Legal & Legislative Committee — 2018-07-16
Attendance
Manisha Bewtra ; Robert A. Boisselle ; Scott M. Forbes ; Jennifer L. Lemmerman ; Kate Lipper-Garabedian ; Shawn M. MacMaster ; Monica C. Medeiros ; Peter D. Mortimer ; John N. Tramontozzi ; Francis X. Wright Jr. ; Michael P. Zwirko
Agenda
Minutes
CITY OF MELROSE LEGAL & LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE CALENDAR● JULY 16, 2018 Aldermanic Chamber, Melrose City Hall Committee Meeting 7:30 PM 562 Main Street, Melrose, MA 02176 The public should take notice that the Melrose Board of Aldermen may, on certain occasions, have a quorum in attendance due to standing committees of the Board of Aldermen consisting of both voting and non-voting members. Members attending this duly posted meeting are participating and deliberating only in conjunction with the business of the standing committee. Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Francis X. Wright Jr. Chair Present Peter D. Mortimer Vice Chair Present Jennifer L. Lemmerman Ward 2 Alderman Present John N. Tramontozzi Nonvoting Member Present Kate Lipper-Garabedian Alderman at Large Present Michael P. Zwirko President/ Ex-officio Member Present Scott M. Forbes Nonvoting Member Present Manisha Bewtra Alderman at Large Present Robert A. Boisselle Nonvoting Member Present Monica C. Medeiros Nonvoting Member Present Shawn M. MacMaster Nonvoting Member Present
ORDER-2018-31 Amending Revised Ordinances Amending Melrose Revised Ordinances by adding Chapter 132 - The Demolition of Historical Structures in the City of Melrose as set forth herein.
ORDER-2018-41 Amending Revised Ordinances Amending Melrose Revised Ordinances, Chapter 177: Peace and Good Order, Section 177-2 as set forth herein Without Recommendation Board of Aldermen
ORDER-2018-121 Amending Rules of Order of the Board of Aldermen Amending Rule 48 of the Rules of Order of the Melrose Board of Aldermen Without Recommendation Board of Aldermen City of Melrose Page 1 Updated 7/23/2018 11:24 AM
Transcript
▶ 20:34 Francis X. Wright Jr.: The Committee on Health, Education, and Welfare is hereby adjourned. Thank you, one and all. Good evening, this is a meeting of the Legal and Legislative Committee. It's scheduled to begin at 7.30, it is now 7.36. We have two items on our agenda. We have a motion to open public participation. So moved. Seconded. all in favor all right seeing no one present do we have a motion to close public participation mr. chairman second all in favor all right look participation is closed our first order is order number 2018 dash 41 amending Melrose revised ordinances chapter 177 peace and good order section 177 dash 2 as set forth here in president's work though thank Mr. Chairman, so this order, something that I think I believe I filed originally in either late October or
▶ 22:19 Michael P. Zwirko: the beginning of November of the previous calendar year, 2017. Since then, the Cannabis Control Commission has promulgated all sorts of regulations with respect to retail use of marijuana, consumption of marijuana, etc. I now believe after speaking with not only Ruth Clay in the Health Department, but also the city solicitor that this order is likely superfluous at this time so there was a lot of good work that went into it and at the time it you know it seemed to have made sense and we made some amendments to it and had some good debate and it seems like you know we're gonna be talking about marijuana a lot in the next couple of months but the way that the law is written in the way that at least under my understanding is that this wouldn't really have any teeth
▶ 23:08 Michael P. Zwirko: under the current laws the way that they've like I said earlier been promulgated so I'm actually gonna seek later this evening that this motion this excuse me this order be with file for leave for withdraw since I am NOT a voting member of this committee I wanted to provide that background this evening in the hopes that a member of the committee could move this forward without recommendation and then later on tonight we could take it off the books that's all i had to say at this time uh mr chairman i make a motion to send this order forward without recommendation alderman mortimer makes a motion to send this order forward without recommendation do i have a second second any further discussion uh thank you mr chairman through you just to
▶ 23:55 Francis X. Wright Jr.: president's work oh thank you for the update um just for my edification and uh those watching at home is the idea that the state statute has been amended and then the regulation state regulations have come out that essentially accomplish what this was intended to do which was to prohibit public use of marijuana yeah through the chair that's correct this would be essentially the same thing so there's preemption here by the state thank you that makes sense thank you any further discussion hearing none we have a motion before us all in favor aye aye opposed the matter will be sent to the full board without recommendation second order this evening is order 2018-121 amending rule 48 of the rules of order of the melrose board
▶ 24:42 Michael P. Zwirko: of aldermen that that order is also sponsored by president ex officio member michael's worker thank you again mr chairman uh so this order came up uh in the winter i believe i want to say maybe February of 2018 we debated it a little bit and then we retained it within committee just for the public certification this rule 48 has to do with the election of the board Dooling its caucus to nominate a president who will then serve for the following year calendar year currently and what has been past practice is that there's an a caucus a nine a non binding caucus that occurs generally in December and then a formal once the well in every after every election year once the new aldermen if any new aldermen have been
