ORDER-2022-34 : Revised Rules of Order of the Melrose City Council

Transcript (~1 h 53 min @ 1:16:35)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 1:16:20 Jeff McNaught: Tramontozzi said that will be recommended to the full council for passage at the next meeting and after the public hearing on December 6th which is at eight o'clock so Mr. McClellan did I miss anything I think that's it awesome great job everybody thank you for

▶ 1:16:42 Jeff McNaught: being with us tonight we'll we'll let you go and uh and move on to other business so

▶ 1:17:05 Jeff McNaught: do we have to make another motion to take the third item out of order we do okay um counselor Migliorelli since you were nodding yes it's order 2022-34

▶ 1:17:20 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you. Motion to move 2022-34 out of order to now.

▶ 1:17:28 Speaker 7: Second.

▶ 1:17:30 Jeff McNaught: We have a motion by Councillor Migliorelli to move order 2022-34 out of order, seconded by Councillor McMaster. Seeing no discussion, Mr. Clerk, will you please call the roll?

▶ 1:17:45 Speaker 2: Chair McNaught? Yes. Councillor Tramontozzi? yes counselor mcmaster yes councillor Garipay yes councillor Grigoraitis yes councillor migliorelli

▶ 1:18:06 Speaker 2: yes councillor stewart yes councillor thomas yes and president sanello yes that's nine yes

▶ 1:18:13 Jeff McNaught: motion passes so we now have before us order 2022-34 revised rules of order of the melrose

▶ 1:18:25 Jeff McNaught: city council and first i'm going to go to um counselor Grigoraitis thank you chair mcnaught

▶ 1:18:31 Jen Grigoraitis: i just wanted to take a moment um of personal privilege as the person who created this special committee to thank counselors mcmaster yourself counselor Garipay stewart and eccles for your work on this i know it was a tremendous amount of time that you put into this process and i i think what we have before us is a really robust update to our rules and reflect some of the changes that we've put in place as the first council to ever operate remotely so i just wanted to personally thank you all i know that that was time that you took away from pretty much anything else that you could have been doing in order to bring this before us so thank you for that thank you council

▶ 1:19:11 Jeff McNaught: Grigoraitis um president sanella do you have something uh thank you uh chair McNaught i just

▶ 1:19:16 Christopher Cinella: i want to echo council Grigoraitis's remarks i think it's important to note that um although we don't have special committees all that often um it is an added duty in addition to regular council committees and full council additional time away from your families but it was important

▶ 1:19:39 Jeff McNaught: work. I thank you all for stepping up. Thank you, President Cinella. And at this time, I'm going to turn it over to Council McMaster, who chaired the Special Rules Committee, did a wonderful job, might I add. Council McMaster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me? Yes.

▶ 1:19:58 Shawn M. MacMaster: Thank you again, and a special thank you to Councilor Grigoraitis for her foresight and leadership and creating the special committee on the rules of order during her time as president her decision to appoint the committee to look globally and critically at the rules was an affirmative step toward improving the flow of council business into creating a more transparent legislative process i'd also like to thank president sanella for uh extending the work of the special committee after president Grigoraitis term had ended so thank you to both of you for your leadership i'd also like to thank the members of the special committee all of whom were active participants in crafting the proposal before the body this evening and who devoted several nights to working through some very dense material vice chair eccles council the garipay council mcnaught and council stuart thank you all for your time and your hard work in terms of the scope of our work the special committee met on five occasions between november 11 2020 and september 8 2021 each meeting focused on a set of rules which we reviewed individually and worked through one by one the average time of our meetings was approximately an hour and a half important to note is that these were working meetings where the committee's entire time was spent reviewing interpreting revising discussing and debating the current rules we also spent time proposing revising discussing and debating a handful of new rules outside of these meetings as chair i spent numerous hours incorporating the suggestions and edits of committee members this process of writing and revising cannot be captured in hours If you recall, prior to the first meeting of the committee, then President Grigoraitis emailed the entire council, inviting councils to propose changes to the rules and to participating in the meetings should they desire. In addition to the members of the special committee, Councilor Grigoraitis and President Sinella both offered proposals, which the committee adopted and which are reflected in this proposal. While the proposal before you passed the special committee unanimously, it's important to note that the committee was involved in some lively debate, and that not every rule was initially agreed upon. I'm proud of the committee for the work that we did to reach a compromise on several of these rules. We didn't let stubbornness or perfection prevent us from reaching what we believe is a very strong set of rules for this body. we were very deliberative in our work mindful that our charge would affect future councils not just this one so we approached every revision with the long-term benefit of the city council in mind one of the things that i know we have all struggled with is trying to interpret rules that were written many many years ago and for which there is no written or recorded record of intent with this in mind we did our best to interpret and modernize the rules In doing so, we simplified the language of existing rules, addressing ambiguity, ensuring consistency in the use of terms, and offering recommendations for a series of revised and new rules. We also created a commentary section, which is meant to memorialize the intent behind the rules that, in accordance with our mandate, have either been substantially amended or newly created. Finally, I do realize and I appreciate that we have eight amendments to the proposed rules before us this evening. 2 of those amendments I have proposed independently from my role as chair of the committee. The ones that I have proposed a relatively benign, and I believe upon further reflection, strengthen the intent of the rules as intended by the special committee. I'd like to thank the makers of the 6 other amendments for their ideas and suggestions. And I look forward to hearing more about their proposed amendments and discussing them with everyone tonight. After doing so, I'm very hopeful that we'll move this order favorably out of committee this evening with any and all accepted amendments.

▶ 1:24:14 Jeff McNaught: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Council McMaster. And again, you brought back some good memories. It was a lot of good fun hours. And I also just wanted to mention that clerk foot was with us for the ride as well. God bless her. Must have been a blast listening to us all those evenings. But really, really shepherded us through great Council McMaster and handled it professionally all the way to the end as you always do. So, thank you. What I wanted to do this evening was Council McMaster mentioned that we had a little bit more than a handful of rules or proposed amendments, I should say. And what I want to do is take those in numerical order as they come. And we've received proposed amendments from Councilor Migliorelli, Councilor Grigoraitis, and Councilor McMaster. So, what I'll do is I will call by rule and the Councilor who proposed that amendment and turn it over to you to start discussion. And 1st up we have, Andrew, if you could pull this up, by the way, Councilor Migliorelli red line. um red line version that she handed in um councilman early we're going to move first to rule

▶ 1:25:36 Leila Migliorelli: 13. thank you mr chairman and thank you um to the members of the committee who worked on this i know it's incredibly hard to edit a document alone never mind all together as a group and so i appreciate going through this um and seeing some of the changes you made to help clarify language and um had offered these amendments as a way to primarily to tight language and for clarity's sake um also with some substantive suggestions so for rule 13 um i had suggested um for the first first part of my amendment to rule 13 um was to lower the amount of time i just think that you know we should be um as you know members who are trying to communicate to the public be as concise as possible and to me 15 minutes felt like a very long time for any one person to be talking to introduce um introduce a topic um additionally especially given that in the prior rules we had only allowed for i think five minutes total so it when looking at all the different minute increases it just seems like you know if you could stick to 10 minutes to do an opening remark that should be sufficient um on the second part of the second paragraph i don't know what everyone can see here but i'm just gonna look on my own screen um at the edits um i just tried to combine um two of in paragraph two and paragraph three two of the pieces to just sort of generally say on general matters of discussion or when a matter is under debate so just can making that concise into one sentence um members so the council should occupy no more than five minutes i'm speaking on a particular subject for each point under debate um and just tighten that that was just tightening up two separate paragraphs into one um and then for the sort of the third part of um the changes i'm suggesting uh was to i think the nine points under consideration for the president while helpful it just seems out of step with the rest of the document in which we don't usually we don't seem to in other places in the rules go into you know what one should consider while they're trying to um you know offer a an amendment or offer um or as they're presiding over um a meeting so to me it just seemed like a little bit just too many subjective points for a presiding officer to consider and perhaps something that might be hard to do on the fly so i think for me uh and you know being on the council for the last two years the point that i think about when granting time more time to a counselor to speak when i'm chairing a meeting um is you know whether the person they're dialogue dialoguing with has occupied more time than the than the counselor asking questions so that was the one point i thought um important to retain and felt like the rest of the h or or some things that are just sort of you know common sense kind of things that should be considered but um just didn't know if it needed to be spelled out so explicitly in this document um so i'd like to offer a motion to offer um my amendments to rule 13 um on discussion for for the committee mr chairman

▶ 1:29:20 Speaker 7: i'll second it for the discussion you're muted chairman mr chairman thank you thank you for

▶ 1:29:23 Jeff McNaught: pulling that down um mr clerk welcome vice chair eccles coming from another long meeting we know um so we have um a motion to amend rule 13 uh counselor Migliorelli's motion seconded by councillor mcmaster on discussion council mcmaster thank you mr chairman and thank you

