Appropriations & Oversight Committee — 2024-11-25

Attendance

Cal Finocchiaro present; Mark Garipay present; Ward Hamilton present; Maya Jamaleddine present · Chair; Manjula Karamcheti present; Leila Migliorelli present · President, Ex Oficio; John Obremski absent; Devin Romanul present; Robb Stewart present; Kimberly Vandiver present; Ryan Williams present · Vice Chair

Agenda

1. Call to Order (33:23)
2. Public Comment (33:55)
3. Legislative Items (34:38)
4. Appointment of Raj R. Singh, 255 W. Emerson Street, Melrose MA 02176, to the Board of Appeals. (34:48)
5. Requesting authorization to dispose of surplus vehicles and equipment in accordance with Melrose Revised Ordinances Chapter 4-13, as set forth herein. (38:28)
6. FY2025 State 911 EMD Grant (40:44)
7. FY2025 State 911 Training Grant (42:20)
8. FY2025 State 911 S&I Grant (43:52)
9. Revised Rules of the Melrose City Council (47:23)
10. Adjournment (3:37:52)

Minutes

CITY OF MELROSE APPROPRIATIONS & OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE CALENDAR● NOVEMBER 25, 2024 Council Chamber, First Floor, Melrose City Hall Committee Meeting 7:30 PM 562 Main Street, Melrose, MA 02176 Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Maya Jamaleddine Chair Present Ryan Williams Vice Chair Present Mark Garipay Present Robb Stewart Present Manjula Karamcheti Present John Obremski Absent Ward Hamilton Present Kimberly Vandiver Present Devin Romanul Present Cal Finocchiaro Present Leila Migliorelli President, Ex Oficio Present

(ID # 12178) Appointment/Reappointment Appointment of Raj R. Singh, 255 W. Emerson Street, Melrose MA 02176, to the Board of Appeals. Recommend City Council

(ID # 12158) Property: Disposal of City-Owned Property Requesting authorization to dispose of surplus vehicles and equipment in accordance with Melrose Revised Ordinances Chapter 4-13, as set forth herein. Ought to Pass City Council

(ID # 12215) Grant FY2025 State 911 EMD Grant Ought to Pass City Council

(ID # 12216) Grant FY2025 State 911 Training Grant Ought to Pass City Council

(ID # 12217) Grant City of Melrose Page 1 11/26/2024 1:19 PM Minutes Appropriations & Oversight Committee November 25, 2024 FY2025 State 911 S&I Grant Ought to Pass City Council

(ID # 12208) Rules of Order of the City Revised Rules of the Melrose City Council Recommend as Amended City Council City of Melrose Page 2 11/26/2024 1:19 PM

Transcript

▶ 33:40 Maya Jamaleddine: Uh, counselor Stewart Ro Romano Hamilton and President GL Oficio. This serves as notice of a quorum for their record in accordance with the open meeting law. This meeting is being recorded and broadcast live on MMTV. Uh, for now, for the public comment portion, I will motion by unanimous consent to open the floor for public comment. Seeing no objection, public comment is now open. This is the portion of the meeting where anyone from the public can come forward and speak on any item of the, uh, on the agenda. Seeing no one in person. Do we have anyone online? Seeing none. Um, I will motion by unanimous consent to close public comment. Seeing no objection, public comment is now closed. And since we have members on the, uh,

▶ 34:37 Maya Jamaleddine: of the administration here tonight to speak on the items before us, I will motion by unanimous consent to suspend the rules before we proceed. Seeing no objection, the rules are now suspended. Uh, the first item on the agenda is appointment of Raj R ing, uh, 2 55 West Emerson Street in Merose, mass. 0 2 1 7 6. To the Board of Appeals, we have Madam Mayor and Mr. Singh. Good evening Counselors. And Madam Chair, thank you for having us tonight. I am pleased to present you all with my appointment for Raj Singh to join the zoning Board of Appeals. Um, Mr. Singh had actually expressed some interest in serving in this board some time ago, and I really appreciate his tenacity and willingness to serve.

▶ 35:25 Jen Grigoraitis: Um, as you'll see from his resume, I think he brings a really interesting and important mix of macro understanding of the issues that come before the ZBA. He holds a PhD in urban planning from MIT and has worked in private industry around assisting municipalities with planning. He also is a homeowner in Melrose and, um, owns a rental property. And so I think as we often, the ZBA can often be thought of as the place people go when there's huge developments in town. But it's also the place where residents go to get a variance to put on a deck or make an adjustment to their front porch. And so being able to kind of carry both of those, um, approaches, I think is really important to such a critical board.

▶ 36:04 Maya Jamaleddine: So I'm thrilled for his willingness to serve and present him for your consideration. Thank you. Mr. Sang, what would you like to thank words? I think you covered everything I was gonna talk about. So, yeah. Um, yeah. I ha you know, I got a master's in city planning and a PhD and, um, my career moved away into software and databases, but it would be one, it would be great to get back to, uh, doing a little bit of that is there. Thank you so much. Yeah. Thank you so much for, um, for being with us tonight and for, uh, stepping up. Uh, anyone from my colleagues have any question? Seeing none, what is the will, uh, counselor, uh, Romano. Sorry, I just Figured I I'm just interested in your, uh, first of all,

▶ 36:50 Devin Romanul: thank you so much for being willing to serve and, and for the mayor, for, for the nomination. I'm curious, you know, not to comment on any particular development, but like, what, what you are seeing based on your experience in city planning, uh, cities, uh, here and nearby as they struggle with the, uh, push and pull of, uh, housing crunch versus, uh, you know, some of the challenges that happen as you, it's A tough one right now. Create Density. I'm just, I'm, I'm interested to hear how you're thinking about city development and things that, that the board should look out for and this body should look out for Yeah. As We consider. Yeah, it's tough. I mean, on one hand you have, you want development to grow

▶ 37:22 around public transportation, right? On the other hand, you don't want to have too much density. You know, you don't want to change a place too fast. So it's a tough, it's a tough, I guess we're all struggling with this question in the, uh, 1 28 area, right? Yeah. So, yeah, I think it's, every, every application would have to be looked at closely. It's hard to make a general statement. Yeah. I dunno. I I didn't mean to put you on the spot. I'm just, Um, vice Chair Williams. I'd Like to make a motion to recommend this to the full board. Second, we have a motion made by Vice Chair Williams, seconded by Councilor Ro, uh, to recommend on discussion, seeing none. Um, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Any of opposed?

▶ 38:14 Maya Jamaleddine: Congratulations. And we will, this will be moved to the full council to, uh, for a full vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank You very much. And since I don't think I'm before you again tonight, I wish you and yours a wonderful Thanksgiving. Alright, thanks. Thank you. Thank you. And next we have, um, ID number, uh, 12 1 5 8 requesting authorization to dispose of surplus vehicles and equipments in, uh, accordance with Merose Revised Ordinance Chapter four 13 as set forth ra. Um, and we have Mr. Troop. Good evening, councilor. Thank you for having us tonight. And thank you for this consideration. Uh, working with the mayor's office and other departments, we've compiled the list of assets that may have value out, uh, as surplus both equipment

▶ 39:04 Ryan Williams: and vehicles since most of them are vehicles On this list, we'll be taking the lead on the bid and then the disposal of them. So for your consideration, we would like the approval to move ahead with the bid and with the surplus. Um, we have questions, uh, from Vice Chair Williams. Um, hello. Hi. Um, what happens to the money after you sell the assets? Yeah, that goes right into the general fund as part of miscellaneous revenues. Yes. Alright. Um, have you thought at all about a asset recovery fund that you could use to like, put towards the purchase of vehicles, maintenance, things like that? Yeah, that's more a question for, uh, the auditor and the finance team. It's something that we typically would request. Yeah.

▶ 39:49 But in this case, since the vehicles are not all DPW vehicles, I feel it would be gluttonous to make that request in this. And, um, we have a list in I QM two, which is a couple of vehicles, but a whole lot of hand tools. Yeah. That's, uh, equipment we've found has, uh, probably some value. Yeah. Uh, in a bid that was from a middle school wood shop that was cleared out. Okay. And a piano. Interesting. Okay. Thank you. Mm-Hmm. Um, councilor Firo, just Wanna make a motion To recommend. Second, we have, um, motion to recommend made by Councilor Francis. Seconded by Councilor Manu on discussion. Seeing none. Um, all in favor? Any of opposed? Okay. This motion carries. Thank you so much for being with us.

▶ 40:42 Happy Thanksgiving course. Thanks. Thank you too. Thank you. Um, next we have ID 12 2 15 FY 2025. Uh, state 9 0 1 1 EMD grant and we have chief foliar with us. Okay. Good evening, chief. Uh, good evening everyone. Uh, the first one is EMD Grant, Adam, 'cause we have three. Um, thank you for having us. Uh, these are recurring grants that, uh, the police will come in front of you every year if, uh, new counselors, um, and they're all non, uh, matching funders, grants. So it doesn't cost us anything just to get that out there. But the, the first one is the 9 1 1 EMD grant. Uh, basically that's a grant that's awarded. It's a PSAPs, which is a public safety answering 0.911, uh, for the layman, uh, to provide Emergency Medical Dispatch,

▶ 41:37 Maya Jamaleddine: uh, currently we are using Cataldo Ambulance Service for that, um, service. And the annual service fee for that, um, is $18,000. And we end up getting reimbursed entirely by the State 9 1 1 department after, uh, paying Aldo. Any question from my colleague? Uh, councilor Repe. I was gonna make a motion to recommend. Second. Second. We have a motion to recommend made by Councilor Repe, seconded by Councilor um, Chetty on discussion. Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, this motion carries. Next ID number 12, uh, two 16 FY 2025. State 9 1 1 training grant, Uh, similar, uh, non-matching funds are required by the city. This is a 9 1 1 training grant, and this grant is awarded to PSAPs, again, 9 1 1 centers,

▶ 42:35 which provide 9 1 1 services to reimburse that agency for fees associated with attendance at approved 9 1 1 training courses, uh, including certifications, re-certifications, and the 16 hours of continuing education for certified telecommunicators. Additionally, this award will cover the straight time or overtime costs for the participants. Basically what that means is we have to, anyone that works in 9 1 1 has to have 16 hours of mandatory training each year to get recertified. And what this grant does, it covers, uh, the class fees to send all our personnel there, and it also covers the backfill of overtime, uh, created by sending them there. And it's broken up, uh, $32,936 for the classes

▶ 43:20 Maya Jamaleddine: and 56,000, uh, $146 and 44 cents for, uh, sending each of our personnel, uh, on overtime on backfill. Great. Thank you. Any question? Councilor Hamilton? Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to make a motion to recommend. Second. Second, We have a motion to recommend, uh, made by, uh, Councillor Hamilton, seconded by Councillor Romanul on discussion. Seeing none. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. This motion also carries, uh, last one for the police department is, uh, ID number 12, uh, 21 7 FY 2025. State 9 1 1 s and I grant. And That's what you Yes. This one also non-matching. Uh, 9 1 1 Supportment Center. Grant, what this does, it's awarded to PSAPs, which provide 9 1 1 services to offset the cost of personnel.

▶ 44:19 Uh, 9 1 1 Environmental control and dispatch equipment inside our 9 1 1 center, uh, to help purchase, maintain, or upgrade of any cad, which is computer rated dispatch. Uh, hardware, software updates or fixes to the radio consoles, as well as any type of our internal recording systems that we use to maintain and monitor our 9 1 1 recordings. Uh, we have a broken down here is, um, the majority of it's gonna go back to pal pay for the salaries of the offices that, uh, work inside. And we have that down as $78,828 and 18 cents. And we have $11,676 and 82 cents. Set aside to upgrade, uh, some cruiser laptops to connect to 9 1 1. And cad dispatch Counselor. Ro I just wanted to ask you, are you personally seeking

▶ 45:10 these, um, grants? Um, my, uh, Kim Upton helps me a lot. She, she does all the grant writing. Uh, but it's pretty standard across the industry for Okay. Any, any agency to do this? Okay. Yep. Well just wanna say it. Sure. We, we appreciate it. I'll, I'll take the credit for it. I really can't. I just wanna make a motion to Recommend. Is it, is it the first year we, uh, we do these grants or we've done it before? It, it's probably been done every day. I know this is the second time I've been in front of this body, but it, it, it historically should have been done. I'm pretty sure it has. Great. Thank you. Um, uh, counselor William? Uh, I'm sorry. Councilor Seaward. Thank you. Mad chair. Uh, thank you Chief Fowler.

▶ 45:50 Robb Stewart: Um, the one thing I noticed on all these is, um, the, the contract start dates are interviews, right? So this one is November 8th, and the other ones were like November 5th. No issues with that, right? I'm sorry. There are no issues with the fact that it's, the contract is supposedly Correct and we, we haven't done, uh, sought any reimbursements until final approval from the city. So the contract was approved by the state and the contract is effective, I believe, November. Is that correct? Right. Uh, but we haven't done any action on it until we go through this process. Okay. But we won't lose anything, right? Oh, No, we'll be able To. Okay, We will. Thank you, chief. Thank you Madam Chair.

▶ 46:27 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, councilor Kati, Motion to recommend. Second, We have a motion to recommend made by counselor, uh, Kati, seconded by President Michael on discussion. Well, Just a point of order, I believe prior to Councilor Stewart question counselor, uh, counselor Frio actually made a motion. So I don't know. You keep each other straight or what? What's that? No, just so just, I'm not sure if it should actually go to Councilor Frio instead of me. That's all. I said it quickly, so don't worry about Thats okay. That's Okay. So we have a motion to recommend made by Councilor Karam Shetti, seconded by, uh, president MLO Lee on discussion. Seeing none. Uh, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. This motion carries.

▶ 47:20 Leila Migliorelli: Uh, thank you for being with us tonight and, um, I hope you have a great Thanksgiving. Same to you as well, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thank You. Next is ID number 12. Uh, two, uh, 28, uh, revised rules of the Merrill City Council sponsored by President, um, exofficio Mcle. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, as you see before you, there is a document that has the rules that I have, um, proposed to revise. Um, most of it is just reordering a lot of the sections to make them more consistent and flow together better. Um, you'll see the, my changes are highlighted in blue, and then I think one of the attachments on the agenda lists out all of the rule changes in summary. So hopefully everyone had a chance to take a look at that.

▶ 48:10 Leila Migliorelli: Um, so just in broad speaking, like I said, it's reordered the rules. Um, I consolidated some areas, expanded others, notably the, um, language around public comment period. Um, this was all done at the, um, or all done in consultation with the chief city solicitor. So all of this is, um, consistent, uh, or in compliance with any state regulations if needed. Um, as well as the section on the virtual and remote meetings. Um, because as some of us may recall, I think the last time we redid the rules was in 2021. At that time, you know, we were right in the middle of pandemic, fully remote. So it seemed, uh, like a good opportunity to address the situations in which we now no longer have to be fully remote.

▶ 48:56 Leila Migliorelli: And what happens, um, when someone may want to participate remotely. Um, the only other, like, just the notable things to go through is that, um, in rule 22, you'll see that I, um, consolidated two of the committees. Um, so hold on one moment. Um, the, instead of having, um, I think it's health, education, welfare and, and, and public service, um, making the final committee, um, boards and commissions so that it's, um, just approval for mayoral appointments to all city commissions. Um, all right there. And then above, you will see that some of the committees are, you know, appropriations and oversight will still continue to have, uh, approval of mayoral appointments for city department heads.

▶ 49:47 Leila Migliorelli: And then there are other, a few other appointments, um, that are dispersed in the other committees. And those are, uh, related to either our charter or, um, state law. So I think those are the broad brush, um, things. And I just, you know, wanted to make sure some of the other pieces that we had done are just no longer made sense. And I've, I've found over the last year, serving as president made things sort of clunky in terms of timing. Um, so just, and also to clarify certain things, simple things like what does it constitutes the quorum for committee, um, and things like that. So, um, definitely I just wanted to get this process started so that if we wanted to make amendments, we can do that.

▶ 50:28 Robb Stewart: Um, ideally if we can, um, approve or vote, if there's a vote to recommend whether amended or not by, um, tonight it would go on December 2nd, which is when the council typically votes on the rules for the following calendar year. Although, you know, if conversation goes on beyond that, that's fine. I think our rules will still hand hold as is. So that's it. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you. I have, um, council Stewart. Thank you Madam Chair and through the chair. Um, I wanna recommend and, uh, re recognize and commend the work that President UHM has done on this effort. It's a significant amount of work. Um, I was on the previous committee that went through it. I know how much work it is. And, uh, there's, if anybody has gone

▶ 51:15 Robb Stewart: through this in detail, she spent a lot of time. So thank you. Um, I've got a few questions. Um, starting with, uh, rule number five, Just point of information or point of vote, um, just to be, maybe if we go question by question so we can all have a discussion On do you wanna do it that way, um, That way that we're not jumping around from five to three to, I don't know, just throwing that suggestion out there, Madam Chair. Um, what would you recommend? We can go rule by rule. Um, and then, so if you have question on the first, uh, part, you can ask and then we can move, finish the first part and then move to the second one. And, Okay. So on 5 6, 22, 28, 39, and 60 to 60, those are my numbers.

