Public Comment

Transcript (~7 min @ 11:36)

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

▶ 11:36 Christopher Cinella: And if there is no objection at this time, I'd like to open up. for public comment and seeing no objection our public comment. Now open but before we do begin. I just want to remind everyone that all speakers are encouraged to present their remarks during public comment in a respectful Manner and whenever possible, please try to refrain from mentioning the names of private individuals in your comment and remarks. The comments and Views expressed by speakers during public comment time are theres alone and are not to be in any way a statement of the city or it's Representatives. Do we have anybody that like to come forward? Speak on an item on our agenda.

▶ 12:25 Speaker 6: I Julie dilol 13 Circuit Street you have on your agenda tonight the appointment of Frank Wright to the board of registrars, and I'm before you to say I'd ask you not to move this forward. On September 1st both the Democratic City committee and the Republican City committee received certified letters from the mayor requesting three names. The bottom of this letter it states that we have 45 days to do it. It says if I do not receive this list within 45 days after this notification, I shall make set appointment without reference to such a list. Yet we weren't given the opportunity to even submit a list. The mayor took the Democratic City committee list. And made his choice. In this letter, it references the general laws. When I was before you I talked about abiding by the law, right? This is abiding by the law. But there seems to be a difference. between the Democrats and the Republicans back when we had an initial resignation. when Eric resigned on the Democratic side the city committee sent their nominees. The law says at least three candidates. they submitted to and one was chosen when the Republicans submitted less than three. Oz was returned Saying we were not in compliance with the law. We needed to submit three. And we did. Treated differently. both times I read the opinion the legal opinion from the Secretary of State. What's interesting in that? If you don't mind, I'm just pulling it up for my reference. It's dated, August 11th. August 11th, I was still the nominee. I was coming before you. on August 16th the end of this legal opinion to the mayor says accordingly. the appointment that you intend to make

▶ 14:39 Speaker 6: this is August 11th. I was still the nominee. The appointment you intend to make as described in your letter. Does not appear to be in conflict with the law.

▶ 14:54 Speaker 6: That says to me and to people who've read it. That me coming before you on the 16th was ceremonially. I do appreciate those that voted for me. I really do. But we're treated differently. In this in this community that's open to all we are treated differently. in addition in this illegal opinion It talks about. resignation that if someone resigns then you have to fill it with a member of the same party. I have written to the Secretary of State. I've written to the mayor I've written to the city solicitor. Because for 17 years Ted hunts out on the register the board of registrars. So the 12 years I've been on the Melrose Republican City committee. his appointment rolled each time It was a call saying hey, we're going to put Ted forward. It wasn't a request for a list each time. It just rolled. entitled continued on when I called when I knew that Ted might retire and I called the city clerk's office. I was told when I asked about the process we had to hold off in case Ted changed his mind. That says to me that what precipitated? the letter to me was Ted's resignation because if he didn't resign it would have just rolled. And so the law is clear. It says that the language if there is a death or a big or a resignation, you must fill it with a member of the same party.

▶ 16:45 Speaker 6: I'm getting clarification on that. I think I have the right to do that. We have been treated so differently. By the mayor and this city in the city council. That I'm imploring you to do. What's right this references the law. The legal opinion references the law. Yet the Democrats did not have to abide by it the first time when we did. The mayor accepted the Democrats three nominees and chose one before we even had a moment to read this letter. So on before you to just say treat us the same. That's all I'm asking. Let us submit our names. They don't have to be chosen, right? He has the choice but let us submit our names. It's the law. And that legal opinion I will say that August 16th. It's a travesty. that by that time it was known. That I was really not the candidate because August 11th was an opinion that said the appointment you intend to make. Was not my appointment.

▶ 18:03 Christopher Cinella: Anybody online looking to speak it was

▶ 18:06 Speaker 4: a MK doesn't part of the person's name. So I'm just gonna allow them to talk in case they wish to speak. MK do you wish to speak at public comment? You can unmute yourself.

▶ 18:19 Christopher Cinella: No. body else wishing to speak this evening and if there's no objection, we will close public comment at this time.