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 44 min @ 49:23)

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

▶ 49:26 Peter D. Mortimer: for your presentation miss grover great stuff the next order we have before us is order 2017-165 it is proposed revisions to the city charter for the city of melrose as recommended by the charter review committee for consideration by the board of aldermen i'm going to make some opening comments on this i don't usually but this is big stuff we do this every 10 years and it's possibly one of the most important duties that the board of aldermen performs this ad hoc charter committee came together and they had discussions there were 42 suggestions presented at various times in their meetings i will hear more about this from alderman's worko and alderman Tramontozzi who served on that committee they winnowed it down to seven recommendations and those are the ones we have before us of course we can add any of those in tonight the ultimate decision is ours at this juncture and then it will go to the state legislature for approval based on what we ask them to approve and it's usually automatic the state legislature They probably will accept what we approve, they always have, because it doesn't affect the rest of the state. So that being said, the seven recommendations will be presented by Alderman Zwirko, the maker of this order.

▶ 51:03 Peter D. Mortimer: They will probably be divided, excuse me for being pedantic, but a motion to divide an order is automatic.

▶ 51:15 Peter D. Mortimer: It is granted on its own initiative, and it does not require a second. So we have those seven before us, but of course, amendments can be made. And I'm sure this is a very important part of the evening, a very important part of our year, a very important part of the decade. It only happens every ten years, and this has taken 11 and change. So it is before us, and I have read the order. So I will now throw it open to the Board. Alderman Zwirko, did I see your hand? Yes,

▶ 51:46 Michael P. Zwirko: sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So at this time, I just would like to direct the folks not only watching at home, but also the fellow members of the Board of Aldermen that there is essentially an executive summary memo that was provided in these materials, and that executive summary just goes through the five meetings that the Charter Review Commission held in march and april of 2017 and the deliberations that occurred in those meetings as the chairman pointed out there were seven notable suggested changes those are outlined in this executive summary those were elevated because we felt the committee rather felt that those were something that we should kind of highlight for the members of the board of alderman Thorp also a bunch of other what i would call kind of tightening or modernizing of the charter changes that were made but those weren't really deemed substantive those were more of kind of tinkering and and tightening so that being said and the chairman correctly stated that this order will need to be divided so folks can choose freely to take up any issues that they have or I would say issues that maybe didn't come up in the proposed memo or the red lines that's in the Charter there may be something that the Commission may be missed and that members would like to discuss or proffer that that that being said I look forward to the discussion on this this is the culmination of about nearly a year's worth of work and it is important it is codified in our Charter to do this review I think that the Commission that was composed was a great Commission they worked diligently in a short period of time to get this work done thankfully there were members of either the previous Charter Review Commission or members of the school committee as form as as well as assistant city solicitors that assisted in this process so it was a very robust group I think that the product that came out was certainly worthy of discussion here tonight and I look forward to my colleagues and any suggestions that they may have Thank You mr. chairman thank you very much

▶ 53:53 Peter D. Mortimer: Judge Alderman Zwerchel, any other aldermen wishing to be heard at this time?

▶ 54:01 Peter D. Mortimer: President Kahn, please.

▶ 54:02 Speaker 1: Yeah, in terms of trying to discuss this, I wanted to throw something out. It looks like there were 42 items that were discussed and voted on.

▶ 54:18 Speaker 1: And of the 42 items, majority were passed, some didn't pass, and some have been deemed to be notable. And some have been deemed to be more in the realm of housekeeping. And I'm not making this as a motion right now. I'm just trying to come up with a framework so that we can discuss this. And what I might suggest is that the order be divided into the notable items that passed as maybe one order. the items that were discussed and failed as another order and maybe the housekeeping orders as uh as a third item of discussion rather than having 15 20 or 42 sub motions so i'd like to get some feedback as to how people think they want to approach the discussion of the various items before we start discussing the substance of the items

▶ 55:23 Speaker 3: that's that's good

▶ 55:26 Peter D. Mortimer: alderman's work oh yes go ahead please for the about unless anybody wants to speak for the first time before alderman's werco speaks for the second time please proceed this is very quick and i i

▶ 55:34 Michael P. Zwirko: apologize i failed to state it a moment ago um when the charter review commission was putting this together there was um a series of discussions that were held about what would elevate the a modification to the charter that would be sent before the voters versus the board itself to be approved and the charter review commission even the seven that we highlight we felt that those didn't modify the charter in such a way that may necessitate putting it before the public like a ballot for approval process the charter review commission didn't really feel that that there were changes in all of its deliberations that were going to modify that charter that would necessitate that type of a vote before the public. So what is being proffered here is something that is up to us. So should we amend it further and we deem those to be more comprehensive, that may then affect the outcome in which the charter goes to the Great and General Court.

▶ 56:38 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you very much. And what we could do as well is we could separate these seven suggestions into the order and they would then be numbered, the order number and then A through G. We could do that. We could take each of these seven suggestions and discuss each of those and call those sub orders A through G. Alderman MacMaster, Margolis, please.

▶ 57:03 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: So I just would like a little clarification through the Chair to Alderman Zirko. And I like President Kahn's thought process of how to divide this. But just to make sure I'm clear on it, all of these 42 recommendations would be going ultimately, however we decide to support or not support them, would go to the Great and general court. They would not be put on the ballot for the public to vote on.

▶ 57:38 Peter D. Mortimer: That is correct. Just a second, please, Alderman Medeiros. Would you like to address that? That is correct. Yeah, that is correct, and I would say that the 42, which is in this order, deep in, a lot of them are repetitive and redundant, and a lot of them are just housekeeping. Correct. That's why it was winnowed down to the seven, and of course it's entirely possible that we could come up with something clear out of the blue ourselves tonight and come up with something but basically they've worked very hard to bring these down to the seven so if we operated under this order with the seven unless somebody has a great idea for an amendment but the 42 was pretty rough it was pretty nebulous at that point pretty choppy and that's why it was brought down to the seven

▶ 58:29 Speaker 1: well a point of order I think the Commission the committee is recommending

▶ 58:36 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: more than seven items correct right yeah that's if i may um so right so that's what i was going to say there are many many more than seven that are not are perhaps not as as substantive in the eyes of the commission as um as the ones that you have put forward as a commission of of the seven but um should this board decide that any one of these is more important to have be on a ballot is that that is an option that we could take to decide that we should let the voters decide on

▶ 59:16 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: number four or whatever we could we could do that that is yeah i'm i'm go ahead please

▶ 59:20 Michael P. Zwirko: the voters wouldn't vote on a provision that we would they'd have to vote on the whole time

▶ 59:24 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: correct okay yeah as we as we did before okay right thank you i just wanted to be clear on

▶ 59:37 John N. Tramontozzi: the process of that alderman Tramontozzi yep please so yeah just um i don't want to reiterate what's already been said but we don't we don't have to tackle the seven and specifically address the seven we can we can do all the points that we uh the proposed changes that uh the china review commission talked about some of which we adopted suggested that and some that we didn't necessarily suggest so we can easily go through start from one and just go through each individual each each one individually starting with one and go to 40 I mean that I think that seems to make sense as well just doing it that way and the ones that are just minor changes we can address those and can be done rather quickly so i think if we if we have some order we can do it just in the order in which it's proposed that might make the sense all right um can um can we take that then as a

▶ 1:00:32 Peter D. Mortimer: procedural motion that we will address the 42 points is that a motion that will start that way

▶ 1:00:48 Peter D. Mortimer: all right is there a second on that motion is that is that a is that a second was that a second are

▶ 1:00:50 Speaker 3: or were you just no i'm just i'm not just considering sure that it's that motion for

▶ 1:00:56 Peter D. Mortimer: discussion okay uh so alderman Tramontozzi has made a motion that we procedurally address these items from the 42 that is i have to look at my computer but it's somewhere north of page 111 on our agenda probably somewhere up around page 130 i'm going to check in a minute so that's where the 42 items are it was duly seconded by president khan on discussion for the motion of how to proceed alderman medeiros thank you for discussion points i just have to

▶ 1:01:28 Monica C. Medeiros: say that i you know prefer the manner in which president khan had suggested i think it's one of the things that's a challenge working in a committee of this committee in a committee of size within and managing you know managing the open meeting law in general so we that's part of why we're having this kind of discussion now in this meeting rather than um coming forward so that we're all compliance with open meeting law but i think it would be much more you know smooth as we go through it to to lump things together in terms of administrative changes and you know know just to point out again that you know we we really can vote to send anything to the ballot and really to this Charter even if it is simply administrative changes if we so deem but you know it would probably be make more sense to see what kinds of things we we actually do decide to change upon and if we look at at housekeeping issues versus more substantive issues I think that

▶ 1:02:38 Monica C. Medeiros: would be best and so while I appreciate Alderman Tramontozzi suggestion I would prefer to do it in a different way so I won't support this right now but and

▶ 1:02:48 Monica C. Medeiros: then it's in general I'd like to see what the will of the committee is moving forward toward bringing up items that might not have been discussed or changes in the Charter Commission in a way that's, you know, if we want to have something written and submitted ahead of time or prior to a committee or how it would be best to go about that.

