Appropriations & Oversight Committee — 2019-04-08
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
- Call to Order
- Public Comment
- Motions
- Orders
- ORDER-2019-45 : Home Rule Petition to Amend Melrose City Charter, Section 2-11: Filling Of Vacancies, As Set Forth Herein.
- ORDER-2019-71 : Reappointment of Curtis Dooling, 53 Orient Ave., to the Board of Appeals for a five-year term; said term to expire on the last day of February 2024.
- Adjournment
Minutes
CITY OF MELROSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE CALENDAR● APRIL 8, 2019 Aldermanic Chamber, Melrose City Hall Committee Meeting 7:15 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 Kate Lipper-Garabedian Chair Present Robert A. Boisselle Vice Chair Present Peter D. Mortimer Voting Present John N. Tramontozzi Voting Present Francis X. Wright Jr. Voting Late 7:24 AM Monica C. Medeiros Voting Present Scott M. Forbes Voting Present Michael P. Zwirko Voting Present Manisha Bewtra Voting Present Shawn M. MacMaster Voting Present Jennifer L. Lemmerman President/Ex Officio Member Present
ORDER-2019-45 Home Rule Petition/Special Act Home Rule Petition to Amend Melrose City Charter, Section 2-11: Filling Of Vacancies, As Set Forth Herein. Recommend as Amended Board of Aldermen
ORDER-2019-71 Appointment Reappointment of Curtis Dooling, 53 Orient Ave., to the Board of Appeals for a five-year term; said term to expire on the last day of February 2024. Recommend Passage Board of Aldermen City of Melrose Page 1 Updated 4/11/2019 11:55 AM
Transcript
▶ 20:25 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: loss chapter 38 section 22 a and can be found on the MMTV website as well as on the on MMTV and on our city homepage motion to open the floor for public participation excuse me public comment madam chair second we have a motion to open the floor for public comment made by alderman Mortimer seconded by vice chair Boisselle all in favor opposed this is the portion of our meeting where anyone who wishes to speak on any of the two items on our agenda tonight is welcome to come forward please state your name and address and speak into the microphone for the record we have a home rule petition regarding filling of vacancies as well as a reappointment seeing nobody willing to come forward motion to close public comment madam chair second we have a motion to close
▶ 21:10 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: closed. Public comment made by Alderman Forbes and duly seconded by Aldermans Boisselle and Mortimer. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? We are now closed. The first order on tonight's agenda is order number 2019-45 home rule petition to amend Melrose City Charter section 211 filling of vacancies as set forth herein. This is sponsored by Alderman Wright and I see our city solicitor in attendance if we would like to bring them forward emotions to spend a rule second we have emotions in the role is made by alderman Tremont Ozzie seconded by alderman Mortimer all in favor opposed motion carries thank you for joining us tonight chair Member of the committee happy to answer any questions you may have alderman Medeiros thank you thank you
▶ 22:01 Monica C. Medeiros: attorney van Kampen I'm not sure whether this is move forward to you but at our last meeting I had asked for your opinion in regard to the previous charter language had said especially in terms of the at-large race and used a figure of 30% of the vote and I was hoping you might be able to weigh in on this saying 40% of the vote and in particular I was wondering about the count of the under vote and have we the adequate language to sort of make some account for that so for instance when people go and vote for alderman at large they get the opportunity to vote for four individuals and oftentimes they don't exercise their right to vote for all four individuals so in some ways the two votes that are maybe say they vote for two people but not all four the
▶ 23:05 other two votes might be considered to be votes cast although they were blank votes cast and and I think that's maybe where the 30% in the not the most recent Charter that we put in place but the prior Charter had so I had hoped that that that would get to you before tonight you haven't seen anything come back to us on that yeah sure well what I would say in response is obviously the question of what the threshold should be is really not for me to opine on it really is more of a policy decision of this of this body I know that the sponsor is here this evening so with respect to you know why it's 40% versus 30% I am not in a comfortable position to tell you what my personal opinion is because it's not my role to share that right and I guess I would want to make
▶ 24:06 Monica C. Medeiros: sure that we really took into account all of the the factors because 40% if you count the under vote is very high threshold to reach and many of the candidates in the last election for instance did not reach even you know if you count that at the end of our last meeting Alderman Wright had said that you would actually drafted the language so I think this hasn't I did this is the Alderman in drafting the language but the you know the question of what that threshold should be is ultimately not a question for me to answer so that includes you did take we take into account the under vote and putting together that 40% threshold and I mean maybe you want some time to to think about that if it if the request that I put at the last meeting didn't get to
