2026-09-03 - 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.

00:46[music]

00:52[music]

00:56Okay, good evening and welcome to the

00:57Premium City Council meeting for

00:59Thursday, September 3rd, 2026. Uh, just

01:04briefly at the beginning of the meeting,

01:05there were public first of all, this

01:06agenda is in the public meeting portal

01:09and published to I legislate this

01:10morning on September 3rd. It is version

01:13three of our agenda for this meeting.

01:15There were public meeting portal issues

01:17sporadically throughout the day. If

01:18someone cannot access the agenda or

01:21background on the public meeting portal,

01:23they can access everything on the front

01:24page of the city website under the news

01:26center and you'll see a blue message box

01:28and it'll say public meeting portal

01:30restored. So if we have problems during

01:32the evening with the public meeting

01:34portal, it is on the front of the

01:35website and people will be able to

01:37access the material.

01:40Okay. Um so we obviously we are all here

01:44but uh we have three councils are

01:46remote. Councils Bryant, Long and Liam

01:48Bruno. I don't see Council Bryant right

01:50now, but I believe she's going to be

01:51remote. Um, so next item would be the

01:55minutes for um July 1st.

01:59>> Motion to approve is distributed.

02:00>> Second.

02:01>> I'm sorry, that's July 21st.

02:04>> Motion to approve is distributed.

02:06>> Second.

02:07>> Okay. Thank you. It's moved and second.

02:10We'll start under my sheet here with

02:11Miss Malik.

02:13>> Yes.

02:13>> Stephanie, Miss Bryant, are you here

02:15yet? myself. My myself. Yes. Miss Liam

02:18Bruno.

02:19>> Yes.

02:20>> Miss Long.

02:21>> Yes.

02:21>> Mr. Ward.

02:22>> Yes. M. Feny. Yes. Mr. Cannon.

02:24>> Yes. Mr. Alexander.

02:25>> Yes. Mr.

02:27>> Yes.

02:28>> Okay. So, that is unanimous. It's uh 10

02:31in favor.

02:34>> Okay. There are no proclamations or

02:35resolutions tonight. Next would be

02:37public participation. We have five

02:40people on the signup sheet here. Let me

02:42see if we have anyone on Zoom.

02:49We have one person. No, we don't. Uh, is

02:52this Miss Bryant on Zoom? Take care of

02:55that. So, we have five people. So, it's

02:57going to be three minutes for each

02:58person here since no one is on Zoom. Um,

03:01and we'll start with our friends from

03:03KFB, Mike Crochi and Deb Kaplan. Three

03:06minutes.

03:16Hi, my name is Deborah Kaplan and this

03:18is Mike Crochi. We're the co-chairs of

03:20Keep Firmingham Beautiful, also known as

03:23KFB.

03:25Our mission is taking action towards a

03:28cleaner, greener, and litter-free

03:30community for all to live, work, and

03:32play. In the past six and a half years,

03:36volunteers have picked up nearly 300,000

03:39pounds of litter and debris

03:42from all around Framingham.

03:44We are here tonight to announce our next

03:48big cleanup event, which actually is a

03:518day challenge to the community coming

03:55up in September.

03:58So yeah, in honor of the 250th

04:00anniversary of the United States, Keep

04:02Framing and Beautiful is excited to host

04:04Trash Bash 250. Our goal is to inspire

04:07250 or more folks in the community to

04:10pick up litter between Wednesday,

04:12September 16th, and Wednesday, uh,

04:15September 23rd. Any amount of litter

04:17counts. be part of something big as our

04:20250 plus Trash Bash participants will

04:23join an estimated 20 plus million

04:25volunteers worldwide as both National

04:28and World Cleanup Days occur during

04:30Trash Bash. You can find out more about

04:32our group and Trashbash on the website

04:36k-f-b.org

04:38and you can find us on Facebook or

04:40Instagram, Keep Framingham Beautiful.

04:42Let's bash that trash.

04:45Okay, thank you very much. [applause]

04:50Okay, next. Andrew, are you here?

04:55>> Good evening, Andrew Machos of District

04:572. The usual. Um, in recent months, the

05:03a a contract that the Framingham Police

05:05Department signed with a private company

05:08outside of the normal city procurement

05:10process drew a lot of scrutiny. The

05:13police department had rented, not even

05:15purchased, rented equipment from a

05:19private company. This shiny high-tech

05:22tool that it then deployed

05:24indiscriminately against residents and

05:27those passing through alike.

05:31The fact that the police department has

05:33access to this secretive parallel

05:34procurement process deserves its own

05:37scrutiny. The so-called law enforcement

05:39trust fund, despite its name, does

05:41nothing to promote trust in law

05:43enforcement and thus goes against the

05:45spirit of an ordinance that was recently

05:47considered by this council. Perhaps the

05:50council has no authority to defund this

05:53separate financial account, but it

05:55should definitely ensure that going

05:57forward there is complete oversight over

05:59this account's activities.

06:02There should be no situation where the

06:05police department is able to purchase

06:07new technology, sign contracts, and then

06:11deploy technology without public

06:14oversight.

06:17Uh

06:19especially if afterwards the department

06:22then claims that the product of this

06:25technology is also outside of public

06:28scrutiny.

06:29So again, the so-called law enforcement

06:32trust fund must be better scrutinized

06:36and must not be allowed to operate in

06:39secrecy the way that it has for all

06:40these years. Thank you.

06:42>> Yeah. Um, next one is Mark Monique. Is

06:45it

06:47>> Monu? Sorry, I'm having a little trouble

06:49with your uh with your penmanship. I

06:51know the feeling. I suffer from the same

06:52affair.

06:53>> Sorry, Councelor King. Uh, [snorts] Mark

06:55Moniku. Um, District 8. Greeting

06:57council. Uh we're here to urge the

07:00council to enact a resolution strongly

07:02opposing the duplex by right provision

07:04in Massachusetts Senate Bill um S-3178.

07:10This bill would undermine the six months

07:11of work the council concluded with the

07:13recent zoning amendments.

07:15>> The bill allows by right threetory

07:17duplexes.

07:19We can also bet if this legisl

07:21legislation passed, the development

07:23would occur on the south side. We

07:25already have a huge issue with absentee

07:27landlords renting out individual rooms

07:29and multif family properties.

07:32Tying the additional parking

07:33requirements and the decline in our

07:35quality of life on the southside

07:36accelerates at a faster pace. The

07:39Massachusetts Municipal Association has

07:41come out against the provision. The

07:43proposal undermines communitydriven

07:45planning and removes the voice of

07:46residents in the important process.

07:49allowing the development of duplex

07:51housing by right on all residentially

07:52zoned lots, bypasses standard community

07:55input, undermines elected officials,

07:58and ignores infrastructure needs.

08:01>> So, I hope you'll consider that in the

08:03future. Thank you.

08:04>> Thank you,

08:08Gail.

08:14>> Um Gail Monu, District 8. Um, same

08:18subject. I urge the city council and the

08:20mayor to write a formal letter in

08:22opposition of Massachusetts bill, House

08:25Bill 5576, which would allow duplexes as

08:29a right in Massachusetts. The proposed

08:31bill states that cities and towns cannot

08:34limit the height of the duplexes to less

08:37than 40 feet or three stories. The city

08:40council recently amended Framingham

08:42zoning bylaws to limit heights in uh the

08:45Gz zone to 35 ft. So, bill 5576

08:50would override the changes made by the

08:52city council and open the door to

08:54oversized monstrosities like 35 Miller

08:57Avenue. If this bill passes, outside

09:00developers would start buying up small,

09:02affordable starter homes and turn them

09:05into three-story duplexes with no yards.

09:08More structures of this scale and small

09:10lots will destroy what's left of our

09:12community. I hope you will join me in

09:14opposing the over this one-sizefits-all

09:17approach to addressing the housing

09:19shortage and instead fight to preserve

09:21our neighborhoods. Thank you.

09:23>> Thank you.

09:25Uh last Republicans public participation

09:28Brian Schneider.

09:30>> Hi council.

09:31>> Good evening.

09:32>> I'm Brian Schneider from district 7. I

09:35can't pretend that I understand and can

09:37speak for the immigrant community. I am

09:40here to bear witness.

09:42ICE is in our community just about every

09:45day. They often sit at a location for

09:48hours. A recent report had ICE at a

09:52condominium complex. I arrived on scene

09:55and found two cars with their car doors

09:57open. Between one of the cars and the

10:00entrance to the complex, I found this a

10:03child's croc.

10:07A family getting into the car got an

10:10alert that there was armed masked men

10:13with a 100 yards of them. Imagine the

10:15fear that this family had in which they

10:19ran into their apartment leaving a croc

10:22in the middle of the parking lot.

10:25ICE has changed its tactics recently. On

10:28the first day of school, three they've

10:32started doing what's called Kavanaaugh

10:33stops using racial profiling to stop

10:36workers on the way to onto work. They

10:38stopped three construction vans before

10:408:00, abducting at least 10 people on

10:43the first day of school. How many kids

10:45missed the first day of school because

10:47their parents were afraid that ICE was

10:50still in town?

10:53On Monday, just this past Monday,

10:56another three construction vans were

10:58stopped at a gas station. At least six

11:01of our neighbors were taken.

11:03ICE drives our neighbors to Burlington

11:06for processing. If a habius corpus

11:10um petition is not filed very quickly,

11:13they are quickly sent out of the state

11:15to a concentration camp thousand

11:17thousands of miles away.

11:21The policy and procedures are designed

11:23to maximize fear and cruelty. I am

11:26gravely concerned about the apparent

11:28lack of awareness in this community

11:30about what is going on.

11:32If this is happening, if this not

11:34happening in your neighborhood, if it's

11:36not happening where you can see, it's

11:39not happening to you, it is easy to look

11:42the other way and ignore what is

11:44happening.

11:46This these abductions are affecting

11:49every aspect of our lives in Framingham.

11:52Our schools, our businesses, our

11:54relationships with law enforcement, our

11:57revenue, and our city budget. Silence is

12:00complicity. We either live in a country

12:04run by laws and due process for everyone

12:08or we don't.

12:10I understand the city believes that it

12:12can't do very much, but please step up

12:16and speak up about this injustice.

12:19First, they came for the immigrants.

12:22We must speak out or who knows will be

12:26next. Thank you.

12:28>> Thank you. [applause]

12:34>> Okay. So, next is items two through six

12:37are all recommendations the appointment

12:38subcommittee. So, we're going to take

12:39them all at once unless objects. So,

12:41council Bruno.

12:44>> Oh, thank you, chair. Um, and sorry I

12:47couldn't be there tonight, guys. I um we

12:49were had a plans to be away. So, I'm

12:51It's so weird to be on Zoom. I've never

12:53really done this, but I only I think

12:55once. So, it's kind of feel like we're

12:57not we're out of the loop here. So, um I

13:00hope you guys can hear me. Okay. So,

13:02>> do you want to do So, when you said take

13:04them

13:05>> take them all at once. So,

13:07>> just move Yeah. move approval and just

13:09briefly state who each of the people

13:10are.

13:11>> Okay. So, I will just give a quick uh we

13:13met on 8th 26 um with the appointment

13:16subcommittee. We met with three folks

13:18for team Framingham Siering Committee.

13:21Um Christian Martinez and Zola from

13:24district 3, Steven Condan from district

13:264, and Yubaldo uh Fra from district 7.

13:31Um we voted all three um um um we

13:35[clears throat] approved all three. Um

13:37and then for the cultural culture

13:40cultural council, we had only one

13:42applicant. One of the um Claudia

13:44Gustiffson had um withdrawn. Um so we

13:47have Ellie and Binder from district

13:50three. Um and we voted um to approve

13:54unanimous. And then we also met with um

13:57well she didn't um she wasn't in person,

13:59but it was one of the constables. It was

14:01Elizabeth Fuller. She's a resident of

14:04Framingham. and we voted to recommend

14:06favorable action for that role for a um

14:10constable. And then we have um for the

14:15human relations commission we had

14:16Salvatore Gar Lindino from district 8.

14:20Sorry if I screwed that one up. Um and

14:23Deborah Freed for the Veterans Council

14:26um district 8. And both of those were

14:29unanimous. So I'd like to make the

14:30motion to move all forward. Please

14:32second. Second

14:33>> with the expiration dates as shown on

14:35the agenda. Correct.

14:36>> Thank you so much. Yes.

14:38>> Okay. Any further discussion? Seeing

14:40none, all those in favor? Mr. Stephanie?

14:43>> Yes.

14:43>> Miss Bryant.

14:46>> Miss myself? Yes. Mr. Nuno?

14:49>> Yes.

14:49>> Miss Long?

14:50>> Yes.

14:51>> Mr. Ward?

14:52>> Yes.

14:52>> Miss Feny? Yes.

14:53>> Mr. Cannon? Yes.

14:54>> Mr. Alexander?

14:54>> Yes.

14:55>> Mr. Daviani?

14:56>> Yes.

14:56>> Miss Malik?

14:57>> Yes.

14:58>> Miss Bryant? Yes.

14:59>> Thank you. That's unanimous.

15:01>> Thank you everyone. Thank you.

15:03>> Okay. Next. Upon the request of the

15:05council adhawk committee recommendation

15:06to vote upon the mayor's 2026 proposed

15:09reorganization ordinance. The

15:11reorganization itself passed at the last

15:12time. Uh I would um so I'd ask for a

15:16motion on this.

15:17>> So moved.

15:18>> Is there a second?

15:19>> Any further discuss? Any further

15:21discussion?

15:23>> Seeing none, I will take a vote. Miss

15:24Bryant,

15:26>> no.

15:27>> Myself, yes. Miss Liam Bruno,

15:29>> yes. Miss Long,

15:31>> yes.

15:32>> Mr. Ward,

15:33>> no.

15:33>> Miss Feny,

15:35>> no.

15:36>> Mr. Cannon,

15:36>> yes.

15:37>> Mr. Alexander,

15:38>> yes.

15:39>> Mr. Aliviani,

15:40>> yes.

15:40>> Miss Malik,

15:41>> no.

15:41>> Mr. Stephanie,

15:42>> no.

15:43>> Six in favor, five opposed. The motion

15:45passes.

15:47Report of the mayor. Mayor Syski.

15:51>> Thank Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, very

15:53short report tonight. Um, first of all,

15:57the city will host a September 11th

15:59remembrance ceremony and vigil on

16:02Friday, September 11th at the living

16:04memorial at Cushing Memorial Park, and

16:06it be honoring the 25th anniversary of

16:09the attacks uh and the 17 people with

16:13ties to Framingham who lost their lives

16:15in that day. You're all invited to

16:17attend. There will be a silent vigil

16:19which we will begin at 7:58 a.m. and the

16:23formal ceremony will begin at 10:30 a.m.

16:26Um the meantime, the day before uh

16:29nearly 3,000 American flags will be

16:32placed at Cushing Park. Volunteers are

16:34needed to help place those flags on

16:37September 10th beginning at 4 pm. And

16:40those who are interested may contact the

16:42public administration public information

16:45officer at um Susan Patroni at

16:48framinghammma.gov.

16:50Um, as a result of your uh uh honoring

16:54Nick Paganella with a dedication uh uh

16:58plaque, the city will dedicate Nick

17:01Paganella Corner on Saturday, September

17:0326th at 10:00 a.m. at the Framingham

17:06Center Common. A save the date has been

17:09distributed and media release will be

17:11issued next week. And finally, the

17:14city's fall hazardous waste collection

17:16day will be held Saturday, September

17:1926th from 9:00 a.m. to 100 p.m. at the

17:22DPW headquarters at 100 Western Avenue.

17:26A media release and additional

17:27information will be shared through the

17:29city's communication channels next week.

17:32That is my report.

17:34>> Are there any questions for the mayor?

17:36Malik.

17:37>> Thank you. Um Mr. Mayor, I want to bring

17:40up something that I should have brought

17:42up at the last meeting. It was in part

17:44based on my experience at the this is

17:47your plaza event that the city hosted in

17:49Neans [clears throat] Hall in

17:50coordination with MAPC

17:53um looking at ways to utilize Neans um

17:58and think about sort of that community

17:59gathering place. And [snorts] it was a

18:03great event. There was a lot of families

18:04with young children running around. I

18:06know you dropped by at one point. I

18:08don't know if you saw um the sort of

18:11running around in circles that was

18:12happening. Um but one of the things that

18:15was brought up at that point to me was

18:17that there's no changing tables in any

18:19of the bathrooms here in city hall. And

18:22I understand that there's a long-term

18:24plan to redo the bathrooms and to put

18:25them on the same floor as city hall. And

18:28you know, there's a much bigger bigger

18:30plan in place, but it the person I was

18:33with, he said he was like, "Can I just

18:35go get a drill and like we can just like

18:37put them up on the wall here?" And so,

18:39you know, I asked him not to do that.

18:41But I just wonder how hard it just feels

18:43a little bit embarrassing that in the

18:44year 2026 there's no changing tables. I

18:47mean, that parents were like going just

18:50on the corner on the ground. I mean, I

18:52know it happens, but um I feel like we

18:54could do better. And there's plenty of

18:56wall space in the bathrooms here. So, is

18:59that something you could maybe explore?

19:01>> As you as you mentioned, we are just

19:03about complete with the with the design

19:06plan for renovating all the bathrooms in

19:08city hall, putting bathrooms, accessible

19:11bathrooms on every floor, and that's

19:14almost ready to go out to. But in the

19:16interim period, I don't see why we

19:18probably can't do something like that.

19:21Uh Mr. Palini is here. He heard your

19:23comments. Um, and I'll discuss that with

19:26him and see if we can do something at

19:28least on a temporary basis until we're

19:31ready to do the permanent renovations.

19:34>> Awesome. Thank you so much,

19:37>> Mr. Stephanie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

19:39Um, Mr. Mayor, we have a bunch of

19:42affordable units that are about to come

19:44online or close line that are for sale

19:46product. Have we thought through what

19:49our process will be, how we're going to

19:51advertise that and

19:53um reach out to people in the community?