▶ 52:07 Robb Stewart: That's your Powerball. Okay. Anyone has, um, any question on the first, uh, part? So the firsthand was, was on rule three, correct? Any question on rule three? Okay. Seeing none for rule three. The next item is, sorry, I have rule five, rule, uh, five Mm-Hmm. So Madam Chair on Rule five, um, I think this is great that it's being clarified. Uh, I think in the case where the president knows beforehand that, um, they will not attend that, uh, the president has the option to nominate when there is more than one senior member. And whether that's worked out amongst the, the parties themselves. But I think that should come through the President. So I would like to at this time make a motion to amend

▶ 53:18 Robb Stewart: rule five to, uh, add in the case. And I can, I can send this, uh, to the city clerk later. Uh, but in the case where the president knows beforehand that they will not attend, the president has the option to nominate the President Pro temporary before the meeting. I'll second that the discussion. So we have a motion made by, um, counselors to, to amend, uh, rule five, um, and seconded by, uh, councilor Repe. And the amendment is in the, um, if the president is aware of their absence, uh, they have the authority to, uh, choose, um, who would, um, you know, like cover for them on that day, Right? That's, that's well summarized. And, and Madam Chair, uh, I think the reason why this is, uh, um, I think viable

▶ 54:24 Robb Stewart: or helpful is that way if someone is gonna come in as pro temp, they, they don't typically play that role and give 'em the time to, um, prepare and be familiar with all, all the information that's gonna come before them. So what's going to be changed? We are not gonna go by seniority. No, it would still be by seniority, but it, so there's a case where there's two people of the same seniority. Okay. So seniority, and then instead of drawing the name, the president will choose, Has the option to choose. Yeah. Counselor gpe. Yeah, I kind of had, had the same, same question only because as chair in the last meeting, and just making sure you prepared instead of come coming in and, you know, struggling for the first time.

▶ 55:11 So that, yeah. President ly. Yeah. And I actually, now that I'm seeing didn't quite follow that rule and last time 'cause I did, or I think the, it was decided beforehand, which is true. So I don't, um, can I just, 'cause I, I wrote this does it, and we don't have to wordsmith it too much, but would, are you, would it sound well to say, um, the second sentence when two or more members have the same seniority, if the president knows beforehand of their absence, the president has the option to nominate the president pro pro tempore before the meeting and then stop that sentence. If the president's absent is last minute, the name shall be and then as is, is that work? I'm happy to take more words.

▶ 55:54 What that is what she said. Mad chair. I can say that again. If somebody wants, I Think we got it. I think you could Send that to me. I'll send it to you. Okay. She'll send It to me. Yeah. Um, we can, uh, make, uh, a vote on this, uh, rule on this amendment. Uh, we have, um, we have a motion made by Councillor Stewart and seconded by Councillor Garipay. Uh, we did that discussion and, um, roll, roll call. Okay. Okay. Counselor Jamine? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. Councilor Garipay? Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councilor Karen Chetty? Yes. Councilor S not here. Councilor Hamilton? Yes. Counselor Vvi? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Counselor Occhio. Yes. President Niley Rally? Yes. Motion passes. This motion passes.

▶ 57:04 Kimberly Vandiver: And then we have, um, any question on rule six? Councilor Vandiver. Uh, thank you Madam Chair. My question is in comparing the description for rule six and rule 16 B, um, they're very similar but slightly different. Um, rule six, we have that the president must step down if they want to ask questions during a full council meeting. And rule 16 B, the chair of a committee can, can ask questions without leaving the chair. Um, so I wanted to, um, ask whether those should be consistent with each other or if there's a reason to differentiate there. Thank you. Um, Madam President, Um, through the chair. Madam chair, the, that's a great question. So, uh, sorry for the rule six. Um, my thinking was that with the president,

▶ 58:03 Leila Migliorelli: it often, by the time it an order gets, gets to the full council, um, it's not, there's usually not q and a in the conversation. So that, I think, and it's happened, you know, throughout this year that I've been president, if you want to express an opinion on any topic, um, under debate or state facts, you can do so without leaving the podium. Um, however, if the president did want to start questioning whomever was here, then they would have to leave the podium in that case to preserve a little bit of the, I think the rationale behind this was that you don't want the, uh, presiding officer, whether it's the president or committee chair, to be swaying votes. I, I don't know that that actually happens in practicality,

▶ 58:45 Leila Migliorelli: but that was my thought for the president, for the committee chair, because there are questions that are being asked, um, that they can ask their questions so long as every sitting member of the committee has asked their questions first. So it, it does keep that barrier, but doesn't, like we don't have to vote to, to, um, suspend the rules. Suspend, thank you. Yeah. Suspend the rules to do so, and it can just be more seamless as long as we keep like a little bit of guardrails around, around that kind of, so that was the intention in making the changes to those two orders and keeping them separate. Thank you. Um, counselor Williams and then Counselor Stewart. Okay. I actually, um, took a second look at this

▶ 59:31 Ryan Williams: after you said that because I didn't read it quite that way. And so I want to just be sure I understand this. Rule six says that the president can, may express an opinion on the subject under debate state facts, but cannot ask questions. Is that what it says? Um, Without leaving, sir. Yeah. Okay. Alright. I can see that I, I read this as they had to leave to ask questions about another item other than the one that was before. Um, but I think if we all understand what this means, thens, it's an interesting, it's an interesting delineation. Um, I don't know if in practice making a statement versus asking a question is, it just feels like, um, I mean we kind of do this all the time. You know, we, we ask questions, it,

▶ 1:00:37 Ryan Williams: And I, I'm, I'm, I'm not sure, um, I mean, I'm not the, the president so I don't have to be sure if I could do this. I don't think I could do it. Um, with regard to 16 B, which we're not at yet, so we can talk about later. I, I may circle back, um, to that I just, I find it a little bit of a, of a, of a, of a strange delineation. You may be up there on the chair talking about something and then suddenly a question comes to your mind that would resolve the issue and you say, oh, do we do that? You know, but you can't say that under the rules because you would have to swap chairs. We've gone in this, I think, in the right direction of allowing the, the, the chair to, um, to have a voice in the meeting that they're chairing.

▶ 1:01:25 Um, I dunno, it feels, i I I feel like the distinction is not likely to be upheld in all cases. Um, councilor Stewart? Thank you Madam Chair. Uh, through the chair. I, I just, I had one question about, um, being the determinant on all interpretations of these rules subject to an appeal by the council. I was wondering what that appeal looks like. Um, uh, president Ali, Um, I believe that's in our current rules now. I think it's, if you know, the presiding officer makes a, makes a rule and someone says, you know, point of order and then the rest of the council, I think actually there's a mechanism by which we could all vote against the presiding officer's motion. So that's what that's there for.

▶ 1:02:27 Maya Jamaleddine: Okay. So Madam Chair, just as I understand this, it, it sounds like it would just be, um, at that point it's nothing after the fact or anything like that. Correct? It would be okay. Okay. Yes. Thank you Madam Chair. Through The chair. Thank you. Um, Counselor Gar, I was just gonna agree with, um, president merely that is currently in our, in our rules. Okay. That you can, you can appeal. And just for the public, I would like to read that, uh, rule so public would know what is it that exactly we're talking about is, um, rule six. During the full council meeting, the preside shall preserve dec decorum and order shall decide all questions of order, and shall be the determinant on all interpretations

▶ 1:03:10 Maya Jamaleddine: of these rules subject to an appeal by the council. They may also express an opinion on any, uh, on any subject under debate or state facts without leaving the chair. But in such case, they shall wait until all or, uh, other counselors have expressed opinions. Um, they may ask questions, uh, pertaining to any agenda item or, or order. But in such case, they shall leave the chair. Um, and the President Pro tempore will preside until the order has been voted. Okay. What is the will of the committee on this rule? And, uh, I'm sorry, any, uh, other comments or amendments or suggestion? Just another comment, um, to clarify. So our, our current rule has the president not able to say anything without leaving the chair.

▶ 1:04:10 Leila Migliorelli: Um, and I think we had a meeting in which I had to leave the chair. Uh, and that was just to state like the rules, you know. Um, so in this case, I think, and I, I only made the delineation, which again, I'm not wedded to, but, um, to allow the ability, the president, the ability to, to do those things, to state an opinion. So if they're, they're voting on something, they're able to say why they voted on it, and they're able to then interject if there's like, something going awry with the rules. Um, but in the rare occasion that there is somebody presenting, it doesn't give them an opportunity to sort of monopolize the conversation. 'cause the presiding officer should be, is presiding over the meeting and not directing the meeting.

▶ 1:04:52 Maya Jamaleddine: So I think that was the intention of why the rule was the way it was in the first place. This is to provide a little bit of leeway. Um, but I see your point. Yeah, it's gonna have to be a judgment call, but I think it's a step in the right direction. So if there's no, there's no edits to that, then I guess we can keep moving to the next. So moving to rule seven, the part, uh, where, um, uh, we are discussing is a full accurate and UpToDate account of the proceedings of the city council shall be kept, uh, which shall include a record of each vote taken and which shall be made available with reasonable, uh, promptness following each meeting. Provided however, that the minutes of an executive session shall be made available as soon

▶ 1:05:39 Maya Jamaleddine: as their Publica publication would not defeat the lawful purposes of the executive session. Any question on this part? I do have a question. Uh, do we ha do we need to, uh, mention, uh, what is the time limit, um, in this part? Or is it, so it says, however, that the minutes of an executive session shall be made available as soon as their publication would not defeat the lawful purposes of the executive session. Um, what is the time limit, uh, of as soon as possible? Um, Madam Chair, um, I, this, I believe was either drafted by, or, um, suggested by the city solicitor. I think I had the same question about the time limit. And I think this is just legalese of keeping it, um, consistent and that, um,

▶ 1:06:55 Leila Migliorelli: if we're talking about when minutes should be done, um, we find ourselves in a situation in which there's staff turnover, we're not able to get those minutes up. But it should be reasonable. And I think the reasonable, I believe that that reasonable promptness is related to legally, um, if somebody were to make a public records request for the, for the meeting minutes, I think in Massachusetts general law, there's some sort of timeline of that. So I believe this, this one was sort of the solicitor's, um, drafting. So no, without, I think it's intentionally doesn't have a time limit because of that reason, if there's a staff transition. That's my memory. Okay. So I'm, I'm not amending, I'm, I'm,

▶ 1:07:37 Maya Jamaleddine: I was wondering if this is something was discussed if, um, if we can put, uh, within 48 hours, unless there is any kind of exception or situation that we will need to extend or open for extension. Um, Madam Chair, I believe it's somewhere else in there, but let me, I can look at that. 'cause that's a good, yeah, I understand the need for the timeline, but I'll, I'll double check. It's just for transparency, so we'll have that. Um, so my, um, since now, I, I would, I guess it's just for the voting purpose. Um, go ahead, Madam Chair. Rule 19 reports on all matters from committee shall be made as early as practical, but no later than 48 hours before the next full council meeting. Um, I believe that means that

▶ 1:08:35 reports are the minutes, let me just double check. Um, agendas public. I just, I think that the city solicitor's advice is counsel was, she's not here to clarify that. Um, is that we shouldn't be, if we saying 48 hours, we would, we would be in violation of that almost the entire year. And no other committees follow that rule either. I don't know. I guess my thought one thing to propose is that this is something we could follow up on to get greater clarity, and I can, I'm happy to do that and bring that back to the council. I wouldn't feel comfortable making an a amend or voting. I, I wouldn't feel comfortable voting on amendment without double checking the rationality of that. That would just be me.

▶ 1:09:26 Um, so I will suggest that we can follow up on rule seven, um, later on. Uh, but the vote will be taken on all these amendment or this order except of this part. Uh, Madam Chair, just to clarify. Yeah, we, we will, if we vote, we'll vote to as if, so, yeah, we voted on amendment by amendment and then we'll vote on as amended. We can always go back and amend this another, like, it's, it's not like it's a closed deal, so we can go back in January and amend that and that won't be a problem. But I will make a note to follow up the city solicitor on, um, rule seven, that paragraph. Great. Thank you. Um, moving to rule 10, uh, the clerk of committees shall report to the city clerk. That's a big one.

▶ 1:10:23 Leila Migliorelli: Um, Madam Chair, I'll just say that, um, the Clerk of Committees had been reporting to the council president after talking with other peer communities. And just the sheer fact that the role of the Clerk of Committees is, um, more of an administrative role. It's not really a, like legislative council and advice rule. Having it report to somebody who is actually in the city hall building the entire day, five days a week, makes much more sense than having the Clerk of committees report to a part-time president. So that's why that change is being made there. Yep. Um, councilor gpe? No, I, I totally agree with that, that change. Um, we're all, we're not here every day and we're all, uh, have full-time jobs, so

▶ 1:11:13 Maya Jamaleddine: I can't imagine the, uh, amount of work that's gone into it this year. So. Great. And, um, and that's regardless of if we, uh, make any changes to the role of the city, um, um, the Clerk of Committees or not. So period Mm-Hmm. Any question? Seeing none moving to Rule 10 B. In the absence of the clerk of committees, the city clerk, assistant city clerk, or any staff within their office shall perform the two Ds of the clerk of committees. Yes. And Madam Chair, currently, there is no plan in our rules for what happens in the absence of the Clerk of Committees. Um, so having experience with that this year, it seemed pertinent to make sure we include that going forward. Okay. Uh, any question? I will, um, is that, um, uh,

▶ 1:12:16 Leila Migliorelli: chart, uh, like an order, uh, city clerk, assistant clerk, and then any staff? Or is it anyone of these of the above? Any one of the above? Probably at the discretion of the city clerk as the city clerk is the department chair for the clerk's office. So the city clerk would get to determine whether or not the assistant city clerk or any staff within their office could fill that role. But I thinking as a department with the now clerk of committees within the city clerk's office, the managing person, it could be that person. It could be the assistant city clerk. So for example, if the, the city clerk is out, the assistant city clerk fills in for them, that's built in here. It's built in currently.

▶ 1:12:59 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, this would just give the flexibility, I suppose we could amend that to say the city clerk or whomever their designee might comfortable With that too. My, yeah, my suggestion or, um, I would like to amend, um, to go in order. Mm-Hmm. So it would be in the absence of the city clerk, um, of committees, the city clerk, um, would, um, shall perform the duties of, uh, the clerk of committees, if not available, then assistant city clerk. If both are not available, then any staff within their office. So number one should be that we should, that should cover, should be city clerk, uh, I'm sorry. Should be yes. City clerk. And then assistant city clerk And chair. Point of clarification is set a motion

▶ 1:14:00 Manjula Karamcheti: That's a motion that, uh, to amend and chair second That motion. So we have a motion to amend Rule 10 B, uh, to go in order of coverage, uh, made by myself and seconded by, uh, counselor, uh, Stewart, uh, on discussion, um, councilor Cherri. And then cons v I'm just wondering if, it sounded like the intent was to give flexibility to the city clerk to be able to sort of figure out who is available and what works best. So I'm wondering about the necessity for a specific order as opposed to using the language of the city clerk or designee. Um, and I, I guess my sense is it doesn't need to be in a hierarchical order, but more related to who is available and who has the willingness and ability to do it.

▶ 1:15:06 Maya Jamaleddine: My, uh, suggestion was to, in, to go in order is just to, to have a chart. Uh, just in case of emergency, uh, people like staff would know who is, uh, to come next. Same thing in city council. If the chair of the committee is not there, the vice chair will cover. If not there, then we will have someone else in the, uh, committee. Uh, so we will have a chart. And we have, we have, it's, it's for transparency, uh, as well. And clarity for everyone. Yes. One thought is, if the city clerk decides that the assistant city clerk should always be the, the backup of the clerk of committees, is there a way that we could word this so that the clerk's office has that flexibility? Um, I'm just, that's, that's my only,

▶ 1:16:07 Kimberly Vandiver: I I see both, um, chair Jamal and Councillor. Kara Chi's points, they both make sense here. Um, so I dunno. I'm open to other words. I think, so I'll just say leave it. Counselor Vandiver and then Counselor Stewart. Um, I, I, I would, uh, echo counselor Karen Chetty's thinking a, around, um, adding flexibility possibly through or, um, or designee. I think previously, uh, president Maya also said at the discretion of city clerk, I think using some language, um, you, and, and I think, I think there should be clarity and transparency. I think perhaps the, the city clerk could provide that, um, by making a plan for, generally speaking, who's, who's trained and available, but, but also having flexibility to make a, a judgment call.

