ORDER-2019-81 : Home Rule Petition to Amend Section 3-10 of the Charter of the City of Melrose

Transcript (~51 min @ 1:10:45)

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

▶ 1:10:39 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: order on the agenda tonight is order 2 0 1 9 dash 81 a home rule petition to amend section 3 dash 10 of the Charter of the city of Melrose we are still under suspension of rules and I do see on the city solicitor here Thank You

▶ 1:11:06 Speaker 5: madam chair members of the committee the the order before you this evening is intended to address what we considered as an administrative team to be an operational glitch in the city charter in the current unique circumstance in which the city of Melrose finds itself and that circumstance is involving those situations where the president of the Board of Aldermen in the third or fourth year of the term for which a mayor is elected becomes the mayor given the departure of the elected mayor and if you look at the proposal that's before you this evening currently as written the mayor would leave office

▶ 1:11:51 Speaker 5: immediately upon certification of the election result of the November 2019 election there are a number of concerns that necessitate presenting this order to you and I will share with you some of those concerns number one which is really the primary concern is that our municipal government is very much modernized now and you know the discussion about the name change as I was following it earlier sort of rung true to me that some parts of our Charter do need to be modernized and this is this is one part of the Charter although this particular document is only 14 years old this is one part of the city charter that is actually somewhat outdated as well mayor of Melrose is no longer a part-time employee, which it was, as some of you know, many, many, many years ago. It's a full-time elected official, the chief executive officer of an $80 million operation with a number of wide and varying responsibilities. The concern here and the reason for this request is because there is currently no transition plan in those circumstances where the president of the board becomes the mayor what would happen in november of 2019 for those in the public who may not be aware is the person elected at the november 5th biennial city election would become the mayor immediately upon vote certification there would be no time for

▶ 1:13:35 Speaker 5: for the administrative staff at City Hall, myself, Mr. De La Russo, Ms. Long, the HR Director, Mr. Schenner, the two public safety chiefs, to onboard the new mayor, to brief the new mayor, to make the new mayor aware of the number of issues and challenges that may be facing the city. There would also be no time for what we would consider to be somewhat of a seamless transition. It would be somewhat disruptive in that the new mayor would just take office and we would have to, unfortunately, operate in a less than efficient and somewhat clunky manner for a period of time. As the members know, when Mayor Inferna was elected president of the board, she had about a three and a half week period of time during which she met with the senior administrative team. She met with former Mayor Dolan. She was briefed on the many issues that she would be confronted with immediately upon becoming mayor. But unfortunately, I can attest to this, that simply wasn't enough time. And if Mayor Infurna were here this evening, I'm sure she would tell you that wasn't enough time to truly get transitioned into the role. So the intent of this piece is really to correct what is considered to be an operational glitch, try to create a more efficient and more effective transition process that currently wouldn't exist under the existing Charter language and we hope for your favorable action on this but I'm here this evening obviously to answer any questions that members may

▶ 1:15:13 John N. Tramontozzi: have thank you madam chair thank you for coming in this evening to answer our questions mr. van Kemp and first question I have is procedurally how did we how did he get here with this water did anyone on this board request this

▶ 1:15:29 Speaker 5: order to be presented no this is a proposal that has been offered by the administration and I would I would speak to the timing of this I understand there's some concern about the the timing of this and some folks may you know raise allegations of suspicious sort of timing suspicious nature of this the reason this is being presented to you is this has been on the radar for several weeks but when the administration discovered that in addition to alderman Rita aldermanic vacancy home rule petition president lemmerman was also going to be proposing a home rule petition to change the name from Board of Aldermen to City Council the decision was made that as sort of a package we would present this I've had conversations with Representatives Broder have made him aware that to the extent the board wishes to consolidate these three petitions into one package he's already had conversations with House counsel they are prepared to receive that package so the reason this is being presented is we took the occasion since the board was already requesting certain revisions to the city charter to add what we considered to be a necessary change to that to that process so the motivating motivation for

▶ 1:16:41 John N. Tramontozzi: presenting this is the issue regarding the transition period of time correct is the incoming mayor an opportunity to sort of learn the ropes if you weren't understand the operations of the city there's also been some suggestion to presentation to letters received by this board one in particular suggesting and somehow this was instituted for the benefit of the current mayor, specifically that the mayor is using this as an opportunity to increase or boost her pension. Can you describe and tell me whether this is a factor that was considered at all and what the effect is regarding the pension?

