ORDER-2017-165 : Proposed Revisions to City Charter for the City of Melrose as recommended by the Charter Review Committee for consideration by the Board of Aldermen

Transcript (~33 min @ 50:20)

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

▶ 50:22 Speaker 1: yes 11 years that order passes order number 2017-165 proposed revisions to the city charter for the city of melrose as recommended by the charter review committee for consideration by

▶ 50:33 Speaker 10: the board of aldermen this order comes to the board recommended as amended from the appropriations committee before we commence discussion i would suggest that we need to take potentially four votes this evening we need to take a motion on this a vote on the substantive order which has come up before us i believe there were two issues that were sent forward with no recommendation and then if anything passes the commit the board this evening i think the board needs to vote as to the manner in which whatever passes the board if anything is to be considered either in terms of a request for a special act of the legislature or whether it's in the nature of a citizen

▶ 51:24 Monica C. Medeiros: referendum the order is before you for discussion mr president sorry uh thank you very much mr president uh i did at the last meeting uh present to you two proposed amendments uh which i think we had sort of renamed for item 43 and 44. um they are both a little bit different one is regarding mayoral compensation and the other one is in regard to the term of the school committee and before i go further i just would like to preface this with the suggestion that the change in terms of the term of the school committee is probably something that if we do want to move forward with that probably should go to the voters where i think the other items perhaps we may think differently so if that's something we want to look at i would think about maybe separating that out separately and otherwise moving forward the rest as a as as a whole

▶ 52:27 Monica C. Medeiros: to the legislature but so i would like to take up and move to adopt the amendment as proposed change number one otherwise known as item number 43 for mayoral compensation and that's adding the word mayoral before the words biennial city election so that the last sentence would read no ordinance altering the salary of the mayor shall be effective unless it shall have been adopted in the first 18 months of the term for which the aldermen are elected and it provides that the salary is to become effective in january of the year following the next mayoral biennial

▶ 53:13 Monica C. Medeiros: city election with the purpose and goal of making any changes to the mayor's salary take place after the election so that the person who's in the office would not have his or her salary changed it would be for the subsequent term is this a motion to amend the committee

▶ 53:28 Speaker 10: recommendation further to adopt that change yes so we point a parliamentary

▶ 53:35 Peter D. Mortimer: procedure mr. president I thought with just for clarification as well point of information and Parliament procedure I thought I heard within that a motion to divide the order that this language is before us from the Appropriations Committee and if I understood it I thought I heard a motion to divide order 44 out from the rest of the order and include item 43 along with the other 42 items as an amendment if those if those are the motions I heard I'd like to how on the point of information determine if that's the motions I heard this

▶ 54:25 Speaker 10: proposal was not adopted by the committee as the amended order that is before you it's a separate proposal that comes to you without recommendation I i believe the alderman is moving to amend the committee order to incorporate this change

▶ 54:47 Peter D. Mortimer: uh just just one part of this change though 43 not 44. correct yeah and i can't make motions

▶ 54:52 Speaker 10: for alderman but i i don't know what the intent with the other is whether to send it back to committee whether to hold it on the table but i didn't hear a motion relative to that so i'm trying to call the call the balls and strikes as i see them and this appears to me to be a motion to amend unless all the medeiros i am wrong that's correct a motion to amend only for the

▶ 55:10 Monica C. Medeiros: change number 43 to add the word mayoral before the words biennial city election in article 3 executive branch section 3-1 mayor qualifications term of office compensation prohibitions under c

▶ 55:31 Speaker 10: compensation okay Thorp a motion to amend is there a second to the motion second motion is seconded is the discussion relative to the motion okay if Thorp no

▶ 55:44 Speaker 10: discussion all those in favor of the motion to further amend the committee order indicate by

▶ 55:50 Speaker 3: saying aye aye aye any opposed can i see a show of hands on those in favor please

▶ 56:06 Peter D. Mortimer: motion passes mr. president I would make a motion to divide out order 43 and excuse me item 43 and item 44 at this time from the other 42 items you're

