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 (~1 h 19 min @ 18:48)

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

▶ 18:49 Peter D. Mortimer: It is order 2017-165. Two members of the Board of Aldermen, Alderman Zwirko and Alderman Tramontozzi, were on the Charter Committee.

▶ 19:03 Peter D. Mortimer: They came before us, did Yeoman's work, told us what had happened. We've had other members of the Charter Committee come forward at previous hearings and give testimony and participate in public participation. And we've had members of the public come before us on other matters contained in the Charter review process.

▶ 19:24 Peter D. Mortimer: We have gone through the list of 42. We've touched on each and every one of those 42 recommendations from the Charter Committee. In some cases, we accepted the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Charter Committee.

▶ 19:40 Peter D. Mortimer: In other cases, we did not. And in yet some other cases, there were questions of legality, appropriateness, and clarification that were required. In that vein, I would elicit a motion to suspend the rules that we may hear from the deputy city solicitor.

▶ 19:56 Speaker 1: So moved.

▶ 19:58 Peter D. Mortimer: Second. Alderman Zwirko has made a motion to suspend the rules so We may hear from the deputy city solicitor said motion duly seconded by Alderman Inferno. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. That motion passes, hearing no nays. Deputy city solicitor David Lucas is here with us.

▶ 20:22 Peter D. Mortimer: And would you like to make an opening statement before we proceed to the colloquy?

▶ 20:25 Speaker 4: No, go ahead, please.

▶ 20:26 Peter D. Mortimer: Very good then. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

▶ 20:30 Speaker 3: President Kahn, first in queue.

▶ 20:31 Speaker 2: have a i don't have a question for mr lucas but i have one of the items that we placed on hold that i'd like to talk about if i might mr chairman please proceed i believe it's i believe it's number nine on the list and it was placed on hold and um this is

▶ 20:57 Speaker 2: This is a requirement that the Board of Aldermen could not reject the name of somebody Appointment to a city board or a commission, but for good and just cause.

▶ 21:09 Speaker 2: And what this would do would be to impose a fairly high legal standard

▶ 21:24 Speaker 2: And on the board in terms of mayoral appointments there no such standard exists at the present time. I am not in favor of that. In my 23 or four years of service to the city, I haven't seen many or any appointments rejected.

▶ 21:47 Speaker 2: But if we adopted this proposed change, it would put the board in a position where they would be hard-pressed ever to reject an appointment to a board or commission by the mayor.

▶ 22:01 Speaker 2: And as a result, I would make a motion that would not adopt that recommendation.

▶ 22:09 Speaker 5: Second.

▶ 22:11 Peter D. Mortimer: All right. All right, on item number nine from the ad hoc charter committee. President Connors made a motion that we not adopt the committee recommendation requiring that a good and just cause be publicly stated for a reason that a mayoral appointment is not confirmed by this board. And he stated his reasoning for that motion as well, and the motion was duly seconded by Alderman Medeiros.

▶ 22:41 Speaker 2: if i might if i still have the floor please please president go ahead um you know i i respect the work that the committee did uh i appreciate the two members that we Appointment alderman Tramontozzi and alderman's worko for what they did um and but i don't see our role

▶ 23:01 Speaker 2: in this process as simply adopting every measure that was approved by the charter committee and um The fact that I don't agree with this doesn't mean I repudiate their work. I think they were a bad charter commission, they're evil, or anything of that nature. It's just, I feel strongly that this is not something that I want to see, and I hope that the committee will agree with me.

▶ 23:31 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you, President Kahn. That was on discussion of the motion that you made that was seconded by Alderman Medeiros. I think we all understand it. Is there further discussion on President Khan's motion? Alderman Zwerchel, please.

▶ 23:50 Michael P. Zwirko: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad President Khan doesn't think I'm evil.

▶ 23:56 Michael P. Zwirko: Fair enough. No, in all seriousness, you raised some very good points on this item. And I think at the time, at least for myself, I'll speak for myself, I didn't. probably didn't put as much thought into it i was maybe i was worried about an arbitrary standard and then this change allowed for a decision by this board to being it's not arbitrary now i'm not an attorney so i don't know and i i guess i ask our guest here if is is the reasoning for the good and just cause because it elevates the standard i guess if you could just clarify a little bit here other than you know i don't see much um explanation or annotation behind it i I just didn't know if this was pulled from anywhere, if this is a standard language that's used in employment contracts or something along those lines.

▶ 24:43 Speaker 4: Sure. Mr. Chairman, good and just cause is a phrase, or good cause and or just cause, are phrases that are used often in labor relations and employment law. There is no hard, fast definition. This board could define what it wants to in the charter, something I don't know I'd recommend. I think that's adding unnecessary words to an important document. I don't think this board would want to limit itself to a hard fest hard fast set of criteria what I can do is quote how cases have defined good and just cause if the board has the concern according from the Massachusetts appeals court excuse me from the Supreme Judicial Court Massachusetts courts have consistently defined good cause, occasionally referred to as just or due cause, as the existence of either one, a reasonable basis for employer dissatisfaction with a new employee entertained in good faith for reasons such as lack of capacity or diligence, failure to conform to usual standards of conduct or other culpable or inappropriate behavior, or two, grounds for discharge reasonably related in the employer's honest judgment to the needs of its business. charge for a good cause is to be contrasted with the discharge on on on unreasonable grounds or arbitrarily capriciously or in bad faith thank you

▶ 26:14 Speaker 1: very much so the solicitor Lucas and thank you for that clarification the

▶ 26:16 Michael P. Zwirko: interesting thing here and now that I look at it a little bit further section 210 is for appointments so there actually wouldn't have been any employment at that point so this would just be a rejection by this board of the appointment not the actual duty rendered by said appointment so I think I agree with President Khan on this but I appreciate the clarification all right

▶ 26:42 Peter D. Mortimer: that's all I had thank you very much Alderman's work Oh Alderman chairman

▶ 26:47 John N. Tramontozzi: Tosi please yeah I agree as well with President Cohen in them Alderman's work home I think with the time we were discussing this there was I think there consensus at that time that we should put some kind of criteria in but that this this does just involve mayoral appointments and those appointments can be accepted or rejected by the Board of Aldermen and those appointments do not need to be further defined for cause or just cause or any good cause I think we have the sole discretion to make those appointments to various commissions and boards and i think we should leave it the way it is in the charter giving us that discretion so i would um i would go along with um not um accepting thank you not accepting uh number nine very good thank you

▶ 27:44 Peter D. Mortimer: alderman Tramontozzi are there any other aldermen wishing to be heard on president khan's motion before we call for a vote on said motion seeing none all in favor of not adopting the ad hoc

▶ 27:59 Peter D. Mortimer: charter committee's recommendation on item number nine please say aye aye aye any opposed hearing

▶ 28:08 Peter D. Mortimer: none item number nine uh requiring good and just cause in accordance with set criteria for any The rejection of mayoral appointments by the Board of Aldermen will not be changed in the Charter. Or the recommendation at this point is that it will not be changed in the Charter. Of course, the final arbitration will occur at the full board.

▶ 28:31 Peter D. Mortimer: Motions and recommendations made in committees under our rules are not binding. All right, any other matters that anybody would like to discuss with the city solicitor?

▶ 28:46 Peter D. Mortimer: Or any other items that have been on hold requiring further information? The floor is open at this time. President Kahn, please.