▶ 1:29:50 Shawn M. MacMaster: Councilman Migliorelli. I had seconded the motion for the purposes of discussion. I think Councilman Migliorelli does raise some good points. I'd just like to speak to the amendments so that other members who did not sit on the special committee have at least an idea of why the language and the proposal is what it is. With respect to the 10 minutes, those members of the special committee may remember that we had we had started at 20 minutes for introducing an order and i think upon further discussion and reflection we felt that 20 minutes was too much we had then discussed doing 10 minutes and the compromise that we reached was 15 minutes understanding that you may have an order that has two sponsors and what that would do is should each sponsor uh want to speak to the maximum amount of time if they split their time in half that would be seven and a half minutes which would be less than 10 minutes for one counselor um i i don't feel strongly about the the 10-minute rule i don't want to suggest that that other members feel the same way um so the the 10 minutes is something i i could support uh the the other amendments I would like to speak to because I feel more strongly about those as proposed by the special committee. What I would say with respect to the nine points is that what it does is it allows the presiding officer to be able to essentially make findings when somebody is seeking additional time. And the presiding officer can point to any one or more of those nine points to cite as reason for why a counselor shall be afforded additional time or shouldn't be given additional time. Some of those reasons, as you can see in the proposed rule, might be time that is occupied by answers that are provided by individuals who appear before the council in the hour of the of the day or of the evening public interest in a particular matter that may have garnered significant public attention so i do think those those nine points are important because otherwise a decision by presiding officer could be seen as arbitrary without pointing to particular reasons for making a determination as to whether or not a consular should be given additional time or should stop at the maximum time allowed. And my apologies, did I miss a third point, Councillor Migliorelli? Was there a third? I'm no longer up, so I can't see the amendment.

▶ 1:32:52 Leila Migliorelli: through the chair um the third point was just combining i think in paragraph two taking some parts out of paragraph three and just combining it into paragraph two so i think the points that you had said you that were split up with one and one paragraph it said in general matters of discussion and then the other paragraph it said matters under debate and i just condensed

▶ 1:33:17 Shawn M. MacMaster: that to one sentence so i'd be happy to hear what others say um my apologies mr chair But through you, I'd be happy to hear what other consulates say. I could certainly see myself being okay with changing from 15 minutes to 10 minutes when introducing an order. I think I'd be inclined to stick with the rest of the order as is. If this amendment doesn't pass, I'd be willing to make a subsequent friendly amendment to add or to further amend from 15 to 10 minutes for introducing an order.

▶ 1:33:53 Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. chairman. Thank you.

▶ 1:33:58 Jeff McNaught: Anyone else wish to speak on the matter?

▶ 1:34:06 John N. Tramontozzi: Council chairman Tunzey. Thank you, Mr. chair. I agree with Councilor McMaster regarding the You don't want the chairman of the committee or the president to arbitrarily meaning arbitrarily and capriciously rule on the matter of the timing and the reasons for stopping discussion, and then have it be debated as to whether or not the guidelines were followed in allowing discussion. So I think those principles, those nine ideas are relevant, and it's something to, if anything, going to assist the chairman in his rulings on what's being discussed. So, I think those should stay in place. Ten minutes, I think ten minutes is appropriate. I mean, how much time do you need to introduce it? I get there may be co-sponsors, but not always all co-sponsors want to speak on it, and usually there's, in past experience, there's one sponsor that takes the lead and um and does the discussions on it so 10 minutes is appropriate i would go um with the amendment to 10 minutes but leave the rest of that order in place or is that as

▶ 1:35:37 Speaker 5: recommended by the committee thank you council chairman tozy any other councils wishing to speak

▶ 1:35:42 Jeff McNaught: council Grigoraitis council garepe and i've got you next thank you mr chair um i agree with reducing

▶ 1:35:46 Jen Grigoraitis: from 15 to 10 i think um until we've and someone's actually talked non-stop for 15 minutes i'm not sure any of us really can think about how long of that amount of time that is um and that i certainly know we want to keep meetings moving along um i i agree with counselor Migliorelli about the nine points of order feeling just kind of unnecessarily um drilled down given the other things and i i do think there are other places in this document i know one of which i've offered amendment on where we do talk about the discretion of the care so i want to be mindful that if we're being really um clear about what it like you've got to be consistent throughout so if we're subscribing nine sub points to something i think we've got to then look through where else are we doing that um i and i think that's part of the challenge of being a person is that you there is a level of discretion and that there is always the ability of the body to motion to appeal the ruling of a chair, whether that's regarding somebody asking for more time or not. So I would be inclined to support Councillor McEwelly's amendment just because I think it makes the rest of the document more consistent, and I'm also in support of shortening the time.

▶ 1:37:04 Speaker 5: Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Curtis. Councillor Garipay?

▶ 1:37:11 Mark Garipay: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. What keeps coming to my mind with this rule is during the library discussion which was probably one of the largest votes that the council has had to take in in a number of years and and i i did seek a lot of time and i you know at the discretion of the uh as a chair so you know i i do get uh worried on upon on a subject that is a large um large financial impact to the community and as you represent a number of number of constituents and i think as a counselor we should be able to have as much as much time as possible to to answer the questions and get the answers that are that our constituents need and you know the way it is now i believe that you know public participation you can talk longer than we can When we're asking questions, and, uh, so, you know, I'm, I'm happy with what came out of, uh, came out of the committee, uh, and I'll, and I'll vote to, uh, support, um. Support the document as it came out of committee regarding this rule.

▶ 1:38:27 Jack Eccles: Thank you Councilor Garipay, Vice Chair Eccles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I believe I recall when we discussed this in the special committee, I was, I was 1 of the, the 10 minute people that Councilor McMaster mentioned. So I. Um, I'm inclined to support that. I, I also don't see a huge difference in outcomes. Based on how broad the 9 points are as to whether or not it's at the complete discretion of the chair, or you need to point to a specific reason. So. I'll probably I will vote in favor of this amendment and if this fails, I'll vote in favor of. Revising it, um, back to 10 minutes as well. Thank you. Vice chair Eccles.

▶ 1:39:10 Speaker 5: Uh, any further discussion. Okay.

▶ 1:39:16 Jeff McNaught: Seeing none, Mr clerk, um.

▶ 1:39:25 John N. Tramontozzi: Can you please call the role? I may have missed something. Is there a specific motion that we're voting on as a motion to accept the committee's recommendation? Is that what it is?

▶ 1:39:35 Jeff McNaught: Oh, it's a motion to accept council. Amendments to rule 13, seconded by a counselor, McMaster. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you.

▶ 1:39:49 Speaker 1: Chairman not yes, vice chair.

▶ 1:39:53 Speaker 2: Yes, no.

▶ 1:40:04 Speaker 2: Counselor.

▶ 1:40:11 Speaker 2: Counselor. Yes. Counselor.

▶ 1:40:31 Speaker 2: yes councillor stewart no councillor thomas no president sanella yes mr chairman

▶ 1:40:45 Speaker 2: mr chairman i was i was skipped i'm sorry i'm sorry my apologies uh councillor mcmaster no

▶ 1:41:07 Jeff McNaught: that's three yes i don't know i don't think that count is right uh mr clerk mr council mcmaster

▶ 1:41:12 Shawn M. MacMaster: Yes, Mr. chairman at this time, in light of that, not having passed, uh, to counselor, or at least 1st. Uh, uh, amendment. Or 1st, part of her amendment that she had previously filed, I would make a friendly amendment to. I'm sorry.

▶ 1:41:32 Jeff McNaught: 1 moment, I, I'm not sure what the vote was Council McMaster.

▶ 1:41:39 Speaker 2: We have 5 yes, and we have. I know, so it's split in the middle. That's right. We're missing council. Jamala Dean.

▶ 1:42:01 Speaker 5: Yes, so council McMaster. Okay. Sorry.

▶ 1:42:04 Shawn M. MacMaster: So, that, because it didn't pass that the motion would would fail. So, if that, if it's. Proceed Mr. chairman, what I would do is to constantly make the rallies. uh point that she raised with respect to the time i would be happy to make a friendly amendment to the rule before uh the body right now rule 13 as proposed by the special committee on the rules of order to change uh from 15 minutes to 10 minutes uh within that first sentence a counselor or any combination of consulates who file an order ordinance petition resolution or remonstrance shall be given up to 10 minutes in total to introduce the matter so i'd be willing to amend that from 15 to 10. is that a motion or was that just discussion

▶ 1:43:08 Shawn M. MacMaster: it's it's a motion uh mr chairman thank you

▶ 1:43:15 Jeff McNaught: you but second that motion so we have a counselor McMaster's motion to amend the committee's special committees rule 13 from 15 minutes to 10 minutes seconded by councillor tram and tozi no other changes to said rule no other proposed

▶ 1:43:34 Shawn M. MacMaster: changes yes mr. chairman just to be clear it relates only to the 15 minutes Reducing the 50 minutes to 10 in the 1st sentence, I'm not moving to reduce it in the 3rd sentence, because I do think 15 minutes is appropriate when you are asking questions and you have a non member who is occupying significant time during the questioning. So, I just want to clarify that Mr. chairman.

▶ 1:44:03 Jeff McNaught: Any further discussion.

▶ 1:44:11 Robb Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to clarify through the chair that I was always in favor of the 15 minutes because I don't believe there should be a time limit to something that may come up that is fairly important. And while rare, I don't want us to be seen as being limited. So, I cannot support this.

▶ 1:44:35 Jeff McNaught: Thank you, Council Stewart. Council McGeary-Reilly?