▶ 1:17:03 Kimberly Vandiver: Um, and I think in general, it would be, if I were the city clerk, I, I, I would try to, you know, delegate as much as possible, as long as some other staff within the office or the assistant city clerk was capable and, and try to, to delegate when possible, and only, um, required the city clerk as needed. Thank you. Um, Councillor Stewart? Thank you, Madam Chairman. Um, to, I think everyone's point, if we just have the default order and then subject to discretion, um, I think that would help satisfy, um, all the questions that are in front of us. So we do have the order on the table, and I think you're welcome to amend the, uh, the Motion Council. Kyra, I Was just gonna agree with, um, councilor Stewart

▶ 1:17:50 Maya Jamaleddine: and Vanderberg, um, and Karara, basically, I think that there's a way to, you know, do the hierarchy, but put it, you don't wanna, we don't wanna be pigeonholed to having to have this person serve, you know what I mean? So I think if we have some other language down below, um, I think we can blend both together, basically. Yes. And just for clarity for everyone, um, the goal from SPEC being specific is not to limit, uh, as much, uh, limit, um, uh, control or limit, um, um, this other people's decision as much as limit any kind of misunderstanding or any kind of complications down the road of, uh, between staff. Mm-Hmm. So people would know whose responsibility comes next and whose thirst and whose responsibility, what comes next, rather than, um,

▶ 1:18:46 Maya Jamaleddine: having some kind of, um, issues and complications. So it is to avoid complications rather than, uh, creating some, um, so we have emotion on the table, and, uh, we can, um, Madame Clerk. Okay. Just, uh, for the record, can we just, um, say the, how it is amended again, just so we know, are we, Yes. So I'm kind of confused. The amendment, uh, for Rule 10, be, uh, in the absence of the Clerk of Committees, the clerk, uh, the city clerk, um, uh, shall, uh, perform the duties of the Clerk of Committees. If, uh, available, if not, then would be assistant city clerk. If none of, uh, the, uh, both of the clerks are available than any staff within their office shall perform the duties of the Clerk of Committees.

▶ 1:19:46 Okay. Good. Okay. Councilor Jamal Ledine? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. Councilor Garipay? Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councilor Karen Chetty. Now co. Oh, councilor Hamilton? Yes. Councilor Van Devin? No. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Councilor Ro? No. President mli? No. 1, 2, 3. 2, 3, 4. I think it passes. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Yeah. Motion passes. Thank you. Um, next we have Rule 16 B Committee Chairpersons shall preserve, um, Chair and Chair. I'd like to make a motion, uh, to amend, uh, um, rule 10 to add subject to the discretion of the clerk of committees. Um, do you mean city clerk To the end of her statement. Okay. Like to the city, city clerk. City clerk. City clerk. City clerk. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. 10

▶ 1:21:09 Maya Jamaleddine: B. 10 B. That's for 10 B. 10 B. 10 B. 10 B. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. So you're amending the amendment. Mm-Hmm. To add Subject to the discussion of the city clerk. And that would make it, um, uh, so to the decision. So basically you have your default list that you clarified, which I think is great. And that then we have the flexibility for the city clerk to not have to Yes Or Yes. Follow that to the letter of the law. Okay. We have a motion, um, to add to the amendment made by Councillor Stewart. Do we have a second And second? Um, seconded by counselor Ver on discussion. Madame President, Madam Chair. Um, so I'm just gonna read this out and see if this is what we're voting on. So, in the absence of the clerk of committees,

▶ 1:22:15 Leila Migliorelli: the city clerk shall perform the duties of the clerk of committees if available, if not available. The assistant city clerk, or any staff within their office also shall perform the duties of the clerk of committees at the discretion of the city clerk. My only, I don't know if I got that right. A And then b, it also doesn't, the way it's written doesn't give the city clerk an out it unless the city clerk's not available. I suppose the city clerk could say they're not available. Um, I'm just wondering if like, the avail not, sorry, I'm just a wordsmithing person, if not, like, available is doesn't mean like, if you don't want to, or like you want to delegate it. So that's the only thing that I'm concerned about.

▶ 1:22:55 Leila Migliorelli: Imagining a scenario in which city clerk is like, I don't wanna do this at all. Like, you know, and I would rather just always delegate to the assistant city clerk. So you want that flexibility that it's the call. 'cause I think that's what you're saying, that the city clerk, or it's, or what's on the table is that the city clerk gets to make the decision. Who would go and then who, and then, and then you're outlining, like who would go next? So the city clerk would go to the assistant clerk. So, um, I guess in the absence of the clerk of committees, the city clerk shall perform the duties of the clerk of committees. Um, or select or select or select a designee, which would be an order assistant, city clerk,

▶ 1:23:43 Robb Stewart: or anyone within their office. So I, By myself, Madam Chair, through the chair, um, my brain's off. I think you understand the, the, the goal of the, the, the, uh, um, the, the amendment that I'm offering is, is to provide that flexibility. I think that was some concerning, which is why we had some, some folks that are not comfortable with the language and, uh, to be able to allow for the default, but then subject to discretion by the clerk, city clerk Councilor, I, I think part of what is confusing me is the, the difference between what President Elli just said, which is, do we want rule 10 B to state that the city clerk is the first person that must fulfill, and then the second person is the assistant city clerk.

▶ 1:24:51 Manjula Karamcheti: And then it's any other staff? Or is this rule intended to allow the city clerk to determine who is available to perform the role? I Guess, so that is the question I sort of pose out, because I, I think in the amendment that was approved, how I'm interpreting it as the city clerk has to do it. But then if the city clerk isn't available, then the duty is the assistant city clerk. And then after that, it's any staff where that might be in the case of who's in charge if one person isn't available. But the 10 B is a little different. It's like, if someone isn't available, who is available is the person who should be designated. And so that's sort of why it, I feel like we're thinking about a couple different things,

▶ 1:25:43 Maya Jamaleddine: but really 10 B is about availability for someone to, to do the thing if the clerk of committees isn't available. But this is, um, from my understanding, this is not to make who is in charge. Uh, it is just for covering. Um, I guess I see, I see your point. Um, um, I would, um, I would reiterate my, uh, concerns on, and the reason why I am amending is just to put transparent and clear rules of, uh, what to do if in case one person is out, who would be the go-to person. Um, so we have a motion on the floor made by, uh, councilor Stewart to add to the amendment and seconded by Counselor Vandiver. Do we still, I, I seconded it. I, I through the chair. I, I, I agree with the discussion around, I,

▶ 1:26:56 Kimberly Vandiver: I don't think it's exactly the right wording, but I do support moving to an option with a little bit of flexibility tacked on. So however we need to do that. If, you know, if, if, if I should withdraw that second and we should put forward a new proposal with slightly different wording, um, that, that would make sense. Or if we wanna take a vote and possibly even have an additional amendment. But, but I support the general sentiment Honor chair. I'll withdraw my motion so we can get the correct Language. Okay. Um, Point of order. We have to withdraw the second for you to withdraw you first. I withdraw my second. I withdraw My, so the, uh, these motions, um, are withdrawn. Um, I, I just wanted

▶ 1:27:41 Maya Jamaleddine: to take a moment of privilege and just to explain that, um, we have been, for the past year or so, we have seen, um, we have dealt with, um, uh, situations where we didn't know who to call who to, who's in charge because of the absence of one person. Um, having this chart would actually help us to prevent these situations and knowing, uh, when someone is absent, who should we call next? Rather than going, um, around and asking around, uh, and not having a direct answer. So it would, uh, um, eliminate the, and avoid any guessing. Um, councilor gpe? Yeah, I just, um, you know, if we, if we get through all this tonight and it's recommended, we could, if someone comes up with a better wording Mm-Hmm.

▶ 1:28:32 We can still make that motion in full counsel too. Mm-Hmm. So think about that. And we can just keep Okay. Any, uh, amendment or add to the amendment. So I'm not sure if I'm gonna say it right, but go ahead. So, I'd like to make a motion to amend Rule 10 B with language that allows the city clerk to determine a designee But I would want for wordsmithing if we can't figure out the language right now. So we have a motion, uh, made by Counselor Cheney. Is there a motion councilor? K. Yeah, I think that's a motion that I'm making. If I'm, if I'm saying it correctly, then Yes. Okay. So can you just repeat the motion? So I'm making a motion for an amendment to the amended rule 10 B, that in the absence

▶ 1:29:38 of the clerk of committees, the city clerk will determine the designee, which includes the assistant city clerk or any staff within their office to perform the duties of the clerk of committees. Any second, Adam Chair? Um, not a second, but just a on discussion. Um, I, I think I, counselor Rae's point was well taken that we have the opportunity to think of the wording, and I would like to, I don't, I, I think many of us, it's hard to like, write at on the spot. Yeah. So maybe if we, um, as Councillor repay suggested can move on to the next, the next changes, and then all of us can at least try to come up with something better and then pitch it on when this is in the full council, just to keep it moving.

▶ 1:30:35 Kimberly Vandiver: Okay. 'cause I think we're all trying to say the same thing. It's literally just, I think a word choice. I, I don't think it's, there's no disagreement in the intention. It's just how we word it. So, Uh, councilor, Uh, I, so the next, the next rule, uh, in the list of changes of 16 B, but I be just looking in order. I just wanted to comment or ask about Rule 12. Um, and the beginning of Rule 12, when a member speaks, they shall address the presiding officer. Uh, we've been doing that as part of this discussion, and I, I think sometimes it gets a little bit clunky to kind of do a lot of through the chair and try to only talk to the chair. So I just wanted to, um, raise that in case anybody else thought we should adjust

▶ 1:31:23 Ryan Williams: that rule at all. And, and the, the way that that flows and whether that's at helpful or whether that's something we would take out. Um, counselor, uh, Williams, Thank you. Um, we have the, through the chair, we have the benefit of being on a fairly good natured group of people. And, um, without comment on whether that has always been the case, I also feel slightly rubbed the wrong way by Rule 12. However, I can see its value, because where it really comes in is if you have two counselors or one counselor who is very antagonistic, who is just hammering another counselor on their statements over and over and over again. And the meeting goes from being about the body deciding on the person who's come before us, or the order

▶ 1:32:13 Ryan Williams: before us to two people, kind of duking it out in the room. Um, and so I, in particular, I dislike the statement here about avoiding personalities because I think it's a little silly. Um, but I think that the rule, uh, is intended to prevent people from getting into fights across the table with each other. So, yeah. Um, So, um, just to be clear, I just wanted to, uh, clarify that we moved from Rule 10 B and we will, we decided to follow up later if needed. And now, councilor Vandiver is suggesting, uh, for Rule 12, And I, I didn't, to clarify, I didn't have a specific suggestion, but I, I wanted to have at least a small amount of discussion about Rule 12, um, to check whether that was something that, um, what the reasoning

▶ 1:33:06 behind it was and if people felt that that was working for us. Any comments on this rule? Councilor gpe? Yeah, I'm, I like Rule 12. I think it gives the presiding officer the authority to con control the meeting. Um, so I would, um, personally, I would not vote to, to change that rule. Any other comments? Councillor Stewart? I'm in the same line. Madam Chair. Thank you. Any comments? Yeah, I didn't, this is, I think, currently in our rules. I didn't change it and, um, agree, agree that it's awkward, but it would come in incredibly handy if people did start arguing with one another. And I also think it's maybe part of Robert's rules of order. I'm happy to kind of look into that. Um, but, and I think it's, it is clunky and weird

▶ 1:34:05 Cal Finocchiaro: and it's, it's difficult I think in this type of situation or when you're trying to amend things. I think it, it doesn't work. But, um, it, on rare occasion, I think we've maybe had some tense conversation. I feel like I've noticed it has helped. So I, um, I would keep it in there. Councilor Ra and then Councilor Stewart through The chair actually realized I never say it probably, so I'm not following the rules, so I will be better about that. But I agree, um, with Council Van Dever, it seems a little funny sometimes, but at the same time, I can, I can appreciate why we have it as part of our rules. Councilor Stewart, The Madam Chair. It's just, it's also respectful. The, the, uh, the, the, the pro provi presiding chair.

▶ 1:34:51 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, I also want to point of order, I just mentioned that we do still have the motion on the table. I withdraw that motion. Yeah. Thank you. Um, we didn't have second and that's why we did not have, Um, still withdraw it. So, Um, okay. So we are now, um, on Rule 16 B. Um, committee chairpersons shall preserve, uh, decorum and order shall decide all questions of order, and shall be the determinant on all interpretations of these rules subject to an appeal by the committee. They may speak to points of order and per, uh, preference, uh, to other members, and shall declare all votes and may vote. In all cases, the chairperson may express an opinion on any subject under debate, ask questions or state facts without leaving the chair.

▶ 1:35:50 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, but in such case, they shall wait until all other voting members have expressed opinions. Any questions? Uh, councilor ra? So is this in lieu of suspending rule 37 B or is this 7 71 C Oh, sorry. 21 C. Sorry. Okay. So, um, uh, councilor Ro um, asked the question if this is, um, during suspending su suspend suspending the rules. And Madam pri madam Chair, um, yes, it is in, it's in lieu of the 21 C. So that if the chair wants to speak and provide opinion or ask questions, instead of having to suspend that, that's just part of the gig. We won't need to, to do it Anymore. You won't need to do that. Yes. Um, council, uh, vice Chair Williams. I Was just gonna say that, um, and, and I may have confused myself originally.

▶ 1:36:51 Maya Jamaleddine: Now I see that the committee is different from the president, which is fantastic. And I think the whole section is wonderful. Thank you to the chair. Um, any other question in regards to rule 16 B? Seeing none, rule 17, uh, whenever one or more committee meetings are scheduled to commence the same evening as the full council or other committee meetings, each meeting shall commence within 15 minutes. Uh, of the meeting's, uh, respective scheduled meeting time, where the earlier open meetings, uh, has not adjourned prior to the time by which another meeting must commence. The earlier committee may, uh, recess so as to allow the other scheduled committee meetings to open for the purpose of public comment.

▶ 1:37:45 Kimberly Vandiver: After public comment, the members may vote to recess and reconvene to, uh, reconvene the, uh, proceeding meeting. Uh, counselor Vanderberg. Uh, I think the reasoning for this one that's stated here, that we don't want members of the public to need to wait too long to participate. I think that's great and I, I generally support it. The only, um, slight concern I have about it is whether if there were several meetings back to back, and there was, were multiple people wanting to public comment at each of them, whether we would actually get through public comment at each meeting before the next one needed to begin logistically. Uh, but I, I think it overall, the, the reasoning makes sense. So I, I think it's worth trying

▶ 1:38:34 and attempting to, to, to do that and handling exceptions on a case by case basis. Any other comments or question? Come, uh, vice Chair Williams Through the chair, am I correct that we would just, in that case, gavel into a meeting, recess it, and then return to the meeting, um, to continue public comment if we needed to, which is fairly rare occurrence. Madam President, Madam Chair? Um, yes. I think it's, I think it's, uh, as I wrote in the, the commentary, the recommendation was made by the city solicitor who said that 30 minutes is much longer than more most committees. She actually seen other communities doing five minutes. And I thought that seemed too short. I think 15 minutes is a happy medium.

▶ 1:39:21 Robb Stewart: Yes, we would have to gavel and gavel out, um, in the event that we ever have robust public comment on our committees, and we can maybe change it. But I think we are fine as is for now. Yeah. Please. Any other question? Seeing none. Moving to Rule 22, the following standing committee are hereby established. Councilor Stewart? Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Madam Chair, I, the one question that I had about this, I think this is great. I think it, uh, helps clarify, um, so to the chair, thank you. Um, when would the new board and commission be enacted? Would this be, uh, at the start of the next City Council turn? That's my question. Um, I see President mc adding yes. So that you got your answer.

▶ 1:40:24 Leila Migliorelli: Yes. The, the, uh, Madam President of Madam Chair, um, it's 2025. 'cause the, the timing of the approval would have to be 2025. So it would be up to the new president to appoint people to these Committee Committees. Um, next is Rule 28. Um, the part of that rule is, uh, or if the matter before the cons, is a resolution filed by the members of the council. So, madam, um, chair, I had, again, this is just an observation during my presidency and given some of the questions and, um, confusion is I think that the reason why we have in our rules that every member should vote all the time is because if someone were to not vote on something, just 'cause they felt like it was hard, then that could potentially slow up the business of the city.

