1.22.2024 Special City Charter

Mr Venice and then we didn't have when then we voted to have no December meetings um there was here's here's the uh who was here and who was absent okay okay so if you use that update the report yep and then you could do 1127 minutes typed up minutes this is 1127 that'd be 11:27 what happened to 11 no no 11:13 we didn't have a quorum I think hi everybody wel welcome

to the special Charter review committee meeting um it is January 22nd 5:00 p.m we are in the hearing room at the government center in Fall River Massachusetts and pursuant to the open meeting law any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any media attendees are therefore advis that such recordings or Transmissions are being made whether

perceived or UNP perceived by the those present and are deemed acknowledged and permissible and if you could join me in the Pledge of Allegiance please I flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for it stands Nation indivisible and justice for all thank you um and if we could take attendance please starting to my right Al Shad Reena Brown Mimi larvie Tracy Al Kathy movich Tim campus okay and public

input there was a letter submitted for public input I'm going to read it into the record okay everybody subject is request to pause Charter recommendations by the city council this letter by the way for public input was sent to the committee and posted on the website if it's not there I went right to it I have trust me tried to address these issues apparently agendas go to the clerk anything else

goes directly to it and I follow up with it so this should be out there everybody January 10th of 2024 attorney Reena brown chair Dan robelot Vice chair follower of a special Charter Review Committee dear chair attorney Reena Brown Vice chair Dan robelot and esteemed committee members we hope that letter finds each of you well on behalf of the Fall River Charter review initiative we extend our sincere

appreciation for your dedicated efforts and commitment to Public Service throughout this past year your work on the for ofer special Charter Review Committee has undoubtedly contributed to the betterment of our community we commend each and every one of you for your diligence and time invested in making recommendations for the chitt city Charter your commitment to this vital aspect of our our governance has

not gone unnotice and we express our gratitude for your public service the purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention an initiative that we the fall Riv Charter review initiative have recently launched our aim is to engage the community in a Grassroots effort to review and potentially reform the city Charter We Believe having two separate Charter efforts presented to the voters

simultaneously could lead to confusion in light of this we kindly request that the recommendation developed by the Fall River special Charter Review Committee be held in abeyance rather than forwarding the recommendations to the city council at this time we propose that these recommendations be kept on file this pause in forwarding the recommendations would allow for a unified and clear

presentation of Charter proposals to the voters by an elected Charter commission such an act would also put the Review Committee in compliance with Section 96 of the city Charter our proposal aligns with the principle of avoiding confusion ens shuring a coherent and informed decision-making process for the residents of Fall River furthermore we suggest that the special Charter Review

Committee refrains from forwarding any report to the city council until 2027 by that time an elected Charter commission chosen by the people could potentially take up the task of reviewing and updating the city Charter we acknowledge that 2027 is also the year prescribed by the current city Charter section 96 for the special Charter Review Committee to present a report the synchronized timeline would

be in accordance with the existing framework and allow for a comprehensive and well-informed Charter review process once again we extend our deepest appreciation for your service to the community we believe that this collaborative approach will serve the best interests of Fall River and its residents should you have any questions or F require further clarification please feel free to reach out and I

didn't print up the second page sorry to us we look forward to the continued dialogue and cooperation between our respective initiatives sincerely Nelson Vasquez General co-chair Colin Das co-chair director of communications and strategy Jeffrey Gordo co-chair field operations and Treasurer the Fall River Charter review initiative okay moving on any disc I should ask any disc any

this group how was this group formed was it just community members that were interested in taking up this issue I could not answer any of those questions I responded Mr Das sent that via email I responded I will submit your correspondence for public input at the January 22nd meeting I do not have the authority to uh make those decisions I'm just the chair and that was it that's all I know I have not

spoken to Mr Das I figured public input puts it out there for everybody there was an article in the paper um maybe not the maybe the F of a reporter that this committee had been formed and what my understanding is that they will be seeking an initiative petition to schedule election yes I make a brief comment absolutely thank you U I heard about this uh perusing Facebook I've known Colin and

Nelson for a while and they reached out to me I said very simply I see this as two separate efforts okay that the process that they are undertaking is the way that the initial shter commission was formed through getting a percentage of the registered voters to sign petitions for a chatter review I made it very clear to both of them that I see these processes as two very separ in very distinct processes I

also told them and I said very clearly on the record for anyone that wants to work one of about the 50 reasons that I opposed the original sh was because the re the reviews of this document were not going to be conducted by an elected sh commission when I was asked by president camarra to sit on this board I did so eagly because I thought that having a seat at any table is better than not

having any seat but in no way would I ever support this body's work being the way these are two separate in distinct actions we don't even know first of all unless they get the required signatures their initiative can't even go forward so that was my question that it's true you need you need 15% of the registered voters to sign I believe it's 15 somewhere between five and 15 I don't

want to be quoted on the percentage but that's the way the initial ch undertake again I wish them well if they bring me a petition I'll happily sign because I think elected sh commission are good but for now this is where we are our work should go forward we we've had 15 meetings we need to complete our task take votes on the documents that we're going to submit and whatever

happens happens then I Y I have one other comment I'm just I'm somewhat concerned about the timeline that this is being brought to the committee this these meetings have been public they've been in you know meeting for over a year now or at least a year and so I'm wondering about the timeliness of this request and how it dug tals with the the existing Charter and the requirement for this body to

meet and submit its report in that and so I would not support anything that's at odds with the current Charter yeah I um I I don't know either I I I hadn't even heard about it I hadn't I didn't I don't know I and you know I I kind of will Echo some of Dan's sentiment I'm excited people want to be involved in it but again I said we've had 15 or SO meetings two hours each

meeting we I I think as chairperson I've been extremely liberal with public input um up until now public input is at the beginning it's over there's not going to be any more public input during the meeting because I so I can't answer any of that I don't know I I I I did read an article though that um I think outlines some of the things that they wanted to do I can't remember

specifically um briefly looking at it I'm not sure if the charter could address everything they wanted to do in their proposed Charter recommendations um and others I like Dan um absolutely citizens should be involved but I questioned the same thing where well and I think the the timeline and and access to public comment was very liberal excessively I think and and Way Beyond what the

existing Charter called for so it just it's it's concerning to me to some degree that at this point in the in the work that we're being asked to pause and but but we don't have Mr one person minute that we're being asked to that's concern for three years but I don't think it's within our scope like I don't we were given a task and we were given the current Charter so

that's great we read it or whatever but what they're asking isn't within our power to do so I that's what I'm saying I wouldn't even discuss it anymore it's not within the responsibilities we were given and the tasks and the deadlines and all that that we were told to meet and the opportunity for that public comment and those recommendations to come forward that opportunity has been

missed right Trac but even if they made recommendation we couldn't do anything no but at least they could be heard so it could be part of the process and I think that's what they were saying they want this sort of collaborative process and I'm and I think everybody around this table's all for that but there was multiple opportunities for that to occur so I'm I'm curious about the timeline

