is going to be referred to the city solicitor. But what needs to take place first is that we as a council, along with the citizens, have to come up to a consensus regarding the language, as was mentioned at the podium many times, regarding some of the key issues, whether or not we're going to limit the number of amendments, whether or not the periodic review, or maybe it should be three or five years. We have to frame that first, and whatever we frame then gets sent to the city solicitor, so then he can put it in good working order as a home rule petition. So I think we're trying to put the cart before the horse, you know, so I would withdraw any motion that I made, Mr. President, and I would go based on The public hearing, I think that's what Councilor Longo mentioned about having a public hearing. Correct me if I'm wrong. And if members don't like that... I'll withdraw my motions. My original motion was to have a Committee of the Whole meeting, so I'll withdraw that. This paper, for all intents and purposes, can be tabled. It's the framework we're going to work with, but it can be tabled.
[Richard Caraviello]: That would be fine. Motion number 16-0-7-2. The table, but there'll be no more discussion.
[Michael Marks]: Table, but with a public hearing. Now, well, that's a second.
[Unidentified]: That's a separate motion.
[Michael Marks]: No, you asked me what I wanted to do. I didn't put out a motion. You asked me what I'd like to do. You asked me and I said, I'd like to table. I didn't offer a motion to table.
[Richard Caraviello]: We want to entertain a motion to have a public hearing. Yes. Move approval. All right, move approval. Roll call vote. Roll call vote, Mr. President.
[SPEAKER_24]: That's next week, right?
[Richard Caraviello]: Next week we'll have that. That's next week.
[SPEAKER_24]: And you said a week after when you proposed on a compromise.
[Unidentified]: That's all right.
[SPEAKER_24]: That's fine.
[Unidentified]: I'm fine with that.
[Adam Knight]: All right. So committee of the whole next week, public hearing week after the public. No, no, no. Same, same, same night, same night.
[Michael Marks]: I can live with that. Roll call vote. Uh,
[Fred Dello Russo]: clarity Mr. President so I can be clear the motion is to have a committee of the whole week meeting next week and then to have a public hearing on the same matter that same night thank you yes
[Richard Caraviello]: We have a motion.
[Michael Marks]: We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion.
[Richard Caraviello]: We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion.
[Michael Marks]: We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion.
[Richard Caraviello]: We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion.
[Michael Marks]: We have a motion.
[Richard Caraviello]: We have a motion.
[Fred Dello Russo]: We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion.
[Richard Caraviello]: We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion.
[Fred Dello Russo]: We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion. We have a motion is being sent to committee of the whole to be convened through the president next week. And then we will also request a public hearing on the matter in the council again next week. Thank you. Is there a roll call?
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Yes. Motion of six in affirmative, one absent, motion passes. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: 16-073 offered by Vice President Leclerc. He has resolved that the school department forward to the City Council a copy of the written notification policy that all principals should follow, which is to be drafted by March. Councilwoman Locario.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. We discussed the matter with a few parents last Tuesday, and the school committee superintendent and I believe a number of administrators had a hearing on the matter where parents got to ask questions, school committee members got to ask questions last Wednesday. I wasn't at that meeting, but I did follow it, and it's been on TV, televised, and it was updated on different channels. The one motion that was passed, I believe, is that a notification policy be drafted and that all principals should be aware of it and follow it. I think that was a great motion, and I'm happy it went forward. I would like to be forwarded a copy of that notification policy. I believe that there needs to be a crisis communication plan to get accurate information. to parents, to teachers, to staff members, to people who work in the certain schools, to the police department, and especially to the students. We discussed it last week, so I'm not going to reiterate the problems that I saw with parents getting notification at 6 p.m. the night of a bomb threat, which took place between 9 and 10 a.m. But that is a serious problem. I think that was admitted that it was a little late with notification. I know that the city of Arlington, who also had a bomb threat, I believe it was about 10 a.m. on February 2nd, which I believe is the same day that Medford did, they had notification going out by the Medford Police Department that was 20 minutes after the actual threat. It was noticed by the city of Arlington. Arlington High School received what is believed to be a low-grade bomb threat. This is moved this morning via phone call. The school is currently sheltering in place as a precaution. Please do not respond or call the school at this time. Parents and staff were later notified that the students were being evacuated. That was at 1048 to the front lawn. waiting for premises to be checked. Once the building is deemed safe, students will return to the building, not being dismissed at this time. Then 17 minutes later, another update, school has been cleared, students returning to the building at this time. That is something that I believe is needed for the city of Medford, not only with regards to bomb threats, but with regards to anything that has to do with parents, staff, students getting notification of a serious incident, or maybe not even a serious incident, maybe a drill like a lockdown drill that happened at the Roberts Elementary School. We need more parent communication, and I'm glad that the school committee voted, I believe, six in the affirmative to put a notification policy in place. I think it's definitely a good thing that all the