▶ 1:41:29 If the primary role of the city is to, you know, change, update ordinances, um, allocate money for appropriations and things like that, I feel like that that should, those are, those are votes that we should be taking. So the opportunity to abstain, um, would be for people who have, um, conflict of interest. Um, and I think for resolutions, it provides for any resolutions. Most of ours are about whatever matter, this or that, and it's usually celebratory or it's, you know, making a statement. Um, that counselor would have the opportunity to abstain. It wouldn't affect the business of the city. Um, it might not still clear that counselor of any public scrutiny that one might have, and which they might wanna be abstaining.

▶ 1:42:24 Leila Migliorelli: But it does give them the opportunity to not to abstain on matter of opinion. Um, rather than having someone to vote on something, I think, I wanna my mind is we should be preserving the opportunity for everyone to vote on the business city to keep city business moving. Um, so I wouldn't wanna give the, uh, abstention opportunity across the board, but think that it would be reasonable, um, in such cases as resolution. Um, but obviously open to amendment. So that's just, that was my rationale in creating this rule or editing the rule. So they can abstain from on a resolution. They cannot abstain on a matter of the city is that's what you're saying? Correct. Yes. Would abstaining be a, uh, considered a no,

▶ 1:43:12 Leila Migliorelli: No, it would be an abstention. So I think when you abstain from with conflict of, oh no, I think it's your zero vote, like it's not counted in the, um, in the vote. So I think if you have a conflict of interest, and those who have maybe done this before, um, had to abstain for conflict of interest, I think it's just not counted in the total. So if there's 11 of us and someone says conflict of interest, the total vote is then 10. Um, if, if, if it's, I think the way we have it now is that you're not allowed to do that. Remove yourself from the count of the vote. Um, unless it's conflict of interest, the addition here would be, unless it's, or of also a or, and also a resolution. So those are the two instances in which you can be removed

▶ 1:43:58 Leila Migliorelli: from the count of the vote. I think part of the designation about whether it's like recorded as abstention or not, has to do with IQM two itself. Like it doesn't, literally doesn't give you that option. So next year I think we're hopefully going to be moving into new software and maybe we, we could further clarify that if people are, obviously, if this is, people don't wanna vote on this, vote on this amendment, fine. But in case that's the part of it, like in case people are trying to think about, oh, what's the best way to record it, I think the system is gonna change. So I wouldn't think too much about that. More so like the, the rationale behind why you wouldn't be considered in a vote.

▶ 1:44:38 Ryan Williams: Okay. Thank you. I saw Vice Chair Williams. Um, thank you. Um, okay, so that was, that's my question too. So I guess, broadly speaking, I do believe that resolutions are a matter of importance to the council. We don't do them very often, um, but that doesn't mean that, um, they don't have meaning, which is why they're sometimes contentious. And I am setting that aside, I am wondering how this interacts with the requirement of passing, uh, a resolution. You know, is it half of the people who are not abstaining? Um, or if, you know, if, if there's 11 members of the council and 10 of them abstain and one person votes yes. Does it pass or does it fail? That's my, I it's, I know I'm going to the extreme just

▶ 1:45:32 Mark Garipay: to demonstrate the point. Um, yeah, that Is great. That's very valid point. Question. Um, councilor gpe, Um, I was gonna make an amendment to this at the very end. Um, when it says resolution filed by the members of the council or mayor, um, because, uh, it's the council that doesn't always, I mean, the mayor files most of the resolution. So, um, not that, I mean, t typically they're not like, you know, gonna say con controversial resolutions that we may see, um, like, like we had this year. So I would include the, um, mayor in that too. 'cause that's where most of the resolutions come from. Um, I'll make that as a, an amendment second. So we have a motion made by Councilor Garipay to amend, uh, rule 28 to add

▶ 1:46:34 Maya Jamaleddine: of the council and the mayor, and seconded by Councilor Chen. Uh, on discussion. I do have a question, uh, on the initial amendment. Um, would, uh, the person who has conflict, uh, Madam President, uh, would the person who has a conflict or the counselor who has a conflict, uh, will need to, um, inform or make it public that they will have, and do we have a timeframe for when they will notify everyone that they have conflict and they will be abstaining? Madam Chair, that's a good point. I don't, I don't know if it's in our ordinance or something, but the, the statement that I remember is if you have a com Well, what does it say here? Hold on. Um, Excluded by personal interests, which I think I recall.

▶ 1:47:41 Um, our city solicitor, meaning business interests. I don't know why the term is personal interest and not business interests. I'm sure we could probably clarify that if we wanted to, but I think actually no, 'cause it's a, it's personal interest, which could be business interest or family members. So I don't know that it's here or if it's somewhere else. I could also wait and ask Shannon about that. 'cause my recollection is that it, that's like set and set by like a process. 'cause you have to declare, um, like you have to clear it, but you're, it doesn't say it here. And so I don't know why. So rather than me going digging for it, I could find that out for the next, for the full council meeting?

▶ 1:48:24 Yes. Okay. Um, Um, so we have a motion for, uh, the, to add, um, or to amend, uh, and add, uh, of the council and the mayor and counselor ro To the chair. I'm just circling back to Councilor Williams comment. Um, did we come to a resolution about that, about wording for the resolution? Um, if there's, if all abstain except for one, what happens with that? Yes. Is there an answer to that? Yes, Madam President? Uh, I don't have an answer for that. I don't, I mean, I think that it's generally, it's like you count the, the people who are counted in the vote. But like, if we go all the way to one, I don't know what happens, I suppose. Yeah, I don't know. If someone else knows that answer, then fine. I don't know it though.

▶ 1:49:30 Ryan Williams: Counselor, Gar and then counselor, I was gonna agree with the president. I believe it's the majority of the people voting, I believe is, would be, would I believe is the, uh, or so one, then it would pass. Mm-Hmm. I would assume in that, Yeah, It's an area. Sorry. Because we already will have a quorum, so, Mm-Hmm. Um, so I wonder if there is a need to add that, uh, language, just to be clear. And that would be when you follow up on that rule. Uh, vice Chair Williams. Thank You Madam Chair. Um, I, um, I wanted to lift up rule 42. We're not there yet. But one, one thing that I want to make clear is that there are some that, like ordinances and appropriations that are specifically established by a two thirds vote of all members of the full council.

▶ 1:50:28 Ryan Williams: Mm-Hmm. So that's not all members present. Um, but I don't know if we have in that rule other, um, you know, points of meeting how you run the meeting, if it's a resolution, do, is it, you know, all members present? Is it all members of full council? And I can't find it, and I don't wanna spend the time finding it. But I think that we need to, I I, I very much appreciate the effort to put a meeting procedure section in the rules. 'cause the only thing in the old rules was legislative proceedings, which was kind of the same, but not really. Um, but I think that it would be useful for us to revisit all of the circumstances that we take votes and figure out, um, when they are taken by the members of the full body

▶ 1:51:16 Ryan Williams: and when they are just taken by members that are present. 'cause it appears several times in the document if we vote to say, move something out of order in the agenda, that's a vote with all people present, you know? So I think it's more like the final votes. The, the orders, the ordinances are the whole council. Even if, um, even if only eight people show up, and if resolutions are determined to be the same, then a resolution would fail with a single person voting on it, which I suppose makes sense. 'cause it would represent, you know, what happened in the room. But I think we should look into it. And, and if for now, I'm not proposing any amendments to this, So we still have the motion on the floor made

▶ 1:51:58 by Councilor Carpe. And, um, can we call, Okay. Yep. And that was to add council and mayor at the end of the wording. Right? Okay. We wanna keep that one. It was seconded by Councilor Car, who was, who seconded That it seconded by councilor Temp. She Okay. Okay. Councilor, Madam Chair, Point of order. Can we just reiterate what we're voting on? So we are just adding of the council and the mayor, we are adding and the mayor any resolution filed by the mayor. Thank You. Okay. Councilor Jamal? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. Councilor Gar? Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Counselor Karen Chetty? Yes. Councilor Hamilton? Yes. Councilor Vandiver? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Councilor Oppi? Yes. President gl? Yes. Motion passes.

▶ 1:53:02 Maya Jamaleddine: Great, thank you. Uh, before we move to rule 33, I just wanna make sure that if there is any comment on Rule 28 Okay, we're good. We'll move to rule 33. Uh, the part is, each meeting of the council, or any standing committee thereof, shall allow up to three minutes per person for public comment as noted on the agenda. That's sweet. Any comments? Um, counselor Hamilton and then counselor, uh, gpe. Thank you, Madam Chair, and through the chair. Candidly, um, I don't object to this outright, but I, I don't think there's any harm in making an amendment to change that to five minutes. Uh, in my experience, we don't have an overwhelming amount of public comment. And when we do, I think, uh, president Elli

▶ 1:54:02 and the other chairs have done a masterful job of knowing when the right time is to cut people off if necessary. Um, so I, I make a motion to change the language here to five minutes. Second, We have a motion made by Councilor Hamilton, seconded by Councillor Sewer to amend, uh, the rule. Uh, instead of three minutes, uh, make it five minutes. And on discussion, we have Councillor gpe. Yeah. Um, I was, my concern was going down. I thought we were reducing it a little too much. So, um, that was, I'm fine with this. So that's all I have to say. Councilor Ra and then Councilor Var. Yeah, you're the chair. I was, um, yeah, We're getting good at it. Yeah. Um, I was thinking about the school committee.

▶ 1:54:58 Kimberly Vandiver: I know we're a different, uh, governing body, but they have, I think they have five minute, is it five minutes? Uh, I think 10 minutes. I think it's, So I just, I dunno. Just kind of follow, follow the, the pack. I'm tired. Um, So five minutes. Sounds great. Counselor Van Dever. And then counselor Kara Sheti. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, I am comfortable with five minutes. My comment was on also in Rule 33. This rule shall only be suspended by unanimous consent of the members. Was I, I assume carried over from previous, but, um, it does seem like, uh, occasionally there may be somebody who has 10 minutes of very helpful, informative, public comment, and we might wanna make it a little bit easier to allow them

▶ 1:55:47 to give that public comment besides unanimous consent of the members. Thank you. Councilor Kaney, Um, through the chair. And forgive me, colleagues. Has it always been three minutes or was it five and it's changed to three. Oh, okay. Got it. Thank you. So five Sounds great. Okay. Um, thank you. Any other question or comment? Okay. We have an amend motion to amend made by councilor, um, Hamilton, seconded by Counselor Stewart. Um, Madam Clerk. And that was to revise from five minutes, from three minutes, from 10 minutes to five minutes. Three minutes? Well, from three minutes to five, But it's never been voted on for three. Yeah, but sorry. Yes. But it's as proposed three as as proposed. Yeah.

▶ 1:56:43 Ryan Williams: Okay. So as proposed from three, it's gonna go to five. Yes. Okay. Okay. Counselor Aldine? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. Councilor Gar? Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councilor Chetty? Yes. Councilor O Oh. Councilor Hamilton? Yes. Councilor Vandiver. Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Councilor Fino G**o. Yes. President Mli? Yes. Motion passes. Great. Um, vice Chair Williams. I would like to, uh, motion to amend Rule 33 in line with Councilor Van Devin. Comments to strike the final sentence. This rule shall only be suspended by unanimous consent of the members. We have in the rules a rule that says that all rules can be suspended by two thirds vote. And so I do find it a little odd that this rule needs unanimous consent to suspend instead

▶ 1:57:53 of a two thirds, uh, rule. Second. Second that We have a motion, which, uh, made by Vice Chair Williams and seconded by Councillor Gar paid to strike, um, uh, the last sentence of this rule, this rule shall only be suspended by unanimous consent of the members on discussion. Madam President. Um, Madam Chair, I think that this, the intention may be to have a higher threshold might be that if you have a committee or a full counsel in which is trying to stifle public comment. So let's say you decide not to vote. So you, if you suspended Rule 33, you could cancel public comment. Right? Um, it's not necessarily the amount of time. It's whether there's a public comment period. 'cause it by law you don't ha I believe you do not have

▶ 1:58:54 Leila Migliorelli: to have public comment. So I think the higher threshold is because if you were to, you can suspend any of the rules two thirds. But if we wanna, if you had, I mean, a committee, sometimes there's only three people there. So if they're, you know, for some reason, let's say you had a legal alleged committee and there's like a ton of people here wanting to comment on something, and you have three people, like if you had two, I don't know. I think that's why that's there. I don't know that for sure, but that would be, that would be the only reason why I'd be not inclined to, um, support that amendment. Um, vice Chair Williams, I think you are a hundred percent right. Um, the rule is to allow public comment not

▶ 1:59:36 Maya Jamaleddine: to allow the minutes of public comment. So I would withdraw my amendment motion. Uh, that motion was with Withdrawn, uh, is the second withdrawn. Council. Ramal. Uh, second it. I'll withdraw my second then. Um, so this motion is withdrawn. Any other comments? Uh, moving to Rule 33 A to ensure the ability of the consult to discuss its business and hold its meetings in an orderly, uh, and peace, peaceful, uh, manner, uh, while also providing the opportunity to, for public input on the business before it, the following procedures are hereby adopted. You don't have to read, I'm not going to read, but we have nine different, um, procedures, uh, and it's public, uh, for the public, uh, available for the public.

▶ 2:00:40 Leila Migliorelli: Um, we have President cle. And then, um, councilor Stewart. I just wanted to give some context on this section. Um, was recommended by the city solicitor, I think over a year ago. Um, and I believe some version of this is now also incorporated in the school committee public comment. So it's really trying to keep us in line with state law and that balance right now where, um, I, I think just to, to put some parameters, but then also acknowledging the fact that there's, you know, first Amendment applies right? As I think I have said before at the start of public comment. Like people can say whatever they wanna say, can't stop them once they've started talking, unless it's fighting words or something like that.

▶ 2:01:26 Robb Stewart: Um, I think that this is, that's why, just so everyone knows, this is fully drafted by the City Solicitor's office. So, um, I, if there's like detailed questions about it, it, I don't know that I can answer all of them, but, um, just wanted to give that context. Thank you, Madam President, councilor, uh, Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Madam Chair. Uh, I, I agree with, uh, almost all of these, the one, the one section that I do question is on number five, the second sentence in that comments made during public comment do not reflect the views or opinions of the council. This isn't a rule, this is a disclaimer. I don't believe this belongs in the rules. So I'm going to make a motion to strike the second sentence

▶ 2:02:12 of number five. I second, We have a, uh, motion to strike, um, the second sentence of number five, which is comments made during public comments. Uh, do not reflect the views or opinion of the council, uh, and make it a disclaimer rather than part of five. Um, do we have a second? Uh, vice Chair Williams on discussion, Madam President? Um, I think, just so we don't really have a disclaimer section. I think by having this in here makes the presiding officer not have to state it at every, at the beginning of every meeting. Um, I'm not inclined to support the motion because I don't know that we have any other way of disclaiming this. Um, and should someone make comments, I, I do think I would prefer to be protected.

▶ 2:03:15 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, and having it not someone's comment to be clearly noted that it's not the purview of the council. I, I understand Councilor Stewart point. Yes, it is a disclaimer, but I I think it's probably legally okay to have this in here, and I'd just rather have it in there than not. I think there is also, on number one, there is a disclaimer on a second sentence. There is also a disclaimer on number two. Um, and number five, um, I would, um, either suggest to put a just disclaimer on each part, but keep it in that number. Or Vice Chair Williams, uh, Listening to President M's. Comment, I, I kind of see the purpose for this. And I guess it's a question of putting myself in Solicitor Phillip's shoes.

▶ 2:04:17 Ryan Williams: Is it doing more harm to have it in there in the case that somebody comes before the counsel and says something extremely inflammatory that winds up being associated with the Melrose City Council? Is it do more harm to do that? Or does it, you know, to not have it in there? Or does it do more harm to have it in there as a disclaimer that we can, um, I suppose choose to use at our discretion to state at our discretion? Certainly we don't say this at the beginning of every meeting, you know, so it'd be the kind of thing you would deploy in an instance where somebody was being particularly belligerent in a litigious way that could get us in trouble. And, um, Adam Chair, I think also, and I can cl clarify this with our city solicitor I,

▶ 2:05:09 Leila Migliorelli: in conversations and pulling this together, which I should also give her credit for spending time with me to, to do all of this work. So, um, she did talk about this being like law. I mean, these are our rules, rules law. They are things that govern and guide us. I would just, I, I don't, I I think it's for protection. I just wouldn't. Um, I think the whole point is to add the disclaimer. I think that's what the point is. So this is basically what that is. Um, I don't think that the city solicitor would've drafted something if it without that kind of nuance in it. If she thought that it needed to be there, I'm sure she would've added it. Lawyers like to add words, so I don't, I think she would've probably put that in there.