19:56>> I'm sorry. I don't understand what you

19:58said. They're units that are coming up

20:00for sale.

20:00>> Yeah. So that

20:01>> that are owned by the city.

20:02>> No, no, no, no. Private developers.

20:04>> So why would we be advertising that?

20:07>> Because it goes, as I understand, the

20:09way the process works, it's in

20:10conjunction with they're required to do

20:12it with the state and local community as

20:15part of the law. It's a lottery.

20:19So if there are units that are available

20:21for you're right with with at least I'm

20:24aware of it for new construction. Yes.

20:26Where developers have to set aside a

20:28certain number amount of units uh for

20:31affordable housing. And as part of that

20:33process, the uh owners um take care of

20:38all the advertising. There's ads in the

20:40paper and they go they have to follow

20:43all the HUD guidelines and everything.

20:45and they normally hire uh consultants to

20:49take care of that because as you said

20:51it's a lottery. The owners aren't

20:53directly involved in it. This is done by

20:56a third party in behalf of the owners.

20:59>> Right. It's just I would think we'd want

21:01to do something to increase some

21:02visibility. We've we haven't had these

21:04units in Framingham since New England

21:06and Gravel. So we signed theou for

21:10Wavely Street. We signed the you you

21:11signed theou for Wavely. signed theou

21:14for rock

21:16>> Clarkdale. They're not there yet. I was

21:18just thinking about the fact that there

21:20could be some great opportunities for

21:22starter home like things for Framingham

21:25residents.

21:25>> Yeah. Um we can cooperate with

21:27coordinate with the developers when

21:30they're ready to advertise it. I know

21:32even Baiting Brook has to do the same

21:34thing.

21:34>> Yeah.

21:35>> For their affordable units because every

21:36project has affordable units. So they

21:39all have to do that and we can

21:40coordinate with them and put the

21:42information on our website but they

21:44normally take care of that uh through

21:47third party uh who specializes in

21:50specialize that

21:51>> super thank you

21:54>> Phil

21:55>> there are there aren't any for sale

21:56units at Clockill

21:58>> we pushed we pushed for Eagle Rock

22:00because it was originally negotiated at

22:0210% and then I made the motion

22:03>> so it's Baiting Brook Eagle uh

22:05>> at Clock Hill

22:06>> Eagle Rock and Wait [clears throat]

22:09Okay. Thank you.

22:10>> Thank you.

22:11>> Anyone else? Miss Long,

22:15>> you have to unmute yourself. Christine.

22:16>> Yep. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, I just

22:18want to bring up um reiterate what

22:21public participation

22:23uh brought up in with a conversation we

22:25had earlier today about the House bill

22:27that is um potentially going to remove

22:31single family districts and everything

22:33will be multif family throughout the

22:35Commonwealth. Uh, so I just want to

22:38um back up what a couple of people on

22:41public participation

22:43had said and I think the council and the

22:45mayor should be sending something to the

22:47governor's office and the legislature to

22:50oppose the changes that are currently

22:52ongoing and there's more than just that

22:54house bill. There's several changes to

22:57zoning that um intend to remove local

22:59control completely over a period of

23:02time. So uh this is why I urge planning

23:07with what we can do now and not waiting

23:10till later when we have no no control

23:12left at all. So I support what the uh

23:16public participants had said about um

23:19encouraging the council and the mayor to

23:22put together a letter to oppose this

23:26legislation.

23:27>> Okay. Thank you.

23:27>> So that's all I had to say.

23:29>> M Bryant. Um, on that same subject, um,

23:32I concur with councelor Long.

23:34>> Okay. So, wait a minute. I'm just I

23:35appreciate everybody's concurrence. I I

23:37concur myself.

23:38>> Okay. Let me get on that subject because

23:40it's not on the agenda. Okay.

23:42>> Thank you.

23:43>> Get it on the agenda, but go ahead. Go

23:45ahead.

23:45>> Right. Okay. But anyway, um, I'll go on

23:49with what I was going to say. Please do.

23:52um uh which is that um I wanted to know

23:55um when is the bill due to be voted on

23:57and can we have um uh like uh a proposed

24:03letter uh by our next meeting uh so that

24:07we can vote on it and then you send you

24:10know

24:10>> right we we can put it on the agenda for

24:12the next meeting. Yes.

24:13>> Okay. Thank you.

24:15>> Anything else Mr. Cannon?

24:16>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for

24:18the update. Mr. Mayor, do you have

24:19anything? I I'm suspecting not because

24:21it wouldn't it would have been included

24:22in your uh report, but um will there be

24:25any updates on the near horizon on where

24:28we are with the community center updated

24:30uh total cost of the project? Um

24:33anything to share there? Similar

24:35question for the um regional uh dispatch

24:40center and how that's coming along.

24:42>> Sure. Anytime you want, we can prepare

24:44an update for you.

24:46>> Would you add it to your list maybe for

24:47your next mayor's report? I don't know

24:48if there's anything to share. Now, I've

24:50also heard it would be a good

24:51opportunity probably for you to maybe um

24:54I don't know if they're there rumors or

24:56just a grapevine kind of thing. I'm

24:58hearing things about concerns of um

25:02puzzling spending related to the

25:05regional uh dispatch center. Things like

25:08are they purchasing or leasing cars?

25:10That seems unusual to me. I don't know

25:11if that's even true. Um, in terms of uh

25:15training, are they attending? Are they

25:16visiting the uh are the directors and

25:18the assistant director is the leadership

25:21there I'm I'm blanking on the titles uh

25:23spending time with the existing

25:25dispatchers to sort of get a sense of

25:27what the culture is, how you know what

25:29those best practices are. Uh kind of a

25:31an update would be helpful there.

25:33Similar question if you want to talk now

25:35or or sooner than later. Um the

25:37firefighters union commissioned a study

25:39that was recently um published and I

25:42know it's been talked about um we've

25:44brought it up a few times in this

25:45meeting. Others uh have as well planning

25:48for an additional fire station. Would

25:49just love to get the kind of the pos the

25:51thoughts of the administration on how if

25:54that is impacting or what the the kind

25:57of the status of those nonCBA related

26:00conversations are more of the general

26:02planning. Um, and then anything you can

26:04share on the either the search for a

26:06COO, is there an acting COO? Uh, the

26:09former COO represented the city on a

26:11number of

26:13>> I'm sorry.

26:14>> What a list.

26:17>> I said you have a good list.

26:19>> Thank you.

26:20Um, the COO represented the city of

26:24Framingham uh on a number of boards, the

26:26MWRTA board, I think the MREC board. who

26:29is representing the city now that there

26:32is no COO. Um

26:36hopefully that maybe compels some

26:39proactive answers to some other

26:40questions as well along those lines. I I

26:43would throw DPW in there. Um there

26:45hasn't been a formal announcement to the

26:47council of who's running DPW right now,

26:50what the status what I'm sure it's a

26:52very broad search uh that is being

26:55undertaken by your administration on

26:57that leadership position because it's

26:58incredibly critical um and some very you

27:02know close it's a it's a great

27:05opportunity to ask a lot of questions I

27:07guess uh as as new leadership takes over

27:09there. But anything you can share on any

27:11of those topics now?

27:14Sure. Uh but but I'm very willing to if

27:17you want put on future agenda or it

27:21probably time for us to give you an

27:23update on a lot of things that are going

27:25on and you know that involve uh a lot

27:27more than what you mentioned. Um and

27:30[clears throat]

27:31I thought that's what the fifth Tuesday

27:34was for for uh uh the meetings uh to

27:38give the mayor to give updates on it.

27:41So, I'm not sure where that stands, but

27:43I'm certainly willing to do that. Terms

27:45of the uh COO, that's being advertised

27:48now. That's still out there on the

27:49street. Um, in the meantime, I have

27:52notified uh the the executive director

27:54of the MWRTA that I will be reassuming

27:58my role as the city's representative to

28:00that and he's going to include me in all

28:03meetings and documentation that is uh

28:06discussed there. So, I'm handling that.

28:09uh in the Emirc we have a whole list of

28:12uh representatives from the city both in

28:14operations the the chiefs are there the

28:17CFO is there on on the committee I'm on

28:20the committee Megan Todd is on a

28:22committee so that's covered as well so I

28:25can schedule uh in maybe one of my

28:28future reports we can talk about it or

28:30schedule a meeting dedicated uh just to

28:34updates on a lot of projects that we're

28:35working on

28:36>> if you so are we planning if the 29th 9

28:38is because there was a fifth Friday

28:40fifth Friday fifth Tuesday.

28:42>> What a week it's been. Um that would be

28:44terrific and things like 61 Lincoln

28:46Street, our VA partnership. I know a

28:47number of us have asked a number of

28:49questions that are probably I agree with

28:50you due for an update. So you're going

28:52to the um the MREC meeting tomorrow. I

28:54think it's virtual tomorrow. Fantastic.

28:56That's great.

28:56>> Excellent. Thank you. So, we certainly

28:58can use the fifth Tuesday in that

29:00regard, especially I believe there is

29:02one this month, I believe. And um the

29:06rules say the mayor's office should, you

29:08know, tell us what they would like to

29:10discuss or whatever. So, just submit

29:12that to the council office and we'd be

29:14happy to do that.

29:16>> Thank you.

29:19>> Not not necessarily a question, but just

29:21a second councelor Cannon's interest in

29:24hearing more about the report that came

29:25out of the fire department. Um and

29:27potentially doing that on the fifth

29:28Tuesday.

29:30>> Anything else? Okay. Thank you. Um

29:35just because uh just public

29:37participation, we take attendance so to

29:39speak and divide the time for 15

29:40minutes. Uh since no one tonight,

29:42appreciate it. Everybody spoke well

29:44under their uh allotted time. Mr.

29:47Bloomfield's hand was not up at public

29:50participation when I took attendance,

29:51but since I'm in a generous mood and is

29:53up now, I'm going to recognize him for

29:55three minutes.

29:59Mr. Bloomfield,

30:07Hold on. Maybe we have to do something.

30:09>> I'm here.

30:10>> Okay, go ahead. You got three minutes.

30:13>> That's I appreciate that. And I

30:15according to my my watch, my clock, I

30:18was in on time. But put all that aside.

30:20We're starting a new year here and I

30:22want to get off on a good uh note, but

30:24there's some important things that need

30:26to be discussed and dealt with. As you

30:28can tell from the sense of all the

30:30feedback you're getting tonight and all

30:31the different statements that are being

30:33made, blue state, sanctuary city, blue

30:36state, waste, fraud, and abuse, poor

30:39economic policies, governor in over her

30:42head, state and federal delegation

30:45subpar at best,

30:48uh, lost in the weeds, leaning socialist

30:52and communists never ever worked

30:54anywhere. Less and less businesses will

30:57be expanding or coming to Framingham.

31:00Why? I wonder why. Federal and state

31:04funding constrained population likely

31:07perhaps to decline as well as jobs

31:11greater and greater burdens on city

31:13residents, especially young families and

31:16the elderly. You're aware of all these

31:18things. I know you are. But somebody

31:20needs to uh rein things in and take care

31:24of the what's required. And you are

31:27doing nothing. Don't take that to heart.

31:29You're doing nothing. It's not easy to

31:32alter these projections. Are you

31:35Massachusetts should be moving red and

31:38not deep deep blue. Who knows? Your

31:42loved ones may even be leaving

31:45Massachusetts today state and going to

31:47red states just to survive. You never

31:50know, do you? In any event, a repeat of

31:55last tax budget fiasco cannot be

31:58repeated. You must start early, work

32:01smarter, have more indepth analysis

32:04meetings, develop smart uh develop

32:08scenarios, the good, the bad, and the

32:10ugly budget conditions on the table as

32:13soon as possible. open to the public

32:17once per month until the budget season

32:20uh meetings are dealt with and

32:22consistently completed and reached to

32:26the pros and the cons completely

32:29understood by our community. Our

32:31community always needs to know earlier

32:33and what's going on.

32:36Uh start by who, when, and how this

32:39budget assessment panel should be

32:41comprised.

32:43Um, so anyway, that that's fair and you

32:47know about it and I'm sure you don't

32:49want to go through the same budget

32:50scenario kind of situation we went

32:52through which was horrendous and there's

32:54a lot of feelings about the

32:55reorganization that was done in haste

32:57and it wasn't well thought out and it

32:59still needs to be dealt with and there's

33:02more reorganization that needs to be

33:03done. We have to reduce our costs and

33:06more reorganization has to be done and

33:09it has to been done earnestly and and

33:11early so it can be uh ahead of us and

33:14not behind us and obviously the uh

33:17>> you got 15 seconds Mr. Bloomfield.

33:20>> How many seconds?

33:21>> 15.

33:24>> Uh whereas our budget is 75% comprised

33:27of salaries. We need to know what we're

33:30doing in that area. we can't afford just

33:31paying people more and more and also

33:34covering their health insurance. You

33:35know that as well.

33:39>> Thank you.

33:40>> Bye.

33:40>> Thank you.

33:42>> Okay. Next on the agenda upon request of

33:44finance subcommittee the recommendation

33:45of vote upon the community preservation

33:47committee special application for

33:49funding of the Chris Walsh memorial

33:50trail design. Mr. Adviani.

33:52>> Yeah. This is our second reading. Um we

33:55voted unanimously at the finance

33:56subcommittee to support the

33:57recommendation of the uh CPC committee.

34:00Second.

34:02>> Any further discussion?

34:05Seeing none, myself? Yes. Mr. Luno?

34:08>> Yes.

34:09>> Miss Long? [snorts]

34:10>> Yes.

34:11>> Mr. Ward?

34:12>> Yes.

34:12>> Meny?

34:12>> Yes.

34:13>> Mr. Cannon?

34:13>> Yes.

34:14>> Mr. Alexander?

34:15>> Yes.

34:15>> Mr. [clears throat] Abiani?

34:16>> Yes.

34:16>> Miss Malik? Yes.

34:17>> Mr. Stephan? Yes.

34:18>> Miss Bryant?

34:19>> Yes.

34:20>> Okay. Next in agenda. Upon request to

34:22find a subcommittee report and

34:23recommendation regarding the

34:24compensation, classification of parks

34:26and recreation positions for Mary

34:27Dennison.

34:29Um after a lengthy and uh

34:31>> why don't we take these both together

34:32nine and 10 and 10 is request of finance

34:35subcommittee report and recommendation

34:36regarding the supplemental budget

34:37appropriation for parks and recreation

34:40at Mary Dennith and Mary Dennis.

34:42>> We actually voted unanimously after a

34:44lot of discussion. You know they came in

34:45with a couple different scenarios you

34:46know anywhere from 2 4 6 8 10 um and we

34:51settled on the number four. Um it was a

34:53compromise and the vote was unanimous to

34:56um support it and we studied again if we

34:58had to and um the sentiment of the

35:00council it was going to go four or six

35:02but they you know if they need more

35:03people we had enough faith in Mr. Palini

35:06and the mayor's office to come back and

35:07tell us they need more people but better

35:09to start with four um and go up if

35:11needed instead of trying to take people

35:13away. So it was unanimous and look

35:15forward to it.

35:18>> Okay. So,

35:20so this is a first vote on the

35:21appropriation because we had a first

35:23reading.

35:24>> It does.

35:25>> Um,

35:25>> so two vote,

35:26>> we don't really need a vote because this

35:28is the language that we've been um

35:31parsing out and I know that we've got

35:33into a habit of taking two votes, but

35:36after talking both to the former

35:38solicitor, current solicitor,

35:41it has to be on the agenda and

35:43considered and

35:45read, how you want to say it, twice. So,

35:48we don't really need a first vote, but

35:49we can't take the final vote at this

35:51time. It has to be taken at the

35:53September 15th meeting because we have

35:55to advertise 10 days for a public

35:57hearing. Um, so if there's any

36:01discussion, I think that maybe that

36:02would be appropriate, but I don't think

36:04we need a vote.

36:05>> Mr. Chairman, we have a motion and a

36:07second,

36:08>> right? But we don't need it.

36:10>> But there's a motion and a second which

36:11requires a vote. Well, the motion's out

36:13of order because we don't need the vote

36:15because we can't make

36:18>> right. The motion is out of order.

36:20>> Do we want to have this conversation

36:22again?

36:22>> Yes.

36:23>> So, my suggestion would be if you want

36:26to change the practice that we have

36:29followed for nine years

36:31>> through multiple solicitors, through

36:32multiple chairs.

36:34>> And I've had conversations with those

36:36folks. Marilyn Contraus who is the

36:38statewide expert who advised the charter

36:41commission. Let's put it on the agenda

36:43and let's have a conversation about it.

36:44Let's not let it creep up on us in the

36:47middle of a discussion on an item.

36:49>> Right. So,

36:50>> so, so I know you're aware of this, but

36:53in American juristp prudence, we follow

36:56something called precedent. So when the

36:58zoning board makes a decision, even when

37:01that decision is a little bit beyond the

37:03scope of the way in which it is

37:04interpreted, if the zoning board has

37:07done that 10 times, it becomes very

37:09difficult for the zoning board not to

37:11follow that rule and not to be subject

37:13to appeal.

37:15This community has followed this rule.

37:18So whether it's part of it or not part

37:20of it,

37:22I don't want to be in a situation where

37:24bond council again is asking us for a

37:26second vote, where an appropriation is a

37:28second vote, where last year our outside

37:32code council asked us or rejected a

37:37ordinance because it did not have two

37:39votes. So, I don't think you're standing

37:42on solid ground. But I think if you want

37:44to change the rule, and I think there's

37:47a way to do it by changing our rules, if

37:50you so choose, I think we need to do it

37:52in an orderly fashion and not just

37:55randomly at some meeting. And I'm I'll

37:57challenge the ruling of the chair if you

37:59if it's necessary for us to have a

38:01formal discussion.