▶ 1:03:12 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you. Very good. Thank you, Waldman Medeiros. And while you were speaking, I checked, and the 42 changes begin on page 134 of our agenda here on the computer and they go up to page 136 so we have that so the motion is still before us to use the 42 items as a rubric um that was made and seconded um and to speak on it yeah thank you just

▶ 1:03:45 John N. Tramontozzi: another quick comment um the proposed changes were the 42 really do proceed from the beginning

▶ 1:03:52 John N. Tramontozzi: of the charter towards the end it just makes sense you know let's start with the first page and we'll send with the last page that way it doesn't get as confusing but i understand you know we as we go through them we could say that's just administrative boom you know and and that could be done rather a quick vote uh if it's just an administrative um change typographical errors that was was talked about real quick so the um when we need to discuss major changes that can can be done in the order in which it appears in the Charter just makes sense

▶ 1:04:37 Peter D. Mortimer: to do it that way just a thought all right thank you all the material Matozi so the motion before us now is to analyze these charter changes on the basis of the 42 changes on page 134 starting on page 134 as I understand it Alderman MacMaster that's no it's all right this is this process I'm wondering

▶ 1:05:02 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: if we if that if that motion were to pass if we were to do that maybe could we make sure as we were going through the 42 that we highlighted that number six was a priority it was was one of the priorities of the seven let's say or something like that so that we would be clear that we were having a more comprehensive discussion on the more substantive ones that the Commission wanted to draw our attention to make sense sure yeah I mean that would come

▶ 1:05:39 Peter D. Mortimer: out on discussion I would imagine that people would say oh by the way this is He's one of the seven that passed.

▶ 1:05:51 Peter D. Mortimer: I think we want to be thorough and exhaustive about this, but we also don't want to reinvent the wheel. So, the motion is before us. Is there anyone else who wishes to make a comment on Alderman Tramontozzi suggestion, which he moved, and it was duly seconded by the President. we start with the 42. seeing no further discussion all in favor please say aye aye any opposed hearing

▶ 1:06:33 Peter D. Mortimer: none opposed opposed uh so let's start on page 134 and um i imagine this time there'll be a

▶ 1:06:51 Peter D. Mortimer: motion to divide there a motion to divide these orders these 42 sections

▶ 1:07:00 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: point of order each one is part of the main order so well if we're going to

▶ 1:07:12 Speaker 4: accept it of the nation to to discuss individually all right and then we can

▶ 1:07:17 Peter D. Mortimer: all right just trying to keep track of what's flying and what's what's not gonna fight but very good let's begin then so the first one is change all references to Board of Aldermen the City Council and changing aldermen to counselor throughout this Charter and coming from the ad hoc Charter Committee which is of course non-binding this passed six to two from that ad hoc

▶ 1:07:45 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: Charter Committee alderman levelman Thank You mr. chairman I think it won't surprise anybody that I support this piece of the change I was appreciative of seeing it go through this discussion as everyone here in the chamber knows and I'm sure many members of the public watching are aware that this came before through it through a different procedure last summer and we had a lot of substantive discussion as well as a lot of public input and there was a preference among some members that this be done through this process for procedural reasons so I was happy to see it discussed I appreciated the discussion of the Commission on it and the public participation that we received back when we discussed in the summer was almost two to one for this change we're also seeing it happening more and more in other towns including our neighbors to the north in Wakefield are having this discussion and there was you know some positive comments by the Free Press in their editorial as well so I think that this is something that has seen support from from many angles including now the the vote of this commission so I just would like to voice my strong support for this piece and thank the Commission for including it in

▶ 1:09:01 Peter D. Mortimer: their recommendations can we take that as a motion to recommend this section for passage absolutely is there a second duly seconded by alderman Zwirko oh on Section 1, President Kahn, please.

▶ 1:09:15 Speaker 1: Yeah, this is an issue I think on which reasonable minds can differ. And I've been thinking about this since last summer when Alderman Lemmerman brought up this order. And today what I had little to do, I went through a 2016 compilation of the names of legislative bodies of every city and town in the commonwealth. And what I found was, as I was making my, I got to show this so people will actually see it, as I was making my handwritten list. I found that 271 communities of the 200, it's 357 communities in the commonwealth, and 271 of those communities as of the end of last year, when the source that I was looking at was compiled, have called their legislative bodies boards of selectmen.

▶ 1:10:16 Speaker 1: And I don't really see any substantive difference between a board of selectmen and a board of aldermen. I think it's the same issue and the same discussion. And I understand some of the thinking for putting forward the change. I can see where people indicate that it's more modern. It's less confusing, but I think at the end of the day, I wouldn't support the change at this point.

▶ 1:10:49 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you, President Kahn. Alderman Zwerchel, please.

▶ 1:10:52 Michael P. Zwirko: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the comments of both Alderman that spoke on this. This was one of those, at least in the Charter Review Commission and prior to that at the Board of Alderman, that there was a lot of deliberation over it. Some people were not only emotionally tied to the name of Alderman but others on the flip side thought that it was, you know, an antiquated term and that the only reason that Alderman still existed is because the city just never changed it. And to talk about Alderman Kahn's statistics, he's correct. A lot of those, though, are towns versus cities. And when you look at cities in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, it's an overwhelming percentage somewhere upwards of 90 if not more for

▶ 1:11:39 Speaker 1: cities excuse me president Kahn I think they were all towns I didn't mean to

▶ 1:11:42 Michael P. Zwirko: imply that they were cities that's okay no and I was just trying to make a clarification that we have more towns in the Commonwealth than we do have cities and Melrose is a city and when you look at the list of cities I believe Thorp 32 in the Commonwealth maybe Thorp 33 now but over 90% of the cities their their legislative bodies are referred to as counselors I think in Somerville is aldermen still regardless I remember when I was campaigning for this office and I was running for the Board of Aldermen and an individual whose house I went to I thought that I was an assessor another person knew what an alderman was because she actually just moved here from Chicago and Chicago has aldermen as their legislative body in the city so it's applicable for some it's not for others growing up in Holyoke my father was an alderman in the Ward seven in Holyoke Massachusetts they later changed in the 90s to City Councilor the change of the name doesn't administratively affect what we here do what board the board or the council in the future will do I think it's a pragmatic update of this legislative body and I do support and I would support the change I understand the nostalgia attached to it you know sometimes change is hard but it's a you know City Councilor is a very common name outside of Melrose and I think it's something that is helpful not only for newer residents but for us as well too if we're going to have a city to have a council so with that I would I would advocate strenuously for the change Thank You mr. chairman Thank You

▶ 1:13:22 Peter D. Mortimer: alderman's work oh are there any other alderman wishing to be heard on this matter I think I saw alderman Inferno before alderman Medeiros but your next

▶ 1:13:32 Gail Infurna: over thank you very much mr. chairman and with all due respect I think my memory of the meeting the public hearing or the public participation that we had back in the winter was that we heard from the public that more people wanted to keep it as Board of Aldermen as opposed to the change I believe we have some correspondences and then of course what they came out publicly to say my recollection was that more people wanted to keep it Alderman then to change it to City Council so I just want to say that I also really wouldn't I don't think I will be supporting this change I look at as an opportunity to once again to teach I know we've been through this whole thing but it's it's a it's it's just a nice stately term and you know what if people don't know what it means it's a great opportunity it's a learning opportunity for them to know what it means I just can't say it any more than that I mean I know I don't mind being called a board of aldermen I don't mind being called an alderman an alderman I think President Kahn in his comparison to Board of Selectmen I think he may have been referring to the Selectmen as opposed to like the Aldermen and that we have Selectmen and we have Aldermen I just don't see it I like the term Board of Aldermen it's always been Melrose and it's a great learning opportunity I think we do too much instant gratification in the today's generation and we don't use take advantage of opportunities to teach people because oh we got to use these simpler term well we could say that about many many things in life and you know so I'm gonna not I'm not going to support this this

▶ 1:15:30 Gail Infurna: change and that's it I don't know we I've been through it all but my recollection was that there were more people that wanted to keep it as Board alderman as opposed to city council thank you very much alderman from what we've heard you

▶ 1:15:44 Peter D. Mortimer: know in our public chambers correct um alderman Medeiros please uh thank you uh yes i i think um