you know them missing the timeline then asking for this um extension that's clearly at odds and you're right we don't have the authority but to even ask at this point it didn't seem like it was plausible Tim um I would say for the sake of you know we don't have the control or power to do anything with this request um not giving it much more Credence other than you readit to public

um you know our task is as such and you know I think we should be very cautious on how we talk about this too um we as a committee were appointed to do a task and I think from our perspective we've done a very good job at that um in the very strict timelines that we've had so I would say you know moving on don't give it too much more you know let's

continue doing what we need to do I I I'm in complete agreement like I said I appreciate the the actions of any citizens wantan to get involved in this uh and here we still have more meetings too this isn't like this is the anywhere near the last there's plenty of more public input available anything else may me no I mean I I agree with every everything that's been said uh I think

we have to continue to move forward with the task that we have at hand and they are definitely two separate entities right so motion to move on we got you all in favor to move on okay moving on motion best um I unfortunately I was trying to find my notes does anybody remember the specific part we stopped at last time Kathy you had a a ton of notes and because technically the very last

time wasn't the last meeting we had wasn't that just Mr V well last the last meeting was November 27th it was just Mr venice's public input I don't believe we discussed we didn't discuss oh here it is I got it my last notes 918 go back to September that actual I think votes and changes at least I printed this on 918 so it could have been in October um and I wasn't sure where we left off

did everybody get uh the clerks okay so there's 26 pages that Paul sent us that is the most updated uh draft y With The Changes up to that date right because I remember like under Article 2 legislation Branch we added uh City resident because it just said voter remember I was like does that mean somebody from Swansea come and we did change that already and then um prohibitions remember yes section 2

three we had to fix holding the other positions because that's what we referred to as kind of like that he hetler issue the hler Clause we changed that one too and then one issue I had with the exist the the updated that was sent missing page okay oh yeah all right so I had and that was a significant part of what we right I have page six on my old one but

I don't have it in the new one so five ends in access to information 2-7 it the next one should have been this sorry sorry uh section two -8 do you have it I will scan it I will scan it okay and in that one um that's the only page that was missing yes sorry so on that one did we um do anything with 210 I have I'm just going by my scribbling on the notes on

210 I under nined the 45th date and within 45 days did that stay because I have notes here about 30 but that might just be me talking to myself are you looking at you're not looking at S1 I'm looking at two section 2-10 okay because I notic something about the days two and 71 210 210 has 45 days for confirmations yeah it's on page six okay so we'll go we'll go back to page six at another

time so we'll just make notes Here the changes the only changes I make are based on 10 okay so but we will just just for sake of keeping it in order we'll review page six at the at at the 129 meeting just you know what I mean because everybody doesn't have it Paul will send it and then page seven um when it page seven we had to change the part about

May elected by the voters here it is we added any Resident who is a registered voter because remember we didn't have a Fall River resident in there so we changed that right and then one of the things I wanted to talk about is under article 3 Executive Branch the prohibitions it's D and it and this goes to the to this this proh I Clause is also in school committee and it's also

under um a lot of others it reads like this the mayor shall hold no other compensated City position no mayor no former mayor shall hold a compensated appointed City employment until one year following the date on which the former mayor City service has terminated this subsection shall not prevent a city employee who has vacated a position in order to serve as mayor from returning

rning to the same city employment held at the time the position was vacated provided however that no person shall be eligible for any other Municipal position until at least one year following the termination of service as a mayor this prohibition shall not apply to persons covered by a leave of absence under Section 37 of chapter 31 of the general laws and so I read that as saying if you were

uh the director of it you ran for mayor got the mayor then your two years's terms were up you could go back to director of it before the one year before the one year right away right and but it then it says though what if I I just I'm I'm I have a problem with that one year what if you are the director of it and your two years as mayor are up

and maybe the assistant to the director of it is available you

can't um there was a member of one of the boards and I just had a general question about what that board did he had resigned from the board I couldn't have a conversation with him about this general question because the year was not up uh from his resignation from that board and I just I get that you know we don't want to Foster an atmosphere as oh the former mayor be able to get a job anywhere

because he was from like nepotism but not related right but what if really good candidates qual because the city has so many job openings for qualified candidates and this year prohibition I mean can we put a clause in there that maybe in certain circumstances it can be waved or I just I you know I I a it's I wanted to put it out there for discussion I do not have a motion but I

wanted to talk about it question you my CU right and I think we started to discuss this at one meeting at some meeting prior before I don't know

when why would that person whoever they were I don't care to know who they are but why would they not be able to have a general conversation I I think I I didn't that I find Curious right I um I was under the impression that um I I and this was I'll tell you this it was another lawyer too and I had to wait because the year of his resignation

was up and I called him two days after the year was up and he said okay I can talk now but I'm curious why he felt he couldn't talk I think it's I I don't know I I don't know if it's this prohibition but that doesn't I don't think changing that though yeah there's nothing in here that says they can't talk a rumor we don't know yeah well I I don't know if if these prohibitions this

prohibition needs to be clarified I just it's always been problematic for me like uh you know there's nothing in any of them like the water department is always like licensing is a big issue for the for people that work in the water department department is one of those departments that in order to have certain positions in there you have to have certain licenses and uh you know not everybody has the credentials for

those jobs and often times they go vacant for a while because they either can't get good candidates or they don't have the licensing I mean in those circumstances if you've got a great candidate coming out of an elected office we C they can't even consider that person for a year and I just always thought there's got to be some kind of exception there like you served on the commission right the the

preservation are you still on it or CPA so after you re retired from that board well it's like you weren't fired so you retired off it right um could you could you you wouldn't have been able to get a job like in preservation let's just say they were hiring a director would is there does that same prohibition apply to all the boards like when you got on it and got

off did they say you can't talk to anybody about it so maybe the person I spoke to didn't know but that's what I mean I mean like what if there's really good candidates for jobs I don't think we have any just respect to the mayor right not necessarily board members but but I mean it mayor this might have been a compensated board position that's different it might have been a compensated board

position because many of the boards are not I can understand the mayor most yeah right I mean if you're the mayor and you're going to go back to a previous job then obviously you know there probably isn't going to be any benefit to you from your position going back to the position you previously held but if you're going from mayor to another city position you know you could potentially

continue your policies through some um and I I understand that may not apply to other City officials but for the mayor I think the wording here is a little bit it makes it seem like it's the mayor and everyone else and maybe that's what you mean it shouldn't be for everyone else I you know or for no one I don't know it's the only reason why I brought like let's

just we can talk about the current mayor he was the former principal of dery right VI vice vice principal right what if the next election rolls around and he's not elected and the vice principal or even principal position is open my candidate for a different position in Administration in the school department let's say it's the principle of you know uh Sylvia school um and although they