▶ 24:54 Monica C. Medeiros: you I'm not sure I can I mean I'll defer to the sponsor with respect to your question about the threshold do you have any other questions right now no just a just a comment too and I had reread the wording on the most recent charter that we had changed that we had passed last time I had looked it had not been up on line so not everybody might see that but I think it does refer to I had questions about time taking effect and under section 10-6 faithful performance section B section 2b does state that the first election of officers under the home rule charter appearing in section 1 shall be held on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November 2019 for the purpose of electing a mayor
▶ 25:55 Monica C. Medeiros: or Board of Aldermen and Member of the school committee provided however that the election the school committee candidates and so it goes on but it does specifically mention the November 2019 election and my concern was if we were going to make this change that it be very clear that it affect the candidates in the next election not the election that had passed and so I think that the existing charter language so long as we don't change that i think i think it would satisfy my concerns for this order um so you could certainly amend the um petition in such a way to make the language effective on a certain date typically um under the mass constitution the if you're amending a charter it would take effect within 30 days of the governor signing it or
▶ 26:48 Francis X. Wright Jr.: unless the body specified otherwise so you could set a date as currently written if i were called on to interpret it i would apply this language to vacancies occurring after the november 2019 election anyway okay thank you alderman wright thank you first uh thank you madam chair um i apologize for being late i was at a neighborhood meeting award three i just broke up um so i wasn't privy to the whole conversation as i came in uh that said i think i've got the gist of it um i i asked the city solicitor to draft the proposed language that's before us but it was you know i had designated the parameters of what the percentages would be um i think i understand alderman Medeiros question and perhaps the the way to address
▶ 27:50 Francis X. Wright Jr.: that is for there to be one level for at large alderman and one level for ward alderman um if that addresses her question but i i really think at least for alderman at large i'm at at least i'm sorry for at least ward alderman 40 is a is a an acceptable number because you're talking about a 20 gap between the highest vote getter and the next highest vote getter and those candidates could be very different people um and if you haven't been able to get 40 of the vote maybe there's a reason that the constituency in that ward does not choose to have that person represent them or maybe they they wouldn't mind if that person represented them maybe the people are not that different but somebody is just more appealable than the other
▶ 28:46 Francis X. Wright Jr.: that's the approach that somebody can make if they come before this board they can say you know you know they can they can present to this board hey look at i ran for office i came in second i got 35 of the vote um i've been on the same side of the issues as the outgoing alderman that type of thing they can make whatever the argument they want and it may be persuasive to a significant number of the people on this board when it comes time to make a decision but i am concerned and the reason why i put this forward is because you can you can have people who are very different running for the same office and if for some reason someone has to vacate that seat i don't think because you went out and got 20 signatures on a nomination paper
▶ 29:33 Francis X. Wright Jr.: that that entitles you to take over that seat for what could be up to two years or slightly under two years um i just don't see where 20 signatures gives you a right to just slide into a seat i think you have to take into consideration what the people of that ward the constituency for who we represent would desire when it comes to who represents them so i think if you wanted to look at either you set a pro set a percentage based on the highest vote getting for water for alderman at large or maybe the fourth highest vote getter for alderman at large and then you decide at what point the fifth highest vote getter gets to take that fourth seat if one empties but i mean i would i guess defer to others if they have a opinion on that i just
▶ 30:26 Francis X. Wright Jr.: felt like i wanted to set something that was reasonable based on candidates and based on constituencies so i don't know if that addresses the good alderman's question i don't know if that addresses anyone else's questions but i just want everyone to understand that's where i'm coming from and i am jumping into this uh mid conversation so i'm not sure where you were if i could just one more question mr city solicitor do you recall because it's my recollection that when we passed what is the present charter provision for filling vacancies that that went into effect after the last election but impacts us now correct okay so there was no provision okay i guess from my point of view when it comes to that i don't think anyone pulls papers
