2026-10-13 - General Government Subcommittee

00:05[music]

00:14>> Okay, welcome to the general government

00:16meeting of the Springfield City Council.

00:19Appreciate everyone for being in

00:20attendance. My apologies for being a

00:23little tardy. We are here today to

00:26discuss door-to-door

00:28sales and the new proposed ordinance

00:31sponsored by myself as well as

00:34Councillor Martin.

00:37Just as sort of an overview, you know,

00:40for myself, this was particularly

00:42important because of an incident that

00:44was close to home that happened

00:47when an individual who was selling solar

00:50panels came to my house and was

00:54relentless in terms of pushing us to get

00:58solar panels. I was not home at the

01:00time. My wife was home and he must have

01:04kept her at the door for 15 to 20

01:06minutes even after she said that she was

01:09not interested. And not only that, the

01:12very next day after she said she had to

01:16basically usher him away from the

01:18property,

01:19ended up showing up when I was home. And

01:22again, became, you know, he wasn't

01:25belligerent, but he certainly was very

01:27aggressive in terms of his behavior and

01:30tone. And because I had already been

01:32briefed by my wife on the previous day,

01:35the conversation only lasted for so

01:38long. But I can only imagine if it was,

01:42you know, a gentleman who was at my

01:44parents' house who was a senior,

01:47you know, and they had no way to

01:49identify who this particular individual

01:51was and who this particular individual

01:55worked for. And so the hope of this

01:58ordinance sponsored by, again, Council

02:01Martin and myself is to make sure that,

02:04um, you know, we can rectify some of

02:06those issues for those that are most

02:10vulnerable as well as your average, uh,

02:13citizen here in the city of Springfield

02:15who just might not want, uh, to be

02:18solicited. Uh, and certainly to be

02:21solicited in the manner in which we've

02:23heard that many of the individuals are

02:25coming door-to-door. Uh, so,

02:28um, I'm joined by Council Martin who

02:30I'll give the floor to in just a second.

02:31I'm also joined by Council Davila who is

02:34on the General Government Committee, uh,

02:36committee meeting. We're joined by Madam

02:38President Council Whitfield as well as

02:40Council Golvan who I also see here, um,

02:44and and then we have Attorney Shea and

02:47Attorney Downing who I believe has been

02:49spearheading the drafting of this

02:51ordinance. So, before I move forward,

02:53I'll turn the floor over to Council

02:55Martin and he can sort of give his

02:57synopsis as to why it is that you think,

03:00uh, this is important and, you know, why

03:02you wanted to co-sponsor this as well.

03:04>> Yeah, no, thank you, uh, thank you, Mr.

03:06Chair.

03:07You You You nailed a lot of those

03:08reasons right on the head. I mean, I

03:12have heard consistently, I continue to

03:14hear from residents and constituents

03:18of, um, of, of, you know, basically

03:21harassment behavior. I mean, people who,

03:24you know, sell these solar panels or the

03:25pest control, they're coming right up to

03:28the door. They're, you know, as you had

03:30said,

03:31insisting on staying. Some people are

03:33asking for people's electric bills and

03:35like personal information, inviting

03:37themselves into their homes. I've heard

03:40of also like kind of heated

03:41interactions. People like, you know,

03:43swearing at the,

03:44um, at the salesperson and then them

03:46swearing right back at them. Like, it's

03:48just it's it's gotten extremely out of

03:52hand and we don't want people taking

03:54advantage of. We don't want people

03:55feeling unsafe in their homes. So,

03:58this is a a great first step and it's

04:00going to really put some teeth

04:02behind, you know, bad bad actors here in

04:05the city of Springfield.