▶ 1:44:38 Leila Migliorelli: Just a point of clarification is that I think the only part that Councilor McMaster is amending is the opening remarks at 15 minutes, changing it to 10. So any subsequent conversation is as how it was presented to the council by the committee. So only change to the opening remarks, no change to

▶ 1:45:02 Speaker 5: dialogue thank you thank you council mcgill really uh counselor stewart um does that

▶ 1:45:08 Jeff McNaught: if you'd like to speak to whether that satisfies your concern or i think mr that's helpful any

▶ 1:45:22 Jeff McNaught: other councils what i would say is i think we're at a point of compromise we had a five to five vote a moment ago um interestingly we we don't have our 11th um counselor um by numbers tonight um but uh we also have a friendly amendment to to make compromise i think in this in this proposed uh change so um that being said i think the nine points for a chair to to go by um can be used as is as guidelines i don't think that they have to be cited or um the only nine used at all times or at all so um i was on the fence before of whether how much they mattered or not but i i guess what i'm saying is i'm i'm okay with them being in the document or not uh i don't think that they'll cause any harm um mr clark will you please call the roll chair mcnaught

▶ 1:46:28 Speaker 2: Yes, vice chair. Yes, yes. Counselor McMaster.

▶ 1:46:40 Speaker 2: Yes, counselor.

▶ 1:46:47 Speaker 5: Thank you muted counseling. Yes.

▶ 1:46:53 Speaker 2: Counselor. Yes. Counselor.

▶ 1:47:01 Speaker 2: Yes, counselor Stewart.

▶ 1:47:07 Speaker 2: Yes, counselor Thomas. Yes, and president. Yes, that's 10. yes.

▶ 1:47:18 Jeff McNaught: The motion passes for rule 13. All right, so next we have, um. Again, if we could pull up councilor, um. Proposed amendments were on to rule 22.

▶ 1:47:38 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you, Mr chairman and, um. Upon reading my amendments again, and further thought, um. If if it's, uh, allowable, I'd like to, um. Change my amendments, um, and offer, um. In other words, I'm just waiting for this to pop up here.

▶ 1:48:10 Leila Migliorelli: So, right here, yeah, for rule 22. I'd like to change the 1st spot, so the, as it stood before it said, the chairperson of each standing committee shall ensure the sponsor of any legislative item have proper notice for all related hearings. Um. My intention was changing to clerk of committees was that as, you know, as I'm a new chair of a committee that it's often the clerk who's coordinating. The meetings, but I think that perhaps we should be. A compromising way would be to have it the chairperson of each standing committee. Comma in conjunction with the clerk of committees, comma. Shall ensure that the counselor counselors in France. Who sponsor any legislative item will have proper notice and to remove the 72 hours because 1, that's grammatically incorrect what I had written and 2, it's proper notice of hearings. Not proper. Not 72 hours in advance of the meeting. So, I was trying to make it related related to an earlier rule, which says that we're changing it to 72 hours in advance for all agendas and upon reading this again and careful thought it's that's not what this is. So, hopefully, I didn't just confuse everyone a little bit more, but. Narrowing it down the chairperson of each standing committee in conjunction with the clerk of committees, and then ensuring that counselors who sponsor any legislative item will have proper notice. So, that would be my amendment. I'm happy to repeat it again if that's unclear.

▶ 1:49:45 Jeff McNaught: To any counselors, would any counselors like that read again? Seeing no hands going up, Mr. Clark. Oh, sorry. Councilor Tramontozzi.

▶ 1:49:59 John N. Tramontozzi: Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you could just give me that again. Councilor Migliorelli, please. Sure.

▶ 1:50:08 Leila Migliorelli: So, the revised, so I'll do it 2 ways. The things I'm, I'm adding in after chairperson of each standing committee in conjunction with the clerk of committees. And that adding in that, it's instead of just the sponsor of any legislative item, it's counselors, counselor or counselors. Who sponsor any legislative item? So, if the intention is to make sure that the counselors who sponsored the item have notice of related hearings. That's the intention so hopefully that's clear. It's just adding in conjunction of the clerk with the clerk of committees and ensuring that counselors. Counselor counselors who sponsor any legislative items will have proper notice.

▶ 1:50:58 Speaker 1: Of all related hearings, thank you. That helps.

▶ 1:51:03 Jeff McNaught: you and I'm gonna ask the obvious question of can we step Andrew I know you don't have time to scribe these as we go and you're probably not going to go back and watch the whole meeting where that one was somewhat short do you mind just typing that up and emailing it to the clerk ultimately really all right

▶ 1:51:26 Jeff McNaught: Wow. Awesome. Did you do the last 1, too?

▶ 1:51:35 Jeff McNaught: Okay. All right. Good times. So, um, counselor is making a motion. To amend rule 22 as proposed by the special rules committee. As she just read to all of us and counselor Stewart is sending to the clerk. Um, do we have a 2nd.

▶ 1:52:09 Jeff McNaught: 2nd, the motion is seconded by council McMaster and on discussion we have culture Stewart.

▶ 1:52:16 Robb Stewart: Yes, Mr chair, just, uh. In the chair point of clarification on this, are we removing, uh, the 72 hours and just preferring. To, um, a proper.

▶ 1:52:34 Robb Stewart: Um, notice proper notice as opposed to this specifically the 72 hours.

▶ 1:52:41 Jeff McNaught: Or are we putting the 72 hours now? We were removing the 72 hours. That's the way I understood it.

▶ 1:52:46 Leila Migliorelli: Right. Yeah. Point of clarification. So it's meeting it as is. So I had added 72 hours. So, I'm taking that off the table and as the committee proposed proper notice, leaving that as is.

▶ 1:53:09 John N. Tramontozzi: Great. Council Chairman Tozzi? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through you, what is the definition of proper notice? Is that defined somewhere within the committee rules?

▶ 1:53:18 Jeff McNaught: You have to be an attorney. I kid, I kid. I think we're leaving it open purposely, if I'm not mistaken. That's my memory. To be reasonable more than reasonable, but council McMaster can speak more to that.

▶ 1:53:38 Shawn M. MacMaster: Thank you Mr. chairman. I'm happy to speak to that. And 1st, I'd like to thank council for the amendment. I think it makes complete sense and I'm going to support it through you. Mr. chairman to. Uh, consulate trim and toesy, we did keep open the word proper open purposely and really the intent here is to ensure that a meeting is not scheduled by a chair. Without the sponsor or sponsors being available for that meeting and then with respect to the proper notice that would relate to. Essentially having proper notice, which would be. in adequate notice another word uh that um there's going to be um uh that it's potentially going to be disposed that you can't dispose of something uh at the committee level unless those parties

▶ 1:54:39 Speaker 1: are present thank you council mcmaster thank you uh counselors and mr chairman and welcome

▶ 1:54:48 Speaker 5: counselor jamala dean we're having a very uh spirited uh i won't say night of debate but

▶ 1:54:51 Jeff McNaught: But we're having some fun tonight. Um, um, okay. So, um. Corey comes to Tom, so I keep thinking you have your hand up because of that jacket on your door, but it's not your hand. You'd have a very tired on right now if it was. Um, so, um. Trying to frame this, so we have council proposed amendment to rule 22. um. As typed by councilor Stewart and sent to clerk, Gabriel, seconded by council McMaster. I believe all discussion is over. Mr. clerk. Will you please call the roll.

▶ 1:55:34 Speaker 1: Sure, chair with not yes.

▶ 1:55:38 Speaker 2: Vice chair, yes. Counselor yes. Counselor McMaster.

▶ 1:55:49 Speaker 2: Yes, yes. Councillor Grigoraitis? Yes. Councillor Migliorelli? Yes.

▶ 1:56:01 Speaker 2: Councillor Stewart? Yes.

▶ 1:56:07 Speaker 1: Councillor Thomas? Yes.

▶ 1:56:12 Speaker 2: Councillor Jamaleddine? President Sinella? Yes.

▶ 1:56:18 Speaker 5: We have 11 yes. The motion passes.

▶ 1:56:20 Jeff McNaught: Next, if we could pull up, Mr. Clerk, Council Grigoraitis' proposed amendment to rule 29.

