3.27.2023 Special Charter Review Committee

committee meeting of March Monday March 27 2023. it's 5 p.m we are located in the hearing room at one government center in Fall River Massachusetts I will start with reading the open meeting law 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 there for advised that such recordings or Transmissions are

being made whether perceived or unperceived by those present in our deemed acknowledged and permissible can we take attendance please starting from my left that's my right sorry oh Paul Machado Tim Campos Rina Brown Kathy namkovich Laura Washington Tracy Almeida Alan rubsy John Mitchell will absent tonight in Mimi laravee will not both have previously scheduled commitments laughs we'll open it up to public comment

please oh yeah sorry thank you hey Pledge of Allegiance thanks Kat oh it's really weird I knew there was something I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all thank you everybody we'll open it up for public comment

go ahead I think you might need to go up there so I think I I don't I I think we're recording I don't know I can't believe they are yeah okay so Augie vanished 25 rights Roy forever uh one of the things that I think you all have a package that I originally worked on today are you going to make the record the record has to reflect this uh Mr Venice came to the meeting passed out

handouts they are not handouts previously provided to this committee uh therefore I you know I don't think that they're um I don't think we're going to violate the open meeting law because these are not handouts generated by us or provided to us um until this meeting started so we will attach these to the minutes as a public comment input document only thank you go ahead Mr Venice I'm sorry

to interrupt I'm not going to talk anymore uh in the chart of there's no mention of the former government at plan a Obama government you know government by the mayor city council school committee elected at large with preliminary electric electricians elections uh I would like to see some form of something in the charter that says something that the former government provided in these sections shall

constitute and be known as the planet under this act I don't know if that's gold legal or not but it's one of the things I'm recommended that some mentioned that we operate under a plan a former government

at last meeting there was a conversation about uh when the president ran when the president of the city council ran was serving as mayor in the vice president resigned that there was no nobody available to uh call the council together do what had to be done I looked through some 25 odd charters in the next one in your packet says after you've had been administered to the Congress president the city

council shall call us to order the city clerk on the case of his absence by the oldest senior member president and the next thing in your package is pretty much the same the city council shall meet nanny in the first month Monday in January meet for the purpose of organization they shall be called together by a city clerk on the absence of the security clerk by the amendment president senior in age and years of

service to shall provide the city council shall then elect from its members by separate roll call votes of President and Vice President so when you have no president or vice president of the city Charter there is some president president as to how to proceed and apparently the city clerk will be in charge of calling a meeting of the city council or the most senior person on the city

council and take a vote and I'd like the President and Vice President so that's not included anywhere within the charter position so maybe that language should be included as well

one of the things that always bugs me is when candidates are appointed to certain offices in the past you know maybe 10 to 15 years ago when somebody was nominated to an office they showed up at the city council meeting they said you know Mr Joe Jones was appointed he introduced himself he spoke a little bit about how he wanted how he wanted the position or whatever so I found language

from another Charter that says the municipal Council shot referred all all such nominations to a standing committee which shall investigate the candidates and make a report with recommendations to the municipal Council on each such candidate not sooner than seven or later than 28 days following such referrals if the municipal Council has taken no other action set appointments have become effective on

the 45th day following the date so that you know I'm recommended that city council former standing committee to review all these uh candidates vet them and then make their recommendations to the council one of the other things that's happened a lot in the past is uh failure to fill vacancies in a recommending language similar to what I have when the vacancy occurs for whatever reason on a municipal of

multi-metal board whose members are subject to city council approvals the mayor shall submit to the city council the name of the person to fill the vacancy as soon as possible if the mayor does not submit a name within 90 days after such frequency occurs the city council shall submit names forthworth to the mayor who shall select one of the names submitted or a person of his own children to the vacancy within 15 days

I don't know how the vacancies in multiple member bodies are now but I remember you know 10 15 years ago there were multiple openings on Nevada the bodies and nobody was in any rush to fill the vacancies so this says that this uh that shows a procedure it's you know how to follow it the mayor does not submit a name within 90 days to counselves submit names consoles jobs submit names to the mayor

in the mail submit select one of the names that submitted within 15 days the preview section 3.8 temporary absence of the mayor I have a new proposal the acting man hey the acting man the mayor of five letter filed with the city council and the copy file with the city collect designated qualified City officer City employee to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the office during

the temporary absence of the mayor for periods of less than 21 successive days and to see the only one that needs of the city require and only to the extent necessary under the then existing conditions and circumstances So I listened to attorney Rumsey who had some problems that you know maybe the mayor could appoint somebody you know on a temporary basis to fill that in section A in my proposal

kind of takes care of that originally it had three days then I went up to ten then I went up to 21 21 so you know I guess if you accept the idea then you can argue about the number of days be whenever a Reason by sickness and capacity absence from the city are all the such cause the mayor's temporarily temporarily unable or unavailable to perform the duties of the office for a

period of 21 successive working days or more the mayor shall notified the city clerk and City Council in writing others absence and expected duration 10 such absence the president of the city council shall be the acting man if the city council president is unable or unwilling to serve as acting mayor under this section the vice president of the city council served as acting mayor

if neither the city council president or vice president is unable to serve the city council shall then elect from among its membership a consulate to serve as acting man and see the powers of the aftermath the academies shall only have those powers of the men that are indispensable and essential to the context of the business of the city in the orderly and efficient manner and in which action may not be

delayed documents shall have no authority to make permanent appointment or removal from City service unless the disability or absence of the mayor salary stand Beyond 60 days you know someone acting mayor approval disapprove any measures adopted by the city council unless the taught within which the members act would require would expire before the return of the mayor During the period in which any member of

the city council is serving as acting mayor such city council shall know shall not vote as a member of the city council

and I have three more section 310 vacancy of the mayor will never permanent vacancy occurs in the office are made by death and removable from the city resignation incapacity or any other reason the vacancy in the officer mayor shall be filled as provided in section 3-8-a if the city council president is unable or unwilling to serve the provisions of section 3-8c shall apply and the council are

still elected so served as acting mayor on the section 3-c shall server until the successors elected and qualified at the next city election candidate elected is Mayor at the next regular city election shall be sought to office immediately upon the certification of the results of the regular city election and students for the remainder of the unexpired mayor Tim in addition to determine which elected

so when you have somebody throwing in in a temporary position they they fill up up to the next election and the person that wins the election you have the the elections in November and there's like a too much lag until January 1st when they become mayor the new person will take over with those two months included in the Stream here through those two months and then start a stream

the academies I'll exercise All rights and powers of the mayor and shall be sworn to the faithful discharges may have duties any City Conference during this acting Maryland as a section shall not be entitled to have the words candidate for re-election printed with that conscious name on the election ballot any counselor serving is the mayor under this session so I receive the compensation then in effect for the

office of the mayor section 9-12 limitation on hold in office unless otherwise Allowed by law this chapter no person shall Simon telling these simultaneously hold more than one city officer position of employees employment

should probably be compensated City position of employment no more than one city officer saw a compensated position of employment the sections may be waived by the mayor upon the appointment of a person to an additional office or position of employment by filing a notice of the valuable within explanation and justification with the city clerk copy to the city council such notice of also

contending contained the employee's qualifications for the position as enumerated in section 5-2 of its Charter any hours worked in any part-time positions shall not be the same or otherwise conflict with the hours working in a full-time position and no person shall be paid twice for the same hours worked so there's a limitation on holding office that shall not hold too compensated positions by the city

but if there is some kind of emergency then American wave that so all the other language and everything may be for naught and my favorite sector 9-1-13 felony conviction and elected off official officer or employee of the city or any Department board commission agency thereof who has been convicted of a state of federal felony while holding such a position always been convicted of a state of

felony for misconduct in any elected or appointed public truck office trust or employment or any time held by him shall be teams have vacated the position the conviction of an incumbent of any such office of a crime punishment will fight imprisonment shall operate to create a vacancy in the office held by him so these are all summaries that's come from other Charters through throughout the state and

