[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Thank you. First of all, thank you for doing business in Medford. I think the Great American Beer Hall has brought a lot of change to our city, which is good. I think residents are really excited and really grateful for having it in Medford and for all the work that you guys are doing here. I think residents will be very excited about Nassau Donuts moving in and excited for more late night pizza, to be honest. Um, I uh I had a similar question to Councilor Collins, and I'm grateful for your answer. I guess my remaining question, this is, you know, as Councilor Leming said, it is a balancing act. We have to hear, you know, the residents who aren't happy and act on it. We also have to stand up for the residents who do wanna see this in Medford as well, but also to help businesses out. And I wanna know if this 1 a.m. change, you guys said it was adequate, How does that affect the competitiveness with neighboring communities? Is this a good enough of a step in the right direction?
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. And is that something that you mostly see on Thursday, Friday, Saturdays?
[Justin Tseng]: Right. So we don't want that.
[Justin Tseng]: So thank you. Fair enough. Thank you for that answer for, you know, teaching a little bit about what you guys are seeing about on your side as well.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to thank you for coming before the council today. We're so excited for this business. I think it's something that Medford Square is so missing. You've been such an amazing patron in Medford and in guiding our development as a city as well. You're really a team player. The caffeine addict in me is really excited for this. So I'm wishing you the best of luck.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll help you be the transition to the cemetery. But before that, I think it would be my preference if for the tree pits that seem like they could be good candidates for like filling in the green space that we don't jump to filling them with concrete. I know it's not too difficult to go back, but I think for the heat island, if I can just for time and resources, I think, you know more about this than I do, but it'd be my gut instinct to say that. we think should be maybe more careful about which ones we put the patch in first. I know there's some residents who weren't super happy in Hillside about some of the tree pits that were filled in there. My question about the cemetery is that for this expansion project, do you have an estimate of how many more spaces we would get from this acreage?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor say, I'll be really brief because I think Council let me get give a really good and thorough explanation of why this bill is important. But I just wanted to say, in talking to union leaders across the state, they had one message, and I thought that they put it really well. AI can be a useful tool, but it shouldn't be a replacement. And when it comes to things that are so important to the worker, so important to people's rights, and so important to general functioning of society, We need to be careful about how we use these technologies. Not that not to say that we should know should be completely closed off, but we need to be cautious with how we approach these things. And so I'm grateful for Vice President Collins for introducing this resolution so we can show our support for this really important bill that will affect Medford workers as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Are you calling on me?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President, Vice President Collins. I just wanted to state where I am at quickly, because I think our constituents deserve to hear where my brain's at. I'm here to listen to the community discussion tonight. I know we've had two very rich meetings of two meetings of very rich discussions, and people who feel, you know, very strongly on either side about this. But that's all to say that I do believe that our investments are an expression of our values. And our city and our residents should be comfortable with the investments that we make. And we should be able to say no when we are concerned about the investments that we make. I think about this like, Like if we were a family, and we are a family, we're a Medford family. As a family, you wouldn't shop at a business that you don't want to support. And you wouldn't invest in a team or a project that you're morally opposed to. As a business, you wouldn't do that either. I understand a lot of the community concerns that have been raised. And I'm really grateful that President Bears has done the hard work of taking those concerns on board. It's true, anti-Semitism is a real problem, but as many residents, Jewish and non-Jewish, have raised in previous meetings, we shouldn't conflate the issues, and conflating the issues actually can risk inflaming tensions even more. In these heated moments, I think we should tune out the hullabaloo, tune out the fuss, and look at the actual question that lies at the heart of the ordinance itself. And in reading the text of this ordinance, the question that ultimately remains is whether or not we choose to invest in companies that are endangering our future and our children's future, and those who seriously violate human rights and international humanitarian law. As someone whose family grew up in a dictatorship, as someone whose family members were disappeared, as someone who has close family and friends living in countries that are being threatened or who are actively under attack from countries that are severe violators of human rights, As someone whose job right now it is to work on human rights cases in many of these countries, to protect dissidents and ethnic minorities, and as someone whose future is at risk because of our ever-warming planet, I think I know how I would answer that question. That being said, I will respect all the points that are raised by this community tonight, and I look forward to the discussion.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I think my family Councilors have spoken to the revisionism and the campaigning that we've been seeing. And so I'm going to refocus on the resolution that's right in front of us. I've spent the last month and a half reading everyone's emails. I know I have a lot to get back to. But I wanted to take this time to listen to residents because there's just so many different perspectives, so many different views from people who think that our city isn't doing enough to build housing, to encourage more housing, to those who are concerned that we are moving too quickly. The truth is that there are a lot of people who feel strongly on every side about this issue. But in reading these emails, And looking past the disagreements that folks might have about process, I think that there are still many goals that unite our community. I think we want to make Medford more affordable. I think we want to make sure that we hold big developers accountable. And I think we want to fight against displacement. Speaking from personal experience and from talking to countless neighbors this year and over the last few years, I know too many folks are feeling the crunch. They're tired of seeing their rents rise. They're tired of seeing the dream of homeownership slip away. I know a lot of parents are tired of seeing their kids, folks I went to school with, have to move out to Central Mass or New Hampshire just because they can't afford to live here anymore. And simply put, we just have a system that doesn't work for us. It's left us out. It's left us behind. And that's why it really shocks me that when we finally had a compromise that was put on the table. And you didn't have to take it, but it was a starting point for conversation. And that compromise would have prioritized completing proposed commercial districts. It would have extended the process for residential rezoning. It would make our public outreach much more robust. It shocked me that the mayor responded hostilely with ultimatums, with misinformation, and with complaints about not being included in the process. It shocks me that the mayor would threaten to kill the years of work that Medford has put into bringing our city into the future together, to kill the years of work to bring our city in line with our comprehensive plan, our climate action and adaptation plan, and our affordable housing plan, the very same plans that a number of politicians in the city, especially the mayor, ran on as candidates in multiple elections and won on. It shocks me that, it shocks me because these problems are serious, they're real. And what else are we supposed to do? Do nothing? Stick to a status quo system that clearly isn't working? fully and undermine the people who are trying to fix it, you don't have to agree with them. The alternative, I think, is pretty clear. The alternative is dilly-dally, delay, and wither. And by demanding that we reverse all the progress, or at least substantial progress that we've made as a community, goes a bit too far for good. When the fact is that as the mayor, the mayor could have stepped up earlier, the mayor could have studied these issues earlier. She could have dedicated the resources to do the extensive public outreach that she is asking for now. And in fact, it's the same kind of outreach that we've been asking to get the tools for. If you look at what the Resident Services Committee has been working on, if you look at the number of resolutions I passed in this council and last council about doing accurate survey research and approaching that correctly, we have a record on this. And I also want to make it clear, the mayor is welcome at our meetings. And she's welcome to reach out to her elected officials or the same elected officials who are entrusted by the voters to do the hard work and make the hard choices that we have to make as a community. The truth is, we will have to come together. We will have to work together to move our city forward on the key issues. Affordability, holding developers accountable, and fighting displacement. And we will have to compromise. In her press release, the mayor said, this process is hard and complex, but it doesn't have to be combative. I agree with that. This moment is tough, but poison pill press releases really don't help. I hope that we can come together and improve the process together. I think The approach that we see proposed in this resolution presents that first compromise that weighs that path forward. It shines some light and gives us an option to move forward with a path that's better, more inclusive, and a path that will actually, that could get us to reach the goals that we all agree on. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Scarapelli for putting this on the agenda and for your kind words. It's a difficult moment for the Hilliard family and I want to send my deepest condolences as well. I went to school at Duncan and It's tough to say anything because I think it hits particularly hard when it's a family of someone you know. I think I just want to send my best thoughts and recognize Mr. Hilliard's really wonderful life and legacy, his wonderful family. I think it's hard for me to gather my thoughts, too. You know, it does come as, you know, a shock to the community, especially, I think, I know a lot of us were at the Memorial Day event recently, and Mr. Hilliard played some really beautiful, moving music there. And I just wanna, you know, say on the behalf of Benford City Council that we send our deepest condolences to the family.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I just wanted to thank my fellow Councilors for introducing this resolution, for getting the ball started again. I wanted to refer my support for this. Policy in general, of course, we'll have to look at the details of whether this does exactly what we want it to do. And I know Councilor Leming just brought up a point that I'd like to delve deeper into in the committee meeting. But in general, I just wanted to voice my support.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. I'm not necessarily opposed to Councilor Leming's idea because I think it does capture what Sarah mentioned, but I just worry the wording might be a little convoluted. And I think Councilor Callaghan's proposal also kind of gets, I mean, it is slightly broader, but gets at a very similar idea without being so complex. That's just my take, but I think either I'm okay with.
[Justin Tseng]: Uh, president bears. Can I answer saying, um, yeah, I mean, I, I definitely see that. I do think that cases would be pretty rare. Um, maybe the phrasing should be like. Medford residency and those enrolled in Medford. Like, educational institutions, something like that, like that would capture tops. I think the question is what if. well, no, nevermind, they would be Medford residents. Ignore that very last part.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Well, I was a student at the time that Councilor Scarpelli was a teacher and nurse breeding was at the McGlynn. And I just have very fond memories of my early days in school as a kindergartner, as a first grader, second grader going and seeing nurse breeding there. be it something as simple as checking for lice or something, you know, the days where I needed a bit more care. Nurse screen was always there for us. And I think Councilor Scarpelli is absolutely right that for many families, including families that grew up quite poorly fine, the school nurse is your kind of access point to staying healthy. Nurses like Nurse Breen are just so important in making sure that all of our families here in Medford get the treatment that they need, and all our kids get the treatment that they need. So I thank Karen for her service, and I congratulate her on her retirement.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, um, because, um, uh, and, and, and is aware that we have a limit on, um, public participation speaking time, we've coordinated so I can give you a fuller update about what's happening on Quincy Street. And then I can give an update about what I've learned so far, and then Anne can give an update about how things are going from her end. So essentially, Anne reached out to me, letting me know that on Quincy Street, there are a few problems that in summary, you've read out, Mr. President. The first big one is a very big rat infestation, one that is at least a city hired inspector from Yankee Pest in the fall let us know, let residents know, was of a very, very big size. I think the numbers disputed, but it's what we had heard, what residents had heard in the fall was possibly 1,000 to 3,000 rats. um in three kind of large nests identified um one um is on a property that's currently on sale um there are two off north street behind um Clever Green Cleaners and Stevenson's Construction. And there are incidents of rats jumping out of closed trash cans, running through yards, being run over on the street. And the neighborhood has been quite proactive in preventing rats. Neighbors have been making sure that no pets are being fed outside, that pets are being cleaned up after, that there aren't any birdhouses in use, that the burrows are being stuffed with steel wool, vinegar, and ammonia, and that all shrubbery on the private property is trimmed. But with the note that there is some overgrowth behind the cleaners that might need addressing. Um, that's the rat issue. And from what I understand and can give us an update as well, I understand that a few weeks ago, there were some inspectors from Yankee Pest who went, who gave a different number, a different estimate of the number of rats who were there, but did say that there are rat problems. Director O'Connor let me know that, that there are some residents who were contacted about boroughs being observed who didn't call the city back for follow-up treatment or inspection, and that The inspector from Yankee Pests, who did recently visit the neighborhood, met with the owners of Stevenson's Construction and Clever Green Cleaners. They both gave them permission to inspect the property and that both properties are free from rats at this time. But from the rear of Clever Green Cleaners, the inspector could see rat burrows in two abundant residential properties. The inspector did take note of evidence of rats in residential properties, including rat burrows, rat damaged lattice under porches, damaged trash cans, and rat droppings. But in the inspector's professional opinion, they don't have thousands of rats there. They did observe that the residents have been doing well as far as they can in terms of um, putting out rat bait, acting responsibly, doing their own rat control, um, but that, um, there might be some, um, some things that we can do as a city moving forward. Um, the inspector also noted that some of the rat burrows that he observed were from the rear of the dry cleaners under the wood, uh, pallets in the residential backyard and that, um, We can't, as a city, we can't service these areas with carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide unless the residents move some of their stored items. And so their recommendations is that we work either as a city council, the board of health, or as a city to reach out to everyone in the neighborhood and coordinate rat inspections and services from Yankee Pest. And that they would keep knocking on doors while they're there to see if they can do any inspections while they're in the neighborhood. And they would help us put together a list of what might need to be done to control the rats. but essentially think that if we can do a neighborhood meeting, maybe work with the board of health to do that, that would be helpful. So that's the rat issue. On the next two issues, I don't have as many updates, but I will say the commissioner, DPW commissioner did get back to me and say that he's putting these on the repair lists for the summer. So the first problem is that the street has from Quincy Street from where Osgoode meets Quincy to the end of the Somerville line has been patched, but the patching is coming up. And a lot of the patches are tossing tar onto the streets and sidewalks as well. One of the patches is seven feet by five feet, and there are nine of them in a 12-house radius. And so the street needs a more thorough repaving, and the DPW commissioner is aware. There are a lot of streets in Medford at this time that need similar work, but he's told me that he's put this on the list. Um, and the last concern that Mr. school brought up to me, um, was that there is a dangerous intersection with the need for two more stop signs at the junction of Quincy and Osgood. Um, as a lot of folks who are accessing Boston Ave and Mystic Valley Parkway speed down the street. Um, and there have been incidents where, um, moms who are putting their kids in car seats and people who are being picked up and dropped off after school on that corner have almost been hit. And so I have reached out to members of the Traffic Commission about this, but I have not heard back on this yet.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I think councillors are at present very well, so I don't want to be too repetitive. But I think this underscores how serious of a moment it is in our country and the turning point we've arrived at in terms of protecting basic rights of dignity and free expression and one's ability to live as oneself and identify. and to just be happy in life. And, you know, I encourage those of you to read the actual opinion and the dissent, and especially the dissent that came out from the Supreme Court decision, because I think you'll find, I think, most of most reasonable minds will find that the majority opinion in this decision was yet another classic example of Chief Justice John Roberts gaslighting us into thinking that This law is not what it is, even though the law itself says very point blank that this is about sex, and sex is a protected class in our country, which should be a protected class in our country. I think the dissent does a very good job at pointing out the mental gymnastics that the majority uses to deprive so many residents and so many citizens of our country of basic equal protection rights.
[Justin Tseng]: Could you give me one second, please?
[Justin Tseng]: Got it.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to clarify which paper that was.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, sorry. I thought I remained unmuted. Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: I found them in order, I moved to approve.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I had the pleasure to join Councilor Lazzaro at one of the City Council's listening sessions at the Senior Centre a few weeks ago. And at the Senior Centre, we heard a lot from constituents about different issues that they were facing. There seemed to be one common unifier that There were, you know, people in City Hall that they had wanted to reach, but they didn't know their phone numbers and their emails and they didn't have the resources to get that information. So they didn't have computers or internet easy access to those things. So this resolution is really to have our resident services committee spend a session really brainstorming ways that we can make access even easier, even more efficient for residents who don't have access to modern, you know, those uses of technology and to really, as I put it, bring City Hall to the people.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I have spent a lot of this week talking to residents who are scared and confused about what we can do in the city regarding ice and it's difficult because requires us to be really creative and I'm very grateful for the residents who've been pushing us as councillors to be even more on top of this, to be even more creative about this, who are helping us come up with more solutions as well. I recognize that there's much more to do than what we are doing right now, but we are doing a lot. Um, there's a lot of advocacy that needs to be done across departments across City Hall. Um, and this is, um, this is one of those things that I, you know, I do. I completely agree with Councilors are we need to be transparent with what we're doing when we have information. I think It behooves us to know that information, especially as we are the conduits to the people, you know, we represent the people of the city. And the people of the city are scared. This morning's reports about ice in our community. certainly, I think, caused a lot of fear with residents. I heard a lot of it about it this morning. And even, you know, my parents who are, you know, green card holders here, right, hearing about ICE's presence in Medford. unsettles things because we've all seen the evidence online that they're not always just going after who they have a warrant for. A lot of the times there is profiling. They're trying to stop anyone and trick them into opening their car doors or opening their house home doors. And so it's important for us to know what kinds of things are happening in the city so we know how to best respond and best protect our residents' rights. Um, so I'm, you know, grateful for Councilors are for for sponsoring this resolution. I would even be open to an even more frequent report from the police department. I think that, you know, a lot, even after we pass this resolution, a lot of work has to be done. And if there isn't enough compliance will I would be open to revisiting parts of the welcoming city ordinance to strengthen what's there and to explore paths there. And I think while we're on this note, I also ask from our leaders in administration for greater clarity on these issues too. There's a lot of city staff who don't completely know what the policy is when, for example, agents come in to a public building or even a non-public building, like, for example, a library or a food bank. If agents come in without a warrant and are trying to look for someone, what can we do to protect our residents there? And there's just not a lot of clarity at the moment. on those issues, on those scenarios. There's not a lot of clarity on what the police department's policy is when it comes to peaceful protests and what gets interpreted as a threat to justice or obstruction of justice. How do we as a city create the policies to define what falls under that bucket and what falls under another bucket? So that's all to say, I think this is a very helpful step. My hope is that at the future meetings where we do have the chief of police president will be able to talk through a lot of these questions. I would love in the future going forward and even more open channels of dialogue with administration about maybe educating city staff about what we can do. Thanks.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng. Thank you. I just wanted to, you know, add to the conversation in case it addresses some of the worries. But at the meeting, at the budget meeting where the police team was present, what they had said was that reporting it, you know, on the day of was what they would consider not wise. So essentially the difference is this is an after report. And that one, when we asked that question, that question was about once you hear it, can you call the mayor of Medford and the city council president? So those are two different scenarios. So when Chief Buckley was addressing that, he was addressing the on the spot scenario and not the after report scenario. And then when it comes to the level of cooperation with federal authorities, federal agencies, it is actually within our powers not to cooperate with ICE. There are 10th Amendment cases about this. And there's established court precedent about not doing that precedent. And that's why we have the Welcoming City Ordinance, and that's why it's legally sound. The line is, you know, actively obstructing certain work. That is where the line is. But this report doesn't cross that line. And I don't think it's anywhere near that line.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Thank you. I appreciate and agree with everything that my fellow councilors have said about this issue. The freedom to protest, freedom of speech is a sacred right, in my opinion, of humankind, but it lies at the very core of our country's history and our identity. as a nation. When the revolution started here in the Boston area, all those years ago, I think that those protesters would be deeply disappointed and deeply, deeply troubled about where our country is headed right now with our treatment of protesters. And the deployment of Marines and of You know, this number of National Guards into the, you know, the protest area in LA is substantial and it's not something that we should look lightly over. I think we need to really understand that a lot of these protests, you know, there are pictures of certain scenes, but I know many of these friends who are participating in these protests in LA. And you can look from their live streams, their posts, everything, their reports, their articles that they're writing about it, that the vast majority of these protests are peaceful protests. the federal government is trying to provoke a reaction to manufacture the conditions for which they can suspend liberties, create conditions where they can march in and just tell people to bow down. And that's certainly not going to happen, certainly not something that we're going to stand for in Medford, certainly not something that us as your elected officials will stand for. And I think It's really, really, really scary looking at how this moment compares to other moments in history. And, you know, I genuinely don't know. I mean, I studied a lot of history in college, and a big focus of that history was, you know, the world leading to World War II and coming out of World War II. this moment genuinely reeks of fascism. And it reeks of the lead up, the build up, the manufactured incidents and attacks that led to the suspension of democracy in Germany in 1933. And so I think we need to be very careful to make sure that that doesn't happen here in this country. And it takes every single one of us to do that. I think in addition to that, I think this issue highlights that, again, that these issues can be municipal issues too, they can be local issues because these protests were, you know, were protests at the city level, you know, at the Los Angeles level. They were protesting a national issue, but that's a right, right? LAPD has done some questionable actions, but they've also made the point that they ask the feds not to come in. They ask the feds not to risk provoking the situation. And I don't want to see the day where in Medford, the feds think that they can come in against anyone's requests here in Medford. So I'll leave it at that. And I thank Vice President Collins for sponsoring this motion.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. This is a resolution to discuss an issue that residents have been raising up, particularly in South Medford and Hillside. But I know it's an issue in different parts of the city, especially in East Medford as well, that these large trucks are going down neighborhood streets that they're too big for. And not only are they causing traffic, oftentimes they're getting stuck. making turns in the streets as well. And that's, you know, that creates even more knock on effects. Not to mention, it's bad for pollution and bad for bad for safety of kids, you know, who are trying to cross the street and playing in the street. There's not, you know, the laws are a little complex about this, because we can't just outright say, you can't drive on these streets. But what we can do as a city is start the process of applying for exemptions from heavy trucking. It does require us to collect some data. It requires us to do some work on our front. So we'll need to work with city staff on this. But what I was thinking is we can meet in public works, the public works committee to provide a forum for residents to come to us to tell us about their streets if they're seeing this happen, and for us to work with city staff to identify a few priority streets for us to apply for that exemption with.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. That's her saying. Thank you. And to add to what you just said, I think it's hard to review a plan or hard to, you know, talk to voters when we don't know exactly what that plan is. And I think that's part of, I think you articulated the frustration decently well, but I think we're in a very unique position now where we've been fighting so long when it comes to recurring funds and making sure those are stable. And I think we all have ideas about things that we wanna see more recurring staff for, right? But I think we can basically agree that the recurring side of the equation, thanks to the voters, pretty stable. But I think now we're talking about the one-time expenses that we want to see in the city, these projects that I think all of our residents realize that have been building up. And so I'm looking forward to the end of the summer when we can sit down together and review that plan. I think all we're asking for, right, is for us to follow the state's guidance on how much free cash we should be having, and to make a noticeable dent into this $550 million number, and to see that plan. And once we have that plan, we'll be better able and better positioned to ask, I think, some pretty important questions. I think you make a really interesting point with the staffing, and I think that's important. But it's hard for us to contribute ideas or to rethink the staffing question when we don't completely know what those concerns are. And I think it just helps us have an open conversation when we have that plan. So very much, I would look forward to that. And I had questions, but I think maybe at this point, these are just more considerations as for things that I think the city council would like to see in that plan. But I think we would be curious as to what types of projects, if you hold off, would cost so much more in the future and what we see costs increasing the most in what types of categories we see that in. So that would help us guide you know, us understanding why this order of projects and explaining that to voters. I think we would be curious as to what things might help us in the future actually increase efficiency at City Hall as well. I mean, I think Many of us think the accounting software might be an example of that, but you know, equipment like I think that this question ties in the last one, like maybe it makes sense to invest in certain vehicles, because that improves the efficient efficiency of certain, you know, forces that we have out in the city. So I think those are things factors that I would be looking for in that plan that will hopefully get them some.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm basically with Councilor Lazzaro. I think I do want to point out how helpful a lot of this is. Honestly, special shout out to Councilor Leming for his work on the linkage fees, the TDM, the nexus studies, and advocating for that, organizing us to push for it as well. I think back to the first, I believe the first resolution I co-sponsored, Councilor Leming worked a lot on that resolution, and this represents progress on that resolution. And to translate it from jargon into real effects. This gives us the groundwork to study affordable housing, to build more affordable housing, to know how to strategize and how to do it in a way that best serves our community and our transit. and encourages the use of green transit. A lot of the school projects, these are a lot of projects that students and teachers and parents alike have been clamoring for a while. It goes hand in hand with a lot of the funding that we've passed. over the last few months. And 80,000 for tree planting is also very important. And while I suspect we'll need a lot more for that to really go at the trees deficit that we're seeing every year, it is forward progress. I also echo Councilor Lazzaro's sentiments and the sentiments, I think, echoed, like generally stated tonight, that we'd love to see even more being done in this. The dive team being very important, both to the fire department, to the city, and to our residents. We, you know, talked, I think, over multiple meetings, some in budget meetings, some outside, about work that we could do in our parks, work that we could do with public facilities, whatnot. That's all, you know, I can assure the public this Council will keep fighting for those going forward. And that that will be part of the conversation when we talk about free cash and how we're going to develop that that free cash spending plan. So, I do also want to take this opportunity and think school staff city staff, especially those who have waited so long here tonight. And those who've waited for long meetings in the weeks past, the budget process is an arduous process. No budget is perfect, but this one has been more painless than a lot of the other ones I remember. And I think it reflects the spirit of cooperation and goodwill that we have working in the City Hall right now. you know, I think it's a relationship built on trust and understanding that progress will come and that we'll have to make difficult decisions going forward, and that we will commit to making difficult decisions, especially about spending. But I'm grateful for the collaboration here. Thanks, Councilor Leming.
[Justin Tseng]: I do appreciate all your answers, and for, It's a running joke now. I thank you for your service to the city as well. My quick question was, we all know that the federal landscape is a little insecure when it comes to funding. And we have a lot of departments here in the city that rely on federal grant funding. I was wondering if you knew of any federal grants that you guys rely on, and if that is... I do a grant right now.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I'll be quick. That was very efficient. President Bears asked the first part of my question. I know a lot of residents are very excited about the construction projects, water and streets and sidewalks. So I just wanted to know where we are when it comes to capital needs and where we see ourselves on that timeline. So that was helpful. My second question is about, you mentioned that there are open positions. And that's going to be important to fill. How competitive do you think we are? Do you think there are problems with recruitment? Do you think that we need more money in the budget eventually for those positions?
[Justin Tseng]: you Okay, I told her that she emailed me and then I called her. I was like, she asked me if we could do something else. She was like, never mind. And you put me on the agenda. So I was like, yeah, sure.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. I'll be very brief, briefer than I was planning on, because I'm the, you know, our students have been waiting for a while to perform for us and the music will speak for them for itself. Art is such a vital part of who we are as a Medford community. It was a vital part of my childhood growing up and being part of the high school orchestra was a foundational memory of my high school experience. I know that these kids have worked so hard and they deserve this gold medal so much. And I'm just so happy that we're able to hear from them today. Before I turn it over to them, I should also note that the school committee will be honoring the middle school string ensemble at their June 9th meeting as well. So they'll get their accommodations there. With all that being said, I'll hand it over to the orchestra.
[Justin Tseng]: Thanks. Thank you, President Bears. We on the city council have prepared certificates, commendations for you guys. I will read out everyone's names and we'll hand them out to you guys after. But yeah, thank you for that wonderful playing. I know all of us are very moved here on the city council when we get the honor of having you here. So from violin one, And in our high school string orchestra, we have Lincoln Bell, Justin Cho, Maggie Fowler, Samuel Keith, Mary Schmidt. In violin two, we have Nikki Chow, Safran Jacobs, Eliana Lam, Kyle Tam, Vasiramirez Alvarez, Jayden Ville. In violin, or viola, we have Mai Hughes, Leanne Lam, William Malone, in Kiana Tran. And in cello, we have the Maya Aman, Owen Barzak-Kroll, Kira Huynh, Wesley Kwong, Karina Lewis, Caleb Strauss, Christina Joselagi, Jaden Wu. And in double bass, we have Kelvin Lee and August Velasco. Thank you all for your beautiful playing. Thank you all for your hard work for our city, for making us so proud of you. And congratulations on this huge award. Please come up and receive your awards and we'll get a picture of everyone together too. Yeah, feel free to fill in the middle space.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I wanted to thank Councilor Leming for putting this on the agenda and to thank him for his really meaningful words yesterday. It's important that our residents see ourselves reflected in the things that we celebrate as a city and the things that we recognize as a city. So many Medford residents have given their lives and, you know, even put their lives on the line for our country, for the ideals that we hold together, for freedom, for justice for all. for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and these really, I think, unifying values that, as a country, I think we need to take a deep look at and embrace. And as our veteran service director said yesterday in her wonderful remarks at the ceremony too, it's time to remember those who gave their life for their conscience, for serving a country with those ideals. And I found that very meaningful. So I wanted to thank, again, thank you, Councilor Leming for putting this on the agenda and thank our Veteran Services Department for all they do day in, day out for residents.
[Justin Tseng]: Great, thank you. Councilor Tseng. Thank you, Madam Mayor for coming and presenting this budget and being so thorough in your comments. I appreciate that crafting a budget is always tough. It requires making tough choices and saying yes and no to certain projects. I'm grateful, especially to the voters, but I'm grateful in general that this year we're in a better position than the previous years, certainly much smoother this year in my memory compared to previous years. And You know, I appreciate that we're truly making some historical, historic progress, especially in the schools, but, but, including investments in DPW and recovering what we've lost over, you know, decades of austerity. and making progress on that. Now, there's still a long way to go, and I think residents recognize that as well. We, as a city council, through the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, put out a public feedback form with regards to what people were looking for from this budget. And through just the whole budget crafting process, we've received a lot of feedback. A lot of it is about infrastructure. and about improving roads, improving road safety for cyclists and pedestrians as well. And I think that's why in our city council budget recommendations, we included funding or requests for funding for an additional traffic engineer, for staff positions, for restriping, adjusting signal timing, patching potholes, and shrinking the repair backlog and also just more money to install and maintain road safety markings, signage and bike related equipment. I was wondering what progress we can expect to make this year with regards to those like infrastructure and traffic safety improvements, what we might not be able to get this year and how we can plan the budget for that going forward.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Obviously I think infrastructure is always an ongoing conversation so anything that you know what what goes through my mind is how can we plan long term to get those positions that we need and. Commissioner McIvern was here earlier today talking about how there's still positions in DPW, we need to fill. So I think a priority for this council now and going forward, especially, is about how can we make, how can we fill those positions, because it's so important to get the, you know, people in the office. I don't want to steal the thunder from Councilor Callaghan. I know she's been working on a volunteer tree planting program as well. And I was wondering what capacity we might have in this budget to get that off the ground.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, we also talked at our first committee the whole meeting about updating our financial software because we don't necessarily, the system that Medford uses is really archaic and it's, it's hard for people coming, you know, coming to Medford to work to use the system. It's also slowing down, you know, payments to workers and especially when we do retro, and that, you know, affects morale as well. I was wondering what we might be able to see in the upcoming year about getting us to a place where we maybe look at new options for software. I know Director Dickinson's kind of looked at options, it's a little pricey, but what can we expect in terms of long-term planning for something like that?
[Justin Tseng]: Got it. That's a helpful answer. I think residents have also been asking about, protections for immigrants, especially at this time. And we have our non cooperation policy. But in we you know, I know, members of city staff are making various efforts to protect residents and inform you know, residents of what they're able to do. I was wondering what you could speak to in this budget about about protecting our immigrant neighbors?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. And my last question, I promise. You mentioned the Hegner Centre for after school childcare, obviously a very important issue in our community, a really difficult one too, because it's not just about spending money, it's also about getting space and sorting out all the details. I was wondering, after the Hegner Centre, what can we do? Because as helpful as that's going to be, it won't solve all the childcare problems? Sure. And it's a regional problem as well. But I was wondering after that, what next steps are there as a city? What groundwork is being laid?
[Justin Tseng]: Awesome. That'd be super helpful. Thank you for your time. Thank you for the council for entertaining my questions.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Councilor Callahan.
[Justin Tseng]: Thanks. Um, I, in talking to you know some contractors in the city they're very, they do actually note that if their paperwork is in line, Medford's actually quite a good city to do business in. So props to your department, to your staff, to you for that. I think that leads, that connects really well to what you just said. I do have a question for you about, you noted that there's some applications where maybe they haven't really done their homework, they have to go to the ZBA first. which, you know, protracts the process. Do you notice any patterns in terms of what kinds of things, like mistakes are being made? What kinds of variances that people are seeking? Like, is there anything in that, you know,
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you for such a comprehensive answer. I think it helps us, um, understand, um, I think a priority for me, at least, and I think for a lot of Councilors here is to make doing this stuff in Medford easier within reasonable limits, right? But to make sure that we're revisiting how we do things and make sure that the kind of steps that we're putting in make sense and that we can make things easier for people to come in and try to do business here in Medford. So that gives us a lot of fodder to work with. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: I would ask you to put Barbara Kerr first. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Exactly.
[Justin Tseng]: I mean, you know, money isn't everything, Bob. Well, maybe it is, but... Councilor Tseng. Director Kerr, I just wanted to thank you for all of your hard work and dedication to making our library run and tick every single day. I know Lots of parents using the library here. I'm using it as a young adult here. And it truly is a gem in Medford Square. It's something that a lot of out-of-town residents come to me and say, oh, did you guys know about your library? I'm like, of course I know. I know about the library. And I think there's a lot to be said. Because even though we got this brand new library, I remember how much work you put in to meet with us. I remember meetings with me and Zach in previous years, really making sure that we're not just level funding the library and really trying to improve funding for the library. And I know as we talked about with hourly wages and stuff like that, there's still ways to go. But I wanted to thank you for your hard fought advocacy for the library to get into a good position. And for you to know that we will always have your back on the side of the rail as well. And be it planning for the future with increasing pay. I know a lot of residents are clamoring about trying to get extra service on Sundays, which I know you've talked to us about, which you can feel free to address people watching at home if you want to about that point. We've traditionally had a tight budget. We still have, you know, some of that tightness this year. But, you know, I think a lot of the work has to be done planning long term into the future. And I think you're helping a lot with setting that groundwork. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: So we met on three items. One will appear later on tonight's agenda. 24069, I believe, is the updated HRC ordinance. We voted out a final draft for this meeting for first reading. 24354, I believe, is sending out the most recent monthly newsletter. and 25041 I believe is on the public engagement strategy for the budget process. We sent out a Google survey for residents to be able to give their input to us about what they'd like to see in the city, this budget season, what they want to see long-term and how we can best engage them as well. I encourage all residents at home to to fill out that form, and you can contact us if you have any trouble accessing it. We discussed preliminarily the results that we found. At the time of the meeting, we had about 92 results. We've since gotten 10 to 15 more, and we will continue outreach.
[Justin Tseng]: At a moment where I think a lot of residents are scared, concerned, afraid about their human rights, civil rights of their own and their neighbors, I think it becomes incumbent upon us as elected officials to do the most that we can to safeguard those rights here in our community. I think the city council has repeatedly shown over the last, especially over the last few months, but in the last few years too, that we stand on the side of human rights. And we stand on the side of our city being more proactive in reaching out to residents to let them know about their rights, proactive about solving inequalities and disparities in our community, and to do better in general. This effort, this particular effort, came about over a year ago, if not two years ago, with members, former members of the Human Rights Commission who, you know, reached out to me and let me know how the existing ordinance, the one that we have right now, is quite outdated. and has led to a lot of problems where the HRC can't do what HRCs normally do in surrounding communities as well. And a lot of these are basic functions that we really think that we would conceive of a human rights commission doing, like hosting events and letting residents know about their rights, stuff like that. And as well as creating recommendations and studying data that we collect in the city. In this day and age, I think it becomes important for us to act on that and fix those problems that we've seen in that old ordinance. And I'm so grateful to the hard work of a lot of our residents, a few of whom are here in the audience tonight, but I know a lot of folks at home are also watching this meeting. who, and, you know, this group of residents came together and we all worked together on a draft ordinance to update the HRC to make it fit for modern times. And I'm, you know, so thankful and grateful for their hard work because I know it was the labor of love. We've been spending a lot of time on this over the last few months, reaching out to our DEI director, to the mayoral administration, to different stakeholders, making sure that we have something that is ambitious and actionable. So that's what I want to say about this. In essence, this ordinance update reestablishes the Human Rights Commission and re-empowers it to do even more and to be even more proactive in serving our city. I know a lot of people who are even currently on the HRC have been pushing for this because the HRC is currently pretty defunct. And so I'm excited for the city council to finally be voting on this tonight. There are some small technical amendments for the most part that I would make a motion to adopt. And Mr. Clerk, I'll send these to you via email as well. But in section 50-62, because we changed the committee composition for the kind of the staggered terms at the very start, we just need to fix the language there. So instead of a third of members shall serve for one year term, a third, a third, I would amend that to read two members shall serve for one year term. Three members shall serve for two year term and three members shall serve for three year term. So that's the first amendment. The second amendment would be to strike the words administration in the public school system after the word city in section 50-66 in subsection B. And that would be in section 55-66. And then the third edit would be also in section 50-66 to strike subsection D2 and to renumber the subsections. That last edit is a little bit more substantive it's still mostly technical, that was upon request of the school committee who said that the DESE reporting isn't necessarily a complete picture of what we have at the schools. And so we shouldn't put it in the ordinance. So D2? D2, yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, in B1, just to strike the words administration and public school system, just to leave that.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: I think my math is off. Sorry. I meant to say 344. All right.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm glad that I can always count on Councilor Bears to check my math one more time.
[Justin Tseng]: We had quite a lot, few, we had five at least, five meetings on this, five or six.
[Justin Tseng]: Thanks. Thank you. Great. I recognize Councilor Tseng. I appreciate the compliment. Through the Chair, I think that's an excellent question. So essentially the data that is listed out here are things that we know slash historically know the City has collected. A lot of the data is honestly one of the problems with these types of issues in municipal governance is that we don't have a lot of the data we really should be having, which is why there's a whole section on requesting that the city council and the city administration collect data. Of course, I think it's just we could create a whole list. And we just wanted something from different, you know, we wanted examples of data points that each department could collect or relevant departments could collect. Police stops is the main thing that we know at least, we know that the MPD does collect and that we have used in the past to analyze disparities. I do hear your point, which is why in front of every list, we've made sure to add that these data points are minimum requirements, or at minimum, the HRC can request x, y, z. Or at minimum, departments should collect x, y, z and report x, y, z. So all that's to say that the lists that we're referring to right now, they're not exhaustive. They're just a starting point for the HRC to be able to work on in the future. I think there is also a lot of worry. There would be a lot of worry from the administration, at least from an executive viewpoint, of an ordinance asking them to collect data that isn't currently being collected. I think that would create some consternation in the corner office, which is why part of the negotiating process was to have data that or to have these categories that we thought were implementable. I also know that a lot of this comes from the basis of this version of the HRC ordinance is kind of like a collection of different HRC ordinances from different municipalities as well. So a lot of this is based on what other municipalities HRCs are collecting and reporting on. That was the long answer. I think the short answer, the short answer is this isn't an exhaustive list. The HRC can request that. That's more data from the police department. That's within their powers here. And we just kind of put into the ordinance data that we know the city is slash has historically collected.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, there there's a lot so I'll take it one by one on the, the, the data from police department see authorities. I would support inserting a sentence in there to request timely information. I think the reason why we didn't is because there's not a neat place to put it, where some of the data that's under requests is more about requests rather than it is more about data that we might not currently have mixed in with data that we know we have. So it'd be good as well. So I think that's a good catch. Thank you. I will say that I'll have to, you know, the mayor's office will also have to sign off on this ordinance as well. So I would suggest reaching out to her office because her office is the one that will execute this ordinance. On the second resident's concerns about the city staff person slash liaison situation, this is something we talked about in committee as well. So essentially in committee, we discussed how currently there is no assigned city staff person to the HRC. Historically, it's been the DAI director, but the DAI director has said that she won't. be the liaison to the HRC. And so then it becomes, you know, it falls upon the mayor to decide who else will do it. That's something I'm working with the mayor on currently. And with the kind of people that we the city staff that we have traditionally kind of thought of to be well suited for this role. No one has, you know, no one has offered. And no one has said yes to it, which is why I'm part of. through conversations with the mayor's office and with the DEI office, we put in the words or city council liaison were relevant to give us the most flexibility to make sure that we can at the very least get this off the ground. And maybe once it's off the ground and up and running, we can get a city staff person to do that. I suspect this is also something that the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee is gonna keep working on in the future as well, to make sure that we do have an assigned city staff person. But I would say that we shouldn't strike the words that were suggested, that was suggested to be struck, just in order to make sure that we give ourselves the most flexibility going forward with getting this new HRC up and off the ground. With regards to the Section 50-62B, I believe that most of us can agree that the role of a Human Rights Commission necessitates diversity on that commission, or that we have that flexibility to make sure that we have you know, the best qualified residents joining, but in this case, qualification includes life experience and diversity as well. I think we've seen in the past, especially with HRCs, but board and commissions in general, they don't always reflect the makeup of the city. And so this ensures the best outcome that we can get. And, you know, with regards to the policy advocacy work, the research and reporting that the HRC does, I believe that inherently human rights includes questions of morality, and that's something for a representative body of our city to get together and discuss. something that we did actually make sure that was in this ordinance was that the HRC statements will be in the name of the HRC. But you know, this is also a public forum for just like City Council is, although I'm sure with different rules, is a public forum for residents to talk about what what we see as human rights. But the fact is that so many of the human rights and civil rights that are under attack in our country right now are things that I would believe that at least 90% of the city believes in. And so I don't see that language affecting that work.
[Justin Tseng]: I can read it out. Sure. So at the end of the blurb in 66D, I would insert the words, the following list shall not be exhaustive and all requested information from the city shall be provided in a timely manner.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, no, I, that would not be correct. Because, um, it's this is the kind of similar language as in other commission ordinances where, um, you know, she's asked, like, With the current HRC, for example, it's the same language. She's asked the DI director.
[Justin Tseng]: They would not be obligated. And I suspect this is something that the city council could also vote on, although that's not a must.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, yes, exactly, exactly. Yeah, and that was a suggested language from the mayor's office. Okay.
[Justin Tseng]: Seeing none... There is one technical edit that I forgot to mention when I was reading out the amendments. It was just cut off. I would add our standard severability language at the end of this ordinance. Okay. the standard language our city uses is the provisions in this ordinance are severable if any part or provision of this ordinance or the application of this ordinance to any person or circumstance is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such holding and shall continue to have full force in effect. That was in an earlier draft and I just forgot to copy and paste it into this one. That would just be its own section then.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Thank you. I know you all have been working really, really hard on this. I've been hearing updates here and there, and every time I hear an update, it's even more exciting. And I've just gotten so many positive comments about this happening in the city, and people are really excited. I mean, even if people have questions about parts of it, I think overall, there's just this enthusiasm. I think I want to remind everyone, I mentioned this a few meetings ago, but the first time it was knocking on doors, Medford Square came up alive. And I think at the time people asked us, or asked me at least, when are we going to stop planning and when are we going to start doing? And I think this is us doing, and I'm really, really excited about that. And I think a key point is, I think with any big redevelopment project like this, you're never going to get 100% of what everyone envisions Medford Square to be, because we all have different visions and different needs and priorities too. But I actually think that the transit proposal reaches really high marks on what people who have very different lived experiences are asking of Medford Square. I think that's really impressive. You know, I think you've addressed a lot of what I've heard most tonight. I think I'm hearing a lot from seniors about parking, hearing, and I'm glad to hear that, you know, we're getting that parking lot and that it's not just gonna be any parking lot, that it'll be a parking lot that the city has some say over, that they'll be public art integrated to. Vic Schrader joked to me, because there are residents who are concerned about increasing parking too. And Big Freighter joked to me that with Alicia Hunt leading the charge, we're going to get the most environmentally friendly, most artistic, beautiful parking lot we can get.
[Justin Tseng]: And if the renderings are anything to go by, I think we're definitely heading in that direction. So I am grateful for that. very funny comment from him. With the riverside, I think that's the riverfront opening up that capacity. I think that's something I hear just as much, to be honest. I know it's really important to let folks at home know that, you know, the City of Medford is not in itself a private property developer, so we can't build the buildings the way that we want to see it, but we can work with developers and work with property owners to nudge them in the direction that we want to see, to work with them to make sure that, you know, their vision is aligning with what our vision is. And I'm grateful that you guys are doing so much of that hard work reaching out to, I guess, to that point. I think it was really important for residents to hear tonight that we are working really hard to try to reorient the square towards our natural features, towards our strengths. I think it's also important to hear the timelines and the permitting processes that go behind a lot of these. It sounds like most of these permitting steps are state law requirements. Is there anything besides what's in the current zoning update on our front that is adding to that timeline delay?
[Justin Tseng]: I'm glad to hear that I think it's really important that folks at home know that, at least on our side, we are really coordinating all our efforts, the zoning effort. the Medford square projects to make sure that things can happen as quickly as possible on our side, and you know the state permits that's that's a whole other world chapter 91 that's a whole other world. I think you've also addressed. I've also been hearing quite a lot about banks and, you know, businesses that, at least in our last report were like labeled as, you know, we have a lot of these, we don't need that many more, you know. I think a question that residents have brought up. is that instead of why why why not instead of banning it outright because we know we still want these businesses here. Why shouldn't be in zoning put something like a special special permit process for businesses that we see a lot of and.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much. I think, again, if there's anything that we can help with, you know, this, for at least the City Council, I know the City Council is very supportive and, you know, we'll have questions.
[Justin Tseng]: Look, I mean, I think any time that we can get together and talk about these issues, I know residents really do appreciate it. You know, even if we're asking questions that are just clarifying points that we know a little bit about, I think it becomes a great moment for our city to get that information.
[Justin Tseng]: Awesome. Thank you so much.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. My fellow councillors stole all my questions about the BWCs. Can I, ask while we have you guys here, I know residents have been reaching out to us about the police department's policy with Immigration Customs Enforcement vis-a-vis the non-cooperation policy that we have in place. I was wondering if you could speak to reports of the FBI trucks that were in the police department's parking lot, as well as FBI agents walking through the offices and public spaces of the police building itself.
[Justin Tseng]: I think I understand it's like a it's a tight, tough tightrope to walk with regards to, you know, deep deep between different levels. I think what the Council was what you know the Council was reminded of and what we've, we want to emphasize to is that in the welcoming city ordinance, there is language in there about not using, not giving police spaces over, public space, or city spaces over to, for use in, you know, operations like that. So I think just, just that was flagged to us, for us to flag as well. And yeah, I mean, I think the question is, why were agents, why did it seem like agents were in the buildings, especially in private parts of the buildings that needed to, they needed to be scanned in? I think that was a
[Justin Tseng]: I was there. So I saw an agent walk through the first floor, including through the kind of doors that you have to tap. You have to have a badge to slip into. When was this? This was, I went early yesterday, 10-ish. It was in the morning yesterday.
[Justin Tseng]: It was someone in that FBI year, so it wasn't someone in ICE gear. And I didn't know if those two things were completely linked with each other, so I flagged it to Councilor Bears, who flagged it to you and the Mayor. I think the other kind of question that Councilors had at the time was if we have a kind of system built into place where at least we might know about these things happening when you As the police department find them out as well. I was wondering if it would be possible for you to notify the mayor's office city councilors department heads when you know you get a notification that they might be in the city.
[Justin Tseng]: I mean, I think sending out know your rights information I think would be helpful.
[Justin Tseng]: I mean, I think, yeah, I mean, this is the conversation. This is why we're asking the question. So we can have this conversation. So members of the public can know what's going through all of our heads. Yep.
[Justin Tseng]: And I do want to clarify that the non-cooperation policy law ordinance is just for civil cases and not criminal as well. I think that's for the public to know that.
[Justin Tseng]: And I don't think that's what the ordinance would say, but yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: I mean, these are very tough questions. We get tough questions ourselves. So I think in these situations, best for us to get a bit of transparency, just for us to know where you guys are coming from. For us to flag things that residents are using as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, I believe so. Yeah, I believe, at least the people, I mean, I think everyone was either in MPD year, and I think the MPD folks were just doing their regular jobs. I didn't see them, you know, interact with or talk to the FBI agents. And then I saw a bunch of FBI agents in the lot, because we were trying to park there to get the, I was there to get a police report. And then while I was in the hall in the lobby, getting the police report, I saw someone walk through. and exit from the front, but they looked like they were walking from the back. And I just don't know the layout of the first floor well enough, but it seemed like they were walking through a place I hadn't been to before.
[Justin Tseng]: Of course, and that's why, you know, just wanted to flag this and say, I, the reason why I didn't make a big fuss about this was because I didn't know if this was like, you know, another routine kind of cooperation. I just wanted to flag.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, sorry. The mic is not powered on.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, so, um, The HRC update ordinance, just to reorient everyone, this is meant to expand and empower the Human Rights Commission in Medford to do more work as an advisory body in our city. I think we see the need for it so much with what's going on in the world around us. and especially in the pressure that municipal and state governments are facing to disinvest from diversity, from equity and inclusive initiatives. And so, you know, having a resident-led body like this, I think, is something that is paramount. Now, what I've done over the last month is I've talked with the mayor about some recommendations or feedback that she had for this ordinance draft. And then I also liaised with community members who have been former HRC members and community leaders who have been working on this draft with me together. So in an email, I had a clerk heard a piece forward earlier today. I attached the document which has the mayor's feedback. And I think what my goal would be for this meeting is to walk through the feedback. Point by point, I highlighted everything that would be a change. And then I think we should just talk about it as a committee and then either vote to accept or not make a change. So, pulling up that document, the first question that came up was the size of the Human Rights Commission, the proposed size. So the original draft of the ordinance said a minimum of nine and up to 15. And the mayor's kind of feedback here was that she thought that it would be hard to keep track of variable numbers. And so she would want us to adopt a solid, a clear number here. And her recommendation was nine. She felt that nine was plenty and a lot of, would be a lot of people. A lot of the community members I've been talking to are a little concerned that nine is a lower number. then, you know, especially when the HRC has so many different topics and realms to cover. And so they would prefer to see a larger number in terms of just to get more life experience. And so The question is what number do we go with? There's one path that is keeping the kind of multiples of three because we have mayor, council and HRC appointments. Right now it's like spread a third, a third, a third. So I think we should discuss if we think nine is appropriate number, 12, 15. The drawback behind 12 is that it's an even number, but I think some community members have also said that in that case, if it's a 6-6 vote, then naturally the resolution shouldn't pass and that such votes would be pretty rare. The kind of drawback with 15 is that I think there is more consensus that it feels like a very large number. And so that's kind of the back and forth with it. There's been some kind of suggestions, maybe we don't split appointments a third, a third, a third, maybe do three from the council, three from the mayor, and then four from the HRC's kind of like appointment list. So appointing from other city commissions and like nonprofit groups. But I wanted to open the floor to councillors to see what people thought.
[Justin Tseng]: I think there's a diversity of views, to be honest about this. I've heard community members say that Some members think that we really could fill 15. Some are a little bit more skeptical. The administration's kind of views that 15 would be hard to fill, but nine wouldn't. They think that we could get to nine, maybe 12, but they're a little hesitant to say that we would be able to fill 15. And yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: I think my personal reaction to that would be that I think there might be some pushback from community members that we would give kind of the appointment list, like a smaller slot because like there's so much to possibly a point from, for example, like the Medford Housing Authority and the why and just like the different commissions that we have, like Council on Aging, Disabilities and stuff like that. I think there's such a list out there of potential voices to be included. 335 then maybe? Honestly, I'm open to possibilities and we should hear from the public if there are members who have thoughts about it too.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, Cambridge is 11, by the way.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think I'd be open to opting for 335. I think my only concern about it is the idea that an ultimately unlocked body is doing a lot of the appointments. It's still not over half. And I think that could be a question with the mayor's office. I mean, I would be open to it. But I do think it's a logical solution. Like I think if we actually think about it from a policy standpoint, it makes a lot of sense. I think 444 also makes a lot of sense. And if we're very worried about a tie break, we can ask the, we can make it so that the ex-officio member, like the staff liaison or the community city council liaison has a vote to break ties. But it's not necessarily my preferred outcome. I think 12 would be fine. But, um, yeah, I don't know what you think trail living or, I guess.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, so essentially the the groups that essentially reading through the point A under membership. The second half of that is basically saying that the MHRC will appoint a resident from the Medford Housing Authority, and then it should appoint the rest of the members. from or from, from like city commissions, community based organizations, or upon recommendations of those organizations. So essentially, it's, you know, a broad definition, it's meant to capture, for example, when the city council maybe creates another ordinance, like establishing like a gender equity commission, or youth commission or something like that. Allowing flexibility there. Well, okay, okay. But it's not a list. It's not it's not a list of these are the organizations that the MHRC has to appoint from. it's saying that these are the types of organizations that they have to like appoint from. Sure.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng I think, um I think Councilors have articulated maybe wanting to defer to, um, former members that they trust you. So I think 335 is something that we should I would move to adopt. Um I would motion to adopt language to create, um, through 335 model where three members are appointed by the mayor, three are appointed by the city council, and then five are appointed by the city members of the HRC. And then if it becomes an issue with the mayor's administration, we can revisit it in a regular meeting or something.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm going to recognize Councilor Tseng, um, before I quickly move on to the next point of feedback. I something I had talked with community members about we settled on where we are now, but we do create a different standard for the Medford Housing Authority by saying the HRC will appoint a member of the Medford Housing Authority. I just wanted to see if councillors were comfortable with that or if we should just make it a recommended body. Okay, great. Moving on to the next kind of sticking point. This is maybe the biggest sticking point with the mayor's office. The mayor has urged us to not give members of the HRC stipends. The reasoning seems complex. I don't completely understand why to be frank with everyone. I think part of it, at least way back when, when I was talking to Francis, is that people kind of want to wait until the classification compensation study comes out and to kind of find a fairer amount for all boards and commissions, because some are paid, some are not paid. There's a kind of, I think there's a slight worry about that difference there, but the city council's policy, at least up until now, has been to put in stipends as we revise ordinances and to find a fair level given the work that they're doing and what paid commissions are currently paying. And what I find here that this seems, this is reasonable to me. I think there's a secondary concern as well that the mayor did actually raise that about budgeting and about worries that this would create a kind of big budget impact, but I kind of think those worries are a little unfounded, given the size of this commission and how, you know, how much the commission would be budgeted, at least in the first kind of first bit of time. In talking to community members, I've kind of, I think everyone is I think people are pretty unanimously supporting the idea of putting stipends in. I think there's a question of, do we not specify how much and then create like an empty budget line item for the mayor to fill in later? Do we lower this amount to maybe $1,000 instead of 1,250, or do we just keep it the same? I think I personally would rather us just keep it the same. I think lowering it to 1,000 maybe could be an option. I think creating the kind of empty budget item thing is a little bit too unstable. But I wanted to hear from Councilors. Councilor Callahan.
[Justin Tseng]: So currently the way that the budget for the commission works is it goes through the DEI office. So Francis's salary is essentially, and Francis's office costs is essentially their budget. And this was a little bit of a kind of a sticking point as well, at least when the HRC was trying to do events and had to get approval from the DEI office for every single event. And I think a very concrete example of that was the Royal House invited the HRC to co-sponsor an event, and they were told no. They were rejected, and the DEI office did not give them funds to help co-sponsor the event, which was an event that I believe they had co-sponsored the year previous to that. So I think that's why there's a big push behind creating a budget item and at least stipends for HRC members.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm happy to move on to the next point. So the mayor also requested the ability to remove her own appointees. And so I drafted some language allowing for that. And I think if we choose to do that, it would only make sense for city council to be able to remove their own too. This has kind of become a very big point of discussion. I think the argument for adopting the mayor's amendment is, at least from her side, she just wants to be able to hold her own appointees accountable if they say something wildly off. off-color or do something that is wildly off-base. And she would want the ability to remove her own appointments and essentially use that in the backup in case the rest of HRC is unwilling to vote that person off. The kind of pushback against that is that I worry that this would endanger the political independence of the HRC, because then the question is, what does forecast mean? So how high of a bar is forecast for removal? So if the kind of, if her appointee to the HRC says something about a human rights crisis that is very different from what the mayor's views are, is that then a problem, right? And I think my understanding of for-cause, I think it would depend on the degree of what that statement would be. And I think for the most part, it would be protected, but I can see the worry.
[Justin Tseng]: The clerk might be able to help me refresh my memory on this. I think the mayor usually has power to remove her appointees.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, I don't think it would be that different from for cause make a difference.
[Justin Tseng]: I think your assessment of the situation is how I kind of remember it as well. Like usually, interestingly enough, huge constitutional question that like, what is very relevant? Um, because it's, you know, or what is cause, but also like, what is removal? Like what is appointment and removal? Cause like, does the power to appoint also include the power to remove? huge constitutional question. Lawyers have been going at it for 150 years. The answer seems to be yes. So, yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: I can also quickly look at the case law right now. We can move on to the next point and then come back.
[Justin Tseng]: The other ones are smaller. So, for example, the next one, the next changes in officers in point a just clarifying like. when the elections of officers happen, so annually at the start of a new term.
[Justin Tseng]: I would be open to that. I did actually think about that before this meeting. I think an alternative path is to say that policy differences or disagreements do not constitute good cause. I mean, I think that would be awesome. It's difficult. I did actually look at the case law. The case law is that a good cause is broad. It's anything that's not arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of the person's duties or discretion. Um, but it also depends on the context of the, um, the context of the, the thing itself. So, um, like it would in this context depend on like hinge on the fact that this is an HRC ordinance. So if, if the kind of argument is, I think the argument is that, you know, like supporting Palestine is supporting human rights, then there's a case there to be had. Um, I, to be quite honest, I think no matter what we do, it will always be gray. I think even if we don't have something like that, I think then the gray area kind of shifts to whether the mayor has the power to remove in the first place. I think it's safer not to make the amendment.
[Justin Tseng]: Is that a motion?
[Justin Tseng]: Okay, so, um, I went through the clerk more clerical thing and a under officers and see under officers, basically just wherever it says assigned to the staff person that Mary suggested adding City Council liaison because right now, she can't find a city staff person to liaise with HRC, the director does not wish to continue the job so this is just to give us more flexibility in case. You know, we do need someone to do it. Maybe one of us from the city council does it in the meantime. Okay, the next thing is under independence resources and council. This is on the third page.
[Justin Tseng]: And then the blue is new edits. So essentially last time we talked about access to council, the mayor was okay with letting them have some independence with regards to accessing council, but as long as it's done through the liaison. So letting the liaison kind of make that final call. But I think she's okay with that. The next substantive change is in D of that section, basically saying that, so instead of the HRC itself submitting the proposed budget to the mayor, having the liaison do it, just to kind of make it the same as other commissions and other departments, it's more of a procedural thing, and it would still be upon the recommendation of HRC. And then the last, okay, there are two more kind of sticking points. The kind of the second to last one is the mayor feels that the HRC should not be able to speak on behalf of the city when it comes to state or federal legislation or state or federal international matters. she's okay if she thinks it's okay if the HRC sends a resolution for us to pass or for her office to sign. And so she's very happy to do it that way. But she's afraid that an unelected body would be making a policy statement on behalf of the city then that then the mayor and the city council would have to kind of kind of simmer down, she's kind of worried that that would impact relationships on Beacon Hill too. And then the last kind of sticking point, oh, and obviously the kind of pushback against that is whether that kind of limits the powers of the HRC from something, especially from something that they currently have, the power that they have. And the last kind of feedback point is just, The original last sentence read that the HRC would evaluate allegations of discrimination and then refer them to NCAT and the AG's office or other appropriate bodies. think the mayor's fear is that that reads a little too legal, like giving them a role in the legal process of like adjudicating disputes and determining which disputes are valid or not. She's not necessarily against them having a certain power like that, but she just doesn't want to create a very explicitly legal role for them. And so she would prefer the broader language that I have put in that document saying that the HRC can review as discretion discrimination allegations brought to its attention and consult with council to review. Great.
[Justin Tseng]: Well, right now it's a question mark, because technically the HRC, I think it really depends on how you read the HRC ordinance right now. If you read it super strictly, they don't have any, they wouldn't have any of these powers, period. If you read it broader, then they do have quite flexible powers with regards to this.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, to basically pass a resolution saying if the state house is debating a housing stability law and saying the HRC maybe would want to pass a resolution saying we support this bill.
[Justin Tseng]: she's worried that they would pass a statement saying the city of Medford supports it.
[Justin Tseng]: That's not what it says here. So what the mayor's draft says is that they can't say anything with regards to state or federal bills or things that are happening on those levels, but they can send us a resolution for us to pass.
[Justin Tseng]: I would agree. And I think the best solution is maybe just I honestly this this the idea of submitting resolutions I think is a good idea. I think it should be additive in in addition to what was there before of saying like that broader power. And then the broader power, we can just say that we can create like a stipulation that they speak on behalf of the Medford Human Rights Commission, and not like the city of Medford. But that's Yeah, that's my view on it. Council is our
[Justin Tseng]: I think then in that case with this section, my strike the words after improve social equity and then maybe insert the words on behalf of the MHRC or in the name of the MHRC. Um, and yeah, okay. The, I did forget one edit. It's like also a kind of, uh, clerical edit, um, under roles, powers, duties under B and then three at the end of B3 about like employment diversity. Um, the mayor just wants us to put in the words based on data that's collected, like data collected just to clarify.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I'll be briefer about this because I did share the results of the survey with everyone on this committee through the clerk. We got 92 responses, which is a good number. It predictably skews a little bit above the median age of the city, a little bit higher income, but neighborhood-wise, it's pretty balanced. And it does skew towards those without children at home, compared to the census data, if I remember correctly. But with those factors in mind, we do hear quite a lot about a lot of core issues. education and streets being schools and streets being the top two issues that we see kind of throughout the whole the survey, but there is quite a lot of helpful information here, a lot of new ideas about how to leverage state laws, a few kind of worries about shortfalls from federal funding, ideas about climate resilience, about safer streets after school, which is I know an issue we all hear quite a lot about. kind of social programs, family supports, green spaces. So I encourage Councilors to just read through this on their own time as well. With regards to longer term needs, there's a lot of talk about longer term plans for infrastructure, roads, and also a new high school. kind of focus on, there's this focus on how like investing in health and human kind of impact things, climate change, accessibility issues, like especially with regards to language services, immigrant services, stuff like that. And of course, afterschool care, again, In the kind of like first page, which is the meat of the results, I think those are the results that are most helpful for Councilors to kind of just digest individually as well, instead of me giving a summary, because I don't want to treat this like a poll. We did hear that residents are there, there are a good number of residents who are reading the city's newsletter, obviously, those who got this survey are definitely going to be very skewed in favor of that. But to see that over 50 people are reading the newsletter is very helpful to know. And I think all in all, when it comes to participation and updates, like ways to give, to kind of do participation, there's, besides social media and the newsletter, there's kind of an even spread. There's a less preference for attending listening sessions or getting robocalls about the budget. But when it comes to like a town hall with the budget, people are interested in doing a specific town hall with regards to the budget. So I guess, in general, when it comes to general updates, people, the listening sessions, robo-call thing doesn't work as much, or at least with the people that did respond. But with regards to getting people to engage in the process and give feedback, they would like those options open to showing up. There's, there's a lot of great questions that people have in the kind of in that very last section there 28 responses for it. There are some suggestions for, you know, future surveys how to format them. I think some folks have suggested an increase-decrease metric. There's some just general feedback with regards to when in the process we do this survey and how people get information. But yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: So we did put a deadline on the survey or a soft deadline on the survey of this meeting. saying that we were going to be reviewing responses at this meeting. I think my hope is that we continue to keep this forum open and share this link with councillors to so people can see new responses that come in. We all have the kind of spreadsheet here. I would want this just to protect the privacy of those who did answer would want this to be relatively, you know, under control. But I think if we can do more work to engage folks that aren't very much represented or heard in this survey, that'd be good. So I know Councilor Callaghan has helped blast this across tons of different channels. I think we saw better results with that as well. So I think more outreach when it comes to like renters when it comes to lower income folks, people of color, organizations of color, maybe doing more kind of like bringing printed copies to community centers and libraries, too, would be helpful.
[Justin Tseng]: I don't know if there are any initial reactions from Councilors reading through the reading through this, the results, but Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: No, I don't think so. I think the survey is really just an open feedback form. So I don't think it defeats the purpose at all. And yeah, I guess I might add, I might suggest we add to the motion that I share access with everyone on the council, because right now I have it with members of this committee, but I know the budget discussions are committed to the whole. So just to get other councillors to have access to this data as well. And then in the meantime, maybe I could try to put together a summary of what we see here in some kind of like representative responses.
[Justin Tseng]: No, so this was not, well actually I don't, I know I posted to my personal Facebook, but I don't know if it was shared across Facebook groups.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think this is kind of difficult to just like sit down here and say, you know what people responded. I think it makes sense for people to percolate on it.
[Justin Tseng]: And I guess we could give myself the option of preparing a summary for councillors.
[Justin Tseng]: For people who missed my comment, I said I do like to eat chicken. I do wanna echo the sentiments of Councilor Lazzaro and Councilor Leming in thanking you for all the work that you've done with the City Council this year, this past year. Councilor Lazzaro really rattled off a long list and that's testament to our cooperation. I just had a few kind of shorter questions. I think a lot of similar questions have been asked. When we talk about, you know, worries that grant money might disappear. Are there any positions you have in mind that, you know, might be at risk in the next budget year.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. Yeah. Are you aware of any plans to, you know, in case that funding disappears, what we're going to do next as a city?
[Justin Tseng]: So yeah, I mean, I think it's just it's awful what's happening from, you know, from at that level, and especially in terms of what it means for our resources as a city. So anything that we can do to kind of plan ahead, plan for the worst, I think, would be a good idea. So I guess something just for all of us to keep in the back of our heads, especially for Councilors and administration. My final question, I know we've talked a lot about this, and I expect this is just me rehashing what we talked about. A lot of residents recently have reached out to us about rats, about rodents. And I know it's top of mind for you. And I was wondering if you wanted to take this opportunity to quickly summarize again what we're doing as a city on rodents, and maybe what we can do going forward.
[Justin Tseng]: Cool. That's helpful. I think for residents to hear, to be reassured that, you know, we are paying attention to this issue. You mentioned, if we want to collect fines, we need to adjust the ordinance a little bit. Are you aware of Councilors who are already working on that? Or is that something that we should take on?
[Justin Tseng]: Just going off of that line, I, I know some voters would want to have the most information possible before voting on the question in the fall. I know you're super busy, but is there a way that we could get a more solid estimate by election time.
[Justin Tseng]: Do we have any other questions before I ask any of my own cancer saying, I know that years ago, um, this council fought pretty hard to get a get an assistant city solicitor added to the budget. I think it's very understandable that the priority was to hire a city solicitor and then see where we go from there on. I think last year when that was taken out of the budget, our council made it kind of clear that we would like to see that position still be a priority in some way. And I think at the time it was suggested that maybe we would see it in this budget. And I was wondering, if you have any updates with regards to that.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm grateful for your explanation. I think this is a conversation that we'll continue to have over the next few weeks, months, years to come. I'm glad you referenced the history too, and I think I'm glad we remember it the same way. And I think just to put out to folks who are maybe watching this meeting who, you know, don't know that history a little bit. I just, I think a lot of what the council was thinking back then when we fought so hard for it was just the idea that first, if we can bring more positions in-house in general, we would spend less money going forward with contracts, outside contracts. And then a second kind of priority of making sure that we have as few conflicts of interest, especially when the city council needs legal help. as well. So those are just, you know, two of the things going through my mind for why this is an important thing for the City Council, but I also understand the needs of the budget and the kind of the other things that we could slash should be spending on. But I think this is a, you know, something for this Council to discuss. and figure out, and also for us to have continuing discourse and dialogue with your office about this.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. Um, for the HRC ordinance, um, I would probably just mention that it like empower, empowers the HRC to do more somehow. Like, I think it's kind of an effective, like to make it more effective, but, um, maybe, I mean, if you can, can I, can you, okay, there, there we go. It's line 204, right? Um, Prove for first reading the governance ordinance for HRC. Maybe instead of which will make it run, to empower it to run more effectively and respond to new challenges, I don't know, something like that.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, yeah, that's my note for that one. And then generally, there's another, um, there was the common Vic one. Oh, yeah, right above it for 203. It reads like, we voted for it to stay open on that one particular day on May 10th.
[Justin Tseng]: And then just generally, I don't know if Veterans is capitalized.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, yeah. Do we know which?
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think I covered everything I wanted to say. The other thing was just, I think we're choosing to capitalize veterans generally. I don't know if that's common use, but yeah. Yeah. Okay. It's not that important.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, and I do know that there are, sorry, if I can butt in, I do know that there are residents who are concerned about it, but I, you know, I think there are even more residents who want it open. From my past experience, last term, we came up across a few of these books, and a lot of them generated big discourse, and I think it was quite in one direction rather than the other. I just wanted it to accurately say what days that I'm not whether it should be open or not open.
[Justin Tseng]: So, I would just propose. for that point, just to say to permit this, to permit the establishment to stay open until 1 a.m. That way it's not, because as Councilor Lazzaro said, it's not like that, it's not that we're, that they're going to be open until 1 a.m. every night, it's like they can. So yeah, that's probably better, clearer wording.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. motion to approve this and publish and circulate it.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I didn't have time this time to make a fancy PowerPoint but I did put things in a Word doc so I figured I'll just share the screen with you guys I will end up reading from it a little bit, but we can move it faster that way. Cool. Um, so we got 110 responses which is decent. And these responses, I wanted to start with the demographic data just to frame like our sense of what kinds of people are engaging with it. Of course, we always see that with anything with city government, anything with political participation really, it most reflects the people who are best able to engage with city, you know, with politics. And so I think it's important to look at the demographic data first. So this survey, it's Hughes female. We did get a decent representation from across the city, maybe a little bit less from East Medford. But compared to my last version of the survey, this is a bigger, more diverse spread in terms of neighborhood representation in responding to the survey. We also see that the survey is disproportionately high income. So that's something to keep in mind when we review the results of this survey as well. And it very much heavily skews towards homeowners. According to the census estimates, the current spread of homeowner versus renter in the city is 53% homeowner, 47% renter. So this is a very, very big skew. And the median age in the city, I believe, is around 35 years old. So this very much skews older as well. And so that's another thing to keep in mind. And I couldn't find any clear numbers of parents, like percentages of parents in the city, according to the census. This is just for our, for us to know. So it ended up being around 54% saying that they didn't have kids under the age of 18, 42% saying that they did. Again, very expectedly, excuse white as well, although we did do better with getting Asian American responses than the last time. And I actually will say, compared to my last survey, there are more people in their 20s answering as well, but it's still, you know, a lot less than the actual proportion in the city. And it's very English speaking. That's the other thing. I forget what the census estimates are, but it very much skews towards English speakers. So, with the kind of caveat that we shouldn't treat this as a poll, There are kind of common themes that came up in a lot of the responses. So, depending on how you cut it, schools and education was the most mentioned kind of topic when it came to the short term needs question. But if you combine the different kind of infrastructure questions into a bigger infrastructure thing.
[Justin Tseng]: So almost half of the responses mentioned schools and education, and almost half mentioned some form of infrastructure DPW street sidewalk as well. These numbers aren't, so this is 40, this is saying 46 responses mentioned schools and education. It's not saying that, like, oh, like, it's not, you know, if you add up the number of responses, it's not, it's going to add up to more than one to 10, because some responses mentioned more than one category. Um, and yeah, the DPW question really depends on how you cut it. So, um, I should I actually I should update this, um, this should read, this should read 46. So we basically got even number of responses talking about schools and education, and an even number of responses talking about streets and sidewalks. And these were the two that really dominated the short term needs section. When it came to schools. The focus was on Medford public schools and just getting adequate staffing adequate funding for the schools, but there were a number of residents who brought up after school care as well. When it came to streets and sidewalks think the heavy emphasis was on improving road conditions, you know, cracked streets and sidewalks, potholes, stuff like that. But there was actually a lot of talk, you know, comments about crosswalk safety, safer pedestrian infrastructure, cycling infrastructure as well. And then there are five responses. That's why I changed it from 41 to 46. There are five responses that talked about DPW funding more generally. I think it's fair to infer that it's about streets and sidewalks, but they talked about just getting more funding for staffing in the office and better responsiveness there. Um, we saw we had 25 responses mentioned, um, non street infrastructure projects that these are projects that are kind of like public buildings, the high school city hall. We got 21 responses talking about affordable housing and development, particularly asking for more help for renters and kind of more just spending more money on housing as well. And then this is a very new jump is there 16 responses that explicitly mentioned more support for vulnerable low income immigrant residents, particularly putting it in the frame of what the federal government is doing. When I did the survey, two years ago, that was only mentioned by three or four people with a bigger, bigger sample size. And so this is a really, really big change from two years ago. And then some other frequently mentioned priorities, transit, transportation, 14 responses. That was kind of more focused on public transit. So safer cycling routes, better bus service, better MBTA access. Blue bike expansion, public safety 13 responses but this one public safety is kind of a big bucket to put this in it's not just about police, and honestly there were responses that cut both ways some asking for more police funding and a pretty much equal amount asking for cuts to police funding. But there were also calls. I think a lot of it didn't talk explicitly in the frame of police. A lot of it was about fire, EMS, and just helping vulnerable populations in the city. We got 13 responses mentioning funding for the library, asking for full funding. Four responses about trees, floods, like climate issues. And then there were five responses about losing federal funding and concerns about patching those holes. Before I move on to the things that are statistically significant, I see Councilor Lazzaro has her hand and I don't know if you want to.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, I don't have that number right now. I could probably get it, but yeah. OK. If you look through it, it is quite a few. It's not insignificant. The overlap is not insignificant. Yeah. OK. But yeah. Yeah, no, it's certainly really interesting. I mean, I think speaks to why the overrides were at least seen by a majority of residents in the city is really important. Yeah. And I think if I can add my own commentary to this, in reading through the responses, I got a sense that a lot of residents saw the override as just like one step in the solution rather than the complete answer to the solution. I didn't really get the impression that people thought that the overrides would solve everything about school funding or street repair funding, rather that they kind of just saw it as like, okay, this is what we need right now before we kind of either develop a more long-term plan or come back to the voters in the future. And there are a lot of like, This came up especially with the schools. A lot of responses were kind of about, we know that we have good funding this year for the schools, but we need to make sure that we maintain this going forward. And so that was kind of, that was a decent like chunk of responses focusing on that. I also thought it was really interesting to see what was statistically significant. I, this isn't completely unsurprising but young like younger respondents, particularly in the, in their 30s were more likely to highlight housing library, public safety issues, middle aged, like 4040 to 59 year olds were kind of more. more emphasizing roads and sidewalks and big capital projects like buildings. And then older adults, 60 to 69, that category, more consistently mentioned street repairs and public infrastructure as well. So the kind of focus on infrastructure seems to be correlated with older age and the focus on housing and library and some education issues. seem to be a little bit more correlated with youth. And I think that's important to keep in mind because we know that this survey skews towards older older voters as well. Parents, unsurprisingly, much more, you know, frequently mentioned afterschool programs, schools, et cetera. And then another kind of important thing to titrate with is income, because we know that this survey is huge towards much, much, towards much, much higher incomes than, you know, our median here in Medford. So higher income respondents were more likely to emphasize non-street infrastructure and library services. And then mid to lower income respondents were much more likely to bring up affordable housing and support for vulnerable communities as the short-term priority in the city. When we go to long term needs, schools and education remains at the top, a little bit fewer responses but still, you know, up there. Um, we see the kind of framing change from just getting funding to kind of more long term like big picture. goals for the schools, so stronger leadership, staffing, curriculum equity, afterschool care. Housing jumps up when you ask about long-term priorities as well. It jumps up to 31 responses, becomes the second most frequently mentioned topic. And there was a lot of calls for proactive zoning reform. So more aggressive zoning reform, funding for the affordable housing trust, and tenant protections. Non-street infrastructure. So this is, again, like buildings. 30 responses, which is also quite significant. And there is the water and sewer system as well. And then there was also like people linked this to climate. So they're asking for, like when it came to the sewer system, there were a few responses that linked it to flooding. When it came to buildings, a lot of people linked it to emissions as well. Economic development becomes a lot more mentioned as well. there were kind of a few different ways of going about it, but I think residents were really focused on business development, supporting small businesses, supporting kind of the aesthetics of the or improving the aesthetics of the square or of Medford Square and our like smaller squares as well. And then also bringing up the idea of placemaking and community building through like economic development and redesigning our squares. Climate also becomes much more mentioned. So again, a lot of this is about trees and heat islands, but generally climate becomes a lot more mentioned. And then roads and sidewalks, still very frequently mentioned, drops a lot in dimensions, but the difference with the old responses is that these responses focus more on long-term strategy and proactive maintenance rather than just potholes. And then there are more mentions here that kind of talked about complete streets. And then statistically significant demographic patterns, younger residents were more likely to mention housing, climate, economic development, older residents were more likely to mention infrastructure and infrastructure in general. And we actually didn't see that many statistically significant differences with this question when it came to income like we like in the other, like the short-term priorities question. And then this is just so you guys can see things that were raised a lot more under this kind of framing, economic development, climate, housing, that was these three in particular. I think people see these as long-term priorities. And then when it came to the question about what new programs and services Medford should fund, there are quite a lot of responses about youth or teen programs. So some of it was in the frame of afterschool care. Some of it was in the frame of teen centers, job programs, volunteer enrichment opportunities, and mental health. the framing of mental health. We also got a lot of mentions of city services, some of them went into more detail, some of the comments went into more detail than others. When they went into details I think things that came up were code enforcement, housing inspection, customer service, communication, and focusing on kind of like permitting reforms, internal reforms that we can make due to make City Hall more efficient. Public transportation and mobility also is frequently mentioned under this as well. So public transit, cycling infrastructure, multimodal planning, and then shuttles. I know there's a transportation task force out there right now working on the shuttle idea as well, because the federal funding is going to change for it. Economic development, people kind of, there's some appetite for us to look into new programs when it comes to incentivizing economic development and SOAR fronts, tackling vacancies, and then also increasing mixed use in our city. Housing support as well, housing navigation, stabilization programs, eviction support, homelessness prevention and outreach. These were things that residents wanted us to do more and to create more programs about. And then new programs related to climate, five people mentioned that. very similar to what I mentioned before already. Infrastructure roads as well, also very similar to what I mentioned before, the only kind of new things coming in here. Curb ramps came up, private way improvements, which we know is a really tricky issue, but a lot of, you know, given that I think 36% of our roads are private ways, I know it is a really important issue in the city. And then recreation and like funding for like more culture and recreation programming through the library. There were six responses about that. And then there were responses that mentioned mental health programs and equity and access programs. This question had a lot fewer responses. These were optional questions, but younger residents were a lot more statistically likely to propose new programming. And then there's some miscellaneous ideas that came up that didn't really fit neatly into any of the categories, participatory budgeting, third spaces, and leveraging our relationships with nonprofits. This is a typo. This isn't there. I also integrated that. When it came to kind of the last page of the The survey participation updates these were the options we we offered and honestly, there was a lot of kind of a lot of responses for all of them besides robo calls and attending listening sessions. The most popular responses were the council newsletter and social media posts, but this also skews towards those responses because those were the channels where we were most aggressive about distributing the survey. Those were the channels that were most open to us. So we should kind of keep that in mind when it comes to this. But I think this kind of suggests that we should find a holistic approach. to reach our residents. And then this was the second question about more specifically about participating in the budget process. I think people, again, the newsletters, they're very high. I think there's an explanation for that. But I think there's some, you know, people want to be able to email us. That was very very common as a response. And then there is interest in a special budget-related Zoom meeting, listening sessions, and town halls. And then when it came to the open-ended question about questions and comments about the budget process, I kind of looked at them and then broadly categorized them, although I think it's worth just going through it on our own and reading through what people responded because there aren't that many responses. I think there are probably around 30 responses to that question, 30 to 50, somewhere there, maybe 30, 40. But broadly, I think there's six buckets. People want to know how the budget process is structured and decided. They want to know where the money is going and how we track it and how we explain that. They want to know how they can, residents want to know how they can participate meaningfully. They want to know who is being included in the process and who is being left out. They wanna know why aren't, why does it feel like poor services aren't more functional than they are? And I think a lot of this is actually perception. That's something we can talk about after too. And then people wanna know if we are addressing urgent and long-term needs and how we keep track of stuff like that. And this is the last page, the last part of it. I think these questions go to talking about like communicating better about things that we already are doing as a city, and especially as a city council. A lot of what residents raised are covered in the zoning reform, the zoning reform process. A lot of it is in the Medford square revitalization plan of the RFP that that is being proposed. But I think more work has to be done to let residents know about that a lot of their ideas are in there. I think I think a good kind of encapsulation of that point I just made are the comments about permitting and about City Hall being slow. I think a perception is there, but as we heard in our budget meetings, as I'm sure a lot of you guys have talked to our business and planning staff about this, and building department staff about this, on the city council side actually, or on the Medford side, the city of Medford side, a lot of that actually happens very quickly. We can get permitting done within a day or two, but a lot of it is at the state level as well. The state has its whole litany of regulations and permitting processes as well, and that oftentimes can take up to two years. And so there's a, you know, I think we might need to educate the public more about what is city controlled and what is state controlled, but also do more advocacy on behalf of the city to get the permitting done quicker on the state level. So there's my summary.
[Justin Tseng]: I guess we can do a motion to distribute the survey or should we, I guess it makes sense to distribute it to Councilors and then Councilors can see what they want to do with the data. And then, so I guess motion to distribute to Councilors. We could keep the paper in committee. This is the last big thing related to it, but what we could unless we hold a Zoom meeting as a committee, but I think that's a question for Councilors, whether we should do it as maybe two Councilors do it, or we do a committee listings like Zoom listings. We also don't, yeah, yeah. I think it could make make more sense to just like Councilors do it individually. Yeah, I mean, as a committee thing.
[Justin Tseng]: and adjourn. I'll move that and then I'll add and adjourn.
[Justin Tseng]: Sorry, I forgot about that. Slipped my mind. Yep. Okay, I'll move what you just said.
[Justin Tseng]: No, I think he captured it pretty well. I mean, we talked about infrastructure, of course, came up quite a bit, like potholes and traffic came up, like making sure that we are enforcing our speed limits. Things like that came up. We had some general conversation about The override funds, especially when it came to infrastructure but I think Councilor was our pretty much captured it a lot of it a lot of it was constituent service based. I think I'm just very focused on, you know, like certain things that have come up with residents and and helping us helping link them to the people who can get that solve for them.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, some residents did bring up that they find it hard to know how to access the like phone numbers and emails. So I think that's something for for us to think about, especially for residents that don't have computers or don't have ready access to computers.
[Justin Tseng]: Dickinson for joining us. I know oftentimes when we're here together, we talk about the need, how old our city's financial software is, and especially became an issue when you pointed it out when you came in, that the systems that we were using were not the systems that are commonplace throughout the state or are up to date. And that kind of slows down the workflow, makes things more difficult as well. And so I guess my worry about the issue is more that I think we talk about the issue and then we kind of kick the can down the road about when exactly we might see that transition to a better financial system or a new financial system like a software. And it has these knock-on effects of affecting timeliness of financial reporting, it can affect calculation of retro pay, different payroll and finance updates as well. I guess, is there any money in here, at least any seed money in here, to develop that timeline, that plan for updating our city's financial software?
[Justin Tseng]: I appreciate that answer. I think that helps explain a lot of it, but I think from this Councilor, what I would like to see going forward is us really think about what that transition looks like, even if it's spread over a period of time, because it would have, I think, long-term positive impacts for our city. And so I think it would go nowhere if we don't at least start to formulate what that plan may look like. That's me speaking for myself.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I might not be able to speak as a parent, but I can speak as someone who was a kid. And to speak to really, I think the wide range of programming that Medford Family Network has given Medford families throughout the years that so many people like me benefited from. And more than just programming, really building a community of Medford kids and Medford parents. who, you know, can get together help each other, build a build a community here in Medford and I'm so so grateful for that work. Director Cassidy is like a Medford celebrity, I feel like, with all of the you know the dozens of years that she's given to this job. has gotten to know so many of our residents so intimately, really knowing the happy things about Medford and the not so happy things and helping make sure that, you know, with the work, especially that you did during COVID, that we were able to help out the families that really needed help. And she's just a, you know, a bridge builder, a connector in that way. And we'll really miss having Dr. Cassidy do that service for our city. I will always really, I will always remember. the energy that she brings to all the events, seeing her at teddy bear picnics and fundraisers and just the regular MFN events, seeing her dressed up and the energy that she brings really brings the life to the party. So I want to thank Director Cassidy for all her work. I'm so grateful and congratulations on your retirement.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I also wanted to thank Laurel, thank everyone who's worked on this, and all the projects that we're funding for submitting their proposals. These, you know, for a lot of Medford residents, these projects are part of their everyday lives, part of the ways that they get to their grocery stores, the way that they put food on their dinner plate at night. So I think it's really important that we fund this, that we pass this. I know that something new in what we're seeing tonight is the vacant storefront initiatives, as well as generally the business development initiatives as well. So money to continue the vacant storefront district program to also create the second round of the project pop-up and computer program. I was just curious, Laurel, if, I usually ask this question for the projects. I was wondering if you could speak to how we're measuring that success, like the effectivity of those programs.
[Justin Tseng]: Is the, can I just ask a follow up, is the goal to help the micro enterprises move into storefronts of their own going forward? Is there, I know this, this is a great program in itself. I'm just thinking about, have we thought about bridging that gap between when, you know, their time at the incubator ends and kind of their next step?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I'll be brief because I think President Bears and Councilor Lazzaro have covered what I think. Something that comes up again and again here on the City Council is the unresponsiveness of the State Department, KEOLAS, the MBTA when it comes to a lot of our requests. That's not to say they're never responsive, but there certainly is a gap there. And even though I think there's a lot of work for us to do communicating with them, I think there's a lot of work on their end as well to communicate with us about projects. It seems like a lot of what did happen, you know, I think the community is happy that we have ADA improvements at the station, but you know, if they had told us beforehand what was coming in and told the community beforehand, the neighbors and residents there, a lot of this, you know, kerfuffle could have been mitigated. It seems like an easy step for the state to have taken on that they chose not to take. And so we're stuck in this situation. I do want to especially applaud President Bears and Council is our for their hard work on this issue because I know they've been working very hard on this. I think when we do see that responsiveness from the state, it's when we speak together as the City Council. And so I am very grateful for this resolution tonight, because I think if we are going to get anywhere, this has to be a part of it.
[Justin Tseng]: I just want to thank you for being brave enough to come up here. I know that, you know, this is a time when a lot of folks are scared to speak in public, fearful of the retribution that could happen to them, fearful that they're putting their names out there for a threat, you know, and I really appreciate you coming here, and coming here is an act of bravery, particularly when you're being targeted by the federal administration. I've spoken to this before, so I'll be a little brief, but I feel fearful, too, because of who I am and the work that I'm doing and my parents, their status in this country, a country that they've called home for 30 years, over 30 years. a country in which they've lived more of their life than anywhere else. And I'm fearful because of what I do that it's gonna impact them as well. And that's why I think this council has been really on the forefront of thinking about productive and innovative ways that we can defend our residents. So I think Zach spoke to basically all of the, almost all of the things that we've passed, but you know, That non cooperation cooperation deal with ice, you know, we can't completely stop certain groups from operating in the city, but we can do what we can to protect our residents and that is. you know, that's a huge safeguard for our residents. Because I hate to, I would hate to imagine what would happen if we didn't have that enshrined in our city policy, in our laws, if we didn't have that non-cooperation policy in the first place and what it means for our residents. I think the only thing that was left off was we also passed a resolution calling on the mayor to launch a Know Your Rights campaign in the city. Um, and, you know, we suggested we were proactive and suggesting how that could go out to our residents where we could leave. the messages, the cards. I think as President Bears has alluded to, I think we're bumping into a little bit of a barrier when it comes to the mayor's office with issues like this. So I would really encourage residents who feel strongly about this to reach out to the mayor to let them to keep up the pressure, really, to let the mayor know that, you know, it's not, that some things are greater than a political kind of play, right? Like, I understand that the mayor's thinking about it in a very certain way. I think her values are in the right place. But I think the approach is where we differ. I think there's value in reaching out to the mayor and saying that, you know, a lot of this funding is going to go away anyways. That even communities that haven't passed these laws are being targeted. Communities that haven't done these things are being targeted as well. It's not just Medford. And It does make a difference when we do those things, when we codify those laws, when we do your Know Your Rights campaign. And really, the gain is much more than the risk. And I think there are ways to do these campaigns, too, without putting people at risk. But it requires those who can step up to step up. And a lot of the people who have been traditionally at the forefront of these fights are the ones being targeted. And so I think it becomes incumbent upon the rest of the city, particularly from the city government perspective to step up. So that was that was a lot. Uh huh. I know the councilors want to say more and don't want to take up too much time.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm gonna go Councilor Leming.
[Justin Tseng]: Hi, I'm Justin Tseng, and I'm proud to serve as your city councilor in the city I've always called home. I'm the son of immigrants who came to Medford chasing the American dream. My parents stretched every dollar and raised me paycheck to paycheck, but it was our public schools, our neighbors, and this community that gave us everything. For the past four years, I've worked to give back and to pay it forward. Now as national politicians gamble with our economy and threaten our neighbors, Medford needs steady hands and bold leadership. I'll always stand up for you because Medford stood up for me. And over the past four years, we haven't just made progress, we've made history. While some leaders are busy banning books and turning neighbors against each other, we're building a city that welcomes everyone and works for all of us. We've made record investments in our schools and passed laws to protect our neighbors and our freedoms. While politicians in Washington and on Beacon Hill continue to cater to big money interests and leave us priced out and left behind, we're passing once-in-a-lifetime reforms to make housing more affordable, spur local business growth, and lead the fight against climate change right here at home. Life is rocky enough. Our job is to smooth the path. We're fixing roads and sidewalks that haven't been touched in decades. We brought back bus routes that families rely on because getting to work, school, or the doctor shouldn't depend on owning a car. And we're making City Hall more transparent and accessible so residents have a seat at the table. Because when national leaders fail us, Medford steps up. We prove that by leading with heart, with vision, and with the courage to do what's right, we can achieve results for all of us. But the job's not done yet. More than ever, we need leaders who know this community, and who show up and listen day in and day out. That's why I'm running for re-election. Let's keep building a Medford that works for you, me, and our neighbors down the street. Let's keep moving Medford forward together.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I just wanted to save my comments until the end to make sure everyone gets to go home early enough. Um, I wanted to thank all the applicants for all their hard work serving our community. A lot of these programs are programs I've either worked with, been a recipient of, or have gotten to know through these meetings and other community meetings. And I see the work that you all are doing for our residents, doing the really hard work of interfacing one-to-one with our residents. And I think that is government at our best when we bring government and bring all of our good work to the people, to the doorsteps. And so I'm very grateful for that. I'm also very grateful to Laurel and our team at the Planning Development Sustainability Office for all the hard work that they've put in, into developing the action plan to decide where the funds are going to make sure everyone has a piece and to have that conversation. I know it's really tough, when you don't have enough money to go around, you know, we'd love to fund every project at the full level. But, you know, I think year to year, your office really does a great job at making sure that we are funding everything that we can, maximizing what we can do with the funding. And I'm very grateful for that. And I want you to know that we on the city council see that work and we really appreciate that work as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Thank you. So I guess we can start. I did create a dropdown of that, as you suggested, of neighborhoods on the second page. Oh yeah, that was the other thing that I put there. I based the neighborhoods off of what people responded last time. just how people kind of self-sorted into neighborhoods when it was an open question. But I don't know if there are any more neighborhoods we want to add in since it's not kind of a formal thing here. I know like Brooks Estate, we could do that, but I think a lot of people, like some people identify as Brooks Estate. Some people identify as living like near the Brooks Estate, some people identify as living in West Bedford. I thought that might be a little confusing, but then West Bedford's tough to sort out because I think they're like different parts of West Bedford. I think it would be useful to have a map. Yeah, so I was looking for maps. basically no maps, unless we make one but I think it's hard to do that drawing.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, no, I think that's a great point. I was doing that out there to be like, is that confusing? But evidently, it's probably confusing. So that's the main edit I've made with regards to what you sent me.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, this is what I used last time. Yeah, I mean, I wish there was better stuff. I think it just costs money to get. Do you have another recommendation? Oh, for the most part, I took out some things I kind of adjusted some things, but do you have any ideas.
[Justin Tseng]: It's actually a really pretty divisive issue. People have pretty strong feelings about it.
[Justin Tseng]: Matt, to your point about income, I thought about that last time. I don't think it's not worth asking. I guess we should just really highlight that this is an anonymous form.
[Justin Tseng]: How should we define the bans then? And then, yeah. And are other Councilors comfortable with that question?
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. Yeah, I guess I think what might make sense is rounding to the next 10,000 or something, or 5,000, something like that.
[Justin Tseng]: We found we found how we're going to fund the city. Okay, just 200 plus.
[Justin Tseng]: Do something around that range and to make it look nice. And I, I think the right sorry. um I was i'm not completely sure. I'm not completely sure about the override thing. Could you describe? Yeah, OK.
[Justin Tseng]: I guess I would worry in that sense that like it veers too much towards a poll, like, and this isn't, it's, it's just like a feedback, like input survey rather than like a poll. And I think like, I guess my worry is like a question like that's so complex, because for some, some for a lot of voters, it's like sometimes yes, and sometimes no, right? Like, it's like really depends on what, what the spending is on. And what the tax increase looks like. I think that's the main reason I would kind of hesitate from putting it on there. I also just don't want to overload. I just don't want to overload the survey with questions, too. Yeah, I'm fine. The back of the chair broke.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm sorry.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay.
[Justin Tseng]: Cool.
[Justin Tseng]: I guess I think what would maybe make sense if you can you actually go to the last page. What might make sense then is for me to switch the orders. Let's see what you say.
[Justin Tseng]: Wow.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I noticed that too.
[Justin Tseng]: What might make sense is switching the first and second question on this page. So asking people about how to keep up to date first. And then, because what I was thinking about participation is like, Like once you know, like what you want to say like what's the easiest way for it like to participate which I guess like would make sense, logically, the flip the order in a hazard.
[Justin Tseng]: So I think there are two goals. So there's a goal on the first page, and then the third page has a different goal. I think the first page's goal is to provide a way for residents to just give feedback or input about the budget. Again, I think I caution people against using that as a representative sample of the city, because all of these surveys skew, richer and like, like to be honest, richer, whiter, more homeowning, right? And so I think it's important for us to be careful on that front. But treat it like people emailing us, for example. And then the last page, I think, is for us to collect a little bit more information about how we can best engage with the public. Of course, it's going to be skewed towards people who already can. But I find that in the last survey, there was some good input about like other things we could do that kind of were like the early percolations of ideas that led to a lot of what we do now.
[Justin Tseng]: Like once we have the new pie chart in, so after like tomorrow.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. Does anyone have, language for like asking for like the zoom listening session, kind of like what, what we can offer question. I just, I was like fixing other stuff while we were talking about that. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, if you want to send me options to put in, that'd be great. I wrote down some of what you had, but I didn't get to all of it.
[Justin Tseng]: I can try and then see if it works. Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Do you want to refresh your page? I just put one in. I have to go all the way. Yep, that works.
[Justin Tseng]: I don't know if I can... Let me try one thing.
[Justin Tseng]: So I don't think I can do it without it looking ugly, but I think it's possible.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, I don't think I can highlight and put a URL in. Do you have edit access to this?
[Justin Tseng]: Do you have a recommendation for when we might want to set a deadline, like a due date?
[Justin Tseng]: Yep. I'm good. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for helping out. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Can I actually speak as a public? No, go for it. Go for it.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, do we need a motion to distribute? No. Yeah, I think we do. Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Approve distribute can we ask, ask the city administration to put it out on their feeds I don't like, I don't think they will but worth asking.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I, I think I have comments that kind of break break into two general categories. The first one is about just process, because I think Councilors are spoke a little bit to process and I disagree with her understanding of things. And then the other one is more about the substance, and I'm a bit more. I'm still deciding on that. Oh, is this about. This is about the Leming motion. Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Thank you. Going back to what I was saying, again, I want to kind of split my comments into process and substance, because I think I can speak to both. When it comes to process, President Bears and I have been really working closely with the mayor's office for a very, very long time to get this on our agenda. for a very long time. And I know, you know, I've heard residents ask, you know, why is this all happening so last minute? Why do things feel quick at the end? Why are we having so many substantive conversations towards the end? And I really do think a lot of this could have been mitigated had we had the mayor's office helped us, gave us the green light to move on this forward earlier. If you go to our governing agenda, you'll find that us as the city council we place this pretty early on to address in the governance can be early last year, like, March, April, and February. That was the goal, the goal was to start conversation so we wouldn't have to end up in the place where we might have disagreements last minute, where we, you know, didn't have to, you know, have these conversations about balance of power last minute, where we weren't dealing with last minute, small edits that you know actually make a big difference from the mayor's office that get placed on our agenda, where, you know, Councilors feel very pressured to approve something even though we haven't, there were substantive edits that we had didn't have time to scrutinize. I want to also note that, you know, even besides the governing agenda I wrote the mayor on August 8, and I CC president bears I wrote the mayor and the chief of staff, reaching out as the chair of the governance committee set to set up those meetings early on so that we could jump right into things in September. And the mayor asked us to go offline to do a phone call, we called, and, you know, in that phone call she asked us to delay those meetings. And, you know, we talked through it about why we thought we might need more time. We ultimately decided to respect the mayor. and the Charter Review Committee's decision to send us the product later in the calendar. So we did that. We scheduled a meeting then. And at that meeting, we were then asked again to delay by a month or any substantive conversation that we might have because the Charter Review Committee hadn't yet delivered their products to the mayor's office. We respected that. And then once, but at that meeting, you know, we talked about some substantive edits that are substantive proposals from the Charter Review Committee. during their times meeting. And I know, you know, members of the committee have asked, you know, our meetings were public. Why, you know, why didn't you, why, why didn't you just follow then? And we did follow. And I compiled, at the time I compiled a list of the motions the committee had made to give us a sense of what this draft charter would look like. But then, you know, I was asked to not send that list of motions out because, you know, because apparently the motions would make more sense in context of the whole charter, and that it would make sense for us to look at things piece by piece, which is still eventually what we did. But I respected that as the chair of the Governance Committee, respecting the wish of the Charter Review Committee as well. And all of that is to say our timeline got pushed to be crammed towards the very end, And then we were notified late last year that we were expected to push out a product by mid-April. And that's why we find ourselves timeline-wise where we are today. And I also want to note that we made sure to get the draft charter committee out of the governance committee as soon as possible we scheduled a committee of the whole as soon as possible. So we sent this, you know, we got this out of the city council as soon as possible to get to the mayor's office while still trying to do our due diligence. And, you know, we gave the mayor time to and We could have gotten the product back enough back early enough for us to scrutinize the small edits that had been made since the council gave the mayor our version. But then we were given just a little bit less than a week to review that. And I think we were, you know, through press releases, pressured to, you know, rubber stamp what had been sent to us. And, you know, that's my perspective of what's happened from, you know, as the chair of the governance committee. Of course, I can see you know where folks might disagree but those are just based on the emails, based on what's been published, based on the phone calls that have been made, that's the timeline. So the City Council has been trying really hard to make sure that we aren't in a position where we're kind of rushing against the deadline. And I want to note that at that last meeting we could have chosen not to hold special city council meeting today as well, which would have gotten us past the April 15th deadline. And so that's why I disagree with councillors Lazzaro and Scarpelli on their kind of characterization of the timeline. I also believe very strongly that it is our job to scrutinize, to do our due diligence, and that can lead us different places. And You know, I'll put my hands up I did my due diligence I ended up in a different place than what the draft we have in front of us today. And then I compromised and I gave up on big things that I supported. And even honestly even a lot of this in the first place is me deciding not to bring up things that I had concerns with, because I thought they were good enough. I, you know, I think this is all a complicated conversation, which is fair, because the Charter is a foundational document. It's the Constitution for a city, and so going through small edits, going through the details actually does mean a lot. I find it not helpful when when a councillor might suggest that parts of this charter are to take power away from certain groups in the city or to reverse the decision of the electorate at the last two or three elections to get new people onto the council or to get different people onto different bodies. I don't think that's what any of this should be about. I think it's wrong to bring that into this conversation. I think we should just look at the policies as is. You know, we shouldn't suggest that any of these proposals are here to undermine anyone in this room or any voter and their preference in the city. And I think that's what it means to support a charter that represents all 60,000 people of our city. Moving on to the substance of it, I think, and in particular, Councilor Lazzaro's I think the mayor on and off the school committee is a really tough decision. It's one that I've been grappling with a lot. The reason why I voted yes to send it here tonight was because I had gotten a lot of feedback from residents, especially towards the end of our consideration period, that they didn't think that the balance of power shift was enough. And that if we are going to take this, you know, majoritarian stance when it comes to looking at the survey results, we should be consistent in that approach and consistent in, you know, recognizing that most people, or at least the plurality of people, voted to take the mayor off the school committee. I have to be honest, I can see the argument in both ways. I think there's a decent argument that The mayor as the CEO of our city should be obliged to attend all the school committee meetings and have a deeper understanding of what that school committee process is like and what challenges the schools face. I think the mayor has made to me a compelling point that certain really important reforms that we've had as a city like The override vote wouldn't have happened if she weren't on on the school committee and gotten that perspective and that budget seasons might look really different. And that the schools might have been fighting for even more money. Um, I think that's compelling. I think some other parts that I don't find as compelling, and what the mayor has kind of indicated through press releases and to us is, you know, the idea that the mayor plays a really important role in negotiating. As we know, our mayor has to step away from a lot of our negotiating, the school committee's negotiating because of conflict of interest. And I think that's actually a decent argument for taking the mayor off of school committee, because there are so many conflicts of interest. I've been talking, I've been reaching out to members of the school committee and people who have, you know, recently served in the school committee to get their perspective on the issue because I think it's worth having a deeper conversation about this policy wise. I think member Reinfeld said I, she made an interesting point to me which I, which I want to read out because she said I could read out her message. And she said, I was a firm maybe in my interview and also one of the 15.3 not sure respondents in the survey, because I saw both pros and cons. After 15 months in the role I still see arguments on both sides but lean no, no being mayor off of school committee, mostly because of the budget process. I also think it is challenging to have a city executive in a legislative role. The arguments in favor for me are mostly about the two-way flow of information rather than the practice of running slash governing a school district. Ultimately, while I appreciate the perspective that a mayor can bring to the table, I think it makes sense that anyone serving on the school committee be elected for the primary purpose of serving on the school committee. And then she said, I think the mayor's chair is challenging because it takes on a new meeting and takes on a weird power dynamic. Non-chair is also weird because of subcommittees, because that's also extra time commitments, and chosen based on particular school-related expertise, which is not the basis of the mayor's election to office. And I think that's a fair substantive argument against. I think you know what I what I wanted to say right now is that I can see strong arguments for and against. I haven't settled completely on where I fall in that debate. And I wanna hear a lively discussion and I wanna hear viewpoints and make a decision off of that. But I ultimately do wanna see this charter succeed, but also to make sure that we're making or passing a charter that truly does work for all of our residents in the city and to really take on the responsibility of what that means. And I think it's preferable that this makes the fall ballot I think we should also acknowledge that even if this goes on the ballot next year, it would still go into effect at the exact same time. And I think I'll close with the debate that I was having at the last meeting. I think it's important not to let perfect bait be the enemy of good. But I also worry about creating a situation where it's so hard to say yes to better. So essentially a situation where things feel good enough, but they're not actually working optimally. And that there's that kind of like inertia to get to that optimal place. And so I worry also about deferring better for the future. And someone made the point to me in the two emails that I got supporting the mayor on school committee, someone made the point that, you know, we could just, revisit this next time. And I think 10 years sometimes doesn't feel like a long time. But doing the math, if this charter were to go into effect in 2027, 10 years after that would be 2037. And the next time a new charter would take effect would be 2039. And by that time, I plan to have kids in the school system. I hope to own a home here in Medford. That's a wildly different time than now. And so that's also weighing on my mind. But I just wanted to be transparent with the public about where my mind is at right now. Thank you, Councilor Lemme.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I just want the public to note that they're kind of their two narratives out there. One is, I think one is more. realistic that everyone wants to do good, we disagree about the details, and that we're having a real deep conversation about how these policies would change our city and how they would apply, right? I think that's the camp I fall in. I just want people to know that There's that more sinister narrative out there about ulterior motives, about political considerations. I just think it's worth noting who's pushing what. And it's worth noting that that's exactly the type of rhetoric at the national scale that's gotten us to political violence, to the governor of Pennsylvania's house being burnt down, to January 6th. to things like that, right? And I just want us to calm everything a little bit. Just let's be able to acknowledge that we can disagree agreeably. And you know, I hear like gasps from the audience and stuff like that, but it's not crazy. We've had, I know one member of this council has had multiple death threats in the last few months. I know that, and from a member of the Charter Study Committee too, And another member of the Charter Study Committee was posting misinformation about what our governance committees were doing, was doing, and the things that we talked about, the procedural things, me supposedly not inviting members of the committee to meetings, which I did, which I have email proof for. And so I think it's really important for us to recognize that we shouldn't fall into the trap that we're seeing all around the country and that we dislike. I think we can all agree, every single one of us in this room, that those things are bad. And we shouldn't encourage that. We shouldn't feed that. And I think we should all work to lower the tenor a little bit. But I do think we need to call it out when it happens. And I think for far too long on the city council, over the last two years, we haven't been doing that. I respectfully disagree that the mayor and school committee or off the school committee is not a small question. I do think it's quite literally the biggest question you could ask for one of our three branches of government here in Medford. Which is why it merits an actual conversation. I know all of us approached it from different degrees from different angles. I, you know, the one of the reasons why I didn't push for this earlier on was because number one I was chairing those meetings I couldn't make motions. At those motions, I tried to present different viewpoints on different issues, make sure that all of that was articulated. And we had comments from the school committee members that did that. But I also didn't bring it up because I thought that we could get a better faith negotiation with the position that the city council took earlier on. And I think maybe I was a little silly to assume that. Maybe it was a little silly to assume that people would be listening, that the people I'd be negotiating with would listen to policy concerns I had about different things, about a whole litany of things. And I didn't completely feel listened to about that. But I think with that being said, I'm still not completely decided on this vote yet either. I recognize the reality on the ground. I recognize the policy principles that cut in both directions. I think the mayor is misunderstanding the points that members of the public, that school committee members, that I brought up with regards to conflict of interest. It's not necessarily purely financial, but I actually think in the mayor's remarks, she brought up the very conflict of interest that is at the core of the mayor being on school committee, which is that the mayor, you know, their job is to make sure that the running of the city, you know, like cities running in a certain way. And the job of the school committee is to advocate for the schools to the best extent that they can. And those two jobs, those two things often do clash. And so asking the school committee to hold back on important recommendations that would help our teachers, that would help our students, that is inherently a conflict of interest, and that goes against what the school committee is for. But, you know, I mean, I'll leave that there. I think that, I still think that there are policy arguments that are caught in favor of having the mayor on the school committee, but I think I wanted to explain that point in more depth. I think, to the point of the representativeness of the Charter Study Committee, I think there are a million ways to go about it, but I don't even think the average conservative in our city would send death threats to members of this body. I don't think the average conservative in this city would be posting targeted misinformation on social media about things that we've been doing. And so I can respect the push for political representativeness. But if that's the metric, we're still failing. I think it's really important. to note that there's been a real lack of BIPOC representation on the Charter Study Committee as well. The Asian community is the biggest minority community in our city, and there weren't any Asian people on the committee. A historically Black community wasn't represented on the committee. And you know what? I think that it's really important for us going forward to make sure that that representation is there. And that's a major qualm I have about the process. I don't know if it's enough to have me you know, vote to kill any effort. That's certainly not my intention. And I actually, that's another thing I want to clear up, is I actually do think, I haven't like asked, but I do actually think, judging from our comments on the floor, every single one of us wants to vote on something tonight. And we all want to vote out a version of the charter tonight. Whether we all vote yes or no is another question, because we might disagree on what's best in that charter, and what the the balance of considerations looks like, but I do think that we all are approaching this with good intent, that we're all trying to create a product that would work for our city. I'll just end with being grateful to Councilor Scarpelli for introducing the five-year review or asking for that amendment. I think that would make a lot of sense here. I think it would alleviate a lot of my worries.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro for putting this together. I think all in all, this looks good. I don't know if it really is representative of our discussions completely as a council. And I think even one sentence in there, even if it's framed in the conciliatory tone, a nice tone, would be helpful to kind of just say like, councillors registered the satisfaction with the process or balance of power issues or something like that. I think that would help me feel like this is a bit more accurate. And then of course, in the same sentence, we can say that we talked through it and got to this place where, you know, and hope, you know, we hope this moves on and we hope this, you know, but I think that would be more realistic about what actually happened. So maybe at the end of the
[Justin Tseng]: Mr. President. I'm not saying that we, you know, say as a council that we like disagreed with different things about the thing. I think we just say like, I think we can just say like, a number of city councilors shared opinions about something. I'm drafting something quick right now, and then end on the note of, but reach this version of the draft charter in the spirit of compromise. Yeah. But I do think it'd be worth it to note some of the things that did come up. Even if it's five years on, 10 years on, we're reviewing the charter and we're just reviewing the record to see what issues that come up. But I think there's a way to do it by not saying that the whole committee, the whole council thought that way, or that we disagreed with the final product. I think we still wanna emphasize that if this passes, that it is the product of compromise.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think that sounds perfect. Okay.
[Justin Tseng]: I do want this to be a strong statement. I also think it should reflect the conversations that we actually had. Again, 20 hours if people want to watch and hear what we actually think and not what people say we think.
[Justin Tseng]: I think reading it, I think reading it, the text should still stay in, but we can clarify it. Honestly, I think it not having a comma means that it only applies to the member of the multi-member body. That's my reading of it. We can also just cover our bases by passing a motion that we support that reading of it. OK.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Thank you. I don't think the historic nature of this vote should be lost upon anyone. We just, you know, talked a lot about history. I think this is a really prime example of what we can do as a city when we come together. You know, I think the roads, I think the road was a little bit rockier than I would have liked it. But I think in the grand scheme of things, this inches us towards the right place for Medford to be. And, you know, I haven't been shy to say that I think there's a lot more to do. I always think there's a lot more to do. I want to thank the rich conversation that we've had on the City Council. I think that in scrutinizing anything, this was the outcome I wanted. Even if the vote is the vote, the product is the product. What I think is really important is that we have a deep conversation into the policies that we're talking about, particularly when it comes to our foundational document. I wanna thank the people who did elect us and gave us this opportunity to be a part of this process as well. It's a privilege to be a city councillor. It's even more a privilege to be a city councillor during such a big change for a city. And, you know, I hope, I know that, you know, most people have something they're not happy about in this charter, but that is part of compromise. Now, I think that I have a qualm with completely accepting that this is, by definition, a compromise. I think there are worlds in which we could have reached better deals, but I think this is one that, as the gentleman in the audience said, we can make work. I think the nature of the rich, deep conversations that we've had about the policies about academic studies, about feedback from community members, from elected officials in other cities, looking at how the system works in practice. I think it speaks to the fact that we have been listening. The fact that we disagreed on key votes. repeatedly throughout the process, I think also underscores the fact that we've been listening, we've been differing, and we've been coming back together. I do want to thank the Charter Study Committee for their work. I want them to know that my criticism of the process is more about the, is about the process writ large. I think that folks really did dedicate a lot of time to put to put together a product for us to consider. And I believe strongly that the city council has a role to play, not just ethically, but also statutorily. So when it comes to the law, we have a legal part of this. We are a legal part of this process. And that's where all that scrutiny comes in. That's us doing our job. It's us doing the job that we were paid to do. It's us not just rubber stamping anything, but really considering every single piece of the charter, which we did line by line, section by section. I think it's important to note that the bulk of this charter was agreed on by all parties at play, agreed on by the Charter Study Committee, by the mayor and the city council. And I think that's noteworthy. I think I'll just finish my thoughts with a note for the future. I'm hopeful for a future in which we feel less boxed in to options when we revisit this charter. I'm hopeful for a future where the state house gives us more ability for us to respond to our residents, to hear their innovative ideas about how government can work in Medford to tailor the design of our political process to what Medford actually needs and wants. And I hope that that desire doesn't stop with our residents. I hope that this version of the charter isn't the endpoint of political reform in our city. I hope that we keep pushing all of our electeds at every single level to do better when it comes to when it comes to things like autonomy when it comes to things like empowering cities to do what's right for their residents, for empowering cities to actually respond to resident feedback, to consider the more innovative things that cities should be able to do that in other states cities do all the time. I think a lot of what I wanted to be considered in this process maybe could have come about with a home rule process. what it could have come about with an elected charter commission. But I think we are at the point where that's beyond the scope of our conversation. I hope my Councilors will join me in pushing for those reforms in the future and pushing for more flexibility for Medford to do what's right by a residence. Thank you so much.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, okay. I'm happy to take that out of order but I do know a lot of people here for 25-053 the gender affirming care reproductive health care ordinance 25-055 the resolution to support the release of remains. And 25-057, the resolution to create and distribute Know Your Rights information. As those items came first in the agenda and are shorter, what I presume are shorter items to discuss, would you entertain taking those first before the City Charter conversation? Councilor Scarpello.
[Justin Tseng]: I think you can make the same arguments the other way, given that this ordinance has also been- So don't vote for it.
[Justin Tseng]: I would motion to take 25-053, 25-055, 25-057, and then 24-468. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to take papers 25053, 25055, 25057, and 24468. Is there a second? On the second by Vice President Collins.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, I'm the affirmative, negative, the motion passes, Councilor say, Thank you, Mr. President, um, as we, as, as we know from watching the news and from paying attention to, you know, our neighbors concerns over the last few years. The access to gender affirming care and reproductive health care has become an incredibly contentious issue in our country, despite these being basic forms of medical care and basic rights that individuals have, or should have in this country, and has have historically had in this country until recently. A lot of our residents are fairly asking us how we can best protect our own neighbors best protect our own residents and provide the security that they need and need for. for enjoying their lives here in Medford. This ordinance would protect medical providers and people who seek that care from out-of-state arrest warrants and prosecutions, from out-of-state attempts to apply laws that aren't Massachusetts laws, laws that aren't Massachusetts values to Medford. We've heard early on in the process years ago that if we didn't pass something like this, it was very likely, if not mandatory, that we would have to carry out those warrants. Now the situation at the state level has changed, but it is important for us to reaffirm this and to acknowledge that just because state law says something doesn't mean that we can't back that up as well, and that we need that additional layer of protection for our residents. During the process, Councilor Lazzaro and I worked hard to invite stakeholders, including medical providers in the community, including residents with experience, including city staff across the health police departments and the administration to work on this. We know that Medford faces limited resources. We've talked about that over and over again. We want to make sure that those resources aren't expended to the end of denying any individual's right to their bodily autonomy or to criminalize any person's effort to live as their full and authentic self. This ordinance, if you walk through it, essentially protects the information, the health information of people who come to Medford to use our care. It protects health information from medical providers as well. It affirms our city's policy and enshrines into law that we won't treat any individual differently based on their gender identity or gender expression. It follows state laws language with regards to definitions with regards to how we're going to do what I just described. It also empowers our city to to provide fair access to reproductive health and gender affirming healthcare information. Because we know that there are predatory sources out there that are putting limited or fake information out into the community. This empowers our administration to post proper guidelines, to post a full comprehensive picture as to that information on the website. I know there are residents who want to speak. I know there are councilors who've worked hard on this. I do also want to thank councilors Collins, Bears, and former councilor Morell for introducing parts of this ordinance as well, or a resolution language to support this ordinance. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Councilor Tseng. Thank you. I'll be brief because I think councilors have been very thorough with their comments. Thank you, President Bears and Councilor Lazzaro for introducing this resolution. I know a lot of residents have been clamoring for us to say something about it. and the timing of the regular meetings didn't allow us to make a statement earlier, but this is, it's helpful that we're doing it at the earliest possible opportunity for us. All I'll say is that this is a fearful time, and the freedom that we have to free speech and to our due process rights, which means not being deprived of our life, liberty, or property without a due process. These rights are sacred to who we are as Americans. They're sacred to democracy, and they form the bedrock of a strong society. And I think this really exemplifies what I've been saying for a very long time, which is that oftentimes the national can be local. And as the federal government seeks to interfere in people's everyday lives, seeks to interfere and retaliate against individuals for publishing their thoughts in an op-ed, be it something you agree with or disagree with, As the federal government tries to commandeer state and local governments into following its policies when federalism exists, and when we have powers delegated to us, to the voters, to hold local and state officials accountable for, this all matters to the rule of law. It all matters to who we are as Americans and our identity as well. I think passing a resolution like this tonight, you know, I wish we could do more, but this solidifies our intent as a city council to stand by our residents. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Sagan.