▶ 1:57:06 Jen Grigoraitis: Chair McNaught, is it okay if I speak to this? Yeah, I can't see everybody. So this is an amendment to 29A, which is the portion of the rules regarding public comment, which I think everyone here knows is not actually a requirement that this body hold public comment, but I think we have a long history of doing so, which I'm very appreciative of so my amendment would return the amount of time allotted per person to 10 minutes which is what we're currently have we currently have um and then would remove some language regarding who can speak at public comment and i i believe the intent not to speak for the committee but was to be aware of some of the reason some folks who may want to come to public comment to you know maybe not move our city forward and that that's not something we would want to allow but i think it also raises some very real first amendment concerns so i think um who would remove that language um and therefore also remove the discretion of the chair um around who gets to speak at public comment and then would add in language stating that we will provide an option for remote participation and public comment whenever practicable and i appreciate that there was some mention of that during public comment tonight um but i do think we need that caveat in because as we have seen many times tonight technology fails all the time and so i would want to make sure that we can still continue particularly when we're back in an in-person meeting to have public comments so that's what is proposed before you and i would make a motion for recommendation for purposes of discussion second we have a motion um by council

▶ 1:58:47 Jeff McNaught: Grigoraitis to amend rule 29a as just described and in her red line edit sent to clark gobriel seconded by um councillor Migliorelli on discussion i don't believe i'm seeing any hands

▶ 1:59:12 Jeff McNaught: go up i'm sorry council mcmaster thank you mr chairman and thank you to councillor Grigoraitis

▶ 1:59:17 Shawn M. MacMaster: for the proposed uh amendment to this rule um i'd also add that i did um after the amendment was was filed i did seek the opinion of the city solicitor on this and essentially what she said is it's a rule that that we could certainly move forward on she said brookline is having a similar rule however she did caution us that that rule would have to be applied uniformly for across every committee and there is a risk a first amendment risk if that rule is not uniformly applied which to me does raise some flags even though we can do this council of Grigoraitis is absolutely correct and that the intent of of the committee um here uh was to prevent people who don't live in melrose who want to use our council meeting or committee meeting to try to make some sort of a political statement uh and um something that really has nothing to do with the a matter before uh the council so that was the intent however that being said i do think that um first amendment concerns outweighs um the the the concern about individuals coming into uh a meeting from outside uh melrose that have a certain political uh or extremist agenda um i do think uh this is this is reasonable i don't want to speak for the committee but i know the committee is not aware of the city solicitor the special committee uh weighing in on this um what i would also say is that should that scenario happen we could always somebody could always make an immediate motion to recess we could uh the the if the body decides to recess then we can come out of recess and in the presiding officer just could call the next person uh in you know for public comment so i'm fine with the amendment um i think it's a thoughtful amendment and uh again i don't want to speak on behalf of the special committee but i would be willing to support it as as written

▶ 2:01:25 Jeff McNaught: any further discussion 29a seeing none mr clerk will you please call the role chair mcnaught

▶ 2:01:34 Speaker 2: yes vice chair Eccles yes councillor Tramontozzi yes councillor mcmaster yes councillor Garipay

▶ 2:01:43 Speaker 2: yes councillor Grigoraitis yes councillor migliorelli yes councillor stewart yes

▶ 2:01:59 Speaker 2: Councillor Thomas? Yes. Councillor Jamaleddine? Yes. And President Sinella? Yes. We have 11 yes.

▶ 2:02:13 Jeff McNaught: The motion passes. Next, we have a proposed amendment to Rule 31A, and that would be Councillor Migliorelli proposed amendment.

▶ 2:02:26 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had added this to include instead of, I think, this new rule had said explicitly a resume and cover letter just from candidates who are willing, who are nominated for positions on committees and boards. And I had, And I feel it is important that we should allow people who may not have resumes that are up to date, whether they've been out of the workforce for a while or new to the workforce or what have you. I think we should be more inclusive to have a written statement of interest and or a resume if you choose. I think, you know, in some situations we've had nothing. Um, I think it's important to have something when we're considering a nomination. Um, but what that, what form that takes, um, I don't know that we have to be explicit to say that it has to include both. So, um, my changes were to amend rule 31, a, the suggested, um, proposed rule 31, a, to state all appointments made by the mayor and subject to the confirmation of the council. Shall include a written statement, and I'd like to add in a written statement of interest. Um, and or resume from the candidate.

▶ 2:03:58 Leila Migliorelli: And just leaving it like that, so that's my motion to amend.

▶ 2:04:05 Jeff McNaught: Councilor, you're on mute. Thank you. Council. Mr clerk if we can keep this document up where this is a short, short 1 that we're going to be discussing. I know that we're going to be going to, um. the proposed amendment right below it right after so um i just want to make the recommendation i know counselor stewart sent one of your amendments to uh the clerk um but i think that all makers of the proposed amendments should um email those on their own to the clerk and i think that would be very helpful because nobody's going to know your own amendment like yourself so that being said um are you making a motion uh did you make a motion for um passage of this proposed amendment

▶ 2:04:57 Leila Migliorelli: yeah motion to recommend um the amendment and just as written here just adding written statement of interest after the word statement other than that okay yes and do we have a second

▶ 2:05:11 Jeff McNaught: second all right a motion to amend rule 31a as proposed by council mcglarelli seconded by president sanella

▶ 2:05:25 Speaker 5: on discussion i'm just going to scroll here counselor mcmaster

▶ 2:05:29 Shawn M. MacMaster: thank you mr chairman again i appreciate this uh suggested amendment i think these are examples of amendments that improve the work of the special committee uh so thank you council I think, I think that makes sense as a number of candidates for commissions and boards or volunteers, and some perhaps haven't been in the workforce for a period of time that it's not. It's not, it may not be reasonable to expect both a statement of interest and a resume as long as there's 1, I think that satisfies the purpose of the proposed rule. So, I'd be fine with this.

▶ 2:06:16 Speaker 5: Any other discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Clark, will you please call the roll?

▶ 2:06:23 Speaker 2: Chair McNaught? Yes. Vice Chair Eccles? Yes. Councillor Tramontozzi? Yes. Councillor McMaster? Yes. Councillor Garipay? Yes. Councillor Grigoraitis? Yes.

▶ 2:06:38 Speaker 2: Councillor Migliorelli? Yes. Councillor Stewart? Yes. Councillor Thomas? Yes. Councillor Jamaleddine? Yes. And President Sinella? Yes. 11 yes.

▶ 2:06:57 Jeff McNaught: That motion passes. I'll give you a moment to catch up Mr. Clark. I know we've been moving quickly from...

▶ 2:07:05 Speaker 5: Let me know when you're ready.

▶ 2:07:10 Jeff McNaught: Okay, um, okay, so next we have is, as I stated before, um, rule 32, um, and we have proposed amendments by counselor and council McMaster we'll start with you. Council really as your document is still up.

▶ 2:07:28 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you Mr. chairman. Um. I had, I'm proposing to add to rule 32. Um, a requirement that all filings from the mayor or other city officials must include a written statement or memorandum detailing the intent of the filing and any impacts to the city's finances of applicable. I think we can all agree that it's helpful as we're headed into meetings to have some description, the company in order that describes what we're supposed to be voting on. even if it's something that gets voted on every year annually as is i think there still needs to be a description that's provided to the public um and then particularly if there's impact on the city's finances i know that over the course of time and being on the council um that's often one of the top questions that we we ask of the administration or any other city official is what what the impact is. So I really think that adding this to rule 32 is important. I did, however, I am also proposing to strike this amendment in support of, or that is proposing a minority vote of councillors to prohibit having an order in front of the council without documentation. I am in favour of the concept of it or the spirit of this edit to ensure that we do have documentation, any subsequent documentation that a department head might add it later on so i think um if i'm reading this correctly it's intended that once an order has been filed um when it goes to committee that there should if there's any other documentation that's being added by um any anyone on the city administration side that it is provided to the council um with 48 hours of notice um i agree with that but i don't think i i am not inclined at At this moment to support it with just a minority group of counselors invoking that order. I think we can always. Hold in committee, I think that's always an option if we feel like it should not be done at that time, but I am willing to listen to discussion on this. Um, but feel very strongly about the 1st, part of the amendment, which is adding a written statement to accompany all workers.

▶ 2:10:08 Jeff McNaught: and so um i know um i know what your proposed amendment is are you making a motion

▶ 2:10:17 Leila Migliorelli: or are we just on discussion um i think i just making a motion to add that sentence it let's let's um vote on adding the sentence into the first paragraph to see and that can be on discussion as well of course and then we can tackle the second part later okay parse it out all right so right

▶ 2:10:33 Jeff McNaught: now we're just voting on the um additional line added to the first paragraph of rule 32 um by councilor Migliorelli which reads all filings from the mayor or other city officials must include a written statement or memorandum dealing with the intent of the filing and any impacts that the city's finances if applicable councilor Migliorelli made a motion um

▶ 2:11:04 Speaker 1: Mr. Chair, for purposes of discussion, I will second the motion.

▶ 2:11:08 Speaker 5: Thank you, Councillor Stewart.

▶ 2:11:13 Jeff McNaught: Any further discussion on that additional line?

▶ 2:11:19 Speaker 5: Councillor McMaster.

▶ 2:11:21 Shawn M. MacMaster: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, thank you to Councillor Migliorelli for this proposal, and I appreciate parsing it out. I think that this does make sense because I'm amenable to that sentence and would like at the appropriate time to be heard on the second paragraph as to why I support that. But the reason I like this addition by Councilman Migliorelli is I think ironically it's very much within the spirit of what the special committee is looking to do in that second paragraph. I think it makes sense. I think as a committee we were somewhat short-sighted in that we didn't apply this also to matters that were filed, to matters when they are filed by the administration. So, I think the expectation here is absolutely suited for what we're looking to do with this proposed rule here, which is to ensure that when something is filed by the administration, it's just not words on an agenda, that it also includes a summary. And as Consula Migliorelli has here in her suggested uh amendment um that a statement with respect to any impacts on the city's finances so i think that that makes sense i think that strengthens uh the rule uh i would certainly uh support uh that sentence uh as amended is currently on the floor okay council

▶ 2:12:54 Jeff McNaught: mcmaster looking for other hands vice chair eccles i'm i'm also supportive of this i think just

▶ 2:12:58 Jack Eccles: since since we i don't know if we'll come back to it it's worth mentioning just on context of what we did in the special committee um we changed tuesday to wednesday which which i was um sort of i i didn't totally agree with that and i'm not offering an amendment at this time i'm just kind of offering some context on some of the changes that were made to this but i i do support this because i think it solves kind of the problem that we were trying to solve in the previous about the resume and statement of interest of just in my two years you know we've encountered some stuff where it comes before us with little context um so i'm happy to hopefully codify that requirement a little bit more

▶ 2:14:01 Jeff McNaught: thank you vice chair heckles so uh seeing no other hands raised um We did have Councillor Stewart seconded this, so Mr. Clerk, can you please call the roll just for that first additional line in Rule 32?