38:02>> Okay,

38:04we can definitely have a formal

38:05discussion. I'm looking to have a formal

38:06discussion. It it makes no sense. The

38:10way it's been done makes no sense and

38:12after reading the letter of the law,

38:14there's just no reason for it because it

38:16cannot be voted to the next time

38:17anyways. So the the outcome of tonight's

38:20vote is meaningless. So having a formal

38:23discussion is very much in play and it

38:26should be done. It's in order. There is

38:28no need for a vote. So I'd be open to

38:30discussion.

38:33Does anyone anybody want to discuss the

38:35solution?

38:37Mr. K, Mr. Wood,

38:38>> I would just say that um there were a

38:41lot I was here u day one of the first

38:43council, Mr. Mr. King was as well. I

38:45think there were a lot of things that as

38:47we developed and implemented new

38:49practices and processes, we probably did

38:52for who who knows what the the reason

38:55was good intentions and maybe a first

38:57reading was interpreted this way. if

38:59it's not actually needed and if we're

39:02taking a if we're in the if we have the

39:05practice of taking a vote that doesn't

39:07actually mean anything, we probably

39:09shouldn't do it because it's a it's a

39:11bit misleading to the public to be able

39:13to say, "Well, I voted, you know, this

39:16way or that way on a vote that has no

39:19bearing."

39:21>> It's it seems like a something that a a

39:24good politician would want to have in

39:26there for political reasons. And I'm not

39:28saying that that's what the motivation

39:29is. I think the motivation is well this

39:31is the way I think the reasoning is this

39:33is the way we've always done it. We

39:34should continue to do it that way. And I

39:36tend to challenge that argument as well.

39:38So if we let's figure out what we have

39:41to do, commit to it with certainty and

39:45implement that process. It it seems

39:47reason I get the thinking behind it. Um

39:50I don't remember the I remember the take

39:53the have two readings. I don't remember

39:55the have two votes having but I wasn't

39:57on the charter commission. Um so and and

40:00God bless uh the the sainted memory of

40:02Marilyn Contraus who passed away I think

40:04almost a year ago.

40:05>> She did.

40:06>> So anyway that's that's my thought. I I

40:08so thank

40:09>> so just to explain my rationale last

40:12time I believed it was the right thing

40:13to do too but I acquiesced because I

40:16didn't you know because a it was a

40:18somewhat controversial issue and it was

40:22the first time it was discussed but it

40:24just the whole thing after researching

40:27it just makes no sense to do it with two

40:30votes. There's no sense to it. It

40:32because the first vote doesn't mean

40:33anything. We've had very awkward first

40:35votes in the past where we took them

40:37just for the sake of taking them knowing

40:39that all we were doing is pushing it to

40:40a second vote. So, there's no reason to

40:42have that awkward uh moment because the

40:45same power at the second vote is going

40:48to be there no matter what. So, no one

40:50is being deprived of a right to vote and

40:52the right to influence the question. nor

40:53is anyone being deprived of the right to

40:56discuss the question because as I say

40:57I'm very pleased and happy to have a

41:00full discussion of it right now but it

41:02makes no sense.

41:03>> Mr. Chairman,

41:04>> Mr. Ward and Mr. Stephanie

41:06>> and will I end?

41:07>> Um I have questions about the proposal

41:09and Mary Dennison. Uh can I direct those

41:11to I don't know the mayor, Mr. Paleini,

41:14um Miss Elliot, I don't know.

41:16>> Whoever you'd like to direct them to.

41:18What's your question? We'll figure out.

41:19>> So I have two questions. one I'm just

41:21trying to get um a sense of you know

41:24looking at the current like park and

41:26wreck

41:28um

41:29you know employee headcount which is

41:31about 35. I'm kind of curious like how

41:34much of that staff currently is um like

41:38labor and park management as opposed to

41:40programs. I'm just trying to get a sense

41:42of where like what does this four look

41:44like in addition to what we already

41:46have. And then I also had a question on

41:48the presentation in terms of I think it

41:51said uh the staffing for the proposal of

41:54four was two crew leaders, two laborers

41:57with one crew leader and one laborer

41:58scheduled each operating day. So are

42:02they each working three days or I'm just

42:04trying to get a sense of like what does

42:05that look like on a day-to-day basis

42:07though that that shift schedule with

42:09that proposal?

42:28Good evening

42:30>> and thank you for your work on this and

42:31thanks for taking the question.

42:33>> Of course. So I will go one by one. So

42:36our rec staff is three. Um, then we have

42:40admin staff and then we have our

42:43maintenance staff. So that's

42:47>> the number right in my head.

42:48>> The maintenance.

42:49>> Yeah, we've been hiring a lot.

42:51>> Just like rough. I'm just trying to get

42:52a rough like what where does like is

42:53this forish?

42:54>> So 15 currently and this would add four

42:56to that 15.

42:57>> Yes. And and

43:00for comparison, do does current staff

43:04get assigned to like if we if like is

43:06there a staff that's currently assigned

43:07to solely Cusheen or is there staff

43:10that's currently assigned to solely

43:11Boutic? What is

43:15would this staff be a little flexible as

43:18well or would they be solely assigned to

43:20Mary Dennis?

43:21>> This currently it they revolve depending

43:24on the demand. Um, and there is a little

43:28more staffing at Boutage during the high

43:31peak uh usage, which is obviously the

43:35summer, fall, and uh through through

43:37fall, excuse me. Um, and then obviously

43:40the staff would being where it's at and

43:43the it's not really a park, it's a

43:45complex. So, uh, we would want to keep

43:49at least one staff person available down

43:51there during any sort of event or

43:55activity that was transpiring cuz there

43:58it there's a lot that's down there with

44:01this with this new park coming online.

44:07So then when um the proposal is two crew

44:11leaders, two laborers,

44:14are they each working is is all four of

44:17them working five days a week and then

44:19they're just getting kind of juggled

44:20across those six days. So at sometimes

44:23there's going to be three or four people

44:25on site.

44:27>> So we never want to have just one person

44:29by themselves for safety reasons. Um

44:33there would be probably an overlap of

44:35maybe an hour or two, but they would be

44:37split shifts so that we cover more hours

44:39in a day and then also give people days

44:42off. So yes, five days a week.

44:43>> Okay. So theoretically I I don't know

44:45what is a standard like day like not

44:48counting a break like seven is that they

44:50work seven hour days, eight hour days.

44:52>> Eight hour days.

44:52>> Eight hour days.

44:54>> So technically would be maybe even be

44:55able covering more than the 10 to six if

44:58we're if we're staggering. Is that

45:00right?

45:02Yes, that's what we're looking at. We're

45:04We want to cover as many hours and as

45:06many days as we possibly can.

45:07>> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Um

45:13Okay, that's helpful. Thank you,

45:15>> Miss Bryant. I'm sorry. I said Mr.

45:17Stephanie first. I didn't see you, then

45:19you, Miss Brian. I'm sorry.

45:20>> Thank you. I I don't have any comments

45:22on uh the staffing as we did that at the

45:25finance committee. I want to make um one

45:27more comment relative to the rules and

45:32uh question was what is the utility and

45:34how does it work? It increases

45:35transparency

45:37>> and so if we're going to diminish or

45:39reduce our transparency I think that's

45:41okay but I think we should do so in the

45:43light of day because having a vote means

45:46that we all go on the record. It means

45:48we all get asked questions about it. It

45:50means we all have to stand up and be

45:52held accountable. And it means that the

45:56proposal goes out into the public and

45:58has a conversation. To say and to

46:01casually say that this is a reading

46:04after 9 years and that American juristp

46:06prudence precedent doesn't mean

46:09anything. Well, we all know in our

46:11planning board, our zoning board, and

46:12every other decision we make, and every

46:14other body in this country that that's

46:17just not the case. Whether we like it or

46:19not, that's our precedent.

46:21We can't also ignore the fact that our

46:23outside code council, our clerks, our

46:27outside solicitors, our outside bond

46:30council, and our own solicitor in

46:32December of last year ruled an ordinance

46:35invalid because it only had one vote. So

46:38why is a second vote important? Because

46:41it puts it on the record and in

46:43particular because of the amendment

46:45process. We have not read this provision

46:47in this way, but I think you could read

46:49the provision that if it is amended on

46:51the second vote that that amendment on

46:54the second vote then requires another

46:56hearing because each proposal needs to

46:58have two hearings votes before the

47:00committee. We have never never done

47:03that. But under this provision,

47:06something could ride under the radar and

47:08then be amended with something

47:09completely different at the second vote.

47:12voted and there's absolutely no

47:14visibility, no transparency, and no

47:16recourse in the community other than

47:19somebody who is on the prevailing side

47:20who wishes to move reconsideration

47:22immediately and go through that process.

47:26Again, I think if we're going to make a

47:29very dramatic change in the process and

47:31the way we're going to do it, I think we

47:33should do it in the same kind of orderly

47:35fashion in which it's adopted, which is

47:37put it on the agenda, have a wholesome

47:39discussion of it, [clears throat]

47:41and not change precedent

47:44in midcourse that has a very clear

47:48impact on the way in which something is

47:50conveyed. And it may not in the case of

47:53an appropriation where it's very clear

47:55and it goes through the finance

47:56committee etc. But on zoning changes on

48:00changes in other ordinances if the first

48:03hearing is nothing more than reading the

48:05title of it

48:07>> then there's not a lot of visibility

48:08around that.

48:10>> Thank you. Um Miss Bryant then Mr. Can.

48:14>> Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank

48:16you. Um I would say uh I I will um

48:20remind me to ask about the uh the park

48:23the the number the four. Um, I have one

48:26question on that later, but I do want to

48:27say on the issue, this issue of first

48:30vote, second vote, um, uh, I think

48:34councelor, uh, Stephanini said it, but I

48:36just want to say that in a in a simple

48:39language, uh, having two votes allows

48:42the public to quickly see where

48:44counselors stand on an issue. for those

48:47who are very invested in a particular

48:50issue. Um some a lot of times they don't

48:53have time to wait through all the

48:55discussion um you know before one vote.

48:59They get to see exactly where we stood

49:03and that gives the the public just a

49:05modicum of the input that they had

49:08during town meeting. um and they can

49:10engage the representatives as he said

49:13gives them a chance to uh you know try

49:15to change our minds or whatever and also

49:18um when often we can say oh well we've

49:22all the majority voted twice in favor of

49:26the first reading and the second reading

49:28or if there was a disparity um it why it

49:32was due to one thing or another you know

49:34people can uh understand more clearly

49:37they can discuss more clearly

49:39discussion doesn't often um doesn't

49:43always indicate how a person is going to

49:46end up voting in another two weeks. Um

49:49and so I I and I so that's one thing and

49:52the other thing is uh while I respect

49:54the authority and powers of the chair I

49:57really believe that this change is

49:59monumental enough and affects all the

50:02council and how we run that it should be

50:05decided and yes voted on upon the entire

50:09by the entire council whether to change

50:12it or not. And I do agree um that

50:16process-wise

50:18the vote um a motion was requested, a

50:21motion was given on that particular

50:22issue and a second. So I think therefore

50:26we would have to vote on it or the

50:29motion should have been disallowed or

50:31not requested in the first place, but we

50:34definitely um I guess that's it. Okay.

50:37>> Okay. Thank you,

50:39>> Mr. Camp. Oh, and then the question for

50:41the Mary for Mary uh about the Mary

50:44Dennison staffing. Um do you uh really

50:48think that four would be enough uh to

50:51really adequately cover the park? I

50:55mean, we have a lot of different areas

50:56of the park and things that'll be going

50:58on. And will will the police in any way

51:04um be available to

51:07back them up uh at a moment's notice um

51:10when the park has major events going on

51:13at once should something happen um

51:17because they will be outnumbered

51:20by you know a lot. Um so are we sure for

51:26we couldn't up it to five or six? Would

51:28that be too much?

51:32>> That a question or just a comment?

51:34>> That's a question.

51:36>> Okay. So, does anybody have any

51:37response?

51:42>> Like I said in the previous in the um

51:44subcommittee um this is an open dialogue

51:48and we're bringing the park online at

51:50the end of October. Um, so we're going

51:54to see exactly where we land and what

51:57the usage is. And I'm hopeful that uh if

52:02we need more staffing as we start to

52:04gear up and the park gets a lot of use

52:07to bring it back uh and get your support

52:09for additional staff if that's required.

52:12>> Thank you.

52:13>> Okay. And it would come to the council

52:14or the mayor who um for additional

52:18>> It has to begin with the mayor.

52:20>> Okay. and the mayor. Mayor, you've

52:23already said that you would be amendable

52:26to revisit that, correct?

52:28>> Yes.

52:30>> Thank you,

52:30>> Mr. Canon.

52:31>> Thank you.

52:32>> Just briefly, um

52:34I'm I'm struggling to see how a vote,

52:38which has historically been mo a motion

52:41to move to the second reading, not

52:44really a vote in favor or against the

52:47subject matter itself.

52:51reduces transparency. If anything, I

52:53think it causes confusion because often

52:56after a vote where there's been some

52:58discussion, which there will continue to

53:00be,

53:02and there is the consensus among the

53:04council where there are issues and more

53:05work for someone to do, okay, do that

53:08before it comes back to us. But there's

53:10a vote to move to the second reading. A

53:12lot of people leave the room or tune out

53:14thinking this thing that was important

53:15to me was voted favorably or not, and

53:18that's where it ends. So, I'm all about

53:20making sure that we preserve the robust

53:22dialogue, but I think it's I I I a

53:27motion to move to the second reading, I

53:29think, is very confusing for people and

53:31is not consistent with what you've

53:33described in terms of reducing

53:35transparency and the crushing defeat on

53:39I I mean, you kind of

53:42I'm struggling to to see the premise,

53:44but thank you.

53:44>> So, let me answer his question, Mr.

53:46Chairman.

53:47>> Um,

53:47>> I don't think he had a question. He just

53:49he asked me a question. He said he

53:50wasn't ask question answer what I was

53:52doing. So I would So let me raise my

53:54hand. I'd like the opportunity to speak.

53:55>> Well, you've already spoken twice, but

53:56you can speak said the same thing both

53:58times, but you can speak briefly again.

54:01>> Um Okay. Um so the former assistant

54:05solicitor who was in charge of

54:07interpreting this and leading the first

54:09council. So you want to change the

54:12policy and you want to change the level

54:14of transparency. You're the chair. You

54:16have the ability to do that. But let's

54:18not pretend that we haven't spent nine

54:21years following a process. Let's not

54:24pretend that everyone who has looked at

54:26this has come to the same piece. And I

54:29won't read the whole piece, but he says,

54:31"I interpret I interpreted them,"

54:33meaning the provisions in question to

54:35mean the measure must be passed at two

54:37meetings, but it might also be

54:39interpreted to require just a reading at

54:42the first meeting and a vote at the

54:43second meeting. It's a plausible

54:46interpretation,

54:47>> but that's where in American

54:49juristprudence, which is the first thing

54:50we learn in law school, is that

54:52precedent matters. The president of the

54:55zoning board, the planning board, we

54:56talked about the licensing commission.

54:58We can't just go about doing one thing

55:00or another. So, I certainly hope that as

55:03we follow this new process, and I will

55:08uh not question it further, that our

55:11bonds don't get kicked back to us as not

55:13being able to be sold in the market,

55:15that our appropriations are not

55:17questioned or litigation against the

55:19city does not question the validity of

55:22an ordinance because credible legal

55:25outside council have all unanimously

55:29disagreed with the opinion that you now

55:30hold which seems to be um not very

55:34easily understood all of a sudden after

55:369 years. So all I would say for this is

55:40I think that this is a rash decision and

55:44not one that's being done with uh uh

55:48clear legal analysis.

55:49>> Thank you, Miss Lamber.