may or may not help with send positions that we take thank you Mr Vance

any other further public comment seeing none public comment is closed we're skipping number five number six discussion and review of the following Charter sections 3-8 temporary absence of the mayor and it was actually three three eight a three eight B and 38c we discussed some of it last time but I 38a acting May or whenever by reason of sickness or other cause the mayor is unable to perform the

duties of the office the president of the city council shall be the acting mayor unless the president of the city council is unable or unwilling to serve in such instance the provisions of section 3-8 c shall apply the city council find affirmative vote of seven members shall determine whether the mayor is unable to perform the duties of the office the vote shall be taken in public session by

a roll call I'm going to stop after the subsections because there was some discussion and I'm going to go to the agenda and address some language in here um the agenda States through a temporary absence of the mayor proposed disability Clause discussion and I I just want to put on the record the phrase was used in reference to this temporary absence of the mayor due to sickness illness or

other cause so um in no way were we fashioning um uh another clause or amending this to address any disabilities anybody has it was really in reference so uh I would like to just uh take disability Clause out of there and make it the proposed uh definition of by reason of sickness or other cause because one of the problems with 38a is the ambiguity and vagueness of what other cause means

um and the time frame for and and the duties of the mayor one of the issues and one of the things that um I think the council ran into during uh one of our Mayors is that um they took a vote of no confidence they insisted that the mayor could not perform his duties due to some legal action um he was out on bail and he couldn't leave the state and one of the things

the council discussed and I think it was challenged also in a lawsuit was what constituted we don't we know what sickness is right but what constituted other cause so I just want to put it on the record that disability Clause was not to offend or address anything other than in the context of other cause other circumstances that create a situation where the mayor is unable to perform his duties of the office and I

think we all had agreed to kind of work on something to to um work on the vagueness and the definition of those I I think that's what we were referencing last time so I have two notes from last time we weren't sure what it entails we didn't know what to name it we didn't know what it entailed but we knew it was in reference to sickness and other causes for the mayor to be unable to

perform his duties um so I you I think I use the language and um and I we said we received some input which will go out um to the committee in the in the next agenda the emails um that there was some concern about the language that I used I'll take the blame for it and so um it's only in the context of other causes that would create a situation that the mayor is unable to

perform his duties okay so I'm going to change that's not a disability Clause it's going to be it's going to be proposed um definition of sickness or other cause that creates a situation where the mayor cannot perform his duties 20 other words is versus the one word trying capacity right I just I feel like that's going to cause a problem too incapacity um so some discussion about I mean do we

Define sickness or is sickness all inclusive is it so here's the thing so sickness what if it's a sickness that's temporary what if it's uh I know I liked the language I think that was proposed about 21 days I think it was um if it's a sickness that lasts longer what if it's a sickness he's hospitalized he I shouldn't even say that if the mayor is hospitalized and then gets out but still really can't get

around goes to like a rehab for physical therapy or something so I don't know and why why if we put sickness in and do we have to name a bunch of things can't we just say um just put in a clause of like what it means to unable to perform duties instead of saying sickness Health mental health physical health just strike that and just put what a clause is for that Define sickness in the definition

section I don't think you need it just sickness whether they're physically or mentally incapable of performing their job duties for a period of over X number of days I think time frame and but other causes the issue so that has to go yeah what's other cause or do we take other questions is it just illness sickness because I gotta tell you I was thinking about all the cause last night and I I

think if a mayor cannot leave the Commonwealth of Massachusetts does that interfere with the performance of their duties if a mayor is ordered by somebody not to talk to department heads is that does that interfere with the performance of their duties yes that was the issue last time is that there was a court order that said do not contact Witnesses and don't leave the state and Witnesses on that list were city

employees so does that interfere with the performance of Duties physically you can't physically perform all of your duties like physically present physically you know what I mean if we add legally I I just think something about legally because that was the problem Allen is that other cause women physically mentally illegally right I think the judge said I would say it differently I mean I

think the problem was because it was vague um I don't think anybody was real happy with the situation we're in but I think that most maybe I'm over maybe I'm wrong with this but I think that almost every lawyer who looked at that knew that the challenge to our former mayor was going to be unsuccessful it's extremely extremely difficult well I thought I thought other cars meant when you can't perform your duties well

it's extremely difficult to remove a democratically elected official in any position I'll tell you no matter if there's misperformance or you would do it differently or no if I hear you but then I attached chapter 268a section 25 and it says an officer employee of the county I thought that that included is it the mayor and employee of the of this of the city even though he's duly elected isn't he

an employee what's an employee okay the mayor gets paid the mayor is an employee I mean I did find the um tournament case Turner versus city of Boston 462 Mass 511 2012. what's the site again for 462 Mass 511 yep 2012. yeah and the Supreme Judicial Court indicated in that case the um Turner was a city councilor and he was convicted of extortion before he was sentenced the city council voted to

remove him pursuant to local rules um the SJC basically defined what a charter is it includes the mass declaration of rights in the statutes and um the SJC indicated that the he could not be removed pursuant to the Charter um that the it concluded the Constitution specifies that offices of the Commonwealth may be removed from office only by compliance with a specific impeachment Provisions

set out in part three uh chapter one section two article 8 of the mass Constitution so they were saying that the impeachment process in the mass Constitution would be the only way that a home Rule Charter could remove an elected official and I I tried to shepherdize this case and there were no there were no citations um so I think that's the last case that dealt with something like this

so what was your recommendation then after reading that I I don't think the mayor can be removed pursuant to the Charter can the charter so well then if the charter put the same impeachment language in it is it just that a home Rule Charter doesn't have the authority in only the state constitution as the authority if our home Rule Charter Incorporated the impeachment language in the Constitution

then they couldn't declare it unconstitutional because it's in the Constitution right if the attorney case is saying listen you can't remove them because your home Rule Charter doesn't have a provision and you can only remove him because the state constitution has an impeachment provision what if the home Rule Charter had an impeachment provision then the court would have said you know what your your impeachment

provision is constitutional according to the mass Constitution out he goes like that was one of the things I thought this Charter needed was it impeachment provision and there's impeachment Provisions I think Dartmouth has an impeachment provision it's a question kind of it does kind of yeah because it says oh go ahead can that provision be stronger than the state constitution can you think so

it seems to be that the mess when would you need impeachment provision if it's if it if it's stronger or the provision can't provide for additional waste or alternate ways to remove an official and why would you have one if it would defer then to the right I think no matter what the Constitution the state constitution is going to supersede it's going to supersede very simply if the current provision to remove the

mayor that took place a few years back um obviously the court said that wasn't allowable um but I think that a simple provision that that impeachment pursuant to the statute and the Declaration of Rights would have to take place I don't know what the impeachment procedures are under what is it I don't know chapter 43 oh I don't know my phone I'm sorry I looked it up too because the state constitution calls

for a provision that you can remove an elected official and I I did lay out the procedures specifically just said you know I I mean you can create any sympathetic fact pattern where you you probably want to get rid of the mayor but the reality is that the courts are going to be they're really not going to allow it unless it's pursuant to it's going to be extremely hard to impeach or remove an

elected official as it probably should be because if you think about it um you know you talk about it being a blood sport you know it could be as something as simple as I'm just making this up there's no reality to this the mayor appoints a chief of police um or it removes the chief of police and put the new chief of police in place all of a sudden the mayor gets arrested and then you have

nine politicians deciding the fate of another elected official you know and I'm not saying every remember the city council wants to be mayor but you have the nine people who most people guess were most likely to take over the mayor's position it's it's just it's just wrought with problems and the courts are not going to allow it they're just it's going to be extremely difficult everyone say we

