2026-08-18 - City Council

00:00The city council is the sole legislative

00:03body of the city of Framingham and is

00:04therefore [music] responsible for

00:06passing city ordinances. The city

00:07council is made up of 11 members who

00:09[music] exercise the legislative powers

00:11of Framingham. Two of these members are

00:13known as counselors at large and nine

00:15members are known as district

00:16counselors. [music] The city council

00:17serves as a link between the citizens of

00:19Framingham and their municipal

00:20government. Counselors [music] help

00:22constituents by connecting them to

00:23resources, services, and city

00:25departments and also serve as advocates

00:27for all Framingham residents. The

00:29following city council coverage is

00:31brought to [music] you by the Government

00:32Channel, a service of the city of

00:34Framingham.

00:36[music]

00:44[music]

00:56>> [music]

01:04[music]

01:08>> Good evening and uh welcome to the uh

01:11city council meeting for August 18th,

01:132026. We'll be using version three of

01:16our agenda which is posted in the public

01:17meeting portal and published to I

01:20legislate. The version three was today

01:22on August 18, 2026. Anyone who's

01:25interested in that can go to the agenda

01:27and all the backup material for our

01:28meeting is hyperl to that agenda. We

01:31have no other material that um is also

01:34not online.

01:38The first item on the agenda are minutes

01:40for the 16th and the 30th of June.

01:42>> Motion approve.

01:43>> Second. Any further discussion? Seeing

01:46none, we will start with our voting list

01:47tonight. Starts with Mr. Adavani. Yes,

01:51>> Miss Malik.

01:52>> Yes,

01:52>> Mr. Stephanie.

01:53>> Yes,

01:53>> Miss Bryant.

01:56>> She's not here. I'm sorry. Myself. Yes,

01:57Miss Lam Bruno.

01:58>> Yes.

02:00>> Miss Long?

02:01>> Yes.

02:01>> Mr. Ward?

02:02>> Yes.

02:02>> Miss Feny? Yes.

02:03>> Mr. Cannon?

02:04>> Yes.

02:04>> Mr. Alexander will be joining in a few

02:06minutes also.

02:08Okay. Next, uh we have a proclamation um

02:11a presentation of a joint proclamation

02:13by the mayor and city council

02:14celebrating the 100th anniversary of the

02:16Subbury River Tennis Club. So, uh, Mr.

02:20Mayor, are you doing this or

02:21>> I got it over here for?

02:22>> Sure.

02:23>> Uh, this was a proclamation dated June

02:252nd, 2026, but we finally got the group

02:28in here. I was coordinating with Cynthia

02:30on the 100th anniversary. Whereas, the

02:32Sudbury River Tennis Club was founded in

02:341926 and has been for 100 years served

02:37as a cherished gathering place for the

02:38residents of Framingham and the

02:40neighboring communities. Whereas

02:41throughout its distinguished history,

02:43the club has fostered a love of tennis,

02:44sportsmanship, recreation, and

02:46fellowship while building a strong and

02:47welcoming community for generations of

02:49members and families. And whereas

02:51reaching a centennial anniversary is a

02:53remarkable milestone that reflects the

02:55enduring dedication, volunteerism, and

02:57leadership of countless individuals

02:58whose commitment has sustained and

03:00strengthened the club over the past

03:01century. Whereas the Sudbury River

03:03Tennis Club continues to enrich the

03:05lives of its members by promoting

03:06healthy activity, friendship, community

03:08spirit while honoring the traditions

03:10that have defined the club since its

03:12founding. And whereas during the

03:13centennial season, spec special

03:15recognition was given to Warren Kindred

03:17for his extraordinary service as club

03:19manager for 42 years during which his

03:21stewardship, leadership, and unwavering

03:22commitment helped shape the club into

03:24the vibrant institution that it is

03:26today. Whereas in tribute to his lasting

03:28contributions and profound impact on the

03:30club and its members, Court 1 has been

03:33named in honor of Warren Kindred. Now

03:35therefore, it be proclaimed that we,

03:37Mayor Charlie Sitzki and the Framingham

03:39City Council, hereby declare June 2nd,

03:412026, as a day of recognition to

03:43celebrate the 100th anniversary of the

03:45Sudbury River Tennis Club in the city of

03:46Framingham and extend our sincere

03:48congratulations and best wishes to all

03:50of its members, past and present, as the

03:52club enters its second century of

03:53community friendship and excellence.

03:55It's signed by Mayor Charlie Sitki, the

03:57entire city council, and our city clerk,

03:58Lisa Ferguson.

04:02[applause]

04:03And then just as a quick point, Cynthia

04:05brought in tonight a proclamation that

04:07the club got when they turned 75 years

04:09old.

04:09>> Oh, cool.

04:10>> Which is pretty cool. So, why don't you

04:11folks come up? I'll give you this

04:13proclamation.

04:15>> Oh, you're actually Yeah, you're there.

04:18>> You're on the bottom of Mr. Mayor. You

04:20can um we'll go to the mic so you can

04:21say a few words and then we'll take a

04:22picture of the whole concert. Why don't

04:25you guys say a few words the mic

04:27>> and then you guys see this? Who's

04:29serving?

04:30>> That's the one from 25 years ago. It's

04:32pretty cool.

04:34>> That's awesome.

04:35>> And then we'll do a picture with the

04:36whole council.

04:38>> The French ginger

04:43on.

04:46>> Well, Cynthia knows how to get things

04:48done.

04:50>> Oh, she does.

04:55Thanks, Susan.

04:55>> Shaped like a tennis racket.

04:59[clears throat]

05:09>> Check. Check. One, two.

05:11>> I'm going to change mics.

05:16So once again I wanted to uh thank you

05:19guys for recognizing our club. Uh this

05:23is our 100 years and um anniversary.

05:29You also helped us introduce lights into

05:32the club. We were here a couple of

05:35months ago and I must say that the fact

05:38that we now have lights I mean is very

05:41helpful for the tennis community. And um

05:45I would like to pass it also to Donna

05:48who is the VP to say a few words.

05:54[applause]

05:55>> Hi, I'm Donna Perudi. I'm the um vice

05:58president of Sudbury River Tennis Club.

06:01I had the ignammenious, shall I say,

06:04pleasure of being president for five

06:07years, being on the board for 16 years.

06:10So the year I joined was the 75th year.

06:13I didn't know anything about anything

06:16except for I think some of you might

06:18know Enzo Roodator. He was part of um I

06:23think the finance committee when it was

06:26elected town meeting. He wrote a 75th

06:29anniversary little history of the club.

06:32Um, which is how we sort of remember the

06:36old days. But a lot of the Framingham

06:39names like you'll see on that um

06:42petition from 1975 were people like

06:45Ginger Estie. Those were original um

06:48members of the club. Um

06:52all sorts of Framingham names that

06:54everybody would know. So, um, it's been

06:58an very interesting 100 years. USATA

07:03was recognizing us and we were trying to

07:06find out where did we fit within um the

07:09the grouping of the oldest tennis clubs

07:13and we're in the top 5% oldest

07:16continuously operating tennis clubs in

07:20the United States. So there are some old

07:23clubs as you might guess in

07:25Massachusetts such as the country club,

07:28the Nant Club. A lot of them started out

07:32as parts of country clubs like with golf

07:36and fra um as many of you might know um

07:39Sudbury River started as actually in

07:431902 as part of Framingham Country Club

07:47but in uh 1926 they broke off to become

07:51their own entity and it was because they

07:53didn't want to pay the big fees that you

07:56had to pay for golf and there was no

07:58lesser fee for tennis. So, they bought

08:01the land, I think the 38.9 acres on

08:05Edgel Road in uh u 1926 for $2,000.

08:12Um they built the tennis courts for like

08:15$3,000, the four courts, and the rest,

08:18as they say, is history. But we'd like

08:21to um thank everybody on the city

08:24council and certainly Mayor Suzitzki. I

08:26know some of his his grandkids and his

08:29son are longtime members. So, thank you

08:32very much.

08:34[applause]

08:39[applause]

08:39>> George, why don't we do a pitch with

08:41them?

08:41>> All right, let's do a group picture up

08:43front.

09:18What are you doing? Congratulations.

09:24Congratulations.

09:40American.

09:44[applause]

09:47You know it says diet American do.

09:49>> That's what I'm saying.

09:51>> Oh, they ch I don't know. Yeah. Walmart

09:54delivery.

09:55>> Okay.

10:01>> So, before we get off this, we did have

10:03a I know tennis club brought a short

10:05video. I don't know if we have the

10:06capability to show it. Do you? I

10:12Now, let's see if it pops on the screen.

10:19>> Here we go.

10:23[music]

10:26>> Maybe [music]

10:33[music]

10:37>> [music]

10:44>> Are you

11:08>> [music]

11:15[applause]

11:19>> Okay, thank you very much for coming in

11:21and bringing that video. Uh, so next we

11:24have public participation. So our public

11:26petition public participation is 15

11:29minutes long. Everybody's maximum three

11:32people three minutes unless we have more

11:34than that number of people. So I'm

11:36trying to figure out right this moment

11:37how many people we have. I don't see

11:40anyone right now on Zoom looking to

11:42publicly participate. I have a number of

11:44people here. There's a couple of people

11:45who want to talk about the reorg that

11:46you'll be able to speak about that when

11:48it's on the agenda. It public

11:50participation requires items that are

11:53not on the agenda. Um, as soon as we're

11:55done with public participation and

11:57appointments, I'm gonna ask for unless

11:59unless there's no objection to take the

12:01mayor's report tonight out of order. And

12:03I know in the mayor's report, he's going

12:05to address the condo trash pickup

12:07situation. So, I'm going to ask you if

12:09you're going to hear to speak about that

12:10to wait for that. Um, it'll be very

12:13quickly after this. So, um, with that,

12:17we have no one on Zoom. So, we have less

12:20than five people. So everybody will get

12:22three minutes on subjects that are not

12:25uh on the agenda or going to be in the

12:27mayor's report. So uh the first will be

12:29Mr. Larry Stout

12:38Larry Stoist 3. Um thank you chair and

12:43this committee for the opportunity to

12:44address you this evening and the mayor.

12:47I'm aware you have several important

12:48issues before you this evening and

12:50therefore I'll try to be brief. If

12:52Framingham continues to the grueling

12:55process of dealing with the budgetary

12:57shortfalls, I want to raise to you the

13:00attention to another threat to our

13:02funding and our funds. Beacon Hill has

13:04passed an affordability legislation.

13:06February 26, the House passed H5175

13:10and July 1st, the Senate passed S3166.

13:15Both contain helpful elements, but they

13:17diverge drastically on how to deal with

13:19the escalating cost of energy. The House

13:22blames mass save for the rising costs,

13:24no mention of shareholder utility

13:26profits, and cuts 1 billion, that's

13:28correct, a B from last year of the

13:30three-year budget, and redistributes

13:33alternative compliance payments, AC

13:36APCs. The Senate bill seeks to curb

13:38utility profits by phasing out the gas

13:41system enhancement plans GEP and its

13:43ballooning costs. Remove sections of the

13:46state law that cap solar generation and

13:48addresses third-party competitive

13:50suppliers. Why address Framingham uh

13:54city con city committee and the mayor?

13:56Massave and the ACPs are making energy

13:59more affordable for us from 1920 from

14:022022 to 2024. Families in the

14:06representative SUSA and Lewis districts

14:10received $21,190,990

14:14in electricity and gas incentives. Last

14:17year, we received $7,311,000

14:21in weatherization and heat pump support.

14:24These numbers are just a tip of the

14:25iceberg and represent only that portion

14:27of funding, roughly about 40% that can

14:30be directly traced to individual

14:32districts using available data per

14:35Massachusetts Coalition for Affordable

14:37Energy. The Boston Globe published an

14:39article Monday, August 3rd, utility

14:42costs are rising this month, but most

14:44dodge a bullet thanks to aggre thanks

14:46aggregation. We're in that group.

14:48followed up by August 11 with a report,

14:50New England utilities overcharge your

14:52customers. An especially interesting

14:54report considering the different paths

14:55that the Senate and House have mapped

14:57out. Framingham is the 14th largest

15:00municipality in Mass. We have four state

15:02reps in our senator as the president of

15:04that body. Framingham should have a say

15:06in the future of affordable energy in

15:08this state. I wholly request that this

15:12administration council investigate the

15:14impacts on Framingham of potential

15:16conference committee conference bills

15:18and make his position known to the

15:20delegation before this bill is brought

15:22forward. I'm aware of the council's

15:25position on state issues but to my mind

15:27you have 15 seconds. Okay.

15:29>> You did not endorse the mass sheriff

15:30favement but our voters did. What would

15:33have been the additional impact on the

15:34funding reductions to alle education and

15:37transportation if that had not been

15:39passed? Thank you for your time.

15:41>> Thank you.

15:42Uh Andrew,

15:45[applause]

15:48>> you have three minutes.

15:50>> Good evening. Andrew Machos, District 2.

15:53Uh since you last met, the building at

15:561639 Conquered Street has been

15:58demolished uh seemingly in order to

16:01facilitate the fixing of the

16:03intersection with Conquered Street, Elm

16:05Street, Danforth Street, and Central

16:07Street. And as someone who's lived in

16:10Saxonville for my whole life, I know

16:13uh and has seen Danforth Street before

16:17it allowed left turns from Conquered

16:19Street southbound. I think it's about

16:22time that this intersection does get

16:23fixed. Um,

16:26every weekday evening,

16:29commuters who go home to Sudbury and

16:32other towns to the north of us back up

16:34traffic along Conquered Street, onto

16:36School Street, onto Hamilton Street, and

16:38sometimes even onto Old Connecticut Path

16:42through stop signs, traffic lights, and

16:44multiple left turns. In my opinion, this

16:47level of traffic congestion is fully

16:49unacceptable, and I hope that the

16:51counselors agree with that assessment.

16:54I wouldn't be surprised if during this

16:56lengthy construction project that will

16:58be required to finally fix the McGrath

17:01Square intersection, this traffic will

17:03get even worse. Two years ago at

17:06Stapleton School, the mayor and the then

17:08director of public works, who I

17:10understand recently retired from that

17:11position, gave anformational

17:13presentation about the plans for this

17:15project. I asked the DPW director a

17:17specific question. Would it be possible

17:19at least for the duration of this

17:21construction for Framingham to work with

17:23neighboring towns to set up a temporary

17:26park and ride service which could take

17:27constru commuters to the train station

17:29downtown to the Logan Express stop and

17:31or the MWRTA to get to the Green Line.

17:36The director replied that not only has

17:37the city never considered this idea, but

17:40that he doesn't even know how many

17:41people would benefit from such an

17:43initiative if it were implemented. I

17:45don't know how much the city has

17:47considered a park and ride service to

17:48help alleviate traffic through

17:49Saxonville in the two years since, but I

17:52hope that that's something that can be

17:54implemented. Traffic can often seem like

17:56a very complex problem, but sometimes

17:59fixes can be quite straightforward. This

18:01is one side fix. Thank you.

18:04>> Thank you, [applause]

18:10Lisa Story.

18:17Lisa Story, District 1. Um, I'm here.

18:20I'm following up basically on an email.

18:22I sent an email to Christine and also

18:25just today sent email to Janet you and

18:27George as well since you're at large

18:29counselors about uh something I

18:31witnessed here in Framingham um on

18:33August 8th, Saturday. Um I witnessed

18:35four ICE cars and multiple agents using

18:39uh the parking lot that is directly

18:41behind the police building. And this is

18:42not the municipal lot that's open

18:44basically to the general public. This is

18:46the lot that's actually fenced in and I

18:49believe is if not exclusively for the

18:51use of the police, but is primarily used

18:53by the police. Um, and they were there

18:55with an individual that they had

18:56detained elsewhere and they were doing

18:58their business processing frisking. I'm

19:00not sure exactly what it all involves.

19:02Um, but using the police lot and I'm

19:05very concerned about this. I know that

19:06um our police chief has talked about the

19:08fact that we're not uh that they don't

19:10actually cooperate with ICE except on

19:12criminal cases. Um and I know that

19:15they're not working to enforce federal

19:17immigration policies. Um but the fact

19:19that they're using police, what looks

19:22like police property, I think is

19:24extremely concerning. I think it will

19:25discourage members of the community,

19:27especially members who might be

19:28vulnerable, um, to go to the police,

19:31trust the police, report things,

19:33cooperate with investigations and that

19:35type of thing. Um, I also know that, you

19:37know, federal policy tends to trump

19:39local policy, but I also understand that

19:41here in Massachusetts, we've just passed

19:43the um, Protect Act, which is designed

19:46to keep ICE activity out of uh, court

19:49properties that are owned by the state.

19:50So, I'm thinking that it would be I'm

19:52wondering if it would be possible for

19:53Framingham to do something similar where

19:55we say that um properties that are owned

19:57by the city cannot be used in any way by

20:00these uh federal agents. So, that's what

20:02I'm here for and I hope that you will

20:04take action and leadership on this

20:05issue.

20:06>> Thank you very much.

20:07>> Thanks, [applause]

20:13[applause]

20:16Mr. Lennon. you here?

20:26>> Yes.

20:28>> Hi, Laura Leonard, District 5.

20:31>> Yes.

20:31>> I um

20:32>> Hi,

20:34>> I have u I have a question or better yet

20:37a concern. Uh, I noticed that the police

20:40requested five more drones in their

20:43orders and I was wondering if um, you

20:47know, they already have five drones from

20:49previous years and I was wondering is

20:51what's the use of the drones that

20:53they're using it for and uh, you know,

20:56if if they're using it, you know, is

20:59that used by the same company that we

21:01just kick it out flock and if that's

21:04informations are being maintained by

21:06flock. So those are questions that I

21:08would like an answer sometimes. Thank

21:10you.

21:11>> Thank you very much.

21:13[applause]

21:18The next five items, items three 3

21:21through 7 are all referrals to our

21:23appointment subcommittee. I'm going to

21:25refer all of those under the authority I

21:27have in the rules unless there's any

21:29objection.

21:30Okay, seeing none, those are all

21:32referred. Uh, next, as I say, I'm going

21:35to take out of order with unless there's

21:37any objection number um 15, I believe it

21:40is. I don't know where it is. The

21:42mayor's report. I guess it doesn't get a

21:44number. The report of the mayor, I'm

21:46going to take out of order because I

21:47know there's some people interested in

21:48the item as to the condo trash. And I

21:50believe from a brief conversation I had

21:52that the mayor is going to address the

21:54issue. So, uh, we'll just do your whole

21:56report at this time anyways.

21:58>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I do

22:00have a few items I'll I'll address first

22:03and then take up the trash at the end.

22:06Um just want to let everybody know that

22:08early voting begins this weekend at both

22:11the Memorial Building and the Christa

22:12McAuliff Library U Branch Library. The

22:15deadline to register to vote is the

22:18Tuesday, September 1st prime. To vote in

22:21the Tuesday, September 1 primary is

22:23Saturday, August 22nd at 5:00 p.m. at

22:27the Memorial Building or 11:59 p.m.

22:30through the state's website. This

22:33Friday, Fox 25 will bring a its zip trip

22:36to Framingham Center Common. The

22:38broadcast will begin at 7:00 a.m. with

22:40most of the program airing from

22:42Framingham between 8 and 10:00 a.m.

22:45Everyone is welcome to come to the

22:47common and uh number of uh city

22:50officials including myself will be doing

22:53live interviews beginning at 9:00 a.m.

22:56Uh on Thursday evening, there will be an

22:58overdose awareness vigil on the steps of

23:00the memorial building. Through a

23:02collaboration between Representative

23:04Kate Donahghue, uh the rest of our

23:06legislative delegation, and the city's

23:09health department, free NARCAM training

23:11will be available before and after the

23:14anchored and recovery event, which

23:16begins at 6 PM. Uh this past weekend,

23:20the city co-hosted This Is Your Plaza,

23:23an arts and cultural festival

23:26uh with MAPC and local Framingham

23:28resident Claudia Gustiffson. Nearly

23:311,000 people attended the two-day event

23:34at Neans Hall. The event is part of

23:36MAPC's study of arts and culture in

23:39South Framingham and how Nevin Hall can

23:42be used. MAPC is working with grants

23:45manager Megan Todd and public

23:48information officer Susan Patroni with a

23:51report expected in early 2027.

23:54I also want to share an important public

23:56health update. On August 13th, the

23:59Massachusetts Department of Public

24:01Health issued an order designating

24:04cryatom as a schedule one controlled

24:07substance. The order takes effect August

24:1028th. At that time, possession,

24:12distribution, and sale of crat crap

24:15kratom, I never heard of it before in

24:19Massachusetts will be illegal. It's a

24:21plant native to Southeast Asia that has

24:24become popular in the United States

24:26because of its psychoactive properties.

24:29It can be sold as tea, capsules, tonics,

24:33tablets, and in synthetic forms, and has

24:35been associated with serious health

24:37effects, including seizures,

24:39hallucinations, psychosis, dependence,

24:43and withdrawal symptoms. It's commonly

24:45sold at businesses in Framingham that

24:48are already licensed by the health

24:49department. The city has begun to reach

24:52out to these businesses, and we expect

24:54them to comply with the new order and

24:57remove these products. More information

25:00information will be shared through the

25:01city's newsletter and website and

25:04questions can be directed to uh the

25:07website health at framinghammma mma.gov.

25:12Last week the Framingham 325th committee

25:14unveiled a mural on the second floor of

25:16this building featuring the work of four

25:18Framingham artists. Next month the city

25:21will add information to its website

25:23about each artist and a description of

25:26their panel.

25:27Uh, another item I want to mention is

25:30that the city will hold its second

25:32annual Framingham Fest on Saturday,

25:35October 3rd from 11:00 a.m. to 3 p.m. at

25:38Framingham Center Common. The deadline

25:41for vendor applications is August 31st,

25:44and we already have received more than

25:46125 applications. The city has also

25:49launched a sponsorship program this

25:52month, and two sponsors have already

25:54come forward. Last year's event featured

25:57more than 100 booths, four hours of

25:59multicultural entertainment, a mascot

26:02competition, 10 food trucks, and more

26:05than 5,000 attendees.

26:08But, Mr. Chairman, the main thing I want

26:10to talk about tonight is the um issue

26:13with the pickup of of trash and

26:16recycling at our condominium complexes

26:19throughout the city. As you know, we had

26:21a very uh tough budget season uh that

26:25resulted in many cuts to our proposed

26:28budget. Matter of fact, uh I had

26:30submitted you to you two budgets. one uh

26:34that was um pretty ambitious that you

26:38did not like and you asked me to

26:40withdraw it and resubmit with uh uh

26:44smaller requests which we did and that

26:46necessitated substantial cuts uh

26:49throughout the city's budget including

26:52schools and municipal operations. Uh we

26:56had a number of options for reducing the

26:59budget, but one um big ticket item stuck

27:03out and that was the cost for collecting

27:07trash at approximately 20 condominium

27:10sites in the city. um going back a

27:13number of years to town meeting um with

27:16the point in time where they voted to

27:19have the city uh have the town at the

27:21time pick up trash at the condom

27:24condominium units and at a later date

27:27number of years later they added

27:29recycling to that. So, as a result, all

27:32these years, the city has been paying to

27:34pick up trash at these condominium units

27:37and also uh provide recycling services

27:41uh because of the nature of the uh

27:44complexes

27:46uh

27:48city vehicles, trash vehicles could not

27:52provide that service. So, they had to be

27:55uh contracted out to a private

27:57contractor hired by the town by the city

28:01and um uh the city was paying for the

28:04the cost of the the pickup and the

28:06disposal of that trash. That cost the

28:09city about $500,000 every year. Um and

28:14needless to say that was a large chunk

28:16of money that we determined couldn't be

28:19afforded uh due to the na the the the

28:22necessity to uh substantially cut our

28:25budget for this year. So as a result

28:28that was presented to the council as

28:30part of the overall budget pro uh

28:32process. Uh the budget was passed

28:35without that $500,000 in the budget. And

28:39once that was official, we began to

28:41notify the condominium complexes. And we

28:44reached out, we first reached out to the

28:47uh management companies that um the

28:51public works had on file and let them

28:54know that effective September 29. And I

28:57might let me take a step backwards. We

28:59didn't cut the entire 500,000 out of the

29:01budget. We left approximately 200,000 in

29:05the budget to get us through September

29:0829th of this year because we knew it

29:11couldn't be cut off immediately. We had

29:13to give everybody um a certain amount of

29:16time to prepare for that eventuality.

29:20So, uh there was money put in the budget

29:22but not enough to carry it through the

29:25whole year. So, we sent out notices in

29:28uh early July to the um management

29:31companies that we uh had um uh

29:34information on and we didn't get much of

29:38a response. So then we turned around and

29:40sent a more uh robust letter to um more

29:46people including uh a number of owners

29:49of property in the condominiums and

29:52whatever other names in management we

29:55could find. And that resulted in a large

29:59outpouring of of letters to me uh and to

30:02the city council. And needless to say,

30:05they're all very upset about the planned

30:08um uh cancellation of the city's

30:11participation in that rubbish

30:13collection. We realize that it's a it's

30:17a real challenge to um take that on as a

30:22independent condominium unit. We

30:24understand there'd be additional cost to

30:27that. Um but we also have to acknowledge

30:30that that was part of the budget process

30:32and we went through it and um that was

30:35one of the costs that we they decided

30:38that had to be cut. Um but in response

30:42to the outpouring in concern um and the

30:47perception that people didn't have

30:49enough time to prepare for this. Um,

30:53we're proposing to find a way to fund

30:57the service for the remainder of the

31:00fiscal year. And during that period of

31:03time, we will continue to study the the

31:06situation. We will hold meetings with

31:09the condominium associations.

31:12Um, and we planning on hiring a new

31:16public works director during this period

31:19of time as the previous one retired in

31:22June and uh get input from the new

31:25public works director and see if if

31:29there's a way to continue this beyond

31:31the end of the fiscal year or if we

31:34really have budget problems going into

31:37the following fiscal year. um whether or

31:40not we'll propose to cut it again, but

31:44that at that point in time, we'll be

31:46able to give people more notice and more

31:49assistance in coming up with an

31:51alternative. So, the plan is um

31:55to find a way to get money to continue

31:58this program through the end of the

32:00fiscal year, which would be next June

32:0230th. Um, I've asked the CFO to come up

32:07with some different options of finding

32:09that money. Uh, when we come up with a

32:12proposal, um, we'll bring it before the

32:15city council and, uh, present you with

32:18some options of how we can do it. Um,

32:21it's kind of unprecedented to do this

32:23because what we're re doing is

32:25revisiting the budget that's already

32:27been approved, um, and kind of changing

32:30the ground rules on the budget. But uh

32:33we understand that this is um a serious

32:36situation. We don't want to create uh uh

32:40too much hardship for our um our

32:44neighbors and that live in condominiums

32:46and we certainly don't want to create

32:48any health problems by uh garbage and

32:50trash that may go uncollected for a

32:54period of time. So that's my plan. uh as

32:59soon as we come up with some options for

33:02funding it, we'll be back to the city

33:04council um with those proposals and um

33:08get your input on how to fund that.

33:11>> Great. Thank you very much, M. Leo, Mr.

33:13Deiani.