▶ 56:20 Speaker 10: making a motion to divide the 43 which we just took a vote on the yes and it's

▶ 56:26 Peter D. Mortimer: amended form i'm making a motion to divide 43 and 44 from each other and also from the other 42 and my intent is to make a motion that we go along with the committee recommendation on the other 42 before we commence discussion on 43 and 44. alderman mortimer has requested that we divide

▶ 56:47 Speaker 10: out 44 paragraph 44 and 43 that's a privilege motion so that nullifies the vote that we just

▶ 57:00 Peter D. Mortimer: took right and 40 as amended we we as amended 43 as amended sir i i don't understand your point

▶ 57:09 Peter D. Mortimer: although we have we have the other 42 which we discussed extensively in committee and they have been given a full vetting at some point in the very near future i would like to make a motion to recommend the those orders as dealt with by the appropriations committee for passage we still have to talk about 43 which is now 43 amended and then we can talk about 43 amended and then we can talk about 44 oh okay so the same language

▶ 57:42 Peter D. Mortimer: all right so then my motion to divide would stand we can I will shortly if since it's a privileged motion and passes automatically I will in a moment uh expectedly make a motion to accept the appropriation committee recommendation on the other 42 items and then we can deal with these items that were sent forward without recommendation from the appropriations committee alderman mortimer makes a motion to

▶ 58:11 Speaker 10: divide paragraphs 43 and 44 from the order that's a privileged motion the order is so divided you now have three items before you you have the motion that was voted the amended order from From the committee, you have item 43, and you have item 44, all before you for discussion.

▶ 58:31 Peter D. Mortimer: Mr. President, I make a motion that we take the 42 items that were discussed extensively over several months in the Appropriations Committee. I make a motion for passage in accordance with the committee recommendation on those 42 items.

▶ 58:51 Speaker 10: Alderman Mortimer moves that the full board adopt the recommendation of the Appropriations Committee. Second. Seconded by Alderman Forbes. Discussion on the motion. Alderman McAteer-Margolis.

▶ 59:05 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: A point of clarification, Mr. President, are there not some of those proposed changes that

▶ 59:13 Speaker 1: we had held out and not voted on?

▶ 59:15 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: Looking for clarification.

▶ 59:18 Speaker 10: No, there are not.

▶ 59:28 Speaker 13: was voted on by the committee thank you thank you mr. president there were I'm

▶ 59:31 Michael P. Zwirko: a little doing a lot of motion gymnastics tonight so we are there was three items that I had caught in the intervening week that needed at least to be clarified a little bit further I worked with our clerk of committees on these three items they're small but I wanted to bring them forward to this board to hope to include them in the committee's recommendation so-called item 42 I'm a little bit concerned that the motion that's on the floor won't allow me to do that it's not you know these aren't very cerebral changes they're more technical so I don't know if I guess what I'm saying is I'm going to vote against the motion by alderman Mortimer in the hopes that I can further

▶ 1:00:22 Speaker 10: amend item 42 well perhaps you could enlighten me as to what those cheat

▶ 1:00:27 Michael P. Zwirko: those changes are sure and thank you mr. president for that so when we concluded on the discussion last week about the hours of business business days versus business day hours I think we and I'll certainly speak for myself when we ushered that through number four asked that we accept the Charter review

▶ 1:00:52 Michael P. Zwirko: Commission's recommendation to add 72 hours in between meetings to notify officials it was previously at 48 my fear is is that if we accept it as 72 hours that may throw in jeopardy our Thursday night meetings the second one is in sections 3 6 B and 2 6 C romanette to state that notices of meetings need to be delivered in hand or to the place of residence what I would like to do is I would like to insert after in hand or and I would insert after or via electronic or first-class mail the reality is is we do have some technological advances that allow for electronic communications to all of us we all also have city email if there is an event for an emergency meeting called by the mayor or the president it would be appropriate to use those electronic means the third and final has to do with the definition of the city bulletin boards and the make I would propose the change to definition number 16 to read as following city bulletin board the official location for public notices designed by the clerk's office and registered with the Massachusetts Attorney General's office where public can find official notices of meetings this may include the city's website or an official physical location within City Hall the reason for this and this was a language that was provided by the city solicitor marries the official location with what is registered with the Massachusetts Attorney General's offices for purposes of comp complying with the open meeting law those were the three items mr. president in light of

▶ 1:02:24 Peter D. Mortimer: alderman's work goes excellent further tweaking of the 42 that we've discussed at length I will draw my motion for passage I don't believe it was seconded in any case, so I will draw it so we can further work on the 42 as delineated by Alderman Zwirko.