principals should follow it and that it should be uniform. I would just like a copy because, you know, I apologize that I am getting phone calls from a number of parents, a number of concerned parents. I've heard from students at the high school, people, personnel who work in the building. I'm sorry, but I'm not sorry that I'm getting these phone calls because I do feel like we're public officials and we get the complaints no matter what. People have a right to complain to whoever they want. And I am, I mean, I must've got stopped. three different places. I've got phone calls. I got Facebook messages. I've got emails from concerned parents. So this needs to be discussed. We need to be updated. We need to know what needs to be put in the budget or changed in the school budget, because that is something we're going to approve in June. And we need the information. So I want to be able to have this policy. I want to be able to notify parents that it's in place. And this is what's going to happen next time Or hopefully, there's never a next time. But if this A, B, or C happens, this is when you're going to be notified. This is how you're going to be notified. So I hope this is an extensive notification policy. And it addresses who, what, when, where, and why. Because it's important for parents. It's important for students. And I think I was blamed last week by the superintendent that I was creating fear among Medford residents. And I really have to rebut that and say it's quite the opposite. not giving timely notification or with no transparency actually creates fear. And that's a number of parents have stated that to me, that fear was created by not knowing what happened at the school till 6 p.m. And that's unfortunate. So I do want to stay on top of the issue and I'd like to be given the notification policy in a timely manner. And hopefully this does come to fruition in March. and we're able to review it and give insight and call whatever school committee members we would like to or speak about it on the floor if we need to again. But I definitely think it's something that I would like to see and I'd like to make sure that it does happen and that it's uniform throughout our schools and that all the principals take it very seriously because parent notification, student notification is extremely important, especially where we've seen a situation where it's gone bad over the last couple weeks.
[George Scarpelli]: I thank my colleague. I did, but I believe to answer a few of those questions, the superintendent on the request of a school committee member, Mia Mustone, one of the biggest concerns was the commitment of communication and making sure that is in print and delivered throughout the school system in a uniform manner, not only for major emergencies, but something as simple as snow days and making sure that every school has the same policy in place and when things go out. I think that was very important. Other than that, I know that if we can, I also want to make sure that we have that copy from the superintendent that he mentioned that will be done the first meeting of March in the school committee. So thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. On the motion that we send this to the superintendent.
[Robert Penta]: Mr. President, my name is Robert Penta, Zero Summit Road, former member of this body. Last Tuesday night, along with myself and other taxpayers who came up before this podium, The resolution that was introduced by Councilor Lungo-Koehn found itself in a libelous rebuttal by our superintendent, Mr. Belson, where he not only attacked Councilor Lungo-Koehn, Councilor Marks, myself, and resident citizens who came before this podium to express their freedom of speech rights, as it relates to what's going on at Medford High School regarding a bomb threat. As Councilor Lungo-Koehn just alluded to, when a bomb threat takes place between 8 and 9 in the morning and parents aren't told until around 6 o'clock at night, that's an 8 to 9 hour spread. The lack of communication was huge there. And we were led to believe that protocols were in place. And I think it was you, Councilor Scalpelli, along with Councilor Falco, who indicated that you worked on a protocol procedure, and you were going to check it out the next night to make sure and to ensure the protocol was kept. Now we're finding out that something is being manufactured, and it'll be ready sometime in March as it relates to what's going on. The interesting part about that, in his libelous commentary that he wrote, he indicated that we were instilling fear within this community because we were here talking about this bomb that took place. And I think it was Mr. Candy, in his comment in return, for which he's re-quoted, he stated, you create fear when you don't inform the people. And that's what happened. They didn't get informed for almost eight to nine hours. There wasn't a lockdown. There was nothing. No student, no teacher knew that there was a bomb threat that took place in that school, whether it was high level, low level, or big level, for whatever it might be. You know, the same situation took place at Everett last week. And the same problem existed, a lack of communication, between the school administration to the parents. And because of that, you just can't do that. The superintendent should not be the sole provider of alleging that he can take care of the kids in that school. You can't relay that commentary back to every single parent in that school. That's not right, it's not fair. If it was his kids or your children, it'd be a different story. And the irony to this whole classic event was on the next night, up at the high school, in the library, a meeting on safety at Medford High School. Well, if anyone went up there, you could walk into the building, no security guard, you could walk down the corridor to the library, no security guard, walk into the library. What do you see, a police officer inside the library? but no one at the front door, and nobody in the hallway. And it's just as Councilor Marks alluded to, anybody could have walked into that building, put anything in that building at any time. That's not instilling fear, that's the facts. That's the hot, cold facts of what we're talking about. And when you cut 80% of your security budget in the school department, Over the past five or six years, that's what you get. An insecure