04:06>> [clears throat]

04:07>> Absolutely. Thank you, Councillor

04:09Martin. And I didn't realize exactly

04:12how sort of generalized the door-to-door

04:15soliciting ordinance was until attorney

04:18attorney Downing you sort of did your

04:20side-by-side comparison between what we

04:22had and what West Springfield had. And

04:25that was one of the other reasons that

04:27precipitated, you know, Councillor

04:29Martin and I putting forth this

04:30ordinance. They had just recently passed

04:33a door-to-door ordinance and it seemed

04:35as though their ordinance had much more

04:37teeth. So, if you could just walk us

04:39through some of the changes that are

04:43being made by this ordinance and some of

04:45the things that you think that we should

04:49be aware of and that the general public

04:50should be aware of that this ordinance

04:52will now do that our previous ordinance

04:54didn't do.

04:56>> Sure.

04:57So, the previous or the current

05:00ordinance is

05:02pretty sparse, I'd say.

05:06There are a couple

05:07concerns with

05:09like constitutional issues that also the

05:12West Springfield ordinance kind of

05:14addressed. So,

05:16it's good to incorporate those.

05:20That's changes to definitions, which are

05:22pretty self-explanatory.

05:24The license process has been expanded.

05:27>> up just a little louder?

05:29>> The license process has been expanded.

05:31The previous or current

05:34um

05:36qualification of license is about one

05:38sentence saying that the police

05:40commissioner

05:41will have authority to grant it to any

05:44person of good repute for morals and

05:46integrity, which is a little vague, but

05:50so the new ordinance outlines a process

05:54that includes deadlines for us to get

05:55back to them, so they aren't left

05:57waiting.

05:58Um and certain things that the

06:01superintendent will consider when

06:04making their determination. There's also

06:06a

06:07I think an appeal process outlined in

06:10case the applicant disagrees with the

06:13determination.

06:16Which goes through the city clerk's

06:17office.

06:19And then it also does specify things

06:22like time and place restrictions and who

06:25this applies to and who it doesn't.

06:28>> And

06:29>> [clears throat]

06:29>> And so can you just

06:30highlight, I know it speaks to us

06:34obtaining a city ID

06:36that has to be visible and conspicuous

06:40from the individual that is going

06:41door-to-door. Can you just highlight

06:44what that process that registration

06:45process looks like and how you envision

06:48it being implemented here in the city of

06:50Springfield?

06:51>> So it'll be done through the police

06:54department. Um a person will submit

06:58their application to these

07:00superintendent

07:02who will have I think 30 days to make a

07:07determination, which is important we

07:09have to have like a set deadline

07:11is one of the issues that other

07:14municipalities have run into with

07:15attempts, so making sure that it's clear

07:17that we will get back to them and when.

07:21Since it would otherwise be a prior

07:23restraint of speech.

07:25Um

07:26if if the superintendent chooses to,

07:29they can conduct a background check. Um

07:34for a a limited records check for

07:37outstanding warrants or disqualifying

07:39violent or fraud-related felony

07:41convictions within the past 10 years.

07:45And

07:47then the superintendent will take that

07:48information and determine whether or not

07:50they want to

07:52issue the ID.

07:54>> Correct. Councilwoman Ford, I see your

07:56your hand up. Um I can certainly

07:58entertain your question now. I I did

08:01want to sort of run through a few more

08:02of these bullet points but

08:03>> No, I'm fine. I'm waiting. That's just

08:05for when the time comes.

08:07>> Okay. Okay. Um so so so that is the ID

08:11uh requirement. What about I know you

08:14mentioned the um

08:17the display not the display of an ID D

08:19card but the time and place

08:20restrictions. Can you just tell us a

08:22little bit more about what this will

08:24require in terms of timing

08:26of individuals coming to the door?

08:28>> Yeah, so this is

08:30one of the areas where we also have to

08:32be more cautious to not infringe on

08:35people's first amendment rights.

08:38So right now it limits

08:41uh commercial solicitation

08:44at any residence

08:46um it's prohibited outside the hours of

08:489:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

08:51And they also have to be cognizant of

08:53any signs that a person might put up on

08:56their property saying no trespassing, no

08:59soliciting or something similar.