▶ 1:17:34 Speaker 5: Yeah, I think before I answer that question, i would i have to reiterate this is about good government and trying to make transitions as modern as and efficient as we can for the city of melrose this is not about one mayor this is not about mayor Infurna this could be about a mayor in 30 years who's the president of the board in a sense to the office of mayor and about the transition following that person's term So it's not about one singular person, but what I would say with respect to Mayor Inferna, when she became an alderman 20 years ago, she opted not to join the pension system. So there is no long-term pension benefit by virtue of Mayor Inferna staying in for several additional weeks to transition with an incoming mayor. There's no pension. In fact, I spoke to Ms. Long today. Mayor Inferna doesn't even take the city's health insurance. So there's no additional financial benefit that would have long-term benefit for her by virtue of this passing.

▶ 1:18:38 Speaker 8: Thank you. I appreciated that clarification. Thank you.

▶ 1:18:41 Speaker 2: Alderman Bewtra.

▶ 1:18:42 Manisha Bewtra: Thank you. Continuing on Alderman Tramontozzi point, how does the mayor feel about this?

▶ 1:18:49 Speaker 5: Quite frankly, she's indifferent to this. This is a recommendation that Mr. De La Russo, myself, and other senior administrative staff members brought to her attention and outlined our recommendation that it made good operational sense to approach this.

▶ 1:19:07 Manisha Bewtra: Great. Thank you, and thank you. I know we spoke this afternoon, so I think a lot of my questions you addressed in your statement and were further addressed by Alderman Tramontozzi points. as a mayoral candidate no matter how this decision goes tonight regarding this position if I win I am prepared to take office in November or in January I believe this is a common-sense amendment and aimed at providing continuity and stability particularly for those who work here at City Hall our department heads who have dealt with in this scenario in the last couple years a lot of transition and turmoil but in any future transition of this nature would be in a similar situation I think this period allows for the mayor-elect to coordinate with the city administration on a range of issues and allows for a

▶ 1:20:09 Robert A. Boisselle: smoother transfer thank you I think the previous all of it answered my question question in the point that an individual probably has a he or she has a job at this point so if he

▶ 1:20:25 Robert A. Boisselle: or she is elected the following day he or she cannot have another job taking the position as

▶ 1:20:31 Speaker 5: mayor is that correct that's correct to the extent that the election result is certified i understand that there is a a period of time between when the polls close the votes are counted and the and the city clerk officially seals that result and that could be up to 10 days oh it is up to 10

▶ 1:20:48 Robert A. Boisselle: days okay so it's not within 24 or 48 hours because under under law individuals have the

▶ 1:20:52 Speaker 5: right to request a recount and i believe that is a 10-day period all right so with that account so

▶ 1:20:59 Robert A. Boisselle: So the individual has enough time to submit to his or her employer, they're leaving their present position and working, becoming mayor of the city and so forth.

▶ 1:21:13 Speaker 5: Correct. I mean, I don't know about a 10-day notice to your employer that you're leaving, but

▶ 1:21:19 Robert A. Boisselle: it's usually two weeks.

▶ 1:21:21 Speaker 5: What I would say is even that 10-day period is not a sufficient period of time for a smooth, efficient, traditional transition.