▶ 31:16 Francis X. Wright Jr.: with an expectation that if they come in second they'll get a seat nobody runs for office to come in second so i don't see any real reason why we have to hold any change off till after the next basically two elections out before it becomes effective i really don't think anyone who's pulled papers is anticipating that i can i'll just get my name out there so if anyone leaves then i can slide in i don't think anyone comes to you know before the mayoral's electorate and and uh well the residents and with that thought process in mind so thank you alderman Zwirko thank you madam chair so i um appreciate the comments uh by the sponsor of the order as well as alderman medeiros earlier and i'm going to raise some points that i raised last time
▶ 32:11 Michael P. Zwirko: but i have a question for the city solicitor since you're here this evening thank you again for being here um when we went through the charter review in 2017 i believe that that was passed by this board and sent to the legislature in november of 2017 and if i'm correct that home rule petition was then signed and codified into law by governor baker in december of 2018. is that correct i don't recall the dates but i do recall there was a lengthy period of time between passage and execution by the governor yeah um would you say that it was close to a year i feel like i'm being deposed well i just i don't i don't know i i would say it was it was close to probably 12 months from start to finish so my question here is on the timetable because later this evening we have
▶ 33:11 Michael P. Zwirko: two orders that are going to address issues with the charter sure we have an order before us now that addresses issues of the charter this order here has the words alderman um you know i'm wondering if we need to edit that out i mean that every time you alter a charter via a home rule it's you're we're going through this lengthy process again um i don't know if there's an appetite to speed up the process um i don't know but i i really wouldn't like to have three orders that are essentially doing the same thing these are not three different home rule petitions in my opinion they could be the same um so that's a concern that i have with this um if we're going to be doing a lot of charter work again um i think it makes sense to do it all at once once
▶ 33:56 Michael P. Zwirko: one fell swoop I am worried that if the timetable goes that long all these changes we make it being applicable to a candidate papers are available on May 1st I think that those candidates should know what the outcomes of vacancies and otherwise would be when they're pulling papers should they pull papers so that's that's I have concerns about that with the timetable I also know that I just address the timetable yeah please so as as i recall and as you know um in 2017 the process that led to multiple changes to the city charter was was um a process that involved the sort of charter review committee that that the charter dictates be conducted every 10 years and so that was that sort of 10-year process at that time as you know um and so the process was was much
▶ 34:53 more lengthy than the process contemplated by alderman Wright order tonight or the two that are going to be referred out from the regular board into committee this evening in that these are special act requests of the legislature we're asking the legislature in this particular instance with alderman Wright order to amend by special act our charter this sort of singular amendment to our charter dealing with all the manic vacancies i've been in contact with representative broder with the folks in house council office house council's office and i don't anticipate it would take as long as the 2017 process took having said that i can't guarantee it what i will say to the board and to the public is that whether the amendments to the charter
▶ 35:44 that alderman wright is seeking this evening takes effect in july of 2019 or january of 2020 an aldermanic vacancy happens to arise after January 20th I will interpret the city charter in effect at that time so regardless and I think Alderman Medeiros was raising this earlier regardless of the intent of a particular candidate for public office if a vacancy occurs in the future whatever reliance they may have had in the past is irrelevant based on the language of the charter that will be in effect at that time yeah understood I'm just saying that when one seeks to declare him or herself a candidate it's nice to know what the implications of that are so that's my concern with the timetable but I agree with you that
▶ 36:29 Michael P. Zwirko: whatever provision is passed ultimately that will apply of course it would so the other thing I wanted to say in regards to this on the threshold is here in this board alone and even you know the federal and other forms of government you know a super majority of two-thirds vote is usually required it's certainly required for Charter amendments I think it would be prudent to move from 40 percent to 33 percent i think that that's fair that's a two to one margin of victory i i still feel that 40 threshold is just a little bit too high um so i would really appreciate that this moving down the threshold going down at least to 33 percent quite frankly i'd probably be comfortable with it at 25 but i'll say 33 just because i do know we have super majority