09:02Those are the

09:04>> So if you have a no soliciting sign on

09:07your door then that means that they they

09:10cannot come to your door. A no

09:11trespassing sign, they would have to

09:13skip that particular house. And I know I

09:16noticed you also talked about a registry

09:19um and what what what does that entail?

09:22I know it involves the city clerk.

09:23Councilwoman Ryan, you and I discussed

09:25uh previously that we'll engage the city

09:28clerk as well as the superintendent just

09:29to get their take on it as to whether

09:31they can actually um

09:33you know, fulfill what it is that we're

09:35asking them to do, I think it's huge for

09:37me. So,

09:40if you could just

09:41>> Yeah, so if a resident would want to be

09:44put on the list of no solicitations,

09:48that they would notify the clerk with

09:50their name on the list, and then that

09:52will be distributed to applicants for

09:54IDs, so they know ahead of time that

09:56certain properties have already said

09:57they don't want to be approached.

10:00>> Okay, and the only I guess the other two

10:03things that I would just I think are

10:05important to highlight and and and um

10:08that I'll

10:09certainly entertain President Whitfield.

10:12Um what is some of the prohibited

10:14conduct, which I think it

10:16a lot of it we probably have already

10:18talked about. And then when you say a

10:20noncommercial

10:22canvasser,

10:23uh what what does that look like? So, I

10:25mean, you know, a lot of people are

10:27fearful that, you know, we're excluding

10:29everyone from knocking on doors. If you

10:32could just give us an explanation as to

10:35who it is can knock on doors based off

10:38of this ordinance and who can't.

10:41>> So, in this ordinance, commercial

10:45solicitors would have the limits that

10:47are in place. Other people who'll be

10:49knocking on doors, um

10:52typically who gets the canvassing

10:54noncommercial canvassing definition

10:56would be the place to look. Uh

10:58door-to-door activity is primarily

10:59intended to just convey ideas, opinions,

11:02or information, to distribute

11:03literature, or advocate for or against

11:06causes or candidates, or to

11:08request donations of money, goods, or

11:10services for charitable, religious,

11:12political, or other nonprofit purposes,

11:15where no goods or services are sold for

11:17profit, and also, um city-affiliated

11:20groups would be exempt.

11:25Looking at the key words.

11:27>> So, religious activities, they they can

11:29still go door-to-door.

11:31Uh politicians like ourselves can still

11:35reach out to constituents.

11:37I imagine you still would want us to be

11:38respectful between the hours of 9:00 and

11:41and 6:00, but

11:43I don't know if that's actually

11:44specified in here,

11:47but they will be exempt. What about the

11:49conduct? And then I'll I'll turn it over

11:51to Councilwoman if there's anything that

11:53I missed.

11:54Uh

11:55what is

11:57>> So, Mr. Mr. representing their identity

12:01or where the purpose of their being

12:04there.

12:05Uh

12:06Also prohibited would be

12:08to remain on the property after they've

12:10been asked to leave or if they're using

12:13aggressive, harassing, threatening, or

12:15deceptive practices or blocking presser

12:18egress or otherwise create a public

12:21safety hazard. Um

12:23if they try to conduct sales with minors

12:26under the age of 18 without the presence

12:29of a parent or guardian.

12:31And um

12:33failure to provide

12:35or promptly provide a written receipt

12:37and the purchaser's right to cancel

12:38notice

12:40which are under some like consumer

12:41protections under state law.

12:43And [clears throat] it also prohibits

12:45using someone else's ID card.

12:48>> Got it.

12:49So, Councilwoman and I'm going to come

12:51right to you President Whitfield, is

12:53there anything else on this ordinance

12:56that you

12:57that you think it might be beneficial

12:59for Attorney Downing and the possible

13:01surmises for the residents?

13:03>> Um I do I do have

13:06Um

13:07See you Attorney Downing, thank you

13:08again for for your time and quality of

13:10your clarification.

13:11Um something that I I really want to

13:13make sure that you know, the public and

13:15myself are aware of is like the

13:18revocation process for people like these

13:20repeat violators. If you're doing bad

13:23business tactics, if you're harassing

13:25people, I don't want you to do business.

