4.28.2029 Fall River City Council - Ordinances and Legislation

The city council committee on ordinance legislation will be called to order. It is April 28th, 50:01 p.m. Madam clerk, call the role, please.

Council, here.

Council here.

Vice President Dia here.

Here. Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium.

Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or other perceived by those present and deemed acknowledged and permissible. Item number one this evening is citizens input. There is no citizens input.

Motion to lift uh uh yeah motion to take number three out of order.

Second.

Motion made to take item three out of order made by vice president Dion.

Second by councelor Kadim. Any discussion? All those in favor?

I I opposed. The eyes have it. Item number three this evening is a resolution to convene to draft a proposed ordinance that would grant permission to the city council to hire outside legal representation, obtain third-party legal opinions, and properly allocate appropriate budgeted capital and specific fund for the cost of these services adopted 414 2026.

I will recognize my colleague councelor Kadim who is the author of the resolution.

Would you like to invite corporation?

Yes. uh cooperation council Ramsey if you can come down as well. I'll let you introduce yourself and then I'll recognize council Kadim.

Thank you. Yeah, I think the uh resolution actually uh spoke for itself just I mean as my colleagues are aware we we've had a number of issues not just uh this year but in the past where um we've had disagreements or different differing opinions in terms of uh where we stood and and sometimes a second uh legal opinion is is also uh valuable um and can and can potentially validate

some of uh our concerns or go the other way uh with regards to that. So, I just want to be able to change the ordinance that allows the city council uh to be able to hire its own attorney for obviously for second legal opinions. I clearly understand that the only uh opinion that can um bind this the city would be corporation council's opinion.

Uh but it just solely for the the purpose of either having a second opinion just um bouncing things off of uh of council just to be be sure that we are comfortable with what we we receive.

With that, I thank you. Uh, corporation council, you introduce yourself first, please, for the record.

Yeah. Alan Ramsey, Corporation Council.

Thank you, Vice President Dion.

Yeah. Um, and I feel like there is some precedent. Um, there was a mayor once taken to court by the city council in the past. Um, since I've been on the council, there was a line item for outside legal in our budget. Um, I believe it was a dollar amount of $40,000.

uh we had KP law, they were on retainer and um so I think based on both of those uh incidents um that it should be something that we can have in a line item and we should be able to utilize moving forward. With that I yield.

Thank you.

Corporation Council Ramsey.

All right. So I've looked at the uh proposal. I believe it's drafted by councelor Canuel. I mean could dropped it. I'm sorry.

For for the record, it was councelor Ponty who did submit a proposed Yeah. So I I'll just clarify here. So a a um a draft resolution is has been sent to the committee um which was written by councelor Ponty um which is not particular on this agenda right now but um we are the committee I should say is looking to draft that ordinance. um the committee would have to review that proposed um submission that was made.

Well, in a nutshell, I mean, the legal services are they're supposed to come through the office of the corporation council. And I understand the argument that sometimes you want to have separate opinion, things of that nature. But the reality is it's set up to have a unified voice that comes to the office of the corporation council.

So, the reality is you can't draft an ordinance that changes mass general law or the charter. So, you know what has happened in the past and I was a part of it when that I don't know if it was 20 or 40,000 but I do remember when that was put in the budget. It was done the proper way which would had the um the mayor put in the budget and it was with

the approval of my office. Uh I can tell you in practice I mean I don't want to get into too many details. I think it showed the problem with that. Um it's without having everything come through my office. Um there's no kind of unified voice. It kind of opens up the city litigation, too, when you have lawyers given separate opinions. Um, and I think I'm not saying I'm in favor, but

I think if this council really wanted to have somebody here every meeting, every day, it could be somebody that, first of all, it has to be appropriated in the mayor's budget, appropriated by this council, but I think it would be somebody that would be employed through my office. I think that makes it cleaner, makes it easier. Um it it was a difficult situation trying to work with the other law firm. I say finish.

Yeah. No, I'm good.

Vice President Dian.

So um I find that interesting in the respect that the school committee has an attorney that is at every meeting and I and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that person operates through your office. So why would we be different? I guess is my question.

Haven't looked into that specifically. I I mean the schools I've always you know in your mind you always think of them as separately. It's like the city side and the school side. I know the budgets things there are many things different the school side the city side but I mean there's there's case law out there the case law I cited to this you know to it's the city council of Boston versus

the mayor of Boston. You know, in that situation, the the city council Boston tried to retain their own council and the courts basically said exactly what I'm saying, which is that the office of the corporation council is the chief legal authority for the city and you can't do anything without that approval.

