AI-generated transcript of City Council Committee of the Whole 04-14-26

[Zac Bears]: Medford City Council Committee of the Whole, April 14th, 2026 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Callahan.

[SPEAKER_02]: She's on there.

[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Callahan, can you hear me? Councilor Millane? Councilor Leming? Councilor Scarpelli? Councilor Tseng? Vice President Lazzaro? Vice President Lazzaro is absent. President Pierce?

[Zac Bears]: Present. Six present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. Vice President Lazzaro let me know that she'll be attending for 7 p.m. but had a prior engagement at 6 p.m. Action and discussion items. And Councilor Callahan is present in the chambers. 25189 offered by President Bears's amendment to Chapter 2, Article 5, Division 2, Medford Standard Compensation Ordinance. So this was introduced all the way back December 16th, 2025, at the end of our last term. We met on it on January 13th and February 3rd, 2026. The purpose of this ordinance is to ensure that when the city contracts out for janitorial and security services, we are setting a wage and benefits floor to ensure that the workers who are being paid with taxpayer dollars are being compensated fairly for their work. There are a number of other provisions in the ordinance and we can get into the detail on it but the core of this is to make sure that when the city hires contracted workers, we're paying them fairly, we are making sure that those jobs are jobs that can be sustainable for the people who are doing them and it's especially important that we do our due diligence when we are going out for private contracts. You know, already, you know, these services are not being done by municipal employees. We've contracted them out. Some people call it privatization. I happen to be one of them. And I think if that is something that we're doing, and that's the decision that the city has chosen to make on these kinds of positions, we need to make sure that we are holding any contractor who may bid for these contracts to certain basic standard, standard compensation. So that is the core of what this ordinance is about. There's a number of reasons why this is coming up now. It's also an ordinance that exists in a number of other communities in various forms, Boston, Cambridge, Somerville. have similar ordinances, there are federal laws that function very similarly for federal government employees and it's generally a principle that I think certainly the city council and I think the people of Medford hold that we want to ensure that people who are being paid with the public funds of our community are being paid a fair wage and are being treated with dignity in the workplace. That's the purpose of this ordinance. We've had a number of discussions since February 3rd. I've had a number of meetings with various stakeholders including the members of the administration. I've gone back and forth. Councilor Tseng and I had a meeting with one of the attorneys at KP Law. I've been in continuous communication with the folks at 32BJSCIU, which is a local union that represents these workers, especially custodial workers. And we have, you know, tried to make progress on this ordinance. I think Councilor Tseng and I had a meeting early March, I want to say, maybe even late February. where we went through, and this was after some meetings with procurement and the administration, and they had a conversation directly with the folks from the policy and legal teams at 32BJSCIU. We had a conversation with the attorney at KP Law, and we said, you know, we want to, you know, there's some piece of this that obviously, you know, we want to make some adjustments to, mainly the retroactive, the looking back on previous contracts as well as ensuring that the ordinance didn't require private employers to make private employee data turn into public records. I think we were very, quickly moved through those issues. Those don't appear in either of the drafts that are before us tonight. But there were still a number of other issues, in my opinion, mainly policy issues around what should the wage floor be, including provisions around labor peace, should there be broad-based waivers that would allow the administration to not follow this, as well as some questions around enforcement. And I think the draft that we received back a couple of weeks ago from KP law went beyond the scope of the discussion that Councilor Tseng and I had with them in making significant policy changes and in addition to legal commentary. communicated soon after we got the draft back with the administration to try to schedule a meeting. I tried to schedule a meeting last week, heard back that that was not workable for our procurement manager. So I moved it to this week. Initially, I believe procurement was going to be able to attend. I received notice from KP Law late last week and from our procurement manager yesterday that they were not going to attend the meeting. I've also in the last 18 hours had a bunch of back and forth with the chief of staff about the draft ordinance before us. As I read it, you know, this is a pretty clear, it's a draft document. There's comments in it. I don't think any of those comments are particularly noteworthy. They essentially say these certain provisions should be reviewed with department heads. The chief of staff indicated to me that the city wanted to keep this confidential under attorney-client privilege. I'm working back and forth with them. You know, I just put the draft that they sent me on the agenda to discuss and to work with stakeholders to come up with a version that meets the policy priorities of this council. And, you know, I'm working back and forth with them. I plan to send another communication later tonight or tomorrow to indicate that, you know, if they would prefer certain comments to remain confidential that they should clearly delineate that in any sort of documentation that they send to us going forward. And that personally, I don't find anything within this ordinance draft to be something that we couldn't talk about in a public meeting. And I generally think that when we're talking about drafting ordinances and laws, and certainly something that exists in neighboring communities, in my opinion, is largely non-controversial, that it behooves all of us to just have the discussions in public and have the information be public and have all of the stakeholders who are invested in this be part of the process. So that's my position. The administration, of course, is free to articulate their position as they choose. They are welcome at our meetings anytime. So, with that, I will turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli.