▶ 28:52 Speaker 2: Yeah, Mr. Lucas, there was some concern about in item number four, the language relative to item number four, section 27D. did you have any any uh feedback for us on that i did um alderman khan mr chairman the re and

▶ 29:09 Speaker 4: i understand the wording of this is kind of confusing it's it's sort of an unorthodox phrase to say business day hours the reason the committee recommended this and voted um actually didn't did this pass yeah this passed um was because the charter right now reads weekday hours throughout it and there was a concern that weekday hours might be construed to include holidays or hours when city hall is not open rather than go through every section of the charter to see where weekday hours the words of weekday hours were written and identify how it applied to that particular section the committee recommended to simply change it to business day hours business day being defined as hours during which city hall is open I know that the law department has sent to this board a suggestion for a clarification using business the terms business days instead of business day hours certainly that's more widely recognized I think among the community and that's what I would suggest and it's more in line with open meeting law language I don't think it changes it I don't think it's different than open language but at the the wording itself mirrors it Thank You mr. Lucas I'd move

▶ 30:34 Speaker 2: to amend to change business day hours to business days second president Connors

▶ 30:41 Peter D. Mortimer: made a motion to change the language in item 4 which is section 2-7 D of the

▶ 30:50 Peter D. Mortimer: charter uh from business day hours to business days so um you would call that then three business

▶ 31:02 Speaker 2: days would would that be correct just for clarity if i may ask yes all right so that instead of 72 business day hours which i've been looking at documents like this for a long time and i've never seen language that reference business day hours so i think it would be cleaner and that

▶ 31:16 Peter D. Mortimer: that is my motion so three business days very good you have that madam clerk of committees all right so president khan has made a motion that on item four from section 2-7d of the charter

▶ 31:30 Peter D. Mortimer: that we adopt the language recommend that the full board adopt the language three business days and the wisdom of that was confirmed by deputy city solicitor lucas

▶ 31:41 Peter D. Mortimer: before we have discussion Alderman Medeiros we need a second second okay now it's been seconded by Alderman Forbes and now we're open for discussion and the first hand I saw was Alderman Medeiros please proceed Alderman Medeiros

▶ 31:56 Monica C. Medeiros: thank you I guess it would be a point of information I'm looking for some clarification from the maker of the motion on how we handle a day like friday where city hall is only open part day does that constitute a business day thank you that was

▶ 32:14 Speaker 2: part of the wisdom or lack of wisdom for deleting hours a day would be a day a business day would be

▶ 32:26 Peter D. Mortimer: a day when we're open for business all right that's a good question good answer um so the motion is before us to make it three business days and i'm not seeing any further discussion so i will call for the vote all in favor of president khan's motion please say aye aye any

▶ 32:40 Peter D. Mortimer: opposed hearing none this item will be oh i'm sorry on further discussion nope i'm going on

▶ 32:47 Peter D. Mortimer: okay so let me just finish this business is uh this will be recommended to the full board for

▶ 32:56 Peter D. Mortimer: passage as amended that section 2-7d the recommendation that it will be changed to

▶ 33:03 Peter D. Mortimer: three business days uh on to the next item alderman inferno please thank you would that then i'm sorry to interrupt again but this is kind of a rough committee i see uh clerk of court uh

▶ 33:16 Speaker 6: clerk of committees i thought that was just an amendment a vote on to amend the language not to

▶ 33:24 Peter D. Mortimer: vote on the item all right um just wanted to clarify okay yes thank you very much for your

▶ 33:29 Peter D. Mortimer: point of order uh so the amendment that president khan just made and was duly seconded by alderman

▶ 33:35 Peter D. Mortimer: forbes uh was passed so the the amendment was passed now the order to recommend for passage the order as amended alderman inferno has made a motion to recommend as amended the order for

▶ 33:48 Peter D. Mortimer: passage duly seconded by alderman boycelle all in favor can i have a point of order please mr

▶ 33:55 Speaker 2: yes yes certainly president khan i'm trying to conceptualize how we're going to deal with this

▶ 34:01 Speaker 2: order are we going to make a motion on the entire body of the order at the end of the committee

▶ 34:12 Peter D. Mortimer: proceedings i i think um it it probably would be our best course of action um it may not technically be absolutely necessary but just so everyone understands that all the changes have been made and it's all encompassing we'll make a final motion at the end to say our business on this

▶ 34:29 Speaker 2: is concluded and then send it up to the full board so so our final vote will be a vote to adopt the prior votes of this committee relative to each item or to reject them or to add different items that we haven't voted on yet uh yes that would be accurate or something

▶ 34:47 Speaker 2: very very similar to there too okay i just wanted to make sure that i understood thank you very good

▶ 34:50 Peter D. Mortimer: Very good, thank you, President Kahn. Alderman Boisselle, question or comment?

▶ 34:54 Robert A. Boisselle: During the process of the final vote, are we going to get an updated red line version of the charter? As it stands with all the corrections made?

▶ 35:04 Peter D. Mortimer: I think we can have that for you. I think we can arrange to have that. Our clerk of committee affirms that we will be able to have a final draft, a clean draft with all the changes made in it.

▶ 35:17 Speaker 1: Okay.

▶ 35:19 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you very much, Alderman Boycelle. So, the motion to make the amendment as moved by President Kahn and seconded by Alderman Forbes has been voted affirmatively, and now the order is before us as amended.

▶ 35:34 Speaker 1: Is there a motion for passage?

▶ 35:35 Peter D. Mortimer: Yes, there was, by Alderman Inferna. Second. Second. By Alderman Boycelle. All in favor of this item as amended, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

▶ 35:45 Speaker 1: Hearing none, this will be.

▶ 35:48 Peter D. Mortimer: recommended to the full board as amended for passage next having the floor is alderman inferno who was moving on to a different item of the Charter Commission recommendations please proceed all the minute front thank you

▶ 36:00 Gail Infurna: very much mr. chairman with the recommendation of number four passing would that have an effect on number three so that it should be changing the term weekday hours or similar to business days what do you see a

▶ 36:20 Peter D. Mortimer: difference before you but I can I can certainly appreciate your logic that

▶ 36:27 Peter D. Mortimer: that it would be good but why don't we defer to the deputy city solicitor at

▶ 36:33 Speaker 2: this point if that meets with your approval thank you mr. chair I think the

▶ 36:35 Speaker 4: board just voted to recommend amending and therefore recommend the amended point to the full committee I mean to the full board on point number four but did not on point number three and I think that you go hand in hand correct and i therefore think if if this board wants to change it it needs to vote to do that right so

▶ 36:54 Peter D. Mortimer: are you making uh such a motion alderman inferno yes all right alderman inferno has made a motion that yes we changed the term to business days on item three sections 2-6c double lowercase i

▶ 37:12 Peter D. Mortimer: and section three dash six b and sections nine dash seven a that this would be changed to uh

▶ 37:18 Peter D. Mortimer: business day in accordance with the changes made in item four so the language will be concess consistent is there a second please second second by alderman Tramontozzi on discussion

▶ 37:35 Peter D. Mortimer: uh seeing none all in favor of the amendment moved by alderman inferno please say aye

▶ 37:42 Peter D. Mortimer: Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, the section as amended is before you. Alderman Inferno, please, you have the floor anyway.

▶ 37:51 Speaker 1: No, no, I'm all set.