So would it also be true that in certain circumstances, let's say we wanted to take some form of legal action within the city, um potentially instead of representing us, you could you your office would represent the other party, whoever they that may be like in the case of taking the mayor to court. So this council had KP law and corporation council represented the mayor. So under what circumstances would

cor would would your office represent us in a similar situation or wouldn't wouldn't your office do that?

I mean it's always difficult to think of hypotheticals on the spot but I know there are occasions when there's conflicts. Um I think if I recall correctly there was one involving Mayor Koreah Jel Koreah. Um the question was whether or not he was capable of remaining mayor with the situation he was in. And in that case I believe um corporation council Macy found that he needed to retain outside counsel to

represent the city council and the mayor because of that conflict reason. And yeah of course there are situations where that would be the appropriate way to handle it. Um but that wouldn't be the case on everything. With that, I yield.

Councelor Ken.

Thank you. I I think Councelor Dion made the point I was going to make, which is the school department has an attorney that's not employed by through your office at every meeting, and I think we're looking uh for the same here. Um so the school department is they're all employees of the city ultimately. Um and I feel if they're able to have one, we certainly should be able to as well. And with that, I yield.

Yeah. Yeah. And and just to note too, I think it's important that the school department is a department of the city.

They're not a separate entity, per se.

Would you agree, attorney?

Correct.

I believe attorney Assad is an employee of the city. I've worked very well with him in the six years I've been here. Um, you know, I can tell you from past experience, I mean, and well, let's let's take it out of what's happened here. You know, everybody likes to say that you get 10 lawyers, you get 10 different opinions.

And I actually think that's inaccurate.

I think that when lawyers such as myself were hired to, you know, interpret the charter, to advise the city council, the mayor, the school committee when I'm needed on certain occasions, um you if there were 10 lawyers like me, we we would have similar opinions on all these things. When you have 10 different opinions is when you have 10 different clients. And that's the difference

because when you hire a private outside council that's not employed by the city, they will advocate for whatever the client wants them to advocate for. And that's when you have difference of opinions. That's when you see them in court. You know, their their job isn't to figure out what is best for Massachusetts law. It's not best for the city. It's to advocate on behalf of their client. And that's that's the

problem with having an outside council that only represents the city council.

Understood. Council Daniel. Uh, councelor Kadeim, thank you. Uh, so the case law, can you share the case law with us? The Boston City Council and then you I guess you reference Massachusetts general law. I would assume that the case law would would give us the general law that you're referring to.

Yeah, the site I have is 58 Massap 542. It's a 2003 case.

I'm sorry. 58 what? Mass?

58 Massapp 542.

Okay. Um because again I don't think any of us is questioning whether or not even if we we did retain our own or had the ordinance that said that the city council would have an attorney that that would circumvent any opinions that you put forth. But um I guess what I would say is is that I just take the current situations that we're dealing with now.

I mean we've we've got two um charter articles that we wholeheartedly disagree with, right? So you and the administration are taking one stance, but the city council has a different stance on that. Who represents us if we want to go to court?

I understand your opinion, but I I think let's got to characterize it correctly.

I have an opinion. It's not it's not the administration's opinion. The administration's following my opinion.

That's the difference.

It's I mean it's it's the same opinion for the city council, administration, the school department. It's always going to be the same opinion. Mhm. So I guess so what would be the process for the city council since we we do disagree that if we want to challenge the charter in court who is representing us and what's the process for that?

Well I mean your legal counsel will be telling I mean for example the hire an outside legal counsel but we're two separate government bodies right there's the executive branch and there's the administrative branch. the administrative branch right now is is in disagreement with the executive branch in terms of how the charter is is being read and interpreted. So, the only way to truly get any closure on that would

be to take it to court and have a judge rule on it. So, I understand what your statement is, but if the city council wants to challenge this, how do we we I mean, at at this point, the only way for us to do it would be for us to appoint somebody to go walk across the street and file something in court, right? We we don't have an attorney. So, if we had

somebody on retainer, we'd be able to say, "This is what we want to do. We want to move forward. Go file it in court for us." And I understand, but I I need to keep correcting. You do have a lawyer. I'm right here.

I am the chief legal officer for the city of Fall River. I'm your lawyer as much as I'm the mayor's lawyer.