[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Councilor Bears. And recently, I've received a lot of phone calls, emails, people stopping in the supermarket, and there are people starting to take notice, Councilor Bears, Council President, and they're starting to take notice of the fact that they're a little dumbfounded that this administration would question this council's intentions with asking about the funding mechanism for legal bills and payments. And I'll give you a brief history for some of my junior colleagues that don't remember this, that didn't have the opportunity to do this, but something like this document, this ordinance, This would be a phone call from Councilor Scarpelli to Attorney Rumley's office, our former city solicitor, or Solicitor Scanlon, or even just recently Solicitor Foley, and we can ask them questions knowing that, one, that they truly represent what's best for the city. They're working for us, they're working for the best interest of the city, right? We know that KP law has already stated multiple times that they don't work for us. They work for the mayor. The other piece is when you talk about what's going on today and we've had meetings and I'm sure everybody knows when you start listening now it's budget time and getting very nervous about what the ramifications are with should be every dollar now because that's our responsibility. And The fact that not having the opportunity just to call someone that's on staff that can answer a neutral question to guide us. In this situation, I appreciate our council president and my colleague to my right, Councilor Tseng, taking their time out of their day going to sit with the administration to ask questions to a law firm that we don't even know if they're truly representing us correctly. And that's one of the reasons why I'm speaking about this publicly, because many people have asked me, what is the process? What is the policy? And to be honest with everybody publicly, we don't know. We don't have guidance. So when it comes to slippery slopes, for instance, whether this document should have been shared or not, that's a conversation that's done in two seconds with the city solicitor. Instead, a council president has to do what he feels is right, which doing the best he can to share information to, again, to be what? Transparent. Remember what she ran on a few years ago? Transparency. And here we are today, it seems like we're running in quicksand. We're not getting answers that we need to move agenda issues forward. We're not, to top it all off, I can't imagine how much money We were charged by KP law just for my fellow colleagues to sit with them and ask simple questions, but then having to traverse whether their answers are in best interest for the city or best interest of protecting the mayor and the administration. So I know plenty of phone calls I received and people were just shocked and just bewildered. in an article that just went out with our mayor stating some pretty outrageous claims. Outrageous! that the mission or the responsibility of this council, bringing initiatives forward so we can get answers so the public and our residents can know where their money is being spent and understand if we have to, there's checks and balances in place. And then turning it back around again, that's the second time the mayor has done this, an initiative that I brought forward, looking for the best interest of our community and questioning something that it's personal. Remember, Armstrong Ambulance is because it's personal. Right? Now, I guess, I guess I'm Councilor Bears, President Bears' campaign manager. Let's, let's do it right now, Council President. I'm your campaign manager for governor. Let everybody know. No secret anymore, Madam Mayor, you're right. But what a disgrace. Instead of focusing on what's best for our community and looking at the best path forward as a partnership with the administration and this council, it's like jumping through hoops. We identified a need. from an organization, a union organization, that was treated unfairly. You want to talk about having compassion and understanding people and being there for people. We looked at a group of employees that were killing themselves for us at Medford High School as custodians and then turning around and unceremoniously moving them along for non-union employees. And that's an issue. You want to sit there and you want to say that you're working for the working person, then say it and do it. Walk the walk. Because this is embarrassing right now. This is an ordinance that I feel strongly about. Council President put a lot of work into this to make sure that we're doing the right thing for our residents and our workforce. And again, this is like smashing your head against the wall because we don't know where we're going because we don't have guidance. I appreciate my fellow Councilors doing the work, but it shouldn't be you doing it. It was so easy when I could make a phone call to our city solicitor who was impartial and say, Councilor Scarpelli, this is the path and this is the reason why. For or against, straight down the middle, understood so you can move on. But with this administration, the process we have right now with KP law, it's a slippery slope. It's a slippery slope. So I apologize for my rant to my colleagues and the public, but I think people need to know the process. If it's done right in every other community, if it's done right, if it's done right, you have in-house attorneys that are protecting the best interests of the city. Not one person in that office, not one person in this room, but they do what's best for the city. You know, I'm fortunate enough to work in a community where if I have a question, human resources, I can call the human resource attorney and get guidance, not the city solicitor. I could talk to people in the know to get answers moving forward so I don't make mistakes. So I'm protecting the residents that I serve in the community that I work in to make sure that I'm not causing undue financial hardship by making a mistake. And already we're talking about concerns and issues that things are piling up, more lawsuits we're hearing, contracts that weren't followed. So losing money, thousands and thousands of dollars, it's just getting tiresome. And this isn't political. This is an eye opening experience that people need to understand as we move forward to the budget season, because we have to make very, very difficult decisions. And it's not because this council wants to do it. It's because we have to, because we're not led by a leader that has the foresight to prepare the city with good or bad. So thank you, Mr. President.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Are there any other councillors who'd like to speak before I go through the two drafts? All right, seeing none, give me one moment. All right, so we have a draft here. This is what we received a little over two weeks ago from KP Law. This was after the meeting with myself and Councilor Tseng. And this is a draft that includes some red lines that I'm proposing after conversations with stakeholders to ensure that the original purposes of the ordinance are maintained as best as possible. I would say, you know, there's a few items and certainly, I will recognize some of the folks from 32BJSCIU in a bit to maybe talk specifically more about some of the details. And, of course, I did see the Chief of Staff join us, so I would recognize her as well after I go through this. Essentially, I think the main pieces that were not included or were significantly changed from a policy standpoint from the conversation that Councilor Tseng and I had had with KP Law were around labor peace and the promotion of labor peace and that's an important priority. It's a defined and essential priority underlying all labor law in the United States and also encouraging the you know, working, hoping that contractors will have unionized workforces. And I think the other two major items relate to transitional employment. So if a contractor, if a contract is rebid and the contractor is changing, trying to ensure that those employees who were working here in our Medford Municipal Buildings either have some time to understand that they'll be losing their jobs or hopefully can keep their job or move to a new contractor if at all possible. And then the third piece is that there were, you know, some pretty significant changes to what the floor would be for wages and benefits that I think kind of reduces the pay that this ordinance would require as a floor. And so those are the main things. I'll go through the red line version here. So as you can see, we have This is a red line version on the KP law drafts. They're marked version 3 KP law and version 4 KP law plus bears red lines. So it included an hourly wage sufficient for a family afford to live at or above the federal poverty level. That was removed I think, you know, originally the ordinance was hoping that the intent was that the floor would be higher than the poverty level. in addition to adding back the promotion of labor piece in the service work for building service work contracted by the city. For definitions, it includes definitions around what is a labor organization, what is a labor piece agreement. This is a living wage definition. We can go to the wage piece later. That was replaced with a standard hourly wage rate definition. In this first section, you can see applicability and exemptions. And there was an addition of some waivers. So there were exceptions for trainees who are part of a job training program, people who are working in a recognized supported employment program, employees who are exempt from federal or state minimum wage requirements, positions where housing is covered. And then there was a significant waiver section that was included. I think we can discuss that in more detail in terms of the duties of a contracting department and the covered building service vendors that the contracts ensuring that it would include the anticipated number of hours of work for the employees. providing employees, ensuring that contracted employers provide each employee with a fact sheet about this chapter and what they should be getting paid to make sure that even if they get the bid and they put that forward, then they don't pay the employees what they should have been paying, that the employees are aware that that's not right and that the city did not want that. And also that they could contact the city itself if they feel their employer was noncompliant. Small addition here that the city, in addition to being able to inspect payroll records, could observe work being performed or interview employees that have to make a request in writing. And then there's a transitional employment period here. So again, this wasn't included. But it says essentially that the, if a contractor is terminated, they will provide the employee information to the contractor who is selected for the next bid and that they will work to retain those employees, at least some portion of those employees. We get here to labor peace and all that really says is that if a vendor is selected after award, they'll submit an attestation that their workers are in a union or have a labor peace agreement with a labor organization or that they are not currently represented and that an organization has not thought, a labor organization has not thought to represent them. And then we get here to the compensation question. So we had initially included two opportunities for the floor. So this was putting us at parity with similar jobs in the city of Boston for their contracted service work and also an hourly rate established by the Labor Department, the Federal Labor Department's wage and hour division. That's a difference, significant difference from the draft from KP law, which said that the living wage would be calculated on an hourly basis, wouldn't be less than the minimum wage of the state, which obviously it can't be anyway, and that the hourly rate would be 40 hours a week. for 50 weeks a year would equal but not less than 116% of the poverty threshold for a family of four, and that this would kind of go up with the CPI inflation measure or there would be a version 110% of the federal or state minimum wage, whichever is higher, or an inflation measure. So it's a little different. It's using, I think, in many cases lower and out of date metrics to set wages versus using stuff from the Department of Labor or similar jobs in this area. Standard paid leave ties this not to paid leave required under local, state or federal law. but required by the Department of Paid Vacation Holidays determined by the Department of Labor pursuant to the Service Contract Act which is again the federal law that requires that contracted out services for the federal government have to have a similar wage and benefit floor. And then similarly around benefits, It also ties it to the Department of Labor and the city of Boston employees who are doing similar work. And I think that's pretty much everything. In terms of complaints, there was just one change which is that a current or former employee could file a complaint and that the city would treat those complaints as confidential unless the employee consented to those complaints being shared with their employer. And then finally, a little bit more ability to review and enforce the ordinance under the extent allowed by law. And that's essentially the long and short of it. As you can see, like, those are some pretty significant differences between what we got back in some of our earlier drafts. Again, this doesn't represent that there are a number of things from the initial drafts from January and February that we did. work with the administration to remove especially on the retroactive application to existing contracts and the protection of private employee data and preventing any of that from becoming public data that would be subject to public records requests. So that's where we're at for now. I'm happy to either recognize the administration at this point, as you see, Chief of Staff Nazarian. Also, I know that the folks who I've been working with at 32BJSCIU can talk a little bit more about the policy differences. So, you can go in either way. And whoever raised their hand first, I'll go to you first. All right. Name and address for the record, please.