▶ 2:14:17 Speaker 1: Chair McNaught? Yes.

▶ 2:14:20 Speaker 2: Vice-Chair Eccles? Yes. Councillor Tramontozzi? Yes. Councillor McMaster? Yes. Councillor Garipay? Yes.

▶ 2:14:27 Speaker 8: Councillor Grigoraitis?

▶ 2:14:28 Speaker 2: Yes. Councillor McNaught? Yes. Councillor McNaught? Yes. yes councillor Migliorelli yes councillor Stewart yes councillor Thomas

▶ 2:14:42 Speaker 2: yes councillor Jamal adeem yes and president

▶ 2:14:54 Jeff McNaught: Samela yes that's 11 yes motion passes now we're on to paragraph 2 of rule 32 I

▶ 2:15:09 Jeff McNaught: I suppose Councilor McLarelli has already spoken to this. Councilor McMaster, you have to a degree as well. How do you want to handle a discussion on this?

▶ 2:15:27 Shawn M. MacMaster: Councilor McMaster? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could just be heard on the second paragraph. This is one part of the rules, probably the part of the rules that I personally feel the most strongly about. I do think this is 1 rule that I can speak on behalf of of the committee that we spend a lot of time and thought on debated. And I think this rule passed without any hesitation after a very deliberate process. And to Councilman Migliorelli point about a minority of councillors, what I would argue here is that legislative bodies at all levels of government have rules that protect the interest of a minority group of councillors. So, whether that's at the State House here in Massachusetts, both in the House of Representatives, in the Senate here in the Commonwealth, or in Congress, Both in the House of Representatives and the Senate, we see it particularly in the Senate and it plays out all the time. It's not unusual that there is one or more rules that protect the interest of a minority group of counselors that they are not prejudiced in being forced to move forward on a matter that a group of counselors are not ready to move forward on. Um, what I would also suggest is we do have precedent in our old rules, the former rule 35. this is, uh, in the current, um, rules of order. If I could just, uh, Mr chairman, just read that for a moment just to demonstrate that. We do have precedent, um, in our, in our own, uh, rules.

▶ 2:17:08 Shawn M. MacMaster: For a similar type of, uh, rule that provides. Um, protection, uh, protection, the rights. Of of consulates that may be in the minority and, uh. Can indulge me 1, 2nd, Mr chair while I find this.

▶ 2:17:33 Shawn M. MacMaster: If I could read this, Mr chair upon the report. Upon the report of a committee recommending the passing of any ordinance order or resolution, it shall be read a 2nd time and shall then be in order for final action. Unless there is objection on the part of not less than 5 Alderman. it shall be the duty of the president to ask if there is objection before consideration if not less than five all them and object it shall be placed in the orders of the day for the next meeting appointments and city officials by the mayor are not included in connection with the after set essentially what this rule recognizes is that any counselor could invoke rule 35 the current rule 35 if a counselor has concerns about pulling something out a committee on a particular night and that you would only need five counselors in order to prevent that from happening again that is so not as to deprive a minority group of counselors on a particular issue that may not feel ready to have something go before the full council that same night i would say that this is really no different and again it's not it's not unusual for legislative bodies to have uh a rule like this so um i would i would ask that we um keep that language as is what i would be willing to do at the appropriate time uh mr chairman is um i do have um in writing uh suggested language that i provided uh to uh the clerk which is attached to iqm2 and within that first and i'm not make i'm not making a motion at this time i just want to be heard on it uh but just so um my colleagues know any written documents um right now in my uh amendment i would be this is in the second uh paragraph of rule 32 i would be striking out the language in support of a filing or communication from the mayor in inserting any written document submitted by the administration to make it clear that what we're talking about here are any subsequent memos documents presentations anything that is provided to the council after that original order has been filed in which they're under the amendment that we just accepted by council of migliorelli in which there's some initial type of documentation so what we're saying is that any additional documentation which is not unusual that we've seen before that has been provided um uh sometimes up to an hour before a meeting uh that if a document uh is submitted one or more and um counselors uh do not feel comfortable moving forward a minority group of counselors that somebody could invoke that rule What I would further consider doing is changing, and this is in my amendment, what we had at the committee level was that would then require an affirmative vote of four councilors before the full body or three councils and committee. To raise that standard and in the spirit of compromise based on what Councilor Migliorelli cited, I'd be willing to increase that to five before the full council and three before the committee. I had thought about this, really reflected upon this, and I do think that although it raises the standard in order to have a matter held at the committee level by a minority group of counselors, it still protects the rights of a minority group of counselors. So, and the other thing I'd be willing to do just in fairness to the administration is add language that that makes it clear that this would not apply to the annual budget because we certainly don't want this rule to be used for any other purpose than what it's intended. And that is attachments to orders that come before the council general orders, which there is documentation that is submitted late. So I just put that out there. and I would ask for some indulgence by members that perhaps had some initial concerns upon reading that rule for the first time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 2:21:59 Jeff McNaught: Thank you, Councillor McMaster. I asked Mr. Clerk to pull up your Rule 32. Is this the version you're

▶ 2:22:16 Speaker 5: speaking to? I believe it is. Councillor McMaster is going to meet

▶ 2:22:21 Shawn M. MacMaster: Yes, it is Mr. chairman and I haven't made a motion yet because I would be interested in hearing what council and other councilors have to say, but what I would do, and I would submit this as you've requested of other members. Mr. chairs, I would add 1 word before submitted, which is any written document independently submitted by the administration. i would add that and then uh further down in the document at the appropriate time depending on the discussion that that we have um i would uh add in language that uh would just make it clear um that this does not apply to the end this rule does not apply to the annual budget um so i just put that out there for the purpose of the discussion to see if that ameliorates uh any of uh councilman Migliorelli's concerns uh and uh i'll stop at this point on

▶ 2:23:16 Jeff McNaught: that thank you all all right thank you council mcmaster does anyone have any discussion or questions um on councillor mcmaster's suggestions again we don't have a motion on the floor from either councillor Migliorelli or council mcmaster but you've seen both their versions um i think collectively i'll speak for myself i like uh what both of them bring i like what the line that council Migliorelli added um i'm in favor of um the amended language that council mcmaster's provided for the second paragraph and i think together they go very well um because i think it's important that you get that memo at the beginning no matter how short it is that council Migliorelli is asking for um stating what you're getting um i think we can all agree that that would be helpful and then um it you know notwithstanding the budget um if it is another order where there's a lengthy presentation or memorandum um i do think 48 hours is is reasonable

▶ 2:24:28 Speaker 5: um president sonella did you have your hand up

▶ 2:24:35 Christopher Cinella: thank you i i understand the intent uh with this but i just feel like a simple majority should suffice to hold something in committee if counselors are not happy with the timeline

▶ 2:24:55 Christopher Cinella: in which they received documents. And sometimes we get stuff during the day and I guess, you

▶ 2:25:07 Christopher Cinella: know, we can think of several examples where this might have come into play and I think

▶ 2:25:17 Christopher Cinella: can play out on the sides of things and issues that we've had to deal with i think that is something pressing get information within the day and folks you know if you get a simple majority to say one person to make the case to get the simple majority to hold something should suffice thank

▶ 2:25:39 Speaker 5: Thank you, President Sinella. Any other? Vice Chair Eccles?

▶ 2:25:46 Jack Eccles: Yeah, I definitely, if I wasn't noted, the Center had a few issues with this, similar to what Councilor Sinella said. You know, I'm of the opinion that there are times that it would be appropriate to hold something in committee if the hour is late or people feel we need more information, but I'm also familiar, and this is not necessarily with any particular instance we've encountered here, but at every level of government where delay is in minority rule is often used by the people who would not like what is proposed to prevail. I'm generally lean on the not giving the minority of the body a chance to hold something up if the majority is in favor. and and we have a lot of super majority thresholds in our votes built in just statutorily anyway um so we couldn't move forward with something so i'm i'm in favor of this amendment i i had issues with with this language in the rules committee so i'll be voting in favor in favor of oh good point

▶ 2:27:00 Speaker 5: there's no there's no there's a yeah there's no motion yet proposed i believe counselor stewart

▶ 2:27:10 Robb Stewart: was next thank you mr chair so i um i just wanted to uh surmise uh councilman mcmaster's statement so that it's clear um by by reading what i captured so it's any written document independently submitted by the administration including documents prepared by department head or other city employee at the final said matter but not including any documentation submitted for the of the annual budget shall be transmitted electronically to the council or committee there at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting, which the matter is scheduled to be heard on invocation of this rule by any counselor and the subsequent affirmative vote of not less than five counselors, which is the amended suggestion he's made or the affirmative vote of not less than three counselors when a matter is before standing committee and agenda and it may be postponed. So that in the council who vote this role, it should be recorded. So, I, I think this is a fair compromise. I think it is in the spirit of what we were discussing in committee. This was something that, as I recall, we spent a lot of time on. And there's a bit of back and forth, but we did come to agreement that. This was was important for the very reasons that console master stated. And, um, I think this is a reasonable. Amendment a compromise to to this. Thank you. Mr.