33:15>> So, I just want to say um thank you to

33:17the mayor. I know that we've all gotten

33:20the emails and phone calls. We've I've

33:22spoken to a bunch of people um it and

33:26we've all kind of in the same boat and I

33:28understand that this being you know like

33:31you said kind of you know going back to

33:33revisit the budget but I think um

33:37however it ends up I do um I do think

33:40that the plight with some of the folks

33:42was just feeling like they were they

33:44didn't have the notice and we all voted

33:45for it so it's on you it you know your

33:48administration to put it into the you

33:51know the budget. it, but we all, you

33:53know, share some of the um none of us

33:56caught it or, you know, brought it up.

33:57And I think that,

34:00you know, I think the concerns were that

34:02we felt for some of the seniors maybe

34:04and the folks that weren't expecting,

34:07um, an end of the year or, you know,

34:09midyear expense like this. So, um, I

34:12appreciate you taking my phone calls and

34:14I know that you've spoke with some of

34:15the other city councilors and, you know,

34:18you've, you know, I know it's a tough

34:20decision and I know that you can't, it's

34:22kind of a no- win because, you know, you

34:23can't do this at every point in the

34:25budget, but this was sort of, I don't

34:28know, um, it it was just a little bit

34:30different. So, I just wanted to, you

34:33know, thank you for, you know, um,

34:36listening when because I know this is

34:38not an easy decision because the money

34:40has to come from somewhere and you could

34:43really look at the whole budget and look

34:44at it like this and it's not an easy

34:46decision because every time you spend

34:48more money on something over here,

34:50something else isn't getting getting

34:52funded. and to really look at a whole

34:54budget and try to be fair and make sure

34:57that folks get the services that um they

35:00need. Um you know it's not an easy

35:03thing. So I just wanted to say um thank

35:05you for that.

35:06>> Thank you Mr. Aani and Mr. Canon. Miss

35:08Bryant.

35:09>> Mr. Mayor job well done. Um it becomes

35:12an equity issue and we maybe we should

35:14have caught it on our end but I I think

35:15of condos and apartments as much

35:17different animals. Okay. An apartment

35:18somebody owns 250 units. They're running

35:20a business. I know some people might

35:22want to not call it a business, but it's

35:23a business. Condos are individual

35:25taxpayers that own a condo and you know,

35:28some taxpayers get trash, some people

35:30don't. So, I appreciate you looking back

35:31at this and um you know, some rules are

35:33meant to be broken. And you know what?

35:34Sometimes when a mistake is made or um

35:37some concerns are raised, it's time to

35:38relook at things. So, I I commend you

35:40for looking at it. And you know, we got

35:42plenty of ways we can come up with some

35:43money. You know, you got an empty COO

35:45position and maybe we give Brian another

35:46job title, CFO, COO. There's a there's a

35:49couple hundred thousand right there and

35:50adjust the budget a little bit. So, I'm

35:52sure you guys will do just fine finding

35:54the money because in a $400 million

35:56budget, I've said it all the time.

35:59You've done some efficiencies. We're

36:00doing We're going to get to it a little

36:02bit later tonight. Um merging some

36:04departments, doing some things

36:05different. 260 there, 200 here. I I I

36:08think we're on the right track. So, I I

36:10appreciate you stepping up and doing

36:11this through the end of the year, and

36:12hopefully we'll find a way to continue

36:14doing it uh for the next fiscal year.

36:16So, thank you,

36:17>> Mr. Ken. Just briefly, they've all said

36:19everything that I wanted wanted to say,

36:21but thank you very much for being

36:22nimble. This is one of those things,

36:23yeah, we probably should have caught it.

36:24And I think Mr. Aabani uh explains it

36:27great, the difference between, you know,

36:28a condo and and a large scale multi-unit

36:31apartment operation. Not that that's not

36:33important, but I I appreciate the fact a

36:35lot of leaders would have dug in, stuck

36:38to their guns, and been stubborn about

36:40the issue. And there's no right or

36:41wrong, and there's Janet's right.

36:42there's no there's no way to win in

36:44this. But I appreciate you being nimble

36:45and always being willing to look at a

36:47situation from a different perspective

36:49and you've got new eyes coming into the

36:50operation and there's always a solution

36:52everywhere. So, uh the collaboration

36:55continues. So, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

36:57>> Thank you, Miss Bryant.

36:59>> Hi. I'd like to ask um the mayor, uh

37:02mayor, what was when did you say what

37:04was the date? How long did you send the

37:06first letter or how long um ago was it?

37:10Did you say a year?

37:16Tracy, I I didn't understand the

37:17question.

37:18>> When did you send the first letter?

37:19>> How much time was given to condo owners?

37:22How much notification?

37:25>> Well, the first notice went out right

37:26after the budget was finalized. So, that

37:28would have been right after July 1.

37:32>> Okay. Okay. All right. So, All right.

37:34So, that is uh short notice. But then I

37:37also want to ask, do all condos um like

37:41the HOA, do they all have HOAs or

37:44whatever it is, you know, associations?

37:46Um and do they normally take care of the

37:50trash or does or are generally the condo

37:54owners

37:55just responsible for um paying how I

37:59mean generally would seem like although

38:01it's different from apartments, it still

38:03would seem like that um you [snorts]

38:06know, some organization like the AO or

38:10something would be taking care of it or

38:12the city. Do we know?

38:17>> No. As I pointed out back in the days of

38:20town meeting, town meeting in its

38:23infinite wisdom decided that the city or

38:26the town at the time would be

38:28responsible for picking up trash at

38:31approximately 20 condominium complexes

38:33in the city. But the problem was city

38:37the the uh municipal vehicles were

38:40unable to physically pick up the trash

38:42at those complexes. So the city or the

38:46the town at the time had a contract with

38:48a private contractor to pick up the

38:51trash at those complexes, but the

38:54municipality had to pay for it, not the

38:57homeowners associations. And that's the

39:00problem. That amounts to about $500,000

39:04a year in cost to the city.

39:07>> Right. I heard you say that part. I just

39:09did it and I know that the city agreed,

39:12the town at the time agreed to do it,

39:14but I didn't know if um normally um

39:19condo owners in their HOH agreement are

39:23made aware that it normally would be you

39:26know a part of that um though you know

39:29their HOA fees and so that the HOA um

39:33would be doing it but obviously they

39:36Framingham has been doing it so long it

39:38wouldn't be bear at this point to um

39:42take it away. And although I really

39:44advocate for recycling um the little

39:47blue bins to be provided for apartments

39:50um too um I do understand the difference

39:55from you know with condo owners um

39:59versus uh you know apartment dwellers

40:02even though everyone pays some taxes but

40:04not quite the same. Okay. Um not

40:07homeowner taxes. So, uh, thank you for

40:09the explanation and thank you for, um,

40:13recognizing the validity of the

40:15resident's outrage and trying to effect

40:18a resolution quickly.

40:22>> Thank you, Mr. Brian. Mr. Stephanie,

40:25>> thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.

40:27Mayor. Um, I think this is the right

40:30balance at this point. Um this came up

40:34late in the budget process without

40:36really a lot to look at and we if you

40:39recall we added a budget provisal that

40:41we were going to talk about this and in

40:43fact it's scheduled on the next finance

40:44committee meeting to go through the

40:46equity of this. The one thing I would

40:48just say is over the next year while we

40:50have some flexibility we should take an

40:52inventory of all condominium

40:54associations and figure out how we treat

40:56everybody with some level of equity.

40:58Some have agreements, some don't have

41:00agreements. Some are included, some are

41:02not included. [clears throat] Whatever

41:03the policy is, we should just apply it

41:05across the board and deal with it in an

41:07equitable way. So, we're treating

41:10property owners with some level of

41:12consistency, but I appreciate

41:16uh the short-term fix for where we are.

41:20>> Mr. Feny,

41:22>> thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, again, ditto

41:24what everybody said. Thank you very much

41:26for doing that. I would like to shift

41:27gears um if nobody has a problem with

41:30that. Uh as a nerd of all things

41:32Framingham, I get the bid texts when

41:35they go out and I just saw that um today

41:37for the radio communication system for

41:39the regional dispatch center went out.

41:41Wonderful. Love it. So my question is

41:43just because I was wondering like how

41:45are we doing? How is the regional

41:46dispatch going? You know, are we on

41:49target? Are has any new communities

41:52joined in uh on the dispatch? Are we

41:56looking for any more funding? Just kind

41:57of looking for a general update.

41:59>> So, Whan and Nate are part of the

42:02regional. So, it's three three

42:04communities. Um, as you can see from

42:07outside, um, we're completely renovating

42:10the building to bring it up to the right

42:12codes for the particular use we're

42:14making making of the building. Uh,

42:17that's going well. Contractors ahead of

42:20schedule. Uh the construction is

42:22scheduled to be done um well before the

42:26end of the calendar year. Uh we've hired

42:29two staff members, a director and

42:31assistant director. When I say we, I'm

42:33talking about the regional center, not

42:36the city of Framingham. Um hired two

42:40employees. They're working on putting

42:42the program together, uh making all the

42:46arrangements to coordinate all the uh

42:49technical details, coordination of the

42:52radios and the phone lines and all that

42:55and putting together a training program

42:58for uh when we hire dispatchers, they

43:01can be properly trained. And the um the

43:05time uh the target to open up the

43:08dispatch center is July 1st, 27. So uh

43:13beginning of the next fiscal year, we've

43:16been relying on uh state grants, 911

43:20commission, state grants for the past

43:22couple of years to pay for all the

43:24expenses. Um this past year, we got less

43:28than we applied for. uh a number of

43:31communities or regional districts uh got

43:34the same kind of treatment. They didn't

43:36get everything they asked for. So, we're

43:39reviewing we're in the process of

43:41reviewing our budget now and seeing how

43:44we can uh make it work through other

43:46grants um from same agency but other

43:51different programs they have additional

43:53money for to see if we can close the gap

43:56on the um uh reduced funding that we

43:59got. But the target uh for opening is

44:02still July 1st, 27.

44:05>> Great. No, that's good to know. So,

44:06you're not concerned that the state gave

44:09you less fewer money?

44:10>> We are concerned about it, but the state

44:13said they are committed to helping us to

44:16realize the uh the date that the target

44:19date. So, they're working with us and

44:22we're we're looking at different options

44:24to close that gap in funding.

44:26>> Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.

44:28Just I'm always curious about these

44:29great projects. Thank you.

44:32>> Okay, seeing [snorts] nothing else in

44:33the M report. There were a couple people

44:35who wanted to speak about condo fees. If

44:37you want to still speak, can you put up

44:38a condo trash? I'm sorry. Uh can you

44:40please put your hands up? Yes, sir. Go

44:43ahead.

44:45>> Yeah, I don't think I have anything real

44:47new to add. Um but uh I appreciate that

44:51you all seem to be um cognizant of the

44:54plight that that there is an inequity

44:56here. uh to the condo owners um who own

45:00their places and pay property taxes and

45:03suddenly find themselves without a

45:04service that all the other property

45:07owners in Framingham have. Uh so that's

45:10good. And I also appreciate that you uh

45:13you also see that um there's a lot of

45:17people who live in condos because they

45:19have uh tight budgets and and uh so

45:23they're in particular danger when their

45:26condo when they're uh the expense of is

45:28going up. Um, and then I'd also like to

45:32point out that uh just say say one thing

45:35to add on about the uh HOAs

45:39um are very different from apartment the

45:44the owners of apartments because the

45:46HOAs are the people who own the condos.

45:50So, um they're not

45:54they're diff they're unique in that way.

45:56So,

45:57>> thank you.

45:58>> Thanks.

45:59Okay. Can you just tell us what condo

46:01he's from? Just because we

46:02>> Bishop Terrace.

46:03>> Bishop. Bishop Terrace. Thank you.

46:05>> And what was his name?

46:07>> Alex Schmidt.

46:09>> His name is Alex Schmidt from Bishop

46:11Terrace Condominiums.

46:14>> Thank you, Mr. Schmidt.

46:17Okay. Uh, next on the agenda is our

46:20public hearing continuation u on the

46:23reorganization of city government. uh I

46:25appointed the ad hoc committee to

46:27discuss this issue and make a

46:29recommendation as required. So I would

46:32recognize Miss Liam Bruno who convened

46:34that committee.

46:36>> Thank you so much Mr. Chairman. So um

46:40the ad hoc committee was comprised of

46:42myself um Noval Alexander and Christine

46:45Long the my fellow counselors and we met

46:48on 8:13

46:50and we met with the mayor and we had on

46:54the call uh it was a zoom and it was we

46:57met with Kate Fallon the city attorney

47:00we had Brian Turbett who is our CFO uh

47:04Kathy Olirri from the HR Um I'm trying

47:09to think if that was all from this from

47:11the city and then we had multiple

47:13residents and um we did have a quorum of

47:16city councilors that did they were on

47:18the call but they weren't able to

47:21participate when you're on when you have

47:23a um when you have too many people if

47:25you have six you have a um a majority so

47:28you cannot partake in a meeting um

47:31because you have a quorum. So we the

47:34mayor laid out the plan. It was

47:36basically the the plan that has been you

47:38know since the beginning. Uh some of the

47:40questions that had come up were um had

47:43been coming up kind of all along um

47:46about you know metrics u success rate um

47:50you know what's been going on there now

47:53um was there were just a multiple of um

47:57questions that had been asked in the

47:58past and answered um

48:01and we um we voted unanimously three to

48:06zero to make a recommendation

48:09to

48:11submit a favorable motion to the city

48:15council to vote on. And the motion is as

48:19follows. It is um that the city council

48:22votes to approve the mayor's 2026

48:24proposed reorganization of the parks,

48:26wreck, and cultural affairs division and

48:29the capital projects and facilities

48:31management division into a new capital

48:34projects, facility management, and parks

48:37and recck division.

48:38and also a proposed reorganization of

48:41the Callahan Center and the library

48:43division to create a new library

48:46community services division as detailed

48:48in the ordinance found in the background

48:51material. So I'd like to make the motion

48:53to move that forward please.

48:54>> Second.

48:55>> Okay. Moved by Miss Luna, second by Miss

48:58Long. Um okay. So Mr. Mayor, do you have

49:01anything else you want to add to any of

49:02it? You do not. Okay. Any discussion

49:06inquiry?

49:07>> Mr. Stephanie, can you please raise your

49:08hand to be recognized?

49:10>> Yes, I'm right next to you.

49:11>> I know, but that's why I'm asking you to

49:12be fair with everybody else. It's not

49:14fair. Since you're right next to me, you

49:15should raise your hand like everyone

49:16else. What What is What is your

49:18question?

49:19>> So, there are two items on the on the

49:21table with different uh vote

49:24requirements. There's an ordinance and

49:26there is a reorganization. Are we going

49:28to vote them both together at this point

49:30or we going to vote them separately? and

49:32what is the process? So, we'll have a

49:35first vote on the ordinance and then a

49:37second vote on the ordinance at the next

49:38meeting.

49:40>> So, first of all, uh the ordinance is

49:43submitted by the mayor as part of the

49:46reorganization. So, therefore, that is

49:48is part of the overall vote. Um the

49:52issue we've discussed before, as you

49:54know, there is no requirement for two

49:57votes. there's a requirement that it not

49:59be approved on its first reading. So

50:02tonight's vote as advertising the agenda

50:04will be the vote on both the ordinance

50:07and the uh reorganization.

50:10>> So as we have followed as a council for

50:13the last nine years, every ordinance has

50:16had two votes. Every chair, every

50:19solicitor, every outside council has

50:22determined that we need two votes on an

50:24ordinance. Why are we changing the vote

50:26in the ordinance on this one?

50:28>> Because the Well, I think we'll do it in

50:30everyone because there's no place in our

50:32charter or our rules that say it

50:34requires two votes. It requires it has

50:36to be it cannot be it can the charter as

50:38you well know since you wrote most of

50:40the charter that says that uh it it has

50:43to be uh passed not on the first time

50:47that it is considered. So therefore it

50:49cannot be passed. An ordinance cannot be

50:51passed and the first time it's

50:52considered but it was considered last

50:54time. So tonight's vote would be the

50:56final vote on the ordinance which is

50:58part of the reorganization and on the

51:00reorganization.

51:01>> So that's not exactly what the charter

51:03says and it's not exactly what our rules

51:04say. Um the uh Chris Patrini the

51:08solicitor at the time uh made an opinion

51:12that ordinances required two votes as

51:15did Dennis Jim Betty the chair as did

51:18yourself the chair as did everyone else.

51:20I think it's a serious mistake in the

51:23middle of a

51:25certainly contentious discussion to

51:28change the rules and set a precedent

51:30that ordinances do not require to to go

51:33through all stages not including the

51:35first clearly and if you remember

51:38Marilyn Contraus the foremost expert in

51:40this area when she testified before

51:43charter commission made clear that our

51:45charter would require two votes. The

51:48reason for that was to give enhanced

51:50transparency to our process. If we're

51:53going to change that process, I would

51:55strongly suggest to you that it be an

51:57item on the agenda and a discussion as

52:00opposed to something that is brought up

52:02after the fact um in the middle of the

52:06summer on something that is otherwise

52:10at least controversial. That's not how

52:13we should be changing the way we look at

52:15this. In fact, you and I were talking

52:17about this just before with one of the

52:19folks here. There was an issue that the

52:22um solicitor, the clerk, and our outside

52:25council code experts who are the

52:28foremost experts in the state that say

52:30we need two votes. They turned around

52:33and they rejected including in our

52:36ordinances something that the council

52:37voted last time on an ordinance where

52:40they only took one vote. So,

52:44everyone seems to be in agreement and

52:46now we've changed this policy. I would

52:49suggest to you very strongly that you

52:51reconsider that position. Whatever the

52:54vote is tonight, it's going to be the

52:56same vote in two weeks whenever we

52:58reconvene. And if you wish to change

53:00that policy, I would suggest you put it

53:02on the agenda and we have a forthright

53:04discussion of that and not get into a

53:07sidebar on parliamentary procedure. It

53:10has been the policy of this city for

53:12nine years through a bunch of chairs, a

53:15bunch of different attorneys, bond

53:17councils, and for us to reduce the

53:20amount of process

53:22on this [clears throat and snorts]

53:24is not smart.

53:26>> Thank you.

53:27>> So, if you're not going to do it, I

53:28would move to uh overturn the ruling of

53:31the chair.

53:34>> Second.

53:38Can you stay while you're overturning

53:40>> your decision that an ordinance requires

53:42one vote?

53:43>> So with the um No, I

53:47you're being a little uh quick with your

53:50language there. What I said is it has to

53:53be considered by more than more than one

53:55meeting. It was it was clearly discussed

53:58at the last meeting and it's being

54:00discussed tonight. Those are two

54:01readings. There's plenty of transparency

54:03there. this thing has been discussed

54:05longer than most subjects of are

54:08discussed. So the suggest there is no

54:10transparency is disingenuous. So I'm

54:14just following what the ruling is. If

54:15the city solicitor would like to speak

54:17to it, I'd be happily recognize her.

54:21>> So all I would say, Mr. Chairman,

54:23>> Mr. You're not recognized, Mr.

54:24Stephanie.

54:26>> Good morning.

54:28>> Um through you, Mr. Mr. Chair, this is

54:31not a policy. This is charter. It's the

54:34law. It is very clear. There are are

54:36provisions that allow you to pass

54:39a proposed ordinance if it is an

54:42emergency ordinance at one meeting. What

54:45the charter calls for is for ordinances

54:48to have um not to be allowed to be

54:51passed at the meeting at which they're

54:53introduced. So, you'll have two readings

54:56of that. I cannot speak to why there was

54:59a policy on two votes. I know other

55:02communities do and enroll and ordain at

55:04two separate meetings, but what your

55:06charter calls for specifically is that

55:09it a proposed ordinance not be passed at

55:13the meeting at which it's introduced.

55:14So, it requires two meetings. It

55:16requires a vote at a second meeting.

55:20>> Mr. Chairman,

55:21>> yes. So,

55:24however we want to word smith this and

55:26work through and I'm happy to go through

55:28line by line and talk about the analysis

55:32that is here or not. For us to do this

55:35at this point in time seems to me to be

55:36foolhardy.

55:37>> I understand. So,

55:38>> and I will happily withdraw the motion

55:39if you agree that there will be a second

55:41vote at the next one. And if not, I will

55:44continue. This has been the policy of

55:46this community and it has been validated

55:48by city solicitors. It's been validated

55:51by bond council and our outside code

55:54experts repeatedly and in fact it was a

55:57stated purpose to increase the amount of

55:59transparency. This body has repeatedly

56:03on zoning matters had numerous

56:06discussions on the zoning matters and

56:08still proceeded to have two votes. We've

56:11done the same with the budget where

56:12we've had numerous conversations and two

56:15votes. This precedent tonight is a huge

56:20huge step back in our transparency as a

56:23body to go from having two conversations

56:26on a topic and it changes the entire

56:28dynamic of how an ordinance is

56:31introduced. So in in a situation where

56:34there are two votes, you could have a

56:37substantive conversation on the first

56:40round of the vote to take place. We do

56:44not do that. In fact, we don't even have

56:46in most instances a vote on that. We

56:48refer it directly through the chair and

56:51we allow that to happen because we've

56:53chosen on the other end to have two

56:56cracks at it so we can get amendments,

56:58so we can publish them, so we can look

57:00at them, so that it can get through all

57:03stages of development. It is a mistake

57:09for us to take a step back on our

57:12transparency.

57:12>> Okay. Well, I disagree with doing that.

57:14We had a conversation about it last

57:16time. We had a conversation about it

57:17this time. It's been a public hearing

57:19last time. We could have any any level

57:22of discussion tonight we want to have.

57:23So, we have plenty of transparency. Uh

57:26if you'd like to make your motion.

57:27>> I did and it was seconded.

57:29>> Okay. Any further discussion about the

57:31motion?

57:33>> Miss Bryant.

57:35>> Um Oh, about the motion he made?

57:38>> Yes.

57:40>> Okay. Um or the main topic?

57:42>> No. About the motion he made. That's the

57:44president. It has a precedent. That

57:45motion has a precedent.

57:47>> Okay.

57:50>> Are you speaking about that? No.

57:51>> Did you have a comment?

57:52>> No. No. I was I

57:54>> Okay.

57:55>> Comment on the motion.

57:56>> Thank you.

57:57>> Go ahead.

57:58>> All right.

58:00>> Whatever vote we take tonight will be

58:02the same vote we take at a subsequent

58:04meeting. That's that's what I don't

58:06understand.

58:08>> We we we we met. We talked about it and

58:11I I don't understand the city solic's

58:13answer. Did she answer that it's it's

58:15one vote or two votes? She said

58:17ordinance required two readings, but I

58:18didn't hear her say we needed two votes

58:20or one vote,

58:22>> Mr. Chair.

58:23>> Yes. Sorry. Thanks.

58:26>> This is specifically what the chart of

58:28the law of Framingham states.

58:30>> So, it's Do we need two votes? Yes or

58:31no? That was my question. So, it's

58:33hopefully yes or no.

58:33>> So, Mr. Chair, can I ask the solicitor

58:35question?

58:36>> Not yet. So please don't interrupt Mr.

58:39Stephanie.

58:41>> It states

58:41>> be recognized.

58:42>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. No ordinance shall

58:45be passed finally on the date it is

58:48introduced except in case of emergency.

58:52No ordinance shall be regarded as an

58:54emergency ordinance unless the emergency

58:57is defined and declared in a preamble to

58:59the ordinance separately voted upon and

59:02receiving the affirmative vote of seven

59:04or more counselors. Section B, measures.

59:08The council may pass a measure through

59:11all of its stages at any one meeting

59:14except proposed ordinances,

59:17appropri appropriation orders, and loan

59:20authorizations, which are the bond

59:22orders that councelor Stephanie refers

59:24to provided no counselor shall object.

59:28So the charter itself requires that that

59:33meeting that the topic is introduced a

59:35proposed ordinance alone appropriation

59:39or an appropriation order. You can't

59:41vote on it at that meeting. You vote on

59:44it at another meeting. You have to have

59:47it introduced at one meeting. You can

59:49have 10 more meetings about it if you

59:51want to, but you can't pass it at the

59:54first meeting at which it's introduced

59:56unless it's an emergency and unless that

59:59specific type of vote is taken as called

1:00:02for by the charter.

1:00:04>> I'm not even sure what the what the

1:00:06controversy is because we discussed this

1:00:08last time and I said this would be the

1:00:09vote tonight. So, I'm not sure where

1:00:11that

1:00:12>> Mr. chairman.

1:00:13>> Uh,

1:00:14[clears throat]

1:00:16briefly, you've already spoken twice on

1:00:17the issue.

1:00:18>> Well, I I'm carrying the conversation.

1:00:20It's my motion, and I wish to respond to

1:00:22the solicitor. I'd like to ask the

1:00:24solicitor why it was that you, the

1:00:27clerk, and our outside council for code

1:00:29enforcement rejected the um stretch code

1:00:34ordinance that received a hearing and a

1:00:36vote, and it was rejected because it did

1:00:39not have two votes. Could you explain to

1:00:41me why in December of last year that

1:00:43policy was put forward and today that is

1:00:47not an ordinance in our community and it

1:00:49received one vote and in fact that was a

1:00:52conversation that I was not part of the

1:00:54council when that happened but when I

1:00:56became chair of the rules committee that

1:00:58was the policy that was the outside

1:01:00council why is it that bond council

1:01:03similarly rejected and asked us to have

1:01:05a second vote on something because they

1:01:07weren't prepared to finance it because

1:01:09it did not follow the process that's

1:01:11outlined in our constitution and why did

1:01:13Marilyn Contraus the foremost expert in

1:01:16the state say that this language going

1:01:19through all stages of what's going on

1:01:20taken in context with other pieces of

1:01:23the charter and the definition of

1:01:25measures itself would require two votes

1:01:29>> I and you disagree with all of those

1:01:32other people can you explain to why they

1:01:34disagreed with you

1:01:35>> that she cannot she cannot

1:01:38>> she cannot I'm not didn't allow the

1:01:40question. She cannot explain why other

1:01:42people disagree with her. That's

1:01:43>> to explain her ruling in last December.

1:01:45>> She just explained her ruling and read

1:01:47you from the charter.

1:01:48>> She did not

1:01:50cuz you can't explain why in December of

1:01:52last year an ordinance was rejected that

1:01:55only had one vote and it did have more

1:01:59than one hearing. And this does not say

1:02:02hearing. It says through all stages.

1:02:07We're being inconsistent and we're doing

1:02:09it on the fly in the middle of the

1:02:11summer on a controversial issue that we

1:02:13have 60 days to deal with. I don't know

1:02:15why we're using this as a precedent to

1:02:18change a policy and reduce our

1:02:20transparency as a community. This is a

1:02:22big mistake.

1:02:29>> So I I was under the impression from the

1:02:32beginning that it was two readings

1:02:33because that was the first thing I

1:02:34asked. That was way back and that was

1:02:37what we discussed at the ad hoc

1:02:39committee that it was um two readings.

1:02:43It couldn't be voted on. The language is

1:02:45clear. It can't be voted on on the first

1:02:47meeting. It has to be a second meeting.

