Calendar

Transcript (~36 min @ 14:16)

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

▶ 14:14 Shawn M. MacMaster: mcmaster we we do have order 20 20 135 that was before us earlier tonight in appropriations and under rule 35 unless there's an objection of five counselors that's before us so unfortunately my

▶ 14:24 Jen Grigoraitis: understanding is due to the legislation the bill signed by the governor today we have a public posting requirement for the disparate impact information that it must be posted for at least

▶ 14:39 Shawn M. MacMaster: three days prior to us taking a final vote i mean we're under respectfully um madam president and we're proceeding separate and apart from any uh gubernatorial action so whether or not the governor passed this or not this was a matter that was before us anyways

▶ 14:58 John N. Tramontozzi: counselor Tramontozzi yeah yeah i'm a i'm a little confused so we had we we posted this particular order for action uh the committee uh the public has received notice of uh of this particular order um are you suggesting uh through uh through that this needs to be reposted again for final

▶ 15:22 Jen Grigoraitis: action by the board no what i'm suggesting is that the legislation states that was signed by the governor which enables us as a council to consolidate polling locations just for september and november specific to covid states town council or city council shall evaluate and report on whether such change would have a disparate adverse impact on access to the polls on the basis of race national origin disability income or age and not later than three days prior to changing a polling place shall make publicly available on its website and at the office of the town or city clerk a report on its evaluation so i had that's what was signed by governor baker today i asked city solicitor van campen and his recommendation was that we ensure that that information which had been provided to the council that hadn't been posted publicly is done so before we take a final

▶ 16:18 Mark Garipay: vote. Councillor Garipay. So just for clarification if we post it is this going to be on the our June I'm sorry July 21st meeting agenda? July 20th. July 20th I'm sorry 20th yes.

▶ 16:30 Jen Grigoraitis: Unless I call another special meeting it would be correct. Okay Madam President I just I think

▶ 16:36 Shawn M. MacMaster: I've raised a lot of these concerns which have been in the public domain relative to disenfranchisement. I think this legislation from the governor is really related to municipalities that are beginning the process now, now that the governor has signed legislation. We took steps prior to any action before the legislature. I think the public's on notice, And I don't see, I mean, it seems like you're referencing a potential special meeting. I'm not sure it's necessary for us to come back again one additional time before our next meeting. And I think our rule says that unless there are five objections, this has to come out of committee tonight. Respectfully, Madam President.

▶ 17:30 Jen Grigoraitis: I have concerns about our ability to be in compliance with the state law. But if people want to vote to allow it to go forward, I feel like I've read into the record what my concerns are. What is the will of the council? Councillor Eccles.

▶ 17:44 Jack Eccles: Through the president, I guess I'm just trying to figure out what rule is being referenced about five councillors objecting just to make sure, because if we're able to hold this and not violate the rules of the council, I would feel more comfortable, so if Councillor Master is able to. Yes.

▶ 18:00 Shawn M. MacMaster: Through you, Madam President, rule 35 is that a matter that has been reported favorably out of committee is before it's appropriate to come before the council at the next full council meeting unless there's an objection of five councillors so this is something that it's already been you know called once and when I say called I mean at our first council meeting when it was on the agenda it's been in committee now two times it's you know should be before the council tonight for a final vote I'm certainly sensitive to a lot of the concerns that President Grigoraitis raised, in terms of information to the public, ensuring that all voices are heard. I mean, those are the issues that I think I was very vocal about at our last meeting. And again, I think this legislation that was signed today, the bill by the governor, really relates to municipalities that aren't as far as we are. Municipalities that would look to act upon this authorizing legislation from the governor. And there's nothing that would have prohibited us from doing this anyways. We were already down that path.

▶ 19:17 Speaker 4: Councillor Stewart.

▶ 19:23 Robb Stewart: Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, in thinking about this and the concern that Councilor McMaster-Rays. I'm looking at it a little bit differently. I know that Ms. Camosa really stressed the urgency of getting this through as quickly as possible. And I think in light of the governor's signs, whatever you call it today, that which you quickly reviewed, I was, I'm not familiar with it at all, but it sounds to me like the spirit of that is to ensure that there's going to be fair voting and respect to Ms. Kamosa's plan, her communication strategy. I think she's well in compliance with that. And I think the risk of delaying this further is greater than the risk of going forward. I would therefore support bringing this to full council today. Thank you.