I I app I appreciate that. So, if if we file a resolution that we want to go to court, you're going to represent us and and make the argument that we're making or you going to take the argument that you have given us because there we we've got two separate arguments. Do you see what I'm saying?

I do. But it's it's one of those things where we all have our our jobs. We all have the things that we are authorized to do and not do. And if we disagree with a certain department head, we can't then run the department for them. I mean, it's I believe I'm giving you sound legal advice. I think I'm giving you accurate legal advice. You know, what happens when you disagree with me?

I mean, I I haven't even se it's these aren't even issues where I feel like there's even been any legal challenge. I mean, I know you you just want to disagree, but there's not a case law. There's not something there's not a gray area. There's not even something where I could understand, okay, I could see this could go either way. I mean, we're we're talking about a possibility that's not even before us right now.

No. Well, I Well, I I think it's there's two issues. There's the contracts that are before us that hasn't been resolved and then there's also the uh fact that we can we can do investigations. That's that's the two that I think right now should be challenged whether whether we want to proceed with any of that like we as as a council I I think a majority uh truly feel that that's what the how the

charter reads and there's a there's a clear discrepancy between how you view the charter versus how we view. So we're we're at a stalemate. We've had this conversation. So, if we're not going to create an ornice that gives us the ability to have counsel to be able to represent us for either second legal opinions or when we disagree on charter issues, there's got to be a mechanism

for the legislative body to be able to take action on things that we disagree with, right? And and disagreement is fine, but and we may lose when we go to court, but at least it would be clarified and everybody is on the same page in terms of uh what the ultimate interpretation was. I mean, we we hear members from, you know, the charter committee who coming in and giving us the their opinion, citizen input.

There's there's a number of people saying different things. I'm just I'm just curious how how do we if if we're not going to create an ordinance that gives us the authority to have representation? How do we go about moving forward?

I I I don't know at this point. I mean, I I know when looking at this case, it was the city council of Boston that sued the mayor of Boston. So, they found a way. But, you know, I think the I only I only play an attorney on TV. I don't want to I know. But the thing is, it's like, you know, I'm the chief legal counsel for the

city. I think it would be a waste of tax dollars to pursue this. I'm giving you what I believe is perfectly accurate, sound legal advice, and you're asking me to tell how do I tell myself I'm wrong?

Um, I don't know. I mean, sir, City Council of Boston figured it out. I guess it's possible. I don't know whether they had to get their own private funds. I don't know how they had any money to I mean maybe somebody did a prosay for them. Proono, sorry.

Um and that's my guess. They probably found a lawyer to do a proono for them.

But um you know, authorizing a lawsuit. It's supposed to be nobody is allowed to sue on behalf of the city of Fall River without the authorization of my office.

Yeah. Listen, and I'm not I'm not suggesting with this ordinance that we have a similar situation to what the school committee has. I don't know that we need an attorney at our at our meetings every every single meeting. I think that's and I don't disagree.

That's what you're here for in your office, right? That's what we should be expecting in terms of legal representation, discussion. I think it comes into play when you know just like this if there's a second legal opinion and we get a second set of eyes on it and if whoever we have for um our own council comes back and says no we agree with corporation council then it's like

all right we we've got we've got uh and listen and I'm not trying to say that an unbiased opinion right because I understand that you work for the for the city um but just even just a perceived unbiased opinion as to whether or not the you know the charter is written the way it's written. And that's just one example. I mean, there's a number of things that could could come forward

that would just generate that a second legal opinion may be beneficial to either um agree with what you're saying and and give us a little bit more uh reassurance that okay, then you know, there's not really a lot for us to stand on with this issue. But I just think these two issues that we've been dealing with for the last couple of months are pretty significant to suggest that there

is a need for at least to have outside counsel for for the city council representing us to to give us second legal opinions and or represent us if we need to challenge the charter.

I understand and but I do want to clarify um I do know that at least one member of this council has contacted another lawyer who gave exactly the same opinion that I have. So I mean I think it's Do we know who that is? I'd like to I think council can talk to it if he wants to.

I have not contacted any lawyers.

You haven't spoken with Matt Thomas at length?

uh the city attorney. Yes, I did speak with him, but I don't know that we agreed on everything.

No, I I understand you didn't agree, but my understanding is that he gave a verbal opinion that was entirely consistent with mine. Now, once again, not that he's not the he doesn't work in my office. He doesn't work for the city, but I mean, I think no, he works for the city.