1:02:49Second reading. You could say it, you

1:02:51know, it needs two votes. Well, two

1:02:54votes aren't two readings. It's two

1:02:56readings is what it writes. And I I

1:02:59don't honestly think that it's fair to

1:03:01say that it by wanting to vote on it

1:03:03tonight. It's been eight weeks. They're

1:03:05all Everybody's sort of in limbo of, you

1:03:08know, and in another 3 weeks it's

1:03:10already going to just go, you know, it's

1:03:12already going to go into law. So, I

1:03:15think that, you know, the folks that

1:03:16have been coming to these meetings and

1:03:18have been listening, you know, not

1:03:20everybody finds it super highly

1:03:22controversial. Um, I was at the senior

1:03:25center a couple of I've been I go there

1:03:27frequently and they would tell you a

1:03:30whole different story. So, I don't think

1:03:32it's fair to

1:03:34make him, you know, imply that, you

1:03:36know, by wanting to vote on this and,

1:03:37you know, get the folks that have been

1:03:39in limbo for 8 weeks that we're being

1:03:42not transparent because we're going by

1:03:45what's in the charter. And I just want

1:03:47to make sure that I want to add that

1:03:49because that's not the case. This is not

1:03:51about [snorts] this isn't new. This has

1:03:53been going on. This has been talked

1:03:54about since March. So, these folks are

1:03:57just waiting to figure out if they're

1:03:59going to go forward. that are they going

1:04:00to go backward or they're just sort of

1:04:02kind of there. And I just don't think

1:04:04that it's fair to all of these

1:04:07department heads, division heads, um um

1:04:11committee, parks, library committee

1:04:13people that are all have been at all

1:04:15these meetings to just, you know, we're

1:04:17not rushing it, but we're certainly, you

1:04:19know, to just not vote on it. You know,

1:04:21it it's going to go through in three

1:04:22weeks. So,

1:04:23>> all right. Let me ask this. Would it be

1:04:27acceptable to you if the mo the

1:04:29reorganization motion does not require

1:04:31another vote?

1:04:32>> Correct.

1:04:32>> Would it be acceptable to you in the

1:04:34light which I disagree with of

1:04:36transparency that the ordinance gets two

1:04:38votes but the reorganization gets one

1:04:40vote?

1:04:40>> Yes.

1:04:41>> Can you separate those motions?

1:04:44>> Sure.

1:04:44>> I withdraw my motions. [snorts]

1:04:47>> Okay.

1:04:48>> Okay.

1:04:49>> All right.

1:04:49>> So what what am I doing?

1:04:52>> Separating the [laughter] motions. Oh,

1:04:53like so

1:04:55>> make two motions. I'm going to accept

1:04:57two motions just to so we don't get

1:04:59stuck in the weeds on this discussion.

1:05:01>> You want a motion to approve the

1:05:02reorganization presented by the mayor?

1:05:03So moved.

1:05:04>> Second, I guess.

1:05:06>> Okay. But we also need a motion.

1:05:08>> I make

1:05:08>> So moved on the

1:05:10>> on the on the adopt the ordinance as

1:05:12recommended by the mayor and approved by

1:05:14the committee.

1:05:16>> Second.

1:05:17>> So the reorganization vote would be

1:05:19final tonight. The ordinance vote would

1:05:21be on the next agenda. Perfect.

1:05:24>> Fine.

1:05:25>> Wait a second. Okay. Sarah Bean knows

1:05:26where we are. Yes. Miss Milik,

1:05:29>> thank you. I see two ordinances in the

1:05:32background materials. So, can you just

1:05:33clarify which ordinance we'd be voting

1:05:36on? The first

1:05:37>> The one submitted by the mayor

1:05:39>> is the proposed reorganization

1:05:41ordinance. The first document on the

1:05:43background materials.

1:05:44>> That's the only one. Yes,

1:05:45>> that's the ordinance we're voting

1:05:46[clears throat] on. Thank you.

1:05:49>> My my Brian, please.

1:05:52Miss Feny.

1:05:55>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, that's a great

1:05:58segue for me, Councelor Malik. Uh, so I

1:06:03just I want to say a few things. Uh, in

1:06:05your background material is a proposed

1:06:07ordinance that takes the mayor's

1:06:08presentation, his words, uh, and it

1:06:12codifies it in an ordinance. And by

1:06:14doing this, it establishes a strong

1:06:16foundation that will remain effective

1:06:19regardless who occupies these positions,

1:06:22division heads, deputy directors,

1:06:24mayors, counselors in the future and

1:06:26offers protections of the mission,

1:06:28purpose, and services of these

1:06:30departments. So, I've gone through and

1:06:33and listened to the mayor and read his

1:06:36uh reports and it outlines the roles of

1:06:38the deputy directors and who they report

1:06:40to. Provides scope of operations,

1:06:42ensures full compliance to the

1:06:44Massachusetts board, library

1:06:45commissioners in the Mass General Law

1:06:47regarding libraries.

1:06:49It maintains the legal roles of the

1:06:51appointed council on aging and the parks

1:06:53and recreation commission and the

1:06:54elected board of library trustees. keeps

1:06:57the budget separate, outlines permitting

1:06:59responsibilities, and it also uh

1:07:02requires an audit and report about cost

1:07:04savings and effectiveness by March uh

1:07:062027, which at the ad hoc meeting um the

1:07:10mayor did say that this will probably

1:07:12have to be under review uh ahead of the

1:07:14FY208

1:07:16budget. So, I think that works. Um this

1:07:20is just taking everything that he that

1:07:22the mayor has said and his vision and

1:07:23putting it into an ordinance. So, uh,

1:07:29through you, Mr. Chair, uh, since this

1:07:32is the mayor's ordinance, I'd like to

1:07:34make a friendly amendment,

1:07:36uh, to take what I have proposed and put

1:07:39that in the ordinance itself.

1:07:42>> Okay. So, here's another problem with

1:07:44parliamentary procedure. This the

1:07:46ordinance proposed by the mayor is part

1:07:49of the reorganization. We cannot amend

1:07:51the reorganization at some future date

1:07:54after we adopt this ordinance on its own

1:07:57merit. You can introduce your ordinance,

1:07:59but you cannot introduce a different

1:08:01ordinance under the mayor's

1:08:02reorganization proposal because it

1:08:04cannot be amended.

1:08:06>> Well, what if it is not changing

1:08:08anything about his reorg, his vision and

1:08:11plan? two two things I would say it we

1:08:13cannot amend the mayor's proposal and

1:08:15this is the mayor's proposal the

1:08:17ordinance whatever it is it can be 800

1:08:19pages long so your proposed alternative

1:08:22ordinance is not in order at this time

1:08:24at some future time it could be an order

1:08:26but since we're also doing what we're

1:08:28doing for two votes I'm sure you can

1:08:30talk to the mayor about it over the next

1:08:31couple of weeks and maybe you guys can

1:08:32come to an agreement too I don't know

1:08:34>> I'm just trying to make things you know

1:08:37um easier and preserve it for the future

1:08:40And you know, it is an ordinance. I'm

1:08:42proposing a friendly amendment

1:08:45uh that we do all the time and it is not

1:08:48changing his plan. In fact, it's using

1:08:50the mayor's words and vision.

1:08:51>> I I understand and appreciate that. But

1:08:54the charter is very clear on or

1:08:56reorganization, ordinances, proposals,

1:08:59whatever. It's a yes or no vote of the

1:09:01council. We cannot amend it.

1:09:04>> I did not read it as the ordinance could

1:09:06not be amended. I thought it was his

1:09:08plan and this is his plan.

1:09:10>> Just put this agenda item is his plan.

1:09:12I'm not suggesting at all is we have

1:09:14full control over ordinances. If you

1:09:16want to file that ordinance, we can

1:09:18approve this ordinance this night and

1:09:19the next night on a two vote deal. Okay?

1:09:22And you can bring it back and we can

1:09:24remend it if it's so desired by the

1:09:26board right away. But under this

1:09:28particular item, which is the mayor's

1:09:30request for reorganization, we cannot

1:09:32amend it.

1:09:33>> Does the um Mr. chair through you. Does

1:09:37the mayor have any thoughts about this

1:09:40>> about the friendly amendment?

1:09:42>> Um,

1:09:43>> point of order.

1:09:44>> Point of order, Mr. Cannon.

1:09:45>> So, um, I I appreciate the the just to

1:09:48be clear to point people to the charter,

1:09:51it's article five, section one. No

1:09:54organization plan may originate with the

1:09:56council. So, that's part A. But the very

1:09:58last sentence of article 5 section one

1:10:00is the council may vote only to approve

1:10:04or disapprove the plan and may not vote

1:10:07to amend it or alter it. The charter is

1:10:09very clear that way to allow the

1:10:11executive to execute. [clears throat]

1:10:14>> Correct.

1:10:14>> That's all I have now.

1:10:15>> Correct. Um

1:10:16>> thank you. And the ordinance as you know

1:10:18is required as part of the plan. So

1:10:20therefore I understand what you're

1:10:22doing. I don't necessarily object to it.

1:10:24Okay. But you can't do it under this

1:10:26agenda item. You can do unless the mayor

1:10:28somehow agreed to it. I don't even know

1:10:30if he's read it. You could do it in the

1:10:32future. You could do it next week under

1:10:33your own agenda item. You cannot do it

1:10:35here. It's a yes or a no vote.

1:10:38[snorts]

1:10:38>> Mr. Chairman, I thought you came up with

1:10:39a great suggestion. We do what we do

1:10:41tonight and then councilini can kind of

1:10:43talk to the mayor and maybe he changes

1:10:45it, maybe he doesn't, but he gives her

1:10:46the opportunity offline to have the

1:10:48discussion.

1:10:49>> Right. But for now, I'm not going to

1:10:50accept I cannot accept the motion to

1:10:53endorse the amendment.

1:10:57Mr. Ward,

1:11:00>> thank you, Chair. Um, so I I I think

1:11:03when we spoke about this proposal um

1:11:06last meeting, there were a number of

1:11:08questions that arose, which is why it

1:11:10got sent to the ad hoc subcommittee. I

1:11:13think for me, um,

1:11:17it might not be an ideal situation, but

1:11:19there were cost savings that we asked

1:11:20the mayor to to find, and I thought the

1:11:23merging of the facilities and the parks

1:11:25and recck department was one that made

1:11:27sense. I was less on board with the

1:11:31elimination of the director of the

1:11:33Callahan Center, but had no problem with

1:11:34the movement of the Callahan Center from

1:11:37parks and recre parks and wreck to uh

1:11:40the library division. So, um, long story

1:11:43short, I think

1:11:45we're trying to balance are the savings

1:11:49worth the squeeze. And so, part of what

1:11:51we were asking the subcommittee to to

1:11:54look at was what are the actual savings,

1:11:57taking into account any

1:12:00reclassification raises that would have

1:12:02to be given?

1:12:05And was there any way without adding

1:12:08money into the budget, but utilizing

1:12:10some of the grant funds that had been

1:12:14identified for senior services to

1:12:17reinstate or to provide more support for

1:12:20the Callahan center director position or

1:12:22some some other position. And so I guess

1:12:25my question is in order to vote on a

1:12:28reorg plan and to support it, those are

1:12:29kind of questions that for me need to be

1:12:31answered. What are the reclassifications

1:12:33that are going to need to take place

1:12:34within the departments if this goes

1:12:36forward and what are the costs that

1:12:38those are going to that are

1:12:39[clears throat] going to come with

1:12:40those?

1:12:42Because if we're saying we're doing this

1:12:44to save money, well, we can't really say

1:12:46that unless we've answered those

1:12:47questions. So, um that would be I guess

1:12:50a question to the subcommittee or to the

1:12:52mayor or to the CFO.

1:12:57>> So, I would yield to the CFO. He I think

1:13:00that was one of the questions that was

1:13:01asked

1:13:02>> the thing

1:13:05>> or the mayor.

1:13:08>> Yeah. I mean [clears throat]

1:13:12>> through you Mr. Chair. So as part of the

1:13:15ad hoc discussion that question was

1:13:18asked uh the original projected savings

1:13:20with the two positions is approximately

1:13:22$260,000.

1:13:25We have expressed um an understanding

1:13:29that there's going to have to be some

1:13:31potential changes made to um a small

1:13:35number of job descriptions that could

1:13:36lead to increased compensation or

1:13:40reclassifications of positions that

1:13:42would still some of that would still

1:13:43have to be brought forward to the

1:13:45council. We have the initial analysis

1:13:48and projection has always been and I

1:13:50think this number is the same as I've

1:13:52been using all along that that is no

1:13:53more than we estimate based on a initial

1:13:56review of it no more than $50,000. So

1:14:00we're still projecting approximately

1:14:01between 200 and $210,000 of budgetary

1:14:04savings with the reorganization.

1:14:08There also as I've mentioned in previous

1:14:10discussions could be additional savings

1:14:13realized through um health insurance. I

1:14:16don't have specific information on

1:14:18whether the individuals were eligible to

1:14:20retire. If they were on insurance plans

1:14:23if they were eligible that typically to

1:14:25retire then typically you would carry

1:14:26that plan. So we may not have that

1:14:28savings. If they were not eligible to

1:14:30retire then we would likely at some

1:14:32point realize some health insurance

1:14:33savings as well depending on the plan.

1:14:35But on a pure salary basis, we've

1:14:38consistently estimated between 200 and

1:14:40210,000 and that projection has not

1:14:43changed as of today.

1:14:46>> Miss Long,

1:14:47>> can I just quick follow up?

1:14:49>> Yes.

1:14:50>> Through you, chair, h how long do we

1:14:52think it's going to take to to come up

1:14:54with the reclassifications?

1:14:59Um, I would probably to defer to the HR

1:15:03director on that part of the process to

1:15:05be quite honest with you. I mean, I've

1:15:06looked at the value the numbers, but I

1:15:08think that that process is still going

1:15:09through with the mayor on reviewing

1:15:11that. Um, I would expect it shortly

1:15:14after these votes to be quite honest. I

1:15:16I think that the plan is all the

1:15:18understanding has been that once this is

1:15:20actually the reorganization if it is

1:15:23approved then the next proc the next

1:15:24step would be to do the to make those

1:15:27reclassification changes because I do

1:15:28believe they do require some input or

1:15:31participation from the council.

1:15:33>> Yeah. I I think I think for me they're

1:15:35kind of important part of approving the

1:15:36plan.

1:15:39>> Mong

1:15:41thank you Mr. Chairman. I just want to

1:15:42follow up with um just to reiterate that

1:15:45um I actually asked multiple questions

1:15:48of the mayor, of the CFO

1:15:51um and of the library people that did

1:15:53attend the meeting. Um as to um what the

1:15:58annual savings would be anticipated

1:16:01about other Massachusetts municipalities

1:16:03that use similar models. uh what success

1:16:06will be measured over the next uh 1

1:16:09three five years. what problems exist uh

1:16:13what protections will exist for the

1:16:15statutory role of library trustees and

1:16:17for the council of the aging which are

1:16:19well protected on under Mass General law

1:16:21for the council agent that's section uh

1:16:25chapter 40 section 8B

1:16:27um and why were these departments

1:16:31particularly picked for consolidation

1:16:34what happens in the new structure does

1:16:35not achieve the anticipated efficiencies

1:16:38and will the annual public reports

1:16:40be provided comparing outcomes before

1:16:42and after implementation on a regular

1:16:45basis. So those questions were asked and

1:16:48I think they were sufficiently answered

1:16:50uh by because I did request that

1:16:53information from the CFO from the mayor

1:16:55uh from the library and from others that

1:16:57were at that meeting to make sure that

1:17:01everything was going to be um kosher I

1:17:05guess I would call it that. So I think

1:17:08our committee, our ad hoc committee um

1:17:11processes properly.

1:17:15>> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions

1:17:17from the members of the Mr. Canon then

1:17:19Miss Bryant?

1:17:20>> Just briefly in addition to the

1:17:21financial piece and it's unusual for me

1:17:23to dwell on things other than the

1:17:25financial piece. Um, I've probably

1:17:28attended and in fact I can think say

1:17:30with certainty I've attended and

1:17:31participated in more council on aging

1:17:33meetings than anybody else that has

1:17:34served on our city council since we've

1:17:37been a city. And the frustration that

1:17:39I've seen over the years is how and

1:17:42where I think we've fallen short is how

1:17:45deep our services to seniors have sat in

1:17:49the Oregon chart. You had to go through

1:17:51I mean layers of management within the

1:17:53Callahan Center, layers of management

1:17:55within parks, the chief oper I mean it

1:17:58was just you couldn't it took forever to

1:18:00get something from point A to point B

1:18:02and years went by before certain things

1:18:04were done. I think other than the

1:18:06financial piece and I think there'll be

1:18:09more benefits to discover financially

1:18:11over the over time but removing two

1:18:15middle management layers between the

1:18:17delivery of senior services our fastest

1:18:19growing sector of our community and the

1:18:22mayor I think that's a a big positive

1:18:24having our seniors have a larger

1:18:26meaningful voice and a louder seat at

1:18:28the table I think is a positive step. Um

1:18:32I I don't care when we vote. I would

1:18:35rather vote sooner because it allows

1:18:37people to get to work, but if the

1:18:38consensus of the council I mean, okay,

1:18:41we can we can squabble about dates. I'm

1:18:43I'm the meeting was really effective.

1:18:45Councelor Long asked some really great

1:18:47questions that I think a lot of us had

1:18:48on our minds, myself included. Councelor

1:18:51Liam Bruno ran a very effective meeting.

1:18:53They were pointed questions. They were

1:18:54tough questions. And the administration

1:18:56is very committed here. And I remember

1:18:58this c it was a different council at the

1:19:00time um when there was a different plan

1:19:02that wasn't effective for our seniors

1:19:04being proposed and councelor King and

1:19:07then councelor Sitki and and myself and

1:19:09others worked really hard to make sure

1:19:11that our seniors were protected. So if

1:19:13there was something that I think any of

1:19:14us thought would be other than

1:19:16beneficial for our community of older

1:19:18adults, you know, we'd be probably

1:19:21picketing outside. But I think there's

1:19:23been a lot of collaboration. I I think

1:19:24there's always going to be people that

1:19:26try to make political hay over various

1:19:28things, but I think because we have a

1:19:29really good team at the Callahan Center,

1:19:31a really good team within parks, a

1:19:33really good team within facilities, and

1:19:34a really good team in in libraries. Uh,

1:19:37and I applaud the mayor for developing

1:19:38talent. We have new people coming in as

1:19:40well, great new CFO. I, you know, I feel

1:19:44really good about the future that we're

1:19:45going here. There are a million reasons

1:19:47we can put in obstacles we can invent to

1:19:49not do something or to do something the

1:19:51way we've always done it. I feel really

1:19:53good about the collaboration that I've

1:19:54seen about how we're going to uh work

1:19:56together and if if we find additional

1:19:58pockets of money, I would rather let's

1:20:00just flag it. I would rather those

1:20:02dollars go towards the delivery of

1:20:05services and staff that are front-facing

1:20:07to the public delivering services rather

1:20:09than layers of management. All due love

1:20:11and respect to our fantastic management

1:20:13team. I'm not trying to um speak uh

1:20:16negatively about management, but there

1:20:18are finite resources and endless uh

1:20:20demand. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

1:20:22>> Thank you, Miss Bryant. Then I'm going

1:20:23to go to the audience.

1:20:26>> Thank you. I um I am invoking uh 29B of

1:20:30the home room charter.

1:20:32>> Didn't see it. I'm sorry, Miss Bryant. I

1:20:34was distracted. What did you say?

1:20:37>> I said I am invoking um se uh article 2

1:20:41section 9 of the home room charter.

1:20:43>> Yeah, you can't do that in this

1:20:44instance. Thank you. I I explain because

1:20:47I have it right here and um I I do

1:20:51believe I can't I

1:20:53>> You cannot because it has to be invoked

1:20:54in the first night the item is before

1:20:56the council.

1:20:58>> I I beg to differ but

1:21:00>> Okay. Thank you. Well, you can read it

1:21:02and you can get back to me, Mr.

1:21:03Stephanie. Then we'll go to the public

1:21:05>> many times. Um

1:21:06>> if you could just re mry, I'm not trying

1:21:09to be difficult, but I don't want you to

1:21:11have to take my word for it. If you

1:21:13could just reread that section, you will

1:21:15see it's only available on the first

1:21:17night it's discussed before the city

1:21:19council. Okay.

1:21:20>> Uh can I read it now? It's right. Go

1:21:23ahead.

1:21:23>> Okay. Measures. The council may pass a

1:21:26measure through all of its stages at any

1:21:28one meeting except not propo except

1:21:31proposed ordinances, appropriation

1:21:33orders, and loan authorizations. And

1:21:36this is a proposed ordinance provided no

1:21:38counselor shall object. If any single

1:21:41member objects, a vote on the first on

1:21:43the measure shall be postponed to the

1:21:45next meeting of the council. I object

1:21:49and read the next sentence you're

1:21:50talking about. Keep reading. Keep

1:21:52reading, Miss Brian. Keep reading. Keep

1:21:54keep reading, Miss Bryant.

1:21:56>> On the first occasion that the question

1:21:58of adopting any measure is put to the

1:22:00council except an emergency measure is

1:22:03defined in article 2 section 9A. If a

1:22:07single member objects to the taking of a

1:22:09vote, that's separate. The vote shall be

1:22:12postponed until the next regular or

1:22:15special meeting of the council.

1:22:16>> Okay. Well, I'm going to rule it out of

1:22:18order, Miss Bryant.

1:22:19>> Miss Bryant, I'm going to rule it out of

1:22:21order. If you'd like to make a motion to

1:22:23doubt the ruling of the chair, we can

1:22:24have another one of those if you'd like.

1:22:27>> I make a motion to doubt the ruling of

1:22:29the chair.

1:22:30>> Don't want to do that.

1:22:32>> Okay. Seeing no second, Mr.

1:22:33Stephanitini.

1:22:34>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to

1:22:36talk about the reorganization plan. Um,

1:22:39I'd like to start by thanking the mayor

1:22:41for thinking outside the box. I don't

1:22:44mind that we're the first to do

1:22:45something. It doesn't bother me that um,

1:22:49we're a trailblazer. We are in some

1:22:51areas and other communities may not have

1:22:54followed this or tried this, but that

1:22:56doesn't itself frighten me. Um, and I

1:23:01think it's important for us to think

1:23:02about what reorganizations are and why

1:23:04the charter treats them differently than

1:23:06everything else. They're not about

1:23:08people and personnel. And we have a lot

1:23:10of conversations about what someone sees

1:23:13or hears or thinks. It's about structure

1:23:16and organization

1:23:18and the lack of details. A job

1:23:21description does not We put job

1:23:22descriptions together pretty quickly. if

1:23:25we're this is not and we should not be

1:23:28making this decision based on $260,000

1:23:30of savings because a lot of that will

1:23:32get evaporated by what goes forward.

1:23:35It's about the synergy that exists, the

1:23:37metrics for success, the overall plan

1:23:41which I think are not fully formulated

1:23:45and I'd like to talk about these a

1:23:47little bit separately.

1:23:49First,

1:23:51the reorganization needs to be

1:23:52strategic, not haphazard. It should be

1:23:54planned out, not rushed. It should

1:23:57involve those that are affected, not

1:23:59ignore them. The council on aging piece

1:24:01of this, I think, has some good

1:24:03potential. The library has a platform

1:24:06that is very large and we tend to focus

1:24:10on the council on aging like the

1:24:12Callahan Center is the entire council on

1:24:15aging. The Council on Aging is dealing

1:24:17with the entire aging population in our

1:24:20community and the opportunity to use the

1:24:23library platform as a potential way to

1:24:25reach that audience and potentially

1:24:28utilize some of the 600,000 plus of

1:24:31funds that are there to do something. I

1:24:33would agree with Mr. Canon. I think

1:24:34there's some great opportunity to have

1:24:37some something done there and the new

1:24:39plat the broader platform may provide a

1:24:42good opportunity to do that.

1:24:44That said, um

1:24:48the park reorganization

1:24:50I think lacks

1:24:53in detail plans, process and structure

1:24:57and absent some kind of ordinance agreed

1:25:01to by the mayor and I agree with the

1:25:02chair that the mayor has to be the

1:25:05initiator but the mayor can amend his

1:25:07own proposal and submit it to us if he

1:25:09so desires. I had the pleasure, as I

1:25:12think some of you know, and many of you

1:25:14probably do not, to serve as our state

1:25:15representative and a selectman in the

1:25:1790s. And in that time period, we

1:25:19expanded Callahan, created Victory, uh,

1:25:24received Cushing Park, um, and built

1:25:27Merchant Road Soccer Complex.

1:25:31I don't know that any of those, as the

1:25:32person who negotiated with the governor

1:25:35and played a leadership role in those, I

1:25:37don't know that any of those would have

1:25:39happened without a park director,

1:25:41somebody with the gravitas,

1:25:44the decades of professional

1:25:47understanding,

1:25:48the contacts in the industry itself,

1:25:52and the incredible awareness that comes

1:25:55from the statutes and everything else of

1:25:57doing it. It's not a knock on anybody in

1:26:00the process. It is uh a dedicated

1:26:03position dedicated to advocating for

1:26:07our parks and recreation, probably our

1:26:10largest property owner.

1:26:12It's not about cutting lawns every

1:26:14Tuesday

1:26:16or Thursday. It's about advocacy and

1:26:19decision-making and accountability.

1:26:23Um,

1:26:26we're lucky. We have very dedicated men

1:26:28and women in each of these departments

1:26:31and they're going to continue to make us

1:26:32all proud and they're going to make the

1:26:34people that show up proud. The question

1:26:36is, what are we going to do

1:26:37strategically?

1:26:39What are we going to do to provide a

1:26:40vision and a direction and understand

1:26:44what's going on someplace else?

1:26:47For these reasons, absent a revised

1:26:50ordinance by the mayor to provide some

1:26:53guidelines along the lines of what Mfini

1:26:55has presented, I will not be supporting

1:26:57the package.

1:26:59>> Okay. Thank you. I'm going to go to the

1:27:01audience now and then we'll take a vote

1:27:03on the uh two votes on the two different

1:27:07uh motions. But this is I know a couple

1:27:09people who had wanted to speak. So I'm

1:27:11going to recognize the people who signed

1:27:13up. Then I will take a couple hands and

1:27:15then we will vote. So the people who

1:27:17signed up, we'll start with Mary

1:27:18>> McIll.

1:27:28>> I I understand. I said I'll take hands.

1:27:30I just But some people signed up for

1:27:33items on the agenda. So I'm just taking

1:27:35them as I know they want to speak.

1:27:40>> You'll get your chance. Don't worry.

1:27:43Mayor Council, thank you for having me.

1:27:48I am here today to share my feelings

1:27:50about the proposed reorganization of the

1:27:52Callahan Center

1:27:55and I am making it clear that I am not

1:27:57here on any political urn. Anyone who

1:28:01knows me knows that I do things by the

1:28:03book and I make sure that our mission

1:28:06which is to promote the greater

1:28:08community interest and perpetuate the

1:28:10dignity and well-being of our seniors is

1:28:12followed. Change is not always easy. We

1:28:16often become comfortable with what we

1:28:19know and what we think and and the

1:28:22thought of changing sometimes something

1:28:25has been put to our community can bring

1:28:27uncertainty. But I truly believe that

1:28:30moving forward is how we grow. The

1:28:33Callahan Center has always been people,

1:28:36connections, learning, and community.

1:28:39Bringing the library into this new

1:28:41vision gives us an opportunity to build

1:28:44on that foundation and not take away.