situation. That's not instilling fear. That's telling you you need to get your act together and protect those children up at that school. Because that's what it's all about. That's their responsibility as a school committee and as a superintendent. That's a damn shame that that even took place. And it's a shame that you're now hearing that you're going to get something that Councilor Alongo-Kern has alluded to, you want a copy of it when it comes out. So apparently there wasn't any problem, I mean, any protocol. There wasn't any management technique to take place. And as of yesterday, from what I understand, from speaking to some of the students and a few of the teachers, they still weren't aware until many days after the fact that a bomb threat had taken place in that building. That is absolutely not fair and not right. Absolutely not. And I think it needs to be understood what a lockdown is as compared to what an evacuation is, as compared to a low level, a high level, and what a risk might be. A teacher's not going to be Houdini to try to figure this out. And apparently, a parent isn't, especially if they're not even notified. Yes, I will stand here and I say I resent the libelous comment made by the superintendent of schools who said because I came up here, and you, Councilor Lungo-Koehn, and you, Councilor Marks, and you, the citizens of this city, came up here to talk about a most egregious situation that's taking place in our city, and that's a lack of public safety and the communication to a parent if, in fact, public safety is challenged. You, Mr. Superintendent, you should be ashamed of yourself for writing that commentary and you should probably resign because of what you said and what you wrote. How dare you? How dare you insinuate that anyone who comes for a podium and expresses their opinion is causing fear when in fact they were representing facts. F-A-C-T-S. Facts that took place under your watch, Mr. Superintendent. Mr. President, I thank you for allowing me to make my comment. Thank you.
[George Scarpelli]: Just to be clear, Mr. President, the, the comment that was made was to get the information that was going to be presented the following evening to see what protocol was put in place. Now there was protocol in place that as a school team member, we reviewed, but at the time where the comment was mentioned, not talking to the superintendent will understand the protocol they followed. We wouldn't know that to the following evening. That's, That's what I believe my fellow councilors, Mr. Falcon and myself, were alluding to. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Robert Cappucci]: Name and address of the record. Thank you, Mr. President. Robert Cappucci of 71 Evans Street. Thank you, Councilor Lungo-Koehn, for bringing this up. And I have to second and echo the sentiments of the previous speaker, Mr. Robert Penter. public official that's appointed to be getting the kind of money he's making a year on taxpayer dollars, to put out a letter like that that accuses, by name, private citizens of using inflammatory speech, was, I think, the exact word that he used, it's reprehensible. We're talking earlier about the Charter Review and getting signatures and having an open podium. This is all part of a free country. Using words like that from the superintendent of schools of all people against private citizens, talking about instilling fear, that might scare people away from this podium, which might be the objective. I'm not saying it is, but it might be. And that's unconscionable. That, to me, instills a lot of passion. We live in a free country. It comes with responsibility. can't run in here and scream fire and not have consequences of that. But this city council last Tuesday night had a very good resolution brought forth that was excellent for this forum, since it's this city council that decides the budget for the protocols to be made by the superintendent and the school committee. I am beside myself when I comprehend this letter put out by the superintendent of schools that would frighten people away from this podium. That's not what this country is all about. And he really should either consider retiring or the mayor should consider replacing them. Because this, I think, is something that could be the grounds for a recall vote of the administration if action isn't taken. on this letter. I wish he would apologize to the citizens he named specifically and to the citizens of Medford. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Joe Viglione]: Name and address of the record, sir. Good evening. Joe Villione, 59 Garfield Ave. Superintendent named me in the letter. I didn't realize I had the power of a mayor or a city council or a school committee person. I didn't realize I was that big in this. I thought I was just a little guy, but Superintendent Belson, I went to the school that evening. And there's a woman behind me, and I turned to her and I said, do you see security? And she was in a rage over no security. So I took out the iPhone and I have security desk, and you can see it up on YouTube, empty, empty. Councilor Penta's right. The one policeman there was Chief Sacco, and he was busy, engaged in the conversation. So he wasn't in a position to help us. We had a police officer sitting there with Roy Bellson, our mayor. I was waiting to hear from our mayor. She said nothing. The new PR person, I didn't hear much. Paulette van der Kloot did speak. Thank you, Paulette van der Kloot. That was good. We need communication. So I took videos. I left. What boggled my mind was that last Tuesday night, when we were almost censored, there were three officers of the law on the second floor of Medford City Hall, three officers of the law who didn't need to be there. And then the next night, we talk about a bomb threat, but there was no security and no police officers. There were people walking around, and I won't out anyone, but I asked, I said, where's the security? And they laughed. They laughed a condescending laugh, which I'm sure Superintendent, it was aimed at you because there was no security and your own employees laughed when I brought it up. This is disgraceful. So, the superintendent wanted to reference me. Here's my echoing what Mr. Capucci said. Mr. Belson, you're too complacent. It's time to go.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, sir. Name and address of the record.