▶ 37:13 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: rules here and those are common and those are all the comments I really had at this time I'd like to I'd like to work on this a little bit more and I'd also like to hear the opinion of my colleagues and any other comments that are available so thank you madam chair that's all I have and thank you mr. city solicitor while we're thinking things through I just for the good of the order I did a little research yesterday and had time to pull up city charters for nine of our colleagues around the state and it might be helpful to hear that we all deal with it differently so Newton has a special election for any vacancy if it occurs in the first 15 months of a 24 month term otherwise they just keep the seat vacant until the next election and then swear
▶ 38:04 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: that person in immediately after the election in so they start out a couple of months earlier than everyone else in Springfield they do a special election as well unless it's the last six months of the term then they just hold the seat open in Cambridge and I should say as a caveat this is what I could find publicly available it's possible just like our charter it was they've been recently amended but what was publicly available for Cambridge said a majority of the City Council selects when there ever there's a vacancy in Malden there's a special election for the first 17 months of a term otherwise they hold it vacant until they have the election and they swear that person in immediately Beverly which is somewhat similar to what we're talking about here fills the
▶ 38:48 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: vacancy with the next candidate who received at least 30% of the total votes if it happens in the first 18 months otherwise they simply wait for the election and swear someone in immediately they do the same thing for the ward but interestingly if there's no ward member ward candidate who meets set threshold but there's an alderman or a counselor at large who's from that ward that person can fill the seat Gloucester fills the seat with whoever received the next highest votes for at-large no threshold for Ward they need to have received at least 30% of the total votes Lynn does it exactly the same way Watertown has a special election if it's during the first 12 months otherwise the majority of the counselors select the to fill the
▶ 39:36 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: vacancy and in Somerville for aldermen at large it looks like it's the next highest vote getter and for Ward if there are more than a hundred and eighty days left there's a special election now again that might be a little wrong but it gives you a sense of the different municipalities are all approaching it somewhat differently point of information madam chair you just said Somerville and you call them all them and haven't they changed I'm sorry yes they have thank you yeah that was my point of information now that's right president Lemmerman thank you just a quick question for you city solicitor well well I have you here since this one way or another this particular order will come for a final vote the Charter
▶ 40:19 Monica C. Medeiros: change here it's a simple majority of the board correct okay just wanted to confirm that thank you but will require as I read the Constitution a two-thirds vote of the legislature right okay thank you thank you very much sure Anyone else for the first time? Motion to recommend. Second. Okay. We have a motion to recommend for passage by Vice Chair Boisselle and seconded by Alderman Bewtra. Alderman Medeiros. Thank you. And thank you, Alderman Wright, for the clarification, and I was just going to say that I do think and I know we have a motion on the floor, but I do think it might make sense to change the at-large requirement perhaps to 40% of the highest vote-getter instead of 40% of the total votes cast, but 40% of the total votes cast not for the Office of Alderman
▶ 41:14 Monica C. Medeiros: at Large, but 40% of the total votes cast for the highest vote-getter for the Office of Alderman at Large. And I think that might take out some of the ambiguity of how do you handle those undervotes and make it clear, you know, depending on how many candidates that still—that might—hopefully that might resolve some of Alderman Wright concerns. And so if an amendment would be in order, I would like to make such an amendment. second it so we have a motion a motion to amend which would take alderman Rita proposed charter change and amend it so that we're treating Ward alderman and alderman at-large vacancies slightly differently point of order since we have an amendment or a motion on the floor already I think we would need to have
▶ 42:18 John N. Tramontozzi: that oh I apologize is that right no you can make an It's an intervening motion, you can make that. Okay, yeah. Well, motion's pending here. So on discussion, Alderman Chairman Tozzi. Could we have the exact language of that? Yeah, that's fine. Amendment that would help. While we're discussing that, just the comment that I would make is, and I appreciate Alderman Chairman of this committee's. investigation and research. I think it's apparent that most of the other cities and towns that were mentioned this evening recognized by the board or a special election that what Alderman Wright was saying in terms of what the constituents of any particular ward or alderman or selectman or counselor would have been expecting.