1:28:50Sometimes we must be willing to try new

1:28:53a new direction in order to create

1:28:55something even better. We have the

1:28:58opportunity here to bring people

1:29:00together, create new opportunities, and

1:29:02make the center even a more vibrant and

1:29:05welcoming place for our community. I

1:29:08believe we should not look at this as a

1:29:10lo as losing what we have. We should

1:29:14look at this as building on what we

1:29:15have. The future will always require us

1:29:19to adapt. If we never change, we never

1:29:22discover what could have been possible.

1:29:25So today, I respectfully ask each of you

1:29:28to look ahead and have the courage to

1:29:31embrace a new direction and vote for

1:29:34approval. Let's let's honor the Callahan

1:29:37Center's history while giving its

1:29:39opportunity to create a new chapter.

1:29:42Change can be different, but sometimes

1:29:44the greatest things we do for our

1:29:46community begin with simply being

1:29:49willing to move forward. Thank you.

1:29:51>> Thank you. Um,

1:29:55Miss McGill is the president of Friends

1:29:57of Callahan. I should have mentioned

1:29:59that. Um, so I also a couple things.

1:30:01Since this is a public hearing, every

1:30:03speaker is limited to three minutes.

1:30:04You'll get a warning at about 20

1:30:06seconds. Okay? If you can do it less

1:30:08than three minutes, that would be very

1:30:09much appreciated. But, um, because we,

1:30:12this is the second session of this

1:30:14public hearing. Um,

1:30:17Mr. Kibette, are you here?

1:30:26Thank you. My name is Steve Kivette. I'm

1:30:28a member of the Friends of the Callahan.

1:30:30Today's a very important day for the

1:30:31city of Framingham. The city council is

1:30:34voting on the reorganization program

1:30:36proposed by Mayor Suzitzki. I realize

1:30:38that some of you have reservations about

1:30:40the reorganization program, but I urge

1:30:43the council to do the right thing for

1:30:44our seniors and approve the proposal.

1:30:47The Callahan Center is not a geriatric

1:30:50center. In fact, it's more like a

1:30:52clubhouse for our seniors with

1:30:54tremendous opportunities available to

1:30:56them, including informative courses,

1:30:58exercise programs, special lunchons,

1:31:01card rooms, entertainment, and many

1:31:03other terrific offerings with more to

1:31:05come. In the process, it offers the

1:31:08seniors the chance to make new

1:31:09friendships. If you have not spent time

1:31:11at the Callahan, you can't fully

1:31:13appreciate how special it is or why our

1:31:16decision tonight is so important. I

1:31:18would encourage the city council members

1:31:20to visit the Seni and perhaps become

1:31:22members and see what it's all about.

1:31:24Dawn and Noelia are excited about this

1:31:26plan and I urge the city council to make

1:31:29this a permanent realignment. Is it

1:31:31perfect? Nothing really is, but let them

1:31:34do the job with the wonderful enthusiasm

1:31:36that they have. If there are pitfalls,

1:31:39then it's the job of the city council to

1:31:41recognize them and help fix them. Please

1:31:44do not worry about what can happen in a

1:31:46few years. Our seniors are more are more

1:31:49concerned about what is happening today,

1:31:51tomorrow, and maybe a few months from

1:31:53now. The future will take care of itself

1:31:55with your guidance. Some of you have

1:31:57mentioned money not spent by the

1:31:59Callahan Center. If this is a problem,

1:32:01it can be fixed by the council and

1:32:03should not be the reason to hold up the

1:32:05plan. Others have expressed concerns

1:32:07about how the other cities handle the

1:32:09seniors. We are not other senior seniors

1:32:12cities, excuse me. We are Framingham and

1:32:15should be proud of this proud of this

1:32:17proposal. There is no harm in being

1:32:19first. Someone has to be first. Why not

1:32:22us? Combining the library and the

1:32:24Callahan Center will produce

1:32:26unbelievable opportunities that will

1:32:28make Framingham a leader in regarding

1:32:30seniors, including expanded ESL

1:32:33programs. Our seniors already make good

1:32:35use of the Callahan and library and this

1:32:38combination opens up all kinds of

1:32:39programming that only uh limited by

1:32:42imagination. I urge you all to put away

1:32:45any reservations you may have and vote

1:32:47in favor of this proposal. Thank you for

1:32:50listening.

1:32:50>> Thank you, Mr. Kette. Uh Miss Clish.

1:33:00>> Hi. Um Heather Clish 21. I'm the chair

1:33:03of the um library trustees, but I'm

1:33:05speaking for myself tonight. Um before

1:33:07you vote on this proposal, I just wanted

1:33:09to um speak to the PDF document labeled

1:33:13org chart for mayor RN, which is in the

1:33:15agenda packet. Um

1:33:19so, uh related to the reorg details, um

1:33:23I just um just for just for the record,

1:33:26I believe there are three errors in this

1:33:28org chart that should be addressed. Um

1:33:31the first one is that there should be a

1:33:33dotted line between the board of library

1:33:35trustees and the mayor. Um as per the

1:33:37charter, the board of library trustees

1:33:39advises the mayors on all matters

1:33:40concerning the library division. Uh

1:33:43number two, there should actually be a

1:33:44dotted line between the board of library

1:33:46trustees and the proposed library and

1:33:48community services division head. Um the

1:33:51trustees

1:33:53um have governance, policy, advisory,

1:33:55oversight roles um in relation to the

1:33:58library through the library director. Um

1:34:00and third dot the dotted line currently

1:34:03uh that exists between the library

1:34:05trustees and the um library de deputy

1:34:09director or the library assistant

1:34:10director should um not exist as we work

1:34:14through the library director. So I just

1:34:16wanted to uh make note of those on the

1:34:19chart.

1:34:19>> Thank you very much. Sure they'll take a

1:34:22look at that. Okay. So I'll take other

1:34:24hands who'd like to speak on the issue.

1:34:26The woman in the back with her hand up

1:34:28can't see. Yes, you. Thank you.

1:34:35>> Good evening, mayor and city council

1:34:37members. My name is Cynthia Cobb and I

1:34:39am the chair of the Council on Aging.

1:34:42Um,

1:34:43and I wanted to make three key points if

1:34:45I may about the reorgan about the

1:34:47Council on Aging specifically. At first

1:34:49that the Council on Aging did deliver a

1:34:51letter to the city council on June 16th

1:34:55and we were expecting it to be read into

1:34:57the record and it wasn't. So I just

1:34:58wanted to make clear that the council on

1:35:00aging does have a voice and we do hope

1:35:02that the voice will be heard and

1:35:04considered for future uh city

1:35:06discussions. The second point that I

1:35:08want to bring up is to emphasize the

1:35:10distinction here. The council on aging

1:35:13is not the Callahan Senior Center. Uh

1:35:16this distinction I I've heard the mayor

1:35:18make it many times as well and you've as

1:35:20as well, but it's I'm not sure it's been

1:35:22fully appreciated in terms of the

1:35:24significance of this reorganization uh

1:35:26that's being discussed. The Council on

1:35:28Aging, of course, is an appointed

1:35:30advisory body. The Callahan Senior

1:35:32Center is a facility that has the

1:35:33programs and the services. And the

1:35:35Friends of Callahan is a separate

1:35:37nonprofit that uh raises funds to

1:35:39support the center, but they serve very

1:35:42different purposes. The Council on Aging

1:35:46um is a much broader constituency.

1:35:48Again, this has been brought up tonight,

1:35:49and I really do appreciate everybody

1:35:51acknowledging that. um it's it's not

1:35:53just the senior center and there are

1:35:55many in fact about 90% of the population

1:35:59of seniors that don't attend the senior

1:36:01center. So this brings up uh this

1:36:04broader community that's serviced uh is

1:36:07was served by the director of aging

1:36:10services that was his title and this

1:36:12position has been eliminated and

1:36:14replaced with the deputy director of the

1:36:17Callahan Senior Center. So the change in

1:36:19title alone reflects the significance of

1:36:22the the change in focus. Um so so it's

1:36:25from a citywide aging services to an

1:36:28operation of a senior center. Um so with

1:36:31the elimination of this director who was

1:36:33serving as the uh the leader if you will

1:36:36responsible for advocating uh across all

1:36:38elderly uh uh

1:36:42being an advocate for the elders of

1:36:44Framingham. this role now kind of falls

1:36:46on the council of aging. Um and we need

1:36:50to be recognized, supported and engaged

1:36:53um as a city's the city's voice for its

1:36:55older adults. So which leads me to my

1:36:58last point um which is that the council

1:37:00on aging has 11 authorized positions but

1:37:03only seven are currently filled and we

1:37:05still are being held to a quorum of six.

1:37:08uh as if we had 11 members, but we

1:37:11understand that the city is holding off

1:37:12on filling out four of these these four

1:37:14vacancies. And we respectfully ask that

1:37:17those positions be filled so that the

1:37:19council on aging can function as a fully

1:37:22constituent body and benefit from the

1:37:24perspectives and the participation of

1:37:27additional members. Uh and more

1:37:30important most importantly I want

1:37:31everybody to know that the Council on

1:37:32Aging is here that we are engaged that

1:37:35we are listening uh to all of the older

1:37:37adults across the city and we will do

1:37:40our best to ensure that voices are part

1:37:42that their voices are part of the city's

1:37:44conversation. Thank you.

1:37:46>> Thank you. Perfect on your three

1:37:47minutes. Thank you.

1:37:48>> All right. Thank you.

1:37:52[applause]

1:37:54>> Anyone else like to speak? Mr. doing it.

1:38:07>> Joe Wette resident speaking for myself.

1:38:11Uh I've read the backup materials that

1:38:13have come with the uh issues on the

1:38:16table for the city council and I have a

1:38:19number of issues that I think should be

1:38:22noted. uh the votes that you're going to

1:38:25make uh tonight uh are based upon

1:38:28information that you have presented

1:38:31previously either in writing or through

1:38:33discussion, but there are always seem to

1:38:36come up something that you're not clear

1:38:38on and they're not not everything has

1:38:41been presented to this committee. For

1:38:43example, the the um job descriptions for

1:38:49the four four positions that are being

1:38:52affected have not been prepared. So, how

1:38:56I'm I would say that's something that's

1:38:58not been done and that should be done

1:39:00before the vote is taken. the the

1:39:02adjustment on salary whether in fact we

1:39:05have a savings of $210,000

1:39:08or not it all depends upon uh as the CFO

1:39:12said it's a range between 200 and 210

1:39:16um uh of a savings but but the proposal

1:39:20has not been made why can't those

1:39:23information be made first before the

1:39:25vote is taken uh looking at the

1:39:28documents I also note that the um

1:39:32position the deputy director positions

1:39:35are appointed by the mayor but report to

1:39:38the division heads um that see seems to

1:39:42be and the dur durations of the term of

1:39:45their appointments is not stated so

1:39:48there's that information is not clear

1:39:51it's been asked and I would think you

1:39:53would need want that information uh when

1:39:56you have the momentum to get information

1:39:59if you vote on this now Without this

1:40:02information, there's no motivation to

1:40:04have that information made public so

1:40:07that the residents can understand as

1:40:09well. So, I'm suggesting uh that you get

1:40:12your information before you take your

1:40:14votes. And you can do that by

1:40:16tableabling the vote tonight and have it

1:40:18come back at another city council

1:40:20meeting after you have the information

1:40:23that's been requested. uh summarizing

1:40:26the job descriptions, the uh salary and

1:40:31and [snorts] the uh durations of terms

1:40:33of these new positions. Uh these new

1:40:35positions are key to having this

1:40:37organization and you're you're going to

1:40:39vote without that information and I

1:40:42think that's a mistake. Thank you.

1:40:44>> Thank you, Mr. Wette. Anyone else?

1:40:47Uh the people in the back, the gentleman

1:40:49in the back row,

1:40:54[snorts]

1:41:02Brian Sullivan, District 4. Um since

1:41:05you're leaving us with the only option

1:41:07of either voting up or voting down, I'm

1:41:09asking you to vote down.

1:41:11It's been two and a half months since

1:41:12the announcement of the reorg. Yet, we

1:41:14still don't have exact figures in the

1:41:16actual salary increases that will go to

1:41:18employees who take on the workload of

1:41:19the directors. At the ad hoc meeting, a

1:41:2260k number was thrown out kind of

1:41:24randomly. I know because I asked the

1:41:26question. Now, tonight we just heard

1:41:27it's 50k. No details, nothing, just a

1:41:31number thrown out there. [snorts]

1:41:33It's been 2 and a half months since the

1:41:35reorg was announced. No updated job

1:41:37descriptions for impacted employees

1:41:40supposedly impacts four employees. What

1:41:43is so hard about modifying four job

1:41:45descriptions? I believe councelor

1:41:46Stephanie and he said we can do it. No

1:41:48big deal. Two and a half months. I don't

1:41:50get it. Why aren't you Why the big

1:41:53secret? Tell these folks what they're

1:41:55going to be doing. Let the Let the

1:41:56public and the council have a clue on

1:41:58what you're actually doing.

1:42:01It's been two and a half months and

1:42:02still no metrics on how we're going to

1:42:04deem whether this is this little

1:42:05experiment is going to be a success or

1:42:07failure. Again, no big deal. We'll do it

1:42:09later. I mean, it's amazing what how

1:42:13much is being taken on faith. You're

1:42:15actually being asked to make changes to

1:42:17a reorg and not really being given any

1:42:20details.

1:42:22The veterans were completely forgotten

1:42:24in the reorg even though they were

1:42:25supposed to be part of it. How could

1:42:27they have been forgotten? To me, that's

1:42:29even clear that the basics weren't even

1:42:31thought out that this that the veterans

1:42:32were missed. Well, we'll throw them in

1:42:34later.

1:42:36The mayor [snorts] wants it passed

1:42:37because he says, "We're in limbo now

1:42:38since there's no money in the budget for

1:42:39the director positions." But it should

1:42:41be made clear to the public. It's the

1:42:43mayor who put us in this exact situation

1:42:45by terminating employees before having a

1:42:48solid plan.

1:42:50I do have a concern too, just I don't

1:42:52want to call it bragging, but we are

1:42:53talking about healthcare savings for

1:42:55terminated employees. I am wondering if

1:42:58that's going to open up a Pandora's box.

1:43:00Will employees now be looked at as

1:43:01whether they have a family plan or

1:43:03individual? Does a family plan employee

1:43:06have a bigger target on their back now

1:43:07during a layoff? So, I think just be

1:43:09careful pushing that too much. In the

1:43:13end, you folks are the checks and

1:43:15balance. You know, I look at a

1:43:17responsible parent um when they [snorts]

1:43:19have a new teenage kid that wants the

1:43:21car keys and wants to drive. The

1:43:23responsible parent says, "Where you

1:43:25going? who you're hanging out with,

1:43:27you're getting the details. So, right

1:43:30now, I don't think you have the details.

1:43:32So, I'm asking you to be the responsible

1:43:34parent [snorts] and don't give the keys

1:43:36away. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

1:43:38Sullivan.

1:43:40Other anyone else like to speak,

1:43:43Miss Hall?

1:43:45Then we'll go back to Mr. Alexander,

1:43:47then we'll take a vote.

1:43:49How many more people would like to

1:43:50speak? Put your hands up if you'd like

1:43:52to speak. Okay. So, we're going to have

1:43:54two more people from the audience, then

1:43:55I'm going to go to Zoom, then to Mr.

1:43:57Alexander, who I missed before, then

1:43:58we're going to have a vote. Okay, Miss

1:44:00Hall. Thank you.

1:44:01>> Thank you. Good evening, counselors. I'm

1:44:03Audrey Hall from District 2. In the

1:44:05past, I served for six and a half years

1:44:07on the Council on Aging, and I'm here

1:44:09tonight to urge you to vote no on this

1:44:12proposed reorganization. So, let's look

1:44:14at the facts. The positions being cut

1:44:16represent a salary savings of

1:44:18approximately $260,000

1:44:20out of a $389

1:44:22million budget. Mathematically, that is

1:44:25a drop in the ocean, less than onetenth

1:44:28of 1 cent for every dollar the city

1:44:31spends. And once you subtract the raises

1:44:33for remaining employees taking on

1:44:36additional responsibilities, that

1:44:38savings becomes even smaller. This is

1:44:41not a compelling financial argument for

1:44:43such a major operational change that

1:44:46impacts overall advocacy and leadership

1:44:49for our aging population. It's much more

1:44:52than the Callahan Center. And more

1:44:53importantly, this proposal is not ready

1:44:56for a vote. You need to evaluate updated

1:45:00job descriptions, details on reassigned

1:45:02duties,

1:45:04and exact figures for the promised pay

1:45:06adjustments or the necessary pay

1:45:08adjustments. and you cannot make an

1:45:09informed financial or operational

1:45:11decision without that information. And

1:45:14voting without the details means you're

1:45:16basically signing a blank check. This is

1:45:18also a serious operational concern.

1:45:20Placing elder services under the

1:45:22management of the library makes no

1:45:24administrative sense. Our growing senior

1:45:26population requires specialized

1:45:28knowledge of grant compliance, social

1:45:30advocacy, and elder health care. And

1:45:33those services deserve focused

1:45:35leadership, not to be buried with

1:45:37another department. And you don't need

1:45:39to spend time at the Callahan Center to

1:45:41qualify to participate in a conversation

1:45:43on the needs of elders. And the timing

1:45:46is particularly troubling. The city

1:45:48right now is conducting a survey to

1:45:51determine the needs of our senior

1:45:52population. And yet this reorganization

1:45:55is being rushed through before those

1:45:56results are even reported. Why make a

1:45:59major structural decision before we know

1:46:01what our seniors actually need? If you

1:46:04vote yes tonight, you assume the

1:46:06political and operational risk. If

1:46:08services suffer or if the undetermined

1:46:11raises further reduce the promised

1:46:12savings, it's your credibility on the

1:46:15line. And as elected representatives,

1:46:17your responsibilities to the taxpayers

1:46:19and to our growing senior population.

1:46:22Please demand the missing information

1:46:24and most importantly, make an informed

1:46:26decision. And please vote no on this

1:46:28plan tonight. Thank you.

1:46:29>> Thank you. Gentleman in the back by the

1:46:32door. [applause]

1:46:33The gentleman by the back door. But in

1:46:36the back by the door.

1:46:37>> Thank you.

1:46:38>> Um boy Bob Prine think I'm District 7.

1:46:43Um my cons I boy it's hard to not agree

1:46:47with what was just said but uh my

1:46:50concern is a little more of a basic

1:46:52level that for as a veteran library user

1:46:55I've we've had a library trustees that

1:46:59are duly elected by the people of

1:47:02Framingham

1:47:03and I'm concerned that this proposal

1:47:08is a um

1:47:12is counterproductive to what we've been

1:47:14doing for over 150 years, and that's

1:47:17electing a board that's independent

1:47:21and does their darnest to keep the

1:47:24library system going.

1:47:27And

1:47:28it's almost like an assault on on

1:47:31democracy itself that that the board

1:47:35which is duly elected by and do and has

1:47:39had sole control over the library for

1:47:42like I said over 150 years and

1:47:46and that that authority is being

1:47:49taken away from them like they now they

1:47:51won't have control over the uh job

1:47:55description of the director.

1:47:58And

1:48:01well, I guess that's most of most of

1:48:03what I have I'm concerned about.

1:48:05>> Thank you very much.

1:48:06>> The gentleman in the back. [applause]

1:48:19>> Hi, Jeff Epstein. Halane. I just have

1:48:22two observations. First of all, I was

1:48:23pretty surprised to find that you could

1:48:25suddenly find half a million dollars to

1:48:27help out the condo owners when you can't

1:48:29find $110,000 for the uh uh senior

1:48:34services director. It seems to me that

1:48:36you might be just as nimble with the

1:48:38seniors as you have been for the condo

1:48:39owners. The other thing is there's a lot

1:48:41of talk about the Callahan. Well, the

1:48:43Callahan's great. They have lectures

1:48:44there. They have meetings there. They

1:48:46have Zumba classes there. But uh as

1:48:49Randy Ellsworth explained to me in

1:48:51detail, what matters to seniors is

1:48:53housing and transportation and

1:48:55healthcare, there's a lot of suff

1:48:57suffering, especially on the south side.

1:48:59People can't get to the doctor. They

1:49:00don't have money to get to the doctor.

1:49:02They don't any way to find housing

1:49:04because rents are going up. We need

1:49:07someone who's going to advocate on the

1:49:09ground for uh uh seniors, not someone

1:49:11who's just going to run classes at the

1:49:14the senior the Callahan Center. I think

1:49:16it's a great center. There's no doubt

1:49:18about it. And it improved. In fact, when

1:49:20Randy uh got there three years ago, 40%

1:49:23of the staff positions weren't filled.

1:49:25And he fixed up the office, fixed up the

1:49:27programs, but he was working on senior

1:49:29needs. And there's a senior services

1:49:32survey that went out and is coming due

1:49:34in September, which will deliver exactly

1:49:37what should happen with the senior

1:49:38services. And all this reorganization is

1:49:41happening before that's going to happen.

1:49:42So, I'm going to say vote no on this.

1:49:45And I got 14 different reasons in an

1:49:47article I just published to say no, but

1:49:48I'll just say some of them here and hope

1:49:50I get to the end of it. A no vote uh

1:49:53with a there's a turning point here. A

1:49:55no vote means that the director of

1:49:57senior services will be there and

1:49:59properly supported. It will align with

1:50:01best practices in every city and town

1:50:03across the Commonwealth and will

1:50:04continue the su successful expansion of

1:50:07senior services and not just the

1:50:09Callahan programs. It also will follow

1:50:11the sound advice of the council on aging

1:50:13which is totally opposed to this change.

1:50:16It will also recognize the importance of

1:50:18senior services in the city. A yes vote

1:50:20on the hand eliminates the director of

1:50:22senior services delivering a big

1:50:25staffing cut to the senior services

1:50:27removing its successful planning and

1:50:29grant efforts and disabling the

1:50:31effectiveness of the needs assessment

1:50:33being done by UMass MO Boston. It all al

1:50:36also ignores the fact that 348 out of

1:50:39350 other cities and towns in

1:50:41Massachusetts think that combining

1:50:43senior service and the library is a bad

1:50:45idea and have not done that. This also

1:50:48uh a yes vote here disregards the sound

1:50:51advice of the council on aging

1:50:53confirming that its advice is not only

1:50:55not welcome but it's not valued. I don't

1:50:58know why anyone serves on that board. It

1:51:01will make it clear a yes vote to senior

1:51:04community that the seniors don't matter.

1:51:06That support for the 20 plus uh 20,000

1:51:09plus seniors in the city is on the

1:51:11decline. And this is especially true

1:51:13when a petition opposing the

1:51:14reorganization has quickly drawn almost

1:51:16a thousand signatures. So what is

1:51:19entirely remarkable is that the mayor

1:51:21has not submitted a detailed plan to the

1:51:23city council with the new time up.

1:51:26>> Okay. Thank you. I'll just repeat what

1:51:28everybody else said. There's no plan and

1:51:30it's an org challenge.

1:51:31>> Thank you. Okay, there's three people on

1:51:33Zoom and then we will be done with the

1:51:35public hearing portion of this. Um,

1:51:40unfortunately for the Zoom

1:51:42administrator, I can't I don't have the

1:51:44um authority somehow to promote people

1:51:46here. So, I'd like to recognize Carol

1:51:48Daniels first.

1:51:59Hi.

1:51:59>> Hi.

1:52:00>> Can you hear me?

1:52:00>> Yes, we can. Go ahead.

1:52:02>> So, I'm Carol Daniels and I'm a

1:52:04Framingham resident and I'm here to urge

1:52:07you to vote no on the proposed

1:52:09reorganization

1:52:11because it eliminates our dedicated

1:52:13director of aging services and puts the

1:52:16Callahan Center under the library

1:52:17hierarchy. Um the administration points

1:52:21to eight weeks of smooth operations and

1:52:23staff support as evidence of uh success,

1:52:27but eight weeks is too short to measure

1:52:29long-term success and staff support is

1:52:32not a substitute for consulting for

1:52:35consulting key stakeholders including

1:52:37the council on aging and library

1:52:39trustees before proposing a permanent

1:52:42change.

1:52:43Also, the 8-week transition does not

1:52:46prove an executive position is

1:52:48unnecessary. It just proves that we have

1:52:50capable staff keeping the daily

1:52:52operations running. And while the staff

1:52:55has definitely excelled at managing the

1:52:57daily programming and facilities, a

1:52:59director's true value lies in what is

1:53:02invisible on a day-to-day basis, like

1:53:04securing state grants or protecting

1:53:06municipal budgets, evaluating shifting

1:53:09demographic needs and fighting for

1:53:11resources within the city government. I

1:53:14think the dangerous impact of losing

1:53:16this executive advocate won't be felt

1:53:18today or tomorrow, but rather down the

1:53:21road when the major grant deadline is

1:53:23missed or a budget crunch occurs or a

1:53:25community crisis leaves a department

1:53:27without a strategic leader to steer the

1:53:29ship. Before voting yes, I asked the

1:53:32council to answer two basic questions.

1:53:35How much will this reorganization save

1:53:37annually after other positions and

1:53:39responsibilities are adjusted? and what

1:53:42measurable evidence shows that

1:53:45eliminating the director and placing

1:53:46elder services under library supervision

1:53:49will improve services or efficiency. We

1:53:52haven't given we haven't been given

1:53:54those answers. I think good morale and

1:53:56uninterrupted

1:53:58uh programming demonstrate a smooth

1:54:00transition, not long-term success. And

1:54:03then there's also the fundamental in

1:54:05>> Miss Daniels, you have 15 seconds left.

1:54:07Okay.

1:54:08Under the library and community

1:54:10services, the library retains its

1:54:12director identity and executive

1:54:15advocate, but the senior center loses

1:54:17those. Collaboration's valuable, but not

1:54:20required doesn't require replacing one

1:54:23department under another with different

1:54:24missions. So, I think if you want to

1:54:27save money, hire a dedicated aging

1:54:29services director at a more reasonable

1:54:31salary. Maybe report to the

1:54:33>> Okay, Miss Daniels, your time is up.

1:54:35Okay.

1:54:35>> Okay. Am I done? Yes, your your time is

1:54:38up.

1:54:40I mean, I'll let you finish a sentence.

1:54:42I don't want to but

1:54:45Okay. Thank you. Okay. Kathy McCarthy,

1:54:48you have three minutes,

1:54:56>> hi. You have three minutes, Mr.

1:54:58McCarthy. Yes, you have three minutes.

1:54:59>> Good.

1:55:01Sorry,

1:55:03I'm going to hang up on

1:55:05>> Well, don't hang up. Can you hear me?

1:55:07>> Yeah. Go ahead. You have three minutes.

1:55:11I don't think you can hear us. This is

1:55:13the problem.

1:55:17>> Hi. Can you hear me?

1:55:19>> Kathy, we can hear you. If you can

1:55:20>> Okay. Because I I my hand wouldn't stay

1:55:23up and I didn't know whether you saw it,

1:55:26so I called in which I never do. Thank

1:55:28you very much for your patience. So,

1:55:32first of all, thank you to all who have

1:55:35come out. I I couldn't come to the ad

1:55:38hoc meeting because I had a surgery that

1:55:41day. And um you know I think you have to

1:55:47remember as city councilors

1:55:50who votes and who expects you to look

1:55:54out for them because see the seniors

1:55:58have been advocating for schools all

1:56:02these things many as many of you know

1:56:06I'm an access and senior advocate past

1:56:09town meeting member

1:56:12a former disability commissioner and

1:56:14council on aging member.

