Public Participation

Transcript (~15 min @ 22:54)

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

▶ 22:41 Peter D. Mortimer: We're also joined this evening by Alderman Tramontozzi, Alderman Medeiros, Alderman Boycelle, Alderman Wright, Alderman McAteer-Margolis, Alderman Lemmerman, Alderman Forbes, and President Kahn.

▶ 22:57 Scott M. Forbes: Motion to open the floor for public participation, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 23:00 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you, Alderman Forbes, who has made a motion to open the floor for public participation. It's had mostly duly seconded by Alderman Inferna. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. any opposed hearing none the floor is open for public participation for any order on our appropriations agenda this evening is there anyone who wishes to come forward and be heard at this time please come forward please state your

▶ 23:28 Speaker 5: name and address for the record I'm a resident of Melrose obviously and I'm here tonight to speak in support of order 2017-12 the move to change the word alderman to counselor I will gladly submit more detailed written comments that the other board members can review but I strongly support this move I think it's very much in line with the community stated commitment to gender equity and gender neutrality we I'm sure you all have recently read an article that was that was I can't recall if it was in the Melrose Free Press or the Globe but whatever it was it pointed out that Melrose is one of two communities in the Commonwealth that still uses the outdated term alderman which literally means elder man older man and in this day and age when there are women who serve there are folks who choose not to select or assign a gender to themselves It just makes sense to use a more inclusive, gender-neutral synonym, counselor. There are folks who oppose this move. There's been a lot of chatter on social media about what it may or may not represent. And I can't speak for those folks. All I can say is that for myself, I'm really proud to live in a community that helped spearhead a move towards a gender equity bill, which Melrose led by example. And I think we should continue to do so here and help usher in the change for that loan holdout that's still looking to be a Board of Aldermen and change our terminology to counselor. So as I said, I can submit something in writing, but I'm very honored. Thank you for letting me have the opportunity to speak tonight.

▶ 25:17 Peter D. Mortimer: You're entirely welcome and we're glad you have come. Thank you very much for your comments.

▶ 25:24 Peter D. Mortimer: Are there any other members of the public who would like to come forward and be heard at this time?

▶ 25:33 Peter D. Mortimer: Good evening.

▶ 25:34 Speaker 2: Hi, my name is Sarah Waywell-Tim. I live at 89.

▶ 25:38 Peter D. Mortimer: Could you say your name a little more slowly? Our committee has to catch it.

▶ 25:43 Speaker 2: My name is Sarah Waywell-Tim. I live at 89 East Wyoming Avenue. I have the pleasure of being neighbors with the Eugenia Gibbons. I also attended tonight to support the order put forth for all the same reasons that Ms. Gibbons just gave. I'm from New York originally. I've been a proud Massachusetson for 25 years now, and I think that living in a community that's part of the state that has been spearheading bills like this, it just makes sense for Melrose to be in line with what's happening in the state and at a more national level. So I also put my support forward. Thank you. And you've lost your New York accent. I lived in the South, too.

▶ 26:35 Peter D. Mortimer: you very much for your comments and oh yes sir please come forward all right my

▶ 26:46 Devin Romanul: name is Devin Romano I am a resident of 124 Linwood Avenue a address that should be familiar to at least one of the members of this board so I'm here also to speak in support of general emmerman's proposal so I'll just say very quickly I work for the project on municipal innovation at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government it is a network of 45 of the biggest cities in the country and we work with each of their mayoral administrations through their chiefs of staff policy directors on various areas of best practices and municipal innovation efficiency basically things we should all be about so obviously I'm in favor of the gender neutrality element of it I am certainly I think it's antiquated phrase though having only lived here a year and a half certainly understand folks who feel it's a something a piece of tradition they want to hang on to but the crux of my argument is that I think that a name change would create greater accountability for the board and I think that naming really does matter. I think marketing really does matter. Think of the public perception that's created Obamacare versus the Affordable Care Act, the death tax versus the estate tax, dramatically different, the exact same policies have dramatically different interpretations by the public based on just their name. And I think that a great example, and I won't take too much more time, but the mayor of San Antonio is somebody I work with and it's the seventh largest city in the country and up until recently they were paid the mayor was only paid $20 per meeting they have no executive authority they're just an ex officio member of their legislative body and yet the former mayor has carried that position nearly to the vice presidency of the United States and so I think that when there's an incongruous relationship to the responsibility of an officeholder or a body that can breed just trust further distrust by the public and and that's never been more important to change I think that even if it's just a minuscule barrier I think that it's one barrier too many to have an incorrect name so I think that a name change here City Council in this instance could breed understanding and familiarity I think from a familiarity can breed engagement And I think that engagement can breed better public policy and more accountability, and that is a mandate of a legislative body. So thank you very much for listening, and I hope you respectfully consider the initiative.

▶ 29:38 Speaker 6: Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments.

