ORDER-2015-129 : Communication from Massachusetts State Lottery Commission regarding KENO To Go License at Village Variety, 446 Main Street, Melrose, MA

Transcript (~10 min @ 1:14:49)

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

▶ 1:14:52 Francis X. Wright Jr.: mr president i looked at this order and i know that you usually go to committee but if you look at the letter it anticipates a response if we're going to respond um shortly and if i could get it to come up here i think as a point of information

▶ 1:15:06 Speaker 5: in the past what's happened is that the city solicitor has indicated that based on our committee structure we weren't able to comply with the time frame he's requested and has always been

▶ 1:15:19 Francis X. Wright Jr.: granted an extension of time okay my concern would be if we're not and i mean if we want to put faith in the city solicitor i'm okay with that but i'm just a little concerned that i know keynote ago is not keno but it does say at this time the lottery is not providing agents with a keynote monitor as part of this program so i'm a little concerned about letting the time frame go not filing a written objection letting this license issue and then find out we have a

▶ 1:15:48 Speaker 5: keynote on main street well alderman you have the ability to ask for media if that's what you'd like

▶ 1:15:55 Francis X. Wright Jr.: to do i do i ask for immediate consideration on this matter for the purposes of filing objection

▶ 1:15:59 Speaker 5: alderman wright asks for immediate consideration of order 215-129 is there an objection to

▶ 1:16:15 Francis X. Wright Jr.: immediate consideration there is not the orders before you alden wright i would move that this that an objection be sent to the state lottery commission um within the 21 days of march 27th per the letter received by this board stating that the Melrose Board of Aldermen objects to the issuance of selling Keno to go at this location

▶ 1:16:38 Speaker 5: Alderman Wright moves that the president of the Board of Aldermen issue a letter of objection to this request second motion is seconded by Alderman Mortimer

▶ 1:16:52 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: McAteer-Margolis so in doing that would we not be asking the city solicitor to ask for an extension just by having the president send a letter in order to

▶ 1:17:03 Speaker 5: object the president of the body has to send a letter objecting we can follow the course that's before the board this evening if that's the will of the board and the objection will be sent or you could send the order to committee in the in past instances on one or two occasions solicitor Van Campen has requested an extension of the time period and it's been granted as Alderman Wright indicated there's no guarantee that it would be granted I sent a letter several years ago and I believe Alderman Boisselle when he was president sent such

▶ 1:17:43 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: letter mr. chairman as mr. president as chairman of the committee I have looked at some of the past letters and correspondence it does appear that we have always been granted an extension when the city solicitor has asked for it I am just hesitant that this not receive discussion by the board in committee so that would be my only concern is if that letter were to come to you come from you we would already be objecting to the whole request as opposed to just having a public discussion as to whether or not this is an appropriate license for this

▶ 1:18:33 Speaker 5: particular advocating one way the other people don't want to support such action

▶ 1:18:39 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: they don't need to vote i just wanted to be clear on it for my purposes that if we do support this motion we will at this point be asking for you to ask the licensing authority

▶ 1:18:54 Speaker 5: to deny this request is that correct i would indicate that we would object yes

▶ 1:18:59 Francis X. Wright Jr.: thank you based on a vote of the board all been right just very briefly um one it says that we have to file our objection within 21 days and it states as I read it says if you if you object to these agents selling keynote ago you must do so in writing within 21 days of receipt of this letter above that it says at this time the lottery is not providing agents with the keynote monitor as part of this program so if we don't object within 21 days and considering we have a new administration we don't know if the present administration is going to follow the same practices of the prior administration then we could find ourselves missing the deadline and we could also find that there could be a change under the new administration of providing agents with keynote monitors so as far as it not going to committee well I certainly respect the committee structure we have 10 or 11 alderman here tonight it was on our agenda and this is a public meeting so we have that opportunity to discuss it if the the will of the board is to hold off ask for an extension hope we get it and send it to committee so that half of this board can discuss it and then send it back to us as a full body and so be it but I just thought it was worth considering

▶ 1:20:20 John N. Tramontozzi: tonight thank you thank you thank you mr. president yeah I don't see any harm in acting on it this evening we have a clear precedence in this city and our Our desires are well known. We have submitted objections in the past. I think the letter is going to be quite easy to cut and paste into a word document and let our wishes known to the agency. There are procedures that if the applicant wants to pursue it, there are appellate procedures, so let them do it through the courts if they want to. guess I don't see any harm in acting on it this evening and I would be in favor

▶ 1:21:06 Peter D. Mortimer: of acting on it thank you very very good discussion very good points made all around and I would say objection objecting first is probably the more prudent way to go and then it gives us a little bit of the power to then negotiate with the lottery and make sure that they will say something like it will not include a monitor in the future it kind of puts the ball in our court and shifts the balance of power which as we all know we don't have enough power regarding our own city when it comes to how the state treats us it keeps the balance of power with us and we can object now and then we can always withdraw our objection with with their permission I'm sure didn't want to do that but this this way it gives us a little bit more hand in the matter we would have a little bit more hand in this matter to take the course moved by alderman right and seconded by me I think that's the way to go thank you

▶ 1:22:12 Monica C. Medeiros: Alderman Medeiros thank you and just this sort of point of information that we do as Alderman Tramontozzi mentioned have a precedent of where we have rejected a few of these requests by the same board and oftentimes you know I would certainly in this kind of situation honor the requests of the ward

▶ 1:22:38 Speaker 5: aldermen thank you Alderman McAteer-Margolis for the second time thank you the and I

▶ 1:22:42 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: know that we have gone down this road before with our objections I believe we do however have currently just for the board's information eight keynote to go licenses in the community at least three of which are in places that we have objected to in the past but they do not have monitors so as someone has pointed out already it does perhaps give us leverage to at least begin to ask for some of the things we would like or not like to see thank you there's a motion

▶ 1:23:18 Speaker 5: before the board to direct the president of the Board of Aldermen to send a letter object of objection to the State Lottery Commission all those in favor of the motion indicate by saying aye aye anyone opposed motion passes balance of

▶ 1:23:40 Peter D. Mortimer: the orders before you what's your pleasure would you welcome a motion to re send that to the committee of your choosing mr president that that would be an acceptable motion

▶ 1:23:51 Speaker 5: then i will make that i don't want to welcome it it would uh but it would be an acceptable

▶ 1:23:56 Peter D. Mortimer: motion that is in order i will profit that motion in that case then uh alderman mortimer uh requested

▶ 1:23:59 Speaker 5: the order be referred to committee second second by alderman bird is there any discussion on the motion all those in favor anyone opposed balance the order will go to the Presentations and license committee a letter will be authored in the meantime we have any orders out of order this evening