couldn't remove them the court said your Charter is vague it doesn't say anything in there about other cause that's what the court said in our last lawsuits somewhat said yeah you can't do it it's not in there I think most people just you're not gonna have seven politicians inside the fate of an elected official no Reina the the right recall right well right it's just not right in the charter

the city council removal or attempt to remove the mayor of the court and I have the decision yeah the court indicated that um he talked about the city council lacking that power um so what I might suggest is that um why don't I I would volunteer to do some further research on impeachment Provisions um and we'll see what the statutes and the Declaration of Rights say if anything about impeachment provisions and I'll

take on the Constitutional part I'll look up at the the Constitution and I'm going to suggest that if they exist uh I I would expect that there would be a procedure that requires evidence I mean it's a formal procedure you can't just take a vote you know and say Mayors mayor mayor can't do his job we take a vote it would mean that there would have to be evidence

yeah and my guess is you're not going to find the ability to impeach you may find the legal authority to act on behalf of a mayor who is incapacitated temporarily where they still remain mayor but somebody else gets the power to make decisions because they're in a coma or something along those lines I mean that's what I imagine we'll find Danny you you were going to say something yeah uh thank you

um frankly there whether we like it or not right now there is a provision in a whole section section 8-5 that talks about a recall that's how we recall a myth in my mind there needs to be changes we have some changes here tonight that we'd like to bring forth but that is the principal way in my mind that a man should be removed from office not by a vote of seven members of the

city council not on a whim because they don't like the week owns his hair that that whatever there's a specific policy and procedure by which you remove a map that's the way it should be done if there are so-called impeachment proceedings I'm happy to look at that when socket Rhode Island just impeached their man okay but that's a different state a different time right now for this document

in general we have a recall provision do I like every part of it no but that is in my mind the surest and cleanest way of getting rid of a man I I never think and I think that provision in this genre should be completely struck based on the fact that the court Struck it down that the city council does not have the authority to take a vote to remove the man

they just don't they'd like to have it and again that's where it becomes political we have a provision in this document that needs refining but there is a queer provision and a quick process for removing a man that's the way we should follow it using that as the foundation thank you very much I yield um I do tend to agree with Mr Robot after I read the Turner decision and I couldn't find any further cases

um I think it's clear the SJC said the city council doesn't have that authority pursuant to the Charter but I wouldn't move to remove that until I do some further uh research concerning what impeachment Provisions actually exist so how about I would move that we defer this come back to it at a later point so that we can we'll come some we'll come back to the Constitutional issue of

impeachment but the 38a we can fix I mean I'm sorry I wanted to just take a different perspective like the way I read this I mean we're kind of going at what happened but I'm reading this as more of like the mayor sick or disabled or not necessarily that he's in legal trouble and other cause like you know I think we're getting bogged down with a recall and all that which maybe as Dan

was saying is in somewhere else someplace else right I think we need to make this more about if the mayor is unable not because he's you know incarcerated or something like that that's a different situation but you know how do we handle a mayor who's in a car accident or has a disability or has become you know really ill for a longer period of time and is just not able to

do his his or her duties you know and maybe we're getting hung up on that other cause word which we talked about to start I don't know I'm just taking a different perspective in it because I know there's some other parts in this Charter that are going to require us to look at what happened with our you know with our other mayor um and have to make some changes to that

so I do think we should continue looking at the charter and things but I don't know if does if a mayor is sick and incapacitated how do we what's the process to getting a temporary mayor and I think that's what this affirmative vote of the council was for not to say that we're going to recall that because they wanted him to resign right right he refused to resign so they decided in their Infinite Wisdom that

they were going to take a vote to attempt to remove him right which failed was challenged and was thrown out by the court right the city council as a legislative body does not and should not have the the thing you were powered by a boat of that esteemed body to remove the man from Office okay period so the three so section 3-8 temporary absence of the mayor section a

um I make a motion that we just put a time frame in there because maybe we just leave the language whenever by reason of sickness or other cause the mayor is unable to perform the duties of the office for a period exceeding 21 days I'm looking at it we had already voted to take unwilling out so that's already out right yeah I like 21 days I mean I I I like 21 days too I

you know because then you know if he's sick I I don't like other claws either you want to leave it leave it I don't it doesn't matter to me either way well could we just talk in it and say something that like prevents him from performing his perform duties for a month period more than 21.

issue of not being able to talk to yeah still somewhat big yeah are we talking health is that what does it matter I don't I don't think it I'm sorry it's not my turn but no I I I hear you I maybe yeah I think we have to Define what this is other causes yeah so maybe you know maybe you define other cause in the definition at a later date and we come up with other

causes like maybe it stays how it is yeah and in the definition section you know other cause and you define it car accident coma uh I you know I I don't know I mean I'm pretty sure if you've got a car accident you're gonna call me you can't perform Tuesday night I mean maybe we list and then in in the definition cause we put um we Define what other cause means

um but for this particular thing I think after perform the duties uh for a period no longer than 21 days definitely has to go in here you know what I mean there's a list all of the obligations of access not language somewhere it's in the isn't it in the ordinances what the mayor's Duties are so couldn't we refer to that here and say any other cause that prevents the mayor from meeting the obligations as outlined in

XYZ right yes then we cover it if we start listing the potential issues we're going to leave one out as soon as you define you exclude right right so by not defining your it's less ambiguous and you're pointing to the obligations then a core would need to go to that outline of Duties and make sure that the mayor can perform all of the outline duties in that place so that might be the safest way to go

you know what this is different than the removal right this is just temporary and I interpret that to mean that you know the mayor's wife has called the city clerk and said mayor was in an accident he's not going to be in to work for our you know for a while yeah um I interpreted that to mean that the mayor is saying I can't come in for a while right and then the temporary Provisions apply

I don't think that's a bad thing no matter what whether it's you know foreign

you know quite frankly it says the city council by the affirmative vote of some member shall determine so if the wife calls and says he's in an accident we don't know when he's going to be better then the 21 days goes by right 21 days if we if we put 21 days in here the 21 days goes by city council says yep he's still out and then the rest of that process goes forward because then it

goes on because it says um the provisions of 3.83 three three eight C are going to apply but I think for temporary absence there's no time frame and I always thought that that was like the ambiguous part of it because 38c then refers you to um the succession we know that it's the president and if I if and we take we took out unwilling but if he's unable then it goes on and then

when there's and then 310 addresses okay he got his accident he's never going to get better there's going to be a vacancy well then you go to 310 anyways right right yeah that would just be the temporary temporary how about though right here because it says so whether she'll determine whether the mayor is unable to perform the duties of the office then add in as specified in wherever that is

right and that's how they that's how they determine when when the mayor him or herself cannot determine it yeah where are the duties of the office Allen who is it like who's the mayor handbook it's in the ordinances but I know it's an ordinance engineering 101.

I just don't think it could be the city council who determines it aside from the political aspected temporary absence if he's in a coma they're not the ones who work with the mayor on a daily basis they're not the ones who would even know whether or not the mayor has any kind of issue unless it's 100 voluntary uh stepping aside because of a health issue and it won't always be voluntary what happens now

temporary and say it's due to sickness what is the protocol currently today as it stands if he doesn't resign in the city and if he does not resign right then they'd have to recall them why would he resign well if he's sick and can't perform his duties we've never had this but if they don't have an affirmative vote I imagine the only way to do it on an involuntary basis is

similar you know with the head of a corporation or an estate planning situation which I've never been a part of so I'm not suggesting I know but there are ways to have a court of competent jurisdiction you know you know judge that somebody's mentally incapable of Performing and they remove them it's not an easy process but it shouldn't be an easy process frankly we're getting it way back now

what is um how long do you think the city administrator can cover for the duties of the mayor it's probably I mean in one sense I mean some City administrators have done most of the work it's dependent upon the mayor I mean I wouldn't say it's the case right now um well they can't do appointments not even according to this Charter anybody acting as mayor can't make permanent appointments so it can't be for long but

