ORDER-2021-2 : An Order amending Chapter A, Article II of the Administrative Code of the City of Melrose by inserting a new Section A-222 as set forth herein

Transcript (~18 min @ 11:10)

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

▶ 11:08 Speaker 2: mcmaster yes councillor mcnaught yes councillor Migliorelli yes councillor stewart yes councillor

▶ 11:14 Speaker 2: Thomas? Yes. Councilor Tramontozzi? Yes. President Grigoraitis? Yes. Tanyas? Tanyas, so the public

▶ 11:27 John N. Tramontozzi: hearing is now closed. Councilor Tramontozzi? Thank you again. For the public's knowledge and for the information to the council, just procedurally, this order came to the full board from the legal legislative committee um it was introduced and assigned to a legal and legislative committee on july 6th uh we had discussion and uh and on august 16th at that committee where um after hearing from the administration and members of the public uh we uh we moved the um the order out of committee with the recommendation for passage We needed to schedule a public hearing, which we have scheduled and held today, just now. This is before the full board for whatever the board's wishes are in terms of action. Before that, if I could, a little bit. We received an e-mail from a member of the public who was not able to appear in person to raise it, But Ryan Bagwell came in rather late 530 this evening where he issues that he says, although he's in favor of it, there was some issues relative to the appointment of trustees. So, at this time, I just like a motion to add that to the public record. And also any other patients that we have heard from the public by email to add to the public record to the order.

▶ 13:09 Jen Grigoraitis: I'll move to do that. 1st, do we have a 2nd? Okay. We have a motion by counselors. Thomas is that to 2nd or to speak? I'm sorry. So, we have a motion by counselor to add all communications related to this order. To attach it to the order seconded by counselor Thomas. Is there any discussion.

▶ 13:33 Speaker 1: Being none Madam clerk, can you please call the roll? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, make it really.

▶ 13:45 Speaker 1: Yes, Stewart yes, Thomas.

▶ 13:48 Speaker 2: Yes, yes. Yes, yes, and yes, so the.

▶ 13:54 Jen Grigoraitis: uh motion passes what counselor chairman tosi sorry uh again thank you for the recognition

▶ 14:00 John N. Tramontozzi: uh at this time um i don't know if there's any members of the administration uh currently uh interested in speaking again on this uh tonight but i would uh make a motion to suspend the rules to uh to have any members of the administration who may be are there any members of the

▶ 14:20 Jen Grigoraitis: administration on cue my understanding is there is not okay uh if i could still have the floor

▶ 14:26 John N. Tramontozzi: certainly um i have been uh i've reviewed the uh this order and uh i i think it's um it's it's well drafted it's taken from uh um orders from other cities and towns uh regarding the affordable housing trust fund uh the one issue uh that was raised in that email from earlier this evening uh it's a pretty good point i hopefully everybody got a chance to see it Addressed relative to the appointment of the trustees, and according to the order, the trustees are appointed by the mayor, which is perfectly fine because the appointments are subject to confirmation by the city council. So that is within the order, similar to our city charter, which any appointments to any commissions by the mayor would be subject to confirmation by the city council. That also addresses the term limits and I leave it to the councilor as to whether or not there's any changes to be made there. I'm not looking for any changes there. However, relative to removal of trustees, according to the order as filed, Section C, subparagraph 4, removal of trustees may be removed by the mayor at his discretion. One thing, my thought is, as a member of the public had thought as well, that I think the city council should have oversight into any removal of trustees by the mayor. And I think that's appropriate. We have oversight and confirmation by the city council. Why should we not have oversight and confirmation by a unilateral removal of a trustee by the mayor? So what I would like to do, and I would propose just a slight amendment to the order, and that would be on Section C, Board of Trustees, Subsection 4, Removal, that the language be as the following. trustees may be removed at the request of the mayor with approval of the city council so um so rather than just removed by the mayor at his discretion uh strike by the mayor at his discretion and insert at the request of the mayor with approval of the