1:56:17The point is

1:56:19that we should not be just lumped in.

1:56:23Why didn't you just have community

1:56:25services department instead of library

1:56:29and whatever. As was a previous person

1:56:32mentioned,

1:56:34you're lumping it in. When I hear folks

1:56:38say, "Oh, it's much better because of

1:56:41the collaboration." I agree. We've been

1:56:44collaborating. We've been growing at the

1:56:47Callahan. But as the the uh chair of

1:56:51this council on aging made it very

1:56:53clear, there's more than just what

1:56:56happens at the Callahan Center. and

1:57:00previous directors as well as hopefully

1:57:04future directors will do that will

1:57:08engage on the whole senior population.

1:57:12You know,

1:57:15we hear a lot from certain people

1:57:17saying, "Why don't you come down?"

1:57:20Many of us have been coming down for

1:57:22years to the Callahan Center and

1:57:24engaging

1:57:26in the advocacy for the seniors and the

1:57:29disabled and the veterans. Where did

1:57:32that all come from?

1:57:34when you have a plan and speaking in a

1:57:38financial mass matter basically you have

1:57:42to have all your ducks in a row and I

1:57:46was very disappointed when I didn't see

1:57:48on the background information the um

1:57:52present

1:57:54uh job descriptions current and any

1:57:58changes for advancement for any of these

1:58:02job descriptions you heard from um a

1:58:07noteworthy person from the library that

1:58:10showed the graph.

1:58:11>> Kathy, you have 15 seconds.

1:58:13>> So, in any case, [clears throat] a lot

1:58:16of people have said wonderful things

1:58:18that I totally agree with. Remember,

1:58:21seniors do not just say, "Oh, we don't

1:58:24like change." We live change. So, we are

1:58:29not against change. And I

1:58:32>> Okay, Kathy, your time is up. will ask

1:58:34you to vote no at this time until all of

1:58:37these ducks are in a row.

1:58:39>> Okay.

1:58:40>> And you have all these answers.

1:58:41>> Thank you, Miss McCarthy.

1:58:50>> Next is Mr. Herb Chason. You have three

1:58:53minutes.

1:58:55Thank you, Councelor King. Um,

1:58:58counselors, before you vote on this

1:59:01reorganization,

1:59:02I ask you to remember one thing, and

1:59:06that is that your vote will have

1:59:09consequences,

1:59:10and your vote will be remembered,

1:59:14especially by seniors. I [snorts] have

1:59:17to date uh just a few minutes ago online

1:59:21and you could verify this 978

1:59:25signatures online and I have 75

1:59:29signatures

1:59:30uh in paper that were signed on paper,

1:59:35153 signatures opposing opposing this

1:59:40plan. So, uh you some people could say,

1:59:44"Oh, big deal. That's that's a drop in

1:59:46the bucket. But just just think now in

1:59:49the election in the election for council

1:59:52in 2027

1:59:55a thousand people would will make a

1:59:58difference and I think you should

2:00:00consider that this is not going to go

2:00:03away so fast. This is a powerful message

2:00:06from the community.

2:00:08Uh the plan is not popular as you can

2:00:12see. I talked to my friends and and they

2:00:15just can't believe you're cutting the

2:00:17director of the senior center. I mean,

2:00:20it's just it's it's not I can't believe

2:00:24it. I'm speechless. You know, it it

2:00:26makes no sense. It it it's you're going

2:00:30to be disrespecting you're disrespecting

2:00:33seniors. That's what it comes down to.

2:00:35So, [clears throat]

2:00:36again, you know, uh where is the

2:00:39evidence? The detailed financial

2:00:42analysis has not been shown. I haven't

2:00:44seen it yet. And again, I've done a lot

2:00:47of research. There's not a comparable

2:00:50city that has done this and proves the

2:00:54arrangement actually works. So, what

2:00:58does that mean? Framingham is

2:01:00experimenting with the seniors here.

2:01:02What? I mean, it's nuts. It's just nuts.

2:01:05Okay. It

2:01:07>> Okay, you're all set.

2:01:09>> Thank you, Mr. Chas.

2:01:10>> Excuse me.

2:01:11>> I thought you were done. I'm sorry. No,

2:01:13I'm not done. I still have some time.

2:01:15The work, if you think about the work

2:01:17doesn't disappear because you eliminate

2:01:19the director's title. There is turns out

2:01:23that there's a very capable assistant

2:01:25director. Remember that assistant

2:01:28director I believe was hired by Randy

2:01:32Ellsworth who was summarily fired.

2:01:36Very disrespecting him. So, this person

2:01:40really deserves a a big raise. This

2:01:43person should be the director if she's

2:01:46really that good.

2:01:47>> 10 seconds, Mr. Jason.

2:01:49>> Anyway, so again, you know, be careful

2:01:53of your vote. It's going to

2:01:55[cough and clears throat] you're going

2:01:56to have to explain that to the people in

2:01:58the 2027 election that you

2:02:00>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chason. Your time

2:02:01is up.

2:02:02>> Point of information, Mr. Chairman.

2:02:04Could we ask Mr. Chason? You know, I've

2:02:06been on some of the sides with them,

2:02:07some against lately, more so lately

2:02:09against. But how many are framing

2:02:10residents of those thousand? Because we

2:02:12get difference of opinion on that.

2:02:15>> Just out of curiosity.

2:02:16>> I I think we're just taking comments

2:02:18from the public hearing.

2:02:19>> There's a point of information. He says

2:02:20he's got a thousand signatures. I

2:02:21>> I appreciate that. But

2:02:23>> well, the threats and innuendos are

2:02:24getting old. I

2:02:25>> I I concur. You

2:02:26>> agree with that?

2:02:26>> I do agree with that. Yes, I do.

2:02:28>> Six of us are seniors up here. The last

2:02:29time I checked, my daughter reminds me

2:02:31of that all the time. [laughter]

2:02:32>> But I am

2:02:33>> very spry, Mr. going to be on a very

2:02:35first sprite.

2:02:36>> Okay. So, that is it for our public

2:02:38participation, our public hearing. I'm

2:02:39going to go to uh Mr. Alexander. I did

2:02:41not recognize him before and then I'd

2:02:43like to take a vote. Mr. Alexander, are

2:02:45you available to speak?

2:02:47Thank you.

2:02:48>> Yes, I am. Hello, everybody. Good

2:02:51evening. Um, I just wanted to say, you

2:02:53know, obviously I was part of this um um

2:02:57ad hoc committee and um uh I I just

2:03:02wanted to make the I reiterate points I

2:03:04made during um that meeting and change

2:03:07is change can be hard. Uh I was uh you

2:03:12know y'all know I'm I was in the army

2:03:14and we have been through at least a half

2:03:17a dozen reorgs major reorganizations two

2:03:20of them during wartime and uh yeah it it

2:03:24changes hard. It always is. Um but uh

2:03:28sometimes you don't uh you have the

2:03:31shell of what you want to do. You have

2:03:32the vision of what you want to do. Um, I

2:03:36don't think you have to have every nitp

2:03:38picky position in place or written out,

2:03:41but if you have your your your mission,

2:03:44your goal, and how you want to structure

2:03:47it, and you have the people uh in place

2:03:51uh at least uh on a military um scale,

2:03:56that's what you usually look at. This is

2:03:59not a military organization obviously,

2:04:01but I think that there are some um valid

2:04:04tenants in that. So, um and the the

2:04:08three things that I was looking at when

2:04:10um or examining when this proposal came

2:04:14and again as this as we met in the um uh

2:04:19subcommittee, uh I'm looking at three

2:04:23things. um the services or actually

2:04:28sorry people centered because um unlike

2:04:32I believe some one of uh my colleague

2:04:35said about people uh this is very people

2:04:39centered people driven um and you want

2:04:43to streamline management and you want to

2:04:45be able to deliver um good services or

2:04:49top-notch services and in this case I

2:04:51think we should always be looking at the

2:04:52top notch uh and you always want and in

2:04:56this in our case uh you want to look at

2:04:58relative relevant client services. So I

2:05:02think to merge with or to look at the

2:05:06the library services and

2:05:09um the Callahan they are uh citizen

2:05:12services. Um they also service families

2:05:17uh seniors and youth and adults uh

2:05:21library and the the Callahan Center.

2:05:24They serve all three of those

2:05:26constituencies.

2:05:28So um and and also during that meeting I

2:05:32I asked about the metrics. How you going

2:05:34to um re-evaluate this? How you going to

2:05:37measure it over time? And I was

2:05:40satisfied with what the mayor um

2:05:42proposed or what he was looking at. And

2:05:44if I'm not mistaken, he he said in that

2:05:47meeting that they would be looking at

2:05:49this um and before the budget season

2:05:52comes upon us. um so they can um you

2:05:56know if they need to retweak or or surge

2:05:59ahead with um uh their plan uh and I was

2:06:03satisfied with that because you always

2:06:05want to have a uh near-term

2:06:09um look back and see what you're doing

2:06:11and how it's affecting your um your

2:06:14personnel and your client services.

2:06:17those two major things right there you

2:06:18need to uh always evaluate and I I

2:06:21believe looking at this or having a look

2:06:24back sometime in the fall is appropriate

2:06:28and then they'll be I'm sure the

2:06:29administration will have a longer term

2:06:32um uh look back or metric setup um later

2:06:36in the next year and lastly

2:06:41uh I'm astonished that I I'm hearing

2:06:43these like conflicting statements like

2:06:46oh we have great people. We have great

2:06:47staff and this and that and the other

2:06:49thing, but then it's like, well, uh,

2:06:52we're concerned that, uh, nobody's going

2:06:54to be able to carry this out and it's

2:06:57going to be, you know, fire and

2:06:59brimstone and, you know, all these, you

2:07:01know, things can happen, all these

2:07:03calamities can happen. Well, you can't

2:07:05have it both ways. Like, we have

2:07:08efficient, we have great people, great

2:07:10staff, very competent people, and you

2:07:14have to have faith. And I believe in

2:07:16fade. I believe we have the the the

2:07:18system in place. Um you execute that. Um

2:07:23and apparently we have really great

2:07:25people um lined up to uh to do this

2:07:29mission and to make sure that all three

2:07:31of these buckets are served. And again

2:07:34goes back to your your your your people

2:07:38people centered, mission centered,

2:07:40streamline management, and how you

2:07:42deliver services. And if we can get more

2:07:45services out of uh saving, you know,

2:07:48quarter million, I'm for that. I'm for

2:07:51that any time of the day. So, um again,

2:07:56um that's that's how I think uh that's

2:07:59what how I'm looking at it. I believe

2:08:01that's what my colleagues on this uh ad

2:08:03hoc mission. Um that that's what we're

2:08:06striving striving for. I think we ask

2:08:09the poignant questions. uh and this is

2:08:12not like some toss in the in the

2:08:14ballpark. I think this is analyzed and I

2:08:17think we need to have faith and let the

2:08:19let the ball roll and we can readjust it

2:08:23if we need to. Thank you.

2:08:25>> Thank you. So about a half hour ago I

2:08:27stated that we were done taking comments

2:08:30from the council. I would go to the

2:08:32audience and then about into that I said

2:08:34there were three left in the audience,

2:08:36three left in Zoom and one council who

2:08:38had not spoken. I have actually not

2:08:40spoken myself on the issue, but I will

2:08:42not. I understand there are other people

2:08:44now who have since put their hand up,

2:08:46but my intention is to call the vote

2:08:48unless there's an objection. We have a

2:08:50lengthy agenda. There are other

2:08:51important items here. I'm not sure that

2:08:53we will have any real new information

2:08:56here. And so that is my intent. So

2:09:01if that's the case, I will take the

2:09:02vote. And the vote first comes on the

2:09:04motion to uh approve the reorganization.

2:09:08Remember it was uh it was broken up

2:09:10previously. So the vote to on the

2:09:13reorganization will come first. So this

2:09:15is to approve the reorganization as

2:09:17proposed by the mayor. Miss Malik,

2:09:20>> no.

2:09:21>> Mr. Stephanini,

2:09:22>> no.

2:09:23>> Miss Bryant,

2:09:24>> no.

2:09:25>> Myself, yes. Miss Lam Bruno,

2:09:26>> yes.

2:09:27>> Miss Long,

2:09:29>> yes.

2:09:29>> Mr. Ward,

2:09:30>> no.

2:09:31>> Miss Feny,

2:09:31>> no.

2:09:32>> Mr. Cannon,

2:09:33>> yes.

2:09:33>> Mr. Alexander,

2:09:35>> yes.

2:09:36>> Mr. Aani.

2:09:37>> Yes.

2:09:38>> Okay. Six in favor, five opposed. That

2:09:40motion passes.

2:09:42>> The next motion comes on the ordinance

2:09:45as presented. Uh Mr. Stephanini,

2:09:48>> no.

2:09:50>> Miss Bryant,

2:09:52>> no.

2:09:53>> Myself, yes. Miss Liam Bruno,

2:09:54>> yes.

2:09:56>> Miss Long,

2:09:58>> yes.

2:09:58>> Mr. Wood,

2:09:59>> no.

2:10:00>> Miss Feny,

2:10:01>> no.

2:10:01>> Mr. Cannon,

2:10:02>> yes.

2:10:03>> Mr. Alexander,

2:10:05>> yes.

2:10:06>> Mr. Daviani,

2:10:07>> yes.

2:10:07>> Miss Malik,

2:10:08>> no.

2:10:09>> Six in favor, five opposed. The first

2:10:11reading, the ordinance passes. Thank you

2:10:13very much. We will have a 10-minute

2:10:14recess.

2:10:23The Government Channel's core mission

2:10:25for over a quarter century has [music]

2:10:27been to make the Framingham City

2:10:29government accessible to everyone. We

2:10:32were there [music] from the final

2:10:33decades of town government to the

2:10:35historic city transition, as well as

2:10:38[music] covering the political actions

2:10:40of past, current, and future city

2:10:42leaders. The Government Channel

2:10:44guarantees [music] ready access to many

2:10:46of Framingham's public meetings,

2:10:48enabling a reliable connection [music]

2:10:50to open discourse. Your government

2:10:53channel continues to document and

2:10:55preserve our local history because

2:10:58understanding the [music] city charter,

2:10:59community obligations, and our citizens

2:11:02rights allows everyone [music] to

2:11:04participate effectively in our

2:11:06democracy. The Government Channel,

2:11:09telling Framingham's story.

2:11:14The next item on the agenda, I need to

2:11:16zoom back on. I don't see

2:11:21Okay. Yes. Uh, Miss Long, the I'm sorry.

2:11:25The next item on the agenda is the

2:11:27planning and zoning subcommittee, the

2:11:28continued public hearing discussion,

2:11:30consideration of zoning amendments to

2:11:31Eagle Rock. It's a second reading and a

2:11:33vote. Miss Long, I think we're probably

2:11:36pretty much done with this, but just it

2:11:37should be relatively quick for those who

2:11:39are watching, but it does require a

2:11:41second vote.

2:11:45>> Is that to me?

2:11:47>> Yes, it's to you, please.

2:11:48>> All right. Thank you. So, just as a

2:11:50review, you have [clears throat] you

2:11:52have received the uh revised final

2:11:56memorandum of understanding between

2:12:00Clarksville and the city of Framingham.

2:12:02The city solicitor has reviewed it. It

2:12:05does

2:12:06>> Wait, hold on for a second. I'm sorry.

2:12:08What? She said Clarks Hill. It's Eagle

2:12:10Rock.

2:12:10>> It's Eagle Rock.

2:12:11>> I'm sorry. Eagle Rock. I'm sorry.

2:12:13>> Thank you. I didn't hear it myself, so

2:12:15don't worry. [laughter]

2:12:17problem with being a senior sometimes

2:12:18later.

2:12:19>> Take a break.

2:12:19>> Damn,

2:12:21>> hearing aids.

2:12:22>> Eagle Rock. Sorry about that. Flex

2:12:25Tail's already done. Anyway, so the umou

2:12:28does reflect the 25% ownership as

2:12:30recommended by uh the council uh

2:12:34council's recommendation under 1D, the

2:12:38western portion of um the developer will

2:12:41make available land for the western

2:12:43portion of the undevelopable lot as

2:12:45mutually agreed by parties for a license

2:12:47or lease at nominal cost to a nonprofit,

2:12:50education or conservation program. uh

2:12:54under E, the developer voluntary commits

2:12:56to certain use and transfer restrictions

2:12:58and this is the language that was

2:13:00requested by council Stephanini. So

2:13:03that's been incorporated into this. Um

2:13:05and those pretty much were the changes

2:13:07on the MOU.

2:13:09Um as far as the ordinance itself goes,

2:13:12I'm going to make the motion

2:13:16for all of this [clears throat] unless

2:13:18there's any questions on theou or

2:13:19anything else. Uh, but I'll make the

2:13:22motion to approve the zoning map

2:13:23amendment for the city council to

2:13:26approve the zoning amendments to the

2:13:27Framingham zoning map, Eagle Rock, which

2:13:30includes expansion of the business B

2:13:32district of the majority portion of 33

2:13:35Dinsmore Avenue parcel ID 10323

2:13:4061711

2:13:42uh 0.

2:13:43>> Second

2:13:43>> into the remainder of that parcel as

2:13:46well as into a portion of 31 Valentine

2:13:48Road. Partial ID 103221218000000

2:13:53to replace a portion of a R1 single

2:13:56family residence district as shown on

2:13:58the proposed plan in your background

2:14:00material.

2:14:02>> Okay. Is there a second?

2:14:03>> Second.

2:14:04>> I heard about one five minutes ago, but

2:14:05thank you for one now. All right. Is

2:14:08there any further discussion on this

2:14:09item? This is our second vote. Miss

2:14:11Bryant.

2:14:12>> Yes. I just wanted to commend um the uh

2:14:16work done on the MOA and getting it, you

2:14:19know, to us in a timely fashion. I think

2:14:22it's it's it really takes all of the

2:14:24requested updates into account. And I

2:14:26also wanted to thank the planning board

2:14:29for I think just stellar detail in terms

2:14:32of their um investigation and advice to

2:14:36the council. clear, very thoughtful and

2:14:39very collaborative in terms of um you

2:14:42know what with background information,

2:14:45history, all of that. I think that they

2:14:47did a great job also um on their part.

2:14:50So, thank you both. Planning and zoning

2:14:52and um the planning board.

2:14:55>> Thank you. Is there any further

2:14:56discussion? Okay, seeing none, all those

2:14:59in favor starting with you, Miss Bryant?

2:15:02>> Yes.

2:15:03>> Myself? Yes. Miss Lean Bruno?

2:15:04>> Yes. Miss Long,

2:15:07>> yes.

2:15:07>> Mr. Ward,

2:15:08>> yes.

2:15:08>> Miss Feny,

2:15:09>> yes.

2:15:10>> Mr. Cannon,

2:15:10>> yes.

2:15:10>> Mr. Alexander,

2:15:12>> yes.

2:15:12>> Mr. Aani, yes.

2:15:14>> Miss Malik,

2:15:14>> yes. Mr.

2:15:15>> Stephanie,

2:15:16>> yes.

2:15:16>> Okay, it's unanimous. Do we need any

2:15:18other vote or is that all we need?

2:15:21>> I think you got more housing for sale

2:15:23out of it, huh?

2:15:24>> More for sale. Yep.

2:15:26>> Okay. Thank you, Secretary.

2:15:28>> Thank you, Miss Gary.

2:15:29>> Thank you very much.

2:15:31>> Appreciate you being here. Okay. Okay,

2:15:33the next item on the agenda is a grant

2:15:35of location at the request of Eversource

2:15:36Energy Company to install conduit at

2:15:39pole 1320 over7 on Lexington Street. Um,

2:15:42is there someone from Eversource still

2:15:44with us?

2:15:45>> Want to have a motion to discuss?

2:15:47>> Sure.

2:15:48>> Make a motion to approve as presented.

2:15:50>> Second.

2:15:52>> I'm going to assume the person

2:15:54identified as Duffy Ja is from

2:15:56Eversource.

2:16:00>> Is that correct?

2:16:03Yes, Chaplan Duffy. How are you tonight?

2:16:05>> Thank you, Mr. Duffy. Thank you. Sorry

2:16:07for the wait.

2:16:08>> No worries. No worries.

2:16:09>> Just want to briefly tell us what we're

2:16:11doing here.

2:16:12>> I [clears throat] would like to install

2:16:1335 ft of conduit from pole 1320 over7 to

2:16:17provide electric service to 121 Union

2:16:19Avenue, which is the new courthouse.

2:16:22>> Okay. Is there any comments from the

2:16:24counselor or from the audience?

2:16:25>> We have a question.

2:16:26>> Yes, Malik.

2:16:27>> Are are you in you're not installing a

2:16:30new pole? You're simply installing

2:16:32conduit. Is that correct?

2:16:33>> Yes, just conduit.

2:16:35>> And do you imagine there being a poll in

2:16:37the future for this new courthouse?

2:16:41>> I I'm not sure.

2:16:43>> Okay. Thank you.

2:16:44>> I can find I can find out, but I'm not

2:16:46sure right now. It's just that we're

2:16:48going from that poll 132 over 7.

2:16:51>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Alexander.

2:16:53>> You're welcome.

2:16:57>> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I I just

2:17:00want to take this opportunity. I uh I

2:17:03I'm I'm not going to oppose this u this

2:17:06action, but I I wanted to um put on

2:17:09record. Uh and I've talked to our

2:17:12partners as well. Um and and we

2:17:16discussed um just the whole landscape of

2:17:19polls and double polls throughout the

2:17:21city. And um um it was there was a poll

2:17:25that went down on Route 9 on the

2:17:27westbound side. um about a few weeks ago

2:17:31and I addressed that with our partners.

2:17:34Um and uh and it was part of this um

2:17:38overall overview overlook of trying to

2:17:42uh mitigate getting these double poles

2:17:45and some places triple poles along Route

2:17:489 eliminated or reduced within or have

2:17:51the uh our partners come up with a solid

2:17:54plan and give us something um with some

2:17:58teeth behind it um to start getting rid

2:18:01of or reducing these polls. So, um I

2:18:05just want to go on record of saying that

2:18:07uh because of the poll that went down

2:18:09and caused all sorts of detour and

2:18:11traffic on Route 9 a few weeks ago, I

2:18:14think, uh I I just want to send a

2:18:16message across the bow to our partners

2:18:19publicly that um um that, you know,

2:18:23we're going to be really looking

2:18:25strongly at the at getting a plan so

2:18:28that when these um actions come across

2:18:32with conduits pole replacements or

2:18:35installations. We're going to really be

2:18:37looking a keen eye on this and um we may

2:18:42have to um you know look at it

2:18:45differently. Um quite honestly if

2:18:47there's no action, there's no plan to um

2:18:50do what we're what we're asking them to

2:18:52do. So I just wanted to go on record

2:18:54saying that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

2:18:55>> Thank you. Mr. Adviani, did you make the

2:18:57motion?

2:18:57>> I did.

2:18:58>> Is there a second?

2:18:59>> Second.

2:19:00>> Okay. All those in favor? I'm starting

2:19:01myself. Yes. Miss Lambrerno,

2:19:03>> yes.

2:19:03>> Miss Long,

2:19:05>> yes.

2:19:05>> Mr. Ward,

2:19:06>> yes.

2:19:07>> Miss Feny,

2:19:07>> yes.

2:19:08>> Mr. Canon, yes.

2:19:08>> Mr. Alexander.

2:19:11>> Mr. Alexander?

2:19:12>> Yes.

2:19:12>> Mr. Aani?

2:19:13>> Yes.

2:19:14>> Miss Malik?

2:19:14>> Yes.

2:19:15>> Yes. Stephanie, Miss Bryant?

2:19:18>> Yes.

2:19:18>> Thank you. Next item is a grant of

2:19:21location request by uh Eversource and

2:19:23Verizon New England to consider poll one

2:19:25poll number 19 over 20B on Bishop

2:19:27Street. Miss Duffy.

2:19:29>> A motion.

2:19:30>> We have discussion. Yes. Hold up. Motion

2:19:32to approve as presented.

2:19:33>> Thank you,

2:19:34>> Miss Duffy.

2:19:36>> Hi, Jacqueline Duffy. Um, Eversource

2:19:38would like to install one new pole one

2:19:4119 I'm sorry, 19 over 20B and this is

2:19:44necessary to provide electric service to

2:19:46an EV charging station.

2:19:49>> Okay, any questions, Mr. Malik?

2:19:52>> Yeah,

2:19:52>> I thought you had your hand up. Sorry.

2:19:54Okay, seeing none, none from the

2:19:55audience. All those in favor? Miss

2:19:57Lebro?

2:19:58>> Yes.

2:19:59>> Miss Long? Yes,

2:20:01>> Mr. Ward.

2:20:02>> Yes,

2:20:02>> Miss Feny.

2:20:02>> Yes,

2:20:03>> Mr. Cannon. Yes,

2:20:04>> Mr. Alexander.

2:20:05>> Yes,

2:20:05>> Mr. Daviani. Yes,

2:20:07>> Miss Malik. Yes, Mr. Stephani.

2:20:09>> Miss Bryant.

2:20:10>> Yes,

2:20:10>> myself. Yes. Unanimous. And last granted

2:20:14location request by Eversource Energy

2:20:16and Verizon, New England to stall one

2:20:17pole 578 over 10A and Czechberry Lane.

2:20:20Mr. Diani,

2:20:20>> make a motion approve as presented. Mr.

2:20:22Chair,

2:20:22>> second.

2:20:23>> Miss Duffy.

2:20:25Uh Jacqueline Daffy Eversource would

2:20:27like to install a new pole 578 over 10A.

2:20:31This is to uh reduce the overhead,

2:20:34excuse me, the overhead span distance

2:20:37between poll 578 over 10 and 578 over

2:20:4011. Current span distance is causing a

2:20:43strain on house services.

2:20:47>> Any questions? Seeing none for the

2:20:50audience, all those in favor, Miss Long.

2:20:53>> Uh yes,

2:20:53>> Mr. Ward. Yes,

2:20:55>> Miss Feny. Yes, Mr. Cannon. Yes, Mr.

2:20:57Alexander.

2:20:59>> Yes,

2:20:59>> Mr. Aani. Yes,

2:21:00>> Miss Malik. Yes, Mr. Miss Bryant.

2:21:03>> Yes,

2:21:03>> myself. Yes, Miss Le Bruno.

2:21:05>> Yes.

2:21:06>> Okay. Thank you very much, Miss Duffy.

2:21:08>> Thank you. Have a nice night, everybody.

2:21:09>> You too. Reporter mayor, we already did.

2:21:12Uh, next item is a request of the rules

2:21:14or ethics subcommittee report

2:21:15recommendation vote regarding

2:21:16consideration of the trust and local law

2:21:18enforcement ordinance. First reading and

2:21:20vote.

2:21:21>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um

2:21:25before I give the report and make a

2:21:27motion on the ordinance, I'd just like

2:21:28to go through the background because

2:21:30there are a lot of different things.