[Rahma]: Oh, yeah. Rama Varanasi. I live in Cambridge. Sorry. I'd love to have moved to Bedford. But good evening. My name is Rama Varnasi. I'm the political coordinator for local 32BJ at CIU. We represent janitors, security guards, airport workers, 185,000 workers up and down the eastern seaboard, and nearly 20,000 here in this state. I'm here tonight to talk to you about the city contracted janitors and other building service workers who clean Medford School buildings and care for other municipal facilities. These workers provide vital services to city residents, but don't enjoy the same wage standards and job protections that municipal employees have. We recently saw how the lack of protections can harm this workforce and the city. Last summer, Medford Public Schools changed janitorial contractors from Compass Facility Services, that's a union contractor, to Partners Facility Solutions, which is a non-union contractor. The compass employees had a collective bargain agreement that guaranteed annual wage increases, good benefits and job protections. When that non-union contractor took over, It failed to hire, at the time, any of the 14 Compass janitors. Though it's worth flagging that, and I think some of my peers, my colleagues can speak to this, that as of today, just today, many of those 14 got a call for a job offer. They offered a job at $16 an hour with no benefits. And of course, I think many of the provisions we have in this bill, thinking about labor peace, worker retention, are meant to solve that type of churn and prevent that type of stuff from happening. But I'll defer to my legal and policy team who can speak more to that. The termination of longstanding service employees not only hurts the impacted workers and their families, but it hurts the city as well. This is fundamentally an ordinance that's going to help the city of Medford. You know, experienced employees are more familiar with the buildings they clean and the staff they support. This translates into more reliable services and an extra set of eyes and ears to identify safety hazards, especially in a place like a public school. That's why we believe the proposed ordinance should include the worker retention elements in the ordinance. And we have similar elements in Cambridge and Boston ordinances as well. Contract transitions not only cause disruptions for long-term employees, they can also cause disruptions for the services themselves and for the city. That's why we would want something like a labor peace agreement, to help resolve some of that. Labor peace is a common and legally well-established concept in public contracting. It appears in laws and ordinances in many states and cities. For example, here in Massachusetts, at Massport with Boston Logan Airport, there are many contractors that have to comply with labor peace requirements for many years, and that's been done without issue. The basic idea behind including a labor peace provision and the proposed ordinance is that the city's interest to ensure that there will be no labor disputes disrupting the services that are provided every day to residents of Medford. Therefore, the proposal would require city contractors to negotiate labor peace agreements with labor unions who represent or seek to represent the workers. It just requires that they take these certain steps to ensure that the services they provide to the city won't be disrupted and will maintain labor peace. The name says it all, I think. Finally, in order to protect area working standards that workers have fought to establish here in Medford, it's crucial that this ordinance provide a true living wage to the city-contracted workers. The original version of the proposed ordinance would establish a fair wage and ensure a modest increase over the rate the janitors employed by Compass made prior to the termination. In contrast, according to our calculations, the recent proposed revision would set a standard well below what these workers were making one year ago, right? Yeah. And so we want to make sure that what this law does is that it doesn't undercut the area standards. The prevailing wage law should require city contractors to pay their janitorial and security workers the higher of the wage and benefits rates established by the Federal Service Contract Act or the rate paid by the largest union that covers the relevant group of workers. And with worker retention, it's about creating this 90-day transition period so that when a new contractor takes it over, there's this time where they can prove that they are the best qualified for the job. This policy would ensure the government service contracts don't undercut market standards, the public receives high-quality services in exchange for their tax dollars, and the public funds support good jobs. The policy would also prevent disruptions in city services due to worker turnover and labor unrest. By adopting this time-tested and common-sense policy, the city council can take care of its hard-working service workers, safeguard taxpayer money, protect city services, and improve lives for both the workers and residents of Medford.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there anyone else from your team who'd like to speak? Yeah, I'd love to, if we could, you know, if Peter, if you could specifically speak to this ordinance and other communities or ordinances like this in other communities, I'd love to recognize you and good to see you.