[Cheryl Rodriguez]: Hi, Cheryl Rodriguez, 281 Park Street. I am a parent in the community. I've had children in the school for 14 years. I've gone through six principals, and I can attest that the notification system, if it does exist, is not known to these principals, because I've had six very different and unique experiences with notification. I've been complaining about this for years. So I was very excited to see Paul at Vanderclute put this resolution up. And I hope that as parents we find out what the system is and it's implemented. And maybe our PR person can help craft it.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thanks. On the motion that we send this to the superintendent for him to follow up and give us his answer by March. All in favor? Roll call vote when requested. Yes, and in the motion of 6-0, one absent, motion passes. 16-074 offered by Vice President. Excuse me? I will read the motion, let her read the motion first and then we'll make that motion. 16-074 offered by Vice President of Council, Vice President Mungo Kern, be it resolved that the Methodist School Committee and Medford City Council to be provided a detailed report as to exactly which security cameras at Medford High School are broken, along with an update of when they'll be fixed and replaced. And I would ask also the same thing, if we could send this, but discuss this in executive session, Madam Vice President. OK.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: There's no, nobody's going to tell me right now which cameras are broken. So I think it was, um, brought up on Wednesday night that 10 to 14 percent of all cameras at the high school are broken. I don't know the actual number. That's kind of what I'm asking. My issue with the whole situation is that there are cameras broken at the high school, and obviously we have the money or the school department has the money to fix it. We just hired a public relations or actually just implemented a new position, which is a public relations job, for $90,000. So if we have money like that to hire and create new jobs, then we obviously have the money somewhere to fix the cameras that are broken. I think that's necessary. We put the cameras in for a reason. If one or two are broken, they should be fixed, never mind 10% to 15% of the cameras being broken. We're living in some times where, which is the reason why we put cameras in and around our high school. I feel it's almost sad that so many are broken at this day and age. So I would ask that we find out exactly how many are broken, if that is the true accurate figure. how and when they're going to be fixed or replaced.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you. Mr. President, I want to thank Council Longo current for bringing this up. Um, you know, it was mentioned that, uh, security at the high school in the past, I think it's five to eight years has been cut by 80% at one point back in, I think it was 2008. Um, there were eight security guards at the high school. There's currently one security guy at the high school and part of the reasoning that were in committee reports is the fact that with the increase in technology, that the need to have security guards actually physically walking around the building, you know, this technology replaced the physical walking around the building. And now what we're seeing is this technology which the superintendent stated at the meeting. I'm not stating. The cameras that are on the outside of the buildings, not just the high school, around all the school buildings are not good in New England weather. They're not good for New England weather. He said this at an open public meeting. So I'm not sure who was responsible for these cameras, but we happen to live in New England. And you know, we happen to get snow and rain and wind like we got tonight. So I'm not quite sure why these cameras and the numbers that were mentioned were percentages. So it was the superintendent of school at a public meeting said 10% of the 144, I think he said 144, 145 cameras currently are not working. Then he went on to say another 5% are working, but visually when you replay them, you can't make out what's on the tape. So, that's 15 percent right there. This was set at an open public meeting, Mr. President. So, we're not talking about particulars. But, really, that's a concern. And it's a larger concern because in the call that I received, because I have two kids that attend the high school, was that 18 hours of tape was poured over to make sure that there was no hanky-panky going on the night before and days before. And I would question the tape that they looked at. I would question the fact that which cameras were working and weren't working. So if you had a camera in the back of the building that wasn't working, they didn't look over that tape. That tape just, you know, that didn't matter for security. So there really is a concern here, Mr. President, outside of the lack of notification that we talked about. It was mentioned the fact that even students, till today, I've asked both my kids, has there been any mention about what took place in the building? These are young adults. We're talking 15, 16, 17, 18 years old, and you don't tell them what took place in their building? Shame on the administration. Shame on them, Mr. President. And another issue, Mr. President, part of the protocol, there's a number of steps that they can take when something like this happens. One of them is a lockdown, one of them is a stand down, and one is evacuation. The superintendent chose not to do evacuation, and that was after his insight into the issue. He chose not to do a lockdown. but he chose to do a stand down, which means students have to remain in their classrooms and they shouldn't be in the hall and they shouldn't be walking around. The only problem is with the protocol that took places, the superintendent did not notify teachers that are in the classroom of the stand down. So they didn't know that children weren't supposed to be going to the restroom or changing classes or doing whatever they were supposed to be doing, Mr. President. So there was clearly, A mistake, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: We're talking about cameras at the moment.