▶ 1:02:49 Speaker 10: I believe your motion was, in fact, seconded by Alderman Forbes.

▶ 1:02:52 Scott M. Forbes: It was seconded, and I will withdraw my second, Mr. President.

▶ 1:02:54 Speaker 6: Very good.

▶ 1:02:55 Speaker 10: Alderman Forbes withdraws the second. Alderman Mortimer withdraws the motion, and we are back to square one.

▶ 1:03:02 Michael P. Zwirko: I make a motion to further amend item 42 with the three provisions that I just declared.

▶ 1:03:08 Speaker 6: Second the motion.

▶ 1:03:10 Speaker 10: Alderman Search moves to amend the order adopted by the Appropriations Committee to incorporate the three changes which he just discussed. That motion is seconded by Alderman Mortimer. That motion is now on the floor and available for discussion, and I see Alderman Medeiros wishing to discuss this motion.

▶ 1:03:28 Monica C. Medeiros: Thank you. I would say I would agree with basically all of those provisions except for the part about U.S. mail to deliver the notice because I don't believe that that would necessarily get to us in time within

▶ 1:03:49 Monica C. Medeiros: within that time frame so I and this is a I guess a in the past how notices were delivered to the alderman was actually they were actually delivered to their homes and the school committee members as well and part of that is to comply with the the time factor and so other than the part about all been right Thank

▶ 1:04:14 Francis X. Wright Jr.: You mr. president I generally agree with all of all them and work those changes however it's my understanding that the open meeting law requires that when you published notice it has to be published electronically and on a bulletin board I believe it said or so if it did say or I would move to amend at least that's

▶ 1:04:43 Speaker 10: where I believe Alderman Zwirko was your motion to include a bulletin board

▶ 1:04:48 Michael P. Zwirko: and electronic well Alderman Wright correct I do have an or in there this may include the city website or an official physical location and is you you're striking the order to have an and yes yes I would move to further amend

▶ 1:05:09 Speaker 10: second further discussion relative to the motion problems work out to just to

▶ 1:05:14 Michael P. Zwirko: answer what all the members brought up it's the amendment on the notification is via electronic or first-class mail so it wouldn't you wouldn't have to resort to first-class mail you could use electronic or it could be also delivered hand so i think it's covered i understand your concern of using first class mail but it's one of the three methods in which to uh confirm notification just for clarification thank you

▶ 1:05:37 Speaker 10: mr president alderman's work oh do you wish to withdraw your motion to adopt alderman Rita

▶ 1:05:45 Speaker 10: friendly amendment uh yes and i don't recall who seconded your motion it was i mr president

▶ 1:05:52 Speaker 10: chair is looking for a further motion

▶ 1:06:02 Speaker 10: motion to recommend as amended the alderman wright order second okay alderman Zwirko is moving to adopt the order as amended to incorporate the suggestion made by alderman wright the motion is seconded by alderman mortimer is there discussion on the motion alderman medeiros

▶ 1:06:22 Monica C. Medeiros: Thank you. I still think leaving U.S. mail as an option, which could still mean, especially if it is or, might leave us in a situation where one, you know, kind of have to think sometimes of people wanting to do things with nefarious purpose. if this half of the room got a notice by electronic mail and this half of the room got noticed by US Mail and didn't get it in the same timely fashion it

▶ 1:06:50 Monica C. Medeiros: could leave us in in a predicament where we would be we would be meeting our requirements but at the same time that really wouldn't be fair and so I think it really would be better to to do something where you can verify that the person has received the notice in it in the timely fashion so seeing that we