▶ 43:23 John N. Tramontozzi: So it's a high threshold. It's obvious most cities and towns require that high threshold, therefore the special election. I don't think we need to get into a special election with the additional costs and so forth, but keeping the threshold at 40% makes sense, and it's reasonable. And I don't think that we should be reducing it further and downward from there. So that's just a comment. but if I would be interested to hear what the language of that amendment might be so the men Medeiros thank you so as we have in section 2-11 filling of vacancies we get to the part that is read I'll read it from a alderman at large if a vacancy shall occur in the office of alderman at large the vacant sheet vacancies shall be filled in descending order of votes received by
▶ 44:18 Monica C. Medeiros: the candidates for office of alderman at large at the preceding city election who received the highest number of votes without being elected and who received not less than 40% of the total votes cast and this is where I'm suggesting to add for the highest vote getter for the office of alderman at large so it's adding for the highest vote getter after total votes cast president and just to be clear for my own clarification you're suggesting through the chair just for the ultimate just for all the minute large yes just because the the difference of the number of votes alderman Mortimer which is just as we're doing this as a work in progress here how about if we make it 40% for Ward Alderman, and 30% of the total votes the way it is for Alderman at large now.
▶ 45:24 Peter D. Mortimer: I know that's not the language, and as I said, I know it's a work in progress. I'm just throwing that out there, but you want to make it the total votes cast. You want to- Right now, there's no threshold. Right. At all. Right. There is, yes. Okay. i'm saying how about 30 percent of the toll of uh all of the votes and for that and 40 for the ward just throwing that out to see how that sits with people all of them yeah regarding alderman Medeiros amendment it would seem to me and maybe we can address this with a city solicitor if the highest vote getter for an alderman at large gets only 50 of the vote and we're talking talking about 40% for the equivalent of 40% of the highest vote getter.