take applications he's the most qualified he wouldn't even he wouldn't even be able to apply for the year like I just thought that that this what do you think the reason for that prohibition is I think it's for what you're saying to not unduly influence probably some city employees but in your example that wouldn't be the case because someone going from mayor to be a vice principal or principal at dery or a

school is not going to be able to push policies along that's what I mean still compensated City position so how do you Rectify that so that if if you want to clarify that up we have to come up with some scope of what positions that might include which probably would only be in this building or somewhere associated with you know a director of this building because outside of that I mean there's a lot of City positions

that would not any influence from a prev from a mayor post mayorship and I mean I just one of the number one problems Fall River has is filling compensated administrative positions and if it's not licensing or credentials it's background and experience right many no there's a ton but I mean I just you know you know I just I I thought it was something that I would would love for us to look at and maybe

revisit maybe we take our Collective Minds back either an exception or an exemp yeah or like some kind of exemption like um that's probably easier to come up with than figuring out where it would fall exactly that Line's going to fall yes do the exemption as versus you know who outlining every sing position exactly how would you phrase an exception in Cas I I think that it has to be something on a caseby casee basis

that maybe the council votes on I mean maybe somebody else looks at it and says well it determines whether or not yeah determines you know is the do we need a person to fill that so bad that we should really consider hiring this person before the year is up other than any of the other candidates right um and I I don't know who would do that but something like that where the approval

of the exemption is subject to review by somebody I don't I don't know who right but that's what I mean us to say as a committee maybe we can figure that out yes very yes the city council in the existing J already confirms all positions well just the head ones I don't believe for example uh on tomorrow night's Council agenda the mayor is nominating a new fire chief that fire chief is going to

be voted upon by the city council as far as I'm aware and I don't have my original Bible in front of me and one of the things I'm eager to do when we get our final report before we vote on it I want to sit with the original Bible and compare the original Bible sh Bible to our recommendations but as I recall all all positions are confirmed by the counil not every single one but we can

take a look at it I just I just want to C all boards and commissions and most department heads and the mayor doesn't hire him he makes recommendations they approve or deny the recommendation he doesn't do the hiring the council approves or or the council thumbs up or thumbs down at that's what I said yeah the council confirms right all hiring basically um well if that's the case or

something similar then I mean it could be an easy exemption process right confir all no not all very many it doesn't you get a job in if you get a job in the Department of Public Works to drive a truck they do not confirm that that hiring it's just a department heads Administration um right and whatever the the um the regs say but I can tell you this that's new in the current CH no

they do they do not confirm everything the department has they do but anyways moving on can we um maybe try to Fashion an exemption and come back and and go to it I'll put it on the agenda for prohibitions um and and that applies to the prohibitions you'll see it again in the charter and other places but I always thought that that one year just kept good people okay from good

positions um and then that only be applicable to the mayor well there's the same language is in school committee and I think it's someplace else in here is the school committee counil yeah yeah it's in Council school committee mayor that prohibition paragraph is in the three places but if we could fashion something you know and then put it to a vote well just because in this in this one it does include

others so it's not just focused on the mayor so we might want to tidy that up a little bit too right so so look you're right it says this subsection shall not prevent a city employee so you're right it it includes a lot so I I just like I said I I don't have to say it again I just think that it's I get why but yeah there's got to be some there's got to be an

exemption well what you said before I thought sounded pretty good which is that you can keep the exempt the oneye limitation and then have subject to approval approval you know by the city council say somebody you know if there's a need right so like you said if there someone has specific talents and you know and that is needed in the city the city council could have a hearing and

make an exemption right and could and could pass a resolution to if the is in there just stating who and how it gets that also have to be some kind of so this is the great area though with this because you know if you have a mayor an ex- mayor who is very you know close with a lot of members of the city council working very well together um

you there have to be some kind of levels of requirement you know from background experience that would allow the mayor to be qualified in a slightly different way right maybe right so that would be part of the exemption we'd have to come up with is what is that IIA like you know a mayor can't just say oh I want to be the fire chief and I'm going to go be a fire

chief right right I no I get what you're saying I mean they would have to meet the qualifications so we have to come up with something where that is very spelled out where the exemption is detailed exactly the gray area and now all of a sudden you know in the future someone could go and do a job that they're not qualified for but the council approved them and here you know

now we're in a situation that I think the language was trying to avoid but I understand that there needs to be an exemption so I would say like like you know one of my questions is this and I'm this is just a hypothetical let's just say the the special Charter review finishes its tasks our committee is dissolved because it gets done What if Paul mashad offered a job as Corporation counsel does that mean

that he couldn't entertain it for a whole year this is this is not a paid position no but is it just paid I believe I believe I see no other compensated positions all right so it's just compensated right okay see so unless you're compensated on the board right it's a city compensated position then you know there would be some yeah I mean I see it in section 2-3a is about city council what does it

again say those off two D 3 a yep city council and then 3-1 D is the mayor yep and then next one is is probably going to be school four D3 is the school committee four D3 okay I don't see anything in terms of other any others all right I it oh nice okay all right they took not I'm taking better notes um anybody with section 3-2 go ahead Tim oh no I'm good all right I'm

good and then appointments by the mayor all appointments to multi-member body shall be under Article Five and you know what I did want to ask what see how when they um refer you to another article like see how it says Article 5 do you think in parenthesis we should put Administration administrative organization in parenthesis after the referral like put the title of the article that they refer to or just leave

it you know what I do you know what I mean you know think that when they refer to aticle section 210 that's specific enough you want to have the title also I I'm I'm just wondering no it's a lot of like city council confirmation no okay all right I got you think it just be too much words um so hey Dan I hate to get off the beaten path but Dan I want to read

the city council confirmation of certain appointments the mayor shall refer to the city council and simultaneously file with the city clerk the name of each person he desires to appoint as a city officer department head or a member of a multi-member board City officer basically means an employee you're referencing 210 yeah because Dan said everybody but it's not everybody it's just a a city officer

department head or member of a multi-member board that encompasses quite a few people with all the yeah no I hear you but I I knew it was somewhere in the charter I just didn't know where all right so um three we didn't 33 were all okay eliminate the term City officer previously we did somewhere we did because remember attorney Rumsey said that it didn't make any sense because um did we make a motion to take

out that City officer everywhere I believe we did yeah I believe so tell you when or how shall we shall we make it again I think we took it out of the definition the definitions uh yes we took City officer so it's just City department head so we took officer okay did we take it out of everywhere or just through the whole thing okay unless is that what the vote was well that I

don't know I make a motion that we take City officer out of everywhere it's in the charter well I would say before we vote to that we may want to know where they are yeah through them so so um you got do you want to go through it and then find out where it is and then at the next meeting you'll give us it and then we can do one motion and site every

section is that sound all right all right Tim to find city officer officer and we will does that get replaced by something so I guess we had it defined as City department head right instead of City officer or department head so I guess we're gonna I'm going to pull out all the points where City officer is referenced and then that would be perfect we can decide if it makes sense to remove it or we have to