▶ 37:51 Peter D. Mortimer: Okay, so the section as amended is before you.

▶ 37:56 Peter D. Mortimer: I need a motion to recommend for passage as amended, please. So moved. Second. Alderman Inferno has made a motion to recommend section three of these recommendations as amended. For passage to the full board, duly seconded by Alderman Forbes. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

▶ 38:16 Peter D. Mortimer: Hearing none, section three will be so recommended for passage to the full board. Alderman Lemmerman, please. I'm sorry, you still have the floor? Yep, certainly.

▶ 38:26 Gail Infurna: Thank you. Question on number 11. I'm still having some difficulty and I've been thinking and thinking about this and I know we talked about this in committee and talked about making a passive income. just curious what mr. Lucas would have to say on that is the question from

▶ 38:47 Speaker 4: Alderman Inferno my thoughts as to whether the board should use the

▶ 38:54 Gail Infurna: language passive income well I'm just curious what's your definition of the

▶ 38:58 Speaker 4: passive oh I don't define it the IRS defines it yeah okay but the question

▶ 39:05 Speaker 4: came up in our previous it is a defined term passive income yes is recognized and the Internal Revenue Code as in business related income I look this up it's devote yeah derived from a business or rental property where only a limited number of hours per year are devoted to such income producing activity I think I

▶ 39:24 Speaker 4: think if the board wants to use language that mirrors something in the Internal Revenue Code it may conceivably be bring about a result that the board does not I do not intend, positively or negatively.

▶ 39:40 Peter D. Mortimer: Right, this is a somewhat nebulous conversation, and we've had it before.

▶ 39:50 Peter D. Mortimer: How much passive income do you start to come into the area where it's considered by the IRS to be earned income? And there is clearly delineated by the IRS limits, but this is a question we've had, and I'm sure there's going to be a little further discussion. There's no motion yet, but we've been treating these matters informally because of the large nature of this. Next on the floor, are you yielding the floor, Alderman

▶ 40:13 Speaker 1: Kern? Yes, I yield the floor.

▶ 40:15 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you very much.

▶ 40:16 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: Alderman Lemmerman, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lucas, for this. I think I had originally suggested the term passive income when we had this meeting and my thinking was you know if somebody owned a rental property or an investment property of some kind you know or something like that that that seemed to be inactive enough an income I guess is another another phrasing that that it didn't seem that that should bar somebody from being able to hold the office of mayor however I did feel that the way the pieces that are currently in there and you know engaged in any other business occupation profession was appropriate to bar that so I guess what I'm asking do you do you feel that as it's written not not with the suggested deletion but as it's currently written does that language prohibit somebody who say has a rental property somewhere

▶ 41:20 Speaker 4: whether Melrose or otherwise does the question does it prohibit rental income

▶ 41:23 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: it does not somebody from holding the office if they have another you know if

▶ 41:33 Speaker 4: they have that kind of an income the the language proposed if if the words nor shall the mayor be engaged in any other business etc stricken if that is stricken that would not prevent the the someone holding the office of mayor from

▶ 41:44 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: earning rental I'm asking if it's not stricken as it's written now as it's

▶ 41:51 Speaker 4: currently in the charter I think it would prevent that person from running

▶ 41:56 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: rental it would so if the and I understand your concern and I'm sensitive to the concern that you know we might not want to be quoting the the revenue the IRS code tax code you know for unintended consequences in your opinion is there another term legal or otherwise that would be more appropriate to reach that goal what's the goal to earn rental income to allow for somebody

▶ 42:20 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: who has a more inactive form of income to still hold the office of mayor so that they aren't you know so that we I think at least in my opinion my feeling is that the mayor should in fact be barred from engaging in other business occupation profession during the period that he's serving here she is serving as the mayor however I do know that there are circumstances where people you know have other forms of income that really aren't a job the point is that the mayor should that that should be their job their only job in my opinion but we didn't want to unintentionally bar somebody who just happens to you know have had this other form of income from being able to hold the office when you

▶ 43:10 Speaker 7: have this other language included in there like investment income or

▶ 43:13 Speaker 4: something exactly okay this is what I was gonna say I I think it's up to the board to decide what kind of income it wants the mayor to be able to earn or work at or invest in or something and if we have the general idea set or agreeable among board members we can come up with the language yes which is why I specifically asked if you're talking about rental income right if so I I

▶ 43:44 Speaker 4: I don't know that I can right now provide legal language that would meet the expectations of the board of what their intents are, what your intention is, because I don't know exactly what the board's intention is. I've heard that they want to, I've heard a couple board members say they want the mayor to be able to, the office of mayor to be able to earn some kind of limited income without taking on a job or an occupation. Correct.

▶ 44:11 Peter D. Mortimer: So we'll probably need to craft this ourselves. We'll probably need to sit down and craft this language ourselves. Just on a quick continuum, if I may, I mean it starts on the simple of having a CD. Having just a simple savings account is income, you have to put it on your taxes. Then it steps up that you may have dividends from stocks or bonds that you own. Then from there, it may be that you own some property and you collect rental income. And there may be other ones that are missing, but the next one is that you get stipend because you're on a board of directors of a bank for a great example

▶ 44:51 Peter D. Mortimer: yeah and then the next one might be that you actually show up somewhere and you have a boss and you're getting a paycheck which is the classic earned income but I'll stop and I'll return to the list and we'll hear from all oh you

▶ 45:03 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: still have the floor go ahead please you I'll just say and I'm open you know I would like to hear what other aldermen have to say about this but I think for it's much less about the income piece that's not what I'm concerned about I'm concerned about the the time that that a mayor would be spending dedicated to that job as the primary job so for me it's more it's it's less about their income whether they have income from somewhere else or money coming in in some investment way it's it's more about the whether there's a profession or an occupation outside of the office is where is where my concern would be right

▶ 45:42 Peter D. Mortimer: And I would say those are probably two of the main issues, is the time required to attend to those other earning or passive income, those other income activities, not earning, and also any conflict that may be real or even the appearance of conflict. Alderman Zwirko, please.

▶ 46:00 Speaker 1: Yes, sir.

▶ 46:02 Peter D. Mortimer: You're next, then Alderman Medeiros, and then President Kahn.

▶ 46:06 Michael P. Zwirko: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. and I appreciate the discussion that we had not only so far tonight but in the past on this and I've looked at this and I worked with not only clerk of committees but during the Charter Review Commission we spoke about this so I feel that there's three ways we can go on this proposed change we could strike the whole provision that's currently redlined strike out we could leave it as currently as written in the Charter or we could further amend it to strike just other business and I feel that that's the cleanest because when you try to come up with the definition you're really gonna trap yourself by what is allowed and what isn't but I also want to just remind folks here that you know the mayor whomever he or she may be do have to go up to an election so if said mayor was spending a considerable amount of time in his or her law firm or other electrical business you know the citizenry and the electorate would certainly be aware of that so you know that's not this provision doesn't inoculate one from the electoral cycle if I agree that the mayor's position is a full-time position it should be a full-time position it certainly is compensated as a full-time position however one of the examples that the chairman gave of being able to sit on the board of directors whether it's a financial institution or an educational institution even um doing some getting some stipend work for being a adjunct professor at a local community college guest speaking stipend of the like wouldn't really incur a great amount of time that would pull that mayor away from their full-time position and if it was ever thought that the mayor was doing something that was other than the administration of the city they would have to answer that in electoral cycle so I really think that the the simplest way is one of those three obviously depending on where you're gonna come down teach everybody themselves but I would say that I would more advocate if we do feel that the position of mayor shouldn't be handcuffed by earning outside income the the cleanest way would be to just strike other business and leave the rest of the provision as is that way it wouldn't the mayor would not be allowed to have an occupation or a profession but they could have another business I will not

▶ 48:39 Michael P. Zwirko: make that motion yet I know there's a lot of other people that want to talk so I'll just leave it there but it's just something to consider Thank You

▶ 48:46 Peter D. Mortimer: Alderman Zwirko. Alderman Medeiros, please. Thank you.