▶ 2:28:51 Jeff McNaught: Thank you. Councilor Stewart. I think what I would also say is the rule should never have to be invoked. The rule was created. So that the council could get documents timely. And people could have time to review them. That said, you can also. The rule doesn't have to be invoked. Um, you could receive a document within 24 hours. It's easily digest digestible and. The meeting goes on, so it's really only there to safeguard against receiving again, a very large memorandum or a presentation that comes in really, really late. And, you know. If all, but 5 counselors get to see it before a meeting begins and, um. They're uncomfortable moving forward. I don't think it's unfair to say, hey, pump the brakes and I understand the hold and committee argument, but I think this rule is important to. We don't, we don't get memorandums. We don't get documents in advance. That's why this rule is important. I'll just say it plainly. We really don't. Sometimes we don't get any at all. So, I think the spirit of some of the rules that have been revised or rewritten are to help with that. and this is probably the one that's meant to help with that the most. So I'm in favor of Councilor McMaster's revisions. Councilor McMaster.

▶ 2:30:20 Shawn M. MacMaster: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to one point made by Councilor Eccles, which I do appreciate, but I think the point of generally being supportive of the will of the majority, I think all of us would agree with that until you're in the minority. So this is actually a rule that at some point in time would benefit every councilor if it's ever invoked. And I think that the key word here is if. Again, I will point back to rule 35, a rule protecting the interests of minority members who aren't prepared to go forward exists in the current rules. And I've been on the council since 2018, that has never once been invoked. And I think most of you know that I'm not a fan of pulling something out of committee The same night anyways, generally recently, with respect to the, the firefighters contract, I was for the reasons I stated at that time. But I, I agree. I think this is more about changing the culture. It's about making it clear to the administration as does the amendment that we just passed to this particular rule put forth by constantly constantly. What it does is it, it makes it clear the administration does an expectation. The expectation is that if you're going to file an order that information is attached to that order and there's any subsequent information attached at a later point. It should be within 48 hours of the meeting and that, depending on the nature of it. A member who does not feel comfortable moving forward on it could invoke the rule. But it wouldn't, it wouldn't require the vote of 5. Counselors when the matters before the full body, or 3 consoles 3 consoles and committee, those are 2 can set concessions that that I would make to raise the to raise the standard. So, again, I guess the only other thing I would say is that if this rule isn't working, or if we feel like it's not being revised, excuse me if it's not being applied. Appropriately, anyone can file amendment to it. And in fact, if we feel like it's being used inappropriately as someone feel strongly about it, I would be happy to co sponsor that with somebody at the time who shares those concerns. Because that's not the intent. The intent is to really to change the culture and hopefully the existence of the rule will prevent late filings. Of course, we'll still get some. I think his counselor or as Jeremy not said, some of it may be easily digestible, but it's when there's, you know, there's a lot of information on the complicated issue and you have a minority group of counselors who want to be able to do their due diligence. And not being able to review it. If you're working all day and something submitted while you're at work now, and it may be something, you know, and I think this is important. There have been times that there have been orders. I haven't felt comfortable because of late filings completely going forward on, but I haven't been opposed to them. I haven't been opposed to essentially what is being proposed. However, I would have liked more time to do my due diligence as a, as a counselor and being able to ask the questions up front of the administration and get answers to questions and maybe ask for more information. So, um, this, this is 1 that I think we could always revisit if it's not working and if, uh, constantly would graciously, uh, allow me and I don't want to deprive her of the ability to amend further. But if she would be gracious enough to allow me to make an amendment, I would then make an amendment based on on the other issues that that I have raised. So I'll stop at this point and see how constantly really feels.

▶ 2:34:14 Jeff McNaught: I can go to you, Councilor Migliorelli. I have Councilor Jamaleddine next, but if you wanted to respond first.

▶ 2:34:23 Leila Migliorelli: Yeah, I'm fine with others asking questions. I can respond after.

▶ 2:34:32 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you. Councilor Jamaleddine? Thank you, Chair. I wanted to echo my fellow councillors and just say you know we're all um have a full-time job and uh we need that and we have responsibility to uh before we make the decision because we are representing all our um you know constituents matters residents and we're making really um important decisions for this community so we want to make sure that the decision that we're making uh we have full understanding uh of the impact on our community and residents um so i'm uh in support for of this amendment and i want to thank um uh councillor mcgarley and councillor mcmaster councillor did you have your hand up

▶ 2:35:28 Mark Garipay: a minute ago yes i did uh i did mr chair i uh the only thing i just wanted to say is you know we're all we're all on the council um we don't want to uh hold things up um You know, we, we want to move things forward and I think we all, we all agree. We're all, we're all working towards that. But we also have an obligation to have the information in a timely manner and to be able to feel comfortable with the votes in which we're taking. So, I mean, the, the, the thought that, you know, 4 or 5 council is. Um, or a 3, 3, or whatever the amendment is, I don't think there's not an amendment out there right now because it's very confusing, but you should have the opportunity if you don't feel comfortable making a vote. It's not because we want to hold things up. It's because you want to make the right vote for the community and the constituents and the residents that we represent. So that's that's the only thing I wanted to say. Thank you.

▶ 2:36:28 Speaker 5: Thank you. Uh, vice chair Eccles.

▶ 2:36:31 Jack Eccles: Yeah, just just something, um, that I remember discussing in the rules committee and I still feel this way. Um. When we hear something in committee, it's generally been placed down the Thursday before a regular meeting of the city council, unless it's being heard on immediate consideration. So. You know, that doesn't include any appointments or any financial transactions, because those aren't eligible. And so. oftentimes when we're hearing it we've had the order in iqm2 for at least a week oftentimes more um and i know i've done this in the past and i know my colleagues have as well is that if you feel that there's not adequate information presented with the order that you reach out and ask for more um or or any clarifying questions so i think that you know a week before hearing something before the council is is plenty of time to gather more information and then i i feel that if there has been inadequate information provided we could build a consensus around holding in committee and that's what i said in the rules committee and i still feel that way

▶ 2:37:44 Shawn M. MacMaster: counselor mcmaster yes mr chairman i actually completely agree with the point made by counselor uh eccles with the exception of information that doesn't account for information that is filed late independently by the administration that may be a few hours before uh a council meeting so that it may not give us the time to wrap our individual and collective heads around something new that that was filed by the administration so to council echo's point i certainly agree that there is that time from the initial filing to ask questions but if something is submitted um not within 48 hours there may not be that that ability to to really do so am i

▶ 2:38:38 Jeff McNaught: Am I missing anyone?

▶ 2:38:40 Speaker 5: Oh, councilor McAleer.

▶ 2:38:50 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I think I'm actually in favor of all the arguments for getting this information in a timely manner in getting it prior to 48 hours before meeting. I'm just and I'm not actually concerned necessarily about the makeup of this council in terms of, you know. Holding up something, it's just a matter of. President, I know I know counselor McMaster said it another rule in which there was a, you know, there's a minority option. To to hold something, um, I, I just, I'm uncomfortable with that part of it. So it's, it's really, it's not so much that. Um, I disagree with the spirit of the order. I totally completely agree that we shouldn't be looking at something, you know, within a couple hours before a meeting and have to digest that and be prepared to talk about it. Um. i although i am appreciative of um counselor mcmaster's amendments to increase the number from you know four to five and particularly from from two to three as i worry that that could end up being obstructionist not necessarily this council um but counselors you know moving councils moving forward i i think it's hard or i think it's incumbent on us to think about these rules um outside of ourselves or anyone else on the council currently you know i i like to when i'm writing you know policy and such for during my day job that's i you know write it as imagining none of the players are involved um the current players involved and will this still stand and hold up um you know to be honest i so i i guess what i'm interested is hearing from the council is You know, whether the, the increase from 4 to 5 and 2 to 3 is, is a compromise that others can can deal with or if there's some other.