55:53>> Thank you. Um I just want to say I I

55:57appreciate all the work that was done

55:58with the park and wreck. um you know

56:00with the transition the merger and I

56:02know that um there was a lot of work

56:04done you know I know the park is not

56:06quite you know ready to get open yet um

56:08and I do appreciate the finance

56:10committee the other night coming to an

56:11agreement that you know cuz it was 2 4 6

56:148 10 like what's really the number and I

56:17I um I know it was at six and then I was

56:20um then it was um amended to four and I

56:23think it's a good starting point and I

56:25do agree that you know I know the

56:26mayor's been very um open about it all

56:29along that if we need more um but I do

56:31think it's a good um place to be. So, I

56:34just wanted to, you know, um, recognize

56:37everyone for all the, you know, back and

56:39forth on that and, um, because it's

56:40never easy trying to figure out how to

56:42allocate, you know, positions and and,

56:45you know, what whatnot. And, you know,

56:47this whole thing about the two votes,

56:49you know, as a charter commission

56:52member, you know, that was it seems like

56:53a decades ago and um, Paul

56:57>> um, it was decades ago. feels like

57:00>> it was

57:00>> but I know it was now but so I don't

57:03remember a lot of the um you know points

57:07on this but you know to the part of you

57:09know when we were doing the ad hoc uh

57:11committee and we had been dealing with

57:13trying to find out like what's the

57:15processes with the vote and what you can

57:17do whether it be amendable non-

57:19amendable it was pretty clear it was

57:21non- amendable and it was required two

57:24readings and but not two votes and I you

57:27know didn't really realize realiz that

57:29this was something that had been that we

57:31didn't have to do. Um, so I just don't

57:34want to, you know, I don't like the

57:36going back and forth with, you know, I

57:38know the, you know, they'll say you can

57:40ask three attorneys, you get three

57:41different opinions, but I do appreciate,

57:43you know, the city solicitor who I think

57:46has been pretty um very very consistent

57:49in when when, you know, when we were

57:51putting the the, you know, ad hoc

57:53committee together to make sure that we

57:54knew exactly what we were legally able

57:58to um do and what we could do at the

58:01meeting, what really the outcome was

58:02going to be because we had to be clear

58:03in the language that we said um before

58:06we um sent the recommendation to the

58:09whole city council. And one of the

58:11things that she had said was that it

58:13required you know the one vote and two

58:16readings but what one vote and you know

58:19whatever whatever we decide to do on

58:21this I mean I can understand where this

58:22is coming from. Um I know that there

58:24have been times that people did vote and

58:26then did not vote that way at the second

58:28vote only to kind of pass it along. So

58:30you'll move it along. So but I don't

58:32like that if you know we're discussing

58:34this that you know if we're taking the

58:36approach that why don't we just do what

58:37you know you know we've always done that

58:40that's more transparent but if we do

58:42what's really required as we did with

58:44the ad hoc that we're somewhat being

58:46less transparent and that we're you know

58:48hiding something or and not engaging in

58:50discussion with folks and you know

58:52pushing it along without you know in

58:54true engagement. Um, I I just don't

58:58think that that's fair. And I think that

58:59that, you know, is also um something

59:02that I want to make sure that we stay

59:04away from because I don't think that

59:05that, you know, should play into this

59:06because I don't think that anybody's

59:08asking to make something less

59:11transparent. And when you say, oh, it's

59:13less transparent, you know, it's a good

59:14word, but it doesn't necessarily mean

59:17that that is what um, you know, what's

59:20happening here. So, I just want to, you

59:22know, make that one point because I did

59:25not, like I said, no until we got to

59:27this ad hoc committee that, you know,

59:28when we I started really listening, you

59:31know, the law stuff I hear and I'm like,

59:32you know, that's why I'm not an

59:33attorney. So, but listening to Kate and

59:37you know listening to her conversations

59:39with other um you know the attorney um

59:44just to get kind of you know you know

59:46make sure that she had clear concise you

59:49know um

59:52making sure that she would was was being

59:55completely

59:56um sure of what what she was saying and

59:59it all came back that they were all

1:00:01saying the same thing. So, I think that,

1:00:03you know, we have to just be kind of

1:00:04careful with that because, like I said,

1:00:07multiple attorneys can say different

1:00:08things. Um, it doesn't mean that, um,

1:00:11you know, I just don't want to get into

1:00:13the back and forth with this with, um,

1:00:15the transparency thing, and I just don't

1:00:18think that's, um, the way we want to do

1:00:20this. But, thank you.

1:00:21>> Thank you, Miss Malik.

1:00:23>> Thank you. Um going back to the staffing

1:00:26question,

1:00:28I am thinking about this park

1:00:32less like Butterworth maybe and more

1:00:34like Luring Arena because there's

1:00:36staffing there's staff who are staffing

1:00:39activities that are happening on site.

1:00:42So how many staff how is Luring Arena

1:00:46staffed? I know there's concessions and

1:00:49all that, but and are those numbers

1:00:52considered in the numbers that you when

1:00:54you were talking about councelor Ward

1:00:56with councelor Ward or is that a

1:00:59separate staff?

1:01:02How does that work?

1:01:05So, I'll go back um the number that you

1:01:08referenced about our total staff that

1:01:09included some of our seasonal staff as

1:01:11well. Um Luring has a director um arena

1:01:17supervisors and then part-time staff as

1:01:20well and then um the concessions is run

1:01:23separately.

1:01:24>> So do any Sorry, just to follow up. Do

1:01:27any of the luring staff don't ever work

1:01:29on any of the other parks or there's no

1:01:34crossover multi-

1:01:37site

1:01:40>> generally? No. Okay, thanks. And oh,

1:01:43well, I'll just say one other thing,

1:01:45which is that I would I do support um

1:01:48this ordinance in addition of the four

1:01:50staff.

1:01:51>> Okay, so this will be on for the next

1:01:53agenda for a public hearing. Okay, next

1:01:56on the agenda um from the rules,

1:01:58ordinance and ethics subcommittee,

1:02:00recommendation of voteon proposed

1:02:01amendments to the rules of the council.

1:02:03Mr. Stephanie.

1:02:04>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have uh two

1:02:07proposed rules. I'll go through them one

1:02:10by one. The first one the uh uh rules

1:02:14committee has been kicking around for

1:02:16the past six months. Um the first one is

1:02:20to place into the order under rule one.

1:02:24The council shall meet in executive

1:02:26session at least once per quarter as

1:02:28follows. First quarter January, the

1:02:29review of all litigation or potential

1:02:32litigation. Second quarter, April,

1:02:34review of all collective bargaining

1:02:36agreements. third quarter July review of

1:02:39all requests and settlements of demands

1:02:41or complaints of any amount and the

1:02:42fourth quarter October review of all

1:02:44contracts with the city. This was in

1:02:47response to

1:02:49um

1:02:52numerous comments from counselors about

1:02:55being up to speed and following where we

1:02:57are on litigation matters. We didn't put

1:02:59in specific meetings or specific times.

1:03:02We left all that to the discretion of

1:03:03the chair. Um, and obviously these are

1:03:08just benchmarks, but we thought it was

1:03:10important for us to put into policy that

1:03:14at least four times a year the council

1:03:17should get together and have some

1:03:19visibility and talk about whatever it is

1:03:22within each of those buckets. So I would

1:03:24move to amend the rules and rule one as

1:03:28uh attached.

1:03:30>> Second.

1:03:31>> Is there any discussion? Mr. board.

1:03:35>> Could uh could you say a little bit more

1:03:37about the the third and the fourth one

1:03:39there? Um like in terms of review of all

1:03:41contracts with the city is like that

1:03:44seems like that could be pretty ex

1:03:45expansive. No,

1:03:47>> it is. But usually when you're reviewing

1:03:50contracts with the city, you're not

1:03:51reviewing individual contracts. You're

1:03:53reviewing provisions. So, for example,

1:03:55there's been a lot of discussion at the

1:03:57state level in terms of do we or don't

1:04:00we have non-disclosure agreements when

1:04:02employees leave and what does that mean?

1:04:04So, you're having a discussion about the

1:04:06policy of a non-disclosure agreement.

1:04:08You're not actually going through each

1:04:10individual piece. Um, you could be

1:04:14looking at like marijuana licenses. when

1:04:17we did marijuana licenses andus, there

1:04:20was a lot of discussion and we've had

1:04:22some of that and there's been a lot of

1:04:23litigation around the state on that

1:04:24point. What is the general contract?

1:04:27Because once you do one of those

1:04:28contracts, they're all the same. And so

1:04:32part of it is a review of what are our

1:04:34general contracts? And there may be some

1:04:37big contracts that come back to the

1:04:39council um on particular topics

1:04:42sanitation

1:04:44um or some other topic. It's just a

1:04:47placeholder for that. The third one

1:04:49which is all requests as you know we are

1:04:52required to approve settlements over a

1:04:54certain amount but that we do not

1:04:57approve settlements over um a lower

1:05:00amount. That's just an opportunity to

1:05:01hear and see what demands are being made

1:05:04of the city. um like the snowplow driver

1:05:08on the sidewalk who is, you know,

1:05:10rolling over uh mailboxes like bowling

1:05:13pins or fences and all those are

1:05:16complaints and things that come in and

1:05:18out the door and they're settled that we

1:05:20don't really have any role in. It's just

1:05:22to create a little bit of visibility for

1:05:24the council. Um the first two, you know,

1:05:28the collective bargaining agreements,

1:05:31it's an opportunity to have a discussion

1:05:34uh on that and think through the policy

1:05:36and direction and what conversations we

1:05:39want to have on that. And the first one

1:05:41is major litigation.

1:05:43>> Yeah, I'm I'm generally very supportive

1:05:45of it. I I love the idea. Um I just um

1:05:48and if if the way you just described

1:05:50both of those I think is really helpful

1:05:52that we can get like a bird's eye view

1:05:54of like what we're paying out on in

1:05:55terms of demands. If we get a bird's eye

1:05:57view of like what are potential hiccups

1:05:59that we might be running into with

1:06:00contracts. What I don't want is members

1:06:03of the council nitpicking all of the

1:06:05city's contracts. So, you know, I don't

1:06:08know if there's a way we don't need to

1:06:10change the language. I just that's not I

1:06:12think productive.

1:06:13>> But the chair will set the agenda. the

1:06:14chair will figure all that out.

1:06:17>> I'm just saying what I don't think would

1:06:19be productive of our use of our time.

1:06:21>> Mr. Alexander and Mr. Canon.

1:06:24>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um the the the one

1:06:27thing that comes up first is like um we

1:06:30already kind of doing like exec sessions

1:06:34as a kind of like as a need on as need

1:06:37basis and um

1:06:41uh and I'm not sure why we need this

1:06:45expansive level of um

1:06:49oversight or scrutiny. I mean, I I see

1:06:52the I see the merits in it, but it just

1:06:56seems like it's uh I mean, a little

1:06:59overkill, but um I don't know. And I

1:07:02don't know how I mean, that just changes

1:07:04our schedule and um yeah, I I I think

1:07:08that when things are of uh great

1:07:11importance,

1:07:12um we're going to have an exec session.

1:07:15That's how it's always been. So u but

1:07:18yeah you can kind of give some reasons

1:07:21why it has to be this monumental change

1:07:24but

1:07:25>> do you want me to answer that?

1:07:26>> Yes.

1:07:27>> So in the six years our five years I've

1:07:30spent on the council the only executive

1:07:33sessions we've had have been on

1:07:35settlements after they're packaged and

1:07:37we never get to anything else on the

1:07:39agenda. So all of the other cases that

1:07:42have come before us that they are the

1:07:45only point at which we have any

1:07:46conversation is at the settlement and

1:07:49it's at the last moment as the

1:07:51settlement is in hand. So we don't have

1:07:54any visibility any discussion of all of

1:07:57the other cases that are in the

1:07:59newspaper that are before the the city

1:08:02or anything else and if they get settled

1:08:04by the insurance company or less than

1:08:06$25,000 we don't see those at all. So

1:08:09this isn't about overreach. This is

1:08:11about having the most minimal level of

1:08:14oversight in an area that is

1:08:17significant. The mayor is charged with

1:08:19dealing with most of the legal affairs

1:08:21and we end up voting on collective

1:08:24bargaining agreements. But when your

1:08:26only conversation on a collective

1:08:27bargaining agreement is it being signed

1:08:30and sent to the finance committee for

1:08:32funding, that really doesn't give us

1:08:34much of an opportunity to have much

1:08:35input into that collective bargaining

1:08:37agreement. Likewise, with litigation, it

1:08:40doesn't give us much chance to think

1:08:42about the cases that involve sex

1:08:44discrimination or some other form of

1:08:47discrimination or some other issue

1:08:49because we're not even visible to those.

1:08:52So, this isn't about overreach. This is

1:08:54about reaching some minimal minimal

1:08:57visibility so that we at least have some

1:09:01uh we're fulfilling our duty to have

1:09:03some level of oversight. Right now

1:09:07today, there isn't anybody on this

1:09:09council, at least not me, who could tell

1:09:11you the five major cases against the

1:09:14city right now.

1:09:16And if you could tell the five major

1:09:17cases, you couldn't say that you know

1:09:19anything about them unless you have had

1:09:21a private conversation or something

1:09:23outside. This is to give us really

1:09:26pretty minimal visibility.

1:09:29>> Okay, Mr. Cannon and M. Lebrono.

1:09:31>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I like the

1:09:32spirit of this and I thank the um the

1:09:34committee for their work on this. I

1:09:35think this this part of this is um you

1:09:38know if you if you if you give what's

1:09:39the expression you give someone a

1:09:40hammer, the whole world's a nail.

1:09:43when you the ordinance and rule

1:09:44subcommittee everything is an ordinance

1:09:46or a rule and I appreciate that it is

1:09:47exactly this what you're charged with. I

1:09:50I think a lot of this is in the practice

1:09:52that we have at the discretion of the

1:09:55chair which often is driven by the will

1:09:57of the council. I think we've had

1:09:59recently an executive session about

1:10:02litigation. U I agree with the

1:10:04collective bargaining agreements but I

1:10:05don't know that an April scheduled

1:10:07meeting gives the council more standing

1:10:09than the approval authority that it has.

1:10:12um and the staggered

1:10:14manner in which those agreements come up

1:10:16for negotiation and then uh execution.

1:10:19You know, I'd question the date uh

1:10:21locking us in there. Um and I think it's

1:10:24been helpful to have more visibility and

1:10:25thanks to our city solicitor and the

1:10:27cooperation of the administration and

1:10:28the mayor for making sure that we're

1:10:30more in the loop. I think there have

1:10:31been folks in the past who did not want

1:10:33to give us um that insight. Um

1:10:36contractually, I don't know that October

1:10:37makes sense, but um I think there were

1:10:40going to be times i.e. or have a new CFO

1:10:42who is undertaking a review of a lot of

1:10:44contracts, a lot of processes. We're

1:10:46probably going to have some things come

1:10:48up, major changes of personnel. You have

1:10:50a reorganization.

1:10:52A lot of this is going to come up at

1:10:53times other than what's prescribed here.

1:10:57And it would be very easy for the

1:10:59council to say, well, you know what,

1:11:00even though this is important now, and I

1:11:02get that, we've got this coming up in a

1:11:04few months, so we'll just wait. And that

1:11:05could miss an opportunity for us to have

1:11:07a meaningful discussion on something

1:11:08that is of growing importance. So I like

1:11:11the spirit. I think that the chair has

1:11:13the discretion and has exercised it. I

1:11:15think the council when it asks any

1:11:17counselor asks about these things. It

1:11:19typically drives a discussion which has

1:11:20been helpful. And I think for the first

1:11:22time we have a a a solicitor, you know,

1:11:25in-house legal counsel that is very

1:11:26responsive, a city solicitor that's very

1:11:28responsive and a great team. Um a

1:11:31cooperative CFO, an engaged mayor. Um I

1:11:35mean we've we've come a long way as a

1:11:36city and uh you know if if there's more

1:11:40discussion everyone has been um amanable

1:11:42to to having it. So I'm I'm hesitant to

1:11:45put the here I'll give one example with

1:11:48the the a well-intentioned rule. I don't

1:11:50know if it came from your committee but

1:11:54some months ago it was suggested you

1:11:56know we should have appointments come up

1:11:58earlier in the meeting and there were

1:11:59good reasons behind it and I think

1:12:00everybody I probably voted for it. It

1:12:01was it was one of those things. Yeah,

1:12:03this makes sense. Why not? Well, the

1:12:05kind of the unintended consequence is

1:12:07most of the appointments by the time

1:12:08they go through the appointment

1:12:09subcommittee and they go through the

1:12:10process, we have very very few

1:12:13appointments that come for discussion

1:12:14here. I think maybe the intention was to

1:12:16not have people waiting. But on a number

1:12:19of occasions, we've gone through an an

1:12:21appointments discussion, which is very

1:12:24tedious is the wrong word, but it can

1:12:25take some time to do that housekeeping.

1:12:27and we've had a room full of people who

1:12:29are here for a public hearing and

1:12:31they're they end up bless you they end

1:12:33up waiting all night. So I think there's

1:12:35a lot of similar good intention here all

1:12:37subject matter that the council should

1:12:39be more focused on and I'd say that no

1:12:40matter where we were um but once you set

1:12:44something into a rule and it it

1:12:47alleviate it it removes that flexibility

1:12:50from the chair I get I get worried

1:12:52because our track record there is not

1:12:53good and I can point out other examples

1:12:55as well. So, I I can't support this, but

1:12:57I appreciate the work.

1:12:57>> M L Bruno.

1:12:59>> Oh, thank you. Um a lot of what Mike

1:13:02said I I agree with. I think um it's

1:13:04almost like we're trying to, you know,

1:13:07get the executive power from the mayor

1:13:09and I don't I just don't think that's in

1:13:11our um purview for the city council. I

1:13:14think that we've been brought in on

1:13:16executive um you know, sessions, but you

1:13:19know, to sort of like put them on the

1:13:20agenda, you know, like you know, every 3

1:13:23months or four months, whatever. um the

1:13:25timeline, you know, may be. It just

1:13:27seems like it's not conducive to, you

1:13:31know, the council. I'm just not I'm

1:13:33definitely not going to support, you

1:13:35know, more meetings. Um especially um

1:13:39you know, I I mean, are we even able to

1:13:41review contracts? I mean, it doesn't

1:13:43sound like that. I don't even know if

1:13:45this is something that the council, you

1:13:47know, is is able to sit in on, but it

1:13:49sounds like we're getting more executive

1:13:51power as the city council. And I just

1:13:54don't think that, you know, it wasn't

1:13:56written into the charter that way,

1:13:57probably for good reason. So I um, you

1:14:00know, I I I mean, I guess that to look

1:14:02at it, it, you know, you could see

1:14:04maybe, you know, we could be involved a

1:14:05little more, but not as um, you know,

1:14:09not not in this in this um, you know,

1:14:11this way. I think that it it has good

1:14:14intentions, but I think that um you know

1:14:17I just I think that the um the risk of

1:14:19it outweigh you know the benefits and

1:14:21then you know I just don't think it's a

1:14:23needed you know added rule that we you

1:14:25know add one more rule. Um

1:14:28you know that's just my thoughts on it.

1:14:30Thanks.

1:14:30>> Thank you Miss Feny.

1:14:32>> Thank you Mr. Chair. Um as a member of

1:14:35the rules committee I did vote in favor

1:14:37of this because I think this is a great

1:14:38step for transparency and it puts us in

1:14:40a rhythm. We are the legislative branch.

1:14:44Um, I'm not going to go into civics 101

1:14:47about what that means, but this puts us

1:14:49in the conversation so that when we're

1:14:52talking about the budget or money or

1:14:53what's coming up, we actually have more

1:14:56knowledge and understanding of what's

1:14:58going on. I mean, bargaining agreements,

1:15:01this came up during the budget and

1:15:02people were surprised by the increase.