▶ 48:53 Monica C. Medeiros: So I guess I'll speak in the general sense that I think I agree with most probably where Alderman Lemmerman is going with this in that the mayor should be a full-time job and at the same time and it may not be exactly such, but that I think it would be not unreasonable that somebody might say continue to still hold a professional license that they have that they might not be using but keep holding it they might you know have a business where they used to be actively engaged in and now they step back from that and let it kind of run on its own but might still have some income related to it might be a landlord things like that might have a CD with some interest in it it's not too much these days so the the key word that's in the

▶ 49:45 Monica C. Medeiros: the proposed strikeout language is the word engaged and I'm wondering if that

▶ 49:58 Monica C. Medeiros: in fact you know is something that we could use or the term active employment

▶ 50:04 Monica C. Medeiros: and I think maybe we could look at I know many employment contracts tend to have have bans on outside employment or say things like the only employer shall be company name and perhaps we might be able to to adopt something like that if if this is the angle that would like to go on and we're in agreement with to use some kind of language that would say the you know the mayor he or she shall have no other employer other than the city of Melrose and perhaps that would clean

▶ 50:43 Monica C. Medeiros: that up a little bit so just some suggestions and that's where I'd like to

▶ 50:45 Speaker 1: say thank you very much Alderman Medeiros President Kahn please yeah a

▶ 50:51 Speaker 2: couple of thoughts here everybody needs to at home needs to be aware that the The second sentence of this document, 3-1, says the mayor shall devote full time to the office and shall not hold any other public office.

▶ 51:08 Speaker 2: So sentence number one is under the charter, the mayor is required to be full time. In order to determine whether somebody's full time or not, we don't have to have forensic accountants track the nature of their income, it's active or passive we just need to indicate whether look at whether somebody is doing what's recognized as full-time which in my world is at least 40 hours per week so whatever we were to vote there's still going to be a requirement that that the mayor be a full-time mayor i would not support any change or discussion of passive income or active income or rental income or capital gain income this has nothing to do with the provision that we're talking about what this provision has to do with is a do we want a full-time mayor and everybody hasn't spoken but it seems to be the consensus that this is a full-time job and we all want that and then the b part is do you want to allow or disallow the mayor to participate in any profession or occupation or business that's what it says it doesn't say can't earn income can't earn passive income can't invest in the stock market it says engage in another business so the real issue here is a lot simpler as far as i see it than we're making it do you want a full-time mayor who could engage in his or her off time in another business or do you not and that's really the decision that we need to make and adopting any kind of language relative to sources of income or categories of income would be a road that I would certainly never want to go down and I think it would be folly and that's the determination that we need to make and as long as the mayor is working full-time if the mayor if he or she wants to teach a course at a community college on Saturday I don't that's not our concern and so I would support the committee recommendation which is just to strike that last ban on making engaging in another business or profession the other thing that everybody needs to be cognizant of is there are all kinds of ethical rules that would prohibit the mayor from engaging in any kind of business that related in any way to his or her duties as mayor. So it seems to me that this is a lot simpler than we're making it, and the decision to be made is do you want to retain that provision or do you want to strike that provision, which would have us still have a full-time mayor, but enable the mayor to engage in some business activity on his or her off-time. I don't have a problem with that, and I would move that we support the committee recommendation, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 54:08 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you very much, President Kahn. President Kahn has made a motion that we support the committee recommendation to remove the ban against the mayor receiving compensation outside the city of Melrose. Is there a second?

▶ 54:21 Speaker 1: Second.

▶ 54:22 Peter D. Mortimer: and Alderman Zwirko has seconded the motion made by President Kahn. Proceeding further on the list of aldermen wishing to be heard on this matter, we next have Alderman Tramontozzi, please.

▶ 54:38 John N. Tramontozzi: I would just re-echo what President Kahn said. I agree with everything he said relative to that, and there's no need to repeat it, so I'll let it go with that.

▶ 54:49 Peter D. Mortimer: Very good. Thank you, Alderman Tramontozzi. Next we have Alderman Boisselle, who is declining his opportunity to opine on this matter. So the motion is before us that we accept the committee recommendation, duly made and seconded by Alderman Kahn and Zwirko respectively, and is now before us.

▶ 55:09 Speaker 1: All in favor, please say aye.

▶ 55:11 Peter D. Mortimer: Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, the committee recommendation on item 11, Section 3-1A of the Charter will be accepted and recommended to the full board for passage.

▶ 55:25 Peter D. Mortimer: Are there any other items or matters that any alderman would like to discuss with the city solicitor at this point? Alderman Zwirko, please.

▶ 55:35 Michael P. Zwirko: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just, for the folks that are watching at home, there is a document that when we last met on this in August, about I don't know remember the exact item is six seven or eight items that we asked for further clarification so that's the items that we've been referring to so far tonight I did not say this earlier but I should say it now that I appreciate the presence of mr. Lucas here this evening he did a great amount of help and not only on the Charter review Commission but in putting together this document the item that we just went through we passed one so just um to you know for good hygiene i'm just going to go through this um the next one that i wanted to

▶ 56:22 Speaker 7: address is nine right no ten we did nine we did nine so about ten just really you're right i'm

▶ 56:27 Michael P. Zwirko: sorry i apologize uh yeah this is number 10. so this has to do with section uh 211a 211b and 46a essentially i'll just dumb it down it's removing a threshold provision should there be a vacancy on the board of aldermen and school committee and that goes for both aldermen at large and ward aldermen as well as members of the school committee so there is in the existing charter in the first year if there is a vacancy in the first year of an alderman at large or a ward alderman term the succeeding

▶ 57:07 Michael P. Zwirko: appointment of aldermen will be so long as they have reached 30 threshold in the last election it's getting rid of that threshold basically it says the next individual with the highest vote count gets the appointment that's quite simply that's all it is it's just removing that threshold I think that we can have a discussion on it, obviously, but I would make a motion to support what the Charter Review Commission has passed in removing that threshold.

▶ 57:44 Speaker 1: I will second that. Very good. Thank you, Alderman Cronin.

▶ 57:48 Peter D. Mortimer: Alderman Zwirko has made a motion that on Section 10 of the recommendations from the Ad Hoc Charter Committee, that we accept their recommendation that the 30% favorable requirement be required of a subsequent candidate should the sitting candidate be unable or decides not to continue to serve, that the next person who was on the ballot would then fill the position irrespective of the 30% favorable vote requirement. That motion was seconded by Alderman Inferna. It applies to Sections 2-11A, 2-11B, and Section 4-6A of the present charter. The motion was made and seconded as stated, and is now before you. And the first in queue is Alderman Boycelle, and did I see you too, Alderman Medeiros? No, I didn't see you. Okay, okay, Alderman Boycelle. Please proceed, Alderman Boycelle.