▶ 2:05:52 So again, I just, I feel like I get it, but I, I'm not gonna support a motion to amend to that level. So we have, we have a motion on the floor. I would suggest that we, uh, vote on it. And then if there is any, um, amendment to that amendment, we can take it. Who, who was, um, who seconded that motion? I didn't hear. Um, By Chair Williams. Okay. And that was to strike the second sentence of number five. Yes. That motion was by Stuart, seconded by Williams. Okay. All right. Counselor Jamine? No. Council Williams? No. Councilor Garipay? No. Council Stewart? Yes. Councilor Karen McNaught? No. Councilor Hamilton? No. Councilor Vandiver Van Vandiver? No. Councilor Romanul? No. Councilor Occhio? No. President Mli? No. Nos. Habit.

▶ 2:07:03 Ward Hamilton: Motion doesn't pass. Okay. Um, uh, counselor Hamilton and then Vice Chair Williams. Thank you Madam Chair. Uh, section nine of Rule 33 A. It references the, uh, time limits. Should that read Rule Rule 33. It's just a minor. Mm-Hmm. Change. I'm sorry, can you repeat your question? Section nine. Should we change, uh, rule or section nine of Rule 33 A to reflect that verbal comments will also be curtailed by the presiding officer once they exceed the time limits outlined in Rule 33. I'll second that motion. I think it's just a Typo. Mm-Hmm. So that was a motion? Yes. Same motion. So we have a motion made by Counselor Hamilton, seconded by Counselor Garey on discussion. Uh, counselor Vandiver. Um, thank you, Madam Chair.

▶ 2:08:02 Just a point of personal privilege. I'm, I'm going to need a step out of the meeting, but I really appreciate all of the work that went into this and, and the discussion that's happening. I think this is going to really set us up well for next year. Thank you. Um, any question? Okay. No comments on discussion. We can vote on the amendment. I need to know who seconded that. I didn't hear that. Uh, Councillor Gpe. Okay. Councilor Jamine? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. Councilor Gpe? Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councilor Karen Chetty? Yes. Councilor Hamilton? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Council Occhio? Yes. President Migli? Yes. Motion passes. Okay. Any other comments on that rule? Vice Chair Williams?

▶ 2:09:01 Ryan Williams: Um, I want to talk a little bit about Rule 33 a part two. Um, and I understand the intention of it. I'm a little worried that it might run afoul of Second Amendment rights to speak. And moreover, I'm, um, just a little concerned that a person who has, uh, a grievance or a idea couldn't come before the council unless the council put that idea on their agenda first. Um, you know, I think that the presiding chair, the president, hearing a large volume of unrelated comments dragging on might say, okay, you know, we're not gonna, we're not gonna hear this. But like, I imagine a case where a group of folks came in before a city council meeting to address a concern that they didn't feel was being addressed somewhere else.

▶ 2:09:57 Ryan Williams: They wanted to be heard, and they all wanted to step up and speak their three minutes about this issue that they thought was being ignored. Um, I just, I would hate to be in a situation where they were told that they couldn't do it 'cause it wasn't on the agenda, and then it never gets put on the agenda. So, From my understanding, this is something that is being addressed on, um, uh, Robert Rules. If I'm Madam Chair, I think I, I could double check that part. I mean, I feel like that's how we've always operated, but Councillor Williams is, is correct in that I do that. There is a little bit of First Amendment issue here. I think if you open up public comment, I mean, we say it at the start of the meeting, it's, you know,

▶ 2:10:48 to address any, I, you know, items on our agenda. I, I can't remember if it's which year I, I know there has been like a public comment, at least at one point in my time serving in which it's not related. We don't necessarily stop them. Um, I, I think, yeah, I, I, I don't, I, yeah. I, it's worth discussing. It might be worth checking again. I can add the solicit check with our city solicitor. Um, and I mean, we can also take a straight up vote on that too. But I, I don't, I think Councilor Williams' hesitations are probably, um, valid in that. Yeah. If I am, uh, not mistaken, I know that this has been an issue in other cities Mm-Hmm. Uh, where, um, uh, this legally was not okay to stop someone from speaking on any matters that is not on,

▶ 2:11:42 Mark Garipay: on, on the agenda, but I maybe incorrect. So probably it's worth, uh, checking. Um, councilor gpe. Thank you. Um, Madam Chair, I, I agree with Councilor Williams. Um, I mean, I, I think at the end of it, we're, we're reducing public comment from 10 to five minutes. Anyways, if someone wants to talk for five minutes, I mean, we do represent the, the constituents. Um, we should, we should listen. So, um, I'm, I'll, I'll, I'll support it tonight. Uh, if, if someone want, if you want, want to wait, and we can always make the change in full counsel if we wanna wait to hear back from the city solicitor. Um, but that's, that's not my comment. Thank you. Councilor Kati, and then councilor ro. Yeah. Through the chair.

▶ 2:12:28 Manjula Karamcheti: I just wanna say that I agree with both Councilor Williams and Councillor Repe. I think part of our role as city counselors is to be notified if constituents are feeling like there are things going on in the city to, to be shared with all of us. Um, and as a supporter of grass grassroots organizations and that kind of thing, I think it is important to have, uh, our citizens to be able to have that ability to, to make their voices heard and for us to hear their concerns. Thank you. I just wanna support the efforts to look into this and, and change it if possible. Councilor Ra? Yeah. Through the chair. I was gonna say that I agree with, uh, the comments being made. There is no language that says you cannot state speak

▶ 2:13:19 Cal Finocchiaro: of anything else on, you know what I mean? It's not like it's, we say specifically that you cannot talk about something else. Um, we just say that we're dedicating it to only to topics identified. So it's, I know we use the word only, but we're not stating, you know, you can't come here and talk about something else. So I think it kind of leaves it a little bit open to, um, so I, I get what you're saying completely. 'cause I don't want people to come here and feel like they cannot come here and address, you know, an issue that's been bothering them. Um, but, you know, at the same time, I don't think, like, because we don't spell it out, it's, doesn't seem that much of a problem to me. So, Vice Chair Williams, and then Counselor Hamilton. So

▶ 2:14:04 Ryan Williams: What if we changed the second sentence of number two from comments expressing any viewpoint on these matters are welcome to comments, expressing any viewpoints on other matters are also welcome, because that would maintain the request. That public comment is dedicated to the topics identified in the meeting notice. So it's a, you know, this is why we dedicate this portion of the meeting to talk about the meeting. Notice, however, comments expressing any viewpoints on other matters are also welcome within the confines of the five minute limit and at the discretion of the chair. Second, That's not a motion. I didn't make a motion. So what you mean, like, public comments is dedicated. We Would, But not limited.

▶ 2:14:47 Ryan Williams: Yeah. The, the first sentence would remain untouched. I take Councillor F's point, which is that the, the rule does not say you can't talk about other things. It just says that the public comment period is established to speak about topics identified on the council's meeting. And I think that the second statement is a, can be, can be tweaked to make it more welcoming. Instead of saying, expressing viewpoints on these matters are welcome, expressing viewpoints on other matters are also welcome. Okay. I'll just make a motion to amend the second sentence of Rule 33, a part two to read comments, expressing any viewpoints on other matters are also welcome. Second. So we have a motion made by by Chair Williams,

▶ 2:15:35 Ward Hamilton: seconded by Councilor Ro. On discussion, we have, um, councilor Hamilton and then Councillor Stewart. Thank you Madam Chair. And I may flub all this up now, procedurally, but my, my comment was going to be, first of all, I agree with what Council Williams and others have said, but to a point we made earlier on another rule, I think it was rule 12, we wanna envision a future council where someone is presiding and somebody comes in with a topic that the presiding Yeah. Member doesn't agree with. And they can say, rule 33 A, this isn't about that. Stop talking. Um, so I agree with what Councilor Williams is proposing, and this is where I may screw things up, but I would also from the first sentence,

▶ 2:16:24 Ward Hamilton: strike the word only, or maybe even wordsmith it a little more to say, the purpose of public comment is to speak to topics identified on the agenda, whatever, something like that. Other topics are also welcome, like something like along those lines, which I know I'm, you know, probably screwing things up as far as how we amend and second and all that. But I'm, I'm in favor and I will, So we can, my suggestion is to vote on the amendment and then you can edit Mm-Hmm. To add on that amendment. Uh, Councillor Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I understand the, the, the point that everyone was making and within limits, I think it's a good idea, but my concern is people are gonna come in and, you know, talk for five minutes about

▶ 2:17:17 Robb Stewart: how the grass hasn't been mowed and the, the fields and I, you know, is this the right forum for having those discussions? Uh, that is my only reservation about opening it up to endless possibilities. Um, and, and I'd want to, um, either caution how we approach that or again, give discretion to the chair on the appropriateness of the tenor of the messaging. Yeah. Point of privilege. I just wanted to, if this is something that I would like to look into that even if someone would like to come and talk about the mold or, or anything, the grass or anything. Uh, we cannot, by law, we cannot tell them. You cannot say, but I think we can double check with the state solicitor. But this is something I've

▶ 2:18:15 Robb Stewart: Heard. Yeah. I'm not familiar with the legal ramifications, but I just know that, you know, historically we have presided over the fact that we're here to talk about certain items on the agenda. And while I think it's important to give, uh, the public that opportunity to speak about things that are important, um, I think there's limits to what we can, as a council be able to influence control or be able to address, uh, some of the commentary that comes to us. Right. Okay. Uh, president Mclear, Um, just wanna say that, um, I would be supportive of the amendment that Councillor Williams made, um, and also supportive of, um, the amendment, Councillor Hamilton said to strike only. And I think I will at the same time also go and, you know,

▶ 2:19:16 Leila Migliorelli: before our next meeting, um, ask the city solicitor just to confirm, um, that if we appear too restrictive, that that could put us in violation, um, of the First Amendment. Um, and then sort of to Councilor FI's point, if the way it's stated is it kind of, is that first sentence, like loosely enough to be like it's dedicated, we're sort of saying that's what it's for, but does, does the, the amendment, if it's, if it passes, solve that problem, that it also leaves the door open? I just wanna point out, um, on section eight it says, a presiding officer will not interrupt speakers during public comment to have been recognized to speak, except that the presiding officer reserves the right to terminate speech, which is not constitutionally

▶ 2:19:57 Leila Migliorelli: protect protected. That is the only way that we can stop someone for speaking. So you either don't have public comment, or once you allow the public comment to, to chair Jamal Dean's point, I think the recent case law is showing once you allow it, you can't do anything to prevent, to subject matter wise. You can only stop them from speaking if it, and I think it says all in here, you know, if it's fighting words, this, that, the other thing, other than that they have the constitutional, constitutional right to say whatever they want, which can be, you know, whatever. It could be unrelated. It could be, you know, not, it can be hate speech, actually. Um, it, it's their, it's their first memo, right?

▶ 2:20:40 Leila Migliorelli: And I know this because I, I went through all this conversation per, you know, at once I became president. So, um, I think that's like all of these elements are pointing to that sac. That's why we're having it in here. So we can show that yes, we are following, we are adhering to the constitution. That is our job. It's not like a, it's not like a board meeting in which someone can't bring up items on the agenda, so on. For better or for worse, that would be, that would be the standard. If we have public comment, it has to be open. So I would be inclined to support Councilor Williams amendment and further amending it to strike the word only. And then simultaneously also asking, confirming city solicitor everyone's concerns. Okay.

▶ 2:21:18 Mm-Hmm. Um, we have, um, can we take a vote on the amendment? Um, so the motion is to add, I, I need to know exactly. This is for, this is for the motion. 33 a section two mm-Hmm. Yes. Correct. And the motion was to add other topics that people would be able to discuss in addition to whatever's on the agenda, correct? Yes. Right. Yes. That's motion made by council, by Vice Williams Williams. And, and seconded by Councilor gpe. Oh, Gar, okay. No, I think it was Ra no car. Yeah, that's what Ra Yeah. Cons, Kiara. I'm sorry. That's okay. Point of point of point of order. I think, I think it was changing comments is expressing any viewpoint on other matters are also welcome. He's also welcome. Yeah.

▶ 2:22:08 Comments expressing any viewpoint on other matters is also welcome. Well, somebody will just have to email that to me, and I'll get that in here, um, correctly. Okay. Great. All right. Counselor Jamine? Yes. Councilor Williams. Yes. Councilor Oppe. Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councilor Chetty? Yes. Council Hamilton? Yes. Council Counselor Romano? Yes. Councilor Occhio? Yes. President Melissa? Yes. Motion passes. Okay. And, um, this motion passes. And now, um, counselor Hamilton, would you like to add? Thank you, Madam Chair. I make a motion that Rule 33 a section two. In the first sentence, we strike the word. Only second. Second. We have a motion made by Counselor Hamilton to strike, uh, the word only on, um,

▶ 2:23:06 Maya Jamaleddine: rule 33, a section two. Um, and seconded by Vice Chair Williams on discussion. Seeing none. Madam Chair. Madam Clear? Yeah. Hold on. I'm exhausted. Um, it's by Hamilton and it's second by, I am sorry. Who? By Chair Williams. Okay. Okay. Counselor Jamine? Yes. Council Williams? Yes. Counselor Garra Pay? Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councilor Karen Chetty? Yes. Councilor Hamilton? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Councillor Occhio. Yes. President mli? Yes. Motion passes. Motion passes. Any other comments on Rule 33 A? Okay, we're good. Moving to Rule 39, uh, must be in the hands of the city clerk no later than close of business on the Wednesday prior to each regular full council meeting in order to comply

▶ 2:24:15 Robb Stewart: with the Massachusetts Open Meeting requirements for all agendas to be posted 48 hours prior to the meeting. Also at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Um, Sorry. Uh, councilor Stewart? Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chair through the chair. I, I do have a question on this. Um, is in the situation where we as counselors receive an email same day of a meeting, that it's happening that, that night for either the full counselor or one of the, uh, committees? Um, I'm, I'm, I'm curious, what, what is the process then? Because this is, this is saying that the documentation has to be with us prior to 24 hours. Does it, does this mean that the meeting is canceled? Or what, what's the documents the documentation considered?

▶ 2:25:16 Leila Migliorelli: If the documentation is provided to us, not within that time constraint. 'cause this has happened many, many times. Right. We'll get an, we'll get an email at five or six o'clock at night saying, oh, here's the information for tonight. Yes. You know, no one has time to read it. Madam President, Madam Chair. Um, just to clarify, so the first part, moving 48 is from 72 hours, it has been administratively challenging all year long to keep it at 72 hours. We haven't been able to, and really only this sucks, destroyer, um, the, this, this is here, you could invoke this rule and say, like, you, you would have to, sorry, waive the rule if, if you were upset and were like, oh, the way it is now, 72 hours,

▶ 2:26:08 wait a minute, should be 48 hours. We're not doing that now. Um, and then also the, the part that Councilor Stewart that there are really no ramifications. I mean, it's just, there's no, there's like no police on this. Um, so I think just like anything else, it's a, it's a request. Any counselor could be like, this is a violation of Rule 39. I don't know what we won't vote on it. Like, you could do that. You could say that on an order. It hasn't happened. I think right now it's more than 24 hours. Um, I just think practically speaking, yes, one would like to get all the information in advance. And also some people don't look at the information until right before they're walking in the room for a meeting.

▶ 2:26:57 Maya Jamaleddine: So, balancing that practicality with what's happening, you know, in City Hall and getting them in that information, I think we can remind them here, yes, we would like it in 24 hours in advance. Um, if it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. It's your kind of choice as a counselor to not vote or invoke the order. I think if I am, uh, not mistaken, in previous years what we did when it was short time, uh, to submit these documents, we voted not to consider it and hold it in committee for the next time. Um, I mean, my suggestion, if you wanna make that written and embedded in this rule, or if we wanted to consider it the same thing. Yeah. Thank you Madam Chair. I think the, um, the intention of my bringing this up is I want to make awareness of,

▶ 2:27:54 Robb Stewart: uh, that the situation happens from time to time. And it makes, I think, all of our abilities to make informed decisions a little more challenging. So, and particularly for maybe some of the newer, uh, counselors that are on, um, on the council. So, uh, I appreciate your comments and I'll leave it at that. Thank you Madam Chair. Um, councilor gpe. Yeah, I, um, I understand what, what council's, uh, council Stewart's, I think over the last year with this council, I think we've seen, um, uh, a large improvement or a great improvement over getting information in a timely manner. Um, I don't know if there's anything you can do most of our meetings on Monday that we can have it Friday 'cause they're not working.