1:15:06Um, you know, we're talking about

1:15:08litigation. uh we haven't you know my

1:15:12colleague councelor Stephanini is

1:15:14correct like we haven't gone through

1:15:16half of what's I know more from reading

1:15:18the newspaper and that's barely knowing

1:15:21anything

1:15:22we need a rhythm and a cadence just like

1:15:25the budget the capital improvement plan

1:15:26so that we know that these things are

1:15:28coming up and so that we have the

1:15:30knowledge so that we can do our jobs and

1:15:32represent the people who who sent us to

1:15:35to to be here. So, this is only going to

1:15:39benefit us in the future. Um, and again,

1:15:43it's transparency. It keeps us in the

1:15:45loop. This is not taking away, you know,

1:15:47anything from the mayor. In fact, it

1:15:49continues to make us the partners that

1:15:51we should be with the mayor to get

1:15:53things done. I want this knowledge so

1:15:56that I can make the best decisions that

1:15:58I can as a counselor. And I think that

1:16:00would behoove all of us to have that

1:16:02ability uh to do the same. Thank you.

1:16:06So, I have a couple comments. I think

1:16:08first of all, I appreciate the work of

1:16:10the committee. I wasn't aware you were

1:16:12looking at this, but I think I

1:16:13appreciate the work. Um, I I also agree

1:16:17that we should discuss some of these

1:16:19things probably more often than we do. I

1:16:21think that the problem I have with the

1:16:24way it's structured now is somewhat like

1:16:26council Canon said, I think it's too

1:16:29scripted. I think though I appreciate

1:16:31you trying to identify each of the areas

1:16:33and put them in a specific month.

1:16:35Sometimes collective bargaining doesn't

1:16:37mean anything for a year. Sometimes it

1:16:39it does. So I I though I don't at all

1:16:42disagree with our need to or our desire

1:16:47in my opinion at least to handle these

1:16:49things more often and hear more about

1:16:51these things. I think I certainly would

1:16:52like to do anything we can to do that. I

1:16:55I just think it's it is a little too

1:16:56scripted as it exists in the in as a

1:16:59rule at least as the rule is written.

1:17:01Maybe we could write a rule that that

1:17:03somehow other suggested without specific

1:17:05times and dates for specific subjects

1:17:07because I think it was kind of pointed

1:17:09out earlier and you know we all can take

1:17:11some blame for it. I think the idea of

1:17:13the fifth Tuesday is a had makes some

1:17:16sense but it hasn't exactly worked. So,

1:17:19um, you know, as I say, we all can take

1:17:22some blame for that, but so I I I kind

1:17:24of see this as a similar type approach.

1:17:26So, I'd rather So, if we're going to do

1:17:28this, which I'd rather see an approach

1:17:30that isn't quite as scripted and as

1:17:33strict,

1:17:35>> anybody else want to speak for the first

1:17:36time,

1:17:39>> Miss Bryant? Um, I just wanted to say

1:17:42that um, I [clears throat] had

1:17:45reservations because uh, like council

1:17:48and Bruno at first I the you know the

1:17:51fifth Tuesday's uh, councelor King your

1:17:53comment you know re you know resonated

1:17:56with me when I f when the idea first

1:17:59came up and I I did speak um, you know

1:18:02out loud the my con my concerns but

1:18:05overall um, my concerns too were um, on

1:18:10behalf of the people that

1:18:13this this new subsection could be abused

1:18:17and create a lot of political theater

1:18:18nonsense or it could be overused and

1:18:21then lengthen our meetings and create,

1:18:24you know, uh create um more than we can

1:18:28actually

1:18:30um do to improve uh our our work for the

1:18:35public, our representation of the

1:18:37public's um concerns.

1:18:40But and those are valid but also I have

1:18:43to look at the other side that the

1:18:45public um will hold the council

1:18:47responsible for whether um this

1:18:49subsection is used judiciously or not

1:18:52and if it's properly used it will be a

1:18:55valuable tool for transparency and

1:18:57efficiency. we will catch more of of the

1:19:02um more things that different one

1:19:04different counselors will uh look bring

1:19:07up to us to look at. Um but the same

1:19:12feeling a lot of what councelor King uh

1:19:14Chair King uh raised in terms of detail.

1:19:19My request would be that if this is

1:19:21voted down tonight, um even though I

1:19:25think the strongest ar arguments Mary

1:19:28Kate made were were correct, um

1:19:30councelor um Feny about the rhythm and

1:19:34you know, you put it on the schedule.

1:19:37you you bring it into place so that

1:19:39you're dealing with it regularly. But um

1:19:42if it's voted down for all the reasons

1:19:45stated uh by counselors um valid reasons

1:19:49um that I would ask that the counselors

1:19:53um lend their voice to um an input to

1:19:58the to the committee so that we can

1:20:01shape it in just to in the best way that

1:20:05it could be a great tool for us. and may

1:20:08maybe there a lot does need to be it

1:20:12needs to be less specific and and

1:20:14whatnot and like you said with um all of

1:20:17what you said I won't go re recount it

1:20:20but um I think it's very worthy of

1:20:23having something in place and I think

1:20:26all the comments

1:20:29would help shape it so that we could use

1:20:32it um we could be a more valuable

1:20:36servants to the community.

1:20:38>> Thank you, Miss Long.

1:20:43>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so I wasn't

1:20:47going to say anything, but I will say

1:20:48after listening to everyone else, uh, I

1:20:51appreciate the work that went into this

1:20:52and the thought of this, but I don't

1:20:55really think this is the council's

1:20:58real, uh, purview. I think this is

1:21:01executive branch purview. Uh secondly, I

1:21:05don't feel that we need I think

1:21:07executive session should be a

1:21:09discretionary thing and yes, it would

1:21:11inform the council, but we're not

1:21:12allowed to share that with anybody else

1:21:14anyhow. So I think if we need an

1:21:17executive session, that's the discretion

1:21:20of the council whether we call that or

1:21:23not. I don't think putting it into a

1:21:25prescribed date and time and place

1:21:28regularly helps us at all. I think that,

1:21:32you know, we have executive sessions

1:21:34when we need it. We don't need to know

1:21:36the minute details and as a as an

1:21:39employee of a government agency, I hate

1:21:41being micromanaged. So, I feel like this

1:21:44is a micromanagement of the executive

1:21:46branch and I don't think it's necessary.

1:21:48I think it's a great idea in concept,

1:21:52but I just don't think it's necessary

1:21:54and therefore I'm not going to be voting

1:21:56in affirmative this. I'm going to reject

1:21:57this. So,

1:21:59>> Mr. Alexander,

1:22:00>> that's my comment.

1:22:01>> Thank you, Mr. Alexander.

1:22:03>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, uh, in

1:22:06thinking about all this, I I I wouldn't

1:22:07propose a middle way. Um, let's see how

1:22:10everybody thinks about it. Um,

1:22:14would it be permissible to use the

1:22:18mechanisms we have already having the

1:22:21the fifth Tuesday?

1:22:24Um and

1:22:27prior to the meeting prior to that fifth

1:22:30Wednesday or meetings before that um

1:22:35we can talk about all these different

1:22:38categories and and if it's the will of

1:22:42of the body to

1:22:45um have exec session on right before

1:22:50that uh fifth um meeting or fifth

1:22:53Tuesday meeting with the mayor and have

1:22:56an exact session to talk about any of

1:22:59these

1:23:00topics. Um, and so that'll just be the

1:23:04will of the body [snorts]

1:23:06prior to that fifth Tuesday.

1:23:11>> Is that an amendment or

1:23:12>> a friendly amendment? Yes.

1:23:14>> So, what are you proposing?

1:23:16I got a question now too.

1:23:18uh that we scrap all the uh the first

1:23:22quarter, second quarter, so on and so

1:23:23forth. And then um we we in um

1:23:29>> we've imposed like the fifth use that

1:23:31fifth um Tuesday and if anybody has uh

1:23:37any issue with any of these um

1:23:39categories, they bring it up prior to

1:23:42that fifth Tuesday that we can have a an

1:23:46exe exec session to talk about any of

1:23:48these things prior to that meeting.

1:23:50>> So what if we changed the amendment?

1:23:52Would you accept

1:23:54[clears throat] the council shall meet

1:23:56uh at least four times per year to

1:23:58discuss and then just list the topics?

1:24:01>> Well, it wouldn't be I wouldn't

1:24:03subscribe like a hard like this like

1:24:06each quarter, but I'm just saying that

1:24:08>> no take the quarters out,

1:24:09>> right? And it would

1:24:11>> take all the references to time out.

1:24:12>> How about up to four times a year?

1:24:15>> Well, you may have to meet more than

1:24:16four times a year.

1:24:18How many times do we have the fifth

1:24:20Tuesday

1:24:23>> during a good question?

1:24:24>> What times a year?

1:24:25>> How many? It it depends. I think the

1:24:28answer is

1:24:28>> Yeah, depends on the calendar.

1:24:30>> Three. Yeah, I think three or four, I

1:24:31think. But anyway,

1:24:32>> this is why you need the discretion to

1:24:33do this when it makes sense.

1:24:36>> I'm losing some discretion here on who's

1:24:37talking. I apologize. My fault.

1:24:39>> Sorry.

1:24:40>> That's all right. Well, blame you.

1:24:42>> All right. My fault.

1:24:43>> All right. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.

1:24:45Anybody else who has not spoken once on

1:24:47this?

1:24:49So, we got to deal with the friendly

1:24:51amendment before we move on. And I will

1:24:53recognize the people who want to speak

1:24:55again.

1:24:56>> So, the friendly amendment, as I

1:24:58understand it, is to take out all of the

1:25:00meeting dates and say meet four times a

1:25:05year

1:25:07to discuss.

1:25:09>> Why don't you say meet on the on the

1:25:11Tuesdays? on the fifth Tuesday

1:25:14if at the discretion of coun of a

1:25:16counselor.

1:25:17>> Yeah, that's fine.

1:25:19>> That's three that's three to four or

1:25:20five times a year. Yeah. I I mean the

1:25:23idea here is simple

1:25:24>> and that way it also makes it work a

1:25:26little bit more timely is we don't have

1:25:27the topics at maybe inopportune times or

1:25:30unnecessary times too.

1:25:32>> I think it does the same thing. That's

1:25:34okay. The idea here is can I can I

1:25:38expand?

1:25:39>> Yes. So let me respond to a couple of

1:25:41comments and and expand. The idea here

1:25:43is simple.

1:25:45It's for us to fulfill our role in the

1:25:48charter, not to be the executive to have

1:25:50oversight and to be in a position to be

1:25:53informed other than at the point of

1:25:55decision. So a few things without

1:25:58disclosing anything in executive session

1:26:00that we have not in my time here

1:26:02discussed. We've not discussed the Dover

1:26:04amendment case and Salem Road which is a

1:26:07critical case in the community. It's

1:26:09been discussed as we should do it, but

1:26:11we've never made time to do it.

1:26:14The sexual harassment cases, which were

1:26:16significant and um difficult, never

1:26:20found their way into an executive

1:26:22session for a meeting.

1:26:24>> The um race discrimination cases never

1:26:27found their way into an executive

1:26:29session. [snorts] The collective

1:26:31bargaining agreements never found their

1:26:33way. Last year's budget went up 4% 3.92%

1:26:38and we had a challenge with it because

1:26:40our collective bargaining agreements

1:26:41went up 6.1%.

1:26:44That's 80% of our costs. We didn't get

1:26:46an option to discuss that or think about

1:26:48that until we got to the point of voting

1:26:51on it. So if folks are happy not knowing

1:26:54those things and not seeing those things

1:26:56because I personally have no visibility

1:26:59on any of those things. Um, maybe the

1:27:04chair does, maybe the vice chair does. I

1:27:06don't have any visibility on that. And I

1:27:08think that that to me is not consistent

1:27:11with our fiduciary responsibility and

1:27:13oversight to be able to look at that and

1:27:16do more than just vote when it comes to

1:27:19the council for settlement, for

1:27:23contract authorization,

1:27:25for collective bargaining agreement or

1:27:28for funding. I think we should have some

1:27:31kind of process. So, I don't I I don't

1:27:33disagree with the arguments that have

1:27:35been made about timing, and I'm happy to

1:27:37strip all that out. I do think the meat

1:27:40of this is putting into our policy that

1:27:44we will meet to talk about these things

1:27:47on an annual basis whenever the chair

1:27:49decides.

1:27:51>> Okay,

1:27:51>> that's the discretion.

1:27:53>> So, I would I would accept that friendly

1:27:54amendment. And it also I'm I want to

1:27:57make sure that it has to have the will

1:27:59of this body that then that to your to

1:28:02your

1:28:03>> right

1:28:03>> and the other thing just just a point of

1:28:05information it also has to conform with

1:28:08the open meeting law. So we have to have

1:28:10a reason to talk about it. We just can't

1:28:12go talk about all these things at will.

1:28:13There has to be an open meeting law

1:28:14reason for us to do it.

1:28:16>> Put them on the agenda. Otherwise put

1:28:17them on the agenda.

1:28:18>> Right. But there's certain things that

1:28:20aren't going to be discussed with us

1:28:21because we have no role. So therefore

1:28:23there's no there's no

1:28:26it's just not going to be discussed with

1:28:27us. So you know that's the issue. So

1:28:30>> well clarifying question from for the

1:28:32chair quick one before voting on this.

1:28:35>> We're not voting but go ahead.

1:28:37>> Okay.

1:28:37>> Point of information or a comment.

1:28:39You're not recognized for

1:28:40>> a question. I I just want an answer that

1:28:42I think will help clarify. The first two

1:28:45sentences say the executive assistant to

1:28:48the council, which is actually the

1:28:49secretary of the council, shall include

1:28:51a list of all correspondents.

1:28:53>> That's a different rule. That's a

1:28:54different rule.

1:28:57>> Oh, okay. You're still executive

1:28:59session. Yes.

1:29:00>> Okay, never mind. Mr. I'll ask that

1:29:02question then, but

1:29:04>> Okay, Tracy, you're not recognized. Mr.

1:29:05Ward,

1:29:07>> so I'll be very quick since it's my

1:29:08second time talking. I I think there's

1:29:10really good bones here and I I don't I

1:29:13whatever [snorts] the mech the mechanics

1:29:14are that we we get to a point where we

1:29:17as a council are, you know, reviewing

1:29:20our litigation at least once a year that

1:29:22we're reviewing our collective bargain

1:29:24bargaining agreements at least once a

1:29:25year. There was so much conversation

1:29:27during the budget cycle around the the

1:29:30challenges we were facing because of

1:29:31rising costs. the fact the fact that we

1:29:34don't spend more time on collective

1:29:35bargaining agreements has been one of my

1:29:37biggest frustrations since I joined the

1:29:40council. So I I'm open to any mechanics

1:29:43or rewarding. I I would encourage people

1:29:45that are opposed to it to propose some

1:29:47amendments as opposed to just shooting

1:29:49this down. I think there's there would

1:29:50be a lot of benefit for us doing this.

1:29:53>> Mr. K,

1:29:54>> just briefly, you touched it. You

1:29:55touched on the thing that I'm probably

1:29:57most concerned about. When you start

1:29:59planning for an executive session, which

1:30:02should be the exception to the rule

1:30:03across the board, you really paint

1:30:06yourself into a corner in terms of risk

1:30:08with the open meeting law. It has to be

1:30:10very, very specific. It really should be

1:30:13almost unheard of for the council to

1:30:14meet in executive session. So, if we're

1:30:16planning on routinely meeting in

1:30:19executive session, we've got a bit of a

1:30:21problem, and I would caution us there. I

1:30:22think a number of the issues that have

1:30:24been raised are resolved by the fact

1:30:26that we have a new chief financial

1:30:27officer. We've got I would imagine an

1:30:30incoming chief operating officer and I

1:30:33don't think the I don't think the former

1:30:35COO wanted to discuss a lot of these

1:30:37things publicly or an executive session.

1:30:39There was I I think there's more a

1:30:40spirit of collaboration meaningfully

1:30:42here. So whether the solution is I'd

1:30:45rather give the administration the

1:30:47opportunity

1:30:49to undertake their work, us to discuss

1:30:51it more publicly when possible, reserve

1:30:54executive session only for when it's

1:30:56actually and absolutely required by law

1:30:58and are very specific. That's why those

1:31:00criteria are so specific and maybe

1:31:03revisit this in whatever time period the

1:31:05council is comfortable with. I I've not

1:31:07had in the last number of months the the

1:31:10feeling that the administration doesn't

1:31:12want to be collaborative, doesn't want

1:31:13to be forthcoming. I think a number of

1:31:15the changes that have been discussed and

1:31:17have happened in in the administration

1:31:19and throughout the enterprise have been

1:31:20very positive. Um but I think right now

1:31:23the timing to do this is is not ideal.

1:31:26I'd rather give them the opportunity to

1:31:28continue to collaborate, for us to

1:31:30continue to ask questions. the will of

1:31:32the council still exists because there's

1:31:34you want to know something, it's it's

1:31:36available. Um, but I don't like the idea

1:31:38of us getting into the habit of

1:31:39prescribing executive session. When

1:31:41government plans to be more secretive,

1:31:43it is more secretive and it never is is

1:31:46uh for the benefit of the public. So, so

1:31:49I don't know if the the solution is to

1:31:50refer it back to the subcommittee.

1:31:51However you want to proceed, I'm happy

1:31:52to make a motion.

1:31:53>> Mr.

1:31:55Well, I I will make the motion then to

1:31:58refer back to committee.

1:32:00Second that.

1:32:03>> Okay.

1:32:05>> All right. I think the committee has got

1:32:07some good feedback here. So maybe

1:32:08something can be fashioned that would

1:32:10reflect that if that's what the vote is.

1:32:12Any further discussion?

1:32:14>> Mr. Chairman, just to follow up with Mr.