[Justin Tseng]: I'd be happy to add that amendment. Should we do it as a B paper since the main paper is about Ramesa? Is there a preference on this council? Do you have a preference, Councilor Lazzaro?
[Justin Tseng]: And I also want to, to that point, draw attention to the work that we're doing in our resident services, resident services committee on a human rights commission ordinance. So essentially we are reforming that ordinance. So the HRC has a lot more power to advise city governments about how to protect our residents, how to inform residents of their rights on DEI measures as well. So defending diversity, equity, and inclusion, and having more voices there. And I hope that residents will support that measure as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Thank you. I think it's always good for a government to inform their residents of their rights. We have these rights for a reason. We have these rights to protect our freedoms and to protect our way of life. And, you know, I've heard a lot recently, I acknowledged this earlier, but I've heard a lot recently from residents about what we can do as politicians, as elected officials to protect our residents, to help our residents, And we talked about how some measures might be symbolic. It's important to do those, because if you can't do the symbolic, you can't do the substantive. But likewise, we have to be creative, and we have to be smart in trying to figure out the little ways that we can help affect this issue. Because sometimes, even the little ways can have great effects. And for our residents to know their rights is one of those really great effects. This is, you know, I spoke about how this is a fearful moment earlier as well. And, you know, I want to underscore that from my perspective. I'm the son of immigrants, my parents are green card holders, and even my presence on this council today makes me fearful for their own safety. you know, not to say anything about the cases of U.S. citizens that have been, you know, put at danger because of this administration's actions, but, you know, the lived reality of being afraid going out, being afraid for my parents, you know, to see their, to go travel abroad to see their family, their really old family, you know, for them to, For people like my parents and so many residents in Medford to be afraid to go out to the grocery store, to go out to run their errands, for so many Medford students to be afraid to go to school, I think it's a real problem that we face in the city that we have to learn how to address, be it through the government doing something or be it through mutual aid. I think knowing your rights is the first basic and maybe one of the most important steps you can know. I feel privileged in that I've studied this stuff. I've gotten this knowledge before, but I also know that when I was walking through these rights with my parents, even just last week or two weeks ago, I guess, they didn't know half of this stuff. And I think it's really important for us to get this information out there ASAP, for us to translate this information into other languages as well, and for us to be creative in how we get this message across. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I've honestly had a difficult time thinking about how to vote tonight what to do tonight. Because, at the end of the day I think it's, it is important for our city to get a new charter. Also, at the end of the day, I think that this charter presents something that is better than the status quo. And I've been reminded by residents over the last few weeks to not let perfect be the enemy of good. But I think the added difficulty to this part is that I also do worry about this precluding something better. in the future. I think oftentimes we see good enough as just being good and we reject better. And I think, you know, that weighs on my head. But I think, you know, what my mind has gone to more in the last week has been edits that the mayor's made that didn't make it to the press release that very much don't count as a compromise. And that, you know, against the platform I was elected on and against the feed, a lot of feedback from the community shift power to the mayor's office and away from the city council, even compared to the status quo. And that would go against that would go against the platform I ran on. And I'm grateful that Councilor Lazzaro has introduced her amendments and communicated with the mayor about that and gotten to a point of understanding. And I would support those motions, and which is why I also seconded her motion too. In particular, I think it's important to restore the words by ordinance 23-3A, because not having the section would remove the power of the council to have appointments to committees by ordinance, which is a power that we currently have. We see it, I believe, on the Water and Sewer Commission. The Human Rights Commission ordinance that we were talking about includes that as well. I don't see that as a huge, you know, I don't see that as a major problem for the mayor to accept. And it's something that if we don't make that amendment, it would shift power away from, it would concentrate power in the office of the executive. I think Councilor Collins has called a motion to amend the Charter, the Article 9-4B to have the Charter Review Commission be composed of three appointees of the Mayor, the City Council, the School Committee is just an inherently fair amendments so it support that. And I think that really, really underscores that the way that this process was done this time inherently creates adversarial relationships between people who just want the best for their city and might not see the same. You know, in my opinion, the City Council, we fought for what we thought was the best policy for our city. I really appreciate a lot of the, you know, a lot of the support I've gotten over the last few weeks for speaking out, even from residents who don't necessarily agree with me. And you know what, I accept the 8-3 plan. I don't think it's perfect. But I accept it because I see that that is the way to move this forward. But at the same time, what I think Councilor Collins's, Vice President Collins's amendment does help us with is making sure that next time that process is more collaborative, that people feel like they're on an even footing, that we get a lot of this rich conversation that we've had over the last few months in the next Charter Review Committee's iteration. I also think that process-wise, this has been slightly frustrating just from a procedural standpoint, not because of things that members of the committee have done, but from a procedural standpoint, just because I've been, quote, asked, I've been asked to, quote, rubber stamp the thing, to rush it through committee. I've been asked to not have counsel scrutinize it, but that legally is our job. As enforcers of the charter in the future, we need to have a say in that perspective as well, even if we don't win out. And I think that goes to the inherent nature of the process. I think another frustration I've had is that over the last week, I floated many different compromise models to the mayor. Compromises that include not going to 4-5. And I think compromises that gave up a lot of what I was arguing for. And a lot of these compromises were very basic, doing things in a more democratic way, even just commissioning a poll. All of that was rejected. And there was a fear of how things would go down that way. With regards to the motion to take the mayor off of the school committee, I'm still making my mind up on it. I am compelled by the point that if we're doing things because are the people who answered the survey expressed their intentions one way, we should be consistent in how we apply that principle. Frankly, I've also just gotten a lot of emails, a lot of messages from people in the last few days, asking us to revisit that. And I do think it speaks to the Mayor's, or to the initial point that we were making, or the Councilors were making, that ultimately, while representation is important, that representation is practically useless when the balance of power is not right. And I think there's a real conversation to be had there. I think I still feel of, I can see the merits of both arguments, to be quite honest with you all. And I also hear the argument that urgency is important. And I have to weigh that debate as well. So urgency of getting this through versus making sure that even if the product that we get out of this council is something that I wouldn't have written myself, that it's sound enough to function. And just to make sure that we have all the parts in place for this to work well. So that's, yeah, I just want to be transparent about how I'm thinking. It is my intention. in my you know, my my intention to do in my powers what we can do to move this charter along but I also want to make sure that because this charter forms the foundation of our city's laws and we'll do so for at least 10 years that we do it right as well and even if you know, the bigger ambitious ideas that I had don't make it in. I want to make sure that the To that point, I would want, there are two smaller technical amendments that I think are important to make. The first one being in article 8-2 to revert from city clerk back to the board of election commissioners because the city clerk's office doesn't have access to the voter rolls to certify the petitions. So if we say city clerk, it just won't. the article won't work. So that's just a technical thing that we did switch back. The other idea I'd want to float with the council is in part E, to revert back to a standard of 12%, not revert back, to revert to a standard of 12%. This is 8-2-E. 8-2-E, yeah. Thank you. Just to align this with the citizen repeal referendum procedures, I think it can be really confusing to have different numbers and different bars for very similar things. I know in committee we offered 15%, the mayor came back with 10%, 12% is a number that the Charter Study Committee came up with in the first place and seems like a fair compromise to me.
[Justin Tseng]: Yep.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, sorry Councilor Tseng, go ahead. Thanks for letting us know if I vote this I'd like to, I'd like us to meet in an emergency committee the whole as soon as possible to, to have residents, talk about it with us and to, to be able to. scrutinize this idea and to still be able to meet, to try our best to meet the deadlines. Is that possible?
[Justin Tseng]: I just want to provide my support to what Councilor Scarpelli said about doing an emergency meeting instead of a committee of the whole on this. I think that makes sense. It gets us in by the deadline or the supposed deadline as well. I do want to note that it's not very customary to send the City Council something that we have to vote through in just one week. Usually you get, you know, a few weeks or a month to work it through. Here in this situation, we could have gotten this draft. We also could have gotten this draft a week earlier. We were just given a limited number of days to work through all the small edits that weren't in the press release as well, which is, I think, why it is prudent to do another meeting. But I also recognize the urgency. I think it's really important to underscore that part. It's not just, you know, on the city council, I know President Bears and I have been working really hard to We had worked really hard to move this timeline as early as possible to give us as much time in case we had contingent situations like this and for us to have a real dialogue with the mayor's office. Unfortunately, we were given a few days to look through edits that we expected would have been made earlier on. So I think that I think moving that makes sense. And I think this is apples and oranges with zoning meetings that we were we have actually put off projects by months, but I know that's a whole other point, this is about the charter so we shouldn't litigate litigate that.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng, Oh, one second. Go ahead. I, I appreciate. my fellow council members being willing to, you know, entertain giving us that one week. I think one week with the stronger vote on this charter makes sense for the success of the charter in the statehouse as well. I think, you know, taking those extra seven days to really do our due diligence will be worth it in the long run. It's our job. And I also just want to preempt. I know a few residents, one or two residents have asked me why it was that early governance committee meetings on the charter weren't, you know, why we talked about procedure and rather than substance. And, you know, I want to be really forthright saying that we actually did want to talk about substance at those meetings but we were asked by multiple people including the mayor and the mayor's office to put that off and to just talk about procedure at those meetings. So, I genuinely do think we would have been in a different position here. And we could have passed it. but we were told no at a lot of turns, even when we were willing to make compromises to not say any motion on anything substantive at those meetings. I think we would have at least known where the kind of fault lines or differences lay.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm between you and Micah you really covered my points. I think to on on the one year residency requirement thing consistency was part of the reason I voted for the other reason is I think there are really. concrete examples in Medford, where there are, I think a really great examples Pleasant Street, and that kind of corner right there by 93, where you can argue, I think a lot of people would feel like that is. that Washington Street right there is part is close to Ward 1 or like is pretty integrated with Ward 1. That's somewhere where during a redistricting process with boundary review, that might get shifted into Ward 1, but then we would prevent anyone in that block for running for City, for Ward Councilor. Even though they've lived there the whole time, they're, they're pretty much in the neighborhood. I think moving across the street is another great example. We have a lot of, if you look at our ward map, it's not, it doesn't really line up with our neighborhood map. And so there are a lot of nooks and crannies like that where people might be shifted in a redistricting process.
[Justin Tseng]: I do ultimately trust the voters to make that judgment if they feel like. the the candidate doesn't know the district well enough. I I assume that will come up as a at the ward election. Um and so I think we have a check there that we can trust.
[Justin Tseng]: I think that's a pretty in-depth, thorough account of what's been happening. I've been working with PDS as well to try to find a solution there. But I think there's been some difficulties because of what you described, because they want to focus on another business. And there's also the question of, even if we can find another space, and I think there are some potential eligible spaces in Medford, they would have to do a lot of front-end spending on their end to uh, to fit the space to become a supermarket, a grocery store. So that's, uh, that's a difficult part of the calculus as well. But I do know that, um, the planning department is on it. They've been emailing and trying to reach out every week, um, to deal with this issue, um, to help them find a place in Medford. So it's yeah. Yeah. I get it.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I mean, they're great. It's where we spent all in my in high school, that's where we spent all our half days after class, right?
[Justin Tseng]: I guess we'll do one really quick thing. Eric's getting ready. I know, I know. Oh, sorry. Last time I said that I was tempted to vote yes on this. I've heard a lot from residents about the sale of public lands. I've gotten the feedback, so I'm planning to vote no on this. Councilor Leming.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, that's all I meant.
[Justin Tseng]: Wonderful.
[Justin Tseng]: Did we go through the rest of what I had sent you?
[Justin Tseng]: Lead pipes was, we made that final vote at the March 25th meeting.
[Justin Tseng]: I know there's some language in old newsletter that we probably pull from as well. Let me just quickly get that for you.
[Justin Tseng]: I am remembering that we previously, but it's like a two vote thing, like preliminary approval, like first reading and then the final vote.
[Justin Tseng]: And alongside that, we also passed some free cash to fix for a water main project that is also lead related.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, I'm not on the document, but this is okay. It's fine.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Thank you all for, for, for putting this together and for doing that. It's.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, we the mayor and I had a productive conversation yesterday. We mostly worked through most for the most part, works through smaller technical edits, there are one or two. bigger picture items that she wants us to reconsider, such as providing stipends to boards and commissions in general, as a policy. And to this one in particular, with certain circumstances around them, but I asked the mayor to put give us something in writing for Councilors to consider because it seemed to be more complex conversation there. And I know, in the past, our Councilors, both on the city council, but the city council in general, historically has been supportive of stipends for people who are serving on boards and commissions, or taking that time out of their day, maybe hiring babysitters. So I know that's an important issue to us. The other main big edit was the big suggestion I guess is to have us lock in a solid number for members of the commission instead of having it be variable and her strong recommendation is to cap it at nine members to keep it at nine members but I where we ended up in the conversation was that we would talk with community members and to talk amongst us as councillors on our next committee meeting to see if there was the right number. Everything else, there are some smaller substantive edits, but there are things that I do want to talk to community members about first and to have some time to write into the ordinance, but they're more, they lean more, they're less substantive than those others. So that's my general update. And yeah, I know a lot of advocates who wanted to speak on this and to provide their input for it couldn't make this meeting as well. There are a lot of folks who are out of town or they had prior commitments. So out of an interest of fairness and to also get more details from the mayor about some of her more substantive objections, I think it would be wise to wait a month.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh yeah, a motion. We don't.
[Justin Tseng]: So, if you'd like to say anything about this or just to, like, let us know what you're kind of thinking Councilor Tseng, yeah, um, I this is something I'm really excited about to get more community input for in during the budget process. and to kind of orient what we advocate for on the city council. And I know we've met with a lot of folks in the community over the last few months and compiled that kind of list of asks requests for the mayor. But I think, you know, this is always a continuous process of getting more feedback and, you know, really seeing what we're hearing from the public. There are tons of ways to go about it. I'm sure councillors have ideas that will be really good. One thing that I did two years ago was put out basically a Google form for people to be able to send in ideas. And I had some kind of guiding questions for them. We collected demographic data with that as well. And I made clear that this was not a poll, that it wouldn't be treated like a poll, but just rather like an input survey. That got 100, I'm looking at the results now, I think it got 135 responses, which was a lot. That was more feedback than we've gotten over a lot of different budget formulation periods. And it was nice to get that feedback before our final votes, before we really got into those community of whole meetings on the budget. I didn't do it last year because we changed up the budget timeline to what we are doing now. So it just kind of slotted. It would have slotted in a little bit awkwardly. And I think this time, it would make sense for us to think about how we could bring back some more concepts and to also expand this concept. Because just putting one Google Form is not going to get you know, the most representative feedback or be the best way of getting feedback for a lot of folks in the city. So, and I know, Councilors on this committee have a lot of ideas with regards to that. So very happy to, you know, put that out in the open and to hear ideas. I'm also happy to run through. What I wrote are what the guiding questions and demographic questions we asked in that last survey and then see what we want to keep for this time. What, what questions we want to ask on top of those if we want to go, you know, put this out there and what kind of other demographic data, we might want to collect or not collect Oh, and I should also note, um, now the city, city council, especially this committee has more mechanisms to get input from the public than before, like the community meetings with, uh, through liaisons at the senior center with community members. I know, um, other Councilors to have, uh, more robust mechanisms to getting community members engaged than before. So that's really nice. Um, and so. And we have the newsletters, we have other kind of ideas floating out there too. So it'll be nice to think about how those new mechanisms that are open to us now can help inform the resident feedback mechanism.
[Justin Tseng]: So I just put it out there myself and I posted it on all my socials. I posted it in Reddit. I posted it, I I'm trying to think. I know I did those mechanisms in particular, and I know other Councilors shared it, so they re-shared it on their personal social media. I was thinking, I can't really remember if I did this, but if I If I didn't, I think it would be a good idea to have printed toppings at the senior center at the library and and at City Hall as well for people to be able to provide written written feedback because I know tech isn't the best way for a lot of people to But yeah, that's how it was distributed in the past.
[Justin Tseng]: yeah i think um i i think it would make sense for us to work on it as a committee um rather than rather than do it uh informally as individual Councilors because i think number one it has more more weight people will trust it more than you know their Councilors who engage with individual are residents who choose to engage with individual Councilors and maybe don't want to when they're the ones putting it out. So I think it's more neutral if it's our committee putting it out, for example. I also just think, you know, this would benefit from the ideas of a bunch of different Councilors and we can kind of like really hone in and like workshop things a bit more. So I was thinking there are two options. One is we really just work on it tonight and then we vote on distributing it. We work out the questions and also how we're gonna distribute it and then we motion to vote something to that effect tonight, or we work on it, we collect ideas during this month and then I can spend some time making it a show and then present it at the next meeting for a vote on distributing it. So either way I think works. It's more of a timeline question. Right.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, yeah, I do have the previous survey on me. So last time I chose not to ask very specific pointed questions and I kept it decently open-ended. So substantively, so this is like aside from demographics, I had, I had, okay, so I had four questions mostly just about issues. So the first one was, what are Medford's most concerning issues or problems? Then what do you think are Medford's most important needs for the next 12 months? What do you think are Medford's most important long-term needs? What new services or programs should Medford fund?
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, it's kind of in a messy format right now. If you give me one sec, I can make it cleaner. And then I had another bucket of questions that was more about the process. So I asked, what is the easiest way for you to participate in the budget process? And I had a checklist of options. Then I asked, how are you keeping up to date with the city budget process with a checklist too? And all of these checklists, or that checklist, I believe, Like, I don't know how, like, section. And then I had an open-ended question about, is there anything you'd want to know about the city's budget or about city council? Like a more general question. Let me put this in like a neater format and then find a way to project it. There are questions I want to workshop. I think, like, having done it the first time, now I have a better idea of what works.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I just sent you the Google form. I made a copy of it, so it wouldn't have people's responses. But you can see what I put out last time. Let me know if you have it.
[Justin Tseng]: That's really excellent. Yeah, I'd love to see that.
[Justin Tseng]: I don't know if a pie chart would fit in a banner. I think that's my only thing, but we, yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think we would put this on the first page and have it be right there integrated into the survey. I think we can do that. Yeah and another thing about how I designed the survey last time was it was on three pages so like the three buckets I mentioned like the first bucket being budget specific that was the first page and then there was the demographic page which was right next to that and then the access page And I made the demographic information required, at least most of it was required answering for you to be able to submit the survey, because it's so important to collect the demographic data of who's actually engaging in the process, so for us to have a better sense of how equitable it is. All that is to say, you know, if we put it on the first page and we do something similar structurally where the demographic information's on the second page and required, they'll have to click through, read through the first page to submit the survey.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think, um, in terms of survey design, I, uh, like my experience has kind of told me that it's when you're asking about like subjects, issues, policies and stuff like that, it's really tough to have, um, a multiple choice unless, because you, you'd have to kind of frame it really well of saying like, okay, these are the arguments in favor. These are the arguments against what's your stance, right? And, and I think with the budget, there's so many different, you know, pieces that we're looking at so many different facets that, um, that can be a little tough. And so that's why I prefer keeping things in short, short form format. So it's like open-ended, um, but people also don't feel obligated to have to write an essay about stuff. Um, yeah, that was my thinking back then.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I also think, I will say, even though the questions I asked about the most concerning issues and the needs, they're fundamentally still a little different. I found that, generally, there was enough overlap where if we just kept the questions about short-term and long-term needs, I think that kind of covers what people were saying.
[Justin Tseng]: I got 135. All right. Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. Um, so, so actually what I did with this, um, let me actually pull it up. So what I did with this is that I. You can share the screen, right? Uh, yes. I just need to log into the zoom meeting. Okay. So essentially what I did was I kind of compiled this into a memo, even though I don't like using surveys and presenting them as polls. Sometimes the best way to compile that data is to basically go through and code the responses and be like, okay, so X number of people talked about this issue. The like this was the frequency at which it came up and we saw this issue be more pertinent to, you know, certainly groups, you know, people with children or people without children and stuff like that and I still that into a memo for the mayor for consideration.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think, I mean, I'd be happy to I know other Councilors would likely be happy to I think, I guess like practically like what what components are there, how can we help.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, we can, I guess if we're trying to, are you, like, maybe make a paper number for it at the next meeting or something?
[Justin Tseng]: Um, so I, Carol, I mean, I did send you, um, I did send you what I sent the mayor last time, which was, um, the survey results, like a guide to the results. And there's a, there's a third document here.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think in looking back at it, I think there are ways I wish I presented the data differently. So last time, I broke it down by percentage, but realistically, that makes it look like a poll, which it's not. So I think there's maybe a better way of just saying, this many people talked about this issue, and then attach some quotes about that people sent in, giving anecdotes about why that issue is important to them. that would be a better way of presenting it than what I did here. But I think in general, I think there's a mix, right? Because I think then if it's just pure numbers, it can be a little hard to compare points against each other. But I guess that's also, I think it makes it look too much like a poll. Which I did comment, the poll first page is basically saying like, don't treat this as a poll, treat this as a survey. But yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: I think my hesitancy to that is that oftentimes the respondents um like response is guided by what they see and so if we like give them check boxes of stuff like this um they start to be guided to think through these lenses like through like they start to think about like schools infrastructure housing whatever and and then we start to actually really miss out on like on things that people actually are thinking about that they don't see on the checklist even if we include like an open option at the end right
[Justin Tseng]: I used to do it for work. We did like, we did thousands in a day, so it's not awful. Um, all, all it really takes is having like a good code system. And then you go through on the spreadsheet each next to each one and just code it. and then you and then you just compare like you compile like okay we have this many ones this many twos threes and one corresponds to schools or two is like infrastructure or something yeah it's not too too bad it does take any like uh maybe i think this took me an hour maybe an hour or two to code and then you had like the demographic stuff like this we actually just had options because yeah and so these demographic questions i pulled out of um I pulled out of like an old city survey that maybe the community liaisons or the health department did during COVID. So that's where these questions came from. But I honestly think like it could be, this is one of the things I want to revisit is what questions, what data are we collecting on this front and what do we want to see?
[Justin Tseng]: And this is, this is kind of like, yeah, it is maybe slightly better than the community.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think this is really tough. Yeah, really, really tough. I mean, I think we should maybe find a way to work with folks who are in the Medford Housing Authority, like and to ask them if they can find a way to send it to their residents as well. Similarly, residents who are really engaged in like you know, the city, a lot of them might live in apartment blocks, which could be helpful as well, like asking them to help us. So more informal ways of just getting the survey out.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. I mean, I think what we've seen over the last few years is the real best way to do that is what a lot of us do, and just knock on the doors and ask.
[Justin Tseng]: But we don't know which doors. Yeah, but we don't know which doors, yeah. We don't have enough data about it. Yeah, I was just going to say, imagine we had a rental registry.
[Justin Tseng]: Well, not with polling, just with, uh, with the way that we do surveys. If the administration, like, I mean, I've passed a bunch of resolutions about this. So if the administration would like to get polling data, that's not necessarily very hard.
[Justin Tseng]: I think that's about right. Yeah. Yeah. That sounds about right. It is what it is. But I think, you know, $7,000 in the grand scheme of what a city budget. And this is me like going on a tangent about what I would do differently if I were in a... This meeting will go on till midnight, I'm telling you. No, I don't want to take this meeting in a certain direction, but I do think $7,000 in the scheme of a $200-plus million budget is worth it to get residents input about what they want to see in that budget. But I digress.
[Justin Tseng]: I guess my only question is let's really lock in what we want to do at this meeting and what we want for the next meeting. I think I want to quickly look at the timeline again for the budget process but I think it would make sense maybe for me to collect the questions that people want to ask. So like motion to have Councilors send in what they would want to see on the next budget survey and ideas about distribution. And then I can come to the next meeting with a draft for distribution. And then we can vote out like the distribution and the distribution plan at the next committee meeting.
[Justin Tseng]: Just yes. Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, so in the form of a motion, for Adam. I would motion to send out a request for feedback about what Councilors would like to see included on the survey and ideas Councilors have about distributing the survey ahead of our next scheduled committee meeting.
[Justin Tseng]: If you could give me just one quick minute, I want to make sure that we're not gonna be so deep into the budget process by the next meeting, just in case that timeline doesn't make sense. Yep, take your time. My email is just, my inbox is stacked. Because I know we received the preliminary budget schedule.
[Justin Tseng]: I think that, yeah, I think that's about right. I worry, I think, because we might want to give at least a two-week window for this survey as well, if not a three-week, maybe even a month for people to give feedback. I think the timing is important. I mean, I think we need to get it close enough to him keep the budget is on people's minds. And where we get more information from the administration about what they foresee the budget to look like. I know I've talked informally with the mayor. So she's given me some general hints about what she sees as problems in the budget and what she sees are not problems but challenges. But then we also need to be able to have time to field the survey and then get it back in time for us to actually have an impact in informing our approach to the budget this year.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think another committee meeting in two weeks. And we can have it be a shorter meeting too. It could be I don't know what the committee calendar looks like, just for the other committees as well. But it could also just be a short like 6pm meeting or even like a 5.30pm meeting over Zoom. Adam, would you have the city council calendar?
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, wait, wait, wait. I just found it in the box. So our next scheduled resident services meeting is May 7. And it would fall after three budget meetings. If we send it out May 7, we probably would want to get it back by the end of the. I think that would be too late. because I think it's possible that the budget would be on the regular committee, regular council agenda on May 27th if I am doing my math correctly. So I guess a meeting in two weeks would be ideal.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. OK. And instead of next scheduled, like ahead of the next scheduled meeting, just the next meeting. Because that's the motion I made. So the motion I made was like ahead of the next scheduled meeting. And yeah, the next scheduled meeting is May 7. So just next meeting, whenever that might be.
[Justin Tseng]: I think, so if we are able to do that, let's say we meet on April 15 or 16, we can field the survey, have it be due back by like the first week of May, either at the beginning or the end of that week. And that would put us, that would give us three committee meetings, three committee, the whole meetings on the budget where we have that information with us. So that would be kind of halfway through our budget meeting cycle. And at the very least, I know a lot of negotiating with the budget happens towards the end of that calendar cycle, if that makes sense.
[Justin Tseng]: I think I'm happy for my end. I don't know if people have other ideas of, you know, engaging residents. I think this one is a big project, but yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Second.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Thank you for your introduction of what this ordinance is. This is, I believe, maybe the third time that our current form of this committee has worked on it so far. I know we've met in prior sessions before we had this city council elected. So this is something I'm really excited to get across the finish line, particularly at a time when we see such insecurity. from the federal government with regards to the rights of people to practice what is legally possible in their own jurisdiction. I mean, needless to say that a lot of what people are doing is constitutionally protected, at least in Massachusetts, it's protected by the state constitution and state law. And yet we still see instances where there is law enforcement coming in and taking people away, locking people up for those activities. When the Dobbs decision rolled around years ago, I think the big question for policymakers at the state and local level was how can we protect our residents, particularly from out-of-state efforts to impose their law on us, and to seek the arrest or the punishment of people who come to Massachusetts for care and to Massachusetts doctors and medical professionals who provide that care as well. And since that conversation, this effort, which is an effort that a lot of cities have pursued, has grown into an effort to also protect people seeking gender-affirming care and providing gender-affirming care as well. And I think it's a matter of semantics, but this particular version of the ordinance in both forms derives from what a lot of municipalities and what the state government is doing to protect our residents. And the language is pretty much one-to-one besides the references to Medford and making it a little bit Medford specific. And that aspect, I think, is really important, because it's important for us to note that a lot of cities are pursuing trans-sanctuary city legislation, reproductive sanctuary city legislation. That is this. And this is actually stronger than a lot of those efforts. Because some of those efforts are ordinances, but rather just resolutions, which means that it's non-binding, has no legal force, that the city wanted to revoke it at any time. The city could do it even without a vote of the city council. And this codifies those protections for a resident so they can know that they are safe from that behavior in Massachusetts. Now, with regards to our meeting with legal representation, the second draft that Councilors have, the one with the red line edits, is a draft that aligns the text that we have been reviewing in this committee before to the text of the state law and to a lot of municipalities that are now passing these ordinances and aligning themselves with state law. And now the big benefit of that is that substantively, there's not much of a change in terms of what we're protecting. But in the case of litigation, if that, God forbid, ever happens, this gives us more legal protection because we can work with other cities and the state government to protect ourselves in court. And that means less pressure on our city's legal resources as well. Yeah. I think that there's a huge benefit to that because it's different. It's harder for a single municipality to defend a single text versus when you have a bunch of municipalities, a bunch of lawyers working on this, plus the state government and AG's office working on this to defend the text. I also want to underscore that this is a very much a legal effort and that this is in the wheelhouse of state and local governments. There's been some questions raised about that. The 10th Amendment is really clear that there are powers that are given to the state and to the local government, that the state has what we call police power. So the power to make laws for the general welfare, particularly law enforcement and what law enforcement can and can't do is very much in that world. of police power, which means that the state and local governments are the ones to make that decision. And the federal government can't coerce state and local governments to change their policies to match the federal government. That's been tried many, many times in the federal courts. It's been tried with the Supreme Courts before. And that principle holds very, very strongly. And while litigation over This particular ordinance and this, you know, the gender affirming care and the reproductive health care ordinances is still relatively young. This has made it up to circuit courts, it's made it up, you know, the court chain, and it's been upheld in most, if not all cases. except in jurisdictions with judges that are politically appointed, that are staffed against the effort, which is not a situation we face in Massachusetts, because the First Circuit, because of Massachusetts courts, are much more politically neutral and not like that. So I wanted to give a bit of the legal argument for my fellow Councilors and for residents who asked me those questions over the last few weeks as well. And I look forward to discussing this text with everyone.
[Justin Tseng]: I think this is one of the examples where, so there are some edits in here where I don't think it's necessarily so important or so material to go one way or the other. And I think I could see an argument for even combining the two. you know, keeping the reference to the state law, and then also just keeping what we want to be the purpose and the policy of the of the ordinance, and then, you know, having another conversation with legal counsel, if they flag it.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, I think my recommendation is that because we have someone online will have to take a roll call vote. I would prefer that maybe we move section by section and then I can keep track of, no one's online?
[Justin Tseng]: Wonderful. In that case, we can, I think, go section by section. Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: So the conversation is about whether we include contractors. Essentially it boils down to whether we include recipients of city funding grants, awards, or appropriations in the definition for city agent. Now something I did notice in comparing the two copies is that in the KP law suggested copy, the one that aligns our language with the state, there's actually no reference to agents, in which case that definition actually, we should probably take that definition out. And actually, if there is a real big substantive change, I think that is one of them, is the KP law's suggested version of the ordinance essentially takes out the enforceability or the kind of like the oversight that we would have over contractors and people who receive city funds or appropriations grants. And I think that's something for us to think about. Yeah, that's a policy thing. And I think the pros are, I think it'd be nice to get something stronger. I think the con is, does that take us out of alignment with the state? Will we have to defend that separately in court? Otherwise, the edits to the definition sections aren't really that big. Essentially, any change to the definitions in the section are based on state law. So it's just copying and pasting in how the state has defined certain terms. and then making sure that we're defining the terms the same as how the state is defining the terms.
[Justin Tseng]: But the big one is city agent, I guess, which that's the whole other substantive debate that I just laid out.
[Justin Tseng]: City agent. Yeah, I guess. So KP law actually didn't suggest, didn't make a solid recommendation about whether we change the definition of city agent. Like they didn't, they didn't modify the language. They just suggested that we look at it.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, but I can also see the argument being that we, we take it out if we choose to have this ordinance apply to city employees or officials. if that makes sense. If we want to expand the scope, if that's what we choose, then we might want to. We will need this definition.
[Justin Tseng]: I guess I think that is a decent like, yeah, it's a vulnerability in the state's definition of gender identity, which doesn't really line up 100%, I think it's like 80%, maybe 70% there with what people conceive of as gender identity, but that last 20% isn't there. I think that's something worth considering, worth talking about. Yeah, I mean, I think, Essentially, I think a lot of the edits that this committee could make today, I would say we would be fine making those edits, moving out of committee, and then getting legal counsel to have a second look at it, or just choosing to adopt what legal counsel did and to cut out that stuff. So I think a lot of the edits today will fall in one or two, one or either one of the buckets. Yeah. I did also want to make a point about city agents, since we were still talking about that, and there's that whole attached conversation of how expansive do we want this to be. I think something to consider, not to say that this is the make or break, but I think something for us to consider is, do we realistically foresee that extra reach being very helpful? I can see that breaking either way. So let's take the recipients of city funding grants, awards, or appropriations. I guess we should ask ourselves, what are those groups that are getting that money? And is there even any way that they could break this ordinance, break this law? Because they might, I mean, They're not carrying out the warrants. They're not carrying out the arrests. They're not reporting the data. And they don't have the image to report. And so perhaps, even though we're technically narrowing the scope, practically, we're not making a change. But you can see an argument where maybe there just happens to be a law enforcement-related grantee or recipient. And we want this to extend to them as well. Although I can't think of any of my mind, any groups in my mind with that power.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, although they would fall under what we originally have, they would fall under the definition of the same agent.
[Justin Tseng]: I would say, I think, contractors, where I kind of, like, think we should see if we can include contractors. I think that is the like that's the one that's in the definition for an agent that's not in the rest of the ordinance, right? Or as keep you all suggested that I think potentially I can see that overlap being there.
[Justin Tseng]: We might have data.
[Justin Tseng]: If I could. Yes, please. I agree with Councilor Callaghan here, that we should think about taking it out. I think here's the situation, is I'm confident that the Constitution grants us the right to make this law and to have this law rule over other supposed federal laws that trample on states' rights. But I think this creates almost like a inconsistency within the language of the statute. to essentially, like, someone could point at that and say, well, they're not even trampling on states or, you know, your local rights to write your own ordinance because you've incorporated all federal law in this clause. And so I, that's another question for council, but I would say we shouldn't adopt that. because I think our loyalty to the Constitution is implied. We all took oaths to that, right? And that should rule above anything else. Accidentally incorporating federal law, I worry that, I would just worry that that would nullify this ordinance.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Is this what used to be number four?
[Justin Tseng]: I'm just trying to follow. Sorry.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, is the number?
[Justin Tseng]: I just pulled up the state law definition that they cite too, so section 63. It includes municipal police departments. It also includes university, college university police departments as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Wonderful.
[Justin Tseng]: No, it was a good flag. Okay.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I think my, my last kind of note, like, uh, flag is I think it could make sense to take out the definition for CD agent, but insert, um, or contractor after each like employee or official. Um, and we might want to, um, insert a definition of contractor in, um, in the definition section as well. And I can do a quick search to make sure that there's nothing in the state law that defines contract or otherwise. But I think what we have here is a decent definition of it. So we can just kind of move it around.
[Justin Tseng]: I think actually that also makes a lot of sense. Yeah. we can choose not to accept the instances where agent was taken out, and then just keep that.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah. So shorten it to basically the employee part, the volunteer part, and the contractor part.
[Justin Tseng]: And I might suggest also adding officials to the definition if we're doing that, because that's something that was put in that wasn't in a whole draft. And that could be helpful. So appointees and elected officials don't, you know.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I know Councilor Collins, the vice president Collins has her motion on the floor. Um, I just wanted to Oh, I guess I just wanted to take the definitions section edits all at once too. With the new edits and stuff, it's not alphabetized anymore. So if Councilor Collins is amenable to re-alphabetizing it, adding that to your motion, that'd be helpful. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes Yes. I would also, you know, we can just put all on the floor right now. I'll I'll make the motion to The, oh, I guess the other thing I forgot about the definition section, to add, I'll motion to add the word, to add officials to the definition of city agent and then to take out the recipients of city grants and whatnot. Yes, thank you. I deleted it off the straps.
[Justin Tseng]: And then I had one more motion. I know this committee discussed wanting to keep the second paragraph, the one in purpose, that was suggested to us to be deleted. So I would motion to remove that paragraph. to put it back in, but also to keep the reference to the state law in the purpose section. And I have some new language, which I can send to the clerk. I just wanted to make it a little bit more succinct, a bit more concise. I'll read it to you guys. So between the first paragraph and then the section about complying with provisions of state law, I propose this. Further, it is contrary to the city of Medford's public policy to participate in the enforcement of another state's civil or criminal law when that law seeks to deny an individual's right to bodily autonomy and criminalize a person's effort to live as their full authentic self. And thus, the city's resources should not be expended toward that end. Oh, yes. So that's my last motion to add that to after the first paragraph.
[Justin Tseng]: Aye.
[Justin Tseng]: Aye.
[Justin Tseng]: I have one more motion. Yes. I think that the edits that we made today that are different from KP laws are not that big to warrant keeping this in committee for one more month when the circumstances nationally are so dire. And so I and I both you and I are in really frequent communication with KP law about this. So I think if there are any additional comments, we can get them before our next regular city council meeting. Additionally, there's It's going to be three readings on top of that as well. So really, the process is quite drawn out. And the remaining edits that we might make that we probably won't make to this ordinance are really technical. And so I would motion to refer this out of committee to our next regular meeting.
[Justin Tseng]: Aye.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. All right. I want to wish a happy anniversary to the Monte Calvos as well. In difficult times, it's always nice to see an example of love in the world and an example of brightness to bring joy to us here at City Hall too. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, for introducing this under suspension. It's always difficult when someone who has dedicated so many years, 50 years, to our city as a public servant passes away. It's even more difficult when it comes as a shock. I want to extend my deep condolences to Billy Oganoski's family and add my voice to the course of support to dedicate the cemetery way in his honor. I think it's a very fitting tribute to his life of service and his work for our city.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Mr. President, great Councilor Tseng, I find everything in order and move to a second Councilor's ability.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, um, I would support going to the building departments first seeing if they have an opinion on this for their ruling, their opinion is in here.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I mean, I don't know if they have something more about it, because I think that there is compelling enough case law to challenge that. So, okay. Yeah, I mean,
[Justin Tseng]: Since you've had more conversations about this, just to that one point, just what you said before, I think I would feel comfortable voting on it tonight because I think this is, you know, it's just a sign that's already there. All they want is this permit. And I don't think this changes the manner, the purpose, or the effect of the sign. And that's my stance on it, rather than pay lawyers to discuss this even more and to end up in a very similar place in two weeks. So that's my view on it. But I understand. Um, the desire to table and, um, I think just just to save us money, I'll vote no on tabling and yes on the question if it gets that.
[Justin Tseng]: This resolution is really quite a simple one, it goes back to our fund of one of our fundamental guiding principles that we want City Hall to be more accessible to all that we want to bring City Hall to the people and not force people to come to have to come to City Hall. I think the budget process is a perfect encapsulation of that process. where the budget is a statement of the city's values. It is what runs our city, what makes us tick. And it's really important, I believe, to me, and I believe to the city council, too, that we get as much input as we can and that people feel heard in this process. Over the last few years, we've experimented doing different things with public engagement. Years ago, I put out a survey, too, which I have thoughts about how to how to make better this time around, asking for input from residents about what they would want to see in our city budget and then explaining some of the challenges that we see on the city council with getting what everyone wants. in recent years on the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee. We have been doing more with actively going out into the community to hear from residents. We've been doing more with publishing a newsletter that goes out every month detailing what we do on the City Council. So there are more means by which we can gather feedback now. I know there are Councilors who are very passionate about getting public feedback and engaging more members of the public in our processes as well. So I'm looking forward to a very fruitful discussion on the Resident Services Committee, and I'll motion to send this paper to that committee.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, this is something I always look forward to in the city council year when we get have that meeting committee the whole meeting get together and then sent over this letter to the mayor. I believe that we are stronger when we negotiate together, when we work together to fight for the values that we want to see in the budget, to fight for the items that we want to see in the budget together. I thank President Bears for his work on putting together this letter. I think it's very comprehensive. It's very clear. I think it's very well done, so thank you so much.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, I think folks who've been following this issue know I've been of two minds about it. My instinct is with my fellow Councilors that we shouldn't sell public land. I also appreciate the letter that was sent to us. I think the subtext of that letter is asking us to think bigger picture about, um, you know, getting that next study, I think will help affordability in the long term by telling us exactly how we can achieve the bigger picture goals that we've set out. I think that's why I'm inclined to support it, but I did want to take this off the table because I wanted to hear the discussion after we got that letter from the Affordable Housing Trust as well. So I wanted to hear from my fellow Councilors too.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I mean, I think the last things that both Councilor Scarpelli and President Bears said I think way on my mind. I think about the practical effects of this. And, you know, I think There's the benefit to having two or three affordable units in that neighborhood, but does that is that outweighed by having an exit study that helps really advance affordable housing trusts work to get many more affordable units in Medford over a longer period of time. I think, in my mind, it weighs in favor of that. I'm not completely sure how many votes, this needs. It's possible that we, it might be wiser to wait until Vice President Collins is online with us. I know she was saying that she had some technical difficulties with their computers I don't. if, you know, if it's important to have that last voice on the Council, I think it might be wise to retable this, but I did want to have this discussion tonight to hear from Councilors while this paper was still, while the response that we got was on our minds.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Hi, everyone. It's really nice to hear all of my fellow Councilors bring in such important details and such important ideas from different walks of our city, from different facets of what our city government does. And I would like to start from the basics. And I'd love to co-assign my fellow Councilors Recommendations, particularly with regards to public safety and our infrastructure, making sure that pedestrians, cyclists and drivers all have safe roads to operate on. with regards to the investment in our accessibility and our inclusion when it comes to the activities that our children and teenagers have in Medford. And that means the therapeutic recreation specialist and full-time office manager for Medford Rec, which would also help a lot with the youth commission idea, which I'll talk about later. Um, I would also co-sign, um, Councilor Collins and Scarpelli's, um, idea. Um, their recommendation to increase the budgeted amount for the city solicitor's salary to, um, make sure that we are competitive with neighbouring municipalities. Um, general infrastructure spending when it comes, uh, I'd like to co-sign, um, ideas for general infrastructure spending as well. to make sure that we're doing the basics of city government, making sure that we are filling our potholes, fixing our streets. And I think with that being said, I would like to take this moment to also thank Bedford voters for passing the prop two and a half question last year, which will allow us to get a step forward on that. This budget process year after year really shows us as a city council and shows the city as a whole how budget constrained municipalities, including Medford are. And that vote in the fall really helps us this year to maintain financial stability, even with ongoing challenges that we face, including this random cuts to federal funding, and what most economists and what most business leaders predict will be rising cost of living. We, I would also like to do support the council, what Councilor Collins said in her memo about meeting the school committee's budgetary requests for the Medford public schools and meeting the library department's budgetary requests as well. We have these two amazing resources that so many Medford families rely on. And I think it's really paramount that we keep that at the front of our bucket, our items, our priorities going into this budget. And remember how crucial it is to our government's responsibility that we make sure that those services are well and up and running. Now, with regards to some of the ideas that that I brought up in my memo that haven't really been covered yet. A number of our projects as a city council have been going through the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee. And the two biggest ideas that are reaching a decent amount of progress For us to consider putting it in the budget would be the Human Rights Commission and the Youth Commission. And in order to make sure that they operate well, to make sure that the representation on these two bodies are balanced, that we attract enough candidates of diverse experiences to serve on these commissions, and to make sure that they can carry out the day-to-day functions that we would expect a human rights commission, a youth commission to do, such as community events, reports, studies, a youth summit. I've suggested asking for $15,000 for the HRC and $20,000 for the youth commission. And these numbers come from discussions with city staff, with community leaders, and over the last two years about what our needs are and what logistically we need to get these two projects over the finish line. With that being said, some other stuff that I put in was making sure that we had a plan to update our city's financial software. I know Councilor Collins mentioned that in her memo as well. in more detail than I did. So that's a thank you Councilor Hollins for that. To make sure that we have the financial and assessing staff that we need, if we're looking at the tax reforms like the residential exemption, which I know Councilors want to discuss more. I think if we want to give ourselves that option, we need the staffing for it. I know that One of the complaints I hear from city staff, too, is about how the systems, in terms of tech systems that we have at City Hall, and don't ensure that departments do what they promise to do on time. So I think a great example of that is oftentimes HR needs more modern resources and technologies to be able to do their job well. And that's why I put that in my memo as well. And one issue I hear a lot from residents is the need for a real plan to address our child care crisis. It's such a financial strain on Medford families who have to organize child care and to not be able to find it and to have to go to different communities and fight with different and families from different communities on that issue. And I know that we've been making some progress on it, but we really do need to be making more progress on that. And so I view budget season as a time to also ask for more concrete plans for things. And I think this is a good chance for us, even if it doesn't make this budget, to ask for more concrete plans for the city administration on this issue. My last kind of bucket of recommendations centered more about maintaining funding. So making sure that things aren't cut. So maintaining our investments in the community liaisons program and potentially expanding it to include an Asian American community liaison. I know that was talked about last year and I think we made some progress back then and it's kind of stalled out. So I think that's one thing to raise during our budget meetings this season. I also want to make sure that we are maintaining or improving our translation services and affordable housing trust because we know those two issues are going to be really paramount and really, really crucial in the next few years. And a lot of Medford residents worried who are worried about what's happening at the national level and how that's going to affect us, want our city to be providing the day-to-day resources and the day-to-day services that they can access, and to make sure that we are also just making progress on road prevention. That's the last item on in my memo that hasn't been mentioned yet, but thank you all.
[Justin Tseng]: I'd second that.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Vice President Collins, for making this a lot clearer. And thank you to Director Hans and the team for clarifying some stuff that was on the map. I was a little bit confused about whether or I thought that the ADU wouldn't apply to the two-unit dwellings and three-unit dwellings and so on. So it is helpful to know that the ADU does apply to all the different types in the NR123 neighborhoods and I certainly support that. I think in general what I hear from residents is that they want to be, folks want to be able to do more with their property, especially in terms of creating more housing. There are a lot of folks who I, neighbors and residents I talk to who Want to be able to turn, you know, something into an 80 you they want their kids have moved out and they want to be able to, you know, live in the house that they own, but also to do more with that property. And so I think 80 years are a great way to do that, which is why. In general, my preference is to allow them would be to allow them in any residential neighborhood, even if there are not single family, single unit dwellings there. I think in general, for example, if we're taking you are 1. If we're looking at the 2 unit dwellings. It wouldn't make a lot of sense, in my opinion, to not allow that for a two-unit dwelling in UR1, but to allow that in our neighborhoods. So I think that's just my perspective on it, on question one. I also, in general, I understand. I'm not sure how this works. Maybe this is a question for the zoning team, but I wonder if there's a way to allow, for example, in UR1, to allow ADUs by right for certain types of dwellings and then to make it by special permit for the multiplex. I'm not sure if that's allowed or if we just have to decide it for the whole neighborhood. I'll leave that up to the zoning team, but that's just a question that I had. With regards to questions two and three, I am a little bit curious. I know 900 square feet is the number that we've chosen. I know it's a number that the state has said. I'm curious what the rationale behind 900 is. I wonder if there's a number that works better for Medford, or whether 900 is just the one that makes the most sense. With regards to additional ADUs on the same lot, I think my thought is that if it makes sense for that lot, the special permit process, in my opinion, I think this is what Councilor Lazzaro was getting to, is that oftentimes it can just be an additional barrier to people who would otherwise want to create an ADU. A lot of folks don't exactly know how to go through the special permit process. Maybe the weeks slash months it takes is just a hindrance to them, and I think that's something to consider as well. I generally leave it to this committee to make a lot of the discretionary decisions, and I have a lot of faith in this committee and in the zoning team. I just wanted to provide support for those things and to the sentiments from other councillors, from Councilor Lazzaro and Leming.
[Justin Tseng]: I realized that neglected number four I think I generally agree with President Bears. Um, we, I think the goal with zoning in general is to get more units on the market to lower housing costs that way. And I think, um, If we, you know if if we didn't have restrictions or prohibitions on short term rentals that that cuts against our goal. I did actually have a question for the staff. Under this proposed zoning change, let's say you have a family with a non-conforming, let's take your one. Your one is the easiest one to use as an example, I guess. Let's say you have a non-conforming single-family unit, but they do want to create an ADU. Now, let's say that we allow it either by special permit or by right. Would they be able to get an ADU or to build an ADU even if they don't turn the main dwelling into a two-unit or a sort of conversion or whatnot?
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, I just said thank you so much.
[Justin Tseng]: Any combo works. This will be on our agenda later tonight. So I don't want to go too much in depth into it, but the committee of the whole reviewed the draft charter as amended by the governance committee. We made a few more technical amendments. We also had a very long three and a half hour conversation on board representation and what that looks like and sent the draft to this regular meeting.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I've been diligently taking notes throughout this whole whole meeting about what people have been saying, the arguments for and against the concerns that residents have. So pardon me if I take a bit because there's just a lot on the stage. I want to situate us in the process, the greater zoning process first. This is a part of a large rezoning project that seeks to transform how our city approaches affordability, how our city approaches business growth, and makes our city a more thriving, livable place. We started this process, we did phase one during the last term, where we started out with basic changes, technical changes mostly. We've passed a Mystic Avenue rezoning, plan earlier in this term in December, as was noted before. And this is the culmination of years and years of public participation and feedback of community engagement, especially reaching out to communities that don't always get their say. And we see those ideas contained in our city's comprehensive plan, in our housing production plan, and in the climate action and adaptation plan. You know, I think the public feedback part is important, and I have been really grateful that we've done more during the Salem Street project than before, you know, we held information sessions we heard from the public. And like the changes that are not, NS Associates did respond to feedback and they made adjustments to things like medical definitions, the hotels, they added more regulations to make sure that the rear setbacks are better for lighting in the neighborhood and for curb appeal as well. So that public engagement process I think is really important to note here tonight. You know this isn't also also really important to note that this isn't the only neighborhood that we're working on, that there's a incremental that we're seeking incremental increases across the board making sure that all neighborhoods are participating and contributing to our solution to the housing crisis here. And, you know, I think to also mention in that grand scheme of things is that we have side projects meant to address a lot of concerns that people brought tonight. For example, I know that we've communicated with the Planning Development Sustainability Office and Innes Associates about traffic demand management, which could help us a lot when it comes to the traffic problem. This reform also closes loopholes that would that allow us to build the equivalent of 15 story buildings and actually aligns us much more with what is currently informed in the neighborhood. Now, there's so many reasons to consider with regards to this project. And for me, at the core is the problem of affordability. Now, I'm someone who is young, that's evident. I think people made a point of that a lot. And I'd like to say I'm Medford. I feel like I've contributed a fair share to this community. My family lives here, my friends live here. my support network is here, my shopping is here, you know, I do my grocery runs here. I have my appointments here. And I want to be able to stay here. But that prospect is threatened by the state of the cost of living crisis nowadays. It's threatened by the housing crisis as well. And we've it's not just me, right? We've heard time and time again, from residents whose doors were knocking from participants, public participants at this podium, about how They want to stay here, they want their family to stay here, they have cousins or aunts and uncles who also are feeling the pressure. And, you know, I think it shouldn't go unnoticed that many of those folks who can't afford the privilege of being here at this meeting are the ones who feel it the hardest. And, you know, this affordability crisis extends further to. It's according to studies, the main reason why people are moving out of Massachusetts and why Massachusetts isn't reaching the economic growth that we want to be seeing because we're not maximizing the potential of people being able to live close to their jobs. We are not recognizing that people want diversity in housing options. I know this is really surprising, maybe really surprising to older folks, but I think this is a great example. I was at a PowerPoint night a few weeks ago where we were designing or we were identifying dream homes for people. And a number of those homes, at least a third of those homes were apartments. And that's a generational change. And that's a generational change that we have to account for in urban planning as well. It's also really important to note that this zoning reform not only has affordable housing requirements, it actually strengthens those requirements by creating a really innovative dual track system where there are different tracks that you can take for incentives. For example, you can believe it's 80% of area median income and 15% of area or 65% of area median income where someone choosing to build can choose one of those tracks, and that broadens affordability for more people who've traditionally been just on the cusp of getting affordable housing but not enough to qualify. And that's really important as well, and we're incentivizing that in this plan. I've heard the used car analogy from Miss Cameron and I actually think that's very apt. I understand the concern that maybe a lot of the units that will be built are luxury units but I think we think back to that analogy and the economics research has been super clear that even when you do build luxury housing, not that that's our preference, but even when you do that, people who can afford that choose the better housing, right, or they choose luxury housing, so they move out of the market for people who need normal housing. And I think that's something that data has shown time and time again this decade. And speaking about data, it's really important to look at the success stories in our country where housing has gotten more affordable, where people have been able to stay. I think Minneapolis is the best example of that, but there are multiple examples around this country where, you know, cities have kept housing, regions have kept housing prices down. Every single one of them dramatically increases affordable units or housing units in general, even more than what we see here today. I believe that this is good for business growth as well. I've talked to people looking to open businesses in Medford, and a huge concern that they bring up is the lack of a consumer base that lives close to where they would open their shops. I think that's something that we really have to consider. Now, it'd be great, too, to get cafes and entertainment. I've heard, we've heard a lot about grocery stores to hopefully solve our food desert-like problem. And I truly believe that folks who need food close to them and at a walkable distance will appreciate that this zoning law gives us the ability to open up that option for them. Understand, you know, people I'm upset that Johnny's Foodmaster isn't there anymore. I used to go there too when I was growing up. But government doesn't control whether a supermarket remains open or not. But we can control where food is available to our residents. This, I believe the zoning plan would put us on a path to more financial stability. We've heard a lot about how this will grow, you know, not that this is the goal, but it will grow our revenue base, it will increase investment in our city, in our city services, which in turn, we can use that fund to make safer streets, to have better city services, impact fees and studies and the fees that cover those will really help our city, in my opinion. When it comes to walkability, even though it isn't walkable right now, it doesn't mean it can't be. And it is really important too to note that with this whole, you know, environmental walkability traffic point that The young people who we are targeting, the young people who we want to be able to stay in Medford, a huge bulk of them don't own cars and choose not to own cars. The car ownership rates with people my generation are down over 25%. That's a choice. This zoning plan implements better energy efficiency standards and incentives to reach those standards. 70% of our emissions in the city come from buildings and houses. And studies again have shown time and time again, the way to reduce those emissions is to build denser housing. And we can argue over what density is right, but that is the science. So we have to account for that. Furthermore, when it comes to the traffic point, in maybe even a year, but at least two or three years, the MBTA will be running the 96 bus down and up this corridor during rush hours at a peak time of seven minutes, and even off rush hour within 15 minutes, I believe. And that's gonna provide connections to the red line, to the orange line, and to the D and E lines of the Green Line Express. The science shows that when you up zone like this, trip rates go down because life gets more convenient. People choose to walk. People choose to walk to things that are close to them. There's lots to say with regards to accessibility. I think a resident wrote me and was very compelling about how actually three or four story buildings aren't enough because there aren't, you know, people don't build elevators for those buildings. But anything over that level, people will build elevators for them, which means that people who can't get around easily will have a place to live. And I think that's something to consider as well. In fact, if you prevent walkability, if you make this less walkable, it is more restrictive and keeps folks stuck in their homes as well. And that's something that we're looking at with the transportation task force. I'm going on way too long, but I just want to end with this. This is a regional issue, I hear that you know there are residents who really do support this, who live nearby and residents who don't support this and live nearby as well. But we all have stakes in this issue. This is a regional issue we're all you know we are all affected by the lack of housing in one area. And we're all affected by the lack of housing in Medford as a whole. And so it does make sense for all of us to be commenting on this. In fact, You know, if you don't like this, you should go to Wayland. You should go to Acton. You should go to Haverhill. You should go to those communities and ask them to build more housing as well, because that's going to help us reach our regional goal. I find any comment asking people to move away because they don't like something despicable, but I have to note that the context in which we heard that tonight was asking young people who can't afford to live here to move away. And I think that's really important to note as well. We want young people to be able to stay. We want all people to be able to stay. And not addressing the housing crisis pushes all people out. It pushes young people out. I've talked about that here. But it also pushes old people out. It pushes middle-aged people out. It pushes families out. And that's something that we have to consider as well. I do actually hear a lot of these concerns. I think a lot of the concerns can be addressed in the future. with greater resources, greater revenue. But ultimately, I think what I have to say is that I got elected on a platform to increase housing, to invest in our communities, to work on environmental standards and raising those, and to make our city centers more lively and thriving. And it would betray my platform to vote against this. We can't, help kicking this down the road. We can't keep kicking this down the road. I think if not us, then who? If not now, then when? And I'll leave it at that. And I do want to thank Vice President Collins. I want to thank Planning Development Sustainability staff and to NS Associates for working so hard on this. I want to thank the members of the public on both sides of this issue for commenting, because it does, you know, even the criticism helps us identify things for the city to be working on in the future. Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng. I have very similar sentiments to Councilor Callahan. This was one of the core planks of my environmental platform running for this term. And I think Vice President Collins did a superb job explaining it. This is really meant to get us and get developers in Medford to be much more accountable and much more incentivized to be innovative in how they address environmental issues and in making our city more livable. the numerous aspects of the green score with regards to vegetation, with regards to blue roofs and green walls, et cetera. All of those things are things that 21st century cities should be doing, that Medford can be doing, that we can do by passing this. I'll just end really quickly with a quick anecdote. This kind of stuff, the stormwater, the vegetarian mutation, all of this is so important because many of us live in neighborhoods or have lived in neighborhoods where the flooding gets really crazy when there's a heavy rain, where heat islands are a particular problem. These are all effects of climate change that we're seeing and facing now and today. This global issue really does affect us locally. And this is a core way for us to address this taken from our climate action adaptation plan.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. This might help get at Mr. Fiori's questions. I think the simple answer is that it is very factor-based. So the green score, the way it works is that it adjusts flexibly for different beneficial landscapes that might come up, which means that there are different requirements as well. So that's something to factor into our thinking when we think about the economic concerns that were brought up. Part of the way of doing this is to also make it way clearer to developers how we approach our environmental standards. Instead of having to find all these things in different places, this makes it a really easy rubric and calculation. There, I think it also depends on the baseline you're comparing this to the baseline we have in Medford is really low so I think I'm still optimistic that it's going to create housing units. I think it's also worth saying that much of this is incentives. So there are a lot of things in here that developers aren't required to be building, but are ways for us to essentially give them the carrot and ask them to do the best for Redbird.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. President Bears, I think you covered the substantive changes very well. Just to give a quick overview of the process, we as a governance committee received the recommendations from the mayor after her review from the Charter Study Commission who prepared a bunch of recommendations. During this whole process, we have been doing our best to make sure that the stakeholders who have been working on this so much have been included in our discussions, including inviting members of the Charter Study Committee to our meetings. The Collins Center was here at a number of governance committee meetings as well. And I've also been in contact with mayor's office throughout the process, even before we started in the governance committee. In the Governance Committee, as President Bayer has acknowledged or noted, we made several edits, all in the spirit of the Charter, but after very long discussions about what we thought aligned with the values of Charter review, notably promoting equity. In doing that, we made, in addition to the technical edits we made, we passed a new recommendation for what that more local representation would look like. I'm ending up with a four district five at large model, as you said, and by removing the mayor's the school committee chair, which is a change that most residents in our community have been telling the people on the on the charter study committee and in governments that they wanted to see. to quickly, there's been a lot of conversation and discourse over ward representation, what that looks like here. And I know there are even Councilors who, myself included, have noted that there are even better systems out there that we would like to see, like ranked choice voting, like multiple member districts. But The charter as it stands today, I think is a fair distillation of the conversations that we had on the governance committee and in the committee the whole meeting last week. And what is politically feasible for us to get something through the state house. I think a quick note on equity, we've talked a lot about it. I know there's been more conversations online about it. I spent time today talking to, there's one article in particular that's become a subject of conversation or article written by my professor, my advising professor who I talked to today, whose recommendation, whose interpretation of what she wrote. is the same as my interpretation of what was written, which is that we have to be careful not to take the easy way out. We have to be careful to make sure that we're not incentivizing politicians to isolate certain voting groups and constituencies in the city, that it makes sense for us to keep politicians accountable to more diverse constituency groups. There's a news article in God of Nomad for about the conversation that we had. I know Tufts Daily is working on something as well. So I'll leave that there. I did get feedback from the school committee counsel, Howard Greenspan, Attorney Greenspan, about the two sections that our governance committee noted to ask for his feedback. So I'll quickly tell you guys, I've also sent this to the clerk and President Bears, who the clerk heard of these has distributed this to everyone. So on the specific wording around appointment authority of positions under the superintendent in section 4-5, B1, we raised this for Attorney Greenspan to look at because The state charter, DSEE regulations, and mass general law all say slightly different things. His recommendation is that the specifics of the positions are removed from the charter, and the reference conferring all the authority of the MGL is sufficient. He recommended against duplication where there could end up being discrepancy. He further said that if that clause must remain, there are other additional positions that need to be included, which Vice Chair Graham included in her prior comments. With that being the advice from Attorney Greenspan, I would make a motion to approve this, but strike section 4-5B1, and to renumber the rest of the section accordingly. Yeah, yeah, the whole section. So that is the main edit that Attorney Greenspan has recommended to us. The other section that we had Attorney Greenspan look at was 8-43 about ineligible measures to be put on a referendum ballot. We amended that in our last Committee of the Whole meeting to read in addition to the city budget or the school committee budget as a whole, we added the words or any part thereof. And Attorney Greenspan said that the change that we made as the Committee of the Whole is sufficient.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, now I'll just.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I just wanted to thank Councilor Callaghan for sharing what she wrote. Again, what Councilor Callaghan wrote is about, you know, research that has been done for a very long time in this country, because, you know, we always seek to improve our electoral systems to better match both the identity, but also especially the policy objectives of our communities. I think what Councilor Callaghan wrote is super meaningful. It very much overlaps with a lot of the research I've done on this topic as well. And a lot of the conversations that I've had with political scientists and lawyers who are working on electoral systems, trying to make them more equitable. So I encourage everyone to read that post. I think another thing that I've been talking about too that I haven't gotten to mention tonight is the need, again, returning to the policy argument, the need to align our greater objectives with our local desires as well. And I think we see that a lot tonight. We've talked a lot about parochialism and how if we overly shift to another model of governance, that can create unintended consequences as well. And those consequences are what I've been phrasing as, it's really a democratic paradox, because you can have commitment to pro-housing policies, but yet still have a situation where every single neighborhood doesn't want that policy there. Um, the I believe the 4-5 balance by making it more more closer to half and half, um, allows for both sides of the argument to be heard and to be expressed and to be voted on. Um, and to not, you know, overly weigh the conversations in favor of one over the other. Um, I'll leave it there because there might be more to say with, um, after, but I think a lot has been said already. So thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Hold on. I just wanted to thank Jose for his dedication to our community. We see you sitting there for how God knows how many hours. I know you got school tomorrow too. And that's not an easy task. So thank you for holding in there and I'd like to motion to adjourn.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I echo my colleagues' comments. You know, even if you're not a cyclist, you almost definitely know one in your life. And it's really important that we protect every single life that we can on our roads, that we have that safety. I've been reading through the document that was circulated by the clerk. And this is really, really helpful for us as Councilors to guide, you know, our thoughts going into budget season and to have concrete examples of what we can do. And this will, I'm sure for, us on the city council guide a lot of the questions we ask the directors in the departments as well. I'd be really curious to know like in the future after, you know, the commission and us on the City Council, we all talk through the budget items to see what we can advocate for, what seems like a realistic action plan to get these things done. There are a number of these that I think different committees on the City Council can help with as well. For example, facilitating complaints about snow removal and stuff like that, right? Social media pages, outreach efforts, maybe that's something that the public engagement committee could help with as well. So I think It'll be useful for us as Councilors to go through this later on and think about what committees can help with which efforts. So this is super, super helpful. And thank you so much for it. I think I also want to remind folks at home that safety on the roads is not only an ethical issue, it's also a legal issue as well. I've heard of a lot of cases in Medford where cyclists are harassed and threatened by drivers. That's not OK. And it actually is considered assault under Massachusetts law, both as a crime and a civil offense, and it can be punished. So I just want to put that out there and say, this is something that state law, that our city takes really seriously. And it's not a joking matter. Thank you, Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: Hi there, could you give me just like two, three minutes?
[Justin Tseng]: Thanks.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you chair Leming. Um, let me start again by just generally framing what we're trying to do here, give a little bit of context for where we are now. And then I can walk through the draft changes, the new draft that I had circulated to the other members of this committee last week. So essentially, this starts with reappraising where, you know, the type of work we're doing in our city when it comes to social justice, civil rights, human rights. And something that I heard from former committee members of the HRC and sitting commissioners was that was that essentially the original enabling ordinance hamstrung them so that they couldn't meet quorum to meet, they couldn't do a number of things that I think other cities very normally do within their HRC powers that our city hasn't done because we haven't reviewed or revised this ordinance substantively in such a long time. And so I've been working over the last few months, it's getting close to a year, with members of the community who have experience on the HRC, members of the community who have experience in the field of advocating for social justice issues, and also working with members of the current HRC to draft an ordinance that makes our HRC more functional again. The most recent updates is that the HRC hasn't been able to make a quorum for the last few months, so the HRC just hasn't been meeting. Furthermore, Francis Noage, the RDEI director, has resigned as liaison to the HRC as well, and so there's no city staff member who is there to help the HRC get off the ground. And I think that really underscores the need for us to pass an updated HRC ordinance as soon as we can. I've been working with members of the city administration in the last few months as well to hear from them about what changes they'd like to see the ordinance and negotiating with them on that front. and also continuing to work with community members to make sure that the proposed changes are in alignment with what members of the HRC and former members of the HRC would want to make sure that this ordinance gives them the ability to do that. With that being said, I think my goals for this meeting is to get our committee generally behind a document. I'm slated to meet with the mayor soon to discuss this ordinance further. I think my goal, to be transparent, would be to get something out of this committee by next month. And so that's why I'd like to get us on the same page about these edits that we've made over the last few months together first. Before I go into the document itself, are there any comments from councillors?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. A lot of these edits A lot of these edits are somewhat technical, but there are some substantive edits as well. So, as you can see in the establishment and purposes section, these are kind of more technical edits to make sure that we are including, to make sure that we're including parts of the, Like, every sector of the community that we can think of, and to make sure that this language is tighter as well and more inclusive. So that's technical with regards. 1 of the big conversations that members of the city administration community advocates and I have been having is about the size of the. and the previously proposed size. So previously the ordinance language read for the HRC to have 12 to 18 members and a few, Francis brought this up as well as a number of current HRC members bringing up the worry that this might be too big of a size and if we set a lower bound of 12, We might have a period of time where we aren't able to have the HRC meet because we haven't appointed up to 12 people yet. We had, the community advocates and I have had a very long and extensive discussion about it because we want to make sure that there are as many voices as possible on the HRC. The size here is, you know, there's a benefit to having a higher number so we have a diversity of voices, I think. The if we read the purposes and you know the powers and duties of HRC in this ordinance. It's much more expansive than the current current ordinances. And so the idea is having more people would help HRC get more stuff done as well. But then we also have to balance that with with the practical concerns too. It was suggested to me from Francis that we do nine to 12 members. In this draft, I think generally, I think nine to 15 makes sense to retain a lot of the flexibility that we initially wanted. And, you know, if it gets to a point where 15 is unworkable, I think there's flexibility there to keep the slots open, but I think it's worth trying to get more members too. So with that change, we have basically reconfigured the appointment system as well to make it more even. Basically, a third being the mayor, a third being the city council, and then appointing from different community groups. And this is something that was also in the last draft, but to explain this again, since it's been a few months, the idea I think is for, you know, I think the idea is that we would have members of different commissions that aren't the HRC but have interests in the HRC, where the work overlaps also sit on the HRC, to help facilitate cross-commission, cross-department, cross-organizational cooperation as well. I know something that we have been talking about is potentially deleting this because we don't really need it. And I think that's probably a decent recommendation, although we can talk about that later. Another edit that we made to this section is in section B. So essentially, Before the language read, no more than half should be of any one gender or racial identity. We changed it to 60% for functionality, just because it's hard to guarantee half or less. And so this gives us a little bit of wiggle room while still maintaining the spirit and the purpose of the original text. And here, this is an adjustment to respond to the original, like the change in section A. In section E, we have clarified some language here about reimbursements. We had a good conversation about how there are, number one, we should clarify that this is that Sorry, I can't speak. We should clarify that HRC commissioners who are spending their money on top of a stipend or whatever, if they're spending their personal money on getting a project done, they should be The this ordinance should allow them to get compensation for that as well. So I think a concrete example is if someone is buying, you know, posters for a community event to let them know about their rights, right? I know your rights event, then they should be able to be compensated for printing those posters in the first place. And I think that's really standard. custom as well. And we believe that that should extend to volunteers as well, just to make sure that they're being compensated for their time, effort, their money being spent. And I think it's important to put that put this in. I've been talking to some people who are more legally trained than I am. And the idea is if we don't put this language in, then it actually might sound very restrictive. And then the last edit to this section, as it stands right now, is just some clarification on the training that HRC members should receive. There is some surplus language, I believe, especially in addition to later in the ordinance. So that's what that is. We've broken, upon the recommendation, I believe this is of a few people, a few, this is from a few community members, current HRC members, from Francis as well. There's the recommendation that we should clarify a little bit what the officer's roles are. So the original ordinance did put in that there should be a chair, a vice chair, and a clerk. And as we saw during charter review, this is becoming more standard. As we also saw during charter review, our charter review conversations, for us to be able to have that flexibility in terms of how a commission is structured, we need to talk about it a little bit more in ordinance. So I actually grabbed the language for most of this section from the draft charter. So, you know, this is like quite standard vetted language it aligns with like the draft city charter, but then there's some more clarification as well as well as customization for the HRC. I, because it's not very standard to have a treasurer for, well, it's not very, it's not always common for a treasurer to be an officer in a commission. I've put the financial procedure aspects, the finance aspects under a joint responsibility of the officers. I think that's something, if this committee has different views on, we can talk about it. Cool. Another change that was suggested that we make was reducing the minimum number of meetings from 10 meetings to 8 meetings. The intention isn't for us to have fewer meetings, but the intention is to give us more flexibility. Legal wiggle room, essentially. I suspect this will be a big conversation tonight as well. Essentially, the administration has recommended that we adjust the language in section, subsection A here about legal counsel. from if the city has no solicitor, the commission shall be provided adequate funding to retain its own, to the commission should have adequate access to council. Because this is something I think we might be talking about a bit tonight, I just wanted to highlight the two arguments. So the argument for keeping it as it was before, so the original language, is that a lot of the work that the HRC might be doing might not always be in the interests, completely aligned with the interests of the city administration. And so it makes some sense for the HRC to retain its own council in those instances so they can get more honest feedback. and legal advice. The counter to that is a worry from the administration that in general, it's not recommended practice for different parts of the municipal government to be having different legal representation. And there's a worry about the legal consequences of that as well. And it is not exactly, not very standard for that. And then in the last section, the only real edit is to broaden B1 from discuss to review and discuss. This is just to essentially give the HRC the power to look at city policy as it stands, and to engage with city bodies in that sense, to be able to work with them to review human rights problems, and not just talk about it in a vacuum. Um, so with that being said, that's basically all the edits I, um, I've had. Um, I want to open this up, um, and hear feedback from Councilors and from residents.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, actually I can, I can also just keep this up. Um, that might be it.
[Justin Tseng]: Like, yeah, I also just noticed that we can, I think it's meant to read that. Okay, gotcha. Thank you. Is there any- And I would actually suggest putting civil rights in there too. Just the view right now, because sometimes human rights and civil rights are slightly different. So I wanna make sure that we're catching as much as possible. Gotcha. Councilor Callahan.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think that's a good point. I mean, I know when we were crafting it, at least it wasn't my intention that we limit it to Medford. Obviously, I think the focus should be Medford. But there have been a number of cases in the last year where the Human Rights Commission wants really, you know, uh, talk about issues happening outside of our city as well. And I think oftentimes the boundaries are really muddy, right? Oftentimes as we've articulated on the council before too, sometimes oftentimes human rights issues actually have effects here in Medford too. So maybe there's something, um, some changes that we can make in this section to broaden it a little bit. I don't think anything in this section necessarily precludes those conversations. Um, but I, um, because of this part, but perhaps there's some places where we can delete the words in Medford.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think that this is something maybe we can discuss as a committee and also to hear from the public. I do like what you're saying, and I actually quite liked how you put it earlier, providing the forum to discuss those issues and pending conversation, maybe we can draft some language on that.
[Justin Tseng]: I think that's a good, good question. I think the way I was thinking about it, and I'm curious to hear other, you know, voices in this Zoom meeting about this, the way I was thinking about it is that it would function somewhat like when, like when PDS you know, when they're working on something, a development project or something, they sometimes get advice from KP law. So, and I believe that comes out of the legal budget and not the PDS budget. So that's how I was thinking about it, the city providing that. And I actually think the language of this ordinance would provide that reading in my opinion. So because the part about the budget line for the MHRC, is about accomplishing its purposes. So roles, powers, duties. I think that probably, essentially, I think this stuff in this section is what their own budget will handle. And I think this falls outside of it. That's my reading. But we can also maybe get a wording that's a little bit tighter on that. Yeah, I'm curious to hear what people think. I think with regards to the city solicitor part, this first sentence essentially says that when there is a city solicitor, they should serve as the counsel of the commission. The difference obviously is, I guess, in the second part. When the city has no solicitors, the original one is just very directly saying, if the city has no solicitor, they should retain their own legal counsel. And the new version, this was suggested to me by the administration, is just to have adequate access to counsel. So that guarantees that they'll have legal counsel. It doesn't say anything about, um, making that they're, you know, the HRC's own legal counsel.
[Justin Tseng]: First sentence in C. The first sentence is state and federal.
[Justin Tseng]: So on this part, the mayor wasn't the one to suggest this part. This came from the DEI department. I mean, I think it's how you read it. And what we talk about in this committee will actually shape how courts will read it. I, the way I would read it is that this language is generally broad. Um, so essentially just saying that they have to have some access to council, but I think the language that is suggested in this new updated version would basically give that authority to the mayor's office to decide, um, where the, whether the council they get is KP law or whether the council they get is someone else. Um, whereas this original language that wasn't there before, the way I read it is the commission should be the one to decide who to, you know, who to serve as council when there's no city solicitor. So it's like an agency thing.
[Justin Tseng]: I think there, I think they'd be hesitant to language. At this point, I'm starting to lean into speculation territory, so I don't want to speak for the mayor's office or for the administration. I would guess that they would say that Explicit references to independent legal counsel, I think they would be against. I wonder if there's some wiggle room where we clarify that there's no preclusion. But I think it's an art to do that. So if people have suggested language that kind of goes, you know, You know, there's that needle. I'd be happy to hear your suggestions.
[Justin Tseng]: I think that aligns with how I see it. Steve.
[Justin Tseng]: make sure what we're doing aligns with what's been said. I think generally I still think that this is probably the best language because I think it leaves it open enough, but I could see it being construed that the city solicitor shall serve as the council of the commission. Like I think there's a, to use legal terms, there's an ordinary meaning argument that An ordinary person reading the ordinance would likely think that that restricts legal counsel to only the city solicitor and But at the same time, I think you can also make the argument that that wouldn't align with the legislative intent here. And it doesn't align with the record, which we'll see in the committee report when Adam finishes it. So it could really cut both ways, I guess is what I'm saying. Yeah. I mean, I don't think any of this precludes informal legal advice. I think the thing that it would preclude is a formal legal memo that an HRC might use to take legal action, which I don't think, in most cases, the HRC would have a cause of action anyways. So I don't think it'd be relevant, like I don't think it'd be material to the conversation. So I don't think, I think as long as like, we're, as long as people are okay with this potentially being cabined to, you know, informal legal advice, the type that we kind of see very, very often. I think that's at the very minimum with this allows for this current language. But if we want to, you know, if we want to get past that box, then we should think about maybe other proposed language.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, my plan is for us to accept a version of this with edits, so I can bring it to the mayor and say that it's the most recent version from this committee. And the mayor has told me that there are some substantive edits that she might want to be looking at. My plan in full transparency is to write down the edits that she wants to make, talk through them. And of course, I'll talk about the legislative intent of this committee as well. So I'll speak from that perspective. And then I'll bring those proposed edits back to this committee. Maybe there might be a compromise text too. So the mayor and I might reach a compromise and we can review that all together as a committee at our next meeting in April. I believe it's April. And hopefully we'll be able to vote something out of committee by that meeting so that we can get on enforcing this pretty quickly. I also wanted to add, I actually think Barry's suggestions are quite good. I think either of those edits, maybe even just striking the city solicitor sentence might work, although I believe we kept the city solicitor language in because Councilor Scarapelli said that he favored that. And so maybe we made the first, the former edit of switching shell to me. But that's also a question for this committee too. There are more Councilors than just me and George. Yeah. So do you want to change the shall to may? I mean, I think either proposal would work. I think actually the latter is a stronger proposal just to strike the first sentence. But, but I think that depends on what this committee wants.
[Justin Tseng]: I would motion to accept the edits and to keep the paper in committee. But before we take a vote on that, I just wanted to talk about other things.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, sure. Um, so let me, I guess maybe I should share my screen again. I guess the first thing I do want to get clarification on, but I know we talked about this quite a bit. Um, is there consensus on this committee about, um, what language I should present to the mayor regarding section subsection a here?
[Justin Tseng]: One suggestion just popped up in my head from what Anna said. Perhaps we can say this, the commission shall seek and have adequate access to council.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. Just for the record, my proposal to add the word seek wasn't to create a loophole. I think seek is an active verb. So that's just where I'm coming from is adding another active verb to, to open up that to clarify the, um, the abilities. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I can generally talk to her about it. Yeah. Okay. Cause yeah. Yep. All right. Uh, The other amendment I actually would like to make, I haven't talked to folks about this yet, but I do think putting at minimum here just allows the commission to have a bit more flexibility in terms of, you know, if a major human rights issue has come up in the middle of the year. And, you know, people are demanding action from the city about it. And then maybe let's say the HRC does something, I'd be afraid that if we just kept it at annual reports, that constrains them to like waiting a whole six months to publish a report. So just putting at minimum, I think gives them a bit more flexibility. And that's all.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Nope, that's all. There's a motion on the floor, but that's all.
[Justin Tseng]: To keep in committee. And keep in committee. Not to replace, not to receive in place on file, because that would finish the paper. Well, never mind then. I'm tired. I'm operating on. We had a long meeting yesterday too.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you all for showing up and for speaking and for your hard work on this. I'm feeling good about it. I think we can get somewhere by the next month. Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Yeah, I think there's so many great ideas floating around right now. First, I just want to thank you to Chair Leming and Councilor Callahan for this report. It's really helpful for us to hear about what's being discussed and the issues that people are bringing up and to think about best practices and how we can adjust how we're running these things. It's such a It's a new concept, so we're always working out how we implement it. So that's really helpful. I really like what Councilor Callaghan is thinking with regards to making these conversations, these forums, these spaces to be more inclusive and less intimidating for people who might want to bring something up and doesn't feel like they're able to say it. I'm excited to see where that goes and if we find maybe down the road, it'd be great to work on a list of best practices for facilitating these meetings. I know Councilor Callaghan had a document early on in the year that was really helpful. Maybe if we keep working on something like that and if we have any new observations about how to best run these meetings, collecting those and disseminating them to Councilors would be really, a really good idea. And I think to Councilor Lazzaro's point, if we see, you know, issues come up again and again, collecting the resources beforehand, being ready for those meetings to disseminate that information, that'd be very helpful.
[Justin Tseng]: So yeah, Councilor Tseng. Thank you. Thank you for working on this. Just starting with the easiest edit under public health and community safety, the discussed, I see you're underlined. I think there should be.
[Justin Tseng]: That is latex formatting. I figured. I just figured I'd bring it up in case you didn't see it. Thank you. Um, another smaller technical edit, I think, would be to, um, for the February 25th stuff on, um, yeah, up there, I might, I, I think the thing that most residents would be interested in is probably the bond for repairing lead sewer pipes. So I would probably move that up. And I think it could be helpful to clarify that, to note that these repairs include the helping like private property owners replace lead sewer pipes as well, since that's like a real difference from compared to old city policy. I don't know what the best phrasing for that is, but I do think that's notable enough since, you know, I think, you know, residents should also be aware that we're going to, we're going to be helping them by doing stuff on their properties as well. And I think that notice would be helpful.
[Justin Tseng]: I remember DPW had the formulation for it. Do any of the other Councilors remember how they phrased it?
[Justin Tseng]: Neither. Neither, right?
[Justin Tseng]: Right.
[Justin Tseng]: You're right. So identify, repair, lead sewer pipes on both residential and city property.
[Justin Tseng]: So that's the only suggestion I have besides the charter stuff. I wonder if there's a very short way, because I think some of this charter stuff is very in the weedsy without, you know, I think like a general thing about like we talked about the role of equity and like we discussed the role of equity and And policymaking. And that led us to this these conclusions I think that would be helpful somewhere. Because I think absent that it's just kind of numbers swirling around. I know I've been in the weeds about this information, but I'm trying to put myself in the position of someone who hasn't been.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. I think, I think this part. Oh, one note about this part is we did remove the mayor as chair of the school committee. Um, and I think that's, that's actually probably the biggest edit we made that night. Um, yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh yeah, for sure. I just think like sometimes without a framing of them, it can get a little lost. For example, for the top section, the ward based district based stuff. I would suggest saying after a lengthy discussion about equity access and policymaking, we voted to change the charter study committees.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. Write something quickly in the zoom chat.
[Justin Tseng]: Why don't we let Anna... Anna, do you have any edits you want to make before your phone dies?
[Justin Tseng]: Cool. Um, I don't have any other notes besides we didn't the government governance committee didn't meet for March 4 so I would just cut that part.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, under all of this, there's a, it says, Yeah. Do you see line 227? Oh, right. I gotcha.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. There's, you mentioned the compensation in earlier in the bullet points. I just want to make sure we say something quickly about that. The committee voted to adopt the study committees. recommendation on compensation for elected officials compensation.
[Justin Tseng]: The other side of the rail.
[Justin Tseng]: Do we need a little bit of context here? Because we did also discuss this for a while.
[Justin Tseng]: This is another- Yeah, I actually didn't realize the YouTube videos were linked, so that'd be really helpful to just say, and I think that would cover everything.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. That'd be super helpful. Cause I totally did not realize that looking at this.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I try my best. You wouldn't always know it from a, you know, inbox.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Over the last two months, the governance committee has been reviewing a draft charter developed by the charter study committee and sent to us from the mayor's office. This has been a really exciting process. I know a lot of residents have been engaged in this process over a long time and especially in the last few weeks. You know, this process really will change what Rules underlie our governance, and as I've heard it being put multiple times before, the Charter is a reflection of who we are as a city. I think it's really important to thank the members of the Charter Study Committee for their work over the last few years. Where the city council comes in is where the state law begins, which, you know, using the method that the mayor chose to do charter review. The city council is the body that has to approve any proposal that we sent the state legislature on the text. The legally binding text that the text that will send to the voters starts here and that's the work that we've been doing with our due diligence over the last few months. During those meetings, I made sure to invite members of the Charter Study Committee, members of different bodies that would be affected, such as the School Committee and multiple member bodies to the meetings and to provide feedback, many of whom did provide feedback to us. I'm proud to say that I think the Governance Committee really did consider feedback from all different angles, from different perspectives. We had some real debates in committee about what we bring to this committee, the whole meeting. And I think that the conversation, the discourse that we had was very thoughtful. Now, just to summarize, there are three main buckets of edits that the governance committee made. There are two bigger substantive changes. And then the last bucket are just technical edits to clarify language and to make sure that the language that we had in the draft city charter was legally airtight and wouldn't lead to any loopholes. The two big substantive edits that we made was to adopt a district-based composition for city council to align it with the school committee model that was proposed, and to remove the mayor as the chair of the school committee, keeping the mayor on the school committee as a normal member. I do have some more technical edits going through the city charter in communications with the Collins Center and also in working with folks at Harvard Law, just some technical edits to make sure that we don't slip into any situations where there might be litigation and to make sure that we're fully aligned with state law and that each part of the city charter aligns with each other as well. I have a list of technical edits too. So to start in section 1-3, I would suggest removing the words, not including the Medford public schools, specifically from the definitions of city agency and city office or department head. That's a change that we made at the last meeting on the school committee. And that's a change that was recommended to align us with CELAW. I'd also suggest in section 1-7, the definition section, two edits. One, to add the word new before initiative measure, and to add the words excluding repeal referendum measures at the end of the definition. This brings us in alignment with the rest of the document which we edited. at that last governance committee meeting. It also just clarifies that we do have a new initiative measure process and a repeal referendum process, and those don't overlap. So there's no loophole there. The second edit that I would suggest making to section 1-7 would be to add the word repeal before referendum measure. That's again, just to align what we have there. A technical edit suggestion that I have for section article 3-8 would be to add the word temporarily before the word unable. This is the section of the city charter about what happens with a temporary absence of the mayor in talking to lawyers. It's pretty, there was a pretty big red flag in this section about this potentially giving the city council the power to coup the mayor with a bunch of different legal rules, doctrines for why the section as is would do that. This doesn't reflect the intent of the Charter Study Committee. It doesn't, in our conversation at the Governance Committee, didn't reflect the intent of anyone at that meeting as well. In section 3-10, I have two proposed edits. The first one would be to add the words in bullet point A, so subsection A, add the words, and shall receive compensation as established by ordinance for the office of mayor. That is to clarify something that we had discussed in the governance committee about making sure that someone doing the job of acting mayor for months on end would be paid for that. There's a very similar edit I'd like to make in, I suggest that the committee of the whole make in part B to amend the final clause to end after the sentence to end the sentence after the words section 3-1A and to insert the following. Quote, such person shall not be entitled to have the words candidate for reelection printed against their name on the election ballot for the office of the mayor, but may have these words printed against their name on the election ballot for their original city council position. Such person shall receive such compensation as established by ordinance for the office of mayor. This is just to clarify a potential ambiguity that was raised to me just to make sure that we are keeping with the intentions that we had. So this is just really clearing up a loophole. In section 4-8B, I would suggest replacing the words highest vote getter with candidate receiving the highest number of votes. That's just to align us with legal language. In section 6-4, I would suggest adding that the budget should be required to be posted on the city website. In section 8-4, subsection 3, I would amend the language to read the city budget or school committee budget as a whole or any portion thereof. That also reflects some, the conversation that we had at our last governance committee meeting, just to make sure that the language there is airtight as well, because the language before read the other way. And in Section 9-11, this is the final edit in Section 9-11, I would suggest replacing the words Board of Election Commissioners with City Clerk. That's another, just a technical edit. So with that all being said, and I can email this list around to the City Clerk and to Councilors if need be, I would motion to accept the recommendations of the Governance Committee with these technical edits.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng? President Bears?, sorry about that. No worries. Thank you. There's a lot to unpack there, but I wanted to start with, let's talk about equity. Because this is a guiding decision behind so much of our city's policies, behind this charter reform in particular. And let's make sure that equity isn't just treated like a slogan. I think we agree about the concerns that there is just one elected person of color in the city, that for decades there's only been one elected person of color in the city. I, you know what, I look in the mirror every morning after I get out of the shower and I see that. And I think, you know what, I ran on a platform the first time I got elected and when I got reelected, I ran on a platform, not just to take the easy answer when it comes to equity, but to examine policies through the lens of equity. And that's a much richer, much deeper, much more complicated conversation. it is easy to say that if we draw smaller districts, that everyone will get represented. But that's not where the conversation has to end with equity. And actually, the conversation can't end there with equity. The conversation has to end with whether the outcomes that a future city council makes reflects that equity in the first place. Now, Research from decades, 40 years of research, have been really loud in saying that it's not enough to draw a majority-minority district. It's not enough to have a Black representative for a Black district or an Asian representative for an Asian district. And that actually drives worse outcomes for minority interests. It really does. When we see that you have one person of color on the city council, and I'm not even talking about this city council, we see that that is the effect of tokenism, that we take the easy way out, that we say that's enough, that we have diversity, that we have equity, that we have inclusion. And I implore the city council and I implore residents at home So look at the research. And there's quite a lot of papers on this. I will break this down, the general concepts really quickly. When you draw districts that are majority minority, the problem is that no one else is accountable to those voters or few people are accountable to those voters. And that's why political scientists and experts, sociologists suggest that we take a compromise approach to determining composition of elected bodies. The idea is that if we want real equitable outcomes, we need to make politicians accountable to more voters, to more different types of voter bases. And I think we luck out with the district proposal. We looked at the, in the governance committee, we looked at the percentages of majority minority, the majority minority share, especially in West Medford and Wellington. between the district model and the word-based model. And there truly is not a major statistical difference. But what that means is if we go to a district model, a district Councilor will be accountable to more minority interests. And I think if we're talking about equity, I think we need to trust the data. We need to trust the science on that one. We also see with equity, it's not just about race. It's about income. It's about the types of housing or lack of housing. And we also see that there is quite a lot of research. It's not just one study that shows that an overfocus on ward representation can heighten those problems of lack of housing development, of a further segregation of housing outcomes. with lower income and working class residents. That's what the data says. Look, I walked into this office, I walked into this situation, actually leaning towards supporting an 8-3 model for representation. And I wasn't married to it. And I was actually open to looking at other models. And I think, as I'm sure councillors will discuss tonight, there are other models that are actually better than any of the proposals that we have on the table. But our political process demands that we choose one of these ones. This is the thing, is when you do more research about this, there is a muddier picture. And it's not to say that district representation is what's going to solve the world. It's not going to say that ward representation is what's going to solve the world. The picture is really complicated. And, you know, talking about the point of this is a political game, and if it quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. I think that's funny, because we can also look at the data about that. And I'm not convinced that the proposal that we have here, the 4-5 split, is actually more expedient to you know, the certain group of politicians in the city, I actually think the data backs the other way. And so in supporting this amendment, I'm actually likely weakening my own position going forward. And I think it's, you know, really important to also say the most politically expedient decision I could make tonight is to revert to an 8-3 system. But I'm not convinced that that system solves the problems that we see today in our city. I'm not convinced that that would be better than a 4-5 system. And I'm not saying that the 4-5 system, the district system is gonna solve all of our problems, but the 4-5 system has problems that we can solve using other measures. through redistricting, through changing incentives, that we can't solve as easily with a ward-based system. And that's my research. I've spent all day on the phone with people who very strongly support a ward-based system. And we've come to a consensus that there is no perfect system and that it should be my, it's incumbent upon me as an elected official to make the decision that I think is morally right for the city. not the politically expedient one. And, you know, there's a lot to be said. We can delve more into the proposals, but I just wanted to put that out there.
[Justin Tseng]: No, I think that's, that's about it.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I thought someone else was in queue for me, but I'll go. I think, you know, I hear what Councilor Lazzaro is hearing too. That is something I've heard from people in different cities. Although I have to say, I hear equally from people who live in cities with districts instead of wards that they also feel the same, that they also feel like they have a direct line to their Councilor. Something that came up in a phone call today was that the wards don't necessarily align with the neighborhoods of the city as well. And so at the edges, all in all, they make sense. But at the edges, sometimes they can be arbitrary because we need to get the math to work out. And then this was from someone you know this concern was from someone who is leaning towards word representation at the start of the call and you know he brought up the fact that. he lives in one ward and feels like he's more of a resident of the other ward because that's where he goes to do his shopping and that's where things happen for him. And I think a strength for me of the district system is that you at least have, and we can disagree about this, this is just an open conversation about policy, but strength of the district system for me is that I think most people will fall into a district that they feel a part of. Whereas you risk, with ward representation people on the margins, feeling like they're not really a member of that ward because they live one street over. And people who, certain wards might vote certain ways, and they might feel politically isolated in that sense as well, and not being able to run for office because of that. It's just a complicated debate. There's no right or wrong answer. It's all imperfect answers. I another concern I've heard, and I feel is compelling, and that ties to this is to is that the wind count for, you know, getting a Councilor elected in one ward might be dramatically different from getting a Councilor elected in another word. And, you know, we've heard that perhaps moving toward representation will ease the problem, because, because there's more local engagement but That Medford is a unique city to, we have one word that's essentially half the university. We have a ward, that is half apartment blocks, and that in itself is a whole other challenge when it comes to campaigning to. And I think part of what's affecting my decision. leaning towards district over ward is that I don't think it's fair for one Councilor to be elected with, you know, 200 votes and another Councilor to need a thousand votes to get elected. We actually see that happening at the Senate, right? There's a lot of complaints about how the U.S. Senate determines representation via geography more than representation via people who live and engage with the process. And even though our wards and precincts are nominally drawn to be quite even a number, that's not reflected in other metrics in terms of who people are engaging for civic services, who's registered to vote, who's on the city census, right? All those numbers are different. And so that's something I think our committee talked about in the governance committee, but something that we should consider as well. moving forward. And, you know, I mean, I've received constituent requests from top students, but by and large, their requests are with the Tufts administration, and not us. And I think, you know, I've, I've heard about equity of workload. And that's just, you know, Medford is a unique city in that sense. There's much more to say. I mean, I've heard a lot said about the survey that was conducted as well. And, you know, I mean, I did surveys for a few years, for four years as a job. And, you know, surveys are hard to design. There's a very exact science to them. And, you know, I appreciate that our Charter Study Committee did a survey. I think it's way better that they did a survey than not to have this information. I think the risk is letting the survey dictate every decision that we make. I think it can inform our decisions. But as Councilor Callahan brought up, the questions aren't all precise, right? There are 663 respondents. Does that look like the city of Medford? I know the Charter Study Committee did actually work really hard to try to reach constituencies that normally aren't reached in the political process. Um, still, we see that the survey is very stacked towards homeowners in a way that is nowhere representative of our city as a whole. It's stacked towards, you know, It's stacked against people of color as well. And I think those are, you know, things to consider when we talk about the survey you know it's important to me as someone who's worked in the field before to treat it with nuance. Again, let's not throw it away. It's helpful, but it's, we have to be careful when we analyze the data as well. Um, something you know, Councilor Collins mentioned to to all of us how their residents who aren't completely in the know about charter review as well. And I've actually had Those are a lot of the conversations that I've been having too, is me going to, for example, Asian community events and talking to residents about what I'm doing this year on the city council. And obviously charter review has been the main thing on my docket for the last two months. And when they hear about it, they're like, why are you changing it at all? There's actually quite a lot of that. A lot of people don't understand that actually an all at large system isn't great. And I still think it's not great. And I think, actually, all at large, it's the worst system that we could have. But there are people out there who aren't dissatisfied with things how they are and who we just have to have a real deep conversation about. And I think that's something. It's like when we talk about engaging the public on these issues, we need to engage with a deep conversation. That's what democracy actually looks like, is when we have those roundtable discussions at community events. And sometimes they might lead us to one answer. Sometimes they might lead us to other answers. That's natural. And in democracy, not everyone agrees. So I think those are just things to consider. And I think on the role of it's been brought up that what we're doing is not necessarily respectful of the Charter Study Committee, but I have to say, from the way I see it, is that we're adding to the product of the Charter Study Committee. We haven't, as Councilor Collins noted earlier tonight, we haven't rewritten, but besides, you know, the proposals we've talked, the self-substantive edits that we're talking about tonight, 90% of the charter is exactly the same document, if not 95%. And I know that because I went through line by line last week and made red line edits. And substantively, most of the ideas that are in there, again, 90% of the ideas that are in there are in the version of the document before us tonight. Now, where I see our role is coming in is due diligence. It's us doing the diligent review of the proposals, us adding in the really important experience of being city councilors ourselves, seeing the job in action and knowing how it works. It is in reviewing the literature, again, the voting rights literature, the civil rights literature, the urban development, housing, suburban development literature out there that that we heard from our governance committee didn't get covered in the charter study committees, you know, meeting in their discussions. That's fine. That's why we, you know, that's why we have a role in this as well. That's why our governance committee reviewed the proposals so thoroughly, but there's lots to be said. So I don't want to monopolize time.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I'll be very brief, just because I know we have more public comment. My words were quoted. They were quoted accurately. They were quoted especially accurately when Mr. Givino said that I said Ward was better than At-Large as a system, because that's the context in which I said those things. My words were quoted accurately when I said that we need a bigger council. And that was actually one of the hesitations I had with the initial proposal as well. I heard from constituents that they wanted more voices on the City Council, and I was happy that Councilor Leming made the suggestion to increase the seats from seven to nine at that first Governance Committee meeting. I think it's really interesting to hear what I said in the meeting that wasn't quoted. I really emphasized the need, my view, that we need to look at multi-member districts that rank choice. I really emphasized the need for us to look at bigger districts in that meeting. I remember that very crystal clear. I remember bringing it up when I was canvassing around the same time and having a constituent who didn't see eye to eye on me on that. I just looked at my campaign website. It said that I could consider award representation. And I very much still believe that this is moving towards pretty much a very similar model. And I wanted, and I do think it should be said that maybe it's my age, but when I sat in that interview, I didn't get to any real content until the 30th minute. And I've been giving the Charter Study Committee a lot of good faith, because I do think that they're doing their work in good faith, but I don't I don't know if the best interview of a candidate are of an elected Councilors to not hear from them in the first not hear substance from them in the first 30 minutes.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng, I just wanted to quickly address the legal aspect of it makes sense for me because I'm a law student and I think about this all the time. I just found case law where the Supreme Court explicitly backs a system like this. where there was a merger of districts to make a larger district. There was a mix of district in that large. And the Supreme Court says that it is OK with the Voting Rights Act. It says that that's not the test. It says the test is an invidious discrimination. And the case is Dutch v. Davis. And this was settled in the 60s.
[Justin Tseng]: I have the data. I think I think the the speaker is misunderstanding the argument about racial justice. The argument is that if we explicitly, if we go very small, we dilute, we end up hurting racial justice because we make politicians less accountable to different groups of voters. And that's why I'm positing that, and the literature posits, that a compromise model would be the best to handle the situation right now. Um, so, with regards to the main minority majority majority minority district being being talked about, which is Wellington East Medford. The district is the Ward seven is currently. 55% white, oh, sorry, 48% white and the district would be 55%. That's a difference of 7%, which, you know, I said earlier at a governance committee meeting, we can go back and forth about how significant that is. One of the, I said earlier in this meeting that I think that we can remedy that problem because this draft charter actually gives us the power to redraw precincts and districts. And so we can actually, having looked at the census block data, block by block in Medford, I think we can draw a district that is majority minority, even if that is the interest. With regards to West Medford, this, give me one second. West Medford is currently, so this is Ward 6. Ward 6 is currently 72% white. Under the district representation system, it would be 71% white. So a difference of 1%.
[Justin Tseng]: I just have some technical things. The first most important thing is I distributed the list of edits to the clerk. Yes, yeah. At the very start of the meeting, he then redistributed it to all the councilors. So we'll have time to read it and we can walk through it if need be. And I can explain the edits in even more detail to the councilors, but we're not on that part. The motion on the table. Yeah, it's the next motion. It's not this one. I, you know, I have a lot of respect for the call center people I've been working with them a lot, but it's true that there were also really important legal questions that. they couldn't answer.
[Justin Tseng]: Right. And I think it's important to note, there's one part of the charter, for example, that got a lot of scoffs in the audience when I brought it up. But under temporary absence of the mayor, the text as is, the way you read it, does allow the city council by unanimous vote to remove the mayor permanently. And I talked to a bunch of lawyers about it. And this is the value of talking to lawyers about this kind of thing. There are at least three legal rules that would support that reading, including the rule of surplusage, rule against titles, and the rejected proposal rule. And these are three legal canons that judges use to interpret statutes. So it's not, and the idea is, The way that jurisprudence is moving in nowadays is that it's not enough to look at intention. It's not enough to look at committee reports or what happened in a committee meeting. The assumption is that the text rules. So it's really important that we get the text right. And that's why I've suggested a bunch of those edits. None of them are substantive. None of them change anything that we talked about in this committee or in the governance committee. They're just meant to align more with what both the Charter Study Committee and this in City Council wants. And then on the Quincy proposals, or the Quincy comparison, I did look up the wards in Quincy are actually very large. So they have six wards. That's their representation on city council. Each ward has about 16,000 to 17,000 people. With the exact same proportion, we'd actually have less than four district Councilors in Medford. And so we're actually being more generous in there. And some are both twice the size and yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I'll be brief. You know, when I think about just taking a step back from this whole conversation, when I think about what people want in their elected officials, and look, I could be wrong about this, but I keep, I always hear about people wanting their elected officials to act with integrity to do the thing that they think is right, even if it's politically unpopular, to follow data and to follow the law and not to disregard it. And look, that's the ideal I grew up with. And maybe that doesn't align with what people are feeling at home. And to that, I apologize. But I can't not vote my conscience on this, and I urge all the Councilors to vote their conscience on it too, because I think what I said about morality was misconstrued. I don't think there is a right answer. I don't think this proposal or any proposal is perfect. But I think we should vote our consciences. And I think that's our job. Look, we don't have to buy into every concern. I'm concerned about some of the stuff that Councilor Collins brought up, the parochialism, about competitive elections. I'm concerned also about what this means for racial justice. And you don't have to find all those concerns compelling. That's a democracy. We live in a free world where we are going to disagree with each other. That's not to say that those concerns don't exist. And my voters voted for someone who is thinking about these issues and who is concerned about these things. And if voters decide this fall that they don't agree with that, they're welcome not to vote for me. I would love your vote, but look, if I'm not the right choice for you, then I'm not the right choice for you. I think the last thing I want to say is that This job isn't just being here on Tuesday night or Wednesday night. I think there's a lot to this job about scheduling meetings about working on legislation about thinking through long term political impacts and long term social impacts and it's, it's not just that it's actually not just social politics, it's the economy, it's health, it's all these different things right. the job is complicated. And oftentimes, we see things that aren't really intuitive. We see when, you know, certain structures that we think should be working actually lead to unintended consequences. And it's our job, I think, as politicians and as elected, you know, public servants of this community to be able to respond to new information that we see, and to, to embody that in the decisions that we make. I hope that people in this community understand and want elected officials who will adjust their thoughts based on new information. I can't say that that's true for everyone. And maybe that's not exactly what all people want, but I think it's important to be said that when we encounter new information, we should be open-minded enough to adjust our priors.
[Justin Tseng]: I know that school committee council has looked at the school, the parts that would touch the school committee and school committee council is also looking, will be looking the next few days at it again.
[Justin Tseng]: I want to say I have no objections to having more, you know, council look at it, but yeah, we, we have it built it into the, into the process. If the question is whether the substantive edits are legal, there are actually two Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court cases that are quite parallel. You just be Wellesley, and you will be rent bored. of Peabody, I believe. Those are similar cases with similar facts where the Supreme Court sided with their city or town councils.
[Justin Tseng]: I, what I understood from earlier this meeting was that we take the language and present it for the regular meeting, just to give Councilors days, a few days to look over. I think that makes sense. There's some, some language from the CFC, but it's not the call center language.
[Justin Tseng]: I think it's unfortunate. Right. I mean, I think it goes to the point that several Councilors have made about, you know, in an ideal world, we would be able to do so much more. And this, I believe, is a good product for a world where the state legislature does have, you know, restrictions on what cities can do.
[Justin Tseng]: I think part of what I'll say will depend on what we hear from the directors. I'll hold that. But I think in general, I just came in in person, but I was on Zoom the whole time. It seems like this master plan is really important to making sure that we have a position that doesn't only work in one department, but can work cross departmentally. Perhaps we look at job descriptions in that as well, making sure that we write into the job description that this person will be collaborating with different departments. Maybe there's some level of city council involvement too in ensuring some mechanisms that make sure that we can have that. I think another, you know, when we talk about a master plan too, I think it'd be helpful for us as councillors to look into different municipalities that might have programs that are more effective, that, you know, maybe they're not 100% what we're aspiring for, but programs that are closer to our end goal and to see how those municipalities got there in the first place, looking at, you know, what types of roles did they hire? How did they structure it? How can we acquire the resources and do that planning that we need to over many years to reach that destination. But I can't claim to know that much. I don't profess to know the answers. So I really do want to let the director and let the advocates really speak to this.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. The cards are something that I will cherish a lot. Especially now going forward, there was a good few years where the only cards I really bought were Roots cards. because they meant something more than a store-bought card. I would see Ruth at West Bedford Community Center events, at artist fairs, and she was such a reliable, dependable presence at those places, and a really reliable, smiley face who I could talk to about issues that maybe I didn't understand because of my life experience. We grew up in very different places. We talk about how West Medford has changed, how the community has changed, what makes the West Medford Community Center community stick together so close, what's ticking there. And I've just learned so much from Ruth. And every time I would look at the cards as they sent them out, And, you know, I would get reminded, you know, of the fact that I'm supporting a friend and supporting a local business, a local artist here in Medford too. And that's why for me, over those years, those were the cards I bought and those were the cards I really cherish. is such a core presence in the West Medford community. And when she passed, so many people talked to me about the experiences, the really happy experiences that they had with her. And I'm very grateful for you, President Bears, for putting this on the agenda and for giving us a chance to talk about our happy memories of her.
[Justin Tseng]: Go to Councilor Tseng. I really can't speak to Bob even, you know, Yeah, I can't, I really can't speak to Bob in such a, you know, great way that Councilor Scarpelli did in his resolution because I think There's such a life that was lived and such a dedication to his community that we really ought to respect. I can, however, speak to my short experience with Bob on the school committee, and I think that's a testament to how long he served our city. I never intersected with Georgia on the school committee, but I did intersect with Bob. And as a student rep for the school committee, he was always really a great guide in showing me the ropes, showing me the ropes of how things worked on the school committee and what questions we should be asking of our leaders in the city. And through that work, I really got to see how dedicated he was to our city as well. So I wanted to send my condolences to his family as well, and to remember Bob for the great work that he did in Medford.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. In this governance committee meeting, we met to discuss in detail the rest of the Charter Study Committee's recommendations as sent to us by the mayor's office that mostly included school committee stuff and some elections, citizen participation mechanisms as well. We voted out amended draft of the Charter Study Committee's recommendations to the committee the whole meeting.
[Justin Tseng]: Are you ready? Governance Committee, February 19, 2025. Mr. Clerk, can you call the roll, please? Sorry, we're dealing with some sound issues here. No, mine's quiet. Mine's quiet. Click this one? Yeah, just do test. Try again. OK. Test.
[Justin Tseng]: Test 1, 2, 3. Thanks for hanging in there with us.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay.
[Justin Tseng]: Yep.
[Justin Tseng]: She said present, but Okay, can you unmute and say something for us?
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I can only hear.
[Justin Tseng]: They're saying the people online are saying that we're quiet. The chambers are quiet. Yeah. So they can't really hear us.
[Justin Tseng]: meeting looking into the Charter Study Committee's recommendations as sent to us from the Mayor's Office. This is also slated to be the last substantive meeting here in the Governance Committee before we send it to the Committee as a whole. That's pending a motion. We are going to be discussing in particular Articles 4 on the School Committee, Article 8 on Citizen Participation Mechanisms, Article 9 general provisions and all other sections, article 10 transitional provisions, and as well as section 2-4, 3-1D, and 4-4 on compensation of elected officials that got moved to this meeting per a motion earlier in the governance committee a few meetings ago. We also have call-in center representatives here in attendance at this meeting as well. To kick it off, We can go straight into article four on the school committee. I know a few school committee members have sent in comments to me. I will read out relevant comments to each section as we go. But before we get there, are there any comments from city councilors either generally or on section four dash one on composition, term of office or eligibility? Recognizing president bears.
[Justin Tseng]: Recognizing Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro, I see Councilor Scarpelli.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I wanted to note that we also have school committee member Nicole Branley here in the audience with us today. I have been, and as I noted before, oh, okay. I have been in talks and former school committee member Sharon Hayes too. I have been talking to members of our state delegation as well. The general gist is that it is in the council's purview to make edits to the city charter, even if those edits are substantive. When it comes to likelihood of passage or not, it's more about whether the model being proposed by the city council is something that the state legislature has seen and passed before. Before I move on to comments, written comments from school committee members, are there any other Councilors who'd like to talk on this issue more specifically about the mayor being chair of the school committee? seeing none on Zoom or in person, vice, I'm gonna read what vice chair Jenny Graham has written to me or in this committee about school committee structure. One of the most concerning aspects of the proposed charter is the provision in article four that allows the mayor to serve as the chair and a voting member of the school committee. The school committee's primary responsibility is to focus solely on the education needs of Medford's children. allowing the mayor to continue to hold a voting role, but undermine this critical separation. I agree, of course, that there needs to be a solid working relationship between the school committee and the chair and value my own relationship with the current mayor immensely. Too often, though, there are clear signs of a conflict of interest between the role of the mayor of the city and the role of the mayor as the chair. For practical purposes, I have observed this when it comes time to discussions of compensation and contracting, and most specifically at budget time. For many years in Medford, the school committee never asked for a penny more than the city had to give. Further, when I asked about the process and how the school committee received the number from the city because surely that's how such complete alignment occurs in my mind. I was met with seasoned members insisting that this wasn't how it worked at all. In my five years, I've never once seen this alignment because the school committee has prioritized putting forward budget requests that reflect our need as the starting point. This step was skipped entirely for many years to the detriment of our schools. If I were a mayor, I can completely understand why such alignment would be desirable, but doing so undermines authority and responsibility of the committee. This is perhaps the most important rationale for removing the mayor from the school committee. The Charter Study Committee's own survey stated that only 20% of respondents believed that the mayor should be the chair of a school committee. In addition, two-year terms are simply too short to cultivate the depth of experience and long-term vision necessary for effective governance in education. Short terms without the stability of longer terms make it difficult to implement meaningful change and may introduce constant disruptions. This next section is more about ward and district organizations, so I'm gonna move on to school committee member Rousseau's comment. on the mayor being the chair of the school committee, the mayor should not serve as the chair of the school committee. The rationale for maintaining this arrangement seems to downplay the significance of the school committee, treating it as just another committee to oversee. In reality, being the chair of the school committee is a substantial responsibility. Additionally, there is a widespread misunderstanding regarding the mayor's authority, with many from the public to other elected officials in school and municipal employees believing it exceeds that of other school committee members. This misconception creates significant issues. It's now crucial more than ever for elected officials to operate strictly within the legal authority granted to them rather than any authority they choose to assert. the structure of the school committee and city council should be consistent. Whether it is entirely at large, entirely ward based. This is also about the ward district organization. from a school committee member in Tapa. I have the following comment in regards to the mayor's seat on the committee. I am impartial. I do see the benefit of both aspects as presented by some of my colleagues on social media. I could very well see the benefit of having a seventh seat for someone to run for in the school committee race. With that being said, I did come in seventh last election, so maybe I have a bias towards that proposition. Are there any other comments from current school committee members? Yes. If you have comments on the mayor being chair of the school committee, name and address for the record. Give me one sec. Let me turn you on.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, member Bramley. Do we have any other comments from current school committee members who might be on Zoom or Councilors before I open, or well, we don't have a motion before yet, but before I open this up for public participation. Seeing none, do any members of the public want to come and speak about this issue? And if you're on Zoom, please raise your hand. Name and address for the record, please. Oh, there we go. You should be live.
[Justin Tseng]: Yep.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Sure. Thank you, former school committee member, Vanna Kloot. Do we have any other members' comments from the public? Please feel free to line up behind the mic. I do see that member Olapade from the school community has joined us on Zoom as well. We will take your comment after. Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you for your comment. Alternating over to Zoom, member Olapade, I'm gonna ask you to unmute. If you can give me your name and address for the record, please.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Member Olapade. Going back to the chambers, name and address for the record, please.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much. Do we have any other members or comments from members of the public on the mayor being chair of the school committee? Seeing none, I do see President Bears has requested to speak.
[Justin Tseng]: We have a motion from President Bears. I also see, I recognize Councilor
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Um, are there any other comments before we take the motion? Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Just to mention, just to note the vote on war representation was not 6-1. Well, it didn't go through the whole committee, but also was not everyone besides one councilor. We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second for that motion? We have a second from Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, can you please hold the roll? Thank you. Yes, President Burrs, would you be able to?
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, he's not in the meeting. Oh.