▶ 1:21:34 Michael P. Zwirko: okay thank you thank you thank you madam chair before I have some comments to make before I make them I just wanted to state that mayor Infurna is an honorable mayor she has integrity and I do not think that this order in any way shape or form is nefarious or has a nefarious intent and to a certain extent I can actually see why this order is being filed but I have grave concerns about it I also wanted to just state because the comment did come up about the mayor previously being part-time back in the mid-2000s the old charter was essentially thrown away and a new charter was ratified by the voters of the city of Melrose we used to have nine members on the school committee the mayor's term used to be two years there was a whole host of changes that were effectively made and that was voted and approved and ratified by an electorate so that's just an important distinction at that time this provision was placed in and it has remained it's survived the charter review that seven people were empaneled to go through painstakingly i will add it took nearly a year to go through that process it first started with the charter review committee and then it went through this board so the purpose of a periodic charter review as outlined in the charter which is set to go off every 10 years is that sue you can objectively look at each provision and give it an honest look without any outside encumbrances two years ago we did just that in this review which took the better part of a year we reviewed this particular provision and understood that it was not an operational oversight yet it was an intentional act that deemed the electorate and the will of their vote as sacrosanct and supreme mayor Infurna who was legitimately elected as our interim mayor under the charter was not elected to that office by the electorate. On November 5th, 2019, and a few days after that, once this election is certified, a new mayor will be elected. The provision essentially states that now a duly elected mayor has been chosen, the will of the people must be honored. Further, this provision is a significant one and its intentions are clear. There is no oversight. This is not a Scrivener's error. For this body to make this change to this provision is not only undemocratic but overruling the will of the electorate that effectively approved this specific provision back in the mid 2000s I also respect that the Charter is a living document and it can and should be updated from time to time outside the automatic 10-year provision as we just did however there are some changes that if made by this body should be ratified by the electorate I feel that this one is substantial enough to require that that being said I did have one question for you you had said mr. city solicitor of in campen that a couple of weeks prior to this order

▶ 1:24:28 Michael P. Zwirko: being filed the administration was going to go forward with this but you sought to hold off while there were other orders having to do with charter amendments coming forward so could you restate I wanted someone asked on the

▶ 1:24:45 Speaker 5: purpose so yes I didn't exactly say that what I said was this has been on the radar for several weeks that this this issue of what's going to happen in November of 19 and once the administration learned that there would be two petitions for amendments to the city charter the decision was made to

▶ 1:25:11 Michael P. Zwirko: present this as well I mean I know that I've spoken with members of this administration about this provision in 2018 I don't know if there was any effort to make a change at the time and in 2018 we actually had two orders before us that sought to amend the Charter too so I just I just feel that

▶ 1:25:27 Speaker 5: it's I can't speak to that I don't know if you and I spoke about this provision I don't recall that I can't speak to what you're alluding to or trying to imply but the decision was made where there was a package that was going to be presented that we would make this request simultaneously understood but

▶ 1:25:45 Michael P. Zwirko: this I mean this provision is it's not is not an operational error it might be uncomfortable but it's it's its intent is clear yeah and again I don't think

▶ 1:25:56 Speaker 5: there was a I also don't think I said this is a script scrivener's error or an error I referred to as an operational glitch meaning what will happen to the continuity of our government after November 5th is potentially an operational glitch we will have a mayor who will not have the ability to transition in therefore we consider it to be somewhat of a

▶ 1:26:23 Michael P. Zwirko: glitch in an inefficiency if you will and my statement thank you for your clarification my statement points out why this is not an operational glitch that it is the intent and what the intent is born for for that specific purpose that's all the comments that I had at this time thank you

▶ 1:26:42 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: madam chair thank you I just have a couple of a couple of questions but I will say you know I can't appreciate when you go over the Charter and you you read it in black and white on paper it can be difficult sometimes too and I'm speaking only for myself because we did this and there have been I feel like a couple of times over the last year or so where you know when you're actually seeing it play out in in reality that there are these unintended consequences or situations that you you think wow I didn't didn't really think about that you know I thought I thought it through thoroughly but then you're faced with something so I can see that happening I do feel that the I don't feel that any of this is being done with any ill intent I do find it the timing and also it that it is coming from an administration in the position to be an awkward one for us to be debating I as we're talking a few things have popped up for me that I'd like to ask you about with the you know bearing in mind how can we have as much foresight as possible as we go through the charter so is this same provision does this same situation happen to an alderman who is appointed by the board so we for example we have an alderman here who went through our process no wouldn't so it may the mayor is the only office that if there's a you know a person who has been appointed as opposed to elected in