So, he does in the treasures department.

it doesn't work in my office. But so I mean I I I do know that people often seek other opinions u behind the scenes and um I still haven't heard a contrary opinion to mine from those sources.

Yeah, I think just to the conversation come back. It just pertain to the other issue for the reappoint of department heads whether or not they have to come down to the city council.

Council, can you have the floor?

No, I I I'm not trying to belabble the point. I just I've I think I've articulated why we should have at least a budget and the opportunity to be able to have uh outside legal counsel for that. Again, being very very clear, I recognize that any opinion that comes before like comes from that outside legal counsel does not bind the city in any manner. That the only thing that binds the city is is the opinion of

corporation council. But I think it just gives us an ability to be able to make some judgments when we have different differences of opinion or disagreements or even just questioning whether or not there is any validity or any other areas that need to be looked at. That's all.

Do you?

I yield. I'm sorry.

Anything else from the committee?

Okay. It's the will of the committee how we'd like to move forward. Um, at this point, like I said, we have a uh ordinance that was written and submitted to us. If you would like to take that up, we would have to introduce that to the committee um and have further discussions on that particular um resolution that was sent to us.

I'd like to um So, I'm always getting this confused. Is it table and refer refer and table?

Uh it can only go to one place.

Yeah. So, I was going to refer to cooperation council even though he's in disagreement to form, right? Just to form and then make sure that you know the form of the ordinance is just for the record, it has to be sent to him through the city code anyway.

Oh, okay.

Through the city clerk.

All right. Motion to adopt approve.

What do you I'm waiting to see what you want to do. If you want to refer, that's fine.

It wasn't already referred. Just I thought it was already referred. I wasn't reviewed it. Is is is there any concerns from a legal form?

No, no. Bes that's noted. I I guess anything else in terms of besides the Massachusetts general law and and case law, how it's written, is there any concerns to that? Just the form. That's it.

I guess that's what I'm looking for.

I I know. But I think, you know, when when I often review things for form and manner of execution, you know, the the numerous contracts I read on a daily basis, it's I mean, this is exactly what I I say when it's it's I believe it would be an it would be against other orders. I want to say illegal that makes it sound like much worse than it is, but

you know, it it can't be approved the way it is at all because it's inconsistent. I mean, I think that is the crux of the issue.

Point of clarification, if I may. Um, Attorney Ramsey, you received a copy of the written ordinance that councelor Ponty produced.

I did. I I I thought that was one of the things the purpose of today. Um, I'm just clarifying that you did receive I have I I received it. I reviewed it.

Okay.

Um, I tried to see if there's a way to work with it to make it so that I I could approve it and I just can't.

There's just can't approve it. All right. So, I'm going to just make a uh a motion to recommend adoption of the ordinance to full counsel with an amendment uh as written. So, under item C one, the city council may through the annual budget process or by separate appropriation orders establish a dedicated budgetary line. Um I'd like may to read as shall

Well, I got an extra if you need one.

Thank you, sir.

C1. So, instead of may shall Yes.

Okay. So the motion to amend uh it's 2-33 section C number one and changing may to shall yes form of a motion.

Yep.

Made by council Kim second by vice president. Any discussion on the amendment?

All those in favor?

I.

Any opposed? The eyes have it.

Motion to recommend approval as amended.

Correct. Okay. So the motion is to pass through first reading as amended made by council kadim.

Second second by vice president dion discussion on the amendment uh passing first ring as amended council can so I I think the case law that attorney corporation council runs provided I haven't had a full chance to review it.

I mean the city council in Boston did get turned away I think on that. Um I don't know that though that they have the same charter type. Do they have the same charter type? Do you know off hand?

Well, I believe there are plan A.

There's always some dissimilarities. I mean Fall River charter is unique. So it may be similar to others, but it's going to be unique.

I guess my question is how many attorneys are upstairs in your office? So like cuz I I forgot about the conversation with Thomas on the other one, but I'm just curious if we were if it's the just your opinion or the consensus of the the four I guess so to speak and with with I guess when we think of a second set of eyes before we pass this to first reading, you know,

could we have somebody else look at it?

I guess just I know this kind of came in recently so I don't know.