[Justin Tseng]: Four in the affirmative, one in the negative. Oh, oh, sorry. President Bears? 4 in affirmative, 1 in the negative. Motion passes. Sorry, I just read your thing. Do we have any comments from Councilors on ward representation for the schools? I have some comments from sitting school committee members. I saw President Bears first and then Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Recognizing council Zorro.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Do we have any other comments from council members before we move on to the comments from school committee members? Seeing none, are there any sitting school committee members either in person or online who'd like to comment on ward versus district representation for a school committee? Seeing none, I'm going to move to the sitting committee members' written comments first, and then I'll move on to public participation. On ward representation, this is from Vice Chair Graham. As the council considers their organization of the city into districts, I strongly urge that the boundaries for both the city council and school committee be aligned. The government should work for its people. The very first step in that process is in knowing who is there to support you. Having two different structures will be confusing and I can't see the value it will provide to our residents. I agree that the school committee should continue to be comprised of seven and would support such a size for the council as well. The current proposal, with its focus on district-based school representation, does not fully account for the practical realities of our school system. At the middle and high school levels, every school committee member is responsible for decisions affecting all students, regardless of district. This effectively makes their role smaller to that of an at-large member, serving all students. At the elementary school level, the reality is that students often attend schools that fall outside the boundaries of their proposed district, pushing the responsibility for those students onto at-large members. This model does not reflect the interconnectedness of the issues we face across all grade levels and undermines the unity of the community. Our community cannot afford to deepen the divisions between our schools. Medford students deserve equal opportunities for high quality education regardless of where they live. A district based approach could risk exacerbating existing tensions between our school communities, something we are actively working to bridge. I don't have perfect answers here because I am very interested in increasing representation of our elected officials and ensuring all corners of our city are reflected in our school committee. I am further interested in creating pathways to service that are not as prohibitively expensive for candidates. I simply highlight that achieving the goals of representation will present other practical problems. I have this following comment from member Rousseau. The structure of the school committee and city council should be consistent, whether it is entirely at-large, entirely ward-based, or a combination of district, ward, plus at-large members. While I do not have a strong preference for a specific model, the district two or plus three at large members model seems reasonable. Regardless of the chosen model, it should mirror the council structure to avoid confusion among voters who already struggle to understand our government structure without multiple formats within a single city. A child growing up next door to me will attend one elementary school, one middle school, and our one high school. The physical location of these schools is irrelevant for representation. What matters is where the resident lives. A school located in my ward is no more, quote, my school than any other when it comes to representing my constituents. There may be an instinctual belief that ward-based school committee representation offers something unique compared to at-large representation, but this does not hold up when considering a resident's perspective as their child progresses through the school system. No elected official can reside in a ward or district encompassing all the schools a child will attend. So there is no logical basis for arguments centered on the physical location of schools. From member Intoppa, I have, in regards to the combined ward representation, I feel conflicted. As an independent candidate, only having to campaign physically in my respective territory is a significant financial and time advantage. That, however, should not be the driving factor in implementing ward or combined ward representation. I only acknowledge this as fact and my immediate reaction to that change. I think we also need to do important work to acknowledge that even though members may represent different word combinations. that the members do not only represent those within that district that attend said schools. Ward representation makes more sense to me for the city council. However, I feel the implementation of a majority ward-based representation school committee could make it easier for community members to relay their concerns to at least one designated individual. It almost feels more personalized. I digress. I also see member Olapade has his hand raised on Zoom. So I'll ask you to unmute.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, member Olpade. Moving on to public participation. I know I saw some hands in the crowd. If you're on Zoom again, please raise your hand so I can see it. Name and address for the record, please. Oh, sorry. No, I've done it.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Member Ranley.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Mr. Dixon. Any other comments from the members of the public, either on Zoom or in person? Any other comments from councillors?
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I see Councilor Holland said, do you still wanna speak?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, are there any other comments from Councilors, we, we don't have any motions on the floor, I see two hands raised, but I will. I wanted to give Councilors a chance to speak. Seeing none, I'll take these two comments, and then if there are no motions, we should move on to the next section. Gaston Fiore, I'm gonna ask you to unmute. When you unmute, can you give us your name and address for the record, please? Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Zachary Chertok. Let me ask you to unmute once you're on mute, name and address for the record, please.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Marie Izzo, I'm gonna ask you to unmute, name and address for the record, please, once you unmute.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Marie. Seeing no other hands from Councilors or on Zoom from members of the public, there are no motions on the floor. I think this is, I want to remind the public, the City Council as a whole has not made a final decision on the type of, the composition of the representation yet, and that we will be picking this up at the next committee, the whole meeting on this topic. I do have one more comment that I neglected to read. And then I think we can move on. It seems like we can move on to the next section. But this is part of Vice Chair Graham's comments on section 4.1. Two-year terms are simply too short to cultivate the depth of experience and long-term vision necessary for effective governance and education. Short terms without the stability of longer terms make it difficult to implement meaningful change and introduce constant disruptions. If a district ward and at-large structure remains, perhaps the council should consider extending at-large terms to four years and align with the mayor's term and re-election pathway. This could help foster stability, ensuring that school community members can focus on long-term educational goals, as importantly, with such short terms, a recall provision would be counterproductive, potentially politicizing our work. That being said, I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything from comments that were sent in from elected officials. Do we have any other comments on Section 4-1 before we move on to Section 4-2? Seeing none, section 4-2, school committee organization, chair, vice chair, and clerk, secretary. I have some comments from school committee members, but are there any comments from city council members before I get to those? seeing none in person, seeing none on Zoom. Let me read what Vice Chair Graham has sent. She said, the current language in section 4-2, which seeks to dictate the structure of how our body operates and elects its leaders is another significant concern. The school committee should have the autonomy to choose how its members are elected. By dictating the manner of internal elections, the charter would intrude upon the committee's ability to organize itself to best meet the needs of Medford's children. Our responsibility is to put students first and to do that, the school committee needs the flexibility to make decisions about our governance that will allow us to serve students best. From member Rousseau, we have a few comments. They're accompanied by some recommendations. The first one is clerical. He suggests a change to replace clerk parentheses secretary with secretary parentheses clerk to ensure consistency with the rest of the document. The next comment is to is on section subsection a of this of the draft charter and he suggests to add the word chair to the list of positions to be selected by school committee members. His rationale is that the chair should be elected by the body as the chair is, by definition, the servant of the body. This is another reason why the chair should not be the mayor if the mayor is not deemed a suitable chair or is not serving the body. Effectively, there would be no recourse to select a different chair. Electing the chair ensures accountability and responsiveness to the needs of the community. He also suggests striking the phrase, who will serve for one year, which is at the very end of that subsection. He says, the school committee should have the autonomy to determine the duration of service for its leadership positions rather than having it dictated by the charter. Notably, the charter does not impose similar structural controls on the city council. It seems inconsistent that one elected body is allowed to decide its organizational structure while another is not. from member Intapa. Oh, I missed a few comments there. When it comes to subsection B, member Ruseau, he is suggesting that we strike the words with the assistant of the superintendent of schools and replace it with the chair. He said, basic to Robert's rules of order, the chair is responsible for setting the agenda. Although the body can override it since the agenda ultimately belongs to the body. The superintendent works for the committee and it is the school committee that sets the agenda. He also suggests striking and to decide all questions of order. In the same subsection, he said, Robert's rules of order makes clear that while the chair does decide all questions of order, the body may override the chair by questioning the ruling of the chair. This language implies that the rulings of the questions of order belong only to the chair and removes the premise that the chair is a servant of the body. He suggests also striking the sentence, the chair shall appoint members to various subcommittees after seeking each member's views regarding interest and availability, said subcommittee appointments are the responsibility of the entire school committee, not just one individual. The chair is meant to serve the body, not to dictate its organization. And with regards to subsection C, I believe, or this is also subsection B, He's suggesting to strike the section that says provided, however, that a city of provided, however, that a city officer or other city employee who has vacated a position in order to In order to return to the same office or position of city employment held at the same time, the position was vacated if it has remained vacant, but shall not be eligible for any other municipal position until at least one year after the end of service as a member of the school committee. And he says that this restriction has not been applied to the city council, indicating an inconsistency in how the charter governs different elected bodies. Oh, I think that was under 4-3, prohibitions, but it was labeled to be under 4-2. So apologies for that. that section 4-2 seems like basic Roberts rules of order, and I see no needed adjustments. That's all the written comments I have. If there are other comments from sitting school committee members, please raise your hand on Zoom or come up to the podium. Seeing none, recognizing Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. The clerk's email is down right now. If you could email that to me and I'll show it to the clerk. Okay, we have a motion from Chair, or Councilor Lazzaro on a few edits. Do we have any other comments from Councilors? Just speaking from the chair, yes, yeah. Council President Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: We have another motion from President Bears on striking the language. It's noted in the third comment under comment 13. Just speaking from the chair, I do worry that deciding all questions of order that that phrase might create some legal difficulties if we keep it in. It seems to refer to Robert's Rules of Order, but I think I think that if we don't strike it, our legislative intent seems to be that we want the chair of the school committee to decide all questions of order. So I think that's an important clerical change to make, but I can't make motions from the chair. And I think it's a similar situation with the first recommendation in that comment, where In my reading of the charter, I worry that that constrains the ability of the chair to prepare the agenda, but I am the chair, so I can't make motions. President Berry.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. So we have two motions, one from Councilor Lazzaro, one from President Bears. Are there any other comments from Councilors before we move to public participation? Seeing none, do we have any comments from members of the public on 4-2? Oh, sorry, we have one comment with Councilor Collins.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. I think that that seems to be a clerical thing too. I know member van der Kloet, former member van der Kloet wanted to make public comments. If you have more comments to make, please feel free to get in line or raise your hand on too.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to note, I don't, I might be reading this wrong. I don't see the word consecutive in this draft of the city charter. So I just wanted to, it just says one year.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay, okay, yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Is there anything, I just have one more question for you. Is there, I think some of what's being said generally is that, and we had a long conversation about this on the city council side, is that, is this worry that if you build stringent rules into the charter, that sometimes there are things that the school committee or city council need to adapt for rules-wise, and that it won't give them that flexibility in the rule structure? Is there anything you'd like to say to that?
[Justin Tseng]: I see. Thank you. Are there any other comments from members of the public or members of the city council on the proposed motions or on the section more generally? Seeing none, we do have two motions on the floor, one from Councilor Lazzaro. And if just because of the email situation, if you could reread the motion for us, that'd be very helpful. And after Councilor Lazzaro reads it, if we have a second for it, that'd be good to hear. Oh, sorry.
[Justin Tseng]: I don't think you need to read the line. Thank you. I've shown the clerk the language you just read. Do we have a second for Councilor Lazzaro's motion? Second from President Bears. I'll give the clerk a second to transfer.
[Justin Tseng]: President Bears?
[Justin Tseng]: We have four affirmative, one negative motion passes. We have one more motion on the floor from President Bears. If you could also send that to me and then read it out. Thank you. Oh, sorry.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. So do we have a second for that motion? Second by Councilor Lazzaro. Whenever you're ready.
[Justin Tseng]: Forward affirmative one negative motion passes. Moving on to section four dash three prohibitions. They're the only comment I had received from a school committee members, unless any school committee members want to speak up tonight is that is the one that I read from. member Rousseau that the restriction had the restriction in the second half of this section hasn't been applied to City Council and that his recommendation would be to strike it. Are there any comments from councillors or on section 4-3? President Bears?
[Justin Tseng]: Okay. Councilor Lazzaro?
[Justin Tseng]: I have a question about what happens when state law changes or the state code of ethics changes. They might make it more stringent or less stringent. What would rule then with that law?
[Justin Tseng]: Got it. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: I see.
[Justin Tseng]: So we have a motion from President Bears to strike after the semicolon? Yeah. Starting from the word provided until the end? Yes. Okay, until the end of the section. Do we have any other comments from councilors? Seeing none, do we have comments from members of the public? Seeing none, we have a motion from President Bears to strike from after the semicolon, starting with the word provided to the end of the session. Whenever you're ready to call the roll. Oh, do we have a second for the motion? Second from Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. President Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: Four in the affirmative, one in the negative. Motion passes. Are there any other comments about section 4-3? Seeing none. Section 4-4, compensation. We might want to take this up at the end with the other compensation provisions. So with that being said, moving on to section 4-5, powers and duties. I do have written comments from school committee members on this provision, but I will defer to councilors first. Seeing no, President Bears?
[Justin Tseng]: Okay. Going to Vice Chair Graham's comment on section 4-5. Section 4-5 inaccurately describes the hiring process for key positions within the school committee. The school committee under Massachusetts law holds the authority to directly hire the business manager, director of special education, school physician, and legal counsel. These positions are not hired at the recommendation of the superintendent. It is essential that this language be revised to reflect your legal authority and maintain clarity on the roles of both the school committee and the superintendent. This distinction is critical to preserving the school committee's oversight and accountability in these areas. So that's from Vice Chair Graham. President Bears mentioned a comment from Member Ruseau, which I will read. He says, in subsection B, sub-subsection B, three, so the very end of the section, he is asking us to, it's a clerical change, to change the word department to system, saying that, he says, the school system is not a department of the city of Medford and this change will accurately reflect its status. And member Member Intoppa says, I don't see issues with 4-5 other than the one of the lawyer in me asking what can be defined as reasonable. Is it just anything justifiable? I could be corrected on this. I think reasonable usually implies some objective standard. And the judges or juries, but this is a civil matter, whoever is deciding will probably use a standard of what seems most objective to determine reasonableness. Those are the comments I have written from school committee members. Are there any other comments from sitting members of the school committee or from city councilors? Seeing none, are there any comments from the public? Seeing none, do we have any motions? President Bears?
[Justin Tseng]: yes but i think i think that's that's internal to the school committee's process i don't think it needs to be in here i i have to say that's not how i read this section at all um and i think if you read the text really closely um it says and upon the recommendation of the superintendent so i think that almost definitely says you have to have the recommendation of the superintendent But that's my interpretation of the matter. I didn't cut you off.
[Justin Tseng]: I am. Is that a motion?
[Justin Tseng]: So we have a motion from President Berrios. Let me just get this right. It's a motion to strike the words and upon the recommendation of the superintendent.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay. No, we haven't gotten the public comment yet. We were just working out the motion. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Are there any other comments from councillors on this section?
[Justin Tseng]: Seeing none, are there any public comments on this?
[Justin Tseng]: I think that's helpful. I will say I've just been informed that the school committee's legal counsel is asking the city council to make amendments to this to clarify what the school committee can and cannot do. So they're asking for change. Are there any other public comments on? Yes, yeah. We'll give you one sec.
[Justin Tseng]: I think the school system's lawyer in reading the charter, he's just confused, period, and he is worried that this this charter would mean that they have approval of the super's pick at the hiring, but they won't have any say on the renewal process and that hiring versus extension is a big deal. So that's important for us to clarify when it comes to the school committee's power. We could also leave this for the committee of the whole and ask for more detailed feedback from the school committee's legal counsel.
[Justin Tseng]: Are there any other comments from city councilors or sitting school community members on this? Seeing none. Do we have further public comment on President Bears' amended motion to ask for legal advice? Seeing none. Do we have a second for President Bears' motion? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. When you're ready, Mr. Clerk.
[Justin Tseng]: For an affirmative, one negative. Motion passes. Moving on to section 4-6, filling of vacancies. I do have some comments from members. I'll defer to councilors first. Seeing none. Let me read what has been sent in on 4-6. The member Rousseau, he's not making a recommendation, but he's pointing out, there's a comment about the point, the line that says vacancy shall be immediately sworn and shall serve for the remainder of the current term. Just to give people context, because I know this is kind of a long paragraph, essentially this is saying that if a vacancy shows up on the school committee before the next election, And I believe this is given a certain time frame. So essentially what the current charter lets us do is the school committee in the city council would fill the vacancy. But then when it comes time to the next regular election, we assume that someone's going to be elected to that position, could be the same person, could be someone different. And so what the current charter asks us to do is swear in that person who's elected immediately. Um, instead of with the rest of the school committee in the City Council and the issue that was identified is that, um, Member Ruseau says that the suggested process is inefficient and burdensome. School community members undergo extensive orientation, including legal and or other training necessary for effectiveness. State law mandates attendance at a course offered by our professional association early in our first term. Having this process occur once in November and then again in January is wasteful. and the superintendent of schools manages this process of orientation. Additionally, having two separate inauguration slash swearing in timeframes lacks rationale and is unfair to those being sworn in immediately after the election. So that was from Member Ruseau. We also have a comment from Member Intoppa and then I know Chair McDonald sent me a clarification. So Member Intoppa says, I'm also delighted to see in addition to vacancies being filled, As you may know, my appointment slash election to the committee was filled with uncertainties waving wavering past precedent and consistent back and forth without knowing proper order as the city current city charter does not define how vacancies are filled. It led to a serious lag in my adoption to the committee, which, as you know, was rapidly approaching budget season. Our member in Taupo notes to me right now that it's not stated in the charter what happens and that we have to go through past precedent to find out how to fill that slot. He further adds Does 4-6B have a typo in stating that they will be referred to as office of ward Councilor, 4-6A refers to them as office of school committee at large. Maybe I did not read the definition section well enough. And this is what Chair McDonald emailed me to say that there is a clerical error here. So we should make a, I would recommend to the committee that someone make a motion to fix that error. So in 4-6B, it says Office of Ward Councilor instead of Office of School Committee at large. B as in boy. He also said, I do however have slight issues with section four dash six see those who are appointed by the committee slash Council if no one else is willing or eligible in regards to the candidate filling the slot not being labeled as candidate for reelection, it feels a disservice to the work that they have been doing. Of course, they weren't chosen by the voters. They may not have been, quote, elected, but they were a full member of the committee and should be addressed as such in some way. I recommend languages such as, quote, former committee appointment or whatever is best advised by those who understand that language a lot better than I do. Is this precedent set by the Commonwealth? As my understanding is that even the, quote, appointment committee makeup is state guidance. I'm making an assumption that 4-6C only refers to those appointed by the committee and not those who are runners up. and those outlined in 4-6a and b will be labeled as candidate for re-election. Those are the comments I had from sitting members of the school committee on this section. Are there any other comments from sitting members of the school committee? Seeing none, I see President Bears is first and then Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: We have a motion from President Bears to make a clerical change. Councilor Lazzaro, did you still? Okay. Do we have a second for the motion for the clerical change? So we have a second on that motion from Councilor Lazzaro. I'll go over to public comments. If you're in person, please line up. If you're on Zoom, please raise your hand. Seeing none, whenever you're ready, Mr. Clerk, the clerical error. This is the President Bears' motion to fix the clerical error in 4-6B, as seconded by Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: Mr. President Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: We have five in favor and none opposed. Motion passes. Very grateful to have a five to zero vote. Moving on to section four, or I guess we're done with the school committee sections absent the compensation piece. The next section that we had on our docket was article eight on citizen participation mechanisms. We just go to that real quick. Okay, I do have comments from elected officials on this. I see Councilor Leming first though.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. I talked very briefly to the call center reps last meeting about the thresholds, and I just want to put it out there that they mentioned that a lot of this is more boilerplate and is adjustable from municipality to municipality, given what we know of our political situation here in the city and what is right for our city. So it's less of a legal problem, more of a judgment situation. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I have a few Councilors. I've, um, in order. Council is our Councilor Scarpelli and then, uh, me, uh, Councilor. Let me possibly.
[Justin Tseng]: Uh, the Oh, and, uh, Vice President Collins.
[Justin Tseng]: Just just to say I we do have discussion after public comment. It's just that it's not required. But we do have we do often have discussion after public comment. but I do note that the difference in the requirement. Do we have any follow-up questions for the call-in center?
[Justin Tseng]: I had two follow-up questions. The first one being, and we'll get a hint of this in the school committee member comments, is that, is this standard for school committees? This is something that I think school committee members have noted that their colleagues are not familiar with this in the charter provision.
[Justin Tseng]: And I guess my follow up is all I guess not a follow up on that but my more general question, then is that say that a resident files a free one of these free petitions, and that you know that petition, really. targets a member of, let's not even say an elected official, but a member of the public or a member of the city staff, city or school staff, I guess. Is that something that would be allowed with this vehicle? Because my worry then is that it's posted publicly throughout the city that you have this free petition that's attacking someone personally.
[Justin Tseng]: But it would still be posted with the meeting notice.
[Justin Tseng]: So the public would still see a personal attack.
[Justin Tseng]: I see. And I, there's a followup from President Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: OK. I do have a follow-up on all of that, though. How does this interact with the Supreme Judicial Court ruling that basically, it's, I mean, super expansive about public speech in the forum like this, basically just saying, I mean, the line is death threats, essentially, and hateful speech. Which has happened, by the way. What? Which has happened. Yes, yeah, which has happened.
[Justin Tseng]: Sorry? I didn't hear that.
[Justin Tseng]: But the section doesn't say anything about being able to review free petitions or the Supreme Court judicial court ruling on free speech and in public forums.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay, yeah. I mean, I think we're just talking past each other. I'm not even necessarily opposed to the free petition. I just want to be able to sort out the legal logistics and hypotheticals that may come up.
[Justin Tseng]: Can we then be sued for limiting someone's free speech in a public forum?
[Justin Tseng]: But it seems like there are contradictory, and it could be wrong, but it seems like there are contradictory state laws in the state constitution about what is okay for free speech and what's okay for complaining about HR and everything. I mean, it could be that the state law is unconstitutional too.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay. Okay. Councilor Collins, I know you've been waiting a long time.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: For what reason? I couldn't hear it. I don't want to put words in the vice president's mouth.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, yeah. Can you repeat the rationale? I don't think it's their fault.
[Justin Tseng]: That's good. Yeah, yeah, that's good. Yeah. Can you just summarize what you said?
[Justin Tseng]: Okay. I saw Councilor Lazzaro, Leming, and then Scarpelli.
[Justin Tseng]: I do see hands from a lot of people right now, but I do want to make sure that the other elected officials who would be affected by this petition get their comments read too. Vice Chair Graham says, the inclusion of free petitions in section 8-1 presents a further challenge. The school committee and I personally believe in the importance of public input. However, the ability to obstruct the functioning of school community via free petitions would undermine the efficiency and effectiveness of the educational process. Our responsibility to Medford's children requires us to make timely thoughtful decisions about budgets policies and educational initiatives, the introduction of national style politics and special interest group influence could push priorities that don't align with immediate needs of our students. National politics aside, we are already seeing escalating rhetoric here in Medford that's dangerous. Criticism of our elected officials is the bedrock of democracy, but personal attacks and threats are being normalized here in a way that is very concerning. Adding this additional and escalated pathway to air disagreements will only escalate the rhetoric, and I fear that continuing to allow our discourse to escalate rather than allowing duly elected officials to do their work could lead to a physically dangerous situation. We should take this risk very seriously. Additionally, this dynamic could discourage qualified individuals from running for the school committee, as the constant interference from petitions would make it harder for those willing to serve with the focus on student needs to feel and to feel supported in the role. The school committee needs to ensure that our focus remains on our students, and free petitions should not be allowed to distract from that critical goal. from member Ruseau. His recommendation is to strike the whole section, and his rationale is that he said, I do not believe the section should be included at all. Elections occur every two years, which is a relatively short period. The thresholds set here are low enough to potentially trap the school committee in a continuous cycle of responding to groups acting in bad faith. aiming to disrupt the committee's work. Additionally, there is no provision to halt a petition that is illegal or places the district in legal jeopardy, such as the one that targets district employees or students. So those are the written comments I received. I know Councilor Leming has been waiting a long time, and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Scarbone.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Do we have any other Councilors who want to speak? President Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: I know members of the public have been waiting to speak. So if you're in person, please get in line. People online have been queuing for a very long time. So I'll go to Zoom first. Eunice, name and address for the record once I ask you to unmute. Give me one second.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Eunice. Chair McDonald, name and address for the record, please.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Going back to Zoom, Matthew Page Lieberman, name and address for the record. Once I ask you, I'll mute.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Going in person to Sorry, name and address for the record.
[Justin Tseng]: Gene, your comments actually made me, gave me a question. When you were considering, when the committee was considering the measure part, were you considering like ordinances and resolutions separately? Like as those one, like the ordinance is a measure, the resolution isn't a measure?
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, it's in the beginning part. Yeah, give me one sec to scroll up. Measure is defined as any ordinance order or other vote or proceeding adopted or which might be adopted by the city council or the school committee. So any vote? Yeah, I guess we have a follow-up from President Bearsford.
[Justin Tseng]: It would be difficult. Just for people at home, because the mics don't reach the audience, the call-in center rep said that it would be difficult to separate out the executive functions or votes of the school committee from this. OK, going on Zoom to Tony Tanks. Name and address for the record.
[Justin Tseng]: Got it. Thank you. I'll I'll try to adjust that. Uh, seeing no further comments in person, Zachary sure talk. I'll unmute you. And if you could just give us your just again for the record. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Seeing no comment in person, I'm going to Gaston Fiore. Name and address for the record, please. Sorry, give me one second.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Gaston. Paul Rousseau, name and address for the record, please. There we go.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I see one more public comment request back from Eunice because this is the second time we'll stick to city council rules. You have one minute. Name and address for the record, please. Do you have Eunice's?
[Justin Tseng]: Um, but just for the record.
[Justin Tseng]: But, uh, hearing what Mr. Russo, uh, um, Matthew Page Lieberman, you have one minute.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay. Do we have any final public comments? We have a few motions on the floor. Seeing none, I believe we have two motions and do we have any more motions to add to that to consider together? President Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, so we have three motions on the floor. I'll take them in order. I propose that as an amendment to whatever motion you're going to take. Well, the first motion is vice president Collins.
[Justin Tseng]: If you could send that to me as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay, so let me just ask Councilor Collins if she wants to keep her motion or withdraw it for President Bearsey's motion. Vice President Collins, are you on?
[Justin Tseng]: So the only motion we have on the floor pending review by the Collins Center is the language proposed by President Ferris. So we have a motion from President Ferris. Do we have a second for it? We have a second from Councilor Scarpelli. Whenever you're ready.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. Five in favor, none opposed, motion passes.
[Justin Tseng]: Hey, we came to a compromise, right? It never happens here, except it always happens here. I credit you. Section 8-2, Citizen Initiative Measures. Do we have any public comments on this one? Councilor Keohokalole? Sorry, Councilor comments on this one. I'm just going to mute people's mics so I can tell who is. Great. Yeah. Do we have any councilor comments on section 8-2 citizen initiative measures? Councilor Lumming.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, sure.
[Justin Tseng]: Well, I think what's not super, what wasn't clear but is clearer to me now is what you said about initiatives are about creating something and referendums are about stopping. I think the stopping is in the definition in the charter for referendum, but the creating isn't for initiatives in the definition section of the charter.
[Justin Tseng]: Well, so, sorry.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I guess very simply put, what I'm hearing from Councilor Leming, and correct me if I'm wrong about understanding what you're saying, under how the charter is written right now in the definitions of initiative process and referendum, you can do exactly what you would do with the referendum using the initiative process, which has a lower bar to entry.
[Justin Tseng]: They wouldn't.
[Justin Tseng]: I think that's true.
[Justin Tseng]: I don't think most residents are reading. We don't even have a newspaper.
[Justin Tseng]: Chair Levin, or not Chair, sorry. I'm so used to the public engagement committee. This is Councilor Levin.
[Justin Tseng]: Why don't we hold. All right. Or, I mean, actually, we can do all three, as long as people can sort it.
[Justin Tseng]: President Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: I will say to your point, too, about the money being spent, we have to remember that schools will have to close for people to be able to vote as well. So that's a disruption to the school day. I saw Councilor Lazzaro first. Oh, sorry, wrong mic. And then I'll recognize Councilor Leming.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay. Do we have any other comments from President Bears?
[Justin Tseng]: Yep. Councilor Lazzaro?
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, President Bears I think to your point, I think much of this reads like it was written for like a four year mayoral term and then the two year aspect was added in after the fact so with the point that with the few lines that I just pointed out for me it reads like you know if the mayor. faces a recall election, and it's two years into her term, or their term, and, you know, the city election is within 120 days, and you hold it with the municipal election with which you're electing everyone else. That's, I think, what the purpose was for. But then I think us, or I think Medford trying to shove in two-year offices to the recall process as well, has made that, those few lines really confusing. Just, yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Never say never.
[Justin Tseng]: If you want my opinion on it, I am worried that us being unspecific about this will be taken wrongly by the courts. I think one of the most common rules of statutory interpretation by a judge is to render, it's called the rule against surplusage. And basically, it assumes that as a legislature, whatever we pass, we mean. And whatever extra words we might add, we mean those words as well. And so us keeping the words as a whole in there very heavily implies to a judge that we want to allow. We want to allow. It could be inferred. Yeah, it could be inferred. But I think most court decisions I read fall that way.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, but I mean, the question is, has there been much litigation about that line and those charters?
[Justin Tseng]: Right. We would be the precedent.
[Justin Tseng]: I do have written feedback from other elected officials on this stuff, but Councilor Leming, I recognize you first, and then we'll move on to that.
[Justin Tseng]: I think President Burr is the same, given that you already satisfied that hurdle.
[Justin Tseng]: I will say, I've kept my opinions pretty close, you know, just close to my chest since I'm running this meeting. I do think there is a difference, even though there is a difference between getting the signatures in the first place and the vote actually being successful, I think it's worth the council talking about potential political instability that comes around when you have that signature driving process in the first place that challenges the mandate of the person sitting in office. Just wanted to make that point.
[Justin Tseng]: And I do fear that driving away potential candidates for office as well, particularly from marginalized backgrounds or female candidates, to be honest, because that's a group of people that are most affected by stuff like that. I do have comments from school committee members on these sections that I want to read first before we move on. or before we move on anything, give me one quick second to pull it up. From Vice Chair Graham, she on three petitions, 8-1, I've read that one, on 8.4, 8-4 and eligible measures. Sorry, my computer. It's not liking the long meeting. Similarly, 8-4, specifically the inclusion of, quote, as a whole in item three, creates another potential disruption to the work of the school committee, allowing voters to strike parts of the budget could severely limit our ability to operate effectively, making it difficult to implement long-term plans or allocate resources appropriately. A budget must support the needs of every student and breaking it apart at the discretion of voters could lead to significant instability. I urge the removal of this language to protect the integrity of the budgeting process. That's the only comment I haven't read from Vice Chair Graham on Article 8. From Member Ruseau, I have on, I've read the 8.1, 8-1 brief petition comment. Section 8-4 in the eligible measures, very similar. The member Ruseau is suggesting us to strike the words as a whole, the rationale being this suggests that measures to strike parts of the school committee budget would be permitted. Allowing the public to alter our budget in this manner could lead to significant issues. Such changes could have unintended consequences, including hindering our ability to meet obligations to our union partners. This would create a chaotic situation, undermining the careful planning that goes into budget preparation. Also applying to this section, he says, this is about subsection eight, or seven, he's asked, He's suggesting that we strike that point. So I'll read that point so people know what we're talking about. The point is to make ineligible a proceeding providing for the submission or referral to the voters at an election. Sorry, I read that wrong. I read point eight. A proceeding repealing or rescinding a measure or part of it that is protested by a referendum procedures. His comment is that this approach seems anti-democratic. If we allow one group of citizens the ability to change policy, it stands to reason that another group should have the same freedom to alter policy, even if it means reverting to a previous policy or shifting in a different direction. on the recall. On part B, he is suggesting that we strike the words for the office of mayor or councillor at large and at least 300 voters for any other elected officials. The issue he's identified is that The threshold for recalling school committee members is set lower than that of four city councilors. This discrepancy makes no sense and lacks justification. The thresholds for recall should be the same for all elected positions to ensure consistency and fairness. Additionally, any other, quote, any other elected official can only mean school committee members as we are the only other elected officials in Medford. I believe this next part comes from lines eight to 11 on page 31, that would be point D. He's suggesting that we strike the sentence that says, should the person be a candidate in the subsequent election, that person will not be allowed to have, quote, candidate for reelection appear on the ballot at such election. The rationale, he says, is that this provision is unnecessarily punitive. If a recall effort fails and the individual is not unseated, it is unjust to impose the arbitrary consequence of losing their candidate for a re-election designation on the ballot. This rule could be exploited by groups aiming to systematically strip the designation from candidates they dislike, even if they anticipate the recall will not succeed. A failed recall should have no consequence for the elected official who succeeds in remaining in office. Same page, line 15, so this is point E. He is suggesting us to replace the word recalled with the phrase removed from office, saying that he doesn't think most people would know what recalled means. So suggesting that removed from office would be a clearer phrase to put on the ballot. So those are the written comments I have. Do I have any other comments from councillors or motions from councillors before we take public participation? President Bearsford.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, can I clarify? Um, is there any intent for that to also cover institutions? Uh, our Councilor Leming.
[Justin Tseng]: We can take those up one by one. I wanted to allow for public participation first since we have a few people who had their hands raised for a while. I'll recognize Zachary. Give me one sec to unmute you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Zachary. I will hold on that just to allow Gaston to speak as well. Give you one sec, Gaston. There we go.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Gaston. The call center could correct me. My understanding is that by putting the word finally in there, it suggests that it's the third reading. The call center's reps are nodding their heads. So I hope that answers your question, your concern, Gaston. We have, are there any other members of our community seeking to participate? make comment? No, none. I guess there is, I wanted to ask once again to really understand why the timelines for citizen referendums and citizen initiatives should be different. It's the question that Zachary had. It's not completely clear to me. I think I started to get a few hints of it. And I was wondering if Just once more, someone from the Collins Center or Chair McDonald, you could explain to me why the timelines for those two things should be different.
[Justin Tseng]: So would I be right in saying that the main difference is the public education, the need for public education on an item that the assumption is that if if it's something the city council has passed or done, for example, that's something that the public would have already had exposure to. And that's the main crux. Okay. I mean, I think Yeah, I think that it's helpful to hear after a longer discussion about everything else. I think that point is clear to me, although the logical argument seems to really hinge on this idea that there is a different need for public education in both and between Okay, thank you, yeah. Okay, I see Matthew Page Lieberman has his hand raised. I'm gonna ask you to unmute, you have three minutes.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Thanks. I think I more or less summarized what you said. So I don't think folks from at home missed it too much. Ghassan, I'm going to recognize you for one minute.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I could be, correct me if I got this wrong, where we had a lengthy-ish discussion about this at our first substantive meeting. It seemed like what we landed on was that the language in the charter reflects state law with regards to publishing that information, getting that posted. I've seen odds in the audience. We had talked at that meeting about some other alternatives, but it seems like it might overcomplicate the requirements for getting laws passed. So I think that's the reason why it wasn't recommended that we amend that and why the governance committee chose not to amend it. I see no more public comment. We have a few motions on the floor. Should we run through them very quickly once more? And we need seconds for these motions as well.
[Justin Tseng]: OK, three motions. I do have a quick comment on the first. Let me just remind myself what it was. Threshold. The threshold. Yes, I think something that we'll have to do at the committee, the whole meeting is to adjust the definition for a new initiative as well. Because the current definition in there is very broad and allows for appeal things too. So at least in my understanding, reading the definitions for initiative right now. just so I can see it, where is that? It's on page three, it's number 11. It says initiative measure, a measure proposed by the voters through the initiative process provided under this charter. But because our definition for measure is very broad, I think anyone could really argue that, you know, you put a negative measure on the ballot, that also counts as a measure on the ballot. I mean, 8-4 is not exhaustive. Or, well, it will be read as exhaustive, but it's not a truly exhaustive list of what we would be doing as a city council.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, well, I can't make an amendment. Well, I mean, if you have a suggestion. Oh, I don't have a suggestion right now. I think it's something we'd have to look at. Okay. Okay, so we have three motions. Do we have seconds for those motions? Okay, are you seconding? Cool, on the first motion on thresholds for the citizen initiative and the citizen referendums. Motion by President Bears, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, may you please pull the roll?
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, four in favor, none opposed, motion passes. One opposed. One opposed, motion passes. On the second motion from President Bears on the amendments to 8-4 ineligible measures, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. Four in favor, one opposed, motion passes. On the third motion from President Bears to amend the recall process to apply only to the mayor's office, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. Three in favor, two opposed, motion passes. Let's take article nine altogether. I do have some comments from, short comments from school committee members. Are there any comments from city councilors? I'll clear the mic deck too. Seeing no comments from city councilors. I'll read the comments from from members of the school committee. Vice Chair, Vice Chair Graham says on section nine dash five representation of the school committee. Finally, it is imperative that Section 9-5 includes equal representation from the school committee, as we are the third branch of government in Medford. Our role in overseeing the education of Medford's children is of utmost importance, and we must have a voice in any decisions that impact the functioning of the city as a whole. As an independent governing body with direct responsibility for the education and well-being of our students, it is critical that the school committee is adequately represented in these discussions. Many of the items and issues I outlined in this memo could have been avoided with school committee representation during the development process. And then the comments I have from Member Ruseau. On the same section on the periodic review of the charter, he suggests a change from five appointees of the mayor, three appointees of the city council president, one appointee by the school committee vice chair, to three appointees of the mayor, three appointees of the city council, and three appointees of the school committee. His rationale is that the school committee is a co-equal branch of government according to the organizational chart. Additionally, this council president and school committee vice chair or chair, if not the mayor, should not hold such power. These individuals are servants of the body. These not to run the show, dictate policy or make unilateral decisions. Decision-making authority should only be exercised by these leaders if explicitly authorized by the body. He also notes that in this section of the charter, there's no provision for the replacement of members, whether they voluntarily leave or are asked to leave by a majority vote of the charter committee. He also suggests striking the sentence appointing the mayor as chair of the special committee, saying that the chair is a servant of the body. And in this case, the charter review committee should select their own chair and be able to replace said chair as they see fit. No one person should appoint a chair ever. I believe that is all that applies on section, on article nine from the full committee members. President Bearsford.
[Justin Tseng]: Sorry, it's telling me that you can't be heard, so I'm just gonna turn your thing on. Sorry, I'm...
[Justin Tseng]: Okay, we have a motion from President Bearer, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. I wasn't quite done. Councilor Lazzaro was very excited for this.
[Justin Tseng]: So we, Council is still seconding that. I did have, I wanted to take all the motions on article nine at the same time. I just had a question for the body because I think this committee might have a better idea. Section 9-7 about the uniform procedures governing multiple body. multiple member bodies. Essentially, it dictates that MMBs, so multiple member bodies, should elect a chair, vice chair, and a secretary, and any other officers it deems necessary. I think that's fine, but are there any bodies that have different structures by ordinance that we're aware of? Would it, I guess, Maybe this is a question for the Collins Center. Should we add in an amendment to make it clear that if there's a law, like a mass general law dictating otherwise, that that should govern? I think, I guess there's a similar question for Part B. Yeah, maybe you want this reference to the general laws. 9-7. OK. Point A is about the structure, so the structure of these multiple member bodies. And then point B, about how often they meet and these kind of more logistical things. I'm just worried that there might be some oversight where there's like an MGL body that has different rules, or MGL authorized body that has different rules for these things, or even by ordinance.
[Justin Tseng]: OK. They all follow the structure?
[Justin Tseng]: Okay.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, we'll make sure we add it before the committee. We already passed a motion on that. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. I think, yeah, I think, I think we, oh, the reason why we don't have it in front of us today is we passed the motion to have it at the committee level. Okay, thank you. Great, great. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay. Yes. Well, let's, let's finish article nine. Do article 10 in bulk. Go to take the one thing really article one thing really quickly. And then is there any further comment from Councilors on article nine comments from public? I see Matthew Page Lieberman. You have three minutes.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Matthew. Are there any further comments from the public? Seeing none, to really quickly answer your question, Matthew, Section 9-7 would standardize the process to get those minutes on the website. I know the problem that you're referring to, and part of it is because we don't have a standardized process right now. We have a motion from President Bears on amendments to 9-5, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, whenever you're ready.
[Justin Tseng]: Four in favor, one opposed motion passes. Are there any comments on article 10? Councilor Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: To note for the Committee of the Whole, the City Council number of members thing, it's a clerical thing, but once we decide, once we make a final recommendation of the Committee of the Whole meeting, we should look to address that number. I know, Councilor Bears, you mentioned an amendment for, to session one?
[Justin Tseng]: But essentially the gist of them, if I remember- They're school committee related definitions. Yeah, right, right, right. So that's the motion from President Bears. Do we have a second? Councilor Lazzaro? Do you second President Bears' motion?
[Justin Tseng]: That's comments 2 to 5, right? What? Comments 2 to 5.
[Justin Tseng]: Is that comments 2 to 5?
[Justin Tseng]: Is there any public comments on those sections? Seeing none, seeing no request from councilors, Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, we have a motion to accept comments to the by from member Rousseau, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. Four in favor, one opposed, motion passes. The very last thing we have tonight are the three compensation provisions. Do we have any comment from councilors on this?
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, if you could remind us real quick.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. Do we have any comments from other councilors?
[Justin Tseng]: Do we have any other comments from Councilors? Councilor, Vice President Collins.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Do we have any other comments from Councilors? Seeing none, going to public participation.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Chairman Gold.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Do we have any comments online on compensation? Seeing none, I'm calling it into public participation. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Justin Tseng]: President Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Do we have any final motions or comments before we end? Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Can we add to that transferring the papers to the Committee of the Whole and adjourning?
[Justin Tseng]: Matthew, I see you have a comment. Can you keep it to one minute? Thank you. Sorry.
[Justin Tseng]: That's a fair point. And we'll be able to revisit that in the Committee of the Whole. Thank you all for joining us tonight. I know a lot of you've spent a very, very long time with us. It's been a marathon meeting, five and a half hours. But I am grateful for all of your work, a lot of hard discussions, but good discussions, very thorough discussions. So on President Bears' motion, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro to have the Chair and Vice Chair of this committee and the Collins Center create separate red line versions by February 27th to refer this to the committee as a whole and to adjourn this meeting. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. Five in favour. Five in favour. None opposed. Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Black History in Medford goes back a long, long time to the founding of our city when very unfortunately, slaves were brought here to work in Medford. We see from at the Brooks Estate, we have Pomp's Wall, a wall that was created that was built by an enslaved man. We see that that black history reflected in the heroic work of Belinda Sutton. who successfully sued, took the initiative and sued for her rights to reparations and received those reparations, forming the first known legal case in North America when it came to freed slaves, getting reparations for their time as slaves, and setting a legal guideline, a baseline for the rights of freed slaves. This history continues through the last few centuries, we have the our historical black community and West Bedford who form such a rich tapestry of our life here in Medford mass. the work of the West Medford Community Center and uplifting that community and bringing us all together and making sure that Black history isn't just something that we tokenize and something that we shove into a corner, but that Black history is something that we all celebrate and recognize. And on that note, I do also want to note that our city on February 17th, Monday, February 17th, 2025, that's President's Day, I believe, From 1030 to 1.30pm in these chambers, we will have a celebration for Black History Month focused on African Americans and labor. And that event is also in conjunction with the West Medford Community Center. I also wanted to note, I think it's the elephant in the room, the attacks on diversity happening nationally and from the federal government in particular, trying to wipe away, erase, delete the idea of black history, the idea that of the histories and struggles of different ethnic groups in this country who all form what we all are, our story as Americans here. I've been glad to talk to neighbors about this, to hear from different elected officials across the city and different offices about our commitment to diversity, to equity, and to inclusion, particularly in our policymaking process. Considering racial equity in policymaking is something that's really complex. something that's really nuanced, something that doesn't always you know the the policy that is the best for racial equity doesn't always seem like it at first and the easy solutions aren't always the best solutions. And I think it's incumbent upon all of us as elected officials as policymakers in the city to ask critically, what, what are our oppressed communities, our marginalized communities, our black communities, feeling, what are they seeing? What are they experiencing? And how can the policies we write and establish, the policies that we pass through the city council best address those needs? And that takes a lot of listening, and it takes a lot of criticism and critical thinking. So I wanted to thank my fellow Councilors for co-sponsoring this resolution.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Councilor Collins said, you know, she doesn't know how to wrap it up. I don't know where to start. I am going to be brief because I think my fellow Councilors have really articulated the frustration, the exasperation, the us asking over and over again for really basic things from the state government. And, you know, I mean I think this is a really really clear example of, you know, a field where we keep asking for improvements, even for basic things like additional signs, clear lighting, fixing lighting, you know, a lot of the things that are talked about in the letter that Councilors are mentioned, and yet, nothing, and I it's just, I I think we can all agree that safety is the bedrock of what the government should be doing like that's the reason we organize ourselves into a society and have a government right like. this level of inaction and as as Councilor Collins put it, the gaslighting that we've had to say that you know we should just accept things like this is just mind boggling and it's really nonsensical. Um, I, when it comes to the policy I'll just leave it there because I think, you know, I feel very strongly about it, and I think that's been articulated. I did also want to thank Councilor Lazzaro from a personal level, including the link to Professor Dill's photography. It was really touching to see the website and to see the really, really beautiful art that he was creating when he was with us here. Yeah, and to lose that is such a loss. I have no words for it. It's really tough. So I'm sending my deepest condolences to Professor Dill to his family as well. Or to, yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. We continue to meet on the charter review process. We reviewed a number of sections from the Charter Study Committee's recommendations, mostly focused around the executive branch, elections, and financial procedures administrative organization.
[Justin Tseng]: No worries.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Chair Lazzaro. I think you put it very well, why we're doing this. You know, we're hearing from residents that they're worried about what's happening nationally. And they've been worried since the Dobbs decision years ago, that really put reproductive health care at stake. You know, I think residents know that Massachusetts is a state where we do believe very strongly and affirmatively in women's rights in rights of, you know, our youth to get the care that they need in the rights of doctors to make the best recommendations that they can for their patients. You know, with that being said, we also don't want Medford to be the site of conflict, right? We don't want Medford to be where hospitals, you know, that provide this type of care are, you know, having to give up their doctors or having to give up their patients to police that's not from Massachusetts, you know, and putting their patients and their employees at risk. And there have been a number of measures that the Healey administration has taken to protect and safeguard these rights, but that's not enough when we know that there's so much uncertainty about what could happen. Just in the last few weeks, I think it's been really striking. to see how the federal government is using its levers and its influence to make states, to make individuals, to make different levels of government and different branches of government succumb to its own will and to succumb to their view of how government should be run or not run. it's really important that we do all we can to safeguard those liberties that we have. It should be noted that a lot of what's happening nationally is actually illegal. It goes against statutes that Congress has passed. It goes against separation of powers. But, you know, that I think underscores how important it is for us to be taking every step and to make be responding to our residents who are reaching out and who are worried about what, you know, decisions nationally what the bills being introduced in the House and Senate, which proposed the banning criminalized abortion care, which proposed to, you know, restrict and ban on gender affirming care. what that means for residents in Medford. And this is what we can do as a city council to protect our residents. I think it underscores the, you know, the point that I've been making over the last few years that oftentimes what is national is local. And that happens at so many levels, but those anxieties carry down as well. And I think it's our job to respond to them. With that being said, really quickly talking about what chair Lazzaro and I have done over the last few years, or last few weeks, it does cross into 2024, so I guess two years, two calendar years. But what we've done is we've taken the discussions at the last public health committee meeting, we've basically cleaned up the draft text that we had at that meeting to become more readable, more organized, to get rid of potential redundancies, to get rid of things that we might not need. We also made sure that the language was all accurate when it came to Medford, that it best represented what we see in our city right now. We made sure to add some language where it made sense. And we chose to expand parts of it, although this is very much still content-wise tied or, you know, very much overlapping with what has already been passed by other municipalities in Massachusetts. I think the other thing to note is that at that community discussion, we talked about potentially expanding the language to include prescription drugs at pharmacies. That's something that a lot of Massachusetts municipalities are doing, although in doing more research about that, I think the model language that I found didn't completely capture, I think, a realistic situation for Medford. I think there was a lot of talk about DOH rules and Board of Health rules and a lot of talk about funding and us appropriating funds. I know that's a whole separate discussion. And with our city charter, the mayor is the one with the power to suggest where funds go or and how they're spent and to make that decision pending about affirmative vote of the City Council. So with that being said, I chose not to put that in the draft before us today. However, I did ask Chair Al-Azhar to ask the Board of Health about ways we could include those ideas in a way that better reflected what we have here in Medford. So whether that would make sense, it would make sense for us to put some version of that language in this ordinance or in an ordinance or for them to just explore that as department policy. So that's basically the status of the draft that we have in front of us. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. for your impactful words about what's happening in this country, but also your kind words about this work that I've been doing alongside chair Lazzaro, who should definitely receive a lot of credit too. When it comes to the last question you asked about whether we should, you know, we pass out a committee tonight and then make, you know, small adjustments if needed on the floor versus keeping a committee. I'm happy to do either. I think it make sense to keep it in committee. I think it's something we could act pretty fast on once we get some guidance from AP law.
[Justin Tseng]: Should I wait. Well, I was just wondering because the screen is full. Governance Committee, February 4 2025. Mr. Clerk, what can you please call the roll.
[Justin Tseng]: chair saying presidents five presidents none absent. Councilor Callahan is also here with us tonight. Paper 24-468 resolution to discuss updates to the city charter. This is the second substantive meeting with us reviewing the Charter Study Committee's recommendations as we've received them from the mayor's office. More specifically, we will be discussing Article 3 about the Executive Branch, Article 5, Administrative Organization, Article 6, Financial Procedures, and Article 7 regarding elections tonight. I did receive some emails asking if we would be taking up compensation tonight. As per a motion from the last Governance Committee meeting, we will be taking that up at our next governance committee meeting. I believe that's February 19th at 6 p.m. I did respond to the emails I got about that, but I did want to make that announcement first. If there are no opening comments, I was thinking we could get straight into the content.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. 2-1, I know the committee made a few motions regarding that we adopted some amended language that was a compromise between President Bears' language and the language that we received. Although, I made a note with my vote and the committee made a note with a general motion that we wanted to leave that open for a committee, the whole meeting following our last governance committee meeting. with that being noted, moving on to article three.
[Justin Tseng]: So what we have voted on is a change to make it nine members in total, five at large, four representing districts. But we did also note that we wanted to hold a committee of the whole meeting for Councilors Callahan and Leming to be able to vote on the final version. And at that meeting, we can talk about edits to what we have. So we can talk about going back to the Charter Study Committee's recommendation. We can talk about other compromises, proposals that people might have.
[Justin Tseng]: Name and address for the record, please. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Wright.
[Justin Tseng]: All right. That makes, thank you. I appreciate that. Any other comments before we move on to section 3-1? Seeing none. Okay. Section 3-1, mayor qualifications, term of office, compensation prohibitions. Does anyone have any comments, suggestions, remarks on this section? Seeing none. Oh, yes. Yes, 3-1. I believe it's on page 10 of the package. I'll give you a sec. Great. Section 3-2, executive powers, enforcement of ordinances. I see Councilor Collins, Vice President Collins.
[Justin Tseng]: Let me make sure it's on. There we go.
[Justin Tseng]: Do we have any other comments from Councilors on Section 3-2? I had one question, just to ask if this is standard practice for city charters. I am not familiar that this is present practice in Medford. And I just wanted to ask if this is very standard.
[Justin Tseng]: OK. And I guess one concern that I think some residents have brought up to me about this part is that there might be some commissions like, for example, the Human Rights Commission or the Disabilities Commission that are working on topics that are more sensitive and not that they're you know, trying to go against the city in any way, but they want to be, you know, members have expressed to me wanting to have some freedom in terms of how they, you know, talk about issues in those committees, talk about analyzing what's going on in City Hall policies, making policy recommendations. And there's some concern that having the mayor present might affect those discussions, the independence of those discussions.
[Justin Tseng]: There's some concern. Could we speak to that?
[Justin Tseng]: Okay.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay, I think, as for the mayor and the conflict of interest, the state ethics law and the mayor, I'm not as familiar. Say that there's a situation where, for example, water and sewer might be making a recommendation when it comes to setting rates. Is that something theoretically that the mayor would then be barred from that conversation?
[Justin Tseng]: Under this section and the state ethics laws.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay. I just wanted to understand the section better. I have no recommendations for motions of this body to make, but I just wanted to ask those questions. Section, do any other councillors have anything, any questions or comments on section 3-2? Seeing none. Okay, moving on. Section 3-3 appointments to the mayor. Do any councillors have, I see Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay, yes. Yes, President Bears. Well, let me... Give me a sec.
[Justin Tseng]: I think to give a little bit of background, the Human Rights Commission is currently exploring a reform to its enabling ordinance. The draft ordinance is in the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee right now. I'm helping with that effort so I can speak a little bit more to it. Part of the idea is that you would have some appointments that come from other commissions, for example, the Disabilities Commission or future commissions that might be pertinent to the HRC's work. And there's also a suggestion from in the draft and from former members of the HRC that the City Council have some role in appointing members to the HRC as well. And so that's to give background to what Councilor Lazzaro is saying. And her amendment would be to add the words, ordinance after that first sentence, basically saying in the mayor chooses, mayor gets to appoint members of the multiple member board. multiple member boards, um, except if there are other exceptions made in the city charter or by ordinance. Um, that's just the, to explain what, um, Councilor Lazzaro is saying. Uh, President, President Bears was in the queue next.
[Justin Tseng]: Did the folks from the call-in center hear the question? the whole thing.
[Justin Tseng]: If you need clarification, I'll just, I'll ask President Bears again.
[Justin Tseng]: President Bears, does that answer your question?
[Justin Tseng]: President Bears, do you have any follow up questions? Nope, that's good.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. Does the call center have anything to add when it comes to the discussion about adding the words by ordinance into that sentence? Or is there... Okay, I'm seeing a shaking. I know Councilor Lazzaro has a motion. Do we have a second on that motion? Oh, the person has seconded. Are there any comments from members of the public? Because we are taking a vote. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, when you're ready.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, four in the affirmative, one in the negative, motion passes. Are there any other comments on this section, section 3-3 before we move on? Seeing none. Okay. Are there any comments on section 3-4, removal or suspension of certain officials? Seeing none, are there any questions, comments, motions on section 3-5, temporary appointments to city offices? I don't see any from councillors. I did have one thing I just wanted to ask slash note. the section 3-5b about temporary appointments, extensions, is there any worry that this would hamstring us if we can't find a permanent or replacement after the extension? The extension says it's basically 120 days about a four-month extension after the temporary appointment of 180 days, which is about six months.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, 300 days, yeah. I know there's some department head positions here that have, there's one that's been very widely talked about, the city solicitor role, which has been, We haven't been able to find any qualified applicants for that for years now. Is there a worry that there might be something, a legal challenge that comes up there or a problem when it comes to getting someone to do that job?
[Justin Tseng]: So right now we have KP law on retainer. So the mayor's office has a legal opinion saying that they can step in as our city solicitor. But this question is applicable to different departments as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay, understood. Are there any other comments from councillors or members of the public on section 3-5, temporary appointments to city offices? Seeing none, okay. Section 3-6, communication special meetings. Are there any comments from councillors or members of the public? Or councillors first, I guess. Vice President Collins, you're live.
[Justin Tseng]: Is that something the Collins Center could speak to? Sure.
[Justin Tseng]: Vice President Collins, does that satisfy your question?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Are there any other comments? Seeing none, any comments from the public? Seeing none as well. Moving on to section 3-7, approval of city mayor veto. Are there any comments from councilors on this point? Seeing, oh. Thanks for catching that. Councilor Callahan.
[Justin Tseng]: Chair McDonald, name and address for the record, please.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Callahan, do you have any more questions or?
[Justin Tseng]: Okay. Are there any other comments on section 3-7? Seeing none. Any other comments from members of the public? Seeing none. Section 3-8, temporary absence of the mayor. Do any councillors have any questions about this section? Seeing none from councillors.
[Justin Tseng]: And would like- Is that a question for discussion or a question for the call center?
[Justin Tseng]: Understood. Okay. Would the folks from the Collins Center have a response or examples of different cities where someone might've stepped in as an acting mayor and how the compensation would work in that situation?
[Justin Tseng]: I have a quick follow-up question for that. Would it then make sense then in the compensation section in somewhere in this charter to note that if someone is serving, if a Councilor is serving as acting mayor, they should be compensated for that work, for that full-time work?
[Justin Tseng]: Okay. I note that as something the council might want to take up when we talk about compensation at the next governance committee meeting. President Bears, do you have any more questions?
[Justin Tseng]: Um, could do the folks from the call center have a have a response to that question?
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think that's an important note. Thank you, President Ferris. Um, do you have any more questions or comments?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I had a quick question or two about logistics technicalities. The first one is just statutory or charter language. When it comes to that last sentence in part A, the mayor may at any point declare themselves able to perform the duties of office. I think I understand where that applies, but because that's put at the very end of the paragraph, I do have some worries that it might be, you know, it might be, there might be a situation where the city council by unanimous vote does determine that the mayor is unable to serve. And then the mayor argues that that sentence should apply to the whole paragraph and says just unilaterally declares themselves mayor. I think, is there, is that a, Is that a worry that we should have? And is there a clarifying language we could have put in there about this?
[Justin Tseng]: If that is the intention then of language like this, is there a worry or is there any worry that a city council could, you know, a future city council could abuse the language written here? And, you know, you know, if they don't like the mayor and everyone on the city council doesn't like whoever the mayor is, votes to... Oh, well, I think you're headed to court then.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay. I see Councilor, Vice President Collins
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. I see President Bears is on Zoom.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. I think that's how I think I do read it that way, too. But I just statutory interpretation is something that is, you know, shifting a lot these days, going back and forth a lot these days. So I think that's why I wanted to flag it. And I think, you know, councillors can dwell on this. We can take this back up at the committee, the whole meeting as well, if needed, if any councillors feel is needed. President Bears, is your hand raised from before or do you have anything else? Okay, great. Do any other Councilors have questions on Section 3-8? Seeing none, do any members of the public have any comments or questions on Section 3-8? Seeing none as well, okay. Oh, I did have one more question for this section. In part B, this was just a clarifying question, where a member of the city council is serving as acting mayor. Let's say that that member of the city council is the president of the city council. The last sentence is clear that they shouldn't vote as a member of the city council. can they still preside over that meeting? Or is the only power that's carved out the voting power?
[Justin Tseng]: So it would be expected that the vice president would take over? Yeah. OK.
[Justin Tseng]: I think that makes a lot of sense to me. That's not entirely clear from the language in the charter itself. Is this language that we have in front of us standard for different cities?
[Justin Tseng]: Okay. I guess one more question that just popped into my mind when it comes to You guys mentioned that in a situation where this council is maybe abusing its power and the mayor comes back and says, that's what's happening, that might be litigated. Is there any precedent for that?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: With that being said, those are my final thoughts on section 3-8. Are there any other thoughts on 3-8 before we move on to 3-9? Seeing none. Okay. Section 3-9, delegation of authority by the mayor. Do any councilors have any questions on this section, questions or comments? Seeing none. Section 3-10, vacancy in the office of the mayor. Do any Councilors have questions or comments on this section? Seeing none. Do any members of the public have any comments on this section or Article 3 about the mayor's office, the executive branch? Seeing none, I did have a really quick question with regards to section 3-2. I forgot this in the moment. It relates back to Councilor Collins's point about the mayor being a member of every multiple member body of the city. I think the following sentences are very clear on what the mayor's role is when it comes to multiple member bodies. I'm wondering if there is any worry that the first sentence, just by saying a member instead of saying an ex-official member, if there's any statutory interpretation problem there. I know it's evident in the second sentence, but I could see a court arguing that because we didn't put it in the first sentence, that signals some other intent.
[Justin Tseng]: Understood. Thank you. Now, I'm seeing that there are no hands up, no requests to speak. Moving on to section five, article five. administrative organization. Do any Councilors have questions about Section 5-1 about the organization of city agencies? Seeing none. Do Councilors have questions? Oh, yes, Vice President Collins.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Collins, does that satisfy your question? Well, it directs me to where I should look to get a concrete answer, so thank you for that. Thank you. Do any other councillors have questions or comments on section 5-1? Seeing none, do any councillors have questions about section 5-2, Merit Principles? Seeing none, do any members of the public have any comments on article five on administrative organization? Seeing none. Then moving on, article six, financial procedures. Do any councilors have questions or comments on section 6-1 fiscal year? Seeing none, do any councilors have questions or comments on section 6-2, the annual budget meeting? Seeing none, do any councilors have questions? Yes, Councilor Callahan.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay. I see that President Bears has his hand raised on Zoom.
[Justin Tseng]: Are there any other questions or comments from councillors? Seeing none. Section 6-3, submission of operating budget message. Do any councillors have questions or comments on that? Seeing none. Section 6-4, action on the operating budget. Do any Councilors have questions or comments on this section? Seeing none. Section 6-5, capital improvement plan. Do any Councilors have questions or comments on this section? Seeing none. Section 6-6, Independent Audit. Do any Councilors have any questions or comments on this section? None? See, we can do things pretty quickly here. Section 6-7, Expenditures and Excess Appropriations. Any Councilors have questions or comments on this section? Seeing none. Okay. Do any members of the public have any questions or comments about Article 6, the financial procedures? I see a hand from Barry Ingber on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please, once we get you unmuted.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Barry. Going in person, name and address for the record, please.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Matthew. Seeing no other comments in person or on Zoom, moving on to our last section of the night, article seven, our last article of the night, elections. Do any councilors have, let's take the, we can take sections seven-one and seven-two together since they're both about preliminary elections and preliminary election procedures. Do we have any comments? I see President Bears is on Zoom.
[Justin Tseng]: Would the Collins Center have an answer to that question?
[Justin Tseng]: We have a motion from President Bears to change the references to the City Clerk in Article 7 to Board of Election Commissioners, with a second from Councilor Lazzaro. Do we have any comments on that before we take a vote? Seeing none, when you're ready. Yes, yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. Four in favor, one against. Motion passes. or do we have any other comments on sections 7-1 and 7-2 about preliminary elections? Seeing none, do we have any comments or questions about section 7-3 or section 7-4? That would be regular city election, ballot position, and for that regular city election. Seeing none as well. Moving on to section 7-5, nonpartisan elections. Are there any comments or questions from councilors? Seeing none. Section 7-6, wards. Do we have any comments or questions from councilors? Seeing none, I did have one question. Having followed the last re-precincting conversation in 2020, I believe it was, in the City Council, I know two of the plans submitted by, I believe it was the City Clerk's Office, had nine wards instead of eight. Now, a lot of, you know, a lot of this I think like affects potential composition of city council and, you know, there's a lot of interplay there. I was wondering how difficult it would be, you know, if we get to a situation with our very fast population growth here in Medford, where mathematically because of state laws, we have to draw nine wards or we get to a situation where you know we're kind of put in that position, how difficult would it be to change this.
[Justin Tseng]: That's something that the state legislature would probably be pretty deferential to.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay, great. I see President Bears on Zoom.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. Great. Are there any other questions from councillors on 7-6 on wards? Seeing none. And our final section of the night. Do you have any questions or comments from Councilors on section 7-7 application of state general laws? Seeing none, before we close the meeting, I want to open up. Oh yes, President Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. We have a motion from President Bears to refer the articles we discussed tonight to the committee, the future committee of the whole that's going to be scheduled. Do we have a second on that motion?
[Justin Tseng]: Including the amendments. Great. Do we have any, before we take out that vote, which I assume will be the last substantive vote, do we have any comments from the public about Section 7 elections or general comments about the sections that we discussed tonight?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Matt. I think, you know, this is something that Councilors could maybe work on too, in terms of our summaries, conversations with residents. I know there are Councilors who are more active on social media as well. Perhaps, you know, we can kind of break down some of what is in here for our residents to understand. Thank you. With that being said, If you know further public comment, Mr. Clerk, when you're ready. President Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. Four in favor, one opposed, motion passes. Do we have any last final comments or final motions from Councilors? Motion to adjourn. We have a motion to adjourn from President Bears. We have a second from Councilor Lazzaro. I see Councilor or Vice President Collins.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I'd like to echo that sentiment. Thank you to the Collins Center's representatives for being here. Thank you to the members of the Charter Study Committee, both here in person and on Zoom, for participating, for being here. With that being said, I think that's a happy place to close this meeting. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, four in favor, one opposed motion passes meeting is adjourned.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, my Outlook is just freezing up right now. Outlook doesn't work.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. A few notes. The first one about the governance committee item, I like the edit that you suggested about putting in the, including discussions regarding the change of city council composition. If we could put in something about how we will make, we're keeping discussions open. and taking a final vote in a future committee, that would be, I think, helpful for residents to know that we haven't made any final changes to this document.
[Justin Tseng]: We haven't heard anything out of governance, but maybe we could say something like the committee adopted a number of edits which continue to be up for discussion and can continue to be on the table pending a final vote in a future committee of the whole meeting.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, the only thing I would say is we didn't just refer discussion of this matter or any edit. So of any potential or any edits, I guess, instead of this matter.
[Justin Tseng]: If we could capitalize committee since proper now or proper now.
[Justin Tseng]: OK. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think that makes sense. It's a little more direct, yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. OK. Yeah, we can also move on from this and I can suggest some language in the meantime. And then the other main question or point I had was, I'm noticing in this version of the newsletter in particular, there's a lot of like, in the general business, there's a lot of points that start out with the same like, at the December 17 meeting, at this meeting, at this meeting, I wonder if we could do one big bullet point, or one big header that's just, not header, but like, one big point that's just like, at the December 17th meeting, cold, and sub-bullet points for the rest, just to like, make it a little bit more readable, and to make the context stand out a little bit more. But Councilor O'Trella, I mean, you know more about how this is gonna be formatted than I do.
[Justin Tseng]: One second. Chair Lemon, do you think you could share edit access to me?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Chair, let me, just one more thing. I think we could just note that we are beginning work on developing an open data policy at today's meeting, just for the last point.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. Just like something like this. Yeah. That's good. Okay. That's all I have. Um, okay.
[Justin Tseng]: I guess we could, we could put in camera commemorations. Um, uh, the lunar new year.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, yeah, it's just Lunar New Year. I think other cultures also have Lunar New Years, but on different days. Gotcha.
[Justin Tseng]: And this is also a motion to distribute the newsletter?
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I mean, just to give my fellow Councilors and anyone who might be watching at home, a general idea of what an open data policy is. It's a modernizing practice that a lot of municipalities have adopted to let residents access data and information from the city quicker. and to let them help us with policy development. I know all of us know of residents who are really eager to help out and really excited that a lot of residents are so eager to help out with policy development here. I know Councilor Callahan does a lot of work with residents on this as well. I think this very much falls in line with the City Council's goals of greater transparency, greater modernization, being more proactive and inclusive when it comes to developing policy too. And I know, you know, members of the public have brought up that with the policy changes in the city, there are, you know, XYZ questions that they wish they could have asked or XYZ pieces of data they could have had before making decisions on those or before giving public feedback about different items, or even after with, helping us generate, you know, how to make our processes better in the future. This is something that Cambridge, Boston, I believe some other municipalities too, have taken on themselves, onto themselves, of passing a policy or via ordinance or executive order to create some structure, some framework of doing that. And so the Cambridge sample ordinance that we have in front of us and in our inboxes is an example of of what this might look like in an ordinance form. Of course, there are very different structures of government between Cambridge and Medford, so that's something to keep in mind while we're reading the draft. But I thought it would be helpful to give Councilors some sample text to work off of to give us more concrete idea of what this policy might look like. The Boston executive order is also in the document. Obviously, executive order is very different from an ordinance, but it's still worth, you know, seeing what other municipalities are doing. you know, giving us inspiration as to maybe like what goals we should aspire to, what possible paths policy-wise can we take to get there. With the questions that, the bullet point questions that we have in front of us and in the inbox, and maybe I should read them real quick.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay, the chair can read them. But to give context, Chair Lemme and I have been talking for a bit about what kind of information we might wanna gather and put publicly on our website. And these are the questions that we came up with. We're happy to add more questions from other Councilors to this list. And of course, as we develop this policy and as we work on this, we can keep asking more questions to the administration and to different city departments too. Something I did forget to mention is that oftentimes an open data policy is, is introduced alongside a committee to work through this data, to help clean up this data, to help think of more data in the future, to make sure that this is a recurring cycle, not just like we're doing this at once and then we have to revisit this as a city council every few years. But obviously, also with putting data online, we also have to be aware and cognizant of security concerns with that conversation as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I think that more or less captures what I was thinking. Um, I think as we, as this becomes a bigger thing, as you know, once we've gotten past that step of low hanging fruit, I, I, I, this is something I haven't talked to councilor lending about, but I do envision in an ideal world, this becoming a bigger project after that step. Um, and I got, I alluded to this earlier. Um, a lot of, cities will do something called an open data review board. And that might be staff members who get a stipend. That might be community members who we appoint and who have some interest slash work experience dealing with this kind of stuff, organizing data and whatnot. Perhaps that is the path that we we reach, you know, that's the path that we take moving forward. But I also think that, you know, that question is the kind of farther future thing. And I think it'd be a little premature to take on that discussion right now.
[Justin Tseng]: I guess something we could add to that question. Councilor Lazzaro was... Oh, sorry, that was just writing. Could I?
[Justin Tseng]: Sorry, Councilor Lazzaro, something we could add to that point is just in addition to the staff capacity and resources, question. Um, just like what?
[Justin Tseng]: Respectfully, I worry that we're putting the cart before the horse and missing the forest for the trees. Is that how they're missing? I had a long day working.
[Justin Tseng]: I think Councilor Leming and I are just really thinking big picture about this right now. And I think a lot of your concerns are captured in the questions that we're asking, plus the one that I just added about like general capacity and resources that we need. I will also say it is my view that this level of transparency should be the standard that municipal governments are putting out. In fact, governments at all levels should be putting out and that Part of the idea behind doing a policy like this is also that many hands make light work, which I also have a problem with that saying, but I think in this case is true. work that I think our residents want to see our departments doing, but we don't have, our departments don't have that capacity right now. But maybe if we put on, you know, put some of this data out in public, they could do that work and propose the policies for us. And then we can, you know, enter these policy discussions at a level where, you know, residents have done the research and we can, we can start engaging with them.
[Justin Tseng]: Sorry?
[Justin Tseng]: Yep, yep, yeah. I can send this to you, Mr. Chair, first, and the clerk, too, just to make sure I didn't miss anything. But I think we have everything.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, and I would I would motion then that we, um, send these questions to, uh, to the department heads and city administration. Um, as we've directed, um, and since families are online, I would also motion put in that motion, uh, motion to adjourn.
[Justin Tseng]: Second.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. The Governance Committee met to start our substantive review of the Charter Study Committee and the Mayor's Charter Recommendations We discussed mostly the legislative branch and we had a lengthy discussion about different types of electoral systems slash representation systems. We also voted to move discussion of compensation to the last substantive meeting, I believe, which is scheduled for February 19th. and we also voted to refer the edits that we made at that meeting to a larger committee, the whole meeting so that all councilors could vote and so that we can continue discussing ideas that we have.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Lunar New Year is the most important festival for many Asian communities, including our Chinese, Taiwanese, Tibetan, Korean, and Vietnamese communities here in Medford. And of course, our Asian American community here is large and vibrant. I wanted to take this opportunity to wish everyone a happy and prosperous new year. In my family's language, xin nian kuai le. I also wanted to let our residents know about the city's Lunar New Year celebration this Saturday from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Senior Center. We had our first Lunar New Year celebration last year with line dancers, with food, with performances from residents and students. And it was really, really exciting and can't wait to redo it again this year.
[Justin Tseng]: If we go line by line, I more or less agree with Councilor Callahan was with one one or two asterisks. I do worry that the current language on the floor right now is over politicizing a vote that Many, most of the city took part in. Most of the registered voters of the city took part in and I know that people have their views on that debate. But I want to make sure that what we are passing tonight, it doesn't go against the democratic will of those voters. I think it's important to note that we did do a lot of outreach and there's always room for improvement. But in in this case, I do think and you know, we've debated this as a city council over and over again. And I don't think it's that useful for us to relitigate this issue right now. But it is, you know, it's important to acknowledge that we have come a very long way when it comes to communications in the city. And there is much more work that we are doing, and a lot of the avenues that we have set up are potential avenues, for example, like the listing sessions, are potential avenues for us to take advantage of and improve in the future as well. We do need to serve all of our residents, and I do think it'll be important to hold meetings to improve our communications and to explain really complicated concepts. But at the same time, I'm very grateful to Vice President Collins for presenting a proposed amended language that really gets at the heart of I think the more nonpartisan things about this resolution at the same, so carrying out those effects and at the same time using language that I think can unite and be amenable to a large section of the city.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli for introducing this. I think you'll find that that I support this resolution wholeheartedly. I think that you've brought up really, really important things that, and Councilor Collins has too, that I've been hearing from my neighbors and residents who live in South Bedford and the whole side as well. I live on the border of that zone and like Councilors Collins and Scarpelli, I do see the positives and the negatives. There, you know, a lot of the reasons why this was put into place was to anticipate the arrival of the Green Line extension to make parking enforcement easier because we had a lot of varying rules that made that enforcement very difficult to a lot of the intention behind this policy, I think is good. And we are seeing some of that fruit, but at the same time, a lot of residents are picking up on some negatives about the system and some complaints that I do think we should address and that we should field. With a new parking director in the city, this is a good time for us to all meet together to have this community conversation. But the Green Line Zone, I also find that this resolution is written in a way that is quite neutral as to the contents of the policy itself and does speak to the sentiments of a lot of our residents. So, I'd be happy to support this. Thank you, Councilor Sand, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to note that that's evidenced by the fact that there's not a lot of research done into the whole process and into the facts of the case. Many of the facts here that are asserted about things I did or did not do or were thinking are not true and never happened.
[Justin Tseng]: It's because I'm younger than you guys.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to briefly thank the members of the CPC, Manager DuPont and Chair Cameron for their hard work putting together these projects and putting together these meetings. I know it's a lot of work, working through a lot of material. These projects are ones I'm particularly excited about because I believe that they move our city towards a lot of our goals of livability, better parks, moving towards more childcare, moving towards better public facilities moving towards more affordable housing. I think these are goals that everyone behind this rail and most, if not all, residents share.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I understand and agree with much of what Councilor Leming said, but I do also agree with Councilor Callahan's concerns about the general practice of selling city land, selling public land, which for a long time we've said is very scarce without knowing what the larger roadmap is. I guess my personal preference would be to table this and to either have a committee of the whole on this or to have more of a lengthier discussion here next meeting with all councilors present. That'd be my personal preference, but I do wanna understand if there, maybe this is something that Attorney Everett could answer. Is there an urgency to this? Are there any deadlines that we are looking to meet? by passing this tonight, and I'm also curious about the number of votes that we need to pass this. Is this a simple majority or two-thirds majority?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, that I think answers a lot of questions for me. Um, uh, the, it is helpful to know that the city council will have accountability and oversight over, um, how the money in the sale of lots account will be spent. Um, I would like to make a motion to table, but before I formally make that motion, I see that Councilor, um, Lazzaro has her hand up and introducing such a motion would end the debate.
[Justin Tseng]: I have a procedural question for the attorney. Um, given that we have six Councilors present out of seven, um, is the two thirds vote based on the six Councilors present or the seven sitting members?
[Justin Tseng]: So we need more votes.
[Justin Tseng]: I would motion to table pending a committee of the whole with inviting members of the administration, the Affordable Housing Trust and other stakeholders. Okay. Great.
[Justin Tseng]: Governance Committee, January 22nd, 2025. Mr. Clerk, can you please call the roll?
[Justin Tseng]: chair say present five present non absent. The meeting is called to order. Today we'll be discussing resolution 24-468 resolution to discuss updates to the city charter. This is one of three scheduled substantive charter. charter review meetings where we will review the recommendations sent to us by the mayor's office of the work that the Charter Study Committee has done. I know the chair of the Charter Study Committee is in the audience with us today. I did send out an official invite to this meeting through the CSC email address. I was thinking, because we have so much to work through, and just to remind folks at home, what we have to talk about today is the preamble, article one, discussing incorporation, short title definitions, article two about the legislative branch, and article nine, general provisions, section 9-6, which concerns itself with ordinances and the legislative branch as well, which is why it's in this meeting. Because there's so much to review and talk about today, I was thinking that we could cover the sections in order in the city charter draft that was sent to us. and take composition and compensation at the end, because those, I expect, will be very substantive discussions with a lot of input and discussion required. And I don't want the small but very important things to get lost in the substance. With that being said, do councillors have any opening thoughts or thoughts on the preamble or article one of the draft city charter? Yes. Let me make sure I can see. I should also note that we have representatives from the Collins Center today in the audience with us, too, to work through substance questions. Yep. President Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Lazzaro is next in the queue.
[Justin Tseng]: I see President Bears has requested, but I wanted to make sure other city councilors had a chance to give comments first. Just to clarify, we're talking about the preamble and article one. Okay, I see none. President Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, thank you so much for that. That was very, very helpful. With Article 1, I did actually have one question about, a definition. I don't know if Chair McDonald or Collin Center, this is something you guys can help answer. I see that there's a definition here for local newspaper when you control F through it. There's some references to local newspapers, some references to local news publications. Um, I know substantively a lot of that shows up later on and like in subjects will cover in future meetings, but seeing that they're going to be spread through two different meetings, I was, I'd be remiss not to ask if that is some language that we should align through the charter document local newspaper versus local news publication. And in the definition itself for local newspaper it talks about newspapers with daily or weekly circulation and given the state of local news media. I didn't know whether requiring that is something that would eventually hold us up if local news sources were to disappear. I know there are folks at home, folks in the city working on creating local news sources, but I know those are still just in the works. Thank you. And if you can, could you give us your name and address for the record? And could you spell your name just so we can get it correctly? Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, that helps a lot with the question. Thank you so much. Before we move on to article two about the legislative branch, are there any other questions or comments, motions about article one? Seeing none, let's move on to Article 2. As the first section is about composition, I'll skip over that really quickly and move on to section 2-2, Council President and Vice President Election Terms and Hours. Do any councilors have any questions, comments, or motions about this section of the city charter? I just had a question for the Collins Center, if you guys already can answer this. Is it normal to put very specific powers and duties for the city council president in the city charter? I know something that the Charter Study Committee has been talking about is how currently in Medford, So many of these things are in separate places. And something that will help us understand the charter review process better is if this is something that is normally in a city charter.
[Justin Tseng]: Great. Thank you. Oh, could we get your name and address for the record, too?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Do we foresee any trouble with the phrase, the president shall prepare the agenda, in terms of, I know currently the president works with the clerk's office to prepare the agenda. Is that something I know textually, that seems like this is the current language is quite limiting. Is this something that has been discussed before in terms of whether that would be a problem, the president working with other people, not Councilors, to prepare the council agenda?
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Give me one sec.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. Are there any other questions on section 2-2? Not seeing any. Section 2-3, prohibitions, are there any questions from councilors on this? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Lazzaro, I actually had a quick question about two, three. Two, three, you did. Could I do that one first? Yes. So in section two, three B, it says that the city council shall contact the officers and employees serving under the mayor solely through the mayor Um, I, so I know, I think all of us as Councilors know that we're contacting city officials city staff with understanding that they serve, they serve the mayor and the people of the city. I'm, I know, I also know that a lot of us as Councilors. directly outreach to a lot of city staff to ask for input, to ask for, to give suggestions and whatnot. Do we see this language, the language I just read out, as limiting that outreach or that interaction?
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to clarify. Thank you. Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: President Bears?
[Justin Tseng]: Can you email that to the court?
[Justin Tseng]: Great, we have a motion on the floor by President Bears. Anna's gonna email it to you. Okay, do we have a second by Councilor Lazzaro? Seeing that there might be a lot of motions at the end of this meeting, I think it would be wise to take this vote now, when you're ready, Mr. Clerk. I'll give you a second.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. Five in favor, none opposed, motion passes. Are there any other comments on section two, four? Seeing none. Okay. Section two, five, exercise of powers quorum rules. President Bears, your mic is live.
[Justin Tseng]: We have a motion from President Bears to amend the words fixed by ordinance to fixed by city council rules in section 2-5B1.
[Justin Tseng]: Before, do we have a second for that motion? Yeah. Councilor Lazzaro?
[Justin Tseng]: I know oftentimes it goes through, I believe now it's admin and finance. Oh, we haven't had to do it this term, but oftentimes it does go through committee first. Any other comments on section 2-5? Okay. Councilor Lazzaro has seconded President Ferris' motion. Let me check on Zoom. Seeing none. Yeah. when you're ready. Yep. Oh, okay.
[Justin Tseng]: Is that something the Collins Center would like to respond to?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Are there any other comments on the substance in 2-5 before we take up President Bears' motion? seeing none from councillors. Mr. Clerk, are you ready for the vote?
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. Five in favor, none opposed. Motion passes. Section 2-6, access to information. Do any councilors have any comments, questions, notes on this section? Seeing none. Great. uh, section two dash seven appointments of city council. Um, do any Councilors have notes on this one? Uh, notes, questions, comments, motions. Uh, I see president bears.
[Justin Tseng]: There's a lot there. I know your most direct question is about the city clerk. I was wondering if maybe chair McDonald or the call center would be able to speak to that.
[Justin Tseng]: Great.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Is there any, are there any motions or comments, questions? Yep.
[Justin Tseng]: I believe we have two motions on the floor, the first one being Councilor Scarpelli's motion on the residency requirements for the call center to propose draft language for the city council on residency requirements for multiple member boards.
[Justin Tseng]: And I assume you're seconding it?
[Justin Tseng]: Do it all together. Are there any comments from Chairman Golds before we take that vote? Well, would you have any comments on that resolution or on that motion? Okay, great. Yes, the city messenger and residency requirements for multiple member boards, although that's for a future meeting.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think that was my recollection as well, but I'm happy to just vote on the motion.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. Five in favor, none opposed. Motion passes. Great. Now section two dash eight ordinances and other measures. Are there any comments, questions, motions from, from Councilors? I know, There will be discussion later tonight on the composition, the proposed composition for city council. I'm assuming some of the numbers here will depend on the outcome of those conversations. I did have some more technical questions for the Collins Center, if it's all right. In the first line of this section, it says, no ordinance shall be passed finally on the date it is introduced. Is that date the first reading of the proposed ordinance? Is it when the councilor proposes, like comes to a city council meeting with ordinance text proposed? I know we've had situations where both are happening. Of course, the former being more common. The latter has happened in the city council before too.
[Justin Tseng]: Great. I know there's also discussion of emergency ordinances here.
[Justin Tseng]: it makes sense to me, the current language that an emergency ordinance shall be repealed after the expiration of 60 days. Is there much of a, this is something that's new to Medford, I think. Is there much of a discussion in terms of whether, of making that vote a repeal vote versus an affirmative vote to enshrine?
[Justin Tseng]: Great. Thank you. I believe that's all I had for this section. Are there any other comments or questions from councillors? George, I've, you has read for some reason, but you didn't have anything, right? Great, great. Great. Moving on to section 2-9. City council confirmation of certain appointments. Do any other, do any councilors have comments or questions on this? I see President Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: I think that's a really good point. Uh do folks from do any other city councilors have thoughts on. Oh. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Justin Tseng]: I know, so right now, just to summarize, we are debating or we are discussing changing the requirements that city council reject mayoral appointees with a two-thirds majority, changing that, amending that to just the majority, a majority to reject an appointee, just to frame this conversation. Do any other councilors have comments on that proposal, on President Bears's motion? Is there any comment from the Charter Study Committee, from Collin Sentry? Seeing none, do we have a second for President Bears' motion? I'll second. Seconded by Councilor Scarpelli.
[Justin Tseng]: Sorry, Councilor Collins is telling me that my mic was not on. For Councilor Collins, President Bears has made a motion to request that the Collins Center look at section 2-10, make sure that the references to the city clerk and the election commissions reflect the system that we operate here. I did have one more substance-based question for the members of the Collins Center or the Charter Study Committee. I know that there, so there's a reference to, so there's a less than 30% mark. for filling the vacancies. This is something that I find reasonable, but I'm curious how he arrived at 30% as a number. Chair McDonald? Oh yeah, could you come to the microphone so folks at home and other Councilors can hear? Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: I see. Are there charters that go, maybe this is a question that the call-in center would know more.
[Justin Tseng]: I see, so 30 is more of like a median number?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments on section 210 from councillors?
[Justin Tseng]: President Bears? Oh, sorry. I did the wrong mic.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Thank you. President Bears. Um, it's my opinion is similar. I didn't want to, um, well, I can't make any motions from the chair, but I also didn't want to make any proposals before we moved before we talked about composition. Um, because I think a lot of this, this does hinge on that. Are there any motions of councils are, um, I actually have a question on that.
[Justin Tseng]: It's my understanding that it's the latter. OK. The call center is confirmed, just for folks watching online. Got it.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I know vacancies is something that we talked about in my charter study committee interview way back when. We talked about different ways of looking at it. I know there are a lot of arguments that cut in favor of keeping it this way as well. I know the main criticism with having the next runner-up fill the seat is that, as President Bears referred to, the next runner-up might not be representative of the will of the voters. But there is also a worry that we would end up having to run a lot of special elections. That costs money and time and operational energy at City Hall as well. So something to consider as we move forward, but I do think that a lot of this does hinge on the conversation about competition. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that the current text of the ordinance or of the draft city charter is that if they don't reach that 30% threshold, not that we would hold a special election. So if we amended that number, it wouldn't be that we hold a special election. The current draft charter says the remaining members of the city council would appoint to fill the vacancy for the rest of the term. That's in subsection C. Just to clarify that point for folks at home. That is something that we could change as a council, right, but I don't hear any appetite to do that. Yes, President Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Ferris. I know we have one motion from President Ferris on the floor regarding... There's the Elections Commission, right? Do we have a second for that motion? Sure. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready.
[Justin Tseng]: Seconded by councilors. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. Five in favor and unopposed motion passes now on to the fun part. If that wasn't fun enough. Oh yes. Yeah. Sorry. 9.6 slipped my mind. One more fun section before we get to the big topic items. Are there any comments on section 9-6? Oh, sorry. President Bears and then Councilor Wood.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay, we have a motion from President Bears on a number of amendments, but namely that the special committee be established by a vote at the City Council. Do we have a second for that motion? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. Okay. And we all have that language from the agenda packet. Councilor Lemie?
[Justin Tseng]: Okay. Thank you. I know there was a question for Councilor Fleming about the proposed motion, President
[Justin Tseng]: Could you? I'll email it. Councilor Callaghan, and then Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: It's my understanding from the Collins Center's earlier comment that it's not just for city charter changes. It's also when Massachusetts state law changes.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: I think what would be helpful to folks at home and for Councilors is, because Benford hasn't had something like this, at least not under the present form of the charter, could you give us a look into, I think you've described the role, like what they would be doing, but what does this committee typically look like? Is it composed of lawyers?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I think that helps a lot with with our understanding of what this is meant to meant to be.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I know President Bears has requested the mic. I also did have a question for Okay. I did have a question for President Bears in by changing the first It's the first reference to the ordinance to a vote of the city council. I know. And then two sentences from there, it says on a shelf file, it's report with the city clerk on a date specified by ordinance. OK. Give us a second. So.
[Justin Tseng]: Great, on President Bears' motion, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. President Bears, oh, sorry.
[Justin Tseng]: Do we still have your second on that? Mr. Clerk, when you're ready.
[Justin Tseng]: Five in favor. None opposed. Motion passes. Um, back to the fun part. Um, I know President Bears, um, sent us a proposal. I recognize you. This would be on the on composition. Section two dash
[Justin Tseng]: So that's 2-4, 3-1, 4-4? Yeah. President Bears has moved to discuss, to move section 2-4 to another meeting for discussion, and to discuss it along with 3-1, 4-4, which I understand are all about compensation of the council, the mayor, and the school committee.
[Justin Tseng]: Do we have a second on President Bears' motion?
[Justin Tseng]: Seconded by Councilor, Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro, did you have a question?
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. Five in favor, none opposed. Motion passes. Great, back to 2-1, composition term of office eligibility. Do we have any comments from councilors? President Bears?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears for your comments. I have Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Leming. Going to you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Councilor Callahan.
[Justin Tseng]: That might have to be from the clerk. Oh, there we go.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan. In the order I saw, President Bears, Vice President Collins, and then Councilor Scarpelli.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Scarpelli, give me a sec.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, sorry, sorry. Councilor Collins.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Collins. I got Councilor Scarpelli and then Councilor Callahan, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: So thank you, Mr. President. Before I move to Councilor Callahan, I see a lot more hands raised here. I just wanted to correct the record on some things. And I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this proposal. I'm still considering different perspectives. On the quote from the Medford People's Platform, I could not actually find that exact quote. What I did find instead was, we commit to implementing a city charter review process to change and expand the way Medford elected officials to ward representation instead of just at-large seats. And I think it's important not to leave out that last operative clause. There are things said about what councilor said, what I do think there is a difference between saying that board representation is not the best way to serve a district, which is what I think the councilor was saying instead of that Ward doesn't deserve representation. Those are two very different statements. With regards to the meeting times, I did actually do, I looked at the data about it, and when you take the meetings since 2020 that are more substantive rather than procedural, are actually, after we went bi-weekly, our meeting lengths are pretty much exactly the same. Only six minutes longer on average under the bi-weekly system. So there's not a lot of difference there. And I believe the call-in center is here to answer our questions and not to advocate for any particular policy or choice. Although we do have members of the Charter Study Committee who are here to do that. Councilor Callahan, Lazzaro, and then saw President Bears and then Councilor Collins. Also, I understand that there are people here for public comment. We will get to that.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Now recognizing Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Councilor Lazzaro, I think I have President Bears and then Vice President Collins.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor, Vice President Collins, and then Councilor Scarbell.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Collins, Councilor Scarpelli, and then Councilor Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: President Bears and then Vice President Collins.
[Justin Tseng]: Vice President Collins.
[Justin Tseng]: Vice President Collins, just to clarify, do you mean four districts and five at large?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I also want to move to public comment. I do have a number of questions for the Collins Center, especially the members of the Charter Study Committee, who I think it's important to hear from. Yes? Okay, great. In, I know a big goal behind going to a hybrid system, word representation system is this idea, this, you know, desire to get a more diverse city council. In my research into word representation, into different types of representation, there's a big change, a shift in terms of how diversity is viewed as a result of making these structural changes. I think pretty much everyone agrees that at large. An all-at-large system is not good for diversity because it dilutes the votes of minority groups. And we've seen municipalities across the state be challenged for that. But there's also been a rising concern, and this is based on research in the American Political Science Review in the law of, I think it's politics, economics, and organization, where people are worried that creating smaller districts. districts that tend to be majority and minority actually cuts against racial equity in that it makes fewer politicians responsible for or accountable to minority voters. And I was wondering if this is something that the Charter Study Committee discussed in its consideration of diversity, especially with regards to race. Okay. Yeah, Chair McDonald did answer the question. She said no. It's just a concern to me because it is what political scientists now, I think, have found to be the main mover in terms of racial justice is voters' accountability, or politicians' accountability to voters. So that is something I do want to consider strongly in my consideration of the different options that we have here at the table. And one unseen strength of the alternative proposal, which I do have my questions about too, is that you keep the racial proportions quite similar comparing, for example, the historically black community in West Medford in Ward 6. Combining it with Ward 8 doesn't change the percentage much at all, and it makes an elected more accountable to those voters. Similarly, in Ward 7, there is more of a difference. And I am slightly more concerned about that one, but it does make the Councilor serving Ward 1 also accountable to minority voters as well. I did actually, I had some open-ended questions about the survey as well. Could you, Chair McDonald, since you know the survey process better than I do, help run me through a little bit of what that process was like and what the results were?
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, both. Both creating the survey, but mostly the results and what you got from the results.
[Justin Tseng]: I think broad strokes, I'm familiar with the policy recommendations of the survey results. Could you remind me about the composition, what questions were asked, if you have that off the top of your mind?
[Justin Tseng]: Thanks for clarifying that. So we didn't ask about the district system or?
[Justin Tseng]: One point I do find compelling is this idea that we should mix, standardize both sets, the city council and the school committee to use a similar election system. I'm worried that, I mean, I think something big I hear when I knock on the doors of people who don't necessarily turn out in local elections is just general confusion with how local elections work, who's voting for who, Who, you know, who's up. Um, could you explain to me the reasoning behind making city council and school committee, like the compositions different.
[Justin Tseng]: I know Ms. Van der Kloot is on the Zoom, but I know we also, Ms. Van der Kloot, I see your hand raised, Mr. Clerk, if you can.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, very briefly. I know we're covering this on a different day, but I was just wondering about the mismatch.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Ms. Barracud. And thank you for your service to the city. Thank you. It's always a joy seeing you. I think that's a helpful explanation. And I know you all looked at data about this. I don't know if the call-in center is more to contribute about this. Is there usually a big gulf between the number of candidates who run for city council and school committee?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. That's helpful, too. Quickly, going back to the survey, I am curious about, because I used to work in survey research and public opinion polling, I'm curious if you know the demographics or have that information, percentage like renter, homeowner, racial breakdown, income, anything like that.
[Justin Tseng]: I think I saw Jean earlier. Oh, yep. I see Jean's hands raised. Good.
[Justin Tseng]: Yep, that's correct. I just wanted to know what the breakdown was in terms of things like homeowner, renter, income, et cetera.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I think that's helpful information. I appreciate the outreach that the committee has done to reach groups that weren't represented in the survey. I just also, you know, As someone who's into polling, I want us to be careful with how we're assessing the data as well, especially given that the homeowner to renter ratio is so far off from what the city ratio is, which is 53% to 47% instead of what seemed like 80% to 20%. But that's just to help me understand. Could you outline for me a bit I know we talked about in our interview a very long time ago, the idea of exploring different types of electoral systems, so multi-member districts, proportional representation, rank choice, and all of that. Could you help us understand as a council where those conversations went and why those weren't chosen?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I know Councilor Call, or Councilor Callahan brought up the spreadsheet with comparing us to different municipalities around the country. Um, I think a question that comes into my mind is just, what is, why are we choosing one over the other, right? If we have a bigger data set, it seems to make sense to, to hew to that, but Was there much consideration of different municipalities of similar size in different states? And is there a reason why Massachusetts was the standard?
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Callaghan showed earlier the spreadsheet of different states, right, and of some in our state with the calculations of councillors per capita.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm curious. Was that data considered in the committee's study of?
[Justin Tseng]: Thanks. That's helpful to know. I think that more or less, I have questions for President Bears, but I suspect in the public comment period, there are gonna be questions about that proposal as well. So I wanted to get to public comment first. Yes, President Bears has some questions.
[Justin Tseng]: It's my understanding that Daniel Bullocka, who was on the, Danielle, who was on the CSC has a comment about that question. Mr. Bares. President Bears. Danielle, give us one second. Oh, there we go.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Danielle. Thanks. I realized that I have two quick questions for the committee members who are here. Was there much conversation about the prospect of gerrymandering?
[Justin Tseng]: Of gerrymandering wards. I know in 2020 it was different because of the pandemic, but normally wards are drawn at the local level, the maps move up to the national level, is my understanding of things. And I know in 2020, this council did entertain three different maps to draw the wards.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, it's based on census data, yeah. I know a big concern at every level with these districts is the idea that we might gerrymander. I think to me, an unspoken, something that we haven't brought up with alternative proposal on the table here is that we do have districts that are harder to gerrymander. And I am slightly worried that with smaller districts, with a greater number of districts, we'd be able to or politicians are more likely to gerrymander those districts?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I mean, I, yeah, I was just gonna say state representatives have offered to me to remain in contact about ideas that we might have as a city council too. President Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: One more question for the members of the Charter Study Committee. A big discourse that in Medford for a while about moving towards a ward representation system is the studied, there are a lot of studies about how ward Councilors can oftentimes putting it more ugly, become thieves of little fiefdoms, and determine how the success or failure of development projects in their neighborhood. There's, I believe, a 20% correlation with regards to 20% fewer projects being approved, permits being approved in ward-based systems. I was wondering what kind of conversations the committee had about that.
[Justin Tseng]: Thanks for that summary. If no one has, if no other Councilors have any questions for the call center or for the members of the CSC, I'd like to move to public comments. I know there are folks here who've been here for a while. So if you're in person, please line up behind the microphone. I see some hands on Zoom as well. Mr. Gervino, you've been standing for a while.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I'm going to Zoom. I see Paul Geraghty. Name and address for the record when you're unmuted, please. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Going in person, name and address for the record. Thanks.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. And I just wanted to clarify that. I think most members of this committee have expressed their gratitude to the Charter Study Committee. I know members of this committee have also said that all in all, this is a great work, but it is our job, our statutory job to scrutinize and ask questions. And I think if you look at the questions, at least I've been asking, I've been trying to get an understanding of what have I not seen in the final report? in trying to understand the thinking behind the proposal at hand. I see John Moresky on Zoom. Name and address for the record, please, once we have you unmuted.
[Justin Tseng]: Going in person now. Name and address for the record, please.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Moving back to Zoom, Paulette Van der Kloot. I think the clerk still has to let you, yeah, there we go.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Going back in person, name and address for the record, please.
[Justin Tseng]: I can answer that question.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, the question should go to the chair. I'm sorry. But I can also answer that question for you. Yes, it's all census data. The most easy way to play around with the data is on a website called Dave's Redistricting.
[Justin Tseng]: Dave, like the name, Dave's Redistricting. OK. They have the city broken up by precinct, by ward, by census block as well. And you can piece together a map, and you can use that to look at the data.
[Justin Tseng]: No, they would run for separate seats. So a candidate running for an at-large seat would only be in that election. And a candidate running for a ward-based seat or a district-based seat, whatever it may be, is only running for that election.
[Justin Tseng]: I think the Collins Center might be the best people to answer this question. I mean, from my own perspective, we all know how long it took us to get to this point, too. But yeah, from a legal perspective.
[Justin Tseng]: And for the proposed amendment process, is that process similar to what happened this time around, or is that?
[Justin Tseng]: So we'd have to go, we go through the whole charter study committee process or, or the, I know there's another process.
[Justin Tseng]: Is it common for city councils to review their city charter with in less than 10 years spans?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Does that answer your questions? Thank you. Yes, President Bears. Sorry, give me a second.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Wanted to make sure that was true. Thank you. I'm going to Zoom. I see Gene Zotter next. I'm going to just put the record once we get you unmuted.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Jean. Do we have any more people in person wishing to comment? Name and address for the record, please. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. On the conflict of interest point, I mean, I think the city council is built into the process for a reason. There are things that we're considering that the Charter Study Committee, I think has said that they haven't considered and these aren't necessarily political. That's my understanding of it. I'm moving to Zoom, Jess H. Name and address for the record, please, once we get you unmuted.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Are there any more people? Oh, okay. Yeah, could... Okay. Mr. Andrews-Holland, can we unmute him? Okay. Name and address for the record, please. Hello? You're on, we can hear you. Name and address for the record, please. You can hear me? Yes, we can hear you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Mr. Andrew Tolan. And let's go in person to Chairman Connell.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Going now to Zoom, Ms. Sheila Ahrens, name and address for the record, please, once we unmute you.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, we can hear you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Going to Zoom, Eileen Lerner. Uh, can you give us your name and address for the record once we unmute you? Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Eileen. Are there any more folks either on Zoom or in person who wish to comment on this publicly? Seeing none, are there any Councilors who wish to speak? Seeing none, I just wanted to reiterate that I think that this has been, for the most part, for 99% of this discussion, a good faith discussion about the merits of the different proposals that we have on hand. I think it's important to recognize that the critiques that we might have as councillors of any system and from the residents are based in good faith efforts to try to understand how politics works, period, but also how the decisions we make can create ripple effects and unintended consequences. And as Councilors, it is, I think, in our thinking, in our line of work to think through deeply about these concepts and to bring our lived experience there. That is to say, I really want us to hew away from personal attacks, either on this side of the rail, but especially from the public to that. for councillors having a difference of opinions. I know that there are a lot of councillors here who have very different opinions on this one topic. And I just wanted to put that out there because I know that this is a deep, rich, and oftentimes tense conversation about something that's gonna be so impactful and so meaningful moving forward. Speaking from the chair, there are a number of factors that I think should be answered about the proposal we have right in front of us before I'm ready to support that one in full form. And I do think that the proposed amendments, for the most part, address those concerns. In particular, I'm the only person of color on this city council. I was elected on a platform of racial justice and diversity. And so I take that very, very heavily when I consider how I'm gonna vote on this. And it's really important to me that the proposal that passes the city council at the final step is one that really does result in an effect of racial justice, rather than just tokenizing and saying, we have one, you know, one Councilor from the majority minority ward and that's, and we're all good. Because that is something that happens. And I do go back to my, this idea of, This idea that when politicians are accountable to more voters in general, especially from minority groups and underrepresented groups, marginalized groups, that is truly the better way, the more effective way to reach racial justice. That being said, I am still open to word representation. I think this is, this is, you know, the big substantive meeting that we're going to have on this. I don't think it's the end of the discussion, and I know that Councilor Callahan and Councilor Leming have made it clear that they want to contribute to this conversation. I mean, just by showing up, they've done that, but they also, I believe, want to vote on this as well. I'm afraid that voting no on this tonight would foreclose that possibility of letting them have their chance to vote on it as well. And that's why tonight I'm gonna, I plan to vote in favor of it. That's just me speaking as a councilor from the chair. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Mr. Clerk, do you have that?
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, President Bears. I keep seeing my name instead of yours, and I'm like, what?
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Call, sorry, late. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: President Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: Is that good? Any other comments or questions from councilors before we take this vote? Oh, is there a second on President Bears' motion?
[Justin Tseng]: From Councilor Collins. Yes, one second.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. I have Councilor Lazzaro and then President Burson.
[Justin Tseng]: Great. Are there any other comments before we take this vote? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, when you're ready.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, three in favor, two opposed, motion passes. Do we have any final words or motions? We have a motion adjourned from President Bears. Do we have a second on that? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. As I give the clerk time to type, I want to thank everyone for staying on so late into this meeting. Thank you to the Collins Center for answering so many questions. Thank you to the members of the Charter Study Committee. I know we really grilled you. And especially a deep thank you to Chair McDonald for the hard work, the difficult answers that you gave to us as well. you know, looking forward to the next few meetings on this. I think we can get a lot, a lot done. Thank you. When you're ready to motion to adjourn. Yes. Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: This is less of a question. I think you have been very thorough, as my colleague acknowledges, between the last city council meeting and this one, and with watching a lot of school committee meetings and following the discussions there, I feel very confident voting to move this forward. I know from talking to parents throughout the city how important it is for their children to be learning in schools where there's a properly functioning HVAC system, where their kids aren't sweating to death or freezing to death, and where our teachers feel safe teaching and unencumbered in doing that role for our children and our families. I think one really important thing to to acknowledge here, at least from my perspective, is that there is a sense of fiscal responsibility and getting this project done now. When we defer projects as we've seen throughout the city throughout the last few years, we really We think that we're deferring costs, but we're not. Those costs are going up all the time. We've seen with inflation over the last few years, we've seen with increased labor costs, increased cost of materials, and we're expecting tariffs coming forward in the near future, including a 25% tax on anything coming from Canada, which is a place we get a lot of steel and metal from and a lot of materials for construction from. I think that that shows how important getting this project approved as soon as possible is and letting you guys move forward on it as soon as possible. I know that there are differences on this council with regards to where we are financially in the city, but I think that looking at this project today and applying the question that I've always applied on the city council, will this help our city at the end of the day? I believe that the answer is a yes on this project. I believe that our parents and teachers and students would say that it's a resounding yes. And that's why I'm really grateful for the work that you all have done and why I'm happy with this project. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: On Tuesday, January 7, we met as the governance committee to discuss the communications from the mayor and the receipt of the draft of the charter study committee's recommendations as sent to us and modified by the mayor's office. We talked at that meeting generally about how we wanted to structure the charter review process going forward. One slight, for folks watching at home, what the city charter is, our city constitution, it sets the foundation of how our city government works. And at that meeting, we laid out a roadmap for the next three meetings at which we'll have the call-in center there to help us understand the policy material, work with our ideas, with the ideas of the Charter Study Committee, and to create a draft that we can vote out of the committee by hopefully the end of February or early March. That way we can get it to the state house and get it before the voters this fall. Being very quick, because I think this is a good opportunity to let the public know about how we're structuring these meetings. We've decided that on Wednesday, January 22nd, the governance committee will work on issues related to the legislative branch. If folks at home are following along with the process, the draft is there. We'll be talking about the preamble, article one. Incorporation Short Title Definitions, Article 2, the legislative branch, and a section of Article 9, which also touches on the legislative branch. Speeding through, Tuesday, February 4 will be the second substantive meeting on the city charter, at which we'll discuss Articles 3 about the executive branch to the mayor's office, Articles 5, 6, and 7 about administrative organization, financial procedures, and elections. At our last scheduled substantive meeting on Wednesday, February 19th, we will be talking about the school committee. We'll also be reaching out to relevant stakeholders for their feedback as well. We'll be talking about citizen participation mechanisms, general provisions, and transitional provisions as well. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I'll be brief about this. This is something that I know a few candidates ran on in the last election. When we think about democracy in the 21st century, we think about the challenges. We understand that to build trust, we must pursue a policy of transparency. And I believe an open data policy will make data more accessible to our residents to understand what's shaping our policy debates in the city and how they can contribute to that debate as well. I believe that pursuing an open data policy is in a proactive spirit. I hope that we can come to answer questions with residents before they get to different levels as soon as possible. And I believe that this maximally leverages opportunities for us to collaborate, for policymakers in this building to collaborate with our residents. We know that there's so many bright minds here in Medford. We know that there's so many people eager to help us out on solving the big challenges that we're facing as a city, and that we can all work better together when this data is out there for people to use at home. Chief among our priorities with crafting an open data policy will also be privacy and security, which we know will be a challenge in the next four years coming up.
[Justin Tseng]: I think Vice President Collins hit the nail on the on the head with it with this and I just wanted to add to what Councilor Lazzaro said about services coming out of what parents and residents are advocating. We know that oftentimes parents and students with disabilities have fallen way short of where that equitable advocacy is. And as a government, we need to step up and be aware of those shortfalls. And I'm really grateful for our Medford parents for advocating for their children, for our community, really, because investing in programs like this not only helps the students using those programs, but helps our community as a whole. We are all dependent on each other, and we are all in this together. Just really quickly, I'm also working with our director Kevin Bailey on a youth commission, a youth council to really shape what our city does with recreation activities with policymaking in general. And I like that to be an opportunity and a channel in the future for parents to use too and to come work with me on that in our future committee meetings to make sure that that is set up as equitable as possible too.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I am very excited for this project because it's a need that our city has had for a very long time. I remember the first time I ran, I heard from parents about the need to develop a better HVAC system. I remember when I was a student in that building, we needed better air conditioning and better heating, and the needs have only grown in the decades since I've left that building. Like I said at our last meeting before this one, Investing in HVAC is investing in student success. It's investing in giving teachers an adequate labor, adequate work environment. It's investing in making our school system as strong as it can be. When I think about the fiscal parts of this project, I know we've received an outline of how that the money on capital needs is going to be spent in the future. There are lots of discussions to come. I know Councilor or President Bears mentioned in our previous meeting, setting up a meeting with the city administration on that matter too. But we have received all in all a picture of the big items that we have coming up in the next few years. And that's why that's one of the reasons why I feel comfortable voting for this. Another reason why I think it's fiscally prudent to do this right now is because when we defer costs, we don't save money. When we defer costs, those costs become more expensive. We all know what inflation was like over the last few years. We all know that material costs and labor costs only go up. And we now know a bit about what the tariff picture looks like in the next few years. When we think about the materials that we'll need for a project like this, when we think about steel, when we think about construction, we get a lot of those materials from countries like Canada. And our president-elect has announced a 25% or plans for a 25% tariff on all those products that we will be paying as consumers of those products. That means increased construction costs. And I think really epitomizes and highlights why it's more fiscally responsible, in my opinion, to spend on this project now, because I think we can save money in the long term compared to if we defer this into the future.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. This Welcoming City Ordinance is a project that our council and the last council I've been working on for years. It is essentially a codification of our city's existing policy on non-cooperation with federal authorities on non-criminal immigration matters. When we think about the impetus for this, when I think back to why I introduced this resolution in the first place, It was really to protect residents who live in our city, our neighbors, our friends, our family, and to make sure that folks are feeling safe accessing city services. And in doing so, in having more people access our city services, improve those city services themselves. It's frustrating to me to hear stories from constituents, from friends and their family, about being afraid to come into City Hall, being afraid to ask for something because they're afraid that we are working with federal authorities on immigration. And it's really important to our residents to make sure that they feel safe at home here and in interacting with the Medford Police Department. especially that, and I think that point is particularly important. It's to build confidence in public safety here in Medford, and to let our police focus on their own jobs. We have so much to do here in Medford. We have so many laws to enforce already. We need to focus on Medford laws. We need to focus on local laws, because that is the separation of federal, state, and local powers. I think it's really important to note that it was crucial for us to reach out to the city administration and to the police chief personally to see if there were comments on this draft ordinance. And we did receive a lot of comments. We've accepted pretty much all of them. And this ordinance was drafted with the spirit of collaboration and cooperation. I also have to thank Councilor Leming and our advocates, many of whom are in the audience today, for fighting so hard to make sure that we had a very solid draft, drafted by a lawyer, to make sure that we're acting before January 20th and before the big sea change that's gonna come in terms of immigration policy federally and the pressures that are gonna come from higher ups imposed on the city of Medford. At the end of the day, I see the welcoming city ordinance, and I know many folks at home, and I've received many emails and phone calls about this, see this ordinance as a statement of our values, a statement of where we stand as a city when it comes to embracing our neighbors, protecting our neighbors, and making sure that they feel like a part of our city. With all of that being said, I do have one proposed amendment to strike the last sentence of subsection 103B from the edits we had accepted last time from KP law. The sentence starts with, this prohibition also does not preclude the Medford Police Department, blah, blah, blah. That was not in existing city policy that was added on later by KP law. And in the spirit of keeping this in line with existing city policy, I've talked to, I've talked with Councilors, Councilor Leming about this. And I know Councilor Leming has communicated with activists and advocates about this. It would actually weaken the ordinance if we kept that in. So I would propose that we take that sentence out.
[Justin Tseng]: When we started this effort up around two years ago, we also met with, or at least requested feedback for the police chief.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Thank you. I just wanted to thank you, Danielle, for your explanation of it, because I think that clarifies to us on this side of the rail a bit of what you guys are concerned about. It seems to me that we're focusing a lot on who will be called onto the scene or not. I think that's an important question. But I think when we think about the change that the mayor's administration has made, it seems like there's an additional refocus question of whether the building commissioner or the former building commissioner would send someone out to the scene. And I would be surprised if it's an emergency and they choose not to send someone out to the scene. But I think Your comment does help me understand where you guys are coming from. I do think the former system, the old system, has some holes in it. And I appreciate the mayor trying to patch those holes. And I appreciate Councilor Collins's B paper that will get us more, I think will get us more answers about all of this. Thank you, Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: technical issues first. 27 to 2025. Welcome to our first meeting of 2025. Mr. Clerk, can you please call the roll?
[Justin Tseng]: Present. Five present, none absent. We also have Councilor Callahan in attendance with us as well. Resolution 24-468, Resolution to Discuss Updates to the City Charter. We received from the mayor's office the Charter Study Committee's recommendations along with a letter from the mayor. I believe that all councilors received this in their inboxes. We also have printed copies in front of our councilors tonight, if you prefer to look at everything through print. I wanted to use this meeting to set us up for success in the next few meetings. There's some tasks that we have ahead of us. First, I wanted to outline a the upcoming meeting timelines and proposed topics for discussion and get all of your feedbacks on this proposed timeline. I wanna note first that this is flexible. We can move topics around based on what Councilors want to discuss most. And I also want to note that the call-in center will graciously be present at our next three meetings. So our next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 22, 2025. Um, I think for that meeting, it would make sense to talk about the preamble article one, which talks about, uh, which is the incorporation of the short title definitions, um, article two about the legislative branch. So very much concerning the city council and what we do, um, and article, um, nine general provisions, section nine to six, which fall in line. Um, I think pair wall with. the other two topics that I mentioned. The meeting following that will be Tuesday, February 4, 2025. The topics I have listed for discussion then are articles three, which concerns the executive branch. So the mayor's office, article five, administrative organization, city departments, etc. Article six, financial procedures for the city, and article seven elections. So more focused, I was thinking that meeting could be more focused on the executive branch and, and those powers of the city. And then for the final meeting for which we have the Collins Center with us, that would be Wednesday, February 19th, 2025. And what I have listed down there are kind of the rest of the articles I haven't mentioned yet, but which are big topics that might need a good amount of focus and a good amount of conversation. Articles 4, which regards the school committee, Article 8, which is about citizen participation mechanisms, and Article 9, all the other sections of the general provisions that we won't have gotten to in the first deep dive meeting. Let me pause there first and ask my fellow councillors if they have any ideas about that proposed timeline, if there's anything that they'd want to shift around, any topics they would want to cover in a different order or cover first. Council President Bears, give me one sec.
[Justin Tseng]: President Bears, just to clarify, are you saying that maybe we can take up Article 10 at the end of our last meeting? Yeah. Okay. Do any other councilors have any comments? I know there's some folks watching at home, by the way, just to clarify that general provision section 9-6 is about, I believe it's about review city ordinances. So that's why I was thinking that we could do that with the other city council related legislative branch provisions. Seeing, oh, Vice President Collins, give me one sec.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Thank you for those comments. I think it's helpful to hear what sections you found to be the most subject to highlighting. And I think that's helpful to know because I think that will guide how we distribute time. To note, We are working on a timely basis just to make sure we can get the legislature fast enough so that we can put it on the ballot this fall for Medford voters, at least that's the goal. One of the things that we've been working out in scheduling, we've been thinking about in scheduling is maybe, if needed, a fourth meeting to summarize and wrap stuff up, make technical procedures though. I think that's something to keep in mind. But the goal is to get this out of committee by the end of February slash early March, in my opinion. Do any other councillors want to talk about sections that they might want to discuss more slash delegate more time to, or any more general thoughts about the timeline that we've been discussing? President Bears, are you requesting? Okay, I see no questions about that. I guess, do we have any more general comments outside of that line of questioning, Vice President Collins?
[Justin Tseng]: I think similar to that note, I think this gives us time to focus and hone in on different sections of the charter and talk to different stakeholders and different experts. And that's something to consider when we move forward with this too. with regards to more specific ideas about amendments or suggested changes or more general sections that we just want to review. I did want to ask this committee to think about how we might want to submit feedback before ahead of meetings so that, because there's so much information to deal with, so that we can organize that information first before we go into these upcoming meetings about them, and to consider ways that we can address questions before the actual meeting themselves. I didn't know if any councilors had any ideas about that. I see President Bears has requested.
[Justin Tseng]: Great. We can take votes at the end, but do we have a second for that motion? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Great. Do we have any thoughts about requesting feedback from any stakeholders or other elected officials of the city? I know much of these charter changes will affect them as well. President Bears?
[Justin Tseng]: Okay. Do we have a second for President Bears' motion about getting feedback from the school committee and members of other multi-member bodies? Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. We can take a vote on, we can join and take a vote on all of them at the end.
[Justin Tseng]: Do we have a second for that motion?
[Justin Tseng]: Also seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Thank you. Did you have any more motions or?
[Justin Tseng]: I think that makes a lot of sense. I see Councilor Lazzaro seconded that motion as well. I think it can also, as Councilors ourselves, if we could post on social media pages to make sure that people know that these meetings are happening and how they're structured. so they know which meetings that they're interested in, they can come to. And we might have some resident services listening groups in the meantime, we'll make sure to get the word out on that front as well. Are there any other motions before we consider those motions? I don't see any. I'll move to public participation right now. There aren't any people in person, so if you're online, please raise your hand. Please use the raise hand function on Zoom, and I will make sure to call on you. I don't see any hands raised on Zoom either, Do I have a motion possibly to join and approve?
[Justin Tseng]: So President Bears has moved to join the motions he's made and approve. That's been seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. So Mr. Clerk, when you're ready.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. Five in affirmative, none against. Motion passes. And before we adjourn, I just wanted to thank, I see a lot of members of the Charter Study Committee on Zoom today. I wanted to thank you for your work, thank the mayor's office for reviewing this and putting forward her recommendations to us. This is something that I'm personally very, very excited about. I know I've seen a lot of enthusiasm online in my email inboxes and my phone inboxes about this. This is a real project that's going to make Medford more modern, more updated, more responsive to a resident. So I'm very, very happy and optimistic about where this is going to go. I think much of this has been collaborative so far. I know, substantively, we have a lot to talk about in the next month, but I'm very, very excited for this. I thank my councillors for showing up today, too, and for contributing to the discourse about this in a positive way. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Councilor, Vice President Collins has made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, none absent. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Hey guys, I'm on my, I am on my way, but the bus is running late, so I'm joining via Zoom first. I should be there in like 10, within 10 minutes. I'll leave it up to the Councilors who are present to see if they want to start with me in person or on Zoom.