▶ 58:51 Robert A. Boisselle: Could the Alderman explain why 30%, I mean, for a losing candidate in the Alderman at Large, that's a lot of votes.

▶ 59:02 Speaker 8: Who didn't win.

▶ 59:04 Peter D. Mortimer: Right, and it may have been thought of at the original charter as a ward alderman. If you had a ward alderman who got 95% and you had a candidate who was not very formidable and got 30 votes,

▶ 59:22 Peter D. Mortimer: would you want that person to become alderman when they may have just filed, perhaps, but other people may have other.

▶ 59:28 Robert A. Boisselle: But that individual made the effort to at least campaign for that position. Correct. matter how many votes he or she will receive, you're talking about at least a certain number of aldermen who are going to get 50%, 40%, 30%. There's not much left by the time you're getting down to the bottom of the pile and you have the individuals who are left over who may have only had 5% or 15% of the vote left.

▶ 59:59 Peter D. Mortimer: and and and therein and therein lies the crux of the discussion okay that's that

▶ 1:00:05 Peter D. Mortimer: that you you have framed the I'll be right with you all the moment errors you have framed the issue properly okay as I see it but that's the issue and now we're going to discuss it and see where we will go with it all the moment errors

▶ 1:00:17 Monica C. Medeiros: please well it's not 30% of the vote total it's 30% of the vote total received that the person who received the highest number of votes so it's not because not one say for instance of us at large received I don't think received 30% of the vote in the last election it's the 30% of the highest of the person with the highest vote total so I mean there is a certain I think there's a reasoning here for this threshold if we had say 10 candidates for four seats

▶ 1:00:59 Monica C. Medeiros: and one person didn't you know we got all the way down to this last person who didn't get even 30% of the highest the person with the highest vote total it's to some degree it's a rejection of hopefully I don't fall into that category in the future but it's it is sort of a rejection of that person and

▶ 1:01:24 Speaker 6: so I think that's the reasoning behind it in the current charter so right and

▶ 1:01:26 Peter D. Mortimer: and your commentary is accurate and it covers more the school committee and the alderman at large races whereas um what was just said previously was more about a ward race but it could apply

▶ 1:01:43 Monica C. Medeiros: there as well and even for a ward alderman Site you know there's there's in any election there's many many votes uh that are cast as blanks you know unfortunately but it's but it's true so

▶ 1:01:56 Monica C. Medeiros: it's not that 100 you know even an unchallenged alderman doesn't get 100 of the votes so

▶ 1:02:01 Peter D. Mortimer: so that that is accurate and uh the motion as made by alderman Zwirko and seconded by alderman inferna is uh still before us are there any other alderman wishing to make comments or ask questions need any clarification very well then we will call for the vote all in favor please say aye aye any

▶ 1:02:26 Peter D. Mortimer: opposed hearing none yeah opposed two opposed um all right so two opposed and uh that will be recommended to the full board for passage at this point but there are two opposed um

▶ 1:02:38 Peter D. Mortimer: and here we only require six to make the recommendation but at the full board this

▶ 1:02:46 Peter D. Mortimer: will require eight to pass um mr lucas might i understand that you need to depart uh at 8 30.

▶ 1:02:54 Speaker 4: i have to pick my son up um if if there are other questions i'm more than happy to come back

▶ 1:03:01 Peter D. Mortimer: in 20 minutes all right uh are there any other aldermen having any other issues or can we uh dismiss mr lucas for the evening uh alderman Zwirko thank you mr chairman and i do want to

▶ 1:03:10 Michael P. Zwirko: be expedient here there's just one more issue I think that folks would like clarification on it was something that came up last time and it just has to do with the removal of the language for the powers and duties of the school committee you could probably be very efficient in this essentially the reason it was struck in the Charter Review Commission is because the feeling was by the Charter Review Commission is that the powers and duties of the school committee are laid out in Massachusetts general laws the comment here that states the legal clarification is is that yes in fact that the Massachusetts general laws do define the powers and duties of school committee however um the provision in the charter left in the uh powers pertaining to construction and maintenance of school buildings um which are not mentioned in um massachusetts general laws is that correct

▶ 1:03:57 Speaker 4: uh all the miserable is correct mr chairman very well then thank you thank you all right thank you

▶ 1:04:07 Peter D. Mortimer: thank you very much thank you mr lucas my wife tonight uh i'm not sure if we'll wrap this up or if we might need you back on another evening but for tonight thank you very much i'm available

▶ 1:04:19 Peter D. Mortimer: to come back anytime all right thank you very much appreciate it very much all right um are there any other aldermen who have any questions comments motions on the 42 original items from the ad hoc charter committee no further motions on that oh we had a is this the new one all the moment oh

▶ 1:04:42 Speaker 2: alderman that we had a hold on um number 30. and number 39 and number 33 we need to vote on

▶ 1:04:49 Peter D. Mortimer: correct okay so why don't we start in numerical order and start with number 30. president of alderman to serve as mayor removal of language regarding mayor's outside income as redundant and confirming that a president of the board may use the language candidate for reelection on the the ballot if such president is seeking re-election as an alderman and not as a mayor. So that's before us.

▶ 1:05:19 Speaker 2: President Kahn, please. Yeah, this provision is fairly simple. I don't think we need to kick this can around too much. I mean, if someone is filling in a vacancy for the mayor, they're not an incumbent mayor and they shouldn't be designated as an incumbent mayor. So I would move that we adopt this recommendation.

▶ 1:05:35 Peter D. Mortimer: Connors made that we adopt the recommendation second second duly

▶ 1:05:44 Peter D. Mortimer: seconded by alderman Medeiros seeing no further discussion all in favor please

▶ 1:05:49 Peter D. Mortimer: say aye it's unanimous and this will be recommended to the full board for passage in accordance with the ad hoc Charter Commission recommendation committee recommendation and the next one we have is item 33 school committee

▶ 1:06:05 Peter D. Mortimer: Section 4.5 of the Charter, School Committee Powers and Duties.

▶ 1:06:13 Peter D. Mortimer: Removal of the language as superfluous because school committee's powers and duties are set forth by state statute.

▶ 1:06:19 Peter D. Mortimer: And this was just covered by Alderman Zwirko with this deputy city solicitor.

▶ 1:06:25 Peter D. Mortimer: So it is before us. President Kahn, please.