add another definition we remove in definitions there was that phrase City officer and we had discussion about it and we were like yeah we spoke with Alan we've got department heads and we've got City officer was too broad of yeah it there was no way to figure out nobody really off to in that manner anymore so it's confusing right so the if we take like in this one for

instance in 210 if we take it out the sentence changed would read the mayor shall refer to the city council and simultaneously follow with the city clerk the name of each person he desires to appoint as a department head or as a member of a multi-member board see City officer was in there before but no there's we don't we don't call anybody officers anymore we took it out of definitions but Tim that's a great

idea however did City officer also apply to other employees that's what I'm try to Fig so um I think that's why I think it's important that we look at every single reference to it and then the context of it because that may mean that there is a couple places where City off I'll do I'm gonna check with the clerk to see if anybody has a title that's also good officer Paul Mado or

officer Dan robelot because if somebody has officer in their title I'll try to figure it out like the only we know that there's police officers right that's not referring to that no but I'll check with the clerk's office to see if there is a job title that says City officer officer of the trash cans I we because right really we really don't know right so I'll check with her check with the Reena

check with clerk what on employment it's really Animal control officer I can tell you right now yeah yeah but they might that that name might have might have changed because you know in this political climate what was the old definition of City offic would that be called a department head no no that's what I mean you but he's right so is he's a it's a police officer though that's why he's the dog officer it's a

part of the police department I don't know about now yeah but what I'm saying is that the trim City officer so so the approval is needed for Department heads members of multiple bodies but also there are other city employees who I think need to be approved and so we have to describe that better than City officer yeah I'll check with the clerk on these employment titles regarding

City officer right and I'm also going to get a list of actually what has to be approved by the council right because they must have a list we know who the department heads are right and we know who the multi-member board members are I'm going to ask her Who falls under this city officer that they would have to approve that isn't a department head and isn't a member of a multi-member board like the

CFO is the Chief Financial Officer would the city clerk be a officer would you know who we have to find out yeah I will We Will and I'll put it back on there when I yes because we do have a CFO there is a chief financial officer would be right right no CEO I'll check yeah all right anything um can I can I bring up something that I noticed and

you guys other attorneys can also um we try about the being more explicit on the article like I think we either need to do that like adding what the article is or we need to say herein or something because I know there's we're trying to deal with ambiguity and if you say 2 point if you say Article Five there are a lot of article fives now assumption is Article 5 here in this in this but

somewhere in this document whether we do it for each time time it's reference or somewhere in the beginning that we reference that every reference to an article is referencing this document here in or we say it every time or we reference a little bit more saying the name of the article so it'll be easy to not misunderstand that you're talking about you know the mayor's prohibitions

instead of it being article two section this- this all of that is very no but I know what he's I know what you're saying leg somebody might might read this and see Article Five and think is it Article Five of the Constitution of the United States the Declaration of Rights and let's say there's some consistency somewhere so maybe in the definition maybe you can come up with a line in the definitions like you know in

the we have a de we have a table of contents and we do have a table of definitions that are not attached to this that you guys have been working on but maybe somewhere you can add that paragraph that any reference to articles or sections are the references to this Charter's articles and sections yeah we could do that or you just put here and after every time you reference it I don't know how many times it's

referenced but there's also that so we don't like lawyers don't like that word here and two4 I I know here and two four and you know what else we don't like forth with forth with not withstanding all the good stuff thank you somebody invented those yeah I think we could just the name of the article after definition have to FP we can just a little instruction take out the all references to articles are to the

articles of this perfect that's a great idea actually okay there you go Mr clerk um so we're at three three appointments by the mayor anything anybody or temporary appointments to city offices or removal or suspension of certain officials Right Moving On by the way that doesn't mean if you go back and read this all later on we can't come back okay all righty and then uh section

38 well no let me go through it right 36 communication special meetings anybody comments approval of Mayor veto and now section 38 temporary absence of the mayor did we ever change uh other cause or Define it did you define it in the definitions section 38 tempor temporary absence of the mayor acting mayor whenever by reason of sickness or other cause the mayor's unable to perform the duties for

21 days did we Define other cause in the definitions no did we decide there was we had a lot of talk on it we did okay we did these changes would be based on what we actually okay okay so we already did and I believe that we talked about um remember you that's why we ended up putting the 21 days in because yeah it if we left something out we'd be in

trouble if we put too much in yes okay moving any more discussion on temporary absence just one small change in the event that a mayor announces his inability should be changed to there yeah where is it the second to last in 38 t h i r is there a motion to change the is there other places though in the charter that they refer to it in one specific gender can we can can I make a motion

that any gender references become there gender there gender neutral and is the plural gender neutral it would be there his or her would be there where are we looking section uh in section 38 Tim go to a is the second to last line on a why what do you what do you what do you it's plural and singular are you looking at the latest one no right where where did he where he put

where did they go or where did he go I don't know where oh wait yeah no but I'm saying is that the gend neutral pronoun there yes t h e i r right theend so I make a motion that any of the language be modified to a gender neutral pronoun I make a motion I second thank you we got a second I was still thinking though okay any any um further discussion on the motion

for uh the pronouns to be gender neutral I have a second no discussion all in favor I I I I anybody else did it go all the way down C Tim um gender neutral pronoun motion uh I know yeah I don't know um necessarily about the gender neutral pronoun call okay okay before we do a rollal can we hear from the people that are opposing it as to why maybe I had to I asked for

discussion anybody want to make a comment I just think there's a way to to maybe rephrase that without even using a gender pronoun at all so I think if there are if there are es right I think we could just review a couple of those areas and then make a decision on whether or not there that pronoun needs to be there and then we can make a decision right right right and I think

the thing the the thing that sticks out to all of us is is just the the word his the May being referred to as a man so that could be rephrased in the event that the mayor announces an an in yeah before I so okay I withdraw my I withdraw my yes the vote's not over so don't worry we can I can with I'll withdraw the motion I'll withdraw the

motion I like what Tim is saying so and there may be cases where we do need to address that I don't I'll withdraw the motion and then the new motion is on Section 3-8 small a in the second to last session my motion is that his be changed to an an a have a second second all any more discussion on changing his to and in 3-8 no discussion all in favor I Mr Vice

chair no so uh motion passes six in favor one opposed all righty so that's there that was his to an correct yes his to a an and and is that a general motion where we're going to remove no just this one just this one mine was just on Section 38 I withdrew my motion on what I'm saying is we could go through and I think we need to do that and and and change language that

language that avoids avoids pronouns well the motion can even be we change it to a gender neutral pronoun or eliminate the need for the pronoun and then then it's encompassing either way right to eliminate the need for the pronoun at all but it does it won't hang us up on each one right want to go through it and just let us know if that when that happens tellu okay that's the only one I

so I make a motion that the clerk can go through this and bring to our attention when that