the illusions of this apartment Chief they can't avoid them by definition the duties of the city administrator or as they're as vast or as minimal as given by the mayor he cannot appoint department heads I don't care I don't care I just say this Charter says I understand that it gives you duties for when you fill in the further when you are the temporary mayor there is stuff you can't do I understand

you're not getting another one until you get another mayor Madam chair thing correct me if I'm wrong well I I think Mr Machado and Mr romsey are trying to figure out the day-to-day running of the 39 appointments of a police chief not appointments to a board there's a provision in this channel I believe where it says after 60 days that enacting Mac hand makes their own appointments so what we're getting very

bad down here again on language and words and trying to work at every Widow situation that might occur frankly the city administrator and Medicine some cases I don't know about Matt cougar but and I I don't presume to speak for any mayor or any anybody else other than myself but a Corporation Council rumsy is absolutely correct the level of authority that any City administrator receives is solely one thousand percent

at the discretion of that man and I uh in a case like this I really do things as a provision and I'm going from memory right now that after 60 days and acting may I can make some appointments uh but I I think we're getting very much bogged down I I I think 21 or 30 days let's go the the biggest thing's been missing uh to be discussed I I certainly

take offense to you saying we're getting bogged down and I with all due respect it's a committee and everybody has opinions and they have comments and they want if they want to dissect it everybody should be free to comment in any manner they want plan to meet 10 more times but and if that's what happens then that's what happens but please don't stifle anybody from being able to comment on any proportions

I am the last person in the universe that would ever stifle to be I'm just saying I think we're getting off track we're making it more complicated than it has to be that's all I'm saying well if people have questions they won't ask questions I'm all for it Dan every people have questions people have comments and whether it's off track on track left field right field they made it all night I'm I'm just saying right

Sabrina did you make a motion concerning 3.8 yeah um to add 21 days after whenever by reason of sickness or the cause the mayor is unable to perform the duties of the office um for 21 days or some language like that I mean I don't have the exact language but you know what I mean correct my Pro my problem had always been like it's so open-ended that yeah I thought we needed a yeah I

think that's that's fair I I won't I'll say the emotions um why do I have a question yes yeah I have motion on the table Yeah I think you can all right there's a lot of motion in a second so I can discussion that yeah I go back to attorney Rumsey with other causes that you think that we should strike that that that other causes and I don't think that we should leave that out there I

mean we've had it's not like this we have not had issues with that Clause before we have got we've had issues I just language right I just think that we can Define another cause

I definitely think defining terms in here has always been a problem like our definition section is never is not good enough but I just think that instead of defining it there you define it in the definitions quick discussion I think the easier way to look at this is one I would remove other calls but if we look at this Clause as a whole and realize that this is just a it's not

really the succession plan but you know what I mean when the the mayor agrees on a voluntary basis it's easy so if we take out the city council part we can be you know by reason 21 days and not worry about defining anything because this is something Council doesn't have to decide if you can't perform right when when so if we look at something that the mayor agrees yes this is where it goes we

don't have to worry get bogged down the details but let's not look at 3.8 a as a way to challenge the authority of the marriage correct not to remove him right right and I agree with Dan when he said we're going to deal with removal later on I do just want to ask though what happens if there's an illness and they can't perform their duties but it is when the 21st day comes

and then we go to the succession Clauses yeah right because that's what it says at least there's a procedure you know if there's 21 days and the president of the city council shall be the acting mayor unless the president is unable serve in such instance the provisions create C so and the other ones talk about how long the president stays there and then the new election and all that I

but I I agree with you I think that city council by the affirmative vote should come out yeah well it just automatically roll to a succession right after 21 days so I mean if you're incapacitated for 21 days said you have to wait the 20 one days or is it when the mayor says I'm I cannot perform the duties do they only wait the 21 days in the case where the mayor

cannot or has not said right yeah is unable or unwilling that's where so let's not wait till it does well because we're going to go to 310 and talk about vacancy in the office and I think that's where it comes in right so this is the temporary so there's going to always be a 21 day period no matter what that there will be an entire on the first day says he or

she can't perform you have to wait 21 days no I could we say that's that's what I'm looking for Clarity on because that doesn't seem clear and a lot of the language the part of the problem with the whole Charter is some of the vague language so right we're getting down because it's important I put 21 days because a mayor gets the measles is enough and he's out for two weeks right I mean but

21 days is I think that's a good number significant illness I mean you're talking three weeks right of being able to perform the duties we are assuming it's an illness that is really incapacitating right of what constitutes like if let's say he was in a car he or she was in a car accident and their spouse contacts you know and says hey he's really hurt you know what makes the determination that

he knows she is no longer able but for the 21 days this temporary it's there's an acting mayor so the president of the council okay so no matter what 21 days we have either the city administrator or whoever is going to run the city until the secession until three eight until three is there any conditions and 21 days will have elapsed is that right that's what I think and the city

administrator would be the acting mayor until that that happens until the 21st in the event the city council president is unable the vice president shall act if he the president or vice president can't then the city council elects somebody yeah if it goes yeah I don't know why we're talking about State administrator we have a process correct we have the city council president in that yeah that's why I'm

confused I think I think it's still unclear what happens when when he's sick and as soon as them as soon as the mayor can't perform his duties or he or she however that's determined right we can debate and discuss the process of how that's determined as soon as it is though right the city council president steps in yes that's the line of succession correct that's the chain of command yeah that I think what what where

maybe I use the poor choice for words I really believe we are getting back down to a degree on what that looks like what constitutes he or she not being able to perform the duty but I don't think it's what I think it's who is determining and how is it determining well it certainly shouldn't be the city council if if anybody look at it like a cabinet as a matter of fact

there have been some mayors that have had a cabinet style government and I would argue right now it if I had to designate somebody to make that determination I would say it would be the uh the department heads would come together along maybe with the city administrator and the Corporation Council I don't know but certainly not the city council Renee can you read your motion where where I think

I've got you know where are you putting that 21 day I think I'm going to rescind that motion I'm going to tell you I'm reading it and I I'm reading I read it wrong the president of the city council just takes over when he's sick I mean do we need a time frame that's what I was trying to right that's what I'm saying like why that's what I was getting well I would

suggest yes I would suggest you do need a time frame and here's why um because we've had in the past I believe Maybe I'm Wrong uh he found out the mayor was on vacation in France and then next thing you know president of the city council was sitting in the mayor's chair um as if there were some pertinent business that they need to be in that chair if they were gone for a while if

if the mayor leaves the office at noon on a Friday do you want the the city council president sitting in the chair please

so you let him be sick between the president of the city council will if as long as on the 22nd days the set the president of the city council takes over so he can be sick for 21 days yes on the 22nd day the president of the city council takes over and nobody's decided whether he can perform his duties or not nobody's deciding whether he's permanently vacant just on the 22nd day

a problem right now but that's me as one vote what happens when the mayor is out right now so the administrator steps in if your CFO was gone you just you you just carry on everybody knows how to do their jobs you carry on and if there's a you know an extremely important signature you figure either way to get the mayor's signature signature or you figure out a legal way to have somebody

sign on behalf yeah no you know what I'm not Whatever by reason of sickness or other cause the mayor is unable to perform the duties of his office for longer than 21 days okay the president of the city council shall be the acting mayor unless he's unable because we've already stricken unwilling to serve in such instance the provisions of three eight C shall apply bang and I'm with you I'll go on and I'll

make the motion to strike the city council by the affirmative vote can we vote on the 21 want to vote on the 21 days first we get two motions okay so the motion on the table is that this reads this way whenever by reason of sickness or other cause the mayor is unable to perform the duties of the office over or past 21 days whatever is grammatically correct there consecutive please add that in there is

it consecutive period yeah I would prefer right yes for consecutively 21 days the president of the city council shall become the acting mayor unless the president of the council is unable to serve in such instance the provisions of 38c shall apply period done second that's the motion second dude mommy say it again no no yeah you're right it has to be consecutive 21. period yeah we got that it's on the 22nd day that