▶ 1:28:13 Speaker 5: the last and I and I will say this as respectfully as I can Adam president but the the difference between oh I am assuming the office of Ward alderman or alderman at Lodge and the you know the need to have an understanding of the issues being dealt with on a day-to-day basis and being an incoming mayor are very different absolutely I completely agree that

▶ 1:28:34 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: would have been the next thing that I said but I'm just trying to think through the various ways that we have our elected officials coming into the their jobs and how we deal with that when it's not the it's now April and

▶ 1:28:55 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: this would have to pass completely through and be signed by the governor by

▶ 1:29:03 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: October correct do we over for so early October five and a half months correct

▶ 1:29:09 Speaker 5: and I understand your question I think I also want to just stress that if it's not passed by October whatever the date is at the end of the day because it's not about a single mayor if it passes in december or january of 20 or whenever the legislature can actually take it up and get to it and the governor can sign it we will have made the change that we the administrative team think is necessary so that this scenario doesn't happen uh the next time and

▶ 1:29:43 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: this has never happened before right i mean it hasn't pointed out this is a newer this is a

▶ 1:29:47 Speaker 5: relatively new charter document and so this circumstance has never arisen and i think the odds of this happening are in the future relatively remote but we always want to prepare for you know

▶ 1:30:04 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: remote outcomes okay um i do have i'm skeptical of this going through in the amount of time just knowing the process and knowing you know looking as i have recently done looked at a lot of um other cities who have gone through a home rule petition um i'm not sure i saw that any of them have done it quite that that quickly um so i could be wrong but i you know if we're looking to do this for this particular situation the understanding that you know it could happen in the future but as you said it's very unlikely um that is a concern for me fair enough the timing

▶ 1:30:42 Speaker 5: on this um the ideal would be for passage to occur and apply to this situation as well as all future situations but if that ideal doesn't happen and it only passes in time to apply to future situations then we would still again as an administrative team consider that to be

▶ 1:31:02 Speaker 1: an accomplishment sure okay that's all i have for now thank you alderman Medeiros thank you

▶ 1:31:09 Monica C. Medeiros: uh i won't belabor this too much i am a strong no on this proposal i feel it's of the utmost importance for a mayor who is elected by the people by the voters to be allowed to take office as soon as possible many of you know in December of 2017 I filed an order for a one-time exception to the Charter not not a change to the Charter but at one time exception to allow for a special election when we knew and had the foresight that we were going to have a vacancy in the office of mayor prior to the two-year mark left in the term and I felt at that time as I do now that it's very important to have a mayor who is elected by the people in that position and you know that's regardless of whomever that person should be and you know this is something that's in the Charter that was voted on by the people by the voters in 2005, this change, and leading up to that change, there was a pretty extensive process with the Charter Commission, and you see the language in this portion of the charter as to how the mayor in this situation, the new mayor, would take office. It's very different from any other situation and i believe that that was absolutely purposeful and intentful and that was what was meant by the authors of this charter that it's not simply an operational glitch i think lastly that any time when we get into changes that the charter is one of the most it's like our constitution i know i've said that before it's one of the most important documents if not the most important document that we have that we operate by that we set the rules for that we we move forward with and when we get into a situation when we have something that is benefiting and in this case there is i mean there would be a financial benefit to the sitting mayor and that she would receive two more months of salary which is a substantial amount of money. We're looking at like $20,000. That's a substantial figure. We're looking at somebody in a specific term and we're looking at the specific person. This is not the kind of way that we should be debating issues of our charter. They should be looking at the greater issue. If we want to look at this for the future and say maybe we should not have this happen again in the future I do think it was very intentful and meant for that person who was elected by the people to take office immediately you know upon certification of course of the results I think that was that was the intent I think I still support that intent I definitely do so still support that intent but this changing things when

▶ 1:34:30 Monica C. Medeiros: they benefit an individual rather than just the office is is not the best way to operate and ultimately I think this is something that's important for the

▶ 1:34:46 Monica C. Medeiros: voters to speak they already spoke in 2005 and voted for this provision in the charter which was reviewed again in a pretty lengthy review and I believe this wording is intentful and meaningful and I don't support this change thank you