[Michael Marks]: Right, I know we're talking. This all has everything to do with what took place.
[Richard Caraviello]: We're talking about cameras.
[Michael Marks]: Right, I know we are. So there's clearly a breach in what took place at the high school. And rather than come out and say, I would feel more comfortable if the superintendent came out and said, you know what? There was clearly some notification issues. We're going to try to improve upon this. But instead, he pointed the blame to people speaking, people speaking up on the issue. And I think that's a shame, Mr. President, because he's supposed to be the educational leader of this community, not a politician.
[Richard Caraviello]: Yeah, I know we're talking about campus. We're talking about campus, Councilman.
[Michael Marks]: Right, right. You're keeping a good chart on what we're talking about. And this all has everything to do with it. So, you know, I know some of the members of the school committee don't want to hear this, but you know what? It is what it is, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Vice President, Councilman, Vice President.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I'll yield to the gentleman.
[Richard Caraviello]: I'll never go for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_00]: Alex Frankel 9 clearly wrote on the general issue of security at the high school. I think we need to stop waiting for bomb threats and things to happen to look over the procedures and protocols that go on. It was not long ago where I was in the library and I was sitting next to what I presumed to be a student printing something out and a kid walked up and was like, hey, what are you doing here? You graduated three years ago. And I at the time, I would never question, you know, Why is that not security? I wouldn't think about that. But now, looking at the bomb threats, looking at what's going on, I think we need to look at more things when it comes to security cameras, when it comes to security guards. I can walk in and out of the school at any point in time. I've had to leave the school during school to go home and grab a binder. I've never been asked, do you have a pass? Why are you leaving? I think there needs to be a bigger overlook at security measures in the high school.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Counsel Lungacorn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Gina, one second. On that note, I'd actually like to amend this and ask that the school committee look into, it's been brought to my attention, the doors are not locked at the high school. So I'd ask the school committee to review security as a whole, not only just the cameras, but the doors being locked and entrance to the building, that there is, we do beef up more security. at the building. I think that's extremely important. You hear students speaking out on that. Parents have brought that up to me. It was brought up last week that right even after the bomb threat, I think the gentleman who stands at the entrance of the high school kind of was walked around, maybe went to the bathroom. So there definitely needs to, I know the Roberts School, that's the school I deal with because my child goes there. That's locked, you need to ring the bell to get in, and you have somebody sitting right at the entrance to ask what are you there for, where are you going, and to sign in. So I think we need more security measures at the high school before something terrible happens.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Move the question? Sorry. Name and address for the record, please.
[Jeanne Martin]: Gene Martin, thank you. 10 Cummings Street. And I just wanted to say this is a public safety issue, so it is under the purview of the City Council, because it's about a public building and what goes on in a public building as far as safety. And that involves the police department. That also involves your oversight. You are—I do agree that there are certain things that the City Council should not have purview over when it comes to what qualifies to become a teacher, what degrees or credentials an aide in a classroom needs to have. That's absolutely within the purview.
[Richard Caraviello]: Gene, we're talking about cameras.
[Jeanne Martin]: Right. Thank you. Thank you for getting me back on track. But it is important to point out that this is a public. Now, that said, Mr. Knight is right. I do not need to know, nor should I know, where all the cameras are.
[Richard Caraviello]: That is correct.