means that that's when the president steps in roll call unless of course the mayor calls up and says hey I'm not coming in for a month or two then you don't have to worry about that 3hc kicks in and then we're on to permanent vacancy probably if it's more than likely that happening right because if you're really that sick someone's going to know correct I'm in a coma he's

in a coma she's in a coma and we can Define other cause later do we take a roll call on that president yes so um is there any more discussion though before we put it to a vote in a roll call vote this is just on 21 days just on 21A the first sentence okay just the first sentence I'm gonna read it again no I'm good yeah all right well roll call vote please there was a

request for a roll call yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes uh vote path says unanimously nice do you want me to read that again you got it right yeah you guys get the grandma yep okay number two second sentence is the city council by the affirmative vote of seven members shall determine whether the mayor is unable to perform the duties of the office the votes shall be taken in

public session by a roll call vote motion to strike the entire effect second any discussion no roll call roll call will start to the right well just just the entire section she just read to be clear correct yeah yes not the first sentence the last two sentences thank you yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes okay motion passes to strike that complete last portion um section 38b I didn't think there was any

issues with it but I'm only one person and that is powers of the acting mayor the active mayor shall have only those powers of the mayor that are indispensable and essential to conduct the business of the city in an orderly and efficient manner and on which action may not be delayed the acting mayisha of No Authority to make a permanent appointment or removal from City service unless the disability or absence of the

mayor shall extend beyond 60 days shall the acting mayor approve or disapprove of any measure adopted by the city council unless the time with the mayor would act would expire before the return of the mayor city council president or any other counselor who may be serving as acting May or pursuant to a 38c shall not act as a member of the school committee oh city council I'm sorry

city council he or she couldn't anywhere right mayor their mayor they they don't partake yes I just said my colleague pointed out to my right that's where you got that disability that's where that came from you didn't make it up on your own I feel bad though because yeah it's in the chart it's offensive I want a point of clarity though that 60 days is that from the time

because we just added 21 days is it part of the 21 days the President right the president doesn't become the acting mayor until the 22nd day right 22nd day that's the council President's first day in office 60 days of ticking so he would have 60 days from that trip is technically out for 81 days 82 days is that what where well he would be out after 21. okay well you're saying 60 days cannot approve

30 days from the time he takes the scene or is it 60 days from the time that the mayor was in capacity I read it from the time yeah it says the acting mayor okay she'll just want to clarify so it's the acting and the until the 22nd okay okay or if the mayor calls up and says I'm not coming in anymore then he's acting mayor from the day the mayor says hey I'm not making it

to work for the next six months then he becomes the acting mayor on day five okay right of the 21 day is that well we have to wait in full 21 days no if a mayor calls up and says I'm just talking about if a mayor says hey yes yes so it starts on the day of the voluntary voluntarily withdrawal for 20 seconds right okay so that I wonder if that should be

that's important right if they're going to start appointing department heads or using that to establish the 60 days right unless the disability or absence of the mayor Alex did we already defined acting man doesn't happen until 21 days or the show would stand Beyond 16 years yeah yeah you know we can we I can just point out to the committee um that one of the suggestions by the public 3.8 covers this so if if

our Clerk or anybody needs assistance and how to get the writing it's it looks like there was some research done on this it's at least worth looking at when we finalize it it's going to be attached as exhibit a to this week's right what section is it 3.8 oh oh gotcha is this from Mr yeah

what what are you looking at the Reds oh the big no this one so the record is clear uh the charter Review Committee received public comment in the form of uh typed documents from Mr Venice Mr Venice submitted public comment orally and in writing and those uh public comment documents will be provided on this on a City website no later than 3 P.M tomorrow because we received them at five o'clock tonight

so we're referring to a document submitted by public comment and it's the one on the top that says Section 8 temporary absence is that the one the committee is referring to correct and and what are we referring to oh I was just pointing out because uh well Mr Venice wanted me to point out that this is if we're stuck on language that this is pertinent to what we're discussing right now I wasn't taking a position for

against it but just making sure we all knew it was out there well there is something in section A that's a little more clear with how the mayor is supposed to you know let someone know that you know the mayor shelf by letter filed with the city council on a copy filed city clerk you know say I am incapacitated so certainly we could consider adding that or not I don't know if it's necessary

but that's a little more clarity for section A but with B well this says that the mayor can designate a qualified City officer City employee and that the city council president would not accept it yes I have to tell you though as chair I'm reluctant to discuss any of these documents until the public has them okay so fair enough um if we would if we could not refer to these anymore tonight until that they're

published on the City website they have to be in by a certain time and and they weren't so just for future reference if we can get them in earlier but we can't discuss that yeah um if they I'll give you my email and if you email them to me or Alan we'll make sure they go to the city clerk for publication you know either with the agenda um is it the day before because if we're

using dollars and we're referring to them and they're not available to the public it it could cause um an issue yes so we can't refer to them we've got to move on and we can revisit I just want to make the committee aware of this we're talking about these sections we're making some changes we're going to have a couple drafts before we're done we can go back all right um but we the clock is ticking so

um 38b is fine 38c um I I didn't have anything in my notes that we had issues with that last time the agenda has us vacancy of the mayor um is there anything in here anybody you know what the issue is that this and I'm gonna make a motion to table it again I was supposed to get somebody from the elections office to come down here to find out what would be the process

because Fall River is a preliminary election we have a preliminary election and um a regular election and does the special have a preliminary and can you do it at the time yes special has a preliminary yes right but did did but is that is it can they do it in this time frame I don't know that's a question for election right so I'm going to make a motion that we table 310 one

more time until next week and I will absolutely reach out to elections and if I have to have uh Mr Mr Lyons come down and explain that to us um but that was the issue that we were going to address again this week yeah can I get a second you move the table to next month table it to the next meeting which is uh 70 something April 17th right is that all right any more

discussion about tabling it no and if you'd like I can um assist with that I'm on the election commission oh that's perfect then yeah go grab yeah grab Mr lines and figure out how that special election works in the time frame of 310. because that was our that was our question did it work in the time frame yeah just for the wrecking a motion to table you get emotion you get a second and then

there's no further discussion on emotions any more any uh can we can we um have a vote please yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes okay motion passes 310 after discussions with elections uh we'll go to next week the next one is 4-3 prohibitions and we addressed prohibitions for the city councilors and we changed I'm just gonna we talked about prohibitions in 2-3 yes even though I opposed them in 2-3 for

purposes of language I think we should just mimic what we did in 2-3 and inserted here okay is that emotional is that emotion it is I'll second it okay don't fall all in favor two the motion is that in 4.3 prohibitions the motion is to mimic the language that this committee adopted by motion for the city council you know but for the language of the body it's talking about in 2.3 yeah all in favor no

it's your motion oh okay okay all right but I apologize yes yes to mimic the language that's what I'm asking to make the language I vote Yes to mimic the language of the of how the changes yeah okay I gotcha um all in favor aye aye aye all right motion passes unanimously that's section 4.3 prohib prohibitions the language shall mimic the language we adopted in section 2.3 Provisions moving on to six point five

thank you and I I put these on the agenda because I get comments so I put them on the agenda as the comments come um and 6.5 Capital Improvement program I'm only going to read the area that somebody sent me a comment on um a submission the mayor shall submit a capital Improvement program to the city council at least 180 days before the start of each fiscal year the capital and the comment was a 180 days

could that time be less 180 days from what no way from before the start of the fiscal year so the fiscal year is June July July July 1 to June right and so they go 180 days backwards 30 60 90 30. that's six months important right yeah not problematic now anybody okay moving on if it ain't broke don't think so uh 7-2