No, I mean our office routinely discusses things. I mean that's we kind of enjoy the intellectual debate on certain things. I mean I can't say specific every little thing has gone before them but I haven't heard any disagreement on any of this. Um you know but to answer your question attorney howak is there attorney for debt. Um we have attorney Burke and um we also have uh for another four days Jen is

also a member of the bar as well.

Okay. The other question I would have is if this were to move through the council hypothetically get adopted, what are the next steps then? Because you fundamentally disagree with this adoption.

If it gets adopted, the veto, right?

Well, I I wouldn't approve it and the mayor would veto it is my guess.

And then if it moved forward and the council overrode it, then what? Then it's on the books. I guess I'm trying to think ahead like where does this go if this makes it to the finish line.

I define the finish line as it's passed all readings.

I know. I mean, but you're you're asking me to kind of piece together a narrative where I'm helping you do what I think is against the charter. So, you're putting me in a difficult situation.

You're my counsel.

I I I know. But I can help you with things to help you with your legislative ideas, not to go against the charter.

Look, as I said along, I mean, first and foremost, I'll say this. If there was any legal counsel for any purpose, you would need money. You don't have that, right? So, you're going to you're going to need to have a conversation with the person who prepares the budget.

I vice president Dion. So, I guess on that note, that brings us back to we have precedent where we did have a line item in the budget specifically for legal and I'm pretty confident it was $40,000 at the time. So, if we have precedent and we had it before, is there any reason why we should not be able to have a line item um with an attorney or a firm on retainer? Well, I

can tell you that my personal opinion, I naively thought it would be a good idea because at the time I was the only uh full-time employee in the law department and Gary Halak was the only part-time attorney. Uh we were very short-handed.

I thought that would be a great thing and I in retrospect thought it was an awful thing. So I would not be in favor of again. I I would potentially be in favor of somebody from my office who would be here on a regular basis um for the city council, but an outside independent lawyer that has no allegiance to the charter and has no allegiance to anything other than the nine city council members. No, I would

not be in favor of you.

Let me ask a a question. I guess you know I think in other situations there's some sort of mediator that can take place. I don't know. Is there when municipalities have have issues with charter interpretations, is there any outlet at the state level for um mediation in terms of language? I I don't know. I don't know if there's any other precedent anywhere else that's that's taken place. I guess it's more of

a curious curious question.

Not aware of any.

Okay.

All right. We have a motion first reading as amended, made and seconded.

Any other discussion?

All those in favor? I.

Any opposed?

You guys have it.

And uh, Attorney Ramsey, just for clarification, you then fill out or complete some sort of response to this after first reading. Is there is what's your next step for the council's edification?

I think it just goes to the full council right?

Yeah.

Okay. But there's nothing from your office when it comes to proposed ordinance that you you do.

It's usually sent up for review.

Okay.

Which I'll just give the same answer.

Okay.

Fair enough.

Not going to change.

No. Thank you, Attorney Rimsey.

All right, we'll move on. Thank you.

We'll move on to our next item, which is item number two on our agenda, is the proposed ordinance to salary amendments for the director of health and human services. It was tabled 42126.

Motion to lift from the table.

Motion to lift from the table made by Vice President Dion, second by councelor Canuel. Any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? The eyes have it.

We'll invite the director of human resources down, please.

Mr. Molini, good afternoon. If you can introduce yourself for the committee.

Good afternoon, Nick Molini, director of human resources.

Thank you very much, Councelor Canuel.

Thank you. Uh so I've had time to contemplate the discussion at the last meeting uh that we had and I think the biggest thing that I took away from it was that the current incumbent in the position is currently exceeding in the amount what it the ordinance allows. And I have a fundamental problem with that um which I believe needs to be corrected before I can move forward with this

particular item. Um, I'll be making two motions. Uh, first uh I'll start with the uh simple one. I do appreciate the uh breakdown of the comps uh for salary that you provided to us uh excluding out of borrow and Swansea. The average was 110,000. Uh so firstly based on that I'd like to make a motion to uh ch lower the not to exceed amount from 115,000 to 110,000.

So for clarification you're looking to amend the proposed resolution correct for to not to exceed 110,000 instead of 150 and that's based on the data that was provided by Mr. Molini in terms of the average comps.

Understood. Second motion made to amend to 110,000 not to exceed made by councelor Canuel. Second by vice president Dion. Discussion on the amendment. Councelor Kadim.

Thank you. Um I guess while I appreciate that and I appreciate the work that Mr.