▶ 1:35:08 Scott M. Forbes: you may not know the answer to this question but I'll ask it anyway do you know when the administration was aware of the operational glitch when did it come into was it a few weeks ago or was it some point I mean I would have been

▶ 1:35:21 Speaker 5: aware of this at some point in the past clearly right I just you know I couldn't

▶ 1:35:30 Scott M. Forbes: pinpoint just thinking from the timeline that it was aware to the timeline that it's being brought before us I wasn't sure if you were you were aware of when this was discovered or initially talked about you know I heard Alderman's work

▶ 1:35:42 Speaker 5: or refer to conversations in 2018 I frankly you know have a number of conversations with members of this board i i simply don't recall when or if those conversations happened um i will say even if they did at that time you know no decision had been made to propose a standalone request to amend the charter this decision was made at this point in time because there were two other petitions that were going to be on your agenda so the decision was made to as a package make this request simultaneously understood yeah um and again i just have to stress this is not about an individual this is actually this has nothing to do with mayor Infurna she just happens to be sitting in the chair this has to do with as i said earlier and i i'm repeating myself but you know i take great exception to allegations that this is about enriching one individual this is about making our charter work better from an operational standpoint that's strictly

▶ 1:36:51 Scott M. Forbes: and solely what this is about and i understand that and i agree with you i'm not making any of those allegations okay what i'm looking at is just the process as a whole all right so i think we all became familiar with section 3-10 of the city charter in january of last year and i remember the polarizing debate of people saying that they wanted to change the city charter right there because they didn't agree with the process and they wanted to have a special election and there was a lot of debate and public comment about that they people didn't think that the process was fair however the response to that was is that the charter was the binding document and we needed to have a set of guidelines and if you agreed with it or disagreed with it this is what we had to go on and so we accept that as the rule of law and that's how these decisions took place and i was all for that so for me you know 14 months into the mayor's term with seven months left she served two term two-thirds of her term so for me it's if we had to respect the the charters the binding document and at the beginning of the term then i would be more inclined to respect the charter at the end of the term and anybody that's a that's running for this office uh should be aware of the time constraints that are going to be involved and they should make those arrangements with their employers i would imagine months and months in advance to have those conversations when you're going to hold a title such as the mayor of a municipality so that that's how i look at it i would be inclined not to support

▶ 1:38:25 Shawn M. MacMaster: this order thank you mr mcmaster thank you thank you mr van camden for being here um just to to piggyback on on alderman forbes line of questioning can you just help me understand the timing of this a bit more when was a decision affirmatively made to send this order before

▶ 1:38:48 Speaker 5: this board you know i don't have an exact time alderman uh three days well it was submitted on your agenda for monday so probably within the week or two week period leading up to

▶ 1:39:03 Shawn M. MacMaster: that agenda okay what type of discussion occurred before that was there lengthy discussion within the administration about doing this or was it an idea that somebody within the administration whether it's the mayor somebody else came up with and then decided to put this forth they were ongoing discussions

▶ 1:39:28 Speaker 5: about this but understand there are ongoing discussions about a number of initiatives on a daily basis at city hall so i can't i can't really tell you on march 29th

▶ 1:39:40 Speaker 5: mayor Infurna you know and mr delarusso myself and whoever else would have been involved made it made a decision and put it in writing that we would go forward with this with this measure because i simply don't have that recall tonight was there was there any outreach to any member

▶ 1:39:56 Shawn M. MacMaster: of this board about the administration's intention to put this forward i've had conversations uh

▶ 1:40:04 Speaker 5: recently with members of the board i don't know who uh on this board has also had conversations with the mayor or others about this issue correct okay so for example i i had a conversation with alderman Boisselle in person alderman Bewtra by phone prior alderman prior to monday night sir