▶ 20:34 Speaker 4: Thank you. Councilor Stewart, Councilor Sinella.

▶ 20:37 Christopher Cinella: I think that none of us want to have another special meeting. Based on the advice and counsel from our city solicitor who. Stated that we should wait the 3 days. I mean, I would err on the side of caution and take advice. I don't know if. City clerk wants to add any clarification on.

▶ 21:06 Jen Grigoraitis: We'd have to suspend the rules to allow the clerk to speak, which is fine, but we need to have a motion for that. And I believe Councillor McMaster was in queue.

▶ 21:17 Shawn M. MacMaster: Thank you, Madam President, I mean, I would, I'm not sure if Mr. VanCampen is available, but I'd want to hear from him as the city solicitor if this is a legal opinion that He's offering happy to hear from this commercial, but I would like to hear from from the city solicitor. Also, I think it's appropriate that it be under the rules that it be brought out of committee. And not in present at that time, you would ask if there's an objection if there's an objection and there are five counselors essentially going to come down to a vote and if we're going to hold it, it's really at the will of the console based on rule. 35 so i don't think we can just decide not to hold it because the appropriations chair with all due respect hasn't hasn't pulled it out of committee i think it has to be pulled from committee madam president you would ask if there's an objection if there's an objection to going forward on it then we have a vote and then that's how we would that's how we would decide it

▶ 22:15 Jen Grigoraitis: procedurally i'm happy to follow the procedural rules i just would like to state one more time of the record my understanding is that we are in violation of the order signed by governor baker if we do not explicitly pose for public use and dissemination this disparate impact plan which we all received but has not yet been made publicly available that is my concern we can obviously can move forward and then allow the city solicitor to let us know if there we have to redo the order so I'm happy to defer to Councillor Sinella. Councillor Garipay. I was just going to say if I mean it's

▶ 22:48 Mark Garipay: already been recommended through appropriation so is there any way if we hold this until the full board meeting on the 20th so we don't have to have a have a full council meeting I know we had a lot of people on vacations and everything and let's be honest over the last three months we've been meeting three three times a week and I think I think we'd all like to spend some time with our family and just another another special meeting so i'd be curious to see if if there it's already been recommended through appropriation to the next next council meeting is that does that pose a problem we get the we get the posting the three-day posting um taken care of um and i think we all like council of senella had mentioned we you know we've all had a lot of meetings you know one honestly i'm a little selfish i'd like to go a week without one Be perfectly honest.

▶ 23:41 Jen Grigoraitis: Thank you, Councillor Arrapate. Councillor Eccles.

▶ 23:45 Jack Eccles: I think that we're kind of running into two issues here, which is one, urgency, and two, being within kind of the letter of the law. So the urgency part of it is that starting next week, Secretary Galvin is going to be sending out the absentee ballot applications. And I know personally, based on the clerk's communication plan, I would kind of like to make sure that when those applications go out, it's also kind of in line with what we're communicating with people about how they're going to be able to vote. So that's the urgency aspect of it. And then within complying with the law, I'm not inclined to support it tonight because I don't think that there's exceptions written into the law of whether or not you were already considering it. I think that it's in the public interest to let people know what the disparity impact might be. aside from being within the letter of the law i think it's also in in spirit i would support holding it so that people can kind of engage with it so i think that holding it tonight having a special meeting so that we've complied with what was set forth and what was passed today and then also urgently acting on it before the 20th because otherwise people are going to get their absentee ballot applications and not kind of know what september 1st is going to look like just

▶ 24:57 Jen Grigoraitis: yet thanks Thank You councillor Eccles councillor

▶ 25:01 Jeff McNaught: McNaught Thank You madam president this is interesting because the and this is just an observation that the folks that want to pull it out are opposed to the polling temporary change the folks that want to approve the polling temporary change are the ones saying that they don't want to move forward that being said I don't know if there's a chance that we could get the city solicitor pulled in and also I think well one question I have and I think we have to suspend the rules to ask this and have an answer it is how long has this notice been posted I don't know how many days we are into it it's only a three day period you know if we're at two and a half or two and three quarters um maybe we're okay but it'd be great if we could hear um from mr van campen i don't know if that's possible councilor migliorelli