▶ 1:06:28 Speaker 2: So the committee did not adopt this proposed change. the committee voted one six and it looks like one abstention correct uh relative to this provision

▶ 1:06:43 Peter D. Mortimer: correct so they did they did not they wanted to leave in the language they did not consider what

▶ 1:06:56 Peter D. Mortimer: superfluous um motion this ought not to change okay alderman medeiros has made a motion that um we leave the language in the charter as it now exists and um second by alderman boisselle and on discussion unless you do have the floor on discussion we have alderman's work oh please

▶ 1:07:16 Michael P. Zwirko: yeah i was just going to say thank you mr chairman i was just going to say that i uh actually voted to have this struck i was the one vote in the charter review committee um you know know the feeling was at the time is that the language is there for a purpose and there was a reason that the previous Charter Commission went to great lengths to outline these powers and duties but we also didn't know at the time that we know now that the powers and duties are delineated by the Massachusetts general laws so I'm supportive of actually striking this language I agree with you know what's written here it is superfluous Massachusetts general laws very strong powers given to the school committees here in the Commonwealth so I just wanted to state that but that's that's the reason the Charter Review Commission generally voted against it they felt that it was there for a reason

▶ 1:08:06 Peter D. Mortimer: all right thank you very much we have a motion before us to leave the Charter alone regarding section 4-5 made by Alderman Medeiros and duly seconded by Alderman Boycelle is there further discussion seeing none all in favor of leaving the Charter alone on this point please say aye aye any opposed okay we have one opposed so the recommend the motion to recommend leaving the Charter alone on this item passes so that will be the recommendation to the full board one opposed and the next item we have is item 39 section 10 dash 6 of the Charter time of taking effect removing ratification by the voters end quote and replacing with begin quote approval by the legislature end quote and this item uh was recommended unanimously eight to zero by the charter review committee

▶ 1:09:09 Speaker 2: first in queue we have president khan yeah um i saw some comments relative to this and i think they reflect a misunderstanding of what's going on here the language ratification by the voters was it was in the original charter because the original charter had to be ratified by the voters or it would not take effect. So deleting that language in no way inhibits the right of the public to, by referendum, change the charter in the future. What it does is it simply is removing something that was appropriate for the initial charter which had to be ratified by the citizenry and changes it. So, I think this is really not the change that it appears to be, and I would support adoption of the change in the language. And I would point out that this in no way will prevent anyone in the future from having an elected charter commission petitioning to change the charter or anything of that nature. So, it's just correcting something that's a holdover from the initially adopted charter.

▶ 1:10:26 Peter D. Mortimer: Is that a motion, President Kahn? It is. President Kahn has made a motion that we adopt the committee recommendation on item 39, section 10-6 of the charter.

▶ 1:10:37 Speaker 1: Second.

▶ 1:10:37 Peter D. Mortimer: Duly seconded by Alderman Inferna. On discussion, did I see your hand, Alderman Medeiros?

▶ 1:10:43 Speaker 1: No? It's okay, you don't have to, don't.

▶ 1:10:45 Speaker 6: I'll make a quick comment, and you didn't really see my hand, but-

▶ 1:10:48 Speaker 1: I saw something over there, but-

▶ 1:10:53 Monica C. Medeiros: I'm taking great trust in President Kahn's legal opinion today, and I'll go along with this one.

▶ 1:10:56 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you. All right, thank you very much, Alderman Medeiros. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, hearing none, section 39 will be recommended to the full board for passage in accordance with the charter committee recommendation, and as moved by President Kahn. I'll be right with you.

▶ 1:11:19 Peter D. Mortimer: The items that we have from the Charter Committee for review are now concluded.

▶ 1:11:24 Peter D. Mortimer: We can revisit them, this committee, this order is not over with this committee yet. It can be reviewed in this committee, and of course, once again, for members of the public,

▶ 1:11:35 Peter D. Mortimer: this will be presented again at the full board and is available for review at that time. And if anybody in the public has any opinions and wants to do anything, This is a very open and transparent process. And we want you to know out there that we welcome any commentary you may have.

▶ 1:11:55 Speaker 1: By email, by letter, by phone call, or by public appearance at public participation.

▶ 1:11:58 Peter D. Mortimer: So we're done with those 42, and now we have some others that Alderman Suaspanti,

▶ 1:12:08 Peter D. Mortimer: of their own initiative, will want to recommend. the first to speak on this matter is alderman Medeiros thank you uh chairman mortimer so i have

▶ 1:12:23 Monica C. Medeiros: hand delivered around i have two proposed changes and i'll take the the first one um

▶ 1:12:37 Monica C. Medeiros: is a would be a motion to add the word mayoral in its its article 3 executive branch section 3-1 mayor qualifications terms of office compensation prohibitions and then under C which is compensation to add the word mayoral before the words biennial city election and the purpose of this is as the Charter stands today and as it has been interpreted recently by somewhat recently within the past couple of years since this change by the city solicitor that then the mayor currently the salary of the position of mayor can be amended and changed within the term of the sitting individual and so this proposed change that I'm moving for the purpose would be to make it so that the mayor's salary cannot be changed during the term when that person is sitting there and that it would take effect following the next mayoral election so that's the way it is right now for the Board of Aldermen that we wouldn't say if we wanted to give ourselves raises or give ourselves a pay cut for that matter we couldn't we could change the salary of the position of the alderman but we it wouldn't take effect until the new people came in for the next term in the next office so that's what I'm intent and that's my intention of this by adding the word mayoral under just the compensation for the piece of the mayor so that it wouldn't take any changes made would not take effect until after

▶ 1:14:25 Peter D. Mortimer: the new person was there so all right thank you very much for that motion you see a motion that motion that we adopt this language and incorporated into the Charter that we will recommend to the full board for consideration that is a motion now um these are fairly heady um items and this is the first time um oh go ahead yes sorry you're done then i'll then i'll talk you go ahead please there is this has

▶ 1:14:53 Monica C. Medeiros: been uh and i am late in getting this to uh to everyone here however this proposed change has been in my comments that was made to the charter review commit committee um when i came before it

▶ 1:15:11 Monica C. Medeiros: i think back in march it has been included in the package since we received it back in may so i mean it the intention of this has been there for some time however and i do not

▶ 1:15:20 Monica C. Medeiros: believe to my knowledge this was not actually discussed by the charter commission although i did bring it up and it was certainly not one of the 42 items that were

▶ 1:15:36 Peter D. Mortimer: were presented to us from the charter commission so all right uh thank you thank you alderman medeiros um so as i was starting to say um these these are heady um items this is a document that's

▶ 1:15:52 Peter D. Mortimer: going to be with us for a decade with the city maybe not with all of us so we could go ahead

▶ 1:16:01 Peter D. Mortimer: and discuss it tonight we could put it on hold and meet it at other night so people can look at it and compare and contrast it with the the Charter we have now but that's a decision that the entire board would need to make so

▶ 1:16:21 Peter D. Mortimer: you've made a motion that we adopt it at this point it hasn't been seconded yet I'll second it for purposes okay so with now we have a second for purposes of discussion and it is before us president Khan please proceed yeah I I think this

▶ 1:16:32 Speaker 2: is an idea that that bears thinking about I'm not a fan of anybody's salary being increased by any term as some of the people have been around longer might remember I'm not a fan of a four-year mayoral term and this wouldn't be an issue if everybody was on a two-year term so i don't know whether this is something that we should vote to adopt or decline tonight but it's something that we should think about and perhaps what we might want to do is send this issue forward without a recommendation to pass or fail so that we can discuss it with the balance of the order when it gets to full board if it leaves

▶ 1:17:26 Peter D. Mortimer: this committee this evening yes uh we we could do that um or we could hold it in this committee and discuss it further either one um right now uh what we have uh and i i agree with that that this should be studied further because it's this this is fresh information uh to the to the committee

▶ 1:17:45 Peter D. Mortimer: on appropriations which is the board of alderman essentially um so for us to do that to either send

▶ 1:17:51 Peter D. Mortimer: send it up without recommendation or to hold it in committee for further consideration. Procedurally, we would need you to withdraw your second, and Alderman Medeiros to withdraw her motion to recommend this for passage.