2:21:31Under item 13,

2:21:34the first item is the uh recommendations

2:21:37that we received to the draft from the

2:21:39ACLU of Massachusetts. The second is uh

2:21:44a motion I'm going to make which is a

2:21:47the report of the committee with some uh

2:21:50with almost all of the recommendations

2:21:51from the ACLU tightening it up. Number

2:21:54three is the report of the committee

2:21:55which I'll go through. The fourth is um

2:22:00uh the draft of the subcommittee. The

2:22:02fifth is the master service agreement

2:22:05with Flock in Framingham. The sixth is

2:22:08the APL uh R data deletion s uh uh issue

2:22:12which was an issue in this conversation.

2:22:14The next is um the ACLU comments.

2:22:18[clears throat] It's a repeat of above.

2:22:19And the last is a redline comparison of

2:22:23the committee draft which the committee

2:22:25voted on unanimously and the ACLU

2:22:30uh adjustments. So, the report focusing

2:22:33on items two and three under section uh

2:22:36files two and three under section item

2:22:3813. The subcommittee voted unanimously

2:22:41to recommend the adoption of the

2:22:42ordinance

2:22:44um as amended. Over the past five

2:22:46months, the committee has been working

2:22:49with the mayor, the police chief, the

2:22:50deputy police chief, our state

2:22:52representative, advocates, uh, residents

2:22:55to address concerns about civil rights

2:22:58of residents in deference to this work

2:23:01of the council. The police chief allowed

2:23:03the, uh, current ALPR, automatic license

2:23:07plate reader contract with the flock

2:23:09group to lapse on June 30th of this last

2:23:12uh, uh, last month.

2:23:15The subcommittee working with residents

2:23:16identified the following potential civil

2:23:18rights concerns. Misuse of data by

2:23:22vendors, federal agencies, local law

2:23:24enforcement, collection of non-licens

2:23:27plate data in violation of the Fourth

2:23:29Amendment. Control of the storage, use

2:23:31and destruction of data, accountability,

2:23:34transparency, parency of all access to

2:23:36and use of the data. governing law of

2:23:38any disputes with the vendors, adequacy

2:23:41of training of personnel, including

2:23:42ethics, balancing between investigative

2:23:46effectiveness with privacy,

2:23:47transparency, and public trust.

2:23:50Likewise, the subcommittee working with

2:23:51the police chief and deputy chief

2:23:53identified the following recent local

2:23:56law enforcement uses that made our

2:23:58community and officers safer. A shooting

2:24:00that occurred in Westbrow in which the

2:24:02police located the vehicle and recovered

2:24:04the ammunition and located the firearm.

2:24:06an incident in which a suspect involved

2:24:08in a firearm assault, a missing juvenile

2:24:11from out of state that was located a

2:24:13stolen vehicle that was caught leading

2:24:15to two people being arrested on warrants

2:24:17in the discovery of trafficking weight

2:24:19cocaine and the recovery of a stolen

2:24:21vehicle. The chief testified that um in

2:24:24cases of immediate crimes andor amber

2:24:28alerts, it's a particular utility. There

2:24:31is no exception or right to privacy of

2:24:35her license plate under Massachusetts

2:24:37Supreme Court rulings. Examining the

2:24:40tension between privacy and emerging

2:24:42technology in the context of ALPR and

2:24:44held that warrantless search of data

2:24:46derived from fixed ALPRs did not violate

2:24:49the defendants's constitutional rights.

2:24:51In fact, many companies, local

2:24:54companies, use license plate readers to

2:24:56identify their customers. The

2:24:58subcommittee in balancing these

2:25:00interests seeks to add the protections

2:25:02and safeguards that we as a community

2:25:04have collectively identified to our

2:25:06ordinance and any contract with vendors.

2:25:09These strong safeguards have codified in

2:25:12the attached ordinance

2:25:15uh and reviewed by the ACLU and we

2:25:17adopted almost all of their uh pieces

2:25:20and I'll get to that in a minute. It is

2:25:22worth noting that the previous master

2:25:24service agreement with flock does not

2:25:26and would not meet these qualifications

2:25:29or these standards. It [snorts] would

2:25:31not be permitted under this ordinance.

2:25:33Additionally, the subcommittee prohibits

2:25:35the use of uh facial recognition

2:25:37technology andor other non-licensed

2:25:40plate related data and add added routine

2:25:43AOPR audits and reporting requirements

2:25:45to ensure greater transparency and

2:25:47accountability.

2:25:49Um, I'm not going to read it, but the

2:25:50policy included in the draft ordinance

2:25:53describes the balancing of these

2:25:54competing interests.

2:25:57Most communities have taken the approach

2:25:59of either

2:26:02remaining silent or allowing uh these

2:26:04ALPR vendors, flock in particular, to

2:26:08proliferate or they have prohibited them

2:26:10outright.

2:26:12Um, we chose to work through the brain

2:26:15damage of cataloging each of the

2:26:18concerns and figuring out how to address

2:26:20them and then testing it and then going

2:26:23in and having we had two discussions

2:26:25with the ACLU

2:26:27um to go through their concerns in terms

2:26:29of those safeguards.

2:26:32It's worth noting Cambridge and other

2:26:34communities have pingponged on this

2:26:37supporting um uh prohibitions only to go

2:26:42back and allow for use of certain

2:26:44technologies. These technologies

2:26:48um which are permitted under the law

2:26:50under the right circumstances can be a

2:26:52powerful tool for our people in law

2:26:55enforcement. They also can be abused,

2:26:58which is why we have very specific audit

2:27:00and reporting requirements.

2:27:02We've taken the difficult approach of

2:27:04trying [clears throat] to figure out how

2:27:06to address these concerns rather than

2:27:09just deciding to prohibit or to accept.

2:27:12At the beginning of this conversation

2:27:13which was initiated by councelor Ward on

2:27:17issues of um the welcoming ordinance, we

2:27:22compared the initial ordinance against

2:27:24the existing statutes and some of the

2:27:26other statutes that have been adopted

2:27:28and all of those things have caught up

2:27:30to each other and so a lot of those are

2:27:32already either in our welcoming

2:27:34ordinance or in the statutes that have

2:27:36recently been passed by the legislature.

2:27:38So they're all sort of moving at the

2:27:40same time. Um, we added and we took out

2:27:43of that the auditing and the reporting

2:27:45requirements to make sure that we're

2:27:46getting frequent and uh reports from the

2:27:49police department on um arrests, the

2:27:53purposes of those arrests and the

2:27:56connections um to them. The attached

2:28:00ordinance

2:28:01uh with the with the exception of one

2:28:04change which is a late change which was

2:28:06in the process changing the number of

2:28:08days this data is held from 30 days to

2:28:1114

2:28:12under order 26 2026-1

2:28:20uh and it incorporates and includes as I

2:28:24said um the agreed upon comments with

2:28:26the ACLU and I would move that draft.

2:28:31>> So, can you just clarify in the

2:28:33background material what draft this is?

2:28:36>> This is the one that says, and the

2:28:38reason I don't usually put my name on

2:28:41draft. The reason I did in this

2:28:43instance, Mr. chairman is I wanted to

2:28:45make clear that it wasn't the draft of

2:28:47the committee [snorts] because the

2:28:48committee had drafted something then the

2:28:50ACLU of Massachusetts reviewed it and

2:28:53their changes that we worked through

2:28:56were consistent with what the committee

2:28:57believed but I couldn't

2:29:00>> So is the document you move in and the

2:29:01one that says added FC comparison of

2:29:04rules version to Stephanie the ACLUM

2:29:06version

2:29:08>> hold on one second

2:29:11>> just go back I just opened it Sorry.

2:29:14>> No, no, my apologies. The document we're

2:29:17we're moving is the one that ends with

2:29:19Stephanini draft.

2:29:22And again, the reason I included my name

2:29:24on there is because the committee had

2:29:26not met after the fact we had.

2:29:29>> So, it's the second one on the list.

2:29:30>> Second one on the list. Yep. And there's

2:29:32a red line on that at the very bottom.

2:29:35>> That's what I was Okay. So, that is the

2:29:36same one. That's the red line. And

2:29:38>> Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. The red line at

2:29:39the bottom um shows the difference

2:29:42between the committee draft and the ACLU

2:29:46comments that were incorporated into it.

2:29:48And you can see by looking at it, their

2:29:50language largely fit into the category

2:29:52of tightening up the language andor

2:29:56filling in some additional holes that

2:29:58were um put in place.

2:30:00>> Okay. So, everybody understand what

2:30:01we're voting on, what was what's been

2:30:02moved? Is there I hear a second?

2:30:05>> Second.

2:30:05>> Okay. All right. questions from the

2:30:08council.

2:30:11Miss Malik,

2:30:14>> thank you. Um,

2:30:18so I appreciate the work of the

2:30:20committee. I do have some concerns. Um,

2:30:26I guess the first I'll say while I

2:30:28appreciate the ACLU comments, my

2:30:30understanding is that when we're looking

2:30:31at an ordinance, we're also supposed to

2:30:33get a letter or some guidance from the

2:30:37city solicitor. So, I didn't see that in

2:30:39the background materials. I didn't know

2:30:41if that was something that y'all

2:30:42discussed in committee. So, that's one

2:30:46question. Um then the second question or

2:30:50concern, it's not a question, a concern

2:30:52that I have with this is that it is

2:30:55limited quite frankly to the ALPRS

2:31:00and what was referred this ordinance to

2:31:04enhance trust in law enforcement which

2:31:06councelor Stephanie referenced

2:31:09um I I think had a different goal than

2:31:11this ordinance that's coming back to us.

2:31:16you know, maybe broad strokes the goal

2:31:17is the same community safety, but I

2:31:20think specifically

2:31:22it's different in intention. And one of

2:31:26the pieces that it bothers me, so

2:31:29there's a couple of pieces where that

2:31:31sort of bothers me. And one is very

2:31:35specifically the reporting that was

2:31:37asked for in the original trust

2:31:39ordinance that was referred. That draft

2:31:43asked for the breakdown of the total

2:31:45number of civil immigration detainer

2:31:47requests

2:31:48lodged with the city. It asked for a

2:31:51total breakdown of the number of

2:31:53individuals that city law enforcement

2:31:55officials detained,

2:31:57the number of individuals transferred to

2:32:00ICE custody,

2:32:02and the breakdown of any reimbursement

2:32:04costs from the federal government

2:32:06pursuant to any of the above on the

2:32:08individual cases. So to me, those

2:32:11reporting structures

2:32:14are are sort of in line with what I was

2:32:17hoping to see um coming out of this

2:32:21because

2:32:23as we heard earlier, as many people

2:32:25know, ICE is operating on a daily basis

2:32:28in our community. There are masked

2:32:32federal agents who are surrounding and

2:32:37abducting our neighbors

2:32:39and residents. And I do not believe that

2:32:43that makes our community safer.

2:32:46It does not make me feel safer to know

2:32:48that they can act with impunity.

2:32:51>> All right. I I appreciate Excuse me. I

2:32:54appreciate the emotion everybody has

2:32:55here, but I would just ask if we could

2:32:57not have applause and interruptions,

2:32:59okay? I hope so we can get through this.

2:33:00I will let everybody speak who wants to

2:33:02speak but I just after the end of our

2:33:04but please Malik go ahead.

2:33:07>> Thank you. I think that um it does not

2:33:11make me feel safer to know that every

2:33:14morning in our community this is

2:33:17happening on our streets and I very much

2:33:20appreciate the folks in our community

2:33:22who are documenting the disappearances

2:33:25of our residents.

2:33:28To me, this is very personal. This is my

2:33:32family story of migration.

2:33:35And I just can't

2:33:39imagine that this is happening without

2:33:42eyes on it. And and to me, that's what

2:33:47we're looking for here. And by eyes on

2:33:49it, I don't mean to have flock cameras

2:33:53eyes on it, but to have our community

2:33:57have the eyes on it.

2:34:01I think that it makes our community less

2:34:03safe when our residents don't trust our

2:34:08local police. And I believe without

2:34:14knowing for sure that these federal

2:34:18immigration agents

2:34:20are intentionally

2:34:22trying to blur the lines between what

2:34:25they're doing and our local police force

2:34:28by being active on municipal properties

2:34:32and being active in close proximity to

2:34:35the police station and to other

2:34:37municipal properties. I think it makes

2:34:39our community less safe if our residents

2:34:42do not trust our local police force and

2:34:46I fear very much that that is a

2:34:49situation that we are finding ourselves

2:34:51in. The easiest example would be that

2:34:54somebody might not report a domestic

2:34:56violence and by easy I mean that's maybe

2:35:00more obvious to people about why that

2:35:02might not happen in such a situation.

2:35:07More generally, I've heard from

2:35:09residents that they don't want to

2:35:11report. They don't want to sh but

2:35:13they're going to share but this but

2:35:15that. I think there's a lot of

2:35:18uncertainty and mistrust that's being

2:35:20sewn in our community currently

2:35:24in the way that the federal government

2:35:26is choosing to go about

2:35:30with um enforcing of civilian

2:35:34immigration.

2:35:36um

2:35:37paperwork at this point. My other

2:35:40concern to this ordinance specifically

2:35:44in terms of dealing with the ALPRS

2:35:47is the emerging technologies

2:35:50and somebody made mention earlier of

2:35:53drones. We actually approved two drones,

2:35:56not five drones in the capital budget.

2:35:58Um, but the

2:36:02what? So where where is that in this,

2:36:06right? And this is about license plates,

2:36:08but who's to say that, you know, drones

2:36:11soon aren't going to have that

2:36:12technology? So I I fear that in some

2:36:15ways

2:36:17this ordinance as being presented to us

2:36:19is shortsighted in that it is very

2:36:22specifically about ALPRs. On the other

2:36:25hand, I also very much appreciate the

2:36:28detail and the depth that the committee

2:36:30went through um in really addressing the

2:36:34specifics of the data retention and data

2:36:38sharing and data safety. Um, but I just

2:36:42think this is an emerging

2:36:45um

2:36:47realm and um and and I would appreciate

2:36:53something a little bit more

2:36:54comprehensive.

2:36:55>> Mitt,

2:36:57I think I'm going to let comments and

2:36:58then you can respond at the end if

2:37:01that's how you want.

2:37:02>> Otherwise, we're going to go back and

2:37:03forth all night. So, I'd rather have

2:37:04comments from the committee. Um, I'd

2:37:07like to make a few comments myself

2:37:08actually, which um I I appreciate um

2:37:12what the committee is trying to do here.

2:37:14I it's very technical and complex work

2:37:17and um I know that um a lot of time has

2:37:20been placed uh in it. I don't support

2:37:23the ordinance in its current um form for

2:37:26a lot of the reasons that Miss Malik

2:37:28raised. I have never been comfortable

2:37:30I've talked to the chief and the

2:37:31assistant chief about this a lot of

2:37:33times. I have never been comfortable

2:37:35with the readers from the beginning. U I

2:37:37I didn't particularly like the fact that

2:37:39they were installed without any real

2:37:41public uh discussion of it, but I

2:37:43understand that it's a that it is a you

2:37:46know public safety tool that they were

2:37:48trying to use. I don't think they were

2:37:49doing anything nefarious, but I think I

2:37:52would like to have some um recognition

2:37:55that it really is a public policy

2:37:57matter. And it's been stated and you

2:38:00know in full disclosure I spend my a lot

2:38:03of my days as a criminal defense

2:38:05attorney so I come across a lot of these

2:38:07things from time to time and it does and

2:38:10and what Mr. Stephanie says is true.

2:38:12Even if we, which I think we should,

2:38:14we're only responsible can only be

2:38:16responsible for ourselves, remove these

2:38:18cameras, which we've already done.

2:38:21They're everywhere. So, everybody knows

2:38:22that. I mean, we can't remove them from

2:38:24private property. If you if you go to

2:38:27Home Depot, uh, be on your best

2:38:29behavior. That's all I can say because I

2:38:32mean, you're going to be recognized from

2:38:33the moment that you walk that you drive

2:38:36into the parking lot until the time you

2:38:37leave. It is stunning when someone gets

2:38:40accused of doing something there, how

2:38:42much digital evidence they have. Um,

2:38:46it's just absolutely stunning and how

2:38:48they can recognize people. I think

2:38:50though that one difference, I'm not

2:38:51saying they can't get around it because

2:38:53I I'm sure they can by reporting a

2:38:55crime. They certainly can. They can't

2:38:57necessarily figure out who all those

2:38:58plates belong to. They know whose plates

2:39:01are in their parking lot, but they can't

2:39:02necessarily figure out who those plates

2:39:04belong to unless there's a reason to

2:39:06find out who those plates belong to.

2:39:08Whereas we as since we have d has a have

2:39:11a dual entity here, we're taking the

2:39:13pictures, but we also have access to the

2:39:15the database with all the plates on it.

2:39:17So even though they are everywhere, and

2:39:19as I say, I would and I don't mean to

2:39:20pick on Home Depot, that's just one that

2:39:22I happen to be familiar with. I'm sure

2:39:24there are a lot of other places like

2:39:26that. they don't have all the access to

2:39:28all the information. And I do recognize,

2:39:31and this is where it's difficult, I do

2:39:33recognize the value it brings to the

2:39:34police. And when a tragedy occurs, to be

2:39:36able to find that out and do that, that

2:39:38is that's important. And, you know, I

2:39:41it's too bad that we lose that by having

2:39:42to uh but I would like to see a a more

2:39:47restrictive ordinance in terms of uh us

2:39:50collecting data. And I don't think we

2:39:53should collect the data, frankly. I

2:39:55mean, and I don't so I don't really

2:39:56care, though I appreciate the work, how

2:39:58secure it is because um I don't think we

2:40:02should be collecting it. There are

2:40:03trade-offs. I I wouldn't want to say

2:40:05there's not a tradeoff, but I so I would

2:40:09be opposed to the to the audience at

2:40:10this time, though I do appreciate the

2:40:13work that the committee did to do it

2:40:15because I think it was obviously thought

2:40:18through and you tried to meet a lot of

2:40:20objections that I, you know, and I know

2:40:22you and I had the discussion months ago

2:40:24how I felt about this, but it um but uh

2:40:28so I understand what you're trying to

2:40:29do, but I cannot support it at this time

2:40:31for that reason. Mr.

2:40:33Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I I echo

2:40:36much of uh what you said. Um, this

2:40:38strikes me really as a very sweeping,

2:40:42very broad, pro-mass

2:40:45surveillance ordinance that I I'm

2:40:48frankly stunned is before us in a form

2:40:52that is anything other than a ban. And

2:40:55and I have comfort and respect for our

2:40:57local police department as well. I

2:40:59exactly what you said. I I I don't have

2:41:01issue there, but we don't I I can't see

2:41:05a way that we would have control over

2:41:08that. That kind of defeats the whole

2:41:10purpose. But, you know, some others have

2:41:12called this a, you know, a real vicious

2:41:14assault on privacy, on civil rights, a

2:41:18targeting of a community's most

2:41:20vulnerable residents. I mean, the

2:41:23success stories are there, but when you

2:41:24spy on everybody all the time, it makes

2:41:28it very easy to go searching for things

2:41:30after the fact. And these tech

2:41:33companies, it's not the law enforcement

2:41:35piece, frankly, that I'm worried about.

2:41:36It's the tech companies that you we have

2:41:39no purview over. We want to ban facial

2:41:41recognition, okay, they call it

2:41:43something else. We want to call it

2:41:44biometric recognition, they call it by a

2:41:46different name. This refers to AWS,

2:41:49which I think is an Amazon company. It

2:41:51didn't tie back to anything. It kind of

2:41:52stands on its own. So, it wasn't

2:41:54specific. But while I rely on Amazon for

2:41:57certain things in my life, I don't know

2:41:58that I'm trusting them with the care and

2:42:00in custody of things that the residents

2:42:02of the city of Framingham are doing.

2:42:05[snorts] Um, so I have great discomfort

2:42:07there. I would support a ban on this.

2:42:10Um, but this is just for Framingham to

2:42:13support the mass surveillance of its

2:42:16citizens all the time is truly truly

2:42:21frightening. Uh, and I'll leave it

2:42:22there, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

2:42:24>> Thank you. Other comments, Mr. Staviani?

2:42:26>> You know, I I pretty much council Canon

2:42:28summed it up in a nutshell. And you just

2:42:30saw on TV today, you know, nothing no

2:42:33reflection on our police department, but

2:42:34you got a police officer tracking a

2:42:36former girlfriend or fiance and things

2:42:39go bad. You know, things go bad and

2:42:42this, you're right, it's at Lowe's. It's

2:42:44at Home Depot. You know, people watch

2:42:46every movie we make. I don't do

2:42:47Facebook. I got enough people that want

2:42:49to know where I am 24/7. I don't need to

2:42:51tell them. So, I I pay someone to do a

2:42:54real estate Facebook and I pay someone

2:42:55to do the political, but I don't do it.

2:42:57my wife. I go on my wife's that's how I

2:42:59find out what's going on and I can see

2:43:00what frame unfilter's writing about us

2:43:02and all that good stuff. But that's what

2:43:04I do because we we live in a world today

2:43:06where every you people they post

2:43:07breakfast, lunch and dinner. I just

2:43:09don't get it. We'll leave it at that. So

2:43:11I I council Canon said it in a nutshell.

2:43:13We we got enough going on that we need

2:43:15to be really careful because it's

2:43:17there's no privacy anymore. Nobody and

2:43:20it is the most vulnerable people are the

2:43:21ones that get hurt the most.

2:43:22>> Anybody else in the council? Okay,

2:43:25seeing nobody miss I'm gonna let you go

2:43:27back before I go to the audience.

2:43:29>> Miss Feny,

2:43:30>> thank you, Mr. Chair. Um,

2:43:32so I've been on I've I'm a member of the

2:43:34rules committee. Um, and just first I

2:43:37want to say I want to thank thank all of

2:43:38the advocates and folks who have come

2:43:42out over the last couple of months to

2:43:44have these conversations.

2:43:46The reason why I, you know, we went down

2:43:48the flock al PR lane is because that's

2:43:52what we heard from those who showed up.

2:43:56So that is an important thing. We heard

2:43:59that and we spent a lot of time working

2:44:01on this. I have said repeatedly and

2:44:04you've all heard it that I want to go

2:44:06live in a cottage in the woods and like

2:44:09not have a cell phone. Um, and I find

2:44:13the whole thing about mass surveillance

2:44:15very Orwellian. We do live in scary

2:44:18times.

2:44:21The thing that and and I the thing that

2:44:23I take pause with and I don't see this

2:44:27as necessarily an ordinance that

2:44:29promotes mass surveillance, but more

2:44:32that is a protection and gives a

2:44:34foundation for where we're headed. I

2:44:37still don't like Let me get me Let me be

2:44:39clear. I don't like cameras. We are

2:44:42surrounded by them. But we have to be

2:44:45more proactive here in Framingham to

2:44:47figure out how we are protecting all of

2:44:50us, all of our residences, all

2:44:53residents, all of our residents, all of

2:44:54our data.

2:44:56I have grave concern about how we're

2:44:58using AI or if we're not using AI. So,

2:45:02this seems this is the f first step. Is

2:45:04it perfection? No. Does it give me

2:45:06comfort that the ACLU looked at it and

2:45:08they've they've made some suggestions?

2:45:10Absolutely.

2:45:12But we really have to look at this and

2:45:14protect ourselves moving forward. Yeah,

2:45:16techn is moving real fast. Some of these

2:45:19terms in here may not be these terms

2:45:21that we have a year from now, 5 years

2:45:23from now. But I'm thinking very future

2:45:25for forward that we have a foundation

2:45:27here that we can build off of. And I

2:45:30think that's what we all need to think

2:45:32about. What is the future? How can we

2:45:34protect every angle of what we're doing

2:45:38for our residents? Um, this has been a

2:45:42huge concern for me. Um, what ICE is

2:45:46doing in our community is horrific. Um,

2:45:50I see the photos as much as all of you

2:45:52and the videos.

2:45:54I am glad we live in Massachusetts and

2:45:56that our legislature um including our

2:45:59own state representative Priscilla Souza

2:46:02have been leading the way with the

2:46:03protect Act that sets us apart from

2:46:06other states. We should take comfort in

2:46:08that as well but the work continues to

2:46:10be needs to be done.

2:46:13So

2:46:16again, I just want to stress to

2:46:18everybody, we need to think about how we

2:46:21deal with this data in the future. It is

2:46:24not going away, but we need to have

2:46:27foundations that we could build off of

2:46:29and continue to work with. Um because

2:46:32it's it's constantly going to change. If

2:46:34the AI tech bros have their way, you

2:46:38know, government will be run by robots,

2:46:41which someone there's a joke there

2:46:44somewhere.

2:46:45>> All right. Thank you.

2:46:46>> Thank you, Miss Bryant.

2:46:48>> Um, I just wanted to say that um the

2:46:51work continues, I think, is the thing.

2:46:53It is it is so big. It's so broad. It's

2:46:56it's, you know, like they said, the tech

2:46:58is coming. And in one of those meetings,

2:47:00I I did say um I really feel that the

2:47:05the fight to contain control uh control

2:47:10and put boundaries on the misuse of the

2:47:14technology really is going to have to

2:47:16take place at at federal levels, at

2:47:19state levels, but mainly federal levels.

2:47:21I think um I think that we got we're

2:47:23going to have to advocate um people.

2:47:26will have to advocate very much so to so

2:47:29that um our Congress and and whatnot

2:47:32they get committees that really are not

2:47:34behind on the technology and letting

2:47:37technology um the misuse of technology

2:47:40run a mark but by the same token and on

2:47:43this I thought that councelor Malik's um

2:47:46comments in terms of the welcoming

2:47:48ordinance um you know there was some

2:47:51there was a lot of validity to that some

2:47:52of it um but I think that councelor

2:47:56Stephanini uh really has put in so much

2:47:59work with so so many moving pieces,

2:48:03[clears throat] so many people. Um uh so

2:48:06that uh it's a lot. So perhaps it's not

2:48:10yet quite yet ready for prime time, but

2:48:12it's almost uh but I do think I

2:48:15understand like the I almost felt like

2:48:18uh perhaps the uh the surveillance part

2:48:22is so big it may need to be its own

2:48:25separate thing with an like under the

2:48:28welcoming ordinance like just also um

2:48:32like referencing the uh that one too.

2:48:35But um yeah, there's still there can

2:48:38there still needs to be some tweaking.

2:48:40But on the other part, I will say this

2:48:41too, you know, uh people who feel very

2:48:44safe are talking about um you know the

2:48:48surveillance thing and um and I I I am

2:48:52totally against mass surveillance or you

2:48:55know the invasion of privacy to a point.

2:48:58Um but if one child uh that is going is

2:49:05being kidnapped or tortured or someone

2:49:08any technology that's going to save one

2:49:12child uh or save somebody's life who's

2:49:15been shot or whatever which um which has

2:49:18been the case um then I'm in favor of it

2:49:22or we find a way to continue uh you know

2:49:26improving helping um our law enforcement

2:49:30uh and the protective services uh with

2:49:33the with you know in some way. I'm not

2:49:35saying that it I loved what the people

2:49:38who came to the meeting all the data

2:49:40they brought forth and information about

2:49:42the um the cameras and stuff like that

2:49:45cameras and all like that. So I was

2:49:47totally on board with them uh with that.

2:49:49I felt like a lot of it was irrefutable.