▶ 2:40:51 Leila Migliorelli: You know, compromise worked here that we could just have it be majority rule and then it needs to be 48 hours in advance of the meeting. I don't know that. I'm. i think even if i were in the minority um on a particular issue i think i don't know that i would have a problem with it if i were overruled i i mean i think that's how we're operating is that a majority of the council is what is used to guide decision makings for the city um and i so it's just that piece of it it's it's definitely i i i definitely agree with us getting the information and a timely fashion in order to debate a topic i'm just still a little bit on the fence about the minority vote but i'm happy to to take a vote um and let or let others more on discussion here

▶ 2:41:46 Maya Jamaleddine: councillor Jamaleddine for the chair i'm i'm not sure if i'm understanding councillor miguel early if you can just explain to me what is it that you're not comfortable with um i do understand um the point of um you know like minority not putting it on hold and not um deciding not to move forward and just put it on hold for to take more time to uh revise the order before us um but i'm not understanding um what is exactly that makes you hesitant um

▶ 2:42:27 Leila Migliorelli: For the lack of better word through the chair, if I may respond, I think, because in my mind, when I 1st, read this, my thought was, well, we have, we always have. The option to hold in committee, so if we were to, let's say there's an order before us and. The administration provides a last minute 5. page memo to go along with the order and they do it you know 12 hours before the meeting um when that comes to the meet when it comes to the meeting you have anyone has the option anyone has the option to motion to hold in committee for lack of information or or more time needing more time to review the documentation that was presented to the council and that holds in committee motion passes upon a majority vote of the committee, where this is saying that it does not need the majority of the committee to hold it. It only needs the, it's only a vote of three. So I think it's that piece of it that I just, I'm just confused or it seems unnecessary to me to create another order when we do have the ability to hold in committee. I hope that helps answer the question. So I had previously proposed to just strike this entire paragraph, but I am considering. Counselor McMaster's edits here, um, as a possibility.

▶ 2:43:59 Jeff McNaught: If I may again, I think bringing it up to 4, 5 and 3, I think is a big help. I agree with that as well. Um, and I think the reason I'm okay with 5, as opposed to the simple 6 is. Again, what the purpose of the rule is, it's meant to be a deterrent. I mean, let's just call it what it is. Um. We need information sooner. Um. And again, it's not always going to be invoked and even when it is invoked, it's not necessarily going to pass even requiring 5, but it will be on the minds of folks who. to get the council information and that's me someone who won't be here in a few weeks thinking about future councils uh knowing how important it is to get information um in advance um

▶ 2:44:50 Jeff McNaught: i think it's a good compromise council jamal Jamaleddine were you done i know i just started

▶ 2:44:55 Maya Jamaleddine: speaking but i'm getting delirious at this point no no worries i appreciate the um you know discussion that's going on i actually i think this is what is proposed it will serve um our residents and constituents uh to and to be more transparent and give them uh the time um the appropriate time uh to be able uh you know like if i don't feel comfortable voting on an order regardless if i am supportive or opposing i need the appropriate time to revise it and i feel if i can it is the right call it's fair enough if i would suggest to hold it and i think um the number that is proposed by councilor mcmaster would serve um to emphasize the request and the amendment that is uh before it you know that was just proposed thank you um i have council

▶ 2:46:04 Shawn M. MacMaster: mcmaster and then councillor stewart thank you mr chairman i'll just make one final uh point here one final argument and i appreciate consular general dean's uh comments and i think what she's alluding to is that if a minority group of counselors um are compelled to move forward by a majority of councillors that the the those in the minority are essentially in a almost an impossible position is you you either have to vote no even though you don't really want to vote no you're just looking for more information uh or uh you abstain which you're not completely comfortable doing because you're not again you're not you're not against it or you have to vote yes and as Council of John Muldean said, you're voting yes, but you're not completely comfortable doing so. So I think it puts the minority of councils in an almost impossible position with a late filing. And then the last thing I would say just to Councilman Migliorelli point about the majority is that if we play it out practically speaking, what that would mean is let's say we just for for i know we've used five a five-page memo as an example if we receive a five-page memo whether it's 47 hours in advance of the meeting or 10 minutes before a meeting you have six counselors who were able to digest it and wrap their heads around it but you have five counselors who weren't able to do that the idea that six members would then put five members in that impossible position of either having to vote something on something that they don't feel fully prepared to vote on maybe they're not against but they're not fully prepared they haven't done their due diligence or voting no when they're not necessarily against it or abstaining for a similar reason i just don't think that meets the the interests that minority rules serve in any legislative body so that's the last thing i would say um i would be prepared if there is an objection if there's no objection from council and the rally since we don't have another motion on the floor to make uh a motion um with respect to my uh further amendment rule 32 um but with the permission of the chair and if there's no objection from council Migliorelli would just like an opportunity just to make it clear what that amendment would be if it if if that is seconded and if it passes um great if it doesn't then i think we could move on to council Migliorelli's further amendment um that might be the i guess the most equitable way of doing it since we since we have competing uh amendments uh does that is that um satisfactory to you mr chairman and would you consent to that council miguel through the chair through the chair i think that's a i

▶ 2:48:50 Leila Migliorelli: think that's a good motion move forward way to move this forward at 10 o'clock at night yes

▶ 2:49:00 Jeff McNaught: DARYL FOX, Okay. So, Council McMaster, you've made your motion for your further amendments, which are before us now for Rule 32.

▶ 2:49:12 Shawn M. MacMaster: MICHAEL MCMASTER, Yes, Mr. Chairman, there's just-and I think I had referenced this earlier-I would add the word independently in the first sentence before submitted. So it would read any document independently submitted by the administration so you add the word independently i would submit that to the clerk as you constructed other consulates to do and uh one very uh slight oral amendment um the second paragraph the last sentence i would uh add uh

▶ 2:49:49 Shawn M. MacMaster: Uh, invocation of this rule shall not apply. To the annual budget, so if we could add the word independently before submitted. And add on a new sentence at the end of the 2nd paragraph that says invocation of this rule shall not apply to the annual budget. I would make that a motion to amend. rule 32 as proposed by the special committee on the on the rules of order at this time

▶ 2:50:24 Jeff McNaught: excuse me second okay um we have counselor mcmaster's motion to move forward his edits

▶ 2:50:34 Jeff McNaught: to rule uh 32 further edits and seconded by council Grigoraitis on discussion seeing no

▶ 2:50:48 Speaker 2: further discussion mr clerk will you please call the roll chair mcnaught yes vice chair eccles yes councillor tremendous yes councillor mcmaster yes councillor Garipay council Garipay yes sir

▶ 2:51:11 Speaker 2: councillor Grigoraitis yes councillor bigley rally yes

▶ 2:51:19 Speaker 2: Councillor Stewart? Yes. Councillor Thomas? Yes. Councillor Jamaleddine? Yes. And President Cinella? Yes. That's 11 yes.

▶ 2:51:39 Speaker 5: Motion passes. Our next rule, we can pull this one down, Mr. Clerk,

▶ 2:51:50 Jeff McNaught: and we're going to pull up Councillor Grigoraitis' Rule 41. Three more to go, folks.

▶ 2:52:03 Jen Grigoraitis: we can do it thank you mr chair i'll start speaking sorry i have a bit of a cold um so this was just to rule 41 just adding language recognizing that since we've basically been a remote body for almost two years um how we would go about the request to have a motion put in writing when we are not all physically in the same place it seems like that was worth correcting um so i just added in a sentence saying in a remote meeting format written motions shall be emailed to the clerk of committees and or city clerk for distribution to the counselors to be appropriate and available electronically i know this is something that has yet to be invoked in our two years together but um just felt like it was an opportunity to um recognize that we now meet in different formats thank you i'm happy to make a motion for um

▶ 2:52:54 Jen Grigoraitis: Recommendation of this amendment for discussion.

▶ 2:53:08 Jeff McNaught: Okay, now we're talking. All right. I don't see any discussion. So, um. We just scroll through the Hollywood squares here. 1 more time. Good to go. Mr. clerk. Will you please call the roll?

▶ 2:53:20 Speaker 2: Chairman thought yes. Vice chair, yes. Counselor yes. Counselor McMaster. Yes, Councillor. Yes, counselor, yes. Council of counselor.

▶ 2:53:42 Speaker 2: Yes, counselor Stewart.

▶ 2:53:46 Speaker 2: Yes, counselor Thomas. Yes. Counselor. Yes, and president. Yes, that's 11. Yes.

▶ 2:54:00 Jeff McNaught: All right the motion passes everybody remember you get to send your own. Amendments to clerk Gabriel next up we have.

▶ 2:54:15 Shawn M. MacMaster: Council McMaster's rule 48. Thank you. Mr. Chairman if the clerk could pull that up. This is a relatively benign 1.

▶ 2:54:35 Jeff McNaught: Is it when we get down to the candidate or a current member of that section?

▶ 2:54:50 Shawn M. MacMaster: Council McMaster you're on mute. Sorry, my apologies. I'm only seeing rule 32 up here. Can is the clerk able to scroll down to rule 48? I can't do it for some reason on my screen.

▶ 2:55:01 Shawn M. MacMaster: can you see it now no but let me see if i can pull it up it's just a matter of adding two words

▶ 2:55:07 Jeff McNaught: um can everyone see me scrolling or is that just me seeing me scrolling

▶ 2:55:11 Speaker 5: oh man i thought i was helping you all the whole time i supposed to roll 48 on my screen

▶ 2:55:18 Shawn M. MacMaster: i have rule i have rule 32 but um i should i should be able to pull this up momentarily

▶ 2:55:28 Maya Jamaleddine: Through the through the, I, I can see it. I'm not sure if other counselors are able to see that. Well, it's just the 2 words that are in rule 48. Yeah, is that instead of a candidate replaced by a current member?