▶ 1:07:11 Monica C. Medeiros: live in one small city I would suggest maybe move the US mail part anything

▶ 1:07:23 Speaker 9: further on the motion to amend Alderman Tremont ozi why don't we just say notice

▶ 1:07:29 John N. Tramontozzi: as required by Massachusetts open meeting law general laws chapter 38 section 8 to 18 to 25 and it covers the covers those notices as required by the

▶ 1:07:45 John N. Tramontozzi: state and then we don't have to deal with how we word our own notices all

▶ 1:07:54 Francis X. Wright Jr.: been right Thank You mr. president I appreciate all the maturement Ozzie's uh suggestion however i don't read the open meeting law as having a notice requirement

▶ 1:08:08 Speaker 10: from members of the board itself any further discussion relative to the motion to amend

▶ 1:08:15 Speaker 3: all those in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye aye aye anyone opposed opposed

▶ 1:08:18 Speaker 10: motion passes the order as amended is before you motion to recommend for excuse me motion

▶ 1:08:28 Speaker 10: for passage as amended mr president alderman mortimer moves for passage of the order as amended

▶ 1:08:34 Speaker 10: second motion seconded by alderman Zwirko is the discussion on the motion

▶ 1:08:41 Monica C. Medeiros: alderman medeiros are we voting on alderman Zwirko proposed changes or on the entire

▶ 1:08:47 Speaker 10: 42 items of the a motion came before the board with a recommendation for passage as amended by the appropriations committee that's how it came to us this evening it's been further amended in three respects by a motion that was just made and voted on so you're now voting on the motion that came from committee with the adoption of the three items that were just voted on uh on the motion to

▶ 1:09:17 Speaker 10: amend is there discussion on the motion and in in i'm going to remind the committee in the event that this motion passes the board still needs to determine what method it wishes to adopt if the The order is to pass.

▶ 1:09:30 Speaker 11: Mr. O'Shea, could you call the roll please?

▶ 1:09:33 Speaker 8: Alderman Boisselle. Yes. Yes. Alderman Forbes. Yes. Yes. Alderman Inferno. Yes. Yes. Alderman Lemmerman. Yes. Yes. Alderman McAteer-Margolis. Yes. Yes. Alderman Medeiros. Yes. Yes. Alderman Mortimer. Yes. Yes. Alderman Primatozzi. Yes. Yes. Alderman Wright. Yes. Yes.

▶ 1:09:56 Speaker 10: order passes so the document is before you chair would entertain further

▶ 1:10:06 Monica C. Medeiros: motions I'll remember dearest motion to amend the document to include the change listed as considered as item number 43 adding the words mayoral before the words biennial city election in article 3 executive branch section 3-1 mayor qualification in terms of office compensation prohibitions under C

▶ 1:10:32 Monica C. Medeiros: compensation and this is to virtually do what we did earlier but in a more formal

▶ 1:10:42 Speaker 10: way well we've just voted to pass the order as amended are you moving to

▶ 1:10:52 Monica C. Medeiros: reconsider the vote well I guess since we don't know what we're doing with the order that no I'm not moving to reconsider I'll withdraw my motion at

▶ 1:11:06 Speaker 10: the order is before you board needs to determine whether they wish to send this forward as a special act or request to the great and general court or whether they wish to follow a referendum

▶ 1:11:18 Peter D. Mortimer: procedure relative to the order mr president i will make a motion that we send this as we have crafted it at this time to the great and general court second alderman mortimer moves

▶ 1:11:29 Speaker 10: that we refer this order uh to the legislature with a request for a special act to adopt the changes to the charter that have been adopted by the board this evening the motion is seconded by

▶ 1:11:46 Robert A. Boisselle: alderman Zwirko it's their discussion alderman Boisselle is it fine is it possible to see a final product with all the changes that we've made in this particular document before we move it on

▶ 1:11:58 Speaker 10: to the uh to legislatures the board could could move the table action on this order if that were your intention until we see it until we see a final product there has been a product that's been submitted that i would suggest incorporates everything other than the three items that were