[SPEAKER_06]: Thank you very much, Councilor Bears. I'm really happy that I could be here virtually to join you. My name is Peter Enrich. I am an emeritus professor of law at Northeastern University School of Law. I'm presently resident in Washington, DC, post-retirement, but like to keep my eye on and be involved in policy issues in Massachusetts. I've been working with the folks at 32 BJ on these issues, both in Medford and elsewhere for a number of years, and I guess they suggested that it might be useful for me to speak tonight. I think for wearing two different hats, I know the one hat is my academic hat for 30 some years I was. Teaching at Northeastern where my specialties were state and local government law and state and local fiscal and tax policy. Taught quite a number of the folks who are now at KP law. And spent a lot of time dealing with the legal issues of the powers of municipalities to regulate employment relationships and other regulatory matters. The other hat is for several years I was a selectman in your neighboring town of Lexington and dealt with some of these same issues from that perspective and I think have some familiarity with the challenges that you on the council face in dealing with an issue like this. So let me just share a few quick thoughts. And I think between Councilor Bears and Mr. Varanasi, you've gotten a clear view of the differences between the two versions of an ordinance that are before you. I won't spend time on that, but I do wanna emphasize that It has been increasingly common in Massachusetts, and it has often and always been common in many other states, for municipalities to see a need to add protections and requirements for employment rights and contractor duties above and beyond those that are imposed by the state itself. Sometimes modeled on things that the state has done or that other state agencies have done, but that have expanded the protections and rights available for folks that work in and particularly folks who are paid through the municipality. The type of ordinance that you are considering is by no means unique in Massachusetts. Boston and Cambridge have both had ordinances that cover at least some of the topics that the proposal before you covers for decades now. These are quite well established. The use of labor peace agreements is not as common at the municipal level, but it's very common in public contracting more widely and is a well-recognized way of ensuring both the good of the community, the good of the contracting entity, because it ensures that their laborers will actually be doing the work, and it respects the rights and dignity of the workers themselves. As a former municipal legislator myself as a selectman in Lexington, I do understand the fiscal pressures that you are and every other municipality in Massachusetts are facing. And I know that the argument for privatizing services, for finding less expensive ways to deliver services are potent and important, but it's at the same time tremendously important to recognize the dignity and the lives of the people who are doing some of the most important, if some of the least pleasant, jobs that need to be done to make a municipality operate. And the protections that are suggested, both in terms of a true reasonable wage and prevailing wage is probably the most effective way to get at that. And the labor peace requirements that recognize the rights of employees to represent themselves and see their rights protected. And the retention, worker retention provisions, which again, those have been in some other Massachusetts cities ordinances for years and years. are an important way of protecting against some of the dangers that cost saving can sometimes lead to. So I guess the last thing I will say is I did have a chance to look at the KP law draft, and it appears that there isn't a real question in their minds about your legal power to do any of the things considered here. If there were a question, I was prepared to make the case that those questions are probably not serious questions, that the powers of municipalities to set reasonable terms and conditions for their own contracts for services is well recognized. But I don't think there's a dispute about that. If there are questions about that, I'm happy to respond to them. I hope that's of some help.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Peter. I appreciate that. Yeah. And, you know, we don't have a representative of KP Law here tonight, but that's my understanding as well is it's really more about policy and financial considerations versus legal authority to implement an ordinance of this nature. So, really appreciate your comments and your wealth of experience and, you know, seeing you here with us, you know, it was great to work with you in the past and I appreciate all Appreciate the note too that you educated a few of those folks over at KP Law as well. It's helpful to know. I do want to see if any of my fellow Councilors had any questions for Peter or any comments at this time about the ordinance. All right. All right. Thank you, Peter. Appreciate that. I will go to Councilor Tseng or Councilor Callahan.

[Anna Callahan]: Thanks. I actually just do have one question for Peter Enrich, if you're willing to answer it. I know you said you were not going to get into the differences between the two drafts in detail. I wonder if you have just a broad comment about the difference between the two drafts.

[SPEAKER_06]: Sure. The KP law draft is a much, much narrower Proposed ordinance it really only deals with compensation levels and I don't have the expertise on this, but I. have every confidence in Mr. Varanasi's competence to say that it's providing a lower floor for wages. But it completely omits the other two very important features that were in Councilor Baer's initial draft. worker retention provisions and the labor peace protections. It also, I was rather struck, and I think Councilor Bears was as well, by the rather wide waiver provisions that were proposed in the KP law draft that would have left the actual application of the ordinances protections very much up to case-by-case determinations. Those are the primary things that I would note.

[Zac Bears]: Councilor Callahan.

[Anna Callahan]: Thank you so much. I just wanted to say, it is great to see you again. I really appreciate your being willing to come and speak to us tonight. Thank you.

[SPEAKER_06]: And if I can be helpful as you continue, you know where to find me. So happy to help.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Peter. All right, I will turn it over to Councilor Tseng for comments.

[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you for your hard work on this. Thanks to our union supporters, our, you know, workers and residents who have worked on this as well. I think this has taken a bit longer than folks would have wanted, but I'm hopeful that the council is going to get this done soon, and we really should get it done soon before we make any more mistakes as a city. What this ordinance comes down to for me is pretty straightforward. When Medford spends public money, I don't think we should be using that money to push down wages or shortchange the people doing the work. And as we think about the versions in front of us today, you know, while we're making this decision, I think it's important that we do it right the first time. We contract out a lot of services, janitorial services, facilities, security. And I think it's really easy for folks, especially in this building, to sit at a desk and think of these things as abstract line items on a budget sheet. But behind the black and white on that sheet of paper are people, people who show up every day. They keep our buildings running. they work for a city, without them our city wouldn't run. And what happened with the school district's janitorial contract is exactly what this ordinance is meant to prevent. I think far too often we see that a switch gets made and then the lower bid wins and then suddenly workers who had built a career in stability and their jobs in this city are suddenly out and they're replaced by people who are earning less with fewer protections. And in an economy where rent and groceries and healthcare costs keep climbing, it's not just the minor inconvenience, that's a family's whole stability being pulled out from under them. What this ordinance does is that it sets a floor. Contractors who want to do business with the city will have to meet basic standards on wages, benefits, paid leave, and we're not tying these to pie-in-the-sky standards pull out of thin air. We are anchoring them to federal benchmarks and existing collective bargaining agreements. And I think that part of the ordinance You know, from the comments that we heard today from all the speakers, it's clear. You know, these aren't random metrics that we're pulling out of nowhere. These are actually things that cities do and that the federal government does. This ordinance would also create a sense of accountability. Clearer rules for vendors, transparency in contracts, real enforcement. So that the people working for a city, the people who are keeping the city running, actually get what they're supposed to get. I don't think economic justice is just a national conversation. I think there's a lot that we want to fix in this city and that we don't have control over. But this is actually one of the things that we do have control over right here in Medford. Working people in this city are getting squeezed and we as a local government, we have a choice about whether we're part of the problem or whether we're part of the solution. And when we spend taxpayer dollars, we have an obligation to strengthen the local economy and not just to hollow it out. And I think this ordinance is a practical way to do that, to strengthen our community, and I'm proud to support it.

[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. On a similar note, I really want to emphasize that we are in a moment nationally and internationally where Many people, including me, believe that our democracy is truly in decline. I was in urban blending graduate school many years ago, and my primary focus was inequality. And one thing that researchers of inequality who study inequality in many countries over many decades, one thing they understand is that when inequality gets too high, that is when democracies fail. That is when you have political unrest. I firmly believe that inequality is one of the most basic reasons why we are in the turbulent and very frightening situation that we are in today. We can do something about inequality right here. We can raise the floor of what the city, our own city, will pay. and we can empower unions. And I believe it is critically important that we do. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. Any further discussions by members of the council? All right, seeing none, I will go to Chief Staff Nazarian.