▶ 26:06 Leila Migliorelli: motion to suspend the rules uh if you're either from clerk camosa or mr van campen

▶ 26:11 Jen Grigoraitis: so we have a motion to suspend the rules by councilor migliorelli seconded by councillor Tramontozzi is there any discussion adam clerk can you please call the role

▶ 26:26 Speaker 3: Councilor Sinella. Yes. Councilor Eccles. Yes. Councilor Garipay. Yes. Councilor McMaster. Yes. Councilor McNaught. Yes. Councilor Migliorelli. Yes. Councilor Stewart. Yes. Councilor Thomas. Yes. Councilor Tramontozzi. Yes. President Grigoraitis. Yes. Tanyas. So Tanyas, the rules

▶ 26:51 Jen Grigoraitis: are suspended madam clerk do you wish to uh speak to some of the questions that have been raised

▶ 26:59 Speaker 3: um i can speak to some of them i feel like uh you know i should also defer to city solicitor van campen on some of these um questions uh the disparate impact statement was sent to you all friday morning and i added it to iqm2 um but as some of you know the way that software works unless i reset the entire agenda it doesn't necessarily post um that uh to make it readily available to the public it was there um but it's not necessarily uh accessible to all so that people would know where to look for it um so i think it depends on you know how much you want to interpret that um and i think uh to counselor echo's point yes i would very much prefer that this get voted on before the next meeting on july 20th uh for the same reasons that he stated we would like to send out a postcard communication that explains to all residents all three of their choices for voting uh and if we don't have a final vote on the third choice yet i i don't feel comfortable putting and sending that out um and i think then we're not giving people the full picture of their choices so that would be a concern of mine um but in terms of whether or not you vote for it now or you know vote for it preferably like on thursday which i think you know if it would just be this particular order uh it would be another you know a meeting that would be just a few minutes long um then you know that that would be my preference not to push it to july 20th that's really all i can speak to um i deferred the committee and the city solicitor on

▶ 28:50 Jen Grigoraitis: what makes the most sense tonight thank you madam clerk are there any other comments

▶ 28:58 Shawn M. MacMaster: councilor mcmaster thank you madam president do we have the city solicitor available

▶ 29:07 Shawn M. MacMaster: that i do not know i just find an unusual amount of president that we're we're looking to hold something in committee that's been identified as a priority i understand the you know citation of the governor's legislation um without based on a a legal assessment from the city solicitor who's not before us tonight and uh you know if this is something that allows the public more time to become aware of the disparate impact of this that that's fine my concern is not that i think my sediments have been very much in line uh with that from the start of this order my concern is being in violation of the rules the rules exist for a reason we just can't decide not to apply a rule because we don't want to or because we think it it contravenes uh uh legislation put forth by the state i think short of having the city solicitor here to offer us his legal analysis i think the appropriate thing to do uh is to pull it from committee and and have a vote on it if anyone objects not not vote on the merits to object on whether or not it should go forward that's what the rule says uh and i i would think that um and i could be wrong the will of the council will probably be um to um uh to hold this which i think is fine but i don't think we can just ignore the

▶ 30:30 Jen Grigoraitis: rule madam president thank you councillor mcmaster is there anyone else wishing to speak councillor

▶ 30:36 Jen Grigoraitis: Senator, oh, Councilor McNaught.

▶ 30:40 Jeff McNaught: Thank you, Madam President. Again, I don't know who in the room would be able to contact the city solicitor, but I'm in agreement with Councilor McMaster and others that if we can move forward with this tonight, we should do so. So is there, who would be the, it would be Ms. Clark-Camosa?

▶ 31:03 Speaker 3: City Solicitor Van Kampen is available on audio.

▶ 31:13 Speaker 3: Mr. Van Kampen, are you, can you speak? And muted you.

▶ 31:16 Speaker 5: Can you hear me?

▶ 31:17 Speaker 3: Yes.

▶ 31:18 Speaker 5: Yeah, I apologize to the members of the committee. I'm on an iPhone right now. So I'm at a bit of a disadvantage. I don't have my computer. So happy to answer your questions. I have just started following your debate about five minutes ago, 10 minutes ago. So if someone wants to pose the question to me, I'm happy to answer.