▶ 1:12:23 Robert A. Boisselle: raised by mr Zwirko this evening right i'd like to have a place a motion on that until we vote to pass this on to the legislature we see a final product uh either the red line version updated and showing everything that we changed or didn't change and what it should look like to go to the state legislatures second point of second

▶ 1:12:48 Peter D. Mortimer: point of order mr. president Thorp a motion on the floor yeah there is a

▶ 1:12:56 Speaker 10: motion on the floor I do need to call for a vote on the motion and then if that motion does not pass then we can consider further motions Alderman Duarco, then Alderman Wright.

▶ 1:13:07 Michael P. Zwirko: Thank you, Mr. President. The document which Mr. Alderman Boisselle is looking for was circulated by the Clerk of Committees on Thursday, September 28th, I believe, both a red line version and an incorporated version.

▶ 1:13:23 Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President.

▶ 1:13:24 Speaker 10: Alderman Wright, then Alderman Mortimer.

▶ 1:13:29 Francis X. Wright Jr.: That's not what I'm looking at.

▶ 1:13:31 Speaker 2: That's not what I'm looking at either.

▶ 1:13:32 Francis X. Wright Jr.: What might have been circulated by the Clerk, I don't see it on the agenda. I'm missing it. So I think it makes sense that unless I'm missing it, that we do get a red line version and we do get a clean copy for purposes of the vote. We should know exactly what the legislature is going to see. Again, if I'm missing it, that's my bad, but I tend to agree with Alderman Boyzo.

▶ 1:14:17 Peter D. Mortimer: A couple of months ago, we got caught in a quandary like this, where there was a motion on the floor, and people wanted a little bit more than what the motion on the floor allowed.

▶ 1:14:32 Peter D. Mortimer: And due to some complicated, or at least more complicated than usual, parliamentary machinations,

▶ 1:14:42 Peter D. Mortimer: The original motion failed, and then the people who wanted some didn't get what they wanted because the people who wanted more voted against the original motion. I generally am not in favor of every alderman speaking on every order because sometimes it gets superfluous and redundant. However, in this case, the motion on the floor is before us, made by me and seconded by Alderman

▶ 1:15:14 Peter D. Mortimer: I've heard from Alderman Wright, with all respect and appreciation, that he would like to see what Alderman Boisselle would like to see. If the motion on the floor fails, then we're not going to change our charter, or unless

▶ 1:15:30 Peter D. Mortimer: someone goes in tomorrow morning and makes a motion for reconsideration who has to be on the prevailing side.

▶ 1:15:41 Peter D. Mortimer: So we're getting deep into some parliamentary procedure here, so in this case, I would like to hear every alderman weigh in how they feel about Alderman Boisselle motion, which was attempted to be made but not made, because if we say no to passing this now, we're going to be in a world of trouble and a lot of work hard work that was done by the ad hoc charter committee and by the appropriations committee and this board of aldermen and all the aldermen here and the people on that earlier committee may go to waste so i would like in the form of an informal vote each and every alderman to speak up and say if they don't want to pass this now then i will I will withdraw my motion and I'm sure Alderman Zwirko, well I won't speak for him, Alderman Zwirko may want to withdraw his motion. If people want to go forward in an informal type of vote, please raise your hand on discussion and say so. So we don't get caught up with that problem that we had a few months ago, where an order got killed because the people who wanted more voted against the original order.

▶ 1:16:55 Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Alderman Medeiros.