[Justin Tseng]: Present
[Justin Tseng]: I nominate Isaac B. Zach Bears for president.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, thank you, Councilor Scarpelli for putting this on the agenda. Barbara is such a foundational part of what makes the public library tick. And as you noted, and I think as we can all agree, our library is a gem of Medford Square and it's a gem of the Medford community. Tons of people come from out of the city to use it. Our residents, I think, very much treasure it. And Barbara's hard work is what makes it tick. She works so hard when it comes to making sure the library has the resources she needs. It needs making sure that there's enough programming for of wide range of Medford residents, despite their age, their background, making sure that people feel welcome in that space as well. Her hard work on getting the new library built, as is, is also something that our city council should really recognize and be thankful for. also relevant to the City Council is the work that she puts into letting us know what resources the library needs. I know a lot of us have been at the annual sit-downs before the budget season with the library staff and the Board of Trustees where they let us know what they need. And that's a testament to her organization and her energy doing that work and fighting for the public library. I'm very grateful for this resolution. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli for introducing it.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. In this governance committee meeting, we met with the call-in center who helped address questions that councilors had about the charter review process, which we will be taking on next year, early next year. We got a better idea of what that process looks like. And earlier this week, we received a copy of the draft study committee recommendations from the mayor's office.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I do feel comfortable voting yes on the first reading tonight, and I'll explain why I've been following this conversation for, as you've noted, this has been a conversation for years, and especially in recent months with school committee meetings. There are materials out there for us to look at and I know they haven't come straight to the city council yet. Um, this is an issue of urgency for a lot of our students for, as you said, for health, for safety, for student performance, for functionality, for our teachers sake. I know a lot of, you know, things were, in my experience, they're having problems in the past with the HVAC system from what teachers and students have told me and parents have told me that things have only gotten worse. I think Councilor Scarpelli does raise good questions about how this fits into our financial plan going forward. And I do know that this is something that has been at the forefront of financial planning for our city. We've known about this cost that was going to come before us for years. for longer than I've been on the city council. But you know what, there are questions. And I think all of us behind the rail are in agreement that a committee, the whole meeting would be good and helpful. The reason why I feel comfortable voting yes on the first reading is as you noted, votes can change. We can decide to vote this down on the third reading if our answers aren't resolved or questions aren't resolved. Um, I think, functionally voting yes on a first reading tonight and both voting for cancer, Scarf Ellie's motion on lead us to very similar places, the difference being the two week gap, the, the, the potentially even more than two weeks gap. that pushing this off would be. I think it's really important to underscore to everyone watching at home and here that that time does matter. That timeline does matter for the success of a city's project. There are tons of projects out there that we've had to wait a cycle or put on hold because we weren't able to get the bids out in time. We weren't able to do X, Y, Z. And it's really important that we meet the timelines as is. I think it'd be helpful for the council going forward if we could submit some questions to city staff before the committee, the whole meeting, if we could see some of the slides before that meeting as well, just to expedite that conversation. I think we can have a very rich and deep conversation about, you know, the questions that my fellow councillors have raised about the need and urgency for this going forward. And I think we can have that depth of conversation as long as we're prepared for it. Thank you counsel is our.
[Justin Tseng]: second.
[Justin Tseng]: I believe Councilor Callaghan. Sorry, I didn't see the order.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I believe that what is more confusing to me, and I believe I'll... is also confusing to people at home, is using the word buyout for something that I assume is quite contractual. If the criticism, and I understand Councilor Scarpelli is not saying that anyone has necessarily done anything wrong. And, you know, it's always good to have more information, but I do, I think the word is what is confusing, but not the resolution itself. When it comes to the topic of the school superintendent I think it's really important to preface anything by saying that there is a clear separation of powers in the city. When it comes to school governance. However, I understand where the Councilors coming from. I just, I worry that we slip into a logical situation where, you know, this is the standard procedure right, the school board the school committee chooses not to renew something, the contract with the superintendent, and there's a transition period. This is also from my understanding very standard. Now, if we, you know, If the school committee, and that's up to their discretion, doesn't want to renew a contract with the superintendent, this is the process. There isn't any other way that we could do it that would cost less. And if there then becomes criticism that this is how it was done, then we foreclose any accountability we have over a hypothetical superintendent. So that's that. And I haven't decided. I think that's just my logical qualm with it. But I understand the resolution. I understand that it wasn't meant poorly. With regards to, and I'll be brief about everything else because I understand there are folks in the audience who want to talk. I do think it's important that in the administration of the city and how we carry out our duties, I understand the need for accountability. I also understand that we, we have a responsibility to the dignity of our workers as well. I'll keep it simple in that, at that, because I know there are a lot of people here who are looking to give us more information to speak as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I understand that the, the resolution at hand is not. meant particularly in ill will. Having been on a superintendent search committee before, I just worry that this past City Council saying this, passing this, hinders the ability of that body to perform its duties with confidence. I understand that it's, in my view, this is testing the waters with separation of powers. And so that's why I plan to vote no on this.
[Justin Tseng]: I agree with Councilor Callahan. I wanted to chime in and request that. I wasn't comfortable, and I am not, I'm not comfortable with with language that I think is overstepped that line, the separation of powers line. And this is the way that it was worded in the first place, I think, overstepped that line. I appreciate your suggested amendments. And I agree with what you said about, we should have a very good reason for why we're doing things like this. We should, but it's not our role as a council to step in and say what we can or can't do and compel a mayor to do something that's within her charter right to do. We'll talk about charter review next year. But I think we need to follow the letter of the law, and I'm much more comfortable with the amendment.
[Justin Tseng]: Just to quickly clarify, that's not completely correct. I meant a compulsion order. I think that's over the line.
[Justin Tseng]: Then Councilor Scarpelli from my reading, from my legal reading and research into this, there are splits between different federal courts, state courts, circuit splits on this particular issue for when it comes to public employees. There are public and private factors to weigh. That's all to say it's actually very not clear-cut. There are restrictions on the government's ability to do this, of course, but it's not very clear-cut.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I want to thank you for your hard work on this, to thank the team at Innes Associates for their hard work. I know a lot of us on the City Council have been working really hard, but I do want to give a special shout out to our planning and permitting committee. this is a huge, huge deal for our city. Any zoning change is, but this one is one of many that are coming. I know people in the neighborhood who are very excited about this, and especially with this being one of the corridors into the heart of our city, one of the gateways into our city, to have a more thriving scene there, to have more business in Medford to have more residences in Medford, these are all good things. When we consider the environmental impact that this will have, this is a really great thing for the environment. When we make changes like this, and you know, this is a reckoning that a lot of cities have been having, is that we can actually win on housing, we can win on the environment, we can win on business development. And I think this is one of those proposals that will move our city in the right direction. So I'm very grateful for this. I think this is something that we should celebrate as a city. It's great to be ending the year with something like this, and I very happily support this.
[Justin Tseng]: If you, there we go. I'll give a very brief summary and then Councilor Leming has some amendments that we got sent earlier before this meeting, technical amendments. I mean, first, I really just need to thank Councilor Leming and the resident advocates for our immigrant community here in Medford for all the hard work and persistence in trying to get this passed. When I introduced this years ago, I introduced this because I had talked to a lot of friends and a lot of residents who feared for their safety and feared interacting with City Hall. with our city government and with our institutions. And they didn't know that we have an existing non-cooperative a non-cooperation agreement policy with ICE when it comes to non-criminal matters. And, you know, that's really technical language, but so many cities put it out there and codify it and make it clear where they stand when it comes to the fundamental truths and values of dignity, of community, and of compassion. I believe then and I believe now that it's important for Medford to state where we lie, where we stand on these values, on these fundamental truths. The next four years are going to be very trying for a lot of people who are so foundational to our community, to our neighbors, to our friends, to our family. And it's important, in my opinion, to codify the policies and to give them that security that We already one already have in place but to expand that secure that sense of safety and security for them and give residents a chance to feel safe in their own homes. Being brief. about the content of this resolution is really not that much different from what our city already has in place. Our city administration has reviewed it. We've met about it in committee. This is essentially just codifying and making sure that in the future, this policy can't just be overturned, that residents can know that there is a formality, there is longevity to this policy, and that will be put on the books. So I'll stop there and let Councilor Leming provide the amendments. Going to Councilor Leming.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I also, um, I believe that in working with Councilor Leming, he wanted to motion to waive the three readings as well. To respond to some of the points that have been brought up, both I and Councilor Leming have reached out to the police chief over the last few years about this. when we were meeting about it years ago, and in the lead up to the recent meetings about it, I was DCed on an email. I know Chair Leming reached out as chair of the committee this was in. We didn't receive, or I hadn't received in my inbox any notes to the contrary. That's why we felt comfortable moving forward with it. As the executive branch that's in charge of community safety, policing, and the like, we did make sure to cooperate with the executive branch on this since they will be carrying out this policy. And that's where Councilor Leming's proposed amendments come from tonight as well. I believe there's another point I might be slightly forgetting. Oh, we did talk about the federal funding piece. Lots of that was overturned in federal litigation. Many components of the Trump, first Trump administration's course of policies against municipalities were overturned. We also need to note that, you know, this is about values and to understand that there is a even if there is a monetary impact that, number one, that that is limited. During the first administration, they tried a lot to see what they could do to coerce municipalities to align with their federal agenda on this. The answer was not a lot. And the restrictions on funding were minimal. And the second is just a realization that our values are worth more than that. The federal impact is limited to certain, very, very certain streams of funding. It's not limited, it's not so expansive as to include much of what we actually get from the federal government. On Councilor Collins' points, I think it underscores one other thing, the importance of this to the taxpayer. there's lots that our city is doing. There's no doubt that there's more to do than we have the capacity for. And so that's the situation that we're in. It shouldn't be on our local police department that is already working so hard on local safety. to enforce federal laws, especially given the nature of federalism in our country, especially given the separation of powers on different levels of government. And so that's what I would say. And I do appreciate the positive feedback and the strong support of our residents here.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. So I'm also happy.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll be so brief because I think President Bears has captured a lot of what I think very well. I think two things can be true. There's a lot of, there are good things about this project, adding beds is something that our city has set as a goal. And I know a lot of Councilors ran on and that's something that will alleviate housing costs and address much, much of the problems in the hillside. I mean, the things that energy efficiency is good and all of that to mixed use development is good. I think the other thing can be true too, that there are real concerns about shade about the for-profit management company that's going to come in, what that means for the students who are going to live there, their rights, and the accountability process there. There's the process concerns that Councilor Bears mentioned, and the need for trust and social trust in a big institution like that, that many of us call neighbors. And that means to patch up that trust and to work on that trust means doing things that you don't have to do not do more than the bare minimum and doing being a good neighbor. And I think that's the definition of being a good neighbor. So engaging with community, addressing resident concerns and all of that. Look, we don't have a lot, a lot of tools as a city. And there isn't, as Councilor, as President Bears said, there's a power imbalance here. And I think that's something that we all need to get innovative about. But I think that's something that this council has been intent on with the many steps that President Perez lays out in this resolution. I think our residents deserve to be heard by a big institution. They deserve to feel like they were heard and were engaged in the process.
[Justin Tseng]: Present.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I just, since I'm on Zoom, I wanted to gather my comments. I wanna thank Councilor Collins for these edits and to thank the lawyers and the advocates that she's been liaising with, reaching out to. for these amendments as well. I think they're entirely logical. If you look at the intent of this ordinance, what we're trying to do, what we tried to do as a city council, the edits that are in front of us today make complete sense and are coherent with with those purposes, with that intent. And they're not over overreaching, they're very in line with what you'd expect across municipalities from an ordinance like this. It doesn't only clarify, but it also strengthens those purposes of protecting our civil liberties, of making sure that we're regulating surveillance in the city as well. And it clears up any internal debates, inconsistencies that might've been there before. And as Councilor Collins noted, some of this is stuff that we talked about when we drafted it first, we gave it some time leaning on more on the more conservative side of things, and I think in review over the last year and a bit, I believe, of when this ordinance has been in effect, these changes make a lot of sense. So I'm excited to support them. I hear the questions from my council colleagues. I think that between the suggestions from legal and just how how the rest of the ordinance is written and how it works in Massachusetts state law, I don't think we have to worry that much about those concerns. Thanks.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm calling this committee meeting to order. We're meeting on paper 24468, resolution to discuss updates to the city charter, be it resolved by the Metro City Council that the Governance Committee discuss updates to the city charter, including creating a timeline for action and reviewing proposals of the Charter Study Committee once finalized. Representatives of the Edward J Collins jr center for public management at Boston are invited to provide an overview of the charter review process and the next steps for the city council. Mr. Clerk may call the role.
[Justin Tseng]: present, seven present or five present, two joining us, or one joining us, and the meeting is called to order. Great. Before we start, do any councillors have comments or questions about this paper, about Charter Review? I see President Bears on Zoom, and I recognize President Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. Fellow Councilors, have any preliminary questions, comments, remarks? Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Collins, Councilor Lazzaro. The mic system is new, so we're all still learning the ins and outs of turning stuff on and off. Do any other Councilors have any comments before we invite the Collins Center up? Doesn't seem like it. I just wanted to thank you all for being here at this meeting, for being willing to have this conversation with us and giving us a better idea of where the city council fits in into the charter review process. I'd like to invite our representatives from the Collins Center up to make any remarks. Yes. Yes, yeah, that'd be perfect. There's a small button I believe you have to press on the right with the multiple people. There we go. And I'll ask your name and address for the record, please.
[Justin Tseng]: The Floor is yours.
[Justin Tseng]: I have a question about that. The state house process, is there a general length as to how long that review process might look to help us inform us about our timeline?
[Justin Tseng]: Great. Thank you. And one more question. The plebiscite process, could you elaborate a little bit what that looks like if we wanted to put it on the ballot for November, or just the ballot in general? And is it common to go that route?
[Justin Tseng]: Great. I had two questions that related to what you had just said, but if you have more comments, I'm happy to.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Let me turn the floor over to my fellow Councilors and see if they have any questions for now. And if there are any struggling questions, I'll ask. Please raise your hand if you're on Zoom so I can see. President Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: So do any of other Councilors have questions? I think see Vice President Collins, give me one sec.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Collins. Um, do any other Councilors have questions? I see Councilor Scarpelli's hand raised on zoom.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Do we have any other Councilors with questions, remarks? I think none for now. Oh, Vice President Collins.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I see President Bears' hand raised on Zoom.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, yeah, I was just gonna ask.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. On that question, I've talked to a few members of our state delegation with regards to what the cooperation might look like. Something they mentioned is once they receive it, they might be able to talk with us about what they think might pass the state house, what they think might not pass the state house and make edits. Would those edits have to come back to the city council and mayor's office for approval?
[Justin Tseng]: Great, thank you. Are there any other questions from councilors? I had one more written down. With regards to the enactment process, could you give us a little bit, a look into what that process looks like once, let's say the voters do vote yes on the new city charter?
[Justin Tseng]: Got it. And with regards to the vote itself, let's say by some reason the State House doesn't get it passed by September 1st, would the vote be pushed to the next ballot it's available for? Is that something that we'd have to work to schedule with
[Justin Tseng]: Okay, great. And so I assume the dates for the elections are just written into the special act itself? Yes. Is that correct? Great. Those are the questions I have written down for now. Do other Councilors have questions? Don't see any hands on Zoom. Great. Oh, Vice President Collins. I saw you thinking.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I see Councilor Lazzaroa's hand up. Let me get that mic up here.
[Justin Tseng]: Well, and piggybacking on that question, I was curious, you had mentioned that usually local officials are expected to testify. Is there anything else that we should know about as city councillors with regards to letters we may send?
[Justin Tseng]: Is there anything else that we should be aware of schedule or make sure that we do before outside of the actual process of voting out of the city council.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay, great. Um, I tend to ask this question in almost every meeting I've been to make sure I'm not missing anything. I'm curious what other frequently asked questions you might receive from city councilors from legislate from people in local government about the charter review process, things that we haven't asked that we should ask or that we should know.
[Justin Tseng]: Before I turn it over to public part, oh. I recognize President Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. Are there any other comments before I turn it over to public participation? Seeing none, I'll call for public participation now. Thank you so much. If you're on Zoom, please raise your hand. If you're in person, please come up to the podium. Seeing none. Great. Well, I just wanted to thank you all again for coming to our meeting for giving us such a thorough, thorough explanation of the process of where we fit into it of the steps that we should, we should take and we should expect to take in the next few months as well. I'm sure we'll be relying on you all for feedback and for advice as well. But thank you for coming here, introducing yourselves to the new Councilors who haven't seen you around before. I'm very grateful. I'm very excited to get this off the ground from our end, to get this to the State House and to the voters as well. I think Medford's been itching for this change. the hard work that everyone, the Charter Study Committee, the call-in center, Councilors have and will put in to this process in the coming future. Thank you so much. Do we have any motions? Oh, I see President Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: Great. On motion, I'll give the clerk a second to type. On the motion to keep the paper and committee and adjourn by President there's seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, can you please hold the roll?
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. Five and affirmative, none against. Motion passes.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, this is an ordinance that, um, surrounding communities have passed. Um, and what exactly it is is it's a codification of our non-cooperation, um, uh, policy with federal authorities when it comes to, um, non-criminal immigration matters. We've seen, um, in years past, um, really difficult situations where cities are forced to upend people's human rights, people's sense of dignity, people's right to an existence in the city where they live. And a lot of communities at the time, feeling under attack, feeling endangered during the first Trump presidency, really wanted their local governments to protect their existence and their rights. While Medford didn't pass a welcoming city ordinance at the time, we did pass an executive order under Mayor Burke that we would not cooperate, that our policy as a city was not to cooperate with ICE on non-criminal matters. Now, I put this I introduced this agenda item, a few years ago, to the General City Council, because I wanted to quantify that that agreement to make sure that as we move forward into the future that our residents have faith that a mayor can't just take that away, and I'm not saying that this mayor will, I'm not saying that any person in particular will, but I know the fear is out there, having talked to friends who belong to the undocumented community here in Medford, which is such an integral part of our own community, that that fear is out there, that a lot of folks don't know that this policy even exists in the first place. And it's not something that they find read readily searchable. And when they look to see the laws of our city, they don't see it as a law. And This is our chance as a council, I think, to pass this, to codify it, to enshrine it as law, to make sure that they have that feeling of security, that we are able to announce as a city, that we are welcoming of all of our residents, that people don't have to have fear when they interact with people at City Hall. I know that this ordinance draft has been floating around the committee for a while. I'm very grateful to our activist community and to Chair Leming for bringing this back, for putting so much work into it. I know Chair Leming really put a lot of work into making sure we had the draft for this meeting. And I worked with him a little bit on that draft as well. But I know the activist community, our lawyers, especially in the activist community have helped us draft the multiple successive versions of this. Look, this I think for me is about fundamental human rights. Um, it's about making sure that our residents feel safe and a part of our community. I'm very happy to introduce it to the floor tonight I'm very grateful for a trail I mean for Acting on the prior motions, I think that this committee or the previous committee passed to reach out to the police chief and to reach out to the school committee and get feedback on the language. I'm really excited to see what we can get done on this because it is such an emergency at this point and because the challenges we face as a country in the next four years will be real and we'll have so much to deal with. on the municipal level, especially, and every part that we can do as early as possible to mitigate the negative impacts of the incoming presidency, I think will be very, very crucial and very, very important. So thank you for giving me this moment. Thank you for bringing this chair Leming to the committee.
[Justin Tseng]: I believe that in that case. Okay. Um, I believe in that case. Um, The, the police department can just tell us they don't they don't have a request or anything to give more context about the reporting parts of this. the reporting and the complaints enforcement part of this ordinance, a lot of the language is taken straight from the CCOPS ordinance and is language that the police department themselves have already dealt with. So nothing should be completely new to the department. Nothing should be things that they haven't experienced or haven't done before.
[Justin Tseng]: I would motion to refer this to the City Council and to accept the edits that you have with the section numbers.
[Justin Tseng]: Perhaps a better thing, what we did this year was we tied them to state mechanisms to make sure that they're like tied to the cost of living. Yeah, we can specify that. Okay. Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, that was that was the internal debate in my mind. Thanks. Yeah, I'm very happy to go.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, that was another conversation I had in my mind, because I saw that a lot of people online were talking about these two places in particular, and when I was going through the agenda, I was just thinking, okay, well, this might be a good place to get the word out. I think we can also just exercise our own discretion when it comes to it.
[Justin Tseng]: Well, since we're already on the resident services one, I would just suggest policy of non-cooperation with ICE on non-criminal matters. I guess that's an important caveat to put in. And then we, I didn't write language about sending it to, referring it out of committee, just because I didn't want to be too tentative. But maybe we can add in a sentence there. Met, met, or yeah. Oh yeah, yeah, that would be great. And then the other suggestion or the other kind of question I had for you all was on governance, which we also just held. I left a comment, I just left a comment that we defined what the charter review process was in a previous newsletter. I just realized that some folks might not see that and might not have seen that newsletter before. Should we just copy and paste it back in here? Yeah, or yeah. We link it? OK. OK. Explained, maybe?
[Justin Tseng]: OK.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, it's in, oh, is it October? They're online. I forget which one it is. I like to be specific. I'm pretty sure it was the November one. OK. But we can also let you. We can approve pending on clerical changes. Yes. OK.
[Justin Tseng]: Sounds good.
[Justin Tseng]: You can't do that in LaTeX?
[Justin Tseng]: Um, Councilor Scarpelli spoke to the beginning of the crew program. Um, I was there when it was really ramping up really building up. Um, and I know that for most of my friends that crew. put so many hours into it woke up so early, so many hours after school training and gym outside of practice as well. I know how much work it takes. It's something that I can't I can't do myself so hats off to you all. I also know, looking at all my friends and seeing their love for CRU, that CRU is home for so many people. And I'm just so happy that a program that so many of our students call home has gotten this really splendid, really, really amazing achievement and recognition of the hard work and the community that you all have built together. You know, I think as Councilor Scarpelli mentioned, as Vice President Collins mentioned, this is really bringing pride to our city. This is something our city can unite around, can be proud of, and you've made it happen. And I think for that, all of us here on this side of the rail are very, very, very grateful for that hard work that you've put into everything. know, Councilor Scarpelli kind of stole my thunder when he said, you know, you got the sports that, you know, I think a generation ago we would have thought were, you know, the normal listing of sports. And then you got crew, which, you know, is something so, I think, central to life in Medford, especially with the Mystic in the middle, running through the middle of our city, that I think our residents, our students often take for granted. But having gone to college and grad school, you start to realize that not everyone has this opportunity. And for you guys to really make it shine and to really show everyone how worth it it is to have a program like this, I think that's really stellar. I have a lot of friends who've gone on to do crew in college and really thrived there. And I hope that you carry that energy with you, even when life gets really busy, to find time to do it, even for fun. It might be for a college sport, but to really keep up with it and keep making all of us proud. I would be really remiss if I didn't thank the coaches for their hard work that they put into this as well. as well as the parents, because I know, you know, I had parents that really were very, very supportive of my extracurriculars. I know there's a lot of work put into it, a lot of work making sure that you can afford what you do, making sure that you can get to your practice, making sure that you have everything you need to succeed. And I think oftentimes that kind of, that work from the parent's side has gone underappreciated. So I wanted to thank you all too. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. A number of us from this council went together. It was a great day, a great way to spend a rainy Thanksgiving. It's always really exciting to see your home team do well, especially as someone who, you know, I've been involved in Medford High School, the Medford High School scene for such a long time that I can remember, you know, more difficult times. But you know what, I think this really exemplifies how much work we, the coaches have put into this program, how much work our teachers and the school, public schools have put into our sports here in Medford, that Medford sports is now on the rise. One of the most exciting moments of Thanksgiving week was seeing a touchdown happen right in front of us. And that's something, you know, we can really hoot and holler about. So I'm really pumped for the football team, really pumped for what Medford Sports has in store for the seasons to come, and really grateful, again, for the hard work of the parents, the students, the coaches as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I'd be happy to make that amendment. I think my fellow councilors know how I was I was involved a lot more with the art scene growing up and seeing the marching band through its many iterations, I think. I remember the marching band as President Bears described it. I remember the marching band as it was growing as well with a new band director, with new uniforms, equipment, things really, really ramping up. I think we're the recent successes of the marching band, the year after year successes of the marching band really show, I mean, one thing, right? Like pride to the city. Another thing is the result of community investment into the arts, into building a community for our students where they can really thrive. And the third thing that comes to mind for me especially is just the importance of building a home for our students to have their energies their creative energies their expressive energies channeled into a place where they can feel safe and we're. where when you do that, when you do that, you not only help that child succeed, but you help our city succeed as well. And so I'm really, really grateful for the teachers, for the band directors, for all the parents who make this happen. Because, again, I've seen it from the other side, from the student side, and I know how much work there is there that goes unsaid. I've talked to the teachers after rehearsals are done. you know, it's, they're tired, but they're, they're right on their next lesson plan. I, I've talked to, I have a lot of friends who are in bands, especially as well, and they're the reason why President Bears and Councilor Scarpelli can, can sing the fight song right on the spot. As they have before.
[Justin Tseng]: But, But you know, it goes to show that investments, the investments that we make as a community in our schools, especially in our extracurriculars, which so often fall by the wayside, are so, so important in building a stronger and more thriving community.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I just wanted to thank folks for giving us their input about this. You know, these conversations can be contentious in different communities, but I think in Medford here, we really do value safety and we really do value, we see that it's not at conflict with having a good standard of living. We know that safety is at the core of having a good standard of living here. You know, I spend much of my life as a pedestrian. I get made fun of a lot for it, but I do love walking around. That includes crossing state roads. I think anyone who, and I grew up near, very, a block away from the Fellsway. So anyone who has very regularly crossed those roads knows the mad dash, right? The sprint that you make to avoid being hit. It's really easy to pinpoint one or two anecdotes right here and there by all these different roads. I think it tells us something when we have anecdotes about every single road in Medford. And I think that's at the core why, for me, I'll be voting yes on this tonight. And I think it's just logical to bring our roads all in line with our citywide speed limit as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Test one, two test one, two.
[Justin Tseng]: Sorry, I think you had asked the main questions I had about the residential tax exemption. Could you, I know you talked about how we would need more time to set it up if the council wanted to pursue this option. Could you give us a more concrete idea, or just in general, how many, if you need more FDEs, more full-time staff working on something like this, what that process would look like?
[Justin Tseng]: I know a concern that some have with a residential tax exemption is that it would disproportionately affect renters. Is that something that, could you explain that a little bit? Sure. And could you maybe explain that in the context of the cities around us that do do a residential tax exemption? You mentioned that there's some things that they do that put them in a different spot than us. And I was wondering if you could delve into a little bit of detail about that.
[Justin Tseng]: See, thank you so much.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, the second part of that question. Is there are there economic like, reasons why or contextual reasons why other cities around us have adopted the residential exemption? Or is it mainly just political in your in your study of things?
[Justin Tseng]: Look, we could re-litigate an election that's already happened. There's no need for that right now. And I don't want this to, there are important policy questions that we have to vote on. I don't want this to get sidetracked. I think it's important for us to acknowledge that much of the choices that we make as a community about fiscal policy, about budgets, about tax rates, about burdens are larger normative questions about what we want the city to look like. what this council has done is ask the public to vote on those questions for the first time in a very long time. But that's all I'll say about the politics of the situation. When it comes to questions like the residential tax exemption, I know this is something that you and your predecessors have come to the council before and talked about. And while not all the councilors present may have been there for those meetings, I think a lot of the points that you brought up today have been asked and answered at those meetings as well. In my first council term, I know, I believe a resolution was introduced onto the floor to hold a meeting talking about the residential tax exemption. While I think we can litigate whether you know, the administration should be the one coming to us or we should be going to the administration. I think that that's an equally important channel for the council to be the one stepping up and asking the questions. And I know from this councillor and from a number of councillors who have already served on this council, we've had those questions and asked an answer before. And I think I just want to take this moment and advise my fellow Councilors that, you know, that's a possibility that we have, is to hold a meeting earlier in the year, as we've done before, to talk about these questions. So I don't think this is a question of, are we ready, are we not ready? I think for a lot of the Councilors here we've talked for a very long time about how all these moving pieces fit together and we've presented our vision, we understand that this is a policy question, we understand that this is a normative question. I think it's frankly a little exhausting to have this meeting be sidetracked. So I would ask that we focus on the important questions at hand. And I would second Councilor Collins' motion for the 175% shift. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Callahan.
[Justin Tseng]: I think something just worth thinking about going into the future is the goal with the youth members, just because working with youth can be just more complex. And so I think the question is, are we looking for young folks who are really interested in environmental matters? Are we looking for just the general youth residents' perspective? I think that will guide, that can help guide the language in this ordinance. I think one way in which that might come about where we might see a situation where we have to deal with that is if the goal is to get young people who are really interested in the environment in, it might make sense to have some tough students who are residents or tough students get involved, but given how the dorms work, they might not be, They might spend their whole day in Medford and not have a Medford address, right? And I think that's just something for us to consider moving forward. What is the goal and what support do they have in being integrated as part of the committee? Do they get training? Who's helping ease them in or tell them what their job is?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I think the sit down makes a lot of sense. Um, I do want to thank trees Medford for all the work that they've done on this, and I do think that they've put a lot of research into it. I think this is, you know, we're at the point where like. The council's goal is to make sure that this is something that's actionable, that holds up legally as well. And because this affects zoning, it is very much a different process, requires a different level of engagement with the material. And so I think if we can bring together us and the department heads to have a sit down before we come back to the committee with another draft. I think that would be very, very helpful. I think my question would be, we mentioned or Theresa Bedford mentioned trimming it down a little bit. Does that happen before the sit-down happens? I think that should be up to you all to work on it. And again, I thank you, Councilor Kallion, for taking this on because this is a very complex ordinance. It's very involved. I think it's hard. I think it would be too presumptive to give specific feedback on lines in here right now. Given that sit down and to do that, to do that here right now. I know that there was a letter sent in from former Councilor Knight. that brought up some, I think, some pertinent points about how this intersects with our different climate goals and climate policies. I wonder if the PDS department planning development sustainability would be helpful in helping us gather some resources and data on that. I've done a little bit of digging into how the solar panel question and the tree question intersects. There's some from a very cursory glance, some mixed research out there. And so I think the answer is somewhere in the middle of what's been proposed by the former Councilor and what is here. But I think that's very much, let's let the experts talk it out and then come back, review it, have us be another pair of eyes on this. But again, thank you for your work. Thank you. I want to thank everyone and on the Energy and Environment Committee for bringing us this far on this and in pushing us to be more ambitious as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Test one, two.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I thank you for presenting today and for coming to our meeting. Um, I apologize, I was stuck on the bus, and the bus was a few minutes late. So if I ask anything that is repetitive, feel free to let me know. I wanted to say first that I'm very excited about this. I think this is what people are asking of government. They're asking for government to be more active in helping out, in making things more accessible. People face so many difficulties with being able to rent and to afford. to, you know, live in the city. And I think this is this is a very healthy step forward. And I really want to thank how proactive you all have been on putting this together. I guess some some quick questions. The $750 annually, you might have already spoken to this. How did we get to that number? Is that something that's like, a maximum by law or
[Justin Tseng]: Cool. I mean, I think my, I only asked that because it seems like there's going to be an ordinance change in that. And I was, I guess, in my approach to things, it would be better if we set a higher upper bound just to give you more flexibility you need. And I, does this number give you the flexibility you think you need?
[Justin Tseng]: I think my perspective on it is just that I think it should be up to you to look at your budget and determine what's the appropriate amount. I think I just want to avoid a situation where we're constantly coming back to the city council and asking for language changes. So I just want to make sure that we have as much flexibility built into the legal language that we pass eventually as possible. And then my next question is, I'm reading over the housing families doc, which again very exciting. I was wondering the eligibility guidelines is that something we wrote up or is that something that housing families has provided to us.
[Justin Tseng]: Great. Um, I think the only only one I mean I haven't thought of things to add, and generally I would love, I like guidelines to be a little bit more flexible. Um, the only question is the owner occupancy requirement is, is, was there a reason behind it seems like there was there, there definitely was is that.
[Justin Tseng]: That's super helpful. And I only ask that because I think sometimes people might look at a doc like this, and these are the types of emails I get. And so when we all know the reasoning behind it, we can better explain it to our constituents. And then the last question I had, you had mentioned us asking maybe just what the back end would look like, us working with the landlords. I think that'd be very helpful for us to hear as Councilors so we can explain it to people who are interested.
[Justin Tseng]: And one, just one quick question. That's super helpful. So thank you for that explanation. My last question, I swear. Do we have any ways to measure success of the program going forward? Are we tracking anything?
[Justin Tseng]: And you don't have to give us a number, but are there numbers that you have in mind of like goals? for the upcoming years? You don't have to, again, you don't have to like, we don't want to bind ourselves to any numbers, but.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, no, that's just super helpful because I think it's something to keep in mind as we move forward in budgeting for us to help advocate for your department come budget season, you know, to make sure you have the funds you need.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much.
[Justin Tseng]: Charlie, that's what I was going to say.
[Justin Tseng]: Honestly, I'm not really, um, I think most of it looks good as is, if anything, it might be a little too long. Um, but the only real content change suggestion that I had was to write out Medford Public Schools in the first paragraph. Just because some folks might not know what MTS is.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, I was just gonna give my preference. Oh, Councilor Tseng. I would prefer the 7th of December, just because I know I'll be here, and I think I might have some family obligations around the New Year's. But I know there are more councilors who might be able to attend, so. Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll be brief. This is something that I campaigned on in the last election, something that I think a lot of other folks here behind the rail supported. I am particularly excited about this proposal because I think this is the perfect intersection between strengthening our climate goals and making it easier to develop and build here in the city within a scope of livability. I think this really prioritizes the experience of living here and making sure that our growth as it continues really reflects the city that we want to be, the sustainable Medford that we seek to be. It's very much in line with our open space plans, with our climate action and adaptation plans, and just something I'm very excited for. So I want to thank the committee. I want to thank Innes Associates. and I would motion for approval or to send this to the CD board.
[Justin Tseng]: I find them in order, I moved to approve.
[Justin Tseng]: Just wanted to thank our seniors for taking time out of their evenings to come here. I know it's not the easiest and raising more attention about this issue. It is an issue I've, I heard at the senior center last time I visited. It's an issue that I know the planning department has spoken to me a little bit about in our meetings about development in Medford Square. But I think it's really important to reiterate that The, this is just the very beginning of the RFP process that will have to look at the projects that are proposed that come in, there'll be public, there'll be public meetings about it I think at that time we'll have to make sure that we extend an invite to the members of the senior center as well. to make sure that, you know, what I'm hearing is that there's a need for parking, but it's not just the need for parking, it's a need for a transition plan while we do the development, the growth that we need to do in Medford Square as well. And so leveraging things like the Atrius Hall parking lot, leveraging spaces that aren't open right now, I think will become an important part of that transition plan. And I think part of that needed conversation with our planning department, and I know the planning department's already talking about a lot of these issues. There can always be more community engagement. There's always a need to balance our growing square, our growing revenue sources in the square with the lived reality on the ground as well. So I wanted to, again, thank you guys for coming in today. And I know there are folks from the planning department watching this meeting, and I hope that that becomes part of the conversation too.
[Justin Tseng]: Something I did forget to mention and I think is in the vein of in a similar vein is that something the city, the planning department and different departments in the city is working hard on right now and I sat in on a bunch of these meetings is, is the transportation task force, which specifically is. looks at transportation needs across the city, but especially for seniors, that's the main crux of the work that the task force is doing right now. Of course, a lot of it's understanding where people are coming from, getting to, how people are getting to the senior center, how can we make that more efficient, how we can make that suit the needs of what seniors are doing right now. And a lot of these questions, I think, are part of the conversations that that task force is having. There's a survey out that the city's working hard with the senior center to push out. And I know because there are seniors here and seniors watching online, I just wanted to bring attention, bring awareness to that survey that's out there right now and to the work that the city's doing. And so this is a good time for seniors to be, coming to City Council meetings, letting us and different department staff know about those transportation needs.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I think a lot of this is reasonable. I am helpful to the veterans living in our community. I would just ask if Councilor Leming would also be okay asking for the financial department to give a little bit of input about this financial or assessing to give a little bit of assessing to give a little bit of input about this as well, just to help us understand what this would look like for our residents in the next year, and what this looks like for non veteran residents as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much. I really want to thank NS Associates, our city planning department, and our planning committee for all the hard work that they've done on this. I've sat in on a few meetings and I've also been paying attention to this process really rigorously. As I've said at many council meetings in the past, and I think it's not, I can't claim credit for inventing this saying, but Mystic Ave is the gateway to Medford. As we have two exits that basically one exit opening up directly to Mystic Ave and another one very easily accessible to Mystic Ave. For so many of our residents and so many visitors to Medford, Mystic Ave is the first thing that they see when they're driving through the city, when they're coming home from work, when they're leaving for work. We want to make sure that that corridor is as livable as vibrant and as walkable as possible. And we hear this from our residents as I'm Councilor Collins mentioned in her spiel. This is something that we hear a lot in our door knocking, when we run for office. This is something that the city has held countless meetings on in the past. This is something that's highlighted directly in our comprehensive plan which reached out directly to tens of thousands of residents and received responses from thousands of our residents as well. There's been tons of debates. For anyone who's lived in Medford for a while we know that this corridor has been subject to particularly heated conversation. And I think there's been consensus building around a vision for this corridor. And I think the community has really come around a vision for this corridor that's more vibrant, that really helps us generate business growth in this city, generate housing growth in this city, and generate revenue for our much-needed city services. I think it's really important to note, as the Council President has and as Vice President Collins has, this is the beginning of the next stage in the process. And in my opinion, it's much easier to solicit feedback, much easier for residents to give feedback on a project that has already been laid out, that has more concrete details that has language that people can look at, instead of things that are just more conceptual. And I think I'm very grateful for this month's time that we have to engage our community about this process before the CDB meeting about this. And that's just one of the, you know, one of the meetings I hope, and I know, where residents can give their feedback about the plan that this council is sending to the CDB. I know the resident services committee has instituted more public participation and more public engagement on mechanisms and in the past, and I know, you know, we're still figuring a lot of stuff out but I'd hope that we can look at those mechanisms as ways to engage our community as well. Again, I this is something that I'm enthusiastic about. I think that this is a real solid plan that ties directly in to what we all know our best practices for business growth for commercial growth for engaging the citizenry of our city and in direct plans to lower housing costs on the most economically measurable plans to lower housing costs for residents. So, you know, is this plan perfect, I'm sure we'll hear a lot of feedback about it through the processes, but does this plan deserve to move on I think our residents are very ready to see some real action, instead of just you know all the conversation we've had. And so, you know, I think conversation has to happen I think it has to happen in conjunction with action. So again, I'm very enthusiastic about this. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, I actually just wanted to ask more about that, so that helps. I was wondering, I know it's hard to give a precise timeline for the urban master, urban forest master plan, but I was wondering if you had any idea when we might be able to expect anything or?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you go to Councilor Tseng. Thank you. Um, I just also wanted to, I don't I don't want, I want to make sure the family gets what they need. I don't want to stand away with that. I'm just to help us understand. Does the city currently own title to the paperweight.
[Justin Tseng]: I see. Thank you. That clarifies a lot. And then I was just wondering, is the liability piece, I guess what's the difference between this and an easement? And then does the liability piece play into that about why this is the way we're doing it as a city?
[Justin Tseng]: Great, and this is a slightly separate question, so we can keep it short. I think it's noted in the memo that if we approve this, the city property may be used as a two-family as of right. Is that something that's not an option right now without approving this?
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Leming, if I may. Yes, Councilor Tseng. I was just going to say, I realized I had notes on proposed edits to To the newsletter draft, I realized since I can't make it in person today, it'd be easier for me just to leave my comments as comments and suggestions for you guys to consider. I also see that there are folks here who are potentially here for the second agenda item, which we will not be discussing details of today. I'm just going to give a quick one-sentence summary when Chair Lehmann calls for it.
[Justin Tseng]: I know, I just, it'll just take us like 20 minutes to edit and I don't want, it'll take us 20 minutes to edit it and I just don't want folks to be staying on longer than they want to be.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Chair Lemmy. Presentation is very generous of a word, as I told you, Chair. I really don't have much of an update for this committee. I'm still working through it. I sat down with the mayor and our DI director, Francis Wojciech, recently to talk through their ideas and potential disagreements on it. They are still reviewing the draft that I shared with this committee. earlier in the year with some potential edits that they have told me that they would want to make, but it's very much still in conversation and I don't have anything for this committee right now or for the public. And I'll let everyone know once those edits are available, but they are currently not available.
[Justin Tseng]: No, that's, oh, sorry.
[Justin Tseng]: Sorry, can you repeat that one more, once more?
[Justin Tseng]: I presented that draft to the DI director and the mayor as well. And the DI director and I had worked on the same document. documents the director had put in some notes on potential discrepancy and that was sent to the mayor.
[Justin Tseng]: No. Uh, but, but once the mayor sends back, um, any actual edits to the document. So right now there are no edits to the documents, no real edits documents that, um, presented to the committee. But, um, one air sends back to edits. I will share them all with, uh, with the committee and with the public.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, sorry.
[Justin Tseng]: Excuse me as I just try to find the words for this one point.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, that's a proposed edit to what's there. You can see if you prefer it. I just think it's a little bit more organized and more formal in tone. But I'll let the committee discuss it since it's a bigger edit.
[Justin Tseng]: Cool.
[Justin Tseng]: That's a second. I just wanted to note that I put in a few more, just small edits. None of them are really to the content besides there's something small at the end, the residents guide. I just kind of like spelled it out. Okay. All right.
[Justin Tseng]: I think grammatically this is correct, but I yeah, it does read awkwardly. We can edit it.
[Justin Tseng]: Well, as just signifies that two things are happening at the same time. So we do expect the CRC's recommendations, but we can say to as we expect to receive.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Thank you so much. As we know, In the last few years, reproductive rights and gender affirming care, the rights to access those two forms of health care have been particularly at stake in our country. Particularly worrying is that even though we live in a state that does a lot to protect these rights, much of what we're seeing nationally is requests for municipalities and states to carry out out-of-state orders, so orders that are not from our own state, from authorities not here, to arrest, to get sent information, to prosecute individuals who are seeking or providing gender-affirming care or reproductive health care. In the context of all of that happening in the country, uh, Councilor Collins and I, as well as President Bears, then President Morell, and Councilor Collins. We had a bunch of, um, resolutions on the City Council agenda to have our committee discuss what we can do to best safeguard those rights here, um, in Medford, um, and to make sure that, you know, we're following Massachusetts laws, that we're executing Massachusetts laws, that we're not, um, putting ourselves in a situation where we're forced to carry out the laws of a state that we don't belong to. There are a lot of different ways to go about it. The main focus the last time that this committee met on this subject was focusing more on the police involvement with the issue. And so really honing in on the question of arrests and cooperation in that process and essentially establishing a non-cooperation process. Now, at that meeting, I presented a draft. I think the feedback that I got was mostly that it looked like a good draft. There were some questions that Councilors had, some people that Councilors wanted me to reach out to. So in the meantime, I updated the draft in responding to those questions, as well as reached out to the health care providers in Medford, notably Tufts and Harvard Vanguard. I believe Harvard Vanguard was the one that didn't have anyone getting back to us. I tried a bunch of times, but I actually did have a sit down with Tufts Medical and their public affairs team, public policy team, and they were fully in support of us having an ordinance like this. I think on top of that, it's worth noting that I don't know if all the Councilors received this. This wasn't sent to the council as a whole. I know this was just on an email list from the top reproductive equity rights group in Massachusetts. They asked that even though there are state measures in place to defend reproductive health care and gender affirming care, they asked municipalities like us to explore ways to stand up for reproductive freedom here in communities like Medford, particularly through ordinances and bylaws. And so this draft that we have in front of us is essentially an extension of that effort to ensure safe and fair access to reproductive health care and gender equity care. The draft that we have before us is a slight expansion upon what we had at our last committee meeting, particularly given the second resolution that you read out, which broadens the scope that this committee can work with, and in response to some suggestions from residents and activists in the area as well. And so what I've done is I've basically recrafted this draft with provisions about their access to information, because one of the other problems a lot of municipalities are seeing, especially with regards to abortion care, is the popping up of anti-abortion clinics, which essentially what they do is they sell themselves as reproductive health clinics, they get the more vulnerable populations come in to use their services. They don't recommend them for the necessary health care procedures, including abortion, but instead preach a certain message. And this is of a lot of concern because a lot of this behavior is quite predatory. And so this is something that a lot of Massachusetts municipalities have started to take action on, to explore ways to put language in their ordinances about fair access, about seeing what we can do to prevent certain centers like this opening up, and to distribute good information, especially in conjunction with our Board of Health. And so essentially that's the draft that we just got that Clark Herbie's just distributed via email and in print to us. I, I wish I had a chance to get to the sooner so we could review the language here. But I was thinking we could, we can take motions at the end, but I was thinking to move that Councilors send feedback to chair Lazzaro and me before our next public health committee meeting on the ordinance language here, as well as Well, I'll just let that motion stand there. And then I was thinking maybe we want to discuss who we want to consult further and if we want to send this draft out to anyone.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think that's a great question. Essentially, I've gotten a lot of this language from East Hampton, which is kind of the leading municipality on the anti-abortion stuff. I'm taking a quick skim through now. I think much of this is what they have regarding those centers. I can study that further, and then if there is a way to do that, I can integrate it into a future draft.
[Justin Tseng]: I have more ideas to bounce around just as a committee before I dropped any further language. But if people have comments on this ordinance, let's stay on this for now.
[Justin Tseng]: I can give you my copy.
[Justin Tseng]: Trailers are looking through the draft. I do realize that I did actually about the few sentences on Yeah, I did find it so I can I can also redistribute a new copy an updated copy with that Yes, we can also just bundle or motions, yeah Okay, so
[Justin Tseng]: Aye.
[Justin Tseng]: I know the paper from President Bears, then President Morell, and Councilor Collins is quite broad policy-wise on what our committee is authorized to do. I think this is just one way of thinking about reproductive health rights. I think there are other ways for us to consider, like, I mean, even things as basic as ensuring access to menstrual health products and bathrooms in the city. So I just wanted to put that out there as something that our committee can discuss while this paper is still in committee. There's also another thing that activists have reached out to us about potentially drafting an ordinance on is, give me one quick sec. a local ordinance to ensure pharmacy compliance with the statewide standing order for emergency contraception. And I was wondering if that's something that our committee would be interested in discussing while we have this paper in our committee. And if so, I can come back to the model ordinance at the next meeting.
[Justin Tseng]: So I believe the state, um, the state action is actually via executive order. Um, and so it's just to make sure that we are, um, it's to make sure that we're aligning ourselves with the executive order, but also making sure that if that executive order is reversed one day, um, for God knows what reason, um, we still have the protection in our city.
[Justin Tseng]: In that case, I'll motion for me to present some draft language for an ordinance before our next meeting to this committee.
[Justin Tseng]: I think it fits under the second paper that you read out.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. For this paper, I just wanted to start with a broader conversation about the types of questions we want to be asking, the type of data we might want to collect with regards to this question. Because I know there's so many different ways to go about it. I know there are a lot of concerns with costs as well. And so I was thinking it might be good for us to just meet, talk about some general questions we might want to be asking, and then either me or Chair Lazzaro, we can reach out to department heads and community stakeholders to discuss these questions. We can also create a list of people we might want to invite to a future meeting.
[Justin Tseng]: I think some specific parts were mentioned, but it was more of a general conversation that I was having, particularly with some moms. But moms in that situation where they need to take care of their newborns. But I've also recently talked to some people who are in charge of recreational groups in Medford who spend a lot of money on their own to bring in porta-potties. Um, stuff like that. And so, um, they're interested in seeing what the city can do to help them shift that cost as well. Um, yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm not sure that Commissioner McGibbon or Department Head Hunt or Director Hunt are in the best positions to provide the answers to that question, just because I don't think there is that much data out there right now about the cost and benefit. The thing is we could go with a port-a-potty system, but we could also go with other models, which I know some other city staff have been kind of chatting about here and there. I think maybe if you reword the motion just to be talking more about city staff in general, that'd be helpful. Cause I'm just not sure that they're the ones in the best positions to answer. I know we'll probably want to loop in the rec department as well. So director Bailey, on that effort too.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll second.
[Justin Tseng]: Before we end discussion though, I just wanted to say, um, um, I wanted to reiterate that this is, as other Councilors have said, this is just the start of a long process. Um, I think right now, um, the question, there's a question of who has what information, what's the best way, um, to get all that information. And one of the roles of the City Council that I see just even broadly, not just with this issue, is that I think one of our jobs is to bring together that information where we can. And I know a lot of this information lies outside of city departments as well, so I'll keep reaching out to non-city staff, members of the community who might be able to help us get some data, get some idea of where our priority parks are, how much they're already spending on stuff like this. So I can keep working on that. I think my vision for this is even if this is not the most feasible project in the short term, if we can collect that data and if we can put together a roadmap to get to a place where we can implement it, maybe even get to the point where we can craft together a proposal to present to the mayor during budget season, I think that's my goal at least with this item.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I'm totally in agreement about the equity point. I mean, especially with so many groups in our city using stuff like this. There are groups out there who also just can't afford to have a resource like this. I think, even once I passed that just bigger picture. Thank you Chuck for hopping on this call. I think government in general has a responsibility to figure out how we can lower the costs that private residents are spending on things as well. And so, you know, If one recreational group is spending that much and another recreational group is also spending a lot of money on this, I think it does make sense for government to step in and say, we're gonna provide this resource and it's gonna cost all of us as a society less.
[Justin Tseng]: Aye.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. It was really, really hard for me to see this news this morning, because I think, just From my own perspective, Larry's been such a calming presence here on the city council. He, you know, is such a good friend. And I think above all it's that him being a friend. I'm going to remember really well. The first few weeks of my term when he really was that part part of that team that like welcome to me and to doing this job. to making me feel comfortable to be myself, to speak up, to serve the people. He really taught me a lot about who to talk to and, you know, who to ask questions to here. But it's even outside of that work, after our council meetings, almost every council meeting, him and I And a few other Councilors would stand around and chat, talk about life, talk about things outside of Medford politics, and then things about Medford politics, but mostly just about life. And I think getting to know him that way was a real, real honor. I wish everyone had the chance to spend that time with him. It's really, really difficult, I think, for me to speak tonight, because this is a friend that we're losing. and such a loyal public servant to our city. A real mainstay of the city council, who's been here longer than any of us. So I wanted to thank him for all of that service, for his friendship, and to send my condolences to his family. And may he rest in peace. Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Leming.
[Justin Tseng]: The questions have been resolved. I'm ready to move. I've talked to Owen about Director Wartola. A little bit about the memos. In reading the final National Grid memo and the KTL memo, I feel ready to move forward as a council.
[Justin Tseng]: Present.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I understand, you know, one of the council's main priorities going in before Knowing that this might be an option in the coming years was to maximize this senior circuit breaker for the tax deferrals and to push for the senior work-off program to get more of that done. It's my understanding that folks can find out more about the senior tax deferral from the assessor's office, is that correct?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Sorry, Councilor Tseng. Thank you. Councilor Collins, I think, touched on a list of positions that, subject to the school committee talks, might be at stake. Literacy specialists, school nurses, guidance, mental health specialists, increased class sizes. You know, it's not fear-mongering when a lot of this stuff has already happened. happening in our school districts. We've already had to make a lot of these cuts. We've already found it hard to retain our long-term teachers. We also need to take a step back and look at this big picture-wise. We know when we invest in our schools, your investment and your value of your property goes up as well, that your public safety around you, crime goes down and public safety goes up. And so we, I think there are longer, bigger picture benefits to everyone, even if you don't have kids in the schools. Touching on the roads real quick, because that's also a part of question seven. I think we need to look at the opportunity we lose. Now, the basic role of government, of local government is to fix your potholes and to send your kids to school. And if we're not, if we can't do either of those, then we're not, you know, we're not doing our jobs, but we were asking the voters to give us the tools to do our jobs. And something about question seven with the roads and sidewalks is that it would give us a crew that would work full time on fixing our potholes and sidewalks in the city. That's something that we don't have right now because our resources are too constrained. And that's something that I believe if passed, will show, will give our residents a real benefit, a real benefit that you can see and live in our city. Thank you for the question.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng, two minutes. Thank you. Touching very quickly on the topic of new growth, I think our council is very aware that new growth is the priority for Medford. And so when we look at the last three years of new growth, so the last two years plus the estimates that we have right in front of us presented by the assessor, It actually shows that our first round of zoning reform, which was the first round in almost 50 years of zoning reform, actually has led to the most new growth our city has seen in decades. We are currently working on round two of zoning reform and we are very, very optimistic that that new growth will help us achieve more financial stability going into the future as long as these questions pass. I think I also have this chart right here. I'll do what Councilor Callahan does. It's not really easy to see, but you can see that the new growth is growing throughout the last few years with the reforms that we've instituted. We are permitting more units as Councilor- Could you put that chart back up?
[Justin Tseng]: We're also permitting more new, new units than ever before, as Councilor Scarpellioli states. Here's the thing, because on the topic of new growth, we're getting a little bit away from the why now question. We have a plan, that plan is being implemented, and the results are already bearing fruit. We fell behind decades. I mean, that's just the truth. We fell behind decades. And I don't agree with every decision that the mayors previous have taken, but we are in a situation now where we need to face the facts as they are now. High inflation, lack of new growth over the last few decades means that we need to do a short-term plan, which is these three questions, and then a long-term plan, which is investing in new growth, which is what our zoning efforts are. Thank you. Councilor Collins.
[Justin Tseng]: two minutes. Yes. Thank you. Um, I mean, continuing off of Councilor Leming's points, those conversations are ones that we're having in public. I believe that there's an upcoming City Committee of the Whole meeting at some point that we're going to talk about some of how free cash is going to be used. I know the mayor submitted a paper to us with her proposal and asking us for feedback. That's all in the council records. It's all online for folks to find as well. Here's the thing about free cash, right, because it's a one time fund, we should be using it on one time expenses. And that's why we're using it on things like roads on the light poles that President Bears was talking about on HVAC systems and whatnot. We all know that these are real things that affect how we experience living in our city, affects our kids in our public buildings, and so they are very important expenses. Now, added on top of that is the conversation we would have if we didn't spend that money right now, right? Because if we defer maintenance, which I think everyone in the audience today acknowledges this has been happening in Medford. If we defer maintenance, those costs go up as well. And so we need to basically map out all of our uses. And that's why our city has been implementing our capital improvement plans, why we've started to take registries of everything that that we're falling behind on maintenance. Our buildings director is really good with that work. And so that's why those funds should be allocated to things like that rather than being used one time on recurring expenses that we can't afford in the future. So I feel very strongly about that. The bond agencies feel very strongly about that. And in fact, if we take the free cash and use that free cash on recurring expenses, it's widely known that the bond agencies would lower our credit rating, as Councilor Callahan mentioned, and our costs for borrowing to do that maintenance work in the future would actually go up. And so that's something that would be an increased cost on all of us as taxpayers in the city. Mr. President.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll be very brief. There's been only one Councilor here tonight that's asked the voters in the room to vote a certain way, and it's not me. not a certain number of other Councilors. So I did say that we approve these because we saw that voting.
[Justin Tseng]: So two Councilors, but pay attention. I am paying attention. You didn't read the budget, but anyways. It's embarrassing, man. I apologize for letting this get off the track. The question was about, I think- It's not your fault. There was one aspect of the question about the new growth and coming back to ask, the voters to ask for another override. And I believe the financial task force has been pretty open in saying that we believe that with new growth coming in, in talking to the developers who are looking to develop on the properties that we're rezoning for and looking at the projects that are coming into our city, we believe that we won't need to ask for another override until that exclusion for that school. That's something that we, you know, are very open in conversations that we have with our planning department staff, with our assessing staff here in the city council chambers and in their offices as well. And to the point of us, the fear tactic of us coming back next year, right? There is one opportunity offered tonight where we do come back next year, and that's kicking the can down the road by using free cash this year, which would guarantee that we come back to this exact same position next year as well.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll be very brief. It's in state procurement law, and I believe that this is the process moving forward that we you know, we can plan to a certain threshold, but then we need to find the source of revenue that we have to pay for that project before we move on that much further. And so that's where we are in the process is where at this, uh, at the step in the process where we're identifying that source of revenue for the project moving on. So it's premature. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, Councilor Tseng two minutes. I'll be extremely brief. Um, because I think a lot of this is, has been said before, um, the way I view it is there's a question out there about why are we doing it twice when, you know, we need to do the basics and I, you know, question seven gives us the, the, ability to do the basics. Question eight allows us to think bigger picture and think about how we can improve the school system, not merely just matching status quo, but to exceed status quo. I think there are a variety of different perspectives on that specific policy. That's why we're opposing it to the voters. That's why we're letting voters vote on it. But we do need the money first to be able to engage in a real comprehensive renegotiation of what that school day looks like, of what programs we can offer. And this is just the point of disagreement between me and my fellow Councilor. I think Medford parents and Medford students know that our schools don't offer the same programming the other school districts do. I think Medford parents, Medford students know that we're falling short and that we have a lot of programming that we need to catch up on. It's, you know, we have great teachers doing arts programs, sports programs, coaches doing sports programs, et cetera. That's great. But the question is, are we where we should be comprehensively? You know, we've already had to merge drama classes to cut offerings in the arts in the last budget. The question is, do we stay there, do we keep with that, or do we expand our offerings for our children?
[Justin Tseng]: Great, Councilor Tseng, two minutes. Thank you. I just wanted to speak to the grant part of things. I know, as President Bears said before, our city departments work very, very hard to apply to as many grants as possible. But I think when we think about applying to grants, which I'm totally behind, I think we should do, we should maximize it. We also have to keep in mind that it takes a team of grant writers and grant managers after we get that grant to put that grant into practice and do all the reporting and counting that we need for that. And so that actually takes a lot of staff capacity on the city hall end right now that we don't have that general fund capacity for either. So that's, you know, another, I think, reason why paying attention to like increasing the revenue for our city government is so, so important, because it allows us to eventually, eventually gives us the freedom to, to have people in place to be applying to those grants that make more money over, over time. So it's kind of like a stone rolling down a mountain collecting dirt. I, another thing about grants though, is that oftentimes they're not over a long enough period of time for us to be able to retain the staff that we want to, as Councilor Callahan mentioned, like if you're a teacher, you want to make sure that you can stay in that position next year, that you're, you're having that job or else you're, you're applying to other jobs. Right? And I think that's the case when we apply for grants as well. That's why, you know, we have great workers in city hall hired on grants, but a lot of them don't, are looking for other jobs because they don't have that stability. And so we need to give our city that financial, in my opinion, that financial stability. On the points of competitive salaries, I think it's really important to also consider that our teachers are competing or our school systems competing with private schools as well. And that there's this, there's a race to to pay teachers more, to pay for diversity, all of that is affecting how our ability to retain our staff and to hire new staff as well. That's not to mention the district-specific characteristics that come out in a union bargaining sessions. Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Justin Tseng]: governance committee, October 9, 2024, paper 24-468, resolution to discuss updates to the city charter. This is... This is a meeting on just starting the whole charter review process from the city council's end. I've prepared some slides, basically going through what charter review is, what our role in it is, and what types of issues we'll be thinking about over the next few months. I've also invited the members of the Charter Study Committee to join our meeting as well, although these are two kind of different tracks of work. I'm going to share my slides. Give me one second. Great. Cool. So, What is the city charter? I'm not gonna go through everything in my slides, but I did compile a bunch of information from the call-in centers, presentations to the charter study committee, mass general law and the state constitution in the slide deck. I'm gonna send it out to everyone after. So we have one central place of information for the members of this committee and for the public to refer back to as well. That way, we don't have to pour through different Google Doc folders of information. Essentially, the city charter is our mini constitution. It creates our city as a legal entity. It establishes our city's powers, defines our government's operational structures, like creating local offices, distributing powers and responsibilities, et cetera. A little bit about our current charter. We have a modified plan A form of government. I put the definitions below. Essentially, the plan system's not really used anymore. Our city charter's also spread across documents, which is kind of a hassle and a bit of a problem, and it has not been comprehensively reviewed in decades. Some reasons for why we're doing, why the city, has been pursuing charter review, we want to be keeping up with a modern understanding of the best practices of local government, ensuring that our government's responsive to the needs and preferences of the current population, keeping consistent with changes in our state federal laws, values, cultural changes as well, clarifying any confusing or disputed text, and providing transparency on how we operate. You know, all of these reasons are why Charter Review is maybe one of the more exciting projects that we're working on this term. It's a very big picture project, and it's going to be all hands on deck. So, I think this part is important to let all of us know what the charter review process is like. There's essentially two main ways of doing charter review. One, I don't know if folks remember, the city council took a vote last term on a home rule petition to start the charter review process that passed 4-3 and the state legislature asked for five votes on that, which at that time we didn't have. The mayor, created a charter study committee, and that kind of leads us into the second way of doing charter review, which is by special act. And so special act as laid out in mass general law, first, there has to be a passage by majority vote at our city council of the text of the resolution proposing the special legislation. It needs to go to the state legislature to enact the proposed legislation, then They got it, the assigned committee in the state legislature has to hear it, they have to approve it, and the governor signs it. Pretty standard process. Even though it's done by special act, it has the force of a city charter. So where does, you know, things like the charter study committee fit into this, um, for our charter review process done through special act, it's pretty regular to have a preliminary study committee, make proposals to us, the city council and to the mayor as well. Um, that's what we're going to be doing over the next few months, reviewing the different, um, parts of the city charter that, um, proposals that were handed. Um, and oftentimes, um, a non-binding vote of the public is held on the proposed charter as well. So substance-wise, forms of government, this is kind of one of the big questions. You have mayor council as one major option. That's the current form we have. Some cities have a council manager system. I'll give you the spoilers and tell you that I don't think the Charter Study Committee has chosen to switch a form of government. But if you're interested in reading the options, Because, you know, we are going to be reviewing this, I've laid out the bullet points comparing contrast. These are from the Collins Center, I believe. And then I have more bullet points for your own reference on other slides, if you want to look at the difference between the different systems. it's probably gonna be something we talk about too. There's also differences between a strong mayor or weaker mayor system. That's all done via like different parts of the charter and not necessarily by plan. At least that's not the best practices now. So what does the charter establish for elected officials, kind of relevant to people like us? Term length, term limits, powers, duties, how we fill vacancies, compensation for elected positions, and the composition of the city council and the school committee, including the mayor's roles. some different, I know there's been a lot of talk in the city about ward rep, ward representation, so electing, having city councilors elected by district. There are a few different, you know, different compositions of ward representation as well, different formulations of, you know, how many people do what, what types of wards you have, sizes of wards that we have, sizes of districts that we're drawing for city council school committee elections. And I know the, study committee has looked at that as well. That's something that I think we're going to probably be spending a lot of time thinking about. I'm not going to go through this, but the Collins Center has provided a generic modern charter. In looking at the minutes of the study commission's meetings and in looking at how to structure all these different conversations that we might have, separating into these 10 articles seems to be quite helpful, and I would suggest Just as the chair of the committee, I think it makes sense that we in thinking about how to set up a timeline, which is one of my goals for this meeting, we think about how like dividing it up into articles as well. Um, and these, yep.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. The charter, the charter study committee's recommendations will use, um, this format. And, um, there are, there are sections that will basically. be very, very similar to what the generic charter says. The generic charter is put, they've uploaded it into the Google Drive folder of the Charter Study Committee's presentation. So you can check it out there. It's about 20 pages. Yeah. And it's like this, broken up into these 10 sections in this order. There seems to be some sections that are really up to us in general, the public, to fill in. Some of them are much more like there is established practice for the language in there. And then these are just some other topics that we might consider outside of the 10 drawn out in the generic modern charter. There are places for in the modern charter by they didn't fit in the column centers descriptions of each article. So I just pulled them out separately. But yeah, no. we will be looking at things like financial procedures and how we do budgeting in the city, how we rules for elections, citizen participation. So petitions, initiatives, referendums, that all has to fall under the constraints of state law as well. Periodic reviews of the charter of ordinances as well, looking at appointments, confirmations to multi-member boards, seeing, you know, do we, who's appointing, who's confirming, is there confirming power there as well? And public comment as well. I guess the point of this meeting that I wanted to go after was just developing a general timeline we can work with and also developing any questions we have at this point for the mayor's office, for legal, for the study committee members as well. or any general comments, too, to help us structure, like, because this is such a big project, how we're going to go forward. Could you jump back to the slide with the different sections? Yeah. I'll do this slide first, and then if you want me to, if members want me to change over, I can change over.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Lazzaro?
[Justin Tseng]: Exactly. Okay, great.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, it's just such a big piece of pie. The question is how do we go about it. President Paris.
[Justin Tseng]: I see Vice President Hollins has her hand up.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. President Briggs.
[Justin Tseng]: from the chair, I think that makes a lot of sense. I was thinking that it might behoove us to have one bigger meeting first to review the proposal as a whole. And I think it makes a lot of sense that we try to bring everyone together for that. I also am very much of the belief that we should hold a separate meeting for school committee and invite the school committee members with us. I know there haven't been that many interviews in the last, I don't think there have been any interviews in the last year of electives for the charter review process. And so I think that's a very valuable perspective that we'll need to get people in the room for. And that includes the newly elected Councilors as well. So I think that makes a lot of sense. What I can do is draw out a schedule, try to see what we can do over the next few months to have something to send, to report out. in March, so we can put that on the ballot in the fall, and we can set that as our goal. I think that makes a lot of sense. I have also, if Councilors want to get ahead of it because it's such a long document, I've also gone through all the minutes of the study committee, just compiling their votes and their recommendations that are in the minutes. separate and I separated it out mostly about article. So I can send that to Councilors as well.
[Justin Tseng]: It's not released yet.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, yeah, the final report's not released yet. Oh, okay.
[Justin Tseng]: There are like individual motions.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think it'll give us a pretty good picture of what the report looks like.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, yeah, exactly, exactly. Yeah, and I've kind of grouped it into, if they've taken multiple motions on city council composition, for example, I've put that in a bucket of its own, too. Wonderful question. When I was procrastinating schoolwork. It's something to do. Yeah, it's a little bit more fun sometimes. I said that. It's just a public meeting. It's just a public meeting. I'm just on record saying that. The clerk's just writing it down. Sending it to Senator Warren. Yeah, exactly. Bailey's gonna be really mad. Yeah, I think Bailey's gonna chew me up. Just a little burrito. Just a little burrito. Well, I think, um, Do we have a second for that motion?
[Justin Tseng]: Great. Before we do that, I'll take public participation if there's anyone, there's no one in person, if there's anyone online who wants to speak. Seeing none, okay. Mr. Clerk, on the motion, on President Bears' motion, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro, can you call the, or voice, we'll take a voice vote.
[Justin Tseng]: All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: I would motion to retable this to another meeting.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Callahan didn't steal it. Talked about one of the ideas I had. I think the other requests I'd have to amend this paper, I am in support of it. I think it's great to get as much information out there as possible to have people answer as many questions as possible as well. One, a few groups of people that are particularly vulnerable and you know, are we'll also find this process new will be would be immigrant voters as well. And so if we can ask the commute this administration to ask the communities on to translate the override the budget override information on the city website to the best of their abilities and help distribute that information. That'd be great. Thank you. And We could invite them to the meeting, although they might want separate meetings with different languages, so that might be more of a community-zone thing.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Thank you. Um, I think it's very natural have nuanced takes on standardized tests, um, you know, there there's so many, there are different levels, there are different occasions where these questions apply to. I think it's really important when we're looking at a ballot referendum question to look at the text right there and the text right there is about MCAS's graduation requirement. the MCAS will still exist. And in fact, something that a lot of residents, not just the Medford, but a lot of residents across the state don't know is that there are other ways that teachers are using now that, you know, some of them are state run, some of them are from schools, but there are ways that teachers are tracking student growth and student progress. There's a test, an alternative test. It's pretty different from MCAS, but it is still a standardized way to measure growth. being offered in our schools, offered, I believe, three times a year, at least in middle schools. This is from my conversation with middle school teachers. So that, you know, that rigor is still very much there. When we look at who exactly is being denied graduation from MCAS, I think it's important to note that 75% of those who failed MCAS are people who are also not meeting standards already set by their school district. And so, you know, rigor is the worry, then that's a major data point to consider. But then the question leads to what is that other 25%? And we see very clearly in the data that that other 25% actually tends to be English as second language students who actually, when they sit down with a translator, work through the exams, actually pass the exams very well, but aren't accustomed to how we do high stakes testing here in Massachusetts or in this country. And so there's a cultural barrier there, a language barrier. What's great is that our teachers, and I know you know this, won't let anyone fall behind. It's a dedication to them, it's a duty, it's a vocation. It's also part of their job description. And so this is a measure I feel comfortable supporting, and I would urge our residents to vote for it as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, I just wanted to note, I had a comment after we finished talking about rodents.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to note that I have a comment after we talked about rodents.
[Justin Tseng]: Very close. But I did have one note about the charter review part. I just wanted to just simplify the language a little bit and explain what it was. So I would say instead of just charter reform, I would probably say work on reviewing the city charter. And then we could have one sentence explaining what the city charter is. I mean, the way I think about it and the way that the law professors teach it is like it's a mini constitution for the city. I don't know if there's a better way to put it.
[Justin Tseng]: Analogous might be too much of a word, or too big of a word, too complex.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm currently outside the building. I'll be up in one minute.
[Justin Tseng]: and begins its work, to begin its work by reviewing the city charter. Something about, I wanted to put in something about just like the, we're just gonna start by looking at the timeline and like big picture approaches to the city charter. What? Just to reassure some members of the Charter Study Committee that we value their input as well, and that we're going to wait for their final product, too. To the members of the committee, I mean, I mean, it could be extraneous.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. Then, you know, I, I did see a member of the charter study committee on zoom. So I hope that she helps relay the message that we're not trying to step on anyone's toes here and that we're trying to, um, well, this can be open to public comment as well.
[Justin Tseng]: It's just that there is going to be inherently some overlap in terms of like, because we'll, I don't know who's on the committee. It sounds like it'll overcomplicate it. Yeah. to do this work, rather than, you know, if anybody, like, because this is for people who really don't know much about government, but it works just to help people understand things. And if they see that there's a charter structure that is not out there, that maybe you just rubber stamp with them, or that's their job, you know, but to make it clear that, like, the next So I think that that's clear in the words begin its work. I think I, let's just not overcomplicate it then. Let's just keep it as is.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. This is what I put together given the comments from Councilors at our last meeting about what they would like to see on the residence guide. I think I've included, I went back to watch the meeting. I think I've included everything. Now there is a lot of text on it. And so if cutting text is something we want to do, I'm very open to it as well. But I wanted to put everything that we had talked about on this first. I know we spent a little bit of time at that last meeting about having something that prints on black and white as well. This should print well on black and white. But this is also visually appreciable. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I also think it's visually appealing enough for digital publication. I'd be happy to hear any comments. I can also make adjustments right now and send on my computer and then send it over to the chair and the clerk after we make edits as a committee.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I've actually gone back and forth on that one since I define ordinances up there. And I didn't know whether we should define resolutions up there as well. Because there is a definition for resolution at the bottom of the commonly used terms table. I'd be happy to put it on if we don't think we have to define it. It's just a long definition. It could make sense just to write it on top as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, that makes sense. Um I guess the only question then is, are we okay shrinking the font?
[Justin Tseng]: We do take captions. Um we do take motions to move. We we do move the previous question. Oh, sorry. We do move the we in in this session of the city council, we have moved the previous question quite a bit.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Yeah, no, I totally agree with what's been said. This is definitely not the most accessible form for everyone. It will work for some people. The way I viewed it is I was given a task to put all this information on one sheet of paper. But I would really love if we could think more about how else we can get this type of information out in a way that more people can digest as well. So yeah, no, I would love to talk about that as a council or committee. There are a few small tweaks that I've been making right now. I received a comment that Usually, you know, if folks attend in person, they can sign up with City Messenger. Unfortunately, our City Messenger is out. I think we, there's usually a signup sheet at the desk. That's something that we could still, we should still think about putting on this. Maybe the city clerk can give us his thoughts on that. And then there's some smaller edits. I've just added the YouTube channel on the, at the, the mention of the YouTube channel at the bottom. And then, um, I saw in the newsletter for the summer that there, um, that there is a bitly link for the city, city council newsletter sign up. So I've replaced the clerk's email with that link as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much. In many ways, the Chevalier is the life blood of Medford Square. It is the beating heart of our square. We see when on nights where there are shows at the Chevalier, how many people come into Medford Square, frequent our businesses, frequent our up-and-coming bars seen here as well. I think, you know, it's easy to see that success and see something that we're so proud of and, you know, forget about all the hard work that goes into making it what it is. We heard last week about a little bit about a lot of the hard work that volunteers have put in to making sure this Chevalier runs the way it does. And we heard a little bit a tiny glimpse into some of the other work being done by the Friends of Chivalry Theater and Gene Knack Gym, including youth programming and using the old high school gym to provide, you know, much needed after school care in the city. I don't want to be, you know, I don't want beat the horse around because we have a very special guest in the audience, who I am sure can tell you and tell our residents so much more about the Chevalier Theatre and all the work that the Friends of the Chevalier Theatre do, and to present it much more eloquently than I can.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. You know, this is such a grave matter. facing, you know, I think this is one of the examples where something national can really have local impacts on the national conversation that we've been having about immigration about race about, you know, about acceptance and inclusion does have local results and we see that in Springfield, Ohio, and you know, well Springfield, Ohio is not meant for Massachusetts. The lessons that Springfield imports to us, I think, are real lessons for Medford and a real wake-up call for municipalities around the country. There's been really wild, extreme accusations being launched against Haitian migrants who've moved to Ohio who've moved to Springfield, Ohio, in search of work and a life away from, you know, difficult and dangerous living situations back in Haiti. This is a story I think that Haitian Americans here in Medford relate to and know a lot about. And what's been said has You know, the accusations being launched have been really difficult and led to really dangerous outcomes for people just trying to live a normal life in the ground. We've seen that schools have been canceled because of bomb threats and because of threats against Haitian students, against kindergartners trying to go to picture day. We've seen the windows of cars, of homes of Haitian immigrants in Ohio being smashed, and we've seen both the dangerous rhetoric but dangerous results spread outside of Ohio as well. The Haitian community is so important to Medford. It's so important to all of us. I couldn't imagine our city without that. And I think this is, the last few weeks have been a particularly difficult time for Haitian Americans and Haitian Medford residents as well. And I wanted them to know that we stand with them as well. It's a difficult subject for me to speak about because the racist tropes that have been peddled which I don't want to repeat, have been things that I've heard growing up here as well. And, you know, to people, it might seem like a joke, and it might seem like, you know, something that they've heard from someone else before, or something that just seems funny to say about someone, but I think this serves as a constant reminder that jokes and insensitive rhetoric can lead to real threats to personal safety, to people just trying to live their everyday life, to contribute to our society, to give to our country. And it's important for us to stand up for all of our residents.
[Justin Tseng]: I just realized that we actually submitted this together, and I was wondering if we could get Vice President Collins' name added to this resolution as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much. I'm trying to review is one of those topics that has been a great excitement in our community. I know there are lots of folks who are very interested in talking about improving our electoral system improving the balance between different branches of our government. and talking about how we can modernize our city. I think that this is a chance to take a wonderful step forward in moving our city forward and to modernize our institutions to make sure that they're more responsive, that they're more representative of our city and more cooperative, that everyone is acting more cooperatively with each other. Now the charter really underlies everything we do as a city. It's essentially our mini constitution. Um, and so the process of updating our charter, um, as people who have been really interested now has taken a while. And I think that's not, that's not a bad thing. It's a natural, natural step when it comes to such a big project, but this is, uh, we're getting close to when the city council has to act on it. And so as a chair of the governance committee, I wanted to put this on the agenda to make sure that we're getting a head start on it. And so I wanted to lay out a very brief plan right now and then to talk more at the Governance Committee meeting about how we can approach it. And so essentially I want to give the Governance Committee time to review the recommendations from the Charter Study Committee, as well as give us time to have even more community conversations about the proposals that are really going to shape up really shake up the city and to also give Councilors enough time to contemplate what we're voting on before something theoretically could pass the city council. I wanted to plan to meet soon this month to form a timeline and to look big picture wise at a 30,000 foot view at what charter review is to give the public and our Councilors a chance to be introduced to this topic and to get everyone up to speed with the basics of the conversations we might be having going forward. So what questions might we be answering with charter review or what questions might we be asking and trying to answer. I want to make sure that we're moving forward in a cooperative spirit with members of the charter study commission committee and to invite them to meetings as well. Um, and all of this will take time, but I believe our city council can do really good work on this and be very responsive to the needs of our city and of our residents.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I too would be willing, would be comfortable voting on this tonight, voting favorably on this tonight. I grew up a one minute walk from where it is. I still spend half my week over there, or a little bit less than half, but I spend a good amount of time over there. And I think there are neighbors of very different views on this, but I think Councilor Leming brings up a really great point that it's separated by Riverside and Fellsway from the residential areas. And that is quite a large block. In fact, I could not think of what we would want to be a larger block than that in the city. I couldn't imagine a larger road than that to separate a shopping, a commercial zone from a residential neighborhood. It's just the fact of how our city is designed. I think 1 a.m. shows good faith from you all, it shows a reasonable compromise. And I think it's also important to note that This argument about consistency can go both ways. You've cited three places that are popular locations in Medford that are open past 11 p.m. There are also places that aren't open past 11 p.m. Some of the places listed that aren't open past 11 p.m. I don't believe I've ever voted on, I have never seen a paper on special permit hours. And you guys have made the request. So I think it's fair because you guys asked to consider giving you guys hours past 11 p.m.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much. Um, this resolution comes out of discussions I've had, um, with community members of the last few years, um, around the city about having access to sanitary facilities, um, while in our, in our public spaces and you know, public spaces owned by the city and in commercial spaces that we really want people to frequent like Medford Square. This, you know, having sanitary facilities in public is both a public health issue, and it's also a quality of life issue. I've also heard, particularly recently, but I've heard from in the past two from community members who've spoken about high costs that they bear for having to hire to rent porta potties for sports events or community events that they hold in our parks as well. And I've heard from some people with the numbers that they've been paying over the years and It looks like it really might make much more economic sense if our city takes the lead on this one and saves everyone a little bit more money and if we make the investment now. But, you know, this is a big project, it's going to require a lot of thinking through logistics, it's going to require a lot of thinking through concerns as well. I have been talking to some city staff who have some views and proposals about how we could do this at a lower cost and how we can make sure that we keep up with the maintenance of this idea. But again, this will require discussion, walking through the logistics, and that's why I want to motion to refer this to the Committee on Public Health, because I think if we can hold a committee meeting on this and invite stakeholders to talk about benefits and concerns, we can really craft a pretty solid proposal here.
[Justin Tseng]: Motion to approve.
[Justin Tseng]: So moved.
[Justin Tseng]: First and foremost, I do want to thank you for your work.
[Justin Tseng]: I was going to get there. The friends of the Chevalier and Gene Matcham, I think really do do a lot of work for us. I've been lucky enough to be on the Community Fund Committee. where we see the applications from you guys trying to help, you know, we have a limited pot of money with that fund, but, you know, the mayor and I, in particular, advocated to try to make sure you guys got some money there. There's so much more that needs to be done, though. You see, I mean, really the application, there's so much more that our city could be helping with and funds that we need to come in. I think it'd be helpful if we put a resolution on the next agenda, thanking the friends of the Chevalier and GMAC, Jim, for all the work that you've done over the last few decades. I, you mentioned the membership. I was, I was, I was, I was thinking about, you know, just asking everyone in the room here to sign up for a membership. I know you were very persistent with me to remind me to make sure that I signed up for it and I did sign up for it. Ken Kraus and I talk a lot whenever we see each other about what the theater needs and what the square needs in regards to the theater. the gym and its deeds. I really enjoyed, I really, I think, value that you brought up the gym as well, because I think people forget about the value of that gym. But I remember when I was young, I went, I did programs there. There are so many, so many of my friends, little brothers and sisters do programs there as well. I think I lament if the invitations to us to the annual meetings have slipped through the cracks. I know we all get a lot of invitations as councillors, and I just wanted to ask through the chair if you could send us that invitation to the annual meeting again, just to make sure we all have it in our inboxes as well. but I am grateful for the work that you all do. And I know it's not just you, and I know it's not just Ken, it's many people pulling the operation together. And I appreciate you coming here tonight to keep us accountable and keep us on our toes.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I echo my council colleagues frustration with the matter. I think Councilor Callaghan put it really well. I hear this a lot from our residents. You know, having read through the two memos from the attorneys, having read through the cases cited and the statutes at hand, I think I would recommend to the Council that we table this matter, that we seek a meeting with legal representation just to do our due diligence to figure out what these cases mean, what precedents they hold for us, and what rules we're bound to. And I would put that in the form of a motion.
[Justin Tseng]: I don't.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to quickly thank Vice President Collins for her hard work on this as well. This is something that our health department has been asking for for a while in response to the rodent problems that we've seen in our city. I know we've held many a meeting about that. We've held committee of the whole meetings about it as well. This is something that they've mentioned repeatedly as something that we can do as a city council to help tackle that problem, especially with winter coming. as you referred to in subcommittee, in committee, we really paid a lot of attention to how can we make sure that this isn't punishing people for good behavior, for hobbies, for interests, but rather focusing on the public health aspect, on the quality of life aspect of the rodent problem. And I think this ordinance strikes a very good balance with that. So I appreciate the work that you especially have put into it and our city staff have put into this as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you for putting this presentation together. I think this is a very hopeful step forward for our city. I would agree with Councilor Bears and Councilor Collins that, you know, mixed use development is what I hear from residents. that they want to see in our city. That lot in particular that we've been talking about on the corner of Bellsway West and Salem, I think that has a lot of potential for mixed use. I think the vision that Councilor Bears has laid out is something that is very enticing to me, at least individually, and I know the voters, the residents I've talked to would be interested in something like that, particularly since if we can bring in more residential units on main streets, I think a lot of residents will be much more swaged about densification, which we really need, and the need to build more housing. but balancing that with their concerns of traffic, I think, with the high-frequency bus route right there, stopping right at that corner, and with the links to Route 28, I-93 right there, I think that is quite a prime location to bring in housing. Um, I think my other note is just that, um, when it comes setbacks and setbacks, um, I just, you know, I think the flip side of the equation, I, I think I would concur with what's being what's been said by the flip side of the equation is just that might, um, reduce the space that we have for housing units, um, which we desperately need more of. I think there's a balance there, and I think you know, when we're planning it out, we just want to be, I would suggest that we be very careful with, you know, asking ourselves to be more intentional with putting in setbacks and setbacks. I think that Pittsfield's plans look very interesting to me. But I think we should make sure that we're not just putting it in there just because it's common practice. I think we want to make sure that we have to ask ourselves, does this actually make our neighborhood more walkable? Or does it actually increase the feeling of vastness? And I think that's something for us to consider going forward. But I do, in general, find these plans very interesting.
[Justin Tseng]: This is more about the voting locations. I know, Henry, you and I worked a lot a few months ago on getting the Walking Court polling location open for our residents around there. I see on this form that we have Walking Court again. Do we know if that's true for the November election? Is it the same building as it usually is?
[Justin Tseng]: I'm so happy that our hard work is continuing to work out there.
[Justin Tseng]: I was just gonna ask, is that an amendment or a B paper?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I wanted to thank both Councilor Scarpelli and President Bears for the resolutions on this. I think we all know that this is a really important issue for public health, for quality of living here in Medford. It's, as Councilor Scarpelli said, it's not just Fulton Heights. but this happening in Fulton Heights is particularly concerning because it's not the place that's used to this. South Medford and Wellington have been particularly hit hard by the rodent infestation over the last few years. Anecdotally, talking to neighbors, some of the methods we have employed seem to have been working. There is a slight decrease anecdotally talking to my neighbors about this. However, rodents are still there. I think it's really important to note that we did hold a Committee of the Whole on this a few months ago, where we had a long conversation with the Director of the Board of Health about methods that we could employ to combat this. this problem. Now, Councilor Collins has alluded to the public education piece, which really has to be a very, very big part of it. That message was reinforced over and over again at that meeting. It would be lovely to get this resolution passed, to sit down with the Director of the Board of Health and other stakeholders to get an update on those strategies, to see how we're doing, are there, what are the metrics that we're using to measure and how are we doing on those metrics? I think it's also really important to note that the council has been working really hard on this. We have a resolution coming to our, an ordinance coming to our next meeting about wildlife feeding, reduce, basically regulating that so that we're discouraging rodent behavior. Past councils have also passed ordinances tackling rodent infestations as well, which city staff have reported back with metrics showing that they have been useful.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to quickly thank everyone for coming up and speaking about this. I think everyone had something super productive to add to the conversation. I think in the future, with this resolution passed, with more meetings about this, the more voices we can get, the more advice that we can get. will be able to make some positive progress on this. I think Mr. Benedetto's statements actually reminded me of something I wanted to say, which is that I think we have to think in terms of our messaging and our strategy, we need to go in two new directions with this. One is to go more local. I know my own neighborhood held a road in control meeting, basically neighbors educating each other about the best ways to get rid of road in control now. That's something that should be less neighbors doing it and city coming in and City leaders coming in and helping organize those meetings. So the local aspect is very, very important. And as much as we can harness that organic momentum, the better. I think we also need to think bigger too and recognize that the road control problem is also a regional problem. And so the more that we can do to set up institutions where Councilors like us, city employees from Medford are working with city employees and Councilors in neighboring municipalities to deal with projects that are on the border, I think the better we can serve our residents too. So building those channels of communication I think will be really important.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. You know, I like Vice President Collins. I disagree with a lot of the premises put out there and to the best effort of Councilors to get me to vote no on this, I do intend to vote yes on this. I, you know, I do believe that the text of the resolution that's in front of us is what we have to debate. And I agree with what's being said in the resolution. I agree with greater transparency. I think it's good when we as the city council have more oversight over these issues, when we are much more to know about these issues, when we can inform our residents about what's going on. any motion that I think, any motion or resolution that reasonably increases transparency in our community is something that I would support. And so I do plan on voting yes on this. Councilor Calderon.
[Justin Tseng]: with my fellow Councilors' statement that this has maybe gone astray, I'd like to move the question. All right.
[Justin Tseng]: Present.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I think it's neither here nor there. I think I mean, I think if it's needed, then the feral cat caretakers may be the ones who, you know, that might be part of their duty or they can, you know, could be in their duty to refer this cat to someone else, right? I appreciate the work that Councilor Collins has put into this. I can tell that she's put in a lot of work, communicated across departments, as well as community stakeholders, which I think is super important. The notes that I had in previous meetings, just concerns about vagueness, all of that is addressed in this draft. I think everything's very clear, the timelines, the punishments, the enforcement, I should say, everything is very clear, I think, and fair and just. So I'm very happy to support this.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Sorry, let me get the, get the audio working. I wanted to thank Councilor Scarpelli for introducing this resolution. I knew Ms. Servini very, very well in my time at the McGlynn Middle School. You know, Councilor Scarpelli spoke a little bit to how tough she was as a teacher. And I think, you know, if you just walk past the classroom, you would think that you would see the tough teacher that she was. But I think Councilor Scarpelli also alluded to the fact that she really was there for every student. She knew what every student needed. You could ask her about any student and she could tell you individualized, you know, what her plan was with that student and how to get them to where they needed to be. And I'm not talking about math only. even though math was the subject that she taught, but I'm talking about learning how to grow up, how to mature, how to handle responsibilities. And I think that's something that really stands out in any of our memories of Ms. Irving as a teacher is how much she trusted her students to handle responsibility and to do adult tasks. How, you know, she would ask students to run errands for her in the building, to talk to administrators, to practice doing those tasks that seemed really difficult to a seventh grader. Ms. Irving will be someone I think Medford will miss a lot. And I just have this deep, deep, deep love for her and I send my condolences to her family. I wish her, you know, a happy birthday as Councilor Scarpelli did. And again, I thank Councilor Scarpelli for putting this on the agenda.
[Justin Tseng]: Sorry, could you repeat that once more?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. Lots being said tonight, and I think we need to unpack this resolution a little bit. ultimately seems like there's a legal question and political question here. And the resolution put in front of us, and the way it was put in front of us, I think, presented it as a legal question. But the comments from the Councilor proposing this resolution tonight seem to have taken it in a political direction. And You know, when it comes to that political direction, that political question, I think we've been very clear that we are audited regularly, annually by an independent auditor. And it would be quite an ask to take this one step further, given what we all know about the budget. Now, what the text of this resolution is, is a legal question. And that's how I will be making my vote tonight. You know, I think the rhetoric from some folks seems to want to back the council into a yes vote with some questions framed to get us to vote a certain way. But ultimately, because this is a legal matter, I think what truly matters here, the first question we have to ask is about the legitimacy of the allegations being charged. Is this a legitimate question? Is this the path forward, if that is the legitimate question? And why don't we just ask the AG for a legal opinion, right? I think, furthermore, on the topic of legitimacy, let's unpack this one step further. I think we've been very clear that the council rules can be suspended. This is regularly, we do this at almost every single meeting. Now, I wanna speak from my perspective, why I've voted to suspend this, because I come from a different position or I actually don't know where my other councillors stand on this, but I don't think rule 21 is a rule that pursues transparency or accountability. Let's just take that budget meeting that we're talking about. Hundreds of people attended that budget meeting in person and on Zoom, expecting us to take those votes, the budget votes and the proposition votes that night. Now, oftentimes, when we suspend rules, when we table items, I get emails and phone calls asking why we've done that, why they haven't seen a final vote on it. Residents first get confused, and then they get frustrated, and then they feel cut out of the political process because they don't understand what's going on. They've taken this time to come to a meeting. They've hired a babysitter to come in for that night. they're expected to do that two weeks later, to do that another week, to do that on and on and on. And that is not a fair ask of our residents. Now on top of that, the letter that the councilor sent to the attorney general and the state auditor didn't only mention Rule 21, but also mentioned vast general law, a certain section which I don't know off the top of my head, but has been said over and over tonight. Now, at our previous meeting, we read out that section of the law. We walked through it, clause by clause, explained it, and it was evident from the language of the law itself that it applied to getting three vote items, or three items that required three readings, voted in one night. That's what that law applies to. It's not any willy nilly thing that we pass on to the agenda that shows up as a resolution. It applies to resolutions and papers that require three votes. And that law gives city councils, it empowers city councils to pass those three reading items in one night. Now, that wasn't what the Councilor tried to apply that state law for. We tried to explain that to my fellow Councilor. And understandably, it was not heard. But I can't change what the law says. The law says what it says. It applies to that very specific case. And so ultimately, this then becomes null. It becomes void. It becomes illegitimate. Now, I think on going back to some of the questions about finances and whatnot, if we have personal questions, and Councilor Lummi explained this at the last meeting, and this is what I do, and this is what I know other councilors do. If we have questions as a city councilor about the things that we are voting on, it behooves us. We have the power to pick up our phone, to dial a number of city staff and call in and ask those questions about our city staff. And that is just part of the political process. Now, if there was a legitimate legal question here, I would be happy to vote yes. But we cannot go down the path of indecision and logjamming ourselves because of bad faith attempts to stall simple work that city councils have regularly done and regularly do, including the city council before any of us were elected. Now, if there was a real violation of the First Amendment right to free speech, I would take that as an affront to democracy. But I think folks who tune in week in and week out will find that there is no shortage of free speech in the city council, especially from my fellow city councilor. I worry that a vote forward on this would open a Pandora's box of allegations and rhetoric and tools. The spying work being done in any direction from the city council and You know, my hope is, especially given the events of the last few weeks, that we tone down our political tenor and tone down our political rhetoric to stop the finger pointing, to take a step back and learn how to disagree respectfully.
[Justin Tseng]: No.
[Justin Tseng]: The three points we put one and then like parentheses, two parentheses, three parentheses. Okay. Or we could also break it down into smaller little points, but I don't know if that will fit on the page.
[Justin Tseng]: There was one thing that I wanted to, substance-wise, I think you and Councilor Callaghan had met with the Brazilian population, right, and had a listening group session. I think that would be worth mentioning in resident services. And I don't know if we covered the senior center listing session in the last newsletter, but if we didn't, then this would be a good place to mention it as well.
[Justin Tseng]: I think either would work.
[Justin Tseng]: While we're on this topic, would, Carolyn, would you be comfortable summarizing some of what you did here from the two listening sessions?
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. I mean, I think, I mean, my interpretation of laws, it's fine because we're already talking about it. I think it's a natural place for discussion, but I also don't want to step on anyone's toes. And I think it makes sense to have a formal paper number if you want that or a formal you know, have that be on the agenda for sure.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, that makes sense. And, you know, if we're worried about, um, , I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point
[Justin Tseng]: I think it looks fine, but if you could just keep the edits up on the screen for me to, the new stuff up on the screen for me to quickly look through. Do you have a link to the? I have the link, but it doesn't show, because we don't have edit access, it doesn't show these recommendations.
[Justin Tseng]: Just a small grammar point in the methadone point. Instead of saying it, because the thing's plural. So the third line, it says to account for it. But we're talking about licenses, permits, and zoning. Them or these factors, yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: No worries. I'm pending any further remarks. I'd like to move to approve this for distribution.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, thank you. Thank you for putting this on the agenda for this meeting, Chair Leming. This is my resolution, so I feel like I should introduce it real quick. I think we generally know what I'm talking about here, but I was thinking we could make a short one pager where introducing what we do and how we work as a city council to residents. This is something that we've heard in public participation over the last few meetings. Sometimes people get a little confused about, you know, when we take a vote, why can't we have public participation after that? It's because it's disposed of, you know, basic things like that, the order of a meeting, what Robert's rules are, you know, what it means to talk through the chair. There's some, you know, big basic frequently asked questions that we get that we could find a way to organize on to a one pager that we put out in the audience and we leave some copies up here with Larry during the meetings for residents to access and that we can post on the city website. I think our rules document is very comprehensive, but also very, you know, I don't think residents have the time or nor the energy to read through our whole rules document. So, I was thinking that we could put together something short. I was also thinking that for the translations, we can work with community liaisons and translators in our community to create that doc. I'd be happy to be the one to put this together, but I wanted to make sure that this was put on the agenda tonight so I could solicit feedback from all my fellow Councilors about what are some important points to put on this document. Councilor Callahan.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay. Would you be, I'm just thinking about the drafting. Would it be reasonable to have something like, not way too colorful, but a little color for the digital version and then something that prints well on black and white? I guess my,
[Justin Tseng]: name of the game here it doesn't necessarily have to be pretty but it does have to be like okay if a person is holding this piece of paper they can kind of get the gist of what's going on yeah i would agree i don't think they're mutually exclusive so i guess what if you're comfortable with it what i could do is create a digital version one that's designed for digital and one that's designed for um in-person use, they wouldn't be very different. But for example, maybe the digital one has hyperlinks to like an FAQ or something, whereas the printed one is just the bare basics of what we're trying to express. And you know, with the digital, maybe you'd have blue for hyperlinks or something.
[Justin Tseng]: I totally, I think you're, I think you may be expecting that I'm going to create something masterful and colorful and I assure you, I do not have that.
[Justin Tseng]: I may be sitting in Kit's seat right now.
[Justin Tseng]: No. Okay. No, we should definitely design for black and white printing. Yeah. Chair? For sure. Councilor Callahan.
[Justin Tseng]: So, Yeah, I think the goal should, I think we should set the goal of still trying to put everything on one page, but I guess, it seems like we're in agreement that if it becomes unwieldy, then creating a second one-pager might make sense, and separating out, like, if this is your first time at a city council meeting versus, like, maybe something along the lines of, like, purview and stuff like that. I think that makes sense.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think that makes sense. I think that's a good idea. And you mentioned earlier on in the meeting that this is something that You've heard a little bit about in your listening sessions that sometimes folks come to City Hall and they don't really know which office to go to. They find it a little confusing. I think that makes a lot of sense. I think in terms of workflow, it might make sense for us to start with the City Council first, and then whether it's a new paper number or it's continued on this paper number, it might have to be a new paper number. that we create something for City Hall as well. And I think that makes sense. I did want to ask the committee whether you all thought that there was an organized way to solicit feedback. or solicit requests from the public about what they would like to see on the one pager. I was thinking as an individual Councilor, I could post on my social media or on Reddit or something, a Google form asking for, you know, what would you be interested in seeing? But I don't know if that's the most accessible way or the most, the best way to solicit. Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: I, you know, earlier on this in this meeting, I thought you were trying to do some big government regulation on the colors that we could use for the guy. No, I'm kidding. But um, but I think, I think both. comments have been said make a lot of sense. We could do that on like a city council social media account. And then also I could just individually solicit feedback as well. I think it does make sense to have something first and then to ask for feedback on it. I guess I'm thinking about procedure. I actually think that approach makes more sense. I'm just thinking about procedurally in city council, how that would go about. Cause we would probably vote this out favorably and then get the city council to approve it. I think that's what would have to happen. And then for us to edit it, then I'd have to present a new paper number, which seems a little bit cumbersome of a process. I am curious if Councilor Callaghan has any thoughts about this.
[Justin Tseng]: I guess what we could do is we could try to do both. We could try to put out like an initial ask for requests for input, and then try to incorporate that over the next month, and then after let's say a few months, instead of maybe doing a formal request for feedback on the doc, just generally see organically if there's any feedback for edits and then revisit in a few months if we need to and create a new paper number for it.
[Justin Tseng]: I think that makes a lot of sense. I mean, I'm down for it. I think it is more streamlined in terms of like the, in a whole perspective view of it. It's just maybe a few more steps on the city council side of introducing paper numbers and stuff like that. But that's not a problem with me either.
[Justin Tseng]: I would just motion to let this committee authorize that I create a draft and that I present the draft before the next committee meeting. I'm thinking timeline, it might make sense workload wise for me to have a draft on attached to the agenda for the next meeting and to have councilors send feedback through the chair or to me or through the clerk to me before that meeting so I can incorporate it into a draft. So Annie, did you get the entirety of that motion? I'm totally ready. We can just say have the committee authorize Councilor Tseng to create a draft before the next committee meeting and to solicit feedback through the clerk's office before that meeting as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. So under the governance committees section in the governing agenda, there are basically two big projects. The first one is the update to the city charter. Second one listed is the elections department oversight report and recommendations. I'll take the latter first. On that we met I believe we met twice on it once with members of the Elections Commission to review the findings of the post-mortem after the 2023 election. And at that meeting, we got to talk to Nina Nazarian, our chief of staff, who was at the time helping take over the Elections Department after our last elections manager left. there was a decently, you know, informative meeting and I think the committee decided that we would give the new elections manager time to settle into the role and to basically promise, help the elections department get the resources they needed in the future. So that is basically at least with the 2023 election oversight report and recommendations, completed that. And we recognize that it's a continuous process as well. So we will likely check back in closer to the next few elections. With the updates to the city charter, we had wanted to start this project a little sooner in May, May or June. We've been trying to work with the mayor's office on this. There've been some complications on that front. One of them being that the call-in center, who we like to help give us documents and present to us, is not contracted to meet with us. So that's something that the mayor has told me that she will work on. But the mayor's office has told me that they will also get us documents that they've presented to the and Charter Review Committee as well to help us kick start our meetings. I think we have a goal of starting somewhere in the summer or early fall. With it, the chair, one of the co-chairs of the Charter Review Commission has also told me that they will likely have a draft charter ready in September or October, but it's the preference of the Governance Committee to get started on this a little bit earlier, given the length of this project.
[Justin Tseng]: Second.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Thank you. Mr. Lincoln's efforts, I think, have really put the Brooks Estate on the map in Medford. His work, people don't see it, but behind the scenes, he's spending so much time going to events, informing people about MBEL, about the Brooks Estate, giving tours to Councilors, giving tours to the public. His work, I think, will be dearly missed by, and the next person will have huge shoes to pull. Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng. Thank you. I really can't beat the city clerk's words, but Sylvia, I think you're the person I think of when I think of the clerk's office. You've been there since day dot. And when I walk in and I see your smile and I see you at your desk, it really lifts my mood in my day, no matter how a meeting in City Hall has gone that day. go on, you know, family trips, I always make sure to bring something small back for the clerk's office. And I always think that would still be appreciated. You truly are the bedrock of the clerk's office. I've heard it said that the clerk's office is like the front desk. for City Hall. So many people interact with the clerk's office. So many people come to you and ask questions about where to go in City Hall, where to find services. And you're always there with a smiling face day after day, helping our residents. And I think that service, that long career of service to our residents should really be highly esteemed and really highly celebrated.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng. Thank you. I think Councilor Collins really got at it by, you know, talking about how bittersweet it is to both celebrate the retirements of two lovely individuals, but also, you know, how much, you know, we'll miss after. Janice is, you know, one of those people who really has helped keep the clerk's office running. She's really, you know, as Councilor Scarpellioli said in the last statement, the clerk's office has really been, the engines have been in gear through thick and thin. And Janice is a big reason why we've been able to keep moving forward as a city. So I'm so deeply grateful to Janice and to her service for all of our residents. Truly, she does so much. Our clerks team is so remarkable and I'm gonna be very sad to miss both Janice and Sylvia.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. Mrs. Lasky was my fourth grade teacher. She is such a legendary teacher that even before I made it to fourth grade, she was the cool teacher that everyone wanted to be in her class. She did so many creative activities with students. I remember she used to run classroom elections, and everyone got really excited and involved. And even if you didn't get a spot, I think you felt a buy-in into the classroom. You felt like you were part of a group of people working together and building a community. That's something that she did so, so well. I think I remember It's so funny. I remember after a parent-teacher meeting that I wasn't at, she gave my parents really outside-of-the-box tips for how to get me out of my shell and how to get me more comfortable just making friends and speaking out for myself. And those tips, I think, have carried through with me through the years. And I hope I've done you well. Another, I think, amazing moment was when Mrs. Lasky brought in her husband, Fred, to teach us about the MWRA and to teach us so much about how the water system works here in Medford and why water conservation is important. And it's small memories like that that I think really lead to the happiness of a childhood. It's all those nostalgic memories that we look At least I'm looking back on a lot recently with all these retirements. Mrs. Lasky, thank you for your service. Thank you for your 25 years of service to the Medford Public Schools and for helping them since 2001. You mean so, so much, not just to me, but to so many members of our community. I really want to both celebrate this moment, and to say that I will be sad that when I go back to the McGlynn, I won't see you there. But I know I will see you around Medford, and I look forward to seeing you around a lot more often now.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to bolster, you know, you had mentioned that I think it's really important to say that we shouldn't mistake caution for support. You know, I think a number of us on the city council have been really cautious with what we've said in the last two weeks because of what our legal counsel and because what our policy experts have advised us to be careful to say in a public forum. But I have, you know, encouraged folks to, make phone calls to me to discuss this issue, because I think that you'd be surprised to find that I see this issue very similarly as a lot of you all. I came in planning to support, and I did, you know, by a 6-1 vote, we did pass Councilor Scarpelli's resolution. I agree with Councilor Berrios' comment that this wasn't the best location for this project and it wasn't the best process for the project, and I appreciate that Councilor Scarpelli put forward a resolution to help us reform the process. There's been a lot said about the notifications and the transparency and the outreach of the process. I spent hours on phone calls last week with city staff, including with the director of planning, who promised soon a better outreach and transparency process, particularly involving the city council, so we can help get out the word better too. Something that we are meeting tomorrow night in resident services, the resident services committee is creating a user guide for city council to make our rules clearer and more accessible, especially if this is your first time coming to a city council meeting. So those are just some points I wanted to bring up just to clarify and to bolster. Thank you. Name and address for the record please, you have three minutes.
[Justin Tseng]: Any other comments, Councilor Tseng, um, I just wanted to thank you for your patience tonight and for coming here. So, you know, with so much, so many materials for us to review before the meeting and to look at during the meeting as well. And for being so prepared for our questions, um, I don't look for at all, um, five minute walk at most, if not three minute walk, I'm quite excited about this because I've always believed that our history in Medford is something that makes us unique and makes us stand out as a city even in such a historic area. I think Medford's history is so rich and to be able to protect it in the physical manner I think is so important. So I'm happy to support. I understand that there are concerns to talk through and I would respect that as well. But I wanted to thank you for your work.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanna say I'm excited for it. Councilor Tseng, sorry. I'm excited for this. I think our community needs this. We need to assess our needs and the feasibility of a project that so many residents have been asking for. Great, motion's on the floor.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Thank you. And Councilor Callahan. Thank you, Chief of Staff Nazarian. Agree or disagree with the specifics of the plan, I have to say it's really quite remarkable that in my time following it for politics, this is the first time I've seen a free cash plan laid out for the next few years like this in such a transparent manner, inviting us as a city council to take part in that. I really appreciate that effort. I think it really needs to be said. I think the plan also exemplifies the fact that we are spending this on one-time expenses, right? This is the sustainable way to do it. I know Councilors have been reiterating that message all night. It also highlights the fact that as much as I've advocated for using parts of it on recurring costs to cover one year, if we followed certain proposals, we would just be pushing the deadline, the cliff off by a year, right? And we need to make difficult decisions now. Very shortly, I think there are two core lessons that we've been hearing tonight. These lessons are why I would support this. The first one is being, you know, free cash should be used on one time expenses, rather than recurring because we can't count on them. We can't count on the number for the future. The second lesson being that, um, free cash needs to be certified, and oftentimes that process can take many, many months, usually until the spring, but we can't say for sure. God forbid something awful happens in our city that we need that free cash for, we need to put money into the Stable Legislation Fund for us to take, to be able to cover that expense, for us to fix that problem. And if we don't vote this through tonight, we don't have that money. So that problem could be left, we could be left out to dry for a very long time. And I think one additional note for the city council is that this actually gives us more say in how the money is spent as well. When we take money from the stabilization fund, the city council will have to approve that. And I think that gives us an additional level of oversight that we haven't had before. So I'm in support of this. That's why I seconded both the BPAPE and the paper.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng? I'm in favor of it for many of the reasons that Councilor Collins, Vice President Collins mentioned. I was curious if you had any clear departments or positions that you had in mind for now, or if those is just like a proactive.
[Justin Tseng]: Any further comments, Councilor Tseng? I have to say I'm still making my mind up, but to your point, if you're thinking about it that way, then we should recognize that the raised cost for the school committee is basically just a little bit over 2% over those last almost 20 years. And it's off of a baseline that's much smaller, right? And so it's still 2%, right? And she's still doing whoever the mayor is, the mayor, whoever serves in that position is still doing those two legally separate roles. So if you're thinking about it like that, I would just urge you to use that logic to apply if I don't know if I'm making sense to you, but I'm just saying the baseline, the base number is different. And so, you know, whilst we can say that the chair of the school committee did receive a raise. we should think of that as separate from the mayoral role, because they are just two completely separate entities with two completely different salaries. I'm just putting that out there. I'm still making my mind up on it, but if I'm understanding your line of thinking, I would urge you to think that way as well. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Let's call the roll. President Bears. Present. Councilor Callahan. Present. Councilwoman. Present. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli is absent. Vice President Collins.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I think my recommendations are similar to Councilor Callahan's. Housing is my first priority. On the climate front, I think it makes sense given where our carbon emissions do come from to attack the buildings and energy. So top two for me. And then going after that, the walkability aspect of things, the accessible 12 and 18 hour communities is up there, although I think multi-modal networks does tackle that as well. I would put the mobility one as my fourth.
[Justin Tseng]: if I may, I think that makes a lot of sense. And I actually think that point actually includes a lot of what Councilor Callahan and I were thinking about buildings and energy as well. So, I mean, if it matters, you can update and replace the buildings energy thing in my lists with the 2022 climate action adaptation plan.
[Justin Tseng]: Present.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Bears, President Bears, for putting this on the agenda. If you look at the year of graduation, 2024, if you do the math and subtract four, you'll realize that these folks entered high school during the pandemic, during the early days of the pandemic. I think it's a testament to their hard work and to the hard work of their teachers as well, that they've made it through and are going really spectacular places. If you look at the futures of our students, a lot of them are taking on great technical work. They're great students who are going to top universities in this country. I think it really highlights and showcases what Medford can be when we pull together. despite the difficult circumstances, despite unideal circumstances, we can still really make an impact on this world. So I'm really proud of these students. I know Councilor Bears and I both had the opportunity to read a bunch of scholarship essays for a scholarship, and it was so hard, harder than, you know, than ever to choose scholarship winners because the work that these students are doing in class and outside of class, their leadership in extracurricular activities, community service, giving back to Medford is really just remarkable. So thank you for putting this on.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. As everyone I think in this room knows, this has not been an easy budget season, not an easy budget year. We knew about this for many, many years now. I'll be frank with you, this budget is imperfect. As I think, as you acknowledge in your statements, and before we got your final proposal, before we got the additional context, which Vice President Collins reminded us about, I was ready to vote no on it if I was uncomfortable with it. The additional papers that you've sent that have been put on the agenda, I think provide the context that I need to feel more comfortable voting for this budget. It's not enough, like you said. We need to do better by our schools. I ran on a platform that was mostly around increasing school funding. It's one of the two core reasons why I got into local politics in the first place. As a student, I really benefited from a lot of the programs that we have been talking about for the last few months that have been at risk of being cut. I'm happy that the ARPA supplement in this budget helps us keep a lot of those programs, or at least gives us the option to keep a lot of those programs. And I think maybe even more importantly, the override questions chart a long-term stable path towards financial health for our school system. I think that's really important to mention. I think you and I, we've had a lot of conversations about using free cash, one-time funds. Sometimes we've agreed, sometimes we haven't. And to explain to the residents, a lot of our conversations go along the lines of, I'm trying to push you to spend more in free cash, and you're pushing back against it. And I think you do actually have a reason. I think it's important to tell the public that. When we use free cash, that's a one-time fund for recurring positions. And we need to find a way to wean off of those one-time funds, particularly in order to keep our bond rating high. We know that we are on a path to build a new high school. We have a lot of big projects coming up and we need better bond ratings to save money for our city in the long term for those projects. And so it's reasonable to me, and it's not fun, but it's reasonable to me to use the ARPA supplement that you proposed and to pair it with the override questions. I think oftentimes reasonable governance, rational governance, and responsible governance isn't fun. It's not sexy. It's oftentimes really, you know, forces us to make really difficult decisions. I think in those circumstances, it's really important to return the right of those decisions to the voters. I think that gets back to the override question. I think we have to remember that the question that we're facing as a council today is whether we present these questions to the voters in November. We're not voting on the increase, right? We're sending it to the voters. And I've always told the residents whose doors I've knocked on, whose phones I've called, and I actually got this the first day it was canvassing about four years ago in Wellington. What would you do about a prop two and a half override? And I said back then, agree or disagree with it, the most just decision is the democratic decision. It's to leave it to the voters. I have my feelings on it. I'm sure you do. But it's the responsibility of the electorate to make that decision ultimately. As you acknowledged, it's a difficult choice for a lot of folks to make. But I think governance is about making difficult choices. It's about making choices that cause debate and debate is a part of democracy. You know, we can't avoid it and we shouldn't avoid it because avoiding it is what got us here in the first place. The health of our city financially is not due to one budget. It's not due to any one budget or any one council, any one mayor. It's due to a general approach that we've taken as a city for decades. We found ourselves in a position that's difficult to, you know, focus on new growth and have that plug in all the holes that we need. And that is what our council is doing. Earlier tonight, we passed our first step in our zoning recodification phase. And that's focused, like you said, on the new growth, on bringing in a larger tax base for our city so that we won't have to be forced to make decisions like this. I've also always told residents that the override is the last option that we have to resort to. But the facts of the economic reality of the situation is that we've been cutting budgets to the bone and then some. And I think this year's budget conversations really exemplify that. Our skeleton budget's been cut so much that it can't really stand up on its own. I think that's why we need to make these difficult decisions and to pose these questions to the voters, to have them choose. I, you also mentioned, I think really importantly, this idea that our residents are demanding more, and I think they're right to demand more. Every conversation I have on the doors, you know, we're talking about problems our city is facing, and it's heartbreaking to go budget season after budget season, door after door, to tell them we don't have the money for that, we're working on a plan, but it'll take years for that new growth money to come in. And, you know, we have to be realistic about the timeline of new growth. It takes more than one day for a building to be built. And we need this money to plug the hole now. You've also mentioned a lot of the growth that is happening in Medford. I'll push back a little. I think we can be doing more as a city. But the fact of the matter, according to the Boston Foundation, we have, as a percentage of prior permits, Medford is by far the leader in the Boston area for permitting new housing. That is something to keep in mind. We are working on it. We're not where we need to be, but we are working on it. I think, you know, ultimately every budget conversation revolves around the question of fiscal responsibility. It's not fiscally responsible when we're cutting budgets so much that we have city departments that aren't operating at the level that they need to be operating at. It's not fiscal responsibility when parents have to decide whether to send their kids to private school and to spend thousands on tuition because they can't get the specialists, the programs, the teachers that they need for their kids to succeed in our public school system. It's not fiscally responsible when our firefighters are operating out of really the dilapidated fire headquarters in Medford Square. It's not fiscally responsible when residents have to spend hundreds of dollars every year, year after year, because our potholes are so bad that they feel like a roller coaster. And the whole budget process in the last few years, this year has been calmer because of the collaboration, but the whole budget process oftentimes feels like a rollercoaster ride. I think that these override questions do stabilize our city a bit. And they give us a chance, a fighting chance to not only succeed, but to thrive as a city. So to all the residents who are tuning in tonight, you may have the override questions, the choice is yours. But I ask you to consider one thing. I ask you to vote for someone you don't know. Vote for the kid who needs the literacy coaches. Vote for the drivers who need better roads. Vote for the parents that need to talk to guidance staff, the school nurses, the arts, the families that need the arts programs to have their kids thrive. Vote for a future where our city shares and saves costs where we share our burdens and save money in the long run. And where our finances are more stable and where I can go to you, our residents and say, yes, we can work on that project. Let me get, let me get that done for you. So I yield my time.
[Justin Tseng]: This is a very, you know, happy occasion for the Caribbean American members of our community. There's not much I'm going to say that isn't repeating what Vice President Collins has already said, but we have a very vibrant Haitian community here, very vibrant Puerto Rican American community here, in addition to a lot of other Caribbean nations whose immigrants have come to America and called Medford home. This is in the spirit of making everyone feel and feel accepted as a part of our community. I'm very excited to celebrate this month with all of our neighbors.