[Jeanne Martin]: That is where we agree. Um, but it goes back to the point of money and maintenance and the same old, same old of what used to happen under the old administration, which is that maintenance is never kept up on any building and public safety inside the public school system is part of the maintenance plan that needs to be, you know, um, put forward in the new year, in the new administration. And then when that falls through the cracks, somebody needs to be held accountable for why is it that 15 or 20 or 25 percent of all the cameras have not been updated. Who's going to be in charge of that? and who's going to be held accountable for that. And it needs to happen because it is a public safety issue. And what happens in today, today's world with bullying, you could catch it on camera, but if you can't figure out who's bullying who, who's attacking who, or who's graffitiing on a wall locker, it could be minor stuff like that, or it could be, you know, letting a guy in or a girl in. to set a bomb, because that's the world we live in. So we do need to have those, because that does save manpower, or woman power. It saves human resources, the cameras do. So I brought it back to the cameras. Thank you for keeping me on track.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Jeanne Martin]: Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. Move the question as amended by Councilor Langevin. Roll call has been requested. Yes. And motion 5 to 1, one absent, one motion passes. 4-2, motion passes. 16-075 offered by Vice President Lungo-Koehn, be it resolved that the Medford School Committee and the Medford City Council be given the list of names and occupations of the 12 people who did the sweep after the bomb threat call came in on Friday, February 1st, 2016. be it further resolved that we be provided that the training that those 12 people had to do such a sweep, especially the custodians who were asked to, who were asked and allowed to take part. Councilor Longo.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello.
[Adam Knight]: Point of privilege, Councilor Knight. A question as to whether or not this matter will be more appropriately heard in executive session. Rule number four of the top ten reasons to go into executive session, as published by the Attorney General, would indicate that to discuss the deployment of security personnel, devices, or strategies with respect thereto would be an appropriate reason to go into executive session, Mr. President. I don't feel as though it's appropriate to air out the business of what training and what people are going to be conducting public safety sweeps in our schools. All it does is make them a target. When we get that information, it will be a public record. It will be forwarded to this council in writing. So as such, I feel as though it would be more appropriate to have this discussion in the executive session. However, I would rely on the body to make a determination, Mr. President. Second. Councilor Lockhart.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. Same with the last resolution. I don't have the names of the people that did the sweep. I have no idea about what the training is. The resolution's purpose is to ask what that training is. So I would like to move forward with just discussing it to get the answers. And if we happen to get the answers, then maybe at that point we get the answers in executive session and keep names private. It has nothing to do with the names in general. It has to do with, I think, something that was discussed on Wednesday. The superintendent of schools, actually, I believe it was Dr. Perella from my recollection stated that there was custodians involved in a sweep. And I just found that, number one, do they have the training would be my first question, because I maybe understand if they were entering the building or staying in the building with trained police officers or with a canine to maybe look and see if there's any suspicious packaging or any type of something being out of place. From what I understand, I believe the custodians were the main personnel that did the sweep. So I guess my question is, who did the sweep? Because I've got calls from teachers. I've got calls from staff. I've got calls from parents of students who said they did not see a fire truck, a police car, a police officer at all in the building. Nobody went in classrooms. Nobody went in offices. So really, what was swept and how was it swept? Because it sounds like one person made the decision of what to do, and we were left with custodians doing sweeps of, you know, if it was a no level, maybe. We're talking low level bomb threat. This means possible, whether it's 1% or 2%. That's too much of a percent when you have hundreds of students and staff members and teachers in the building. So I really have a concern with custodians doing the sweep and really how swept this was. You had Falmouth, backpacks were checked, police were brought in, dogs were brought in, Mashpee was evacuated, police were brought in, Bourne had a bomb threat, swept by police and canines, Arlington Catholic was evacuated after a bomb threat, St. Agnes, BC High, bomb squad called to the scene. You know, with this happening around us, and Medford's having sweeps with our custodians, is that enough? I question, is it enough? And I respectfully ask our school committee, who is on the issue, I know they're on the issue, they had the meeting on Wednesday, they've passed resolves, and I know the discussion for them is not over. So I respectfully ask, and parents are respectfully asking me, I've gotten calls and updates about what went on on Wednesday, even though, you know, kind of looked into it myself, and people are disturbed. Parents are disturbed, and they want answers. They don't want to just say, we should have done things differently. They want answers. How is it going to be done next time? Not just this type of situation, but how are we going to handle emergencies? How are we going to handle notification? How are we going to handle sweeps if we have to do it again? I understand it's a robocall, and a number of cities and towns are getting it. But we need to take it seriously. It sounds like it was, from the beginning, right after the call, it was evaluated as a hoax. Well, obviously, we now know it was a hoax, but we need to do more to keep our community safe.