▶ 2:28:39 Maya Jamaleddine: Like maybe put something in there. 'cause you know, we have to Have it posted anyway. Sorry. So, so my to to be clear and to your point, would you like to make an amend amendment to add these Madam Chair? As I said, I'll leave it as his thank You. So no amendment. Okay. Okay. Um, any other comments? Seeing none, we are moving to Rule 43 A. All matters involving the appropriation of money in the Treasury, not otherwise appropriated the intra and inter department, uh, to, uh, transfer of money from one account of the city to another or otherwise affecting municipal finances shall be referred to the finance committee. Intra departmental, uh, transfers may occur at any points in the year. And interdepartmental, uh,

▶ 2:29:41 transfers may only occur in the last two months of the fiscal year until July 15. Any comments on this rule? Proposed rule, seeing none moving next to Rule 54. And that would be proposed. The whole rule? Uh, if I'm correct, Madam Chair, um, what, why you don't have to read it is 'cause with the changes, it deleted the 48 hour requirement for disposition of filings to appear on the website. So right now, there, or there had been when we had a clerk of committees, um, a, a list on our website of all the orders and legislation we've voted on. And so it's like a formal disposition list. Um, I just delete deleted the 48 hour requirement 'cause Perfect. Can't always happen and it's fine. Perfect.

▶ 2:30:47 Maya Jamaleddine: Any comments on the proposed rule? Seeing none. Moving to Rule 56, the city council shall have priority use of the council chamber and the council committee room. Any request to book either room in the evening shall be sent to the Clerk of Committees to confirm that there is no meeting taking place in that space. Madam Chair, just to clarify this is, because right now I think it, it's the president Approval use of the, the council chamber, which is sort of for any time of the day, which is, doesn't make any sense 'cause I'm not a full-time employee. Um, so this again, is just trying to have it go so that it's a clerk committee. Someone's here. It really only matters to us at night. I we don't use the this chamber during the day.

▶ 2:31:33 Maya Jamaleddine: So that's what this order is changing it to practical Change. So thank you for the clarification. And that would take me back to, to ask if the clerk of the committee, which what we are dealing with right now is not available, who should we ask? Who? Madam Chair. So then it would be whomever serving as a, so the thing that we, the, the rule that we changed was that the city clerk or whomever would be the person Who go, whoever Is Yes, exactly. They would be that person. So in lieu, okay. That, that's how that would work. Awesome. Um, any question? Okay. Moving to Rule 57, um, such caucus shall be held in the council chamber, shall be called to order by the city clerk, and shall be conducted in accordance with the rules

▶ 2:32:23 Maya Jamaleddine: of the council pertaining the, to the conduct of regular meetings. Notice of the caucus shall be posted and the caucus shall be held in public session nominations as, um, um, for said, um, shall be followed by a roll call vote each member present answering to their name when called by the city clerk, stating the name of the person for whom they vote, or the they decline to vote. The vote of the majority of all the members of the full council shall be necessary to nominate a president. Any comments on this proposed rule? Madam Chair, just to clarify, the only change in this isn't to procedure, but changing back to pre 2021 rules in which they had the President Pro temp, um, leading the caucus.

▶ 2:33:16 Maya Jamaleddine: And, and I just have recommended it. Go back to the city clerk. 'cause I don't see the need for the president pro tem to lead the caucus. Awesome. Seeing no comment or question moving to Rule 60, I will, uh, moving forward, I will not read those rules and I would request, um, um, I hope that, uh, the public will be able to find it on, um, the record. Um, uh, any question in regards to Rule 60? I have, uh, Councillor gpe and then Vice Chair Williams. I'm a little farther down. Sorry. Okay. Um, so Vice Chair Williams. Okay. Um, so I, I like to see that this is in the, in the packet. It's fantastic. The only thing that I'm nodding my head at, shaking my head, or like, I don't know what to say.

▶ 2:34:08 Ryan Williams: The only thing I'm not sure of is parts of Rule 61 and 61 a appear to have just a little bit of a strictness around them with regard to when a counselor can be remote and what the reason for their remoteness might be. And I only, um, say this because I think the times that we are more likely to have remote membership in my experience are during the summer months when it's hard to get the body together at times. Um, I know I've done meetings that were from family vacations that had been booked well before a meeting had started up, but there's no allowance in this for family vacation. I understand that we want to have the meetings in person as much as possible. And I think in practice we haven't done a lot

▶ 2:34:51 Ryan Williams: of remote participation. Um, so I just, I, I, like I imagine a scenario where somebody has to drop outta the meeting at the last minute. We're short a person to get a quorum. I'm on vacation and the presiding officer or chair Cal me and says, can you remote in? Technically that would be against the rules because I wouldn't have given 48 hours notice. I wouldn't have given the facts, I wouldn't have given this and that. So, you know, I think that we can maybe build a little bit of flexibility into, this is my perspective, um, to allow remote participation to be considered. Um, you know, right up until the moment of the meeting. I do agree with the, um, 61 B that says you cannot preside over a meeting remotely

▶ 2:35:40 Ryan Williams: unless the entire meeting is virtual. That I agree with, and I think that's a good, a good call. Um, um, I do note that in 62, Um, I would suggest that we discuss one more At time. Okay. Yeah, yeah. Sorry. You're right. Sorry. So any, any, uh, are you proposing a motion? Um, I want to, I, I guess with regard to what you just said, I did skip ahead from 60 to 61, so I apologize for that. And I'll just, um, I want to hear if anybody else has any discussion on Rule 61 A and B before I make a motion. Councilor gpe, I'm, I'm fine with Rule 60. I'm fine with 61. I just have a question on 61 A through the chair. Um, is 48, if we're using 48 hours, don't we have to, um, post a remote meeting prior to 48 hours?

▶ 2:36:37 Leila Migliorelli: Is that giving us enough time? Should we make that 72 legally? Don't we have to post it 48 hours, Matt, um, through the chair? No, we don't. I actually, we've been operating under that practice and in compiling these rules, um, city solicitor confirmed that the remote participation of a counselor, you do not need to do that 48 hours in advance of totally virtual meeting You do. That's the difference. And, um, yeah, so I mean, I will say I'm, I drafted this and fully recognizing that it's a stricter version of it. I think the only, um, I'm not gonna remember what I just thought of when Councilor Williams Was talking, but, um, Yeah, let the conversation go. Yeah. Um, tha I'm sorry, go ahead. Uh, thanks, uh,

▶ 2:37:26 Manjula Karamcheti: for the clarification on that. Um, that was my only concern. I'm hap I'm fine with the way this rule's written. So, Um, councilor Karani, Um, so in relation to Rule 61, um, I, I'm just trying to, and I got confused with what President Meley Orelli said. So I just wanna clarify, in order for a counselor who is not chairing to participate virtually, it does not have to be 48 hours notice, but that's just what we've been using. And I think I just wanna make a case, um, that I know in my line of work, in the role that I have, sometimes the 48 hours isn't possible to notify. And I mean, it's fine if it's just one person, like, but also I do always wanna participate whenever possible, whether in person or virtually.

▶ 2:38:24 Ward Hamilton: And I'm willing to do it virtually. I just know that I often find out like Friday morning that I'm gonna need to be at something on Monday. And then the virtual isn't an option. Yes. So it's just, I wanna just note It. It's more equitable and inclusive to have the less, um, strict on time, uh, frame. Um, councilor Hamilton. Thank you Madam Chair. Just for clarification, 48 hours, if we imagine the meeting is at 7:30 PM on Monday night, we don't count Saturday and Sunday. So 24 hours would be It's business hours, Friday at seven, Thursday by seven 30. So yes, essentially you need to make notification within business hours, the Thursday proceeding. Yes. Thank you. Um, vice Chair Williams, Um, I'd like to make a motion to amend Rule 61 to remove

▶ 2:39:26 Ryan Williams: the words in writing 48 business hours. That's it. So The new sentence would read if a counselor wishes to participate remotely in a counselor committee meeting, they shall notify the presiding officer of the body and the city clerk or clerk of committees prior to the meeting and state the reasons for, in fact, supporting the request. Um, so we have a motion made by counselor, uh, by Vice Chair Williams, seconded by a Councilor Romanul on discussion. Councilor Hamilton. Thank you, Madam Chair, madam, uh, and through the chair. Yes. Um, logistically I don't understand how it works, is does this give enough notice to the folks who have to facilitate this? Like, what do they need for notice? Can they do it at the last minute? Or do they really need,

▶ 2:40:26 Maya Jamaleddine: So for instance, so from my understanding, if I'm answering, uh, if I'm, I hear you correctly, if a, if a counselor, if for instance, if I cannot, uh, uh, I am a member of the committee and I cannot, I found out I cannot come in person. I can still send a, uh, message or an email, um, to, um, the presiding, um, counselor, uh, to let them know that I would like to, uh, participate remotely, even if it was within one hour to two hours or, you know, with no timeframe. Right. And thank you, Madam Chair. My my question is, whoever facilitates this, I guess through the clerk's office, how much lead time do they need? Like, I'm just imagining they might say, oh, I need x amount of hours ahead of time.

▶ 2:41:18 Leila Migliorelli: Like, you can't tell me at the last minute. I don't know. Yes. I'm asking a question. Madam President and then Vice Chair Williams. Yeah. Um, through the chair. Councillor Hamilton point is reminded me of what was one of the pieces. I think in practice why we have done 48 hours business hours in advance was because the city clerk's office at the time and clerk of committees at the time, it just was helpful. Now, I don't know if that's like helpful to do or if it's necessary. I mean, I think the logistics is that you're just providing, I mean, you have to set up the Zoom link for public comment anyways. Mm-Hmm. You would be allowing that person to join. I really hate to put our interim city clerk on.

▶ 2:42:01 Leila Migliorelli: That's what it, yeah. Um, I think, I don't know that it's as logistically difficult as perhaps we were told before. That's what I wanna say. Is it good? Is it, so from what I'm hearing, is the timeframe it's good to have or is it necessary to have, is it like a wishlist or is it Yeah, I, I think, I think that, well, at one point in time we thought that that was actually public law that, you know, or open meeting law, um, city solicitor in drafting this told me that it wasn't. Um, but the practice, right? Like is it, is it ideal? It might be ideal, um, but perhaps as a council, if we don't wanna limit it to that, that's something we might wanna amend. The only other thing I, I reminded, uh, remind was reminded

▶ 2:42:47 Ryan Williams: of when Councilor Williams was speaking, is the whole vacation thing. The only thing I, I hate the thought of people feeling like they have to log in on their vacation. Like they should have that opportunity to not log in on their vacation. Whether you need to want to, that might be, I think that's debatable. That's, so that's those, those are My things. Um, uh, vice Chair Williams, and then Councilor Fro. Thank You. So for, um, turning a Zoom attendee into a panelist, it's just one click, you go to the attendee, you click and you promote 'em. So I, I do think that, um, if you had some bad actors who were using that to screw with us, we could revisit a change to the rules. But I think that the act of removing the 48 hour,

▶ 2:43:33 Ryan Williams: um, requirement to put in writing frees us up to have a situation where all the pieces are in place. One person drops out, we need a quorum, somebody else can be remote, and we don't want to have to say, oh, sorry, we have to cancel this big meeting. 'cause this person's willing to remote in. Yeah. Thank you. Uh, council Frank Chiro, Prior to the chair, prior to that client comment, I was just thinking, is there a way to just find a middle ground and say 24 hours? So that gives the, the clerk's office some time. I don't know what they have to do with the agenda. Is there, do, do we have to update agendas with information? Actually, no. No. Um, anyways, yeah, I'm, I'm sort of like, don't really have an opinion on this.

▶ 2:44:16 Maya Jamaleddine: It's like, again, it's like Const Hamilton said, it's more about how it affects the, the Clerk's office. And, um, you know, how it affects us as a body. If they get, we, we really do want a quorum, we get somebody in last minute, then it doesn't make sense to have a timeframe. But it would defer the, the Clerks office to that too. So, Thank you. Uh, councilor Firo, I, I would like actually to make comment on this. Um, I do think from a, um, equitable and inclusive lens, it is important to, uh, keep in mind that it's not only about having the quorum, but also about those of us, uh, for instance, if they're new parents, or for those that are, even if it's not new parents and they are unable, like caretaker

▶ 2:45:04 Maya Jamaleddine: and they need to stay at home, but they would like still to have a vote at that table during that, uh, discussion. It's important to be inclusive and equitable for those of us that have these situation and may not be within those reasonable or, or the listed, uh, reasons. Um, I do believe it is important to, uh, be flexible on the time and when to notify. Um, and it's, it's that easy to just add, uh, that person who's attending or joining the Zoom meeting, add them to the panel. And I don't think it's that complicated. So I do echo, uh, vice Chair Williams on that. Um, I have Councilor Romanul, counselor Hamilton, and then Counselor Chei. Oh, thank you so much, Madam Chair. I'll, I'll just share.

▶ 2:45:53 Devin Romanul: Um, I have, um, my day job is, uh, can have some pretty hellacious travel schedules and I'm zipping all over the country. And I, I will say that I've made great pains to be here in person because, uh, I think this job is awesome in person and I love working with you all in person so much more than remotely now that working remotely is wonderful, but, um, I, I had to be remote once for one conference. But, um, I do say that knowing that that flexibility is there, um, and particularly with greater flexibility gives me a little bit of peace of mind that, you know, I don't have to tap dance around my, my travel schedule. So, um, I think if to the opportunity to reduce the notification, uh, timelines and,

▶ 2:46:31 Ward Hamilton: and, uh, the reasoning would be enormously helpful for me. Um, I can imagine, you know, I have three kids. As a young parent, you never know something's gonna come up. So, um, anyway, my 2 cents. Thank you. Thank you. Um, councilor Hamilton. Thank you Madam Chair scanning through the rules that we have left before us. Not too many. Um, a question that I have, which I don't see the answer to here, and it could be 'cause I'm tired and I don't see it. Historically, the practice has been, if one of the members of our body is participating remotely, we take a roll call vote on everything. Is that in here? Does that change? Um, and I apologize if I've missed something or it's coming up and I'm jumping ahead.

▶ 2:47:17 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, I don't know if that's a law that we have to do that. And if it is, then I don't like when people participate in that. Yeah, right. If you can't make a meeting, that's cool. Um, It's actually, it's, it's what, those are some of the privileges that we take for granted. And some of us don't have those privileges to be able to attend. And, and unfortunately it makes some people uncomfortable, but I would rather have more voices and diverse voices during these decisions rather than making, you know, um, some people uncomfortable on taking, on having to take that vote. So, um, that is my personal opinion. However, I, I think to your question, um, that, um, I, I think it is in the rule, uh, that we have to,

▶ 2:48:13 Maya Jamaleddine: if you can just repeat your question. I just lost my thought. Well, I Guess all I was asking is, um, when someone participates remotely, we take a roll call vote on everything. Is that one of our rules? Or is that a law? Yeah, Madam President, um, Madam Chair through the chair, it is a law. Okay. Um, it's a law. Yeah. And, and to add to it also, they have to be, uh, in a private, am I correct in a private room where That's further down, Madame Chair, that's further down in the, um, think That's not in a, in a public, like a, a football court or, or a field or, or game or had that before You, you have to, you have to be audio. You actually don't have to be video. I think I have in here video.

▶ 2:49:10 'cause I feel like that should be our rule is you should be on camera whenever possible. That's in some of these other rules. But if we're just sticking with, um, 61, I saw, sorry, Madam Chair. I just wanna also say I, I don't see the, I'd like to keep in the, in writing. I would prefer that not to be, and I don't, it doesn't mean like in writing in a letter, but like, email, text, something, email preferably, because I, I think the, I think that's helpful to have on record. Yes. That would be my only thing. I I'm fine with the other part of it. Counselor Stewart. Thank you Madam Chair. Uh, Madam Chair, I, I, I agree with you that there, we do need to have the flexibility. Um, but I think we also need to have reasonableness for, uh,

▶ 2:49:55 Robb Stewart: the administration of getting it done. Uh, and I think it would be prudent for us to understand, um, how much time someone that is administering what needs to be done needs. And if it's an hour, then it's an hour. You know, if it's two hours, it's two hours. But I think we should have that in here instead of, because I don't think it's fair for someone to call five minutes to seven and say, oh, you know what, I'm gonna be remote and by the laws, you know, I'm gonna be remote. So I think we need to have some boundary, uh, what that boundary is. I would defer to, uh, people that understand the systems and what it takes better than I do. Um, but, uh, I, I would not support this unless there was some kind of boundary in here.