▶ 29:53 Speaker 7: Hi, I'm Jerry Morose, 62 Mount Vernon Street. Good evening. Good evening. I wasn't originally coming here today to speak about 2017-12 but here in the discussion I figured I'd give my two cents I'm in favor of changing the language and it could have been should have been done long ago and doesn't matter we'll do it now the issue that's raised by the last speaker to me in my mind is if we're going to be looking at a change to the city charter should we just focus on one small element of it or should we open it up if we're gonna make a request to the legislature to approve an amendment to our charter which is a fairly formal process you know should we be look at the Charter and find some other things that maybe need tweaking based on the Charter that we did now you know well more a decade and a half ago there's some blatant typos in the

▶ 30:47 Speaker 7: Charter number one without going any further which ought to be a no-brainer to take care of at the same time another issue in the Charter that I see that that impacts the city long term is the issue of the prohibition against the person serving as mayor as being able to have any kind of outside business interest and um as a matter of public policy i think it's it's harmful to the city to limit the candidates to mayor as being those people who have been employed elsewhere that can leave that employment rather than people who've been self-employed like a number of the people on the board of alderman here or myself who've been self-employed people who could in theory would would have to actually disown their interest in

▶ 31:33 Peter D. Mortimer: their in their business for life mr morose yes you're traveling a field from the subject well

▶ 31:37 Speaker 7: i'm talking about amending the city charter which is what the the order is about and no that's about

▶ 31:41 Peter D. Mortimer: amending the city charter in a very specific way this has not opened the door to a broad spectrum discussion of the charter please narrow your comments okay so i'll narrow my comments that

▶ 31:54 Speaker 7: i just asked that if we're going to go through a process and appeal to the legislature maybe we could be more thorough more thoughtful more complete about what could be different in our charter and have a conversation and a process about that as might be done in many cities around the country if they were going to look at amending even a small point to their charter the issue that i actually came here to speak about tonight is the issue about the water and sewer issue that's is that 2016-33 when alderman khan first proposed that order the the standard practice of the city was to read it was to build in fiscal years and change rates at the end of the fiscal year which is why alderman khan i presume listed june 15th to the last couple weeks in june that we'd read the meters so that when there was a rate change everybody would be billed at the old rate equally for their use up to that point in time and everybody beyond that point in time would be built at the new rate equally that's the equity that i i we've talked about here in these meetings for years now um and that's what alderman khan sought to address and alderman Medeiros had some orders to address that as well thus the alderman this year have um established a new precedent that we are adjusting water rates and sewer rates not in concert with the end of the fiscal year but now we've changed them at the end of september and if we're going to have a conversation about the order that alderman khan has introduced here i think it would be appropriate to say to consider for that language instead to say that upon the change of a rate you know the point of

▶ 33:45 Speaker 7: the change of the rate that all meters in the city city shall be read in the two weeks prior to the change in rate and why that's a very um applicable to right now is that at the end of september as i understand and the first of october we're going to change the water rates to a different water rate structure and if we continue to read some people in september and build them at the old rate and then read some people in october and november and build them at the new rate for stuff they used in their old time that would be uh that would have a level of inequity that we've always tried to get away to get away from here so i think we have to be more precise about this you know the city has had a windfall this summer at keeping the old rates um in place because of the high water use because of the dry weather and we still have the three-tiered billing system which as you've all heard my my thoughts about that i think that it is important to have equity to have fairness and i'm glad to define those things if anybody needs me to but i think the beginning of equity and fairness is that people are billed at the same time for the same water use in that time at the same rate for that time of use and if you don't make an effort to have that happen that is when you get people frustrated that's when you get people angry that's when you get people dissatisfied with the city because of what you might think is a small little thing but to a lot of people it's more important and in closing I'd like to say that it is now August the water and sewer issues are not solved we haven't even begun to solve them I've appealed for this the last couple years is let's start a process today about water and sewer looking at inflow infiltration looking at our leakage looking at the the city placing the city water use on to all the ratepayers as an end run around prop two and a half and let's address these issues openly and fairly and thoroughly and not wait until next June and have some quick meetings and just barrel right through it and ignore those issues entirely. So I don't know what process this board can do to change what's happened year after year after year but I would certainly love to see a real authentic look into what we do, how we do it why we do it in the basis behind it it's been clear the last couple years that that

▶ 36:30 Speaker 7: that charging the water and sewer committee with that task has not been fruitful the people on the water and sewer committee are basically mainly employees of the city with one exception i believe which is the person on the board of alderman and those people are doing what they're told and to have you know a a full majority of people on that committee being controlled by one by the basically the executive function of our government um it doesn't it hasn't

▶ 37:03 Speaker 7: voted well for change i can say that i can say that there's been a lot of acrimony from the people on the board to people like me who try to bring forward a different um a different way of looking at things and i would like that this board under in taking up these orders to start to look at these these issues much more systemically thank you very much thank you mr moroz are there any

▶ 37:29 Peter D. Mortimer: other members of the public wishing to be forward motion to close participation we have a motion to

▶ 37:35 Peter D. Mortimer: close public participation by alderman forbes duly seconded by alderman lemmerman all in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Public participation is hereby closed. The first