▶ 1:40:31 Shawn M. MacMaster: I I don't recall that I don't know so you once served as an elected official in a municipality correct yes okay so I just ask you for to indulge me and for a moment if you put yourself in our shoes and this comes down three nights ago before us as an order number order number two zero one nine dash eighty with no context no accompanying memo doesn't seem like there was any outreach before Monday night about this to help us contextualize this and the first we're hearing about it is essentially tonight at the first we're we're talking about it is tonight it moved very quickly so it feels as if it just fell in our laps and now we're being asked to debate it and make a decision on it and And you can imagine how members of the public feel about this, that they were smacked over the head with this around the same time that we learned about this. So with all due respect, to me, the order has a foul smell attached to it. It really does, and I say that with all due respect. It has a stink attached to it that emanates from a lack of transparency, a lack of context and candor, and a lack of public discourse. Charter changes need to be proposed with adequate notice and advance explanation to the public. And we had listening session after listening session after listening session about the override, as we should have. Yet this is an issue that strikes at the heart of governance, and there has been no discourse. Now, do I think this is some noxious and nefarious plot by the administration? I don't. I don't think that at all. I don't know if this was an oversight. I don't know if it's born of ignorance. I don't know if it's a disconnect from public sentiment. I don't know if it's arrogance. I don't know if it's poor counsel that was offered to the mayor. I don't know if it's a lack of political astuteness. I don't know. Whatever the reason though, is this should have been handled in a different way. That being said, I'm troubled because I understand the importance of transition. As somebody who's worked in state government for an elected executive office holder in my prior position, I went through three transitions with three different administrations and I see the value in it. I understand that good governance calls for a seamless transition that affords adequate time for the incoming official to assemble a team. And if I was running for mayor, and I can just speak for myself and I have no intentions of running for mayor, but if I was running for mayor, I would wanna ask for the resignation of every department head, give them an opportunity to reapply, to sit down and talk with them, to have a transition team, and to start to really think carefully with my transition team about the direction of my administration. So I understand it. I completely value the process. I think it's essential. And that's why I'm torn, because i'm struck with the importance of a transition and a distaste in my mouth about the process so that being said i don't know quite what i'm what i'm going to do i'm i'm not sure

▶ 1:44:03 Shawn M. MacMaster: but i just i i think it's something when we come down to the vote i'm going to have to vote at that time based on how i feel at the moment but i'm i'm troubled but like i said i understand the importance of transition these things take time good governance calls for it and i do think the next made mayor should be entitled to coming in and the reigns of government being transitioned in a way that gives them the opportunity to start their administration in a way that's not hasty so thank you madam chair thank you mr van

▶ 1:44:43 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: canada um before we circle back any other on motion to speak for the first time i'll just say a couple words but i don't be brief um i appreciate that the change probably doesn't have fiscal implications for the city so it's true that mayor inferna would um have a salary for two more months but we wouldn't be double paying because there wouldn't be another mayor in so that doesn't change things for us fiscally i appreciate that she didn't take a pension so she's not that's not at play and and not even health insurance so um so although it wouldn't have the change wouldn't have fiscal implications i just have concerns like some of my colleagues about the optics of changing our foundational document in what feels like a really reactive manner rather than the careful deliberation that's divorced from any particular set of facts or individuals and I think we've heard from a couple of our colleagues about the thought that probably went into this particular provision as you all know I tend to try to bring to your attention how other cities are doing it I didn't have a lot of time to do that tonight or leading up tonight but I did see that Beverly our neighbor just to the north has the exact same provision as we have in our charter and differentiates between a mayor who's serving and the the type of mayor we have right now versus one who was elected. And I don't think it's an overset, I don't think it's an operational glitch. We may decide it's not the best policy for us, but I would rather do that in a very thoughtful, careful, again, deliberation that is not being pressured by a particular set of facts. I appreciate that this won't be overnight entirely, although it will be a very quick turnaround, but under chapter 54, section 137 of the general laws, we do have to wait until the vote is certified. So that gives us a little bit of breathing room. And then like all other voters of the city, I'll just have to look very carefully at the candidates for mayor and think about who makes the best case for letting us know that they're gonna be ready on day 10. And I do appreciate that there are real, there's a real policy debate here in terms of what would be the best, most principled way to approach this but I don't feel comfortable making a change like this in this type of manner I think it should be done again outside of the the immediate circumstances and within the general way in which we would

▶ 1:47:17 Speaker 2: approach a charter change Alderman Tramontozzi thank you madam chair I too