▶ 2:50:43 Manjula Karamcheti: Perfect. So, and, and, uh, I will take, um, counselor, uh, Che and then, uh, counselor Garey. And also just to add to my suggestion, uh, we can always add the time after we vote on the amendment, if this is something that you would like to suggest as well. Um, counselor Cheney. Yeah, I'm, this is less about the language that in here, but I would suggest to all of us and future counselors that best practice and ideally would be 48 hours of course, because we do wanna like, respect those that are putting forth agendas and setting up meetings and doing the technical pieces. I think the spirit of, of what I'm hoping for is to allow for unexpected circumstances and that there is an option to still participate

▶ 2:51:33 Mark Garipay: because I think we all know that life throws curve balls at us and we also still wanna participate. So like, best practice, ideally 48 hours if you know in advance. But that there is an opportunity to still participate if something comes up. Yeah. Thank you. And you can't get here physically. C Sorry, councilor Carpe. Thank you Madam Chair. Um, and I'm, I'm struggling with this. I'm, I'm not a, not a computer person, so, so I do struggle with it. It, but, uh, um, I think, I mean, I would like to see some sort of timeframe in there. I mean, for me, if I'm on vacation, I'm probably not logging in unless it's an emergency meeting. Um, that, that, that, that's family time. Um, but, uh, I know we don't want to jump ahead,

▶ 2:52:25 Mark Garipay: but one thing that may would help me to potentially support this is to make sure I, I firmly believe if we're remote, then the counselor should have their camera on. Yes, absolutely. And it, um, I think we might have to change some wording for that. But the camera, in my opinion, in order for me to support this, the camera has to be clear cut in the rule the camera has to be on. Um, but yes, um, I'm still, I'm still struggling a little bit, but, um, you can get there. Councilor ro, Um, through the chair. I'm just looking, and again, wording it, but basically finding like some sort of rule, like say we said 24 hours, 48 hours, but then left some leeway and said, um, like left to discretion of the council president if there is an extenuating

▶ 2:53:22 Cal Finocchiaro: circumstances or, you know what I mean? So we had a rule, but then like, you know, if, I dunno who it would be left up to, but you know, I can make it last minute, can I, you know what I mean? Sort of. There's leeway there, but there's a rule that we are looking for people to get it in before 24 hours. But you can still get in if you, if you speak with the council president and it's, you know, it works for that meeting that you can come in last minute, an hour before something, you know, I dunno. Councilor Ka. Sorry, one more thing and I apologize if it's in here. Um, did they stop going back? Who the chair, um, are we, is the person, if someone needs to go remote, are they emailing or notifying the president or the committee chair?

▶ 2:54:12 Mark Garipay: I think both. Both. I through the chair shall notify the presiding officer of the body and the city clerk or clerk of committees, depending on the meeting in writing. Mm-Hmm. We're assuming we're still on Rule 61 here. Mm-Hmm. What? As we said, if it's with, with a timeframe in there, if, um, you know, I don't know if it's 12 hours, six hours, whatever, we all got jobs. We're not always, I'm typically not much of a text person during the day, so, and I don't look at a lot of my city email until later. So, um, I I think we need to have some sort of timeframe in case someone misses an email and then we just have another potential issue. Point, point of order. I would like, as I mentioned before, I, I would like

▶ 2:54:57 Devin Romanul: that we vote on the motion that is on the floor. And then if you both would like to add that timeframe, we can add to that amendment. Um, uh, counselor Romano, A point of order, uh, to the chair. Are we allowed to suggest friendly amendments by the, uh, proposer of, of, uh, uh, of a motion? You're in this body. I'm, I'm just curious. I know in Congress you can, You can make comment and you can suggest any go ahead. Would, would you say in Congress you can propose a, you can inquire if a someone has a motion on the floor, if they would accept a friendly amendment to amend their motion. That's not, You can, I don't think we Have that. Don't, that's not, we have to vote. We have to vote on that motion. Totally noted.

▶ 2:55:41 And then you can add, of course, amend the amendments. All. Did anybody Thank you. You save the amicus QA for Alright, so he, Uh, Williams put it on the, on the floor. Did and who seconded? Did anybody, Uh, Devin? I Did. Yes. You seconded. You had second what? Williams. Okay. Yep. Yes. Um, okay, so let's take a vote and then we can, Can, can you mine voting? So the vote was on the rules 61 to remove the 48 hours correct? To the wording. You wanna remove the 48 hours prior to the meeting? To be fair, I said can strike that in. To be fair, I said remove in writing 48 hours. That was it in writing. 48 hours. So that the sentence reads prior to the meeting, presiding officer of the body and the city clerk

▶ 2:56:30 Ryan Williams: or clerk of committees prior to the meeting. So I was, I, my motion was to eliminate the writing requirement and the 48 business hour requirement. Mm-Hmm. But not the requirement to notify prior to the meeting. Okay. So you just, yes. So you wanna strike writing 48 hours, 48 business hours. Yeah, I think, I think we're gonna go around the horse shoe a few more times and, Okay. So that's his motion. Seconded By, by council. I'm sorry, madam President. Yes. Point of order. If there's no room for friendly amendments, but there is a move to remove a motion and then remake it before voting on it. Just Saying, I dunno. How do you Do that? May I withdraw my second? Oh, okay. Alright, then I'll withdraw my

▶ 2:57:17 Ward Hamilton: motion and we'll try this Again. Okay. Motion withdrawn. Uh, any new suggestion for a new motion? Constable Hamilton. Thank you Madame Clerk. Uh, Madam Chair. Chair. Time chair. So I, I would, uh, make a motion to change Rule 61 instead of 48 business hours. I would change, I propose that we change it to four business hours or noon the day of the meeting. Okay, so, so what is it that you, I'm Second. The only thing that changes Easy, It's friendly. Um, it's a friendly in write, so it would read exactly as it does. But instead of 48 business hours, it would say four hours. We don't wanna do business hours. 'cause from five to seven is not business hours. So four hours before a scheduled meeting,

▶ 2:58:26 Four Hours, A little notice. So we have a motion to, we have a motion to amend, um, and remove 48 hours and replace it with, uh, four hours. Uh, and seconded by, uh, councilor Romanul on discussion. Motion? No. On discussion. No one on discussion. And, uh, Madam Turk. Okay. Okay. Counselor Jamine. Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. Councilor Oppe? Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Counselor Chetty? Yes. Counselor Hamilton? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Councilor Ro? Yes. President Melissa? Yes. Okay. Motion passes. Yes. Um, any other comments on this rule? Uh, councilor, um, Hamilton? Thank you Madam Chair. Uh, I apologize, but should we remove the requirement that someone states the reason for in fact, supporting their request?

▶ 2:59:49 Maya Jamaleddine: Like, what does it matter? Is that a motion that's, So we have's Should've, like, really change rule motion. Motion. I make a motion that we in Rule 61, where it will now say four hours prior to the meeting. It then says period, and then nothing. And then we strike the rest of Rule 61. Second. We have a motion made by Councilor Hamilton to remove, um, state the reasons, uh, for, uh, in fact supporting the request. Um, and seconded by con uh, vice Chair Williams on discussion. Councillor Stewart. Thank you Madam. Mad chair. Madam Chair through the chair. I'd like to, to inquire with the Madam President on what the idea was for the reason in facts. 'cause there may be a valid reason for that.

▶ 3:00:51 Leila Migliorelli: Uh, Madame President Madam Chair. Um, let's see. So I think You might find that you have a counselor who doesn't attend meetings very frequently for lots of different reasons other than ones that are stated here. Let's just stay there for recreational reasons, or they just don't feel like attending. How do you address that within the rules? We have no way to, let's say, remove somebody from office if they attend under 50% of meetings. The only way to remove someone from office is if they don't attend all meetings for six months in a row. I, I think that lack of attendance causes problems for quorums for committee meetings. And so I think that there is, that being said, I, I don't like making rules

▶ 3:01:42 Leila Migliorelli: for certain scenarios. Like, I like rules to be like at a broad level and leaving a lot of room for interpretation. That being said, I feel like there's observations. I've made observations that other counselors have made for people that counselors who may not attend meetings, you know, less than 50% of meetings. How do you account for that? So that was kind of the rationale here, that it's on record. Should a member of the public inquire, why is my counselor not attending any meetings? Why are they unable to attend meetings? Or why are they always participating remotely? Um, why are they not there in person? At least one would be be able to say, well, they are, you know, on parental leave or this, that, the other thing.

▶ 3:02:21 Leila Migliorelli: They're traveling for business. So you would have a way to account for that. So that's why that's in there. I'm not, I'm not necessarily wedded to that. 'cause I can see how that sounds a little, you know, uh, big Brother, like, I mean, perhaps there's something in 61 A that we could tweak as to rationale for why you would request remote participation. So you're not having to explicitly state it because we would, one would understand that the reason why you're requesting it would be anyone or none of those reasons. So that's sort of the rationale for that. Thank you Madam President. Um, I have, uh, vice Chair Williams and then, uh, councilor Stewart. Thank you Madam Chair. Sitting here in this

▶ 3:03:05 Ryan Williams: auspicious seat, I, uh, wanted to note that the theoretical example of a counselor who doesn't attend many meetings, um, may not intersect with the example of a counselor who then wishes to attend the meetings remotely. And I think to, uh, the president's point that there should be some way for the presiding officer to deny a request and recognize that this is sort of a slippery slope and that it could be used against people in improper ways. Um, but I would put forward that, um, after, uh, voting on Councilor Hamilton amendment to Rule 61, which I support, that we could simply state in Rule 61 A, that remote participation would be permitted at the discretion of the presiding officer and leave it up to those people to decide whether the issue

▶ 3:03:59 Robb Stewart: that the counselor has, be it a private one or a, or a, or a, um, or an or another one, um, is just, is just between them. Thank you. Uh, counselor Hamilton. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm, uh, councilor Stewart and thank Councilor. Great. Thank you. Um, yeah, Madam Chair, uh, uh, to the chair. Thank you Madam President for that, uh, explanation. Um, and with that, uh, I, I think that, um, boy, I'm getting tired. Sorry. I'm tired. Um, I, I, I think that, uh, the, the, the, the point that Council Williams is making, uh, is, is valid that it, it, it, um, there does need to be some justification and I think at, at the discretion of the president should be able to make that call. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank

▶ 3:04:55 Ward Hamilton: You. Councilor Hamilton. Thank you, Madam Chair. Briefly echoing, council Williams, councilor Stewart, uh, and President Midler's comments. Um, but speaking to, you know, state the reason for in fact, supporting their request, that suggests that there would be situations under which such a request would not be granted. Like, Hey, I just don't feel like making it tonight. I'm in my pajamas already. No. Okay. So I, I agree. We need to create language that gives the president the, uh, discretion to deny such requests. And secondly, uh, to President M's. Characterization, which I agree with. If somebody's not coming and they're just participating remotely, it gives the impression they're not participating.

▶ 3:05:42 Ward Hamilton: I think that that actually speaks at a higher level to what remote participation is. If you're doing it regularly, we are not participating if you're doing it. So, I, I'm not trying to get like, into this whole esoteric conversation about whether remote is participation or isn't, but we're saying that at a certain point, remote stops being participation. Um, I don't even know why that was a point, other than to say, I, I encourage everyone to, I'm glad we all participate in person as much as I, Especially for tonight. I, I just wanted to, um, it's, it's a comment and it's a personal opinion and not, uh, to, uh, oppose or to, um, to amend or make motion. As much as, um, I want everyone, I want to invite everyone

▶ 3:06:36 Maya Jamaleddine: to think about, uh, a situation other than ourselves where if I, uh, have spec specific situation where I would like to, uh, participate remote, I may feel comfortable sharing those, uh, uh, reasons, uh, with, uh, president Mcle Oli. But if anyone else, probably if Vice Chair, uh, William is the presiding, um, counselor, I may not feel comfortable sharing those very confidential and private, uh, reasons, uh, with them. So I would like to also keep in mind those moments where someone may not feel comfortable enough, uh, sharing, uh, those reasons. Yes. Um, so just taking some of this all into account here, since I'm the one who drafted it, um, originally, I think I could get behind the, like,

▶ 3:07:37 Leila Migliorelli: uh, sorry, deleting out the state. The reason for the facts support the request and then instead, um, to rule 61 a, maybe that's where we need to be having the conversation. So like, it's, you know, only permitted by the president. Maybe That's correct. I, I guess I just wanna know, let's envision another scenario in which somebody is, and perhaps we can develop wording around this. Somebody is remote and you know, they're in the middle of somewhere. Um, I don't know, in an open field or in a middle of a party or something. There's nothing that's kind of why these exams. So I think I was trying to prevent that kind of thing. I was working from a different angle and that like, here's the unreasonable reasons why you, you

▶ 3:08:33 Leila Migliorelli: or these are the reasons why you should participate remotely. I think my thought in drafting that would be inclusive of the situations that counselor chair, Jamal Dean is talking, you know, about, there's some things that maybe you're ha that are happening or, um, you know, caregiver responsibilities. I suppose we could put that in there too. But I guess I was trying to delineate between why, why you would participate remotely. It, it would have to be for a reason. I think we've solved some of that in shortening the amount of timing which you have to tell someone. So if it's a work thing, it has to happen really quickly. We can do that quickly. But it's not so much in per, I, I wanna be able to find the balance between

▶ 3:09:14 Leila Migliorelli: not seeming like we're accessible and equitable to people in their situations. I want to be helpful for that. That that's what I do in my day job is I, I, you know, deal with people who are remote, hybrid, whatever. And, and I'm fully in support of accommodating those types of situations. I, I also having, you know, the other situation and where somebody would abuse it by just participating remotely all the time because they just didn't feel like being in person. How do we solve for that? And maybe everyone's comfortable leaving that up to the presiding officer's discretion. Maybe not. If not, then maybe there needs to be, there just needs to be some language in there. And, um, yeah. Thank you. Vice Chair Williams.

▶ 3:09:58 Ryan Williams: Um, I was through the chair interested in whether or not we could, after we get through Councilor Hamilton motion, which we mustn't forget, deal with this by simply eliminating the specific examples from 61 A, which would leave the statement that physical attendance would be unreasonably difficult, that's subjective, uh, unreasonably difficult. Could be you're taking care of someone or you're not feeling well, or you've been injured or whatever. I think for me, where it gets into, um, uncomfortableness is that when I read the examples, I start to feel a bit like I'm 16 and working at Best Buy, and my manager is telling me that I can only like call in sick for these four reasons. Um, and that, that makes, I don't, I don't like the way

▶ 3:10:39 Ryan Williams: that makes me feel, but I think that if we eliminate that, um, then we maintain the expectation that physical attendance would be unreasonably difficult. Like, it would not be unreasonably difficult to attend because you decided to go to a baseball game. Let's just throw that one out there. Um, but, um, yeah, so I think that would work. I do want to flag for the chair that the language in Rule 61, um, that we have not altered says that they shall notify, notify the presiding officer of the body and the city clerk or clerk of committees, which would suggest that, like if I was, if you, if you wanted to be remote for legal and alleged under the rules, you would have to tell me. You wouldn't have the flexibility to tell Lila.

▶ 3:11:27 Ward Hamilton: Although I suppose we could. I don't know. But it's just, just to, just to make sure that that's clear as we move through the, the rules. Councilor Hamilton. Thank you Madam Chair. Um, so the language in 61 says, shall notify the presiding officer of the body and the city clerk. Hmm. So, um, skipping down to 61 a, I would be in favor of remote participation by a council will be permitted only at the discretion of the president of the city council period. And I would change 61 instead of presiding officer shall notify the president of the city council and the city clerk. It's not such a frequent occurrence that somebody participates. Are you withdrawing, withdrawing your, uh, initial motion?

▶ 3:12:21 Yes. Can I withdraw my initial motion? Withdrawing The motion to remove state the reason for in fact supporting their request. That's getting removed. We are, uh, withdrawing. Yes. Withdrawing. Take the reason. Okay. Um, no, he made a Point of order. Councilor Gar is asking if this is about four hours. This is about, he made a second motion to eliminate facts supporting their request. Alright. Okay. Still four hours. So Still four hours is on there. Sorry. Okay. So That motion, We gotta go back to that other one 'cause we haven't, like, so one rule on Rule 61, the motion to remove state the reason for in fact supporting, he, he, um, councilor Hamilton made the motion. Who seconded that motion? Roman.