1:32:16Alexander. Um this is how what we just

1:32:19said worked as far as writing. The

1:32:21following new uh the following new

1:32:24subsection is inserted at the end of

1:32:26rule one. The council shall periodically

1:32:29meet in executive session, preferably on

1:32:31the fifth Tuesday of the month,

1:32:32including the following topics. Review

1:32:35and it lists the topics without dates.

1:32:37Okay. I think that does what you asked

1:32:39me to do.

1:32:41Okay. So, um

1:32:45take a motion, the refer back motion

1:32:47first and then see what happens. So, uh

1:32:50so the motion to refer back, Miss Leo.

1:32:54>> Yes.

1:32:55>> I'm sorry. Point of order. Why referring

1:32:56this back when we already have a motion?

1:32:58>> Well, the committee hasn't considered

1:32:59that yet. I mean, you had a motion. You

1:33:01plus the motion will be voted on if if

1:33:03it doesn't get referred back.

1:33:05>> So, the motion to refer back?

1:33:08>> Yes.

1:33:08>> Miss Long?

1:33:10>> Yes.

1:33:10>> Mr. Ward?

1:33:11>> No.

1:33:12>> Miss Feny?

1:33:13>> No.

1:33:13>> Mr. Cannon?

1:33:14>> Yes.

1:33:14>> Mr. Alexander?

1:33:16>> Yes.

1:33:17>> Mr. Daviani?

1:33:18>> Yes.

1:33:18>> Miss Malik?

1:33:19>> Yes.

1:33:20>> Mr. Stephanie?

1:33:21>> No.

1:33:22>> Miss Bryant?

1:33:23>> No.

1:33:24>> Myself? Yes. That's seven in favor, four

1:33:26opposition

1:33:28point of information.

1:33:29>> Yes.

1:33:30>> Come back with just what we discussed

1:33:31and then we'll just take

1:33:32>> I'm sure they're going to understand

1:33:33what we word it and present it in. I

1:33:36>> I don't uh just a point of information.

1:33:38>> Anyone who wishes to uh give us

1:33:40information. I just saw that procedural

1:33:43vote as not proceeding with the idea of

1:33:45sharing information because I didn't see

1:33:47anything in the discussion that wasn't

1:33:48in the further amendment. So, I'm not

1:33:51quite sure what the subcommittee can

1:33:53refer back that changes the

1:33:55conversation, but I think the absence in

1:33:59the secrecy of the information to use a

1:34:01word that was used, not having

1:34:03information is secrecy.

1:34:05>> Okay. So, I think the the way I took the

1:34:08vote and is that for you to reward the

1:34:11mo the motion and bring it back to the

1:34:14committee. So, that's that's the way I

1:34:15took it. So, I hope that's what happens.

1:34:17>> Okay. Next um second item.

1:34:19>> One second. Yes, [snorts]

1:34:21>> just give me a second to pull it up.

1:34:26So, the uh rule subcommittee also

1:34:29discussed adding a rule to increase

1:34:33transparency around correspondence. Um,

1:34:36everyone may, I'm sure, be familiar. We

1:34:38get lots of correspondence that's

1:34:40addressed to all of us, which makes it a

1:34:42public record. But if nobody knows it

1:34:44exists, it doesn't see the light of day.

1:34:46the Council on Aging letter recently,

1:34:48the letter relative to Norwood Hospital

1:34:50that impacted the Metro West Medical

1:34:52Center, the emails on um condominium

1:34:56association and trash. You can go on and

1:34:59pick the topic that you like most. But

1:35:02uh when we were a town, at least when I

1:35:05was a selectman, in most communities,

1:35:07there is a package of correspondence

1:35:09because that part correspondence is a

1:35:11public record. And that public record

1:35:13becomes a package for an agenda item

1:35:16that a member of the council can then

1:35:18say, let's discuss this topic. And so it

1:35:21gives the public, the community that

1:35:23doesn't want to come here and stand in

1:35:25public, but that has corresponded with

1:35:27everybody. It also includes reports. So,

1:35:29there was a discussion tonight about a

1:35:30report from the firefighters. If a

1:35:32member of this council hadn't raised it

1:35:34tonight, it probably would not have been

1:35:37on a future agenda and a discussion. If

1:35:40it is correspondence, it goes to all of

1:35:41us. It's a public record. And as a

1:35:44public record, it is um available for

1:35:48inspection and discussion. So, we would

1:35:51add a rule to rule 10, review of

1:35:55correspondence and petitions. We've also

1:35:57had petitions that have not found their

1:35:59way to the council. So, under the

1:36:02charter, a petition filed by residents

1:36:04is supposed to come to the council and

1:36:06then be submitted to the clerk and

1:36:08verified for signatures. I'm aware of at

1:36:10least two petitions that have been

1:36:12submitted that have never gotten to the

1:36:14council. And so this just says if the

1:36:17chair is in receipt of a petition or

1:36:20correspondence that's addressed to the

1:36:22entire committee, it's shared with the

1:36:24entire committee and the public because

1:36:25it is in fact a public record. Um,

1:36:30and I won't read through the particulars

1:36:33because that's all it says. But I would

1:36:35move that we adopt the amendment uh J to

1:36:39rule 10.

1:36:40>> Second.

1:36:41So I'm not aware of any petitions that

1:36:43have not got to the council while I've

1:36:45been chair. So I I I understand what

1:36:49you're doing, but we get an awful lot of

1:36:51um correspondence and often it's comes

1:36:54in bulk on one particular issue. Um I do

1:36:58agree that all and I think I've strived

1:37:01to make sure this happens. I do believe

1:37:02that all counselors should get all

1:37:05correspondents. That's why I announced a

1:37:08few weeks ago that when people get

1:37:10information as individual councils, it

1:37:12will be shared with the entire council.

1:37:14So I do completely agree with that level

1:37:16of sharing. It should happen. But I

1:37:19don't I don't know what else we would do

1:37:22beyond that. I mean, are you suggesting

1:37:23and I have that that all be published in

1:37:27the meeting packet? Every correspondence

1:37:29the council gets

1:37:30>> any correspondence that's addressed to

1:37:32the chair for the council or any

1:37:34correspondence to all the members of the

1:37:37council. Not individual constituents or

1:37:39other things.

1:37:40>> No, the one that comes to which most of

1:37:42our mail comes to city council.

1:37:44>> Yep. And we get a handful of those. when

1:37:47I was uh the six years I spent on the

1:37:49board of selectmen at the end of each

1:37:50meeting we'd go through the

1:37:51correspondence and a member if a member

1:37:54didn't talk about it it didn't get

1:37:55discussed but a member could bring up as

1:37:58part of it and say you know what the

1:38:00Norwood Hospital would like to do this

1:38:02and it impacts the Metro West Medical

1:38:03Center you know what we should actually

1:38:05think about that you know what the

1:38:07firefighters have questioned our

1:38:08staffing levels we should actually have

1:38:10a conversation about that as opposed to

1:38:13it becoming sort of a second thought of

1:38:16part of conversation.

1:38:17>> Okay.

1:38:17>> It becomes part of our normal

1:38:23uh piece. And the petition I was

1:38:24referring to was one on um the building

1:38:28code. Um I don't have it off the top of

1:38:31my head, but I I got a note from someone

1:38:33the other day and they sent me the

1:38:34correspondence back and forth, including

1:38:36to you um and the solicitor, and there

1:38:40were questions [clears throat] of

1:38:41whether it was drafted correctly or not

1:38:43drafted correctly, but it never found

1:38:44its way to the council to even be a

1:38:47discussion on the topic that was at

1:38:49hand.

1:38:49>> Can you forward that? I don't have any

1:38:51recollection of that.

1:38:52>> Yep, I will.

1:38:54Okay, other comments, questions, Mr.

1:38:57Canon,

1:38:57>> just briefly, I like the sentiment. It's

1:38:59consistent with what I think our

1:39:00practice is. Um, and I believe the

1:39:03there's a website committee that I'm

1:39:05supposed to be on, but haven't been able

1:39:06to meet a lot of the meetings. Sorry,

1:39:07Susan Patroni. And I think they're

1:39:09working on a a mechanism to publish that

1:39:12kind of stuff. So, it's there. The thing

1:39:14that may need some refining here is um

1:39:17like for example we'll get a mass

1:39:20mailing about you know from some company

1:39:22that manufactures orange cones for DPW

1:39:25and suddenly if the way this is written

1:39:27that now becomes not that there's

1:39:29anything wrong with it but I don't think

1:39:31it's consistent with I don't think

1:39:32making sure that we're publishing the

1:39:34sales documentation from some company

1:39:35that sends something to every city

1:39:37council in the state is consistent with

1:39:40the transparency. it it almost bogs down

1:39:42the substance with noise.

1:39:45I'm fine with the spirit. Again, it's

1:39:47one of those things that I I don't know

1:39:48that

1:39:51it just may need some tweaking there and

1:39:53some more discussion because I think

1:39:54there were some ways to accomplish what

1:39:58we strive to do and I think have gotten

1:40:00better at.

1:40:01I will often find that an email is sent

1:40:05to us but doesn't reach me. And

1:40:07sometimes that's my fault more so than

1:40:09than the technology or the person

1:40:10sending it. But I also am troubled by

1:40:12the comment that there have been

1:40:14petitions which the council historically

1:40:16has taken very very seriously that have

1:40:19not found its way. So I would love to

1:40:22understand precisely what that detail

1:40:24is. If there are two that's really

1:40:26really troubling. Um but it sounds and

1:40:29the seriousness of it I'm a little

1:40:31surprised that you don't have those

1:40:32details ready to speak to.

1:40:34>> Do you want me to address the dates and

1:40:35times to the chair? a moment you did.

1:40:37>> I'll be happy to pull it up and go

1:40:38through it.

1:40:39>> You didn't. You said you

1:40:40>> I was trying to be delicate about it so

1:40:41as to not seem like I was embarrassing

1:40:44somebody or bringing it in.

1:40:45>> Mr. Stephani, I haven't interrupted you.

1:40:47I will ask of you the same courtesy. But

1:40:51to say that we're we're not doing

1:40:53something with petitions. I think

1:40:55historically when we've gotten petitions

1:40:57for example I think the the charter says

1:40:59if we get a hundred signatures that it

1:41:01may be a different number we can go

1:41:03through the process of certifying the

1:41:04signatures for other things and I think

1:41:06we ended up building a park because of

1:41:08it um and some other projects we've sort

1:41:11of taken the spirit of okay you know

1:41:13what this is an issue worthy of public

1:41:14discussion so we're not going to go

1:41:16through the burden of certifying the the

1:41:18signatures we're going to just add it to

1:41:20the agenda and have a discussion. So

1:41:22sometimes we overregulate things in a

1:41:24way that add work to the process so we

1:41:27can talk about more transparency but

1:41:28they don't get it. Are we not going to

1:41:30talk about something because we got 99

1:41:32signatures instead of a 100? No. If

1:41:34something's important to a group of

1:41:35people in the community historically we

1:41:37put it on the agenda. Um but I'm very

1:41:40concerned. I'd love to learn more about

1:41:41the details surrounding the petition.

1:41:43Sometimes those things are more

1:41:44complicated than what is justified or

1:41:46explained in a two sentence remark in a

1:41:48in a council meeting like this. But

1:41:50thank you, Mr. Chair. Miss Finey, then

1:41:52Miss Ling Bruno.

1:41:53>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, you know, so

1:41:56I'm very [clears throat] supportive of

1:41:56this because I think it's it's another

1:41:58way for constituents to engage with us.

1:42:01I think of two things. You know,

1:42:03councelor Stephanie, you brought up the

1:42:04council on aging uh letter and I had

1:42:07heard from a number of people who were

1:42:08really uh surprised that that was not

1:42:11read into the record or acknowledged uh

1:42:13during that uh debate. The second thing

1:42:16that really comes to my mind too is back

1:42:18in February uh we received a letter from

1:42:22Mass Dot about work that they're doing

1:42:24on Route 9 and I brought or a proposed

1:42:28future project for uh roadway

1:42:30improvements and it was uh emailed it

1:42:33was directed to the chair and at the

1:42:35time they thought Mr. Adavani was still

1:42:37the chair. Um and so um it was sent to

1:42:42all of us. But when I brought it up when

1:42:44Framingham State was here to talk about

1:42:46their plans, uh there was shock amongst

1:42:49some other uh of my peers because they

1:42:52because they didn't see the letter. And

1:42:54I also felt that this is a letter that

1:42:56we should have had a more wider

1:42:58conversation about um because it is

1:43:00Route 9. It is a major um route through

1:43:03our community and it's from a state

1:43:05agency. So, I look at things like that

1:43:07that is directed to all of us from a

1:43:10state agency uh or from even one of our

1:43:13boards or committees um that we're

1:43:15talking about that and bringing that out

1:43:17into the open and having that

1:43:18conversation. that stuff is really

1:43:20important and also about you know we

1:43:23could figure out how to do the about the

1:43:25condos that was really important to

1:43:27people and they couldn't show up but

1:43:29they wrote a letter and I think this

1:43:30stuff is deserving to be uh part of the

1:43:33official record uh of the council not

1:43:35just something that sits in our email

1:43:37box. So that's that

1:43:41>> just for the record going forward

1:43:42everybody can bring any letter forward

1:43:44as you acknowledge they all come to the

1:43:46council feel free to bring anything

1:43:48forward that you'd like to feel no one

1:43:50has been denied an agenda item

1:43:53>> that's not what I said Mr. Chair but

1:43:56>> maybe not what you said but that's what

1:43:58I heard so

1:44:00>> Mr. one.

1:44:01>> Thank you, chair. Um, yeah, I think once

1:44:04again, it's a really good sentiment and

1:44:06maybe we just need to work out some of

1:44:07the details. I I do hear the concern

1:44:09around putting in every single thing

1:44:11that's addressed to city council at

1:44:13framinghammma.gov.

1:44:15Maybe a friend friendly amendment would

1:44:16be any any formal any petition or formal

1:44:21letter from a state agency, a city uh

1:44:24department, a city committee or

1:44:26commission or um

1:44:30>> resident

1:44:31>> but resident could could get a little I

1:44:33I think we're trying to get away from

1:44:35all the repetitive like I mean that

1:44:37could be a hundred letters of meeting

1:44:40200 letters of meeting which I don't

1:44:43know I'm trying to address some of the

1:44:46concerns that others on the um council

1:44:49raised. So, but any formal letter from

1:44:52an agency, a state a state or city

1:44:55agency, committee, commission,

1:44:57board,

1:44:59or a petition from from residents, I

1:45:01think is would be really great to have

1:45:04shared on an agenda.

1:45:07>> Mr. Aviani, you know, we get those

1:45:09letters, the form letters is what I

1:45:11think we're talking about, you know,

1:45:12right? And that's that's what we try to

1:45:14avoid. You know, the school department,

1:45:16somebody puts that letter together that

1:45:17we all got and we got the 200 letters

1:45:19and they were all the same letter just

1:45:20signed by a different person. So, I

1:45:22don't know. So,

1:45:25what can we ask? Miss Kelly is the one

1:45:27going to have to deal with all this.

1:45:28>> I agree.

1:45:29>> Okay,

1:45:30>> Janet.

1:45:32>> Well, thank you um chair. No, that's the

1:45:35thing is I mean I'd love to know

1:45:36Marian's thoughts when she heard about

1:45:38this. I'm sure they must have spoken to

1:45:40her about adding this workload

1:45:43>> um you know to her agenda items of

1:45:47things um because I also we get all the

1:45:52correspondence and we get an abundance

1:45:54of it so much that my mailbox like I ran

1:45:57out of space on my my um my iPad and I

1:46:01had to have it like re we still haven't

1:46:04fixed it so I'm not able to send emails

1:46:06right now currently. So, if you haven't

1:46:07gotten one from me, I apologize, but

1:46:10it's because I get too many emails and

1:46:11there's too much on the actual iPad.

1:46:14>> Anyways,

1:46:16>> I don't know. Honestly, like I don't I

1:46:18see this as a not a problem that we you

1:46:21know we got all the letters and you know

1:46:23there's no way we've never if everybody

1:46:25sent us a letter or um I know they were

1:46:28talking about the council on aging

1:46:29letter which we all got and you know and

1:46:32I also talked to those people and so not

1:46:35everybody was thrilled with that letter

1:46:37and the same thing that we got the

1:46:39letter that was on on on the one of the

1:46:41other boards that we were told that it

1:46:43was a um in in a a letter that was not

1:46:46in favor of something and that was not

1:46:48true either. So, we say a lot of things,

1:46:51but it doesn't necessarily

1:46:54um deem to be factual. Um it seems to be

1:46:57a lot of people, one a couple people

1:46:58might say something and they're like,

1:47:00"Well, that that that can't happen." So,

1:47:02but you can't do that again. Well, it

1:47:04didn't happen. Um, I we've gotten

1:47:08[snorts]

1:47:09we get we actually get every email. I

1:47:12have not really ever run into anyone

1:47:14that told me that I missed an email. Um,

1:47:17I think that Marian sent us adnauseium

1:47:20um, emails to remind us of things. And I

1:47:23think that this is not really something

1:47:25that we should put on her to basically

1:47:28keep track of and then kind of do like

1:47:30a, you know, an agenda item on every

1:47:34agenda item uh on every, you know, every

1:47:37city council meetings agenda because

1:47:40it'll be so bogged down. It will be 45

1:47:42pages and we get everything. We've never

1:47:46read letters to the editor or I'm sorry.

1:47:48Well, some of them are like letters to

1:47:50the editor. In fact, they are letters to

1:47:52the editor that we get sent to us and to

1:47:54be written into the record or like you

1:47:57know or like put as part of the agenda.

1:47:59But we could never feasibly do that much

1:48:03work. We could not put that on Marian.