▶ 1:18:09 Speaker 2: And if I still have the floor.

▶ 1:18:11 Speaker 7: You do.

▶ 1:18:12 Speaker 2: What we don't want to do here is divide out any issues. if the board recommend if the committee recommends something to the full board we want everything to go forward and be voted on we don't want to leave anything behind i think this bears discussion and if the maker of the order

▶ 1:18:34 Speaker 2: agrees with my suggestion then perhaps what we might want to do is withdraw the motion in the second uh and then move to send this forward with whatever other action we take tonight so that it would be with the full board and could be voted up or down uh when this is before the full board only

▶ 1:18:55 Peter D. Mortimer: my thoughts thank thank you president khan uh madam clerk would you please let the record reflect that we are joined by alderman Francis wright at this time as well thank you very much

▶ 1:19:07 Monica C. Medeiros: um so i i would uh be amenable to okay so the second needs to be withdrawn first and president

▶ 1:19:10 Peter D. Mortimer: khan has withdrawn the second and you have withdrawn your motion um so your language is before us and because you made the original motion i am going to allow that you have the floor again

▶ 1:19:25 Monica C. Medeiros: thank you uh so at this point i would move that we move this along with the charter in whatever

▶ 1:19:34 Monica C. Medeiros: form we move the charter in uh without recommendation second all right so alderman

▶ 1:19:44 Peter D. Mortimer: medeiros has moved that we send the language she has presented to us tonight regarding section 3-1

▶ 1:19:55 Peter D. Mortimer: without recommendation so we can move the process along but we can at least have

▶ 1:20:02 Speaker 1: a chance to discuss it at the full board said motion to send it to the full board without

▶ 1:20:04 Peter D. Mortimer: recommendation was seconded by president khan and now on discussion we see alderman Tramontozzi

▶ 1:20:11 John N. Tramontozzi: yeah i just want to just clarify what the intent of this particular proposal is so because we are in different cycles the aldermen are elected on a two-year cycle and the mayor is on a four-year cycle so if if a sitting board of alderman wish to take up the issue of a salary increase it has to be done within the first 18 months a year and a half of that elected board during the course of

▶ 1:20:45 John N. Tramontozzi: their two-year term but that's out if they choose to increase the salary would not take effect until the next mayor mayoral election which could be either two or four years down the road that that am i making any sense i think i think i think your understanding of it is accurate right

▶ 1:21:07 John N. Tramontozzi: so i i mean maybe just my way of trying to get the public to understand it as well but that's good it's uh so so the uh the the vote uh that that increase in salary would not take effect Not necessarily for city mayor, but a potential new election.

▶ 1:21:30 Peter D. Mortimer: Or not until the new four year term. Right. Right, not until the new four year term begins.

▶ 1:21:41 Peter D. Mortimer: All right, so that's all the discussion I see that people wish to put forward. So, all in favor of sending this item, I guess we could call this item 43.

▶ 1:21:59 Peter D. Mortimer: Just for clerical purposes, the motion is to recommend this to the full board without recommendation when we send up the entire package, so to speak, to the full board.

▶ 1:22:06 Speaker 1: All in favor, please say aye.

▶ 1:22:07 Peter D. Mortimer: Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, this item, item 43, as so named presently, will be sent up to the full board without recommendation. Alderman Medeiros I see you have another item for us yes I do I have a second

▶ 1:22:22 Monica C. Medeiros: proposed change and if it please the board we can call it number 44 but the

▶ 1:22:31 Monica C. Medeiros: purpose of this and the intention is to change the term of the school committee back to two years instead of four and remove the the staggering of the terms

▶ 1:22:51 Monica C. Medeiros: So, you know, this is probably the most significant, this is probably a more significant change and I would imagine people might want some time to think about that as well, although again, there are in the comments, but I don't see that this was specifically voted on through the Charter Review Committee. i think it might have been touched upon as a topic but um so therefore i'd like to say also

▶ 1:23:21 Monica C. Medeiros: move this forward without a recommendation at this time uh very good uh for the record would

▶ 1:23:28 Monica C. Medeiros: you like to read it uh yes sorry this would be proposing to change article 4 school committee section 4-1 a and and b to read and actually sorry this should really just say 4-1 b only all right to read be term of office the term of office for the six school committee members elected by the voters shall be two years beginning the first Monday after the first Tuesday in January and in the year following their election until their successors have been qualified and it basically takes away the that's the end and it basically takes away the sentence about staggering

▶ 1:24:09 Peter D. Mortimer: that follows very good Thank You Alderman Medeiros Alderman Medeiros has presented this language of the proposed change for how the school committee would operate and how they would be elected and serve and she has made a motion that we send this to the full board without recommendation so that we

▶ 1:24:30 Peter D. Mortimer: may have some time to study it and mull it over consider it before it goes before the full board before the entire charter package goes to the full board is there a second

▶ 1:24:46 Peter D. Mortimer: a second okay in the nick of time alderman forbes has uh seconded the motion uh that we send this to

▶ 1:24:54 Peter D. Mortimer: the full board without recommendation on discussion we first see in queue alderman boycelle is there

▶ 1:25:01 Robert A. Boisselle: another line after this paragraph uh or are we get doing away with the succession process in other words you don't put throw all six committee members out at the same time or do you take three the first year and next time you take three is that is there some sort of succession the

▶ 1:25:22 Monica C. Medeiros: the intention of uh this change would be to have six members elected all at once for two year terms

▶ 1:25:34 Speaker 8: um all six all six wow okay thank you thank you mr yeah yeah through the chair that's that's good

▶ 1:25:39 Peter D. Mortimer: this is a uh rough committee so we're just hammering things out that's good um are there any further oh sorry all of them there that's okay and on the for the you know what i've seen

▶ 1:25:47 Monica C. Medeiros: is merit to this is uh the the old way you know used to be nine members elected all at once um i think you know we are all elected once in this uh in this board at the same time i i know sometimes the there's a little bit of a fear of you'd had you know six new people all at once but i think that's very unlikely i mean almost always do do at least some incumbents run for re-election

▶ 1:26:18 Monica C. Medeiros: and and usually there's you know some incumbent advantage for that matter and so i don't think

▶ 1:26:23 Monica C. Medeiros: would you'd have this huge learning curve i think this would allow i think we've seen many in in the 10 years or so that the charter has been in place we've seen a lot of vacancies and i think the four-year term is pretty long and it actually prohibits some people from some stepping up and running i think sometimes there it's a big commitment and i think people kind of self-select themselves out of it i think this would allow issues to flow up more naturally and organically from you know from the public and and be able to be dealt with and some people would deal with their issues and move along not run again and i think allow other candidates to have maybe a specific issue to kind of come in and and i think it would let us you know keep the i think it would

▶ 1:27:15 Monica C. Medeiros: improve the quality honestly of the schools and communication and and give

▶ 1:27:23 Monica C. Medeiros: us more discussion and accountability to the members who have to get out there and make sure they're in front of the public every two years I mean you know we know it's sometimes it's tough and you'd like to have a fall off and apple-pick or something but it's but it's good to get out and you know meet

▶ 1:27:45 Speaker 6: the people that you represent and state your case so that's my thoughts thank

▶ 1:27:47 Peter D. Mortimer: you Alderman Medeiros is that satisfy your point of information oh yes I mean

▶ 1:27:52 Robert A. Boisselle: very good she has the experience and then being on the school committee and yourself and I just wanted to make sure there's that one line was still if they were still considering a succession of members and so forth so she clarified it

▶ 1:28:08 Peter D. Mortimer: Very good. Next in queue, we have Alderman Search, please.