7-2 preliminary election procedures small a signature requirements the number of signatures of Voters required to place the name of a candidate on the official ballot to be used at a preliminary election shall be as follows for the office of Mayor not less than 300 certified signatures for counselor at lodge our school Committee Member not less than 150 certified signatures signatures of Voters shall be made on a

form prescribed by the board of election Commissioners and shall be made available not earlier than April 2nd in each preliminary election years and those forms shall be submitted to the board of election commissions for certification of the names Anna before the 14th day preceding the date fixed for submission to the city clerk the form shall be submitted to the city clerk on it before five o'clock in the

afternoon on the 45th day prior to the declared date of the preliminary election an individual may appear in the ballot for only one office at any preliminary regular or special city election please thank you very much uh two things first of all whether it's a preliminary or a general election the the signature requirements of the same for all elections I I thought I heard you read something different maybe not if I

um it is but I I misunderstood what she read but I know what I want to do but um well this this just said preliminary election procedures because that's the title okay but I I want to move that we change the signature requirements uh for the art I want to move that uh for the office of man we go from 300 back to 50 what it was in the Freya China for the office of

city council from 150 back to 50 and for the office of school committee from 150 back to 50 to be eligible uh to uh get on the ballot I'll second that motion can I ask can I just ask her can I have further discussion yeah yeah I just kind of like to know your reason just stop to my right good Kathy well can you just explain your reasoning absolutely that's

what I was gonna do that's why I asked for for further discussion after I got a second it's very simple uh I opposed when there was a movement on the last Charter commission to increase the signature by six times from the propriet shot it was 50 we went from 50 to 300 for mayor that's a six-time increase it's a three-time increase for the office of city council and school committee number one I think about what

access should be easy and regardless of what the signature requirements are I know that Council of Washington has been on the ballot I've been on the ballot I don't know who else if anyone here has been on the ballot but regardless of what the signature requirements are you always need to get more than the required number because you're always going to have signatures that are going to be

disqualified by the elections office balwyn access should be easy once you get on the ballot that's where the work of running for office and running a campaign and meeting the public and putting your your positions out and your vision for why you should be elected that's where the real work of a campaign begins obtaining ballot access should be very easy and once you get on the ballot then the

vote is then decide collectively as a body whether you're worthy of moving on and being elected and uh that will uh some of the reasons that we're given in the last Janet commission for uh increasing the numbers to have more qualified candidates who I I think anybody should have a right to run for office and put their ideas and their platforms out and then people decide about what access should be easy once

you get on the ballot then the real work of the campaign begins another thing that I find uh rather amusing if you run for state representative okay you're only required to get a hundred signatures okay if you're a State Rep you represent the whole state of Massachusetts which is comprise the 352 cities and towns you need a hundred signatures to represent every voter in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

here to run for the city council you need a hundred and fifty more than the state level that's ridiculous absolutely ridiculous I agree unless we can slide this in I I mean I I I Now understand the background I mean I I personally think 50 is not enough yeah well that's what I'm saying is there a number somewhere uh between 50 and 300. I'm I'm gonna say to you with all due respect what I sent the

Council of Washington last week I made a motion there's a second when having discussion if there's an amendment that that's a separate vote but I like 50 50 worked for years and years then there was some laborious Discovery by by the infinite wisdom of the majority of my 12 weeks on the west China commission that they moved to change it okay I I think those numbers were a disaster event I think they're a

disaster now I'm making a motion to move it so the motion is 50 it's been seconded would you like to like any more discussion

I hear what you're saying I've honestly I haven't put a whole lot of thought into it but what you're saying I don't know why you'd even vote for 50 because what you're saying is you think it should be zero and but the in the strongest thing the strongest argument I heard from you was either maybe zero or maybe a hundred to be consistent with the state so I guess I'm I want to hear

from people who probably have a lot more experience than I do if they if they believe it should be zero or a hundred um or higher and why I'm telling you right now my motion is 50. I understand that I'm just just discussing my point of discussion was simply your argument a strong argument but the was essentially to be zero that anybody should get on the ballot not what I said I said about what access

should be easy I didn't say zero okay so okay I'll talk over here my discussion is simply if we have a requirement what is the purpose I'm trying not to be fixated on number yeah if there is a requirement what is the purpose of the requirement if the purpose of the requirement is to make sure somebody puts forth a minimal amount of effort and to show that there's a minimum amount of backing

that's it then we should be talking about what that number is and and to leave it at what you know the purpose of it and if they work for you I don't I don't know long before you got here 51.

what was the number for years nobody had a problem with it I want to go back to 50. all right motion is this discussion Miss Washington do you have further discussion on this motion here's what I feel um it is it's a to me it's a pain I did it I don't think it matters if it's 50 signatures or 150 signatures you're either going to stand outside Market Basket for six hours or 18 hours I mean

getting signals not to be endorsed basketball record show us let's get them all in there we appreciate all the groceries Market they're great um so I mean it to me I listen I like it to be zero signatures and frankly but I get it so I I it doesn't I it really doesn't matter I think you're right um in seat one that you're the real campaigning starts after you collect the

signatures so it to me it it doesn't matter I will support you 50 signatures I will support 156 I I just think it doesn't it it doesn't matter other than it's it's it's a it's a pain the only reason I chose 50 is because that was in the price it was it was in the prior China and no one had an issue with it until we got to the last Charter commission then suddenly there was this

Brave movement to increase the numbers six times from there all right okay but but what you're saying is nobody had an issue until the issue is brought up right right I mean okay I'm not putting words in your mouth but those are your words yeah nobody had an issue until we had to discuss the issue and then he had an issue right which to mean there was an issue right I

think there's more to it than just to to ensure qualified periods or was there more is there a history there were listen there were often times a vast array of candidates from all walks of life and when it became 300 that was a lot for a lot of people from all walks of life and I I concur with uh my vice chair um I don't think it should be zero I think there should be initially some

work to show interest in running for office 50 is what it always was I think that and I don't care an 18 year I would hope that an 18 year old graduating from Durfee High School decides to get that involved and all he'll need is 50. which is how many on a sheet 25 on 20 on a sheet I think it's three sheets right um I also was never in favor of the

increase in numbers because now the people on the ballot are are half of what there used to be and in it was interesting to see you know they would call for debates and and have different people from all walks of life Masters Juris doctorates High School diplomas geds or none all all levels of Education all levels of everything were used to run for offices and I don't know if it became the number of signatures

you have to get but I know watching the past few elections there are less people that are running is it because of the signatures they have to get I don't know I didn't do a study but I know that part of it is there was a lot of a lot more people that ran I think Tim um well I have some thoughts um but you know I want to remind you

you're on the elections committee so yes so I won't say too too much other than if we're going to make a change I think the change should be consistent with how it's done in the state yes so that way there's no confusion the reason we chose this regardless of opinion is because the state is doing it this way and so we want to be consistent with that I don't necessarily agree or disagree with some

of the things that have been discussed but I think if we take an approach like that it kind of makes us neutral and I do understand that there were reasons for this to have been discussed in the last Charter and there was a reason for it to be raised so going back to the way we were is kind of counterproductive and I think also whatever reasoning that was I wasn't part of that Charter so

committee so I can't say but certainly there was a reason for that to discussion and there was a reason for that change in terms of the way out the reasons why that body and whether anybody wants to believe this or not the consultant played a heavy role in a lot of the topics and how they were friends yeah I was there I sat through 27 to 35 meetings in a year and a half but

we've been it was painstaking so this is this is a real picnic for you Dan so there's a motion on the table and the motion is for for just for the very first sentence too because I want to address just something later in that paragraph signature requirements the motion is and correct me if I'm wrong Dan the number of signatures of Voters required to place the name of a candidate on the official ballot to be

used at a preliminary election shall be as follows for the office of Mayor not less than 50 certified signature for counselor at larger school committee not less than 50 certified signatures period that's my motion can I ask a question yes ask all the questions you want take into account what Tim said if we if would we consider amending that to be 100 signatures to be consistent with what is

in the state across the board for mayor and for uh city council no I I won't consider amending it at this time because I was opposed to to moving the numbers in the first chapter I like these numbers these numbers work well people didn't even know what the numbers were on the state level uh uh but she can make a motion to amend you she's asking me if I'd second if you

if you would if I was asking if you would consider amending your emotion to be 100 I I won't consider amending it that doesn't mean someone else won't Amendment I won't Amendment because I want 50.