Malini has done, you know, some some of these are not truly comps, right? And I I think if you start removing some of these, your average is going to go up, not down, right? So, um, you know, when you're looking at Swansea, four people, um, you know, even Westport, I I mean, they they've got 14 people, but just that community in terms of size, organization, I would say is not a comp.

I would I would tell you that Attabborough Brockton um, New Befford, probably Plymouth, Taon would would be your comps, right?

So, and I think if you take Adelboroough, I mean, it's only six. And I I'm not sure what the health director is doing if it's still in terms of just uh responsibility and and job description really ties into what we're doing, but I I would think that you're probably going to be at the closer to the 115, if not at the 110. Um, but a little bit higher than that. I I don't know if somebody

wants to do the math on that. I just I'm just trying to figure out why. I know the recommendation was 115 or 120 was the original.

We started at 120 then we reduced it to 115.

Right. So I'm just trying to figure out why we're going down to the like the justification from the 115 down to the to the 110.

So because just looking at New Befford, right, there's 19 employees. Forever has 27. Uh the city of New Bever is just rounding up $123,000.

Right. Plymouth 11 employees. uh director of public health, that's $122,000.

And again, without seeing job descriptions, and it's it's hard to really kind of figure out exactly uh if they're truly comps in terms of the position itself, but I I just I I think and I don't disagree, but when we start talking about being competitive with some of these positions, and I don't know that you were suggesting that we go to the to that level, it's just to be able to

to have conversations, negotiations, and cost of living adjustments so that we're not exceeding it. again to your your concern about you know department heads exceeding what's an ordinance. So I mean I think there's multiple parts to this. So when you're looking at the external comps that's not really telling the whole story. I think when you look at just the amount of employees that have been added

internally um you're you're showing that the scope of that position has changed.

So the responsibilities have changed.

We've added that much staffing. So I think internally if you look at it that way that's probably more telling than the external comps to me.

So that that's just that's where I stand. I think I think we should be higher, not lower. Um I'm I'm comfortable supporting uh what the administration I put down at at 120. Um, if we're not at 120, I would I would say the the 115 is probably the lowest I would I would personally go. Uh, just because when you stop looking at it, I mean, CCONK alone, I mean, this Secon's almost $100,000 and it's literally three

employees. And granted, we're we're doing um, you know, this Title 5, the septic uh, inspections, things of that nature. So it's a little bit different compared to what's over here, but just in terms of sheer volume, the the workload associated with it, the the managerial component of it, I I would say that all day you should be at the 115 120.

I think broader.

Yeah, you councelor can I think broader work needs to be done across the department and the titles and the ranks and how that we we pay people and I think as I understand it from Mr.

Molini, that work is underway and hopefully will be completed in in the several months ahead. I think um so I think this is a kind of a stop gap uh adjustment here until that broader work is completed. That's how I view it because we're at 101 right now. This allows some flexibility um but not a lot because I do want to see that other work completed. So that would be my response

to that particular change. I don't disagree with you that this probably long-term needs to be positioned higher, but for where um if we're making an overnight adjustment, that's probably only potentially in effect for I would give it I don't know a year, Mr. Molini less.

Yeah, less than a year.

I think this positions us until that work is completed with that yield.

Vice President Dion, maybe it's just me, but it shows 27 employees that are being supervised by this individual.

Can you show me which of these are the 27? We have more than 27 people on this org chart.

You do. And you have positions there that are like senior aids, part-time that are uh funded by CFC. So, I didn't include them in my numbers. Those are provided by citizens for citizens.

Anything anything in the yellow is not I would not include them including the different shade of yellow.

Yes.

Okay. So we'll take Did you say including that like yellow orange? Is that correct?

Okay.

Just the bottom.

So we take all So the three on the left, the two on the middle and the one on the right.

That would be one, two, three, four, five. The same.

One, two, three, four, five, six.

Okay. But that's not this. Here I just took out the CFC ones.

Oh, CFC. Okay.

So, not the orange color.

So, not the state formula grant funded.

Right. That's the clarification.

Yeah, I took those. I removed those.

Start over. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 20 56 18 19 20.

You need it.

146 78 29 37 30 There's still 32. So, who else comes off of this for the 27?

I would have to look at this. I ran the numbers right from Ununice.

Okay. So, and point of clarification from from the budget, the amount of FTEES from the budget.

Well, no, because only the light blue uh city budget funded, which makes even less sense, and then you have grant funded, CDA funded, and then grant funded again.