▶ 1:28:12 Michael P. Zwirko: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Monica Medeiros, for bringing this for us. You know, I appreciate the spirit of it, but I just don't think it's thorough. You know, we did discuss at the Charter Review Commission terms, terms, length. We couldn't agree to an item that was going to be voted on, so we decided that the smartest or the best course of action would have been to just leave it as is. there's a whole other slew of things that trail off of not only the term change you know when the effective date of this is how does it affect vacancies what happens with the existing school committee person who has a four-year term but yet this is going to be effective in etc so I can't support this change whether or not I agree with the school committee being a two-year term of office because there's other changes that need to be made if this were to succeed it's it's it's a little bit incomplete and I do feel that it's coming late even though it was discussed there's just a lot there you know and and what I would say is the feeling was if we were going to change one term of office we were going to change all of them and a change of the term of office would actually affect how this would be ratified to your point earlier tonight tonight on item, I believe, 39, what it was. So a change in the term would be significant enough that this would have to go before, or at least I feel and would support that it go in before the voters to approve. So this could really kick out not only the effective date of all of these changes, but it's not just as simple as a change to Section 4-1-B. So I can't support the motion before us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 1:29:52 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you very much, Alderman Zwirko. Alderman Medeiros, please, unless anyone else for the first time, please proceed, Alderman Medeiros.

▶ 1:30:00 Monica C. Medeiros: Certainly, this is the kind of thing where we can, if we would like to move this forward, can bring forth the remaining items that might change. That's been some of my hesitation all along, because I wasn't sure when we would have the opportunity

▶ 1:30:20 Monica C. Medeiros: to discuss some of these issues and you know as it seems it was to be at the end of going through the Charter Review Commission sections so certainly we can do that there's a reason why there are and were tight deadlines to get this

▶ 1:30:34 Monica C. Medeiros: these changes to the board by May 1st which was the Charter Review Commission was you know is mandated to get their proposed changes to the Board of Aldermen by May 1st so that we could in fact get something on the ballot if we so chose and so I think we still have a little bit of time but probably not a lot to do

▶ 1:31:00 Monica C. Medeiros: that and you know I agree that I think it's something that should be you know probably I think this is the kind of change that probably should go to the

▶ 1:31:13 Monica C. Medeiros: ballot but that's that's part of this this process and you know could we have scheduled meetings earlier sure you know but that part I'm not in control of it

▶ 1:31:25 Peter D. Mortimer: thank you all right Thank You alderman Medeiros alderman Forbes please thank

▶ 1:31:29 Scott M. Forbes: you I'll be brief I I seconded this just because I think I think the discussion is welcome to send it to the board without a recommendation at least gives us a little bit of time so we can kind of marinate uh thought process a little bit maybe you know engage in some dialogue and then when the appropriate time comes we can cast our vote uh and be confident about that i think that if we are making any changes to the charter uh any ideas or recommendations i i feel like it is the appropriate forum i feel comfortable second in the motion and also look forward exchanging that dialogue with my colleagues

▶ 1:32:01 Peter D. Mortimer: here on the board thank you thank you alderman forbes uh president khan please yeah i have no

▶ 1:32:04 Speaker 2: problem with the timing of this at this point in time I mean any of these issues are open for discussion at any time we're under no deadline to vote on anything if we think we need more time you can hold this order in this committee we could have multiple meetings of the Board of Aldermen where

▶ 1:32:33 Speaker 2: we discussed this and I don't mean to be flippant I really don't if this goes forward to the full border it's discussed further I would be interested in what the perceived need for this change would be because this isn't something where any kind of perceived need jumps out at me for example if you wanted to change the term of the mayor there are things that would cause

▶ 1:33:09 Speaker 2: reasonable people or maybe not reasonable people but me to wonder why we might not want to change the term of the mayor for example if you don't have the mayor's race on the ballot in the mid-year election then it depresses turnout and if you have the mayor going for four years and the alderman being for two years does that entrench and enhance the power of the mayor unduly this is a little different I'm not really seeing the justification for it now maybe there's something that I'm not that that's out there that I just don't I don't understand, but if we do discuss this further, I would be interested in discussion of what the necessity of this would be.

▶ 1:34:00 Speaker 2: The old pre-charter system did not work well at all where we would have nine vacancies and we would frequently have nine or 10 people running. We would never have more than 11 people running and that system was scrapped in favor of this system, I would have to have more discussion and more convincing rationale as to why we would need to change this. And the other thing is I would never vote to support changing a term of office by a vote of this board and a petition to the great general court. This would be something that would have to go on the ballot. And maybe that's what the board wants to do. But this is a different proposal in terms of scope of magnitude than a lot of the things that we've been discussing so far. That's all.

▶ 1:34:53 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you, President Kahn. Any other aldermen wishing to be heard? So the motion at this time is not an up or down vote on the language and

▶ 1:35:08 Peter D. Mortimer: the concept underneath the language. It is just a motion to send this to the full board without recommendation for further consideration. Seeing no further aldermen wishing to be heard, all in favor of sending item 44 so-called

▶ 1:35:29 Peter D. Mortimer: to the full board without recommendation, please say aye.

▶ 1:35:34 Speaker 3: Aye.

▶ 1:35:35 Speaker 1: Any opposed? Opposed.

▶ 1:35:40 Peter D. Mortimer: So we have ten in favor and one opposed. So this order will be sent to the full board without recommendation at this time.

▶ 1:35:51 Speaker 2: President Kahn, please. Yeah, I'd like to make a motion at this time, Mr. Chairman, that the recommendations of the charter commission that we have voted on and reviewed that the order be recommended to reflect the votes that we've taken on all of the various issues.

▶ 1:36:11 Peter D. Mortimer: Now, that motion is in order at this time, and President Khan has made a motion that after all of our deliberations, contemplations, and discussions, that we take all of those machinations as a whole.

▶ 1:36:28 Speaker 1: All that we've discussed over lo these past few months.

▶ 1:36:31 Peter D. Mortimer: And incorporated all in one motion.

▶ 1:36:37 Speaker 2: That's the votes, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 1:36:39 Peter D. Mortimer: To the votes on all the items and to send them up to the full board.

▶ 1:36:46 Peter D. Mortimer: Some that we would accept the recommendation of the ad hoc charter committee, some that we would not. Some that we've made amendments on. You are all here, you understand what we're talking about. Some that are sent up to the full board, the last two particularly without recommendation.

▶ 1:37:00 Peter D. Mortimer: And is there a second on the President's motion by Alderman Forbes on discussion?

▶ 1:37:08 Peter D. Mortimer: On this kind of capstone motion to capstone to bundle it up and send it up to the full board.

▶ 1:37:15 Speaker 1: All in favor, please say aye. Aye.

▶ 1:37:17 Peter D. Mortimer: Any opposed? Hearing none.

▶ 1:37:21 Peter D. Mortimer: This order in accordance with the discussions and the recommendations that we've had from this Appropriations Committee will be sent to the full board for

▶ 1:37:31 Peter D. Mortimer: its action on this matter, the charter renewal. Motion to adjourn. All in favor, please say aye. Second.