▶ 1:47:23 John N. Tramontozzi: too I'm a little concerned about and I can see both sides and the importance of a transition but the troubled that this wasn't recognized sooner but I think you know the voters reckon I think that the the charter clearly gives the the say to the book you know the voters and people wanted to elect their mayor and the elections are important to the people you have six months before this occurs is there any possibility you the administration can get together put together provisions for a transition you have incredible talented staff members in the administration I could see that the transition can be made smoothly put your heads together sit down you get six months i'll put in but bring forth to this this board a an outline of what the administration plans to do and i think it's something that we could support then so i don't think we really need to try to change the uh the charter provision if um the the minds can get together and uh and be creative you've got six months to do it so well i think you can do it did you want to take on that challenge mr. van Kampen well I'm here this

▶ 1:48:52 Speaker 5: evening on the proposal that's before you and the transition to the extent the Charter language remains unchanged the transition will happen you know at the mayor's level so in the absence of a change to the city Charter will we will

▶ 1:49:17 Michael P. Zwirko: abide by current language well thank you thank you madam chair I'll be brief you Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government, but it's better than all the alternatives. And sometimes bad facts make bad law. Sometimes people make bad law. Not trying to step into the shoes of the intent of the voters, but it seems to me that it was pretty clear that the will of the electorate was more important than the will of the administration, especially with this provision. so I just I really want to just stress that point here because this is very deliberate as chairwoman Letter Garabedian stated there is another municipality north of us that mirrors the same provision so this could be common and and I also think that we haven't used the same consultant in

▶ 1:50:12 Speaker 5: Beverly that drafted the Melrose Charter yeah that's probably why the language is

▶ 1:50:19 Michael P. Zwirko: reflective and the thank you for that and the I think we have a provision in this charter to where you can't even alter the mayor's salary in the last 18 months of that mayor's term and the reason for that timing is because well I mean it's the reason for it is because of the same issues that we're debating here this evening it's six months out of any election and you're kind of like moving the goalposts so again I don't think and there's it's a it's a factual statement that there is no benefit here in this case and I understand that this is for future mayor's as well but this could be done through another process at another time I think we need to as all of us have benefited from the electorate because we're here we need to defer to the electorate in this position as well and I really think that it's very important that there are there will be honored as it was when they approved this specific provision thank you

▶ 1:51:21 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: president Lemmerman thank you I have struggled a lot with this one and up till this very moment because I 100% believe that this was brought forth with you

▶ 1:51:35 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: know complete intent to fix an issue that was spotted I don't think that there's any nefarious intent behind this at all I don't think as mr. Van Kamen has pointed out several times this has anything to do with one particular person I absolutely believe that this happened because we were given the clarity of being put into a position and frankly I agree with you that this is a problem where I'm struggling is that when we as a board voted because we had to because the Charter told us that we had to when we chose a mayor for this city there were a lot of voters in the city who felt disenfranchised by that process and who wanted us to change the Charter under duress so that we could make the process what it what they wanted it to be in that situation and we chose not to do that we said the Charter is what it is it was intentionally written that way we are obligated to follow it in this situation we may want to look at it going forward but this we cannot change it under these circumstances and that I leaned on that and that made me feel comfortable with my vote and it made me I always felt like we did the right thing I feel like we would be going back on that conviction by doing this this evening it's it's a very similar situation it's we're seeing an issue we're we're living with it now so we see the details of it and we have a charter that dictates how we proceed um and we can either change it in the moment almost as an emergency because we're seeing it or we can live with it and perhaps we'll revisit it um i could live with my vote back then because i felt like we followed procedure I don't think I could defend my vote to change it this evening under these circumstances I would welcome us reviewing it in the future but I just feel like I would be doing a complete flip-flop from early

▶ 1:53:51 Monica C. Medeiros: last year thank you Auderman Medeiros thank you and I just want to make clear that I'm not making any allegations and I'm not sure if that's how it came across but most certainly there is a situation here that we're in the middle of where we're the sitting mayor if if extended in term by changing this provision that she put forward would receive two more months of salary and that and because of that it creates an appearance of a conflict and it you know and it's not something that I don't think is the right way to move forward with these kinds of changes it's similar to what happened when we voted to change the mayor's salary in the middle of the sitting mayor's term where it became more about that one individual than about the office and I think that's that stuff it gets messy when we do that and it creates the appearance of a conflict and it's not the best governing you know I do consistently believe that you know the will of the people is the strongest and most important force in this city and should be honored and you know any this has been in the language that's been in the Charter for you know since 2005 I I have personally been very much