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilor Wango Kern for bringing this up. in their Monday night school committee meeting, I think it was on February 1st, also had passed out a copy of the Massachusetts Bomb Threat Response Guidance. And this is guidance. It's a one-page, front and back, that's approved by the Fire Chiefs Association of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Police Chief Association, Massachusetts Major City Chiefs, and Mass. Association of School Superintendents. And it goes on to go through the planning and preparation, threat assessments, low risk, medium risk. It goes on to tell you the difference between shelter in place, evacuation, the decision tree. And it also, Mr. President, mentions searching the building, all risk levels. So this would include our risk level. And I find it telling that This is what the superintendent passed out, and it says, search team should include police, fire, and school officials. Now, I'm not sure if custodians are considered school officials, but I would think that is headmasters, superintendents, principals, and not custodians, Mr. President. Here's another example of the administration not even following the protocol that's lined out in the literature that they're sending. And secondly, I had a discussion with the chief of the custodians. And I asked him, I said, how do you get custodians or union members to go around looking for bombs? I mean, last I checked on a job description, empty barrels, they clean floors, they may do other stuff in the building, but bomb detection is not one of the requirements under their skill level. So I'm not quite sure how that happens. And then I was told that it's voluntary. So they asked the custodians, who wants a volunteer to go look for bombs? And I guess, you know, it's by a raising of the hand, who wants to go look for bombs? Also, it mentions in here that bomb-sniffing dogs are available to the city. And the superintendent, at an open public meeting, stated that bomb-sniffing dogs are available. However, after 20 minutes, their nose becomes insensitized, and it's such a large building that they become rendered useless. So apparently our custodians have a better nose for bomb sniffing than bomb sniffing dogs. So I question that judgment too. If we're part of NMLAC, which is a seven or eight member city wide enforcement agency that supplements like bombs and other things that may go on in the community that we don't have access to immediately. I question the reason why bomb-sniffing dogs were not brought in, Mr. President. This is definitely not a laughing matter. This is an important matter of safety in our community, and anyone who thinks otherwise should have their head examined.
[George Scarpelli]: Are we going with the executive session discussion? Executive session.
[Richard Caraviello]: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. On the motion. It was as well. Roll call, please. Yes. Motion of 4-2. Motion passes with one absence. Motion is in the hands of the clerk. Be it resolved that the administration provide, I'm sorry, offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the administration provide an update regarding Council Resolve 15-356 and 15-686 requesting a crosswalk on Forest Street between King and Cedar. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. Following the hails of the grand opening of the beautiful McNally Park, this council unanimously approved a request to the administration to install a traffic signal and crosswalk somewhere in the vicinity of Cedar Road and King Street crossing Forest Street so that individuals that would like to go to this new park that we just spent millions of dollars on were able to do so safely. We didn't get a response from the administration. We put another paper forward. That paper is also cited in the resolution. And I'm looking for a follow-up. I don't see any crosswalk there, and I'm wondering if there are any plans to do it in the springtime, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
[Richard Caraviello]: If we could send that to the DBW for an answer. All those in favor? Motion passes. Offered by Council of Ninth, be it resolved that the administration provide an update regarding Council Paper 15-523 regarding the probate status of 56 Boynton Road. Council of Ninth.
[Adam Knight]: Yes, Mr. President, this is an important neighborhood issue. A number of residents came down and spoke out against the property at 56 Boynton Road, which is an abandoned and condemned property, Mr. President. It's my understanding that the matter was going through probate court, probate litigation. However, it seems like it's taking an inordinate amount of time. for us to come to a resolve on this. The building is a public nuisance. The building is an eyesore in the neighborhood. It is a calling card for animals of all types. And it's my hope that we can get an update on this, Mr. President, because I think it's time that we need to move and take action.
[Richard Caraviello]: Move approval. Thank you. Offered by Councilmember Kern, be it resolved that the still leaking roof at Bethel Public Library be discussed.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Caraviello. I would just like to bring this up. I was in the library today with my daughter. And the roof is not only leaking, but it's leaking in multiple spots. And there's buckets in the children's section, catching water right almost near the movie section. It's so bad that the carpet is, it seemed like the carpet was wet with the bucket. I was obviously very frustrated. We've discussed this a number of times. You know, if you're at home and you hear a drip in your house, you call the roofing company immediately. I feel like we've asked the administration to do that. I know they were having somebody in to take a look and estimate, but that was probably about three, four weeks ago. So I would just like an update, not only ask for an update, you know, what the status is with the roof. I'm not sure if any of my colleagues know what the status is. I tried to talk to Barbara Kerr, but she wasn't in at the time. I was right there early in the morning. So number one, what's the status of the roof? And number two, ask the administration to fix it immediately before it creates more of a problem. The snow and slush that we got yesterday was very heavy, obviously, and it's creating, I guarantee it's creating even more damage than there was a month ago. It's unacceptable. I know we discussed short-term and long-term goals for the library, but that library needs a new roof, and it should be done immediately. My daughter asked, what is the dripping? And I was just embarrassed. And it's just unfortunate.