I pulled it directly from Munice. So, they they wouldn't pull in those CFC employees. I mean, I could give you an actual breakdown if you wanted a breakdown.

Yeah. I you know I think I I I think I can't even move forward with this at this point in time because we have if you look at your color chart which is this light blue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 it only indicates 13 people but yet Munis produced 27 that doesn't make sense to me.

Are there any vacancies? There are that might not be included at least.

I'm I'm talking about from ununice because he pulled three that I'm aware of.

So that get you to 30 to 20.

Wait, he said 27 down to 24. If there's three vacancies.

No, no, that he didn't count for that.

Munis isn't showing.

It wouldn't show it in Munice.

I can do a full break.

So Munis showed 27 because that is people in payroll as of whenever I read.

That's what I'm saying. So then he's got three vacancies. So, you got to add that to the 27. That gets you to the 30.

Right. You said you counted how many?

32.

But if you look at your color chart and you look at city budget funded and you count the squares that match that color, it's not 27.

No. So, what what was the number that you got?

It's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13.

But you like sanitary inspector, too.

So, you got to count twice for that. I I I know there's not food inspector.

Okay. 14 15.

So I'm not sure that they included.

So then that brings us up to 15.

Yeah.

So somewhere there's something not quite right. Something's not lining up. And I think we need to get to the bottom of that to be able to determine truly how many people this person is supervising.

A um I can give you a full census. Yeah, that would be good because I mean that that kind of changes for me changes everything. I mean if it ends up as 15 people and not 27, we're talking a whole different ballgame.

So um with that I'll yield.

So councel Kadim, thank you. Thank you.

It's a little tough. Two C's, right? We got to separate both on the same side of the table.

I know. Uh so but even I guess even that right. So 27 that you're probably higher than or potentially higher. I mean, if we're counting, even if you get down to the 15, you're more in line with Brockton, you're in line with New Beford at 19. So, you still get you still get close to what you're seeing for comps in terms of salary. So, I don't know that it changes in terms of what you're

looking for. And and it doesn't, but if it makes you feel better to have or you know, if it gives you a better, more informed decision by having that full census, I I don't mind because we're significantly higher.

We're 27. You know, we've got supervisors 6, supervisors 14, supervisors 3, 19, 11, 3, 3, 4, 9, 14.

So, we're not even in range. So, I mean, even if you cut off 10 out of that, you're still higher, right?

Or in line with New Bever, which is paying 122, Plymouth, that's paying 121, Westport that's paying 122. I mean, So, with that, I yield. All right. So, we have a motion on the floor to amend the proposed ordinance to not to exceed 110,000. It was made and seconded. Any other discussion?

Roll call.

On the motion, Council Gadim.

Uh, no.

Council Daniel, yes.

Vice President Dion, yes.

Councelor Ferrer. Chair Repos, yes.

Motion carries. Council Daniel, you still have the floor.

Thank you. Uh so circling back to my primary issue, uh right now the position is currently at 103,525.88, which is exactly 2.5% over the ordinance. So my understanding, I think from the discussion last time, is this was a result of a coal merit uh increase. Um, but the city council adopted on June 17th of last year the appropriation of 1012 $200.80 which is reflective of the maximum the ordinance allows plus $200 for

longevity. And I did go back to the prior fiscal year to see what the situation was because while in this year it looks like we've awarded 2 and a2% in FY25 um the incumbent was making $100,160 and was giving given a 0.84% increase which took took them right up to the maximum of the ordinance. So, we did comply with the ordinance in FY25.

And so, um I agree uh this position pay needs updating, but first I think fundamentally I'm looking for two things. One, that we fix this um and get this in compliance with the ordinance first. And second, that we conduct a review of any other positions that have a amount dictate maximum amount dictated by ordinance to make sure we don't have any others in this situation. And then

if uh all of those are corrected, I'm uh would like to proceed at that time. Uh but for now, I'm going to make a motion to table this matter until um the this current salary is brought in compliance with the ordinance. With that, is that a motion council?

There's a motion.

Motion to table made by councelor Canuel.

So this puts me in a predicament. I want to comment, but I can't if I second it.

If I second it, we can second it for discussion on the table.

Okay, I'll second for second made by Vice President Dion.

Discussion. Vice President Dion.

So, um I agree with with councelor Canuel. Um in the time I've been on this council, we have encountered this so many times. It's not to exceed, not to exceed. And we forever have positions that have exceeded um we've had we've had positions that have exceeded by far more than $2,000.