arises right good point all right moving on Powers of acting mayor any comments no moving on to C and D secession or vacancy 39 delegation of authority by mayor vacancy in the office of Mayor I have oh during the 21 oh day needs an S that's what I my my comment is in 3101 in 310 vacancy in the office of Mayor the second sentence greater than 21 days plural s all right any other

discussion okay moving on again we can always go back section 311 planning section 312 strategic plan any discussion article four school committee um did you do the changes there about making them yep resident and registered voters nice job Mr clerk I know is time consuming any discussion in those okay moving on 43 uh prohibitions no former member of the school committee shall hold any

compensated appointed city office or city employment until one year following the date on that Member Service on the school committee terminated and this is what I'm talking about what if we have a great teacher on the school committee they can't become employed as a teacher they can't be on the school committee if they're a teacher so they would have to resign from the but I mean they just

have to choose that they can't be that's what I'm saying oh that's right they only take one Sal they can only take one salary so they could go back to being teacher because they they can keep it right okay fine language for an exemption could we also look at like maybe doing like an overarching prohibition section instead of it being individualized because I think it comes up what three

times yeah yeah you know that that's that's like do a whole different section yeah that's just prohibitions like employment prohibitions or yeah whatever we name it but then we just include whatever the exemptions are the process and then it applies to every whatever you know school school committee mayor however we want to city council city council um and then that just allows us to focus in on one

paragraph and then we can move on right because every time we go through these sections we're going to have to go back and modify and refer those those three others there's a note in my former in the in the former copy that says mimic two and three we know that we want the language to read the same across I I think that's a great idea because then like like that that member of that board

that said I had to wait until his year was up I think it would make it clearer for th for those people as well like and it's the same across the board right okay regardless of the position you hold the prohibitions are are there but I yeah I think it's a good idea to kind of because that was the issue in the lawsuit was the Prohibition and you're right if we have a separate section for

those prohibitions pull them out of each one and then we can address compensated board members Department you know yeah great idea more detail all right so we I'm gonna put that over on the 129 um because that gives us it gives us a week to kind of yeah everyone can bring up some kind of suggestion and we can figure it out and there's different ways to frame it in there in the um in

the charter itself too like it can be a reference to so that can be there referencing this section that we add so it doesn't change table content to make it complicated or we can spend the time and reformat it Madam yes sir may ask uh my colleague Mr M a question no absolutely go ahead Mr M piggy backing slightly because I'm slightly confused on what the was not the issue in the head for

Cas his the only issue was whether or not he could run for aected office correct so that's different the SE discussing is it not he they no they challenged the prohibition Clauses in

his we'll get you the decision you can read it but that that's what was kind of challenged in that is that they were telling him he he going back to my service on the original CH commission I everybody not to put that language in because you would exclude somebody from running for public office I cited the very example and before anybody asked me why did that occur because that's the language we were given by the

consultant and eight of the members voted to leave that language in I oppos that we're going to fix it now though Dan well no I I hear you it caused a it caused a lot it it created uh it it it spent a lot of our tax dollars both ways Dan by paying those people to put it in there and then defending the lawsuit so that was an expensive Boo Boo by that company but

but but I but I could be wrong the and I'm happy to be corrected the the section that you just cited is different I think from the head Cas I'll get the decision I can I answer it next week absolutely okay all right so uh moving on compensation and expenses um school committee powers and duties any comments concerns moving on again when I say moving on I don't mean moving on and can't ever go back

uh section 46 meetings of the school committee interference with Administration I I do have a question though because we do have a school Committee Member here and I this was my question section 47 interference with Administration the school committee or any member thereof shall not give orders or directions to any employee of the school department appointed by the superintendent either publicly or

privately I I do have a little problem with that and here's the deal um like does does that mean like if teacher to make sure they let you know when he doesn't do his homework like like you know they put these broad lines in here it is Broad but obviously that's not the truth the in so the intent or the truth because any parent has the right to question any teacher right if they house are teaching

their child but in different instances no they cannot tell anybody in the just we cannot tell anybody in the tell anybody to do or request they're not right we not their employer employee related or employment related request right but it's just that it's kind of broad like I said you got a school committee member with who is also a parent which has happened manytimes and I you know and

the p and and they call and say hey I want to know when Johnny doesn't do his homework that's fine violates that Clause no it doesn't no it doesn't she's giv she's giving some an employee a private order that's not an order okay a request as a parent I can teacher and say I'd like to know if my son or daughter is missing any assignments well I maybe something that you know it

doesn't include this parent teacher thing there parent portals where you can work everything up I mean I wouldn't be opposed to adding a sentence with that it doesn't is important because there is a lot of ambiguity there and if there was some kind of conflict all someone has to do is go back and say you said this and this email privately and doesn't matter what it was about now I agree with you

it it shouldn't be that way but all we need to do is put something clarifying it for City business or something again not I didn't like that language because I can I'm sure in the council section there there were there were argument not arguments there were discussions in the first CH commission about council's rights to question department heads yeah yeah I mean like let's just

say I keep picking on you because you're only a committee man here what if Mimi calls the principal of dery and says hey give me a heads up when your Christmas party is I want to know ahead of time so I can do this this and this I mean that's what this line says you can't do right you know and I remember I think I was talking to another Committee Member

and I says hey uh and she says says yeah no we can't do that we can't contact them on behalf of anybody they can't call and so I went all righty I just think that it's too vague it's too big we either have to write in there you know ordering them around like you you call the principal and say hey as matters pertaining to City business because realistically it's anything that's not City business if you're a

parent or you're just a normal City resident and you have something to say to somebody you shouldn't be VI be outside the scope of you could say something that that would be outside the scope of normal or like parent teacher parent principal parent right any parent duty of the normal boundaries of Citizen it's just yeah like you know now every time I read it can't shall not give

orders or directions to any employee you know what if a brand new what if your niece gets a job and she's a brand new substitute teacher and she doesn't of stuff that that line is bugging me about like regular everyday advice or input you can't privately and publicly and boy you know that kind of violates your First Amendment right to free speech it's telling you you can't have those conversations with anybody