13:26Plain and simple. So,

13:29I know if we have under

13:31section 279.40.4,

13:34it says the denial, suspension, or

13:37revocation. So, if

13:40say, you know,

13:41a door-to-door person was, you know,

13:43going up to your door and then they were

13:45doing these prohibited conducts, how

13:48would the revocation process,

13:50um you know, really take place? And

13:52would it be for the business overall?

13:54Would it be for that individual?

13:56And similarly speaking, like the fines

13:58that are imposed, is that imposed on the

14:00individual or is that imposed on the

14:01business

14:03that's doing it?

14:05>> So,

14:07the fines, I think, could be,

14:10I would think,

14:11charged either to the employer or to the

14:14individual, uh depending on

14:17how the clerk would want to organize

14:21that or if there's any specifications

14:23that you would want to include in the uh

14:27in the ordinance itself.

14:29And if you wanted to report somebody not

14:33complying with it,

14:36you know, that it gives the

14:37superintendent the right to revoke.

14:40So, probably reporting through that

14:42process or we're also, I would think,

14:43notifying the city department as well

14:45would be a way to get in touch.

14:47>> And then the police department would,

14:49yeah, then would react accordingly.

14:51>> Yeah.

14:51>> To revoke the license. Okay.

14:54Um I had another question. Excuse me a

14:56moment. I'm going to be getting food.

14:59>> President Whitfield, I see your hand

15:01raised. You've been waiting patiently.

15:03Floor is yours.

15:05>> Thank you, Counselor Hurst, uh Mr.

15:08Chair, and Counselor Martin for bringing

15:09this forward. I was on Mason Square C3

15:12today as the chair, and someone brought

15:15up um

15:17elderly folks being harassed by people

15:21that were um informing about mass

15:23health, which would be exempt in this

15:26definition, correct?

15:31>> Excuse me.

15:33>> Right, cuz they're they would be I don't

15:35know

15:36if they're a affiliate group. They're

15:39not a city affiliate group, but um Mocha

15:41in a color and

15:44um Revitalize CDC both got grants to

15:47inform of the changes that's going to be

15:49taking place January 2027 with Mass

15:52Health, which is really going to impact

15:54green card holders. Um they will some of

15:57them will be getting denied that. But

15:59that's neither here nor there. I'm just

16:00telling you that um they are going

16:03around door to door and someone said

16:05that they were harassing um elderly. I

16:08don't know if they necessarily know all

16:11the ages of the people that may live in

16:12the homes. Um but I don't know if that

16:15would be something that is exempt

16:18uh from this ordinance um because it is

16:21educational and informational, not

16:24selling anything, and it is a grant. I

16:26think it was a

16:27um

16:29Health New England grant that they

16:31received these funds. So, I don't know

16:34if Attorney Downey knows the answer to

16:36that.

16:38Downing?

16:39>> [snorts]

16:40>> Where they are just

16:41giving information?

16:43>> Yes.

16:44>> That probably wouldn't be something we

16:46could really regulate.

16:48>> Okay.

16:49>> They're not selling anything.

16:51>> Got you.

16:52Okay.

16:53Um and then I was looking at

16:58So, I was listening to Counselor Martin

17:01um

17:02when he said who should the fees be

17:04imposed on.

17:06300 a day. I know with the

17:10um bike ordinance, the dirt bike

17:12ordinance, when

17:14they go to the pump, um the attendants

17:18wouldn't be the one who was fined, it

17:20would be the owner of the gas station,

17:23um, if they go to the pump with a dirt

17:25bike, so I'm thinking, um,

17:28once the owner is made aware of the

17:30violation,

17:32um, they will do something about their

17:34employees, so I'm thinking that the

17:37violation should probably go to the, um,

17:40organization,

17:42and then they would deal with the

17:44employee.

17:46>> For the enforcement piece?

17:52>> Thank you.