[Justin Tseng]: Present.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Last week I was in City Hall for meetings and I bumped into Rick on his runs to help an elderly tenant stay in her home and help her find a place to live. And I think that really exemplifies, even though you're not on this side of the rail, your service to the city is never ceasing. And so I'm deeply, deeply grateful for your for your service to Medford, for your commitment to our city and all of our residents, and for your mentorship during my first term on the city council when we were both sitting over there. We don't always agree on issues, but I honestly think that folks need to hear us talk about things because I think there's so much agreement that we have, so many values that we share, a vision for Medford that I think folks need to know that we share. And I'm so happy that you're staying involved in our city. And again, a lot of respect, a lot of gratitude to the work that you've done for us.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Vice President Collins, for introducing this resolution. We all know that the last few years, it's beyond this last year. Ever since 2016, anti-Semitism has been on the rise in our country due to extremist voices enabling and normalizing rhetoric. Now, I really want to thank Councilor Collins and your efforts to root out anti-Semitism in our community. I remember one of the first resolutions you introduced as a city councilor was to get the mayor's office to properly address an anti-Semitic incident and to set up institutions to deal with that. We've made some progress. We haven't made all the progress we've wanted, but I think it shows, you know, your leadership on this issue that you've brought this to light. Similarly, you were the first Councilor on the scene when a anti-Semitic piece of graffiti was painted on one of our, you know, on the streets of Medford, very unfortunately. And I want to commend you for your leadership, again, for bringing that to light and for focusing on the injustices in our community.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. This month is Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, AAPI Heritage Month for short. This is one of the fastest growing communities in our country, let alone in our city. I think we see it all around us, new restaurants and bubble tea shops and everything coming in. Asian Americans are really picking up a big part of our local economy. They're contributing in our school system as we've seen in previous meetings. And this is a month to celebrate that history, that heritage here in Medford and in our country. We've taken a lot of strides towards equity in our city in the last few years. I know I have a resolution later on in the agenda about for asking for updates on efforts the city is taking to better include Asian Americans in the policymaking process. But this resolution is just celebratory. Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: I want to thank Councilor Scarpelli for putting this on the agenda. We owe our peaceful existence here to the sacrifices that have come decades before us and even today, to our military. I'm deeply grateful for this resolution because I think it highlights our city council's dedication to the men and women who served our country. And I think it highlights the work that we've been doing as a city council to tackle issues for veterans, to better serve them, and to tackle real social issues that veterans face, you know, in terms of employment and housing in our city. You know, these are issues that this council takes very seriously. I know Councilor Leming has been leading a lot of that work, so I want to thank him as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I'll give a very short presentation or description. So at our first meeting this term, I noted that one big thing that we would be working on big picture wise on this council would be transparency and reform. And, you know, meeting a few weeks ago, some residents suggested that we create a resident's guide to City Council to demystify some of the processes and to make it really clear what happens when a paper is introduced onto the agenda. What do these committees mean? How often do they meet? A real simple user's guide. And so in the spirit of transparency, reform, and inclusion. I think that this would move our city council forward and make our work much more accessible.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Months ago, I was talking to City staff, and they informed me of efforts to find grant funding to create an Asian American community liaison position. The community liaison program is a point of pride for our city. It's something that other municipalities look at Medford as inspiration, and they look to us for our leadership on this issue on engaging communities that have been traditionally cut out and left out of the political process. You know, a lot of this stuff is just about improving city communications with folks who might not know how to interact with city institutions. The update that I got back then was that we've put in paperwork, we've put in applications for grant funding. We haven't heard, at least I haven't heard as a Councilor much since, but given that it is Asian American Heritage Month, I thought that this would be a great opportunity to bring this back to the spotlight. Asian Americans do make up 13% of our city's population, it makes up the largest minority group in the city, and we need to find a way to better involve everyone in the decision-making process. Again, we've been making strides. We're far past the days of stop Asian hate and the cases being reported on elder violence, but there's still a lot of work to be done to engage our BIPOC communities here.
[Justin Tseng]: It's my understanding that under Mass general law, the first part is fine. So we can talk top line numbers. We can talk line item numbers for city departments. Um, except that it runs afowl of mass general, uh, chapter 71 section 34 to talk about line items first in the school's budget before formal, um. before a formal budget is presented to us because we are impeding on the authority of the school committee to determine expenditures within the total appropriation. And that's quote from the law.
[Justin Tseng]: No.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm going to stand here until I log on.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, ma'am.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, sorry. The audio for me cut out for a second, for a minute.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Sorry, I was on mute. I would agree with Councilor Callaghan. Really, I like how personable this is. I think sometimes maybe we should refrain a little bit from, as much as possible, from personal commentary, or even if it's a council commentary on an issue, I think we need to walk the line. And I think what Councilor Callahan brought up is an example of that.
[Justin Tseng]: Sorry, I meant to lower my hand, but now that you did call on me. I have some more specific lines to take out, or one specific line to take out, I think that's also in the commentary vein. I think regardless of our views on the success of certain city programs, I think we should be careful about talking about them that way. And so the line that's highlighted, I would prefer if we took it out just for neutrality. And because what? We don't know if we're expanding the BWC program, the body one standard program. I think there's a set plan for it. And I personally wouldn't necessarily call that an expansion or using it more widely, but I digress. I think similarly, there was a bullet point about the budget. budget ordinance earlier on in the document. I do actually think we can push that one. I think the one I meant was at the 30th, April 30th meeting, the final vote was taken to make the budget ordinance law. And if I think it would still be helpful if we provide one sentence about what that budget ordinance is. So it's essentially like the fact that it's creating a new and earlier budget schedule for the mayor. So I am seeing that there's actually a repeat line. It's not really a. I did notice that, and I think if there's a way to restructure it so that, I mean, I personally don't have a very specific suggestion, but to restructure a little bit. I think it's just when you read the budget ordinance bullet point, it's not entirely clear what it is, but then I guess there is context above. I don't know if the committee has any suggestions for that.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, I was just gonna say that I agree with that take. I don't think that there's no place for it. I think in the future, when this becomes more established, I would agree that we can find a place for it. I think just in the beginning, hearing on the side of caution makes a lot of sense. Councilor Calderon.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay, okay. Councilor Tseng. I would just advise in that case that we err on the side of caution. I was going to say that I supported the motion. And for folks who may be tuning in, I don't think there are many folks tuning in right now, but for folks who are tuning in, we worked through a lot of logistical planning. when it came to the listening sessions at our subcommittee meeting, and having planned a lot of what we needed to do together out, disbanding it at this point makes more sense for scheduling, as Councilor Callahan said. With that being said, I would, with the clerk's advice, I would err on the side of caution. I think we have one listening session lined up for pretty soon, and we'll have more, Um, we'll have more in the future after we meet again in committee in this committee. Um, there might be one listening session that we schedule. I could be wrong, but we might have time for one more before this committee meets again, but I think it should be all right. Okay. Um, council Zara.
[Justin Tseng]: I believe it's spelled correctly. I think it's just, uh... I think you're thinking judgment, which has no E.
[Justin Tseng]: What? Sorry, if I may, I have a question. Do we need a motion to allow you to add in links if we want to add in links to different ordinances?
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll yield to Councilor Leming first, but I do have some questions.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I think in general, I'm open to this idea. I have questions about it, and I think a lot of it is, a lot of my support will hinge on the details of the proposal. I think my first question is to Councilor Fleming. Am I understanding it correctly that doing this process is a necessary first step for us to have a conversation about the details of what a vacancy tax would look like. So in terms of like, we need to do this first before we can meet as a council to talk about what percentage or what, you know, what the fee is and what the exemptions are.
[Justin Tseng]: I think it's, if I can, in summary, I think it's, it is helpful to know that, you know, even if I don't necessarily agree with all of the details of a proposed tax in the future, even if we disagree on the viewpoint, a vote tonight is just to give us tools in the toolbox to consider. I do have some of the same worries that the economic development director has about this proposal. I do actually have, you know, questions that are more detailed about those. And I think if I can, I'll direct them through the chair to the economic development director. I also agree with Councilor Levin that we need to be exploring both sticks and carrots in this situation, expanding the tools that we have. I hear, I am, you know, the idea that we, the landlord might seek the first person to fill that sore front is a concern I have in my mind. I'm curious if that's something we can mitigate through the zoning process. So making sure that we are not allowing for certain uses that we don't want in our business districts. Is the economic development director able to speak to that?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Director. Councilor Sainte. I think the director's comments lead me to the next question is, you know, even if we have worries about unintended consequences with this, with the proposed new system, I think it's clear that one of the unintended consequences of the current system is, is landlords keeping their properties vacant, storefronts vacant. for tax write-off purposes, and I think we would all agree that that's an unintended consequence. And so I do see this as a potential way to address that by changing costs and addressing negative externalities. I'm curious what the director would have to say to other policy tools that we might use to address that problem of landlords keeping their storefronts vacant for tax write-off purposes.
[Justin Tseng]: Any questions? Councilor Tsengh. Thank you. Would you be able to speak to the community liaison program if we're going to be able to keep that on?
[Justin Tseng]: I'm glad to hear that. I think that was one of the priorities of the council, as well as hiring, making sure we were able to hire a prevention outreach coordinator. I'm very happy to hear that we've made a lot of progress on that, that we'll have someone starting. I'm excited to welcome them to Medford. I think that's all I have for now. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: Very quickly, because we've already had meetings on this topic, but I know some residents are curious. On the topic of rodent prevention, we're working on ordinances on our front to help with that. Your office has been doing a lot. Does this budget allow you to keep doing the work that you need to do to work on education and mitigation when it comes to rodents?
[Justin Tseng]: Point of information, I have a question about this. I kind of think we're talking past each other and asking different questions and answering different questions. I think the question is, if the mayor allocated $79 million, could we use that money to bring everyone back on the payroll?
[Justin Tseng]: And say, let's say, I think. I don't think we're gonna make commitments. No, no, no, we're not gonna make commitments. I do think Councilor Scarpelli's question is being lost and the response is not helping.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll be really quick. Um, I think I do agree with everything that's been that the President just said, um, I am very grateful to Superintendent Edward prison and director queue for the hard work that you've been putting into this budget season. I'm also very grateful to the school community. I know we have a few members in the audience tonight for the work that they've been doing for the last two budget meetings. And I've had a lot of constituents write in today saying that the work that you all did to explain the budget last night was very, very helpful. And I want to make sure that that effort doesn't go unmentioned. I'm supportive. I support the $79.4 million that the school committee recommended for the school's budget. I know that The proposed cuts are painful, and I've been a student in many of the programs mentioned, and that's something that I'll fight for. I've made it the cornerstone of my campaign to run for city council, and I think I can speak for every city councillor behind the rail that we will do our best to fight for as much money for the schools as we can get. I think that's, you know, we're on record doing it in the last few years. We've added millions of dollars to the school budget. We're going to keep fighting, and I believe in our council to do our best to try to reconcile everything. Thank you, any further questions by members of the council? Mr. President, if I can. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Justin Tseng]: Sure, let me, if I may. I mean, I agree with everything that's been said. I just, I had a quick question for Councilor Callahan before we, like, moved into the more specific stuff about scheduling. So, for the file that you are thinking about sending around, does that have kind of guidelines of how we should run these meetings, like, best practices for developing questions and structuring the meeting?
[Justin Tseng]: While we're working on that, I think something to think about is who's going to be the one thinking about the questions that we want to center these conversations around. I mean, obviously we'll work with liaisons to do it, but I think it might make sense for each of these meetings if one of us were the lead for each meeting, and then to have that person work with, for example, a community liaison or the director of council of aging or something and work on work on those questions at least to center the discussion a little bit.
[Justin Tseng]: Great. I think that makes a lot of sense. Yeah, I think that's that's basically the the stuff I had The logistics I thought we should work out first before we talked about all the other groups that we want to work with. Do we know who is going to be present at the senior center listening session?
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think that makes sense. I just wanted to have at least one meeting of the subcommittee together so we can work out these logistics. I think we were being very cautious also with a lot of the subcommittee work, but I think the work that a lot of what we are currently talking about if Mr. Clerk you can correct me on this is scheduling related and so it's not necessarily it's not subject to open meeting law.
[Justin Tseng]: Great. Yeah, I think tonight is helpful to orient ourselves since we haven't had a meeting explicitly on it yet. And I think it's easier to work on this in a smaller group. But I would be willing to support the the motion to stand after if we feel that we're in a good space.
[Justin Tseng]: I was wondering if you had the list of nine.
[Justin Tseng]: I think there'll be overlap with, so this is going back to the groups that we should reach out to if this is okay. I think there will be overlap with the working with the communities on African American communities, but I do think reaching out to the West Medford Community Center would make sense as well. Seeing as it's, I mean, it is more of a neighborhood thing, but obviously they're very tied in with the historically black community in West Medford. Maybe that's a meeting we work with to folks on using the space of the West Medicare Community Center, but working with the community to do it. I also think there's potential, I would say we should do this further down the line when we have more experience with these meetings, but reaching out to Asian American communities can be really good. I know the city is talking about, the city is trying to, oh great, the city The city is currently applying for grant money to get an Asian American liaison. But, you know, applying for grants is different from having the money. And, you know, I think we should give it a few months, see where we're at with that application process. If it doesn't work, I know community activists in neighboring communities, like Malden, for example, that have been working with Chinese American communities in both Malden and Medford. And they have experience doing this, the listening session model in Malden, and so perhaps they would have contacts of how to do that here in Medford, especially since a lot of the Asian American community is concentrated in East Medford near Malden, so it might make sense to work with them. I think another way to reach the Asian-American community is through the ICCM, the mosque in the city. We have a really large Pakistani and Bangladeshi population and a lot of them frequent the mosque. So putting them on the list to work with, I think, would also make a lot of sense.
[Justin Tseng]: It's all right, I can send you the list of additions after the meeting as well. I think it might make sense for the chair to have a spreadsheet, but if we're disbanding this and we're going back to the Res Services Committee, then three of us can't share on it, unless it's for scheduling. But I think it just becomes a little more complicated. I think the chair holds the document and the chair organizes, basically. If that's okay with you.
[Justin Tseng]: Right.
[Justin Tseng]: And then- Yes, yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Right. I just want to put these on the list now, but I totally agree.
[Justin Tseng]: ICCM and then this may overlap with the communities on for African American communities, but the West Central Community Center got that. That might just end up, you know, we might talk to the community liaison and she might suggest that we just fold it into one. I think that would make a lot of sense.
[Justin Tseng]: Which would also make sense. So we should defer to, you know, or work with her on that. And then I think next year, at some point, once we really have things down pat, we can think about neighborhoods that aren't necessarily represented on the City Council or haven't had the Habitat City Council representation in a while. I know with this new make of City Council, a lot of the neighborhoods that have traditionally been left out are now represented. But as I think, A few of our Councilors may have experienced, especially when you're in a place like Wellington, a lot of folks there do feel left out. They haven't had a Councilor representing them for three and a bit years. trying to find something to set up there would make a lot of sense, but I do think it would be logistically more complicated and more involved. And so that's why I suggested something that we hold off until we feel much more comfortable.
[Justin Tseng]: I think that makes sense. I think we reach out to, for example, a community, as I would say, between the months of July and October, which months, is there a good time for us to do a meeting like this? And then I think, naturally, they'll respond, and we can continue as the chair.
[Justin Tseng]: the two high school sites.
[Justin Tseng]: It could be interesting. I mean, we can work on it. Yeah, I think with the high school TEFs, thinking about the community liaisons, there's so many of them, so we can split them up. I do know a few of them very well, so I can work with them as well. I could do Portuguese. Okay. I know the Arabic speaking and the Haitian speaking ones very well.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, so what I was saying, sorry, you might have missed this because you were working on the thing. The city is currently in the process of applying. No, I heard that. So we don't have an Asian liaison yet.
[Justin Tseng]: So I was saying that after we get used to running these meetings, hopefully we'll have one in place in Medford by then. But if we don't, then I can work with local nonprofits that do have roots, ties to Asian American groups in Medford and Malden to try to set something up. But I think that's something down the line.
[Justin Tseng]: Sorry, which one was that?
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, okay. Unless you said... I did say it, but you can work on that as well.
[Justin Tseng]: We can see how to copy who we end up with, if it's really you, but then... Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: I think that sounds good. I think the one group that I would add into this list from the kind of like from the list I mentioned was just ICCM because I think that's a more concrete group that would be easier to set up with versus the some of the ideas with like Asian Americans or whatever.
[Justin Tseng]: Awesome. That makes a lot of sense. Would you want to take point on that?
[Justin Tseng]: Awesome.
[Justin Tseng]: I mean, I assume naturally quite a lot of, you know, what we'll hear will be simple requests that we can teach them how to use CClick fixed form or something like that. That makes sense. Yeah, if we could get an edited version of this for the for the council members, I think that's great. Great. Thank you for your for your research. All right.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Sanders. Not necessarily a question. I think there may be more questions when the final budget comes out, but I wanted to thank you for your service. I know it's not been easy. I know it's not been an easy time to be our fire chief. We really appreciate it. All we hear is praise for you from everyone. And I think that speaks a lot to your leadership. I don't know who's saying such things. I'm sure we'll hear more from our firefighters. We want to make sure that we are getting those grants, that we are spending the money we need to get that extra benefit. That's not only healthy for the fire department, it's healthy for our city financially as well. That's going to be top of mind for me going into this budget season. I appreciate your presentation. Thank you very much.
[Justin Tseng]: might be similar, but I wanted to ask about when we were doing last year's election budget, something that came up was the drop in the number of FTEs. And there was a big conversation about whether that was the right choice. And I think a lot of different perspectives on it. I think I can understand different perspectives on it. I don't expect any change to this budget. For the position that we're in right now, this is reasonable. In our last governance committee meeting, we talked about letting you come on and then evaluate the situation and maybe come back to us to talk about this in half a year or so. But I did want to raise that to your attention. that this is a point of conversation on the council and with the administration about the resources needed for this department. And so, again, just wanted to put that nugget out there. And I don't know if the president had questions about that, because I know this is something that we had talked about before, too.
[Justin Tseng]: I think obviously this is a difficult issue to broach with the Council, because you and the Mayor very much know where most of the Council stands on this. I think when I think back to our first budget, Councilor Collins and my first budget, the conversations were that council wanted the solicitor and assistant city solicitor to cut the funding for KP Law. I think it was a reasonable compromise at that time to put in the two positions and to keep funding for KP Law given what you said about the areas of expertise that KP Law does offer the city, that a lot of city staff have expressed interest and support for, but I also do very much believe that the solicitor roles are fundamentally just different roles than having legal advisors, legal consultants there. The interests are different. The ways that we can use them as a council, access them as a council are different as well. But I also don't want to re-litigate. right now, any of those past discussions. I would agree with Vice President Collins that a lot of this is about context. And so I understand the change being made. I can't, you know, have a very firm stance on it unless I know what's being made up from it, where, you know, what does the rest of the budget look like. But I would want to say that, you know, If the change makes sense, even if the change makes sense, and even if it's something that I could bring myself to support, I would really like to see a path back of adding this position back into the budget come next, the next budget for fiscal 26. I think that's a direction that we'll have to chart. And hopefully in the next month, we'll have a better picture as to how, you know, what's the big picture long-term plan to add the assistant solicitor position back into the general fund.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you all so much. Thank you to the high school orchestra for playing such a beautiful two pieces for us. Let's give everyone one more round of applause. It's truly the pride of Medford to be able to have something like this for us tonight. I think we ought to be celebrating our accomplishments as a city. When we come together and support the arts and support our students, so much good can happen. With that being said, would you want to join me, Ms. Chang? We have a lot of awards to give out, so I'd ask everyone to hold your applause until the end, but feel free to take photos and we will make sure everyone gets an award too. Our first award is to Nikki Chow. I'm worried we're going to run out of room. Benjamin Hayes. Colin Keith. Eliana Lam. Elia Perez. Elia's not here today, but we will save this for her. Cameron Blander. Maxwell Goodwin. Noor Hashemi. Congratulations. Saffron Jacobs. Daniel Luo. Jaden Zheng. Henry Kaye. Douglas Casey. Congratulations.
[Justin Tseng]: John LeMayo.
[Justin Tseng]: Leo Hernandez. Congratulations. Dinh Ho.
[Justin Tseng]: Aya Yeager.
[Justin Tseng]: Tanmaya Aman.
[Justin Tseng]: Lillian Barabino.
[Justin Tseng]: Congratulations. Annabelle Foster. Oh, not yet. Kira Huynh. Wesley Kwong. Sophia Levine. Margot Reinfeld. Caleb Strauss. And then two more, Elijah Adamek. And August Velazquez. Thank you to all, those are our middle schoolers. I don't think we missed anyone, so that is a great mark on us. Let's take a group photo. If maybe we can stand here.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you for your patience as we turn over to our next group of students. If everyone could just line up right there. You can come closer. Come on up. We don't bite. Okay, now we have our commendations for the gold medal-winning orchestra, the Medford High School String Orchestra. Okay, Sebastian Caracaburu.
[Justin Tseng]: Maggie Fowler.
[Justin Tseng]: There's a lot going on, yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Here we go. Congratulations. Justin Cho.
[Justin Tseng]: Isabella Maidavelli.
[Justin Tseng]: Amy Nguyen. Kyle Tam.
[Justin Tseng]: Anthony Purifori. Leanne Lapp. William Malone.
[Justin Tseng]: Kiana Tran? Kiana, sorry, Kiana Tran. Adrian Wu? Owen Barzak-Roll. Karina Lewis. Christina Joselagi. Benjamin Sayers, not here.
[Justin Tseng]: Ari Atwal, also not here. And last but not least, Calvin Lee. That's our high school orchestra. Let's take a group photo. Same drill as before.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilors, I just wanted to thank you for taking so much time out of your evening to be with us. I know you've done a lot of homework for this. I think this is something I mean, if I speak for myself, I very much support. I hope the council supports. We, I think, you know, we often forget that homelessness and this housing crisis touches wide swaths of our population, including veterans. And I think it's really easy for us not to see that. It's really important that we bring it to light and do what we can to make it work. I think we're curious about all the work that we can do. I know you have a lot of research, but we have more time to talk about it. Thank you, Councilor Gallo.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Tseng. Thank you. I, you know, being this age, I have a lot of friends who go to Tufts or who've recently gone to Tufts. I also live just one block away. And, you know, in a lot of conversations with Tufts students, one big thing that they really want is just more housing on campus, more on campus options. This is a path towards that. This is that, actually. Furthermore, it helps our housing crisis when more students are housed on campus. It's a win-win for everyone, really, for community members and for Tufts students and for Tufts University. So that's really important to consider. Generally, these are really good projects. It's also part of the platform which I signed, the Med for People's platform, which talks about working with Tufts to get more on-campus housing. And so I would happily second Vice President Collins' motion.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll be brief. I just wanted to thank you, Councilor Lohmann, President Bears for putting this on the agenda. This is something that Councilor Lohmann and I have been working really, really hard on, given the demand from the public to hear from us about the work that we're doing. You know, we've put in a lot of guardrails to make sure that this is a transparent the creation of this newsletter is transparent and it's neutral um content wise um this goes you know going through the resident services subcommittee there are five eyes looking over it um it makes sense for that given time and but also the process that we're already putting into it makes sense for that um committee to be approving it um instead of you know, sending it here, dragging it out more weeks, and then re-litigating like typos and small things potentially in the group of seven when we already have a group of five that can do that job.
[Justin Tseng]: Present
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. You talked a bit about accreditation. I think that's a really exciting prospect. Is that something that is done mostly more through policies, or does the budget have a big impact on that? And does this proposed budget move you towards accreditation?
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, that's super helpful for us as Councilors to learn about and to hear. It's mostly a lot of paperwork. I trust you. I was also curious about, you know, are there any positions that are on grants or funds that aren't being carried over to this budget or are being carried over but require a certain amount of spending? to be kept up?
[Justin Tseng]: And for those grants that you brought up, does the city also have to pay in a certain amount for,
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much for your answers. Thank you for your service, both of you. And we really appreciate your work. Thank you. Thanks, Councilor Callahan.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. I wanted to thank you, Councilor Lazzaro, for working on this. I know this was previously on my docket of my long to-do list, and you volunteered to take it off my list. So that was very, very helpful. I'm, I think, very ecstatic to see that this is so comprehensive. I think it's very well done. The nuggets that I thought were particularly important legal language to put in, that language is in there, is in this draft. I think this is very helpful. I think it's very clear, which is what we need if we are to have a social media account. Thank you for your work.
[Justin Tseng]: I would concur with Councilor Palahan. I think we have a similar understanding of open meeting law, and I would be worried that something like that would constrain what we can say, and you know, oftentimes residents do want to hear from most, if not all of us on an issue. As long as we're not debating it, it should be fine. I'm also thinking the circumstances in which maybe we share something about a city event that will happen. And there are people asking what time or what place that will be. And let's just say in a given five minutes, just four of us choose to respond to that. I don't want that to be a problem as well. Also, given the fact that I think most of our postings will be retrospectives on what we have already done, I don't think OML is necessarily applicable in that situation. And so I think open meeting law stands for itself. That obviously overrides everything. And so as long as we follow the law itself, we should be fine without having to hamstring ourselves unnecessarily.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much. I have some slides to share. But before I start, I wanted to preface that this is the beginning of a process. I'm not expecting that we'll pass anything tonight. This will take a few months to work on. And I want to make sure that we're doing it comprehensively. I know many of you are seeing this draft for the first time today or over the weekend. I'm not really sure when it was sent out to folks. And I want to make sure that people have the time they need to digest everything. And so today, what I'm going to do today is give people context about why residents have reached out to me about initiating this process and to also give a cursory glance at a proposal that I'm putting out that addresses a lot of those concerns. So with that being said, and I believe there are residents here to speak in favor of some reforms as well. But with that being said, let me do this quick, quick PowerPoint that walks through the draft that you have in front of you guys. And so I just wanted to, again, give context for why modernize this ordinance, walk quickly section by section to give you a quick introduction of how the structure is, and propose some motions to moving forward. So from talking to current and previous human rights commissioners, there have been a number of issues, actually quite a litany of issues that have come up with how the ordinance is drafted. a lot of it stemming from the fact that this ordinance uses language for HRCs that date back decades, whereas the needs of communities have changed in the last few decades as well. The first big thing that's more procedural is just unclear language that constricts the HRC's work. Two very glaring examples are in the current draft that says that there must be 10 meetings held. But it's not entirely clear whether you can hold more than 10 meetings. And given the amount of work the HRC is tasked with doing and the amount of time that the HRC has to hold a single meeting, oftentimes the work doesn't get done. And so a lot of commissioners have reached out to me saying that they would like more time to work on issues. And, you know, with the language that's currently in there, it's not clear. It's, you know, some lawyers' understandings that they can, some lawyers' understandings that they cannot. And so we need to clarify that language. The other big layering procedural problem is the quorum for meetings. We've been finding it very difficult to fill HRCE seats, partially because our retention rate is very low and a lot of commissioners are leaving in the middle of their terms. But with that being said, without being at max members, the way that the current ordinance is written is that they need, I believe, five members to call a meeting to form quorum. And oftentimes they're not at that because they only have six or seven members. I believe there's one new commissioner there. And so just as long as one or two of them are absent, meetings cannot be held. And that really hamstrings the HRC's ability to do work. I think the next big bucket, which I've heard a lot from previous commissioners and is a very big problem when it comes to retention, is just the duties that are assigned to the HRC and the interpretation of whether the HRC can do things beyond that duty that fulfill the purpose of the HRC. So in other words, In the current ordinance, there's a purpose section. And there are a lot of things that the HRC could be doing that fulfill that purpose section. So there is a legal argument that they can do that. But also, there's a duty section as well that's very restrictive and really strongly focuses on housing discrimination and enforcing decisions in housing discrimination cases. And that obviously is one subset of what the HRC could be doing. A lot of what the HRC currently, what they're hearing from residents that they want to do, it falls outside of housing discrimination. And on top of that, a lot of HRC members don't feel equipped to deal with housing discrimination issues because they're not lawyers and because these are very deep, complex legal issues. I, the other 2 points I basically covered within that. I think the 3rd major thing is just some additional concerns. More generally, the commission has not been historically the most diverse. A lot of that is due to structural parts of this ordinance. There's as we've. delved into the Youth Commission Ordinance and the Gender Equity Ordinance in a last City Council term. These are ideas from Councilor Scarpelli is one of our advocates, Councilor Knight, Councilor Morell, they've been leaders on those issues. It became clear to us that there's a need to rethink the organizational structure of the HRC in context with those organizations as well. Hearing from city staff, there's a very strong desire to have members of those commissions, at least one member of those commissions sit on the HRC as well. We need to enable that in some way. There's also been a lack of a chair. Um, in the HRC for many months, the current ordinance says that the chair has to be elected in June. And that means for the last few months, there has, I believe there has been no chair. And on top of that, there's a question of resources. The city is expecting that the HRC throws a lot of city events, like the Lunar New Year celebration, Black History Month celebrations, Juneteenth celebrations. A lot of that money is currently coming out of the DAI budget, which is fine. But it really hamstrings the HRC's ability to decide which events to hold. the current process is just much more bureaucratic and less democratic. Now, I think all that context is really important, so that's why I went slower through it. These next few sections, I've just basically separated out the ordinance into different sections. So the establishment and purpose, this is largely the same as the current ordinance. We eventually may need to make some small updates, but that really depends on the duty section later on and what we put in there. And so I didn't want to touch it for now. The next section is about membership, appointments, terms, removal, and organization. For context, I worked on this ordinance draft with previous HRC commissioners and residents who have worked really closely with the HRC, community groups that have worked really closely with the HRC to get the work they need done. You know, this draft is a product of that of working with them. And to make sure, you know, this is responsive to the needs. And I wanted to bring this before the council in an introductory manner, because in the air transparency, essentially. there's a desire to slightly expand the HRC, but to do so basically by working more closely with existing city commissions, new proposed city commissions, and community-based organizations, some of which the examples of are the Disabilities Commission, the Council on Aging. If we create a Youth Commission or a Gender Equity Commission, members of those commissions community groups like the West Bedford Community Center, different religious groups, possibly housing-related groups, MHA, for example. And so instead of because we know that there's a problem with recruiting right now, there might be a fear that we're expanding. But much of the expansion comes from existing groups. We also recognize that we need to increase diversity. And that's why there's language in here about creating a rotation of commissioners and leadership and providing stipends, all of which are things that studies have proven to work at the municipal level for increasing diversity, income-wise, gender, race, class, everything, profession-wise. on municipal boards and commissions. There's language in here that's equity-focused about receiving training on meeting operation and parliamentary procedure. These are things that often scare away folks who aren't as experienced with city government from working in city government on boards and commissions. And that would be something very simple, like a half-hour module at the start of a HRC term. There's also language, I think I basically covered everything. Everything that I haven't covered is essentially just aligning the HRC with current city commission ordinances that we have for other commissions. So just language that wasn't put in there in the first place, but since we've passed that, we've started to put in every, the city council has started to put in every commission ordinance. The next section, as I talked about quite a lot previously, there's a problem with meetings and quorums. Again, so this aligns HRC with most City Commission ordinances. It addresses those problems with scheduling and quorums, and it allows for some flexibility. The 10-meeting-per-year thing, that's to ensure regularity of meetings to make sure the Commission is doing its work. though this next sentence basically gives the commission flexibility to have more meetings to finish that work. This next section about independence, resources, counsel. A lot of this language is actually just taken from the current ordinance, but there is some additional language in here about addressing the resource problem. Essentially, this is something that The previous iteration of this committee that worked on the Youth Commission and the Gender Equity Commission ordinances which haven't been passed yet. This is language that they approved of when it came to creating a small budget line item for them. This is basically just to let them hold events like the Lunar New Year celebration and stuff like that. I think this will require some talking with the city administration to see how we divvy up between the HRC and between the DEI office. But I imagine the funds would basically be under the same umbrella and so we're not really increasing funds. per se, to the HRC. We're just redistributing to give them a little bit more easier of a time to spend those funds, whereas right now it's, again, quite bureaucratic. This is the longest section, but it is the last section, the roles, powers, and duties section. Again, much of the current ordinance focuses on housing discrimination. This addresses that. Now, I think this is the section that maybe we would want to read through and edit the most. Again, I'm not expecting anything to change today or anything to be passed today. I want to give Councilors and commissioners the time to read this and reflect and give written feedback on it. But this comes out of a lot of work that I've done talking to that I've done with previous commissioners and community members that have worked with HRC about what types of powers and duties they would like to see explicitly laid out. A lot of, again, actually most of this language comes from neighboring municipalities HRC ordinances. It also removes duties that commissioners have articulated that they aren't qualified to do. Again, the current ordinance really expects them to do quite a lot of legal responsibilities that they shouldn't be doing because they're not lawyers and could end up putting our city in a dangerous position with our law department. more or less averts that by shifting that responsibility to offices that actually have that legal staff and that capacity, particularly at the state level, to deal with situations like that. And with that being said, I believe the next steps are, I would move to ask Councilors to submit feedback to the chair and me before the next resident services and public engagement committee meeting on the current draft that we have in front of us. I would also move to ask HRC members, relevant city staff and legal staff for feedback. I know that we have some residents here with us that potentially would want to speak on this, but I would be happy to hear from councillors first.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Thank you Councilor Scapelli for your kind comments. I would actually agree with that point. I think that's a good note. I'd be happy to make that amendment. Of course, there's, you know, we have a lot of time to do this as well, but I think that makes a lot of sense. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I'll be brief. I would agree with Councilor Lazzaro. I think that's the point of the listening sessions, although I think there's back and forth is natural. I think the point of it should be to listen. And, you know, if there is something that we can help clarify, because sometimes, you know, we're you know, residents want us to do something that we're already doing. I think that's fair game for us to say, oh, like, here's here's this. Here's this thing that we're doing. Here's how you get plugged in. These are we're holding a meeting about this on, you know, May 8th, for example. I think that's fair. But I yeah, I would think the main part of it is just to note down what folks are saying and asking and then bring it back to this group or to the city council regular meeting as a whole. Yeah, I would say by record, I wouldn't necessarily say we should record with a camera or recorder because that may scare some people away, but we should definitely have at least one councilor jotting down the notes to bring back.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, I so I was also thinking about that Councilor Callahan and I have a different proposal. Um, I still think it could be valuable to have a subcommittee to help organize these things and to, you know, after, for example, after the senior center listening session to have subcommittee meeting to quickly review what went right. What went wrong? What are best practices? What should we do next time? And so I almost think would be more useful to have. to keep that subcommittee, but to have meetings organized where out of the two Councilors who are there, one of them is a member of the subcommittee and one of them isn't. And that way, you have basically a subcommittee liaison who can help organize and, you know, come back to the subcommittee and say, okay, this went right at the session, this went wrong, handle emergencies that way. And one, you know, other Councilor invited.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. Councilor Tseng. Thank you. I think with regards to legal questions, I think oftentimes Councilor Scarpelli and I have very similar questions. In this case, I would disagree because I think as long as we're playing it safe, there should be no question about the legality of any of this. This is something that happens. It is innovative for Medford, but it isn't something that is unheard of. And essentially, again, as long as we play it safe with open meeting law, we make sure that no two members of a subcommittee, no three members of a regular committee, and no four members of the city council are meeting, I think we should be all right. And I think the two figure then is very, very safe.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you all for joining.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to thank everyone for coming in today and presenting their projects. I know it's not easy to come before the city council. A lot of these projects we have heard before, but we also have new folks here, and I wanted to welcome everyone to the city council. Hopefully we're not as scary as we might seem.
[Justin Tseng]: I think the kind words from the previous two councilors are super well-deserved. I always love the heat praise on you and the work that you and our commissions that work with you do. It's really, I think, very underrated work, but it's work that raises the standards of living and working in the city of Bedford. I know that there's been quite a lot of, you know, there's always competition for resources, and we always have a finite amount of resources. I know you've done very well to find funds. I was wondering, you know, have there been any moments in the last year where you've found, you know, where you might have wanted to sponsor an event but you weren't able to and will the line item increase in the events help you? Do you think this increase is enough to help you fund the events that are sitting should be sponsoring?
[Justin Tseng]: Present.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears, and thank you to both you and Councilor Scarpelli for putting this on the agenda. I think these items on tonight's agenda really show the great work that's happening in our public school system right now. This item in particular, I think, really exemplifies the proactive spirit and the innovative spirit that we see from so many of our students. And I think it really goes, it's, I think it should be noticed, right, that these are our young folks, our young students at the Brooks Elementary School, which kind of like shows us that no matter what age you are, Medford students are stepping up and stepping up to meet the demands of the moment. I think it's also really important to celebrate the CCSR, such a wonderful organization that we have in our schools that allow our young folks to get stuff like this done and to get experience about how to make change and to respond so quickly to events in our community. So really, You know, I want to heap praise on the educators as well, who've spent so much time organizing. I know it's a lot of work. And having been involved in the organization itself, I know it takes a lot of work from both the students and the teachers to really carry through and execute a project like this. So really proud of our students. And I think there's so much more that we can look forward to for the CCSR and our students and all of our students in general.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I'd like to ditto everything that's been said so far. I miss seeing him in the chambers as well. I think it really, I mean, I think all community members can really see how much Rick. former councilor is given to our community, both in his capacity as a city councilor, but also just as a private citizen in our city. His leadership really speaks volumes, especially when you look at the effects of his leadership. When you look at the people that he's helped. For me, Rick means a lot to me, because he was such a mentor to me in the council chambers and in getting involved in Medford politics. He really, I think, showed me what leadership looks like. saying words, he showed me the actions, and he showed me how you build those connections, how you get to know folks who live at home and all the business owners, and how you listen to them more empathetically. And really, I think that spirit is something that's so important to the jobs that we do as city councillors.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much President Bears. As many of us know, Medford is home to one of our state's strongest music and arts programs in our public school system. Thanks to the leadership of many teachers, one of whom I know very personally, Miss Sophia Chang, she has developed this program at the middle school and high school levels of a string ensemble and the string orchestra program where students are really learning top level skills in arts and in strings playing. I've had the opportunity to listen to high school players from around the state, working with a lot of them, teaching them, playing with them, and truly Medford has something very, very special. I'm so, so happy that our orchestras won awards at the MICA Festival, which is a festival I played in a long, long time ago. And it's a very difficult stage to perform on. You're performing in front of a crowd of judges, a crowd of music professionals who are all very well renowned in their fields. And to be able to overcome those nerves, and not only just overcome those nerves, but to win gold and silver medals with a very strict scoring system, I think speaks really highly to the level of our students to compete and to perform on such a really high level. I wanted to amend this resolution to invite the students into our next regular meeting on May 14th to receive citations and to invite them for a short performance for the City Council if the Council will indulge the orchestra.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I think this has been really well described, so I'll be pretty brief. Again, this is really asking big institutions like Tufts to pay their fair share in our city. You know, these institutions, they use our police, fire, medical services, they use infrastructure, water, sewer, and all we ask is for them to pay something a little closer to their fair share instead of $0. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, which is a group that represents local governments from across the state, from across the Commonwealth, all 351 municipalities, this organization has asked local electives like all of us to send in letters of support to pass resolutions on the City Council to support this bill. And they believe that doing so will be important at the State House. And so I will very happily support this.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to say really quickly two quick things. I think my name was invoked earlier on to correct the record. I have been trying to make this meeting and the last meeting in person, but I've not been able to because of some academic and professional commitments. I was away for a weekend, but that didn't affect this work. I think in general, it seems like this discussion is getting a little out of hand. I think there are good questions being raised about how we can better communicate how the city council works in the first place. But I think I have to be very honest in saying that before I ran for office and when I was just the viewer of these meetings, that city council, how it worked, I also was confused by it. And I think we need to just do better in general at communicating how we work, regardless of how subcommittees work, of how the general council works. And so I think in the future, we need to create some short guide or some short document, some diagram showing people how these processes work.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I just wanted to thank Kevin for all the work that he has done for us, our city. I mean, My colleague, Councilor Scarpelli, is such a leader in this field as well, and for him to seek such high praise of Kevin, I think is further proof of the really excellent job that our director is doing in our city. Something that we've been talking quite a lot about that the Council is working on with Kevin is, of course, the Youth Commission, and I'm very excited to see where that goes as well. but I wanted to thank him for the work. I think Councilor Scarpelli answered or asked the main question I had about staffing, administrative staffing, which is, you know, I've heard some parents calling about. And so I think that's, you know, helpful. I'll happily support that motion as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor say not a question, but I just wanted to thank you for being here to thank the administration for working with us on the new budget process. I think. I, as one Councilor, I'm very excited that we're getting to such an early start. I think it really helps us city to know what our. what our reality is quite early on, and also to know what our department's looking for, what can we actually afford as a city to have those discussions early on to lay the groundwork of transparency. So thank you very much, and I'm very much looking forward to these discussions.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much. I with with Councilor Lemmy and Councilor Lazzaro a few weeks ago, we were at the Senior Center. We attended.
[Justin Tseng]: Pretty good. Remarkable, truly remarkable with a huge turnout for the bingo game as well, which we sadly didn't win, but we got super close. We were one or one square off in the two of the matches. There's so much good stuff happening at the senior center that's coming out, and really thanks to your leadership as well. I think there are two quick questions I had, given what you've told us today. I think on the topic of nutrition, there seems to be tons of donations coming in, tons of help from, for example, from the Greater Boston Elder Services. And some of that is coming from ARPA grants that Of course, we're running out of that money as well. And I was wondering, do we foresee being able to keep up with this level of food donations for the upcoming year?
[Justin Tseng]: Awesome. I meant, I meant Mystic Valley Elder Services. Sorry, getting acronyms mixed up in my brain.
[Justin Tseng]: I see. Now with that ARPRA money going away, are those offerings staying on?
[Justin Tseng]: That's good to know. Thank you. And one other question coming out of what you told us. I guess you said one of the goals moving forward is to expand the grant writing capacity. How do we do that? Are there people on your team who are working on doing that? Do we need eventually more staff to help that?
[Justin Tseng]: Fingers crossed. Thank you so much.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I wonder if the L word you were looking for was loquacious. Ah, it was loquacious.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, I, I was wondering if you could speak a little bit more to the increase in dues and subscriptions. Um, yes, thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: That was so well explained. Let's just make sure we don't have to spend even more to buy a new computer. Yes, exactly.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I just wanted to thank you for coming to our council meeting tonight. We know it can be daunting at times, and it's your first one. Everything's been smooth, and I hope you've had a good time here.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, you think this is entertaining?
[Justin Tseng]: We're very excited to have you on the team effort to have you as part of our group and very much looking forward to hearing more and to working more with you.
[Justin Tseng]: Kit, are you not cooking for all of us?
[Justin Tseng]: Oh no, that was a very like, that was a military attack.
[Justin Tseng]: I find them in order and move to approve.
[Justin Tseng]: I don't think there's wording changing on it. I think it was summarized with different words.
[Justin Tseng]: very briefly because I think a lot of what I would say has been covered by the three councillors who've spoken. I think, you know, When past administrations were looking at the water infrastructure in the city, it was easy, since everything was built around the same time, to say that we didn't need to make these investments. But we always do need a longer-term outlook about how we're going to fund projects, even decades in the future. It was disappointing, and it is disappointing to us that that wasn't done decades prior. But it is, I think, a good step for us to start with that study about the rates going forward, because that. Such a large scale of infrastructure improvement will need a lot of communication with our residents. And if you know, and I think it's becoming clear through this discussion through discussions in the past during the budget seasons that. Money is a huge factor here. And so if money is a big question here, we need to something like that rate study is important. Now, another thing can also be true that I think Councilor Scarpelli raised. we need better follow through on these reports, on these committees that are created from the administration. For example, the classification study is something that we still haven't seen over years. We were promised this years ago. And that's something that affects the items on our agenda, like the CAF amendment. to the superintendent of water role. We need to follow up on these things. Now as a city council, I think we've done better. I think we've worked together, especially Councilor Scarpelli and us, we've worked together to push the administration to keep them accountable on those issues. We need to keep doing that. We need to keep making the historic investments that we haven't been making as a city council that we made for the first time last year in the water system. And I think that's very, very clear. I know there's lots to be said. There's this is a very complex issue. I think. a commission to begin Burns letter does actually point to a lot of substantive steps being taken in terms of, um, physical improvements to the system. Um, not just the monetary side of things, but there's lots of follow through to, uh, to for us to hold to account.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. I wanted to thank both you, President Bears, and Councilor Scarpelli for putting this on the agenda. I was going through my inbox, and the first time we heard about this issue as a council actually was in June last year, where we did actually get a resolution on it, a temporary resolution. Back then, similar to what you were describing now, there was a lot of back and forth from residents, city staff. I made calls, I know you made calls, a number of councillors made calls at the time, and we got a temporary solution. But then this issue came back. And it seems like the number of ties there is higher than ever. One resident did actually, I think, bring out a pretty decent idea in asking. I had to make sure I had the language for it. It's somewhere deep in the email chain. But to ask for the actual material safety data sheet for the creosote. that was applied to the ties. I was wondering if either of you would be amenable to adding that into the resolution as well to ask for that material safety data sheet. This is a serious issue. I know you in particular have worked really tirelessly on this. Our state rep, Sean Garvely, has worked very hard on this as well. I think this is a pattern that we see from the MBTA of non-response. We give them so much money, we contribute, we benefit from them, and yet we want to be partners, and yet there is this non-response. When we were looking at the accessibility improvements for the bus stops, that took a year. When we were thinking about the Orange Line shutdown years back, our city was proactive in reaching out and saying, what can we do to facilitate traffic, and we got posted. and so we really need to keep working on this. We have had times in the past where we were unified as a council and reached out and worked with the city staff as well and actually did get concessions from the MBTA. So I hope this is the case this time.
[Justin Tseng]: Any further comments Councilor Tseng? I just wanted to thank you guys for being so proactive on it. I would love to read the grants. If there's ways for us to support, like if we can send an individual letters or a letter from Council to support the grant process, just let us know and I think we would be really, really happy to help.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli, for putting this on the agenda and going beyond that and doing the research for our council. What happened on one Boston day so many years ago was such a tragedy in our community. And I really felt it very strongly. It's something that we were around for. And we created this wonderful thing to memorialize Crystal Campbell. you know, to let it go by the wayside is such a, you know, honestly, it's kind of a disgrace on our part. I, you know, I think a lot of residents and I were, you know, have been, you know, this is one of those issues where people ask once in a while, and it slips through the cracks when we don't unify our forces on it. You know, the way that we did when this was first made. I remember actually, even for the dedication, I was in the string ensemble playing for it. Um, I, you know, a lot of residents have been asking, and I've been wondering too about the trust and, you know, what was going on in that end. It's super helpful that, you know, you've given us context for that. And so, um, you know, I think this is just the thing of accountability. It's, it's, if you, you know, I think the rules are written out pretty clearly, and as long as we hold ourselves accountable to it, as long as city administration is holding that trust, we should be able to do it. It shouldn't be a problem. It shouldn't be a problem, right? and evidently we've fallen flat. And so I thank you for your efforts. I totally support this. As much as we can do as a council to build, to be the ones who are accountable, I would support that.
[Justin Tseng]: motion to invite Council to the next meeting to answer Councilor Scarpelli's question and to table this until that next meeting.
[Justin Tseng]: Second. Do we want to add the ordinance?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further comments? Councilor Tseng. Thank you. I grew up in Medford where Mr. McGlynn was mayor and his father was around and a very active member of our community. And it was always a joy to talk to them and hang with them. and hear their stories. And I think, I can't say more, that would be more eloquent than what my fellow councillors said, but they're, you know, I'm glad that we're recognizing Jack McGlynn's service to our city and to our country.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Thank you, Councilor Collins, for putting this on the agenda with me. We have a growing Muslim community here in Medford that we're very happy to welcome, and we know that this has been a difficult year, but we want to make sure that everyone's fast is easy this month, that we recognize this really important month for so many of our residents, a month of spiritualism, a month of purity and of love and embrace. And so I'm very happy to move approval on this question.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. For this governance committee meeting, we invited the elections commission and chief of staff Nazarian, who has been helping the elections department in the last few months. We asked them questions. They gave us an update as to how the department's running. They told us about a post-election audit that will be happening.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I would really like to thank Councilor Callahan for introducing this. I think this is an idea that most residents assume we already do as a city, but we don't. And it is something that, you know, it's information that the city should really have in order to communicate its message better. And I think that kind of touches at two of the arcs that we're trying to work on this term in the city of Medford with the city government communication modernization. we're ambitious as a city council and as a city when it comes to our climate goals, housing goals, but also the very basis of just having our existing laws be carried out and enforced. And this registry would allow us to do that. It would allow us to be more responsive to a lot of constituent concerns and a lot of resident concerns like what you mentioned about absentee landlords. and it would help us restructure some of the ideas that we have. For example, with the good landlord tax credit, which I know a lot of people are really excited about, this idea allows us to reach out to them. So thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I can also speak to some of Councilor Lazzaro and Councilor Leming's questions, because I happened to hold a meeting on this a few weeks ago with some city staff. It seems like most of the work would fall within the purview of the building department. Actually, the new building commissioner that we have here in Medford set up the rental registry system for their last municipality, and so they're very well-versed. how to create the system. They've created an online system that really maintains itself. And so it wouldn't, you know, the setup would take time for the staff to manage. But once the system is in place, they expect the system to be quite self-containing.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I respect my colleagues viewpoint, I think that I think what you're saying actually is in a bigger scheme, you know, we have, we should rethink how we, you know, when we have items introduced on the agenda, we send them to committee. This is how other municipalities in the state do it. If there are other avenues to just, you know, send it. to committee have a developed proposal before we create, you know, before we introduce it bring us to the regular meeting. I think that would be appropriate but I think that's something for us to investigate down the line, I would disagree on the conclusion with my fellow Councilor. Now, I have been listening and taking a lot of notes during this during the last few, the last comments. And I think there are a few buckets of questions for us. And I, you know, I think we do have the answers for them. I think on the question of privacy, as Councilor Callahan has stated, as is done in municipalities around the state, we wouldn't ask for tenant information that's just not done in other states or in other cities. The Here's an example of what information is collected usually. Contact information for the property owner, property manager, number of units you're registering, and number of units at the property, dates of buying property, because there are certain laws that exempt properties because of age, and the city wouldn't want to overcharge landlords, and some fire code related items. That's all. That's it. That's what's usually collected. And I think, you know... There's there's some questions another bucket of questions is, why do we need to collect this information, why do we need to create this registry. Right now, you know, given that we might have some information but I think that's the point is we only have some of this information. There are a lot of their landlords in the city who they might own property but that property is registered under their spouse's name right because their spouse about that property or their spouse was was a primary sign on that. And we wouldn't be able to tell if that's a primary residence or a secondary property. There are a lot of cases like that. There are also just more generally cases where we can't tell based on the tax bill whether it's owner-occupied or non-owner-occupied, whether it's a primary or secondary residence. And this would help us identify a lot of that. I will say another... Another reason that I think we need to, another question about the functionality, about the feasibility of this that we should correct the record on is whether this is legal or not. This is very clearly legal, done in many municipalities around the state. And there are legal, we can create legal methods to have people register. Now that answers the question of, you know, when you have these already, you have these landlords that aren't responding yet, how can we expect them to participate, we can use legal methods. Now the last, I think the last bucket is less about the policy itself, and more about this idea of listening and sympathy. And I actually do have sympathy for landlords. I mean, I close family members who are small landlords, And when I put myself in their shoes, I want them to know about the rebates and the tax credits they can get. And that's something that, given how they're registered on the tax bill right now, the city doesn't know that they're landlords. And they don't have a problem with the city knowing that they're a landlord, but because the city doesn't know that they're a landlord, they can't get that information about rebates and tax credits and subsidies. And so I think for that reason, I would move the question. For all those reasons, I would move the question.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I really want to highlight again that there are three changes with this. The first one is the switch to a three minute speaking period per person. As you've amended on the floor, the resolution says two minutes. We've heard feedback from the public. There's been extensive discussions about what is an appropriate time. And a lot of folks who have asked us, reached out to us and contacted us to ask us to consider lengthening it. And so I'm very happy that you've been open to changing it to three minutes. I think the second change is the 90 minute upper limit, which you mentioned. And the third change is creating a new channel for people to get their records entered into the public, the formal record. And so I think a lot of folks don't realize what they call us or email us before a meeting that's not entered into the official record on something, but unless they ask us to read that into record or enter that into the record, this would create an easier mechanism both in person and online to enter their comments into the formal record. And so we're creating an online form and an in-person form to be put into the clerk's office. I think this idea of new channels is really important because it goes to the idea of restructuring. There are some things that won't change. We will still have the general public participation. We would still have the general public participation section at the end of the meetings where folks are free to say whatever they want and free to speak for the times they desire. But we also recognize the need to restructure because of the need to democratize the process. Now, I've done quite a lot of work for a professor at the Kennedy School who's working on democratizing local government and state governments and working on ideas of how to restructure public participation processes. There's been a lot of formal critiques and research out there that shows that The way that public participation is done, especially in Massachusetts, there's a very lengthy thesis about this, a very lengthy published paper from Harvard Law and from the American Bar Association that shows that how public participation is often done in Massachusetts disadvantages those who support ideas, who support the ideas put on the agenda, disadvantages those who aren't able to make a meeting time, who aren't able to come to a 7pm meeting on a Tuesday because they might be working or they need to wake up early, they have children to take care of and they can't participate. The way that it's done right now also disadvantages folks who want to speak on an issue. but don't feel like they're empowered to because many folks in the room might oppose their viewpoint. Leading actually, in fact, to a limitation of their First Amendment right to free speech because it it limits their ability to speak up without feeling threatened by a member of the public. We're empowered by numerous federal court cases to do this. The Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges versus Knight. There's a Chesterfield City Planning Commission court case as well, where the courts actually ask Um, and I would urge, um, city to be wise in designing their public participation processes and empower the city to do that and ask us to create alternative channels, which we are doing. And I forgot to mention one really important alternative channel that we are creating. Councilor Callahan and Lazzaro and I have been working on a resolution on this agenda to create listening sessions for the city council through the public engagement committee. And so what we're saying is you can still speak up about these issues. You can still get your comment entered on the record. We're going to restructure how that's done so that other folks who want to speak on an item can speak, and they don't have to wait till too too late in the night to speak.
[Justin Tseng]: That's not how it works. Councilor Tseng thank you President Bears. Um, you know, having heard a lot of the feedback tonight. I think there I think there was a lot of nuance.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Having heard a lot of the opinions tonight, I think that there's a lot of nuance in what people want and, you know, I take the criticism in stride, and I, you know, I want to engage in good faith, and that's why I would, I want to amend this resolution. There's a lot of folks who have talked about their support for three minutes, but not the 90 minute.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng had the floor. Councilor Tseng. Thank you. As I was saying, I think there's a lot of nuance to the conversation that we've had tonight, particularly in the critiques. And I think there's a wide spectrum of views on what folks don't like about it and how much they don't like it. In good faith, I want to amend the resolution on the floor. Instead of having a 90-minute hard cap, I would like to move that we have 90 minutes of discussion with participants having three minutes to speak each, and then after that, one minute per resident to speak on a topic. I know this isn't, you know, this isn't a compromise that everyone will love, but it is a good faith attempt to respond to what residents have been saying. I think I've heard residents whose main critique is that what happens to the person who speaks after that, who wants to speak after the 90th minute, and they haven't had a chance to speak. And I do sympathize with that quite a bit. And so that's why I want to offer that amendment.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I would support that B paper. I think it makes a lot of sense. It goes, it speaks to what Councilor Lazzaro and I had talked about earlier tonight in that there seems to be a way to clarify things so that we caught, so that we are clear as a council that things are being brought up for discussion and rather not being decided on that night of. And so I would second the B paper.
[Justin Tseng]: Um okay, Councilor say. Thank you. Um I really wanted to thank Councilor Collins for introducing this resolution. You know, this, I think this resolution and what you just said really encapsulates how climate change is a local issue as well. We think of the in broad strokes and yes the impact of climate change is in broad strokes, but the effects of climate change affect every single one of us living here living on the ground. We see it very clearly with the mystic river which you brought up, and the potential for flooding, and we I think we can recognize how. Climate change disproportionately affects communities that haven't been super well off, that haven't been represented in the traditional political process, that have been traditionally overlooked. Communities of color, poor communities, immigrant communities. This resolution has another local angle to it, which is that it brings money back into the city. We talk about the need for revenue, we talk about the need to fund resiliency projects and nature projects and parks and flood protection. This is if past the state at the state level, this would be a mechanism to do it. And as you noted, we don't pay the bill for it. Residents won't pay for the bill for it. We'll be holding the large polluters, the Exxon Mobil's of the world to account. Now, I think there's a with with with the point that this brings money into the city much needed funds into the city. I think this is a, this is a solid yes for me I'd like to second your motion, and actually one more point, you know, having worked with a lot of our state reps. they ask, oftentimes they also reach out to us to ask us to send in a resolution in support from the Medford City Council, because it does help at the State House. And I think that's another reason why resolutions like this actually are important, because they do make a tangible difference at the State House.
[Justin Tseng]: I know it's late I'll try to be brief but I'm passionate about this issue so my goal. I, I think I want to start by saying you know the reason why I ran in the first place. There are two reasons but one of one of the two is because of that fiscal 2020 budget that President Bears talked about on that saw. cuts to education. I wanted to run and make sure that we had a seat here that would vote against any budget that cut schools. And my position remains the same. I would find it hard if not impossible to vote for a budget that cuts school funding. I communicate that to the mayor every single time we come around to budget season. I actually call her personally, and that's the first thing out of my mouth when we're talking about the budget, which is what those calls are about. And in the last two years, we've actually, because of the organizing that we've done in the city council, and this is where I would disagree with my fellow councilor, because of that organizing that we've done in the council and because of the phone calls that we've made, to the mayor. Um she has said to me, you know, this year we're adding two million three million and over the last two years, we've added about $6 million. Um to the school budget. Um and you know, in the grand scheme of things, it's not enough to fund everything we need, but it has carried us over. I think this budget we all know it's going to be difficult, but my. My fundamental position remains the same. Um I believe Mr. Jones had some great questions about as, um. President Bears said, we ask ourselves as well. And we'll be asking those questions this time as well, this budget season as well. I actually don't know where my fellow Councilors stand on how things are budgeted, how the money is found and how things are budgeted. But for me, the most important thing at the end of the day is that the schools get that budget that they need and that it's not cuts. Um, I know a number of us might have professional commitments, but it is thank you for the opportunity for inviting us to join the zoom. Um, I believe I might have something, but please send over the zoom link to us as Councilors as well. Um, and one more thing that, you know, even if we can't attend, it would be really helpful for us to receive, you know, an update from the union about, um, how that meeting tomorrow goes. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Commissioners have reached out to me, they find that the language currently inhibits basic functions. They want us to open up input process to get feedback to modernize the ordinance.
[Justin Tseng]: very quickly. Councilor Tseng then Councilor Lazzaro. This is something that a number of us have already started to reach out to people about. Councilor Lazzaro and I have reached out to the senior center about this. They're very keen on it. I've talked to community liaisons about this, and they're very keen on it as well. There's a lot of outreach. I think we see from our meetings that, you know, we need to introduce ourselves to residents, explain how things go, but we also need to listen, and we need to take criticism, and this is a way to restructure public feedback. Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I wanted to thank my colleague Councilor loving for putting so much work and effort into researching how to modernize this ordinance, as you mentioned at the last meeting. Um, I think this effort is really to bring this ordinance to the 21st century to enable the city to give us. the options of more diverse revenue streams, especially for new and important projects like the Affordable Housing Trust, which, you know, affordable housing has always been an issue, but I think it's now more acute than ever and an issue for municipal government to be solving and addressing. And these changes that you propose give us that. I really appreciate that you've also talked to legal counsel about this. that you've been able to get that squared away as well. I think these changes are very clear cut. They stick to the original intention of the resolution very clearly in that we're just basically making sure that this law, this ordinance aligns with the state laws. And so I'd be very happy to support these changes. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Committee into order. Mr. Clerk, will you please call the roll?
[Justin Tseng]: Present present five in five present non absent. The meeting is called to order. Uh this meeting will take place at seven p.m. in the city council chamber. Second floor. We have zoom link. Um the action item on today's agenda is paper 23-474 offered by Council President Bears the 2023 met on this once before, just to determine a future path forward. In previous Council meetings, other Councilors, such as Councilor Scarpelli, have put on the agenda that this Governance Committee conduct more oversight of the Elections Department, of our new Elections Department, following what we've heard from previous city elections. I have invited the members of the Elections Commission as well as Chief of Staff, Ina Nazarian, to this meeting today. Our Chief of Staff has been helping out with the Elections Department for the Presidential Preference Primary held earlier this month. And so, before I start, do any of you have any questions? Seeing none, if the Chief of Staff would want to come up and address the Council, or if any election commissioners want to address the Council to introduce remarks, I'd be happy to recognize you. Madam Chief of Staff.
[Justin Tseng]: Great. Thank you. Any, are there any elections commissioners on the Zoom call who would like to say anything, introduce their remarks to us? Seeing none, I know, so yes, Councilor Riveras?
[Justin Tseng]: I saw Councilor Scarpelli's hand, and there was a hand on Zoom, but I'll, from Commissioner Bell, go to the Council first.
[Justin Tseng]: Um I think I saw a Councilor bears his hand. Did I see Councilor Collins's hand to so go in that order.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Collins.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I know Councilors have asked for comments from the chief of staff in the Elections Commission. But before I move on, are there any other comments from Councilors? seeing none. Um, I see, um, Henry Moore and one of our election commissioners hands raised on zoom. I will recognize him. I think you're already a co host. I think he can unmute. Commit Commissioner Miller. And can you unmute yourself on zoom?
[Justin Tseng]: As we wait for Chairman Warren to unmute himself. Councilor Laming?
[Justin Tseng]: I saw Councilor Lazzaro' hand.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you all.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay. I think Commissioner Malorin's audio is working now, so I'll ask him to speak if no other councillors have questions.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Leming, did you have any follow-up questions as of right now?
[Justin Tseng]: I know I recognized Councilor Collins earlier and then Councilor Bears. Okay, Councilor Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Sure. Thank you. Councilor Collins.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Commissioner Lauren. Thank you for your detailed response. Are there any other Councilors for our questions from Councilors before I asked a really short few questions? None? Okay, great. I was wondering, Chief of Staff, if you could speak to what the audit process looked like, the one that, the post-election audit that you mentioned in your report after the March primary, and I was wondering what the progress on that is like.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Commissioner Millard, can you speak really quickly to that?
[Justin Tseng]: And I was wondering, I think we were focusing a lot on the day of the election and days leading up to the election. I think some of the irregularities might be explained by just a long-term setup. And I was wondering if there, in soliciting feedback, are you also asking about the months before the election as well?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Commissioner Mullen. I have full faith that you'll get that report done. Because of the length of this meeting, I want to wrap up pretty soon. Just for the chief of staff, two really short questions. I know you were in charge of a lot with this most recent election, and it seems to have gone better than previous elections. I was wondering if you could speak to what went right about it and what we can continue doing. to in that process because it seems like there were improvements and um you know i i think we've we've all made our stance clear on our individual stances clear on the number of fds we think are needed for the the department um i've personally heard from members of the the team that um that they would prefer more fds in the department And so I was wondering if you could explain a little bit, you know, how might we reassess or assess whether we need more to keep the same number? Thanks.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. And so I guess that's something that we can talk about with a new elections manager, see, you know, let them determine what, from their perspective, what makes most sense in terms of staffing. Are there any motions on the floor, Councilor Collins?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions from councillors at this time? Councilor Bears?
[Justin Tseng]: As the chair of this committee, I wanted to thank you, Chief of Staff Nazarian, and thank our election commissioners for their work, and thank our elections department for the work that they've put into the elections as well. I know it's not easy, and there are a lot of unforeseen circumstances that are difficult to address, and, you know, we might have different perspectives on how to solve it, but it is... I think we're all united in wanting to get a better elections department and elections process for the city. Before we take any votes, I wanted to open it up to public comment. I know there are people who have been on Zoom and in person. If there's any public comment, I'd be happy to recognize that.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you for your comment. I know there's one more hand on Zoom. I believe that the next meeting that the governance committee is holding is going to be on this as well. And so, you know, as we can tell, tonight's already been a long meeting. We have lots more to talk about. And so there will be more to talk about at that meeting as well. And hopefully, we'll maybe have more documents. an idea of what that post-audit report from this presidential preference primary says. On the recount itself, we had lawyers in the room who are top lawyers in election law. Essentially, what we found is there are questions about absentee ballots that didn't get sent to polling stations. That changes the numbers, not the ballots themselves being counted wrong. But I saw one hand on Zoom. Eileen Lerner, do you still want to speak? Sorry, hand raised, but I think you're... If you want to speak, please raise your hand.
[Justin Tseng]: Do you see that mute button on your screen? I'm sorry. I think we're having technical difficulties with Zoom today. Yeah. Right. Aileen, we're pressing the unmute button for you, but you have to press unmute as well once it pops up on your screen. Yeah. Sorry, because of technical difficulties, I think we'll have to end public comment there. I know there's a motion on the floor to adjourn. Do I have a second on that motion? Second from Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? All those opposed? Sorry, it's too late in the night. Motion passes, meeting adjourned.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Thank you. I wanted to thank you for putting in all the effort of collecting and and rearranging our individual recommendations. I know we had a lot. And it's really helpful to see it all in one place. I think looking at it, one of my general thoughts is that there So some of the things I'm asking for, like the community liaisons program, some of the things that other councils are asking for all fall under the purview of the health department. And so I think maybe we could further kind of collapse that into that one big category and say, prevent cuts to this department and then note, like in a parentheses, those positions that we're referring to.
[Justin Tseng]: I think you basically, what I was going to say parallels what you just said. I think I wanted to bring special attention to the last two years that we've done this. We have brought out the schools and library in particular, and I think it was clear that we weren't privileging any one department over the other or leaving anyone behind. And so I think Councilor Collins, where she was coming from, was just following what we did in past practice. But I think there's some nuance to it and how it breaks down. And I think the proposed amendments make a lot of sense. Councilor Kelly.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tsengng. Um, if Scorpio council's car probably would be amenable. I think that the paper would be a good chance to ask dpw what they think inappropriate increase in the spending for road signage markets are, because I was talking with some of our department heads and they were saying, That's something that they wanted to advocate for in this year's budget because it slows down road repavings a lot, but they didn't give me a solid figure for us to advocate for.
[Justin Tseng]: Requesting a proposed number for increased spending in road signage, markings, and striping.
[Justin Tseng]: We can list out the positions. So basically what I was thinking was prevention and outreach positions and the community liaisons.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: I'd be happy to move on it, especially since I also brought it up. I think we really need to be putting in the long-term steps for us to you know, grow our finances and to be able to process our finances better. And so I completely agree. It's a priority of ours. Great. Councilor Collins.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Hsuang. I believe that the last committee of the whole, you had a really good explanation for what exactly we're looking for in terms of financial software. I think what Councilor Scarpelli is maybe referring to is a little different to what we were referring to. And I was wondering if, I mean, you explained it best. I was wondering if you could explain it again for the council.
[Justin Tseng]: Appreciate that.
[Justin Tseng]: I'd appreciate that, thank you. And I think since I had to make the motion, I'd be happy to amend it as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Thank you. I don't want this to be bogged down in discussions about the idea in particular, because this is just the approved meeting minutes. But I would respectfully disagree. I think that we can't be setting up too high of a standard that we can't meet. We can't let perfect be the enemy of good. and we need to be reaching out to residents with all channels necessarily. One of the motions that came out of that meeting was to have a continuous discussion in that committee about ways to improve outreach. We are actually working very closely with our communications director on this, and he's very, very supportive of this project. He wants us to do it and to see it succeed, and he wants to help us promote it as well. We've talked about at that meeting a number of different avenues to disseminate this information from the Medford Community Media, Senior Center Newsletter, social media, as Councilor Leming and Councilor Lazzaro talked about, and through building an email list and texting WhatsApp groups. So we've talked about a number of options that we're exploring, many of which are options that we already have as a council.
[Justin Tseng]: Motion to approve with the conditions attached to the CD board.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to say this was informative and helpful. Thank you for putting this on the agenda. I know you have a motion on the floor for us to work with you all and the clerk to reset our next paper on the matter.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Sen. Thank you so much. First of all, I want to thank you, President Bears, for leading this project. I want to thank the administration for negotiating with us and good faith about it. I know a lot of these, a lot of the stuff in this ordinance is not easy for any administration to stomach. It represents a massive shift in power away from the administration and towards the grassroots. The budgeting in Massachusetts and budgeting in Medford in particular has traditionally been very top down. And it's been really, truly an honor to be able to work so closely with you, with Vice President Collins and subcommittee over many months, many long months to get us to a draft where everyone can agree that this moves our city forward and in a way that is feasible. I think what is most striking to me about this budget ordinance is that it's a true commitment to our values of transparency. It's a true testimony that our city council is working really hard to bring transparency into the things that matter the most. And I think the budget forming the backbone of the city's operations is really truly a significant place for that to be happening. the budget. Um when we think about what this includes quarterly financial reports, um, breakdowns of fixed costs versus new expenses, um, annual budget needs assessment, um, more logical and reasonable schedule for, um, working on this budget as a city council. I think all of these are steps that really, um, give us more time and give us And to engage department heads to see what they actually want in their departments rather than being handed a version of the budget that has already been pre negotiated for us. I think, in addition to that transparency. I think it's very logical. I mean, I think. we need to be setting higher standards for how government operates, and this ordinance does that. It is clearer to residents, it will make the budget process clearer to residents as to what that few hundred page document actually means, what the numbers mean, and what that number, what those numbers mean in relation to their lives, to their lived experiences as residents of the city. So I'm very, very happy to support this. I urge my colleagues to do the same. And I think this is something that is truly, truly nonpartisan and really, really revolutionary.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm very grateful for my fellow Councilor for introducing this. I think when it comes to something that hasn't been updated since 1990, that should be updated regularly, it makes a lot of sense. I think we need to show our residents that we're trying to find revenue wherever we can, and especially in ways that don't overburden folks. And this is definitely one of those paths. And so I'm very grateful that you've introduced this and started a really important conversation about linkage fees, about updating ordinances, about tying different things to it. I think it's very helpful. And I think your ideas are very strong here.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh yes, Councilor Tseng, sorry. And on your note of informing the public, something that I've been working really hard on over the last month that we passed in the Resident Services Committee is a litany of different proposals that reach out to the public and provide input surveys and forms and let people know about important meetings that are upcoming and big debates.
[Justin Tseng]: So we're going to develop an email list on the city side for the city council. We're going to develop our city website as well. A lot of this is in early days, but if you reach out to us, we can make sure that you're put on that list when it's developed.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Chair LeMing. I am going to go back to sharing the slides that I shared with everyone last meeting, just to reorient ourselves in this meeting. Give me one second as I set that up.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. So I got a chance to sit down with communications director Smriti last week, walking through the ideas. And I think the summary of our meeting was that he's very, very supportive of the council taking up a lot of these most, if not all of these initiatives. He told me that he's worked in many municipalities and governments in the past. And it was strange to him that the legislative branch did not. the mayor's newsletter. He didn't have any communications of their own. And so he said he would be supportive of it that he would support us in, um in distributing as well. So he said, um, pending an approval from the chief of staff. He thinks it would be appropriate to, um, boost our monthly newsletters in the mayor's newsletter. Um newsletters as well to If we want to use the city's email list, he would help us get access to it. But he also suggested that we work on further developing our own email list. I know the clerk has one. And I think that's a good jumping off point, potentially, for the distribution of the newsletters. But going really quickly back, so the press releases slash monthly summaries is the main idea is I think it's the headline piece of the communications reform package, essentially to remind residents.
[Justin Tseng]: Just let us know when.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, so from last week's discussion and from my discussion with Steve, the, um. The monthly summaries basically would be created by a rotating group of Councilors who sign up for this duty. And I think it would be best if Chair Leming created the schedule of Councilors who were interested. And essentially each month, this committee at the beginning of our meeting, we would vote and approve a summary of that month's city council activities to go out to the public. So basically just a summary as some Councilors are already doing. Now, the reason why we have decided on the rotating structure is that a lot of our Councilors have individually started newsletters at some point. And because it gets to be a lot, we all kind of drop off after a few months. And sometimes we go back into it, but it's really difficult to sustain over a long period of time. And so we believe that creating the system where we have a duty to bring something in on a calendar system, but also something that's not too demanding on councillors is the best system, and I think the rotating system is that solution. So I would actually move. I have sent the text of these motions to the clerk, but on the newsletter item, and we can vote on these at the end of the meeting, but I would motion to start a city council newsletter to summarize important city council meetings and discussions, as well as inform the public as to upcoming meetings to be distributed prior to and approved at each meeting of the Committee on Resident Services and Public Engagement. Do we have a second on that motion?
[Justin Tseng]: More and more broadly. And so the idea is this newsletter, this monthly newsletter slash summary, would be the kind of baseline for us to create short form videos informing residents on.
[Justin Tseng]: More broadly. OK. Sorry. That was a great question. Thank you so much. And yeah, and I would, there's a second motion that I think we would need to make. So I'd like to move for the chair of the committee on resident services and public engagement to create and distribute a sign up list slash sign up survey of Councilors who will rotate responsibilities in writing the city council newsletter and or making short form video summaries in collaboration with the Medford community media and to authorize the chair to create a calendar for these responsibilities.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, that's the that's the intention. And we can add in language in the motion to clarify that. Um, I can email the clerk after I'm finished speaking. That's a good detail to pick up on. So that kind of speaks to, I'm going to go quickly to this slide, the idea of creating short form videos. We know that some residents, especially for younger residents, it's easier to engage with government in a visual form rather than in reading. And so creating a short form video, nothing more than a minute or two, that summarizes what we've written in the monthly summaries, I think would be really helpful, particularly for residents closer to my age. And I think it would be the algorithms on social media apps also do tend to promote this stuff, too. And so if we want this, if we want our contents to be going out to a wider audience rather than a limited audience, I think it would behoove us to create short form videos. I think at the same time, we talked to Kevin from Medford Community Media last week. He basically gave us the structure of how we would execute this. And so essentially what we do is, Councilors who are interested in doing this would create their own Medford Community Media accounts. they can go into the studios to record or record something at home and send it into To the Medford community media and they can post it on their website and have it run on the loop on public access TV Yeah, so that that's a short form video part I wanted to to talk about it real quick because that was in the last motion as well Now I would also like to On the idea of distribution, I think there's continuous work to be done on making sure this reaches the widest audience possible. We talked about that a lot last week, from using city email lists to developing our own, to creating social media accounts, to working with a senior center to put in their newsletter as well, to working with whatever forms of print media might arise. I wanted to create a cash haul motion to authorize the chair or a designee from this committee to work on that process continuously, to basically empower the chair or that designee to work on it. to work on creating those connections. And so I would like to move for the chair of the committee on resident services and public engagement and or his designee to work with our communications director and other city staff to distribute the city council newsletter and create an email list for the city council to use.
[Justin Tseng]: No, the questions are really helpful, yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: So I have a motion coming up that addresses that. I wanted to do this motion slightly before, but since you're talking about that already, I can go to this slide. On the topic of the email list, I've included that in this motion to create an email list.
[Justin Tseng]: So the first motion is to create the newsletter. The second motion is to create a list of councillors who will rotate responsibilities. The third motion that I just read out is basically to work with city staff and the comms director to develop ways for outreach, for distribution. and to create an email list for us to use. And the best way to do that might actually just be working with the city clerk. But I think it'd be something that we should work on. That might take quite a while to set up. And so I think we should empower someone to work on that outside of a committee meeting.
[Justin Tseng]: The email list, yes. On the topic of social media, because you brought that up, I think on the question of distribution, it's really important to find as many ways to distribute as possible. As you said, it's important for folks to be able to follow on their preferred networks. And so I think with that goal of distributing news in a more rapid manner, in a way that folks prefer, in a way that is more casual and accessible and widespread. I wanted our committee to discuss a little bit the creation of social media. Now, this is a little bit more complex, and so I wanted to get feedback from the committee first about it. I do see Steve has his hand raised and I want to give him, I would love to give him a chance to speak.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Thank you so much, Steve. Thank you for clarifying. I think what I meant was just more for, you know, like the mayor's newsletter does link often to other newsletters. I think that's what I was more referring to, and Steve can nod if that's possible. He gave us a thumbs up. So something like that, maybe putting in when we have something really important, putting in a few points for us. But we did talk and he did think keeping the independence of the city council is important. And so having us develop our own systems for distribution will be really important as well.
[Justin Tseng]: I saw that Steve had his hand briefly raised if he if he wants to speak to that first, that would be helpful.
[Justin Tseng]: I think Councilor Lazzaro put it really well. The vision of this is just to say, we voted on this item, this is how that vote went, and link to that item as well. And occasionally, if we're just doing a release about one agenda item, posting the text of that resolution as well. We did, I spent quite a lot of time thinking about how we could make this as official and as not politicized as possible. And that, as Councilor Lazzaro referred to, that is the idea of having this rotate amongst a lot of different councilors to have that switch, and also to make sure that we are approving them as a committee together. Now, Councilor Scarpelli is usually here. He doesn't really miss any of these meetings. I, you know, there's a reason, I mean, there's a reason why he's on this committee in the first place, but there's also a reason why, why I wanted to have this committee approve it, right? Because him and I, we don't usually vote the same or we vote the same way half of the time, but we have our major disagreements. And I want to make sure that he feels comfortable with those press releases that we're sending out as well. And so that's the idea of having it approved by a body of five people first. Councilor Callahan.
[Justin Tseng]: So I'd be happy to read them without emotion. So the very first one is the motion to start a city council newsletter to summarize important city council meetings and discussions, as well as inform the public as the upcoming meetings to be distributed prior to and approved at each. I should amend this to say to be distributed to committee members prior to and approved at each meeting of the committee on resident services and public engagement.
[Justin Tseng]: I defer to my colleagues.
[Justin Tseng]: I think with multi-platform in particular, I see this written newsletter as the basis of everything else. And so if we say multi-platform, we might fall into the space of we don't know if we would have to keep voting on every single video that we send out.
[Justin Tseng]: Newsletter content. Yeah. Yeah, I'd be happy with that. Yeah, and we can we can decide at a further time what exactly to call it if we want but no, I just Only because it meant something different to me than what you meant. That's the only reason so thank you I think this is something that we can uh, we can just say newsletter content for now and then at our upcoming meeting where we do I assume we'll have
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. Yeah. Well, well, with the with with the plumbing meeting next month, I'm assuming that we'll have one draft on our desks. And at that point, we can we can workshop it.
[Justin Tseng]: No, no, it's a great point. The second motion was a motion for the chair of the committee on resident services and public engagement to create and distribute a sign-up lists of, I guess, instead of sign-up lists, maybe sign-up form, sign-up form of councillors who wish to rotate responsibilities in writing the city council newsletter content and or making short form videos, summaries in collaboration with Medford Community Media and to authorize the chair to create a calendar for these responsibilities.
[Justin Tseng]: Just give me a second. I think the best way to do that would be to say to create and distribute a sign up form. Create a sign up form and distribute to city councilors to all city councilors who wish to rotate responsibilities. Yes, yeah. I'm also going to resend this in a new email to you.
[Justin Tseng]: great. And then the third motion you asked me to read out was a motion for the chair of the Committee on Resident Services and Public Engagement and or his designee to work with our communications director and other city staff to distribute the City Council newsletter content and to create an email list for the City Council to use. Perfect.
[Justin Tseng]: Just adding the word content.
[Justin Tseng]: And if, if I might jump in quickly, I, for my conversations with Steve, it seemed like that was actually the main thing that he could do in helping us is, um, like what they do with other departments and their newsletters put in a link on the newsletter saying here's a new city council newsletter sign up.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, Councilor Tseng. So on the clerk's point, I think that's a great basis for us to go off of. It may be something that we can do as a committee is find ways to publicize the opt-in and to really do some work into building that email list up. I think the clerks work really hard to get the list to where it is right now, but we all have our personal networks as well. Our own constituents who reach out to us and want to learn more and if we if we can point them to that direction say Here's a link to opt into this list And we're gonna start posting newsletters on that list then that might be it Put it in your email signature Steve
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Thank you so much, Steve. That's really helpful, and that would be excellent. I had a question about constant contacts. Is there a subscription fee that the city has already signed up to that we could create an account with, or would we have to subscribe separately as a city council? Would you know the details about that?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much. So I think these are all questions to keep considering. I mean, I think we already have something to build off of, so we can use that for now. I believe the second motion that I introduced would empower Matt or Matt's, Chair Leming or Chair Leming's designated work, keep working with Steve and Adam to work out if we can get on an official platform or if there's a better way to build out. I think a lot of this future action is already there's already a motion for it.
[Justin Tseng]: Right. Councilor say, I think that's a good segue into the social media conversation. And so I guess I, I had two big questions for the my other Councilors here tonight, the first one being which platforms we should set up. I've heard. I've heard people say Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, YouTube. We could do all of them and assign different ones to different Councilors, maybe have one Councilor take up more than one and work with the clerk to maintain it. We can talk about the policy part later, but I think the first thing is to decide which platforms we think are worth using. I think the second thing to decide is, what does that policy look like? And I guess if it would be helpful for the council, we could motion for me to draft the policy for social media and then come back next meeting and then create the social media accounts at the next meeting. That could be possible. But if the committee prefers creating an account now and then just to set up an account now, I think that also works.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much, Steve. I think that that's really helpful. And the idea I think it's really good. I think, in general, I also agree. I think Councilor Callahan brought up a great point about the texting and WhatsApp. I would love for us to do everything, but I think we should talk about bandwidth as well, and I think that is something for us to think about over the next few weeks. I'd be happy to pick up the social media conversation at the next meeting, and maybe in the meantime, either one of us could create a survey and post it representing the committee, and we could have a motion for that, or we could just not have a motion, just have one of us create a survey, not representing the committee, but just surveying people's media usage. I don't know if there's a preferred path. I think one of us would post it on Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, Instagram.
[Justin Tseng]: That's a thing. Yeah. Right. I did think that, yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: maybe we think about it over the next few weeks. But I think in the meantime, it might behoove us, in order to speed things up a little bit, for one of us, I can do it, to create social media guidelines, like a policy, for us to walk into these apps with. I'll give them a sec. I'd like to make a motion on the social media thing then. Yes, I'd like to motion for this committee to, do you want me to do it?
[Justin Tseng]: I'm so grateful. I'm so grateful. I just don't want, you know, it's such a project that I've been working on that I don't want to put work on you guys that you don't want to do, but I'm so happy. I'm very, very happy for people to take things on my desk. Didn't we want to lump all these together? Yeah. Okay, yeah, I think that makes sense. Or we can voice vote. I just want to quickly go to, if you'll let me, just the last few slides, because I have some ideas about how to proceed with those ideas, but I don't think we should necessarily move on everything tonight. And so actually, this one I did actually. No, no, no, no, just ideas to discuss. Um, but this one I do actually have a motion for. So I, um, I've talked about this very briefly at the last meeting, and I didn't really have time to go into depth about it. Before the last budget as a person like as a Councilor myself, I put out a survey for feedback about what people would like to see in our budget. Um, And I posted it on all the social media, sent it out to email lists, asked other Councilors to help distribute it for me. And it got a lot of responses. It might have gotten 300, 400 responses. And there was a lot of great feedback in that survey. I would love if this committee would to do that. So instead of doing it as an individual Councilor, doing it as a public engagement committee, I think that would be really powerful and impactful. And we can, as in that case, as Councilors, we can all distribute that information to all of our lists, and we would all be empowered to. I would, I'd love for us to talk about this, but I would like to motion for me to present a draft of a budget input survey at our next meeting. Do we have a second?
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, it should be five. Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll second the move.
[Justin Tseng]: The last two things I have on this slide are, so Steve mentioned, we talked briefly about the City website and he had some ideas about what we could put on the City website on the Council page. Oh, sorry. I didn't ask for you to recognize me.
[Justin Tseng]: I think it was join and approve.
[Justin Tseng]: We kept you up last night.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much. So Steve and I talked really quickly about some ideas that we could do on the city website, like putting the newsletters on there, sign up for the email list. We talked about building out pages for Councilors with bios and for us to put out our own press releases if we need. I think this is a future discussion because I think I would love to, there is actually a paper in committee about meeting to discuss reforming the city website. I'd love to meet in a future setting where we can publicize that meeting really widely and get people to come and give us some feedback as to what they would want to see in a reformed city website, especially on the council page. So that was just my kind of note on that one. And the very last thing, which I think we should create another paper for it. So I think it would make sense for Councilors to introduce it as a resolution on a meeting agenda, but meeting with underrepresented groups, we talked Councilors are and I were at the senior center and we mentioned doing a coffee hour with senior residents at the senior center. I know I've talked with Councilor Callaghan during the election season about an idea like this where we do a listening tour with underrepresented groups. I just wanted to bring this up because I think I was just saying that I think the right course of action would be to create a paper number for it in the future. but that's all I had, thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Lazzaro. And thank you, Councilor Collins, for working so hard on this draft and bringing action to an issue that we hear a lot about. I just had two quick notes. The first one being, When in the ordinance draft when it talks about seed debris, it doesn't necessarily talk about how much time has to or how soon you have to collect seed debris by. I think that's an opening for a little bit of misunderstanding. It's possible that people could misunderstand it. It's not very clear for code enforcement what that is. I'm not necessarily motioning to amend it right now because there might be a reason why it's written like that. But I was wondering if, at the very least, the Board of Health could create a standard for how long we expect that sea debris to be cleaned up by. So that was my first note. I think the second note, It was also more about Board of Health policy, maybe if, since Councilor Collins is already working with city staff on this, it could bring up to the Board of Health. But I was wondering if the Board of Health should consider publishing best practice guidelines for gardens and vegetable community community gardens where vegetables are being grown that could attract rodents. I think the reason why I would separate this from the ordinance is it would be difficult to regulate this behavior, but it would be helpful to disseminate best practices in my opinion.
[Justin Tseng]: Motion to suspend the rules and take 24-055 out of order.
[Justin Tseng]: I think it's really important for us to recognize what question exactly is on our desk today. When we last looked at the stabilization fund idea, as Councilor Collins referred to, it was both to create a fund and to put money in it. Today's item is different. Today's item is just to create the fund and not to put money in it, which is traditionally where the sticking point with the city council has been. Now, when it comes to creating the fund, I am in support of it because of the rainy day aspect. The way that our finances work right now, if, God forbid, an emergency happened in the city where a roof fell in on a school or a major repair was needed to a public facility, we would not be able to access the funds needed to fix those problems until free cash is certified by the state, which can often take many, many, many months. oftentimes closer to a year, and creating the stabilization fund gives us the opportunity to have that money ready to fix emergencies when needed. So I support this idea. I will second Councilor Collins' motion.
[Justin Tseng]: I move to move this, uh, to extend this hearing until continue until a date certain of April 2nd.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. On the former council, I've heard this project before. I'm particularly excited about it. I think it'll bring a lot of life, business, housing to an area where we really need it. I just have two small notes about it after talking to some city staff who've been working with you all about it. There's a duplicate in the document and the small condition that I'd like to put in. So I'd like, Mr. President, I'd like to motion to approve the special permit and site plan as revised with the conditions recommended by this community development board, and add in two amendments, one to strike point 12, which is a duplicate of point nine in the plan.
[Justin Tseng]: Either nine or 12. Condition 12, okay. And then the second condition is to add this following wording, which I can get to the city clerk if that works. residents of the new building will be restricted from obtaining city of Medford residential street parking permits ensure that on street parking capacity is not impacted by the development which is intended to attract residents with lower rates of car ownership, as it is approximately one block from Paul square MBTA Green Line station.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. What's the motion on the floor? The motion on the floor is to approve the special permit and site plan as revised with the conditions recommended by the Community Development Board and to strike condition 12. from the conditions as it's a duplicate of condition nine, and to add in the wording, which I've already emailed to the city clerk, residents of the new building will be restricted from obtaining City of Medford residential street parking permits to ensure that on-street parking capacity is, that on-street parking capacity is not impacted by the development, which is intended to attract residents with lower rates of car ownership as it is approximately one block from Ball Street and BTA Green Line Station.
[Justin Tseng]: Any questions for members of the council Councilor Tseng not a question but being very quick for my other for the new Councilors here the history of this is the MBTA is this project where they want to improve pedestrian infrastructure for bus stops. At the same time, Medford has a higher concentration of bus stops and other cities, a lot of them go pretty much unused. We don't have any powers of city council to stop bus stops being taken away but the last council leveraged a lot of that. are the approvals that we need to do for the infrastructure projects to keep bus stops to make improvements to the bus stops that they were talking about. And so I would move approval.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng, Thank you, President Bears. Um, this is especially for the folks watching at home but I wanted to explain a little bit about where I'm where I stand on this issue because I think all voters deserve to know what I'm thinking right now. I have to be very clear about what's before us tonight. We're merely debating whether to send this idea to a subcommittee for further study, and we do this with essentially any issue, whether we support it or oppose it as a council. This is a first step in a multi-month process that, as my colleagues have alluded to, would have to be approved by the mayor, the state house, and the governor. And even during that process, we will have lots of public meetings. this committee process is, in my eyes, really crucial to what gets voted on at the end of the day and where I will stand on it at the end of the day. I think that we need to discuss exemptions for owner-occupants, seniors, family members, and talk about a threshold with which, under that amount, we wouldn't be setting that tax. When we talk about this real estate transfer fee, I think it's really important to note that we can discuss it as a 2% tax, but that wouldn't be the most honest way of discussing it, especially if there's a threshold. If there's a threshold, for example, set at $1 million, if the property is $1.2 million, the tax is actually effectively only 0.17%. Um, the it's also I think important to note that, yes, we do have CPA funding but at our last public open CPA meeting, the staff has been very clear that we need much more money to set up a successful affordable housing trust that that funding is not nearly enough. to fund affordable housing, and that they broke down how they're spending that money, and there has been very widespread support of how that money is being spent, including a 7-0 vote on City Council. With regards to going back to this idea of the committee process, I spent the last few days doing a lot of deep diving into long, long economic research papers and policy reports about transfer fee and economic research from scholars at schools like Columbia, U Michigan, from national government economic research bodies, Institute of Public Studies, the Boston Globe, have all emphasized that the effect on this tax on economic growth and housing affordability hinges on this design process and committee, where we can design the fee to largely affect large developers building luxury housing, and we can actually use levers to relieve other economic burdens on home ownership. Now, rather regrettably, I think some folks have misunderstood or mischaracterized this policy issue by making it sound like we're doing something we're not doing. That's not how we operate. We have rules that we need to follow, and we follow procedure on big issues like this because we know that oftentimes they can be controversial. in the city. As a young and lifelong Medford resident as someone who wants to stay in the city, but is worried of being priced out. I understand that perspective. I understand that we are in a housing crisis. I also understand that the economic growth of our city in our state is lacking because people can't afford to stay here. Think Matt referred to the letter that we received from many residents, longtime residents of Medford, who are now being who use our services and who contribute to our city as well, who volunteer. But, you know, as a son of long-time Etrovert homeowners, I also see that side of the discourse intimately as well. And ultimately, you know, I would probably, my family and I contribute to my parents' fund as well, which they use to pay taxes and property taxes. You know, I, This might not be the best policy for me as a person, but ultimately my vote hinges on what is best in a well-rounded sense for a city. Now, our job as elected officials is to balance interests, to balance not just one constituency's needs or ideas or propositions, but to marry them with all others. That's why my vote will ultimately hinge on the final product that we produce in committee, which will only come after a months-long process, a public process that takes into account the value perspectives from people in our city, be it angry, happy, supportive, opposing. And I invite everyone to stay engaged with this process over the next few months, but I do ask for that discourse to be respectful, to be understanding, and we might disagree, but we cannot be disagreeable.
[Justin Tseng]: Any further comments from members of the council Councilor say, I just wanted to thank the last speaker for for his tone, and it, you know, I support President Bears is and Councilor Lazzaros, what what what they said about it I don't think this is the one tool I don't think it's a be all, and all I think a lot of it depends on the design of the program. Looking at Governor Healey's plan, 80% of revenue generated by this would actually be from commercial. So it would be from the flippers and not from the residential as well. And I think that's really important to mention. I think equally important to mention is that zoning is a top priority of both this council, but also me as a councilor. And we're, I believe, holding a meeting on it tomorrow at 6 p.m. Yes, we are. So we're very much getting on it.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. And thank you everyone for bearing with Sorry, bad, bad joke. Awful joke too late for it to be bearing with us as we've met tonight. Um, you know I wanted to piggyback off of what Councilor Leming was saying. Unfortunately, state law does constrain the amount of discourse that we can have in public before a meeting when it comes to the fleshing out, or I mean when it comes to talking about a proposal like this but also fleshing out the details, as I think we are very conscious about opening one. we want to make sure that we're not breaking it. And that's hindered our ability to talk freely about what we as individual Councilors would like to see in a home rule petition like this. As has been noted by a member of the public, the 18 home rule petitions that have passed are all different. They're all customized to their municipality. And I want us to have a chance to do that for Medford. Now, whether, we'll vote for it or not, whether we'll pass it is truly contingent on what the language is. And I think, you know, my fellow Councilors know that's my stance. When I think about my obligations as a city councilor, it truly is to represent everyone. And there are a lot of people who oppose this, I acknowledge that. There are people who agree with it too. I mean, honestly, I think I got just as many correspondences through email in favor as opposed, if not that. Now, I think in this moment, I think back to, The 7500 voters who voted for me the doors are not saying that I promised them that we would spend time and committee studying every revenue option that we had. and the text on my website that essentially promises that, and more specifically says that we should study certain real estate transfer fees. And so I think it would be breaking my platform and my promise to the voters who voted for me to not vote to continue this night. But that being said, I think there's a lot more time in the future to flesh out the details. I think everyone should come to those meetings and participate as well. And on the communication aspect of things, I know things aren't ideal, but at 7pm tomorrow night in the Resident Services Committee, I'm going to continue proposing a whole litany of reforms when it comes to communications. I've been working with the Communications Director of the City to develop channels for us to reach out to residents as well, alternative channels that don't just build off of lists that we have, but expand those lists We've talked I know a few of us have talked to Pam Kelly at the senior center, talking about how we can reach out to seniors and put updates about what we're talking about in city council on into the senior center newsletter as well. On the budget item, we know that we have to be more transparent and that's why on the agenda for tonight I don't know if we'll get to it but on an agenda for tonight. There is a brand new get to it. I'd love to get to it. We have a brand new budget ordinance that lays out more clearly what developing our city budget will look like it will have more opportunities for people to contribute feedback, and for people to see more information.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. And a special thank you to all my colleagues for bearing with me. I was in memo writing mode last week, writing legal memos, so I figured it would be easier for me just to continue with the memo writing. Essentially, thank you. I appreciate it. I'm glad my teacher gave me a name. So essentially my idea is well down to three big categories. One is small dollar increases, investments to help our city improve its public services. The second category is preserving spending, important spending projects that we have right now, which I think many of my colleagues have already alluded to. The last bucket is long-term plans. So essentially spending items I think for me personally as a Councilor, I don't need to see in this budget because I know the constraints on this budget are real, but I really would like the administration to commit to putting plans forward, at least the next few months to show us how we might get to a place where we can fund those important priorities. So going one by one. The first bucket, I really is much shorter so I've sat down with some of our city staff and the prevention outreach department, recreation department as well. We've basically been working on the youth. commission ordinance that I know Councilor Scarpelli is also big into. I think we've made a lot of progress, but we've also identified that we will need a real budget if we want the project to succeed. And so sitting down, doing the calculations, thinking about the number of members that we need to be paying for that commission and also the event costs, the cost for a secretary or lead organizer for the commission, it boils down to about $20,000. I think the number is somewhat adjustable, but that's about the number we need. And this includes $800 stipends for members. Now, the stipend, because it includes youth, it should be $800 or less, because when you go over $800, there are special reports that folks under 18 have to file. I think a similar logic is behind the Gender Equity Commission, which I think because there will likely be less programming and less secretarial kind of work needed, clerical work needed, $9,000 is an appropriate amount for that. I've also talked to member city staff in the planning and DW department, something that we talked about earlier this year when we were working through the governing agenda when I was sitting with them and going through the governing agenda was to help our city meet our priorities when it comes to safe streets and bicycle lanes, repaving streets. We have a series of policies that dictate what types of signage and markings we need before we can repave a street. That's oftentimes a constraint to us actually getting the repaving done. And so they've mentioned that increasing the line item spending for road signages slash road markings can be really helpful in getting us to repave streets faster and in a safer manner. Very similarly in kind of the raising spending category, increasing staffing for our elections department I think is something that's already been said a few times. We have noted I think it's really noteworthy the the change in the elections department going from more FDs to fewer FDs and how that really constrains what our city government can do and the quality of the service that we can give our residents. And given that this year we have a very contentious presidential election, given the political atmosphere, both municipally and nationally, increasing the capacity of our elections office I think is very paramount. In the second bucket, essentially, we have the items where I think we need to fight hard on preserving spending. I think Councilor Scarpelli really made a very important point in saying that the victims of government, cutting government spending are oftentimes and usually the less advantaged in our city. It's not necessarily going to affect every single resident, but it will affect a large number of residents who can't afford to replace those services with their own budget. And so that's why maintaining our spending in our public schools, in our library, maintaining the community liaisons program, which is grant funded, maintaining our health equity and outreach positions are really important priorities for us, for me at least, and from what I hear for the rest of the council as well. And these are essentially essentially roles that we need to make sure don't get lost and don't become victim to cuts in government spending. Now, there's also the economic development plan I've also put in this bucket. This is a really, really, really important position that's been helping Medford open up a lot of new businesses that folks in the community have been really excited for. We've just hired a new one, and I think it's very much a priority of mine to make sure that we can keep developing our local economy, and hopefully that will help us improve our revenues over a longer term as well. to be able to do that. Now the last bucket about long term plans. I think, um, for me, the real focus is one of the types of investments our city can make early on that will reap us rewards and benefits and especially more revenue in the future. And so updating our city's assist us in the reforms that we want to make is really important to me, and I think it's something that the City Council should be pushing for more. Ensuring that our HR department has the capacity they need to complete their work, I think is something that will make working in Medford more of a draw. for city staff as well. And well, some of the dissatisfaction that we hear from improving childcare access is something that tons of residents write me about throughout the term, no matter what time of the year it is. And in Councilor Collins' vein, raising the salaries of vacant positions to meet regional pay standards is, I think, really important. And it sounds like there's appetite for us to push hard for this cycle, which I would be happy in joining as well. We've heard a lot about how difficult it is to fill some of our positions because there's a shortage in the labor force. Now, because of market demands, we just have to be willing to pay for what we want. and I agree that a city solicitor is really, really important to helping our city council get as much work done as possible, and to help the city save costs from outsourcing. And I would be very happy to support any action to bring those salaries up to where our neighboring municipalities are at to draw candidates. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng, then Councilor Callahan. I concur with Vice President Collins. I think that, in my opinion, to do it right now without letting it sit with us for a little bit might be a little too rushed. I know there are great ideas that my colleagues had that I didn't necessarily jot down, and I think it would be great to give, and I think a lot of us are in that same position, so it would be great for us to sit down and have that time to think about the proposals that have been laid out on the table. I also have noticed just scanning through what you presented, I think we have a lot of ideas that are basically the same idea, but just worded in slightly different ways. I think there's work to be done on combining those ideas as well. I think a little bit of time would be nice. I think the council leadership has built in time for us to discuss. to discuss and compile. And so I would be happy. I would say I would concur with Vice President Collins and her recommendation to the Council.
[Justin Tseng]: Vice President Collins. Present. Councilor Lazzaro. Present. Councilor Levin.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Councilor Zang. Um, I think to my fellow Councilors points, um, I think this is meant to be a lot more, I guess, more informative and less scary than it sounds. Um, the. I, I believe that the council is already. Taking a step back when it comes to what exactly this report entails and the details that has to entail. I think where we've become over the last few months, much more open minded as to what the broad definition of a report and what types of information we're seeing. And as President Bears said, the. the committee at the very least. As a councilor on this committee, I would be also amenable to the report just saying, the city does not have the resources to do this at this moment. This is not a feasible option. I wonder if there is a way to reduce maybe any hesitation or fear that the administration might have and yet need a compromise on this topic. Along the lines of what Councilor Ilazaro said about finding dates of effectiveness that work for the section that work for the administration for the section, maybe delaying it a year or putting in the words. Instead of saying just a report to council regarding progress towards and resources necessary to do X, Y, and Z, to say a report to council regarding progress towards, resources necessary for, and the feasibility of including. x, y, z. And I think that would be maybe slightly broader and yet still get at the same spirit of what the council is looking for. And I know as Director Dickinson, you said, you don't know what council we're going to be working with in five years or 10 years. Maybe that adjustment in wording will give you guys more leeway in terms of what you can do legally with an ordinance like this in the future.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Thank you, President Bears. In the spirit of the work that we've been doing on this committee, I know there are two new members here too, so I wanted to recap a little bit. But when we first had a meeting on this, we had a draft that I think everyone in the room agreed was the model of what a budget assessment ordinance should look like. And there was contention over what was realistic and what was possible. And I believe this draft that we see in front of us today, It's the result of good faith negotiations from all parties on all of those points. And we haven't really thrown anything out of the window. We've just come to work point by point and come to places of consensus and agreement on this. I think we've also operated with the assumption that the committee wants to see all these things in it. and is not ready to move forward with an ordinance without a lot of the components. And I think with that assumption, with that understanding of this draft ordinance, that's where a lot of that good faith negotiation came from. I just want to make sure that, you know, it seems from my read of what we're talking about, what we've been talking about over the last 20 minutes, it doesn't sound like the committee is ready to just toss out this section. of the of the ordinance. And I would, I know Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Collins, myself, we've all presented ways for us to, on this point, reach that point of consensus, that shared understanding of how do we balance, you know, the administration's concerns and understandings of our are the feasibility of doing a lot of this stuff with the ideals and the moral, I guess, the needs of our community to get this information transparently and for our council to get the information so we can make better financial decisions as a city. And I guess what I'm saying is, I would love if we can engage in that discourse with the administration as to how can we make the section work better. Let's not assume that we're throwing this out of the window. What language changes can we make to get everyone on the same page here?
[Justin Tseng]: I would also like to echo those sentiments. I know Councilor Collins, President Bears, and I have sat through many of these meetings on this ordinance. I just can't overstate how important this is for Medford, how much time we spent on this. I think we've created a product that our city can be really proud of. our residents can be very proud of as well. That really moves us forward as a team, all of us, in our goals of reaching more transparency, making better decisions for our city, creating more reform. I think this is the kind of positive spirit that so many residents have invested their faith in our government for, and I really want to thank you, Director Dickinson, our Chief of Staff, for working so hard with our committee on this.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Tseng. Thank you. I think a lot has been said in this meeting and in meetings past about the environmental effects of leaf blowers and the quality of life effects with the festival levels that we're seeing in Medford. I think that's the reason why we've seen so many letters and emails into the council, at least to the previous councils, about quality of life with leaf blowers. in the city and the need to act on it, and I know that's the spirit with which former Council President Morell introduced this. Now, with that being said, we also recognize that as a council back then, that we needed to reach out to other stakeholders, too, who had different perspectives on the issue, who might not agree with the final product that we passed, but we recognize that in good faith, we needed to make adjustments that would let them you know, continue in a reasonable manner and to let residents who want to use certain types of leaf blowers, especially electric leaf blowers, to function and live as they want to. Now, you know, oftentimes we're pulled in many different directions on issues like this, but it's our job as a council to sit down and figure out how we balance those interests and how we create a compromise that is reasonable, accessible and just in a policy manner speaking, good. I believe that this draft, having read through it before coming to this meeting, reflects that. I think it's in a much, much better shape than what we saw late last year, which I know a lot of residents had concerns about. We integrated those concerns and feedback and changed quite a lot in between these versions of the draft. I think it's just important to set out that the history of this piece of text and the compromises that have come with it as well.
[Justin Tseng]: I don't think it really matter. I think each year would open the question up to each calendar year or each, um, each block of 365 days. So annually is just clear in that sense. But any further thoughts?
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Thank you. I think it's, you know, I want to reiterate Councilor Collins' point that we've talked, we have considered the question of lithium batteries throughout the creation of this process. Looking at reports from the EPA, from UPenn, from Wash U in St. Louis, from Yale University. they all ask us to think about, yes, there is an environmental impact to creating batteries and destroying them. But we also have to think of the lifetime of that use. And so it's not only the inception and the getting rid of the product. It's all the time in between the emissions that are produced in between as well, where gas-powered leaf blowers really do exceed electric. battery-powered leaf blowers by quite a bit in terms of emissions. We have to look at the whole picture. And while there might be one part of the picture we don't like as much, we should consider the lifetime of the project as well. Very similarly, we shouldn't let this one point dictate the whole debate. I would also like to remind the council that a number of us have been working on this ordinance for a while in the public eye, with it being posted on Facebook, with people having chances to chime in in favor and against. And we were re-elected. This is a representative democracy. And we were elected by a majority of the voters.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng? Not a question, but as you noted, we've been funding this for a while and there have been no complaints. It's gone pretty smoothly, so I feel very comfortable with this.
[Justin Tseng]: General question. So could you give us some ideas to, when you're going through these every year, how many applicants do you get versus how much money are you able to award?
[Justin Tseng]: But I'm hearing that sometimes there's a delay in how quickly people can inquire.
[Justin Tseng]: That's really helpful to hear. And in the future, if we have projects coming on board, like what we anticipate some projects that we've already mentioned in this meeting, seems like we might not be able to meet the full need of those projects through CPA funding.
[Justin Tseng]: Thanks.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng, Councilor Collins. So I think what I'm hearing from that is the need is deeper than just the applicants themselves. Oftentimes there are projects that aren't even applied for or aren't considered great enough just because we don't have the money for that in the first place. And the city departments know and applicants know that it's not realistic to get that money at this point in the project process. Would that be correct?
[Justin Tseng]: So for big projects, oftentimes, most times, we need multiple revenue sources. And that's helpful to know, I think, as well. And I think when we think about the parks that are on our list, if we have other strong revenue channels to fund certain projects that cover some of these, that might free up funding to do some of the other really important work. Would that be accurate?
[Justin Tseng]: I think that's helpful context. I think like the CPA projects are all excellent, that they really help our community know that, you know, this isn't the end all be all. And there's so much more need than what we see on the paper. It's really helpful context for us to consider other policies going forward.
[Justin Tseng]: Motion.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng? Thank you, Mr. Costigan. I just wanted to check and make sure, are we maxing out the exemption for seniors and vets?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, that's helpful, and I think good for the residents of our city.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I'll be brief as well because I know a lot of people want to speak. I want to echo Councilor Collins' sentiment. I've spent a lot of the last few days talking to people, catching up on emails and phone calls and haven't been able to reach everyone, especially since I was sick for a few days last week. I think my job here tonight is to listen. and to listen to the perspectives in the room and give you all a chance to speak. And I have myself questions about this policy, concerns as well. And I think it's important just to recognize that my job tonight is to listen.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Talking to people coming in here today, I said that I had, as I said to the union reps, I have questions about this proposal. I have points where I'm not very happy with how it's presented. I think coming out of here tonight, hearing from the perspectives, those questions still exist. I think Councilor Callaghan is making important points about how reform has to be complete, comprehensive, that we need to take our time with any policy issue that comes before us. There are really great questions that the union reps have brought up tonight, legal questions, technical questions that I think need to be answered with time. And as residents have stated, this particular timing is questionable, it's difficult. But taking our time with it, as a resident supporting the firefighters said, tabling it, postponing it, moving it to committee is something I would be comfortable with.
[Justin Tseng]: I, in a very similar manner as Council Columns and Councilor Scarpelli, want to thank you for the time that you've put into this project, I know it's been years. I think very importantly, you've put a lot of time to get to know the community to talk to the residents. to, you know, sometimes you don't see eye to eye with them on things, but you talk and compromise and have made adjustments. And I think that's really important. You've coordinated a lot with city staff in a way that we wish every project were done in that manner. And I think it's really important to underscore how rare it is for our city to have this opportunity. I think any municipality in Massachusetts would be kicking its heels to get at this opportunity and the opportunity like this to increase its affordable housing stock. to better the living conditions of the seniors. I think it's really important to talk about how there'll be better ventilation in these buildings, there's better noise guards against outside noise in these buildings as well. There's more space, there are elevators. seniors can get the care that they need. When, you know, Walken Court, when it was first designed, was state of its art. But, you know, time changes, and needs change. And as those needs have changed, I'm very happy to see that the MHA has taken that into account. I know it's not been the easiest process, and I know that, as Councilor Scarpell mentioned, there are still residents with some concerns, but I think you have negotiated in good faith. to address those concerns. And I'm also very happy to see that, to see the 50,000 in tree mitigation agreement that you've reached with trees, which I think speaks to that good faith negotiations.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. For the Governance Committee, we reviewed our governing agenda, talked about timelines for charter review, the intending charter review, and also decided that we will be talking about the Elections Commission at our March and April meetings, and I will be inviting the Elections Commission to join.
[Justin Tseng]: Order, it's February 14th, 2024. Mr. Clerk, will you please call the roll?
[Justin Tseng]: Present. For present, one absent. The meeting is called to order. This meeting, we have one action item on the agenda. This is paper 24-06 offered by President Bears. It's a resolution that each council committee review the 2024 to 2025 council governing agenda as amended at the January 24th. committee the whole meeting. Opening up comments to any councillors who want to speak about the governing agenda.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. I think seeing as there is a paper and committee about elections, maybe we can first take comments from councillors about charter reform if we have any comments from councillors at this time. Councilor Lazzaroa.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Lazzaro. Are there any other Councilors who want to speak on charter review? Seeing none on Zoom.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Bears. Uh it sounds like there's a question about when we should start talking about, um, the art within the City Council Governance Committee about the city charter. Is there a motion to move it up in the
[Justin Tseng]: It currently starts in June, I believe.
[Justin Tseng]: I hear a motion from Councilor Lazzaro to move it up in the governance agenda timeline.
[Justin Tseng]: I think we are saying a lot of the same thing.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. Okay, no comments on Zoom so far. No hands raised that I see. So on Councilor Lazzaro' motion to move the charter review item in the timeline to April, to begin in April, seconded by Councilor Bears. Mr. Clerk, can you call the roll? I think Councilor Collins is online, so.
[Justin Tseng]: No worries. And as chair, I can reach out to the call-in center as well to see if they're willing to come to our April meeting with a baseline of recommendations that they're ready to present. Mr. Clerk, can you call the roll, please? Sure.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, that's four in favor, one absent. Zero opposed. Zero opposed. Moving on to the paper and committee about elections. That's 23-474. This was originally offered by Vice President Bears to ask the Elections Commission for a for a presentation, a report titled the 2023 Municipal Elections Process Errors and Accountability Report, which we got back at an earlier meeting. At that meeting, Councilor Scarpelli offered some amendments. for this committee to meet with the Elections Commission election staff to review the report, ask for updates, and ask for ways that Council can be more supportive. He also asked for additional information which we received from Chair Miller of the Elections Commission. As Councilor Bears said, given how busy the Elections Office is, We wanted to give them their time and space to work on getting the presidential preference primary out of the way first. But I wanted to open the discussion up to any questions that we might want to collect, questions or recommendations that we might want to collect and send to the Elections Commission. Are there any councillors who want to speak on the Elections Commission and the elections report that we've received? I see Vice President Collins' hand raised on Zoom. I'll call on her.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Are there any more Councilors who want to speak on elections? Councilor Paris.
[Justin Tseng]: Great. Yeah. Yeah, I can do that. I can make sure they're invited to our next two meetings. Are there any other comments on the elections part of this agenda? Seeing no hands on Zoom, I'll move on to the next paper and committee 24-024. This one is It was offered by Councilor Callaghan at our second regular meeting in January, I believe. And essentially, Councilor Callaghan referred the following pro-democracy reforms to study in our governance committee. These include salaries for elected officials, public financing of elections, ranked choice voting for single elected offices, allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote, allowing non-citizen residents to vote. there's also a section about requesting that our committee prioritize the salary discussion, come to a recommendation before the end of this year, this calendar year, and to implement salaries starting in 2026. I believe that the Councilor's intentions are that we talk about this throughout the calendar year, and so I don't think there's any... intention to pass anything at this meeting, but I see the Councilor who offered this paper on Zoom, so I'll defer to Councilor Callaghan if you have anything to present to us for consideration.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Callaghan. Are there any other comments on this paper at this time from councillors? Seeing none, seeing no hands on Zoom, do we have any, I guess, I'll open this meeting up to public participation. Are there any comments from the public on any of the papers that we've been talking about tonight? Seeing none, are there any motions for any of these papers? Motion.
[Justin Tseng]: Motion from Councilor Burrus to receive 24006, to receive and place on file, and seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, both of you are second. And adjourn, sorry. and I can do the roll call, great. Mr. Clerk, can you please call the roll?
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, Councilor Calderon.
[Justin Tseng]: That's up to this committee. I don't know if there are any councillors who want to motion to that. It will also live in committee as well. So it's on our agenda.
[Justin Tseng]: I think that totally makes sense. It's also my understanding, as we've said in many council meetings before, that the governing agenda is a working document. It's a living and breathing document. So we can reopen it at any time and adjust to it. Thank you for that question, Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, could you please call the roll?
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, Councilor Scarpelli is absent chair saying, yes, four in favor zero opposed, and one absent. The meeting is now adjourned.
[Justin Tseng]: If I can, I think the intention of that resolution was just for us to discuss it within our own committee without the Council President or Council Vice President needing to be present. So just to generally talk through timeline and just the kind of specific items in there if there was anything we wanted to prioritize.
[Justin Tseng]: I think they're quite similar, too, given how much my presentation will overlap with the items in 24-006.