▶ 1:16:58 Monica C. Medeiros: you i agree with the sentiment of alderman mortimer and in suggestion i might suggest that he withdraw his motion for passage but that's will be up to him completely i too would like to see i do have a version that was which i received via email from the clerk of committees which my understanding is that did not include the changes that aldrin's werco proposed tonight so this this is not the final final version and I don't see that this version is incorporated in the order that's available on IQ m2 which is the online meeting portal well that is probably what some of the aldermen are looking at tonight and probably what members of the public would be looking at I do think it would be much better for everyone involved this is a very serious thing to consider it was just about a year ago that we took the vote to engage in this process unfortunately some of the things that are difficult some of the things that are difficult with timing we try to comply with the open meeting law we try to come up comply with what's going on the the committee didn't even get appointed and sat for many months after that vote we took in October of 2016 and so you know things progress and here we are and unfortunately we are up upon the city election which we called for November 7th tonight and I know that that to some degree that takes some options away from us in terms of the idea of this would be probably to put some of these changes if we did want to propose them to the public to be voted on by referendum to be on that November election ballot so we are against a little bit of a time crunch in in those in that perspective and I'd like to see somebody you know I thought we might have the assistant city solicitor here to weigh in on that when our meeting started but in terms of this in this motion you know before I vote to send a charter on to the state legislature I would like to see it in full and I think the public should have a chance to see it in full as we intend to pass it on to the state legislature to vote so so I won't be voting in favor of Alderman

▶ 1:19:26 Monica C. Medeiros: Mortimer's amendment as it is now or his his motion for passage as it is now

▶ 1:19:33 Peter D. Mortimer: tonight for that reason thank you what point of information mr. president what your point of information all them we are only sending the 42 items that the most right now the order only contains the 42 items not 43 and 44 is that

▶ 1:19:44 Speaker 10: correct that's correct and the amendments that were proposed and voted pursuant to Alderman's work goes request within the 42 right thank you any

▶ 1:19:53 Speaker 10: further discussion on the motion this is a motion uh to refer this order as amended to the great

▶ 1:20:03 Francis X. Wright Jr.: and general court alderman wright kind of information mr president perhaps you or the city clerk can clarify um is this a majority vote or a super majority vote it's a majority vote six

▶ 1:20:20 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: people would be required I'll make Tim our goals so another point of information we have voted to accept and passed all of these 42 items and the

▶ 1:20:32 Speaker 10: three procedural changes requested by Alderman's work oh this evening that were voted by a motion to amend and adopted by the board I believe

▶ 1:20:49 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: unanimously and so this vote is just how we are going to proceed with this whether we are going to vote to put it on the back some of these on the ballot or whether we're going to send it to the great and general court so Thorp a

▶ 1:21:01 Speaker 10: motion that's before you to send this as a special act to the legislature that's

▶ 1:21:08 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: been made and duly seconded if we do not vote to do that can we not come back when we receive a fully flushed out version including all the amendments and at that point take another vote to decide to send it forward to the legislature or to put it on the ballot if the motion fails then you could make

▶ 1:21:37 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: other motions to do that so it's not like dead in the water in other words it's not like our work is completely for not if we do not vote tonight to send it

▶ 1:21:47 Speaker 10: forward well I don't think it's up to me for to make that determination I have my

▶ 1:21:53 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: opinion but procedurally it is possible for us to revisit how we are going to deal with this if this motion fails yes thank you

▶ 1:22:06 Francis X. Wright Jr.: I've been right Thank You mr. president I guess I would suggest that the motion be withdrawn because from my viewpoint

▶ 1:22:17 Francis X. Wright Jr.: what we're asking for can be produced to us before our next meeting which by my math is only 14 days away at that point we will have a clean copy and a red line copy for us and for the public so that's all I have to add thank you Alderman

▶ 1:22:38 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: lemmerman for the first time Thank You mr. president I would agree that I think it's important primarily for the public to have a version of this there has been we did receive a version through email I think the changes that were added tonight are fairly easy you know for us to envision in the in the final document the public has received no version of this and and i think that's very important to have out there on

▶ 1:23:03 Gail Infurna: iqm2 before we take a vote alderman inferno thank you very much mr president is this time sensitive that 14 days would make a difference i don't believe so yeah thank you okay motions before

▶ 1:23:17 Speaker 10: you that's been made and duly seconded allman's worker i withdraw my second i withdraw the motion

▶ 1:23:28 Speaker 10: motion is withdrawn motion to table the order second motion to table the order that's been made by alderman's worker seconded by alderman mortimer that is a non-debatable motion all those