17:53>> Um, no,

17:54one more thing. Um, it says something

17:57about

17:59the clerk keeps the do not solicit

18:02registry,

18:03and the police department distributes

18:06it, so I'm not understanding why,

18:09um,

18:11the, I guess both departments could, um,

18:14distribute it?

18:16Would they have to come and get on the

18:18do not get the do not solicitor registry

18:21from the clerk and then go to the police

18:23department to get the full list? Like,

18:25I'm not understanding, um, that piece.

18:30>> I think the idea is that the list would

18:31be provided to people when they get

18:34their ID.

18:37>> Oh, when they get their ID, but if they

18:39went to the clerk's office to register,

18:41would they not be able to be provided

18:43the list also?

18:47>> The registration has to go through the

18:49police, so I think when that

18:51determination is made, it would be, it

18:54would

18:55it would come with that.

18:57Like, wherever they submit their

18:59application to, the superintendent is

19:01the one who makes the determination

19:02regardless.

19:04>> Mhm.

19:06But the do not solicit registry is is

19:08held by the clerk?

19:16>> It could be held elsewhere if that's

19:18what

19:19>> Well, I'm just not understanding if

19:20everything is being done by the police

19:22superintendent, why why do the clerk

19:25need to keep it?

19:28>> It seems to me that it probably could be

19:30pretty

19:32cumbersome for the police department if

19:34people are continuously calling in

19:37um and requesting to be put on this

19:40solicitors um this no soliciting list.

19:43And so then I I wonder and and we

19:46certainly can ask the superintendent as

19:48well as the clerk what makes the most

19:50sense.

19:51Um but it would seem to me that so long

19:53as they both have an updated copy of

19:56those individuals who are on the no

19:59soliciting list that once they issue the

20:02ID

20:03then they can give that same individual

20:05a copy of the

20:07addresses that are on the no soliciting

20:09list. Uh

20:11but it seems to me from an

20:12administrative standpoint it might be

20:15easier for the clerk to field those

20:17particular calls. But again, I think

20:20it's a great question and probably one

20:22that we ought to have with the clerk and

20:24the superintendent to see what what

20:26makes the most sense to all of these

20:28issues.

20:29>> Thank you. And then finally, I just

20:31wanted to caution you all on making sure

20:33the wording um is the same throughout

20:36the document in section 279-44.

20:40It talks about um licenses, but the

20:43article has door-to-door sales. So, I

20:46don't know if we're still using the word

20:48licenses

20:50um or if we're using registration,

20:52solicitation.

20:54Um are we still using the word licenses

20:57in the document?

21:03>> Oh.

21:06>> I I'm working on another ordinance we're

21:08having the same thing. So, it's like

21:10different places in the ordinance um

21:13says one word that we take we we have

21:16taken out of everywhere else. So, I'm

21:18just saying maybe do just like a quick

21:20scan and make sure all the wording

21:23um aligns with each other. That's all I

21:25have.

21:27>> Makes sense. Thank you, Madam President.

21:29Yes,

21:31Attorney Shay.

21:32>> The point of the licenses under 40

21:35it has to do with licenses um that were

21:37issued from the Commonwealth as opposed

21:39to ones from the city. I think that's

21:41probably why that difference is here.

21:43>> Oh, got you. Thank you, um Attorney

21:45Shay.

21:47>> Thank you, Madam President. Are there

21:48any other councilors wishing to ask

21:51questions or speak on it? Councilor

21:52Davila,

21:54floor is yours.

21:57>> Uh thank you, counselor. Um

22:00Attorney Donny, thank you for working on

22:01this. I really appreciate it. Uh some

22:03quick questions. Uh I noticed that

22:05Sundays is not included in here. Can we

22:07add Sundays or does that create some

22:09issue constitutional issues?