▶ 25:35 Michael P. Zwirko: sworn in they hold a binding vote in January this proposed order seeks to amend the aldermanic rules of that process removing the December non binding caucus vote and only leaving the binding vote which would occur in january part of the reason for this i i feel and the reason that i authored this is because i think it would clean up the so-called hundred-year storm that we ran into this past winter i think that it would it certainly makes the process more concise and ultimately it maintains the most important which is the binding vote of the caucus that which occurs in january and so that's just the background as to where we're at i would like to i'm not a voting member of this committee but i
▶ 26:21 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: i would like to see this at least somehow survive if not recommended for passage so the full board can take a vote on this rule change potentially later this evening thank you mr chairman thank you mr president any further discussion alderman Lemmerman thank you mr chairman i uh missed the meeting that this was originally discussed so i just wanted to take a moment and say that i did have a chance to watch that meeting appreciated the discussion i think that there's been good arguments on both sides of this and while I can see the the goal of this order and understand the motivation I do have to say that I think at least in in my you know my short time that I've been on the board I've been through five of
▶ 27:09 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: these votes and you know this happened this one time and as the president mentioned it was a hundred year storm it's a very rare occurrence and I think that when i've seen the benefits of returning board members and new board members Cronin together in december to take their vote in the caucus and then have that month for members to talk to the incoming president about goals and priorities for the upcoming session and for things like committee assignments to be discussed that that benefit really outweighs the potential which is very rare that we've seen uh for circumstances to change in that 30 or so day period it's really less than that so for those reasons i won't be able to support this order this evening
▶ 27:57 Peter D. Mortimer: thank you thank you alderman any other discussion holden mortimer um i would like to make a motion to recommend this order for passage at this time and then be heard on discussion if the motion is seconded or not alderman mortimer moves for passage of recommendation of passage of this order it's no second on discussion then you don't know second oh you're not a member of the committee um the um i think that this this is a good idea the uh i appreciate the president's work of filing this and the problem the problems that can be presented are that the person may not have their speech ready if they get elected and they're surprised that they get elected in January but they would have a week to make their speech to get
▶ 29:06 Peter D. Mortimer: their speech ready and I think we can all put together a speech in a week 10 or 15 minutes speech I think we should be able to do that and the other thing is that the person wouldn't be able to set their committees, but I think the committees could be set. I think anybody who's running for president usually comes down to one or two, maybe three people. I think you go forward to the caucus or the convention, whichever it is. Right now, we have both, but whichever we call the one remaining, if this order passes, you have your committees in mind. This way, it would be all the new people who would be voting on it. We wouldn't have the other people Cronin in and just voting in December. I have to diverge a little bit from the maker of the order's reasoning and the subsequent discussion
▶ 30:01 Peter D. Mortimer: on it calling this the 100-year storm. I think that this could happen again. I think the results was unseemly or worse. I don't think it really cast this Board of Aldermen in the best light, the way that it happened. I wouldn't want to see that happen again, and it could happen again because I wouldn't classify this action as a 100-year storm. I would think of it more as now that the cat's out of the bag, now Pandora's box has been opened, and this could happen again. People now realize that this is an option. So in future years, if we have a vote for all the future years and one person gets elected to be president by a vote of six to five or seven to four, then we have that month in between from the
▶ 30:56 Peter D. Mortimer: beginning of December to the beginning or almost the middle of January when the person who got the four votes or the five votes might then go on continuing to lobby. I think that would be schismic. I think it would cause schisms that we don't need. I think it's better just to leave it, let the jockeying go on, and the jockeying does go on, but the jockeying go on once, not twice. Then we'd have one vote and it would be done with. There wouldn't be that continued hang fire or that continued anxiety of a president who wins six to five of, do I really have it, do I really have it, or I hear the person who got five votes is lobbying this alderman or that alderman or this alderman-elect. I just think now the cat's out of the bag and it's unseemly and I don't think that much