▶ 31:42 Jen Grigoraitis: City Solicitor Van Kampen, I believe the question is whether or not we should be pulling the order from appropriations regarding the voting forward for a vote, whether or not it should be pulled forward. I did raise the issue that I had asked you about earlier today regarding the fact that we haven't posted the disparate impact memo for the required three days under state law. So we are debating whether or not we should be voting under Rule 35 to have it come before the council for a vote to pull it up and whether or not it passes or fails. I think the secondary question is, if it passes, are we then able to vote as a full council to pass that order, given the language of the law signed today by Governor Baker?

▶ 32:31 Speaker 5: So I would throw this out as a potential option. If I understand, Rule 35 appears to explicitly require the order come out of committee this evening. And again, I do not have the benefit of Rule 35 in front of me, so bear with me. If that is, in fact, sort of the black letter requirement under Rule 35 tonight, and I just caught the tail end of Council McMaster's comments, then one suggestion I would make to the City Council perhaps would be to remove it from committee this evening at the full City Council meeting. And there is the possibility, given the newly enacted law that was signed by Governor Baker today, the possibility would be there to conduct a vote to lay that order on the table of the full city council, then conduct a special meeting on some later date to ensure the disparate impact report has been made publicly available for at least three days. I suppose that is one approach the council could

▶ 33:48 Jen Grigoraitis: consider. Thank you, City Solicitor. Mr. McMaster, Councilor McMaster. Thank you, Madam President. I

▶ 33:53 Shawn M. MacMaster: do have a question for Mr. Van Kampen, but through you to either the City Clerk or the clerk of committees when was the the first time that this appeared on the City Council agenda the first time it was called as order 2021 35 do we have

▶ 34:37 Speaker 1: that date in front of us look it up just taking a minute 2020-135 and before the council on June 24th initially thank you mr. van Kampen good evening thank you

▶ 34:51 Shawn M. MacMaster: for joining us on such short short notice. This matter has been in the public domain now for for 12 days. We've had two Appropriations Committee meetings. There was the first time at the City Council meeting 12 days ago that it was called. The fact that we had a debate on this issue at prior meetings, the fact that there there have been concerns raised about disparate impact. In your view does that get us around this three-day requirement in the governor's legislation?

▶ 35:31 Speaker 5: Councillor McMaster, can you repeat that question? My phone just cut out on me and

▶ 35:40 Shawn M. MacMaster: I'd ask you to repeat that question. Sure, can you hear me now Mr. Van Campen?

▶ 35:49 Speaker 5: Can you hear us? I can hear you now, can you hear me? Yes, so the question Mr. Van Campen is,

▶ 35:52 Shawn M. MacMaster: if this has been a matter that's been before the council now for 12 days, it's been in the public domain, there have been news articles about it in at least two of our newspapers here in Melrose, maybe three. There has been two appropriations committee meetings. This is now the second council meeting where there's some discussion on this. The first council meeting, of course, it was just read as an order. Because the fact that it's been 12 days, that it's been in the public domain both in the press and there have been there's been this debate on this order in which the disparate impact was a very prominent uh feature of the the debate at the last appropriations meeting prior to the one earlier this evening does that get us beyond the three days that is

▶ 36:45 Speaker 5: being cited in the governor's legislation no i i think that i think the statute is is pretty clear that the um and i'm trying to look up the wording that there had to be an evaluation and report on whether such change would have a disparate impact um i think the statute's clear i think you're i think i don't think that complies with the minimum three-day public requirement uh that's in the statute i can understand the point you're trying to make but i don't think you're compliant

▶ 37:15 Shawn M. MacMaster: with the statute to uh to look at it that way thank you so will we will we within our rights as a municipality to move forward on this change um separate and apart from what the governors look to do i mean it was my understanding we we initiated this legally we had every right to do so um to what extent are we now constrained by uh legislation uh at the state level that would hold this off it just seems contrary to our ability at the uh local um legislative uh level to enact legislation if it especially based on the sensitivity that was raised by the city clerk in terms of uh timing now to hold this hold this even further so is there anything that um if this legislation did not come down if the governor did not sign this bill would we have been within our rights to continue moving forward on this and to have voted on it this evening

▶ 38:15 Speaker 5: Yeah. I'm going to defer to the city clerk and the Board of Registrars on that point, but my understanding is that this has always been a preemptive move to ensure sufficient time with establishing a consolidated polling location in light of the fact that it appeared very likely that this legislation was going to be passed, the governor was going to sign it, particularly given the circumstances we're currently under. but I will defer to the city clerk for additional comment on that counselor