▶ 2:55:48 Speaker 5: Yeah, that's what I see too.

▶ 2:55:55 Shawn M. MacMaster: Yeah, for some reason, I don't see it, but essentially, yes. Thank you. Council the general being for for the reminder. There it is. It's simply adding 2 words. To the, the 2nd, I'm sorry the 3rd paragraph, which is 1 sentence striking the word candidate and at and adding in current member. The reason I wanted to do that upon further reflection is what we don't want to do is deprive a new member of the Council from the opportunity to seek the presidency if he or she desires. I think an example of that is Councilor Grigoraitis, who both Councilor Fermentozi and I know appreciated her stewardship and how well she did in her general leadership her first year, coming in without any prior experience sitting through a council meeting, and certainly not chairing a committee. So, I think it's fitting here to add a current member, recognizing that any new member is a member just like any one of us, regardless of how long we've been on the council. and also recognizes um that you may have uh individual consulates who are new uh who are able to um you know really steer the the council uh in the right direction as as president uh preside uh in a in a a really strong uh fashion uh as president as as consular gregaritis did so at this time what i would uh do mr chairman is make a motion to uh to recommend passage of rule 38 as amended here by adding in current member striking the word candidate a second okay um

▶ 2:57:45 Jeff McNaught: so we have councillor mcmaster's uh proposed amendment to rule 48 uh striking the word

▶ 2:57:57 Speaker 5: candidate adding in current member am i missing anything else there councillor mcmaster that is

▶ 2:58:02 Jeff McNaught: all mr chairman thank you and seconded by council chairman tozy on discussion hang in there president

▶ 2:58:11 Jeff McNaught: um mr clerk will you please call the role chair mcnaught yes vice chair eccles

▶ 2:58:24 Speaker 2: yes Councillor Tramontozzi yes Councillor McMaster yes Councillor Garipay yes Councillor Grigoraitis yes Councillor Migliorelli

▶ 2:58:43 Speaker 2: yes Councillor Stewart yes Councillor Thomas yes Councillor Jamaleddine? Yes. And President Cinella? Yes. 11 yes.

▶ 2:58:55 Speaker 5: Motion passes.

▶ 2:58:58 Jeff McNaught: We're down to our last proposed amendment, which is Councilor Grigoraitis' Rule 54.

▶ 2:59:07 Jen Grigoraitis: Thank you, Chair McNaught. I am proposing that we add two words to Rule 54, which is in the last sentence, this is regarding what the council will do event of a vacancy for the city clerk or clerk of committees um that to change it to thereafter the nominating committee shall recommend up to three candidates for consideration by the full council just to ensure flexibility should there not be two candidates um if there are two or one or four um that we would then whittle that down so i would that was my um requested amendment was to add in up to and for purposes of discussion i would motion to recommend this amendment second

▶ 3:00:01 Jeff McNaught: have any discussion i see no discussion uh mr clerk uh well first we have a motion by council gregor Grigoraitis to um with her proposed amendment to rule 54 stating that the nominating committee shall recommend up to three candidates for consideration by the full council second date seconded by uh vice chair eccles mr clark will you please call the roll chair mcnaught yes vice

▶ 3:00:27 Speaker 2: chair eccles yes councillor Tramontozzi yes councillor mcmaster yes councillor Garipay yes

▶ 3:00:47 Speaker 2: Yes, counselor greatest. Yes.

▶ 3:00:51 Speaker 2: Counselor, yes. Counselor Stewart yes.

▶ 3:00:59 Speaker 2: Counselor Thomas yes. Counselor, yes. And president, yes. Yes, motion passes.

▶ 3:01:13 Speaker 5: Thank you Mr clerk for that.

▶ 3:01:28 Jeff McNaught: We have, um, I suppose we have to do a, uh, a motion.

▶ 3:01:34 Shawn M. MacMaster: Council McMaster yes, Mr. I was going to make a motion to, um, to, uh, recommend, um, the order as amended. Uh, but 1st, if I could just have a very brief moment of personal privilege, I just want to thank all of the members, uh, of, uh, of the council for, uh, thoughtful insight and, uh, discussion tonight. And I particularly want to thank Councilor Migliorelli and Councilor Grigoraitis for their amendments. I do think the amendments as passed make a stronger order. So, and I think I can speak on behalf of all members of the Special Committee on the Rules of Order that that is really what we were looking to do is not get to perfection, but get to really as close to perfection as we could, understanding that our colleagues would have ideas to really strengthen what it is that will govern this council next term in years moving forward. The last thing I would say to that is that I think this is what the public expects of us and this isn't legislation before, it's just the rules, but I think this is a really good demonstration. I think for the members of the public who have watched the two and a half hours of this or maybe just caught a portion of it, I think we've all demonstrated collaboration collegiality compromise with some really thoughtful and strong debate put forth by everyone and I think that's what people expect of us I think what we all agree on whether it's our rules of order or a piece of legislation or anything else that comes before us is you know we are doing this to get the work done right and so I just want to thank everyone because I do think that this was a very thoughtful process not just leading up to tonight but but particularly tonight by everyone. And so with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion to recommend for passage as amended this evening.

▶ 3:03:26 Speaker 1: Second. Mr. Chair, I'll second that.

▶ 3:03:29 Jeff McNaught: Okay, so we have a motion to recommend the rules as amended, made by Councilor McMaster, seconded by Councilor Grigoraitis. We have President Cinella.

▶ 3:03:40 Christopher Cinella: I just had one question on one of the rules, if I may.

▶ 3:03:48 Christopher Cinella: It's too late for that. I'm kidding. No, it's not. Rule 35A, just some clarity around that.

▶ 3:03:55 Christopher Cinella: Matter is introduced to the full council with a recommendation for passage from any standing or special committee. Period of discussion shall be in order before a motion for passage is entertained by the president or any other presiding

▶ 3:04:10 Speaker 2: or any other member presiding on behalf of the president.

▶ 3:04:14 Christopher Cinella: What is the point of that? If you're pulling something up out of the committee.

▶ 3:04:18 Speaker 2: The night of it's on discussion through the chair.

▶ 3:04:28 Shawn M. MacMaster: Council McMaster, do you want to respond? Yes. Mindful that we do have a motion on the floor and deference to the president and certainly in continued spirit of what we're trying to do here tonight. This was filed by or proposed by counselor Stewart to the extent that he wants to certainly let him. speak to the intent of it so maybe i would defer to counselor stewart but what i would say is that from my from my position on this rule is if you vote in committee a certain way and if information becomes available when this matter comes before full counts before the full council that may result in somebody having cause or that raises additional questions whether or not they've heard from constituents or there are um you know there's new information that has learned that was unknown or unavailable at the time that a counselor voted or that that this came out of committee it would allow that counselor to um to be heard on it before um uh before the vote um it It doesn't change the fact that if anyone's looking to amend an order, which I think was consulates do its intent. That's a privilege motion that has to happen. Anyways, it would be include any other information.

▶ 3:06:00 Robb Stewart: Counselors to it, thank you. Mr. chair. Um, in addition to what, uh, console McMaster said. Uh, it also gives the opportunity for. Uh, somebody to represent and provide any feedback from any constituents that may have had feedback based on.

▶ 3:06:28 Leila Migliorelli: What came out of committee? Thank you. Mr. chair. I was just looking back through my notes on the orders. Um, and I had made a similar note that. Whether 35 a was needed because. In practice and procedurally when, um, an item when the committee chair pulls an item up. Reads the motion the president always says on discussion, and that gives the opportunity to have that discussion there. So it just seems like this was my, my take on it. Looking back. I thought it was unnecessary. Like, or just redundant.

▶ 3:07:05 Speaker 5: Thank you. Council really? So.

▶ 3:07:12 Jeff McNaught: Is there going to be a motion to amend 35? Because if there is, then we have to pull back or hold aside Council McMaster's motion to recommend the amended rules.

▶ 3:07:36 Christopher Cinella: President Cinella. Yeah, I just wanted clarity around it. Just, it seems. That rule kind of exists in a sense. Even if something's actually on the agenda and. Turn to the chair of a committee and they say this comes from. Such and such with the recommendation of passage, make that motion. Someone seconds. It was now on discussion. Or another counselor would say, you know, I was in favor of that, but actually, since then. New information from constituents and come forward. Here's why.

▶ 3:08:12 Christopher Cinella: Just go from there. I'm not going to make a motion. Take this out or anything, but I just want some clarity.

▶ 3:08:43 Jeff McNaught: i'm just rereading the world now i'm done are you frozen no i was just rereading it look it's been a long night president sanella um especially for vice chair eccles he's been down on lower main since four o'clock um uh all right so anybody doing anything with 35a no so we're ready to

▶ 3:09:08 Jeff McNaught: move forward with uh council mcmaster's motion all smiles meeting up at kennedy's after nice

▶ 3:09:17 Speaker 2: mr clerk uh will you please call the roll chair mcmahon yes vice chair eccles yes councilor Tramontozzi yes councillor mcmaster yes councillor Garipay yes councillor Grigoraitis

▶ 3:09:43 Speaker 2: yes councillor Migliorelli yes councillor stewart yes councillor thomas yes councillor Jamaleddine