▶ 31:55 Peter D. Mortimer: is lost. It's just the creation of the committees, which an incoming president or a potential incoming president has in their mind. And making the speech, which the person would have a week to do. One vote is cleaner, simpler, the simplest solution is usually the best, Occam's razor, and that would be the way it would go. And just a point of procedure, a point of order on one of the comments of President's work I meant. Even if this committee votes against this, it's still, even if it's sent out with no recommendation or even a motion that it ought not to pass, it still will go before the full board. The committee recommendations, as we all know, are non-binding under our rules of Board of Aldermen.
▶ 32:47 Manisha Bewtra: So it could be and would be discussed again. Hopefully it won't be discussed again. I won't discuss it again. I think once is enough, probably more than enough. So that's all I have. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Alderman Mortimer. Alderman Lipper-Garabedian, did I see your hand? Not yet. Not yet, okay. Alderman Buttock. Thank you, Chairman. I believe in our previous conversation, committee I supported this rule change and today I'm kind of have I'm having a change of heart I honestly have been very on the fence either way I would be okay with this going forward to committee to the full board for a discussion because I kind of see pros and cons of both but I don't feel that there's a strong enough reason to change our rules of order as is so with the
▶ 33:46 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: very wishy-washy position I that's where I stand right now thank you and thank you for the helpful discussion I still having heard from some of the members the last time we talked about this and thinking about it some more I continue to not be inclined to change the rules based on what I think was an anomaly and And I do actually respectfully disagree that our meeting in January reflected poorly on us. I actually thought that as a body, we demonstrated to the public that we were very thoughtful about the discussion, that we recognized the singular nature of that moment, that we were transparent with the community about our opinions and the decision that was before us, and that we demonstrated that we took it really seriously.
▶ 34:43 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: I would agree with my colleagues who are also not inclined to support this and for the reasons they stated and I'd also just say from a personal experience having only done this once again I think I said this before it was helpful for me to be able to sit down in December with the my future colleagues even though I was not yet sworn in and to have a feel for it it was something of a little bit of an orientation and that was personally helpful for me so those are my thoughts tonight thank you thank you I know I'm a non voting member of this committee but I just in the purpose of discussion I thought that I would be able to add just a couple of quick statements I'm inclined to support this anybody that's going to run for the the president of the board is going to make
▶ 35:31 Scott M. Forbes: them their nomination public either a month before sometimes even two months before and that's for a bunch of different reasons to see if they have any support to see to be able to talk with individuals to see if there are in fact votes for that person and also they would be in the process of establishing committees so this work is going to get done whether there's a caucus in December or they make themselves declared to be president of the board in December that's how I feel the the actual vote is still going to be in January anybody who's going to declare is going to make themselves declare ahead of time so they can get as much information as they can to have conversations with as many people as they can so based on that I would accept
▶ 36:19 Michael P. Zwirko: this and vote in favor of it on its merits thank you any other thank you I just wanted to make two quick statements based on the brief debate that we've had this evening thank you my fellow colleagues um so my was brought up earlier about my motivation for this my motivation is pretty simple this just really cleans up the process if we walked if this rule as suggested changed was made and what happened happened I don't think the outcome would have been any different I think we would have had three four or five people run for the presidency in January knowing what they knew then you know if anything it just kind of strained credulity as they say as to why there's kind of two caucuses so this is really it's just to simplify the process I think it makes a lot of
▶ 37:10 Michael P. Zwirko: sense to the folks that indicated about how this is somewhat of an orientation for them what I will say is there's two elections for the president Dooling your term for two years so the first one may be somewhat of an orientation but then you know you have another one that you go through it's a very procedural process you know this isn't a charter change this is just a simple Board of alderman rule change on a process that we go through just removing kind of one of the non-binding caucuses so I'm not trying to make it more than it is I just thought it cleans it up and makes it more concise thank you thank you any other Alderman Alderman Dupre-Garabedian yes thank you um just as a maybe of I'm