[Richard Caraviello]: Motion to send that on to the DPW, the mayor's office for Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Motion to amend the paper, Mr. President, to request an update on the selection process of a new library director. We can amend that.
[Richard Caraviello]: On the update, if you could put up the- Mr. Boutilier retired.
[Adam Knight]: There's a vacancy right now.
[Richard Caraviello]: The vacancy of the library. And for your ratification, I have spoken with the mayor about bringing the library building commission to MedFed, and she is in favor of it. And we're in the process of trying to set up something in the next couple weeks to bring to the MedFed to hopefully get some money for the library, which is available through the state.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I think that's great, and I think the library needs rehab. I mean, I'm usually just in the children's section, maybe some romantic novels, just to clear my head at night. In the children's section, I mean, there's chairs, they're ripping, they're falling apart. I mean, we just need a revamp from chairs, tables, rugs. I mean, whether we gut it, whether we add a second floor, we need to have a plan. I'm begging the administration to let us know what her plan is. I would actually maybe amend this to have a committee of the whole meeting. to invite the mayor to discuss it so we know where we're going forward. I think the roof needs to be done before our committee of the whole because next week, obviously, is going to be about charter review. But that roof needs to be done. And we cannot wait for any other outside funding, state funding. That roof needs to be fixed before the roof comes crashing down and we ruin the whole children's section, or even possibly more. So I know one of us should advocate for this every week. We should bring it up every week. I mean, it should be brought up every day with a leaky roof. Unbelievable.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. If we could send that to the mayor for her immediate attention, Mr. Clark. Roll call has been requested. As amended. Yes, a motion of six in the affirmative, one absent. Motion passes. Offered by Councilor Scott Petty, be it resolved that the Medford City Council send condolences to the family of Fortunata Puccio. Mrs. Puccio raised her four children, Anthony, Lorenzo, Maria, and Danny here in Medford. Councilor Scott Petty.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Puccio. A very strong Medford family. I grew up on the Fellsway. Went to school with them. Their parents are great people and I know they're hurting immensely today, so I just wanted to send the condolences from our body to their family.
[Richard Caraviello]: If we could stand for a moment of silence.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. I'll be brief. I know it's late, but if we could get an update, maybe the clerk has some answers for us. We had a meeting with MassDOT two weeks ago, and we had a number of resolutions that came out of that. One, I know that Councilor Scarpelli, too, has been pushing for, is to have a point person in the city looking over the project. So I was just wondering if the administration has...
[Richard Caraviello]: I thought we had somebody.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: No, I'm.
[George Scarpelli]: I'm afraid still didn't get to one person. But I believe Mr. Carroll is still.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, the business owners haven't heard anything at that meeting. We were told we could always reach out to OCD engineering or the building department. But we asked specifically, is there going to be, we need one person to maybe go down once or twice a week, check it out, talk to the businesses. have great communication with MassDOT, the council, and all parties involved, because obviously we have a long project ahead of us and a lot of problems that have taken place in the past. And we would want to try to move forward on a day-to-day basis, knowing what's going on, when it's going on. And we want to have a point person, not only that we can talk to, but that we can say to a business owner, call this person from OCD. That's a point person. She has direct contact with MassDOT on a daily basis. She's walking by the area. I mean, we've asked for that a number of times, and I think it's very important. This project's going to be another year and a half. We need a point person, not just somebody we can call and get a call back. We know exactly who to contact to get answers to whatever's going on in the area.
[Adam Knight]: It has been brought to my attention by the administration, Mr. President, that MassDOT will be putting in a crosswalk.
[Richard Caraviello]: I've been led to believe that they were coming down to make a study if that can be done. That determination has not been made yet.
[SPEAKER_26]: Unless it's been made. I've had discussions, but maybe we can get an update from the administration on that.
[Richard Caraviello]: If we can get an update on the crosswalk on Main Street. All in favor? Brickets? What change would that be? Other than that, you find everything in order? Motion to adjourn. All in favor? Thank you.
|
total time: 8.34 minutes total words: 685  |
total time: 13.01 minutes total words: 1005  |
total time: 37.02 minutes total words: 1441  |
total time: 8.99 minutes total words: 574  |
|
total time: 19.58 minutes total words: 623  |
total time: 19.45 minutes total words: 1121  |
total time: 13.8 minutes total words: 666  |
total time: 10.31 minutes total words: 1224  |
|
total time: 6.01 minutes total words: 420  |
|||