▶ 38:50 Jen Grigoraitis: counselor Eccles had raised his hand but did madam city clerk did you want to say

▶ 39:02 Speaker 3: anything before I turn to counselor Eccles um no I think that mr. van Kampen has a pretty good description of it we we had moved forward this conversation before the legislation kind of started forming but as the legislation was forming we kind of understood that we would need to move in parallel with that legislation the initial drafts of it did not have this report in it but you know now that we are where we are it it's kind of I think we can't personally don't know if we can move forward without adhering to where

▶ 39:46 Jack Eccles: legislation is at this time counselor eckles thank you madam president so i think you know at best uh we table it tonight possibly didn't have to call a special meeting kind of go through one order in a special meeting on thursday or monday and be done with it at worst we're violating a law that was newly passed today so i think personally the choice is pretty clear at this point we've been debating whether or not to hold it on the table for far longer than any special meeting ever would have been so i think at this point i would personally like to see counselor snow pull this out of committee and then someone motion to lay it on the table i would certainly be do that um because at this point we're kind of demanding a semantics of okay let's let's follow rule 35 pull out a committee lay it on the table it may turn out we didn't have to i personally believe that the way that the legislation is written it's very clear that it's not about how long we've been debating this specific thing it's about how long the the the report has been out and that's been made pretty clear so i think at this point i would like to see this just just laid on the table but um we can continue debating whether or not we need to take action on it tonight if counselor snow pulls it out of committee i'm going to make a motion to lay it on the table for tonight i think that would be a good place to end this thank you

▶ 41:11 John N. Tramontozzi: you, Councilor Eccles. Councilor Tramontozzi. Thank you, Madam President. I just have a question to the city clerk. This legislation signed by the governor, and I have to apologize because I haven't read it, and I don't even know what it says, but it apparently was signed for today. Is there additional work that you have to do in preparing a report to be published and made available to the public other than what has already been done?

▶ 41:39 Speaker 3: Um, I think President Grigoraitis read the entirety of the language related to this. I mean, that's really it. It's just, it has to, we have to evaluate the disparate impact and report on it. Um, and as Councilor McMaster indicated, we've definitely evaluated the disparate impact. Um, so I'm sorry I mean, we had, we just have to say that we did.

▶ 42:01 Speaker 3: So, um, so that's that that language as it stands now is what was introduced pretty recently into the legislation, which is why I included it in the communications. I sent you last week. But that's yeah, so essentially. All it really means at this point, at least to the way I interpret it and understand it is. We just need to put that statement somewhere on the website that's publicly available. Which it is now, because it's in and I also posted on the elections page. So it's already there, but it just hasn't met the 3 day requirement.

▶ 42:46 John N. Tramontozzi: Okay, I get it. So, I mean, the report is there in existence and it has been. And, but has it been.

▶ 43:00 John N. Tramontozzi: published to IQM2? Yes. All right, but it has not been published on the website specifically, that report. Is that what we're missing here? Right. It wasn't, yeah, I didn't post it.

▶ 43:12 Speaker 3: I added it to the packet for IQM2, but I didn't regenerate the agenda, which makes it so you could have, you were able to access it, anyone logged in could access it. it. So it was there since Friday morning. But now it is, anyone can see it if they just go to IQM2 and I've added it to the elections page. So if IQM2 is a challenge to access, which I know it can be, you can see it on the elections page of the city website as well.

▶ 43:40 John N. Tramontozzi: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.

▶ 43:42 Jen Grigoraitis: Thank you. Councillor McNaught.