[Justin Tseng]: I think you have to call.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. If the committee will indulge me in a short presentation of a lot of the ideas that I had for modernizing our city council communications outreach, I have a short presentation for everyone with some questions for the committee to think about as we talk about these different proposals. Most of them are also already in the governing agenda. That's why I said there was an overlap with 24-06. My intention for this meeting is to move forward things that we think we might be ready for as a committee, and to just start discussions on things that we think might need more time, which is probably most of these ideas. With that being said, let me go to the slides. Can folks see them? Great. And so, okay, so these are just some proposals for our committee to consider. Following what I had in the governing agenda, I put in press releases, short-form videos, social media content, city website updates, input surveys and forums, and meetings with underrepresented groups. This isn't meant to be a deep dive into... I know there are some of these that I've talked with individual Councilors about that, especially the meetings with other representative groups. This isn't to start that process necessarily, but just to talk about and get feedback from this committee about where things are, where we think things are at. And so for us to move in future meetings on it. Going to our first slide, I think the big thing that I was thinking for our committee was that we could create press releases in order to update residents about our work generally, to keep residents informed about opportunities where they can provide feedback on resolutions, ordinances, our work, ahead of big meetings, and in response to our work as well. To keep residents up to date about news in Medford, we know that oftentimes there is a gap between what we know as Councilors and what is released out to the public. In terms of public information, most of that's not intentional. This is to bridge that gap. And so in terms of execution, I think it'd be realistic for our committee to approve monthly updates, essentially monthly summaries of what we've done as a city council in the last month. And so basically the idea is that we would rotate this responsibility among members. Every month, a different one of us would create that summary and bring it to our committee meeting. We would review it quickly together and vote it out to be published. The idea behind rotating responsibilities among members is that We know that a lot of us, Councilor Bears, Councilor Collins, Councilor Leming, me, we've tried at different times to do these regular updates. It can be a lot for a singular councilor to do it repeatedly, regularly across different months. And so the idea is that by dispersing the responsibility, it would be less pressure for us, less of a workload for us. yet still give all of us a chance to write something, all of us a chance to communicate with the public. And I think having us bring it to this committee meeting would essentially essentially be like a work responsibility for us to keep us to make sure we're doing this. Now, there are some, I think, questions I had for the committee around the execution of this. So essentially, I think the first big question is, do we do this as a resident services public engagement committee as a complete committee? Um, where each of us are rotating responsibilities, or do we form a special committee, a subcommittee for this that meets at a separate time very quickly, maybe a 30 minute meeting 15 minute 30 minute meeting. I think another question is, I know there are. um, Councilors who aren't standing members of this committee who have been working on updates as well. Should we invite them to join our rotating group of Councilors? And I think in the same vein of questions, I know that certain Councilors are busy at different times of the year. Should we create a system where Councilors can pass off their responsibilities to the next Councilor or to another Councilor? Um, and then the final questions are around distribution. I know the clerk has an email list for the city council. Maybe you could use that with the clerk could chime in as well. I know we. Carol Leming invited Steve Schmierdi, our communications director, to this meeting as well. I think there's a question about whether we can use the city email list for some of this, for some of these regular press releases, maybe including it as a shorter section in the mayor's regular updates. In order, we also know that the formats in which we reach people have to be accessible as well. For example, for younger folks, social media might be a better way to do that. So there's a whole section later in this presentation about social media, creating social media. And I know that a lot of seniors might not be subscribed to the email list as well. So wondering if we could get a print version to be a shortened print version to be put in the senior center newsletter. But with that being said, open to remarks, feedbacks, ideas.
[Justin Tseng]: Thanks, Councilor. Chair, let me, if I can respond. Yeah, respond and then Councilor Lazzaro. um, so I I did think through a lot of those concerns beforehand, um, The intent behind these releases would be to be a compliment basically to the mayors now the way that our comms department is set up in medford Is that it's a really it's really a one-person department falling under the mayor's office. And so oftentimes the publications are more relevant to what the mayor is doing specifically like with Mayor Lungo-Koehn specifically is doing and to do items that are originating from her office. Now going forward, we have zoning, we have budgeting, a lot of these bigger processes going forward that are much more council specific rather than mayor specific, and it's currently not in the responsibilities of the comms director. uh, to put out releases that speak to any of that. And as we've seen in the last few years, there hasn't been any of it. And so this is the idea is that this isn't to, um, bought heads with any city messaging, but this is basically to let residents know when things are coming up and what, when we are working on things, um, separate from what the mayor's office in the city departments are working on. Um, And we can talk about which lists this goes out to. Maybe we just keep it on the clerk's email list. But I think the essence of this is keep it simple. Basically, just summarize what we've done and what's coming ahead in terms of meetings that we have. Just things like posting the meeting schedule that we have. And we can coordinate with the president and the vice president of the council to see when these releases go out.
[Justin Tseng]: Is that directed to me?
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. Yeah. So to Yeah, it doesn't have to be long. We did. I did ask chair Leming and I know chair Leming did reach out to Steve Spirity to come to this meeting. We've mentioned some of the some of the ideas that we at least I have mentioned some of the ideas that I'm presenting today to him before and think he seems pretty receptive to a lot of it. I I think to both Councilor Scarpelli's point and to your point, I do think that this is a continuous process where we should try all the avenues that we can think of. And right now we have some avenues that are more obvious. And so I think we can try with those first. And then, you know, as we continue to meet in these meetings, we can come up with motions to add or subtract this to certain sources or take away from certain sources.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Leming. Yes, I'm, I'm happy to, if we don't get to the other things on this PowerPoint, I'm happy to send this around to other members via the clerk. And I'm, I would also, I can make a motion right now. Um, I'd like to motion to get feedback from the communications director on the ideas in this, um, in this PowerPoint, uh, before our next meeting, our next standing meeting. I would send that. All right.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll stop. I don't think it's realistic to get through all of them today, but we can we can do some pretty quickly. And President Bears has reminded me that this meeting can run long and the next meeting can start late as well. But I think we can have a cutoff point. I think generally hearing back from this, well, I'll either chair Leming or I, we can coordinate on getting feedback from Steve and it sounds like we, it might not be favorable to do a special subcommittee for this, because it adds meetings. We can also just have a sign up list of Councilors who are interested in doing it, because every Councilor is, you know, we have different family situations, different job situations as well. And so perhaps it makes more sense to have a list of Councilors who want to take on this responsibility. I'm moving on to the next slide. Um, so short form videos, this is basically just a summary of those of the monthly updates. My idea for it is basically just keep it very simple. Don't editorialize, just tell people what we did. And then to post these wherever we can, basically, I think we need to determine what that looks like. I think I wanted to make sure that we got to this slide when while Kevin was still in the room, because I was wondering what the possibility of partnering with Medford Community Media would be like on this.
[Justin Tseng]: That'd be great. That'd be great.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much. That's very helpful.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, not really. Um, I think the other question I had in terms of short form videos was, I know there, um, some Councilors who want to get publicity back, uh, like, or just basically publicize some of the projects that they want to work on and get feedback ahead of introducing it to the council or working on it in committee. It sounds like, um, we can separate that from the idea of just doing general monthly summaries. So maybe that's something that individual Councilors can take up on their own time.
[Justin Tseng]: It's Councilor Leming, you should.
[Justin Tseng]: I couldn't log on to my Zoom account. And this is the only background that's on this Zoom account. And so I'm like, it's awful. I try to use a different background most days. I guess my comment was I was wondering if we could invite Frances to one of our meetings to talk about what she thinks would be best for a training like this and what this might look like if, again, like I talked about during the regular meeting, she mentioned to me possibly bringing some commissions in to do this training with us as well. And so I think it would be helpful if we were to meet with her to talk about this a bit more. And if you wouldn't mind Councilor Lazzaro, I'd like to make that in a form of a motion to invite Director Nwaje to come to our next meeting to talk about this.
[Justin Tseng]: Thanks. I think this is pretty straightforward. I think what the other committees have just been doing is basically going through the items that have been assigned to them and basically seeing, I guess, like maybe seeing if there will be lead Councilors that want to take up certain projects or whether we want to adjust the timelines that we see in the doc. If that's a good place to start, I'm open. I know there's some projects that are also already in this, that are already referred to this committee. So I'm happy to talk about timelines for those existing projects as well.
[Justin Tseng]: just yet. Chair Leming, I have it handy if you want me to share.
[Justin Tseng]: Great. I chair let me if I can I know I have a bunch of these ordinances, I can give an update as to most of them actually absolutely work. Um, so for the gender equity commission the Youth Commission on there under the same paper number. I'm currently meeting, so the in our last committee meeting subcommittee meeting. The committee voted for me to meet with relevant department heads to work out certain questions that they had for us. The department heads were largely very, very enthusiastic about these ideas. We have some logistical questions to work through, and so the hope is for me to meet with them sometime in the next few weeks and get a uh updated drafts for this committee um in the next few for for either the next meeting or the meeting after that um we've just had some scheduling difficulties for the welcoming city ordinance um that is something that um has that i think on the timeline we've put in the spring um it has The paper is created, it passed through regular committee, so it's sent to our committee. We just have not met on it yet. And so we will probably do an introductory meeting. probably when we're done with the commission ordinances, but perhaps slightly overlapping. The data equity idea, that also has a paper number already attached to it. I think that will take time, to be honest. I think we'll need to work a lot with the chief of staff and with the mayor's office to see what that actually looks like. I don't want it to be punitive for the city government or overly bureaucratic, and so I think that will take time. I know the state has passed something last year that will help us comply with the possible ordinance much more easier, but But I think that's an idea that I requested be placed later on in the timeline. I think open data is a similar situation, although there has not been... Sorry to interrupt.
[Justin Tseng]: I think we can... I think the so it's not as much that she's a lead I just think she, I think the chief of staff in general, whoever's in that position would be a good person to work with before it before we either before we formally introduce this proposal to the committee, or walking like to have at our first meeting on this. Um, and so that's that's just what I mean it's nothing so I mean. I think perhaps it'd be smarter to bang out some of the draft language with the mayor's office beforehand. And I think it's similar with the open data ordinance. I think some of these other ones that I've proposed, they don't have paper numbers attached to them yet. I think we should finish some of the projects that are open first before we get to them. But I think the language access policy or slash ordinances in a similar place to the data ones, similar situation. The Immigrants Commission is something that I would love to get started. I think we have put that on this, perhaps, as a goal for next year. And Human Rights Commission reform, so essentially, members of the Human Rights Commission and former members of the Human Rights Commission have asked me as a Councilor to initiate a review of the enabling ordinance that created the commission and gives it its powers. I'm currently meeting with those members to find out what reforms exactly are being asked of us. But I think that's going to require talking to the DEI director, talking to the members of the HRC and former members of the HRC to see what changes that entails before we present it to this committee.
[Justin Tseng]: I think it would be easier if they were done one-on-one, to be frank. Then we can invite them to our committee meetings when we actually work through a draft together with the councilors. I just think it would be hard for, at least if I were to take the lead on this, it'd be hard for me to present you guys with the draft if I hadn't done those meetings yet. And I'm doing the first round of them tomorrow actually. So, but I think it's a project down the road, like in a few months.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, I, we actually, sorry, chair Loving. Um, we, we have some procedural motions that we need to do first. Okay. Let's, let's do those. Um, so I would like to motion to keep papers. Give me one second. Um, papers. 24-0 1 5 and 24-0 2, 2 in committee.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. All Zoom votes are roll calls.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. If I may, Chair, let me make another motion. I'd also motion that councilors submit feedback and ideas about modernizing city council communications before the next meeting to the clerk and the chair. I think that way we can save some time going into our next meeting.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes. And sorry, I just have a lot of procedural things that we unfortunately have to go through. I was wondering if we felt comfortable enough with the governing agenda to receive and place on file or whether we wanna keep it open as a paper and committee. I'll defer to the other councilors on that.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, I mean, I believe the president and vice president of the council have said that every few months we'll review it. It certainly doesn't, I guess, it just means, I think the clerk has something to say. Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I don't think we would talk about the governing agenda or amending it right now until the city council creates another paper to discuss it again.
[Justin Tseng]: So, um, that, that sounds good to me. I only suggested it because I know other committees have disposed of the paper. So, um, I was, uh, that's the only reason in that case, I'll move to adjourn second. All right.
[Justin Tseng]: I thought you were second.
[Justin Tseng]: Sure, yeah. So essentially, at a previous meeting, we, I think, decided to combine this ordinance, or these two different ordinance ideas, because a lot of communities around us have done it that way, and their ordinances have gone through legal reviews. Essentially, we have a draft that we reviewed already. I think it's in a place where folks are pretty alright with it. We only didn't move forward on it because we were busy getting feedback from the mayor's office about whether we had basically checking with Mayor Lungo-Koehn to see if we had already passed an ordinance like this, which then Councilor Caraviello said we did, but the mayor's office responded to the council saying that we didn't, so we should move forward on it. We were also at that time waiting to see what the state had done on it, because the state was acting on things at the same time. Essentially, the feedback that we got from activist groups was that that it would be helpful for the city to move alongside the state on it. I also reached out based on motions that made at that meeting to health care providers in Medford because this would affect them in terms of protecting their doctors. I believe Harvard Vanguard did not reach back, but Tufts Medicine did. And we had a few meetings on it. They were very, very enthusiastic about it, very happy that this city council is looking to pass an ordinance in addition to state efforts as well. And so I believe we can be ready to move on it soon. I just need to redistribute some updated ordinance language to this committee.
[Justin Tseng]: Second.
[Justin Tseng]: Present. President Ferris.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Councilor say thank you, President Bears. Thank you, Councilor about Vice President Collins for your words on this black history, black history is meant for history, and we cherish meant for history we talked about how it's such a blessing to be living in such a historic a town, a city. And when we think about what has brought us up to this moment, Black Medfordians, and especially the historically Black community in West Medford, has played such a pivotal and integral role to shaping who we are today, the discourse that shapes our politics today, and just the joy, the memories, the happiness of growing up in Medford. I was reminded of this, especially on Martin Luther King's Day. When I got this book, Place, Race, and Memory, the West Medford Afro-American Remembrance Project, which talks about a bunch of icons that have lived in our city, been a vital part of our West Medford community. And I was really touched reading a lot of these stories and at the same time, a bit sad that I didn't grow up learning about a lot of these folks. There's such a long way to go when it comes to racial reconciliation in the city, when it comes to making sure that all of our neighbors, our black neighbors included feel welcome and engaged as part of our city. And there's so much more work to do as part of that social justice plan going forward. little steps first on the on February 19th. It's a Monday from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. In these chambers, our city will be hosting a celebration on Black History Month. I encourage you all to come join us and celebrate Black History Month.
[Justin Tseng]: Aye.
[Justin Tseng]: Motion to join the remaining three reports and approve pending the summaries from chairs.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng I'll be very brief. I think it's really important to clarify that this council has no plans has had no plans and we'll have no plans to cancel the jingle ball event. I believe that this arises out of a misunderstanding that. of miscommunication that happened a few months ago, but having spoken to some, at least the councillors I've spoken to, there are no plans to cancel this event. And the council supports the mission of the Jingle Bell event as well.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to thank you. I'm just happy to see that we were able to get Walkling Court for this election. I'm sure we'll be working a lot more moving forward on future ideas for polling locations and how we can make things work for our senior residents.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Thank you. It's my reading of this resolution that it essentially is a recommendation for the city, for the police department on a policy, but it's not creating policy of our own. And so I'd be fine voting with it tonight, especially seeing that the police chief will still be the final arbiter of what the policy is. I think We've talked a lot about the science of it, I'm not going to delve into that too deep, but I would be okay with this going either way tonight, either sending it to committee or to are just voting it out tonight, because it is essentially a. It's a rung above symbolic, but it's not us imposing policy. I think it's to the public comment earlier, I just looked up what the definitions of distribution are in these laws. They don't involve what we were afraid of. They don't involve sale or anything like that. And so I or I guess I guess Yeah, so I would be happy with this going going forward, but I defer to the sponsors on the motion unless there's further comment.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. Um, my focus as a city councilor in this job as a candidate who ran for city council who first ran for city council, um, just over two years ago, um, who started the campaign almost three years ago. The biggest issue going up at going in my brain at that time was fighting to make sure that our residents that all of our residents felt safe and not only just safe, but welcome and included and engaged in our city government. I grew up, obviously, my My skin color makes me look different from other people. I grew up oftentimes as someone who felt excluded, as someone who didn't necessarily feel completely represented in government. And for me, that was a driving factor to get involved in government and to make sure that we built a local government that reflected the desires of its people, that the push for equity and for justice, and to make sure that that push was reflected in our actions as well. And at the end of the day, to make sure that all of our residents feel safe and welcome here in our city. It's with that spirit that after the horrifying attacks on October 7th, I reached out to Jewish, Arab, and Muslim community leaders to make sure that, at least from my office, that they felt safe, that they felt welcomed and included, and knowing that there were growing incidents of anti-Semitic and Islamophobic and xenophobic attacks and incidents in this community to make sure that they have the resources they need and needed and still need to feel safe and welcome in our city. Um, as situations on the ground, um, have developed, uh, more residents of various backgrounds, including a large number of, uh, Jewish, personally very close Jewish friends begged me as a city councilor to vote yes, um, when a ceasefire resolution, if a ceasefire resolution came across my desk. And through those discussions, I realized that not voting, not doing anything is, um, an action in itself. And so, and for so many of our residents, they need to see that their elected officials align with the values that we espouse as candidates and that we espouse as politicians. When I look at this resolution, I look at the first and last lines. recognizing and celebrating the sanctity, the preciousness, the equality of human life. Looking at the last line cites the core purpose of this resolution as to reaffirm that we stand with protecting and honoring all human life. This is undoubtedly a difficult situation, but I really do commend Councilor Collins for keeping the focus in this resolution on the sanctity of life. for keeping the focus of this resolution through hope on equality, bringing in stakeholders from many, many different parts of this community, hearing opposition to different drafts of this resolution. I know the vice president has worked really, really hard on a product that best captures that inclusive energy and spirit that we want to see in our city. For me, again, the local aspect of this is that, is just that. It is the quality of letting our residents know that we stand with these values. when I also think about why this resolution is necessary. I realize that, you know, while this isn't necessarily, you know, obviously, I don't think anyone is under the illusion that we ourselves as Medford City Council is going to stop war in the Middle East, but I do think that many, many folks, many residents, neighbors, activists have felt disillusioned, disheartened, and in despair after various and numerous attempts to reach out to federal and state level stakeholders on this issue, people with influence. And they're coming to the Medford City Council, they're coming to City Hall tonight, because they recognize that there aren't many avenues left. We are, in many ways, one of the last stops that people are going to, to ask us, to beg us to help them get their message across to our federal electeds. I think we really need to try, in any case, be it Gaza, be it a local issue about a park or a street or a sidewalk. We as elected officials, as the Medford City Council, have a responsibility to amplify the community's desires to speak to federal elected officials. That's our job. We do it on different issues. We reach out to Congress people. We reach out to state reps to help us resolve things. This is our job. I, you know, I think there's a crisis of faith in democracy when people don't feel hurt by their elected officials, and I think we need to work to restore that faith in our country.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I wanted to thank everyone who spoke, no matter what viewpoint of this resolution they have. It really means a lot to our city and our democracy that you're willing to take time out of your evening to do this. In that spirit, we also owe you, at least in my opinion, I owe you your faith, and me as your city councilor, to let you know that I care. I care about the stories. I know that many of you, as you've said tonight, have family who've been in the area, who are currently still in the area, who are trapped there, who are suffering. And I think this is a moment where people need to know that their local electeds care, that they not only hear them, but they, I think, deeply, deeply, that this deeply matters to them. I don't think it's wrong at all to say that the context is complex, that there's misinformation, and there's violence and tragedy that civilians take the brunt of. I don't think it's wrong to say that a lot of the rhetoric in the debate has been challenging for others to hear. But I have to thank you as a councillor that you've kept this conversation, this discourse tonight so cordial, so respectful, that you've followed the rules that the council president has set out. But you know, even given this, the complex history and context behind this issue, I think the question before us, the heart of this resolution is simple. And I think the big question is, do we affirm the sanctity, the preciousness, and the equality of all human life? And do we condemn the bloodshed going on. I think it's not wrong to say that war begets war. And I think we should listen to the hostages' pleas to the Israeli government, that their government not do anything that worsens the outcome of people living in Israel and Palestine, of the civilians. And their pleas not to drive more people into extremism. I was struck by the word precedent earlier in public comment. Because even though we can't, as a city council, we can't stop what's going on from becoming precedent, I think we can stop normalizing it. And I think we have a moral duty to stop normalizing violence. We have to speak out against it, even if we can't stop it. On the issue of precedence, you know, thought during the debate about my own family. For those of you who don't know, my family comes from Taiwan. Pretty much everyone in my family lives in Taiwan. And if you've been following the news, we talk about war, the possibility of war every day in Taiwan. And I think about if this were happening over there right now, Number one, if we set this precedent, what that would mean for my family. I also think about what it would mean to me if I were watching and my community didn't support my family and didn't hear my family. And while Taiwan is a hypothetical for me, it's emotionally close to me, Palestine is now. And Palestine is now for so many of our community. This resolution I think is measured. I think it's reasonable. I think, yes, it is ideal. I think it is nuanced. I think it speaks to the complexities on the ground. I think it condemns terrorism. I think it condemns Hamas. But I think it supports life. I think it uplifts life. I think This is a moral duty to say to our residents, no matter if you're Arab, Muslim, Jewish, Israeli-American, right? You belong in our community. You deserve to be heard. And that's why I'll plan to vote yes on this tonight. And I know there are a lot of folks at home watching who are just getting into activism, there are small steps that we can all take to help. While this is symbolic, donating an eSIM is not. Helping people in Gaza stay connected for just up to $5 a month is not symbolic. These are actions that we can take to help people on the ground, to stay connected to the world, and donations to human rights organizations, relief organizations, will really help people on the ground.
[Justin Tseng]: No.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I'll be brief. I also talked to Director Nwaje about this. Obviously, I think we're all very excited about it. An idea that we had started to talk about before we got pulled away from each other was including boards and commissions in this as well. There's a feeling in the office that perhaps we could do more to align everyone with how DEI works in Medford. especially given that there are a lot of updates in recent years, and there haven't been many, if any, trainings on this for boards and commissions. And so I would love, if you were amenable, for this to be amended to add exploring doing this for boards and commissions.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears, for introducing this. I just wanted to lend my support. I talked about the sanctity of life earlier. Giving people food, medicine, water, that very much is in line with the sanctity of life and preserving it. We might not agree with the country for political reasons, but we can't hold its people hostage.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm kidding. I appreciate Councilor Lemons, I think appreciation of the nuance of this issue. We definitely have a need to revitalize our squares. There are items later on in the agenda that will help us get at that as well. We have passed as a city council last term, numerous items to help us get there and implementing mechanisms to get there. It's not wrong to say that we need to do more on the issue, especially of commercial vacancies. We want to be bringing people into the square, into all of our squares, if we don't have populated storefronts. we disincentivize that. At the same time, the nuances of the questions of turnover and the types of businesses that you'll want to see are extremely relevant in discussing this matter as well, which Councilor Leming has noted. I've sat down with the city staff on a few occasions before, both this term and last term, to talk about this idea and there are different views of it, but I think broadly the consensus is we should also as a council consider what carrots we want to accompany the stick. There are some potential state mechanisms that we could look into in terms of giving new starting businesses funding to pay for physical improvements, to pay for basically capital costs to operate a new business. It will take a lot of talking to the potential business owners, the landlords, to see why things are the way they are. But if we identify the problems as such, there are different mechanisms that we might be able to introduce as carrots going along with this.
[Justin Tseng]: I wanted to thank Councilor Scarpelli for introducing this resolution. I wanted to second it as well. Councilor Scarpelli and I talked, I think on Wednesday, about how we both called the building department staff over to notify, to talk to them, get some sort of solution out. I think Councilor Scarpelli has really gotten to the root of everything. We were promised a liaison. We don't know who the liaison is. We haven't been, who they report to. the community members deserve so much more. And while there are a lot of aspects of this project that we were powerless to stop, it just means that we need to do even more diligence on the other parts of this project.
[Justin Tseng]: A motion to amend to approve and have the police chief report back.
[Justin Tseng]: I think Councilor Bears is staying on topic, so if you can go to him first. Great.
[Justin Tseng]: I had a feeling that Zach was going to address some of Councilor Scarpelli's points. I wanted to make sure you spoke first. I did want to add to the zoning thing. So, essentially, I got a chance to sit down with some staff in the Planning and Development Office. for example, Director Hunt, and we kind of talked about gaming through some of the ideas on the governing agenda to see any ideas they had about it, but also how to implement it. And she highlighted that a few of the ideas that we want to work on here would be best done parallel to the zoning effort, if not just in it as well. In particular, the transit demand management idea that Councilor Leming and I have been working on, the green score idea in here as well. Some of the energy ideas, but that's a little bit separate as well. But I just wanted to put it out there that that's the direction that city staff would want to go in with some pieces of the governing agenda to do it while we're doing zoning as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Thanks. I think that sounds good to me. I do know of certain, like just being in City Hall, I've heard about certain ideas that are being bounced back and forth about this resolution in terms of giving us some recommendations to adjust. There was some talk that there might be some certain fees that we might need to move a little faster on just because of how Renting schedules are like leasing schedules, etc. Getting people, making sure that there's an education campaign before we raise some of the fees. And so it might be helpful for those department heads to give us a sense of how quickly, like how much of a priority certain changes are.
[Justin Tseng]: We always talk about the need for more revenue, and I think this is one of the places where it is apparent. The city is currently lacking some funds in terms of painting bike lanes on the roads, just getting the physical paint. In terms of hiring the staff to lay down the paint on the roads, department heads have said that it's a priority for them going forward to advocate in the new budget. I think it's something that we should put on our radar when we think about the upcoming budget.
[Justin Tseng]: Essentially, this is to create a program where we incentivize developers coming into Medford to provide some transport traffic alleviation of some kind. The emphasis of this is basically to try to get developers incentivize renters living there and businesses and employees who work there to use bikes and public transit where possible. We would develop kind of a point system in terms of like if there's extra bike parking or certain shuttles to green line stations or orange line stations, etc. These are all ideas that we would consider. We would essentially work with existing transit demand management authority in the area, which we already are a part of the lower mystic. Transit management authority, and basically see how we can expand to this program. There are also there are already some developments in Wellington that are kind of. like in a program like this, this is basically a proposal to expand that to different zones in the city because we know development and traffic is growing across the city and not just in Wellington. I know Councilor Leming has been working with PDS on it. PDS has asked us to talk to Todd Blake as well. This is one of the ideas that Director Hunt said would be smart to tie in with zoning. We would also have to debate about how closely we align that program to Everett's program, to other programs in the state, or how much writing do we do for ourselves in Medford, whether we want to require that certain developments in certain zones take part in it, et cetera. But very open discussions. I know Councilor Leming is very excited to work on it too.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, this is so apparently the person who wrote Boston's ordinance is working for metric now. Our climate planner, Brenda. Brenda Pike. So she is definitely someone who we should talk to when it comes to these ideas. She's also said apparently the state is doing a lot of stuff on this and so might make sense to see how we coordinate with that. We should also Basically, the PDS offices told me at least that it might be a good use of our time to also send a testimony to the State House on these issues if possible, and to also work with surrounding municipalities to make sure that, you know, kind of all working together and not kind of creating a situation where some of the businesses flee, but otherwise the office is very supportive of the idea.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much. This is another idea that PDS was very, very excited about. They suggested that we actually move this up in our governing agenda timeline to, like, very soon to start talking about it, at least with city staff pretty soon, because we have a new building commissioner coming in. And that building commissioner is trained in a software called CitizenServe, which basically runs training modules like what we would use for rental licensing. for landlords, and so getting that on the agenda of the building commissioner early is their advice. Yeah, and then we would also have to talk to the Board of Health and PDS about it, but people are very excited about this. I know there are some folks who recently left the health department that are very gung-ho about it, but yeah, I think if we can move this up in the timeline, that'd be great.
[Justin Tseng]: Sorry, through you.
[Justin Tseng]: I believe this one, yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I can do all this pretty quickly. Pesticide regulations is basically just in terms of regulating what what the city and business owners can use in terms of landscaping, we would have to basically see what exactly we can do at the local level and to make sure that the city is ready to be in compliance with it as well. But that one's It's relatively simple. On blasting and earth removal, PDS has already done research into it. They've collected the six ordinances from around the state and kind of picked out what they think can be implemented. They have sent it to the fire for feedback and very soon they're going to send it to us to work on. Oh, and for context about blasting and earth removal, that's basically just like projects like on Winthrop, where people are removing big chunks of earth, and we want to make sure that we can at the very least be able to tell neighbors when things are going to happen, but also have a system where there is some sort of permitting so we can kind of Regulate this behavior on the green score. Basically the descriptions and goals kind of speak more to it. Um, it's a lot of it's about stormwater management and making sure that Developers are kind of in line with best practices when it comes to stormwater negotiations. This is something that Director hunts said should definitely be in the zoning process and Basically, we as a council would just need to bring this up when we talk about zoning. Yep, that's those three.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, transit signal priority is basically when you modify traffic signals to basically implement a strategy where we cause less delay to transit vehicles like buses to make sure that people can rely better on bus schedules and that buses can travel quicker to incentivize people to take public transit. Essentially, there's also appetite for this in City Hall, but the big problem, as always, is revenue, making sure that we have the money to buy the physical infrastructure we need to modify traffic lights.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Leming.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Yeah, I mean, I think that pretty much runs through most of the things that at least we dealt with on our council term last time. There are two of the papers in committee I've done a little bit of looking into in terms of what they are. So the mini bonds program that Councilor Caraviello-Viello introduced, the intention behind that was essentially Some of them in Cambridge have these programs where they work with a company called Neighborly to provide $1,000 bonds for residents to borrow money, basically partake in buying those bonds and essentially use that money for home repairs, sidewalk repairs, infrastructure related stuff mostly. Theoretically, you could use it for other things, but the company that they do it through, so the precedent that is set in Massachusetts is basically very much focused on small repairs along that scale. The second paper listed, Accepting the Provisions of Mass General Loss, 71, Section 37M, that one is about consolidating giving the city option to consolidate administration across the school side of things, the Bedford public schools and the city side of things. That one would require a vote of the school committee, the city council and the mayor's approval on it. So that one's much more involved and would require, essentially would require us to work with the school committee on the issue and to get everyone to a place where we agree. It was introduced back then because there was a desire to essentially make, to have the security director of the public schools the same as the security director of the city. So essentially to combine, like, kind of building security administration. Obviously, it just never got moved forward, maybe because of how involved the idea is, but that's just a bit of context on those two, on these two points. And I think Zach, or President Bears has covered the rest pretty well. I guess I'll continue talking to my president bears a little bit more time.
[Justin Tseng]: Slight kind of moving on very slightly, but still tied to an item in this list of papers committee. Your proposal for draft ordinance for the pilot commission is an idea that I think would be is very compelling for city. It's definitely a need, especially when we think about how our pilot. number one, how our pilot negotiations have historically turned out, and number two, how they're carried out in execution. I think it pairs really well with Councilor Collins and my idea on the Community Benefits Agreement Ordinance. I think there's a lot of overlap there, but also the Community Benefits Agreement Ordinance talks a little bit more about how to basically spend the benefits that we receive through those pilot agreements. And so, I think moving forward, it would be nice to pair those two efforts together. Great.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng? I think the only thing I would maybe want to add to this timeline at this point is to make sure that the draft pilot ordinance gets some time in there as well. We can talk about whether we talk kind of, as you were saying, you know, we have these buckets of work to work on that, you know, ideas are different, but possibly very similar genres of work. look at the Community Benefits Ordinance not being—putting up a pilot or something.
[Justin Tseng]: just that I'm excited about these ideas. Cool. Thank you, Councilor Tsengeed.
[Justin Tseng]: free boba and free pastries. We have readings for children and crafts for children as well. It's going to be a hoot. So I'd love to see you all down there at the library on February 10th. I believe festivities start around noon. So I wanted since President Bears mentioned cultural events, I wanted to plug that. I think another note that I have for this committee is that there are certain projects that are starting out and other committees, because I essentially the youth commission is the 1 I'm thinking of where I think. For now, it makes more sense over there because it has to do directly with resident engagement. Once that's flushed out and passed, maybe the activities that the city council engages in with the youth commission fit in here more. I think that becomes topic dependent, but there are certainly ideas in other committees that might start out there that eventually might find their way over here as well.
[Justin Tseng]: I think just to underscore what you said, much of this committee's work is stuff that will come through the process of doing one item, and so I with this committee, even though it's short in this document, I'm expecting an avalanche of things, of fixes that need to come up. I also think that we shouldn't underrate the work that it'll take to update the city charter and to give our feedback, given how long the city charter is and how many recommendations are coming out of the committee, of the charter review committee as well. I am particularly interested, this is the nerdy side of me, but going through Mass General Law, seeing what we've accepted, what we haven't accepted yet, seeing where the potential for action is there. So thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I, you know, this is, I, this, this reminds me of what you always repeat, which is that a former Councilor told you that the three responsibilities of the City Council are really Um, zoning ordinances and budget, and this, I think, reflects the fact that, um, zoning takes up a third. If not, uh, if that, um, you know, of the work that we do, and we have ordinances on top of that, that fit into this. Um, I think vice president Collins. This point is really important to understand. I think, while I'm not on this committee, there are a lot of ideas in here I think that pair really well with zoning reform. For example, I think the benchmarking, the licensing, the TDM stuff, we could talk about maybe moving it ahead in the schedule if it's feasible in the committee. I know there are projects that I've recommended that even with with me not being on this committee, I'd be happy to show up and help pass as well. There are some projects that other councillors have submitted that I think either I've submitted different versions of it or pretty much aligned versions of it because I reached out to them. the Councilors while they were still candidates to see what we could work together on. In particular, I'm very excited about the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance idea that Councilor Leming has also suggested and put forward. I think it could be a really important addition to making our traffic more efficient and to incentivize the type of transit-friendly developments that we want to see in our city as well. But the list really is countless, and these are all really great ideas, and I'm very excited for the work that can be done in this committee.
[Justin Tseng]: make sure. And one point I forgot to make. I think if you if folks at home take a second to peruse through this section, I've made sure to include as much as possible relevant points from the plans that we've already passed, such as a climate action plan, open space plans. that we have. Um comprehensive plans. Um I've included the points that people can go to in those documents to see how these ideas align with our city's already stated goals towards climate housing, development, urban planning, etcetera.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I have things for everyone. For Councilor Callahan, I actually have also heard this from a number of residents who are interested in the idea. I think, you know, as with all ordinances, it's about adapting it to our city and making sure that we have something that works for us. But it's an idea that I do find interesting and I do find possible, as long as we work hand in hand with city staff on it. For Councilor Lazzaro's point about the warming and cooling centre, I would recommend that you find the time to talk to Director Hunt about the why and the space at St. Rayfield's. Is it St. Rayfield's? I'm quoting the wrong church.
[Justin Tseng]: Francis. Where the city is trying to get St. Francis to Yeah, right, right. It could just be a school. Yeah. The city is trying to get the church to sell it to the Y for a longer term contract. And there's been talk about putting housing families in there. Now, there's a little hesitancy on the church's end, but maybe we can coordinate efforts and get an idea about what the city's plans with that space are.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, for sure. And then for Councilor Leming's point, I think, as with a lot of resolutions, I think oftentimes it's honestly healthy just to spark the debate to introduce the resolution in a general meeting, send it to committee. And then in committee, discuss the idea, even if we don't reach a point, you know, reach an end point that reflects what we intended when we started, I think it's still wise to send it to committee. It's always healthy to have these conversations about topics, but we can also, you know, talk to the chair about these ideas and make sure that we schedule the meetings for when the sponsor is most comfortable to initiate the conversation.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, I, so I originally submitted the public restrooms in parks and squares here. Um, and I, I think it does make sense here. Um, but I could also see an argument for being put in public health as well. And so I'm open to that shifting back and forth. Um, I'd be happy to talk to the two chairs and see which one it fits better in.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I mean, I think with public health, I'm just thinking of, you know, it is a health issue not to be able to use a restroom. Sure. That's more where I was coming from, but I also, you know, the logistics are very public works based. I know there are community members with proposals floating around for how we can do it in parks. I also think it'd be really interesting to explore what Somerville and Cambridge have been doing in their squares with their public restrooms as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I'm very appreciative of your sympathy for my workload. I, you know, these, I, a lot of these are ideas that I'm very excited about, some of which I've already started work on, but many of which I have not. And I'd be very, very happy to distribute the workload if there are Councilors who are interested in a lot of these ideas. I know some of them are maybe newer ideas that we haven't talked about in the municipal space here at Medford yet. A lot of these ideas are, are ideas that other cities have been doing for a very long time that are just steps towards modernization for our city, but that also means that there's guidelines and frameworks in other cities that we could look at. I believe that this committee can get together and we can distribute the workload if we don't decide tonight who's going to take what. Now, with that being said, I'd be very happy to help just as a contributor to the multilingual public participation resident guide idea, just because I can translate things in Spanish and French and Chinese. I know there are Councilors who can translate into different languages as well. I know a lot of a lot of work, I think, I think residents should understand a lot of this work is really us writing the ordinances, us writing the documents that we want to go out because city staff is so overstretched and under-resourced. And so, you know, as much work as we can share in this, I'd be very happy to share.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll go to Councilor Callahan.
[Justin Tseng]: I believe for beautification it's probably stuck in the committee and I think we probably, I know we passed some resolutions as a council last year, last term. We could find a place for it somewhere in here as well. the with regards to revitalizing the square in my opinion a lot of it is zoning related and so with the RFPs that we got with the for the zoning phase two process there are plans to engage the public to hold public meetings to I believe one of the proposals actually gives us the proper trainings to engage with the public when it comes to zoning as well, to do public input sessions with the audience. And so, as President Berry said, I think a lot of it is just how we frame this idea of revitalizing the square, revitalizing local squares, because we also have to talk about Haines Square and West Medford Square and other squares as well. In my opinion, I think a lot of that is the zoning process. But of course, I think this council would be very happy to entertain ideas in supplement to that. I think I just wanted to touch on the facades idea, but you got that.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, Councilor. There's one idea I just noticed in my notes that I missed that I think would be good for the Education and Culture Committee to discuss. I would like to work with the administration to see, to identify possible internship opportunities for public school students in Medford. You know, something that, as a recent young person, I find very relatable struggle and I think a lot of my friends have gone through is this idea that we're all entering college with a lot of classmates who've had very substantive internship experience in high school, and we have the same potential for work for. for that type of intellectual growth and that practical experience with our high school students. And I would love us to find opportunities at City Hall and with the city departments to link them with opportunities as well. But I also know having talked to department heads about possible ideas that some departments don't have the capacity to do it. And so I really think this would require a big meeting with department heads and with the mayor's office to see what opportunities exist and what are the roadblocks currently for those opportunities.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. This is a resolution born out of our drive to modernize the work of our city council, which we spoke about at the last regular meeting. I told folks that there's a lot to look forward to when it comes to making sure that we are up to date. in our practices and in our communications. And as a lot of residents have pointed out in the past, it can be a little bit hard to get information. This is about really coordinating our strategy and making sure that there are one-stop shops for communications, while making sure that those strategies, social media, press releases, et cetera, truly do reach out to as wide an audience as possible, but also follow nonpartisan and neutral guidelines. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. The city website is a portal to city government for a lot of people. Even though we've seen a lot of improvements on the city website, I don't think it would surprise anyone to say that we could use even more updates to the city website. And so I want to call for a meeting of the Committee on Resident Services and Public Engagement with Communications Director Steve Smerdy. to talk about recommendations for updating the city website. I know folks have sent me a bunch of ideas, and in particular, to update the city council part of the website. Thank you, Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Bears. I think my thoughts are in line with the councilors who have spoken already. I want to first thank you all for putting together this report. I know oftentimes we request reports and they kind of go into the ether to have an I think, um. Pretty thorough report back is helpful. Um that being said, you know, there's still some questions that we have that aren't necessarily settled in this report. It might be better and wiser to, um to meet and subcommittee about it. Um that way we can give you all time. We can come up with our list of, um of more specific questions that we have. I think to restore that confidence, it's helpful to have some document as kind of like a guide for someone who doesn't know how elections are run. I think reading this part of the gap in terms of what we're perceiving and maybe what the intention was comes from the fact that you all just understand how elections are run. And so there are basic underlying I think underlying steps, procedures that are just very obvious to the Elections Commission that aren't very obvious to us as residents. And so I think we can work together to think through what those questions might be. Something in my mind is the question of central tabulation, and what seems like a shift from an old system where we used to count at polling booths to now this mixed system where we have some votes, some ballots counted at polling locations, some ballots counted here as a central tab. I think further clarification on what determines what's counted where, why have we made that decision versus why have we changed this new system would be helpful. I think There are outstanding questions I've heard from constituents about even though the numbers ultimately did add up, a lot of these numbers were found on different sheets. And so why was that the case? How can we make sure going forward that the sheets that are published by the city the numbers all add up and are final. I think some over the last few election cycles, some residents have been a little confused as to why we're giving an update at 9 p.m., let's say, and another update, a final update at 1 a.m. instead of doing it in one complete batch. I think these are just some of the larger questions that residents might have that you might know the answers to that maybe are a bit evidence to you all but not as evident to us and would be helpful to uh to have in a report or to talk about in the South.
[Justin Tseng]: to introduce this proposal. Let me give some background about how I arrived at these numbers. I reached out to, I looked at what former and current school committee members have said in their statements about their thoughts on the original proposal by former President Morell in December of last year. I also reached out to various teachers, and school staff to see what people were willing to compromise to. And at the end of the day, I arrived at this, this proposal, which essentially increases over two years, the salary of school community members to approximately $22,100. which is in line with the research I've done with Medford Teacher Association contracts over the last 25 years, going year by year, line by line, and matching their pay increases. This proposal would essentially stop in 2025 and so there would be no increase after that. It also, in contrast to the original proposal, phases in this increase over two years instead of having it start immediately upon passage. This is time, I believe, will give us a chance to finalize our financial picture and make sure it's in line with the information that we're hearing from finance staff currently. It also gives us a chance to start paraprofessional negotiations throughout the process to make sure that we address that part of the criticism with the original proposal. I have to emphasize that this is a compromise that we arrived at after engaging stakeholders, and that I believe that this is a compromise built off some logical ground, which is that of the previous MTA contract increases. I believe that this is a reasonable compromise. Not everyone will be happy with this, surely, and I'm sure that there are folks who would have liked this number to be higher, would have liked this number to be lower. This compromise, I know, also doesn't live up to all of the ideals that we may hold both on this side of the rail and on the other side of the rail. But So goes compromise. This is the nature of work. And we must be politically responsible actors here. We must also, instead of viewing this as a compromise that we can live with, understand that this compromise can be a win-win if we take advantage of it. If stakeholders can take advantage of it, we can lift up by lifting up one set of workers for schools, all workers for schools as well. And that's why I believe that we should pass this tonight. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Thank you, President Bears. As I said at the meeting in December, there's a lot about this proposal. At the very least, the core of this proposal, I very much agree with the principles behind it, the principles of parity, equity, the experience that The experience and time that the school committee puts into their work vis-a-vis compared to ours, and especially this idea of giving folks a chance to take part in running for and serving on the school committee, not just because of the money itself, but because it makes, not because of the money itself, but because it makes doing school can be a justifiable decision economically. I think it pays attention to economic realities. I said at that meeting, however, that we needed to talk through the details that, you know, I really appreciated former President Morales. amendments to have us look at amounts and timing. And in that spirit, I've collected some data, and in talking to folks, put together a range of different proposals as to different amounts that we could arrive at. I sent the chart over to President Bears, if he can show it on the screen. And we've also have printed copies for all the Councilors here. Thank you, President Ferris. I know the text is a little small. I'll read out the most important numbers. But essentially, this is a a listing of four alternative proposals for the school committee pay increase. Now, I think it's really important to underscore that we're looking at a current pay of about $12,000 a year, which has not gone up since the year 2000. And so the very first column is just the fiscal years. The second and third columns are basically, historically, the school committee pay versus the city council member pay, which was brought up at the last meeting. Now, as you can see, the city council pay in the year 2000 was about $13,785. compared to $12,000 for school committee members. And over time, that disparity has grown. And that was a big kind of topic of discussion at our last meeting. The first proposal is just simply following the council. So this first proposal is different from what was on the agenda. The first proposal is following the percentage increases that the city council received in those years. And so what I did was got the data for all the years, went through year by year, looked at the percentage increase, the percentage change, and then did calculations from the starting point of 12,000 off that. which would land us at approximately $25,000 and 500, a little bit over that. Now, the average annual percent change with that would be 3.3% compounded. The total percent change is about 130%. So that's if we follow the city council pay increase. The third set of numbers is, so basically I went and requested the teacher contracts, the MTA contracts, and in talking to some teachers, this was an idea that came up was if we, you know, the school committee pay increase should look somewhat like more akin to what teachers see. And so with that proposal, again, went through the years, did all the calculations, you end up at $22,000, 100, or $22,000, or 22,000, sorry, I'm too tired, $22,105.60. So that's using what the numbers I found in the teacher contracts. Now, obviously there's some nuance to that. I know a school committee member put out a post talking about how we look at those numbers and how we calculate and how steps work, but this is just kind of a neutral setting. I also collected the numbers for the flat 2% cost of living adjustment. which would basically have us end up at $19,687.27. So about $2,500 lower. I was also curious about inflation and what that $12,000 would look like if we use the Department of Labor's data on the change in the consumer price index in Boston. And it actually ends up very, very, very close to the Medford Teachers Association cost of living adjustments, actually just off by $3.30. And so that would basically have us end up at $22,108.69. Um, there's some numbers at the bottom for different, um, different positions, chair, secretary, vice chair. But, um, I think for the sake of this discussion, um, I think the focus should be on just the normal school committee members pay and then we can get to get those positions as well. Um, just some food for thought, some ideas, some different ideas, um, some alternate, uh, alternate proposals to consider.
[Justin Tseng]: There are a lot of arguments that are, I think, fairly being raised, some that I don't disagree, that I don't agree as much with, but I still do believe that there's a lot of this that needs to be balanced. And so I think Councilor Scarpelli's core ask, that we look at the timing so that we have a better picture of what things look like financially is not an unreasonable ask. And that's why I would personally be in favor and I will motion later to have this, instead of having this be implemented immediately, have a proposal be implemented over the two years, which would give us time. So basically, July 1st, 2024, July 1st, 2025. This would basically give us time to go through the budget process to have a better picture of what things look like at the schools before we move forward with a proposal. In the first year, I don't think that we should do the full amount. That's my take. And so I would have this be spread over a few years as well. And that will hopefully give us more time to solidify our understanding of the picture. I have also taken time to talk to people with a better financial picture. And the financial picture is nuanced. It basically says that we have a small, small chunk of money that we can spend, but little consensus about what that money should be spent on. And it's, you know, it would be more ideal to give people across the board raises, but it's not enough money to do that structurally. And so the question is, what do we do with that surplus, with that tiny surplus? So that's a consideration. Ultimately, I grew up close to my teachers. I ran for city council because during the pandemic, the school's budget got cut in real terms of close to 9%. I fought hard for more money for our schools successfully, but we also have to be fair to all our staff, and that includes people who run the schools as well. I think Councilor Leming makes a great point that I see in my real life. When I say that this makes running for office justifiable, right? I think the service argument is important. But there are tons of people who want to serve, but can't because they have to put food on their table. They have to pay their rents. And so they ultimately don't make that choice. Nat cited a an example here in Medford. But it's a story that more often than not ends in people deciding not to run for office than to run for office. With that being said, again, so in summary, I think we should discuss the phase-in over two years. And I agree with Matt that I think we should end up around where the teachers end up. I think that's only fair. I think the logic is more sound. the data is there, and so I believe that we should end up basically raising school committee pay to $22,105.60, which is basically the same increased rates as MTA cost leveling adjustments, phased over two years, going into effect July 1st of 2024 and July 1st of 2025. It seems to me like the most reasonable approach. It's a compromise that not many people are going to be happy with, but that's the nature of compromises, and I think everyone can find some progress in that deal being made. Um, and I think we should discuss that proposal. I think it's more palatable. I think it gives us more room to, um, to look at our picture and look at what, um, what the picture looks like going forward. And I would be happy to motion now, but I am also happy to have a discussion first about it.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng, um, I think, Oh, given given the fact that Councilor Collins made a motion, I also just wanted to make a motion to to basically do the MTA, to have the cost of living adjustment reflect the MTA raised over those years. Over which years? Yeah, do you want formal language? Over which years, sorry? From fiscal 2000 to fiscal 2025. Right, and then over how long?
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, to have it go to $17,000 by July 1st, 2024, and up to $22,105.60 by July 1st, 2025. Okay, so it would be the 24 and 25. Right, it would be that one.
[Justin Tseng]: Sorry, I misunderstood your question. That's fine. Again, this is all about balance. This is not a proposal. This motion is not a proposal that was put out in the first place by either side of this argument, but I think it's As I told people coming into this meeting, I think this meeting is about finding a reasonable compromise. And I believe that motion brings us there. And I believe very strongly that we should take advantage of this opportunity to set a precedent and to ensure that rising tides actually lifts all boats and lifts all boats into the future and that we can hold ourselves to account with that statement as well. I believe that this specific proposal with the MTA cost of living adjustment rates brings us most closest to that idea.
[Justin Tseng]: I believe Councilor Tseng. Councilor Tseng. Thank you, President Bears, and thank you for all the feedback, for the public participation, even if we don't see eye to eye with the proposals I put forward on the floor. I do think it's really important to clarify some things for the audience watching, and the audience online as well, which I should note, which is just to clarify the proposal, at least that I put forward on the floor, and to really get a better grasp of it. So the first thing is, My proposal follows the rates of the increases over the years. It doesn't follow the amount increase over the years. And because the school committee pay starts at a lower amount, this is actually a smaller total amount than what we would see for the average teacher. But this is the same percentage rate. And I keep hearing I mean, maybe it's not about this proposal, but the percentage change figures of things in the hundreds, which is not true. This proposal that I put forward is a 2.48% annual increase, or a percentage annual increase, which I've heard 3% be standard for some unions. I've heard other percentages. This is the MTA, what's standard for the MTA over that period of time, which tracks very, closely to inflation. I also took a second to calculate the actual dollar impact of this proposal as well by fiscal 2026. And so in fiscal 26, the proposal I've laid on the floor will cost taxpayers $35,472.40, which is not that much. And to be completely clear, we can't fill empty positions at that rate. I think we should be careful of false equivalencies we're taking. from some people and giving to others because that's number one, not how the budget works. And number two, we're talking about $35,472.40. And I think the conversations that we're having tonight that we've had over the last month really underscores a bigger question of underfunding in the terms of millions. not thousands of dollars or thousand dollars. We need to have a conversation about business districts and about ballot measures and about zoning, right? We need to have a conversation about those things. For example, the council recently passed, or the last council passed at the end of the year, a Medford Square ordinance change that would redevelop Medford Square and bring business and investment money in, right? That's stuff over the longer term that we can use for our schools. I think it's also really important to note that we also can't legally break a contract to give a raise as much as I personally would want to. And sadly, $35,000 probably doesn't split great over the amount of staff that we have. I think, you know, to the point that about the living wage. I am sympathetic to the point from the fellow Councilor. I think the living wage is an ideal, and I want to be very clear that neither the proposal I've laid out on the floor or the proposal that Councilor Collins has on the floor would make this job necessarily a living wage. It would just make it more justifiable to take. So I think it's important to clarify all those points as well. There's one more point that I wanted to bring up, and it's one point that I'm particularly sympathetic towards, that of the paraprofessionals. And the way that we have it phased in would almost definitely ensure in either proposal, given contract negotiations, that school committee members do not make more than the lowest paid paraprofessionals. I have the paraprofessional salary chart in front of me. And if the lowest paid pair of professionals being paid $17,000, then we should definitely have a connect them with human resources, because that is not what the contract says. And they're being mispaid. And so we should work on that if that's if that's the case, because the lowest figure I have is $20,500. um, for for kindergarten needs, which is again definitely way too low. It's unjustifiable. But in my opinion, voting for an increase, um, a reasonable increase, a compromise proposal, um, would basically allow us to lift all boats and to give us a reason to lift all boats as well. Thank you. I think that's they're saying Councilor living.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng? I don't have the contract for FY25 in front of me, but that would not be true at least for this upcoming year. And it's difficult to project out in the future because there's a contract negotiation. A new contract has to be agreed on in six months. which is partially why I proposed that phase-in. So instead of, the original proposal was to start immediately. This proposal builds in time for us to review all those contracts, to review the budget before we actually send out the money.
[Justin Tseng]: Any discussion from other Councilors? I wanted to thank President Bears for introducing this. When I think about the next few years and what this council will prioritize, I think a lot about two words, ambition and modernization. Really, I think taking this time, this precious time that Medford has, where we have so much potential and where so much is moving and changing in the greater Boston area right now, to take advantage of that and to bring our city into the 21st century. To do this, I think it's not blind to our residents that there's a lot of work that we need to catch up on, a lot of big projects that we can be taking on, a lot of projects that we can convince people to take on. We need to do the work of convincing the administration to take on as well. you know, with all of those ideas out there, right, with all of those ambitions out there, we really need structure. And so having a governing agenda like this, one that's flexible and doesn't bind us to things, but I think one that gives a structure in terms of how we work in the context of the new standing committees, I think is something that's super helpful and that will be really helpful in guiding our work going forward. I wanted to also say, I think a lot of us Councilors work on our own versions of, maybe not as complex, but our own versions of this document. We have our list of ordinances, our list of policies that we want to pass. community. Um being able to meet on it together and committee of the whole and to develop that plan together to submit what we want to do and to find out common ground. Um to find projects that other Councilors are interested in working on and tackling those projects When we like when I think about my last term there are tons of projects that other Councilors were also interested in working on that, you know, we didn't really start to talk about until the second year of the term. And now we're finally starting to work on it. I'm thinking about the Youth Commission ordinance, but having a meeting like this in the beginning of our two year term. we're going to be able to find partners. Who I think will really orient us and help us find partners for our work as well. Um so I'm very optimistic about it. I'm very hopeful about this document, and I'm very excited to see what everyone brings to the table.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um. Councilor or President Bears for introducing this. Um I think in a very similar vein to what councils, uh, Lazzaro was talking about. Uh this eviction moratorium, I think it's something that's very crucial for people to get through these difficult winter months. I think today's. As Councilor Bears, as President Bears referred to, there's very noticeable strain on our shelter system and our health care system. And when we look at the data, when we look at the science of evictions, number one, it's just bad, right? But from a scientific standpoint, evictions tend to cause more mental health issues, tend to cause more physical health ailments as well. It tends to be, you know, as Councilor Lazzaro was talking about, truly life-threatening. And I think we have a moral responsibility to make sure our neighbours are able to get through these next few months safely. And so I'm very grateful for this resolution.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Thank you. Thank you, Vice President Collins, for introducing this resolution. This is the start of a discussion about the good landlord tax credit. This, I think, through your description, Councilor Collins, I think you've described it super well. I hope that a lot of our residents are excited about this possibly being implemented. As you noted, there are details that we have to work through, but this resolution starts the process. It starts that conversation in the community about this. I've always said that the housing crisis is one of the most severe challenges facing our city right now. It's part of a larger affordability crisis. And I think, and I know that a lot of us, a lot of, if not all of us were elected on platforms to tackle affordability in the city. This, another kind of maxim that I always say, specifically when it comes to the housing crisis, is that inaction has been so pervasive for such a long time that we now need to use all the tools in the toolbox, or at least consider all the tools in the toolbox. And with the state giving us a local option, we should be proactive in exercising our local rights. I also think, and the economic data supports this, that incentives can be a very useful economic tool to incentivize better behavior. And I believe that the good landlord tax credit would especially help at the margins where this might incentivize the landlord to seek to qualify for the program given the credit from the property taxes. lower rents, hopefully, at the margins, and help those in our community who happen to be in those situations. And so I'm optimistic about this, I think. There's a lot of potential here. There's more details that we need to walk through, but I am very grateful to Vice President Collins for introducing this, and I'll second your motion. Councilor Callahan.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Wow. It turns out I was the first one to mess up. As someone who goes through that intersection multiple times a week, at least by car, but oftentimes on foot, the circle being fixed as to the best of its ability is something that I think will impact the lives of a lot of Bedford residents, whether it be a change that folks like or don't, I would recommend everyone look at the plans online. And while I don't think there's much room for changing the plans given the state's, the structure of how the state has designed this process and its relative inflexibility to adjust their plans, I still think that getting more feedback and having our city government put more pressure on the state is important. There are also parts of the plan that are optional, that are recommendations for the future that could be cut out, and a lot of those particularly intact pedestrians. that we're looking to make that neighborhood. Um transit, particularly transit, um, focused. Um and, uh. And in the for introducing this, and I hope that our city can do a lot of good work on it, but getting clarity on the project is the first step.
[Justin Tseng]: Present.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Isaac. Zach-Bears. Councilor Sanders. Councilor Isaac B. Zach-Bears. Councilor McAllen. Councilor Isaac Becker. Councilor Isaac Zach-Bears. Councilor Levy. Councilor Bears.
[Justin Tseng]: I'd like to nominate Kit Collins for Vice President.
[Justin Tseng]: That's a little bit. Oh, that's the problem.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Thank you, President Morell. I wanted to thank you, Attorney Dashin, to the Alves family for being so patient and negotiating in good faith with this. If I were the family, I'd feel super frustrated with how long this has taken. I don't want to accidentally undercut the Planning Department's positions on any of this. I know this is new territory for you all to chart, so I would like to know if January 9th is a realistic date, because I would want to vote this out by then.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you President Morell for introducing this. As you might know, I'm very excited about this. I am very much looking forward to helping lead on this in the new council. What we saw with Winthrop Street is not acceptable to the residents of the city, and we need more safeguards for future action. We know that the housing market is hot, and it's becoming more profitable to blast off ledge and build more housing. We just need more community engagement, more community conversations about what that process looks like, informing residents of what to expect, having regulations of best practices, basically taking lessons that we've learned from the Winthrop Street Project to future projects. And so I'm very grateful that you introduced this.
[Justin Tseng]: Absolutely. Just a quick short note, in the email that Councilor Scarpelli read, the mayor said she would follow up with us with details, and we haven't received a follow-up. So that's another reason, because we just don't know a lot of these details either.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Councilor Caraviello, Rick, it's been such an honor serving with you. I think on this side of the chambers, there's such a strong camaraderie with the three of us, and it's always a pleasure to walk in and see you and Kit here. And as Kit says, gossiping, but for me, it's really just learning more about this city, learning more about how our city works. You've never failed to be a teacher, and we've talked a lot about this, but you've truly taught me a lot. I see you as a mentor here at Medford, and there's, you know, from who to call in City Hall to do what, to who to talk to on City Council, you know, there's, that's the job aspect of it, but there's also the personal aspect of it, you know, people I should meet, introducing me to people, a lot of that support, you know, it really means a lot. And I've been really glad that we've spent these last few years supporting each other so much. We've bumped into each other so much, and we've really become really strong friends. I remember really clearly the day I received an email from you, right after I announced my candidacy my first time. And it was just such a sweet email, a really like hopeful email. and encouraging one too, that uplifted that whole day. I remember you talked about how we met when I got the Kiwanis scholarship back in high school. And I think there's just that long history between us two that has brought us closer and closer throughout time. And I'm truly gonna miss you being here. I'm gonna miss you being with us and walking into the chamber and hearing all your fun stories. know, it's it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it's a it
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um thank you, Councilor Knight, Adam for all your service on the City Council. I think at home and both both at home and behind the rails. I think people often see the verbal jousting, but people don't You're so upsmart, so witty, and so funny, and you brighten up all my Tuesdays. I know it's been a difficult last few months, but I've been missing you quite a bit. being in the council chambers with you is like for me going back to school and I'm constantly pushed to be better, to do my homework even more, to study and to be prepared because you're just so prepared and so on top of things whenever you walk into the council chambers. I think people should appreciate all the work that you've done for the city. You fight the hard fight for workers, for working people in the city. I think you oftentimes ask the right questions and get us to think more deeply about what actions we're taking, what we're not doing, why we're not doing things. And I think that voice is just so important to us in this chamber, to have that compass for us in this community. really like there's there's so much I have to thank you for for for this term for the lessons I've learned on the City Council and for a lot of what I want to do in the future. You've pushed me to be a lot better and so I really appreciate that and I'm sure Medford appreciates it too because you've pushed Medford to become a better place. We're gonna need that same tenacity, that same fire and passion in the future, but I know you'll stay around it. I know you'll stay involved.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm going to miss you so much, President Morell. I'm going to miss calling you my president. Lots of love to you, Zach, too.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah I will miss her though. I think you know that. I think a lot's been said about your honor and grace. I remember when before I even thought about running for office when there was so much going on with the pandemic and with Black Lives Matter. I remember watching all those very contentious city council meetings and I didn't know you at the time but I was like huh this like Nicole Morell person gets where I'm coming from like what my experience growing up in Medford was and You know, I think like it surprised me so much because it's just so rare for people like me to see your views being represented and your perspective being considered, especially by people who didn't come from the same background as me. And it was just, I think, so cool. And I think Beyond just honor and grace, for me, it was seeing you stay true to your convictions as well, even when the conversations were heated and difficult and when it would be easier to back out. As George has mentioned, you've always stayed in the fight and you've led with your convictions as well. And I think you've shown us that you can lead with your convictions and also build civility and unity and harmony here. behind the rail. And I, you know, it's not an easy job when I wouldn't want it. But and you've had to stand up here through some really difficult meetings. But the grace, the kind of the poise that you've led with is something that I think people at home, especially girls and young mothers at home, really look at politics and see that you can do a good job even when it gets tough. and can really be inspired by. You also, I think, have laid out a path for our city and for progressives especially, that shows us that you can have a progressive vision that's tailored to our local needs and addressing what we need street by street. I think that kind of attitude has really been leading the city council in the last few years. And Kit talked a lot about the achievements of this council from zoning to all the ordinances to a lot of projects that were kickstarting. I think it's a testament to you that, to your leadership that, you know, we have been able to really pursue progressive change in a way that touches people personally. And it's furthermore, another testament upon you that candidates are running and I'm looking forward to carrying a lot of the ideas that you set in place in the first, in your four years here on City Council. I think beyond that, I'm going to miss just having a friend to look up to. um literally look up to um i think it it's always nice to talk to you when things get heated because i think i can i can trust you to have a rational viewpoint of things and i i can trust you to make a millennial joke that i don't 100% get and i can i can trust you that we'll have we'll banter around about millennial and gen z slang and You know, it's just like those funny moments that take you out of the heat and out of the seriousness and make all of us sing. And I know this will not be the end. I know you're gonna stay involved. I'm looking forward to the days when you're back here. And if you're not back here in the council chambers, I'm looking forward to being at Jackson on vacation this May.
[Justin Tseng]: I know many of you all taught me just a few years ago. I'm sure you'll know that I'm a fan of nuance, but that not everyone's a fan of nuance. And so I just wanted to preface my remarks with that. I do actually agree with the principles of this resolution. I think in execution, we need to tailor it. We need to improve it. But I do appreciate that President Morell has put out a proposal to address a problem that we have in our city, a can that's been kicked down the road since the year I was born. And I understand how politically difficult it is for the president to introduce this motion and to take so much flack on it. It's never easy to discuss the salaries of elected officials. And whether you agree or disagree with it, we were always bound to have this conversation at some point, and so I do have to give President Morell props for having the courage to bring this out. I also need to note that procedurally, I've heard a lot about, you know, why haven't you talked to other members of the council or other members of the school committee about it? We do have laws that govern how we introduce ideas, and the most transparent way to introduce an idea is to put it on the City Council agenda. It doesn't mean it's going to be passed tonight and it's an ordinance, so it would require three readings anyways. But usually it's the most transparent approach because we can hear from you, we can hear whether you agree or disagree, we can send it to subcommittee and work on it even more. And so that's procedurally how it usually works. I did say I support the principles of this, especially given the fact that school committees being paid a wage or a salary that few in the private sector would ever pay for any job, really. I'm sympathetic to the argument that school committees and schools in general are seen as female institutions and treated accordingly. And in other words, there's societal expectations to lower pay outcomes. And this is really what the crux of the gender pay gap is. I will say my first reaction to this resolution was, why is the school committee being paid the same as city council? But I had to reconsider why I even asked that question in the first place, especially given what we know as people who engage with the law, that school committee exercises, you know, city council exercises purview over city hall, which is about two-thirds of the budget, and the school committee exercises authority over one-third of the city budget. And in addition, state law does give the school committees many more powers and authorities that we don't have as a city council. I do know from personal experience, whether you like the job that they're doing or you dislike the job that they're doing, they do spend a lot of hours on their job. I think in addition to that, as a young person, as a person of color, and as a recent student of social sciences, I know from both my personal experience and from the numerous studies from top researchers that better pay for public officials does increase the quality, diversity, and experience of candidates who run for public office. Too often, low pay doesn't justify the time that we spend being public officials, and the negativity and hostility of politics in recent years only exacerbates that problem. Those, you know, we can, I do agree in principle that people running for office should run out of service. And I, you know, everyone who runs does run out of service, but we can't ignore the economic reality that for people who aren't as economically well off, like students or people of color, we can't just take time out of our days to do political stuff like this instead of working another part-time job. It's just, it's just economic reality. We, you know, there are experienced folks who can't justify taking on higher paying projects and research after research shows that government that pays better moves more efficiently. I hear a lot, and I totally agree with teachers generally, about wanting more young people to run for office, because we have more, especially for school community, because we have more recent experience at the schools. And it's a reason why I ran for this office in the first place, because the schools, I believe, should be the number one budget issue. And in the last few budgets, I've sat down with the mayor to negotiate millions more for our schools, successfully. It's been the number one conversation when I walked into the office.
[Justin Tseng]: Now, okay, that being said, I am sympathetic to all the ideas in opposition to this. I've spent a good amount of time these last few days talking to teachers, and I agree in principle that the school committee should pay, should reflect pay increases that teachers get. Now, we should also keep in mind that the committee hasn't had an increase since 2000, and using a salary calculator, if we compare the percentage increases, this proposal is somewhere in the ballpark of where that pay has grown in the last 25 years. But, you know, that's all details. And I think we need to have, again, nuance matters. I think we need to have a conversation about what that looks like. We should also keep in mind that we do face large structural challenges when it comes to problems in the city and in our schools. I think that's obvious to everyone who goes into the schools, and I have been into the schools. But we have to consider amounts, and we have to consider percentages. This proposal takes up 0.05% of the city budget, and we have $25 million in free cash that we keep pressuring the mayor to use and spend, and she has. She has spent that. We've talked to the CFO about this, and the money does exist for it without pulling out of the budget for schools. I think the logical trap here isn't that this isn't an either or situation, it's a yes and. I think this brings me to maybe the most pressing point for me, why I would be amenable to an idea like this. And it's not really any of the reasons listed in the whereas section of this resolution. It's because I'm a strong believer that government should push ourselves to make better decisions in the future. make decisions now that put us in tougher positions in the future, that force our hand and make us, that force us to make better decisions. I think when we send this to committee, I think we can craft a good deal that's better in execution, but also pushes us in a political direction where we have to accept demands for better for our teachers in Paris. It's a little bit different thinking. It's not a reason I've heard online or from anyone in the last few days. But that's how I see the political picture of this, is this forces the city government to be more accountable to our teachers and paraprofessionals. I think, again, considering all these principles makes me sympathetic to this resolution, but I do think that there can be tinkering done in committee, and that's why I'm particularly grateful. that President Morell amended her paper before introducing it to us. I think it would be especially reasonable to discuss changes in timing or phasing in, even though, again, the money that we need to solve large structural challenges citywide in our schools far exceeds the amount that's proposed. Do you think it would be prudent to phase this in as we get more information about the greater financial picture with the FY25 budget and with the new budget ordinance that we're intent on passing soon. That way, we can make sure that this is additive and not subtractive. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, you know, I already discussed it a little bit, but I just wanted to reiterate I know many of you will be disappointed with my, you know, when I vote to move this into subcommittee of the whole. But my whole take on this is I wouldn't, ultimately, I won't vote for this if it does detract from the students, right? I think we all agree on that value. Everyone behind this rail agrees on that value, but only by moving into subcommittee can we have those meetings and conversations with financial folks to give us that better picture. We also, as Councilor Collins alluded to it, have to consider the different magnitudes of this proposal versus the actual needs for our schools, which I completely agree. And I do agree that, you know, with huge raises for teachers in Paris. I really do. And I'll stand by you with that. Before this meeting, I encouraged it. I encouraged you guys to push for more future negotiations. But again, we can't have these conversations without moving forward on this. And so I know again, a lot of you will be disappointed. I hope that you guys will call me, email me, that we can have a conversation about this. I know a lot of you know me personally, and a lot of you have friends who taught me as well, and I really encourage more conversation about this, and it'll help inform my views on this going forward, what a compromise looks like, because I think we can broker a better compromise, and that's really my priority. So please reach out, please talk to me, and we'll have an open discussion about it.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll be super brief, but I wanted to thank you for coming and sharing all these concerns. Like what Councilor Collins said, this is a top priority for us going on into the next term. And we have the whole zoning reform process going on, phase two of that. And we'll be looking at a lot of policy ideas that might touch it. I would, again, encourage you to stay in contact. Please let us know. what's going on in their neighborhood as well, and we'll try our best to refer to the code enforcement officers in the future. And if there's anything policy-wise, any ideas that you might have, feel free to reach out to us as well.
[Justin Tseng]: I wanted to keep it simple and reiterate how grateful I am for all the work that you guys and Emily has been doing for our city. We know it's not been easy to work with the state government when it comes to getting the details about how we can be in compliance with the MTA Communities Act. But I think this solution is something for people in Wellington to be very excited about, for residents of our city to be very excited about. I know there's some excited chatter about potentially having more commercial or more people in the area, making it more walkable and bringing our attention to the walkability of the area as well, forcing us again into action. And I just wanted to thank you for your hard work on this.
[Justin Tseng]: Present.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I think we're lucky that we have two very solid proposals in front of us today. I think like all of what my colleagues have said, the NSRFP speaks to me, especially in that, what Councilor Baer said, we have experience working with this group of people, with the staff that they're offering us. There's, you know, when we look to all these plans that we have right now, the comprehensive plan, the climate plan, everything, you know, we on when we and when we look at the RFP, we can see that there's overlap there, which I think is really invaluable. It means that we're bringing that expertise on all the public engagement in that process on to and carrying it over to ours rezoning project. I think, as Councilor Collins acknowledged, there are a lot of Massachusetts-specific projects in this RFP, which I think is very notable. And there are projects like the Helping a Bunch of Municipalities Come in Compliance with the MBTA Communities Act, which I think shows a familiarity with our state's regulations and laws when it comes to when it comes to zoning and what we can do. I think something, a small note that I found pretty helpful here is there in this RFP they mention proposed like The possibility of giving city councilors like us recommended training for best practices to engage with the community, giving us a lot of tools to engage residents. It's just something that I think would be really interesting in the zoning process, which is pretty unique in the NSRFP as well. And just, I could be wrong, but when we just count out the number of meetings, there seems to be just slightly more opportunities for our city council to engage with NSS group as well, which I think is invaluable time. I'd be interested to hear what Alicia, what Director Hunt has to say, but I feel pretty good about this proposal.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I also just wanted to thank you, Commissioner McGivern, for coming and providing clarity on a lot of these issues. I think as we see from the questions and the conversation tonight, you know, once it's, you know, these questions come up every few months, but once you wait, it gets pretty deep. And I think it's helpful to have this kind of this forum where we can answer those questions, but also see how those questions link into other questions about our capacities, our resources, our vision. I think your comments have provided a lot of clarity with regards to, I think, concrete examples of where we want our city to go in the next few years. So I think that's very helpful. I think we should be encouraged to hear that we're you know, trying to put out more information. I think there's always room for cooperation there as well and figuring out how we can get those messages across to residents. And I think one note I love to put in is this idea of translating those documents as well to make sure residents who might not speak English who live on those streets have an idea of what's going on as well. But I'm very thankful for your work. for your presence here tonight.
[Justin Tseng]: Thanks, I think Alicia and Danielle read my mind on a lot of the questions that I was gonna ask. Um, the outstanding question I think for for folks at home, that would be great for maybe for for your team to help answer what would be how this plan aligns with our comprehensive plan. I think. you know, that's it's something that we worked so hard on. I know we we worked with Ines associates on it. So I think this is there's there's definitely an answer to this. But I think folks at home would appreciate hearing more about it.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you all for your work, by the way, and thank you for answering questions. I know, I'm sure at previous council meetings, we've had a few more specific questions, but I know Alicia said that you prefer us to leave this for public education, so.
[Justin Tseng]: I found them in order and moved to approve.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Motion to waive the reading in favor of summary.
[Justin Tseng]: I, there was a point in here about sidewalks. I just wanted to make sure that when we redo the sidewalks that we're doing them with concrete and not asphalt, I see.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. I think what's been said here really encapsulates what what went wrong process really does matter. Um I think we all agree that the results wouldn't have changed, but the process really doesn't matter. And Councilor Scarpelli is absolutely right when he says that perception is reality. We know that this is a really difficult time for democracy in our country. We know that there's a lot of questions about elections. And we know that we need to build trust in our election system. And that trust, it's not just about trusting the election system. It's about having unimpeachable trust in the election system. Elections are the holiest part of our democracy. And our democracy is a sacred system in itself. And we need to really we need to defend it. We need to make sure the process works. I, we, you know, we, the other Councilors have really, I think, well enumerated the number of issues that we saw before election day and on election day. And we gave, and before this election as well, we gave the administration a fair chance to fix their mistakes. We passed resolutions. We demanded scrutiny. We went through those items line by line. We got assurances that they would be fixed for future elections. And we see what the product is today. We need... We need not only to know why what went wrong went wrong. We need to know what accountability looks like. We need to demand that accountability as well. And it's good that we've had safeguards in our system to fall back on, like the barcodes that guarantee that each person only has one vote. But we shouldn't have to rely on our safeguards to have faith in our system. We should have faith just because the process has done well. and so there's not much I can add on to what's been said because I think what's been said encapsulates pretty well what we need to fix, the accountability we need to demand, but I just wanted to put my thoughts and statements on the record as well.
[Justin Tseng]: just more, this is more of a detail, but I would like to see what, if there is a report that comes out of this, I would like to see analysis of the low staffing levels, the funding problem, very specific about those questions. I would also like to see, I believe that we had talked about, or the mayor's administration has decided that we would rely on some seasonal more seasonal employment of employees. And we talked at length back then when we were reviewing the budget about how we needed full-time staff for that department. And I'd like to see reference to that in the report.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, please.
[Justin Tseng]: Motion to waive the reading of paper summary.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I wanted to thank you guys for your work on this as well. Um, I know it's really difficult working within the parameters of a state mandate that keeps changing, um, and to get us product before the deadline, I think is an achievement that we should acknowledge. Um, I, I think there's, there'll be some time for people to comment on this and for adjustments to be made. Um, I think we understand the council understands our tasks tonight, um, and what our vote means and the way that in my opinion it should go. But I also wanted to say as a resident or as a former resident of Wellington, I am excited to see more action happening there. I know a lot of residents on the ground feel that as well. I know that we've had a lot of conversations about safety and walkability there. And a more comprehensive plan like this with more incentives built into it creates, I think, an ideal vision, a more ideal vision in that sense. Maybe we make some tweaks, but a more ideal version of what we have that creates a safer neighborhood by making it more walkable and more to incentivize attention to that behavior. I'm really grateful for your work on this. I know there have been folks writing me about reducing parking minimums even more given the proximity to the station. I think that's something worthy of being talked about. But in any case, we'll get into the details with the CD board and with what they recommend, but I'm just very grateful for your work.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Collins, for initiating this, and thank you to my fellow co-sponsors on this. This is something that is really important to me personally, as someone who's grown up with a lot of transgender friends who've been bullied and attacked on the streets, not in Medford, but in general. And, you know, it's important, I think, to really shed light, bring attention to this, because everyone deserves to live in dignity. And I think it's also particularly important to acknowledge the intersectionality of transgender violence in our country as well, especially the higher rates at which Black transgender folks and Indigenous transgender folks face violence and bigotry in public. And so I'm really grateful for the Council for taking this up. And there's still so much more work to do, but I'm very proud to be a co-sponsor of this one.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I just wanted to send my deepest condolences and sympathies to his family. I'm grateful for Councilor Scarpelli for introducing this. I was one of his students and I've been reflecting over the weekend about that year in chemistry and how much fun it was. And I think that's something that will stay in my NHS experience forever when I think about my time there. You know, Mr. Lazzaro would tell, he would tell so many stories, and he was so proud of his family. And, you know, in every story that he told, there was wisdom. There was, you know, these nuggets of wisdom that we really valued. And, you know, we laughed about the stories, but we also talk about, you know, what we learned from those stories in his life. He also had the funniest, the wittiest one-liners and comebacks. So funny, in fact, and actually so wise, in fact, that we started this Google Doc of quotes of what he would say as a teacher. And this doc became so legendary that I checked it yesterday, and people were still adding to it last year. And I had the opportunity to stop by his wake before this and to talk to Kay and the rest of his family. And we joked around a little bit about the document and about his wit. And that's something that I felt like will be part of his students forever, that experience. We really did love him, and I'll miss him really well.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll be quick. Um, as a, as a high grad, I am so ready for this match. Uh, I'm just so ready for it. I, I, I, you know what? I, you, you mentioned the record this year, but every time I go on Twitter and I see, um, uh, MHS athletics tweet out the results of how our, how our kids are doing. You know, it just makes me so proud to be from this community. And I think we talk a lot, we're always proud of you all and proud of your kids and the service they give back to the community. But, you know, we're always talking about what we can do to make, you know, make people more proud of Medford, make people more united in the city. And as you said it, as my fellow councillors have said it, You know, our football team is really, really shining the way right now. And just wanted to give you my thanks, my support, and go Mustangs.
[Justin Tseng]: On a slightly different topic, but going back to what was mentioned, I know folks here mentioned the meals tax, the local meals tax. In looking at the Massachusetts state government website on meals taxes, it does seem like food trucks are included or local excise taxes on meals are included in what food trucks should be paying. I think that's something that we should confirm. But that's what I read from these documents, from the Massachusetts state government website and the Harvard Law School think tank document on food trucks in the greater Boston area. I would be open to asking for language about that in this ordinance or in the regulations, just to make that clear. Great.
[Justin Tseng]: Present.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Henry and Evelyn, I was Councilor various that we all know for their dedication and care for Medford for our residents for the goings on of our city. I think it's, I think, just in general there's just so much to talk about with their dedication to Medford and to our residents but you know, every time I learn something new about Henry, it's truly inspiring that level of care that he's willing to give to people around him. And to see that, you know, this, I think they're, you know, I'm just so happy that they're being honored for their work. especially with improving the lives of those with intellectual and developmental disabilities, because I think it's a realm that needs so much care. It needs so much attention. And just to know that someone like Henry and Evelyn, to know that people like them are there, I think, makes me feel better about this world.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm very grateful that Vice President Bears has put this on the agenda. I think a year ago, I put on the agenda something about cut-throughs perpendicular to Willis, between Main and Mystic. This is something that I think folks, neighbors in the area talked about for a while, something that came up, that's always come up on Doorknocking in the area, and something that I've also talked to Director Blake about as well. I know he's working hard on it, but there needs to be more action being taken. So I'm very grateful. to my fellow Councilor for putting this on the agenda. I was in the neighborhood recently and it was just so hard even to cross the neighborhood street because cars were driving by so quickly. And it's just for families in the area with kids, that's just not safe at all. And so I'd really want us to see the city do something about it. And I'm grateful to the Councilor for kind of pushing this forward again, putting this back on the agenda again.
[Justin Tseng]: I never got the chance to meet Boddy, but... when you, I think, look through City Hall, when you look at what's the hard work being achieved here, a lot of it is built on the backs of the greats who came before. And someone like Dottie, whose work has meant so much to Medford and really has pushed our city forward, I think it's an honor to be able to recognize her, even if I didn't get to know her personally, to know her through all of you all.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Caravallo and Councilor Scarcelli for putting this on the agenda. It's also really great to get two Italian Americans to be able to put this on the agenda. I said this last year, but one of the most interesting experiences for me going to college was that I realized that not everyone had the chance to learn Italian in school. Yeah, unfortunate. And we're really fortunate to have that in Medford. And I do think that makes us really unique and our history really unique. And I, you know, I think there's so many ways, as a son of immigrants, I know how important it is to celebrate your heritage. And there's so many ways to celebrate Italian American heritage here that we really can do more to embrace that. I know Councilor Knight has said time and time again, creating a zone in South Medford where we can capture that heritage and maybe even take advantage of state grants and funds for that. When I went to San Diego, There's the little Italy over there does a great job in terms of honoring its Italian American residents, there's such a rich history there so many so much work that telling Americans have put into shape our community. The way it is today and. And I think this is something that came across a few years ago when this was a hot button issue. I think we really need to do more to acknowledge the fact that it was a really difficult time for Italian-Americans who came here. They did face a lot of discrimination. And I think we can do more to celebrate the triumph of Italian-Americans and face that discrimination as well. And so I'd be very happy to support, you know, a flag raising or some ceremony festival here. I'm really happy to see that we were able to get the Italian festival here in Medford this year. And, you know, I think this is one of the ways that we can bring our community back together.
[Justin Tseng]: Well, I'll make that motion after it's taken up.
[Justin Tseng]: On the motion of Councilor Tseng to take 23-433 out of order, seconded by... Second.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, thank you for presenting today. Thank you for coming to us with the with this project. And I mean, really to echo Councilor bears this sentiment there. Um, it is really fulfilling for me as a Councilor to see something so big that we did be able to bring in a project and I think, um, Council versus right when he says that change can be difficult and change, and now on to that change can be awkward as well, and sometimes we'll get a building like yours where maybe today there's nothing next to it, but our hope is that your building can bring in other buildings to. And that, you know, that vision that I think we have for mystic have that most of us have for mystic of that we can, you know, this is the first step that will need to take. We also have that as Councilor Bears referred to we have that count combined properties project which hopefully will go how we want to across the street is also this really isn't a project in isolation I think this is rather a project that's the beginning of a bigger project, which I'm very happy with. I hear the concerns about traffic. I go through that intersection at least twice a week, if not more. You know, the traffic there is backed up. Hopefully this can also spur a new conversation with the people at DOT and DCR about like timings in Medford and getting that to match our traffic patterns better. But I do think, as you have mentioned, it is really important to note that we fought as a council for bus access to remain in the new bus plan on Mystic Ave and on Main Street and on Harvard because we knew that projects like this were going to come in. And because of those, because of our actions as a council, because of community members, we have pretty regular bus access coming in to connect this property with Malden Square, Malden Center Station, with Sullivan Square Station. Hopefully with the shuttle, we'll have it better connected to the Green Line as well. And I think that's really important to mention. I'm the son of life scientists. And I can definitely back up the statement that most life scientists are especially environmentally aware, and they want to really make an effort to drive less. It's something that we don't only see in Cambridge, it's something that we see as in general with life scientists, even across the country. And so I, you know, I, I like that part of this project. I think that makes sense. I think it's sensible. And I think, if anything, we should be spurring and pushing our workers in Medford to be taking public transit and to be biking. And I think the only way we can do that is to make it easier to really incentivize that behavior. I was going to mention one last thing. It's slipping my mind. Oh, I think if anything, this is about creating jobs in Medford as well. And we want Medford to be a destination. We want Medford to be put on the map. And we have to be willing to embrace job growth. if that's to be the case. And I guess on top of that, as Councilor Bears mentioned, we keep talking about wanting to expand our commercial industrial tax base so that we take tax burdens off of residents, so that we, you know, we're talking about we're in a difficult situation right now with our long term finances, and we need to embrace
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to thank Councilors for introducing this. I think these are common sense. amendments that we can discuss as a council. I think that the previous meetings have shown us that we need to give ourselves more teeth when it comes to these ordinances and enforcing them. These are things that maybe the mayor's office could do. It would be their prerogative, but unfortunately, or fortunately for us, we should take it upon ourselves to do this. So I'm totally in agreement. I'd like to second it.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. I hear my fellow councilors points, and I think honestly, I agree with most everything that's been said tonight. I totally agree that we need development in other parts of the city as well. I agree that we can't be privileging one part of the city above another, and that we need comprehensive plans to tie the whole city together. I also want to acknowledge that we do have a comprehensive plan in the city that many, many, and by many, I mean hundreds, if not thousands of people gave feedback on. We've had time to review those plans, to give feedback as councillors, as members of the public. I also have had time to read those plans, to read the different press releases that I've come from the mayor's office and from the planning office about these plots, these lots and what we're gonna do with them. And I've had that time to talk to Director Hunt, to talk to Victoria Storrs about what the city is envisioning for these plots. And I think Councilor Bears more or less has said it, but, what we're hearing from the business community, from folks who would want to come to Medford, what we're hearing from people who work in housing and from people who work in planning and development is that Medford Square needs a jolt. And we need more housing to grow our consumer base. We need better traffic patterns. We need better infrastructure, and especially when it comes to water and sewer, which the DIF allows for that investment. And we can't just assume that private developers will come to Medford Square and be willing to invest that much in changing Medford for their own ends. That's not something we've seen anywhere else. It's just not cost effective for them. When it comes to the, you know, the idea that we might be privileging one part of the city I think I took this very to heart, especially since, you know, so much of my first campaign running for this was for city council is about making sure that you know we build a city that's working for everyone across our neighborhoods. And when I think about it, I think one important thing to realize is the potential for us to increase the pie, increase the coffers when it comes to our city revenue. And as Councilor Collins has referred to, I don't think it's lost on anyone that certain neighborhoods have especially strong high needs for better streets, for more social services, for more trees. The big question is where that money is going to come from. And this tool gives us the potential to grow that pie, to grow revenue, to create that new growth that we all keep talking about, to invest in those services and to invest in that infrastructure. It's also, I think, a reinvestment in a central neighborhood in the city that really binds all of Medford together. To get from any part of Medford to another, this is one of the neighborhoods that you're more likely to pass by. If I'm going from South Medford to North Medford, if I'm going from Wellington to West Medford, this is the heart of our city. to reinvest, to revitalize this neighborhood, I think is a strategic choice to revitalize something that I think we can all benefit from no matter what neighborhood we live in. I think another plus I see to the DIF is this idea of democratizing development and to give the budget. Um, I think it's going to give us as a city council more say, um and more scrutiny when it comes to how the city and the mayor spending the budget. Um you know any I think an important fact to state is that any spending from the deaths, um, from the funds has to be appropriated each year by the city We don't necessarily have that level of scrutiny, but by adopting the DIFs, that would give us that ability to have that level of transparency, to have that level of democracy, to have those discussions about how we're spending our money. Each year, we can also have a recommendation. to sweep the unused funds from the debt funds, the unspent funds, back into the general fund, which I think should allay some of our fears as well. At the end of the day, I think it's important to to reiterate Councilor Baer's point that this is an experiment. This is us trying to provide that impetus, that stimulus to revitalize Medford Square, the thing that we haven't seen so far in Medford Square. And I think we can disagree as to where that impetus is gonna come from. I think that's totally fair. This is a tool that I'm willing to try. And if it doesn't work, I think we can all be mature enough to admit our faults and to admit that it's not working. And as Ms. Storrs said, it's easy to reverse this decision. But I also have optimism that this tool is something that can help our city grow.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. I would just like to echo the same sentiments as Councilor Caravielloville. I think this is a, you know, what I've heard is a pretty convincing project. I hear good stuff. I want your family to have what you need. I think there's just enough, you know, uncertainty here. It might be more cautious for us to learn to really work through the details first, but this is no way to say that we're opposed to the project, or definitely not to the spirit of the project. I think it's just in there being cautious.
[Justin Tseng]: I have a general comment. I just wanted to thank the Planning, Development and Sustainability Office and our Climate Planner for working on this. This was a real priority of the Council back in January when Councilor Bears, when Vice President Bears introduced this. This is something I think that at the time we were really gung-ho that he introduced this. And I wanted to thank your office for getting back to us with this. I wanted to thank everyone for cooperating with the city council on this.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to thank the City Board for getting back to us and for being proactive in suggesting changes and in reviewing the language here. I think that, you know, these, the technical aspects, the technical changes are, I think it's hard to argue against them. The substantive changes are, I think, are really helpful for our community. I think Councilor Caraviello really has explained well over the last few weeks and months why we need something like this. I think this brings us in alignment, in closer alignment with our comprehensive plan, and so, and in preparation of round two of rezoning. I just wanted to express my thanks.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: I wanted to thank Councilor Bears for putting this on the City Council agenda, to thank Mr. Jockelson for submitting that public participation form with a bunch of research and details about why this is a pressing and urgent issue. I think that this is the ordinance that we passed on short-term rentals is one of the most meaningful things that this council has done. It's something that I think many people here had a personal involvement in, particularly Councilor Bears in crafting. And it is something that I think we really should be enforcing. And I think there's things that have been coming across our desks as a city council in the last few weeks that have really emphasized the need for our city to invest in enforcement. Because we have good laws in place, we need to make sure that they're carried out. I think it's really important to note the distortionary effect that short-term rentals has on housing affordability and rents, both in terms of property values and in terms of rental prices in neighborhoods. The National Bureau of Economic Research has been pretty unequivocal in in what it's saying in the economic analyses with how this hurts regular working folks like residents of Medford, like people who are renting in our community, and people who want to buy property in our community, who want to stay in Medford. And so I think it's really important. I think the proposed solutions from Councilor Bears, I think, would be a very important first step in making sure that we're patching up those holes. Particularly, I think it's important to establish more direct relationships with outside entities to make sure that Medford's actually, to reassert our authority and to make sure that we are partnering up working in the spirit of cooperation to make our city better.
[Justin Tseng]: And it might be helpful to do more for the city to do more outreach to realtors and to folks who are helping sell the properties to let them know that they should inform their clients that that use is off the table.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, it's, I live a block away from Medford Tufts and, you know, honestly, it's, it's not a hard solution. There's, there's space on Boston Ave where you can put in handicap parking and there are garages in the neighborhood. There's a Tufts garage where people can, people who don't need that proximity can park at. Um, and so I would really hope that, um, the administration really work to, to make it, I, I just don't know how this got overlooked as well. Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: I want to thank Vice President Meares for introducing this. I think tonight it really exemplifies why we need to invest more in our code enforcement. We need our laws to have some meaning. This is also something I should note that the first budget I worked on here, the one I guess, in 2022, 2022, we, as a council and our Committee of the Whole sat down and advocated for more money put to code enforcement. That's something that we coordinated our efforts on. I think it's, it would be, that's something that I know Councilor Caraviello and me were particularly passionate about in that meeting, in that Committee of the Whole meeting. in the upcoming budget season, no matter whatever the format or the makeup of the city council may look like after elections, I would really hope that the city council redoubles on its efforts to push for more code enforcement.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, I concur with Councilor Caraviello that that was perhaps the most shocking part of that email. I mean, why would we go schedule a court date without talking to Kate, without making sure that someone from KP Law would be there and without making sure that someone from our city would be there. It just doesn't make sense. You know, this is something that would be inexplicable if you went to a law firm and asked them, you know, how are you scheduling your court hearings? So I support this resolution. I think we need answers because this is unacceptable. And, you know, are there more cases of this, you know? And that's why I would want to amend, if you're so amenable, Councilor Caraviello-Velo, to ask also for a written explanation as to how we're going to prevent things like this from happening again. So a written explanation as to how the city of Medford will prevent defaults on court appearances from happening again.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor say Councilor bears is understanding is my understanding as well. Given our limits on how much we can charge violations and fine for violations and given the, I mean, it could be that we're just we haven't done it so we don't know but realistically, given the number of possible violations out there, probably would not amount to a full-time salary for the position. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be investing in that. I mean, we should be doing that. And so I would definitely say in the next budget process, no matter who's mayor, who's not sitting on this side of the rail, that we come up to residents, like you come up to the city council and advocate for more funding for code enforcement and more hiring, more staff in that aspect. To the rodent point, we passed a resolution two weeks ago from Councilor Scarpelli, asking us to sit down with the Mayor, with the Director of Public Health of the Board of Health on the rat issue to talk about solutions. I've mentioned in email to you folks about some of the things that the resolutions that we've passed on our end. as another enforcement issue. We have strengthened our ordinances with regards to that as well. I'm trying to think of what else. Oh, we need to be working with Tufts, as you guys have said. I'm sure the students are well-intentioned, but there's a lot that they don't know with regards to some of the kind of quality of life issues that they're causing in the neighborhoods. And so I think we need better communication with cops, better, more pressure on cops to, to have them communicate better, to have them enforce better. Um, we need to relook at our community benefits, um, with them as well, relook at the pilots because they don't pay property taxes. Right. Um, but we, we need to leverage that to, to have better pilot agreements with them as well. And I think the enforcement aspect could be something that we talked about.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll be very brief because I think Councilor Bears and Councilor Collins have covered a lot of it. We, I think tonight have talked about the need to cooperate more with each other and with Tufts to make sure that Medford is more livable and that we are tackling a lot of the broader challenges that our neighbors in the Tufts neighborhood see. I think Councilor Bears makes a great point that we need to work with students to bring about that change, because a lot of what we're fighting for is aligned with what they're fighting for as well. When I go to Tufts, and I have more connections there in the way that a lot of them are my classmates or classmates from high school. There are a lot of folks there who've been asking me how they can contribute to to Medford and how their school contributes to Medford. And oftentimes, I have to give the hard answer, which is that, you know, to be fair, Tufts isn't doing enough. And we can be getting the university and students to be doing more for our community as well. Tufts does, you know, that's not to say that Tufts does nothing. Tufts does do things, but it doesn't match up with the shortfall that we get with in terms of them not paying property taxes. And so we need to build those connections to bring them to the table. Ultimately Tufts workers, be it students or faculty or researchers, they're Medford workers as well. And we need to make sure that Medford workers are working to the best standards possible. When you look at what ultras put out what the union is put out in terms of what they're asking for it's really not a lot. Back in college I did, I did similar work to being an RA without the residency part, and I got paid more than what you know I got more benefits than what they they're getting right now. And they're doing more work than I was ever doing in college in that position. And so I think when you ask, oh, and you look at what they're asking for, it's really not a lot. And it's a really, it's really a minimal action for us to pass this resolution tonight and to stand with them.
[Justin Tseng]: This meeting's been long. I think we've all voted in favor of something like this. I just wanted to kickstart more action on it. I think these are ideas that are great ideas that have come from a multitude of different councilors. I think since we all agree on them, we can get it done.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, this is something that some residents in neighborhoods around the square wrote to me because when you walk towards metric square over the bridge, you can see trash by the river and there are some residents who have been collecting the trash on the weekends. It'd be. I so I, I'm going to request that we make one small amendments. So basically, after where it says, ask the administration to, instead of saying to place, I would move to amend it to say, ask the administration to study placing more waste disposals. This is just an idea that, you know, once we're trying to get people to use the Clippership connector to walk more to the square to bike more, people are going to be passing by that area more. And with people comes litter. And so I would like us to kind of tackle this problem somehow. Someone did write in with a concern that trash waste disposals, trash bins might create problems of legal dumping. And that's why I made that amendment to change the language a little bit to soften it and to ask perhaps someone like PDS to, an office like PDS to study what the pros and cons are and how we can reduce litter over there.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, it'd be super amenable to that. Yeah, I think you make a great point that there used to be big belly trash cans. We are disposals. We can do things like that. We can tackle the rodent problem in the squares as well. If we have better disposals, we can put solar powered things on it. We can put advertisements on it. It's a way to generate revenue. There's just so many things that we could potentially do with it if it makes sense. So yeah, I'd be amenable to that.
[Justin Tseng]: I found them in order and I moved to approve.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, thank you, Councilor Scarpelli for putting forward this resolution. Um, I am sure we've all heard a lot about the rats. I know I've been bringing up the rats a lot in the last few last few months as well. Um, I, I think it'd be a great idea to meet with the BOH and with the director of the health department. Particularly because a few months ago we had heard during the budget committee of the holes were director O'Connor came up to us, she detailed some of her plans what the department's currently working on and what they would like to get in place but haven't gotten in place yet. And so I think Councilor Scarpelli alluded to this, but we do have a contract with Yankee Pest who will come in and treat burrows and nests on private property. They'll come in once for inspection and a second time to treat. Director O'Connor also mentioned that they're looking at doing what Malden and Somerville are doing with regards to catching and killing rats. The rat trap boxes that they have in Malden and Somerville, she said that that was maybe an option. I don't think we have that in that for right now, so it'd be great to get progress on that. I think that It would be good just to go in depth about rat treatment and infestation. And with regards to the trash program, I think residents might have concerns, but we do have numbers with regards to which types of cans and bins are being eaten into. And ones with locks are just much stronger than ones without. Thanks.
[Justin Tseng]: And another quick point I think should be made, and this might be beating a dead drum, but there are good ideas out there that are being tested and implemented, even in municipalities around us, like Councilor Scarpelli said. A lot of it just requires money and resources, and we need to figure out how we're gonna fund all these programs. You know, that's the perennial challenge of our city. We have a lot facing us in the next budget season, and we need a concrete plan to do that.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much. I want to thank Councilor Collins for introducing this with me, and also thank school committee member Melanie McLaughlin for giving us for helping us with this liaising and with giving us the idea for it. It's so important to make sure that all members of our community are not only seen but celebrated. I think for too long, folks with disabilities who lived in Medford haven't always felt like part of the community, and folks who have disabilities might have felt that. even felt that they couldn't completely be themselves in public or they had to hide something. And, or even that disability was something to be shameful about. And we know that's not true. And I think it's really important for all of us to take a forceful stand to let people be proud of who they are. And even if that means, you know, Changing how we work at City Hall, if that means taking a deep look at our policies, if that means making sure that things are ADA compliant in Medford, those are really important steps that we need to take. And Disability Pride Month gives us a chance for us to talk about those needed changes in our community and those needed investments. So I'm very happy to introduce this with Councilor Collins and very much looking forward to what we can do in the future. to address the needs of all of our residents.
[Justin Tseng]: Thanks, I don't need to repeat what we heard last meeting. I mean, it's certainly very concerning for the folks who live in that neighborhood. I thank Councilor Bears for introducing this resolution. I think it's important to put on record the need, at least that I see, that to redistribute truck traffic in the city to find better paths and especially to basically encourage, find ways to encourage trucks to take bigger main roads rather than cutting through residential neighborhoods. So be it through maybe a more general conversation on the traffic commission or some task force to develop a policy, policy suggestions. I think it's a conversation to be had.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I, I totally sympathize with what you're saying. Um, and agree. Um, I think I it seems like we all agree that the should have been negotiated part of that we should have tried to get something out of it. Um, of course, it's, it's easy to go on counterfactuals and to think about the what-ifs. But I think given the situation right now with the resources that we have right now, it's a temporary solution that I think we understand why it looks like this. I think we need to set a goal in the future of making that a place that looks nicer. Honestly, I think it'd be ideal to put a few benches there to have that be a more community-based space now instead of being an empty space that doesn't have anything. But this is part of why the traffic was redesigned. And look, we hold plenty of city events there. I normally never park around there. I usually am taking the bus and walking around the area and that intersection is lethal. I mean, it's scary. And it's scary to see cars drive down so quickly. And so I'm grateful that we've made some changes and interventions to make that place safer, especially given the fact that in the last five years, there were 300 car accidents in that area. I think with the new interventions, I know they're very controversial. I know that there are tons of residents who aren't very happy with what's been put in place. But I will say that safety is always, at the end of the day, the most important function of government. And this does keep pedestrians safe.
[Justin Tseng]: Just quickly before we adjourn tonight, since we're having a forecasted heat wave the next few days, we just wanted to announce that we will have some cooling centers open for residents over the next few days until July 28th. So we have three three cooling sensors announced there's on the Metro Police Department community room, which will be at 100 Main Street that's available 24 hours a day. The Medford Senior Center at 101 Riverside have will be open from 8am to 6pm. And the Metro Public Library at 111 High Street will be open from 9am to 9pm on the 26th and 27th, which is Wednesday and Thursday, and then it's from 9am to 6pm on Friday on the 28th. If you want more information about it, this info is on the city website. But I hope everyone stays cool, stays safe. I think it speaks to the impact of climate change at the local level when we need to make announcements like this and make measures like this. And hopefully this really kicks us into gear with more aggressive climate action and with things like just planting more trees and preventing heat islands in the city.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Thank you for having Councilor Bears and I on this resolution. I think it's a great opportunity to showcase the great work that's happening at Medford High. I think sometimes it goes a little understated, but the students and teachers up there are up to some really great work. I think the robotics team is a great way to highlight that, and it's truly a pride of our community. I think I was fortunate to be able to visit the high school a few weeks ago, and it's truly, there's so much stuff up there that's happening that doesn't get enough attention, and it really behooves us to bring more attention to great, really, I think, really great stuff that's happening like this.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll be brief since I think Councilor Scarpelli did such a great job telling us about everything. I think what really stands out to me and what Councilor Scarpelli said was that all the teamwork and the coordination and the heroism that came through in this story. and the humility from everyone here and even accepting the awards and accepting the accolades today, the humility really shines through. But as a community, I think it's really important that we take this moment and both reflect on the heroism that you all showed. but also celebrate all the work that you all have been up to. And you guys really are, this is the star, the shining star of Medford. So thank you all so much.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Director Hunt, for presenting to us and telling us a little bit more about the area. I've read through the RFPs that we've seen, the nine that you talked about, read through this administration's press releases about it, and looked through the comprehensive plan and things like that. And between all of those documents and what you're saying today, which completely corroborates everything there, I do see the picture for the Wellington area. And it's a picture I think that because I think a lot of most of your decisions as a department is taken from that, the public input process that's gone into the comprehensive plan and the housing plan and all of that, I think is one that aligns particularly well with the goals of the city and the goals of our residents. I spend like a little bit less than two or three days in Wellington a week. And there is a lot of, especially younger folks, but there's a lot of momentum on the ground for making Wellington a more interesting place, a place where people can afford to buy houses. And even with wealthier residents, a lot of wealthier residents, maybe a little bit older than me, they want a chance to buy what buy units here too. And even for the units they could theoretically afford in Medford, it's a whole competition to buy them. And this would, you know, increasing housing stock is a really, really important way of tackling our housing crisis. And I think in another world, I definitely hear my colleagues in that we prefer not to spot them or not, not to focus on individual parcels of land. But that given the urgent nature of urgent nature of the housing crisis, given the vision that I think we generally have in our city for transit oriented development and multi and mixed mixed use development. That's, this is a project I think is promising for our city. And I think you made the excellent point that waiting is shooting ourselves in the foot. And we've seen this time and time again with housing, with development in Medford, with a lot of projects. It's been a mistake in the past. And I want to make sure that we're not giving into it. We're not accidentally shooting ourselves in the foot now. And I think that's really, really important to hear. In general, I really do look forward to working more with your department and with the zoning consultants on implementing the shared vision I think all of us behind the rail have for the area and for the city. Especially, I'm a very big fan of what you said about incentivizing affordable housing and energy efficiency and all of that. And so I would second Councilor Collins' motion.
[Justin Tseng]: I think Councilor Caraviello, for putting this on agenda, I walk across that bridge before every city council meeting. It's, you're right that we shouldn't have to ask about any of this. This is something that they should be on top of. I know councillors, you've been on top of, really on top of it, councillors, other councillors too have, also, you know, brought up the need for DCR to be more on top of it when it comes to Medford to, to talk to people from their office for them to reach out to us as well to have that clear channel communication. I do wish that, do wish that happens, but I think, I think Councilor Caraviello will put this on agenda.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President moral. I also don't support it. I think, Councilor Bears. Um, I think it summarizes my, my point, I think it was pretty clear from the, from the comments from the water and sewer superintendent and the Commissioner public works. at the budget meetings and also in conversations before, that it wouldn't be unrealistic to say that we are fast approaching potential catastrophe with our water and sewer infrastructure. Now, I don't want people to get too worried because we're planning it out, we're managing it, but this is part of Voting this down, I believe, is one of the steps to planning it out. One of the steps to preventing that from happening. We also heard from them that there are a number of challenges with not even just the age of our infrastructure, but the lead and the materials. And there's going to be not only health punishments for our city going forward, but fiscal punishments as well. And so I believe that in this case, it's the fiscally responsible choice to invest now in our city's infrastructure before we pay a bigger price down the road.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you guys are constantly saying, um, yeah, it's it. The photo is jarring to see that 18 wheeler just in a residential residential neighborhoods like that. Um, where I live, there's trucks coming down all the time, too. And it's super, super loud. And, um, It's, it's, it's not, it's not great when when when you expect it, it's even worse when it hasn't happened in this sort of only started happening last decade. I think for in the interest of fairness to our residents, it would be it would behoove our city to reach out to some of these companies and design a plan to redistribute some of the truck traffic. And you know there's nothing that we can Um, you know, by by law really say you can't drive down this road. But, um, if someone from the city, um, if we could work together, get someone from the city to reach out to some of these companies or these stores, find out who who's who which truck companies are doing the driving and say, you know, why? Why don't you take Salem Street instead of spring? Why don't you take this road and instead of that one redistributed a little bit? So it's a little fair on our residents.
[Justin Tseng]: It'd be also nice if we could get that list of companies from him. I don't know if we could, but... Yeah, we can reach out.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll be brief, and if I have more, I'll go after. I know you're upset at us because of that vote that we took a while ago, and I don't think I can say anything that will make you feel better about the situation, and I know a lot of the folks in the crowd tonight, I know you guys personally, and I have to be upfront that I don't think I'm gonna make you guys happy in an instant, but I will say that vote that we took back then was, in my mind, the deciding question for it was, will this really help the unions that are negotiating contracts, get what they want. And I think we discussed it in detail back then, the answer that in my experience of dealing in with, you know, different players in this in the city, the answer was no. And the answer was that whatever would happen would happen other channels, and not through this and I couldn't because of that answer I couldn't use that to justify holding up 2% raises for people who still work for the city or still city workers, and I understand that you guys are going to be super upset about that with me. Um, but that was the reason why I took that vote. That's the reason why I still support that.
[Justin Tseng]: Because it wasn't a question of leaving one group behind. For me, the question was why yes, why no, and what if. And there were there there were there were there answers for why yes and why no. So for me, when I thought of what if, what if we didn't do this? Would it help you guys? The answer was no, but it would, it would have also left a big group of city employees behind and I couldn't let that happen as well.
[Justin Tseng]: And while I still technically up for sorry. I, I mean, I think, Vice President Bears. I kind of explained the what the debate that was happening in my head really well. The first phone call I made when we started our budget process with the mayor. This was before she submitted her budget to us the first thing I brought up was the clerical union. and me wanting to see more something done on that front. Now, I've had a bunch of priorities, right? And, you know, I still have to think about how I'm going to vote on the budget tonight, because there's some things I need to see, and I haven't seen yet, and some things that I wanted to see and have been there through good faith negotiations, right? When I think about potential effects of the budget, maybe there maybe there is a case for voting it down, I certainly do believe in that. But, you know, I can't justify voting hurt everyone because it's an outcome that would eventually hurt everyone instead of, you know, just a little group of people like women. No, that's that's, that's a very, that's a very grossly grossly false way of putting things but I think the point has been made.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng, Thank you, President morale. I'm so happy and heartened to see our community come together and celebrate Pride Month in the ways that we have this year and last year. We're truly, I think, embracing and owning it as a city, but I think we would be remiss not to mention the pain that the LGBTQ plus community has been going through in recent years with attacks to them, their dignity and their equality. when it comes to what's being said in social media, when it comes to inappropriate accusations that are grounded in no reality. These things, they might seem like national things that are only happening on a national level or in different states, but we've seen these things in the metropolitan schools where there was an incident and on social media this week with regards to the city of Medford and our celebration of pride. This resolution is really offered as a way to for us on here on the Medford City Council to say that we stand with our LGBTQ plus community, that we want them to feel accepted and at home here in Medford and safe.
[Justin Tseng]: Does it have to be one vote?
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, motion to continue the hearing. Okay.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I'm going to speak to the vote in front of us. Um, and I think we all went into this project knowing that it wasn't gonna be a perfect budget. I went into City Hall today, not knowing how I would vote on this deal, and it actually really helps me to have a better alternative to the budget that was proposed before. Um, now I'm really heartened by the schools and library in the zoning parts, the additions that we've gotten for those three things in the fully, especially the fact that we're fully funding the library and fully funding or zoning ask. Um, but at the end of the day, when I was thinking about it, um, you know, this was this was just the core of my ask and not not tied to the structural kind of the structural challenges I saw the Medford budget. And, you know, before I asked myself, if I before I was thinking about my decision to vote on this budget. I ask myself the question I try to return to, which is, will this budget make our city tomorrow better than the city today? And, you know, before I walked into City Hall today, even when I was walking into City Hall today, that question was up in the air for me. But having a better alternative presented to me, I think, gives me some I had no better alternative.
[Justin Tseng]: A better alternative, in my view, proposed to us on the floor here for us to deliberate about this better alternative, for us to talk about whether this deal is worth accepting. For me, this deal, I think, is something that I think is moving the city in the right direction, maybe not completely there, but the direction is correct. And I think it's thanks to the hard work of the residents of the Councilors of different elected of activists who are writing and constantly calling and emailing the mayor's office to get that money for the schools to get the fully funded library to get the zoning money to get some movement on the better future budget plan. And I think we need to acknowledge and celebrate those successes as well. And you know, I get that. there's a lot of anger about how this happened. And I, you know, I wanted there to be a different plan on the floor with some additions to the budget as we were voting on it. And this helps me get to a more clear stance on how I'm voting on the budget tonight.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President role. If we're looking at where if we're using the actuals in the budget books and clear gov. I wanted to reinforce, they only go until March, and so we are going to be missing a quarter of the numbers. Also, because if you're looking at the budget book that was posted online that was made during budget season so those also clarification though but didn't you speak about figures from as well which I was just explaining that if you're looking at what was given to us physically and if you're looking at what was given to us physically and on the website. They those numbers also only go into March, so for all those years we're going to, we're going to be missing a quarter of the actual point of information.
[Justin Tseng]: I mean, I was just gonna suggest that if we have more questions, I mean, as just as future practice, we should email them to administration instead of making it a ruckus over.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, I don't want to extend this matter too long but I concur with Councilor Collins. I think, you know, I think about what ifs, and it's important that we have a fund that we are able to kind of draw funds from in case something catastrophic or really horrific emergency does happen, God forbid. You know, we I think on the council we come up with a lot of great ideas about how to spend free cash. Um, I know, Councilor Caraviello posted a bunch actually on Facebook that are really good. Um, and I think this things like this, maybe we don't we were not able to spend on everything that we want, but I think being able to take from free cash is really important. And so I would support this. It doesn't have to move forward tonight, but I really, really would want this to pass before June 30th.
[Justin Tseng]: Move the question.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm Justin Tseng. For the last two years, I've been proud to be your voice on the Medford City Council. Now, I'm running for re-election to keep Medford moving forward. Let's build a future that leaves no one behind. The challenges my family faced while I was growing up in Medford motivated me to hit the ground running. And in just two years, we've made real progress in making our city more affordable, accessible, and welcoming for all. We've created an affordable housing trust and passed a housing production plan. We're upgrading our green space and cutting pollution. I'm proud to have fought for and won more money for our schools and library, keeping bus routes in Medford, and protecting our immigrant and LGBTQ plus neighbors. Our city is finally moving again, but our work here isn't done. Let's turn these moments of progress into momentum for the future. Let's think bigger and act bolder to tackle the housing crisis. Let's implement the ambitious climate agenda we started this term and let's revitalize our local economy. From fixing our roads and sidewalks to creating more after-school child care and tackling systemic injustice. We have more work to do. We need someone in the room who will bring our conversations back to what fundamentally matters. How do we stop folks from being priced out and left behind? How do we make our city cleaner and our schools better? How can we make our residents, no matter where they were born or how they identify, feel safe and welcome in our city? As your Councilor, I'm proud to be that voice. Together, we've brought more housing, more jobs, a more vibrant scene, better parks, and better bus service back to Medford. But there's still so much left to do. Let's keep Medford moving forward. and build a city that works for you, me, and our neighbors down the street.
[Justin Tseng]: 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.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll be brief because we've held meetings on this, and I wanted to reiterate that we've done our very best to engage the public in a rigorous process with this. And I believe that to members of the public, the item at hand is pretty clear. I especially get that sense from emails that I've gotten from constituents, We've asked for feedback with gauge support, and we've gotten a lot of feedback in support. Because this is an important vote, I wanted to quickly reiterate why I support this. First, I think it allows for a framework of cooperation. And as the mayor said in our Tuesday meeting last week, that's a goal that we, that's something that we want to aspire to. from both sides. And it allows for that framework through good times and bad. Councilor Berry said something that stuck with me. He said something along the lines of, we want to be writing the press releases with you guys, with the mayor. And I just do believe that there's so much stronger of a message of political movement when we all work together. and compromise and work together to get to a place where we like on the issues. But it's not just about the positives. I believe that these amendments allow us to shoulder the burden of governance together, to make difficult choices together, and to do so in a more public, transparent format where we can explain the choices that we make to our residents as well, which I think is gonna be important in the years coming up, especially with the fiscal cliff that we've all been talking about. What these amendments offer isn't that much different from what happens in other cities and other levels of government. People expect us to work together. They expect the legislative branch to have a role in these things. And people are actually just confused why we don't do these things the way that we're proposing already. I see that in the survey results for the budget survey that I put out. I believe that these amendments allow us to do our job. Residents expect legislators to legislate. It's the central mission of our job and it's in the name. To all the residents who wonder why we don't move faster on issues, I believe while a lot of it is a need for process, a lot of it is also the lack of staff and researchers that we have. These amendments allow us to make it help us to help you. They help us to do our job. I think that these amendments I'm going to close off here. But by saying that, I think these amendments allow us to plan and longer term and increase transparency, it moves up the calendar. and I know that this is a stated goal of everyone on the city council and the mayor said that as well. I think a prime example is in soliciting feedback from residents this time. I think I have really I think we've all talked about after school child care before on the council, but it is something that we need to tackle as a city. And if we were able to engage residents at an earlier time, and we had more of a public facing process where the legislative could help the executive do that too, we would be able to find a way to address it or start to address it in the budget. And so I think, you know, there are literally litany of reasons why I think everyone should support these amendments. But I think Councilor Bears for all the work that he's put into this, I think the rest of the council for being so patient and for for entertaining these ideas.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I just wanted to add my voice to the choir supporting Saturday early voting dates. I mean, respectfully, I think it's really important for accessibility, and even if Saturday sees lower turnout, per se, a lot of those voters might only be able to vote on Saturday, or that might be the most by far the most convenient option for them. And I wouldn't want to take that piece of our democracy away. And so anything we can do to sustain that, to keep that as an option, I think is really important.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. The AAPI community in Medford is one of the fastest growing communities in our city. This is a wonderful opportunity to wish that community a happy month and also an important opportunity for us to bring up issues that are particularly pertinent to the community that our city council has been very proactive in addressing, and a lot of those solutions now lie with administration and in committees here. But I had the honor of going down to Boston representing our city at the big AAPI celebration there. And a lot of those leaders recognized that Medford was on the front lines of a lot of issues that were relevant or important to the AAPI community. So I think that's something that we can be proud of as well.