[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you, President Bears. Mr. President, since I'm supposed to address my comments through you, I will just say that you and Councilor Scarpelli can play whatever games you want and whatever you have come up with together. I don't need to speculate on that. Councilor Scarpelli seems to be doing a good job at that. I'm here to address a narrow and specific set of comments that were made by you, President Bears. In your opening remarks, you said the city wanted to keep this confidential under attorney-client privileged. attorney client privilege. You said that you're working back and forth with us to plan and plan to write to us to indicate that if we would prefer for certain comments to remain confidential, that they are clearly delineated that way. It is not that we want to keep things confidential, it is that we have a duty to keep things confidential that are properly marked confidential. The email from KP Law was titled, In all caps, confidential, hyphen, privileged. and then regular lettering, standard compensation ordinance. The attachment clearly stated in the name of the document that it was confidential. The title of the document that you shared publicly without checking with the necessary parties was KP-£1023570-V2MDFD-STD-COMPENSATION-ORDINANCE-DRAFT-CONFIDENTIAL. I want to make sure that the record is clear.

[Zac Bears]: How many hyphens came before confidential there, Madam Chief of Staff?

[Nina Nazarian]: I want to make sure that the record is clear, that we are all obligated to manage and maintain confidential documents and handle them with care and concern. Perhaps you checked with legal counsel before you released the full contents of the document, and I'm not aware of that. Please advise the public and myself if you did, President Bears. If you did not, that would be a substantial departure from generally accepted rules governed by privileged communication that gives rise to significant concern. It also appears that the confidential draft was later revised by one or more parties. Although it is unclear whether SEIU 32BJ made those edits, any direct disclosure of the city's legal advice to them would constitute a further waiver of attorney-client privilege and an improper release of confidential information. As you know, I have requested a meeting so that we can discuss attorney-client privilege attorney-client privileged information. I didn't want to interrupt the flow of the discussion on the substance of the ordinance, so I waited until the end to make these critical comments. I have another commitment this evening, so I have to jump soon, but I'm happy to stay on and discuss this if this is the forum that the council would like to discuss this matter.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'll just say a few things. On April 1st, I emailed you and Attorney Austin and Councilor Tseng, and I think Fiona Maxwell were on there, and I said, I'm planning to put this on the agenda for April 7th. Attorney Austin replied, Fiona Maxwell replied, and the only replies were about scheduling. No one said that we need to adjust this document to change comments that are in it. To be frank, the comments that are in it are innocuous and I don't see why they would need to be confidential. In my opinion, I am the client, you know, representing the city council and the city of Medford. And in my review of the document, which by the way, in the actual text of the document, the word confidential appears nowhere. It apparently appears in the file name, which I noticed today on a secondary review. But it doesn't appear in the document anywhere. It doesn't appear in the title of the document. It doesn't appear in the footnotes of the document. It doesn't appear anywhere on the page. And quite frankly, I don't want to get into an argument about confidentiality, I was provided a draft ordinance as requested. We've been discussing that ordinance in public meetings. I replied to all of you including KP Law that said I'm going to put this on the agenda and no one replied to me and said don't put this on the agenda. So, I don't think there's an issue here. I quite frankly don't think there's a departure from anything here. And furthermore, I don't even think the information included is rising to the level of requiring confidentiality. So, that's where I'm at. We do have comments from Councilor Callahan and Councilor Scarpelli. If you'd like to, Chief of Staff Nazarian, respond to any of that, you're welcome to do so.

[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you, President Bears. I really don't have further to say on that. Simple fact is that if you had indicated that you were going to place something on the agenda that doesn't automatically mean or presume to anyone that you would be releasing confidential information. I feel that the email was clearly marked. I feel that the subject of the document was clearly marked. We can parse hairs about it, but I'm concerned that you're not concerned, Mr. President, about the waiver of confidentiality on this and the implications, and I would like to meet offline so we can discuss those things further.

[Zac Bears]: That's fine. I'm happy to do that. got a draft and I said I'm putting it on the agenda and the relevant parties replied and no one said don't put this on the agenda. So, in the future, please note if you would like to do that and I think it would also probably behoove everyone if that is the case to provide a document that can be made public. Thank you. Councilor Callahan and then Scarpelli.

[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. I just wanted to comment that although I've only been on the city council for two plus years, we have had quite a few ordinances that we looked at and that we asked for legal review of, and I have never heard of that legal review being confidential. I do not understand why it would be confidential. We asked for legal opinions on ordinances, and those Like every time we have simply had those legal opinions right out in the open. So it is baffling to me why something that has not a single personnel issue in it, there's no legal, as in like there is a current legal case involved in that. I cannot understand why it would be confidential. So I'm baffled.

[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President, through you to Chief of Staff Nazarian. Quick question, if she can answer. Can you direct me to the contact phone number person that this Councilor or any of our Councilors can talk to when we have questions needing legal advice?

[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you, President Bears. Through you to Councilor Scarpelli, that would be Attorney Janelle Austin at KP Law.

[George Scarpelli]: Thank you. Is that something that has been shared to this council, my colleagues? Do my colleagues have that person's information? And have we been instructed that this is the person that we can contact at any time when we have questions that pertain to legal matters as a city councilor?

[Zac Bears]: Chief of Staff Nazarian.

[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you, President Bears. I know that Councilors on multiple occasions have corresponded with Attorney Austin. Even an email came across my desk this evening with a Councilor communicating.

[Zac Bears]: Not your desk. Not your desk. I said directly. Councilor Scarapelli, if we could just keep it back and forth.

[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you. Mr. President, the Councilor was directly communicating with Attorney Austin. I just happened to be copied on the email.

[George Scarpelli]: So for this Councilor, I have never received any information or guidance from any city administration of what guidance we have or this Councilor has to any legal advice that's needed when it comes to this body. Secondly, is there a financial figure that you can share that we know as we delve into any questions that we need answered legally that we know the financial ramifications during these conversations with these said attorneys.

[Zac Bears]: Madam Chief of Staff.

[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you, President Pierce. We have a retainer with KP Law, and that retainer would cover inquiries such as these. We do ask that department heads, council members, all officials who have the Proper position, so to speak, you know, that would be department heads largely and city Councilors to keep the administration informed about. the communications generally and broadly. We don't need to know the details of the communications. We want to be aware generally because those inquiries while being on a retainer still do get captured as part of a process. And I can certainly share the retainer amounts. I don't have them at my fingertips, but I can find them fairly quickly and provide them.

[George Scarpelli]: And finally, Mr. President, if the chief of staff can share all of that information that she just shared with the council to the public, if she can share that in email form or contact form to all the Councilors so we had that in writing before this knowledge that just poofed out of the air tonight.

