ORDER-2015-182 : Be it ordered that the Rules of Order of the Melrose Board of Aldermen be amended to add Rule 32B and Rule 32C as set forth herein.

Transcript (~8 min @ 12:13)

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

▶ 12:12 John N. Tramontozzi: Okay, very good. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we have a motion on the floor. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Seeing none, that motion is passed. Our next order on the agenda this evening is Order 2015-182. be it order that the rules of order of the Merrill's Board of Aldermen be amended to add Rule 32B and Rule 32C as set forth herein. Just as a procedural matter, I note that Order 2015-182 had been recommitted to the Legal and Legislative Committee to give me, as Chairman, an opportunity to speak to the City Clerk and the Clerk of Committees about this proposed amendment. to the Murrow's Board of Aldermen Rules of Order. So I've had that opportunity to speak to both the city clerk and the clerk of committees. And both have expressed legitimate concerns about the enactment of this proposed order. And are in agreement that this proposed order is inappropriate. Currently, the long standing practice of the Board of Aldermen with respect to orders it receives is as follows. Orders come to us with supporting documentation inside. documents from the city administration board of heads department heads utilities and the like are the evidence we members of the board of all of them need to review and make informed decisions these documents also contain evidence of the financial impact to the city we then have the makers of the orders come before us to answer questions this is all done in public pursuant to the massachusetts open meeting law what the proposed order would do is require the city clerk and the clerk of committees to insert into the order all communications received from the public and outside entities whatever that means some may be in the form of emails and from past experience most usually opinions puffery and rants some signed and acknowledged by the authors others not

▶ 14:23 John N. Tramontozzi: are these communications intended to be made public what if not intended to be distributed are we violating privacy rights are these communications factually based and supported by evidence or simply personal opinion how do we trust and verify through the open meeting process that's how we do it we have at every meeting public participation where anyone can come forward to speak on an order this is the proper forum to present opinions or evidence public participation is where this information can be presented and then debated not by simply inserting into an order something that cannot be verified the public is free to come forward and present their case it's not uncommon for the board of member for this board members to request an amendment to an order to add some document to the order and make it part of the order that has been a practice and we've done that but this practice is done in public again with the opportunity for debate and we can at least confirm that the author of the document intended it to be public information so with that in mind the clerk the

▶ 15:31 John N. Tramontozzi: city clerk and the clerk of committees would ask that this committee not recommend the order to the full board what is the will of the board the committee i'd like to make a motion to place it

▶ 15:56 John N. Tramontozzi: on file and alderman bird has a motion to place this order on file is there a second second second by alderman mortimer on any further discussion alderman medeiros thank you again mr tramontosi

▶ 16:13 Monica C. Medeiros: mr chairman uh this order is an order that i filed uh again i am not a voting member of this committee uh i filed this order to try in an attempt to make the way that we receive and share information a little bit more consistent because in some cases I find that these steps are being taken and in other cases not always for instance I had asked that if we had communication from different city officials members of the administration that they be added automatically to the public record the intent here being and for example tonight with the Appropriations committee meeting that we're going to have in a minute the board of aldermen received a communication via email from mr pesos about the order that's before us on our agenda

▶ 17:06 Monica C. Medeiros: but that email is not included in the official packet that's on iqm2 or at least it wasn't as of this afternoon and it's just a matter of for instance in terms of communications from the public you'll see that I said when there are communications that are that are addressed to the Board of Aldermen then it is my understanding that you know communications addressed to the entire Board of Aldermen may be received from the administration the public or outside entities just for some clarification that might be a consultant for the city it might be the mapc who we're working with might be the lottery commission that if these communications are addressed to the board of aldermen as a whole then i think it is the intent of the sender to include them in the public record oftentimes we have people come before the board to speak about their opinions during public participation certainly they're not all fact uh been lots

▶ 18:17 Monica C. Medeiros: of it sometimes is puffery but these are meant to sway our opinion these these emails and other communications are meant to to sway our opinion and oftentimes i'm sure that they do certainly if they're communications from city officials that we take as sometimes as as you know true and we expect them to be truthful anyway that they sway our opinion and the decisions that we make and i feel like it's more open and transparent to have these communications included in the public record I'll give you one other example of sometimes oh you know there's still to this day there are two members of the Board of Aldermen that don't have a public email address and I don't know whether or not they receive all the communications all the time but even if you do have a publicly available email address there are certainly times where I've found that communications have ended up in my spam folder one instance there was a letter a few months back that I think alderman Mortimer had moved to make part of the public record and I hadn't noticed it at all because it had gone into my spam folder if that email had been included in the order agenda that's available to the public and to all of us I think would be more consistent that would be getting the same information for our consideration so I would ask as a non voting member of this committee that we consider this for passage thank you any further discussion