▶ 37:51 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: not inclined to support this but I do notice that the suggested changes might if this were to be eventually passed me as a friendly amendment we needed we need to excise the other reference to caucus that's currently remaining in this paragraph I believe it says notice of the holding of the caucus here and provided shall be sent to each member so I think we would need to perhaps strike that sentence or and actually it says caucus again in the following sentence I just noticed so we probably would need to want we would probably want to clean this up a little bit thank you any other alderman alderman medeiros thank you i too am not a voting member of this committee however since we're having this discussion i think i'd weigh in
▶ 38:42 Monica C. Medeiros: i too am not really in favor of this change i think there is a benefit to the caucus for many of the same reasons that alderman lemmerman had mentioned i also do think that this does add I think it's really kind of an important time between that December vote and the January official vote, that it actually adds some transparency to the process and, you know, in past experiences, the years that I've been here, usually the incoming, expected incoming president, you know, really uses that time to reach out to the members and, you know, to them about their schedules and about which committee which night committee they might want to be on and I think that's that makes it clear to the public that that's what that person will be doing rather than doing it sort of
▶ 39:37 John N. Tramontozzi: behind the scenes and then all of a sudden Cronin in on you know the first meeting and taking a vote and then appointing committees and you know wondering having the public kind of wonder what happened behind the scenes so I you know I do think there is a benefit to to that for the board for the president and also for the public thank you Alderman Medeiros Alderman Fermatozzi well I'm not a member voting member of this committee either but as I indicated when we this first came to the board that I was I was in favor of the change and would strongly recommend that we do so I think it's a this particular caucus has long seen its outdated need and it's no longer necessary and to to address the issue of the slight changes or amendment I think we can simply
▶ 40:37 John N. Tramontozzi: strike caucus and put in a substitute election instead of the word caucus I think that would take care of the wording of the change so with that in mind in fairness I think we should voting member of the committee should just simply make a motion to move it forward to the full board for final action without any recommendation or if that chooses to be the case let's move on with it thank you any other alderman saying none i'd like to make a comment um i think there's a lot of value in the caucus for the reasons we've heard this evening um i also disagree although i respect alderman mortimer i disagree with his uh viewpoint on what happened last january i don't believe it was an embarrassment to the city i believe it was handled honorably
▶ 41:38 Francis X. Wright Jr.: and i believe it was handled in a way that allowed the public to see how the sausages were made and as the old saying goes about politics very thoughtful things were said that evening and i believe we had good candidates step forward in very difficult circumstances we had a number of new people on this board who had to take their first vote for what effectively was going to be the next mayor of the city we had a vote as all the malevolent said which was more like a hundred years storm type of situation where we hadn't been faced with this before and we tried to do that and in a in a very orderly fashion and a thoughtful fashion I think the circumstances were unusual as we all know because we had the caucus which in
▶ 42:35 Francis X. Wright Jr.: In my mind, my viewpoint is when we select the president, we select somebody to choose our committees, to run our meetings, and to serve as the liaison between City Hall and this board. I know what the charter says, but the reality is that's the situation. So with all due respect to everyone who put their name forward and to the person who was chosen at the caucus, And I mean that sincerely, circumstances changed and we had to pick somebody to sit in the corner office of city hall for the next two years. All that said, then what I've experienced in my 13 years now on this board is we have a caucus in December and we choose informally the next president. That person then has the ability, as Alderman Medeiros said,
▶ 43:38 Francis X. Wright Jr.: to reach out and talk to the members and say, I'm thinking of you for chairing or vice chairing these committees, I'm thinking of you being on these committees, these are what my goals are going to be, and get ready for the next legislative year. If we don't do that, then you're leaving it to the next legislative year to make that decision. And then try to figure out who's going to be on what committees. You can't lobby, you can't speak to more than four people without violating the open meeting law. So if you don't do it in December in an open session, then you're going to find yourself violating the open meeting law. And this city, this board, has been before the state on that issue already.