▶ 46:17 John N. Tramontozzi: That means the person who receives 20, let's see, 40% of 50%, I think it would be 20%, then it's even reducing it further. It might calculate, who's the mathematicians here? Yeah, that's right. So 40% of 50 would be then all they need is 20% of the votes. it's not really i don't think it really reflects what what your goal is in in making the amendment if you're going to do an amendment of what the total vote is 30 would be better i'm suggesting but to try to do it as a percentage of the highest vote getter it's only going to be reducing it further i i just would i would comment i think that um alderman madaris's motion to amend this I actually think that reflects the old charter language that always tied the threshold to
▶ 47:10 Manisha Bewtra: the highest vote getter in the ultimate large race rather than the total votes in that race. So I think it would reflect how the former charter language read, but you would set the threshold for how much of the highest vote total getter you'd have to achieve higher than it was earlier. yes so the prior charter I think it was 30% of 30% of the highest votes of the number one ranked Alderman at large candidate that year so you would make it 40% of that this time Alderman Bewtra thank you I'm looking at the section of the Charter regarding filling of vacancies for school committee and is it am i correct in understanding that that hasn't changed that it currently reads as i'm assuming what's online that's why i'm asking um is the most up-to-date version um that
▶ 48:03 Manisha Bewtra: it would be person who received votes equal to at least 30 percent of the vote total received by the person receiving the highest number of votes so similar to what our charter previously said for our alderman that would have that was the probably identical language that used to exist for vacancies in the office of alderman at large are there particular concerns you would have about having kind of different language for school committee and aldermen or is that sort of we can all read the charter and figure out what the right process is yeah i mean i don't i have no concerns again it's really a policy decision for this body but we can interpret whatever is ultimately written just for the go to the order i do have the minutes from the meeting of september
▶ 48:49 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: 25th 2017 I believe that it was section 4-6 a really is that the one you're reading it correct that was also amended in the way that I believed that this that there are the ones before us were so currently the school committee actually has no threshold requirement it would just be whoever got the last you know came in next highest so that the when the Appropriations Committee took a vote on these changes to sections 211 a 211 I'm sorry 2-11 a 2-11 B and 4-6 a they passed that 7 to 2 at the time thank you for that clarification or so I mean it is sort of interesting that we might consider talking to the school committee to see if in the same way that our body is considering this change back that they might want to reconsider the change that was made a couple of years
▶ 49:43 Michael P. Zwirko: ago alderman's burko do you have thank you madam chair so i just pulled up the 2017 elections and um so all the minute large it's a it's a funky thing you know so you have the ability to vote for up to four you don't have to you can vote for one so as we've been talking about this i'm just thinking you know maybe we just uh we do align ourselves with the school committee right just take the 40 out of it and then you don't have to make a threshold of the top uh vote getter or you do make a threshold you make a marker with the top vote getter and then you create a percentage based off of that I think either one would work generally speaking all the minute large is always a competitive race there's I
▶ 50:23 Michael P. Zwirko: can't remember in recent memory if there's ever been an election here where there's just been four folks running for all the minute large so it does it is spirited a top vote getter generally doesn't really cross 22 to 23 24 percent of the the vote um but that's also not a true reflection because again you kind of have four votes for that one race so um i think this is a good discussion it's good to kind of get this out there but i could go either way uh you know we're not having a threshold or having one where you set it up with the marker just wanted to bring that up um point of information what is the motion to amend now that would be based on the it's uh but alderman Medeiros put forward it would amend
▶ 51:06 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: it would take alderman Wright draft which we have before us which is publicly available and it would amend only section a which would and it would change it to saying that for alderman at large uh the person who would fill the vacancy would need to have received not less than 40 of the total votes cast for the highest vote getter for the office of alderman at large so you would look to see so it'd be 40 of the highest vote getter not 40 of all the votes 40 of the highest vote getter and and ward alderman would stay at 40 and for the other section right so um if i might say i'm comfortable i'm comfortable treating uh approaching alderman at large differently from ward alderman and i see that we have company around the state