▶ 1:15:47 Monica C. Medeiros: you know in my experience through obviously we had correspondents come in to to us through the city email we had people come and speak and certainly you know we had our own you know conversations with the public uh about this and i you know i definitely found over time that there were more people that i came in contact with that wanted us to stay alderman versus city council i do you know Thorp certainly many cities that have city councils i think it's one of the things that makes us special to be a board of aldermen and i think it you know we we're going to have our victorian fair this fall we spend lots and lots of money to you know have the victorian street lamps and to keep this heritage and it's something that that came up and I I think it makes us a little bit special Thorp lots loads of other cities but not you know we're the only ones that have been like the hottest zip code in the country and obviously it's probably not just from being the Board of Aldermen it's probably not too much to that but at the same time it is something that's a little bit different it keeps our quaintness and not the same you know I I appreciate and we had this discussion you know previously in this chamber but I appreciate being asked you know what is an alderman what is an alderman do and take it as an opportunity to talk about what it is that we do do and what we're responsible for and you know I do find that you know Thorp certainly a learning curve with you know I think anybody coming into a new town learning how their new government works in their city or town and you know you go from a city with town meeting to a city with boards of selectmen to a city with you know open town meeting representative town meeting what does that mean and you kind of figure out you know city managers and town managers and mayors and it's part of you know getting to know and it's I think on us to get out there and help people understand what their government is and how it works so I think that's sort of an opening to let us do that you know we do still have even you know Wakefield is considering this and looking at making that change from select men MEN to select board but when you ask

▶ 1:18:08 Monica C. Medeiros: them like what is the individual going to be called still even with that the individual is still to be called select man so it is you know it is a term that does involve gender but I think we have so many words that involve gender that it just I think it does it has become over time a gender-neutral term and we have you know things like human is man in it and history is his story and Thorp you know person has good son at the end and it's all masculine and I don't know I think the more we focus on these kinds of things the the greater

▶ 1:18:59 Monica C. Medeiros: the the difference actually becomes but I like Alderman I think it's a quaint term if it changes then that so be it thanks very much Thank You Alderman

▶ 1:19:08 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: Barrows Alderman lemon please Thank You mr. chair I just want to clarify and point out that the the comments are in the record and I went back and checked them prior to this meeting to make sure I was accurate and letters and letters and people in the minutes who came down to speak by my count was ten people came for and five against so that's where I got that number from that I stated before I will also say you know even just tonight when we voted to upgrade the the ordinances the earlier order before us we saw a change in there that that's redlined chairman and changed it to chairs gender-neutral term it's it's where we're even going in our other documents that govern the city and it's you know it's that recognition of the gender-neutral option that's available you know I will say in terms of educating the public and this being an opportunity you know I I see my job more of partnering with with constituents in the public on issues and not to educate them on what it is that their government does so just as a response to some of the things I heard I still would strongly support and request the passage of this right your most emotion is

▶ 1:20:27 Peter D. Mortimer: before us and duly seconded Alderman McAteer-Margolis is next followed by

▶ 1:20:31 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: Alderman Tramontozzi please thank you I did want to call attention to the fact that this is number one on the list of recommendations from the Commission so it was one of their top seven priorities correct yes and a past six two and it

▶ 1:20:49 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: passed six two in their venue right and I do always as always see both sides of this issue I think certainly the the the gender neutral piece is important

▶ 1:21:08 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: perhaps more to the newer and younger generation than some of us who are more accustomed to not having that option over the years or not considering that option in terms of language but I do kind of disagree with with Alderman's work oh that you know oh ninety percent you know you say city come but it is something that makes us unique and and I think if nothing else we need to kind of continue to aim for that uniqueness certainly a lot of our newer residents are from places like Somerville so I think they know what boards of aldermen are and I don't think that we need to really educate people in that matter insofar as if somebody asks obviously we you just say oh it's like a City Council it's just kind of that term that we use so I'm just interested to hear what others have to say before I make my final decision thank you all right thank

▶ 1:22:06 Peter D. Mortimer: you very much Alderman McAteer-Margolis Alderman Tramontozzi please thank you

▶ 1:22:12 John N. Tramontozzi: mr. chairman I know when we first talked about it amongst the board here I was kind of leaning towards keeping it the Board of Aldermen to be honest that I'm I'm not certain I care one way or the other, but it was a very heated and well-discussed topic at the Charter Review Commission, and I was impressed with some of the presentation. Also, actually, I have been hearing from constituents in my ward who do favor the change, just a surprise, just a surprise but I respect that and I respect their opinions about wanting to change so I I think is that the scale at least from my perspective has changed and I think I would support the change to City Council and this is one it's a

▶ 1:23:15 John N. Tramontozzi: tough one I know and now we could differ reasonable minds can differ but I think would support it i think it's uh it's a worthy change uh to consider and um i'll support it yes

▶ 1:23:27 Peter D. Mortimer: thank you alderman chairman tosi alderman forbes please thank you mr chairman um i voted against

▶ 1:23:34 Scott M. Forbes: this uh when we first came up for discussion after uh the public hearing i don't think my position has really changed uh that much and i just want to reiterate my reasons why i too did all the uh the city and municipal website research uh when we did this and i found that hundreds of municipalities still use the term selectmen instead of alderman i think it's the same discussion of whether or not the term is archaic and they want to you want to change it to reflect a more gender gender neutral term so Thorp still many municipalities doesn't matter if they're a city or a town it's still the term that i think is the focal point also i have a daughter that's a freshman in high school i don't see any reason anything wrong with that term i was an airman the United States Air Force for 20 years I just a was able to retire over the last few weeks to me that's a gender-neutral term I look at the term Board of Aldermen I look at as a gender-neutral term I know I came up with the opportunity to maybe come up with a solution and say all the man all the women but collectively where our Board of Aldermen because that is the plural for both I would still be open to have that discussion but as this stands right now um i do not support this order and in the simplest term this number one does not really affect how we perform our government here in the city so i will vote no thank you thank you

▶ 1:24:54 Peter D. Mortimer: alderman forbes next in queue we have alderman's workout please thank you again mr chairman and i

▶ 1:24:57 Michael P. Zwirko: appreciate the comments of uh everyone here and i know that this is one of those issues that we're we're kind of getting two bites at the apple on you know we went through a formal process to you know as the Charter outlined that the review is supposed to occur every ten years so that's what we're doing here and this is just one piece I mean obviously Thorp gonna be others that will deliberate probably just as long if not longer and this one is obviously brings a lot of not only emotion but nostalgia for folks and I get that I've lived in cities that have had both names and this is something that people find very unique to Melrose but you know Thorp many things that make this community unique all right you know we're a leader when it as we saw earlier tonight with Martha Grover with you know the green community stuff that we do that makes us very unique the electric aggregation we're the first one to do that that makes us very unique we've got a great community of supporters here when something happens when we lose one of our own Thorp a huge outpouring of support for those individuals when we have a fundraiser that we need to send you know kids off to the Washington DC to help our veterans the community comes to support them that's very unique we have a very unique downtown we have very unique neighborhoods we have very unique green borders and necklaces around Melrose we have some very unique people that have lived in the city of motors I think one of them was even a bobsled champion at the Olympics we were very unique this name doesn't change the fact that we're going to be a unique community no matter 10 20 30 years down the line it's it's a simple name change it's a pragmatic change that exists much else and it's not going to strip us away from being a Victorian community it's not gonna strip us away from being a unique one we will always remain unique I can I can assure you that the last thing I wanted to say and this goes with the other 41 items that we're going to deliberate eventually the changes that we either make or do not make will last for 10 more years so this is your opportunity in the next 10 years to either make the change or not make the change I just you know want people to realize that this this is a yes this is only the first one but it you know could keep things frozen in place for a considerable amount of time that being

▶ 1:27:11 Peter D. Mortimer: said thank you for the time mr. chairman you're welcome aldermen's work oh seeing no further aldermen wishing to be heard on alderman Lehmann's motion to recommend item one for passage duly second by aldermen's work up all in favor please say aye aye aye I think I made that count at which way did you vote Alderman MacMaster my goals I'm voting no okay so that was that'll be all opposed oh that's okay can get so with that fails for in favor 8 opposed excuse me for in favor 7 opposed that ghost counts ourselves in the room so Four in favor, seven opposed, that item number one fails. The next item we have before us is correct typographical grammatical errors in sections, and then Thorp a laundry list of sections. You can read it for yourselves. And it passed eight to zero. Motion for passage. We have a motion to recommend for passage from Alderman Boiselle Dooley, seconded by Alderman Inferna. Seeing no aldermen wishing to be heard on discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, hearing none, this order will be recommended to the full board for passage. And the first one will be recommended that it ought not to pass. The third item we have is also some housekeeping matters. It's changing the term weekday hours, a similar to business day hours, and then the sections are listed. This passed 8-0 in the ad hoc charter committee. We have a motion to recommend from Alderman Boyce-Hell, duly seconded by Alderman Forbes. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. This will be recommended to the full board. That's unanimous, 11-0. This will be recommended to the full board for passage. Item 4 is changing 48-day hours to 72-day hours in Section 2-7D of the present charter. and this failed for four ties fail at the in the ad hoc committee is there a

▶ 1:29:26 Scott M. Forbes: motion all the questions a point of order a motion recommend is motion recommend as failed four to four am i correct and so the motion I think you're

▶ 1:29:33 Peter D. Mortimer: looking for is a motion that it ought not to pass all of them forth has made a motion that this ought not to pass thank you there a second on that second

▶ 1:29:43 Peter D. Mortimer: alderman boisselle has made a second on this and um any discussion seeing none all in favor gotcha gotcha yep and what um flipping back and forth on this screen i know it's it's this is