Mimi so if a intern gets a job at the school department and wants to pick your brain about something a lot of people they can't have conversations in this document I I know it's troubling to me but anyways well in this particular case what's the point of the right I mean maybe in some other sections there may be a point not that it's right or wrong but this doesn't what's the point of

that statement is it to keep what from happening I think it's to to keep from you know using your influence on the school committee to get something done right oh that's definitely that's definitely the interpretation that's I think the intent is that you know as a school Committee Member you don't kind of abuse your author authority of course Mimi call she's school well Mimi called

she's school she's a school Committee Member I better do it you know so they don't feel influenced but I think we can clean that up I can tell you what the discussion was in the first J commission it wasid they they talked about a city council calling the department head for X Y and Z so I I never like the language I voted against the whole section I voted 99% of

the whole sh did vote against the whole sh so there's a lot of stuff in here I mean I there's nothing in there for city council it's only in there for school committee no it's in there for it's in here for department heads it's in there for department heads interference with is it labeled the same appointments it talks about council is having to submit uh direct question the department head

before there is no no no no there is I you know interference with administra there is no interference with Administration in Council two three yeah section 2-3 it's B under prohibitions interference with Administration okay all right except for employees appointed in accordance with Section 28 city council or any member of the city council shall not give orders or directions to any employee of the city

either publicly or privately it's exactly the same language I knew it was there I just thought after I think it needs to be um tightened up I just think both of them then and if it has it in there well it must not have it from mayor the mayor must be able to give some orders right the only thing with that one is it's a little bit better because it says interference with Administration so at

least there's some reference to administering government you know City business whereas this other one is very much much open-ended well you know why they didn't put it in it and it because they because they titled it I mean it says interference with Administration so we have it there too so I mean again it's one of those where we might be able to like the prohibitions you know the having just an

overreaching section that qualifies how we're going to Define that right I mean the other question is so so Mimi if so if you call up and violate this what happens okay I mean that's the other thing that I always wondered about this Charter I mean we we did put our grievance committee in but you know there's got to be free flow of certain information between entities especially the

school well what would it be deemed not interference if there's a middleman in the you know some other somebody or group or committee that's there not give that whole language I I just think it should come out I really do I mean if if Mimi as a school Committee Member calls up a teacher and says listen and don't forget next week not under our scope our scope is to to report to

discuss the superintend right but I mean I'm just saying ju if if you did we're overstepping you're overstepping but you guys have your own guidelines right what happens well they can file an Ethics complaint right right it it then turns into something a little think these interfer Administration covered in something under the school board and I would assume it's covered under something else for the city

council I I bet you most of the members don't call that's an OB definitely in the ethics as so then we don't even need it in here I I don't even like it it's covered there I just I always thought it should come out when I read it the 20 times I was like let me look at the uh the paragraph in the ethics watching a committee meeting yeah I mean maybe you

put something in that that you know elected officials abide by the ethical guidelines set out by blah blah blah blah blah but to just blatantly say you can't you know because anybody can interpret this in a yeah problematic and challengeable because if you are you are violating someone's First Amendment right and we've already had sections chall got so prohibition section school committee interference Mimi will check

it all interference Mimi will get check we take it out there should come out on the exactly because I you know sometimes the councils especially around budget time don't they call department heads and have questions and stuff list you've been to city council meeting as I have many how many times that and said didn't they why didn't they call beforehand and why are we sitting here for 45 minutes all right so

Mimi will check the school committee ethics stuff and then will we visit that on the next meeting is that all right okay maybe like an abuse of powers kind of I think an abuse of power section because then we can just it's all under It's all under the abuse of power forget about the prohibitions I like that abuse of power prohibition that is nice abuse of power I like that word uh moving on three

words can I go back yes no you stay right there with your pen we previously talked about the hille decision where are we and I'm 912 we didn't get changed I think we changed that and that's specifically as a city employee may see wait a minute wait a minute wait wa get there 912 City employ 912 limitation on office holding a city employee May seek an elected office so we we had already changed that to

address the exell decision okay so it's not applicable to the prior provision that we all right this is 912 yeah 912 limitation and office holding so we already changed it he ran show not the run all right so filling of vacancies uh 48 is everybody any discussion art Article Five administra administrative organization organization of City agencies any discussion moving on to the Merit

principal no discussion yet okay article six six finance and fiscal procedures 61 62 63 64 any discussion fiscal year annual B page 15 Section 65 Capital Improvement program section 66 independent audit any discussion moving on section 67 68 69 and 610 expenditures in excess of Appropriations quarterly budget updates long-term Financial forecast public access to financial documents you did say we could bring

these all up again all up again yeah absolutely thank you yeah absolutely anybody we're going to come back and visit this I'm need to read this a little more all right I'm talking to myself sorry everybody this section 67 expenditures in excess of Appropriations I'm going to revisit it article seven elections preliminary election I had something in that paragraph I had my notes that we changed the date the number of

days based on the recommendation from the election from Ryan lions from Ryan and in my notes I have the problem is in my notes I have two different recommended days so are you talking about the last line I'm yes just let me make the record clear article 7 elections section 71 preliminary elections and um chair person yeah just read that into the record whenever a special election to fill a vacancy is to be held

a preliminary election shall be conducted if necessary 28 days before the date established for the special election and ran said he thought 28 days was too quick and it was very difficult to me and in my notes I had it change a minimum of 35 days and then the recommendation was 45 days 45 days and then I don't know if we V on that but I have 35 and 45 but it remains 28 yeah I

remember 45 I don't know if we voted on it either did we vote if not can we just make a motion can we make a motion to make it 45 days you guys can do whatever you want go ahead right so I make a motion motion for 45 second motion made for 45 days by Dan seconded by Mimi laravie any further discussion to change the last line in article 7 elections specifically section

7-1 the the motion is when a special election to fill a vacancy is to be held a preliminary election shall be conducted if necessary 45 days before the date established for a special election is that the motion yes all in favor I all opposed any does you want to say anything else I'm I saw your hand I didn't okay so uh motion passes it will be changed to

45 moving on preliminary election procedures yeah we may want to look at that because at the bottom of a it does talk about the 45th day so the form shall be submitted to the Board of Elections honor before 5:00 in the afternoon on the 45th day prior to the deed the preliminary election um just read it into the a record what you're um addressing section 7-2 preliminary election procedures

chair um Committee Member um Tim is bringing up the forms shall be submitted to the Board of Elections honor before 5 o'clock in the afternoon on the 45th day may appear in the ballot for only one office at any preliminary regular or special so 45 was the time in there okay but there's no motion to change that no no I just want bring it up it was 45 just to confirm that we were right

before and I think it just all right moving on ballot position we eliminated the lottery correct we put alphabetical determination of candidates office of Mayor City Council I have something here that says fix if the preliminary election was a time on lowest of vote would entitle a candid reing the same That cand official ballot all a TI oh this is about the preliminary that both will go on there

where are you in determination of candidates I'm under um um under determination of candidates little three I I I got it yep but I it doesn't shall be printed the B exceeding twice the number elected but I don't think it needed to be fixed I just wrote notes that said that oh and then we did condition making preliminary unnecessary we changed something and I think we need to go back for a second so we

took the clerk clk's office out of Elections absolutely remember so go into the elections commissions wait a second it says and the form shall be SED to the Board of Elections commit for certification of the names on or before the 14th day preceding he what it would right uh so condition making preliminary unnecessary if at the expiration of the time for filing statements of candidates to be

voted for At Any preliminary election not more than twice how as many statements have been filed with the city clerk should that say elections or does it stay city clerk City I Believe come because would f a paper with the city clerk dealing with election but should well then should it say City Clerk and elections or should it just say elections I believe my memory is that we took the city clerk to election

completely out of the election so yes would be the answer then so it should say two go ahead elections if so such statements have been filed with the city clerk for an office as are to be elected for such office that should say City it should city clerk should be out and it should say board read Board of Elections it should say it should

say and does that it should say Board of Elections and does that also apply to printing the names on the ballot responsible yes um the order of the names but I think they said they're responsible for them yeah yeah but it abely the ballot position the order of which names candidate for each office appear in the ballot shall be alphabetically we don't to put Board of Elections in there no no but number