▶ 51:50 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: that recognize there's some differences there as well what i do like about this particular language that's before us as an amendment is it has the same 40 percent um which is maybe helpful for the reader on the other hand I can also see the value in alderman Mortimer suggestion that you just do it as the total votes cast but you just change the percentage so I don't have a strong feeling either way and I can't do the math quickly. Alderman Tramontozzi to know if this would make a really big difference in previous elections. Alderman Wright. Thank you. I think the one thing to keep in mind is that if some no matter what language is ultimately settled upon if there's a threshold set that that next highest vote getter whether they earn a spot through the
▶ 52:42 Francis X. Wright Jr.: charter or whether they don't will always have the opportunity to come forward and put their name in to to fulfill the remainder of that term and i guess it wouldn't be under the charter but perhaps under our rules where we set forth what the process is fulfilling vacancies we could amend that as well to make sure that the next highest vote getter is is contacted by email and by regular mail to be made aware of that that vacancy if for some reason they weren't otherwise aware of it we can make sure that there is some direct contact and make sure that person has the opportunity to put their name in and come forward as a potential candidate for fulfilling a vacancy on this board so right now we have a motion to amend that's been seconded that would again take the section
▶ 53:41 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: 2-11 paragraph a and state that if a vacancy shall occur in the office of alderman at large the vacancy shall be filled in descending order of votes received by the candidate for the office of alderman at large at the preceding city election who received the highest number of votes without being elected and who received not less than 40 percent of the total votes cast for the highest vote getter for the office of alderman at large further discussion before so yes based on what alderman Tramontozzi said because the top vote get might only get uh 50 and you could end up with somebody who gets 20 percent seems a little low not not sure right at this second how i'm going to vote but it does does seem a little low i'm liking more the 30 percent of all votes cast
▶ 54:30 Michael P. Zwirko: a little more so or even even 35 percent of all votes cast might be a little more appealing so just just just food for thought i'm right there's this vote that's about you're about to call for him sure yeah i still could go either way could i ask uh alderman swirko could you if you have the results could you just walk us through that one more time thank you madam chair so um again with alderman at large each voter has the opportunity to vote for four so there is something that's known as over votes and under votes as well as total ballots so in 2017 and by the way i'm reading these from the city of melrose.org the elections website there's a link that says the 2017 municipal election it's a pdf file the first page indicates the totals
▶ 55:19 Michael P. Zwirko: for alderman at large the under votes were six thousand four hundred and two the total ballots was five thousand seven hundred and eighty one when you add that together very quickly it's like twelve thousand one hundred votes a third of that would be um excuse me not a third a um were we Were we doing a third or 25? 30 or 35. Call it a third. Sure. Okay. A third would be 4,000. Yeah. The top vote getter in that election was 3,500. So that threshold alone, the top vote getter wouldn't even cross that threshold. So it's very important that if we're going to have a marker that we know what the percentage for that is. Using the language that we have before us right now, 40% of 3,500 votes is 1,400.
▶ 56:08 Manisha Bewtra: There's an individual on here that received 1,008 votes. That individual would not cross the threshold as amended. And receiving 1,000 votes when the top vote getter got 3,500 and the total votes of 12,000, I think it takes care of the cause of which we're trying to solve. thank you thank you I guess a question I would have is would there be an issue with just using total ballots rather than over votes plus I mean that makes a much higher threshold I guess if you're taking 40% of the total ballots cast but that seems like a very clear-cut this is the total number of people who came out to vote regardless of whether they picked one or four so that's that's to me how I've been interpreting this not the over votes and under votes but the
▶ 57:05 Monica C. Medeiros: total it says total votes cast so I can understand where the lack of clarity is but if it's a total ballots cast and then whether we want to play around with that percentage I'm of just as confused as everyone else I think thank you and Just to say, this 2017 election results reads this way, but I've seen some of the other previous year's election results read slightly differently. And this is sort of why I had asked for this clarification before coming into this meeting, because it can be messy. And nothing's going to be messier than if we actually have a vacancy, and we have any language that possibly may not be crystal clear. so um you know i i think going off the total you know the top vote getter is is pretty
▶ 57:56 clear and more cut and dry and leaves less room for you know results for weird results for weird results when we have an actual vacancy and there's you know real human people involved and thinking that they have a right to to have a seat on the board or not so it should be as clear as possible okay i'm clear as mud so we have a vote uh an amendment on the amendment and so is there further discussion on that on zirko yeah thank you for the opportunity so i i as i stated earlier um i i still think 40 threshold that the ward is too high um i would i would like to see it reduced to 33 percent i think that that's fair that's a super majority that's a two to one win um but right now we're just running on the amendment