22:12>> But

22:13it's probably pushing the line with

22:16free speech concerns and time and place

22:18restraints, especially I've

22:20been seeing in a lot of cases I've been

22:22reading that there's already the concern

22:24that people aren't home between 9:00 and

22:266:00. So, if you remove Sundays, you're

22:29also removing a large chunk of the time

22:31where people would actually be called.

22:34So, let's do.

22:36>> And the whole thing is a First Amendment

22:38right that we're dealing with and you

22:40have those rights 7 days a week.

22:43>> I hope

22:44I will

22:45I will hope that they have the decency

22:47to respect my last one day situation.

22:50>> You can't restrict.

22:50>> Yeah. Okay. Uh so, Attorney um

22:55I see here 22942

22:58uh it says um any person who resides in

23:01the vicinity of Painfield and is under

23:04the age of 18 should not pay a fee

23:08for a registration under this article.

23:10Can we I see that as a loophole?

23:14Meaning that, you know, we just hire a

23:16whole bunch of 16- or 17-year-olds and

23:18send them out there.

23:20Can we restrict that as well so that

23:22only 18 and over should be able to do

23:25the do door-to-door sales?

23:29>> Only allowed to do it. I mean, this is

23:31just waiving the fee for people under

23:3418.

23:35>> But in terms of setting a standard as to

23:37who's

23:38who is able to go out.

23:40Um

23:43that just crossed my mind, you know, is

23:45can we say only people who are 18 and

23:48over are able to go out door-knocking?

23:52Cuz still it's technically employment,

23:53right?

23:54>> Yeah.

23:55>> When you're doing that, you're doing

23:56door-to-door, you're working.

23:58>> Yeah, I think that runs the risk of

24:00maybe stepping on employment law issues.

24:03>> Have you given thought to that?

24:04>> Not yet. I can't.

24:05>> Would you mind just giving me your your

24:07your legal opinion?

24:08>> You're still going to run up against

24:09first amendment law.

24:11>> But whatever it comes out, could you let

24:13me know because I I I

24:15it might be that we cannot do it, but I

24:16think it might be worth you looking at.

24:18And finally, uh in terms of the appeal

24:22process,

24:23um

24:24I just wonder if perhaps, and just

24:26thinking outside of the box,

24:29if we should have instead of just the

24:31clerk

24:32having three people be in the appeal

24:35panel, if you will. Uh

24:38I'm just thinking outside of the box.

24:40The clerk, maybe a city council

24:42designation if we really want to feel it

24:44in the audience.

24:45And maybe somebody from the video of

24:47you, I don't know.

24:48Uh I'm just throwing something out

24:50there.

24:51Um

24:52because I you know, it's

24:53that we can

24:56you know, just have a a panel on this

24:58side.

24:59You know, so is that something that

25:01could be doable?

25:02>> Well, I think so. Or do you mean adding

25:04like a hearing procedure or

25:07just they would meet at their own

25:09>> There there would be a three that's

25:11something that I have to discuss with

25:12the this fine gentleman over here, but

25:14something that

25:15at least three members.

25:17And then maybe some sort of hearing. I I

25:19don't know cuz I

25:22Let us not forget this is our businesses

25:24and we know how some times unfortunately

25:25businesses could behave.

25:27Right. And so they're going to be

25:28competing and so you just want to have

25:30also some sort of

25:31uh fair process and neutrality because

25:34some of these people are doing

25:35legitimate work that are trying uh to do

25:37their business. I mean, a lot of them

25:39are pretty aggressive and I mean

25:40appropriate. But there's a few who are

25:43decent people. So, uh those are my

25:46thoughts, Mr. Chair. The way we should

25:47look into it. Um

25:50Thank you, Counselor.

25:50>> And Attorney Downing, if you could just

25:52take a look at what some of the other

25:53surrounding cities and towns are doing.

25:56Uh

25:57I I can

25:58completely understand your point

26:00regarding the appeal process.

26:03I I think it is always better if you can

26:06have

26:07more than just one person who has the

26:08sole authority

26:10to uh

26:12you know, to to uphold

26:16a denial.