[Justin Tseng]: But a lot of folks don't know that Medford is home to a very rich, a very long standing Jewish community here in Medford. And they've contributed a lot to our development as a city and our growth and our city history. And I wanted to take this time to celebrate Jewish American Heritage Month as well. And I know that our city has had a lot of work to do on antisemitism. But we, again, have a proactive council. Councilor Collins has been amazing on resolutions to deal with those problems. And I think that's something that we can celebrate this month, too.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. It was helpful to hear from everyone both supporting and oppose and I got emails in both directions. This week as well. So it's obviously, I think, a very difficult decision to make. I think all the other councillors here can agree with that. When I think about it, quality of life is super important. And it's important to pay attention to residents who are bringing up concerns that they might have with the establishment. But we also have to in hearing those concerns, we have to hear what they actually are. And from the concerns that I've noted down that you guys have come up and said, a lot of it, I think, there are ways to regulate the problem, ways to address the issue that isn't so wholesale and isn't really bringing the house down to make a renovation. We, you know, I think there's there's a need for better signage in that lot and in the neighborhood, as to expectations, reminding. people who frequent those businesses, as to what, what the rules are in the city. You can't defecate you can't urinate right in public. We need better parking enforcement which other Councilors have already talked about, and better parking rules I know, Councilor care of yellow I liked that suggestion of looking at that lot in particular and seeing what we can do about that, right because it's the city own lot, we have control over it as a city not the council. I hear the concerns about not being able to park in front of your homes. I think that underscores the need that a lot of South Medford residents have been pushing for, for zoned-based parking in certain parts of South Medford. And I think a lot of what we talked about today underscores the need for maybe strengthened ordinances, strengthened noise ordinances, strengthened code enforcement as well for those ordinances. I it's, it's also when I think about this I think about a lot of the work that I do outside of city council work, which right now, a lot of it looks at laws and cases and how you how you make a strong case for against something, and I, it is I may be unfortunate, but it is impossible to prove, given that there are other businesses open in that in that neighborhood at the same time impossible to prove that oasis is the problem. The problem is what you guys are saying, but it's impossible to make that connection. And I don't want, as Councilor care of yellow mentioned I because it's impossible to prove that I don't want to be seen as taking a criticism arbitrary decision on this issue. It's also we also have to keep in mind that the past, it's possible that because the businesses closes earlier than it needs to. A lot of folks are congregating outside and doing things outside when if the business was open longer, they would have the ability to do that inside the business, where we have more control over the noise. We also have to, I understand the point about revenue that was made. In this specific case, there's an opportunity cost with the revenue that applies here with restaurants and businesses. And it's not just the taxes that come from meals and liquor sold at Oasis, it's also the taxes that we would get from other businesses in South Medford Square thriving. And we have to keep that in mind because we keep talking about revenue and the need to find ways to raise revenue, preferably without an override. But look, I made a promise to the voters that I would try to find as many ways to raise revenue before we had to do an override. And this is unfortunately one of those ways. And that speaks to a bigger budget revenue situation that has been long and systemic. needs addressing. But unfortunately, because of the tough situation that we're in revenue wise, we have to make some tough decisions as well. And with regards to the budget, I in the last week, we put out a survey about people's desires for Medford and the budget and over 20% of people did actually bring up the need. the thought that businesses in Medford need to thrive. And and I understand that that often comes in conflict with quality of living and as Councilor Collins mentioned a lot of our businesses are located very close to our residences. I would support some kind of compromise to make sure that the businesses are surviving and that residents are heard. And so something like a 90 day review, I think would would be very helpful in that regard, and also calling upon our administration to do more work in that neighborhood to pay attention and to monitor it. I think that would be, I think that would be the way to address that. look, a lot of people want businesses to be open later as well. A lot of people stay up late at night, people have different work schedules. We have a young and thriving population as well here. Councilor Knight, one moment. And so we need to address those needs. And look, I go back to the idea of regulate the problems. Regulate the problems, it would be unfair and unwise to it seemed, I think it would be unfair and unwise to tear down the whole thing.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. I think we've explained why we voted this way and we are in support of the various compromises that have been offered, right?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I'll try to keep it brief. Moms Demand Action, I think we've lavished a lot of praise and all of it is deserved. I grew up as someone who, you know, the school shootings were in the news all the time. I still remember Parkland. I remember Sandy Hook. I remember those days in the classrooms and meeting in the gym after. We have heard about the news to talk about how students might protect ourselves, given the threat of gun violence, even beyond the schools. I mean, the resolution says it all, but, you know, something that touches young people a lot is mental health and suicide. And the fact that most suicides with a gun are successful, but most who fail committing suicide don't ever return to that ever again. And these are personal issues for young people here in Medford. And to have a group like Moms Demand Action that's so committed to raising awareness and building coalitions and coming to elected officials and trying to create something actionable for us, I think it's really touching. And I'm very proud to be able to co-sponsor this with you guys, with my fellow Councilors, and to have you guys here with us tonight. I think I want to reiterate Councilor Collins point that these are simple steps that we can actually take in a municipality like Medford, and even, you know, we keep talking about how revenue limits us from things but this is, you know, it's simple it's actionable, and it's cheap, and something that is worth that time and investment by the city, because it's something so simple and so doable. So, thank you so much.
[Justin Tseng]: To be fair, Harvard only started its engineering program a few years ago, so. See? They'll catch up.
[Justin Tseng]: I wanted to thank you guys for being here so late. Um, wasn't in our plans but I appreciate your tenacity. Um, you guys are really putting Medford on the map and we're really proud of you guys so know that you have the support of our community. Um, anyone watching tonight please donate with the fundraiser that Councilors are probably mentioned, and yeah, we'll get you guys to Colorado.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to say I'm really excited for the event and I live in pretty close there and I've been telling my neighbors about it and everyone's really excited.
[Justin Tseng]: I would want to hear from Director Hunt, but I, in general, I think we are in a housing crisis. The best way to combat that crisis is to build. We have a crisis, revenue crisis, where we need new growth, new development, and we, as a council, always talk about the need for new growth. I've lived in that neighborhood for most of my life, and I still spend a lot of time there. And something that we always want is more things to do. And to have that there, to have more of a community, more neighbors around, I think would be a and I think the biggest point in favor of this is the fact that it's next to the station, and that kind of transit oriented development, I think, will help us meet our housing and climate goals, but also create a better standard of living for people in the area.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll be quick. Um, I, I think we we've all said before you know how important you guys are to us that You know it bears repeating but also, I know it's words and I you guys want action. Um, I do. I think the idea about using the budget season to negotiate it from our side, I think, you know, we'll try to do our best. And I actually think that's a good idea. You know we do run into the limit that Councilor bears said about the 45 days but I do think that's a good idea for us to use our time and our podium here to do right by you guys, and you said it's he's a nice phrase but it's not. You're right, it's not a right nice phrase right it's it's living for your family and for your situation too, and you're so brave for coming up and talking about that openly with us as well. But it's not a nice phrase. I mean, it's not like you guys are gonna make bank after that small raise, right? And we all know inflation's been out of control. We all know that. So to go out and say you're not an essential worker and blah, that's not right, right? And so, Um, well we'll take a look during the budget and see what how much we can, we'll try our best to advocate for the most. The $25 million in free cash I just wanted to put out there I've said week and week, week in and week out. Once that was announced. I don't get why we're not spending that on you guys on investing in the people who actually love the city and work for the city. It doesn't make sense. It's not right. And, you know, we can talk about wanting to do X project and Y project because they're all needs, right? But you guys are in need, too. We need you guys to function. And we need to do the basics well before we can do anything else on top of that. And when we don't pay you guys, we can't do the basics well. So I would like to see, I mean, we'll have to sit down with the administration and get the whole picture about the budget, but I would like to see the administration spend that cash on this, because this is unsustainable. The situation is unsustainable for us, for her administration, for the city, for the residents. It's unsustainable for all of us. And I think you very bravely, talked about the gender aspect of things too. That's huge to talk about because, you know, people always cry, people always scream and shout when someone brings it up, but it's true. It's true, it happens in our workforce, in City Hall, it happens everywhere. And so there has to be more that we do about it, not just about your pays and your budget, but to give women workers in City Hall a better way to bring up these challenges, these problems that we're facing, these disparities. And so I know Councilor Morell, President Morell has been on the leading front of pushing for us to have a gender equity commission and we have some potential draft language for it. And it'd be great if we could move forward on that to give you guys a channel to talk about that openly as well.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to add my voice to the choir. I live a 10 minute walk away, and my neighbors already very excited. We're all talking about it so I'm very much looking forward to it and hope to see you guys around.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, I just wanted to say I think last year was my first year doing the budget on the council and I think, um, Councilor Colin and I Collins and I but also the rest of the city council did learn a lot in the process about what the best way to handle the budget is what questions to ask. What criticisms to love me, and I wanted to bring it back to this paper in particular, and focus on the text of it I think one of my biggest lessons from last time was that that committee the whole meeting we had on budget priorities was very very helpful in helping us get on the same page about what to negotiate for in the budget and. So I wanted to say that I'm very enthusiastic about this resolution in particular because I, I think that it was one of the most useful things we did last time. And I do, I encourage people watching and people at home. I know there's been a lot of posts on Facebook and social media about what people want to see from the budget, I encourage people to reach out to us before, before May 19, with what they want to see in the city budget. There's, there's a lot of mistrust with, you know, people, people not being heard not feeling like they're being heard, and I wanted to make sure that city councils, one place where they, what they want to see in the budget is is heard, and that we're negotiating for them as well. So, I wanted to support this paper and I'll second it as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. So for context, if you've driven down Middlesex, there are a bunch of sidewalk repairs going on and they've created a bunch of temporary crosswalks across Middlesex and That project wasn't very much communicated to us on the council or the public. And so, naturally questions come up on the DPW to get back to me on what the plans were exactly and they didn't send me a file so if anyone's interested, I can forward that essentially we're getting. We're keeping the same crosswalks. We're just getting improvements on the infrastructure on the curbs. We are getting at Middlesex and Riverside, I think we're getting lights, which is a good improvement for that area because it's always hard to cross. Lights for the crosswalk? For the crosswalk, yes. which it's hard to cross. Growing up there, cars are whizzing by super fast. And without lights, you don't know when you can cross and when it's smart to cross. And so that will be an improvement. The temporary crosswalks that are drawn between Riverside and 9th will not stay, though. But that's the update.
[Justin Tseng]: I'll be brief, since I think you'll find that we're pretty unified on, you know, you should be getting the services that you're paying for. And, um, I mean, we have a problem with attitude in how we deliver city services. We have a problem funding and meeting the requirements to even stay level with the bad quality of the roads that are out there and sidewalks. I mean, I'm with Councilor care of yellow I mean we can't just face a problem say oh well we're going to put our hands up and give up, right, we need to be innovative with how we solve that problem, those problems. And, I mean, I was, I was going to say something like cancer caribou, we need to try to create a program to Educate people living on. Yeah. Um, I mean, even just letting you guys know how to turn a private way into a public way right that's information I'm sure you have to dig for that information and you have to ask a lot of people for that information, you know that that should just be clear on the city website or when you move into Medford as a homeowner. on a private way, you should have that information right in front of you. And we need to do better communication as a city to get to that point. And we need to be realistic about how we spend that money and how we find that money. We spend a lot of time on the council talking about smaller amounts, but something as big as fixing the sidewalks and the roads in our city, including the private ways, I mean, that's a huge dollar amount. We have to be honest about that and honest to say, we can't do it overnight, we can't do it tonight. But what's the plan? What's the plan to get there? How do we have that hard conversation about raising the funds that we need to get there in the first place? So I'm sorry for your situation. We should look at the discretion and try to find a solution for you. I mean, I'm totally with you.
[Justin Tseng]: I think we need to be really transparent about what, you know, what our policies are and everything. I think that's like the first step of the problem too, right? I mean, you might not agree with the mayor's, the administration's position on an issue and we might not agree either, but we shouldn't have to dig to find out what the position is either.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah. And honestly, even if the mayor does that, right, it should be super transparent. All of us should know that there was a change in policy. And that way, you know, people living on private roads, private ways can come to City Hall and, you know, protest it or petition it or, you know, we should have that transparency in government. It's super important. So I I hope that you find a resolution to your thing. I mean, you're right. Much of Medford lives on private ways and we need to, I mean, it's an issue that we haven't talked about, frankly enough, but this city council has been pretty proactive on trying to find a solution.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President morale I think this is a pretty straightforward paper, it's a heavily trafficked road. I happen to live close ish and so I see the cars going by all the time I walk by all the time they're in the middle of the road. And so they could be good to ask for updates about resurfacing.
[Justin Tseng]: Again, I think this is a pretty straightforward paper. Very similar situation on Boston Ave between College and Harvard Street. Closer to this number one.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, this is in light of the election after election report we got last week. um from the um election commission um you know they're they're doing a lot of work but i think um an important thing going uh they're doing a lot of important work when it comes to reaching out to um populations of Medford communities in Medford that aren't registered to vote or vote at the rates that we see for other groups in Medford, and they do have the right to vote and participate in our politics. I think, and given that there's an election coming up this fall and so the city elections tend to be Um, elections were immigrant community. These don't participate as high as, um, they perhaps should. Um, it would be great for them to look at it. And I know the Elections Commission is close with, um, the diversity, the department as well. And so they can collaborate on it.
[Justin Tseng]: I very much appreciate the administration's attempts to get more feedback for programs and policies and how to spend money. But I think when we've had that ARPA presentation, different presentations, I know this came up with the dog park situation as well. Those of us in the council have brought up a lot of questions with if we should really be making decisions like rule forms, given that they are not representative of our city at all. They leave out, They leave out a lot of people who aren't online on using their computers all the time. And, you know, this kind of realm of getting community feedback and public participation, creating surveys, it's actually a very well developed realm in city governments and municipal software and technology. And I just wanted to put forward that we explore I'm getting some if we are going to use Google Forms and I think it is good to get public feedback and I'm a pulse on the public. We do it right. I think, I think. A bunch of neighboring cities have invested in such technology. And actually, the benefits of the technology are more than just getting feedback. There's a lot of public education that can go on with it, a lot of considering more nuanced viewpoints, a greater number of viewpoints, and finding consensus between very different viewpoints as well. Again, this is a very well-developed part of technology that I'd be happy to take advantage of. But again, this is just for us to explore it instead of just putting out a Google form out there and leaving us vulnerable to potential IT security questions and questions about whether that form is actually representative of the population's view.
[Justin Tseng]: I totally agree with the sentiment of it. I think smart growth is super important. And to make sure that we're doing our developments right is, I think, very important. I mean, Mystic Ave, we all know, is super touchy as well. I happen to live close enough where, talking to my neighbors, there is a wide, wide range of opinions about what we should do there. My only concern is with the word moratorium. And just I just think it's maybe too blunt of an instrument of a word to put in. You said that it's less about the moratorium, more about the intent of it, which I support. I just wonder if you'd be amenable to... Maybe I shouldn't have put the word moratorium in there.
[Justin Tseng]: Right. I mean, it really underscores the need for us to do another round of rezoning as fast as we can.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, I would just wonder if you'd be amenable to maybe instead of more I'm just I mean, I'd be happy to have a moratorium on tools for smart zoning, maybe something like that.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to get firm language for the city clerk on amending it. So instead of a moratorium, I guess we should say revisions to the use table and other tools for smart growth.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, as much as I would like to live on that in that house on the mistake. Um, I think I joined my fellow Councilors and saying that I believe that this is a good project. Um, all. wherever you go in the city, whoever you talk to, no matter their income background, political background, we're hearing that housing is a problem, that lack of housing is a problem. And there are many ways that we can solve it. And given the state of the crisis that we're in, we definitely will need to use more of the tools in the toolbox than just increasing supply. But increasing housing supply is something that I think most of the city can get behind, and economists of all colors, of all stripes, housing activists of all backgrounds too, can get behind this as well. We've heard about this project for, for a while now I remember sitting, all of us sitting in a meeting, perhaps a year ago, I'm hearing about this project, and I'm very excited to see this come before on the city council. I know that there are concerns, but no project is perfect. What we need to do right now is address the real crisis that we have at our hands. And we need to start to get things done. And we need to take those first steps and this is a very impressive step that will move our city in the right direction. So I thank the Commissioner, I thank all of you guys for the hard work that you put into this project and in soliciting feedback from the community. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I again, I had more thorough comments at our committee the whole meeting last week so I don't want to go spend too much time going into detail but I think, regardless of how you view the city council the mayor any of us as individuals on the city council this. These are charter amendments are particularly exciting for all residents of the city. how we want our city to function. I think what's top of mind for a lot of people is having a more transparent, more open, more collaborative, more democratic way of governance in the city where we are partners with each other and we work with the folks across the hall from us. you know, there are times where that relationship is fraught and times where that relationship isn't. But what these, underscoring what Councilor Collins said, what these charter amendments help us do is it sets that foundation and puts it into place that we will be partners and that we will work with each other. It empowers us as a council to do the job that voters expect us to do. There's, I think there's always a shock when you talk to voters, their residents, and, you know, we describe what we have to do research-wise, what the lack of support and staff that we have as a city council, the lack of ability that we have to hold everyone accountable as well. These are all basic functions of government that residents expect of all of us. And these charter amendments empower us to serve the people the way that they expect us to serve them. And I'm just add on to that. I'm very excited to solicit more public feedback on it. I thank Councilor Bears for building that into this plan for the charter amendments as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. A bunch of students wrote to me and I also had a chance to talk to a bunch of students at a town hall type meeting at Tufts a few weeks ago where they brought to my attention that during the class change periods, between periods of different classes, a bunch of students are walking on the road because the sidewalk is too crowded. And they asked me if we could explore any solutions such as holding maybe a red light just a little, just a little bit longer. And look, I mean, I'm not a traffic genius, I don't know the solutions to this problem but I thought it would be good for them for me to flag it for us as a council to flag it for the DPW. And actually, Todd Lake did write to me and we've been communicating about this recently, and he let me know that there's still some work to be done at that intersection that's been scheduled. Essentially what we're waiting for right now is for the MBTA, the Green Line Extension, to finish up some repairs improvements that they owe us as a city. There is an approved pavement marking plan that has yet to be implemented that repaints and realign some things. So, essentially, what might be best is for us to see how that plan works, but he did. He did let me know that the DPW will keep an eye on that intersection, and that there are a lot of competing interests for road space there, and the job, which makes things even more difficult, but that he in the department would explore different solutions.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you President Morell. I actually had written this resolution up a while ago before Commissioner McGivern posted on Facebook a response to a similar question. Riverside Avenue is a very heavily trafficked street in our city and I think we all know how awful the state of that road is. I spent a lot of time in Wellington visiting my parents, and every time I have to get over there, it's like you're riding a roller coaster. And it's not good for anyone. And I think a lot of residents in that neighborhood think it's a sign of being overlooked. And it's important for us as a city council and as a local government to say, no, every single street is important, every neighborhood is important, and we have a plan for that street. And so Tim McGivern did get back to me on this, and he told me that there are plans to resurface that road this season. They did a pavement valuation a couple of years ago, and they've been hard at work prioritizing and coordinating work there. They've started a crack sealing program, a box out patching program, and more programs. And they're, they're going to plan to resurface as much as the budget allows, but part of the problem that we're facing here is that the evaluation that our city received was that we should be spending at least $3.5 million in resurfacing roads every year. Um, but for the past in for, um, for many decades, we've only been spending, uh, less than $1 million. And so there's a lot of, um, a lot of work that we'll have to do to catch up in terms of our repairs. Um, he did ask me to convey to people watching this meeting, um, to ask our state reps to advocate for more chapter 90 funding, which is the primary source that we use as municipalities to maintain our roadways and improve our roadways. And he did ask that if anyone did have any more specific questions about Riverside Ave to contact him, to email him or to call him. He did tell me also that they have put this out to bid. And so he's hopeful that this can get done this year.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, so this this resolution comes from talking to a lot of, particularly on Spanish and Creole speaking, I'm residents who find it particularly intimidating to go to City Hall because they find it a little confusing to find which office to go to where to navigate. As we keep talking about the beautification of City Hall I think this is something to keep in mind, obviously we can't translate into every single language spoken in our community. But I think we can make more of an effort as a city to translate to the most commonly spoken languages. And just to have the basic, even a basic guide at the door or a small sign to translate the word, which number of room numbers offices are in that would be helpful.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I'll be extremely brief because I think we've talked about these two items for months now. I very much respect my colleagues' ways of seeing this, and I think it's not unreasonable to see it that way. But I do think it is a false choice, especially when the mayor's announced that we have $25 million in free cash. And look, that's not going to fix all of our problems, but it's a starting point for a conversation. Um, we also have to look at the size of the decisions that we're making and as Councilor bears has referred has has talked about, um, it's voting no on these items won't save any particular program voting yes on these items won't kill any particular program. I think that's a false way of, I think, Maybe false is a strong way of putting it, but it's not the way I believe that we should look at this problem. Instead, I think we need also a bigger picture lens as well. We need to pay attention to employee retention. We need to pay attention to how much things cost in the long run. And if we look at these items, these items speak to those worries and those goals that we have as a city. And I think that all of us do share the sidewalk bond, you know, part of that is for bringing machinery to the city for us to bring projects in-house. And that requires investment, but that investment is going to pay off in the long run with better roads and with cheaper solutions to our infrastructure problems. And so for me, it's about making an investment in the city. I do respect my colleagues' ways of seeing this, and I think we've hashed it out and we've talked about it for weeks now. And so I think I'm ready to vote on it.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I think it's fairly clear where we all stand on it. We've talked about this for probably more meetings than I can count on my hand. So I think, um, I think we should move the question.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I wanted to first reiterate some points from last year when this came before us. Back then, I mentioned a lot of the needs that I saw when I was a student there about five years ago, so not that long ago. where a building had flood and their needs in their heating problems and overpasses and a lot of different heat, I mean, even heating problems in their classrooms, sunlight problems and all of that. I encourage anyone who's not, who wants to learn more about why this is important to read the application itself. You guys have, your team has put together, I think, in very clear language, many of the problems that we're seeing in the high school that doesn't match the education that we're providing today. And I think we're seeing that the physical building doesn't match the quality of the instruction that's in the building. And that by improving the physical building itself, we can hopefully bring more pride to Medford and shine a light to the good work that's happening inside the high school. And to As a student there I know that it can be a very bluntly said drab and depressing environment to study in, and I would want for future students at Medford a happier place and a more encouraging environment to work in, a physical environment to work in. I think it's important for residents. I mean, this is an issue that came up on the doorstep time and time again, especially from parents, but even the parents of graduates, of students who've already left Medford High. This is, I think, an issue that much of the community can unite around. given the importance that everyone sees, there might be different approaches to what we do with the building exactly, but it's really important to take the steps that allow us to have as many options on the table as possible. And a yes vote on the council tonight allows that. And as we were chatting before this meeting, we mentioned, you know, it's super encouraging that they asked us to reapply. It's great to see that there have been even more improvements made to the application this time. And, you know, it's about trying. It's about trying whenever we can and keep pushing for it, because we don't know what year it's gonna happen.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, I agree with what's being said. Um, we last year we asked the city also also to pay attention to cut through traffic. Um, we did get a report back. Um, but, um, I just wanted to note to the audience to people watching out there that, um, this this is important to us on the council. Um, and that, um, it's it's in addition to Harvard Street. It's also all the other parallel streets that are facing a lot of increased traffic and people were just speeding right right through as well.
[Justin Tseng]: I wanted to make sure to speak because this is an issue I'm particularly passionate about. I know I wrote a resolution that was supported by my fellow Councilors here asking our city about exploring ways to clarify the plans to train to develop that pipeline and to find new people to join our city. But I think the most important point here is what Paul talked about with the lack of resources. It's not just school districts but Governments all across the country are seeing the importance of having diverse lived experiences and how that ties into good decent public services and how we provide that to our residents and Medford we're not again like Paul said we're not competing with our neighbors. We're competing with everyone else and I have a lot of friends from diverse backgrounds who you know have have taken well-paying jobs that pay double what they would in the public sector. And that's a problem that we need to fix at all levels, from federal, state, and local levels. But that brings us back to the need to have an open and honest and transparent discussion about our budget as well. But we can also, in the meantime, talk about what we can do to address the little problems that come up and to capture some of the benefits of that lived experience with the resources that we have right now. And so I've worked really closely with the diversity director and with the mayor to look at ways that we can expand language access in City Hall and in our city services. If we can get more translators in, if we can Yes, the diversity director especially has been working really hard to do more in sign language, which is super important. And that doesn't make up for the lack of diversity. It doesn't make up for the lack of lived experience. But it's something that we can do to capture the benefits that we would from lived experience.
[Justin Tseng]: Traffic commission.
[Justin Tseng]: Something that I had heard was a concern with this stop is, so you're moving it from the south side to the north side of Robinson?
[Justin Tseng]: A lot of the residents who might use that stop live on Winford Way and in that neighborhood over there. And in order to access the new stop, they would have to pass by the old stop. And so that doesn't seem to me to be super accessible because then they'd have to walk an extra distance there.
[Justin Tseng]: I think it's just something that what we have to keep in consideration is that I, I assume maybe. In addition to that maybe part of the reason is the frequency of ridership at that stop as well, and I'm a little skeptical that moving it to the north side would necessarily meet the ridership figures that you'd want. because it becomes farther for a lot for most folks who would use that stop. And I totally get that aerially it makes sense. When you look at the map that way. But then we're placing the stop basically on a very long stretch where there aren't many houses and like, and there isn't a neighborhood. And that doesn't seem to me to be maybe the most effective. location for a bus stop, at least for me, I don't know if my other colleagues would agree, and I know there's the crosswalk idea to put it in with the improvement sounds great, but perhaps it might be more efficient to use that funding for maybe an RFB to cross Winthrop. given that it's a big road with a lot of traffic, perhaps moving, investing in an RFB at the southern entrance of Robinson might be a better investment of funds there.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, yeah, that covers it. I think it's just about getting the best deal that we can as a city and then making sure that there's small, the details make logical sense from a on the ground lived perspective.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm a macro guy, yes.
[Justin Tseng]: I don't know if this is a question for you guys. It might be a question for Todd, for Director Blake, but is there parking going in where it's existing right now? Oh, is it? Okay. This is because I know generally like if there's parking going in there that might block those lights, the line of sight, but I think, okay, got it.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I'm glad to see that there's a bump out there. I think Councilor Behr is very well articulated why we see the need for one. I know the city has been, would want another bump out on the other side of Hadley. Has that been considered?
[Justin Tseng]: I see, okay. And this is another RFB suggestion, but I think- There's one already there. At Crossing Salem?
[Justin Tseng]: Okay, got it.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, I guess it was noted to me that the sign already there is a 24-7 LED border sign and not an RFB.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I guess that was noted, yeah, for me. But I would suggest that we ask for an RFP there.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I, again, this is, this is totally here for it. Um, it looks like from the map that the crosswalk crossing Highland and Middlesex is on the north side of that intersection, and I know that they're actually new apartment complexes that have been built and that are going in. on the south side. And so I was wondering if there was a reason why the crosswalk is on the north side of the Wendy's driveway and not the south side of the Wendy's driveway, where there might be more pedestrian traffic.
[Justin Tseng]: I see. Where would it be possible to move the bus stop to the other side of the driveway and then to have the pedestrian crosswalk be behind that bus stop?
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I mean, I guess what I'm saying is it would, if you move the bus stop in front of the crosswalk, it would still be the far side, it would just be moved down a few yards.
[Justin Tseng]: For traffic going towards Wellington or?
[Justin Tseng]: I think it would just make sense for our residents since we have more residents there. and there are more apartments there. Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much, yeah. And I really appreciate you presenting on these projects that we technically don't need to confirm, but you guys are still presenting to us anyways. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: This looks again, not our jurisdiction, right? But it looks good to me. I was just wondering if we could ask for an RRFB crossing Highland since it's such a busy street.
[Justin Tseng]: I actually wholeheartedly agree with Councilor Knight. These are the great project. I think you've heard a lot of agreements on a lot of a lot of this stops some suggestions. We saw, there's some information that you guys have said that you'll get back to us, we should I think I would like to motion to table, just until we get that information until we are able to reach out to the public. and especially about the bus stop eliminations that have more ridership as well. I think it's important to put that out into the community and get feedback and to make sure that everyone has a chance to give some feedback. And there might be people who don't wanna see changes whether they're at places too or they wanna see changes in front of their places. And I think this is a good chance to.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I think for the public outreach part. We know that you guys have done your part. It's about us doing argued diligence as well.
[Justin Tseng]: I appreciate you putting that, um, stating that record. Um, we've I think, as Councilor Mike reference, we're just other projects that we've done as the city before that we should have solicited solicited more people before we move forward before we agree to anything, even though as a council we might agree tonight to it. We just want to give people the chance to give some feedback. And I know that there are projects like this with buses in the past the Medford that haven't been approved before. I don't think this is a situation like that I think we're already making progress, but I think it's important to see, you know, to make sure that that BT is making commitments to that I think we all seem to agree on tonight, just to package it all together. I think I feel more comfortable with that.
[Justin Tseng]: I think I'm Councilor Paris put it so eloquently, but the Muslim community in Medford is a very budding part of the fabric of our city, and the ICCM as Councilor bears is referred has reference have been really critical in terms of our communities efforts to preserve our history to restore buildings, and to contribute to our municipal events, and to. really do charity in the community, which I think we should definitely recognize. Ramadan is... It is one of the most important months in the Islamic calendar, if not the most important month. And it's a month of joy. I think a lot of people know it for the fasting aspect of it, but Ramadan is about connecting to your community and connecting to yourself spiritually. All things, as Councilor Beres mentioned, all things I think we can get behind, even if we are not part of a faith tradition. And these are all values that I think build a healthy community. And so to all the Muslims in Medford celebrating the holy month of Ramadan, I just want to say Ramadan Kareem.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. President Morell, I don't think it needs to be said that celebrating Women's History Month is valuable. I wanted to bring up a few examples of Medford women who have made history. Many that I think people in the city know, some that people might not. I think Amelia Earhart is a name that a lot of people know about for her achievements in aviation. And she is a part of Medford history, if you know it. There is Belinda Sutton, who I think we had a huge acknowledgement of her work in terms of reparations last year or two years ago. She was a black woman who fought hard to make sure that she received reparations after she was freed from slavery from her slave owners, the royal family, and she won her case and made legal history with that effort. There are everyday heroes, another name that we learned about a few years ago, that many of us learned about, many of us knew personally, Jean Barrett Sutherland as well, who, her work for her students should go acknowledged and remembered as well. And so these are just a few examples in a very, very long list of Medford figures who we should be celebrating every day, but especially during the month of March, we should pay our respects to. And I would go remiss if I didn't mention our city's suffragette movement, which was fed intellectually, a lot of the ideas that became successful nationally in politics.
[Justin Tseng]: I move to approve for third reading.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I think Vice President Bears and Councilor Collins put over pretty eloquent in describing what, what, what's been going through my mind when it comes to this specific vote. I just think I can't look some resident in the eye and promise them that a no vote on this would really benefit our city. I just can't. I, there's been evidence that, you know, the mayor doesn't care enough about it, and, and I can't look a voter in the eye and say that we're not gonna have a vacancy if we don't approve this. I'm afraid we're already having a very difficult time filling all the vacancies in this building. And if a private firm were to come in and offer a position to our traffic and transportation director, I could not promise the residents of the city that we wouldn't have a vacancy. And to me that rings large and I am afraid that a Nova would hurt our city overall, even though I do agree with the principles that my other my other colleagues are laying out. I mean, I agree. And my first reaction when we heard about 25 million free cash was, well, Where was that money when we needed to negotiate with unions where was that money when we needed to, to treat our workers well, but look, this it's a difficult decision.
[Justin Tseng]: Well, this isn't $25 million. And so, and so that's why I'm planning on voting yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Merle. Um, it sounds like This would be super helpful for increasing transparency and civic participation in terms of city council meetings I know a lot of residents. After you know contentious debates or big meetings that we have they do ask for some of the meeting materials or presentations that we see on the screen and, you know, a lot of that work we have to do separately but if we could it sounds like if it's integrated into the meeting software, it'd be easier for them to kind of get involved in the materials that we're working with and see the debates that we're having from our perspective as well. I think that's something that oftentimes, because it's harder to get, it's not as easy to get access to some of the materials. We don't see the whole debate. And I think it'd be more fruitful for our discussions for everyone to be able to participate fully. I'm also glad to hear that we found an option that saves money. And I think it's pretty straightforward that if we have something, if we have options that are more efficient and saves money, I think that's a pretty decent investment for us to make to bring our city processes into more contemporary, more modern process.
[Justin Tseng]: Thanks. Um, thank you, Vice President Bears for putting this on agenda. I think I would like to reiterate the local effect of, of something like this. When we think about rodenticides. Um, you know, we have the anecdote of the beautiful bald eagle, unfortunately passing away from them. I know pet owners, especially cat owners, are concerned about their cats going out there and eating rats or catching mice that have swallowed this, you know, right on the side. This is something that I think residents at the local level should be concerned about. And I've also received a good number of messages from constituents about this issue. It's also important to underscore, I think this council very much recognizes that there's a rodent problem in the area. It's a regional problem, but there are other alternatives out there that are just as useful and less harmful. And I think we all have to step up, but in terms of spreading out a public education campaign about how we tackle this problem. But I think this is a good step from the state level that we should support because it has true local effects.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, and thank you Vice President Bears for putting this on the agenda. Um, I think this is a fairly straightforward resolution, but at the end of the day, I think it's about, um, having more accountability, the idea that more accountability is better between different arms of government, more transparency is better, giving residents more of an opportunity to participate in the whole budget process in the running of our city, giving them a chance to speak up about what they want to see in our budget, and not just to see a budget come back with two or two and a half percent slapped slapped on every department right. I think this is this is about getting residents in us involved in giving us more of a balance in our relationship with the city. I think it's fairly fairly obvious anyone watching the council meetings and who's been paying attention to city politics in the last, maybe even decades. Sometimes, you know, our relationship with the executive office isn't the most collaborative. might be an understatement, but when that relationship isn't as collaborative as we want it to be, I think we also need to take up the steps to build the structure that will force us to collaborate with each other. And I think at the end of the day, this is what this resolution is about, about building those structures to have us talk to each other and to force us to have those conversations and to build that forum for residents to participate. I think Councilor Bears' last point about, is really important. He said that oftentimes residents come up to us and ask us questions about what we can do. And they assume that we have some powers that we don't actually have. And it's oftentimes a shocker that, you know, what residents are asking us to do, we can't carry that out. And I think it's really important to have those conversations about, you know, residents are asking us to be, have more oversight residents are asking us to do X, Y, and Z. How do we have that conversation about what needs to change and what we need to put forward to voters to have that change take place? And so I think this is, I'm very much looking forward to this committee of the whole and to the whole process that hopefully happens after it is all.
[Justin Tseng]: I was gonna make the point, but I believe that you were gonna answer something.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay. I just, I wanted to get across my way of thinking with this in front of me tonight. I think we've discussed a lot about our approach to money papers coming in front of us and generally how we maybe agree to disagree on how we kind of treat these papers. For me personally, I am pretty concerned with the state of the sidewalks as is and concerned with quality of life here in Medford. I, I understand the frustrations that perhaps, you know, with the previous loan order we've only done x, x amount of sidewalks but I would also be very skeptical and you might be able to confirm this I'd be skeptical that cost goes down in the future if we keep holding out and waiting, just because of inflation because of rising costs in general for projects like this. And so with, with the problem at hand, you know, it's, it's, if it's not going to be cheaper to solve it over time, it makes sense for me to make the investments now in, in terms of the cost effective, the more cost effective solutions that I think you've been pretty transparent with us that you plan for. I think we all kind of we all agree that sidewalks are a priority here. It's, I, you know, we disagree on many issues but this is one of one of the many issues I think almost everyone in the city can agree on. I think we also agree with the approach that bringing things in-house will be more cost effective. I think the evidence is out there. And so for me, this is a question of, you know, fiscally, I think it makes more sense in the long run to invest in the resources and the technology we need to bring things in-house. And I think it sounds like you would agree with that perspective on the issue as well. And another kind of way that I think about it is, you know, if we hold out on this, right? Well, what are the consequences? And it sounded like from previous meetings that because of supply chain issues, and we see this with fire trucks as well, will take a longer time. It's not just we put in the order, we get the equipment. We have to wait a certain amount of time. And we've already been waiting and waiting and waiting. The city's been waiting, the residents have been waiting. And so for me, it does seem like a matter of urgency and accessibility, right? We don't want someone tripping and falling. We want people to be able to move around town. And if we keep waiting on it, not only is the problem gonna be more expensive to deal with, we're gonna have more people hindered in their transportation as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Right, we can't, even though it might be more cost effective to do things in-house, it's unrealistic to assume that, you know, we can just do it overnight.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I'm also, you know, I think, reflecting the sentiment of my colleagues here. Um, I think the idea of a stabilization fund is a great idea. Um, and certainly we talk about, um, needing to plan ahead fiscally, but, um, to commit to $5 million tonight, you know, that's big money. It's a significant sum that we really can't divorce from our conversation about the budget as a whole. Um, and Because it's such a big sum, we need to pay particular attention to open and public community discussion on the issue. This was on the agenda, but I think a committee of the whole, for example, especially one that's tied closer to the budget, I think would be a more appropriate form for us to talk about the issue first before we approve it. And I think underscores the need for us to serve as a democratic forum for that. When we think about the 25 million certified and free cash that was confirmed today. Councilor Collins's sentiment that I think we need to be a little bit more critical when we think of whether it's a good or a bad thing. I mean, it's nuanced. It's certainly good to have a lot of free cash, but we have to keep in mind that there is a cost to this as well. And we need to talk about the long term investments that we want to make as a city. We need to talk about the, I mean, tonight was, I think a prime example of the need to invest in things now before they become cost ineffective in the future. And that requires some big picture thinking. And I'm not saying that we don't fund the stabilization fund and we don't invest this money into it. I'm just saying we need a committee of the whole meeting and a comprehensive budget process to talk about this. I don't want us to be under the illusion that more money in free cash is always a good thing. When we look at what's recommended by DLS, we are above that, actually. We are above the upper limit. recommended by DLS and I find the finance director may have his own opinion which I think we should value and I would like to hear in that committee the whole meeting if that's the case. But I think we also need to look at the needs of the city and what residents are asking us for. and taking a more holistic approach to looking at how we do budget, how we do finances and how we approach the stabilization fund. Again, I'm not opposed to it. I think there's just questions about looking at the big picture of it all, how we fund it, and I, in doing research for this, I did see some towns said that they preferred not to put free cash in and they preferred to take the other funding mechanisms that Vice President Bears referred to. And so I think we need to also have a discussion about why we're choosing this approach rather than those other approaches. I'm sure there's a justification for it, but I think we need to have a longer meeting about it and a meeting that's more focused on this.
[Justin Tseng]: Thanks, I was, I just wanted to put on the record that when I see my time I was actually going to ask the same question. I'm also, it's fun. It happens all the time. something along the lines of what you said, we're open to the option of 10 years, you know, we, I would be happy to vote for that. It's just that I don't want to give up our oversight power automatically.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. This, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund is something that experts and residents have been working on and clamoring for for a very long time in our city. I've, especially in the last few weeks. There's been a lot of pressure on us rightfully so to get this done and dusted, and this ordinance, you know, has has been in the works for many years as Councilor Collins has stated. And it's finally time to do something about it. I think when we think about the crises that are immediate to our, to our city. There are many, but housing is first and foremost for many if not for many residents and it touches many if not all of our residents here as a young person who wants to stay in Medford. This is, you know, the type of action that we need to see our city government investing in doing to make sure that young folks can stay in Medford to make sure that people who want to buy houses can buy houses. and to really tackle the regional housing crisis challenge. So I'm happy to support this. I'm glad that we were able to iron out a lot of the details, and while I think, and we said this last week about the ordinances that we passed last week, you know, there are going to be small things that people want to see changed. I think this represents us as a council, listening to the experts, listening to the unions, listening to our stakeholders in this project, really giving them time to work out the kinks and the details, and coming back with a product that I think we can be proud of.
[Justin Tseng]: I think Councilor Caraviello makes a great point there that pro-housing policies are pro-business and pro-growth as well. And if we wanna see a more vibrant economy, this is the type of stuff we need to be doing. So I think that's a great point and I just wanted to reinforce it.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Burrell. I hear my fellow colleagues and their different viewpoints on this issue. I, however, do plan to vote yes on this because, as for the same reasons, Councilor Bears has elaborated. I believe the legal reasoning is pretty sound here. It's pretty clear. We've been through this before. We've talked about this exact procedure before, and it is a new position. When I approach a vote like this, I also think about what the practical everyday effects are. And I do fear, as, as we, you know, we're always talking about the difficulty of hiring city staff and the difficulty of retaining city staff. that we would lose staff to different communities that are willing to pay more to the state agencies who are willing to pay more. And I think this role is so vital to the everyday functioning of our city and as Councilor Collins referred to the constituents requests for their city government to serve them. And I just, I just believe that we would be severely harmed if we don't move forward with this. Um, yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. Well, I guess there's a small typo in here. I would just amend it to strike labeled and. This is one of three resolutions I have on the agenda tonight that are in the spirit of Black History Month and having gone to a few of the city's events, you know, a recurring theme is what can we do to advance social justice and racial justice in Medford? And what can we do as a city government to meet the high standards that we're setting for ourselves and to listen to our residents? And A few years ago, our city published a social justice roadmap, which detailed a bunch of steps that our administration and our city would take to even out the scales and to pursue a policy of equity in the city. And I think it's been about three years since the last update, and I've worked with the diversity director to kind of put this on an agenda and to kind of just talk to the administration a little bit and ask for an update and to ask for updated steps about what action steps we still need to do to reach those lofty goals.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. This one is slightly different. Having talked with the diversity director feels that this is something that is standard and different municipalities that we don't miss, we haven't necessarily done here. It will require not a dramatic increase increase of resources but a little bit of help up her end, which is why I'm passing this resolution from the city council side showing that there's support for me here is important. Again, it's not something that would really take that much more money it's just, it's just something that. we again need to poke the administration a little bit and to get them to try to do. The main difference between a racial equity study and a social justice roadmap is social justice roadmap is much broader. It lays, as many have read the document, lays out general steps and policies that we need to consider. The racial equity study is looking more at this very specific topic and looking at what what data we need to collect, what actions we need to take within City Hall to make a better environment for our staff, very specific, very concrete, much narrower actions.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. This one sounds a bit more ambitious than it actually is really what this is is codifying are the legal language we already have right now city policy regarding interactions with immigrants and our non cooperation policy with ice. This is something that the police department already backs already has legal language from our past solicitors on. This, this is really more about starting the process because a lot of, in particular, Latino and Haitian residents have reached out to me, and to see staff here, afraid to really engage with city services because they don't know if how they're know the repercussions of engaging with the city government. We know that it's safe for them, but this is something that could be used to to get the word out that it is safe for them, to guarantee them their rights and safety in our community. And some residents have come up to me with the worry that because it is policy, it could change at any point in the future. Whereas if we codify it right now, even just the language that we have written and approved, that would mean a lot to them and mean a lot for them to feel safe about engaging city services. So again, this is not something that's meant to be very ambitious. This is something that's meant to take the legal language we have right now that we're enforcing right now, put it into our code.
[Justin Tseng]: I did forget to note that this is something that the Diversity Director and I have been working on as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. This February is Black History Month, and Medford, as many may know, has a very rich history when it comes to African Americans in the Northeast. When we look at our West Bedford community in particular, that's a community that's been there for a very, very, very long time, pretty much since the city was founded. I personally have learned a lot by following on the West Bedford Community Center's Twitter account, where I believe every, it might be every day, but every few days they're tweeting out some, you know, something short and readable about a black Bedford resident who shaped Medford and the surrounding region somehow. The count has talked about Black Medford residents who've served in our army, who fought for the Union, it's talked about athletes and their contributions to to our society as well. I also pulled up a list of a bunch of events that residents can attend if they want to learn more about Black history, want to learn more about their connection, the connection of the Black community to Medford. This Friday, Medford High and Medford Vogue are holding their celebration of Black History Month at the high school at 1.30 p.m. Our school districts historically held this event and There will be music, there will be dance performances and guest speakers as well. And on Saturday, the West Bedford Community Center is hosting the Black Entrepreneurs Showcase and Sale from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m., where you can look at artisans and crafts and gifts that you can buy and gift the family as well. The Human Rights Commission is hosting an event titled An Oath to Belinda Sutton on Saturday, February the 25th at the Royal House. from 1 p.m. to 3.30 p.m., and on Tuesday, the 28th, so the last day of the month, the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is hosting a lunch and hosting conversations here in the city hall chambers.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. they want to get more involved in municipal politics. And oftentimes it can be really challenging to follow what's going on, especially when things are messy here at City Hall. And so if we take the initiative, if we get ahead of this before the fiscal 24 budget season, then hopefully this helps people at home watching follow municipal politics even better.
[Justin Tseng]: I have some notes written, but I would actually, if my councilors are amenable, I'd like to listen to some residents who are here for this topic.
[Justin Tseng]: Just a very short comment from my personal perspective, having served on the committee. I wanted to thank all of our speakers tonight for being so eloquent, no matter what they were speaking for. When I think about this ordinance in front of us, I think about democracy, transparency, and productivity, and with the combination of those three, building trust in government. I think the process that we've gone through really highlights the best of democracy. We've had good faith negotiations, compromise, we've had activists who've engaged their elected officials on an issue that they've really cared about. And as a young person of color, I especially thank you guys for that work. Because there's a lot of, the fact is that there's a lot of work that we can do to rebuild trust. And this is the first step of many that we can take. And it's an exciting step. I truly do believe that this product is tailor made for a city and look, people might not be completely happy with it, no matter the side of the political political spectrum but that is a it's a fact of compromise and It's a feature of democracy. I especially, I think, like how this ordinance uses community-centric approach to make us a public forum where residents can make their opinions heard, where they can learn about what we're doing as a city, and where we can help facilitate a trusting relationship between city government and our residents. And by letting the public have a voice in our discussions, I think we're really just crowdsourcing their knowledge making more critical decisions. And so with that, I'll second the motion to approve.
[Justin Tseng]: Sorry. Thank you President well, um, for me this is pretty straightforward. I look at the housing stability and the vision ordinance I see something that has generated support from different parts of town. I think this is fundamentally, fundamentally about transparent and helpful governance. And the idea that we're all better off when we know what our rights are and we know what resources we have access to. Access to information can be hard, especially to those who don't know who to ask for resources, where to look for information. And some people who might fall into those buckets are older folks who might not be internet savvy, immigrants who might not speak English, and people who just moved to Medford or have moved to Massachusetts for the first time and they don't really know what how our institutions work here. I also want to commend the people who've put so much work into writing this ordinance for making sure that it meets our goals when it comes to equity in housing. There's language in here that talks about language access. There's language in here that really addresses print versus digital media. And I think it's, This is one of those kind of pieces of legislation that we have in front of us that has, I think, a newer perspective on how we can solve these long lasting challenges. I think it's also important to to state again that our city staff have been supporting us the whole way with this. They know that we have the ability to do this. We do have the ability to do this. And we have the ability to build a fair economy in the housing market where we do look out for the little guy. And we look out for tenants. We look out for the tenant landlord relationship and for people being foreclosed upon.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell, respecting that I'll try to keep it brief. I wanted to thank you for the information, you know, we always do that when you come, because we, as other Councilors have said, we don't get this information from the administration, oftentimes, when you come to us that's the first time we're hearing of it when you email us that's the first time we're hearing it. And when you give us that information, it gives us at the very least a place to start to ask questions and to demand better from from the people across the hall. So I really wanted to thank you for that. Obviously, what you've said is very concerning, not just for us on this side of the aisle, but all the residents at home watching as well. And, you know, what we've been talking about, we've been talking about tonight, like health care, like, like, legal bills, you know, fiscal response to questions of fiscal responsibility, all of this is common sense. I think all of us sitting in the room here can can can agree that, you know, we shouldn't we shouldn't hire employees and not give them health care. That's not right. Um, I also want to thank all the workers and the rank and file sitting behind the rail on the other side of the rail tonight for coming out I know you're taking time out of your evening to come to us, taking time out of time with family. I wanted to acknowledge that and to thank you for coming as well. It's really important for members of the community and for us to see you guys as well, and it really helps, you know, show us and show the people at home watching that, you know, we're not talking about an abstract group of people, we're talking about people If we can put faces to the people who actually are keeping our city running and, you know, when we talk about policies and makes recommendations and all of that behind the rail, you guys are the ones that have to go out and execute that, right? And the pressure on your job is just increasing and increasing every day. And to have all of this on top of that, you know, that's not right. We need to recognize that when we when we deal with each other I mean, even even between Councilors but at all levels in city government and government we have to treat each other like human beings, and we have to understand that you guys have families, you guys have homes to go, go back to people to feed. You know, we can talk all day about, you know, all these different concepts, but it's really helpful. Or it's, it's really important to understand that you guys are human beings too. I hope, I hope this tonight helps with that. And I really wanted to thank you for your dedication. Despite the lack of morale, all the hard work that you guys are still putting into city work, that's really meaningful and I think shows your dedication to our community. I had a few more points written out, but I think I'll end it there because other Councilors have already pointed out a lot of our problems and a lot of the concerns that we have very eloquently. So I'll leave it there, but I just want you guys to know that this council stands with you guys and understands what you've been saying tonight. Thank you, Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. I promise, President, I'll keep it brief. I just wanted to reiterate some points from last week. You know, I think, as Councilor Knight said, this isn't necessarily the ideal outcome for all councilors and We've throughout the whole process have had our fair share of concerns about this but we really appreciate all the work that you guys have put into it, all the work that we are lawyers put into it to create a deal that, as Councilors are probably really highlighted I think has some benefits to our, to our residents. And I hope that this is the start of a. I just wanted to make those points and to thank you guys for coming to these meetings and for negotiating good things
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell and thank you Vice President Bears for putting this on the agenda. This is such a pivotal way in which our city can can reach the goals of our climate action plan, and to address the concerns of our residents that in the desire from our community to make sure that we are doing as much as possible to reach our climate targets in playing our part in in in addressing the climate crisis. According to the presentation from OPDS to the City Council and it's stated in the Medford Climate Action and Adaptation Report, buildings account for 67% of carbon dioxide equivalents in our city. By tackling this question head on and by passing by opting into this program, we will be doing our part to lower that number, which is, again, makes up a very significant chunk of the emissions that we produce as a city. Yeah, I think that's the most important thing to be said.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Miss Needham, for coming to speak to us and for letting Vice President Bears know about the fair change. I use the T in the buses almost every day and I didn't even notice it. I wanted to note that thanks to efforts from people like you, And thanks to the work that our council's been doing to organize feedback as well and to send it to the state authorities, to the MBTA. Our state legislators have told me personally that Medford was the most organized municipality in the whole Commonwealth when it came to the bus network redesign plan. And you mentioned that we did get a lot of bus service back, not enough, but we did get a lot of bus service back. And it's no coincidence. when you look at how organized we were. I thank you for coming up to the podium to speak tonight because it reminds us that to send in more feedback and to keep in communication with MBTA and to keep organizing feedback as well. It is upsetting to hear that the feedback form is now closed and that the link is not on the website anymore. I know I've had, friends and neighbors use the MBTA complaint forms and last week it was down for a few days as well. And so that's certainly something that we should contact our state reps about and try to create more political pressure on the MBTA to get that back up and fixed. This council knows how frustrating it is to work with the state government. and with the MBTA in particular on these issues. For example, when the Orange Line shut down, our city government reached out to see what they needed from us when it came to traffic flows and traffic plans, and they didn't get any response from the MBTA when we reached out. You know, it's stuff like that that I think really damages the relationship between the MBTA and municipal governments in the area. But I just wanted to say thank you for your effort. Thank you for bringing this up to us, and we will continue to do our best to stay the most organized municipality in Massachusetts.
[Justin Tseng]: I appreciate you for being your you're being so your nuance on this issue. I mean, it's, it's, you're absolutely right that there are people in the city who will benefit from the plan, especially in South Medford and now metric hillside and I know they're bringing one express route back, which this council's been pushing for forever forever. Well, you're right that, you know, the MBTA, I think oftentimes thinks of the subway extensions as a replacement for bus service, which it's not because they serve completely different goals. And so I totally hear you on West Medford, North Medford. They're clearly parts of the plan that are lacking. And so we'll keep pushing on those points as well. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: It's probably not at the level that you're thinking of, but I do know PDS has been looking into it for the last few months and looking into grants that we could get from the state government to run kind of our own bus network or minivan network, something like that, that goes to different neighborhoods that are underserved, but they, To be completely transparent, I think they think that it'll take a few years for us to get that grant in the first place. But they are looking into it, and they're looking for ways to, I'm asking them for ways to expedite it. So yeah. Okay, great.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. I'll be brief because this resolution kind of says it all. The Inflation Reduction Act has a lot of provisions that give financial incentives and rebates for people to make energy efficient upgrades to their homes. I know that's something that a lot of Medford families are looking to do. they might be able to take advantage of this program. I only recently saw on the President's Instagram account. I know there are tons of different ways of getting information from the government, but I know a lot of people pay attention to the city government, to the Medford government, and so this would be a good thing for our city to do, especially to meet our clean energy goals with regards to buildings.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. So, Lunar New Year is in three days. I believe it's on January 20th, although with the lunar calendar, it always messes with my mind. But Lunar New Year is a time for Asian families in Medford to come back together, for families to travel back to their countries of origin to see their families there. or for their family across the country to come to Medford. It's the most important holiday in many cultures that are represented in Medford. And I just wanted to wish all our Medford family celebrating a happy Lunar New Year.
[Justin Tseng]: It's on the, in a similar vein to Councilor Collins' question. We also heard from residents about odor, odor concerns with the new gas station coming in. Is there anything you guys can do to minimize that effect of the odor of gasoline? And is there anything that you guys are, that's already in this plan that speaks to that?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. I did grow up in the Wellington neighborhood, and I still spend a lot of time there with family. And I truly do understand and feel the frustrations from the neighbors. And I remember the vote back When the initial vote that so many residents supported, and I remember that I supported that vote as well. Now, unfortunately, the legal context, and the, the practical context is necessary in this case. you know, Councilor Scarpelli's right to bring up the more systemic failure of not having a legal representation at the meeting. And unfortunately that has hamstrung us in our current position. When I look at the, the situation in front of us, I do think it is important to note that BJ's has come to the table. We have started to establish a more consistent form of communication that I hope is the groundwork for a new relationship with BJ's in our community. You know, I do appreciate the BJ's rep being available to us. I appreciate the deal that we have in front of us. It is a different deal than what was before the council back when the council was first looking at this permit. I mean, I appreciate all the feedback that we have heard from residents. I'll continue to appreciate the feedback that we'll get in the next seven days, but I just wanted to... you know, express my sympathy and my understanding, you know, as someone who's lived in that neighborhood for a while, for most of my life, and who still goes to that neighborhood quite a lot, I understand the frustration, but we can't divorce it from the context as well.
[Justin Tseng]: I really appreciate Councilor bears putting this on the agenda. And again, I really want to underscore the urgency of this issue I was, I was walking along the whole fells way with some friends, just, just for a walk on the other day, and I, this was the most shocking thing to me, and I mean, we as a council we've already criticized the. the state government for not being clear to us about why they're repaving perfectly paved sidewalk with asphalt, why they're leaving things half constructed, why they haven't been up front with residents about noise. In this case, it is shocking that such a construction has been left in half halfway. And there are even benches along the fells way that are tied to trees using I'm using zip ties, which is not safe. And so I support this motion I would second it.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. Last week, we heard a presentation about the McGlynn Playground and the upgrades to it. And a very big part of that presentation was how they envisioned to use the McGlynn Playground and the area around it as a venue for community. and for community events. And we do hold our Harvester Energy Festival around there. I think that event really underscores the need to go into different neighborhoods in our city and how that brings together people who might not normally show up at city-sponsored events. Yesterday, there was a beautiful event at the West Bedford Community Center. I saw a few of our Councilors and state reps there as well. And that is, again, another example of an activity where a city sponsored activity where when we move it out of City Hall move it out of the normal places where we congregate Medford Square, for example, we're able to bring in people from different backgrounds and get input from different residents as well. That event yesterday, a big theme of it was that we are a big city with a lot of bridges to build. And we need to build bridges with our neighborhoods that don't feel maybe don't feel as much represented with neighbors who might not know about city events going on. We do have spaces we have parks that we can use. And this resolution speaks to. speaks to that, you know, speaks to the need for greater consideration of equity and accessibility for residents when it comes to our city events.
[Justin Tseng]: just generally, but especially with residents who use EpiPens. A resident reached out to me last week saying that one of the sharps disposal sites in the city, the police station, she was told by an officer that they're no longer accepting sharps at that location. I have reached out to the mayor and the health department here, and they're still looking into it. They haven't gotten back to me on that point yet. I think, um, you know, increasing access to disposal in our city only would reduce waste, you know this. We don't want to see sharps around our city. resolution increasing access would give residents a chance to dispose of their sharps safely, in a safe manner, in a clean manner, in a healthy manner, without necessarily, in their convenience, I guess. I think this also underscores the need for our city to be better at our communications when it comes to changes that might affect people's everyday lives. If a parent needs to dispose of their kid's EpiPens, they should know where to go without having to run across town. And even in this building, the only available one right now is on the third floor, and that also can pose an accessibility problem as well. So this proposal is really about accessibility, it's really about convenience for our residents, about communication and also about beautifying our city.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. I wanted to offer this resolution as a way to start a conversation about nipple litter in our city. I saw, when I was doing research on it, I saw that Councilor Knight had proposed resolution 19-516, which I quoted here, which I was interested where that discussion went, because I couldn't find a record of that. I put this on the agenda because I received quite a few messages on social media from younger folks, especially, and some emails about this issue. A lot of younger folks, I guess they've seen the TikTok going around. I guess Medford talk has become a thing. So there are quite a lot of TikToks about this issue now. And I figured that this was, it was important to address this issue to get ahead of the spring and summer seasons, the warmer weather when we might see more of the slitter around. And this is an image issue as well. And so to make sure that our city is beautified and that this isn't the impression that we give our city. I also heard from some pet owners who walked their dogs in the park who are concerned by the litter as well. But again, this is really just to start a conversation. I've included a whole range of ideas in here, some of which I prefer. The way I personally see this is that it's an externality issue. The market only goes so far. The free market only goes so far. And I think we can all acknowledge that net litter is bad. And so I personally would like to address or like to see if legally we could levy a per bottle fee on this issue like we often do with plastic bags and stuff like that. Again, I'm open to advice and feedback from councillors. I have heard from residents who have noted that nips are important for liquor usage as well in terms of regulating their consumption as well. And so I think perhaps the ban might go too far, but again, this is to really start a conversation.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I'm really grateful for your for your comments. I think that would be a good idea. Um, yeah, I mean, I don't want the government regulating personal behavior as well. And it isn't I recognize it's important for package stores as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Nicole Morell.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Farrell. I think Councilor Caraviello kind of read my mind. The talking about arts and how we find a space for arts was one of the things that Councilmarks and I actually talked about a long time ago before I even ran for office, and I wanted to make sure that you got a proper shout out for the work that he's done and the tremendous amount of effort that Councilmarks put into making sure the arts as a space and effort as well. The arts, I think it's not controversial to say, is a benefit to all Medford residents, from youth to adulthood to retirement. The arts really, I think, brings out creativity and brings out community. And I'm someone who benefited from investment in the arts back at Medford High, back in the Medford public schools, I miss, I miss the art classes and the music classes. And I think, you know, as someone who just graduated from school, finding a way to kind of continue to be connected to an arts community is something that I think is at the heart of the front of mind. for a lot of Medford residents. When we talk about mental health, which is obviously so important, this is one of the ways that we can work together as a community to address the issue. So I'm very excited for this, and I thank Councilor Collins for putting this on the agenda.
[Justin Tseng]: I think a lot of the points on either side of the debate have already been said so I'll keep my statement short. I would love. I think this is a, this is an important issue. I do think that, you know, we have a responsibility as a city to make sure our residents are well informed about what goes on in our community and how to avoid being ticketed, and I would really I think on issues like this, I think it's important to bring in the stakeholders to the table and see what, as Councilor Collins said, we're not experts on this issue, but I do think that this is a valid idea, and it'd be good to hear about what the city administration has to say about it.
[Justin Tseng]: I think I'm cancer caravilas suggestion is good one and I would, it would be great to see that in the housing stability notification ordinance. I think another aspect that I would like to add to it is adding it onto the city website making sure that it's an easy place to find. I've been a big proponent of having a welcome to Medford part of the website, a resource where all the most important documents are all in one place, especially for younger residents who are moving in. Oftentimes, internet is the first place that we go to to find information. And so when it's easy to find on the internet, I think that would be a benefit to our community.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell, and thank you, Councilor Collins, for introducing this resolution. I think, as you said, almost every, if not every councillor that sat in this chamber in recent years has done something to complain to, in effect, done something to try to resolve this issue. Although, as you also acknowledged, the people with power are far removed from us. I think, you know, this goes without saying to everyone who lives in Medford, but I think it's a particularly important point to make is, you know, why is Medford suffering the brunt of this? Why don't we see this in other communities? It's not for a lack of complaining, and it's not for want of trying. And I think when we talk to the federal delegation, we need to make that clear that this is an equity issue as well. This is an issue of respect to our community. And we need to work hard and work as a united front to tackle this issue and to make sure that there is that accountability for the people that are making these decisions who have the power. We did receive that email from the city administration that they're meeting with Congresswoman Clark's office on January 26th, and that senators, the two senators from Massachusetts, Senator Warren, Senator Markey are co-sponsoring a piece of legislation in Congress. My personal take is that it would have been good for the city administration to inform us before so that we could pass a resolution or express our support for the conversations that they're having with the Congresswoman's office. I'm personally a believer that when all branches of our city government work together, that's more influential and more impactful than if one branch of the city government was to walk into a meeting alone. and it would have been good to solicit our feedback and to solicit a statement from either from our city council as a whole or from councillors individually for this meeting, as we did with the MBTA bus network redesign, which did win back several bus lines service to Medford. That's my take on this issue. And I think going forward, I think this council wants to be partners with the city administration when it comes to working to get better results for Metro residents. And I wish that in the future, when it comes to cases like this, we can unite forces.
[Justin Tseng]: I think I just wanted to echo what Councilor Collins said. From my conversations with people in the city, I think people most want us all to work together to develop a solution. And when we work together, that's when we find a more sustainable solution. And that includes more voices, more stakeholders, and keeps in mind the fact that we're all elected or we're all hired to do a job and that we are really on the same team. You know, I think, I hope that this is the start of a fruitful collaboration with the school committee going forward. And I think, you know, I hope this is the start of a respectful and collaborative relationship between all of our bodies.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. I just wanted to, first and foremost, say, again, how excited I am about this project. As someone who went to the McGlynn for nine years and was a part of the McGlynn afterschool program for a very long time, you know, what you were saying about the slides and the rubber and the infrastructure and the flooding, I think that, I mean, that all, All those were problems when I was there and it's only gotten worse. And, you know, with your advocacy and with all the work that you guys have been doing, you know, we're finally seeing, you know, something substantive that can make our children's experiences on the playground, much, much better. I think Councilor Bears asked what I wanted to ask about the budget. And it seems like you guys have, you know, have taken all of that into account. It's the presentation was really, really comprehensive. And I really appreciate that you guys have thought, you know, long-term to the future about how do we save money over time? What are the investments we have to make now to do that? And I think that's something that every taxpayer in Medford can really appreciate. I had the pleasure of talking to you at the Harvest Your Energy Festival. And I saw you guys engage the kids and ask them for feedback and look at the different simulations and see what aspects of all the different drawings that they liked. And I think seeing that, I think really epitomized how much feedback has gone into this project, which I really wanted to commend you guys for. It's really been, I think it's a model for our city to look at when it comes to engaging stakeholders, which I really appreciate. I also appreciated the environmental lens on this project, how you're salvaging living trees, but also planting more trees for shade, thinking about how to make the whole playground cooler. It's kind of a meme that I bang on about heat islands, but I think this is something that our city can do to reduce, to mitigate the heat island effect. And as you guys, you know alluded to in the summer it's, it's a place where kids can go and where families can go to cool down when we have those heat waves that are, you know, only we're only seeing more of. And again, the equity lens of it. McLean, when we look at the income aspect of that neighborhood, when we look at where we're making investments in our physical infrastructure in our city I think it's really meaningful that we're doing work at the McLean and trying to make it better. and that we're really focusing on accessibility, which I know you're a huge advocate for. But really, I think we've seen with this project, how much work, how much thinking you've been putting into the very specific kind of aspects of accessibility, which I think I'm particularly touched by. And I think you guys have also touched on something that we don't always think about when it comes to playground design, which was point four in the project goals, considering whether considering how we could create a park with a wider benefit to our community. And I think the Harvester Energy Festival kind of shows that there is potential for that space to be a community space, to have more city events there. And that's something that I've talked with our DEI director about, which is, you know, how can our city hold events outside of the normal places where we hold events, engage more residents? And we know that, you know, there are certain parts of our community that are usually less, that see less events like this and see less engagement. And to be able to hold, to have a venue where we can hold community events like that, I think can really expand the Medford community and really bring more people back together, which I'm, again, I find really touching. I think the only question I had out of curiosity was, What's the plan for kids whilst the playground is being constructed?
[Justin Tseng]: Thanks. Again, I really appreciate the presentation. I appreciate you guys coming before the public and building that support. And I hope, you know, God forbid that we come into difficulty with the budget when it comes to maintenance fees. I think the work that you're doing right now, building community support for it is super important in making sure that we have the capability.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, I just wanted to wish you the best of luck. Um, my friends and I have always wanted a bubble tea shop in Medford and it's, um, it's a, it's a great honor for us to be able to have one to call our own. So thank you so much. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: All right. Thank you so much.
[Justin Tseng]: First of all, I just wanted to thank you and your department for all this work that you're doing. I think something that a few of us, many of us on this side of the rail have been talking about, a lot of community leaders have been talking about is the importance of bringing government to the people and not just expecting people to show up. We all know that there are real equity access barriers when it comes to meetings, even meetings like this. any city meeting, any coming to city events, and your department's, I think, philosophical approach to outreach, I think is something that we should be proud that we're doing as a city. I know it can be really tough to do that outreach, and so I was wondering what some of the challenges that you've found were. Maybe, I know the community liaisons have been doing a great job, but I'm wondering what are some of the barriers that you guys have faced and what are some of the ways that you're gonna address that with the Medford Connectors program in terms of outreach and getting to more people?
[Justin Tseng]: You guys have been doing incredible work. I really appreciate that answer. And what you were talking about, and I think the work you guys are doing, I think, lays out a foundation for what other departments in the city can do, including the city council, maybe in the further future. I think you guys are testing the waters, seeing what works, and perhaps in the future, our city council and other branches of government, other departments of the government can look towards you guys and see what we can do to be more inclusive to get more of those voices that haven't been included in city government to help us come to our meetings and help us, you know, give us feedback and shape our agendas. So that's helpful. I think my question was slightly, slightly more about How are we reaching the residents that we haven't reached yet, which I know can be a really difficult question to answer and I'm sure you guys are already working on it. I was wondering if you guys partner with other city departments to, you know, keep track of who comes in for city services already or In terms of maybe a city, the work that we do collecting server data with our city city census type things, seeing if I think who moves into the city, pays our taxes perhaps there's a way to, even in, I know this can be costly but putting, putting even a short flyer in our water bills or something like that to try to get more people aware that your department exists, that the work that you guys are doing exists. And maybe that will reach more people, but you are the expert here, so.
[Justin Tseng]: That's excellent. And I think to what you've been saying, you know, as a son of immigrant parents, I've had to translate a lot of things, find out a lot of things about city services. It would be super helpful. The things that you're describing will be super helpful. So, and I think lay out groundwork for, you know, the work that we want to do on youth mental health on, you know, making our community safer as well. So thank you so much.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. I think it's important to thank first the teachers and the school staff and the parents who were there who are helping the students through the ordeal, who themselves had to deal with the emotional side of everything. It's really important not to forget about that. This hurts. This hurts emotionally. It hurts physically. It's important to deal with it. And it matters. It matters to all of us. And look, everyone, everyone, in this room, everyone online on Zoom is upset, is frustrated, is saddened. And I think we all feel sympathy for the experience that our students have had to deal with and continue to have to deal with at Medford High School. I will say I am relieved to hear that the student is in stable condition, but that doesn't mean that everything is over. I really appreciate the talk from Councilors of all backgrounds about the importance of finding solutions. And I think to that effect, I wanna thank President Morell and Vice President Bears for opening up the city council agenda to allow us to put resolutions on the agenda to have this conversation tonight. And to allow us to act fast and to allow us to have this conversation tonight to my parents in the room on in on zoom. Look, school violence, and I've said this before, and it's in the news, there's tons of research out there. It's an international problem. It's a domestic problem. It's a Medford problem. And that actually means that we have to deal with it. And we do have to address it here at home. School violence has been around for a while. Councilor Bears has spoken to his experience. I went to Medford High School just five years ago. I know what it's like there. And it's a wonderful institution to learn. There are blemishes on it as well. And this work, these are all issues that school leaders, teachers, students, everyone has been working together to address over the last few years. And it's evident that we need to put even more energy towards it. And as I've said before as well, until our schools are safe for everyone, for all, we still have more work to do. We need to find sustainable solutions, and that means engaging stakeholders from students to parents to teachers. I know people aren't gonna like this, but the school committee who have been elected to govern our schools, to oversee our schools, and we need to engage school leaders as well. We need to enforce the existing policies on violence and on anti-bullying. And we need accountability to make sure that we're enforcing these policies. We need to think through the actions that we can take to protect all kids carefully. and quickly, I will add, but we need to make sure that they're equitable and reasonable and that they really truly do protect every kid in the classroom and in the hallways. I think it's also evidence that there's a major communications problem that we as a city council have been bringing up in the city, the communications problem in the city when it comes to not just in an incident like this, but just in general, getting the message out to residents. But when it comes to this incident as well, we need to know. And I think President Morell and I have written a resolution to this effect. We need to know about the incident. We need to know the details. We need to know authority and rules and who has authority over what. And we need to prevent misinformation from being spread. And school committee members at yesterday's meeting have also acknowledged that as a city, we need to do better on communications and on engaging families as well. Councilor Bears is right. The funding problem is real. It's one of the reasons why I decided to run for office in the first place, watching the budget conversation years ago when We made major cuts to guidance and to mental health and counseling at our schools. And now we're seeing the effects of it. We need to be serious about that. We need to be serious about funding and to realize that there is a funding issue. And that effect, that problem is trickling down to our hallways and to our classrooms. and that particularly after COVID and after remote learning, there has been an epidemic of poor mental health in the city and in this country. I asked the city and the city council joined me in passing a resolution months ago, asking the city to do a general survey on youth mental health and to look at the effects of that and to see what we can do to invest more in it and to prevent things like this from happening. And it is upsetting as a Councilor to see that we haven't done enough on it. This council has been responsible in doing that and we have been proactive in addressing youth mental health. I want us to do as much as possible, as quickly as possible. I think that's something that everyone behind the reel would agree on. But I also do wanna make sure that we are creating lasting solutions within our purview. I know not everyone will agree with my approach on this issue and my ideas, but I am open-minded to hear more ideas, to hear feedback, both positive and negative. And I understand, as Councilor Collins has mentioned, that many members of our community weren't able to make it to this meeting for scheduling reasons, for family reasons, and many members of our community aren't joining us today because they're afraid to talk and talking in public is not for everyone. And to those people, my inbox and my voicemail box and my text message inbox is also open to everyone. I think it's really important to emphasize that regardless of the tone of this conversation, regardless of the points that people have brought up, regardless of the feedback that we're going to hear, and I think people in our community, there are many, many different ways of thinking about this issue and about the solutions for this issue. I think that's been evident to me in the conversations that I've had. with neighbors, with residents, with young folks in the last 24 hours. I think it's important to acknowledge the differences, but to also acknowledge the points of unity that I think we see on this agenda tonight, because those points of unity, those are the seeds, I think, for more lasting, more substantive policy changes in the future that will better, I think, create a school environment for our children.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I also wanted to thank the parents for coming up and telling you the stories and I hadn't heard the story before. And I think President Morello, you put it well that even though I even though I was there five years ago, I think things have you know, things are slightly different now and smartphones and COVID and all of that changes everything as well. So it's actually, it's really helpful to hear that perspective.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to wish you the best of luck. My friends and I have always wanted a bubble tea shop in Medford and it's, It's a great honor for us to be able to have one to call our own. So thank you so much. And good luck. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: All right, thank you so much.
[Justin Tseng]: First of all, I just wanted to thank you and your department for all of this work that you're doing. I think something that a few of us, many of us on this side of the rail have been talking about, a lot of community leaders have been talking about is the importance of bringing government to the people and not just expecting people to show up. We all know that there are real equity access barriers when it comes to meetings, even meetings like this, any city meeting, any coming to city events, and your department's, I think, philosophical approach to outreach, I think is something that we should be proud that we're doing as a city. I know it can be really tough to do that outreach, and so I was wondering what some of the challenges that you've found were. Maybe, I know the community liaisons have been doing a great job, But I'm wondering what are some of the barriers that you guys have faced and what are some of the ways that you're gonna address that with the Medford Connectors program in terms of outreach and getting to more people?
[Justin Tseng]: You guys have been doing incredible work. Um, I really appreciate that answer. Um, and, and what you were talking about. And I think, um, I think the work you guys are doing, I think, um, lays out a foundation for what other departments in the city can, um, can do, including the city council, maybe in the further future, maybe I think you guys are testing the waters, seeing what works and perhaps in the future, um, our city council and other branches of government, uh, other departments of the government can look towards you guys and see, what we can do to be more inclusive to get more of those voices that haven't been included in city government to help us come to our meetings and help us, you know, give us feedback and shape our agendas. So that's helpful. I think my question was slightly, slightly more about how are we reaching the residents that we haven't reached yet. which I know can be a really difficult question to answer. And I'm sure you guys are already working on it. I was wondering if you guys partner with other city departments to, you know, keep track of who comes in for city services already, or in terms of maybe a city, the work that we do collecting survey data with our city, city census type things, seeing who moves into the city, pays our taxes, perhaps there's a way to, even in, I know this can be costly, but putting even a short flyer in our water bills or something like that to try to get more people aware that your department exists, that the work that you guys are doing exists. And maybe that will reach more people, but you are the expert here, so.
[Justin Tseng]: That's excellent. And I think to what you've been saying, as a son of immigrant parents, I've had to translate a lot of things, find out a lot of things about city services. It would be super helpful. The things that you're describing will be super helpful. So, and I think lay out groundwork for, you know, the work that we want to do on youth mental health, on, you know, making our community safer as well. So thank you so much.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. I think it's important to thank first the teachers and the school staff and the parents who were there. who are helping the students through the ordeal, who themselves had to deal with emotional side of everything. It's really important not to forget about that. This hurts. This hurts emotionally. It hurts physically. It's important to deal with it. And it matters. It matters to all of us. And look, everyone, everyone, in this room, everyone online on Zoom is upset, is frustrated, is saddened. And I think we all feel sympathy for the experience that our students have had to deal with and continue to have to deal with at Medford High School. I will say I am relieved to hear that the student is in stable condition, but that doesn't mean that everything is over. I really appreciate the talk from Councilors of all backgrounds about the importance of finding solutions. And I think to that effect, I wanna thank President Morell and Vice President Bears for opening up the city council agenda to allow us to put resolutions on the agenda to have this conversation tonight. and to allow us to act fast and to allow us to have this conversation tonight, to have parents in the room and on Zoom. Look, school violence, and I've said this before, and it's in the news, there's tons of research out there. It's an international problem. It's a domestic problem. It's a Medford problem. And that actually means that we have to deal with it. And we do have to address it here at home. It's not, you know, school violence has been around for a while. Councilor Bears has spoken to his experience. I went to Medford High School just five years ago. I know what it's like there. And it is a wonderful, it's a wonderful institution to learn. there are, you know, blemishes on it as well. And this work, these are all issues that school leaders, teachers, students, everyone has been working together to address over the last few years. And it's evident that we need to put even more energy towards it. And as I've said before as well, until our schools are safe for everyone, for all, we still have more work to do. We need to find sustainable solutions, and that means engaging stakeholders from students to parents to teachers. I know people aren't going to like this, but the school committee who have been elected to govern our schools, to oversee our schools, and we need to engage school leaders as well. We need to enforce the existing policies on violence and on anti-bullying. and we need accountability to make sure that we're enforcing these policies. We need to think through the actions that we can take to protect all kids carefully and quickly, I will add, but we need to make sure that they're equitable and reasonable and that they really truly do protect every kid in the classroom and in the hallways. I think it's also evidence that there's a major communications problem that we as a city council have been bringing up in the city, the communications problem in the city when it comes to not just in an incident like this, but just in general, getting the message out to residents. But when it comes to this incident as well, We need to know, and I think President Morell and I have written a resolution to this effect. We need to know about the incident. We need to know the details. We need to know authority and rules and who has authority over what. And we need to prevent misinformation from being spread. And school community members at yesterday's meeting have also acknowledged that as a city, we need to do better on communications and on engaging families as well. Councilor Bears is right, the funding problem is real. It's one of the reasons why I decided to run for office in the first place, watching the budget conversation years ago, when we cut, we made major cuts to guidance and to mental health and counseling at our schools. And now we're seeing the effects of it. Um, we need to, we need to be serious about that. We need to be serious that about funding and to realize that there is a funding issue. Um, and that, that, that effect that the problem is trickling down to our hallways into our classrooms and, um, and that particularly after COVID and after remote learning, there has been an epidemic of poor mental health in the city and in this country. I asked the city and the city council joined me in passing a resolution months ago asking the city to do a general survey on youth mental health and to look at the effects of that and to see what we can do to invest more in it and to prevent things like this from happening. And it is upsetting as a Councilor to see that we haven't done enough on it. This council has been responsible in doing that and we have been proactive in addressing youth mental health. I want us to do as much as possible, as quickly as possible. I think that's something that everyone behind the reel would agree on. But I also do want to make sure that we are creating lasting solutions within our purview. I know not everyone will agree with my approach on this issue and my ideas, but I am open-minded to hear more ideas, to hear feedback, both positive and negative. And I understand, as Councilor Collins has mentioned, that many members of our community weren't able to make it to this meeting for scheduling reasons, for family reasons, and many members of our community aren't joining us today because they're afraid to talk and talking in public is not for everyone. And to those people, my inbox and my voicemail box and my text message inbox is also open to everyone. I think it's really important to emphasize that regardless of the tone of this conversation, regardless of the points that people have brought up, regardless of the feedback that we're going to hear. And I think people in our community, there are many, many different ways of thinking about this issue and about the solutions for this issue. I think that's been evident to me in the conversations that I've had. with neighbors, with residents, with young folks in the last 24 hours. I think it's important to acknowledge the differences, but to also acknowledge the points of unity that I think we see on this agenda tonight, because those points of unity, those are the seeds, I think, for more lasting, more substantive policy changes in the future that will better, I think, create a school environment for our children.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I also wanted to, uh, thank, um, the parents for coming up and telling you the stories. And, um, I hadn't heard the story before, and I think president Morello, you put it well that even though. even though I was there five years ago, I think things have, you know, things are slightly different now and smartphones and COVID and all of that changes everything as well. So it's actually, it's really helpful to hear that perspective.
[Justin Tseng]: all of them.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: I find them in order and move for approval.
[Justin Tseng]: I was just going to mention, I think last week the interim chief inspector also mentioned that this would not be the right time to adopt it because of the logistics associated with it, but that if we do choose to adopt it, we should have a conversation early next year about it.
[Justin Tseng]: So there's been a lot of discussion about means and methods and comparing our community to other communities. I think it might be helpful for us all to sit down sometime next year, maybe in a committee of the whole, invite you and invite some other people involved in the decision making to really make it more transparent and see what are the things that we could change. both at the city level but also at the ordinance kind of city council level to make your work easier and to make projects like this more of a success, so it's less of a question more of a, I think this is something that our council could do next year.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I think it's noble and valiant that this city administration's using surveys so much. I worked in survey research for four years. I certainly believe in its role in maintaining trust in the citizenry and getting feedback for ideas and policies. I think from that experience, I've also learned a few things. The first of which is you gotta have a plan. The survey has to slot into a bigger plan in general, and I think it would have been more prudent, especially given that the city council has jurisdiction of ordinances, that the administration should have come to us and asked us about what ideas we were open to, what we were hearing from our residents talking to us, and what possibilities that we were open to. And I think that could have informed the survey creation itself. I think I have another concern from the public opinion survey research perspective, which is that I'm afraid that our city surveys aren't representative of our population. It's one thing to conduct a survey. It's another thing to post a Google link on Facebook and ask people to fill it out. We saw with the ARPA survey that that survey was skewed very much towards homeowners, very much towards certain demographics, towards certain neighborhoods. That's something I, you know, if we're putting the energy into creating surveys, I want to make sure that that survey is representative. I want to make sure that we're actually listening to a whole range of people and having a survey sample that represents our city as a whole. I don't know if we will see the results of this survey, but given our city's record with previous surveys, I think that, you know, it remains as a concern of mine. And I think it's concerning when we use faulty data to inform our decisions as well. And so I think, you know, this is an issue I'm sure all the councillors have heard a lot of things pro and con. I'll put on the record too, I love dogs, but I think, This is just symptomatic of our city's planning process. And I think this is a symptom of the need to plan better, to think more far in advance, how we approach policy changes and how we approach soliciting public opinion. And I think Councilor Scarpelli's resolution gets at that point, the process point.
[Justin Tseng]: In the same vein of things, I've talked with city staff for the last few months and with residents who'd like to see us, you know, update some of the decorations that we have in terms of, you know, who we're, you know, featuring in the city hall. You know, they're great historical figures that we pay respect to, but I think a lot of residents would like to see their neighbors on there as well and to see us have, you know, portraits decorations that are more representative of the diversity of our community.
[Justin Tseng]: I think I've long said that we shouldn't expect people to come to government. We should expect government to go to people. And there's a lot of work that even we can do better in this regard. I thank my fellow Councilors for putting this on the agenda because I think it matches that spirit entirely. I just would want to offer a quick, a short amendment to add the Traffic Commission in there as well, because I know they're working on a lot of the policy changes that Councilor Caraviello brought up. And I know the director of the parking department has said that she doesn't involve herself in those discussions. And so it's important that we have the decision makers also traveling into the neighborhoods.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. Um, I think I, I also you an apology. Um, I, I listening to especially I think to Councilor Scarpelli's remarks and Councilor Collins remarks I think reminds me of a few things I think the first, the most important thing is of the ideals that we held when we chose to run for office. And when I made the decision to jump into all of this, I really wanted to give a voice to people like me, who I didn't feel like were being properly represented in our community. And I fell short of that ideal. I think that's safe to say. I, I was also sick and that's just, I mean that's not, that's not a good enough reason. And, but I think Councilor Collins is right I should have been, you know, if that's, you know, if I was already lying in bed for a few days then you know that should have been it. I will be transparent in saying that when I first heard about this, which was too late, we should have received news earlier on. I did contact a few school committee members, teachers, school leaders who I thought might have a better picture of the incident and the details there. And I was pretty much universally advised that I should choose my words super carefully in the interests of the children at stake. I think that paranoia, was, I think, you know, was affected by judgment in terms of what I should have said, and I really should have just said, expressed my sympathies, because I think Councilor Collins is right, that even that itself, I think, would have been more than saying nothing. What I should have said last week, I think, but what I will say this week is, first and foremost, I think, what happened to your daughter and the incidents that have occurred since are never acceptable, never, never, ever acceptable in our city, not anywhere. We should recognize that there is an epidemic of school violence and that this has become a very persistent problem in the aftermath of COVID and and especially with... Point of information? Is the gentleman referring to in the Medford public school system or in general? Well, I'll get to that. So, I mean, it's been a persistent problem in the aftermath of COVID lockdowns and a general downturn in youth mental health, which this council has talked about. And, you know, this isn't only happening in Medford, but we in Medford should be proactive about solving and tackling these challenges head on. Um, this is a personal problem to me, because I still have a lot of siblings of my friends who attend the school system, and I just graduated not too long ago from Medford High. This again, this isn't unique to Medford, but I think it's important in talking to students and teachers and school leaders about how we can prevent something like this happening. I think we need to, you know, recognize that we need to stop the systemic failures that led to this in the first place, especially with the administrative problems. I think we need to recognize that we need to treat this problem holistically and developmentally and focus just as much on physical well-being as well as on mental health and making sure that the problem is rooted out permanently and that we don't have students that get to that point at all. But such a hard approach I think such a strong approach I think means that we'll have to take a really hard look at the systemic underfunding of our schools I think it will require us to build more accountability, build more trust. I do really respect the spirit of the resolution itself. I think I share my colleagues' worry that this wouldn't be actionable and that this wouldn't solve the administrative problems that we saw in your, unfortunately saw in your case, and that it would also be illegal and overstepping our authority vis-a-vis the governance of our public school system. But I hope that my listening to the paper, I do hope that that's, again, one piece of the solution that's more actionable. And that really focuses on building trust, trust and collaboration. MHS is a safe place for most, if not many, but until it is a safe place for everyone, we have a lot of work to do. And it's clear to me that school leaders, that parents, teachers, students, and members of our school committee are ready to work together to try to find something that prevents the administrative problems that happened here and prevents the mental health problems and prevents the physical violence problems. And my hope is that something like the deep paper will help us move forward in that direction.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think it'd be valuable for people to be able to come in next week, if they have any ideas.
[Justin Tseng]: As one of the two main municipalities on this side of Tufts campus, I think it's incumbent upon us as elected officials to help those who are seeking fairness and equity in the work that they perform. which is why supporting the RA union is so important for our city council to do. I think this resolution itself already walks through a lot of the fundamental reasons for why we should express support for the Resident Assistance Union and call upon TOPS to voluntarily recognize the union. Um, but I also believe that, um, the stories behind it are as powerful and as important as well. Um, a lot of my best friends growing up, they went to Tufts university and worked as RAs. And I, I, you know, I, I hung around, uh, campus sometimes just to, just to catch up with them. And I saw that, you know, the hours that they were putting into that work and. the compensation that they received. And oftentimes they would talk to me about how it didn't seem fair. And so I believe that such a step, I really have to congratulate the members of the RA union for being so bold as to fight for their own benefits and fight for what's right. And I wanted to shine a spotlight on their community petition, which is out there and open for anyone to sign. If you search up Tufts RA Union, you'll be able to find the link to attach your name, sign your name to the petition. So thank you very much.
[Justin Tseng]: As a recent alum and a proud Mustang, I wanted to convey my best wishes. Good luck to the Mustangs, beat Malden, and I am so proud of our team and all that they're doing.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. This resolution comes out of the many meetings that we've had on parking. And something I had heard repeated by a lot of residents was that the list on the website was not updated. And given all the flux that's going on, especially with parking in South Medford and Hillside with the arrival of the Green Line, residents have been frankly just confused about which streets are permitted, which streets aren't. And they don't know where they can park. or what the rules are. And so something like this, something like this, that it's updated would really help residents, I think, know exactly where they can park and where they can't park. I mean, it's common sense. And we, you know, this is something that should be consistently updated, but I think we need to give it a little bit of a jolt.
[Justin Tseng]: A lot of residents, especially newer residents, when they were moving into Medford, you know, they want to know how the city government works, they want to know what the services are, and a lot of them complained about the navigability of the website as a problem. Furthermore, a lot of residents of color, especially immigrant residents, have told me that they don't really know how to navigate the website because the translation is so poor, because it's not a naturally translated website that uses Google Translate. And actually in an email from the administration this week, we've learned that it's widgets like that that caused the website to crash so frequently, which is yet another problem with our city website. You know, we talked about infrastructure as the gateway to our city, which is definitely true. This is digital infrastructure. And this is 21st century gateway to our city. When people think of Medford, when they think about moving here, oftentimes they look on the city website. They look at the city website as a reflection of our city, of the things that we're doing as a community and the services that they can get here. And the level of transparency and communication there is between the city and between its residents. And so I believe that meeting in the committee of whole would give us a chance to hear from residents about what the vision that they want to see from our website to gather more feedback for our administration and for our city in general, moving forward as we do move on to a new platform, which I believe is we're in the process of currently.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. I believe a lot of the points I wanted to make have been made by fellow councilors. Look, I think it's important to address the fact that we have a revenue problem in the city, that we have a new growth problem in the city. I don't think that's off of anyone's minds, but when I think about how we get out of that problem, how we get out of the hole, a position like this is key to getting out of that situation. Having a senior planner who can bring revenue to our city, I think, is an integral part to both the council and the city more broadly. Both of our approaches to getting out of the revenue situation and to making Medford a better place when it comes to having vibrant squares when it comes to affordable housing, when it comes to climate goals. This is exactly the position that we need in Medford. Now, I believe strongly that we need to look at these things on a case-by-case basis, particularly because of the financial situation. Um, but I believe that this case as Councilor bear said, um, has its merits. Um, and I think we I think that is why I will personally vote. Um, yes, on this. Um, again, we've heard. a few times now that the appropriations for this position in particular are coming from re-appropriation. So it's not like we're taking the money out of the bank. This is money that we've already appropriated to a similar goal. Now, another reason why I think we are particularly pressed to address this now is because we are competing with other municipalities to fill roles like this as well. And when we are competing on that market, we need to make sure that we're getting out there first, getting out there early. And we're already, you know, I mean, I think residents in the city know that we already have work to do to catch up. Actually, this, this is a lesson that my fellow Councilors, Councilor Caraviello comes to mind, but I've taught have taught me that it's important to be proactive to act out in front, and to put, to put out the hiring signs early, and this is something that we need to do, in my opinion.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Madam President. I believe that there is a unanimous, there is a unanimous support behind the rails for financial accountability, for fiscal transparency, I am for increasing leverage and to make sure our city is making the right financial choices. But we also have to, in my opinion, realize the facts of the situation. I fear that in our debate about this specific issue, we've fallen for a red herring that equates a very absolutist definition of accountability with fiscal responsibility, which I believe in this case the money has already been appropriated to your department. We're not taking money out of free cash, you know, there's financially that's that's that's the reality of the situation. The other reality of the situation is as stable as things might currently be. We also know that municipalities around us are competing to hire more planners and I'm not saying this is what your office staff are thinking, right? But who's to say that in a few months or in a few years, they don't see a lack of opportunity to move forward in our community and they just leave for another community, right? We are also competitors in this market. for planners, for city planners. And I think that leads me to my ultimate question that I always ask. When I take votes like this, and I think really, when we think about how the question of accountability, how we're gonna hold the administration to account, I think this is the question that's gonna guide me from item to item, is if this is gonna tangibly improve the lives of our residents.
[Justin Tseng]: And that is I think ultimately the goal, the unified goal of the city council, you know we've, we've, I think there's a lot of agreement that we need to move forward on housing production on sustainability on the climate plan on phase two of zoning. support like this in your office, right? To get our own priorities through. And so for that reason, I know others might disagree with me, but that's why I would vote yes on this paper tonight. Again, it's item by item. And I think we need to ask that question for everything before us. But in this specific case, I believe that it ticks my boxes.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilor Collins, for inviting me to co-sponsor this resolution. I think you've really hit the heart of what's at stake here, which is public safety. And, you know, our job as elected representatives of the city and it's a major branch of our city is to be the stewards of public safety. And, you know, when I'm on the road, I would, I would want all the drivers on the road to be tested insured and licensed. And I think that's, that's common sense, not just to prevent traffic accidents and to prevent situations where we might be driving on the road with people who aren't tested licensed or insured. God forbid, if God forbid something were to happen, we want that trust with our police to be there as well, so that we prevent hit and runs. And I think for that reason, as you've stated, a number of law enforcement officials across the state, including our chief police have endorsed and have supported question four, as we've put it. And this is also supported by relevant by our relevant delegation in the state government as well. So again, I thank you for putting this on the agenda. I think because this was added last minute onto the list of questions, a lot of voters don't know about this question yet. And I think that's a big reason why it's important to, at the very least, put this on the agenda so more people are aware that you can flip your ballot initiative ballot and make sure that you answer questions three and four. And if you live in Paul Donato, or I believe it's Paul Donato or Rep Barber's districts, there are two more questions as well. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: kind of the pavement to get comments from their neighbors so I just want to note that cancer say, um, I think President, President Raul really covered that point, I was I was just going to note that it is very substantial that medical side popped the top to the comment list. Again, I haven't seen anything but I've heard rumblings that there might be positive changes and I think If we do see those changes come about, it'll be because of the hard work of residents in our city and the hard work of our members of our city government, including my fellow colleagues for indulging in meetings about the bus network redesign as well. So thank you so much.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor say, thank you, President Merle, this is a question that a lot of residents in our community have been asking, especially with the opening of the Green Line extension coming upon us very soon. more choices in terms of how to get to work in Cambridge Somerville in Boston, or just to travel to our neighboring municipalities. Currently, there is a plan for the Somerville community bike path will open alongside the a green line extension to moon square station and a lot of residents have been wondering more specifically about how we might be able to as a city connected that the office of planning development and sustainability and engineering department have been so gracious to give me a pretty thorough response about their plans so far. On this specific point about working to extend the GLX community path, there are no plans so far and part of the problem is that the right-of-way in between adjacent private properties on either side of the railway looks significantly narrower in the Medford section than in the Somerville section, which doesn't mean it's impossible to do but just means it's quite difficult to do. However, our city is taking a look at connecting to this community path via on-street bike facilities, and they'll put this in the new citywide bike plan that's coming out soon, or when they're ready, and they're going to suggest placing these bike facilities along that path, with one example being around Medford Street and Dexter Street. Another possibility for our city connecting to the community path is via an off-street path between the Mystic River Greenways and the GLX community path extension. This would be more towards Assembly Square and then up by the Mystic. A feasibility study was actually conducted two years ago, and there's quite a lot of detail for how we would implement this if our city deemed it to be the best path forward. Now, generally, residents might also be interested in bike path planning and power cities going about it. While our city is space constrained in many places, our city's approach, and the approach of the planning department and the engineering department so far. is to identify key routes that have the capacity for infrastructure and then to make design recommendations from a short-term perspective, so tackling what we can achieve with minimal changes and minimal resources and a long-term perspective where we look at things that we can build during larger roadway reconstruction projects. The city is also prioritizing continuity between municipalities that's something we've heard in our climate plan meeting, and the comprehensive plan meeting as well. And they're meeting, making special note of on and off street connections to Somerville Arlington Malden, etc. And to make sure that we align our plans with their plans as well. and the city is currently in the midst of developing a new bike, a citywide bike plan. They will, when that starts, they'll launch a public outreach process with opportunities to get feedback and get involved. I assume at that point, the city council would love to relay feedback and to look at these changes as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. This comes from a meeting of a subcommittee that we are on, the sustainability subcommittee, where we were looking at the tree protection ordinance. And there were two sections, one section on defining code enforcement officer and one defining tree warden that were in the ordinance that we thought between between the council, between city staff, and between legal advice we thought would be best to sever, and to let people with more know-how on this issue decide what to do with it, since it was outside our scope. And so the recommendation was that we send this to rules and ordinances and let that committee look at these definitions and decide whether we need to update our city or code of ordinances with them, since there is no definition currently, whether we need that for the tree ordinance and what the best path forward is.
[Justin Tseng]: Right. And the advice was that we shouldn't put it under the tree ordinance section of the code of ordinances. That'd be better placed under. Sure.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. I think this item is, this resolution is pretty self-explanatory. This is a monumental change to policy in our country. To have people who have student loan debt be able to apply for this relief really truly does make a difference in a lot of people's lives. The form is super short. It takes at most five minutes to fill out and is a way in which we can help residents and families throughout what might be a more difficult economic time. I like everything that's along these lines. I think it's important for our city administration to reach out to as many residents as possible. Again, a lot bigger picture, we need to work on better ways to communicate with residents, but at the very least, I want as many people to know that you have before December 31st to apply for this and that you can apply in Spanish as well.
[Justin Tseng]: One other note is that it is currently in the court system right now, but it doesn't change the fact that you can apply for it.
[Justin Tseng]: Madam President.
[Justin Tseng]: Motion to take paper 2245, 452 out of, 542, sorry, out of order. We have a few people in the audience here to speak on the paper.
[Justin Tseng]: That's what I'm seeking?
[Justin Tseng]: Second, Councilor.
[Justin Tseng]: Just to clarify, by Election Day, does that include Election Day for the viewers who are watching?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, I would second that motion, first of all. In prepping for tonight, I thought of a conversation I had with one of my college mentors, who was a proud Italian American, and he knows Taiwanese culture really well, so my family background. And we had a long talk about the values that we share in common, which are family, community, hard work, amongst other values. And in Medford, we're extremely fortunate for the rich involvement of Italian Americans in building our city from, as Vice President Bears has stated, from teaching to public safety, work like plumbing and healthcare, public service and beyond. I just wanted to say I really appreciate that here in Medford I grew up learning about Italian culture, learning the language, learning about Italian foods, and being able to do my little diorama of Galileo's project, which is something I've come to realize outside of Medford is not such a common experience. And I think Medford's past and present proves that these values, family, community, public service, hard work, they are fundamental to who we are as a city, and that the contributions of this community, of the Italian American community, have really shaped who we are, and that they prove that this is larger than any one person. It's really about our community as a whole. So thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, I just, I just wanted to thank Councilor Knight for the bee papers. Um, that's that's an issue. That's an initiative that I, I would support. Um, I actually, about two years ago, I was in San Diego, which has its little, little Italy. I'm sure President Morello is familiar. I was actually very touched by, they had signs on the roads, on lampposts, talking about different Italian-Americans and their contributions to both San Diego and to the country. And it'd be very nice if we could have something like that here in Medford, celebrating the contributions of Italian-Americans to our community. Perhaps something even more local, more Medford-based, since we have such a rich Italian-American history here. Um, but again, I support that idea.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. October is Domestic Abuse Awareness Month. Domestic abuse is a issue that unfortunately touches a lot of residents in the city, in the state, around the world. And I think it's important for us to be able to speak more openly about it as a society and to talk about the effects of domestic abuse, to talk about trauma, and to talk about mental health. Um, I was fortunate enough to be, um, at a, um, event with the Metro Police Department and Portal to Hope with Councilor Caraviello, where we learned a lot about how, um, trauma, we can use trauma to inform the work that we do in the workplace and as elected officials in our policies, which, um, really starts by listening and understanding. this is, of course, a very serious issue, and I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to bring some light to it on the council.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm not a question. I just wanted to thank your office for working on this and tell everyone that to definitely take some time out of your evening to walk through and check your bill. I called my parents, and they were not on the aggregation. and just by that simple check, my parents are gonna save so much money in the next two years, and especially in a difficult economic time with higher prices, this is something that families can do to save some money and help our city as well. So thank you very much for this.
[Justin Tseng]: I wanted to thank you and President Morell for putting this on the agenda. This is some of the most exciting work that we are working on as a council and we'll have the chance, the opportunity to work on the council for the next few years. That legal money, we fought very, very hard for it on this council. We really stayed together and really aligned our priorities so we can get started on projects like this. And this is that very important step that we have to take on this council to meet our objectives as a community when it comes to all these different plans, when it comes to housing, when it comes to the environment, when it comes to zoning. And we've already seen all the fruits of our labor and the labor of Council's past when it comes to zoning and that major zoning recodification that we passed earlier this year. We see that new growth is slowly but surely coming to the Council because of that work that this Council and Council's past have done. And I feel optimistic about the work that we can do going forward.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Caraviello and Councilor Unite have asked two of the questions I was gonna ask. I think it would help me to get a sense of how many cars, because there are gonna be cars that are going out, right? Being rented. How many cars do you envision being in those spaces at a given time? Just an average.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay, thank you for the answer. I think one benefit that hasn't been talked about is that this would lower the need, like people's, Lyft drivers need to buy vehicles, which means that, you know, that's better for parking in general in the area, in the greater Boston area, better for the environment. But of course we have these other considerations that we have to think about as well.
[Justin Tseng]: I think we might be used to things like this, you know, feeling like there is going to receive a rubber stamp approval. Moving on, I mean it's clear from the conversation tonight it's not but I do think it's important to go back to the reason why we have these special events and celebrations, which is that, you know, we want to unite the city and we want to bring vibrancy, but the problem is this. meter project is an embellished project that doesn't necessarily unite our community. And, you know, a simple celebration like this isn't necessarily going to improve vibrancy that much, unlike Oktoberfest, which this weekend brought together, I think, residents of all different backgrounds and gave families a place to go. My second concern with the project, or with the special events like this is that it's Panama and Kyrgyzstan, which is bread and circuses, you know, we buy by, you know, by having these celebrations, I think it's really easy to mask the problems that exist here in City Hall, the problems that exist with our policy. and the problems with how we treat workers. And, you know, I think it's really important that we use this platform and that we say, you know, we can't keep masking our problems with city celebrations and press releases. We need to actually tackle these really hard hitting issues head on to have that maturity of the leadership to do that.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Vice President Bears for putting this on the agenda. This is something that we discussed lately in our last meeting with the parking department. You know, there's, we heard potentially that there was breach of contract and, you know, I mean, I think you've already explained it. I just want to make sure that the city administration really does take this item particularly seriously because you know, we as a city can't let things like this go on, you know, unaddressed. But you know, we also have other items that we've asked to be explained in executive session that we haven't had come back to us. And so I just wanted to mark my disappointment on that and hope that this item is different.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. The Affordable Connectivity Program is something that was passed in the bipartisan infrastructure law, which could really help families in our community. The $30 per month off internet bills and $100 discount is something that means a lot to families, especially when electricity prices going up and there's inflation when it comes to everyday bills. The discount to purchase a laptop, computer, or tablet is also something that could help students who are more disadvantaged in our school system, help people find jobs, help people at work. And so I think this is a particularly valuable thing that our city should be reaching out to residents about, making sure that they qualify. And there's a whole list of people who qualify. One of the categories I can pull up out of my mind right now is if you're if you're receiving staff benefits but I think you know this Resolution also goes to show that we need a better outreach and better communications policy from the city government. And this is one of those situations where it'd be great to have a communications department. But perhaps in the meantime, we could have our community liaisons and Office of Outreach and Prevention take the lead as well as some other relevant city departments.
[Justin Tseng]: So that's... Yeah, I didn't know about it until I came across it on Twitter one day. And if you're not on Twitter, you might not find out.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you vice president bears for reading all that. Um, this is a law that was passed by our state legislature and that's now law in our state. And it's going into effect pretty soon in about two weeks. Um, we need to make sure that we as a city are not in breach of this, um, you know, to save us legal trouble but also to make sure that everything is fair in our city. Again, this goes to show we need a city solicitor solicitor we need an assistant city solicitor we need people who can review our policies and make sure that that state law, we're not interfering with state law. And, yeah, and I would appreciate if the city administration will send us a report about and keep us updated about what's happening.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. This month, starting from September 15th to October 15th is Hispanic American Heritage Month, which is a a heritage fund that has been recognized for decades. I wanted to take a moment out of our council agenda to thank the members of the Hispanic American community here in Medford for the contributions to our community, to our business, to our livelihoods, and to celebrate their culture and their worth in our city, especially as as we're seeing at a national level, oftentimes things like this, things like identity and roots have been used as political toys. I wanna make sure that in Medford, we affirm that Hispanic Americans are welcome, and not only are they welcome, we celebrate their community here.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. This is in regards to an issue brought up to us via email and by a constituent last meeting about overnight noise at Monogram Foods affecting quality of life for their neighbors. I received an email from the administration stating that the refrigerated delivery trucks that have been parked overnight in their lot will now be required to park across the street in the old Crunch Fitness space. Monogram Foods is posting signs and will monitor the situation and the deliveries will come from third parties. The deliveries currently come from third parties, so that's a consideration of how they have to manage the situation. They're also looking into screening some of the rooftop mechanical units, although that has certain costs of money. This situation is from what I've learned is slightly complex. I know the city might be doing more research about that. I don't know if you have more news about it, President Morell, but this is the most recent update that I have received.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um. I think Councilor Caraviello for putting this on the agenda. Um I've also gotten these calls and as as as Councilor Bears has put it, it is a bit ridiculous that you go on to a street notice that everything every car was registered to another street in Medford and It's not stop ticketing. I think it's a logical step, given where we are. We need to do a real evaluation of the database and evaluation of the problems. And we, as Councilor Beres has pointed out, we need better coordination with different departments as well to make sure that our enforcement is there. And enforcement is going to be an especially important issue as Greenline Extension opens up. scheduled for November, but as we go through the parking commission's report, old report about South Medford parking, as we respond to what will be resident complaints about parking violations in South Medford as those stops open, we need to make sure that our house is in order and we need to make sure that our parking department and our city is ready to take on those challenges. Another issue that has been brought to me, and I think Councilor Scarpelli touched on it, is the difficulty of rectifying one's own situation, having to drive to City Hall, having to sit in the parking office. I think we need to develop a process, this is my own opinion, where the parking department handles that autonomously and where it works easier for residents and we put less strain on them. And we need to be looking at how we do refunds as well and make sure that people aren't unjustly paying for parking tickets that they didn't deserve in the first place, which is potentially, and I'm sure is a problem.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Madam President. The first item mentioned in here, the Marijuana Equity Act. That changes, what I've gathered from it is that it changes the role of the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission with regards to host community agreements. It changes our city's or all municipalities' role in terms of certain certain updates when it comes to marijuana establishments, businesses, changes, how some of the more financial aspects as well. And so I don't have a full picture of what exactly those changes look like, but I do think it would be helpful for our council to get a better picture of what those effects might look like. And it's a similar story for the Supreme Judicial Court's decision, which basically we got a recommendation to review our zoning and normal ordinances. with regards to marijuana and with regards to making sure that the criteria in that court case serves as a basis for an update. for our own legislation, that's a lot of work for us to do. And none of us here are legal experts or zoning experts on these issues. And so we really do need specific help in order to understand these two big changes to cannabis in Massachusetts. And we need the specific help to understand if we as a council have particular work that we need to do in response to these changes.
[Justin Tseng]: I find them in order and move to approve.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. First of all, thank you for coming. And I think shining some light on an issue that not, I mean, many of our residents might know about, but it's something that's so crucial to how our city runs and how our city functions. You are who we think about when we think of city services, the city of Medford, what our city is doing to you and the people in this audience tonight, who, you know, engage with the residents of our city, make the city work. And it's It's frankly frustrating that we are at this point and that you've had to, you've, you've come to this point. You know, it's, it's beginning to look like a pattern. what we've been hearing from you guys about the treatment of employees in the city and Councilor Collins and I are newer to this job but even us we've heard from city employees about the lack of morale, the lack of negotiations, the lack of good faith when it comes to just conversations and honesty about what's going on in the city. And I just, you know, my fellow councillors, I think have already stated it really well, but I do want to say, I very much support you guys. We as a council very much support you guys. And while we wish we could do more than our powers allow us to, we'll be here with you guys, fighting with you guys. And so I want you to know that you have a good ally in the city council.
[Justin Tseng]: I, I just want to reiterate the point we can't be retaliating against people I mean, of course, you know, we, the mayor's office is yet to say anything about this, and honestly we need transparency but we There's something, something's gotta, something's gotta change. I mean, we can't, we're not, we can't get the best city government we can by operating like this. And we have an election coming up in a few weeks, and it's just, without communicating why or what happened, I mean, it's really unacceptable.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tsai. First of all, I thank Vice President Barrios for introducing this. Two terms come to mind when I think about this. The first is fiscal sense or fiscal responsibility, and the second is transparency. When it comes to fiscal sense, I think, You know, we we need ours as a city we need a long term plan, we need to know what investments were making, and it's the most fiscally responsible thing we can do isn't to pass on problems for say we can't afford it, but but is to create a plan to afford the needs that we have in this community, and that starts by identifying the needs that are our budget needs and the deficit and understanding the deficit. When it comes to transparency, this not only helps us Councilors, it helps residents in the city. And, you know, it leads us to a point where we are better informed going into the budget process, where residents are better informed going into the budget process, and where we don't feel like we're being hoodwinked or cornered at the last minute.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think the two councilors said it well, this is about institutions playing their fair share. You might hear a lot about institutions doing this project or that project, and it is great for a community, but we are also at a point where a better pilot agreement, better, a fairer agreement would actually benefit our city much more.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Collins put it really well. Um, this is a motion of, um, recognition of thanks of gratitude. Um, I think this is particularly, um, I think meaningful to Medford because I know a lot of my friends and people young young folks in Medford know of a friend or a family member who has passed or is, um, is dealing with childhood cancer. And it's also particularly meaningful with the president's trip into Boston yesterday, where he made a speech about investing in cancer solutions. And this is the right time to put a spotlight on this. So thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: I think I'm Councilor bears and vice president mirrors. So get columns and vice president bears have have really have covered the most important points I mean it really shouldn't take this council badgering away at updates for on the web on the city website for him constituents emailing us all the time for updates I mean, these are things that we really should have department for some investment and resources for on. you know, we passed a similar, less comprehensive, I will say, but similar resolution a few months ago, and we're back here again. And, you know, it's honestly, we don't, this doesn't need to happen.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, sorry. Because we've already had a conversation about this, I won't go on too long of a tangent about this. We've talked about the need for the data that our city uses and reports to be more specific. That'll help us when it comes to, in the fiscal sense, when it comes to targeting resources, which we already know as a city, we're cash strapped. It'll also help us understand our own community better.
[Justin Tseng]: I believe the audio might not be working again. Yeah, I believe that we, those of us on zoom might not be able to hear you guys.
[Justin Tseng]: Can you hear us now? I can hear you guys now. I don't know what was said though. Yeah, I think there's some audio issues tonight from your end.
[Justin Tseng]: I wanted to echo similar sentiments to my colleagues. solicitors handling someone, you know, who, in my short time here on the city council, who has really helped me and understand the role. how city government works and understand what we should do, what we shouldn't be doing. And she's really an engine for helping us move forward our agenda and really helping our city deal with the problems it needs to deal with. So truly a presence that will be missed in City Hall and I wish the best for her going forward.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to state how excited I am for this project. I've known Mr. Heining since I was in high school, and all of us knew that he had a passion for this. But it's not just a passion for brewing, it's a passion for Medford. Throughout the development of this project, I think we've really seen his commitment to Medford as a community and his desire to really make sure that this is a Medford business run for Medford. in cooperation with different, you know, groups here. And I think that's something, you know, I think this is a project that we can all be part of as a community here. And I just know that so, so many people are so excited for this project. I think a lot of your former students are going to be there on week one waiting to, you know, give you a high five as you, as this project goes into place.
[Justin Tseng]: I also wanted to thank councilor Caraviello for putting this on the agenda. This is straightforward, it's logical, it's a modernization update that if we want to revive our businesses, if we want to help our restaurant industry, this is one of the steps that we can take. And I think it will also make Medford a more attractive place for people to come if there's more seating, if there's more availability, if there's more of a feeling of liveliness in our restaurants. and bars. Um, you know, this is exactly the type of steps steps that I think we need to take in the city. So I want wanted to thank my colleague.
[Justin Tseng]: I believe my comment was back to the main discussion. I just wanted to say that I believe that it seems possible that we, on the points that the date might be moved, that we can amend it. I believe Councilor Bears has done that. And we talked about the dollar amounts perhaps not being the right amounts, I believe that the best way to do that is to invite everyone, have a long, you know, a committee of them all about it, to have a discussion in the open, transparent forum where we can kind of talk about what makes sense, what doesn't make sense in front of everyone. And instead of, you know, just having people decide, you know, having, you know, some Councilors have to do the work and then place it on theirs. And I think putting it on, Now having that discussion in open forum, I think makes the most sense in terms of transparency, in terms of letting people know what we're doing and how we've come to dollar amounts. So I plan to vote in favor of the motion to move this to a committee vote.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. I just wanted to say that I thank you three for putting this on the agenda. I full-heartedly support this. I also thank Councilor Collins for bringing up the item that we worked on a few weeks ago, a few months ago. And I'm glad to see that we have a resolution here that will advance the scope even further and to make sure that we really are truly addressing this issue at the local level. Because President Morales is right that these fights are happening at every single level. And oftentimes we even see in the news that the, it can be a difference. The difference can be seen in local ordinances and oftentimes that's what really determines, you know, the outcome of these fights. And so I think it's absolutely necessary that we take the steps that we can as a city to protect the rights of our residents. I would also like to take this as an opportunity to to say, you know, we, we want to make sure that we're, you know, we welcome people who might not be able to get that treatment in other states, but can come have have the means to come to Medford, or just stay in Medford overnight. And, you know, it's important to affirm that support, I believe. And with, unfortunately, what will be an influx of people seeking care in Massachusetts, I also think it's time to call on our state and our state leaders to address a need for demand when it comes to reproductive services, reproductive health care. Because we're going to see increasing demand in our own state, and we want to make sure that everyone can get treatment. We that means we have to work on our own capacity as well. So, you know, we can we can imagine Massachusetts as a as a haven for reproductive health care, but we really do need to do more at the state level to to make sure that we can remain a haven for reproductive health care.