2:49:52But I also have to commend um councelor

2:49:56uh Stephanini and um uh Feny uh uh on

2:50:01the conscientiousness

2:50:03of trying to balance the safety of the

2:50:06community um and our law enforcement

2:50:10with um you know the privacy issue and

2:50:14respect so that we are not um just laid

2:50:17open to all of the surveillance and that

2:50:20kind of thing. But it there is data that

2:50:23proves too that the lives have been

2:50:25saved. But um we don't want to give them

2:50:30codl and I do agree that these companies

2:50:33you know as someone said they'll just

2:50:35they repackage it under another name.

2:50:37They move fast. So it's like we don't

2:50:39want to be chasing um them either. So

2:50:42again as I started I will end with so um

2:50:45I think it's been great work that needs

2:50:48to continue.

2:50:49>> Thank you Mr. Alexander.

2:50:55>> Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, only thing

2:50:59I just want to say first of all, um,

2:51:02yeah, thank you and a lot of

2:51:04appreciation to the uh, the working

2:51:06group, people involved in this. Um, I

2:51:10um,

2:51:12this is a very, you know, cumbersome and

2:51:16just a difficult uh, thread to weave.

2:51:19you're trying to balance, you know,

2:51:22public safety with

2:51:24very real concerns about over

2:51:27surveillance or increasing surveillance

2:51:29and technology and how that all plays

2:51:31out. Um, and uh, you know, as much as

2:51:36um, we we are petrified about the the

2:51:40technology and how it's being used.

2:51:43Uh but there's other ample evidence on

2:51:47the other side uh to suggest that that

2:51:50that the this type of technology is a

2:51:54tool for our local law enforcement in

2:51:58the un hopefully unlikely case of uh you

2:52:02know grandma or grandpa being you know

2:52:06lost or um as you all know I have an

2:52:09autistic son but he's he's an adult. Um,

2:52:12so for all parents out there that are

2:52:17that are in were in are in my

2:52:19predicament uh that have um you know

2:52:22special needs children

2:52:25um [snorts] you know you want to always

2:52:27keep your children safe. You know

2:52:28special needs or not but uh you know I

2:52:32mean my my son used to just try to open

2:52:34the door and walk out. Um and when he

2:52:37was here visiting my mother, um she had

2:52:40to install a higher lock so that he

2:52:42couldn't reach that door and just walk

2:52:45out. And you hear, you know, cases just

2:52:48horrible cases of kids just getting away

2:52:52and loose and um or in this case um you

2:52:57know the worst case scenario just

2:52:59[snorts]

2:53:00kid um or a kidnapping and uh or a

2:53:03terrorist act like we had um back in um

2:53:08um December uh at Brown University and

2:53:10and this technology um helped in

2:53:13apprehending or ending that um

2:53:16situation. Um so it goes both ways. Um

2:53:21uh the the thing that I would be looking

2:53:23for really is a uh command and control.

2:53:28uh where you have somebody a higher

2:53:32ranking [snorts] officer in in our uh

2:53:35police department, our very capable

2:53:37police department, I I'll add um like

2:53:40somebody um you know looking at um this

2:53:44data and analyzing it and making sure

2:53:47that it is being used correctly. So, um

2:53:51that those are the type of things that

2:53:53I'm looking for. Looking for that

2:53:54balance that uh our our citizens are are

2:53:58protected and looked out for and

2:54:01recognized, but at least and also given

2:54:04our very capable law enforcement the the

2:54:07necessary tools to apprehend

2:54:10um people if they if [snorts] need be uh

2:54:13using that technology. So, thank you.

2:54:15>> Thank you. All right, Mr. Stephanie, if

2:54:17you want to respond to what's been said

2:54:18by the council, then I'm going to take

2:54:20open up public uh comment. Okay.

2:54:22>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um

2:54:27when we started this conversation,

2:54:30first of all, I have done uh a bunch of

2:54:34pro bono immigration cases. I find

2:54:37what's going on in our community to be

2:54:39abhorent,

2:54:40vile,

2:54:42vulgar. It turns my stomach.

2:54:46and we looked at the various areas

2:54:50around the welcoming ordinance and

2:54:51everything else. And you're right, we

2:54:54have good legislators. We have a good

2:54:56Senate President. Um we have a

2:54:58progressive police department that has

2:55:00adopted policies and procedures. We've

2:55:02covered lots of things that other

2:55:05communities haven't even thought about.

2:55:06We've thought through.

2:55:09And honestly,

2:55:12I think that if I read the cover of the

2:55:14Globe and the and the Times and the

2:55:16Washington Post, which I do every day,

2:55:18and read the ALPR or uh articles of of

2:55:23different pieces of this, I would agree

2:55:25completely. Mass surveillance, this

2:55:28isn't mass surveillance. This isn't 287G

2:55:31agreements. This isn't being used by

2:55:34other agencies. In fact, this is written

2:55:36in such a tight narrow way that we own

2:55:40the data. We control who touches it and

2:55:44we collect only the license plates

2:55:47themselves. All of the other data that's

2:55:50part of that gets

2:55:53[snorts] um deleted and put aside and

2:55:56cannot be used and we own it. It's ours.

2:56:00And then the data, the license plates

2:56:03that are collected are are looked

2:56:06against a list of plates

2:56:09that are

2:56:11um given to us on a case-byase basis

2:56:14based on a specific investigation.

2:56:17I can't say to you that it this whole

2:56:21subject doesn't concern me because it

2:56:23does. But I think that we drafted and

2:56:26went through the trouble of drafting the

2:56:28narrowest possible piece. And I'm not

2:56:31sure any of the ALPR providers would

2:56:34qualify based on how narrow this is,

2:56:38but it was worth it to think of one

2:56:41Amber Alert, one child, one kidnapping,

2:56:45a bank robbery.

2:56:47And I want to remind everybody,

2:56:49Cambridge took and prohibited the use of

2:56:53gunshot technology,

2:56:55took an overwhelming vote of their

2:56:56council,

2:56:59and then a public works employee was

2:57:00shot and they didn't know about it, and

2:57:03according to at least the local police,

2:57:06if they had the technology, the person

2:57:07would probably still be alive. The

2:57:09council then took and reversed their

2:57:11vote and went back and accepted it.

2:57:16And I'm certainly not hoping and I pray

2:57:19that we never have to deal with this.

2:57:23But if there's an Amber Alert in our

2:57:25community, this is how we're going to

2:57:26catch that person. If there's a bank

2:57:29robbery, this is how we're going to deal

2:57:31with it. And we've got to decide, is

2:57:34this a tool we want to regulate or just

2:57:37outright prohibit? And I hear my

2:57:38colleagues

2:57:40um who are interested in prohibition.

2:57:43And I understand that completely because

2:57:45I read the newspapers, too. We've put

2:57:48into this ethics training and oversight

2:57:51and reporting and monitoring and data

2:57:54analysis to make sure we have every bell

2:57:58and whistle covered. So, we're not that

2:58:00case where a boyfriend or a girlfriend

2:58:04is tracking somebody in that. We've

2:58:06prohibited that here and we've

2:58:07controlled that data. We're not doing

2:58:10mass surveillance of everybody. We're

2:58:12collecting a list and then for 14 days

2:58:14we're looking at whether or not it

2:58:16matches up to a hot list or of plates

2:58:19that we're looking at for a specific

2:58:21purpose. In fact, the utility of this,

2:58:24[clears throat]

2:58:24some places prohibit it after a a

2:58:27certain number of hours because the

2:58:30reality is is that the utility here

2:58:32really is in a very short window for

2:58:36some exigent circumstances that occur.

2:58:39And in the end, I think the question

2:58:42comes down to this.

2:58:45Do we want to in balancing that address

2:58:48all the concerns we know to give our

2:58:51police

2:58:53our people in law enforcement the tools

2:58:55they need to stay safe and to keep our

2:58:57community safe that are otherwise legal

2:59:00and uh there the other thing that we do

2:59:03in this is we do prohibit all other data

2:59:07collected including the biometric data

2:59:10recognition and the facial recognition

2:59:12technology etc. um because we don't

2:59:15currently do that. We also talk about

2:59:18the remote uh recognition to deal with

2:59:22things like drones and other things. So

2:59:24we take it a step further. Um,

2:59:30so I hear and understand the concerns

2:59:33very clear

2:59:35and it would be easy to agree with them,

2:59:40but I personally believe we need to do

2:59:43what we can to give ourselves tools to

2:59:45deal with the exigent circumstances that

2:59:49maybe it's only once or twice, but if

2:59:52it's my child, I want that technology

2:59:55available.

2:59:56Thank you. Um, how many people in the

2:59:59audience would like to speak? I one,

3:00:02two, three, four, five, six, seven,

3:00:03eight, nine, 10. Okay, so we're going to

3:00:06be speak, but our rules allow 15 minutes

3:00:08of speaking on uh on agenda items. It's

3:00:10not a public hearing uh at this time.

3:00:13So, I'll give everybody and also it's 10

3:00:15past 10. I appreciate the fact that

3:00:17you've been here all night, too. So, uh

3:00:19got to enjoy the rest of the city

3:00:21council meeting. So, um

3:00:26I'll give everybody a minute and a half.

3:00:29Okay. We'll have to do the best we can

3:00:30with that. So, if you put your hands up

3:00:33and I'll go the first lady in the front

3:00:36row in a white shirt.

3:00:38>> Chair, you also have somebody online.

3:00:41>> What?

3:00:42>> I know one person online. I know. I have

3:00:44that. [clears throat] Thank you.

3:00:47>> Um, my name is Bobby Eley. I'm in

3:00:48District 1. I was at the rules

3:00:51subcommittee meetings and I personally

3:00:54advocated for a full ban and I feel like

3:00:56I was not con that was not fully

3:00:58considered by the committee. I am a

3:01:00professional software engineer so I

3:01:02understand how these systems work. The

3:01:04real value to these corporations is not

3:01:05in the individual contracts but the

3:01:07connected network and troves of data

3:01:08that can be used in whatever way they

3:01:10find most profitable. The profit is in

3:01:12the picture it paints of your life.

3:01:13where you go to the grocery, what

3:01:14religious institutions you attend, what

3:01:17political organizations you volunteer

3:01:18with, what doctors you see, and when

3:01:20these patterns change. So much

3:01:22information about you can be

3:01:23extrapolated from where where you drive.

3:01:26And once the data is out there, there is

3:01:27no pulling it back. This isn't like a

3:01:29credit card where you can get a new

3:01:30number. This is a picture of your life

3:01:32and their way of tracking you without

3:01:34even needing facial recognition. In an

3:01:37attempt to justify this technology, we

3:01:38are told that it improves public safety.

3:01:40But this is a lie. Cameras do not

3:01:42prevent crime. They are a supplementary

3:01:44investigative tool at best and they

3:01:46don't guarantee solving crimes. Our

3:01:48police department has not provided

3:01:50statistics provide pro proving the

3:01:51necessity of this technology. They have

3:01:53only provided a few anecdotes where the

3:01:55cameras were used and these anecdotes do

3:01:57not show nearly enough evidence to clear

3:01:59what should be an incredibly high bar to

3:02:01sell civilians privacy for. We are

3:02:03talking about connected systems of

3:02:05hundreds of thousands of cameras across

3:02:07the country connected by AI that

3:02:09automatically and systemically track

3:02:11you. Just 15 seconds.

3:02:12>> Just in Framingham, with the previous

3:02:14contract, cameras were at every main

3:02:16entrance and exit to downtown with more

3:02:18scattered throughout the city, placed in

3:02:20residential areas, some in people's

3:02:21front yards. This isn't safety. This is

3:02:23surveillance designed to track

3:02:24movements. I ask you take a stance to

3:02:27truly improve trust with our local law

3:02:29enforcement and ban all mass

3:02:30surveillance technology. If you allow

3:02:32this ordinance as is, you are helping to

3:02:34build the this surveillance state.

3:02:35>> Thank you. Thanks.

3:02:38[applause]

3:02:40>> Who else would like to speak, please?

3:02:42Who else?

3:02:44Okay. Two gentlemen in the second row

3:02:45there. Andrew first and the gentleman

3:02:47next to you. 90 seconds each. Uh just

3:02:50state your name and your address for

3:02:52everybody by the way when you get up

3:02:53there.

3:02:54>> Sure. I'm Andrew. I'm from District 2.

3:02:56Um, I know that the author of this uh

3:03:00ordinance really likes quoting uh

3:03:02Commonwealth versus McCarthy, so I'm

3:03:05going to quote from that ruling as well.

3:03:07Quote, "With enough cameras in enough

3:03:09locations, the historic location data

3:03:11from an ALPR system in Massachusetts

3:03:13would invade a reasonable expectation of

3:03:15privacy and would constitute a search

3:03:17for constitutional purposes."

3:03:20Further quote, "Four factors distinguish

3:03:22ALPRs from an officer parked on the side

3:03:24of the road. the policy of retaining the

3:03:26information for a minimum one year, in

3:03:28this case 14 days. The ability to record

3:03:30the license plate number of nearly every

3:03:33passing vehicle, the continuous 24-hour

3:03:35nature of the surveillance, and the fact

3:03:36that the recorded license plate number

3:03:38is linked to the location of the

3:03:39observation. McCarthy was also narrowly

3:03:41about cameras on a single bridge, not a

3:03:43larger network like what surrounded all

3:03:45of downtown Framingham. Quote, "These

3:03:47particular cameras make the case perhaps

3:03:49more analogous to CSLI. if there were

3:03:52only two cellular telephone towers

3:03:54collecting data. Notably, the author of

3:03:56the ordinance has sought to

3:03:57differentiate ALPR networks from the

3:03:59collection of historical cell service

3:04:01information, which according to the

3:04:02Supreme Court is governed by the Fourth

3:04:04Amendment for Carpenter United States

3:04:06and extended to geoence data earlier

3:04:08this year. But the justices in his

3:04:10favorite Massachusetts SJC case compared

3:04:12the two strongly. quote, "While no ALPR

3:04:15network is likely to be as detailed in

3:04:17its surveillance as GPS or CLI data, one

3:04:20may be able to make many of the same

3:04:22inferences from ALPR data that implicate

3:04:25expressive and associative rights, as

3:04:26well as, if deployed widely enough,

3:04:28ALPRs could tell police someone's

3:04:30precise real-time location virtually any

3:04:32time. So in short, the Supreme Judicial

3:04:34Court of Massachusetts recognizes that

3:04:36ALPRs implicate the First and Fourth

3:04:38Amendment of the Constitution, and I

3:04:40hope that this council recognizes the

3:04:42same entirely. Thank you.

3:04:44>> Thank you, gentlemen. Next one.

3:04:53>> Good evening. My name is Anton. I'm a

3:04:55resident of District 2. The ordinance

3:04:58mentions ALPR many times. Considering

3:05:00this camera technology is in some cases

3:05:02capable of identifying cars absent a

3:05:04license plate, I believe the term is a

3:05:06little bit disingenuous.

3:05:08Uh section 4.2 starts, no city property

3:05:11or resources may be used to collect,

3:05:12disseminate, or use collected data. I'd

3:05:14like to clarify if a third party vendor

3:05:16is providing ALPR services to the city.

3:05:19Are their cameras considered city

3:05:20property or resources? The ordinance

3:05:23sets out guid guidelines for ALPRs.

3:05:25There are other technologies being

3:05:26rolled out and developed which raise

3:05:28similar privacy concerns such as audio

3:05:30recording or networks and technology for

3:05:32detecting or traffic tracking Wi-Fi or

3:05:35Bluetooth devices which this

3:05:37transparency ordinance doesn't currently

3:05:38address. Should the police department

3:05:41decide to implement these that should

3:05:42warrant a similar discussion to what

3:05:44we're having about PRs except

3:05:46proactively.

3:05:49AI tools are a black box. We cannot

3:05:51determine what happens to any of our

3:05:52data when it goes into a vendor's data

3:05:54set and whether or when it can be

3:05:56restored. When you say deletion, how is

3:05:59this taken into account?

3:06:01Uh lastly, the most effective way to

3:06:03prevent data breaches or issues with

3:06:05data privacy is to not create the data

3:06:08to begin with. I urge this council, as

3:06:10others have said, to ban ALPRs and

3:06:14similar surveillance technology

3:06:15proactively before we run into any

3:06:17future issues like this. Thank you.

3:06:19>> Thank you.

3:06:20>> [applause]

3:06:28>> You got 90 seconds. Go ahead.

3:06:30>> Hello, city councilors. My name is Lee.

3:06:33I'm from District 1 and I want to

3:06:34continue the discussion regarding the

3:06:36SJC's decision. Um,

3:06:40I want to clarify that I have an issue

3:06:43with the way that the rules, ordinances,

3:06:44and ethics subcommittee represented this

3:06:47case. In addition to all of the

3:06:49important limitations on ALPRs that was

3:06:52recognized by ma the Massachusetts

3:06:54Supreme Judicial Court in that case, um,

3:06:57it also outlines

3:06:59um, restrictions on location. Quoting

3:07:02now where the ALPRs are placed matters

3:07:04too. ALPR's near constitutionally

3:07:06sensitive locations, the home, a place

3:07:09of worship, etc., reveal more of an

3:07:11individual's life and associations than

3:07:13does an ALPR trained on an interstate

3:07:16highway.

3:07:18And so the court narrowly decided in

3:07:20that case, because it was only over two

3:07:22large bridges to and from uh Cape Cod,

3:07:24or one bridge, excuse me, um that it was

3:07:28constitutional. This is in stark

3:07:29contrast to how Flock acted in

3:07:32Framingham where it was explicitly all

3:07:34around downtown oftentimes in people's

3:07:36yards and recording people's homes where

3:07:39they placed the cameras. And so this

3:07:41kind of intrusion is not only clearly uh

3:07:46an affront to the ruling in Commonwealth

3:07:49versus McCarthy. Um I think it's a

3:07:52failure of the rules ordinances and

3:07:53ethics subcommittee to not have brought

3:07:55this up in their discussion of the case.

3:07:58Thank you.

3:07:58>> Thank you very much. [applause]

3:08:03>> Other people. I know there are more

3:08:04hands. Yes.

3:08:10Rosund Hooper Hammersley. District 1.

3:08:14When sorrow comes, they come not single

3:08:16spies, but in battalions. King Claudius

3:08:19plotting his clandestine surveillance of

3:08:22Prince Hamlet.

3:08:24You had to live in the assumption that

3:08:25every sound you made was overheard and

3:08:28except in darkness every moment

3:08:30scrutinized. Threats to freedom of

3:08:33speech, writing and action are

3:08:35cumulative in their effect and unless

3:08:38checked lead to a general disrespect for

3:08:41the rights of the citizen. Big brother

3:08:43is watching you, George Orwell.

3:08:47Whoever can pierce your privacy can

3:08:49humiliate. No one except perhaps a

3:08:52tyrant has a private life that can

3:08:54survive public exposure by hostile

3:08:57directive. Timothy Snider on tyranny

3:09:02surveillance menaces our intellectual

3:09:04privacy and threatens the development of

3:09:06indiv individual beliefs in ways that

3:09:08are inconsistent with the basic

3:09:10commitments of democratic societies.

3:09:12Neil Richards Harvard Law Review.

3:09:16I am an historian deep in a book project

3:09:20on the role of memory in the Holocaust.

3:09:22I have spent countless hours reading

3:09:24about surveillance in the Holocaust.

3:09:27Please do the right thing here and

3:09:30respect the wishes of your constituents.

3:09:33Take an honorable stand against the

3:09:35insidious dangers of ALPR.

3:09:38This is a democracy,

3:09:40a republic if we can keep it. Let us

3:09:44behave as one. Thank you.

3:09:46>> Thank you. [applause]

3:10:04Hi,

3:10:05I'm Kate Mayer Tul from District 3

3:10:08advocating for people of Framingham who

3:10:10have lost trust in the city council and

3:10:13our Framingham Police Department. In

3:10:162022, Flock Mass cameras were snuck into

3:10:20our community. The Framingham Police

3:10:22Department utilized law enforcement

3:10:24trust fund using seized asset monies to

3:10:28lease these cameras. This methodology

3:10:31deliberately circumvented normal public

3:10:33city budget process because the funding

3:10:37method conveniently files flies under

3:10:40the radar. There is absolutely zero

3:10:42disclosure or opportunity for public

3:10:45comment. It also prevented the city

3:10:48council elected officials here the

3:10:50opportunity to advocate for the citizens

3:10:53of Framingham.

3:10:55This will continue if you vote for this

3:10:58ordinance. In voting for this ordinance,

3:11:01you've done two things. One, you've

3:11:03accepted that this technology is okay

3:11:07for Framingham. And if you look at the

3:11:10the draft presented by Stephan uh pardon

3:11:14me, councelor Stephanini, it takes away

3:11:17the ability for public disclosure and

3:11:20public comment. This particular language

3:11:23was suggested by the ACLU that we have a

3:11:27discussion like we're having here now.

3:11:29But if you adopt

3:11:30>> 15 seconds okay

3:11:31>> if you adopt the resolution as it is

3:11:33perform presented to you now public

3:11:36disclosure will not happen and public

3:11:38comment will not happen.

3:11:41>> Thank you. Is anybody else in the Oh

3:11:43yeah, Miss Hall. Sorry. Thank you.

3:11:48>> I know there's one person on Zoom too

3:11:50which I'll get. Hi again. I'm Audrey

3:11:52Hall, District 2, and um I want to thank

3:11:54you for the opportunity to speak. Uh the

3:11:57city of New Bedford recently voted to

3:11:59block the use of these cameras in their

3:12:02community. And at the testimony, I just

3:12:06I can't say that these are my words, but

3:12:07they were so well written and I wanted

3:12:09to share some of the testimony that

3:12:11someone gave there. If [snorts] law

3:12:13enforcement has evidence that someone

3:12:14committed a crime, investigate them. Do

3:12:17the police work and respect the

3:12:18constitutional limits. But do not treat

3:12:21every citizen like a potential suspect.

3:12:23We are citizens, not suspects. Our

3:12:26neighborhoods should not become

3:12:27surveillance networks, and public safety

3:12:30should never become an excuse to erode

3:12:32the constitutional liberties that

3:12:34generations of Americans have fought to

3:12:36preserve. I respect the amount of work

3:12:38that went into this this ordinance. It's

3:12:41good work and I respect that it's a ton

3:12:43of work and it was in our best interest.

3:12:46It was meant to be in our best interest,

3:12:48but I'm so strongly opposed to living in

3:12:50a surveillance society and I hope that

3:12:53we will not do anything here to further

3:12:56that surveillance in the city of

3:12:57Framingham. Thank you.

3:12:59>> Thank you. [applause]

3:13:01>> Is there anybody else in the audience

3:13:03before I go to Zoom? Yes.

3:13:10Hi, I'm Phoebe Roersman. Uh, first of

3:13:13all, any ordinance that permits mass

3:13:14surveillance

3:13:16>> I'm sorry. Do you know what district

3:13:17you're in? Just so we know.

3:13:18>> Oh, I'm not a resident. Is this

3:13:20residents only? I do come to Framingham

3:13:22frequently, but I don't currently live

3:13:24here

3:13:24>> for 90 seconds. Go ahead.

3:13:26>> Thank you very much. First of all, any

3:13:28ordinance that permits mass surveillance

3:13:30is a pro-surveillance ordinance. Uh,

3:13:32councelor Stephanini's claim that this

3:13:34ordinance is the narrowest it could

3:13:35possibly be is just untrue. Uh, the

3:13:38entire state of New Hampshire limits

3:13:40ALPR data retention to 3 minutes only

3:13:43and that has still not stopped

3:13:45municipalities in the state of New

3:13:46Hampshire from banning ALPRs entirely.

3:13:49Um, I would also like to point out to

3:13:52councelor Feny that a ban on ALPRs is

3:13:54proactive.

3:13:56Um, let me see. I would also like to

3:13:58correct the idea that the Sound Thinking

3:14:00contract could have prevented the July

3:14:024th shooting. Sound Thinking's contracts

3:14:04explicitly state that they turn off

3:14:06their mics on July 4th to prevent false

3:14:09positives from fireworks.

3:14:11Um, I would also like to remind

3:14:13Counselor Alexander that an ALPR is only

3:14:16meant to collect license plate data and

3:14:18it would not be able to locate a missing

3:14:20child or adult in need of supervision

3:14:22unless they were driving a known

3:14:24vehicle. I'd also like to add that I

3:14:26personally spoke to Gideon Epstein, the

3:14:28ACLU lawyer, who was consulted on this,

3:14:31and he did tell me that he would be in

3:14:33full support of a ban and that a ban on

3:14:35ALPRs would be preferable to this

3:14:38ordinance.

3:14:39Thank you.

3:14:40>> Thank you. [applause]

3:14:52Hey, my name is Ladybug. I'm in district

3:14:549, I think. Um, yeah, I

3:15:00want to say that some [snorts] facts are

3:15:02that like some cities seeing up to eight

3:15:04times the increase in the number of

3:15:06cameras they have have zero like no

3:15:08dramatic increase in the level of case

3:15:10clearances, like the number one

3:15:11advertised thing. They are studies

3:15:14coming out saying only 1% of all cars

3:15:16tracked on these cameras are actually

3:15:18related to an alleged crime. So that

3:15:20means 99% of what's tracked is not

3:15:23related to solving crime. We know

3:15:24cameras can't prevent crime. Um the

3:15:28outrage to the recognizable and

3:15:30denigrated brand Flock has been

3:15:31well-earned. But companies are moving in

3:15:33to take their spot replacing cameras

3:15:34with their own systems. They do exactly

3:15:36the same thing. And even worse, some of

3:15:38them have contracts and work directly

3:15:39with ICE rather than Flock where they

3:15:41just share by word of mouth and or like

3:15:44investigate on their behalf. Um we don't

3:15:46want to rebrand. Um, another thing is

3:15:48that we talk about safety, but what

3:15:50about the safety of all these women who

3:15:52are being stalked? We know that police

3:15:54like our studies show 40% of police are

3:15:57domestic abusers that when they have

3:15:59this unprecedented access to the

3:16:00technology, they'll abuse it. It seems

3:16:02like trusting officers to act

3:16:04differently because they're in our city

3:16:05is ignorant and dangerous. Um, I want to

3:16:08like say like

3:16:09>> seconds. Okay,

3:16:10>> let's consider like what type of society

3:16:11needs constant and total surveillance.

3:16:13Um, and yeah, I implore you to hear us

3:16:16to say we don't want to rebrand. Um,

3:16:19please, um, reject this ordinance. We do

3:16:21not want to vastly expand our racial

3:16:23class prejudice surveillance systems.

3:16:25Um, please, um, vote to ban ALPRs. And

3:16:28if you want to see like a more extensive

3:16:29city,

3:16:30>> your time is up. Okay.

3:16:31>> Okay.

3:16:33>> Thank you.

3:16:33>> Madison, Wisconsin.

3:16:38[applause]

3:16:40>> Okay. on Zoom. Molina List.

3:16:43>> Hi there. My name is Molina List. I'm a

3:16:45resident of District 4 and I'm asking

3:16:47the council to restrict ALPRs entirely.