26:18That that makes perfect sense to me. And

26:20we can Counselor Martin and I can think

26:22about who

26:23and and

26:24>> [clears throat]

26:24>> and what that may look like.

26:26Uh

26:27but I'd love to hear what some other

26:28cities and towns are doing. It also

26:30seems to me that there ought to be

26:33um

26:34and that at some level that folks ought

26:37to be able to appeal

26:39to the court system at some point in

26:41time. I can't imagine that this would be

26:43the end-all be-all

26:45um

26:46for the appeal process. But

26:48uh I could be wrong. So, I'll confirm

26:50through the attorneys as well. It seems

26:52to me at some point that they could take

26:55their appeal to the courts and then

26:57whoever is on the appeal body is not

27:01going to be the last say. It would seem

27:05to me, but I just don't know.

27:07Uh Council,

27:09do you want to add anything,

27:10Councilwoman

27:10>> Oh, I have a question later, but I just

27:12I just want to say Councilwoman

27:14>> Councilwoman Thank you, Councilwoman

27:15Davila.

27:17>> Thank you, Mr. Chair.

27:19So, um

27:22So, I guess I just want us to be mindful

27:24that

27:26jobs a lot of times are

27:29you know, um

27:31filled by people who wouldn't ordinarily

27:35be able to get jobs.

27:37Um and then like Councilwoman President

27:40said, sometimes you know,

27:42um kids are raising money for their

27:46school projects or they might go

27:48door-to-door to sell, you know, candy or

27:50cookies or whatever.

27:52Um so, we want to be mindful of that. I

27:55heard um Councilwoman Davila say that we

27:58might want to limit it to 18, but these

28:00are sometimes first jobs for for kids.

28:03Um so, we want to be careful that we

28:06don't, you know, deprive them of being

28:08able to get those kind of jobs.

28:11Um

28:12otherwise, I think the ordinance makes

28:14sense because, you know, we do have a

28:17lot of

28:18um like you all said, solar panel on

28:21people that are are going door-to-door.

28:24Um and those are the ones that are

28:25asking you for your light bill and stuff

28:27like that. So,

28:29um I commend you all for for bringing

28:31this forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

28:35>> Thank you, Councilwoman Davila. Are

28:37there

28:38You said you had another question,

28:39Councilwoman Martin.

28:40>> Um yeah, I did want to ask about um you

28:42just as a clarifying point. So, I you

28:46kind of addressed

28:48um who would get the fine, whether it be

28:50the um

28:52salesperson or the business. Now, the

28:53revocation of it and all like the

28:56inability to do the business,

28:57would that be

28:59the individual or that be the company?

29:01Cuz I think that's a big question, too.

29:03Cuz if you're,

29:04you know,

29:05company X and only one of your person or

29:08one of your

29:09sales people violated the law,

29:11does that then make that whole company

29:13ineligible to do it?

29:15Or would that like who gets the license

29:17at the end of the day? Would it be the

29:18individual or would it be the business?

29:20Cuz they would be the one that would get

29:21the both.

29:22>> Yeah, I think the application does

29:25reference the possibility of applying

29:28kind of with like a list of employees.

29:31>> Okay.

29:32>> So, with that kind of application,

29:35you'd probably [clears throat] just

29:36remove someone's name.

29:38>> The individual.

29:38>> Yeah.

29:39Um

29:42but any like individual license that

29:45isn't

29:46would be just on an individual basis.

29:48>> Okay.

29:49>> Or as determined by

29:52the appealing authority.

29:54>> Okay.

29:55I think yeah, I think that makes sense.

29:57I I think maybe could we incorporate

29:58language like that where it say you

30:00would list out the employees so we have

30:03a record of who who

30:06like, you know, company

30:07X, you know, has

30:09doing the door-to-doors that way we can

30:11see who gets crossed off doesn't make

30:14sure that we don't come back on another

30:16company and try to, you know,

30:18do door-to-door sales for something

30:19else. You know, does that make sense? I

30:20don't I don't know if I'm particularly

30:22making that problem.