▶ 17:10 Jen Grigoraitis: the city council second so we have a motion before us to amend the order to allow for the city

▶ 17:19 Jen Grigoraitis: council i can make sure i'm getting it correctly for the city council to vote to remove any member

▶ 17:27 John N. Tramontozzi: of the board is that no if i could um for you madam president it's not that we only um we all the the removal if there's a removal request that would be by the mayor and we would just approve the removal the request right the city council has no authority to act to remove any trustee it's only to approve the request of the mayor of a removal of a trustee okay so we have a so the

▶ 17:54 Jen Grigoraitis: the motion which has been made by councillor Tramontozzi and seconded by councillor stewie steward is to amend the order so that the if the mayor requests the removal of a member of the board of trustees it's required for a vote by the council so is there a discussion on that count today counseling Migliorelli did i see your hand no is there counselor mcnaught thank you madam

▶ 18:21 Jeff McNaught: president and i'm certainly not opposed to the motion i agree with it i just wonder uh as a the procedural matter, would it be a simple majority vote to approve the request, or how would that work?

▶ 18:40 Jen Grigoraitis: I'm unclear on that, Councilor Tramontozzi.

▶ 18:42 John N. Tramontozzi: Thank you, through the President. It would be a majority. It would be similar to the confirmation process of the trustees in paragraph 2. and as the charter uh states any appointments by the mayor has to be approved by the city council

▶ 19:06 Jen Grigoraitis: it's always a majority vote and my as council chairman tozy referenced if i may as a point of clarification that this email was received at about 5 30 p.m today so i did let the city solicitor know that we had received this um and obviously he didn't have a lot of time to look into it but his understanding was that we the mayor would need to refile this administrative order in order for us to make this change i i can't explain to you why but that was the information that i received at about six o'clock tonight so um i think it's unclear exactly how we can proceed is there anyone else on discussion counselor Migliorelli

▶ 19:45 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you, President Grigoraitis. And through you to Councillor Tramontozzi, are there any other boards, trusts or anything in existence in the city in which the council has the right to approve a removal of a board member from a trust or planning board?

▶ 20:06 John N. Tramontozzi: or is there any other precedent for this a good question i'm not sure in my experience it's usually um it's always a confirmation of a vacancy or a reappointment or appointment at the request of the mayor um i am i i don't recall if we've ever had a situation where um for that matter if the mayor is ever authorized to remove once a person is appointed to one of the commissions um that would be something to have to take a look at the city charter too but i don't think i i i don't have an answer for that councilman um thank you madam president just

▶ 20:48 Jeff McNaught: being um what we've heard um for you from the city solicitor um my suggestion from my fellow counselors is that we need to we're all in agreement i believe in in passing this tonight i don't any real objection against it um and we may want to look at this as more of a overall charter issue for um all other bodies um to include not just passing or members but um removal as well so my suggestion would be if if um Councilors Tramontozzi and Stewart were so inclined would be to remove the motion, pass this tonight, and then look at this issue overall. Thank you.

▶ 21:39 Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilor McMaster.

▶ 21:42 Shawn M. MacMaster: Thank you, Madam President. I think the motion to amend is perfectly reasonable and consistent with our oversight responsibilities as a council. One of the questions that was raised by the member of the public who did reach out to us just to at least offer my thoughts on it that isn't being addressed in the form of a motion. And I agree, I believe, with Consulate Chairman Tozzi on this with respect to term limits. And that goes somewhat to, I think, what Consulate Migliorelli was alluding to as precedent. The only board or commission that has term limits in the city is the Human Rights Commission. And I would suspect, although I don't know for sure, that the reason probably for the lack of term limits, although it sounds like a good idea on the surface, is that there are only so many people really willing to volunteer to step up for these types of positions. So I think in theory, it's a good idea. I think in practice, it would be a challenge. So I'm glad that the motion doesn't address the issue of term limits. I think relative to the removal of a trustee, I think what's unique here is that there is a fiduciary responsibility like no other board or commission has. So I think the standard of removal, you know, it should be higher. And although the mayor does have the option of not reappointing, if there were a reason that came up that the mayor saw fit not to support that trustee's remaining time on the board, there should be some ability for us to look at whether or not cause exists and to make a decision on that. Again, I think it's it's a proper check and balance for a unique position like this. So I would support the emotion. I think it is relatively benign and I wouldn't anticipate that that problems moving forward. I think the mayor is going to do the type of vetting that he's been doing and that he's been committed to doing to get the best people possible for these types of positions. But at the same time, you never know what might come up in the future. And I think this is a cautionary amendment that, again, is well within our legislative authority. Thank you, Madam President.