▶ 1:30:05 Peter D. Mortimer: it's on page five would you yield the four alderman Medeiros to uh alderman trey matosi please absolutely yeah so alderman trey matosi thank you mr chairman thank you uh alderman

▶ 1:30:15 John N. Tramontozzi: DeRosa DeRosa this is a regarding a section 2 7 D the Charter has a provision that should the Board of Aldermen we quote require notice to a person to appear before it on the provisions of the section it's it was 48 business hours there was some discussion whether or not additional time was was necessary and we felt that it was not it was came up for a discussion but I think we chose to leave it at the 48 business hours I think that's what it

▶ 1:30:55 John N. Tramontozzi: was yeah between the post the meeting notices for individuals to appear before us 48 hours is all that's required I think under the general laws anyways

▶ 1:31:08 Peter D. Mortimer: arson shot right and the general law school all right uh thank you alderman boycelle i have you in queue but um alderman Medeiros did yield the floor do you want to continue yield okay alderman

▶ 1:31:19 Robert A. Boisselle: boycelle just want a clarification that's 48 business day hours we're talking seven days here

▶ 1:31:33 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: period i don't think so no but business day business monday to friday so what you're talking

▶ 1:31:35 Robert A. Boisselle: about is 48 business day hours you're talking two days so if we ask a department head to appear

▶ 1:31:40 Peter D. Mortimer: before us right on a thursday they need to show up on monday as i understand it and uh and alderman's worker was nodding in agreement and he was went through the uh the meat grinder on this so i would accept uh his uh nodding of his head as uh affirmation of my estimation alderman medeiros

▶ 1:32:01 Monica C. Medeiros: please i would have taken that to mean business is open so if we're only open on friday for

▶ 1:32:10 Peter D. Mortimer: four hours or if Thorp a holiday right oh all right you're right you're right but i neglected but all right let's say it's a monday then they have to show up on wednesday i forgot about the

▶ 1:32:23 Robert A. Boisselle: four hour friday day that we have but as business day hours of regular business is from nine to five

▶ 1:32:31 Robert A. Boisselle: What you're taking is basically a day, 24 hours as one complete business day. It depends on the industry you're in. This particular government works on a nine to five.

▶ 1:32:42 Peter D. Mortimer: Well, you know what, now you're right, because all the members pointed out that we're only open from eight to four, but the department heads do work from eight to 4.30. if see if we summons them to come before us on Thursday they need to show up on Monday and if we summons them on Monday they would need to show up on Wednesday but we meet on Thursday so it would be there I'll be right with you all the moment arrows and so that would be that would be it that if we give them two days notice essentially they need to appear before us or send one of their subordinates if Thorp a situation whereas they cannot attend all the

▶ 1:33:20 Monica C. Medeiros: Medeiros please yeah I might suggest we hold this a little bit and perhaps have the city solicitor take a look at it because I think that I think the will

▶ 1:33:33 Monica C. Medeiros: might be to go ahead and do some of this but to have some kind of understanding of what business you know 48 business day hours means and I'm guessing that more of the thought here is is like the open meeting law where Thorp you know say 48 hours before a meeting we need to to post things but right maybe we can look at that language and if we need to make a definition of business day what does that that mean in the

▶ 1:33:58 John N. Tramontozzi: actual charter actually we uh make point of whatever we yeah it is defiant it is defined in definitions uh number 20 on section 1-7 definitions uh business day hours any day on which merrill city hall is open for the citizens of melrose to conduct routine business so that's

▶ 1:34:24 Peter D. Mortimer: a business day and it's hours open no it says a business day is any day in which the city of melrose is open a business day has 24 hours in it correct right so that's a business day hours right

▶ 1:34:35 John N. Tramontozzi: is any day on which mero city hall is open doesn't matter how long it's open it's open for an hour it's a business day hour correct that's right so it would mean

▶ 1:34:50 Peter D. Mortimer: essentially if we ask a department head to come before us we can ask them 48 hours before and they need to come or send a subordinate not 72 hours the discussion the graviment of the discussion is do we need to give them three days notice so they can get ready or is two days sufficient and the ad hoc committee decided barely because it was a tie so it didn't change didn't pass because it was a 4-4 tie alderman MacMaster margolis are you signaling yes i'm trying to

▶ 1:35:26 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: figure out yes i was earlier through the chair to alderman trimitrosi where did you say it was

▶ 1:35:32 John N. Tramontozzi: was number 20 on our page 20 I know um I reference article 1 section 1-7 it which is really page 1 of the Charter okay so number 20 that section is called definitions and number 20 of definitions is where it defines business day hours

▶ 1:35:54 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: so perhaps if we just eliminated the out the word hours and said business day

▶ 1:35:59 John N. Tramontozzi: yeah I understand right that makes you know we're trying to it almost sounds

▶ 1:36:04 Peter D. Mortimer: like I don't know all right let's let's uh let's try to keep this through the chair and we'll go from there so thank you for your input alderman Medeiros will keep that under contemplation alderman Rita please I would suggest I

▶ 1:36:16 Francis X. Wright Jr.: would agree with all of them in Medeiros let's hold this in committee but I think the easy way out of this is to amend maybe this language and other language if necessary so that's consistent with the open meeting law to the extent that I believe the open meeting law says 48 hours notice not including Saturday Sundays and holidays that I think anyone can understand that this is a little confusing if you have to go looking at a definition to understand what 48 hours

▶ 1:36:49 Peter D. Mortimer: is I think it's not clear all right so on on this item right now and I'm going uh ask our clerk of committees i believe Thorp no motion pending presently on this right now we're just in uh rough discussion and um i did make a motion yeah okay okay so there was a motion

▶ 1:37:12 Peter D. Mortimer: and what was your it ought not to pass okay you made a motion that it ought not to pass yes so that is before us and who seconded that alderman Boisselle seconded that now a suggestion has been made that we hold this and refer it to the city solicitor which just so we all understand excuse me for being a little didactic here it means we're going past tonight we're not going to finish this tonight which we may not finish anyway just a second of alderman Rita so are you willing to withdraw your second and are you willing to withdraw your motion definitely okay so you're willing to withdraw your motion you're willing to withdraw your second alderman Rita you are making a motion that we hold this in committee this section I yes mr.

▶ 1:37:52 Francis X. Wright Jr.: chairman and not for the purposes of passing it but for purposes I think we need if we're going to look at clarifying this language I think we need to clarify whether it's 48 hours or 72 hours I'm not necessarily supporting the 72 hours I think I'd fall in line with all of them in Forbes and leaving it at 48 but I think no matter what clarity calls for some level of amendment here

▶ 1:38:19 Peter D. Mortimer: right and and so your motion calls to hope your motion is to hold it in committee yes and to refer to the city solicitor as well yes very good and that is seconded by Alderman MacMaster Margolis so that first motion that it ought not to pass has been eliminated just just for clarity before I get to you Alderman Medeiros and and it has been seconded that we hold this in committee to clean up the language in accordance with the open meeting law and refer to the city solicitor to be sure and on discussion of alderman Rita motion on discussion we have alderman MacMaster Margolis I'm sorry alderman

▶ 1:38:57 Monica C. Medeiros: Medeiros yes just you know to see if we can look at the idea of using days business days or something like that but like you know the in line with what the open meeting law has and you know there may be some other instances that are not just simply department heads coming before us and we do have licensees that come before us from time to time and and other people from the public that do come before us so just you know in our discussions and our thoughts moving forward just we should consider that it's not necessarily just people who work for the city of Melrose that might come before us very good and it looks

▶ 1:39:38 Peter D. Mortimer: like the language that we're heading towards is 48 hours excluding Saturday Sundays and holidays so we have an all a motion by alderman Rita duly second it any further discussion seeing none all in favor please say aye aye this section three will be held in committee for referral to the city section for section thank you very much section 4 will be held in committee after referral to the city solicitor the next section we have before us is section 5 clarifying the definition of previous election as amended by ad hoc committee member Izzy see the red line version of the Charter for exact language the most recent election to have occurred for the particular position council or committee which is referenced and this passed 8 to 0 in the Charter Committee is there a

▶ 1:40:42 Peter D. Mortimer: motion we have a motion for passage by President Kahn duly seconded by Alderman Inferno on discussion Alderman Zwirko please followed by Alderman Wright based

▶ 1:40:55 Michael P. Zwirko: on the vote that occurred earlier this evening while I support the the motion I believe this now needs to be amended to strike council and place aldermen in its

▶ 1:41:14 Michael P. Zwirko: place board yes Board of Aldermen so I just Thorp a motion on the floor so I

▶ 1:41:17 Peter D. Mortimer: write board or come out what would the people who made that motion and the second be willing to retract those to make the amendment for the proper

▶ 1:41:26 Speaker 1: language not to be argumentative but I don't really see why when we get to the end of the process we can't make a motion to make a language change rather than changing every one of the next 37 issues that come up all right so the