3:16:50In past meetings about ALPRs, the public

3:16:53and the police have talked about

3:16:54individual bad actors using ALPR data,

3:16:57as they should, considering how many

3:16:59public cases there are of police

3:17:01officers stalking their former romantic

3:17:03partners. According to the Washington

3:17:05Post, at least 50 officers have been

3:17:07accused of this, and that's just the

3:17:09ones we know of. A story just broke

3:17:11about an officer in Stowe using flock to

3:17:14stalk their ex and another in New

3:17:16Bedford. We used to share all of our

3:17:18flock data with all of the communities

3:17:20in Massachusetts, including Stow and New

3:17:22Bedford. In a meeting at the library a

3:17:25few months ago, Deputy Chief Riley says

3:17:27that the Framingham Police Department

3:17:29implicitly trusts other law enforcement

3:17:31officers in Massachusetts regarding ALPR

3:17:34data. Clearly, the Police Department's

3:17:37blind faith in this matter is wrong and

3:17:39cannot be trusted. Do we want to be

3:17:42handing these abundant individual bad

3:17:44actors all of our data on a silver

3:17:46platter? And do we want to give all of

3:17:48the information tracking everywhere we

3:17:50go to some massive corporation who above

3:17:53all else wants to make money off of our

3:17:55lives?

3:17:56>> Growing up in the FMA public schools, my

3:17:58teachers taught me that the internet is

3:18:00forever. I don't care about how long

3:18:03it's stored or who can legally access

3:18:05it. The existence of

3:18:07>> 15 seconds. Okay.

3:18:09>> Thank you. The existence of ALPR

3:18:11collected data is itself a threat. Trust

3:18:14is not ordained by municipal ordinance

3:18:16but is earned. Ban all ALPRs. Thank you.

3:18:20>> Thank you. [applause]

3:18:22Okay. So, I'm gonna Yeah. I'm going to

3:18:24go back to the council now. Uh Mr.

3:18:26Stephanie, are you making a motion? Did

3:18:27you make a motion?

3:18:28>> Yeah. Can I uh speak for a second?

3:18:31>> Yes. But are you going to make a motion?

3:18:32I I don't I don't want to stop.

3:18:34>> He did. That's what I was asking. The

3:18:36motion was made. Okay. So, Okay, Mr.

3:18:38Chairman, I'd like to make a comment and

3:18:40if I could and um

3:18:44I hear the comments loud and clear. I've

3:18:46been listening to this conversation and

3:18:48living it for 5 months and I'm not going

3:18:52to nitpick the conversations of folks on

3:18:55case law and whatnot. I understand and

3:18:58appreciate the passion. The passion is

3:19:00real. I feel it and I feel the anger

3:19:04that exists and I see and feel and hear

3:19:07it every single day from neighbors, from

3:19:11members of my church,

3:19:13from businesses in the community. And um

3:19:18because of that and because of the

3:19:20sentiment that's been articulated on

3:19:21this council, I would like to withdraw

3:19:23this motion.

3:19:25>> Okay. Thank you. [applause]

3:19:33This next item on the agenda is

3:19:36>> Mr.

3:19:39What can

3:19:40>> we make a substitute motion

3:19:42>> or can

3:19:43>> for referral?

3:19:44>> Sure.

3:19:45>> So am I recognized to speak for a moment

3:19:48>> for a moment? I'll make a motion.

3:19:50>> Yeah. No, I'm thinking about the uh I'm

3:19:52thinking about the motions, but yes, go

3:19:54ahead.

3:19:54>> So, thank you all for being here and for

3:19:57staying all night. This was really

3:19:58important. I heard a lot tonight from

3:20:00from government folks with good

3:20:02intentions who basically are saying like

3:20:04all levels of government say, "Don't

3:20:06worry. I'm an elected official. I know

3:20:09better than you. Thank you for being

3:20:10here and articulating your voice so

3:20:12meaningfully and so effectively." I

3:20:14think it's important to recognize a

3:20:16couple things that I don't think we

3:20:17should walk away from this conversation

3:20:18with. The fact that maybe some folks on

3:20:21this council,

3:20:21>> you recognize for a motion. So, can you

3:20:23make a motion because this is really

3:20:25over. I'll accept any friendly

3:20:26amendments to this. I would like to the

3:20:29council to refer to the rules ordinance

3:20:30in uh whatever we call that committee.

3:20:32Now, uh

3:20:35the a motion to have them develop an

3:20:37ordinance that bans uh surveillance

3:20:40technology.

3:20:43>> I s this is not my thing. I sense that

3:20:46is the will of the council.

3:20:48>> Is there a second? You can speak again.

3:20:49I just wanted to do the second.

3:20:51>> Can I finish my point? Yes, you can.

3:20:53Thank you. I appreciate your your grace

3:20:55and guidance.

3:20:56>> Graciously.

3:20:57>> Yes. [laughter]

3:20:59Let the minutes reflect. Um Cambridge

3:21:02didn't ping pong on this. They

3:21:04reinstated a technology that uses audio

3:21:07technology to from a distance detect

3:21:10gunshots to lump the two together. And

3:21:12I'll just I'll go give

3:21:13>> you said

3:21:15>> I would refer to I think the comments

3:21:19broadly made some connections as if they

3:21:21were supportive of technology that is

3:21:24what we were discussing tonight what

3:21:26which is not the technology at all uh

3:21:29that Cambridge has resumed and and kudos

3:21:32um to the member of the audience who who

3:21:34referenced that they they turn it off

3:21:36there. I would caution us all on the

3:21:39argument although it's well the

3:21:41sentiment is well founded if we solve

3:21:43just one crime that is always the line

3:21:47that government of all at any level uses

3:21:49to say listen we're going to violate

3:21:51your civil rights but it's a if we solve

3:21:54one crime that's how you end up with the

3:21:57Patriot Act and you can you don't have

3:21:59to look far to find all of the abuses.

3:22:02There is not one surveillance technology

3:22:04that has ever existed that has not been

3:22:07abused. And I have all the faith in the

3:22:10world that, you know, the folks in

3:22:12Framingham that would use this

3:22:13technology are honorable and have good

3:22:15intentions, but once it's there, it's

3:22:17there. And someone said it doesn't go

3:22:19away. Um, I I appreciate the fact that

3:22:22the the competence of some elected

3:22:24officials have in government programs to

3:22:26work flawlessly, but the references to

3:22:30tamperresistant audit logs, you know,

3:22:32the software engineer that spoke

3:22:33earlier, I don't know what a tamper

3:22:35resistant audit log is, but I bet

3:22:37tamperresistant isn't very strong. As

3:22:39well as reference to strong penalties

3:22:41for violating the terms of the

3:22:42ordinance. There's no teeth. There's no

3:22:43oversight. There's no antithesis that is

3:22:46meaningful other than a ban. And that's

3:22:48what I'm hopeful we can collaborate

3:22:50meaningfully on and develop to uh to to

3:22:54protect the the citizens of Framingham.

3:22:56The solution is not to hope for the best

3:22:58by spying on everybody. Thank you, Mr.

3:23:00Chairman.

3:23:00>> Thank you. Anybody any other [applause]

3:23:04>> Thank you. Appreciate it. Uh any other

3:23:07comments about the motion to refer Miss

3:23:09Bryant?

3:23:11>> Yes. Um I just want to say that um the

3:23:14the the rules, ordinances and ethics uh

3:23:18subcommittee um dead we had we engaged

3:23:22very deeply with the very people who are

3:23:24in the room now speaking and I agreed

3:23:27with a lot. Um I I brought up the um the

3:23:31stalking uh you know former girlfriends

3:23:35and um want you know some hopeful

3:23:39whatever. So all of those things too. I

3:23:42I just want to say though that I think

3:23:44that councelor Stephanini was trying to

3:23:47limit um like the uh overreach and mass

3:23:52surveillance of the thing of you know

3:23:55the use um or whatever. But I don't

3:23:58think that we were wedded to um keeping

3:24:02uh m having mass surveillance that type

3:24:05of thing. But all these arguments that

3:24:07were brought up, especially Ladybug um

3:24:10from district 9, but everyone that had

3:24:12spoken previously before um they

3:24:14resonated and I agreed with a lot. We

3:24:17all I think I did. Um I just think that

3:24:19there was so much information but also

3:24:22um the the data or information that we

3:24:28were given did suggest did say um there

3:24:31was example given maybe it's not a ton

3:24:33of people but that um that um the use of

3:24:37the license plate thing had prevented

3:24:40interrupted a kidnapping of a child and

3:24:44uh there were uh you know that was one

3:24:47of the things But again, it's numbers

3:24:49and perhaps there are other ways to

3:24:50prevent um the evil that is done and

3:24:53torture and whatnot that always takes

3:24:56place um you know behind closed doors

3:25:00privately um taking people ac you know

3:25:03away from where they're taken. So um

3:25:06that's a whole separate issue. Also the

3:25:08welcoming ordinance um thing is um yeah

3:25:12the AL this this issue and the greater

3:25:15issue of the um mass surveillance um

3:25:19took over because it is so important. So

3:25:22um yes of course we will uh the

3:25:24suggestion of the ban is I think the

3:25:26next step to uh be uh investigated.

3:25:31>> Okay, I'm going to take a vote in that

3:25:32motion seeing no other discussion. Can

3:25:35>> I just say one thing? Um, I

3:25:38[clears throat] think this is great

3:25:39being sent back to rules. We did a lot

3:25:41of work. I caution us to

3:25:46think that we are trying to tell people

3:25:49because we have these fancy chairs and

3:25:52name tags that we are superior and that

3:25:55we know best than everyone. We couldn't

3:25:59have done the work and had the great

3:26:01discussions without everybody here. So

3:26:06yes, counselor Stephanie, you put in a

3:26:07lot of work. The ACL was involved and

3:26:09they did a lot of work. You all did a

3:26:11lot of work. I have learned a tremendous

3:26:13amount. No one is here to be superior.

3:26:16We're really living in very scary times.

3:26:21And

3:26:22okay, so this didn't work. We'll figure

3:26:25it out together. But this isn't about,

3:26:28you know, one person better than the

3:26:31other or personalities or anything. We

3:26:33just want to protect each other and look

3:26:35out for each other, right? And so I I

3:26:39agree with, you know, everything that

3:26:42you guys are saying, but this isn't

3:26:44because I got elected and I've got a

3:26:46fancy name thing and he's, you know,

3:26:49been elected a couple of times that

3:26:50we're better than everybody else. It's

3:26:53just I look forward to continuing this

3:26:55work on the rules and ordinance

3:26:56subcommittee and I look forward to

3:26:58talking to every single one of you about

3:27:00how we can do more to protect our fellow

3:27:03neighbors. Thank you.

3:27:05>> Okay, [applause]

3:27:06please.

3:27:08All right. All those in favor starting

3:27:10with Mr. Ward.

3:27:11>> Yes.

3:27:12>> Miss Feny,

3:27:12>> yes.

3:27:13>> Mr. K,

3:27:13>> yes.

3:27:14>> Mr. Alexander,

3:27:17>> Mr. Daviani,

3:27:18>> yes.

3:27:18>> Miss Malik,

3:27:19>> yes.

3:27:20>> Mr. Stephanie Bryant.

3:27:22>> Yes.

3:27:22>> Myself, yes. Miss Lebrto,

3:27:24>> yes.

3:27:24>> Miss Long,

3:27:25>> yes.

3:27:26>> Okay. I'll take a motion to go past 10

3:27:28o'clock

3:27:29to do.

3:27:30>> So move.

3:27:32>> Miss Long. Seconded by Miss Leo. All

3:27:35those in favor? Miss Feny?

3:27:37>> Yes.

3:27:37>> Mr. Canon?

3:27:38>> Yes.

3:27:38>> Mr. Alexander?

3:27:40>> Yes.

3:27:40>> Mr. Daviani?

3:27:42>> Yes. [snorts]

3:27:42>> Miss Malik?

3:27:43>> Yes.

3:27:44>> Mr. Stephanie? Yes.

3:27:45>> Miss Bryant. Myself. Yes. Miss Lero.

3:27:48>> Yes.

3:27:48>> Miss Long. Yes,

3:27:50>> Mr. Ward.

3:27:50>> Yes.

3:27:51>> Thank you. Next item on the agenda is um

3:27:57Mr. Sarkeesian here.

3:27:59>> I got the motion.

3:28:00>> Miss Todd is speaking on his behalf.

3:28:03>> Who is

3:28:03>> Megan? Megan.

3:28:04>> Oh, okay.

3:28:06>> Hi.

3:28:06>> Welcome.

3:28:07>> Thank you.

3:28:10>> Do you want me to read the motion? So

3:28:11you

3:28:11>> Yes, please. Yes.

3:28:13>> You don't need anything from me?

3:28:14>> No, you're gonna we're gonna talk. So

3:28:16once we read the motion.

3:28:17>> Okay. Proposed vote on order um

3:28:232026 073001.

3:28:25Motion vote to approve order number

3:28:28[snorts] 202673001

3:28:31as stated authorizing the conservation

3:28:33commission to acquire 103 guild for

3:28:35conservation preservation open space and

3:28:37passive recreation purposes using CPA

3:28:39funds, MVP grant funds and a donation

3:28:42from the Solomon Foundation to acquire

3:28:43the property. Further authorizing the

3:28:45conservation commission to grant a

3:28:46perpet per perpetual how am I doing?

3:28:49Conservation restriction to the trustees

3:28:51of the reservation and the mayor and or

3:28:53conservation commission as appropriate

3:28:55to execute any documents, agreements,

3:28:56instrument instruments, amendments

3:28:58thereto which are necessary to

3:29:00affectuate the purpose of this order.

3:29:04>> Okay.

3:29:04>> Need a second.

3:29:05>> Second.

3:29:05>> Thank you.

3:29:06>> Miss Todd, do you want to tell us what

3:29:08it is?

3:29:09>> Uh yes. you uh hopefully you're all

3:29:11familiar with the acquisition of 103

3:29:13Guild Road. I know that we've been here

3:29:15and Sarcis Sarkeesian has been here

3:29:16before speaking about this acquisition

3:29:18and the conservation restriction. Um

3:29:21unfortunately, Mr. Sarkeesian was unable

3:29:23to make it tonight due to a family

3:29:24obligation. He doesn't know yet, but

3:29:26he'll be buying me a large cup of coffee

3:29:28tomorrow. Um [laughter]

3:29:32>> breakfast. Um, so just a couple quick

3:29:36notes to bring you all up to speed and

3:29:38please forgive me for looking at my

3:29:39phone for my notes. It's late. Um, so

3:29:43the conservation restriction uh was

3:29:45finalized by the state just yesterday.

3:29:48We received the final final draft.

3:29:50Marian has that for your signatures. Um,

3:29:53so that's one piece of it. Uh, the vote

3:29:56tonight, the and the um the ordinance

3:29:58and the the motion that Mr. Advani uh

3:30:01read um was required by the state to

3:30:05allow the conservation commission to

3:30:07acquire 103 Gild Road and to ensure that

3:30:11the conservation commission will hold

3:30:13care custody and control as well as

3:30:15grant the CR to the trustees of the

3:30:17reservation. Um tomorrow night there

3:30:19will also be a vote of the conservation

3:30:22commission um if things go well tonight

3:30:24and they will then accept that

3:30:26responsibility as well. Um, so there I

3:30:29just wanted to let you know there were

3:30:30some minor edits today to the motion and

3:30:33the ordinance. If you notice those two

3:30:35new versions, um, I just needed to edit

3:30:37those to ensure that there was accuracy

3:30:39in the grant program that was named in

3:30:42those. So I made some minor edits. Um, I

3:30:45believe that's everything I need to

3:30:47share for now, but I'm [clears throat]

3:30:48happy to.

3:30:49>> Are there any questions?

3:30:50>> Mr. Chairman, Stephanie, I I'll defer to

3:30:52Mr. Chick.

3:30:54>> What? Mr. Chick, do you have a question?

3:30:58>> Um, no. I have a comment.

3:31:00>> Well, I was going to start with the

3:31:01council first. Okay. That's the way we

3:31:03do things. So, you have a question.

3:31:05>> Um, yes. I a comment. Um, thank you very

3:31:08much. First of all, this is exciting.

3:31:11>> Yes.

3:31:12>> It's uh for those who don't know, this

3:31:14is off of Bates Park and it connects the

3:31:16Upper Charles River Trail and it's going

3:31:18to connect a whole series of trails into

3:31:20our downtown. And when I think of this,

3:31:24I I wish uh many of our friends, Chris

3:31:27Walsh, could be here and could see this

3:31:29because his vision in terms of

3:31:31connecting neighborhoods to downtown,

3:31:33this will connect much of District 8 and

3:31:36Lake Washum

3:31:38to downtown Framingham and to Milis and

3:31:42Milford and Ashland and everywhere else.

3:31:45It's uh and if you haven't been on that

3:31:48trail, it has a very different feel than

3:31:51a lot of the trails we have here because

3:31:53of the old stone bridges and um the way

3:31:57it's laid out. So, I just want to say

3:31:59this is great. Thank you.

3:32:01>> Anybody else? Miss Bryant,

3:32:04[clears throat]

3:32:05>> thank you.

3:32:07This is

3:32:07>> uh and and the north side people

3:32:10>> Wait, I can't get on. They I can't get

3:32:13>> Oh, we can hear you Tracy. It's getting

3:32:14late. We're going to be

3:32:16>> So, um I just wanted to say uh thank

3:32:18you. Um Megan, if you could I know you

3:32:20said there were minor edits, but for the

3:32:23the residents, the public that you know,

3:32:26and so that it's on the record. What

3:32:28What were they What were the minor

3:32:29edits? You said the name correction of

3:32:32>> So, Miss M. Brian, I don't She She

3:32:35explained what they were. We're

3:32:36literally 18 minutes from not we're

3:32:38literally

3:32:40>> all it takes is for her to just state

3:32:42what was the name change

3:32:44>> because she already said what they were

3:32:45and and there was read and Mr. Adivian's

3:32:47motion and we have 18 minutes before we

3:32:49have to stop. So

3:32:50>> Okay. All right then. I don't think that

3:32:53um I was I was listening and I didn't

3:32:56hear um the whole like the exact ones

3:32:58but fine. Okay.

3:33:00>> Thank you.

3:33:01>> Anybody else on the city council?

3:33:03>> Yeah, I was late. I wasn't finished. I

3:33:05also wanted to say that um you know what

3:33:08you need to stop discriminating against

3:33:10me um in general.

3:33:12>> Miss Brian, you're out of order. Miss

3:33:13Brian, you're out of order.

3:33:15>> Well,

3:33:15>> please comment on the item if you'd like

3:33:17to.

3:33:18>> Um District 9 is also pleased. It's the

3:33:21first one that even comes close to

3:33:23connecting District 9 up. So, I

3:33:25appreciate the work and I know that the

3:33:27um the committee tomorrow will vote it

3:33:30in.

3:33:31>> Thank you, Mr. Chick. Thank you. be

3:33:34concise.

3:33:35>> That's I'm sure you always are, Mr.

3:33:36Cher.

3:33:37>> About 5 years ago, uh Rob MacArthur,

3:33:40former conservation uh administrator,

3:33:43brought me to this property, 103 Guild

3:33:46Street. It was something that he had

3:33:47thought about for a while and he

3:33:49introduced it to me and I've introduced

3:33:51it to most of you and it's an amazing

3:33:53property. It provides access to 4 500

3:33:58acres of open space to Framingham that

3:34:01is landlocked to Framingham. This

3:34:03property allows that access and it

3:34:05connects to um open space in Ashland in

3:34:09Sherbon and thank you for your

3:34:10consideration.

3:34:11>> Thank you for your work, Mr. Chick. Any

3:34:14further Mr. Canon?

3:34:15>> Just one thing for since the city

3:34:16solicitor is here. Not a comment, but

3:34:18thank you for all the work. Thank you,

3:34:19Miss Todd. Get a large coffee tomorrow.

3:34:22Well earned. And kudos to Mr.

3:34:23Sarkeesian. I know he's been working on

3:34:24this with the team for years. I keep

3:34:26seeing the phrase the care custody and

3:34:28man management and control. I think that

3:34:30stems from the community preservation

3:34:32committee. I think I would ask the city

3:34:35solicitor to provide some guidance to

3:34:37that committee. From time to time that

3:34:40that may be appropriate here, but

3:34:42sometimes we acquire something for the

3:34:44city and the mayor may later decide that

3:34:46this division will do this and this

3:34:48division will do that and it ends up

3:34:50creating some extra housekeeping work

3:34:52down the road that is well-intentioned

3:34:54but unnecessary. It also gets

3:34:56complicated if something says the parks

3:34:58and recreation X and then a division

3:35:01gets renamed or whatever. It's sort of a

3:35:04just an overmanagement well-intentioned

3:35:06thing and just perhaps some guidance uh

3:35:09and you may disagree with me. That's

3:35:10fine. Um but some guidance to that that

3:35:13committee might be helpful um when it

3:35:15makes sense and when it doesn't. That's

3:35:16all I'll say and I enthusiastically

3:35:18support it.

3:35:19>> Okay, seeing nobody else, I'll take a

3:35:21vote. Mr. Cannon.

3:35:22>> Yes.

3:35:22>> Mr. Alexander.

3:35:26Yes,

3:35:26>> Mr. Daviani. Yes,

3:35:27>> Miss Malik. Yes,

3:35:28>> Mr. Stephanie. Yes,

3:35:29>> Miss Bryant.

3:35:32>> Miss Bryant.

3:35:35>> Myself? Yes. M Bruno?

3:35:36>> Yes.

3:35:37>> Miss Long?

3:35:38>> Bryant? Yes.

3:35:39>> Thank you, Miss Long?

3:35:41>> Yes.

3:35:41>> Mr. Ward?

3:35:42>> Yes.

3:35:43>> Miss Feny?

3:35:43>> Absolutely.

3:35:44>> Thank you. It's unanimous. Okay.

3:35:46>> Thank you.

3:35:47>> Thank you. Next. A request of the

3:35:49finance subcommittee recommendation and

3:35:50vote upon the community preservation

3:35:51committee special application for

3:35:53funding at the Chris Falls Memorial

3:35:54Trail Design. Mr. Oliviani.

3:35:56>> Yep.

3:35:59Uh the finance subcommittee met on 811

3:36:022026. The vote was 500. The city council

3:36:05the suggested motion for the council. So

3:36:07this is short and sweet. The city

3:36:09council approved the recommendation of

3:36:11the community preservation committee to

3:36:12appropriate 300,000 from the fund

3:36:15balance account and 109,600

3:36:17from the open space and outdoor

3:36:18recreation reserve account totaling

3:36:2049,600

3:36:21for the Chris Walsh Memorial Trail

3:36:23Design Project CPA27-001

3:36:27for a grant made to the city of

3:36:29Framingham Parks Recreation and Cultural

3:36:31Division.

3:36:31>> Second.

3:36:33>> Okay, made in a second. Any questions or

3:36:36concerns?

3:36:37>> No.

3:36:39Okay. All those in favor, let's start

3:36:42now with Mr. Alexander. [snorts]

3:36:45>> Yes.

3:36:45>> Mr. Daviani?

3:36:46>> Yes.

3:36:46>> Miss Malik,

3:36:47>> yes.

3:36:47>> Mr. Stephanie,

3:36:48>> yes.

3:36:49>> Miss Bryant,

3:36:50>> yes.

3:36:50>> Myself, yes. M Bruno is out of the room.

3:36:53Miss Long,

3:36:55>> yes.

3:36:55>> Mr. Ward,

3:36:56>> yes.

3:36:56>> Miss Feny,

3:36:57>> yes.

3:36:58>> Mr. Canon,

3:36:58>> yes.

3:36:59>> It is 10 to nothing with Mr. Le Bruno

3:37:01out of the room.

3:37:02>> All right. Thank you.

3:37:03>> Thank you.

3:37:04>> Thank you.

3:37:05>> Okay. Next call. down to uh 13 minutes.

3:37:10>> The finance subcommittee recommendation

3:37:11vote to enter a three-year contract for

3:37:13auditing services fisc 26 to 28. Mr.

3:37:17>> at the finance subcommittee on August

3:37:1911, 2026. The vote was 500 to support

3:37:21this suggested order that the city

3:37:23council votes to appoint CLA Clifton

3:37:26Lass and Allen LLP as the order for the

3:37:29next three fiscal years beginning FY

3:37:312026 period ending June 30th, 2026. FY

3:37:342027 period ending June 30th, 2027 and

3:37:37FY 2028 period ending period ending June

3:37:4130th, 2028 with a total three-year fee

3:37:44of $315,000 as outlined in the quote

3:37:46provided by the city or to the city from

3:37:49CLA Clifford Lawson and Allen Limited

3:37:52Liability Partnership. So,

3:37:54>> questions, comments?

3:37:56>> Yes,

3:37:56>> I have a question. um it which version

3:38:00of the contract did we vote on? Because

3:38:03in the quote from the auditing firm and

3:38:06I apologize if I should know this,

3:38:09there's two price quotes.

3:38:13>> I think if they were doing additional

3:38:14work so um through you, Mr. chair, the

3:38:17315,000 anticipates that we will be

3:38:20providing and creating for submission in

3:38:242027 the annual comprehensive financial

3:38:27report. So it takes into account the

3:38:29additional fee for their work on that.

3:38:32>> Thank you.

3:38:33>> Okay. Anything else? I vote. Miss

3:38:36Daviani.

3:38:37>> Yes.

3:38:38>> Miss Malik. Yes.

3:38:38>> Mr. Stephanie. Miss Bryant.

3:38:41>> Um I am going to um what do you call it?

3:38:45abstain.

3:38:46>> Okay. Thank you.

3:38:48>> Three years I'm wondering about.

3:38:50>> Thank you. Myself. Yes. Miss Liam Bruno.

3:38:53Miss Long.

3:38:55>> Jeff. Yes.

3:38:56>> Mr. Ward.

3:38:57>> Yes.

3:38:57>> Miss Feeny.

3:38:58>> Yes.

3:38:58>> Mr. Canon.

3:38:59>> Yes.

3:38:59>> Mr. Alexander.

3:39:02>> Yes.

3:39:02>> Mr. 10 in favor. One abstain.

3:39:04>> Mr. Chair.

3:39:05>> Second.

3:39:05>> Got one more.

3:39:06>> No. It's a I can refer I can refer 17 on

3:39:09my own.

3:39:10>> Move to journ.

3:39:11>> Second.

3:39:12>> All those in favor? Miss. Malik.

3:39:14>> Yes.

3:39:14>> Mr. Stephanie, yes.

3:39:15>> Miss Bryant, myself, yes. Miss Lebran,

3:39:19>> yes.

3:39:19>> Miss Long,

3:39:21>> yes.

3:39:21>> Mr. Motion,

3:39:22>> Miss Journal,

3:39:25>> Miss Feny,

3:39:25>> yes.

3:39:26>> Mr. Cannon,

3:39:27>> yes.

3:39:27>> Mr. Alexander

3:39:30Longorn, yes.

3:39:31>> Mr.

3:39:33Point of order.

3:39:34>> Yes. The meeting's over. Miss Brian,

3:39:36what's the point of order?

3:39:38>> Well, I didn't hear whether it was a

3:39:40motion to adjourn.

3:39:41>> It was a motion to adjourn. Are you how

3:39:43you'd like to be recorded?

3:39:45>> Yes.

3:39:47>> Unanimous.

3:39:47>> Thanks, guys.

3:39:51[music]

3:40:06Heat. Heat.

3:40:18[music]