[Zac Bears]: Madam Chief of Staff, could you share that information with the council?

[George Scarpelli]: Admittedly, Mr. President, I'm not clear on the inquiry, but as I said... If I can, Mr. President, to be clear, can you share what you just said to us via written email communications? Because it seems that this has been something that's been written in policy. You just made it sound like this is something that's in policy, that's been written, that we as a council have been informed that this is the process. So if you could share that information that you just made public, so I then could share to my constituents that are asking some serious questions that you so called a game that Councilor Bears and I are playing. Because this game, Madam Chief of Staff, is a game of responsibility and fiscal accountability that our taxpayers are asking us. Maybe it doesn't matter to people that don't live in the city, but collect a paycheck. But for the people that are asking these questions, we need to answer them. So this is the third time publicly that you've embarrassed this city. You and the mayor have embarrassed the city because we've questioned you on a reasonable, dealing with the finances of our legal process. So I'll look forward for your email stating this process and policy that you so eloquently gave this community. That's news to me.

[Zac Bears]: Hearing Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Leming.

[Matt Leming]: I mean, I don't want to wade too much into this. We have like two other committee meetings tonight, but early on in my last term, I reached out to KP Law personally when I was working on either, it was either an earlier draft of the vacant building or ordinance, which I was then calling the commercial vacancy tax, or it was a draft of the linkage fee updates from last term. And I did get, like, one early meeting with KP Law, and then I was advised that They wouldn't be able to do that again. They would only get legal review. You know, I could only get legal review or advice if there was a vote of the full city council. So it would have to be routed through the council president and then put forth as an official request. I've emailed KB Law before for informal legal questions about other aspects. I mean, I don't get a reply to those. I mean, you know, it's an outside law firm. It's a different role. The city solicitor in the brief time that we did have it did, you know, was able to meet with me informally. So it was a different relationship. Even on the more recent emails with Attorney Austin on the more up-to-date version of the vacant building ordinance draft. She's saying that she doesn't want to conduct legal review until we've gotten sign off from the administration on the current version of the vacant building ordinance draft. So, I mean, you know, we know what the situation is. It's very hard to get any actual legal review from them. It's, you know, there's a lot of back and forth going on and we don't have that one-on-one relationship. We don't have the ability to independently reach out to KP Law to get any sort of legal advice. So that's just a situation. I haven't been on city council as long as a couple of my colleagues have been. That's just my experience.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Madam Chief of Staff, is there anything else you'd like to add?

[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you, President Bears, you know, I think there are a number of different things that we can discuss during our hopeful meeting on this attorney client privilege thing, but some of the threads that are coming up in this conversation. You know, it is important, and this is for any public body. Public bodies are a group, and I think the council probably recognizes that. The council works by majority. The council doesn't work as individuals. It's as their role is, their role is by a majority. That is the simple nature of a board or committee or a council or any body. No town meeting in towns can take action without a majority of that body. No select boards in towns can take action without a majority of that body. No city councils really have any, I'm sorry to say, but true authority without The majority of that body, so I think that there is some validity in that conversation. I also think it's important to touch on what Councilor Lemings mentioned with regard to the administration being involved. It's important that when ordinances are drafted that there is coordination with the executive branch. It would create a range of structural, legal, and practical problems if there wasn't. Relying only on department heads for input makes these issues more likely, not less. There could be a breakdown of checks and balances, implementation problems, budget and resource misalignment, legal and compliance risks, and I could go on. So, you know, I think we really are due for our conversation on the totality of this, and hopefully we can find some understanding, common understanding, because it's really a critical matter at this point.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. Yeah, I mean, I think, well, I see other Councilors want to speak to this, and maybe I'll let them do that, but, you know, I was speaking to you about this the other day in another meeting that we were having where we were, you know, in April and still going back and forth on the implementation of the new city charter. And I firmly believe two things. One, I don't think there's a lawyer's veto over the duly noticed, published, and debated and voted upon work of this body of a city council. The voters voted for us. We put things through a public process. And yeah, we're maybe not always going to agree with the administration, but if we don't trust the representations of the administration, and if the administration cannot build the trust and build the convincing argument to convince this council that implementation should be delayed or adjusted, that doesn't mean it just doesn't happen. We were elected. We have our priorities. And I think all seven of us are open-minded people who are willing to be convinced that things should be done a different way or that we're wrong. I've spoken many times from this podium, from the floor of this chamber when I'm wrong and that I needed to adjust my perspective on something. But I do think that there needs to be trust there and I think that there needs to be a convincing argument there. And I think when we end up in this position where legal review is either denied or used to make policy arguments and the administration doesn't come forward and make convincing policy arguments that compel the council to take a different approach, I think the council is going to act. And I agree that we're at an inflection point. We've been discussing this for months. We heard tonight from, you know, a number of experts and certainly from Councilors that this is our policy priority. It is something that other communities do and we believe we would like to move forward on it. And we haven't been convinced that we should not do that. And I don't think it's KP Law's job and I don't think KP Law should be put in the position of, trying to convince us to do something other, you know, or just trying to say that something is a legal review and it's really a policy judgment. And the policy argument hasn't been particularly convincing. And yeah, so I do agree that we're in an inflection point. We don't have trust between this body and the administration. And we don't have trust that the proposals that are being put to us as supposed legal review are actually not a policy argument And I think that is a very difficult position for us to be in when we feel like we have essentially no one to turn to, to work with as a partner and to help us understand from the administration side a neutral and unbiased perspective. Councilor Callahan and then Councilor Leming.

[Anna Callahan]: I'm all, wow, almost speechless. Okay, let me see if I can be quick. The idea that city councilors cannot individually reach out to a legal firm because everything we do must be done by, must be approved on by every single one of us. We are prohibited because of open meeting law from working together on policies while we are drafting them. So, and if you think that we do not do any work outside of our meetings, that is very, I'm sorry to say, insulting. We have to be able to do our work outside of public meetings so that we arrive prepared for the public meetings. And the other thing that truly is amazing about what is being said here is, number one, we're not allowed to reach out individually to the legal department, because we don't have our own legal department. And I am learning that my colleagues My colleague, Councilor Scarpelli, is more correct than I ever realized that this law firm works for the administration. So now we can't reach out individually to them. We have to go through the administration. And we clearly, when we voted to get a legal review as an August body duly elected And we got that legal review. Now we're being told by the administration it is confidential and we cannot bring it up in a public meeting. So tell me how we are supposed to do our work when we cannot have any legal process as individuals and we cannot have any legal process when we vote on it as an entire body. I apologize for being a little hot headed here but this has really made me quite unhappy. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Councilor Leming.