▶ 1:41:40 Peter D. Mortimer: president has declined to withdraw his motion and I did not hear from the person to make the second either so I'm going to take that as they decline as well so it is before us that we recommend section 5 to the full board for passage is there further discussion seeing none oh I'm sorry all of them right you've changed okay very good all in favor please say aye any opposed hearing none section 5 will be recommended to the full board for passage the next section we have before us is section six changing the term of the president of the Board of Aldermen from one year to two years contained in section 2 2 of the Charter and this passed in the ad hoc committee by a vote of five to three alderman Rita please thank you mr. chairman I'm not quite

▶ 1:42:39 Francis X. Wright Jr.: sure how this ended up in the top seven when it was a 5-3 vote but uh somehow it did um i with all due respect to those who devoted considerable amount of time and effort to reviewing the charter and coming up with these 42 recommendations i see this more of a decision by this board the public doesn't elect the president of this board we do we certainly can as a board keep somebody in that position should they choose to run for it and we haven't in the past done so i believe that it's a decision that this board should make on an annual basis we've been successful for over 100 what about 100 years or however long we've been a city functioning with annual appointments of the president by its members and i would like to

▶ 1:43:41 Francis X. Wright Jr.: see it stay that way is that a motion i would uh yeah i would make a motion that this particular item six on this list um not be approved all right we have a motion that it ought not to pass is

▶ 1:43:51 Peter D. Mortimer: there a second second uh we have a second from alderman boisselle on discussion alderman inferna

▶ 1:44:02 Gail Infurna: thank you very much i wonder if through you the chairman if we could hear from um alderman Tramontozzi or alderman's worker as to what the history of behind this was and how the discussion

▶ 1:44:16 Peter D. Mortimer: went on the charter commission certainly thank you very much uh so you've concluded your input and let me uh call on them to see if they care to reply would either of you gentlemen care to reply

▶ 1:44:27 Michael P. Zwirko: alderman's workout please proceed the the deliberations on this particular one uh was that the Board of Aldermen is a two-year term and much like the House of Congress their speaker is elected I believe the same speaker here for a state representative in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a two-year term and they take care of their in their caucus and how their leadership is elected is based on the the length of their term so this was really just to mirror the other levels of government that we have both at the state and federal level so a a motion to vacate the chair can always be made regardless of the term uh you know like alderman wright said you know this board has the power to you know elect their own leadership president so this was really it was just to mirror the the length of excuse me mirror the length of term of office for the length of term of leadership yeah pretty much i i would i would

▶ 1:45:19 John N. Tramontozzi: I would agree with that representation, also, I do recall somebody else mentioning that they thought making a two year seemed more rationally based because of a learning curve in their position. But again, I agree with Alderman Wright. I mean, this is the decision that this body makes in terms of electing the president. But it was brought up during the committee and during the commission that discussed it. The original charter has one year in it, and the proposal was to suggest a two-year.

▶ 1:45:59 Speaker 4: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me.

▶ 1:46:01 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you, Alderman Aferna. Thank you, gentlemen. So, Alderman Medeiros, please.

▶ 1:46:06 Monica C. Medeiros: Thank you. You know, I, too, think one year is the appropriate time. As Alderman Wright aptly pointed out, it's this board that decides, it's not the people. there there are some communities that if you are the highest vote getter in the at-large race you automatically become the president of the board that's not what we do here in that case i think the public might expect that that person would be the president for a certain amount of time but that's not what we do here and being so i think one year is the appropriate amount of time I think also for new aldermen, as new aldermen coming in, Thorp really no time to get to decide who you want to be the president. and so you know when you come in for the first time and you make a decision to vote for someone you might feel differently at the end of that year and want to vote for someone else um but uh because we it's pretty much the first vote that you take is besides adopting the rules is is who's going to be president so um i think it is better to have that be one year thank you

▶ 1:47:27 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you very much, Alderman Medeiros. Seeing no further Alderman wishing to be heard, Alderman Wright has made a motion that this ought not to pass. Section six, changing the term of the President of the Board of Aldermen from one year to two years. Duly seconded, all in favor? Please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Opposed. Okay, so that's ten in favor, one opposed. So section six ought not to pass. Recommendation to the full board that it ought not to pass. Section 7, acceptance of a public employee position for elected officials. Changing the required waiting period from one year to two years contained in sections 2-3, et cetera, et sequitur in the charter and this failed zero to eight in the ad hoc charter committee.

▶ 1:48:22 Speaker 3: Is there a motion?

▶ 1:48:26 John N. Tramontozzi: Motion to that this not be changed, ought not to be changed.

▶ 1:48:31 Peter D. Mortimer: Okay, motion that this ought not to change, that we follow the recommendation of the charter committee. Second. Seconded by Alderman Inferna. Seeing no further discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. The next section we have before us is placing the position of city auditor under the supervision and authority of the Board of Aldermen. this failed in the ad hoc committee by a vote of one to seven Alderman Wright

▶ 1:49:04 Francis X. Wright Jr.: please make a motion that ought not to pass second Alderman Wright has made a

▶ 1:49:06 Peter D. Mortimer: motion that this section ought not to pass duly seconded by Alderman Forbes on

▶ 1:49:15 Monica C. Medeiros: discussion Alderman Medeiros please thank you this hadn't been one of my hot-button issues but at the same time I in in speaking with other communities I often they're often surprised that our auditor isn't under the Board of Aldermen's control this position when we say auditor it actually kind of gives

▶ 1:49:44 Monica C. Medeiros: the impression that they're sort of double-checking and the idea that they might be double-checking what the executive branch does and you know in in In reality, I think that might be a good thing to have answerable to the legislative body.

▶ 1:50:04 Monica C. Medeiros: Rather right now, the auditor is the one who's actually putting together the budget and overseeing like a controller overseeing all the funds, but at the same time is also the one that's auditing them. and there really kind of isn't a separation of powers and kind of that that position of truly

▶ 1:50:32 Monica C. Medeiros: auditing so i think it probably would be better placed under the board of aldermen so i guess i'm going to oppose it not being passed um and um you know something for us to discuss

▶ 1:50:45 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you, Alderman Medeiros, President Kahn, please.

▶ 1:50:48 Speaker 1: Yeah, this was one of the provisions that I didn't like when the original charter was passed. And prior to the adoption of the new charter, the auditor position, which was what it was then, was an appointed position from the Board of Aldermen. I'm sure this isn't going to prevail here, but I thought that there was much better balance between the executive and legislative at the time that we had that system.

▶ 1:51:19 Speaker 1: So I would support the provision.

▶ 1:51:24 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you, President Kahn. Any further aldermen wishing to be heard? Alderman McAteer-Margolis.

▶ 1:51:29 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: Just a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. It says that this is Section 2-8, and to me that appears to be appointments of the city clerk and the clerk of committees and the salary compensation.

▶ 1:51:46 Peter D. Mortimer: In the charter?

▶ 1:51:47 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: In the charter red line that I'm looking at. So I'm wondering if we should clarify where this actually is in the charter.

▶ 1:51:59 Speaker 1: point of information the city auditor used to be listed in that provision in the ordinances before we adopted the new charter so this it appears and i wasn't there but it appears that this was a uh an attempt to go back to the pre-charter uh language that it would then

▶ 1:52:18 Peter D. Mortimer: revert back to the section where it was before the adoption of the last charter 11 years ago thank you

▶ 1:52:27 John N. Tramontozzi: Alderman Tramontozzi, please. Yeah, I remember the discussion we had with that, and I appreciate Alderman Medeiros comments. But I had a question, and that is, do we not have the power to ask for an independent audit to occur at any time of the city?

▶ 1:52:47 Speaker 6: I don't know.

▶ 1:52:49 John N. Tramontozzi: And this is something that I never got a really straight answer to. um they some of the members of the commission just felt that it made sense since the auditor was involved in the budget process and all that be under the control of the executive branch the mayor's office but i always thought that we would be in a position to at any time we wanted to have an independent

▶ 1:53:23 Peter D. Mortimer: audit? Just thinking out loud. Yeah, it's a tough question. We do have an independent already auditor through Powers and Sullivan. We could call for an audit through an order, but it takes 10 votes of this board to override a veto by the mayor. So the executive is very strong. So, I mean, it's an interesting discussion in terms of municipal procedures, municipal financial and political procedures, but there you have it. Alderman Wright, please.