▶ 43:47 Jeff McNaught: you madam president I think what I'm sensing is a you know no matter whether anyone's opposed or for this measure there's still a sense of urgency in our virtual room we know that there's a lot of communication that has to occur for this to happen I I think my my question is it probably through you to the clerk is and maybe through you or mr. van Kampen as well as did today's legislation signed ask for this disparate impact statement or have we known about this for some time I'm just I'm not sure if we have I'm not sure why we're behind why why wasn't it posted earlier I don't know how to ask it any other way than

▶ 44:44 Speaker 3: that so I added it on Friday but the determination is whether or not it was public publicly and available enough right so when did we know about the

▶ 45:00 Jeff McNaught: disparate impact statement that what do we have it available when do we know

▶ 45:08 Speaker 3: that it could have gone um in the current description of it i um had it i understood it to exist once it was signed by the senate last week on thursday okay so i produced it on friday

▶ 45:20 Jeff McNaught: that helps i'm just trying to figure out like was this part of what the governor signed today or it it doesn't seem so because as you said you posted it on friday right no it was last week so

▶ 45:31 Speaker 3: um it was you know until the the the bill was kind of signed was kind of formalized finalized by the house on tuesday and then signed by the senate on thursday that's when the clarity of the language came kind of was became clear which is why um i worked on it starting then and once i saw the signed legislation from the senate uh is when i produced it formally thank you

▶ 46:05 Jen Grigoraitis: thank you counselor mcnaught my understanding is that we also have a member of the board of registrars um in the as a participant if he could be brought up in case there are questions that he can answer and while we're doing that counselor Migliorelli okay thank you um madam president

▶ 46:20 Leila Migliorelli: just a quick point of clarification um for city clerk camosa so that when you posted it to iqm2 on friday it was only available to us via the password protected access or was it available to the public but it's just was like you had to double click to a different link um to get to it

▶ 46:39 Speaker 3: it's somewhere in between it's not password protected you're just but you do need to sign in anyone can have an account on iqm to anyone in the public with no authorization from us

▶ 46:49 Leila Migliorelli: So it was, it was public, but just not public enough for either the citizens or?

▶ 47:02 Speaker 3: Yeah, I believe that, I think that's just a, I think that's an interpretation of what public website means that I'm not sure I'm an appropriate person to answer that.

▶ 47:14 Leila Migliorelli: Right, I guess that for me, that's kind of the just the sticking point. Um, is it what is public public enough? I mean, the reports there. I don't know if others have thoughts on that, or if the city solicitor wants to speak to. Whether that's not considered public enough. Um. But we can hear from others as we continue.

▶ 47:35 Jen Grigoraitis: I believe a counselor is in queue and I will, I believe some of what we're discussing is actually what would be discussed on whether or not people want to vote to. Approve or lay it on the table, so I don't know if you wanted to make a motion or if you just wanted to.

▶ 47:50 Christopher Cinella: Yeah, I would like to make a motion to pull order 2020 dash 135 up from. Appropriations committee recommendation for passage.

▶ 47:58 Jen Grigoraitis: So, we have a motion to pull the order up from the committee made by counselor, a seconded by counselor echoes. Is there any discussion? Madam clerk, can you please call the roll point of order? Isn't it just pulled Madam president?

▶ 48:19 Shawn M. MacMaster: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over my air conditioner. Can you say that again? Apologies? Madam president isn't it's just a matter of being pulled out of committee. I don't think we need a vote to just pull it from committee.

▶ 48:29 Jen Grigoraitis: Isn't that isn't that what we're looking to do? Just correct. We do sometimes pull it out of committee. Yeah.

▶ 48:34 Speaker 6: It would be orders of the day if it's fine. Thank you.

▶ 48:42 Speaker 3: Uh, counselor, yes. Counselor Eccles yes. Counselor. Yes, the McMaster. Yes. Councilor McNaught. Yes, Councillor Migliorelli. Yes. Councillor Stewart. Yes. Councillor Thomas. Yes. Councillor Tramontozzi. Yes. President Grigoraitis.

▶ 49:08 Jen Grigoraitis: Yes, so the order is before us. Councillor Eccles.

▶ 49:12 Jack Eccles: I would like to make a motion to leave this on the table. Order 1.

▶ 49:19 Jen Grigoraitis: Second, we have a motion to leave this on the table by Councilor Eccles, seconded by Councilor Sinella. Is there any discussion?

▶ 49:27 Jen Grigoraitis: Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll? Councilor Sinella? Yes.

▶ 49:35 Speaker 3: Councilor Eccles? Yes. Councilor Garipay? Yes. Councilor McMaster?

▶ 49:45 Speaker 3: Yes. Councilor McNaught? Yes. Councilor Migliorelli? Yes. councillor stewart yes councillor thomas yes councillor Tramontozzi yes president Grigoraitis

▶ 50:07 Speaker 7: yes ten yes and yes so the motion carries anything on the calendar