[Justin Tseng]: I believe that my colleagues have covered it pretty well, but you know, this is about accessibility. This is about improving our community. I think these are basic goals that all of us share.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. I think this is also fairly straightforward. You know, I mean, given our discussions after in the last two months, we know that we need to be applying for funds wherever we can. We need to be taking advantage of every single opportunity that we can. And so, you know, this is us being proactive. When it comes to vision zero when it comes to when it comes to vision zero you know that's something that our council has already supported on one of Councilor bears is vice president bears his motions back a few months ago. And I think the benefits of it are. extremely clear. And when it comes to mitigating the historic and ongoing impact of highway construction, you know, this is something that sociologists and a lot of researchers have said is one of the massive barriers to equity and has been one of the massive barriers to equity and equality in local communities, especially in suburban communities like ours. And so I think from an extra dimension, from an equity lens, this is another important part of this resolution.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. Um, we all have, I'm sure at this by this point we've all heard about the planned one month closure of the orange line, starting for August 19, I believe it goes until September 20. You know this this is a massive inconvenience for anyone who uses orange line. I used to growing up, I still use it to visit my parents. Many, many, many people use it for work, you know, Wellington is one of the most popular stations. And we have a lot of North Medford residents who use Malden Center Station as well. This is going to be a massive headache for many of our residents. I believe it's, you know, we all know how the MBTA is great at listening, but I believe that it is our job to push for as much as we can. The first part is a nod to the work that our Councilors have already done. the councillors who've come before me, and who are still with us today, have already done regarding the 325 326 and 710 the circumstances now are new. And so we should just push again, in my opinion. You know, there's also been a lot of concern about the number of shuttle buses, how many passengers they can take. The numbers that the MBTA has kind of suggested just don't line up with the MBTA's own data with regards to how many people ride the Orange Line on a daily basis. And this is going to be especially a huge problem for the primary election on September 6th, because it's going to force a lot of our voters to have to reconsider their plans and you know, they might not even be able to make it from work to vote. And so I think that's particularly an important point that should be made. Our federal officials, many federal officials, including our representatives and senators, have called for the elimination of subway and bus fares. especially noted that the Congress has given money for the MBT to use to for this purpose. And it's up to the MBT leadership to decide whether in the state leadership to decide whether they choose to take that route. I believe that this is something that would really benefit, at least mitigate some of the negative effects of, of the Orange Line closures. We also, the MBTA has announced that if you do hold a Charlie card, that you can show your Charlie card on a Purple Line train, a commuter rail train, and you can ride it for free as long as you're coming from them to a zone 1A, zone 1B, and zone 2 station. So for a lot of Medford residents, West Medford and North Station, West Medford and Malden Center are stations that they can get on trains with. And the MBTA has also said that the Haverhill line will stop at Malden Center during the closures. Um, and the last part of this is just to ask the city administration to, um, work with them be to try our best to work with the MBTA and to really. At the very least on our own end, um, expect that they're going to be increases in in car traffic and road traffic, given the closures and to see what we can do, um, to mitigate, uh, the negative effects and to make sure that, you know, traffic people can get to work as fast as possible.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, thank you, Vice President Bears. Um, as, as we know, the federal government recently declared monkey pox a health emergency, a public health emergency. I just, you know, people have been asking me what, um, what our government should do about it. I believe I have confidence that in our board of health, but you know, in the spirit of reducing panic in the spirit of, you know, making, making sure our lives go, go on as normal. I think it would be helpful for for us as a city council and for residents to know what our city strategy is regarding both both addressing the public health emergency but also. how we're going to communicate that strategy.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Erin DiBenedetto was one of my mentors growing up. You know, I think the other Councilors have put very well, you know, her service to the city. I'm excited to see that she's continuing to serve, choosing to continue to serve our community. I wish I could be there in person to see her, to give her a hug, but I'm happy to support her from my room and not to pass on my cough.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Madam President. I know this is a serious debate. This is, you know, this is This is a topic about which I've received dozens and dozens and dozens of emails and calls over the last few weeks, including during budget season. And I think more importantly than all the messages that I've received, I live both sides of this debate. My parents are homeowners in the city, they've invested in the city. I recently graduated from the Medford Public Schools. I know what the budget cuts look like. And I know what the tightness of the money looks like. And I've been on the doorsteps, and I've been asked to campaign, and they've been asked to improve our roads, improve our schools, do X, Y, Z. But the fact of the matter is something I've learned while in this office is we don't even have a bare bones budget. Our budget cuts through the bone. We can talk about a lean government, we can talk about a fiscally responsible government, we can talk about a government that only serves the basics, but we aren't even there yet. And when we asked the mayor for a plan, what we heard was, we don't really have a plan, next year will be worse. The only way we can, and the implication is the only way we can get out of this mess is to advance difficult, politically difficult ideas. It's not on my wish list to raise taxes in the city. No one likes it. No one likes it. And it's a political risk to do it anyways. But I think we need to step up and lead and trust the people with this decision. I think, you know, we've heard a lot about cutting spending and new growth. The fact is, when we look at all the proposals of things that we could cut in the city budget, it doesn't get anywhere close to $12 million. The only way we can get to that $12 million, as Vice President Bears said, is to lay off very essential staff in our city. And even with the budget that we have now, even if we didn't have to cut, we are already losing important members of our staff. We're already unable to fill very important positions in city government that every other city government in our region has. When we talk about new growth, I think all seven of our Councilors here and everyone in city government is behind new growth in our city. We want to see us grow our commercial tax base, and we want this to be the first path that we use. But the fact of the matter is, because of practicality, even if we have all that new growth immediately, even if we were to sign all these deals tomorrow, we wouldn't be able to get out of the budget crunch that we're going to see for the next year, two years, three years. because it takes years for a building to be built. It takes years for those investments to be made. I understand that this is coming at a very tough time for everyone. And I understand that inflation is, you know, an issue that really does hit everyone. I mean, you look at the gas prices, you look at food, you know, it's evidence, right? But these investments are long-term investments that will reap benefits, financial benefits to homeowners and to renters alike, to everyone in our city. And, you know, if we fix our roads, that means we don't have to spend as much on maintenance. We don't have to, you know, we might not have to spend the, you know, spend the money that I did recently on fixing a flat, right? These savings matter. These savings matter. And this investment, you know, in my personal opinion, comes at a difficult time. I wish it didn't come at this time, but is, you know, an investment that I personally think is worth it. But I think that whole point doesn't get at the heart of the issue that actually is in front of us tonight. The issue that's actually in front of us tonight is whether we send this to the voters, whether we trust the voters with this ask. I believe that if you're a yes on this, if you're a no on this, as a councilor, it's our social responsibility to trust the voters with the final decision. I don't want to impose my views on the voters. And if the voters decide differently than I do, then so be it. I trust the voters. And I think the same works the vice, vice versa. If, you know, if Councilors don't like, don't like this idea, leave it to the voters, trust the voters to decide. That's my personal view, because I think, you know, this is a, this is a time where we really need to trust in our residents and we need to really trust in our democracy. And this is, the fairest, the most neutral path forward, you know, put aside my own personal views on this issue. And if I were, you know, coming at it from a completely neutral standpoint, the only fair decision, in my opinion, is to send this to the voters and to trust them with the final decision. I hope, you know, I know that many of our residents here tonight are not going to agree with me on what I just said. I know that, you know, Many will never agree or never come around to our viewpoint, but I hope that you understand where I'm coming from, as I try to understand where everyone comes from. I hope that we can speak earnestly and honestly about this issue, and I hope that we can compromise a little bit and find reasonable solutions out of this budget crunch, out of this revenue crisis. So thank you so much.
[Justin Tseng]: Well, yeah, sure.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. This is pretty self-explanatory. We talk about curb appeal, we talk about beautification. This is something that we can do to make Medford look better, but also to make Medford safer, especially for drivers and pedestrians who use Wellington Circle. There are street lights that are knocked down, signs that have been not down and not replaced. And I'd like us to do our best to contact our state agencies, because that's who owns that land, to make sure that they are fixing those signs and making sure that Wellington Circle not only looks good, but is safe for everyone.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. Councilor Knight was so kind as to let me know about some updates about the situation at Wellington Station. And in particular about people who have no place to stay, who stay there overnight. And you wanted us, Councilor Knight wanted us to be careful with how we worded this resolution. So I'm proposing a slight amendment. I'll email this to the clerk right after I speak, but I'll just read it out right now so you have it. I'd like to amend it to be it so resolved that the Medford City Council ask the MBTA to remove signage debris and replace signage from Wellington Station grounds. Be it further resolved that the Medford City Council ask the city administration to provide social service help to those in need living at the Wellington Station grounds. And be it further resolved that the Medford City Council ask the MBTA to find local artists to beautify the Wellington Station grounds. Again, this is a resolution that's similar to the last one. We just want to make sure that we improve our curb appeal, improve beautification, make Medford look better, but also make sure that we have the right signage for all of her.
[Justin Tseng]: The resolution basically describes what this program is. This is something that our state government has put into place that I think could benefit the groups that are mentioned in this resolution. You know, we talk about food security, we talk about food access. This is one of the things that could help increase access to healthy food in our community.
[Justin Tseng]: I just want to make the point, it's not necessarily that we're, you know, opposed to something, it's a procedure problem. It's a, we just can't, we can't amend a money paper.
[Justin Tseng]: Exactly, right.
[Justin Tseng]: Correct.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I didn't speak too much today because I wanted to make sure the public had a chance to speak, and I didn't want to belabor too many points. I wanted to come before you all here today and tell you about how our city really dreamed big and how we created a budget that really combined ambition and actionability. But unfortunately, these last two weeks of budget hearings have been grim. Lack of transparency and lack of revenue means that we've been put in a difficult last-minute budget crisis. Um, and we are we on the council are just as frustrated as you residents are. We keep hearing that this is a pandemic problem. But the reality is that we're two and a half years to a pandemic that's affected every single city in this Commonwealth and Medford and yet Medford is unique in facing a crisis like this. In the past few months that I've been on city council, I've worked particularly hard to foster a friendly and cooperative environment, especially with the mayor's office. And I've worked hard to recognize shared priorities, the housing production plan, the comprehensive plan, climate action plan, improving diversity and equity. And I've worked very hard to operate in good faith, taking you know, even taking some pretty difficult votes, which mainly supported the mayor's priorities. I've tried to be reasonable and open-minded with the red lines and requests, making sure that they're, you know, they are actionable, they are achievable. And over the last few weeks, I've asked future-focused questions about our department's plans and ambitions to improve our city, And the answer through our many, many hours of meetings is clear. We have volunteers, we have employees, and we have department heads who are flush with ideas about how we can improve city services, and how we can lift up the standards of living, and how we can ensure that Medford is safe, just, and inclusive. But the true Grim Reaper that we face is not a city unwilling to move forward. The true Grim Reaper we face are budgets that box us in. which is unfortunately what is on the agenda tonight. I understand where the mayor's coming from, I understand that this was a difficult budget to put together. And I thank the mayor for calling for calling me today and for talking through my concerns. you know, we're elected to make difficult choices. I've been, I haven't slept more than five hours a night since the beginning of the month. But, you know, for the sake of transparency, I do want, I can't conscionably vote yes on this budget. you know, there's just some of the simple priorities, right, that we on the council have been talking about, and those on the school committee have asked as basic asks. And, you know, this budget doesn't even really delve into the more ambitious concerns about investments in true community safety, the expanding translation programs, veterans programming, etc. Those of you who've tuned into city council meetings before know that at the end of the day, when they take a difficult vote, there's really one question, there's one litmus test for me. And that question is, does this improve the lives of the residents of our city? You know, the answer tonight is regrettably no. I don't think this budget as it is would help the longtime resident for whom our roads and sidewalks now pose a challenge to accessibility. It wouldn't help the veteran or the new college student coming home who can't afford to settle down here in their hometown. And it wouldn't help the renter who's facing an eviction notice. It wouldn't necessarily help the parent and child who are catching up on elementary math after two years of the pandemic. and it wouldn't help the black, brown, or Asian people in our city who are facing threats of safety and violence. We as a council, we're ready for the difficult conversations to get our city back on track. And perhaps most importantly, we are ready, and at least personally speaking, I'm excited to work with the city administration to find a way forward. But the clock is ticking. We have little time to solve a financial conundrum. We're, you know, I think everyone's expressed this we just don't we it sucks we don't want to be in this position, but. The measures that we've had to take are the only tools that we have as a city council to try to get a budget that's even better for our city. This is our only chance for us to build that more ambitious city that we want. Again, many of this administration's stated goals and plans are plans that I support and wish to see come true. but these plans will remain mere wishes if we don't have the tools to put them into action. And that's what I'm asking for. Simple, low cost tools that will let us advance our shared priorities. I hope in the next few days that we can all work together to get ourselves out of the situation and to advance our shared priorities and goals. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: It's one I'll keep it simple. Thank you for coming back. And thank you for listening.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I think it's important to reiterate this, you know, this by no means solves our revenue crisis, by no means solves our needs deficit, but it's not just a win for the council, this is a win for affordable housing, it's a win for libraries, for schools. I'm glad we were able to get some work done tonight.
[Justin Tseng]: I think what this council wants and what constituents are demanding is that we, as a city have better long term planning have more accountability you know these are basic standards of city government or of any government. And so I'm going to keep it simple, simple, I support this wholeheartedly. And, you know, these are resolutions that will really help I think. will really set us on a course forward towards the, you know, towards a better budget in the future and to make sure that we're not caught so last minute in the future. So I thank you for putting this on the agenda tonight.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor bears, this is a response to the public participation that we heard last week. And, frankly, to also for free for feedback that I've been receiving that I'm and seeing online. in my email and on Facebook that the MBTA redesign plan has, you know, there's still a lot of people who are left out of the current communication plan, especially those living in senior living facilities and in nursing homes. And, you know, these are people who might have to use the MBTA bus services or who have people visiting them who use MBTA bus services. And so they deserve just as with anyone else to, you know, to be able to give feedback to this bus redesign network bus network redesign plan. And so this is a simple resolution to ask the MBTA to communicate with those living in Medford, who might not have had that chance to hear about the back to the plane yet.
[Justin Tseng]: This is, again, something that we heard from on public participation and something that I know it's been of concern to a lot of residents, we want to make sure that you know when the city is communicating information. you don't have to have a computer or you don't have to have access to the internet to get that information. We want to make sure that no one's being left out of our messaging campaigns and no one's not receiving information. And so this is another simple resolution to ask the DEI director to make sure that our city communications are being inclusive. And I think this is something that completely matches with her goals that she was telling the council when she was before us.
[Justin Tseng]: I think Councilor Collins laid out to us what we hear on the doorsteps when we campaign every two years, which is that We want our residents want basic services above all and that's what they expect from the city they expect us to be addressing our schools they expect us to be addressing our roads and our potholes, and it's upsetting that us Councilors are have to be the ones to deliver the bad news that We have a government that isn't addressing the fiscal crisis in front of us that is necessary to deal with first in order for us to provide the services that our residents deserve. To not talk about the budget crisis in front of us today would be fiscal irresponsibility. To not talk about these problems that Vice President Bears has presented would be either incompetence or indifference. And this council, I know for sure, will not stand for that. We are out of time. Vice President Sparrows' presentation was not a halftime speech. It was a Hail Mary prayer that our executive leadership shows the boldness and the courage to be honest about our finances. This is us down 10 points with five seconds left to go in the game. But we cannot be fearful of the moment. We need to be brave and we need to rise up to it. And we need to have the difficult conversations to do this and the tools to let us do this. If we wanna grow revenue, if we want to increase new growth in this community, we will need a zoning consultant as Councilor Knight has talked about, to increase our commercial tax base and to increase our housing in the city. Without giving us this tool, we, not only us, but the people of Medford are being set up to fail. If we don't talk realistically and honestly about a Prop 2.5 override to meet, to reduce our structural deficit, because there's no more room to cut, and because next year might even be worse, if we don't have that conversation, we are doing our constituents no favors. There's no more time for distractions. There's just no more time for distractions. Handing us sheets of paper two minutes before a budget meeting, that's not seriousness about fiscal issues. I as a Councilor and Councilor Collins has talked about this and I know every single one of us here today. We are ready to work with the mayor's office to make sure that our city survives this budget crisis. This long term fiscal conundrum. We are ready. And many of us in all of us. All of us have acted in good faith with the city. We have tried over and over again to engage the mayor's administration when it comes to finances, when it comes to shared priorities, we've even taken difficult votes to advance the mayor's priorities, even when it came to community backlash. Because we believe that working together, that collaborative spirit that Vice President Bears is talking about, we believe that by moving ahead together on our shared priorities, Medford will win. And that's exactly what we have to do now. We have to have that collaborative spirit. We have to bring back that collaboration, that cooperation, and that trust. We need to have that honest conversation about where our city is headed, what we want our city to look like, and how exactly policy-wise we're going to get that vision implemented. Or else, as Councilor Collins alluded to and as our mayor loves to say that vision without a plan, really just does become a hallucination. No one wants to be in this position that we're in today. I don't want to be here. I know all my Councilors don't want to be here. I know the mayor doesn't want to be here. But if we are to be the adults in the room, we need to face our situation face forward. We need to not shy away and we need to address the real challenges that we have before us. And we need to not make up excuses for this, because we can't just pin this on the pandemic or say that other cities are like this, because that's just not true. It's just not true. Thank you, President Morell.
[Justin Tseng]: I find them in order and I move to approve.
[Justin Tseng]: I wanted to thank Councilor Knight for putting this on agenda for me I'm just kidding. I wanted to thank you for putting this on agenda for for all of our students in Medford who are graduating with the class of 2022. As, as a member of the class of 2022 I think I can say myself that the last few years have not been easy. No one wants to do school via zoom. It's, if we're up to everyone you know we We, the last two and a half years of the pandemic wouldn't have happened, but, you know, this class adapted to it. It persevered. It dealt with the consequences of Zoom school. And, you know, I have to say they did it marvelously. I was at the high school recently for the CCSR, the Center for Citizenship and Social Responsibilities project there. where they introduced a bunch of us to the projects that they were working on and to see the leadership of our senior class at Medford High School, at Medford Voc, at Curtis Tufts. And when it comes to community service, when it comes to giving back to our community, it is truly inspirational. And I think it's, you know, the perseverance and the values of the class of 2022 are something that even us as adults in society can learn from. And truly, I think it lends, I think lends some gravitas to the idea that we should have students that inspire us in this, aspire to be great. And truly, I think this class has done it.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. The Pride Month is a month of celebration for our LGBTQ plus community here in Medford. It's a month where members of our community can feel open to celebrate their identities, open to be bold about who they are and be truthful to themselves. Our city this year is putting on a month-long celebration of Pride with tons of programming, which I suggest that our residents check out online. The Pride Planning Committee in particular, I think, deserves some commendation for the amount of work and planning that they've put towards our Pride Month celebration. I think this resolution is our little bit here on City Council to celebrate.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm thinking of certain night for putting this on the agenda I want to set second this motion, the motion to approve. You know, Councilor Knight touched on it, but we do have a little bit of an information disconnect in our community. And I think this is one of many ways, but a great way that we can start to bridge that divide in our community. Everyone uses our parks, right? If you go there for walks, new residents, longtime residents, everyone uses it. To have that as a medium for us to disseminate information, I think would be very useful and very helpful.
[Justin Tseng]: I agree with my fellow fellow Councilors that this has to be a top priority for our council. I think, as my fellow Councilors alluded to, we're already seeing the effects of not having moved on this quick enough. You know, we need in a lot of that's due to the lack of resources that we find ourselves with, you know, with the attitude that we're supposed to be passing one ordinance a year, you know, that's just not reality and the funding that we have for you know, for legal help does not does not, you know, may makes us have to pick and choose, but I agree with my colleagues that this has to be pushed to the front of the agenda. This is something that I think many of us ran on in the last election, it's something that we had definitely, we have a very clear mandate for and I think something that our residents in our city are begging for.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. This is a proactive measure that we can take to protect our most vulnerable populations, given developing political trends in other states. And, you know, I think this response to a very likely what if, if you know, young, long-time Medford resident moves out of state and comes back here for this type of care, you know, this offers them that peace of mind, that safety that they would want. This is something that is very actionable because we already have draft language, and we would be joining a community of Boston-area cities and towns that are putting this into action, and I wouldn't want Medford to miss out on it. The draft language I was told recently also includes reproductive health care and protection for those seeking reproductive health care, which we know now is at stake in our country, very unfortunately. And so I would also motion to amend after the references to gender affirming care, just to add in, and reproductive health care in this resolution. The most important message I can say about this resolution is that this is a way to level, let us as a council and as a city, live our values and celebrate our values that we affirmed earlier tonight with the resolution celebrating Pride Month. We, as a community Medford stands for stands for everyone. we stand against bigotry and we stand for peace of mind and safety. And, um, you know, this isn't these questions are matters of public health. They're matters of community safety. And, um I think this would be an important resolution for us to take on tonight.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, they're done. I know you really do care. I really I know you really do care because Jack, who you know, I want to get into anything personal.
[Justin Tseng]: All right, but but but the The, the issue at matter here isn't isn't what you're saying at all I mean it's, there's not making it will be it will be I'm telling you what our city is not going to pass an order telling people to be transgender.
[Justin Tseng]: Is that the best way to explain this 100 we should just mind our business right right this is about getting government out of people's personal lives. It's about letting families and doctors make their own decision. And it is a right-wing talking point to say that people who are 12, 13, 14 are getting sex changes. That's a right-wing talking point because that's not the case with what's happening in our country right now. It's just not true. It's just not happening. It's a made-up fiction. to get people scared about these issues.
[Justin Tseng]: We don't have time for it.
[Justin Tseng]: We don't have time for it. We don't have money for it. And this is basically just saying, you know, it's not our business. It's not our place in government.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, you know, our city website is in need of updates and repair. Um, I think that's evident, evident to everyone using the city website. I think this is this is a way for us to start chipping away at the at the at the outdated information on there, and if we chip away, hopefully we can fix the most glaring problems on the city website. Right now, I was helping someone do some research into our COVID-19 policies, and in the FAQ section, it's just completely outdated. I think the information is from probably October of 2020, which is almost two years ago. And there's, as I said at the budget meeting, there's a lot of outdated information about where masks should be worn, a lot of outdated information about what's open for visitor entry, what's closed, what the city's policies are, the case count, everything. And so I think it would, in the interest of transparency and open communication, if the city can prepare an update to the COVID-19 information section and FAQ section, that would be very helpful.
[Justin Tseng]: If I could, Councilor Tseng. I, you know, I am one of the newer Councilors here, so I haven't had the pleasure to work with Commissioner Moki as much as the rest of my colleagues have, but in the committee meetings that we have had with them, Commissioner Moki has always been a vital resource to us as a council and someone who's brought a wealth of knowledge and who has really helped us shape the work that we do here. And so I just wanted to congratulate Commissioner Moki on his retirement.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell, and thank you for putting this on the agenda. Essentially h 1234, you know what what it does is it makes a bad situation worse by enshrining it as Councilor Collins said into law. If you, if you know, you know, an Uber driver. Personally, many of my friends and family friends, drive for Uber or Lyft, you know the working situations are great. you, you'll know that, um, you know, they've, they have been tricked, as Councilor Caraville have said and the rhetoric that these big corporations are using doesn't reflect their actual lived reality on the ground. And by institutionalizing by legalizing it. It makes a bad situation worse. If if h 1234 goes through and I encourage people to read the body of the text of this resolution. You know, drivers might make as little as for $4 82 cents per hour, and those who qualify for a health care site that may earn as little as 674 per hour. When we have people making those amounts. You know that also puts a strain on our, on our city's resources, and it puts a strain on our, our society as well, because we'll have to do more to as a government to fill in this hole that big corporations are leaving for us. We also you know we spend a lot of time talking, both in the chambers and outside of the chambers about equity, but you know, h 1234 and the, the ballot proposition on the proposed the ballot proposition would would you know would reverse all the good work that we are doing as a society when it comes to insurance equity. This House bill would create an underclass of workers here in Massachusetts that is disproportionately black or brown and disproportionately immigrant, disproportionately working class, disproportionately veterans, and you know, this is, this is all things that we should be concerned about as a city and things that affect us in our work is as a city council. And so, you know, I, I urge everyone to do your research on this issue to read this resolution and not and not to be tricked by the big corporations that are running ads on TV, and on YouTube that you see all the time. And I think, again I think President moral for putting this on the agenda because it's just so important that we address this.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. Essentially, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a few weeks ago in a case called Shurtleff v. City of Austin that the city has to be careful when it comes to approving or denying what flags can go up on government property. Essentially, the most important lessons for us is that we either have to have a stated policy where we say that our flagpoles and our places for banners on city property constitute governmental speech, or we just have to allow everyone to essentially be able to apply and use those platforms for speech. You know, a lot of this has to be done through our law department, our legal department, they'll have to be the ones looking at looking at the policies but I think it would be good for our city for our city council to be updated and to be able to have a voice in terms of what policies are being developed in response to the shortlist decision. And so this is just a simple resolution asking the city administration to give us an update as to what it's doing in this case, before we get into any legal trouble.
[Justin Tseng]: I, I'm sure many many residents of the city of have now seen the bus network redesign proposal, but I wanted to put this on the agenda so that we got this the word out to you the more people. These are redesigns that would really impact every single neighborhood in Medford. Every single bus route has been affected in Medford and the service will change as well. I've seen residents who have. both positive and negative impressions about this plan. I think it's important to say that this plan is not yet final, and that the MBTA is still soliciting feedback. And, you know, in the past, They haven't always been receptive to the feedback of the council and to residents, we've, I know this, I know the previous council and the Councilors here today have fought very hard for the 325 and 326 to be service for those two bus routes to be restored in Medford. Unfortunately, that's not in this plane. you know, we just need to keep pushing, you know, and it's the only thing that we can do right now. And so if our residents are informed of the proposed changes, if they're informed of the feedback survey and ways to participate in giving feedback, that will push us a step further in trying to get the bus service that we want and we deserve here in Medford. I also attached language in there about having the subcommittee on climate sustainability and transportation, having that committee meet the draft feedback because I think feedback from a council will be what is valuable and will be at a different platform than, you know, if we were just to give feedback separately. I'd be, if there are other councillors who'd want to participate in this meeting, I'd be happy to amend that language as well. But I think this is an opportunity for us to be proactive and to take action on something that will affect a lot of residents in the city. And I wanted to also let residents know that there will be in-person sessions to give feedback As well, it's also on the MBTA website. I'm in the same place where you can find the feedback survey for the dates and times of that meetings of those meetings, and those meetings will run until the end of July.
[Justin Tseng]: The Haitian community is significant here, and they've, they've done a lot to move our city forward, especially as our city is doing better now to to engage with our Haitian community here in Medford through the Haitian Community Task Force. And I wanted to commend their efforts too, and their successful event on Saturday that Councilor Rivera mentioned, which I was able to attend. I believe there's a flag raising later this week as well, which members of our community are welcome to attend. All, you know, all of our communities are important to us. And I think it's, I think the city council is very, you know, a champion of, of inclusivity and a champion of inclusive measures. Earlier in our session, we as a city council passed a resolution supporting Haitian migrants in Medford, which actually through a collaboration with neighboring cities actually did have an effect in changing their administration policies. which the Biden administration stated, and I'm proud of our council's work in the last few months to make sure that we are making Medford a home for everyone, and our Haitian community is part of that.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I was just also going to mention, you know, during my time here, during the session, we've passed countless resolutions on DCR property, you know, trying to get it clean, trying to get things fixed, trying to make things more accessible, more friendly to residents. It is certainly frustrating to see the lack of response from the DCR. And because of the structures, you know, the institutional structures, the accountability is just not there right now. I thank Vice President Bears for introducing this because I think this is one of the ways that we can leverage our power as a city council and as the city of Medford to try to get the DCR to do better and to do more for our city.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Madam President. I just had two quick questions. The first one was, you had mentioned that a lot of these red sites are places with high traffic, for example, with schools, with commercial centers. Does the green line coming in change any of the prioritization for the sidewalks?
[Justin Tseng]: Great, thank you. And the second short question was, how did we get to the loan order amount of 1 million? I mean, was it just because we had done it in the past or?
[Justin Tseng]: No worries. I just asked because, you know, in times of inflation, it is actually wise to borrow more. And because, because of how inflation works. And so I was I was just saying, the point I wanted to make was, if we're in the same economic situation next year, nationally, with high inflation, it might be worth borrowing more. If, if we're in a similar situation, of course, the ideal is to have it in the city budget and to plan ahead. But That was the point I wanted to make. I also wanted to just state my kind of view on this issue. You know, I think it's clear that we need greater investment in our infrastructure in the city and I think there's wide political consensus for that. I think that this means bring things in house, so that we are creating better jobs, so that we are creating a system that's more reliable and a system that's more accountable for City Council to hold to hold our city accountable. I think ultimately this is an issue of accessibility it's an issue of, of equity for different neighborhoods. As we can see on that map different neighborhoods have have fallen behind when it comes to infrastructure. um coming over to the city council meeting we saw tons of young people especially using our sidewalk and as a young person you know who just graduated from medford high you know oftentimes we walk from the high school to medford square and you know these are these are routes that we take to go home and it's important that um we all you know we keep that safe and it's not just young people using of course all of our um residents use our sidewalks so i think it's important um that we get started now and i think that's the point that you two are trying to make is You know, there's a big challenge ahead of us, but it's really important that we start now, and that we make the investments that will make people's lives tangibly better today. And that's usually, you know, that's the metric I use to determine my votes is, will this vote make residents' lives better? And I think you two have created a very compelling presentation as to why that is the case. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: The director mentioned in response to Councilor Caraviello-Villa's question that you guys might be looking at getting an in-house grinder. Do you know what the timeline on that might look like? Would that be something within the next year, within a few years?
[Justin Tseng]: Great, and that would that would also affect the which roads go out for which sidewalks go first right because yeah. Okay, great.
[Justin Tseng]: Great, thank you so much. I think this presentation, you know, in addition to answering our questions, also answers a bunch of questions from viewers at home. A lot of folks at home are watching, and I think, you know, your presentation was very well put together, very compelling, and thank you for coming to City Council today.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm not complaining.
[Justin Tseng]: I understand the concerns, but I think I'm of a similar mind when it comes to this issue as my colleagues, Councilor Collins and Councilor Bears. I think it's important that our boards and commissions look at like our community and know, unfortunately, it is a fact that our, you know, the majority of our community doesn't vote in municipal elections. And it's important to get the answer why. And it's important to see why people who maybe moved to Medford in the last 10 years, maybe why, just to see why they haven't why turnout might not be as high, right, with that specific subset. Or why, you know, why turnout isn't as high in general with anyone who lives in Medford but is registered to vote here. I think it's important to have that perspective. I think it'll make our city stronger in this case. And, you know, it's my hope that we have more residents like, um, like the candidate that we're talking about tonight where, you know, they've decided to put down roots in our city and they've decided to sign up to participate more deeply and engage more deeply with our civic life. Um, and I think in order to have, um, residents like that, we need models, um, and we need to support those models when they, when they try to engage with our democratic process. And so, um, I'm okay with appointing with convert with voting to confirm this appointment tonight, because I think it's important to show those who want to get more involved in our city's politics and cities affairs that they'll be supported when they try to do so.
[Justin Tseng]: President Marlowe.
[Justin Tseng]: Could I?
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I want to clarify that when I said that our applicants should look like our community, it's, you know, when I say things like that, it's not just racial, it's everything, right? It's about your life experience and whether it matches the experiences of the people who live on the ground here. And if we're, I agree with Councilor Bears, if we're excluding 65% of our population from being considered equal participants in our civic processes, I think that logic is faulty. I think it's important to understand that voting, you know, while I think for a lot of people does take 30 seconds for, for many people takes a lot of planning as to, you know, whether to leave a workplace, right. To take a day off of work, whether you need to.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Councilor. I vote too. Right. And I, I'm a student, I spend the whole day on campus on Tuesdays, right? On election days, taking classes and doing work and doing meetings, right? But everyone's situation is different. And I think it's too much for us to make an assumption about the difficulties that someone might encounter when it comes to making a vote. So I think it's just, we shouldn't speculate too much on that.
[Justin Tseng]: Madam President, I have a guest who wants to speak on 22, who's behind the poll for 22-350.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. The lag is making things confusing.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. This agenda item was inspired by the Harvard Youth Poll, which just came out a few weeks ago. I will let I believe the chair of the Harvard Youth Poll is on the Zoom call tonight, so I will let him talk a little bit about the poll itself and how they came to these questions and conclusions. But these results very much line up with my experience talking to young people living in Medford, both those in our school system and those who graduated and are just, you know, young residents of our city. We live in a difficult time today, of course, with problems exacerbated by COVID, by inflation, by economic worries that cause young people to face more mental health challenges now than they have in years past. And a lot of the Um, attempts to resolve this have not been successful. I want to see, I want to make sure that our city is moving forward on these items is, uh, is making sure that all of our residents feel included and involved in our city. Um, and to, to let, um, our young people here have people that they can turn to. Um, and places that they can turn to, um, to help them, uh, to help them grow and to help them thrive in terms of living in the city. Um, Medford is a city that's younger than the county average than the state average. And so these results, I think, have tremendous implications for us. Just walking through the resolution itself, I included the first part of the resolution, which asks the city administration and the public school system to study youth mental health in our city, because I believe that, you know, every city is different. Every municipality is different. And for us to tackle Medford's problems, we will also need to know what is going on in our city better. I've actually had school committee members reach out to me and want to cooperate on this issue. And so I'm optimistic that we can make progress on these issues going forward. The second part of the resolution is asking our public health and community safety commission to meet and to invite relevant city officials, to invite experts, to invite youth leaders, to invite those working at Tufts and Harvard who have been studying this issue for a very long time, to help us as a city council see what is actionable and what what are the steps that our city can take when it comes to those, especially when it comes to those young residents who fall outside of the public schools purview. I'm thinking especially of our residents who are from the ages of 18 to 29, and to see what are some basic steps that our city can take to improve the mental health of young people living here. And this itself will lead to both a more prosperous and more thriving community, but also safer community as well, where we're openly discussing mental health and openly discussing things that will make our streets in our city safer. I'll finish my comments there. I believe after any Councilors want to say anything, the chair of the Harvard Public Union Project is with us tonight.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. This is pretty self-explanatory, but Medford is home to a sizable Jewish community, Jewish American community. We, of course, have Temple Shalom, but we have many Jewish Americans who call Medford home, even outside of that congregation. And I thought it was important to make them feel seen. I've gotten, throughout the campaign and while I've been in office, have gotten calls about issues relevant to, you know, Jewish Americans, Jewish Methodians being, feeling seen in our community. I'm talking about incidents at schools and on the streets where perhaps we could do more to address these issues. And I think this is important first step for us and a positive first step too, in the name of celebration.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng, Thank you, President Morell, this is another short and simple one. Again, Medford is home to a very large Asian American community. This is a month, again, to celebrate the heritage and the contributions of Asian Americans to our society, including two Medfords. um, life here, civic life here. Um, and again, making people feel seen is a is an important first step to making sure our community is inclusive as is as inclusive as possible.
[Justin Tseng]: I also wanted to speak because I didn't speak before the public participation section. I mean, very similar sentiments to Councilor bears. First, I am, you know, I think our debate has been reasonable, reasonable and our debate has been polite and civil, and I think this is you know, this is the path I want to see our city embracing when it comes to talking about controversial issues like this. Um, I do, you know, the way I view this issue is, I like Councilor where's I have to think about what the best way we can make change in Medford is, and in my experience, even though it's short. it's through subcommittee work we've gotten so much work done there. We've gotten so we've, we've gotten around so many disagreements and we've converged on a lot of stances we've asked the hard questions, and that time in the subcommittee meeting allows us to do much more. And it allows us to go deeper into the details, which I think is what ultimately will benefit the residents of our city. I think there's an opportunity cost to this. to not taking this decision as well. I think we, we, we lose out. If we don't vote yes tonight because, in my opinion, because we were throwing away a chance to operate more efficiently and a chance to operate better. And we're in this is a mode of operation that many communities around us. take. And so we're not reinventing the wheel here, we're just doing something that has worked for many, and something that we believe that will work for us, and if it doesn't work, we'll own the consequences and I'd be happy to revert back to our previous structure. But I do believe that this structure is worth trying, and it's worth a shot. Um, I also wanted to clear up some, I think, some narratives that might not completely reflect, um, you know the the actual debate that the actual item that we're talking about when when when we, when we hear that we're cutting meetings in half that's just not true. We're meeting the same amount if not more. We're spending our time meeting in different formats, right, because we believe that those different formats will be more conducive to pushing more legislation out of the council to help to help us actually address issues that will tangibly improve the life of the lives of our citizens in our residents here in Medford. Um, we Councilor Collins. Last time we discussed this also put on an on an amendment that would have us meet throughout the summer. And that in itself, actually increases the amount of time that we are spending doing our jobs as city Councilors. And so, really, we, if anything, we are increasing the amount of work that we that we're taking on, and we're we're charging into it headfirst and optimistic. we'll be reflective and we'll be accepting of the consequences. But my morals tell me that as a Councilor, I have to vote for what I think is right. And again, like I've always said, it would trouble me to not vote for something that I think could be a positive change. And if it ends up being a change that we might need to reverse, then we'll own that decision. But to me, I'll accept the consequences because I'm optimistic that the benefits will be worth it. And it's in my moral code to vote for it. But I do understand where the other side is coming from on this debate. I understand. You know, I've said in meetings past that I found those points compelling as well and it was a difficult debate for me, myself to weigh. But this is where I come, this is the conclusion I've come to. And I, like, like Councilor Bears and like other councillors on different sides of this issue of have said, I think we have to agree to disagree, and then reflect in a few months or in a year, and, and see where we're at.
[Justin Tseng]: My name is Justin Tseng. I'm from Medford, Massachusetts. I am in the class of 2022, and I study social studies and East Asian studies. Growing up in Medford is actually a very rewarding experience because I find Medford very salt of the earth. It's also very diverse. And so you grow up with people who, neighbors who look different from you and who have different lived experiences from you. That I think really broadens our world perspective. And so that's why I decided to run for office is because I think that that lived experience is super important for our politicians and our leaders to know about and to take into account when they're creating policy for a city. Even if I wasn't going to win the election, it was important for me to step in there to try my best to shape the conversation. As a Councilor, you have these priorities when you're writing for office and they don't really change, right? They're still core issues to me. But then you have the daily issues at City Hall, legal services or budgeting, the services we provide for our residents. And so for me, the way to kind of marry these two sets of priorities is to really apply the issues that I've run on as a lens to the daily workings of City Hall. When it comes to racial justice and racial equity, for me it's about seeing, you know, what is the city doing now in terms of providing services and how can we make those services more equitable. I decided to run NOW as a student because I really think that I can bring a lens to the issue, a perspective on the issue, that really takes advantage of the now. I looked in the mirror and I realized if we didn't take advantage of the moment in terms of responding to climate change, in terms of responding to racial justice issues in Medford, I would feel like we missed an opportunity there. As we all know, we are facing a climate emergency, not only in our city, but this is a problem that affects every single one of us. For the next two years that I'm in office, increasing the everyday quality of life is really on top of my mind. How can we, in the next two years, tangibly improve our school system? And how can we relieve that financial pressure off of our families when it comes to paying rent and being pushed out of our city? My hope is that in the next two years, we'll be able to address some of these issues. The truth is, change takes a while, but I'm optimistic that we're heading in the right direction.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: Found them in order and I move for approval.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, thank you, President Morell. Um, this is a pretty self explanatory motion. Um, Ramadan is a month of joy for a lot of for our Muslim community here in Medford. It's a month where Muslims reflect on their lives where they celebrate values of service, community service, giving compassion. It's a holiday. Um, that's most known for its fasting, but this is something that I think Muslim members of our community take as a moment of joy in their year. And so, because there are so many Muslim members of our community, I found this appropriate. And given, you know, what might be decades long, discrimination and a feeling that they're not seen in our community. I think this resolution is offered in the spirit of diversity. It's motions like this make people feel more welcome and feel more like a part of our community. So I'm asking for the council support.
[Justin Tseng]: Second.
[Justin Tseng]: I think you read my mind when it came to the quick start guide. So that point is addressed. I just had one question. I wonder if you could also get a USB to USB-C converter. He's already got it. No, just because, you know, a lot of new computers are, you know, they're, it's USBC. And I think a lot of people walk into a meeting room, not, not knowing, right, that you need that converter.
[Justin Tseng]: I have used the device you brought in before. It works well in the classrooms I've been in. And this is why people elected a 21-year-old.
[Justin Tseng]: I don't know if you would know the answer to this, but I was curious as to what we do with technology that we don't use anymore. As you mentioned, perhaps trying two different systems and maybe like choosing one over the other, which suggests the other one might be put into a closet or something. I was wondering if there was any program here to reuse the technology in different departments or, you know, different departments in the city for different rooms, maybe to give it to the high school, to the Boke, if they needed it. Of course, a lot of this old technology is stuff that people won't want, but I, you know, for the pieces of technology that we can reuse, I was wondering if we had some program or something like that.
[Justin Tseng]: being one of these, you know, there's certain people you see in the chamber every week and as a new Councilor, it's those people that make you feel welcome and help you ease into the position. And Kinga, you've really helped me personally ease into this job and learn more about, you know, what it is like to be a Councilor just by talking to you. We'll miss you a lot. It really is a shame that corporate interests have decided that local news is going by the wayside. Because, I mean, as as Councilor various has put it, going back into the archives can be an amazing experience. Speaking as someone who comes from the academic realm, someone who works with historians and works with activists, it's actually the historical archives that teach you so much about social movements, about economics, about politics, about what works today and what lessons that we can drop in the past. Actually, a really great example of this is I was in South Carolina right before the pandemic, And there's a lot of organizing there about a local issue, where they're, you know, redeveloping all these condos. And the grounds that they're trying to redevelop is actually historically black. And by redeveloping the grounds, they're massively altering the environment that used to exist there, that black residents have lived off of for years, and all this alterations caused flooding and all of that. But what struck me most on that trip was when I talked to the local activists, when I asked them, how did you even, think about organizing around this issue, or how did you even come to care about this issue? It was really, their answer was going back to look at local news back in the 1920s and 1930s, looking at the microfilms. And so that experience really taught me how valuable local news coverage is to our future. It's not even just about next Sunday or next week, it's about 2080. 2180, right, like when people are looking back at Medford and they're learning about, through local news, they have a chance to learn about what our community looked like and they have a chance to learn about, you know, what has changed in the last X number of years. they have a chance to learn about what environmental justice looks like in our community. They have a chance to look at what economics looks like in our community, or what businesses, or even just social, you know, like who's playing at what baseball game. And it really is a shame that that is going away. It's really, speaking as someone who works with archival material, it's just really a shame that we're not gonna have that in the future.
[Justin Tseng]: I just saw that there are a few people in the audience here and I believe on Zoom who are here to talk about the SOI, the statement of interest. I was wondering if I could motion to take this out of order.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much for coming to the city council meeting to present. Um, you know, being a recent student from there, I can attest to how great the education in the building is but I think a lot of people, they you know they see the building, and they don't realize how you know how great our education there is which leads to this problem of outflow. And, and there's also the problem that you've mentioned in the statement of interest that, you know, with around a third of the classrooms not having natural light with the, what you describe as a bleak environment that students feel and I, as someone who's gone there recently I can definitely tell you that this is what most students there feel. the education that we could be giving to our Children. Um, and it sounds like, um, given the merger of the two schools to that there are, you know, there are significant, um, differences in programming between what we could could be offering to our kids versus what we are currently offering to our kids. And so I think these are important points to bring out in this meeting. I also I just thought this statement of interest was very well put together and I wanted to quickly bring up some points that you guys have brought up so that our residents of the city could also hear them. But you mentioned that there's suboptimal ADA accessibility, fire safety, security, and technological aspects. And with the security point, you explained that while the school is a safe environment, sometimes the age of the building does pose some challenges compared to what we could optimally be having in the building. You've, you've discussed the environmental aspects of this, the challenge of the institution right now as well, where MHS is estimated to be expending 77% more energy than an average American school facility which is really shocking.
[Justin Tseng]: And you've also mentioned that there are considerable challenges with respects to the cost and removal of hazardous material when it comes to air filtration, which we all I think now realize is such a priority for all of us. And I think you really bring out the point in this report that there are costs to the renovations that we need to keep this building in operation. And so if we are constantly renovating bit by piece without a grand scheme, without a grand plan, which we would need estimates for, we could be spending more money in the future than if we actually had an actual plan. And so that's another reason why I think absolutely approving this tonight is so important, right, because it actually is fiscally prudent, if we can get a bigger picture if we can get all the information that we can get from MSBA to know, you know, to know what should we be spending on? How much is it gonna cost? And compared to not going on with this plan, what does that look like? So I think you did a really good, your office did a really great job with presenting that in this report. You also have described wildly fluctuating temperatures and relocation of classrooms, I think, and malfunctioning HVAC systems. I think you really capture for I think all residents in the city, the real gravity of the situation in that building and the urgency of action. And so I just wanted to bring those points out because I thought this was very well put together. And I think all of our residents deserve a chance to hear what you've put in this report.
[Justin Tseng]: totally agree with all everything that's been said. I think it'd be valuable for us to look at such a program again. I also wanted to tell our residents that our city, I think when we have a snow storm, they usually do put out a list of 10-ish names and phone numbers that people can call. Obviously, they're gonna be flooded with requests, but I think it could be a good idea to expand such a program to make it prominent on our website. I think we also here have a, know a question of miss you know mismatch we I think we have people who are willing to shovel for for others, willing to be paid by the, if the city's willing to pay them. And then people who need help. shoveling their backyards and their sidewalks. I think if we prioritize, this is something I mentioned during the council priorities meeting, but if we prioritize something like revamping the city website, I think this is something that we wanna be looking at is making sure that our city plays a more proactive role in matching service providers and people who need those services in the city.
[Justin Tseng]: Aye.
[Justin Tseng]: Aye.
[Justin Tseng]: I also had the privilege of getting to know Mr. Nzeka back in my four years at the high school. He was a loved member of our school community, and to be able to congratulate him on such a momentous occasion is truly a privilege. I think all of us have specific memories of, you know, just seeing him welcoming us into the high school every day, seeing him walk around the building. You know, he was someone who really built trust with all of our students at the high school. So I'm very grateful for his service to our city, and I wish him the best in his retirement.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, this is in line with the values of our city as a welcoming, inclusive place. I think this is, um, you know, this resolution is something that reflects who we are as a city. Um, and the support that we all, um, we all want to show for our Haitian neighbors. Um, this is in line with what we've passed as a city council before. And I think, um, Councilor, uh, bears for putting this on the agenda tonight. And I second his motion.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng? I believe that as a community, if we want to see something change, we need to show up at the table, and I think this is one of the ways we can show up and have our voice be heard. You know, knocking on doors through the last campaign season, something I heard from a lot of families was, was the desire for us to have a grand scheme of bike, a network of bikes, bike lanes that kind of connected better to other cities and that was better integrated in our, that was better integrated in our own community. I think this is, taking surveys like this is one of the most important ways through which our community, our constituents, our residents can make our voices heard and to make sure that, you know, that grant money so that some of that grant money does come to Medford and that we have that kind of more, that better, better planned out, better thought out bike network that we want to see here in Medford. So I think Councilor Bears, we're putting this on the agenda.
[Justin Tseng]: I think I'm my fellow Councilors Councilors Collins and bears have made very strong and very compelling arguments for why we should pass this resolution tonight. And I believe, you know, I believe you're it's really about. We we recognize that we're in a place where we aren't, we can't we just can't do as much as we want to do. And this is. One of the only ways right now that we one of the only paths that we can take forward out of this situation, and it's it's a difficult path. It's, and it will require a lot of work, and we have to be prepared to be disappointed, but if we never step forward on this path we. We really aren't doing our jobs as city Councilors, we're not really, you know, we won't be advocating for the public we won't be advocating for people who are being who are going to be kicked out of their houses. And I know there's been a lot of focus on rent control, and I, you know, I'm actually someone who. I studied economics at a very traditional institution that doesn't look very kindly on certain economic policies. But even from that perspective, there's a lot of research today that shows that perhaps it's not so much about the policy itself, but rather how you construct it that affects whether this policy is positive or negative. And I believe that with time, with effort, with cautious planning, our city council, I have faith in our city council to, you know, create to craft policies that are, you know, that are considerate of different arguments that are considerate of economic forces, and that, you know, I think bring that new one to the to the policy discussion. I also want to reiterate Councilor Bears' point that this resolution, at least from how I read it, is not just about rent stabilization or rent control, whatever you might want to call it. This resolution, you know, lays out many, many different policy suggestions that I think many of us in the city can get behind. in terms of how we can help people who live here and people who are being pushed out of our community from the tenants right to counsel to kind of right to purchase just cause eviction protections. These are all mechanisms that will help that could help people living in our community that don't aren't tied to rent control so I think you know there might be a big kind of discussion about rent control, but this also doesn't, I want to note, this resolution doesn't tie us down to one policy. It merely starts the conversation that we need to move us forward. And this resolution gives us alternative paths too, that we can take as a city that I think there is wide consensus behind. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm, I'm someone who, who really benefited benefited from after school programming here in the city of Medford. Um, you know, my parents they needed, they needed somewhere for me to be while they were working. And so, having after school programming was very important to me. and important to welcoming me into, you know, into the Medford community. I know a lot of parents have raised this issue with Councilors and with members of the school with the city administration in the last few weeks. I think it's, you know, it's certainly a difficult issue. I think there are steps that we might be able to take relatively soon, but a larger systemic answer to this challenge will take, you know, will take a lot of work. But this is something I think I want to thank Councilor Scarpelli for bringing to the table because I do think we should be starting the conversation about how we can increase after school programming both in the short and long runs. I think it could be good to also invite people who work, who organize and who work in current existing after school programs to hear about, you know, the challenges that they're facing in terms of staffing in terms of running their programs and increasing occupancy numbers to hear about for us to as a city council and as a city government to have a better understanding of what exactly are the challenges we need to overcome. But I'd be happy to support this resolution and to second it. to move it forward and to have us talk a little to have us talk more about this issue. Um, yeah, I also think it'd be worth it to to look. to look at some of some of the proposals that have been before the city council in the past I know, Councilor Marks was a big proponent of having an art center. And that might be one possible step forward for us as well but I think as many ideas as we can get to the table as many concrete problems that we can identify a solution for, I think. I think those are the right steps that we need to be taking as a city and I applaud Councilor Scarpelli for putting us on the right track.
[Justin Tseng]: I wanted to thank Councilor Collins for introducing such a thoughtful resolution. Measures like this represent the action that we can take at the local level to address the growing climate catastrophe that we're facing. I know that many feel a sense of dread and hopelessness, but I think Councilor Collins shows us today that we can be hopeful, but we just have to act. And resolutions like this show that our city is acting, and that our city council in particular is trying to get the answers that we need to create the policies that we need to address climate emergency. At the, at the local level, both overall and at the local level, reducing waste is one of the key, one of the key ways that we can that we can pursue one of the key paths we can pursue towards meeting, you know, meeting a better future that's more sustainable. And so, I am I full wholeheartedly support this resolution. And I think I would like our city to do in the city administration to do more research into what else we can. What what other measures we can take towards the zero waste goal. Um, you know, There are a lot of cities that are innovating right now, they've developed textile recycling programs, they've done on different programs with technical, technical parts, and I would like to see our city explore those options and also to make what options do exist more accessible to all Medfordians.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, if it's my turn.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Merle, um, as we all know we are facing a climate emergency, not only in our city but this is this is a problem that affects every single one of us. You know, our city council recognizes this. I believe that every single person here has worked diligently to make sure that we are advancing climate policy in the city. And I think this resolution is very much in line with the values of all of us here today. This is really about starting the conversation and making sure that we have something tangible to act on and that residents in the city have an idea of what the city is doing to combat the climate emergency. We, you know, I think a lot of residents don't know that we have a climate action and adaptation plan. And a lot of residents are waiting for us to speak more and provide a public forum so that they can learn more about what our city is doing. And I think this resolution does just that.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. This, again, this is a resolution about starting a conversation and increasing transparency in the city when it comes to our stated goals and how we achieve them. I've received some emails and some calls from constituents who want to know more about what exactly our city is doing with regards to hiring. And, you know, this issue is one that our city, I think, is taking seriously. And I think residents want to want to see that we are taking this seriously. This is a comp we all know that this is a complex issue it's not one that can be solved overnight. But by focusing on what our city's currently working on. It gives us a way to, and by focusing on the talent pipeline. We it gives us as a city council a chance to figure out more about our city's policies and It gives us a chance to look at how we can tackle this issue over a longer period of time. And it again helps us set goals and turn it helps us turn plans into action which I think is what residents are wanting from our city government.
[Justin Tseng]: I think, I think, you know, actually, as some Councilors have noted tension but I think actually it was very important for us to express everything that we've been hearing from our constituents and to have this conversation with the city administration. And so I think we should do this conversation in a positive light as well. When I, I think I share many of my Councilor fellow Councilors. perhaps wishes for for you know, a general plan that we can kind of bring to the bring to our constituents and say this is, this is what the city's doing. But I think it's also important to note that this is early days for the parking department, it's this is to create a plan like that, to create a thoughtful plan like that does take time. And as soon as you know we as a council want this plan as soon as possible, but we also have to understand that. feasibility is a question here. And so I would love to take up the chief of staff on her offer to have a plan for us in the next few months. I think that would be very hopeful. When I look at a policy in front of us like this, I ask myself a few questions. I ask myself, what's the problem X and does policy Y address the problem X? Or is policy UI out of the black field? Does it not actually address the problem? The point is problem x to me is very important. And we've talked about a lot of the concerns that we've heard from our constituents. And and I would love, I would love for a city to address them and I would love for us as the city council to address them as well. But I think when it comes to the question for the policy in front of us today. We, we have to remember that the problem that we're facing is the income, the amount of calls that you're getting in your office, and the inability, just the impossibility of our city infrastructure to respond to to to respond to the customer service needs of our city. You know, there have been a lot of concerns brought up, and those are these are actually very legitimate very valid concerns, but they're not they're not directly tied to the question of in front of us right now. And I think we I just want us to. refocus and recenter and understand that, you know, this request is is a policy solution to a very specific problem that our city is facing and a very specific need that the parking department needs right now. I think it's important not to be distracted from that. I think it's also important to note that Chief Buckley did recommend this transferral and has said that this would actually support his department as well, which is actually very important. I think it is a very important point we need to make. Of course, you know, I've sat here, I've listened to everyone, and I think everyone actually makes very legitimate, very important points. I think there's a world where all these concerns and all of these arguments coexist and actually work together. But I think at the end of the day, we have to look at the question right in front of us, the policy right in front of us right now, and just refocus and understand, you know, this, this question of this funding is about the direct needs of a direct need in the parking department right now. And by addressing that need, we will make the lives of our residents better.
[Justin Tseng]: That's fine. Just to clarify, since what Director Hunt said was that the city can send the resources in terms of like the organizations people can reach out to, we just can't give very like specific legal advice. So we can't do a know your rights document, but we can send a document with a phone number and email address.
[Justin Tseng]: You know, my colleagues have, have put it really well. And I just wanted to say, I think this is one of the things that shows that to make the change that we want to see in our community. Even in this session, we've had many meetings about these I know before our session of the City Council, the Council's been working hard on this, different community boards have been working hard on this. Neighborhood activists, experts have I'm proud that we are taking the thoughts to be able to vote on something like this. I also see this as an opportunity for us to, as I think Councilor Bears alluded to, move forward with more ideas and to open the conversation up about how we can develop our city so that everyone wins. How can we make Medford work for all of us? So I think this is a crucial piece to that puzzle. It's an important first step, right? It's an important step to get us all on the same page, to bring our code to the modern day to give clarity to everyone. And so we need that platform for us to move forward and for us to have those, you know, discussions about new ideas that we might or might not take up, but we need this first step first. So I'm happy to be voting for this.
[Justin Tseng]: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, councilor.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to know to someone in the area, I'm excited to have this option open to me. I'm excited to see my own neighborhood get more vibrant.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: I find them in order. Sorry, someone might have to mute. I find them in order and I move approval.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: talk about how much Larry means to me. I mean, Larry's been super helpful with my deliveries, especially given my kind of wacky schedule. He's been able to work around that and I'm very, very thankful for that. And I'm also super thankful that he's been such a welcoming person in the city council chambers since the first day that I got to my seat. So I'm very excited about this motion.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, correct.
[Justin Tseng]: Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: I had quite similar questions to my colleagues on that point. You mentioned that it would be released, will it be posted on the city website, on the ARPA website, perhaps?
[Justin Tseng]: Okay, awesome.
[Justin Tseng]: Great. Well, you mentioned the administration will go through and see what's an emergency, what's not, what projects are ready to go. Will the administration perhaps be open to explaining a little bit when the time comes, like why certain projects are chosen. I think that it goes to kind of Councilor Collins's point where like some residents might feel, you know, this project seems ready to go. Why wasn't it chosen? Would the administration have the capacity to kind of explain to citizens on the website?
[Justin Tseng]: I understand. Um, and I guess my last point was, um, you talked a lot about, you know, like a community engagement and also a lot about, um, looking at what other communities are doing. Have we kind of looked at what other communities are doing and how other communities in the past have done with regards to like participatory budgeting when it comes to engaging the community in the process, perhaps? I know you had a list of like a probably the most specific list I've seen so far about community outreach that our city will do. But, you know, have you guys been looking at what other communities have been doing, what other kind of communities in the past have been doing in processes like this?
[Justin Tseng]: Yes, focused on local communities, but also open to other communities going through similar processes.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much. I'm very excited to see your work. Very excited to see, you know, the fruits of your labor. And I have confidence in this process going forward. So thank you so much.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, this is a question that popped in my into my mind while concert bears talking because I'm, I think it's tied to this idea of economics at a greater level, but I'm obviously inflation is something that's on everyone's mind right now. There's, you know, inflation is the best job we can't we can't do anything but we can you know economists have said that perhaps or there are ways that we could really alleviate some inflationary pressures. This is city have a sense of what areas are workable in terms of what we can do about relieving some of those inflationary pressures with regards to funds like these? Or would the city be able to study this going forward with an eye on, of course, not exacerbating the inflation problem?
[Justin Tseng]: With regards to the earmarks, do we already, you know, is it already allocated by project, or is it just the general kind of fund that we can dip into, or is it something that, like, how does it work exactly with the state earmarks?
[Justin Tseng]: Okay, cool. So has the city government been communicating with the state kind of reps to see how we're spending that?
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, before we delve into the professional aspects of this, I just wanted to note that Mr. Lasky has been such an important person to our Medford community, as with his time living here in Medford. I remember very fondly how Mrs. Lasky, who I had as my fourth grade elementary school teacher, brought Mr. Lasky to our class, and he talked to us about the NWRA, talked to us about his job, talked to us about the importance of caring about how we use water resources in our community, even brought us some water bottles. And so I'm very, very fond of those memories. And I think they really exemplify it. They really show, I think, epitomize, they really epitomize how much of a positive influence Mr. Lasky has been for our community. He's really been there for our kids. He's really been there for our residents in his work. with the MWRA and with the different, with the gardening commission, with different commissions has really showed, I think, all of us how important of a person he is to Medford.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much President Morell. So this resolution is something that I was proud to submit with my fellow South Medford Councilor, Councilor Kit Collins. You know, this is when I knocked on doors in this neighborhood and in my home neighborhood, This was something that came up, basically at every single door. I mean, there, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the issue salience was off off the records was off the charts. When you when you walk down these kind of these. cut through streets, as they're called, you realize how fast the cars go down them and how heavy the traffic is during rush hour. And this poses a threat to the safety of the residents in those neighborhoods when it comes to something as simple as walking across the street. And it actually is a problem for accessibility as well. So, on the front on the matters of pedestrian safety when it comes to speed, when it comes to just the mere quality of the streets. I think that this is a super important issue for a neighborhood that's been a little bit overlooked over the last few years. The proposals, I've suggested the city look at are things that neighbors have written to me and emails in recent weeks, asking us to ask, asking us to explore, you know, they might not be the solutions but I think it's worth having our city. Look into some of the proposals that our neighbors have brought up.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President Morell. So the context behind this resolution is this 2020 Massachusetts Uniform Citation Data Analysis Report, which is a super long name. So that's why I'll call it the report. This is a project that the state government put out there. They found researchers from, I believe, Salem State and Framingham State. to comb through data from almost every single municipality in Massachusetts to look at, you know, what is the relationship between race and ethnicity and the frequency of traffic stops and the outcome of traffic stops. And what this report found was that in Medford, there's no statistically significant correlation between race and stops. But there is a statistically significant relationship between race and stop outcomes. And this report is very clear that this is not about blame. It's not about labeling people as racist or anything. This race could just, bias could be one of many, many, many reasons for why this is the case. But what it does say is that there is a reason, there must be a reason why Black and Hispanic individuals are subject to different traffic stop outcomes. And that this is not something that we can just say is a coincidence. It's not something that we can put down to chance. It is something that actually has a cause. And so this, this resolution is really about public safety. It's really about building trust in in our law enforcement building trust in our city government to do what's right and to do what's fair for everyone. We there it's it's no secret that that police and racer sensitive issues. They have been sensitive issues, especially in the last two years. And part of how we should move forward as a community and how this report, this nonpartisan report puts it is that we need to build trust in our government again. We need to rebuild that trust. We need to rebuild trust in our law enforcement. And the only way to do that is to be honest about, to have an honest conversation about this data and to have an honest conversation about possible explanations for these disparities. And so again, this is not about placing blame. This is not about labeling people names or saying that something is necessarily bad. This is about addressing this statistically significant data point and in taking the state's advice and how we should move forward and make our community safer.
[Justin Tseng]: It's not about stops. It's about the outcomes in stock. So it's not about the stocks.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, I mean, one of the one of the points in this resolution is the word are the words triggering offenses. I mean, the report tells us that we really in order to dig into these numbers and to explain the statistical relationships, we have to consider triggering offenses is one of the possible explanations right so it totally in this report is really clear it There are many, many, many outcomes in this world where this is not actually about bias. And that is exactly why we need to release more data. That's exactly why we need to publish more data. and make it transparent and open. And when it comes to the word bias, this is how the report itself was written. I've actually modified the language of the report to be more, I think, representative of how I think of the good character of the people working for a city and to make it less hostile and to make it more reasonable. But I I'll leave it there. A lot of the skepticism, I think, of this resolution is actually just resolved within the resolution itself. And I think it's important, I think it's important to keep in mind that the report is actually good news if we're just looking at people being stopped because there is no statistical correlation between, there's no statistically significant relationship between the race of people being stopped in Medford and the traffic stops themselves. It's more about the outcome, right? you know, it's totally possible that triggering offenses could be the reason why, but that's exactly why we need to ask the police chief to dig into the data, as Councilor Bears, as Councilor Sparkoli said, in order to give us the transparency and give us that confidence in our own city's functioning.
[Justin Tseng]: So, I think this, this resolution does ask us to take a very holistic and very open minded view on this and, and, you know, again, that's why, that's why we asked about more transparent data that's why we were asking about triggering offenses, why we're asking that duration of stops. et cetera, because, you know, I think it's important to go into this process with a holistic lens. I think most, if not all of us are asking for the same thing, which is that, you know, the police chief just look into this and I trust the police chief. I think the police chief would also be happy to do this. You know, I'll leave this with a metaphor. you know, when you walk into the doctor's office and the doctor sees something, asks you to get it checked out, you get it checked out because you trust the doctor, right? The science is clear and you just, you know, it could be something, it could be nothing, but you trust the doctor because it could be something. And, you know, this very well could be nothing, but I think this is when we go see that specialist and we go get this checked out.
[Justin Tseng]: I can offer a summary.
[Justin Tseng]: So this is a resolution that Haitian American community leaders actually reached out to me about putting on the agenda. Let me walk through it first and then talk a little bit more about that. Essentially, Boston, Metro Boston is home to the third largest Haitian diaspora in our country. You know, the Haitian American community has been so vital to Medford in terms of its contributions to our workforce, to the economy and to the culture, general culture of our city. Um, the Census Bureau I just looked this up on right before I submitted this resolution estimated in 29 late in around 2019 that I'm 7.9% of Medford's population was of Haitian descent. And so, the, the immigration policy started during the Trump administration and continued under the Biden administration affects Medford disproportionately. When we, when we look at what these policies are the policies that deportation. This section of the report actually goes into language from both political and civil rights leaders, civil liberties leaders as well. They cite our international, US, our national law and international law in saying that these Title 42 deportations are actually unconstitutional and illegal. And so this is a resolution of support, which I think is especially important during Black History Month. Support for our Haitian migrants who live in Medford. Support to make sure that they're not deported to a place where they barely know, to make sure that they're not deported to a place of political, social, and economic strife, and a statement of support saying that we are a place of refuge and that Medford is a safe place for each and every single one of our community members. I'm very well aware that this resolution may well not have, you know, a national impact, but I think it's, I think that it's vital that we show our support for Asian neighbors. And, and so talking a little bit more about how this resolution came to be, I talked to Councilor, Ruth see illusion in Boston. who is who's working on the coalition to build a coalition of communities to express their support for the Haitian community and to ask the Biden administration to consider reversing their this illegal immigration policy. Um, you know, I think it's important. I think it's vital for us to show that we are a place that's willing to accept and celebrate our diversity and to and again, to create public trust in our institutions with a population that's so important to our city's fabric. And if you will indulge me, I just wanted to send a short message to our Haitian American community here in Medford. I don't speak Haitian Creole, but I speak a little bit of French and I will translate it for the record. So what I said was, I wish, I want to make it known that to the whole world and in particular, our Haitian community here in Medford, that it's important for us that Medford is a city where we all feel safe, and that Medford is a city that's welcoming to all.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. I just wanted to, start to wrap things up with some of my thinking, kind of response to some of what we've heard tonight. When I first I got this idea like when I first got a draft of what other communities were passing. I too was a little skeptical given how, you know, obviously symbolic and ceremonial it can be. But, as Mr. Navarre has mentioned, then I learned more about this project. I learned more about how it was really grassroots effort that's happening in many, many communities around the area. But also not just around the area. This is an effort happening in other metro areas where there are a lot of Haitian-Americans as well. And Mr. Nabarro mentioned Representative Pressley's letter, or bringing it up with President Biden. She's also been spearheaded an effort to send a letter, which dozens and dozens of Congress people have signed, to the president. these leaders, these congressional leaders have worked closely with Haitian American leaders and they've decided that this is the right step for our community. Who am I to say that their strategy is wrong, right? They've obviously thought about it a lot. We can't deny them of their own agency. And then I thought back to Um, two years ago, I guess a year and a half ago, where, um, you know, our city council was also looking at some more symbolic resolutions. And I thought back to when I was watching city council meetings and when I realized, you know, I know these resolutions are symbolic, but they're important to me, and it's important that it was important to me that our city council. Number one, introduce something. Number two, passed something that was symbolic. Because to me, and I think to a lot of people who don't necessarily see themselves represented at the public forum, symbolism is the first step to action, right? And in this case, our city council can't act on much. But passing something ceremonial, passing something symbolic, was an important indicator to me that I could trust my city government when I needed it behind my back. And I think this is what people in our community and people in the Haitian American community are asking for is, can I trust my government to act on even simple symbolic measures? Because if you aren't willing to do the symbolic, you probably aren't willing to take real action. And so I thought back to that, and then I thought, you know what, this is the right thing to introduce. I've also, I guess, I want to end with an anecdote. I've spent much of my week talking to very close family friends in Ukraine, in Kiev, who are people who would likely be targeted if a Russian invasion were to target Kiev, right? And in talking to them, it was astonishing to see how little they wanted to flee, and how little they wanted to leave their homes, their jobs, their family, their pets, everything that they had. And, you know, now the situation is different, and the planning of leaving itself is a logistical nightmare. You know, this isn't me going through the migrant experience, but then I think I thought back to Haitian migrants who moved to Medford, and I thought back to how much they must not have wanted to leave, even though the circumstances were not great. I thought back to how difficult it must have been for them to get to a new place, number one, and number two, settle in a new place. And I think it's important that our community show them anything it can, even if it is symbolic. Just to say, we're behind you, we're standing with you, and you can trust us.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to put on the record that, um, you know what I was saying was, was, was, was just an argument for why, even if it's ceremonial I think we should pass it. I don't question anyone's intentions here. I think I'm actually very fortunate to work with colleagues each of whom has done a lot for our marginalized communities here at Medford, every single one of us at this table. And I think that's something that a lot of people don't necessarily see, but each and every one of us behind the scenes has worked to engage more residents in our community that are traditionally excluded from our decision-making process. So I just wanted to put that on the record. I respect the healthy debate that we're having about resolutions, such as these, but this one in particular. I just wanted to put that out there that I'm not, I want everyone to know that I am fortunate to work with good colleagues who've done a lot for all of our communities here.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Collins Councilor Tseng, um, I just wanted to echo the sentiments my fellow Councilors on this hospitals, you know, if you if you've grown up in Medford you've grown up with it around us. It's, it's, you know, been important to me my family. and important to our neighbors as well. And it's gone through changes, but I think this speaks to the strength of the hospital staff and the medical workers and the administration that we have there. So I'm happy to support this and to recognize their achievement. Thank you, Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: I mean, I wholeheartedly support what's been said. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that this is an existential threat to our downtown, which is so vital to our local economy. I did have one question that I'm sure Councilor Karavila could explain. I support this. I just wanted to put that on the record. You mentioned some recent changes announced tonight. Do we know if the bridge is still being built, how that would affect all of this?
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, that was my main point but I do think it's important to make clear that we have to take the lead on our own economic situation in the city. I think we need to show initiative, so I do support this. Thank you. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: President Bears, Councilor Collins, and Councilor Caraviello put it very well. I just wanted to clear up the narrative. I just checked 22-062 all the way to 22-065. At least on my record, it's not for the state. It's all targeted for the city of Bedford. So I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you, Councilor Sanders.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to thank all the constituents who've reached out to, at least on my side, who've reached out to me about this issue. I've gotten more emails on this issue than on any single issue in the past, including during the campaign. It's been quite an effort from the people of our city. You know, this is an issue which I was asked about when I started running for office from day one, um, you know, is one of one of the, you know, in that town hall it was one of the core issues that people did talk about, um, perhaps slightly to the surprise of a few in the room, but on it. you know, the more the more we campaign, the more we talked to voters, the more it was evident that there are quite a lot of voters who are the who are interested in seeing our city review our charter, and who are interested, especially in the idea of word representation, which does have its own pros and cons, which I think Councilor Scott probably summed up very well. It's in and these are all things that I think We can only truly effectively look at if we have a charter commission. It's just simply the best way the best path forward that we have for our city. And, you know, to conduct a charter review in this way. Um, this is politically, the most. the best chance that we have. It's important to me that we acknowledge that, right? Each, our documents, our laws, our codes, have a life expectancy. They have, you know, they do get old after a period and they do require review. It hasn't been reviewed in my life. I'm a little bit young, but hasn't been hasn't been reviewed in the, in the lifetimes of two of my fellow Councilors, and those, and those two Councilors are older than what is usually suggested for the period of review. Well, I think it's important that we also note that the Charter Review Commission is our best chance to also look at other foundational aspects of our city regarding who has the power to do one, who has the authority to do what. This is something that some residents have talked to me about, and I think it's important to say that tonight as well. I'm happy to support moving this into a committee of the whole and taking the time to really do this right, to really take a, take a deep look at this, make sure that everything in here makes sense and that we have the support of everyone on here. There's some decisions that are so important that they do require a lot of support from our council, not just the majority vote. And I look forward to having that conversation and making sure that we all end up with something that we're happy with.
[Justin Tseng]: I wanted to thank all the members of the public for coming to speak to us tonight. I also wanted to note how this Charter Review Commission is a great chance for us to tackle bigger issues as well. It's not a self-contained issue. If you read our city's climate plans, if you read our city's racial justice plans, this is a part of the evolving, you know, So stuff like this is a part of that, talking about giving neighborhoods more power, having more local representation to bring up issues on the local level. This is all part of that as well. Communication with our state delegation, talking to them, it becomes apparent how helpful it is for people to have more local representatives. So those are other reasons why I support this.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to thank my fellow youth councilor here.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, young environmentalist. for bringing this forward. This is certainly a close issue that's close to my heart, being someone who is young and in the city. I strongly believe that for our democracy to be healthy and strong we need to be addressing the issues that young people care about. We need to give young people stake in our country in our city as well. So, I'm totally support this and thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: From what I'm hearing, I think everyone is bringing up good points. There are accessibility problems, and then we can look to other cities. And I think we have to think about how spread out our resources are, especially during a snow emergency as well. Perhaps it would be good to amend this by asking the city administration just generally explore temporary and permanent solutions for addressing communication gaps during snow emergencies. That way we can also kind of explore options outside of just signage.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Mr. President, um, this came out of talking with members of the Medford Arts Council, and listening to their updates about plans for potential public arts projects coming into the city. It can be very difficult for artists to, to participate you know in the civic, civic art landscape. of our city and I thought that this would be one small step in in helping expedite the process of creating more public arts projects and helping us plan better plan, the visual aesthetic qualities of our neighborhoods on to get community feedback. to expedite that process as well. So we have a sense of what our residents actually want our neighborhoods and our business districts look like. And I thought that this would be a good way to get greater involved to involve the members of our communities from residents, business owners, to a greater extent. I think this is also a measure of transparency by publishing on the city website, we I think, make ourselves more a more palatable and more open options for artists in our community and in the greater Boston area. And by having both online and physical forms, I think this would create a greater accessibility and help expedite the process quicker. I also added one line in there about equity, gentrification, access to because I did want to note that many of these art projects do add to the effects of gentrification. And so I'm curious as to how the city would also seek to address these problems as well.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. I just wanted to add my voice to support this paper. Thank you, Councilor Collins, for bringing this forward. This is something that I've talked about during the campaign is how hunger is one of the clearest measures of how we can see the disparities in our community. working class families, families of color, LGBTQ folks, these are people who suffer the most from hunger in our society and this is a human right, to be fed is a human right. Um, you know, I am strongly in favor of this, I appreciate you bringing up budget. I think I'd be interested personally in having in talking to the Board of Health in the future to see what exactly what steps are city can take exactly what actions that we can take on city council, if any. and I would be in favor of addressing such problems like the SNAP gap more specifically. We have a SNAP gap report published from the city of Medford which shows that if we help our residents apply for SNAP benefits, this actually brings more money to our city as well and pumps money into our local economy. Um, you know, this is a, it's a win win for everyone really. Um, and so I'd like to see what the city is playing in terms of helping us close that gap as well.
[Justin Tseng]: I appreciate Councilor Caraviello's call to action. I think it's particularly important to embody that message. And I think one of the ways we can best do it is to make sure that systemically we are tackling this issue.
[Justin Tseng]: On this issue, particularly, I think it's important to realize the role that power imbalances play. in in surveillance and how it affects how you surveillance data, you know, I am a strong believer that whoever has power should should also get some oversight, and that applies to us as as city Councilors as well. But in this case, I think, you know, those people with people who are using public surveillance have this access to power and I think it's fair for members of our community to ask for some transparency, to ask for some oversight as well.
[Justin Tseng]: No. Okay. I also support this resolution. I thank my fellow councillor for bringing this forward. You know, I've, like Councilor Scarpelli, I've worked with and grew up with a lot of, you know, friends who are undocumented and I know how difficult it is for them to, you know, just live as normal human beings in our society. And, you know, especially as we've all, as I've kind of become more of a leader in the community, a lot of people ask me, can I use this resource without being told that I might be deported one day? Can I turn to the police? Can I turn to fire? Can I turn to a medical resource? Can I turn to a state resource? What can I apply for? And it becomes confusing. And a lot of this stuff affects all of us, right? If we're thinking about public health, We are all healthier if all of us have access to services. We're all safer if all of us feel comfortable reporting, you know, reporting incidents. And so I think it's very important that we support this.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I wanted to first note my colleagues' concerns about us introducing these resolutions in support of state legislation, but I wanted to say, just in full transparency, that on my end, I had a conversation with Representative Christine Barber about this, and she asked me to come to the council to ask for our support on this specific bill. And this is a good bill because I think it would, or let me just lay it out very, very clearly. This bill would electrify MBTA and RTA, commuter rail service, and the bus fleet by the year 2035. Studies have shown that this bill would reduce the CO2 emissions by millions of pounds. And this bill would also create a standardized assessment system to measure air quality in our communities. This bill would benefit Medford because we have, we have bus service in the city, we have a commuter rail station that goes through West Medford. And air quality is all has always been an issue when it comes to transit when it comes to bus and commuter rail service. And so this is, you know, this aligns with our communities values aligns with addressing our communities concerns and aligns with our communities already stated goals.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, um, many members of our community every shot to me over the course of campaign but also as a Councilor, asking to see our city, you know, even showed the symbolic steps to toward towards supporting diversity and equity in our city. And so this is one of those. those pieces, those resolutions that reflect what constituents have been telling me. I think, you know, this aligns with our community's values. You know, we are an anti-racist community. We are a diverse community. And I think our community has been making a lot of steps forward in terms of talking about Black history, addressing racism in our community. And, you know, I think we've made strides together and talking earnestly and honestly about the two ideologies, racism and white supremacy, whose historical and sociological effects seep into the structures that shape our society. You know, these aren't things that are, you know, these are targeted at any community in particular, you know, it's not just it's not just you know it's not a white person issue this is something that you know happens in the Asian community as well that I know very well of. And so this is about all of us kind of coming together saying. telling history as it is because it's important to learn from our past, it's important to celebrate our past as well, because that's where we find unity is in telling the truth about about our city and about our history and, you know, looking positively towards the future to see how we move on.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I just wanted to say that I'm happy to accept the amendments as proposed by Councilor Bears and the one on civics as proposed by Councilor Scarpelli.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much. Again, this is in line with residents who want to see our city more openly embracing our diversity and our different communities here. Lunar New Year is the most important holiday for many Asian communities here in Medford. And, you know, it's not, not just the Chinese holiday, it's one that's celebrated by many other communities as well by Koreans, by Vietnamese Americans, by Tibetan Americans, by Taiwanese Americans, and the list goes on and on. You know, I wanted to note that this, this New Year's might be particularly difficult, you know, we're still dealing with the pandemic, and it's traditional, it's kind of like an Asian Thanksgiving where you go into your family. And, you know, for a lot of families are not able to make it back for, you know, be it. they're sick, it's difficult to, the difficult situations to leave the country or the difficult situations to get into another country. And so, you know, I think it's especially important for us to kind of lift each other up in this moment and to celebrate with each other. A holiday which, you know, a holiday season which might be a little bit tougher for folks now.
[Justin Tseng]: I believe that last year there were there were reported incidents of this city council in the last session.
[Justin Tseng]: Right. I think you know this is a general rise, that's consistent with that trend that we saw last year, you know. Medford is a safe community, we are safe for Asian Americans but there are moments where it might be difficult and I think it's important for our city council to, to note that there are definitely, you know, anti Asian incidents that are often gone on reported. a lot of people don't know about our city's reporting resources, be it with the police or with our city departments. And so I also want to make that clear just for all of our residents here that there are different ways to report hate crimes or hate incidents if that happens to you, God forbid. And yeah, I would say that My short answer is that there's a general increase in the Boston metro area.
[Justin Tseng]: Mr. President, I can offer a summary.
[Justin Tseng]: I can offer a summary.
[Justin Tseng]: Well, so essentially this, this resolution is about the practice of data disaggregation. And so I'll give a little bit of history on it, explain the policy, explain the policy and why I've written it this way, and explain why I'm doing it now and then explain why, where where we should go as a city with it with the resolution part. So, Going about the history, the OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, in 1997 created five racial categories for government agencies to report. Now this is a standard that different government agencies in our country are expected to follow. But they did allow this guidance, give states and municipalities the prerogative to break our data down even further and to be more specific in the way that we report our data. And so this is something that, particularly in civil rights circles, in Asian American activist circles, and activist circles for different racial groups, this is something that's particularly important because Racial data informs how we make policy decisions, it informs how we use funds, how we target communities in pandemic outreach and kind of different government city services as well. And I know for certain that our city has been working, has been using racial data to help help solve the vaccine gap issue to help address disparities in the pandemic response. Now, so basically what this policy is, is that We would, instead of, for example, take Asian Americans, instead of reporting it as solely Asian Americans, we will break that down into different communities, different racial and ethnic groups that the census has come up with to better help us identify trends within different racial groups. The way that we currently report data actually covers up and papers over a lot of inequities within communities as well. When you look at the poverty rate for Asian Americans in this country, I don't think you would expect that the poverty rate for Vietnamese Americans is 2.5 times the national average, that the rate of poverty for Hmong Americans is three times the national average. When you look at English proficiency rates, you'll find that while English proficiency rates for Vietnamese Americans is low, those for Indian Americans are high. And so these are things that just don't come out of the research that our city is doing, that cities generally in our country are doing. They affect the city services right because if you have, if our city's targeting, you know, we need to provide city services in this language or publish this brochure in another language. We're not thinking about fiscally is it actually does it actually make fiscal sense to spend that money on that translation not on another translation. Does it, does it, you know, our is our targeting of one community. Does that actually make sense fiscally and in terms of where we're spending our money. And so, this, I'm this resolution calls for city administration to cause for us to ask our city ministrations to disaggregate data. because I know this will take a while, I know it will take planning and it'll take resources over a few years. That's why I've asked our cities to submit a report looking at long-term, what are the costs? What are the benefits? How else can we kind of affect change in data collection and data analysis? How can we make it fairer and more transparent? And so I think this revolution starts the conversation. that will help us plan over a long term, what, you know, what, what our city needs to do to what does our city need to do in order to disaggregate our data? How do we get the community involved in this? How can we get different departments involved in this? This is really about starting that conversation. And, you know, given our conversations about Asian American activism, I think that it is our Asian American issues in town. I think it is a good time to also back that up with some action. And so this is, this is the resolution, essentially. And I'm happy to answer questions.
[Justin Tseng]: I should also note, I forgot to mention that the reason why this is worded the way it is, is because this is taking from city council resolutions bits and pieces that apply to us, our community. I've taken from different communities across the country and from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as well, because there is a piece of legislation in the state legislature that is talking about this issue as well, which will affect which would help if passed, which would help our city's data collection system.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. This state bill, this state house bill, is very similar to what we just passed. It essentially is also about data desegregation for different communities at the state level. This has been something that people have been fighting for. As Councilor Bears did mention before, you know, the deadline week is this week. And I think it's important if we are moving forward as a city, we ask the state to move forward as well, because that will also help us cut down on our resources if we choose to move forward with such a policy.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to add my voice to the chorus. I know this is a difficult issue. I know it takes resources, but I was just at the high school last week for a meeting and many students and teachers did bring that up to me as well.
[Justin Tseng]: I find the records in order and I move to approve.
[Justin Tseng]: All right, both in terms of transparency and in terms of community participation, I think this measure is important. I also think it's helpful for our community when we have more people participating so they can give us their ideas and help us reach more innovative solutions. So I definitely support this.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you for introducing this. I know there are constituents out there who may be skeptical, right, of given national trends or national discussions, but I think we should look at the history here in our city, and we should look at the fact that our cars are over 100,000, you know, the mileage is over 100,000. Those are the new ones. Yeah. And so, and 100,000 for clarity is usually the median of where cars start to be, patrol vehicles start to be replaced. And so, in order, you know, I think this is a reasonable request, although if the council would be so amenable, if, if you'd be able to amend this to say that we come up with a that the city administration come up with the capital, a complete capital plan.
[Justin Tseng]: Great. And as a second amendment of mine would be to make sure that we are exploring patrol vehicle policies. This is something I've done a little bit of research on just looking into this. It seems that in municipalities across the country, the cities have negotiated deals with police unions, with the police officers where, you know, the police have a little bit more agency and a little bit more initiative. And this research has shown that the longevity of patrol vehicles is longer and that cities save up on costs a little bit more. I'm talking about cities, Miami is a very big example of one, but these policies are pretty common in the Midwest and the South. And I would just ask that the city administration explore some of these policies. We don't have to adopt anything, but I think it'd be worth our time to explore. Right, no problem.
[Justin Tseng]: I've shared my reservations about this last week. I've been thinking about it, and I do agree with my fellow councilors that our city needs a better plan. Our city needs, our city council needs its own direct legal counsel to go to. But again, I believe that we've been pushing this back and pushing this back. There's so much in action in the city.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. And in this case, I will vote to move this forward. But again, I would like to express that I have strong reservations about passing a budget this calendar year that doesn't have a direct legal representative for us, for the city council.
[Justin Tseng]: I want to thank Councilor Knight for bringing this forward and thank both Councilors Knight and Scarpelli for what they've said so far tonight. Again, this I think would be a great program for veterans in our city. I also think that this is about giving back to those who served us. I think this is also about justice and equity as well. We know for a fact that those who serve our country are disproportionately working class, disproportionately people of color, disproportionately marginalized. We know that when they come back from service, that we as a society don't always treat them the way that they should be treated. Our government isn't always there to support them, to give them the support they deserve. And so this, I think, is a step in the right direction, and I will be voting in favor of this. Thank you, Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: Just wanted to agree, and just note that this is also an environmental issue, the amount of pollution that's out there.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. Councilor Tseng? It's difficult to follow up such an eloquent explanation of this resolution, but I just wanted to give a little bit of anecdotal experience about growing up here in Medford. As someone who came from a different faith and cultural background, it wasn't always easy. And you know, you would never, you You wouldn't always have accurate depictions of your culture or the culture in which you grew up in. But I am happy that our city has been making progress on this front over the last decade, especially. And I just wanted to acknowledge that there's still a lot of work to be done. And our, you know, communities of faith or cultural communities, ethnic communities here are counting on us to be the leaders in making sure that we get this right and that we build a city that's as inclusive as possible. There's a lot that we haven't talked about as a city that I think merits discussion. Antisemitism is one of those topics. We've had recorded incidents of antisemitism in this city, of antisemitic attacks, violence, depictions. Very unfortunately, we've had swastikas carved into fence posts and public spaces here. and it's time for us to step up and address all these issues. And so I'm, you know, we're, Councilor Collins and I are here today to make sure that, to reaffirm the work that our city is doing so far and to make sure that we are moving forward and we're challenging ourselves to move as inclusive a direction as possible.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Mr. President. Last week we hit in our state record highs in terms of COVID-19 cases. And even though we know that the circumstances are different from where we were two years ago, there are still community concerns about on the spread of COVID-19 and the risk that this poses to our senior citizens living in senior living facilities here. And so, especially given previous records, both in the city and nationally. And so I propose this resolution to make sure that we are all informed as a community as to what our city is doing to make sure that our senior citizens are as safe as possible. Councilor Caraviello.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tsai. Thank you, Mr. President. We know that Omicron is a more transmissible variant. We're seeing the results of that in our case count today. We also today, the CDC officials have confirmed that they are looking at updating mask guidance to recommend N95 and KN95 masks be worn. And experts at top medical institutions have raised this issue that we should be we should be distributing more KN95 masks to everyone and making sure that we are wearing these more protective masks. You know it's given given all of these all the recent recommendations and given the possible change in guidance from the CDC. It's going to be harder and harder to secure masks. I mean, it's already difficult for many people to figure out what's a counterfeit mask and what's not to secure those orders online. And I'm proposing this because I think we need to keep our workers safe. I think we need to keep us all safe. I think we need to mitigate the financial burden that mask buying can pose to a lot of working class families in this town. And I also believe that if we are asking people to mask as a city, we should give them the means to do so. And again, we need to address the problem of counterfeits, which is why I added the line about the National Institute for Occupational Safety. We, I left out N95 masks because currently CDC guidance does not recommend that we stockpile N95 masks because they are, they should be treated as priority for medical staff. I just wanted to be transparent about that point and explain why this resolution focuses on KN95 masks.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Mr. President. Where our statements give much of the reason for this resolution, we know that when we look at the effect of COVID-19, when we look at the spread, the severity, when we look at numbers such as vaccination rates, we see that working class communities and non-white communities have been suffering disproportionately from the COVID-19 pandemic. Medford is no exception to this rule. There is unfortunately a vaccination gap in town for the BIPOC community. We also know that there's more that we can do as a city to address these issues. The city council and the city government labeled racism as a public health crisis. I think this is following up on that action back last year or back then, I believe that we need to be consistent in our actions and that by uplifting the working class, by uplifting BIPOC folks, by uplifting marginalized folks, we are uplifting us, all of us, and keeping all of us safer, keeping every single one of us safer. I that's why I'm putting this forward. I'm aware that the city has taken a few measures on this front. We, the city administration's let me know that they have, they've increased some public public health information campaigns in neighborhoods of color, they have been working with faith leaders and community leaders to make sure that we are vaccinating as many people as possible. But I think many of us have the question of what what comes next, how are we responding to the surge? How can we? How can we help as a city council? How can we help as a community? And how can we do better? And how can we evaluate what we're doing? So this is why I'm putting this forward today.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I wanted to thank as well, President Morell and Vice President Bears for bringing this forward. I wanted to reiterate my support for this for this paper. And I wanted to thank my fellow city Councilors for, you know, already speaking up on so much that matters to me. This is definitely an important piece of important action going forward when we consider how we are going to draw talent to our city to work for our city. how we're going to compete with different municipalities and how we're going to compete with the private sector as well. I think it's important to also remember that, you know, paid paid leave is pivotal, pivotal for the development of children who are future, and that's why this is particularly, particularly important to me.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to quickly thank Councilor Knight for bringing this forward. I think he makes valid points. I've heard from constituents about concerns about public meetings, community meetings being held in the chambers on Wednesdays. So I look forward to, I will vote yes on this and I look forward to discussing this even further.
[Justin Tseng]: I wanted to thank Councilor Knight on this, and thank Councilor Caraviello for his amendment. I think it's important that we, we hold strong together as a council on this issue that we hold hold people accountable for the work that they do in our city. This is clearly a standard of living issue. It's an environmental issue as Councilor Collins so well laid out. It's also an equity issue in terms of the neighborhoods that are affected, the streets that are affected, and the way that we address city services in Medford. And so I will vote to support this. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Councilor say, I wanted to thank Councilor Knight for bringing this forward. I wholeheartedly support this. I believe that trade work is important work for community. It is also been shown and I think there's a wide consensus on this, that it is trade work is very vital for for the futures of our children. I think it presents a possible profession in the future that is well paying and sets people up for a good future. So I think that it is super important for our city to be pursuing this as a priority. I also think it's important for our city to be pushing our children or to be recommending our children, different paths in life. And I think it's important that we take our focus and bring it to the vocational and trade work as well, especially when it comes, when we consider the fact that much of this work is good union work while paying jobs. I think we need to support our unions and build more connections with them as well. We also need to address existing stigmas when it comes to trade work and vocational work. that I know often exist in our communities, and I think stuff like this, where we have school administration building connections with students, promoting trade work, promoting public works, where we have these linkages between our city institutions and our families here in Medford, I believe that that's a way that we can overcome the stigma and to really present trade work as something that is honorable, which it is, and that's why I wholeheartedly support this.
[Justin Tseng]: I don't think I ever got to meet Lena, but I know Mayor Burke very well, former Mayor Burke very well. I know how dedicated she is to our city. I know how excellent of a person she is. And, you know, it takes parents to make someone such an incredible person. And so I know that mothers are important and I send her my deepest condolences.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I just wanted to start by saying I'm keeping an open mind on the subject, and that I understand you know, that this is under fiscal year 22, but I do have concerns about, I mean, that I think all of my fellow Councilors have raised both in this meeting and in meetings previous last year with regards to cost, conflict of interest, immediacy, our direct counsel. And so I wanted to ask through the chair, Um I wanted to ask Chief of Staff Nina Nazarian if uh the mayor's office um has a plan to explore hiring an assistant city civil so there in the upcoming year because when we think about budgets it's important that we are planning ahead um um so that we're not bumping into situations that uh Councilor Knight and Councilor Caravillo described tonight um and I do believe that it's important for us to um to recognize that there has been a downscaling of city government in the last few decades and that we not fall fall into that trap. And so I pose a question.
[Justin Tseng]: I do have one more question. Okay.
[Justin Tseng]: I was wondering if, I guess, do I have to do this through the chair? Yeah. Okay. I was wondering if the chief of staff could, perhaps quickly address some of these points tonight about the immediacy of a legal aid to the city council. Chief of staff Nazarian.
[Justin Tseng]: I just wanted to express my view, which is that when when the city approaches the next budgeting cycle we should, I would recommend that the mayor's office take a look at re reconsider their stance on this issue and I understand where the mayor's office is coming from I understand the benefits of having KP law and with the work that they've done but I also want to make sure that my fellow Councilors concerns and my concerns are addressed as well. Thank you. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: I am, after listening to all the comments being made, I believe I am of a similar mind with what Zach said. Tonight, I think it's not worth it to answering the city government in terms of what it needs to do. I understand the reality of the situation and I think we need to move forward. But when it comes to fiscal 23, I believe it's important that we consider structuring the office as actually as Councilor Bears, as Vice President Bears has proposed, perhaps having a solicitor, assistant solicitor, and maybe some money set aside for special counsel if needed. But for tonight, I'll vote to move this forward, but I do believe it's important to consider that in the future.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, I certainly hear the rest of the council. I haven't. I think as Councilor Collins has acknowledged we haven't been here for, for, for those meetings, but we haven't been behind the rail. So, there's, there must be a lot of institutional knowledge and a lot of meeting knowledge that we just haven't had. you know, haven't been in the privileged position of being privy to, but I look at this and I think, you know, having a finance director slash auditor, that's, I mean, I think we all agree it is super important for our city. I don't think there's any disagreement on that. And I just can't help but think that we would be better off with a lot of the concerns being stated tonight if we had a finance director or auditor in position. And I'm someone who believes that we get what we pay for. And we have to be, we have to make Medford more competitive with other municipalities. And, and that's why I'm, I'm, while I understand a lot of the concerns that our council has tonight, I would support this paper. And because I believe that this is time sensitive as well. I think we have a lot of a lot of concerns not just on this paper but on other papers that the city's putting forward the administration putting forward right. And I think it's important that we have that we have people working in the office as, as Councilor Collins put it, I'm sitting by the desk. Um, in order to address those concerns better in order to create that on those plans that we're asking for. And so I believe that's important. And I believe that it's I mean, finance director, human resources director, these are pivotal positions in any organization. And so, in the case of this paper I will move to, I support the move to push this forward. And I do believe that there is, there are a lot of people I've talked to throughout the city with concerns, not only related to personnel, but they have concerns about how the city government operates that These, these two hires or these, these two changes would would do would at least cut into and then into an addressing any further discussion.
[Justin Tseng]: Hi, I'm Justin Tsang. I'm the son of Taiwanese immigrants and I'm running for Medford City Council. Growing up in the working-class Wellington area, my parents worked around the clock to build a family. They instilled in me the values of hard work and getting involved. As a proud son of Medford and the product of the public school system, I graduated valedictorian of Medford High School and went on to attend Harvard University. As we recover from this pandemic, we must ask ourselves, what kind of Medford do we want to live in? My plan will fight for a future that works for everyone. Build a Medford we can afford by protecting tenants' rights and expanding affordable housing. Strengthening our schools by reversing education cuts and eliminating regressive student fees. Invest in climate and infrastructure by reducing emissions and paving safer, transit-oriented streets. And foster an inclusive city where politicians aren't afraid to stand up to systemic racism. A city as vibrant as Medford deserves a strong, diverse city council with new energy and new ideas.
[Justin Tseng]: I'm keeping YW Shen and her family close to my heart today. Last week, an attacker shouting racist slurs disturbed YW Shen's daily walk in Medford, shoving her to the ground by a busy playground before sprinting off. For me, this is both heartbreaking and personal. We have watched hate crimes against Asian Americans soar throughout the country, fueled by the casual racism of elected officials and a long history of anti-Asian hate. Many of my friends and I have spent the last year worrying about our own families and friends, and teaching our elders how to protect themselves. I've spent the day thinking about something Mrs. Shen said. People usually jump to help someone if they've fallen down. It's as if we are not seen as really belonging to American society, so it feels okay to treat us differently. These words hit close to home. Medford is not immune to the epidemic of racism. We must work together to join in the centuries-long fight against hate and white supremacy. We must listen to and engage with our neighbors, and we must ensure that these stories don't go unheard. We must address hate crimes in our own backyard, ensure that there are decent translation services available, and create trusted channels for residents that report incidents of hate. Diversity and inclusivity are not just slogans. These values must guide us in everything we do. Only this way can we truly stop Asian hate and keep our communities safe. In Chinese, we have a cheer, jiayou, which means fuel up or let's go. To Mrs. Shen, to her family and to Medford. Jiayou!
[Justin Tseng]: My name is Justin Tsang. I'm a student, a first-generation Taiwanese-American, and a proud member of the Medford community. I'm running for City Council to energize Medford with a bold, progressive vision and a commitment to justice. This is where I grew up. Like so many in Medford, my family moved here to settle down, build their careers, and raise their kid. This will always be home to me. Wellington embraced my family and it watched me grow up. When I was five years old, my parents sent me off to the McGlynn. I still remember Ms. Keynes standing there with her welcoming smile. You know, the McGlynn actually taught me what it meant to give back to my community. I remember coming back as a middle schooler to volunteer at the after school program or to help kids with cello. This is also where I learned about Medford's challenges. I remember realizing that my family's financial challenges weren't unique. I remember realizing that our teachers struggled to afford basic school supplies. And I remember realizing that as much as we talked about diversity, students like me would struggle to fit in. Here at Medford High, I made a commitment to ask the tough questions, to shine a light on injustice, and to think change. I remember sitting in the library to draft our school's improvement plans and to help choose our first school superintendent of color. And on Monday nights, I take the 134 down High Street, down to City Hall, where I work to uplift youth voices. Ever since high school, I've kept the fight up. I've worked on policy commissions and advocated for young Americans on the national stage. Here in Medford, I fought for families and against cuts to schools. I've never forgotten my roots and I've never forgotten my love for Medford. It's this love that brings me back to City Hall. I'm running for Medford City Council because it's time we had a dignified city government that pursues progress and not the status quo. A diverse and representative city government that leads and listens. Faced with a pandemic, a warming climate, significant cuts to schools, and our centuries-long fight against racism, we need leaders that realize that meaningful structural change starts right here at home. Please join us and visit www.justinformedford.com. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Okay, well, I thank you for coming up and saying what a lot of our community is thinking and has been thinking throughout the past few years. And I'll say, when I read the notice for that meeting, I also didn't take it as you would take the vote that you took. And a lot of adults didn't take it that way either. And I think the notice did say exactly what the meeting would be about. It didn't lie. There were no lies in it. It stated the truth. But there's a part of it that includes communication. and communicating to school committee members, to the general public about what the meeting might entail. And because of laws, you can't talk outside of a meeting. That's the problem. Yeah, and that's a huge problem that acts as a roadblock. But maybe allowing the public to know via social media, which you guys are all very good about, but to know via social media what might happen in a meeting, and to tell people, come. Come to this meeting. I think that really helps out. I'll say from the student perspective, when we read that on Facebook, when our friends texted the news, there were two reactions, generally. One was, what the heck? How did this just suddenly happen? And the other reaction was, oh, he was in for it. We knew that this would happen anyways. And both reactions aren't positive for our community. It's not positive for the school community, not positive for the general public, not positive for Mr. Bellson and his leadership. And I think a more open culture, the so-called New Medford, I think that's what we want to try and foster, what we want to try and sponsor, and how we deal with these issues going on. So being more open about what meetings might entail, and even, I would say, try more to advertise the committee of the whole meetings, because they're kind of put aside, and they allow for a more relaxed context, but I think it's important for people to know that these are important meetings, important stuff gets done in these meetings. I think that's super important. And I know Mr. Russo does this. He does town halls. He does meet the school committee member. And I think that's a great way for people in the community to engage with school committee members. So I say we have to take a step back, look at the bigger issue. It's about trust. And we need to build that trust between the general public and the Medford School Committee. And there's trust, but it can be stronger.
[Justin Tseng]: And it's interesting to see this kind of come full circle with me at the end of my school year. And yeah, I think it does boil down to unknown leadership. I think that's a huge part of it, and the incidents that have happened at the school this year. And I know earlier in the year, we talked about launching a PR campaign, and not necessarily diminishing the role of the Andrews, because they've done some amazing work as well, but highlighting the achievements of the McGlynn. So I think that's super important, and that we should try to use that to attract people back, but we also have to keep in mind the concept of equity. And we have to make sure that the student populations at both schools are reflective of the community as a whole and not disproportionate towards ELL populations. Well, that's a separate program, but towards certain populations and certain income groups. You know, Mr. Russo raised a really interesting idea of doing half and half of different schools, and you know, we need time to explore that option. But that does ensure, in a more fair way, that we have a fair representation of different income groups and different racial groups and social groups there at both schools. So we have to keep in mind that equity is super important in making sure the reputation of our school. If you have more challenged population in one school, that's going to be reflected in your test scores. And parents are going to look at that and choose one school over the other. So we need to make sure that looks fair. And another good idea is we talked about cohorts. And I know Ms. Van der Gloot, at the beginning of the year, talked about how a lot of parents are choosing the injuries because their friends or the friends of their kids are going there. And that's the reality. I mean, they are going there because of their cohorts. I'm just throwing this out there, and I'm not saying this is a perfect solution by far, but I know Harvard does blocking groups. They have cohorts sign up together and request a certain dorm together and certain houses together. And I think maybe exploring something along those lines, making sure that we have equity in our lines. And I'm not saying it's perfect by any means, but looking at the importance of cohorts in distributing your students.
[Justin Tseng]: Beautiful. Justin? Did you ask both questions? No. I've not asked yours yet. Mine was the first one or the second one?
[Justin Tseng]: As you may know, the foreign language program at the high school has gone through many changes in the last decade. We've gone from a 5 out of 6 day cycle to making it a full core class 6 out of 6 days. A lot of this is in response to people saying that the foreign language department isn't treated as equally with different departments and given the same attention, especially in a globalizing world. So we focused on the high school, but what do you think we can do as a district at the elementary and middle school levels?
[Justin Tseng]: Taking a step back from foreign language and looking at globalization with a larger lens. Many Medford High and Medford Public Schools graduates move on to work in different countries or go to different countries to study, and many come from families of different countries, like you and me. So how would you help Medford Public Schools be plugged into this wider international community?
[Justin Tseng]: Hello. So as you may know, the Medford High School is in the process of integrating with the Vogue. And one of the biggest issues faced with this integration is the aligning GPAs from the Vogue side and the academic side. Many Vogue students who were in the top 10 before now find themselves applying to colleges while their rank is in the top 100. And to them, it doesn't seem fair because they've worked hard for their grades and suddenly compared to everyone else in the weighting system that we have, they've slipped. So that's the academic part of that. But there's also a social component to that as well, in that a lot of VOC students feel like they're outnumbered by high school students. How would you reconcile these differences, academically and socially?
[Justin Tseng]: Hi, so a lot of social science teachers are pushing for a reinstatement of a civics curriculum in our education. What do you think is the role of civic engagement at the high school, the middle school, and the elementary levels?
[Justin Tseng]: What do you see as the role of student leadership and student leadership groups in shaping school policy?
[Justin Tseng]: A lot of focus is given to the core subjects that are tested, English, math, science. How would you balance the importance of getting high scores and devoting resources to those subjects and to other subjects that a lot of people don't consider core subjects, such as foreign language and various classes and extracurricular activities like sports and arts and music?
[Justin Tseng]: No.
[Justin Tseng]: I have a follow-up to that question. What do you see as the role of student leadership in shaping school policy?
[Justin Tseng]: So, as you know, we live in a diverse community and in a globalizing society. Our students come from all over the world, and after they leave high school, they end up in different countries, studying different countries, working in different countries. How would you build a global connection between the Medford Public Schools and the world as a whole?
[Justin Tseng]: I have a follow-up to that. So you talked about restless seniors, which I know all too well. But there are restless students of other grades as well. A lot of students who know they want to major in science, they don't get the point of taking a history class or an English class. And it's the same with other subjects, with foreign languages or with math. how would you propose to give classes more meaning to students?
[Justin Tseng]: So you have a lot of innovative ideas for the Medford Public School District, and you spoke a little about potentially scaring away some stakeholders in our community. As you know, contract negotiations are going on this month, and they may not conclude until the new superintendent takes office. If you were put in a situation where the contract did not allow you the flexibility that you desire to build this innovative teaching method, this innovative community, how would you work within that contract?
[Justin Tseng]: We talked about the VOC and one of the biggest issues that we've seen with the integration of the VOC in high school is grade alignment. So a lot of people who were in the top 10 in the VOC now find themselves in the top 100 at Medford High. And a lot of people from the VOC do want to attend four-year institutions. They rely on their GPA, their ranking. How would you attempt to balance the situation or solve this? And the second part to this question is, how would you make sure that VOC students overall do feel like they're part of the Medford High community and not overshadowed by Medford High students?
[Justin Tseng]: We want our leaders to be proactive and to listen to us. and to be truthful to us and not to go about what students perceive as the Medford way, backroom deals and talking behind our backs.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I would also like to add that CCSR is an organization that truly makes Medford unique among other communities. I mean, it really helps to stand out. If you just look at all these projects and the projects that we see in the portfolio, and we know that Medford students like to give back, they want to give back, and that Medford is in good hands. It's one of the organizations that's central to so much in our community, and we see it in about everything that we do, regarding schools and even outside of the community. I mean, I remember there was one meeting I was at, and There was just a whole list of initiatives starting in Medford, and almost everyone has attended back in the CCSR. And I just love to thank Mr. Trotta, Mr. Skorka, all the students, all the student leaders for doing so much for our community.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh yeah, I just wanted to echo what committee member said about having to make sure that We're not discriminating against students because they don't have the financial need for a bunch of circumstances. And I was also concerned that the word that you pointed out with regard to having two bunches of different policies charged at the same price. I don't think that's equal, and I think that needs to be reviewed.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I want to say that I feel that Mr. Bilson's analysis of the situation is completely accurate. From my experience, students push and shove to get on the bus because they want preferential seating. You know, you don't want to walk onto a bus where half the seats are already taken and you don't have as many options. So, I mean, I've been on both sides of the situation where I've been pushed, and I, well, I haven't been shoved, but I'm purposefully shoving. So, I mean, I know what it's like to, why we do this. And, you know, what he says is completely correct. And, you know, it's part of our responsibility as students to understand that, you know, this is a privilege and that we have to be respectful in using it. And I think we should find a way to advance that idea in the schools and within the student body. And I'd like to thank Dr. Peralta for doing that thing. I think moving the location where the bus picks up is very important and it will do us a lot of good.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think baking is a really serious issue that really came out of nowhere. And it really took hold about six months ago. And I didn't know it was such a big issue until the beginning of this school year. And I think we have to work with different communities. talk about it too, because I know people who've gotten them from Uber or from different cities, and it's just, it's a super serious issue. I think a really effective way we can tackle this, in addition to implementing lessons about it in the health department and with students, is having faculty, teachers talk about it with students too. My math teacher just wrapped up a unit on drug use with our class, and I think it was super, super insightful and super effective. And just having teachers be very genuine about, you know, you shouldn't do this. And actually vaping is, could be, we don't know enough about it, but it could be worse than cigarettes because of the frequency, the high levels of nicotine and the frequency that people use it. And I totally agree. It just has to be a whole community effort. And it's tougher to deal with than cigarettes because it's less visible. But we have to try. And we've been so, so successful with cigarettes in the last 20 years. I think we need to start doing the same things with vaping. And I trust that you and the school community will do whatever we can.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I would also like to add that CCSR is an organization that truly makes Medford unique among other communities. We know that Medford students like to give back. They want to give back. And that Medford is in good hands. It's one of the organizations that's central to so much in our community. And we see it in about everything that we do regarding schools and even outside of the community. I mean, I remember there was one meeting I was at. there was just a whole list of initiatives starting in Medford. And almost everyone has attended back in the CCSR. And I would just love to thank Mr. Trotta, Mr. Skorka, all the students, all the student leaders for doing so much for our community.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, yeah. I just wanted to echo what committee members have said about having and making sure that We're not discriminating against students because they don't have the financial need for a bunch of circumstances. And I was also concerned with the word that you picked up with regard to having two bunches of different policies charged at the same price. I don't think that's equal, and I think that needs to be reviewed.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I want to say that I feel that Mr. Gilson's analysis of the situation is completely accurate. From my experience, students push and shove to get on the bus because they want preferential seating. You know, you don't want to walk onto a bus where half the seats are already taken and you don't have as many options. So I mean, I've been on both sides of the situation where I've been pushed and I, well, I haven't pushed and shoved.
[Justin Tseng]: And it's part of our responsibility as students to understand that this is a privilege and that we have to be respectful in using it. And I think we should find a way to advance that idea in the schools and within the student body. And I'd like to thank Dr. Peralta for doing that. I think moving the location where the bus picks up is very important, and it will do us a lot of good.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think vaping is a really serious issue that really came out of nowhere. I mean, it really took hold about six months ago. And I didn't know it was such a big issue until the beginning of this week. talk about it too, because I know people who've gotten it from Uber or from different cities. And it's just, it's a super serious issue. I think a really effective way we can tackle this, in addition to implementing lessons about it in the health department and with students, is having faculty, teachers talk about it with students too. My math teacher just wrapped up a unit on drug use with our class, and I think it was super, super insightful and super effective. And just having teachers be very genuine about, you know, you shouldn't do this. And actually vaping is, could be, we don't know enough about it, but it could be worse than cigarettes because of the high levels of nicotine and the frequency that people use it. And I totally agree, it just has to be a whole community effort. And it's tougher to deal with than cigarettes, because it's less visible. But we have to try. And we've been so, so successful with cigarettes in the last 20 years. I think we need to start doing the same things with baking. And I trust that you and the school committee will do whatever we can.
[Justin Tseng]: I would like to reinforce what we just said in that students at Medford High are so, we're so dedicated to learning and a bunch of us are so dedicated to learning foreign languages. And I wanted to say to Carlo, we don't say thank you enough for all that you've done for us. And especially those in the AP class, they all love you so much. effort in the future as we move forward to a more globalized and more open world. We should continue with all of the efforts that we've put into our language learning programs.
[Justin Tseng]: I'd like to thank the teachers of the Midland, my teachers, for coming here and standing up for yourselves and standing up for your students. I think what we have here is an issue of, you know, the public is more attracted to one school than the other. But we need to find out why. And I can give you my perspective on why. It's not that McGlynn teachers are worse than Andrews teachers. It's definitely not that. Because I've talked to students coming from the Andrews and to parents who have students at the McGlynn, at the Andrews, or even in the elementary schools. And that's not their concern. It's not that the staff at the McGlynn is poorly paired or it's that it doesn't work well, but rather that the Andrews just, they look at technology, and they look at a component of who's at the school. And there's a perception that the McGlynn is a step behind the Andrews when it comes to technology. And there's also a perception that the McGlynn is a step behind the Andrews when it comes to wealth, and how we use that wealth, and how that's portrayed in our socioeconomic status. And what we really have to do is look at, you know, these are the problems. How do we solve these problems? Not that, you know, oh, you know, the teachers are the problems or, you know, it's about working together. You know, we shouldn't make random decisions when we don't have to. If we know that teachers aren't the problem, we shouldn't shuffle them around because it doesn't really work that way. We need to identify the problems that we have at hand. And that means 60% of McGlynn kids are high need. How do we find out, how do we figure out that balance between the two schools? And I'm sorry to say it, but I don't believe it, but that 60% of students are high needs, and the diversity of school leads some people to prefer the Andrews over the MacLennan. It's a sad reality, it's a sad truth. And it doesn't mean that it is the truth. It's just what people think. And just like Mrs. DiBenedetto said, it's about PR. And we need to make sure that people in our community understand that both schools have great teachers and that we even out the playing field for both schools from now on.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, well, I mean, I've seen the videos throughout the school for the no more campaign. Yes. And I've seen people wear the shirts and yeah, there's a presence.
[Justin Tseng]: I'd like to thank the teachers of the Midland, my teachers, for coming here and standing up for yourselves and standing up for your students. I think what we have here is an issue of, you know, The public is more attracted to one school than the other. But we need to find out why. And I can give you my perspective on why. It's not that McGlynn teachers are worse than Andrews teachers. It's definitely not that. Because I've talked to students coming from the Andrews and to parents who have students at the McGlynn, at the Andrews, or even in the elementary schools. And that's not their concern. It's not that the staff at the McGlynn is poorly paired or it's that it doesn't work well, but rather that the Andrews just, they look at technology and they look at a component of who's at the school. And there's a perception that the McGlynn is a step behind the Andrews when it comes to technology. And there's also a perception that the McGlynn is a step behind the Andrews when it comes to wealth. how we use that wealth and how that's portrayed in our socioeconomic status. And what we really have to do is look at, you know, these are the problems. How do we solve these problems? Not that, you know, oh, you know, the teachers are the problems or, you know, it's about working together. You know, we shouldn't make random decisions when we don't have to. If we know that teachers aren't the problem, we shouldn't shuffle them around because it doesn't really work that way. We need to identify the problems that we have at hand. And that means 60% of McGlynn kids are high need. So how do we figure out that balance between the two schools? And I'm sorry to say it, but I don't believe it. But that 60% of students are high needs. And the diversity of school leads some people to prefer the Andrews over the MacLennan. And it's a sad reality. It's a sad truth. And it doesn't mean that it is the truth. what people think, and just like Mrs. DiBenedetto said, it's about PR, and we need to make sure that people in our community understand that both schools have great teachers, and that we even out the playing field for both schools from now on.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, well, I mean, I've seen the videos throughout the school for the no more campaign. Yes. And I've seen people wear the shirts and yeah, there's a presence.
[Justin Tseng]: And we learned a lot.
[Justin Tseng]: I'd like to thank the teachers of the Midland, my teachers, for coming here and standing up for yourselves and standing up for your students. I think what we have here is an issue of, you know, the public is more attracted to one school than the other. But we need to find out why. And I can give you my perspective on why. It's not that McGlynn teachers are worse than Andrews teachers. It's definitely not that. Because I've talked to students coming from the Andrews and to parents who have students at the McGlynn at the Andrews or even in the elementary schools. And that's not their concern. It's not that the staff at the McGlynn is poorly paired or it's that it doesn't work well, but rather that the Andrews just, they look at technology and they look at a component of who's at the school. And there's a perception that McGlynn is a step behind the Andrews when it comes to technology. And there's also a perception that the McGlynn is the step behind the Andrews when it comes to wealth and how we use that wealth and how that's portrayed in our social economic status. And what we really have to do is look at, you know, these are the problems. How do we solve these problems? Not that, you know, oh, you know, the teachers are the problems or, you know, it's about working together. You know, we shouldn't make random decisions when we don't have to. If we know that teachers aren't the problem, we shouldn't shuffle them around, because it doesn't really work that way. We need to identify the problems that we have at hand. And that means 60% of McGlynn kids are high need. How do we figure out that balance between the two schools? And I'm sorry to say it, but I don't believe it, but that 60% of students are high needs. And the diversity of school leads some people to prefer the Andrews over the McBlin. It's a sad reality. It's a sad truth, and it doesn't it doesn't mean that it is the truth. It's just what people think and Just like mr. Beaver said it's about PR and we need to make sure that people in our community understand that both schools have great teachers and that we even out the playing field for both schools from now on
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, well I mean, I've seen the videos throughout the school for the no more campaign. Yes. And I've seen people wear the shirts and yeah, there's a presence.
[Justin Tseng]: And whereas the many cultures represented in our community are all affected, including heterosexual, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals, communities of color, immigrants, the youth, the aged, the infirmed, and the differently abled.