▶ 1:53:51 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, you kind of stole a little bit of my thunder. Powers & Sullivan is our outside auditor. I mean, they have a duty to audit our books, and a lot of what they do is obviously available to us, but also has to be reported, and the reason for their existing is to report their findings to DOR on our behalf, or we do so as a result of their findings. to me the auditor is almost a misnomer at this point it's really a chief financial officer the function is you know cities are complex financial institutions at this point municipal corporations I think it's important that the person who has control of the city's finances be able to be part of the team that the city's electorate voted to run the city which is the mayor obviously at any point if they're not happy satisfied with the mayor or the people who work for him they can make a choice to change the mayor but to me in order to have a well-run machine which we have had here for the last 15 years or so you need a team approach and I think that it's worked well my experience is that it's worked well in other communities as well communities that have been successful throughout the Commonwealth that I'm aware of have had CFOs who work directly under no appointed by the man thank you Thank You alderman Rita alderman

▶ 1:55:39 Monica C. Medeiros: Medeiros please thank you what I do think the way that we've been operating Although we are calling the auditor the CFO and the auditor, I think that position has been in practice being operating the person. The way it's actually functioning and the way our government is moving along, I think that person is acting much more as a CFO rather than an auditor. And I don't think it necessarily isn't a team approach. It's just going back to a few years ago, we used to always have orders that had any kind of financial component would go to the finance committee first and would get a report from the auditor to show that the funds were there and so on. And then it would move on to the actual committee to debate the merits of an order. And, you know, at some point in time, we changed our rules to do away with that position. But I think, you know, part of the elected process in the team approach is making sure that we are being advised clearly as we make the legislative and financial decisions that we do make as this board. So, you know, if we're looking at the charter and something that we look at once every 10 years and that to be kind of our constitution, and you know again we have to take the personalities and everything else out of it I think it might make sense to have that person really advising us and in a

▶ 1:57:08 Peter D. Mortimer: more independent way thank you thank you very much Alderman Medeiros Alderman

▶ 1:57:13 Michael P. Zwirko: Zwirko oh please Thank You mr. chairman I just wanted to draw the attention that came up an alderman chairman told he was speaking a section 6 6 of the charters called independent audit that does outline and now granted it very well may be powers in Sullivan but I just wanted to just point out the powers the Board of Aldermen have in seeking an independent audit thank you just if Thorp any clarification there and then also Alderman Medeiros brought up the CFO the linkage of the CFO and the the independent or excuse me the city auditor the way that the Charter outlines that you can have a treasurer or a CFO or an auditor but you can't have all three and I believe that Patrick is intent CFO slash auditor. That's how it's been devised from the administration for what it's worth. So that's all I had, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 1:58:01 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you, Alderman Zwirko.

▶ 1:58:03 John N. Tramontozzi: Alderman Tramontozzi, please. Yeah, I want to thank Alderman Zwirko for bringing that to my attention. I just had this memory of, I thought we had it, but you know, it's funny, it's there, but I don't remember ever using it. But now, who knows? All right, thank you.

▶ 1:58:18 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you, Alderman Tramontozzi. Seeing no further, Alderman wishing to be heard, we have a motion that Section 8, placing the city auditor under the supervision of the Board of Aldermen, ought not to pass. Made by Alderman Wright and duly seconded. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Opposed. One, two, three opposed. Okay, so you are opposed, right?

▶ 1:58:44 Speaker 4: Two hands, because you-

▶ 1:58:45 Peter D. Mortimer: Four opposed? Okay, four opposed, so that passes. 74 that it ought not to pass that we do not want to adopt this section all right the next section we have before us is section nine requiring good and just cause and according with set criteria for any rejection of mayoral appointments by the board of aldermen and this passed by a vote of eight to nothing at the ad hoc charter commission president khan please yeah can i

▶ 1:59:20 Speaker 1: Can I just ask one of the committee members just to explain this, please?

▶ 1:59:25 Peter D. Mortimer: Gentlemen, would either of you be ready to explain this?

▶ 1:59:34 Speaker 7: My crib notes are 210.

▶ 1:59:44 Speaker 3: This was, Mayor? Yes, please do, Alderman.

▶ 1:59:48 Michael P. Zwirko: Yeah, so I'll try to put on my memory hat from a couple months ago. But this one, when we first met, city solicitor proffered three suggested tightening of language this was one of them if I remember correctly and I'll go through my notes too but in my

▶ 2:00:12 Michael P. Zwirko: understanding is that the good and just cause language essentially what it is is with a finding that good and just cause does not exist this was so a removal a removal of an employee could be could be what number nine this is a certain this

▶ 2:00:32 Michael P. Zwirko: is section 210 review of certain appointments I think it was to prevent

▶ 2:00:45 Michael P. Zwirko: an arbitrary so so an appointment could be I may need some time to review this in my notes I don't want to say anything out of turn but I do remember that this actually came from the city solicitor's office as a suggested change we modified the language but if if i could be given some latitude i can find some notes on this chairman as you indicated earlier

▶ 2:01:08 Speaker 1: it looks like we're really not going to get through even half of this tonight so i could could we skip over this provision um my concern is that it seems to be engrafting into the appointment process situation where we would have to have we would have to articulate reasons if we didn't want to vote for somebody who was appointed to a a city board or commission um which seems

▶ 2:01:36 Speaker 1: like a significant change to me but if the committee would indulge me if we if we could hold this one just to get some clarification before we vote on this president connors made

▶ 2:01:45 Peter D. Mortimer: a motion to hold section 9 in the appropriation committee duly seconded by alderman boycelle any discussion on that motion seeing none all in favor please say aye any opposed this order will be this section of the order will be held in committee section nine the next section we have is removal of confusing language regarding the filling of vacancies on the board of alderman and school committee and removal of the 30 percent favorable vote requirement sections 2 11 to 2-11 a 2-11 b and 4-6 a amended by leaving in the sentence the city clerk shall certify this candidate to the office of alderman at large or school committee member as applicable to serve for the balance of the then unexpired term and this section passed in the ad hoc committee by a vote of eight to zero alderman wright please i'm gonna make a motion that this be held in

▶ 2:02:47 Francis X. Wright Jr.: committee so that we can see the red line version of this in front of us as we deal with it there seems to be a lot going on here and i don't want to take a vote on this based on me trying to flip back between two different documents on the iqm2 site so if we can get a red line version of this in front of us along with this description it would be a lot a lot easier for me in my simple mind i'll second that thank you

▶ 2:03:21 Peter D. Mortimer: alderman wright alderman wright has made a motion that we hold this section in committee duly seconded by alderman Medeiros any discussion on that motion seeing none all in favor please say aye aye we have made a vote that this section be held in committee section 10. section 11 removal of the ban against the mayor receiving compensation outside the city of melrose section 3-1a in this past in the ad hoc charter commission by a vote of six to two alderman inferno please thank you very

▶ 2:03:58 Gail Infurna: much mr chairman and through you if i could once indulge on alderman Tramontozzi or alderman thorco and i thank you gentlemen tonight for being on the hot seat of answering all these questions from your committees but could you expand on this one if i made alderman i had trouble with this one

▶ 2:04:21 John N. Tramontozzi: because i know when we passed the charter we made the mayor a full-time position And we compensated the mayor as a full-time position. Prior to that, it was only part-time. A mayor could be a real estate broker or some other job. But some of the members of the commission felt that it puts an undue and unreasonable cramp cramp on the ability of a mayor to you know maybe I think the suggestion was doing something with the city like a little league or some other small position which there may be some small compensation for that he would be he or she would be prohibited from doing but it does I mean it does open it up to I I was concerned about that and I think I was one of the I think I voted against that allowing that the past because I mean if the mayor is going to be a full-time position it should be a full-time position paid that way it does

▶ 2:05:39 John N. Tramontozzi: say that he he's to he's a hassle he's a mayor full-time but giving him the

▶ 2:05:53 John N. Tramontozzi: opportunity to earn outside income maybe off hours I guess they wanted to keep

▶ 2:06:01 John N. Tramontozzi: that available how do you how do you how do you balance off hours it's not city time but that was a concern the concern was whether or not a mayor should should

▶ 2:06:15 John N. Tramontozzi: be allowed to earn some additional income doing something else and should

▶ 2:06:23 Peter D. Mortimer: be prohibited from doing so as simple as that thank you alderman Tramontozzi next we have i still have the floor i believe yeah oh that's you you're correct thank you for your point of order um you have the floor and next in queue we have all the moves no next thing thank you thank you please

▶ 2:06:37 Gail Infurna: proceed alderman and through you alderman do you have anything to add to that to help clarify it in

▶ 2:06:42 Michael P. Zwirko: my head no the ultimate is correct the one thing i would add is that we received a lot of public comment that said if you allowed the position of mayor to receive outside competent compensation it may engender for more competition for the office of mayor the theory being that because you're not allowed to earn outside compensation you might be stifling candidates who may have then looked at the office of mayor but that provision where your only income can be from the office of mayor might have stifled some candidates so that was some comment that we received from the public I'll also build on what Alderman Tramontozzi said and I'll just use myself so if I were a property owner in Wakefield a rental property would I have to divest myself from that rental property in Wakefield should I be mayor of the city of Melrose and and should those types of prohibitions affect the office of mayor so look those were the types of questions that we dealt with there was also another example I mean you can come up with tons of them uh you know i wanted to teach night school so that was really the thinking the handcuffs were just too strong was the theory so if we released it um and the mayor does not have to take outside compensation but at least having that allowance and then of course with elections

▶ 2:07:58 Peter D. Mortimer: the thought of competition thank you thank you very much um oh you still have the floor yeah

▶ 2:08:05 Gail Infurna: when i heard you say thank you i thought i would like to make a motion to place this one on hold because i think we need to tighten the language up to it i think this is too wide open and it could lead to anything i don't have good language on the top of my head right now unless any other alderman can make some input you know i will withdraw my my motion to hold but i think this is way too open-ended right here and i think i would like to see some sort of language to tighten