▶ 1:55:22 Monica C. Medeiros: aware of it and you know certainly as someone who is a candidate and who may take office immediately after transition of just certification of the votes it's it's a short amount of time and it's a lot to grapple with but it's something that you know you do think about and think about what would happen to the staff and you make plans for and we have a lot of very qualified people who work for our city government who are department heads and who are other leaders and chiefs and and executives and I believe they work for the the best of the people of Melrose every day and I don't believe that they would not brief any incoming mayor of what was going on and the critical issues of the city I certainly imagine it would be a little bit bumpy and I think that any transition would be bumpy and in fact it's possibly better to begin that bumpy process in November than it is to begin in January when a new mayor should be preparing a budget and getting ready to present those things moving forward so again I just can't support this tonight thank you thank you mr. van

▶ 1:56:45 Manisha Bewtra: Kampen if you could just I know you've said the same things over and over again but maybe go into a little more detail regarding what this would mean for the folks working in City Hall if we kept the language as is particularly I think when we spoke this afternoon you mentioned things that the mayor would need to be briefed on security concerns things like that if you could just give

▶ 1:57:16 Speaker 5: us a little more detail in terms of what that transition would look like this is really about the incoming mayor and Alderman Medeiros just was referenced the bumpiness of not having a transition period and that in January there would still be bumpiness if I if I heard her correctly we're trying to create an environment of transition that makes the next mayor as successful as possible on day one not on day 72 in office and in order to do that we have and when i say we i'm referring to the professional administrative team here at city hall have determined that building in some form of a transition makes the most sense to ensure that individual whoever it may be whether they're in this room or outside of this room is successful that's our ultimate goal at all times and the success of the next mayor is the success of the city and therefore it's in the best interest of the city so I'm submitting to you and I've heard a number of comments this evening and I respect every member of this body but there is absolutely no ulterior motive other than to ensure that the next mayor is successful and whether you don't like the timing of this or feel it it stinks or there's some other you know nefarious objective underlying it it's simply not true our goal as an administration is to make sure the next mayor is successful

▶ 1:58:57 Manisha Bewtra: on day one thank you I hear all my colleagues concerns I had the same concerns which I think you allayed when we spoke earlier this afternoon to a great degree I think the optics are very awkward at best it's unfortunate that this order came to us without a more detailed memo things like that or you know clarity in terms of where it came from and how it came to be and I very much respect the concerns my colleagues are bringing up in this regard I think the way I've been approaching this is what do I think would be the best

▶ 1:59:41 Manisha Bewtra: outcome for the city absent all of I guess the drama surrounding this particular order and that is how I came to the conclusion that I'm I want to support it absent also this awkward situation I'm in of this coming forward after I've declared my own candidacy I I've thought about this particular language prior to tonight it didn't totally sit well with me then and like the administration I didn't bring it forward and I take responsibility for not you know bringing this forward as an order prior to the conversation we're having right now but that said I think it it weighs on me knowing that that the folks who see see what happens in City Hall day in and day out very much think that this is an important it is very important to have a transition period and I just wanted to reiterate my position thank you motion not not to

▶ 2:00:47 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: pass we have a motion recommend not passage by aldermen's work oh seconded alderman Forbes is there any further discussion after listening to mr. van

▶ 2:00:58 Shawn M. MacMaster: Kanden who's a very effective in his argument I would be inclined to support

▶ 2:01:10 Shawn M. MacMaster: it understanding the very clear concerns that I that I have about process but I again I do think that it's in the best interests of our city government I agree with Alderman Bewtra and it's something that I would support so I would not support my colleagues motion here but I just wanted to make it clear after listening more to Mr. Van Kanden and listening about it and again having had experience going through transitions that I do think there's a significant benefit to that time thank you madam chair all in favor of the motion before