▶ 58:49 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: now yeah so right now we're just voting on the amendment for alderman at large in section and paragraph a and for the people at home and so everyone understands so again it would be that if a vacancy shall occur in the office of alderman at large the vacancy shall be filled in descending order of votes received by the candidate for the office of alderman at large at the preceding city election who received the highest number of votes without being elected and who received not less than 40 percent of the total votes cast for the highest vote getter for the office of alderman at large provided that such person remains eligible and willing to serve as alderman at large thank you all in favor opposed that
▶ 59:31 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: amendment that motion carries so we have now before us the full draft with that amendment and we that has been duly seconded alderman Medeiros I think Alderman Butcher might be on what I'm about to say I actually want to further amend that the highest vote getter thank you everybody and for the highest vote getter for the office of Alderman at large and make an amendment to add in the preceding city election well I think that's in the Senate obvious it does say proceed by the candidate for this office yes in the preceding elections at the preceding city election twice or is that okay thank you sounds good all right so now we have before us the order as amended and we have we've accepted 40%
▶ 1:00:20 Michael P. Zwirko: of the total votes cast for the highest vote getter for alderman at large and currently the threshold is at 40% of the total votes cast for Ward alderman so aldermen's record did you want to restate your so thank you madam chair for the opportunity so I do feel that 40% is too high I do respect alderman Wright a point that should there be an opportunity under our rules the person let's say they came just under that threshold they certainly would have a compelling argument to make and I do understand that caveat still I just can't get my head around 40% I feel that that's just much too high I really would like this to be lowered at least to a third with that I would like to move to amend to strike 40% and read 33 for the section B of this order motion to amend
▶ 1:01:14 John N. Tramontozzi: paragraph B to strike 40% and amend it to 33% I don't see a second so now we have before us still the order as amended or the particular the home rule petition as amended alderman chairman Tosi my thought was to add a section D that the this section 211 will take effect no sooner than the November 2020 election I think that might address the issue that the city solicitor had but that helped in terms of in people who will be taking out nomination papers now know that this doesn't take up well I would interpret the language that's in effect regardless of um the time i would interpret it if it's if it's december of 22 and this language is in effect i'll interpret it then i'm not sure setting this to match a specific time
▶ 1:02:16 Monica C. Medeiros: frame makes sense okay that's right i withdraw that uh amendment that motion then okay ottoman maderos thank you and just on the merits of this uh thank you i i just want to say i think that this may actually encourage people to run for Ward Alderman because in in the past you know if you didn't if you didn't make it you know you could come really neck and neck and come very very close and there was you know if you didn't make it you didn't make it and and that was it and I think there is an opportunity that you know perhaps we might get some people who say well maybe I'll run and if I don't you know if I get really close but I don't quite get there I'll still have the opportunity to have a seat on the board and maybe that
▶ 1:03:08 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: will encourage more people to step up and get involved so I think that that's a good thing it might encourage more involvement and more candidates all right any further thoughts okay so the motion on the floor is to accept the home rule petition as amended I don't think that motion's been made it was made it was made and duly seconded all right and then we made the motion to amend and you helped me remember that that was an acceptable motion right amend oh yeah so again just just so we have total clarity it's going to be 40 percent of the total votes cast for Ward Alderman and 40 percent of the top vote getter for alderman at large that is correct and that's what we're proposing to amend the city charter in that manner that's correct thank you thank you all
▶ 1:04:01 Kate Lipper-Garabedian: in favor any opposed opposed that motion carries ten to one the second and last order on our agenda is the reappointment of Curtis Curtis dueling oh thank you very much say solicitor reappointment of ordered that to zero one nine dash seventy one reappointment of Curtis dueling 53 Orient Avenue to the Board of Appeals for a five-year term said term to expire on the last day of february 2024 this comes just from the mayor motion to recommend second we have a motion to recommend made by vice chair Boisselle seconded by alderman mortimer on discussion all in favor aye aye any opposed that motion carries motion to adjourn second the motion to adjourn we have a motion to adjourn made by vice chair Boisselle seconded by alderman chairman uh sorry alderman mortimer all in favor aye aye any opposed