okay I just one quick point of discussion and I'm not saying this is the overriding factor but I at least want the board before they vote to understand that uh one one factor is money and what I mean by that is if you have a candidate on the ballot who really is not as serious candidate that somehow creates a preliminary election each election I can't even quote you probably know

better than I do it's not cheap I want to say about 60 that sounds about right but don't quote me on that somewhere around sixty thousand dollars um and you know I'm not sure what the numbers should be but I know it would be a shame for the city to waste sixty thousand dollars because one person had to get you know a too low of a number of signatures more people on the ballot the

more ballots we have to print which is another big expense right because as you continue to add people if they can like if it was Zero yeah and everyone could go and get on the ballot and we have two three pages of ballots at this point you know that's huge expense for the city and I wouldn't necessarily be bound by what the state is because we're a Fall River but if we don't have a reason to

be different it does make sense to be consistent if we have a very a strong reason why we want to be different of course let's be different but that's just my two cents I know money is a factor but I don't think finances should ever interview with democracy that's not what I said something I mean if you have one signature you know if you just needed one signature you know you get your significant other sign away

I um patiently I'm gonna go with what my probably in seat one said last week if it's good for Washington if it's good for the state then it's good for us so I think the 100 to be consecutive across the board is okay so I don't know when it's proper for me to say yeah there's no motion to amend on the table it's just the original motion and that's been second okay so does that need to

get voted on first or can I make a motion to amends and then you can amend and then we vote on yours okay if his doesn't if it doesn't pass correct right yes is there any further discussion on Dan's motion would you like a roll call Vote Yes we'll start with you yes no no yes no no no okay motion does not pass I'd like to make a motion to admit to

amend section 7-2 to be 100 certified signatures for both the mayor the counselor the larger School Committee Member consistent with State requirements motion made by Kathy that's the first sentence reads the number of signatures for vote is required to place an invocated on official ballot do we use that preliminary election shall be as follows the officer made out less than a hundred certified signatures for a

counselor a larger school could be a men and not less than a hundred certified signatures seconded by Laura Washington any further discussion very briefly these are not the numbers I like but it's a decrease so I will support it okay I do I'll be ready to put discussion just I would not put the because consistent with State language in there because if the state were to change then people come out to attack I

know I want to make sure I agree did you say it but I did it right right just because if the states okay uh roll call vote are all in favor starting with Dan now Paul yeah yeah I'm gonna abstain yes yes yes yes yes motion passes I want to address just one other issue in this paragraph because um and I don't know if we have to get somebody from elections but it doesn't

make sense to me the signatures of the voters on the form created by the board of election Commissioners are available by April 2nd preliminary year the forms are submitted to the board of election Commissioners for certification and then they go back to the clerk for no good reason I don't know if it's to date or stamp but I don't know why the city clerk gets them I don't think it's

necessary because then after it the Board of Elections certified the forms go out the candidate picks up the forms they take the forms they go out in the community they sign them address right they come back to the Board of Elections the Board of Elections goes through every signature and certifies them then those certifieds go down to the clerk's office for no good reason I don't know and then they go back upstairs

to the Board of Elections and then the ballots are made and and then we have the election there is absolutely no good reason I did speak to somebody elections and there's no good reason why they go to City Cooks now I don't know if it's to make sure because the next sentence says the forms have to be submitted by five o'clock why can't the forms be submitted back to the elections office by five o'clock why is

it the city clerk I think the city clerk should be completely out of the elections she's not an election official she's not prescribed in any electoral duties in our chart or in our ordinances and I don't think it makes sense to have it in there because it's not necessary it's just a discussion I didn't make a motion but that's what I'm thinking maybe you know but my only thought when you said that was because uh

there's a term I'm just on a blank but she's in charge of public records and acrylic is in charge of public records it's probably just to create the public record they put copies down as far as I know it's just for that but why can't the election office make copies because when you pull you when you pull papers you have to pull it from the city council's office city clerk's office and

then they give you the the paperwork this is an election we have a board of electors I just don't know why it's done that way and I'm not sure I don't know either I'm just that was not like that I can't I can't answer that either but I do know that it more than likely it's for record reasons um because we do all of that work the stamping the reviewing and all that

stuff and then it so then I would uh I'm we're gonna revisit that after we get some answers from the uh Elections office because I was just that's why there's that emotion I just was wondering why and eight five what time is it first of all uh it's 20. sorry what is it 20 of less we're only going to have 20 minutes of this discussion on the road I mean it's made some observations section 8-5

recall uh was challenged and if um if the clerk Paul if you would please remind the committee um what exactly what happened in court we don't even recall I know you did last time you gave us the notes but if you could make the record clear we're talking about section 8.5 recall section A's application B is recalled petition C is we call election D recall of one or more office folders e office holder F

recall ballots so I believe there's a couple issues this F the recall ballot if you could and was it was it just the recall ballot it was the lawsuit about the recall ballot so just referring everybody to recall section 8-5 we're going to go to F the recall ballots because that's what the lawsuit was about right well the lawsuit also implied that voters were disenfranchised because the recall um was

the voters the majority of Voters voted to recall the former mayor and he was reelected on the bottom because of a sweat vote that's correct there were I believe six candidates so the number of Voters who voted to re-elect him was half of what the voters who voted to recall it um so one of the things that I argued was that the voters who voted for the recall were disenfranchised um and basically the decision of Judge

Perino was that um and and perhaps this was a mistake because what I did was I submitted affidavits in support of our complaint one from the prior chair Mike maoza and one from Mrs Dennis who was the clerk um and talked about how much work they put into the the charter mentioning that it was 27 meetings that there were three public meetings um and basically what the judge said was that so what happened was that the

charter um suspended or or overruled prior language which specifically allowed for the recall um office holder to be re-elected so the Charter's new language eliminated that but what the judge ultimately found and he said well they spent a great deal of time discussing this Charter well we didn't put in the language but prohibiting him that that's correct from running after being recalled so so the

language to prohibit running for re-election within the recall election was not there and so he basically said they spent so much time and that's absent so so we have to add it in right now so the only thing that needs to be well I shouldn't say it like that I'm going to strike all that so it appears that the biggest issue with Section 8-5 the recall portion of the charter is that it

doesn't have a provision preventing somebody who has been recalled from appearing on a ballot either in that special election or even that Year's regular election because you know we have to go ahead I just want to be online right so I want to have a contrarian opinion before everybody makes their mind up on it no I you can't and here's here's what I have to say about this when this happened I was probably just like

everybody else I was surprised that the recalled mayor could then re-run and then when but with time I started thinking about it and I think that one of two things I think actually Fall River got it right and let me explain why um I think this section should not necessarily be a recall we could maybe rename it something where it's not a recall but my point is this in politics

a 60 40 is a strong win I mean that's a dominating win if somebody runs for election and wins by 60 you can fill your numbers though you're those that is not accurate though it's 60 40 of less than a third of who voted I understand that but I'm telling you an election don't go 64. okay let me have my time okay I will historically a 60 40 is a pretty

dominant win and what that means is that somebody who who won election pretty convincingly had 40 percent of the people who voted voted against that person okay so we're talking about democracy or representative democracy and the voters will and the voters well we've said that over and over again but this section as it's we're trying to potentially going to change it it says it five percent now