1:48:05We could not put that really on any

1:48:06staff member because it's absolutely,

1:48:10you know, unsustainable. And um I think

1:48:13that if we've had a real problem, let's

1:48:15address the problem. and you know to

1:48:18some of these things that I've heard

1:48:19about. We've got the letters and the

1:48:21emails and if something wasn't sent out,

1:48:23I'd like to see it too because maybe

1:48:25that was the time that we had that

1:48:27glitch. Um but to then like it's almost

1:48:30like, you know, fix the entire

1:48:34um it's like we're we're it's like we're

1:48:36bored and we're trying to find things to

1:48:38fix that aren't broken. And I think that

1:48:39this is one of them. And I appreciate

1:48:41the work that people, you know, that

1:48:43they're trying to do, but I don't see

1:48:45this as a major problem at all at at

1:48:48all. And I think that putting this on

1:48:50Marian is really going to be a problem.

1:48:53Um, I think it's just way way way too

1:48:57much to put on her and it's way too much

1:48:58to put on our agendas. We'll have 45page

1:49:01agendas and I can see that that will

1:49:04absolutely happen.

1:49:06>> Thank you, Mr.

1:49:07>> M. Miss Bryant.

1:49:09>> Yes. Um I already commented you know my

1:49:12musings earlier but my question um to

1:49:16you chair is so [clears throat] um I my

1:49:19concern for the work on Marian and also

1:49:23yeah uh don't we already uh maybe

1:49:26Americans I it look don't do we not

1:49:28already get all of the um correspondence

1:49:32sent to us um as a group but in terms of

1:49:36you as the chair when you receive um

1:49:39anything um directly to you or just you

1:49:43but it's something on behalf of the

1:49:46whole council. Um are we getting are we

1:49:49being copied on that every time right

1:49:52away or are we seeing or are you

1:49:56choosing what we see? That's the

1:49:58question.

1:50:01>> I assure you I don't choose what is

1:50:03seen. Uh I mean a lot of the stuff that

1:50:06comes addressed to me does not come to

1:50:08me. it comes to the office and Marian's

1:50:09done a great job of getting anything

1:50:12like that out to everybody else. Most of

1:50:14the stuff comes to all of us because

1:50:17people just click on that city council

1:50:18thing on the uh on the website wherever

1:50:22they find it and and send it to us. And

1:50:24that's usually during letter writing

1:50:26campaigns. It's very rarely that we get

1:50:29anything like from [clears throat] a

1:50:31resident to the entire city council

1:50:33because most of those things seem to go

1:50:35to individual district councils,

1:50:37whatever the case may be. So I I but

1:50:39there's not I have not seen a lot of

1:50:41correspondence and certainly I like I

1:50:44said a few weeks ago about just general

1:50:46correspondence to individual counselors.

1:50:48I believe it should be shared with

1:50:50everybody. So anything I know about is

1:50:52is sent out to everybody. That's why I'm

1:50:54curious about what somehow we missed or

1:50:56if we did or we handled it otherwise

1:50:58like Mr. Ken suggested. Does anybody

1:51:00like to speak for the Anybody want to

1:51:02speak?

1:51:02>> Can I just ask um could I just make a

1:51:04followup comment on behalf of some what

1:51:06some residents said? It does it's just

1:51:09so that they can be heard. Um, in terms

1:51:12of the sharing when they write to an

1:51:15individual counselor, usually their

1:51:17their district counselor or or the

1:51:20district counselor and the um at large

1:51:23counselors. Um I some of the the ones

1:51:27when I told them, you know, it would be

1:51:28shared with everybody. So I said

1:51:30there'll be more eyes on it. Some of my

1:51:33residents um they were leerary of that.

1:51:36They are very um they said if I wanted

1:51:41um to address it to everybody

1:51:43>> just to be clear just to be clear Tracy

1:51:44that's not what we said that's not what

1:51:47the intent is not the mail to individual

1:51:50counselors that's not what the intent is

1:51:52what I said was information coming from

1:51:54city officials back to an individual

1:51:57counselor is what will be shared with

1:51:59all the the information will not go just

1:52:01to one counselor who asked for it. will

1:52:04go back to everyone and frankly if

1:52:06council is really asking for information

1:52:09from the city should not go to the

1:52:11independent the

1:52:14the department head you really should go

1:52:15to the mayor's office if you're looking

1:52:17for information. So no one here should

1:52:18really be going department by

1:52:20department. You should go through the

1:52:21mayor's office for information and for

1:52:23two reasons. One for organizational

1:52:25purposes and two that way we make sure

1:52:28what we know what's going out so

1:52:29everybody can get a copy of it. All

1:52:31right. Does anybody want to say

1:52:32something for the first time here,

1:52:34Miss Long? And I'll go back for the

1:52:36second time to Mr. Wood.

1:52:38>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll just

1:52:40be brief. Uh, this just seems like more

1:52:43busy work overkill. I appreciate

1:52:46probably the thought behind it, but

1:52:48every major issue that comes up with

1:52:51petitions or like the trash collection

1:52:54or, you know, say no to zoning or our

1:52:58flock cameras. Let's go down the whole

1:53:00list of everything. All of those uh

1:53:02petitions and u multi, you know, the uh

1:53:07the form letters that get signed by tons

1:53:09of people. And by the way, I've been

1:53:11having a problem with my email, too, as

1:53:13councelor Liam Broner said, I constantly

1:53:16have to empty trash or do something

1:53:19because I can't send email because my

1:53:21mailbox is always so full. So, I don't I

1:53:24just think this is redundant work that

1:53:26doesn't need to be done. and I will once

1:53:29again be voting no for this.

1:53:31>> Okay, Mr. Wood.

1:53:33>> Okay. I'd like to propose a friendly

1:53:34amendment to hopefully resolve the

1:53:36concerns that have been raised, which is

1:53:38not including every single form letter

1:53:41that we get, but finding a way to share

1:53:45important letters that are official um

1:53:48and andor petitions that come um in the

1:53:51through the official capacity from

1:53:52residents. Oh, I would like to propose a

1:53:54friendly amendment that we change the

1:53:56first bullet point to read, the

1:53:58executive assistant to the council shall

1:53:59include a list of all court

1:54:01correspondents written or electronic

1:54:03from city boards, committees,

1:54:05commissions, or state agencies to the

1:54:07entire council or to the chair on behalf

1:54:09of the council. So, this is we're

1:54:10talking maybe three to five letters um

1:54:14that are official letters voted on by

1:54:16other city boards, committees or

1:54:18commissions or that we're receiving from

1:54:19a state agency. Could we add to that?

1:54:22Community organizations.

1:54:23>> Can I just add something?

1:54:24>> Sure.

1:54:24>> Two things. Two things. Wait, wait,

1:54:26wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

1:54:28>> Point of information, Mr. Chairman.

1:54:30>> I I that's I asked that question. How's

1:54:32Miss Kelly feel? But nobody's

1:54:33>> I'm She'll I'll recognize her in a

1:54:35second. I just want to make sure this

1:54:37>> Thank you.

1:54:37>> amendment.

1:54:38>> I asked it, too. Thank you.

1:54:41Would

1:54:43you be okay adding to that friendly

1:54:45amendment community organizations like a

1:54:47church or a group in the community

1:54:49that's a recognized group? I

1:54:51>> if they if they go and collect the the

1:54:54signature so it's in a petition form. I

1:54:56think that makes sense. But I don't

1:54:57think we should be the whole point of

1:54:58this is to not overburden the secretary

1:55:01with every single letter that comes in

1:55:03unless it's in

1:55:04>> Okay, that's a friendly amendment. It's

1:55:06accepted. Miss Kelly, you want to go to

1:55:07the mic and talk about it or take that

1:55:10mic? Whatever you want to do. Thank you.

1:55:12I just want to point out what George

1:55:14said that those items that come in go to

1:55:18all of you. So if you all see something

1:55:20and you're like this really should be on

1:55:22the agenda. If you bring it forward as a

1:55:24request to put it on the agenda, like

1:55:26George said, they go on the agenda. I

1:55:28think that a everyone gets it already.

1:55:31So why am I making a list of what

1:55:33everybody got? And then B which is very

1:55:36very time consuming and long

1:55:40and B

1:55:42if um you don't feel anyone doesn't feel

1:55:46that they need to bring it forward then

1:55:48it's not of any great huge importance at

1:55:51the time. Also there are people that

1:55:54send stuff they don't use city council

1:55:56at or they send it directly to somebody

1:55:58and I don't get CCD on it. So I don't

1:56:00know it exists. So then we get into the

1:56:02problem of do I have to start using

1:56:04Barracuda to like look at everybody's

1:56:06emails and then I don't really have a

1:56:08real reason to do that and then that's

1:56:10like a slippery slope. So I just feel

1:56:12like if you see something that you think

1:56:14should go on the agenda, bring it

1:56:16forward and we'll put it on the agenda.

1:56:18But creating a list and adding that to

1:56:20the daily task of getting that onto the

1:56:24agenda which takes a week and like today

1:56:27we have three sometimes we have four

1:56:28versions of the agenda that has to

1:56:31happen four times three times two times

1:56:34however many times it is and that has to

1:56:36be manually updated. So I don't know

1:56:39about you but I don't really have a lot

1:56:40of time to do that busy work. If you

1:56:42already have it, bring it forward and

1:56:44then that one particular item will go on

1:56:46the agenda. Going through this list is

1:56:49like overkill. I feel like just have it

1:56:53maybe maybe the rule that if a counselor

1:56:55finds a topic on correspondent

1:56:57correspondence that comes forward or has

1:56:59been brought to the council that they

1:57:01shall bring it forward and it will be

1:57:02put on the agenda. Just make it simple.

1:57:06>> Okay. Further discussion.

1:57:07>> Can I can I finish my comments?

1:57:09>> Oh, I didn't know you wanted to make

1:57:10comments. I just I was

1:57:13>> so I I I think just from my seeing what

1:57:16comes into the city council at

1:57:18Framingham email I I don't think we get

1:57:20that many formal letters for like so it

1:57:22came up recently where the council on

1:57:24aging and the library board of trustees

1:57:26both submitted letters on the proposed

1:57:29reorg like I think those things and any

1:57:32other letter from a formal city that's

1:57:34like voted on by a formal city board

1:57:36committee or commission or that we

1:57:38receive from a state agency I really

1:57:40don't think That's going to be more

1:57:42than, and maybe I'm wrong, some if I

1:57:43people think I'm actually like I'm

1:57:45underestimating this, more than five

1:57:47letters a meeting. It could be way less.

1:57:50I think that's important for the public

1:57:52to see and for us to to to have on our

1:57:55formal agenda. Just personally, that

1:57:57would be my personal opinion. And I want

1:57:58to avoid having Marian have to include

1:58:01every like that's a ridicul

1:58:05an an overburdened request to have her

1:58:06include everything that comes into city

1:58:08council at premium mma.gov. of

1:58:11>> right but since we talked earlier

1:58:13tonight about jurist prudence and

1:58:15precedent we have never unless

1:58:17specifically requested read things into

1:58:20the record so I I you know it's to

1:58:23suggest somehow we didn't read those

1:58:24letters into the record is I know you

1:58:27weren't suggesting I'm just saying in

1:58:28general I mean that you know so we

1:58:32should have to some extent rules to

1:58:33decide what we're going to do I don't

1:58:35disagree with that for that reason but

1:58:38you know so it doesn't It isn't

1:58:39discretionary. No one likes

1:58:40discretionary stuff. I don't like to

1:58:42have that type of discretion and I

1:58:44wouldn't want somebody else having that

1:58:46type of discretion. So, um

1:58:48>> I mean, if it makes it easier, I'll just

1:58:50keep an eye out for those emails and

1:58:51I'll request them every time. But,

1:58:53>> and to some extent that's I mean, we all

1:58:56are equal counselors and to some extent

1:58:58that's really what it is. You have to

1:59:00see what you think is important and you

1:59:02know, look at our agendas now. They're

1:59:03already four or five pages long. They

1:59:05might as well go six to seven. We might

1:59:06as well meet every week. That type of

1:59:08thing.

1:59:10I guess the point with this is that it's

1:59:12instead of creating like a whole like we

1:59:13need to discuss everything we're just

1:59:15these are the you know it's just a kind

1:59:18of a block like official correspondence

1:59:20the council received we can talk about

1:59:21it we don't have to talk about it where

1:59:24this if we're going to create an agenda

1:59:25like if I say okay we got this letter

1:59:27let's make this agenda we got this

1:59:28letter let's make this an agenda item

1:59:29that might make make the meeting and the

1:59:31agenda longer

1:59:32>> I get that but at the same point if

1:59:34somebody gets if everybody gets the

1:59:36letter and one person wants it what It

1:59:38is where they get in their mailbox, they

1:59:39see it on the agenda for the purpose of

1:59:41asking for an agenda item.

1:59:42>> One is a public record and one is a sort

1:59:44of public record.

1:59:45>> They're all public records.

1:59:46>> Yeah. If requested through a foyer

1:59:48request after 10 days.

1:59:50>> Okay. All right. Sorry. I I don't mean

1:59:52to lose control here. Who has not spoken

1:59:54the second time? Miss Malik. Thank you.

1:59:56>> Thank you.

1:59:58Um,

2:00:00so I appreciate the intent here and I'm

2:00:04thinking about the CPC committee which

2:00:07does have a and maybe some other

2:00:10committees do also, but they have an

2:00:12agenda item that says like coordinators

2:00:15um, you know, emails and Miss O'Donnell

2:00:19like if she gets a correspondent, she

2:00:20might say, you know, we had two

2:00:22questions about this application or um,

2:00:25she just sort of broadstrokes gives an

2:00:27update um about the [clears throat]

2:00:30nature of what correspondence has come

2:00:32in. And I I think there's value to that.

2:00:36I wonder, [snorts]

2:00:37and I'll confess to not actually being

2:00:39able to quote the charter here, but if

2:00:43we get a petition

2:00:45via the process in the charter, isn't it

2:00:47then required to be on the agenda? Um in

2:00:51which case this feels that that would be

2:00:54redundant. So, I think there's

2:00:56correspondence and there's petitions.

2:00:58And

2:00:59I didn't look up the details of it, but

2:01:02petitions feels redundant. um and

2:01:04correspondence.

2:01:07The other thing I'm thinking about would

2:01:10be if in the chair's report if that

2:01:13wouldn't be when some of the bringing up

2:01:17some of the noteworthy correspondence

2:01:20would be

2:01:22publicly recognized and brought onto

2:01:24into the council. um and if it isn't

2:01:27something that the secretary and the

2:01:29chair could work on together to be

2:01:32included in the chair's report. Um

2:01:37and

2:01:39yeah, so for example, we just got an

2:01:43invitation right from the police chief

2:01:45about a swearing in ceremony of a new

2:01:48officer. So, I could see the chair

2:01:52including that in his report as a

2:01:54reminder to counselors if they're

2:01:55available to RSVP that they can attend

2:01:59that, but I don't. So, to me, that

2:02:02sounds like that's a chair's report item

2:02:04as opposed to necessarily

2:02:07having it on the agenda.

2:02:09Then,

2:02:11you know, I guess I wonder how that

2:02:14would show up on the agenda. um and sort

2:02:16of what level of detail would then be on

2:02:19all of the different um emails. But I do

2:02:23think there's value in it

2:02:27being a public being presented publicly.

2:02:30I'm just not convinced listing it.

2:02:33>> I generally think that's a good idea.

2:02:35Again, it goes a little bit back to

2:02:36discretion though, which makes me a

2:02:38little nervous, but I generally think

2:02:40that's a good idea. Mr. Vani, just to

2:02:43piggy back on what Council Malik said,

2:02:45Miss Kelly and you got an email um

2:02:48Tuesday from Riad from the Chamber of

2:02:51Commerce about ribbon cutings. She

2:02:52forwarded it to all of us. Does that

2:02:54really need to be on our agenda? Not

2:02:55really. All right. You know, we can all

2:02:57go to um you know, 10:00 a.m. we can go

2:03:00to Nia and then we go to the Fred Dance

2:03:02Studio on October 14th and Jimmy John's,

2:03:04whatever the hell it's called. And you

2:03:06know, but you got it. She got it. She

2:03:08sent it to all of us. We get them.

2:03:10>> When's Jimmy John's? I missed that. It's

2:03:11with Dunkin Donuts. Wherever it's 6 602

2:03:14692 Conituate Road 1028.

2:03:16>> Okay.

2:03:16>> Before Halloween, we can go get a

2:03:18sandwich.

2:03:19>> That wouldn't be included in the

2:03:20>> Yeah. Right. That would have to be I

2:03:22know.

2:03:22>> No, it wouldn't. It wouldn't.

2:03:23>> Oh, with your amendment, it won't be

2:03:25included. Right.

2:03:25>> Anybody else seeing Miss Bryant?

2:03:29>> Quickly, I just wanted to say that um

2:03:32>> I I um I sense it it will not pass, but

2:03:36it may. Um but uh first I don't think

2:03:40that I definitely don't

2:03:42feel right even expecting the chair to

2:03:46put in a report to remind us about these

2:03:49things that we see and events that we

2:03:52could attend. And I think that um you

2:03:54will that others you can't put them all

2:03:58in and so then you know who gets the

2:04:02favorite spot of being mentioned and

2:04:04that kind of thing. I think we know

2:04:06about them. We see those things and we

2:04:09can, you know, act accordingly.

2:04:10Obviously, we're going to miss each

2:04:12individually. We can't go to everything,

2:04:15but I don't see the need for the chair

2:04:17to do that. Um, we do get them. And I I

2:04:20just want to say that um I like the

2:04:23discussion on both po both both points

2:04:26and I will say that regardless of how

2:04:28the vote goes I believe that um the

2:04:31discussion of these and even future it

2:04:34this has allowed thank you uh councelor

2:04:36you know councelor Stephanie me and uh

2:04:38council the rules committee for bringing

2:04:41this up because now I think it reminds

2:04:44us or gives us a pathway to remember um

2:04:48like yeah to to bring these things up,

2:04:50go bring it to the chair. And I think

2:04:52also to to bring up if we feel that

2:04:55things are not getting on the agenda in

2:04:58a timely fashion, but then also makes us

2:05:01more cognizant of how we use our time in

2:05:04um the city council meeting so that we

2:05:06can possibly address more of the um

2:05:09correspondence. And I don't feel that

2:05:11even the stuff about the state um you

2:05:14know uh and the the the letters from the

2:05:17state, we get that. We get we all get

2:05:19those things and as long as there is um

2:05:22an open like a very open uh pathway

2:05:25where when we suggest can we have this

2:05:28on um the agenda it should be yes all

2:05:32the you know yes all the time.