▶ 24:23 Speaker 5: Councilor Eccles.

▶ 24:27 Jack Eccles: Thank you, Madam President. I didn't do a quick search of the city code for the other multiple member bodies. From what I can tell, what it says is members may be removed by the mayor for such causes. The mayor deems sufficient accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the charter. That, to me, seems consistent. If this is going to be another thing that's treated like a multi-member body of the city, I would be comfortable giving the mayor the power to remove people in 4 reasons that he deems sufficient. We have oversight power and. Obviously, appointing the members, and we would have. Oversight power in appointing any person after position and because. So, I'm comfortable with the fact that the council has quite a bit of oversight on this board. And, and I'm a little, I'm a little concerned. I'm just, I'm holding this if. Based on the information from Mr and campaign, which is a little unclear at this at this time. I would.

▶ 25:35 Robb Stewart: Thank you counselor Stewart. Thank you. Madam president. I think to council and McMaster's point. He's alluding to the fact that this would generally be an unusual circumstance. In which someone would be removed from. The board, and I think it would be prudent for. Us in the public to understand the reasoning behind this removal. Given that this role has a again. The financial fiduciary responsibility as it was suggested earlier. That can have a fairly significant impact. On the city, so I certainly would support this and I think it's. A good check and balance and again, what would be I, I would see as an unusual.

▶ 26:39 Speaker 5: Situation. Thank you, madam president. Any other counselors wishing to speak.

▶ 26:50 Speaker 2: Hey, seeing none, Madam clerk, can you please call the role just to be clear? This is.

▶ 26:59 Jen Grigoraitis: For the amendment, I'm calling the role. Correct? This is for the amendment to allow require the council to vote on anyone who's recommended for removal from the board of trustees.

▶ 27:06 Speaker 2: Okay, counselor, no.

▶ 27:11 Speaker 1: Counselor echoes no. Councilor, no, Councilor McMaster.

▶ 27:19 Speaker 1: Yes, Councilor Mcnaught. No, Councilor.

▶ 27:29 Speaker 2: No, Councilor Stewart.

▶ 27:30 Speaker 1: Yes, Councilor Thomas.

▶ 27:36 Speaker 2: Yes, yes.

▶ 27:42 Speaker 2: Present. No, so that's 6 now for yes.

▶ 27:46 Jen Grigoraitis: hey six no four yes the motion fails what is the will of the committee with regard to this

▶ 28:02 Jen Grigoraitis: order before us really motion for passage second so we have a motion for passage by councillor migliorelli seconded by councillor eccles is there any discussion okay seeing none

▶ 28:15 Speaker 1: madam clerk can you please call the role councillor snelling yes councillor eccles yes councillor

▶ 28:26 Speaker 1: Garipay yes councillor mcmaster yes councillor mcnaught yes councillor Migliorelli yes

▶ 28:35 Speaker 1: councillor stewart yes councillor thomas yes councillor Tramontozzi yes president Grigoraitis

▶ 28:46 Jen Grigoraitis: Yes, 10, yes, 10. yes, the motion carries. I believe at that this time that is everything on our agenda for this evening. We have a motion to adjourn by counselor Stewart, seconded by counselor.