[Matt Leming]: Yeah, I mean, I think that, I mean, just based on the history of internal communications, I think that we can all agree that sometimes it's kind of difficult to get the administration to reply on certain things. And it's very subject dependent. Sometimes the responses come super quickly, but other times you, ask a question, make a request, and it's like throwing an email into a black hole. So yeah, the idea that if this council votes to request a legal review and then we can only get approval for it, that will only be initiated. after the administration approves the legal review. It's not good precedent. It's not good practice. I mean, certainly, we always welcome the administration's commentary and input on certain—on ordinances and drafts. The mayor does, of course, get a veto on anything that's passed by this body, but that's sort of the idea of a soft veto just by withholding legal review entirely just because they're not sure about you know, a certain ordinance. It's not good practice. So I hope that we can get legal reviews from KP Law when we request it. Obviously, as my colleagues have been saying, I think the official position is that KP Law represents the city. Realistically, you know, it's the mayor who sets contracts. It's the mayor who hires them. It's the mayor who can choose to switch law firms. Yeah, they represent the mayor's interest mainly. I mean, that's all I have to say. We can keep talking about this, but I know that all my colleagues and the public has certainly heard enough about this. We know what it's like to, you know, deal with these things behind closed doors. Thank you.

[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Just to recap real quick. And this is why I think my frustration is at a peak level. As a senior member of this council, I had the privilege and honor 10 years ago to be brought into an office, a corner office here in the second floor, with a gentleman that I respect and a gentleman that really had passion for this community, and more importantly, had passion for the law. Solicitor Rumley gave me my, I would imagine Councilor Bears when he was elected and Councilor Falco at the time when I was elected, brought us an individual and explained the process of a city solicitor and gave us a 101 on how to be a city councilor, what your expectations are, what your duties and your roles are. And one thing that I may be spoiled as I am, having the opportunity to reach out to your city solicitor, that when he made a decision, he made that decision for what was best interest of the law and the ordinances and the policies and the rules of this city. That's what he always told me. So whether he was friendly with the mayor or the mayor paid his salary, one thing I always knew the city solicitor always put law before any personal decisions. And to me, maybe I was spoiled, but I think this is the basic issue that we're having with this council and not having legal representation that we can reach out to in a moment's notice. I mean, I could be coming into this office, this body tonight, having questions on this ordinance. And before I'd come in, I could call the city solicitor, and I would say, Mr. Rumley, I have a question. Am I doing the right thing, A, B or C? And he would say, legally, George, you can't do this. You can do this. You can't do this. But we've all heard this administration The expectation, I guess, is policies and procedures, and I'll share with the public when I get it, that we have to follow certain guidelines to guide us. That's just not fair. It's not fair to us. It's not fair to the residents we serve. And if Councilor Bears remembers, we voted on an issue without a city solicitor at the time. We didn't have a city solicitor here, and the issue was the BJ's gas station. And this council said, we don't want the gas station. It's going to cause havoc. It's too congested there. We have too many gas stations. And what is the first thing BJ's did? They filed a lawsuit against this council. And guess what? They were correct. And we put us, this city, in major legal bind. because we didn't have the guidance. And this is my frustration. So if my frustration is coming out to the chief of staff, it seems that you're just not listening. That's why. Because we had a city solicitor for a few months, and now he's gone. And you might call it a game. You might feel uncomfortable that Councilor Scott Peli and Councilor Bears are now talking and working through concerns and issues for our community in a responsible manner as partners. And maybe some people are uncomfortable with that. That's on you. But for one councilor that had the opportunity to work with a respected city solicitor, and understand the benefits that we have in the protection that this council has for the decisions we make for our residents in our community, and not having it, for one councilor, it's very frightening. And it's very confusing. Because yes, Councilor Leming, you're right. I can go back. I have it in my notes that when I first asked KP Law years ago in a question, and the answer was, we don't work for you. We work for the mayor. And that's documented. We could share that. So that's my frustration. So if it comes out, I apologize to everybody but one person tonight. So if it comes off that I'm angry, I am angry. Because I'm trying to do the work of the people that voted me into the seat. But I don't have the tools to be successful. I looked at this ordinance in totality and said, this protects the working people of our community, and I will support this ordinance. Never in a million years did I come here tonight to think that we're filing some sort of legal issue now, that we have to talk offline. Again, Mr. President, I beat this to death. I apologize, but I wanted to make sure, with a clear head, no motion, that the residents that put their trust in me, that they understand the reason why I'm so passionate about this process. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarapelli. I'll recognize the Chief of Staff in a moment, and then we'll move to public participation on this paper, and then we'll move to our next meeting. But Madam Chief of Staff, in addition to the comments from my fellow councillors, I did just want to ask, given your note about a duly, you know, that the body acting collectively as a body, we've passed a number of requests and resolutions over the past several months, not only for legal review such as what Councilor Leming mentioned about the vacant building ordinance, which of course we have reviewed internally with a number of administration officials, but also our request for report and information about the ambulance contract transition, the lack of financial reporting pertaining to Medicare kickback laws as regards to that contract, the comprehensive litigation and legal report that we requested several weeks ago at this point, asking not only for things like what is the retainer for KP law, you know, what are we spending in totality across all of the departmental budgets, the issues, ongoing issues with legal settlements. I know there's a couple more of those that have come up even in the last week since our meeting on April 7th. So given that this council has acted, I believe, on all of those unanimously, all seven of us voted for that information to be provided to the council. What is the status of that? Is the administration planning on making that information public and meeting our requests given that we did act as a body in those specific cases.

[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you President Bears. So much has been said also on the council's end. I think just to comment on one thing through you President Bears to Councilor Callaghan. Councilor, the one avenue, and I'm happy to speak with the council or council members individually on this, one avenue available to the council would be to designate a council member on various subjects. That happens in cities and towns all the time when a council member is designated to continue the discussions, continue the business. Another comment was made, I do wanna, Before I go further on comments relating to questions or comments made by the Council, I do want to remind everyone how we started this conversation because we started this conversation when President Bears, you had made a comment that the that the city wanted to keep information confidential under attorney-client privilege. I think the choice word wanted was what I felt I needed to speak up on. It's not that we wanted to, it's that we have a duty to keep things confidential that are attorney-client privileged. The email was marked privileged, the document was marked confidential for those who weren't on the call or watching at the time. Just to sum up, Mr. President, the decision to waive attorney-client privilege was an error, and this council's discussion has since strayed from that. And at times, I think the council has entirely distorted that point. Also, you said, Mr. President, that there have been many inquiries by the Council, and I think the Council has seen responses from me. We're working through the requests, and I'm continuing to work through the inquiries. There's a lot of work at this time of season, especially with the budget. Um, and then a comment was made by Councilor Scarpelli that, um, he apologizes to everyone, but one person tonight. Well, through you president bears, uh, that Councilor has been shouting at me for years. It's never acceptable. If I were to shout back, I'm sure I'd be asked to bring myself down to a lower tone, but it seems that that Councilor does not have that responsibility. That's all I have to say. Thanks.