I know it's registered voters but five percent not only can call a new election but can knock out the democratically elected politician and I think it's wrong I think if you want to have five percent of signatures which is difficult to get I'm not saying this but it's only five percent no matter how popular five percent probably hates you for whatever reason okay if you can get all them to sign on

you're not even eligible to rerun I think this section should be you know that five percent allows a new election and I think you know what like it or not that person won a majority of the votes in the re-election I think there are other ways to do it maybe you could have another preliminary elections maybe you get rid of recall and have an impeachment process no but I think in that situation Fall River

typically has two people going head-to-head from there because you have a preliminary election if there's three or more correct so so in this case you kind of the problem was I think the vote got watered down like a certain percentage no matter what I'm sorry so I no my last point was simply yes when you have three or more I will agree that whoever is in charge whoever it is is going to get a certain

percentage because it's the the way the business is going anybody so the more and more opposition you have three four five people is more likely that the the mayor the city mayor is going to get reelected to see a higher percentage I don't think five percent knocks out a mayor I'm sorry it's a democratically elected mayor well five percent to five percent to initiate yeah but you're saying that the possible

amendment is that that person can no longer rerun so you're letting five percent knock out they are recalled for one cycle yeah in that recall election um Mr Correa was recalled by 61 of the voters during that election he was then okay re-elected by 35.4 of the voters yes you're right voted to what happened was that um a little less than 50 percent of the people who voted to recall him were

disappointed we're disenfranchised we don't we don't know 100 we're disenfranchised right so it isn't so you gotta have you either have to have impeachment or recall because you have to have a mechanism in your Charter no an impeachment would be would be and that's difficult but an impeachment would be done by say the city council so recall is done by the voters but there's the whole process is voter initiation

they obtained 7 500 signatures so yes I remember listen but there has been a mechanism to remove an elected official separate it from this discussion what we talked about was that I was going to do some further research about impeachment procedures we'll address that at a later point right now we're talking about the recall here's what I feel about that to your point I don't often disagree with

you but we made pot ways here okay so you have a five percent to get on a ballot okay is that what we're talking about five percent we got to get on the ballot five percent but that doesn't mean you're going to be recalled that means that you now get a chance to vote so you may get on the ballot but you may still win but the majority of the people can vote you out

so you know what hey five percent of people don't like me here's your shot it is what it is that's what that's the process and now I have to campaign during my recall to try to stake my claim here that I shouldn't be recalled that's just my personal opinion um that you it is what it is so five percent ten percent but if you are recalled you get on that ballad and it is what it

is the numbers prove it I mean that right that's how so we just need a Prohibition to appear on the ballot that's what the court was saying is that you guys don't have a Prohibition he gets off yeah I amended and added this is the section that I added um so the subject of the recall election is not eligible to be re-elected during a recall election the name of the subject

of the recall shall not appear as a candidate on the second prong of the ballot if a majority of the voters recall vote to recall the office holder he is removed from office the majority of the voters at that point not five percent correct yes that's the process starts the process and then it's like a regular voting at that time it's like a regular election this language no go ahead um Mr Venice please I know

this you're passionate about this make a motion to weigh the rules for him good thank you right I agree the first section of the recall is you have a vote if the incumbent loses that election the position shall be to create a prison now you have other Provisions within the charter as to how to fill of agency if you have an election you're going to be violated the charter by having an

election and not throwing deficiency by the vacancies provisions of the charter if you don't believe it but the child have passed with this one with the current recall selection that's correct yeah and the court did not have any problems with the general recall provision the only thing that he focused on was the specific um you know the specific language was not there saying that the subject of the

recall could not be reelected Mr Machado is it your opinion however that the judge didn't go on to name that as an issue because they could stop at there was no prohibition and it in future potential litigation would that come up as an issue well one never knows what's going to be raised in future litigation but I can say that in the subject of the case but the but the um decision of Judge um no no

the decision of the judge did not talk about any difficulties with the recall election in general just the fact that he did not that the statute that the um Charter did not specifically say use that language it is true however that the processes are inconsistent and compatible I'm sorry so the recall process and the vacancy are they're incompatible if the recall process is going to be different

is it a vacancy is the recall if you recall a mayor is that considered a vacancy not if you're filming yeah no and the difference is I think the primary difference is that the recalled the recall is a citizen of Voda that gives the voters the right to say we don't like this Clarity for me that distinction makes it clear for me thank you and there's nothing in judge perini's decision where he talks about

the fact that the recall process is inappropriate um what he talks about um hmm what he talks about is that uh I'm sorry I was looking at the other case um what he talks about is the fact that the charter Commission in spite of all the time they spent did not use that specific language and he didn't make any reference to the fact that the recall election would be inappropriate in any

other way how many how many mayors have been recalled in fall river ever a lot one two two right so so right so my point is you know recall not just in Fall River but nationally the idea of a recall a do-over almost has become more prominent it's becoming more expensive we have a mayor that currently now this could change of course but it's two years but we're moving towards this idea that

we just our person wasn't elected I can get five percent and then you only need 51 and then you move on but I guess what I want everybody to think of you know to remove an elected person I think you need five percent or more if you want to raise it a 51 and then that person that you want out has to not win the majority of votes I mean are we

really unhappy that through all that the mayor that we want that some people want to recall still won the popular vote that's the system but that's the it's not they won the most votes in state mayor is that a problem really I respect you're expressing an opinion yeah not on a legal one no I I don't I respect his opinion actually and I do but I I respect it a lot and matter of

fact but it's not a legal opinion and that's a rule you're wrong and let me if I may you're wrong because let's say and we know that the judge did not necessarily affirmatively comment on this issue but let's hypothetically assume that he did address it you're going to tell me no I'm going to tell you this if you have a judge who sits there and talks about a five percent

recall method and then a 51 vote and then you have somebody take it to court and say and I won the popular vote but they wouldn't let me I think the judge is going to agree you know what that person is eligible you're telling that they're not ineligible to run it's a very it should be an extremely high hurdle to take out an elected official so but don't they don't get on the vote

because if you are recalled by the majority then you are not going to be able to get the way I see it and would want to see is that you are not going to be able now to be on what to be voted on I get that but what I'm going to say is but we know what happened in our situation right right we know what happened in our situation and even

though a majority of 51 percent of the people who voted that day yeah uh voted to recall there was still a majority in favor of that mayor because it was a split it wasn't

a one-to-one I will agree with you on that yeah I think because it certainly even the more the sitting there I don't really talking about replacing the man after he or she is recalled and their ability to run or not after being recalled and with that said Dan uh it is five of seven we're not going Beyond seven o'clock recall is going to take another meeting um and much more time than we have left

can we have just a little bit here we're not going to vote so please I don't think there was a second there was no second what was the motion I'm curious about the elections so I will say this I was not an elected commissioner at that time I came in after that um all right I guess the question it seems like the issue it seems like the issue was that the the

mayor was recalled he was able to run again he was recall on the ballot but because there was too many candidates running against him that there was way too many votes not necessarily to him so it seems like the issue is less all the other stuff as it is how do we handle that in the future because I don't necessarily think that and this is my own personal opinion that even recalling the mayor

that he shouldn't have the right to run again and if he gets the votes to run he should but we do need to kind of trim the field down if we're not going to have this happen again in the future and so I think is a recalled mayor Megan the office vacant though yeah but that is a very valid point too but nonetheless this is a different process

his motion that was to table this no that was that was to adopted language which I fully support which was what I don't know the language that the subject of the recall is not eligible to be re-elected the name of the subject of the recall shall not appear as a candidate second prong of the ballot and we were in discussion phase I don't think we can take a vote because we haven't fully discussed

I mean who made the motion Paul is it possible you can withdraw and would bring it back next meeting yeah or table it for the table for more discussion anyway so raise this issue again yeah you withdraw your motion yep so Paul withdraws his motion and I I make a motion to adjourn the meeting Laura made a motion to adjourn can I have a second a second Kathy seconds that motion

would you like a roll call vote on a new German or can we go all in favor okay thank you everybody