▶ 44:32 Peter D. Mortimer: And I don't want to see it happen again. So I think, this is my opinion, that the caucus has value. My 13 years of experience tells me that. So I understand where people are Cronin from. They want to update the charter. They want to update our rules. But I don't think this is one of those situations that calls for it. So I respect everyone's opinion, but that's mine. So Alderman Mortimer. Thank you very much, Chairman Wright. I just want to clarify that I never said the words that this was an embarrassment. I never used those words. I just want to make sure that everyone understands I didn't say anything like that, and I would never say anything like that. All I said was I didn't even say it made us look poorly.
▶ 45:19 Peter D. Mortimer: I just said it didn't cast us in the best light, very mild. And that's because I heard that around. There were a lot of comments, I'm always around Melrose, and that's what I heard. If it's more properly put, as President Search said it, it's strained credulity. I think one of the things that happens with all elected officials is there's a trust gap. I don't know why, the best service that any constituents of any government, state is from the city government this is where your tax dollars are paid you get the most bang for your buck you go outside and you see the parks you see the schools you see the streets and the streets unfortunately the potholes is our last priority because the schools and the quality of the parks and the
▶ 46:16 Peter D. Mortimer: police department and the DPW fire has to come first but if any member of the public wants to come forward and meet with any one of us I'm sure any one of us would sit down for an hour and have a cup of coffee the mayor would do it so this is your best best representation so no I I never said the words and I just want to be clear about that I never said that this made us look poorly or even worse was an embarrassment I would I would never ever say that and again just Just to keep it simple, I know we did have a complaint a few years ago about how there's lobbying for this, and it's not good. And the decision was handed down from the state that what should be done, that the way we do it is not improper,
▶ 47:05 Peter D. Mortimer: that you can talk to people, but just that people should announce publicly as far as possible before the election that you would be seeking the presidency. The trouble with that is I think now it can happen twice, that if there is any risk of violating the open meeting law, and I think there's not as long as people announce. I think that's the decision that came down about six years ago, that as long as people make a public announcement, but that same process of reaching out by a potential president can be done without actually having the December caucus. Potential presidents can still reach out and talk to their people. In fact, let's be candid here, that is part of the jockeying that goes on as people are ramping up to be president is, would you like this committee?
▶ 48:10 Peter D. Mortimer: I'll vote for you if I get that committee. I want appropriations. It's probably one of the worst things we do, even without the peculiar situation, which I do fear, hope for the best and prepare for the worst, I do fear could occur again, now that people understand that this can happen, I fear that it could happen again. So I think, again, as President Zwirko said, the simplest is the better. Keep it nice and clean. The jockeying goes on anyway, and the potential for a second round of jockeying could occur. But the most important point I want to make is I didn't say, and I would never say, that what happened in January was an embarrassment. I would never speak so harshly against ourselves. I'm happy and proud to
▶ 49:07 be a member of this board among all of my colleagues here, and I would never make a statement like that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Alderman Mortimer. Any other discussion? Is there a motion? Motion to move this forward with our recommendation. Second. We have a motion to move this forward to the full board meeting, which will start immediately after this, with a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Motion to adjourn. We have a motion to adjourn, all in favor? Aye. Today is Monday, July 16th, 2018. is the full board meeting of the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Aldermen I am Michael Zwirko the president of the Melrose Board of