▶ 2:08:35 Peter D. Mortimer: it to make it more specific second oh just just one second I don't believe Thorp a motion on the floor I know I mean previous to that I just want to make sure she's not making a motion if Thorp Thorp not one okay okay so you have made a motion that we hold this in committee tighten up the language to it

▶ 2:08:53 Peter D. Mortimer: very good and that is seconded by alderman Rita so we have a motion that we hold this section in committee duly seconded by alderman wright and on discussion we are still have alderman forbes and alderman lemmerman in queue

▶ 2:09:11 Scott M. Forbes: and alderman wright alderman forbes okay I know the motion was made before I raised my hand but I just I think we're going down a slippery slope here when we're talking about removal of a ban if you're a lawyer how much are you dedicated to your job as opposed to how much are you dedicated to the office I'm not sure if Thorp any outside language that we could tighten that up and say that if it was for a certain type of work because I think what you're gonna do is you're going to engage in dialogue where I'm not sure you're gonna find any common ground I honestly believe that if you are a mayor of the city that you are a full-time employee that's a decision you make when you run for mayor I'm not sure if you're able to have an outside position if you're going to be able to balance that and still be able to run the business of the city and Thorp also a perception problem that comes with that as well so I'm not in favor of this I understand it's going to go to committee I'll support that to see what the response is but ideally this is something I would not be in favor of

▶ 2:10:08 Peter D. Mortimer: thank you thank you very much alderman Forbes alderman Lemmerman please thank

▶ 2:10:12 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: you mr. chairman I agree with much of what Alderman Forbes just said I think this is a full-time job it should remain a full-time job you know the mayor should have 100% of their working day and lots of discussion just now about what a working day was and that entire time should be dedicated to this position I think if they wanted to coach Little League they could choose not to take the conversation because I don't think that's why they would be doing that job in the first place I could see you know maybe some language if we were to go back to the language and tighten it up something allowing for say a passive income if somebody's a property owner or something like that a passive passive income you know but in terms of their energy and their focus I believe that the mayor is you know that should be this should be their full-time focus it does not prevent anyone from running because they have other compensation you don't have to quit your job to run and I you know wouldn't want anybody to do that in case they didn't get the position at the end but if and when they'd get the job that should be there that should be their their work so I would not support this as written but perhaps changing the language a little

▶ 2:11:22 Peter D. Mortimer: it thank you Thank You alderman lemon alderman Rita please Thank You mr.

▶ 2:11:26 Francis X. Wright Jr.: chairman I agree with alderman Forbes and alderman limelight the the reason why I supported the motion is because I think as all the minimum pointed out you can have passive income you can as you know all the Missouri go indicated well what if your own property outside the city and you were collecting you know rents on that property well that's one thing but to be working I think the mayor's position is full-time to the extent that's 24 7 you can't have somebody who's gonna have a law practice and say all right well I'm gonna work full-time but I'm gonna work second shift and in City Hall and I have to be in court in the morning in the afternoons so I think if we're going to continue to have a a city that's well-run we need somebody who's committed to running the city and not to running the city and another business so I the only reason I'd like to see it it clarified is so that if somebody who does have some sort of passive income that might fall under this I don't want to prevent anyone from collecting that but certainly I think this is the position of mayor Thorp a 24-7 position and need someone's full

▶ 2:12:42 Peter D. Mortimer: attention thank you Thank You alderman Rita alderman Medeiros please thank you

▶ 2:12:46 Monica C. Medeiros: yeah I I supports holding this in committee and you know something that I kind of have some mixed feelings on I think that you know being mayor certainly full-time job I think the compensation assert that we have in place is certainly full-time compensation I would not want to see this and I think it's all often kind of confusing is how much other income is prohibited you know if if somebody has a you know a house in New Hampshire and rents it out you know every now and again on the summer is that engaged in outside income activity and that's kind of picking at straws but does this language that exists today prohibit that so I think you think about wanting to see other candidates run for office and you know I think it would be very difficult especially for somebody who was self-employed who might be in a practice to where it is that's where I think it gets really into the the gray area in this and how it exists today would you obviously you know you don't want somebody having to go to court and be stuck at a court proceeding when they're needed at City Hall for an emergency but at the same time you know Would maintaining ownership interest in their law practice after being elected be considered and maybe advising that law practice in an advisory capacity, would that be prohibited under the charter as it is? And in that kind of case, I don't think that that's something that we do want to prohibit those people from running for office. So I'd like to see us come up with some kind of language. I think the word passive is probably key to that. but i mean even even staying on as an advisory you know board of director member might not be considered passive so i'd like to see some suggestions and that's overall where i'd like

▶ 2:14:49 Peter D. Mortimer: to see us go with that language thank you thank you alderman medeiros we have a motion to retain this order in committee this section of the order section 10 excuse me section 11 excuse me section Section nine, no? No, 11. 11, the wrong way, that section 11 be held in committee for further deliberations. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, hearing none, this order will be held in committee.

▶ 2:15:20 Peter D. Mortimer: The next section is section 12, allowing the mayor to suspend or terminate a city officer or department head without filing a notice with the city clerk, but Maintaining the option of filing such notice, also making such suspension or termination effective immediately and not upon 30 days notice. Section 3-4 of the charter and this passed 8-0.

▶ 2:15:45 Speaker 1: Motion to adopt the recommendation of the committee, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 2:15:49 Peter D. Mortimer: Second. Second. President Conn has made a motion to adopt the recommendation of the committee, duly seconded by Alderman McAteer-Margolis on discussion. Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye.

▶ 2:16:04 Peter D. Mortimer: The next section we have before us is section 13, limiting the mayor's right to call special meetings of the Board of Aldermen to extraordinary circumstances under section 3-6B of the charter. And this failed zero to eight in the ad hoc charter committee. President Kahn, please.

▶ 2:16:24 Speaker 1: Yeah, most of us have all been here for a long time. I know that situations come up, we have time constraints. I don't think we want to do anything to inhibit the mayor's ability to call special meetings when he or she thinks it's appropriate. So I would vote that we adopt the committee recommendation.

▶ 2:16:41 Peter D. Mortimer: President Connors made a motion that this section ought not to pass. Duly seconded by Alderman McAteer-Margolis. On discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion that this ought not to pass, the recommendation this ought not to pass, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, hearing none, this will be recommended that it ought not to pass to the full board. The next section is section 14, extending the deadline for a special election of mayor from 90 to 120 days. And extending the grace period of a special election requirement from 120 days between the vacancy date and the proposed election date to 180 days. Section 3-10A of the charter, and this passed in the ad hoc committee by a vote of eight to zero. President Kahn, please.

▶ 2:17:31 Speaker 1: Yeah, again, this is another circumstance where I think we don't want to unduly constrain the city clerk, the elections office, relative to the calling of elections. And I think that extending the time for 30 days is appropriate, and I would move that we adopt the committee recommendation.

▶ 2:17:50 Peter D. Mortimer: President Kahn has made a motion that we adopt the committee recommendation. second duly seconded by alderman Zwirko on discussion alderman Zwirko please followed

▶ 2:18:02 Michael P. Zwirko: by alderman Medeiros excuse me just to further clarify this the actual extension of time as proposed number 14 hasn't changed there was two sets of 90-day periods i believe in this section and what this this really just does is it extends one section and then the other so that the length of time is the same and it was to alderman khan's point it's to prevent kind of a backlog in a special election and then a general election just to allow more time for the clerk's office uh to to do that because there would be a a 290 day period that's removed um and it's extended so it was really um the time that the amount of increments of time expanded

▶ 2:18:42 Peter D. Mortimer: but the overall length of time did not thank you alderman's work oh alderman medeiros please

▶ 2:18:47 Monica C. Medeiros: yeah and i mean this this may be that i just haven't had the benefit of sitting through all of those committee meetings but you know it seems like it is kind of a long time to go without having a mayor especially in our light

▶ 2:19:06 Monica C. Medeiros: of our last discussion that you know the mayor's job is really often 24-7 and you

▶ 2:19:12 Monica C. Medeiros: know going four months versus three months seems like a bit of a long time

▶ 2:19:23 Monica C. Medeiros: but that's that's the discussion that you had in committee so thank you thank

▶ 2:19:27 Peter D. Mortimer: you Alderman Medeiros seeing no further Alderman wishing to be heard we have a motion to adopt section 14 recommend that we adopt this for passage all in favor please say aye aye any opposed hearing none section 14 will be recommended to the full board for passage section 15 allowing the school committee and not the board of aldermen to fill a vacancy on the committee where no other willing candidate is available section 4-6b of the charter in this past eight to zero in the ad hoc committee

▶ 2:20:04 Speaker 1: president khan please yeah i i see a lot of logic to having the school committee vote to uh fill a vacancy on their own committee and um one of one of the main impetuses from the new charter was to set up a situation where we would have very limited circumstances where where the board of aldermen would be filling vacancies so hopefully this would not happen very often but i i would support this i think if Thorp a school committee vacancy the school committee should vote to

▶ 2:20:33 Peter D. Mortimer: to fill the vacancy not the board of aldermen president connors made a motion for passage that we recommend this to the full board for passage julie seconded by alderman inferna on discussion Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. The next section, no, the motion passes. The next section we have before us is section 16, easing the mayor's requirement of submission of a capital improvement program from annually to every three years. Section dash five of the charter in this passed eight to zero in the ad hoc committee. Alderman Wright, please.