▶ 3:13:00 Maya Jamaleddine: And we haven't finished that whole thing yet. Who was Counselor? Romano. Romano. Okay. And, and that, and are we gonna take a vote on it or he Would through It. And now you with withdrawing that whole thing? No. So, so it's Gone. Okay. Okay. No problem. That's Good. So, so, uh, Madame Clerk, we uh, we voted on, uh, the first, uh, amendment, uh, to, to remove 48 and make it four hours. Yes, that one. But then there was another one, I think then the other one, which, uh, removed the state. State the reason. Yes. This is the one that we are withdrawing right now. Right, Right. Perfect. Okay. Thank you. Um, any new amendments? Councilor Hamilton? Thank You Madam Chair. So I make a motion to amend Rule 61 to read

▶ 3:13:58 Maya Jamaleddine: and none of this changes. If a council wishes to participate remotely in a counselor committee meeting, they shall notify the president of the city council and the city clerk or clerk of committees in writing four hours prior to the meeting. Second. So you're removing and state the reasons for and fact supporting their request. You're moving, you're striking that. Yes ma'am. Part. Um, so we have a motion to strike, uh, the sentence and rule 61, uh, where it says, state the reasons for and facts supporting their request made by Councilor Hamilton. Seconded by Vice Chair Williams on discussion Councilor Chetty and then Councilor gpe. Just logistically, I'm wondering about it having to be the council president every time.

▶ 3:14:56 Manjula Karamcheti: 'cause then the council president now has the extra responsibility of telling the chair of the committee. So I, I am not sure why It's the presiding officer. No. That wasn't his name. No. He just changed it. He Changed that part To the president of the city council. Yes. So I just, I get feel like that's an unreasonable burden. I mean, that's dramatic, but it's a burden that perhaps the president doesn't need to take on because it's another layer of communication. Um, and I feel like I, if we instead consider the language around what you have to share, like with that gone, I feel like the confidentiality piece is addressed. And also noting that there should be a little bit of accountability.

▶ 3:15:55 So in general, I think when you're saying, I can't come, I have this thing work, family sick, like some of those qualifying words could be in there for the accountability piece as opposed to like, yeah. Anyway, Thank you. Um, counselor Garant and Counselor Hamilton. Um, I was just gonna say the same thing I was, I was gonna just defer it if Council Hamilton, 'cause I wasn't sure if he was gonna change it, but I think the president should be notified. But the presiding officer is the one who's gonna make that decision for the committee. So let's try this again. Um, I if we Can just, that's, that's in 61 A We're talking about 61. No, that's in 61, right? That's 61. 61. Yeah. I, I'm getting way outta order.

▶ 3:16:53 Madam Chair through the chair. Yes. No worries. I believe Rule 61 talks about the notification and then 61 a talks about the justification. We're not talking about 61 A, we are just talking now about 61. I understand that, but I'm saying we're addressing things that 61 doesn't address. I'm not, I'm, I'm not following. I'm sorry. Yeah, I'm not following. Can We take If I got a chance to talk? Okay. Do we have, did you make Go ahead. Go. Just go to it Chair. It's a great, Yes. Just what's going on? I'm so almost Sorry. Madam President. Yes. So sorry. Hold on. Let me get this out. So I think what, uh, through the chair, it's Councilor Hamilton is, I think, I think, uh, councilor Repay is trying to solve one problem.

▶ 3:17:44 Leila Migliorelli: And Councilor Hamilton was trying to solve another problem first. So I think what we're trying to say is that the, it is, I agree with Councilor Karen Shady as the president that receiving the, like, notification of who's attending, not attending, and then me passing it along to a chair is, is cumbersome. Um, you might also find yourself in a situation that maybe you thought you had one type of president halfway through the year, you have another one. And that person's not doing a good job of like, determining on people's remote participation. Just wanna throw that out there too. I think that keeping it as notifying the presiding officer and city clerk, um, striking the stating the reason for facts to protect the privacy

▶ 3:18:24 Ward Hamilton: of the person who's requesting the, the remote participation. And then, um, leaving it there before I make any comments about 61 A, which I think might address Mm-Hmm. Might tease out that other part of it. So I would not support the motion. Um, the first part of Councilor Hamilton motion, Councilor Hamilton. Thank you Madam Chair. And at any point, please tell me if I'm procedurally outta whack. So when we get to 61 A, I'm going to propose that remote participation by a council will be permitted only by the president. It's not such a frequent occurrence that the president cannot make a determination. And if we have someone who's abusing it, I believe it's the duty and responsibility of the president of this body to

▶ 3:19:21 Ward Hamilton: lay down the hammer and tell the person, no, you're not participating. You've done this three times in a row. I don't have a problem with changing Rule 61 to say notification goes to the, you know, leave it the way it is. So, Yeah. Are you keeping your motion? No. Well, my motion included changing it from presiding officer to president. So I need to withdraw my motion and I withdraw My second. Okay. And now make the motion that everything in Rule 61 stays the same, except that in the end it says four hours prior to the meeting period. And then strike the rest of the Sentence. Okay. So, uh, so that Goes with the first motion That he, so Counselor Hamilton is, uh, is, is making a motion to amend Rule 61

▶ 3:20:15 Maya Jamaleddine: that says if a counselor wishes to participate remotely in a council or committee meeting, they shall notify the presiding officer of the body and the city clerk or clerk of committee in writing four business hours prior to the meeting. And then the amendment is to strike, uh, the sentence that says, and state the reason for and fact supporting their request. Is that what you want? You wanna strike That? Uh, Madam Chair, the only thing was it was just four hours. It was just the Four hours, four business hours. It Was just four business hours. And you wanna keep prior? No, ma'am. We, uh, we struck the word business to make it just four hours. Oh, four hours. So if the meeting was at seven 30, it would be three

▶ 3:21:01 Manjula Karamcheti: 30. Okay. And are you keeping state the reason or are you striking that? We're striking that. Okay. Thank you. Uh, do we have a second? Me? Um, vice Chair Williams is seconding on discussion. Okay. And then that was second Counselor Cam. She, I just am a little stuck on, I feel like there should be some statement of reason, like a sharing of a reason. I don't know, but I, that's just how I feel. So I'm stating that the part with the facts and all of that sound intense and unnecessary. But like, you should share a reason. Like, but nobody has to agree with me. We should go to A vote. I just, that's, I'm just saying that there should be something attached to I'm not coming vote. So we have a, I need to be virtual.

▶ 3:21:55 Yeah. Yeah. So we have a motion on the floor and then we, we can be open for any addition or amendment after That. Okay. So everyone understands that the motion by Ham, by Councilor Hamilton, seconded by Williams is to state, the reason is to strike, to state the reason for and fact supporting their request, as well as taking out, uh, 48. I've already done already. Yeah, that was already done to the four hours. Okay. Counselor Jamine? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. Councilor Garipay? Yes. Counselor Stewart? Yes. Counselor Karen Jetty? Yes. Counselor Hamilton? Yes. Counselor Romano? Yes. Counselor Ro? Yes. President Nili? Yes. Motion passes. Great. Um, any other comments on this order or this rule?

▶ 3:22:54 Counselor fro Yes. Through the chair? We can amend these. You can at a further time? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any comments on Rule 61? I would like to make an amendment to add and share a reason. Any second? I'm Sorry, What Was second? I didn't hear it. That actually We have a motion made by Councilor Kara Sheri to add to the rule, um, uh, say the reason And share a reason to Share The reason. Share a reason. Share Everyone. Oh. State the reason. Well, no, 'cause you're only having to tell those people. Okay. So, and share the reason. Uh, seconded by Counselor Firo. Okay. Okay. Counselor Jamine? No. Council Williams? No. Council Gar? No. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councilor Karen Chetty? Yes. Councilor Hamilton?

▶ 3:24:17 No. Counselor Romano? No. Councilor fro? Yes. President Meley? Yes. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Doesn't pass six nos. Four. Four yeses. Actually three yeses. Sorry. Lotion doesn't pass. Four yeses. Why? Four? Yes. It's, it's, yep. Yeah. 1, 2, 4. And who's The other one? Three, four. Yep. Um, four. Four yeses. Four yeses. And 1, 2, 3. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. No. Four, five notice. Four yeses. Yes. Yeah, There's nine of us now. Okay. Um, any, uh, other comment question on that rule? Are We still a moving to, uh, 61 A? Yeah. Councilor Hamilton. Thank you Madam Chair. And I believe this will be the last I think so. Motion that I make, I would make a motion to change Rule 61 A to read remote participation by a council will be permitted only

▶ 3:25:48 at the discretion of the presiding officer of the body. Second. So we're removing everything after That's affirmative. Yes. So we're, we're actually adding something to, sorry. To the chair. Remote participation by a counselor will be permitted only at the discretion of the presiding officer of the body. Yes. Thank you. So we have a motion made by Counselor Hamilton and seconded by Vice Chair Williams on discussion. Seeing None. Madam Clerk. Okay. Counselor Jamine. Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. Councilor Oppe? Yes. Councilor Stewart? No. Counselor. Karen Chetty? No. Okay. Counselor Hamilton? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Councilor Ro? Yes. President Aley? No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 4. Nose. And 1, 2, 3. Three nos.

▶ 3:27:48 Maya Jamaleddine: Three nos. Three nos. Three nos. Sorry. Three nos. Mm-Hmm. So This motion carries any motion? Carrie comments or, um, additional amendments? Point one. For this rule or for, for this rule? Any of them? Oh, yeah. Okay. Um, next, uh, is, uh, 61 B counselors cannot preside over a meeting remotely unless the entire meeting is virtual. Any comments on this rule? Seeing none. Moving to rule 62. Um, any comments on rule 62, uh, proposed? Uh, rule 62, councilor Stewart. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair. Um, I have a question through the chair to the, the president. Is this, uh, an example? Would an example be like a snow emergency? I'm just curious. Um, within the 40th business hours, just a scenario.

▶ 3:28:59 As an example. President Madam Chair? Yes. Um, this would be inclusive of like a city emergency, snow emergency. Now I'm realizing maybe we wouldn't have 40 business hours, Right. For such a thing. So perhaps I would be open to that being deleted. Um, the intention was that for fully virtual meetings, Really, Like, are only needed for those reasons. I mean, we did them for two years under Covid. Um, I don't, I don't see a need to do them otherwise, but yeah, no, that would be inclusive of snow emergencies. Madam Chair, Councillor Stewart, and then Vice Chair Williams. Thank you. Mad chair. I'd like to make a motion to amend Rule 62 and strike with 48 business hours notice and capitalize the F and fully.

▶ 3:30:02 Maya Jamaleddine: So we have a motion, uh, made by Councillor Stewart, uh, to strike within, uh, with 48, uh, business hours notice and capitalize fully, uh, um, in Rule 62. Any second Madam? Point of order. I'm realizing I don't think we can comply with the law. I think, I think I can check with the city solicitor, but I don't know. I know we can, um, people can participate remotely without the 48 hours, but I think to be fully virtual, that might need to be noticed 48 hours ahead of time. I'd have to check on that. That would be my only hesitation of voting. No on this. Would you like to withdraw your, uh, motion And we can follow up to, to after we check with this, this holster? I would love to withdraw my motion.

▶ 3:30:58 Maya Jamaleddine: So motion, uh, withdrawn. Okay. Um, so, uh, rule 62, we will have to follow up with city solicitor to see if we are able to remove with 48 business hours notice by law. Um, and then we can revisit it and follow up on it. Uh, moving forward to rule 63, uh, Councillor Romanul. Uh, Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to strike the words, make every effort possible to, from the second sentence of Rule 63. So the sentence reads, uh, counselors must utilize a video feed when participating in a virtual meeting and leaving the rest of that rule intact. I second that. We have a motion made by Councilor Romanul, seconded by Councillor Gar. Pay to remove, make every effort possible, uh, and, and keep it as counselors must

▶ 3:31:58 Robb Stewart: utilize video feed when participating in a virtual meeting. Uh, seconded by Councilor Gar on discussion. Councilors Steward, Madam Chair. Um, thank you, I appreciate this. Uh, I think what would help clarifying is, um, saying virtual counselors, because when it just says counselors, we, we do that, uh, in another area where we talk about virtual, I think we just wanna point out that it's the virtual counselor. I'm, I'm sorry, I'm having, uh, difficulty hearing what you're saying. Yeah, I, I think that, uh, we just wanna point out that it's a virtual counselor that's gonna do that. I, I mean, it's just an, I just to make it clear, Uh, counselor, um, Romano and then counselor, um, oh, sure. Uh, through the chair. I'll, I'll just say that, uh,

▶ 3:32:49 the sentence would read, counselors must utilize a video feed when participating in a virtual meeting. Okay. So I, I'm, if the implication is there, that, that is, would be a virtual participant that satisfies my thoughts on that, but if someone else has language, happy to Consider it. Got It. I'm good. Council Kiara? I was just gonna say that Councilor Stewart was trying to say the Senate should read virtual counselors must make every effort. Yes. But we've clarified That. So Councilor gpe Just, uh, throwing this out there, um, fif 15 minutes too much time, uh, to wait to get someone back up and running or, I'm just, I throwing it out there. I was trying to move a virtual meeting along. I I I'm just looking for some,

▶ 3:33:39 through the chair, some feedback. Um, I dunno, Madam Chair that I don't remember. I don't recall what the 15 minutes came from or whether it's even in our rules right now. Um, if it is not, I think it's just trying to figure out, I'm trying to go back to 2020 remembering when we had difficulties, um, whether we gave it 15 minutes or not, I don't know. No, I, I don't feel strongly about that. I open to amendments. Okay. Um, I would suggest if we can, uh, vote on the amendment that Councilor Romanul have, um, uh, uh, make, and then we can, uh, we will be open for any other amendments. Um, So who seconded that one? I'm sorry. Uh, councilor Gar. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. So the motion was to strike that language, right.

▶ 3:34:44 Make every effort possible from Rule 63 by Councilor Romanul. Seconded by Garey. Very good. Councilor Aldine? Yes. Counselor Williams? Yes. Councilor Garipay? Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Counselor Chetty? Yes. Councilor Hamilton? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Councilor Ro? Yes. In CO. And President Mimley? Yes. Motion passes. Okay. Any more amendments? Councilor gpe. Um, You know, I'll, I'll think about that 15 minutes and, and if I do, I'll make it in, in full counsel. We'll have a little more discussion on it. Great. Thank you. Any other comments on, uh, rule 63? Rule 63 A. Any comments on this rule? Seeing none. Rule 63 B. Seeing no comments on rule 63 B, this would be the last rule that we are discussing for tonight.

▶ 3:36:07 Mark Garipay: Um, what is the will of the committee? Mad chair. I'll make a, a motion to recommend as amended to the full council. Second, We have a motion to recommend, um, as amended and proposed, uh, made by Counselor Stewart, seconded by counselor, um, Hamilton on discussion, uh, counselor gpe. Yeah. Um, just, I wanna let my fellow counselors know that in the full council I've been thinking about potentially, um, address, um, dress attire business casual for, um, for counselors. Um, and I may be maybe, uh, presenting that. Uh, I just wanna try to get some feedback before I, before I bring that forward. So just wanted to let everyone know prior. Thank you. Thank you. Um, what is the will of the committee?

▶ 3:37:08 Motion to Adjourn. Second. Oh, we didn't make a, we didn't, we didn't vote on That. Sorry. I thought we voted on this. My god. Stewart, can we just vote on something? Let's withdraw. All favor. Withdraw my motion. That's okay. So it was a motion. Second. May you, um, to recommend as amended to full counsel made by, um, councilor Stewart. Seconded by Hamilton. I think this one is just all in favor, right? And then it goes, it doesn't have to do roll call. Roll call. I think it's roll call. Roll call for this one? Yeah, because we've been roll call in the amendment, so, okay. Yeah. No problem. Roll call. Council Jamine. Yes. Councilor Williams. Yes. Councilor Gar Pay. Uh, yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councilor Chetty? Yes.

▶ 3:37:55 Councilor Brem. He's not here. I mean, what am I doing? Councilor Hamilton? Yes. Councilor Romanul. Yes. Councilor Ro? Yes. President Melissa? Yes. Okay. Motion passes. Um, what is the will of the committee? Motion To adjourn. Second. Yep. We have motion to adjourn made by Vice Chair Williams. Seconded by Councilor Hamilton on discussion. Seeing none. All all in favor? Aye. Opposed? Adjourn.

Original documents

• Minutes (CivicClerk PDF)
• Agenda (IQM2 PDF)
• Bulletin (IQM2 PDF)
• Minutes packet (IQM2 PDF)
• Agenda packet (CivicClerk PDF)
• Agenda packet (IQM2 PDF)
• Other (CivicClerk PDF)
• This meeting on the city portal