[Zac Bears]: I do believe Councilor Scarpelli was referring to the mayor. You know, again, we can go back and forth on the specifics, but I think quite frankly and I think you've heard this now basically as the collective opinion of the council or at least a number of the members, we do not feel that we are being effectively represented as a client by the legal council contracted by the mayor. I sent a message to legal counsel about this draft ordinance. I said, I'm putting it on the agenda. Legal counsel had no objection. They replied, I'm not available that night. Can we do another night? If they had an issue with me putting it on the agenda, they should have said so. And they did not. So if there is an error, it is there and with the administration. Councilor Callahan.

[Anna Callahan]: I'd like to make a motion that we request that the administration provide us with the policy for how and when city councilors and or the city council can request and receive legal advice.

[Zac Bears]: On the motion by Councilor Callahan to request that the administration provide the city council with the policies and procedures related to when and how the council as a body or councilors individually can receive legal advice seconded by. seconded by Councilor Mullane. I believe we have Councilor Lazzaro on Zoom. So, Mr. Clerk, if you could please call the roll.

[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Mullane? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Pierce?

[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Just to be clear, I think we see time and again the efforts by this administration to muddy the waters from the real issues at the core of what our city is facing. There is selective judgment on what requests are met and which are not. selective judgment. We receive responses to some resolutions. We receive very fast responses when emails are sent, when we need to do something for the administration, and we receive no responses or very late responses when we are asking questions the administration doesn't want to answer. I didn't receive an email from Chief of Staff Nazarian about this ordinance until yesterday. The email that I sent back to her was on April 1st. That's two weeks, two weeks that the Chief of Staff could have said, here's a different draft. We'd like you to use this one instead because we think Janelle's comment that says the department head should look at this should be confidential. And I think just the double standards and the selective judgment and the complete loss of trust that I feel almost every councilor here has stated verbally in this administration and the idea that the administration's contracted council is representing the city council effectively as a client, it is devastating. And I agree that it's at an inflection point. And, you know, quite frankly, I don't know what we're going to do moving forward. are working diligently to try to do the city's business and we feel like we're running into a wall every time. Every time we try to do something and the only time something gets done is if the administration wants it of us and never the other way around. So it's just not a way to run a city, it's not a way to do business and it's incredibly disheartening. And I am, yeah, I don't really have much more to say about it other than that I'm disappointed and I hope it changes. And I know that the council is going to keep doing the work that we need to do. And if the administration is unable or unwilling to present evidence, information, or provide effective counsel, I believe the council will act on the information that we do have. We do need to dispense of this paper and we do need to go to public participation. So I'll go to public participation and then we'll do a motion. Is there public participation on the standard compensation ordinance here in our committee of the whole? You can come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom. And this is just on the standard compensation ordinance that we've been discussing. We'll go to the podium first. Hi, Ralph, name and address for the record please.

[Ralph Klein]: I'm Ralph Klein, 172 Park Street, Medford, Mass. I just want to say this council is trying to do something that needs to be done. They're cooperating with each other to see Zach, George, everybody on the same page is a good thing. I think the city really needs a city solicitor to handle so they can go there and get the thing. KP Law, as my understanding, has 50 lawyers and they handle 200 cities. Now, that's one fourth. of the representation they'd get from a city solicitor who just represents the city of Medford. We need a city solicitor. We've got to stop these games with KP law. And the other thing I have a question is on the mayor's website or when you look her up, it says she worked for a Boston law firm. Did she work for KP law? Nobody knows. It just says she worked for a Boston law firm. So that needs to be made public. I mean, to see you guys working together and not fighting one another is a big thing. But we have to straighten this out. We need a city solicitor to straighten this problem out. Have them contact KP Law and they'll get back to you. You have a guy down the end of the hall you can talk to, like George said. That handles everything for you, you, you, you, you, and you. You can talk to the mayor down the hall. You don't have to wait for KP Law to get back to you. He's in the city. He represents us. And this confidentiality, they're representing us. We need to know what's going on. Not just you, not just the mayor, all of us. Because it affects my city, where I live. It's affecting what happens to us. That's all I have to say. And thank you. I'm glad you guys are kind of seeing the same light. And that's a good thing.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Go to Pete Riggie on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please. And you'll have three minutes.

[SPEAKER_02]: Paul Riggie, former director of facilities for the City of Medford. Hello. President Bearsens, Board of Councilors.

[Paul Righi]: I just have a comment on the 90-day period as somebody that uses these contracts. I understand the thrust of the 90-day period, but I think it would be better served to have a contract signed at least 90 days before the expiration. Because I think programmatic, it is much easier for companies to deal with that way than requiring employees who may be forced to take a job at a lower rate of pay because they're the new Company and because that's what they're they're being told to do. And also, then that company has to train that employee on items and they may then be. not having that employee continue with them. I think if they have the contract signed 90 days before the end of it, then that still gives the affected employees 90 days time to either find a new job or to be able to work with the new company. be interviewed and be hired by the new company. I think that would actually flow better and be presented better for you in this ordinance that you're creating.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Paul. That's helpful. And we'll take that into consideration. And I do appreciate you bringing us back around to the draft ordinance, because I think we've been off of that for the better part of 45 minutes at this point. So thank you, Paul.

[Paul Righi]: No problem. Have a good night.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. Councilor Tseng.

[Justin Tseng]: I'd like to motion to send the most updated redline version of the standard compensation ordinance to regular session.

[Zac Bears]: All right. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to report the redline version 4 out of committee to our regular meeting, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng?

[SPEAKER_02]: Yes.

[Rich Eliseo]: Vice President Lazzaro?

[Anna Callahan]: Yes.

[Rich Eliseo]: President Bears?

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. All right. Don't say we didn't do anything. for you, we are using a new approach where we have one Zoom link a night. So if you are on Zoom, you don't have to leave this Zoom and go to another Zoom just to stay here in our amazing meetings. We, you know, it took us three years to get that through the administration. So, but we did it. But we should end this. Hold on, we need a motion to adjourn. Then don't end the Zoom. On the motion to, oh the YouTube, so on the motion to adjourn by Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Millane? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?

[SPEAKER_02]: Yes.

[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Pierce?

[Zac Bears]: Yes. 70% negative, the motion passes. We'll be moving to our special meeting in just a couple of minutes. We're going to figure this one out. Don't click that. We're trying a new thing here. If you're on Zoom, stick with us.