2:05:34>> Okay. Thank you. All right. So I'm going

2:05:35to take a vote on the friendly amended

2:05:37motion. Um

2:05:39>> I accepted the friendly amendment

2:05:40>> as I said taking a vote on the friendly

2:05:42amended motion.

2:05:44>> Okay. Um, so my computer died, so I

2:05:47don't have my voting list, but I

2:05:48remember it was starting with Miss Long,

2:05:50so hopefully I can remember what

2:05:52district everybody's in. We'll start

2:05:53here. So, Miss Long,

2:05:55>> no.

2:05:56>> Mr. Ward,

2:05:57>> yes.

2:05:58>> Miss Feny,

2:05:59>> yes.

2:05:59>> Mr. Cannon,

2:06:00>> no.

2:06:01>> Mr. Alexander,

2:06:02>> no.

2:06:03>> Mr. Aviani,

2:06:06>> no.

2:06:07>> Um, Miss Who's next? M. Malik,

2:06:10[laughter]

2:06:10>> no.

2:06:12>> Yes, John. District nine, Miss Miss

2:06:14Bryant,

2:06:16>> I gotta say no.

2:06:18>> Okay. Uh, Miss Liam Bruno,

2:06:21>> no.

2:06:21>> Myself, no. So, I believe that's two in

2:06:23favor, nine opposed.

2:06:25>> Three.

2:06:25>> Three in f. Thank you. Three in favor,

2:06:27eight oppos. Okay. I will say one thing.

2:06:29I will try I'll talk to Marion about a

2:06:31little bit. I will try to do a little

2:06:33bit along the lines of what Miss Malik

2:06:35suggested at least. So to highlight

2:06:37letters along the lines of Brandon

2:06:39categorized. [snorts]

2:06:41Okay. Next, um, our financial analyst,

2:06:44Anthony.

2:06:45>> Point of order. We voted on the

2:06:47amendment or

2:06:48>> No, it was a friend, it was a friendly

2:06:50amendment. It was the whole thing.

2:06:51>> Okay, never mind. Thank you.

2:06:52>> Thank you.

2:06:57>> Good evening.

2:07:00Good evening.

2:07:01>> So, would you like to tell us what

2:07:04asking us to do on the Well, thank you

2:07:06for your work on this issue.

2:07:08>> Um, do you want me to just give you a

2:07:10brief highlight? Okay. Um, so I was

2:07:12asked to look into the um the process

2:07:16and the roles and responsibilities of

2:07:18both the council and the mayor's office

2:07:20when it comes to um approvals for um

2:07:24rent increases for um the apartment

2:07:26complexes that are subject to those um

2:07:29approvals.

2:07:30and um talking with the city solicitor

2:07:33and also the director of planning. Um

2:07:36there is no actual um

2:07:42written I guess um language on who is

2:07:46responsible. It just says the

2:07:47municipality or the city. It doesn't

2:07:50specify whether it's the council,

2:07:51whether it's the mayor, or who that body

2:07:54is. And then there's nothing else that

2:07:55that speaks to who that would be. Um the

2:07:59current process um since these um have

2:08:03been established is that the property

2:08:06would submit the adjustment to the

2:08:08planning office. The planning office

2:08:10would then um review the request, make

2:08:14sure that it was in line with what's

2:08:16allowable and um submit it to the

2:08:19council. The council would refer to the

2:08:21finance subcommittee sub finance

2:08:23subcommittee would make a recommendation

2:08:26and then it would go back to the full

2:08:28council for a vote. Um

2:08:32there's been a a timing issue with this

2:08:35in the past. Just recently I mayor June

2:08:38um the Buckley requested an increase and

2:08:42um there's only um allowed 30 days to

2:08:46respond. So, if it's not responded to

2:08:48within 30 days, it's automatically

2:08:50approved. Um,

2:08:53so that's one of the concerns with the

2:08:54current process. And with with speaking

2:08:56with the city solicitor and the director

2:08:59of planning, um, we believe it makes

2:09:01sense to to change the process and to

2:09:05instead of it going through the council

2:09:07to that it goes through the planning

2:09:09office. the director of planning would

2:09:12um still review it, make sure it's in

2:09:14line, and then he would submit it to the

2:09:17mayor's office for approval. Um all this

2:09:20still goes to the executive office of

2:09:22housing where they then give the final

2:09:24approval. um and they have if it's not

2:09:29correct or if there's an issue or if for

2:09:32whatever reason the um the state office

2:09:34of of housing um chooses they can

2:09:38decline it. Um so that would be I guess

2:09:42my recommendation in order to avoid

2:09:44those issues where no one has any vote

2:09:47on it is to to flow it through the

2:09:49mayor's office. I make a motion we

2:09:51accept the presentation of the

2:09:53recommendation of our financial.

2:09:54>> I would second that, but I'd ask for one

2:09:56friendly amendment in item four to

2:09:59delete the words or mayor's designate so

2:10:02that if we're not going to have council

2:10:05approval on raising rents that it's the

2:10:07mayor who's doing it. Accepted.

2:10:14>> Um, thank you for your work on this. Um,

2:10:16Anthony, um, did you look at other

2:10:19similar or comparable communities,

2:10:21cities like the Walthams, Newton's, like

2:10:24how how are they handling this process?

2:10:26>> I didn't, to be honest.

2:10:28>> Wow. I I I don't know how urgent it is

2:10:31for us to make a decision. I I would be

2:10:32interested in hearing and or if others

2:10:35want to comment on that. For me, I would

2:10:37be interested in hearing like we're not

2:10:38the only ones dealing with this. Every

2:10:39community in the Commonwealth is having

2:10:40to deal with this and I would be

2:10:42interested in hearing how others are

2:10:43deal are handling it. I think most of

2:10:45them have just been recently done. So,

2:10:46it's probably not We don't probably need

2:10:48to do it tonight, right? You know, you

2:10:50don't know anything pending, do you?

2:10:51>> I don't believe there's anything

2:10:52pending. I

2:10:53>> agree, Miss Bryant.

2:10:55>> I don't um I do not uh I don't um I I

2:11:02respectfully do not um choose that um

2:11:08solution whatsoever. Um I think the

2:11:11council has been a very important um uh

2:11:15stop gap measure and just a protection.

2:11:18I think we do need to um I think we need

2:11:21to I don't think we should see that

2:11:23power. I really think the the question I

2:11:26the problem I had is um I really think

2:11:29the 30 days I know it can't be changed

2:11:31right now but I think that the problem

2:11:33really lies in the 30 days the automatic

2:11:35approval after 30 days. I think it

2:11:39should be 60 days and I I don't even

2:11:41know or there should not be an automatic

2:11:43approval. Um anyway, I mean if it kind

2:11:47of follows the pattern of the um

2:11:50>> it's state law tracing state law.

2:11:52>> Okay. So it's state law um

2:11:54>> or federal law or whatever. It's in the

2:11:56reg.

2:11:56>> And I think I think [clears throat] I

2:11:58I'm going to have to work on getting I

2:12:00think that should be changed. I Well, I

2:12:02think that's where the problem really

2:12:03lies. I don't think it should be

2:12:05automatically approved just because they

2:12:07asked if we don't. But I guess so that

2:12:09we can deal with it um quickly. So I

2:12:12would just say so we have to work within

2:12:14the 30 days period. Fine. But um yeah, I

2:12:18I would I would be I would vote against

2:12:20seating.

2:12:22>> Christine,

2:12:23>> uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I also

2:12:26agree with councelor um Bryant. I don't

2:12:29agree with this decision to rescend our

2:12:33power to the mayor on this subject um or

2:12:37to the planning director. I think this

2:12:39is the function of the city council and

2:12:41I believe this is how other cities

2:12:43function. Uh I'm not positive, but I

2:12:45don't think this is proper process to

2:12:48allow the planning department uh the

2:12:51planning director to approve this and

2:12:53send it along. I think this is a city

2:12:55council function and I am not in favor

2:12:57of making this change. So,

2:12:59>> so why don't we do this? Could we do a

2:13:01little more research along the lines of

2:13:04um what the other cities and towns do

2:13:05and then we can make a final decision.

2:13:06Is that reasonable for everybody?

2:13:09>> Yes, Anthony, is that okay with you?

2:13:11>> Absolutely.

2:13:12>> And and part of just for just a little

2:13:14bit more background so you know you're

2:13:16looking for part of the reason I'm

2:13:17curious of what other cities are doing

2:13:18is because we have heard arguments that

2:13:20we're not legally authorized to make

2:13:22those decisions,

2:13:23>> right? And so this this helps helps us

2:13:25kind of get to the bottom of that

2:13:26question as well.

2:13:27>> I agree with that. I think that's a very

2:13:28good point.

2:13:30>> Okay. Thank you very much for that. I

2:13:31know it's complicated and it's a little

2:13:32dry. So appreciate your work and sorry

2:13:34you have to

2:13:35>> Absolutely. Thank you.

2:13:36>> Okay.

2:13:39>> Yes.

2:13:42>> Good evening. I'm Andrew from District

2:13:442. Um, at a council meeting on October

2:13:487th of last year, there was a unanimous

2:13:50vote to reject a application for a rent

2:13:53increase that amounted to essentially

2:13:5510% increase across the board for all

2:13:57affordable units in that property.

2:14:00[snorts] Um, if I remember correctly, a

2:14:03number of counselors criticized that

2:14:04particular applicant for failing to

2:14:06provide justification for the increase

2:14:08as well as for failing to come before

2:14:10the council to answer questions after

2:14:12they submitted the application. I say

2:14:15all of this not to single out this one

2:14:16property, which I'm intentionally not

2:14:18naming in my comments, but because this

2:14:20application is a perfect example of why

2:14:23the council should have the authority to

2:14:25review these uh applications.

2:14:28I learned all of these details

2:14:30exclusively because this application

2:14:33came before the council.

2:14:35Today, the council is being asked to

2:14:37forfeit its authority to review these

2:14:41applications and to move it likely more

2:14:44behind closed doors in the mayor's

2:14:46office. The stated reason is that the

2:14:49city uh if the city doesn't respond

2:14:52within 30 days, then it may be

2:14:54automatically considered approved.

2:14:56Um the current process which entails

2:14:59planning department review placement on

2:15:00the city council agenda referrals to the

2:15:02finance subcommittee and subsequent vote

2:15:03of the full council will create

2:15:05significant risk that the city may not

2:15:07complete the review within the

2:15:08applicable deadlines. The city council

2:15:10meets every two weeks and so it's in

2:15:14theory unless the planning department

2:15:17takes its time there will be more than

2:15:19enough time other than like during very

2:15:22busy times such as budget season which

2:15:24it sounds like some applicants may be

2:15:26trying to take advantage of if the city

2:15:29council deems that that's happening.

2:15:30they can just automatically reject

2:15:33applications during that time so that

2:15:36they come back during a time where they

2:15:38can be more thoroughly reviewed. Um, and

2:15:42in addition to the non-public

2:15:44>> 30 seconds.

2:15:45>> In addition to the non-public aspect,

2:15:46the fact that the planning department is

2:15:48led by a director appointed by the mayor

2:15:51uh who will then be reviewing his own

2:15:53appointees decision uh is also a point

2:15:56of concern. So I urge for these reasons

2:15:58I urge the council to reject the

2:16:00proposed lots.

2:16:01>> Okay. Thank you. So reported the council

2:16:03chair. Um I only have one thing I would

2:16:06ask the rules committee if you could

2:16:07look at the issue that was brought up

2:16:08earlier about placement of appointments

2:16:10on the agenda. I I think it was done on

2:16:12our initial rules back in January. I I

2:16:15understand the rationale behind it, but

2:16:17it has kind of clogged up our agendas a

2:16:19little bit and caused us to be

2:16:20criticized for putting an employment

2:16:21number at 18 when we really weren't. And

2:16:24given the way we do that, uh, if if the

2:16:26rules come out,

2:16:27>> so what's your preference?

2:16:28>> We could talk about it, but I think just

2:16:30to put them somewhere a little bit

2:16:31further behind public hearings for at

2:16:33least.

2:16:34>> Okay.

2:16:35>> And if anybody else has preference, just

2:16:37let somebody in the rules committee

2:16:38know. Um, report subcommittees. Any

2:16:41subcommittee have a report here tonight?

2:16:45Miss Malik. Well, it's not technically a

2:16:47subcommittee, but it's a youth council

2:16:49report to say that they um are back for

2:16:53the fall and they just met and are

2:16:57getting things underway and more soon.

2:17:01>> Great. Thank you, Mr. Alexander. Did you

2:17:03have a subcommittee report?

2:17:05>> I thought I saw your hand up. I'm sorry.

2:17:06Okay. Okay.

2:17:08Report of counselors and counselors.

2:17:10>> Just a subcommittee report.

2:17:12>> Oh, sorry. Um, it was discussed and I

2:17:16just want to remind people in the rules,

2:17:18there's a rule relative to resolutions,

2:17:21citations.

2:17:23Um, councilors can do citations either

2:17:26with the mayor or with the chair. They

2:17:28don't go through the normal process.

2:17:30There have been a couple of questions

2:17:31about that. Just wanted to remind people

2:17:32the rules allow that.

2:17:37>> Thank you. Report of counselors. Mr.

2:17:41I just really quick piggy back on what

2:17:42council Stephanie said like there's a

2:17:44couple businesses I know they've got a

2:17:45new program going on but somebody is in

2:17:47business in Fian for 10 years a

2:17:49citation's nice but it's only got the

2:17:50mayor's signature and the person that

2:17:52brings it to the attention like one of

2:17:53these businesses you know if it's in

2:17:55council's canon district he should sign

2:17:57it you guys are at large I don't know

2:17:58why some of those couldn't be I hate to

2:18:00say the word proclamation because then

2:18:01we'll get everybody mad at us but if

2:18:02somebody's been in business framing for

2:18:0410 years it'd be nice for more than one

2:18:06of us to sign it it's just my opinion

2:18:08>> okay so can I just quickly address the

2:18:11answer is yes you can do that but it has

2:18:13to go through

2:18:14>> process

2:18:14>> process okay

2:18:16>> Miss Bryant

2:18:17>> um 10 years um doesn't fit the criteria

2:18:21I think um there is criteria already

2:18:24there for that but I do agree that it

2:18:26would be nice for um you know more of us

2:18:30to sign it all of us to sign a citation

2:18:33if you know if that district counselor

2:18:36is willing to do that um you Yeah.

2:18:41>> Okay. Any other counselor reports

2:18:43tonight?

2:18:44>> Mr. Chairman,

2:18:45>> you have a counselor report?

2:18:46>> Yes. Go ahead.

2:18:48>> I just want to uh uh first of all, I

2:18:50hope everybody I brought peaches for my

2:18:52daughter for everybody if they're

2:18:54interested, if they want more. There are

2:18:55lots of peaches. Second, um the

2:18:58Cobenville Tripoli Neighborhood

2:19:00Association is having its second annual

2:19:02Wikum Beach Ice Cream Festival. The

2:19:05Moolicious Mobile will be at Washikham

2:19:08Beach from 1 to 2:30 on Labor Day. The

2:19:11ice cream is free. Uh neighbors are

2:19:13invited and obviously everyone on the

2:19:16council is invited as well and we've

2:19:18invited the mayor obviously.

2:19:21>> Is there somebody else, Mr. Canon?

2:19:22>> Yes. Thank you. Briefly, tomorrow is the

2:19:23first Friday of the month. So, office

2:19:25hours at the McAuliffe Library at 9:30.

2:19:27Come on by. Also, tonight we reappointed

2:19:30Deborah Freed to the Framingham Veterans

2:19:32Council. If you don't know her, you

2:19:34should get to know her. She's a fabulous

2:19:35person. She's a remarkable badass, but

2:19:38back in July, she uh participated uh not

2:19:41for the first time in the National

2:19:42Veterans Wheelchair Games uh put on by

2:19:44the VA and the Paralyzed Veterans of

2:19:46America. Learn about her, get to know

2:19:48her. It's a great story, but this time,

2:19:50I mean, it was medals and placing and

2:19:52discus and javelin and bowling, and

2:19:54she's just a fabulous person, and I'm

2:19:57delighted that we reappointed her

2:19:58tonight. And that's all I have, Mr.

2:19:59Chairman. Thank Motion.

2:20:01>> Motion to adjurnn.

2:20:02>> Second.

2:20:03>> All those in favor?

2:20:04>> All those in favor? Miss Liam B. I just

2:20:06going to go. Miss Liam.

2:20:09>> Yes.

2:20:09>> Miss Bryant.

2:20:11>> Yes.

2:20:11>> Miss Long.

2:20:12>> Yes.

2:20:13>> Miss Malik.

2:20:14>> Yes.

2:20:15>> Let him let him come.

2:20:16>> Stephanie.

2:20:17>> Yes.

2:20:18>> He's trying to say.

2:20:19>> Yes.

2:20:20>> Yes.

2:20:21>> I [laughter] don't know what's going on.

2:20:22Did I say something wrong?

2:20:23>> You've lost total control.

2:20:25>> We have a junior counselor in the

2:20:27>> What did I do?

2:20:29>> Oh. Oh. We are done.

2:20:31>> No horns. Yes. [laughter]

2:20:34>> Yes.

2:20:37[music]

2:21:00>> [music]