30:23>> Yeah.

30:23>> Okay.

30:24>> It also may make sense in the

30:26application process to have something

30:29that

30:30uh

30:31forces them to identify their employer.

30:34I don't I don't know if I see I didn't

30:36see it in here, but

30:40it seems to me that we ought to have

30:42them identified who they're working for

30:45just so we know and [clears throat]

30:47and can follow

30:50follow with the employer if need be. Uh

30:53especially if the individual is has been

30:55denied.

30:56>> Yeah, I think as it is it currently says

30:58that the superintendent will determine

31:00the form of the application.

31:03But

31:04so we could either make sure that the

31:06form they determine includes that or or

31:09send

31:10>> Put it in the

31:11>> Or you make maybe a recommendation. And

31:12I now I kind of have this thought too.

31:15Do we incorporate a provision where it's

31:17like if you have three or four

31:19of the of uh employees violating it then

31:22the whole business is out.

31:29You know what I mean? Like if you're

31:30you know, if this is a common theme

31:32throughout your entire business entity

31:35get get out of dodge, you're done.

31:37>> Are you saying that over a period of

31:39time?

31:40>> Or like if you have three or five people

31:41like after getting you know, other super

31:43votes, other individual licenses revoked

31:47then the whole business is out.

31:48>> Oh.

31:49>> You got two votes to see.

31:52Three strikes you're out, policy.

31:57>> And I'd love to really assess it after a

31:59year as well just to see you know who

32:02those actual businesses are and I think

32:05the hope is through this particular

32:08ordinance that will put some of those

32:11businesses that are up to no good on

32:13high alert and we're [clears throat]

32:15watching. And so um my I did have a

32:18question. I know you

32:19>> I just have a quick second counselor.

32:21Right. If I may

32:22one thing Mr. Chair that I think that we

32:24should look at

32:26I do like the idea of the registry of

32:28the registry. However, I can see the

32:31poor 311 going out to mines

32:34building all the requests up to obtain

32:37because half the city will obtain in my

32:40opinion.

32:40Perhaps, Mr. Chair, we can talk to the

32:43IT department and to come up with some

32:46sort of

32:47sign-up on the city website where where

32:50you can just go into the city website

32:53obtain and get disseminated accordingly

32:55to the the police department and the

32:57city clerk and then distribute

32:59disseminated to all the city uh

33:02neighbor councils to make it all to get

33:05out to the people cuz otherwise we are

33:07going to inundate people by mail.

33:09Yeah, and so that will be my suggestion.

33:18>> I feel like I had something else I

33:20wanted to say, but I just lost my train

33:22of thought. Uh so, with that said

33:24if there are we certainly will be having

33:26additional meetings. I know Councilman

33:29Martin and I are uh going to a few civic

33:32associations just to get their

33:34perspective on it, and I'm sure after

33:36this meeting we'll be hearing from other

33:39residents in terms of how it is that

33:40they feel. Uh and we'll also have

33:43subsequent meetings in terms of the uh

33:46superintendent as well as the clerk. So,

33:50uh

33:51we will continue to keep folks updated

33:54as we sit through this ordinance and try

33:56to get it as as

33:58as tight as we can.

34:00Councilman Martin, did you have anything

34:02else that you want Councilwoman

34:03President Whitfield?

34:05>> Yes, um is this ordinance on the Monday

34:08meeting?

34:11>> No, it's under unfinished business, so

34:13we won't entertain it uh on the Monday

34:16meeting. My my thought process is that

34:18we'll have a few more meetings and

34:20[clears throat] maybe put it on for the

34:22following month.

34:24>> Perfect. Thank you.

34:26>> Any other questions from councilors?

34:29Any last comments or thoughts?

34:31That being said, you all have a

34:33wonderful day and this can we have a

34:35motion to adjourn the meeting? So moved.

34:37So motion made, seconded by Councilman

34:39Davila. All in favor say I. I.

34:42The I's have it.