D it should say not more than twice as many such statements have been filed with the Board of Elections for an office as our elected to such office right you talking about the conditions for for womenary election right and then those candidates shall be voted on for such succeed the regular and the city clerk shall not print those names it should be the Board of Elections should not print those names right Board of

Elections shall not print those names does everybody see where we're at um and no other not okay by the way just so everybody know this involvement with the city cour in this process this is new in this CH before this CH passed City nothing nothing to do with it I know I know I know all right seven three regular city election 74 and uh 76 I have in my notes that 74 should read ballot position City

elections and the regular was taken out but I don't know if that was voted on 74 yeah ballot position City elections rather than not regular all of them so would yes so yeah regular was supposed to come out believe okay moving on 75 nonpartisan right that would be section

7.32 that is C all right oh yeah I didn't read that that's different than a special election all right so are we that s 7576 okay moving on 77 application of general laws any more okay moving on article eight citizen participation mechanisms 81 free petition 82 citizen initiatives any discussion we Chang we did change we did we lowered them yeah uh but any further discussion okay moving on D action on

POS petitions submission of initiative petitions publication form of question we changed that too remember but no I no we didn't change that it was the recall never mind me never mind me my friends any discussion Moving On Again can always come back I can't say that enough section 83 citizen referendum procedures and ineligible measures any further discussion I believe we we did we did um 5% recall

85 application recall petition recall election recall of one or more office holder recall election ballots we changed a lot of we changed a lot of it what people think we changed any holder it I can't it it had three months or after they take office um recall 10 voters 10 persons uh timing we changed a lot but the these are the new changes all right moving on and required voter participation

submission of other matters conflicting provisions moving on General Provisions Charter changes severability specific provision to Prevail rules and regulations periodic review I know what I wanted to do I got notes here all right periodic review 95 so we changed a lot of it we changed it but hang on I just want to go back up here the voters oh it says it voters in the city okay then I'm all done

because okay I ignore me I like it when we note out that it's voters in Fall Riv right I have a note on 96 and I don't know if what I meant but maybe you got you clarify next to 96 it says I have my note says must be stat language and then it says strike 96 passed on 5823 I had a striking it out too because something about statutory language the

rationale behind striking that piece was we all agreed that it needs to be statuto language we 96 the whole thing I thought we struck it right out yeah that's why when it came up again in the new I I had that and it was passed on 58 um because of the way it's written the language is not appropriate I have I'll check the minutes you'll check them okay so why don't we make a note that we're

gonna hang on let me write this down now the language that's here for 96 is different than what was in the original what date I'm sorry what date did you say we pass on 5'8 okay go ahead Kathy I'm sorry to interrupt no what was it what's in there now for 96 is not the same langage that was in the original charter so did we move to strike it and

did we fix the language yeah it's very different maybe that's now statuto statutory language yeah because we had I remember we talking about we need to go back and see said 58 we struck the whole SE what and why Paul will check so Paul will check check the minutes check the minutes it was definitely changed and quite substantially actually it was yes it for me because this said strike and

then it appeared yes the language is different but I didn't know if there

was well you know what the problem is I got 10 of these printed up already with notes on all 10 I don't have one running one I used to have a the original one running so I like it when he sends updateds but then I got to go back to see what I did what my other notes said right all right uniform procedures governing multi-member bodies moving on there is oh I know what

I wanted to he put registered vote oh it's voters of the city registered voters of the city voters of the cities on oh no I'm in the wrong SE we're on uh I went to 97 97 uniform procedures yeah you know something I think I had that home 96 out to okay oh is that what officers me I was just saying this is officers that's what so it's the chair Vice chair and Secretary

of of a multi-member board or body that's what an officer is apparently according to this maybe we answer our own question yeah from earlier so I was right that's where the year comes that guy on that board read this I can't talk about anything that's where he got it from if he served as an officer on the board like we are some of us are and some of us aren't

right oh we're officers right so and you guys are not officers right so there's different so we can talk but you can't right see that's why we got to fix that doesn't make sense you're right that's why we're fixing it Tim's going to write something so phenomenal so I'm going to put n okay so but this 97 by the way we need to revisit because this whole name officers right so 97 mentions it officers that's what

happened we need to fix okay yes yes sir it was just raised again I'm extremely curious what did your I'll call that I don't know who it was what did the person say they could not discuss discuss or answer the question I had I had a general question of subject matter of that board it was just a general question like do I need to get my dog his rabis shot it was like

a general it wasn't that dog question and he said well it's two days after my retirement I can talk about it and I went well what do you me is that reference here yeah I didn't see it that's what I'm saying you're talking about section 9-7 no no no no he's asking me again about my prohibition story and I said maybe that's where he gets it from because he might have been an

officer does it say it do it doesn't say it here but remember how it said it in prohibition said officers for a year blah blah blah and then here's where officers came up so he must have thought okay now we he must have been I don't know what his position was but he must have been in offic can I ask a legal question for just a sec sure I'll do my best answer m

is a wealth of knowledge on the on the fact of like uh silencing someone on a board when and I don't know the process of this so I could be wrong but are they signing non confidentiality agreements non disclosure agreements so then realistically you cannot silence anyone to do anything without there being some legal document that they either sign upon taking the position or upon leaving

the position because there's nothing else well the language in prohibition says orders or directions right it says directives or orders now if I call Dan and say do I have to get my dog a rabies shot and he says yeah you got to go get your dog a Raby shot is that an order or a directive because I I take it as a directive and question the prohibition for an officer

says he can't give me a directive for you I'm not I'm not giving you if we want a micro lawyer this to to death I'm not giving you a directive you ask the question well I no I think you're confusing the two of them though because the one is holding other City positions which is the year but then the other is the interference with Administration under prohibitions but there's no time

frame on that no I'm talking about the prohibition said officers department heads and school committee and this thing right so I must have called that person they must have been um a chair Vice chair I don't know I didn't know I just called because I knew right I said hey and he went oh you're in luck it's two days after my retirement but I don't think that there's anything that says that you can't speak

well the person that is the elected member cannot call you and say I was going through the files and notice you didn't have your dog his rabot RAB shot you need to go and do that because I'm the director of this board and not that's the differ I mean I me that's why that prohibition stuff makes me nuts it's Contex a little I get it I get it um 97 uniform procedures governing multi-member boards so 9

seven okay um any references to laws 99 computation of time 910 SS or affirmations any discussion yet today just today okay 910 um OLS 911 certificate of election or appointment