▶ 2:21:06 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I think I will support this. I think a lot of time and effort goes into the Capital Improvement Program plan and that having to do it annually becomes a chore. I think we can get a better result if we give them more time. And I think it allows for a longer view as opposed to visiting it every year. So that said, I'll make a motion for passage.

▶ 2:21:35 Peter D. Mortimer: Second. Second. Alderman Wright has made a motion for passage. of Section 16, duly seconded by Alderman McAteer-Margolis. Alderman Inferno, please.

▶ 2:21:47 Gail Infurna: Thank you, just a quick question through you to Alderman Tramontozzi or Alderman Zwirko. I know our city planner, Denise Gaffey, heads up on the capital improvement program. Was there any input from her at all? I was just curious whether she was comfortable with one or three.

▶ 2:22:06 Speaker 6: No, there was none.

▶ 2:22:07 Speaker 4: Okay.

▶ 2:22:08 Peter D. Mortimer: thank you alderman inferno any other alderman wishing to be heard seeing none um what is the vote please all in favor say aye aye aye any opposed hearing none uh the capital improvement program will be required to be issued every three years rather than one that's the recommendation to the full board of course all these recommendations require eight votes at the full board not six as hearing committee the next item we have before us is section 17 increasing the required number of signatures for free petitions from 50 to 250 that's section 8-1 and this failed 0 to 8 in the ad hoc committee is there a motion please

▶ 2:22:59 Michael P. Zwirko: Alderman Search motion to recommend as proffered by the committee I don't know what the but not not not to pass not to pass yeah and I just for this one in the next couple that they're kind of around the same area so hopefully I can just only get this out of the way now this first one is for a free petition which we experienced this past March of 50 signatures bringing something an order before the board the next one that we'll get to in a moment in the citizen initiative that's actually for which would eventually rise to like a what would be effectively be a ballot measure so I just wanted to make that clarification but for the one that's before us now there was a discussion to increase this number from 50 to 250 and unanimously was rejected so I'm in favor of the rejection I think that this free petition should stay the same at 50 and and I made that motion to, ought not to pass.

▶ 2:23:57 Peter D. Mortimer: Alderman Zwirko has made a motion that this section ought not to pass, duly seconded by Alderman Inferna. Seeing no further discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, hearing none, section 17 will be recommended as ought not to pass to the full board. The next section we have before us is requiring the signatories addresses for free petitions. Section 8-1 of the Charter in this passed 8-0 the ad hoc committee motion to adopt we have a motion to adopt by alderman Francis julian duly seconded by alderman boy cell on discussion alderman Medeiros please thank you and and just

▶ 2:24:36 Monica C. Medeiros: you know for the public's knowledge and uh dare i say education that this would not be because you know we want to track you down and get you but because Thorp if the requirement is in to in fact verify that a signature is of a registered voter in the city then the clerk and the elections office who would be the one certifying these need the address to really be able to do their job and certify that this person is

▶ 2:25:08 Peter D. Mortimer: actually a registered voter in the city Thank You alderman Medeiros seeing no further alderman wishing to be heard all in favor please say aye any opposed hearing none this section will be recommended to the full board for passage the next section we have before us is section 19 increasing the required number of signatures for citizen initiative measures from 25 to 1,000 and then it was amended in that committee to 500 also increasing the number of signatures from each ward from 25 to 50 we're going to treat it as it was sent to us amended and this passed eight to zero so we don't need to amend it here it was amended as it was sent to us so it's from 25 to 500 for citizen initiative measures and 25 to 100 in section 8 2 that's from each ward

▶ 2:26:08 Monica C. Medeiros: do you have a motion Alderman Medeiros yeah my well some discussion but my motion would be that we do not increase the number of signatures this is something that's very rarely used and I don't see a benefit to making it more

▶ 2:26:26 Peter D. Mortimer: difficult to have citizen participation okay so Alderman Medeiros has made a motion that this ought not to pass second and Alderman Lemmerman has seconded it Alderman Tramontozzi on discussion yeah

▶ 2:26:40 John N. Tramontozzi: just a just couple comments some of the discussion was relative to yes granted it's it's it's different than the number 17 to free petition obviously it's a citizen initiative but we we talked about you know there is a cost associated with this and it could you know if this were to be used infrequently that it is but if for some reason it got out of hand it could cost the city quite a bit of money and also that the increase in signatures was not an attempt to prohibit and prevent citizens from going through this process but to require you know the to recognize the importance of the process by also spreading it out throughout the city and that was the idea of the signatures in the wards that this initiative petition must be a fair representation of what the citizens of the entire city want and not just a one particular section of the city so that was um I mean I think there was some discussion about that we recognized that we were not attempted nor was it our purpose is to prevent

▶ 2:28:02 John N. Tramontozzi: anybody from enacting gathering together for purposes of a citizen initiative

▶ 2:28:08 John N. Tramontozzi: measure in any event that was some of the discussion that we had thank you alderman chairman tozy

▶ 2:28:16 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: alderman law moment please thank you mr chairman um i would be interested to know how many times this has been used um i do agree it's not common um and i think in a way we're we're fixing a problem that we don't have and that um for me more concerning is the message that it would send um in doing that and so um you know i i think i my experience certainly hasn't happened since i've been on this board um and i would be interested to find out how often it has

▶ 2:28:46 Speaker 1: happened point of information it's never happened since 1990. thank you um so for for that reason

▶ 2:28:50 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: i think you know the um the cost in terms of the message that we would send in this is is greater than the benefit of possibly preventing something that so far has never happened thank you thank

▶ 2:29:09 Peter D. Mortimer: you very much alderman levelman that's it um so we have a motion before us that this ought not to pass and it was duly seconded seeing no further discussion all in favor of ought not to pass um say aye aye can i see a show of hands on the eyes and all uh all opposed opposed

▶ 2:29:38 Peter D. Mortimer: okay so the uh ought not to pass fails and the um section is still before us motion to adopt

▶ 2:29:46 Peter D. Mortimer: we have a motion to adopt from alderman inferna second duly seconded by alderman forbes i'm seeing no further discussion all in favor please say aye aye aye all right that's an eye

▶ 2:30:00 Peter D. Mortimer: okay so that does pass we will recommend that for passage at the full board

▶ 2:30:09 Peter D. Mortimer: opposed okay thank you very much okay so Thorp a recommendation what was the

▶ 2:30:17 Monica C. Medeiros: vote count there i didn't hear us call the vote was six five there were five who um

▶ 2:30:23 Peter D. Mortimer: a lot so just uh that's gonna have gonna have trouble at the full board but we have that they do not know to pass so it's going to be further discussion when we get up there point of order point of personal privilege we're we're in a little personal privilege so i guess

▶ 2:30:41 Monica C. Medeiros: you know obviously we're going to have something that's going to have some difficulty when it gets to the full board and you know something to think about that might be amending it to a lower number or perhaps getting rid of the ward by ward requirement might be something or just maybe it

▶ 2:31:01 Peter D. Mortimer: would not pass at the board that that that's true and uh as we all know the recommendations from committees in our form of government are not binding so this this is uh not a binding recommendation to the full board by any stretch of the imagination section 20 requiring the

▶ 2:31:19 Peter D. Mortimer: signatories addresses for citizen initiative measures and requiring the designation of a clerk for the initiative section 8 to a of the Charter in this past in the ad hoc committee by a vote of 8 to 0 alderman's

▶ 2:31:37 Michael P. Zwirko: work oh please yeah I'm gonna make a motion that this this be approved as it was in the committee and the reason for that is when you read the actual language of this and you have a citizens position that goes forward there has to a designated clerk for that citizen initiative petition committee so this is it wasn't actually outlined but it was referred to so you're if this went forward under the current charter when you read the language it refers to the clerk but Thorp no appointment of one so this is really just to clean up should it go forward that Thorp actually a designated person that kind of is the spearhead for this initiative so we made this edit to make it a little bit more uh commonsensical should a citizen petition movement occur thank you alderman Zwirko

▶ 2:32:28 Peter D. Mortimer: second is that a motion yeah he made a motion and duly seconded that this art will adopt the committee recommendation any further discussion seeing none all in favor please say aye aye any opposed this section 20 will be recommended to the full board for passage mr president mr

▶ 2:32:47 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Mr. Chairman, for the point of personal approvals, is this a logical point at which we hold this matter in committee? We're about halfway done. We've completed that section which deals with the same issue. We've been on it for an hour and a half, covered 20 items, we've got 22 to go. So, I mean, if we want to stay here until midnight, then I'll be here.

▶ 2:33:21 Peter D. Mortimer: if I'm going to break at some point a motion to adjourn is always in order