uh 9912 limitation 913 felony conviction 914 enforcement of the charter Provisions any more discussion yeah where's the grievance committee with the 914 oh yeah is it in there paragraph Okay in order of enforcement Charter got it got it what does this mean though if it I'm under 914 under enforcement of Charter Provisions everybody I'm five sentences down I'm just going to read it into the

record if it appear shall appear to the city council that the mayor personally is not following the charter what does the mayor personally not following it does personally have to be there can it just be the May or not following all right so then the new would it be better so just would read if it shall appear to the city council that the mayor is not following the charter right as versus personally right would

following be the proper word there I don't know but I wanted personally out for sure person oh adhering to oh like a different word for following ading to um yeah maybe we get a synonym for following yeah I mean in any of those we just said adhering abiding just something that's more reference to a document because it it sounds uh it's there's a better word then follow that's all um the city council shall by

resolution direct the attention of the mayor to those areas in which it believes there is a failure to comply the procedures are available in 231a of the general laws May Ed to determine the rights Duty status or other legal erations arising under the stat Charter including any questions of construction or vality the grievance committee did did we keep all this language in does it look different

um only a little bit the notes that I have to talk about the grievance committee but it also talks about s to 14 days to review the grievance and there's no Tim in yeah I think the language we used for this was different than what's in here I don't remember I have seven to 14 days I have that too it looks like that first part is just what was on the original and

then yeah I think this needs uh this needs updating the appointments are right appointment by one member by the mayor one by the city council one by the school committee and then but the timeline is there seven to 14 days so I think the first paragraph needs to be changed too yeah it shall be the duty I I not only should it be the duty of the mayor it should also be the duty of

the mayor the school committee and the city council I mean you've got to self-govern you know um all elect officials I think it should say yeah it shall be the duty of all the elected officials I still leave mayor in there but mayor and and yeah and all elected officials elected officials to I don't like to see either rather than I think I want that to comply with the charter rather than talk about a

failure right just to comply it shall be the duty of the mayor and all elected officials to ensure that the charter is Faithfully followed followed or another word can we rewrite that a little bit are you seeing what I'm saying um whenever it appears to the mayor or other elected officials that a city agency or I just would put that anyone is failing to adhere to the Charter uh the elected the mayor or

elected official shall in writing cause notice to be given uh directing compliance in the fifth yeah see that that first paragraph needs a just the first paragraph because the second paragraph is fine yeah well what happens after the charter violation did we didn't put something in there I have processed notice notice Char grievance court options F I don't know I can't read my notes now if they wanten

satisfied with the outcome of the grievance committee the following step would be a court yeah I thought we I'm going to go back through my notes I thought that we had a little more in there but in the second paragraph that we did have a thing about days seven to 14 days I'm just not sure yeah that the grievance committee would hear it

um well see it must be written it must be and also what's not in here it has to be a written the complaint has to be in writing and the findings have to be in writing but also too now when we look at this we talk about the Char the grievance committee shall be established and then it says at each meeting there will be an opportunity for public comment and well how often do they meet

well they would they would only meet when there's a grievance when they need to right within seven to 14 days okay so I think yeah that's so the yeah the whole thing yeah we need to re rewrite next uh to the next meeting because no paragraph number one needs to needs attention and then 915 periodic review of the need for multi-member bodies uh that one I think stayed the same inspection of documents conflict of

interest public comment rules or policy we didn't change much in there eligibility for health insurance um continuation of existing laws government Administration effect obligations Charter amendments taking Effect Review of ordinances any discussion for now on all that because um just to go over my notes for tonight oh Paul's gonna send page six to everybody right we're going to review

article three the Executive Branch the prohibitions maybe doing a whole prohibition section to apply to all three areas um and I'll inquire about City officer and I'll check with the clerk I'll also check with Corporation counsel because now that we've there are some titles that have officer in it and um the prohibition Mimi is going to check on the school committee maybe we just

just have a whole Abus of power section which I like that laying out what actually is abusive power um 96 Tracy is going to check on the 58 notes because she thinks we struck the whole section and Paul's going to check the minutes on 96 I have another note related to that at the end here in the last page the old 10.5 n or that's right we struck that we struck the whole thing it said periodic

re review moved this becomes new 96 every five years okay so that's what we did that's what it is yeah we took it from there notes so um yeah you can email that to to Paul you repeat that what so the uh the periodic review whichis and O that that became the new 96 it was moved and became the new 96 so he struck all of the 96 language that's why it looks so different because it's

this oh the new 96 and and it says again pass on 58 the notes continue there and pass on PA check the minutes so that actually matches with my not and then 914 just number so what are you saying about 96 now 96 is the old 10 d5n the new 96 the new 96 replaced with 10 is the old 10 five and now is okay you don't have do you

have the old on you yeah so that's correct yes okay and Paul will all right 914 just paragraph one needs fixing and on 97 again it me mentions the officers and we need to fix that paragraph and you're going to look at the gender right or officers no you're going to look up officers do officers and I'll look at the gender references too um is there any um uh we our next meeting is January

29th and here I'm going to reserve through uh I want to talk about February for a second is there any that's not good for anybody in February we're definitely meeting 129 and I can tell you I may miss a couple in February but you don't have to go by my schedule I want you guys to operate on yours um I may not I have a busy week this week so I may have some difficulty

getting done so but we could do the minutes anytime because you have nine we all have homework that we can wor we all got homework February 12th is for me what is it keeping me out of jail is a full-time job isn't it Mr Mado I can't do the fifth or the 12th I'm in New Orleans tell me what's tell me tell me about February I'm GNA start down there Tim how's February uh so I

can't do anything the week of the 19th or the week of the 26th the 19th is President's Day that's a holid wouldn't we wouldn't govern yeah be closed we won't get it um Kathy what what's not good for you in February um I think I'm okay okay I'm not I can't do the 12 okay and me I can't do the fifth or the 12th obviously and the 19th obviously

well and 26 is the only day I can do in February oh I could do the fth too Dan do you have any that you in New Mr Mado for a conference I need to do March too then because we're going to end up in March okay Tim how's your okay I might book March right away then yeah March okay Kathy March okay so far okay Tracy March okay it's not March 4th that's my birthday

so we'll bring a cake well then if you do that I'll come March is okay yeah okay Mimi what are your meetings no 12th no I mean no 11th uh March no 11 and uh Paul how about you how's your February and March February is okay oh the eight however I'm going to be away in March go ahead just give me the beginning and end dates March 8 y to March 19th

okay all right perfect I will try to make everybody happy I a v I will be unavailable a ton in February and March Mr chair Mr Vice chair you'll be taking over and what I will do is I'll make hard copies for you because I know okay so other than that do we have any other new business is there a motion motion to adjourn all in favor unanimously passes unless you guys

want discussion on that I'm good though now okay can I ask you um and I won't get to