Um, and it's always been that it comes to the council and the council just fixes it and raises the limit. So now we're within ordinance again. Um, and I don't think in the past the appetite was there to draw the line and say, listen, you know, when you're approaching the threshold, you know, you're approaching the threshold. So put the request in before you exceed the threshold. Um so

moving forward I would like to take that position that that's what we do that um we address it in advance. We don't fix it after ordinance has been um there's been infraction of the ordinance. So with that I yield.

Thank you councelor Kadim. So can I just for you Mr. Chairman just asked the question. So I guess we're going to table this. We're going to go back. I mean the the individual it's no fault of the individual that's getting paid. So that individual is going to have a salary reduction, but it really is just for show cuz we're going to reduce the salary. We're going to table it. We're going to come back. We're going to

increase the salary and then in a week she's going to get her her pay raise and not really like so I I don't understand.

I I don't disagree. I agree that we we've said this before that the ordinances need to be followed. I just don't know that tableabling this, having the administration go back, reduce somebody's pay only for us to come back in a week or two weeks to increase the pay doesn't I'm not sure what message that really sends.

And and I would I I do have a question to myself and then that this is not the first time this is a situation that's happened. back when in 2022 when some of the adjustments were made this kind of similar question came up and you know I guess my position too would be what mechanism is in place to avoid this going forward because I I mean and and and kind of looking ahead too and and

you and I have had discussions about what you're working on you know coming shortly I think some of that gets resolved by that system but at least between now and then you know and I think I echo what council Ken was saying in reviewing the current ordinances and we're working on the FY27 budget so we don't run into any issues going. So to you uh uh Mr. Molini, how do we avoid

how do we avoid this and clean this up?

Yeah, so just for context, as far back as I can remember, this has kind of been an issue. I mean, I've been here for 16 years um not in this position that long, but I I do remember this coming up every couple years and I think 22 when we did this big comprehensive one. This was something that we had discussed. Is it do you put an escalator in? you do something that so that you're not coming

down here every you know one two years to make this change. Um we're kind of looking now at how we do something um comprehensive where there is a clear start point for a position and an end point for a position and that there is some type of escalator so that every year it's getting just adjusted. It may be limited in what it's adjusted. It may be I don't want to throw anything out

yet because it's not complete but that that is I think a way that will correct this going forward. Um, I would hate to see the the fix be to cut someone's salary at this point. Uh, I don't think that's the fix. Um, I could have sworn there was a legal opinion on a on a cola. I went through my office today. I could not find it. I thought this was something that was addressed prior that

we couldn't come down if there was a cap and and request an increase of 5 10,000 whatever it is. But if it was a cola that was naturally lifting it up, that that was okay. we just, you know, could not do um bigger increases. But I I do think I mean I would like to see this position adjusted. I'd like to see that reflected in in their salary. It's something that's been discussed for a

while. Um but we can do a comprehensive salary restructure. Do it the right way where it's not leading to spikes in salaries or it's not leading to, you know, reductions in salaries that everyone's on a level playing field.

It'll help us with recruitment. It'll help us with uh retention. it'll help us with those conversations when people come looking for more money that there is a clear path from start to finish. I think that will address it. I'm just we're not ready to bring it down yet.

Understood.

Vice President Dion.

Yeah. Um I don't disagree with Council Kadim in terms of punishing the individual. Um it's not the individual, it's not the employees fault. It's the fault of the administration for exceeding um ordinance. So, I don't disagree with that. I just think that somehow we have to do something moving forward to stop um stop it from happening. And so, whatever it looks like, whatever that may be, um that's

what I'm looking for. So, you know, and it's true. So, you know, 16 years and it's happened over and over and over and over. Well, it's time for it to stop. Um and the budget has to reflect um the salaries and not increase the salaries above ordinance and um and not ask for transfers to increase salaries after the budget is put together. So somehow we we um I just hope everybody can get on the same page

and just say okay enough is enough and let's do it right from now on. And with that, I yield.

Thank you, Vice President Dion.

Councelor Canel.

Thank you. I think you know in this situation before you know this raise goes through this would still have to go back to the full council. So I think procedurally right now we have something that we've identified that is not consistent with the charter. I think we have to fix that because if the will of the council, I don't know what the rest of the council is going to do. They they

may they may decide not to push this through. And we still have a situation where the city council has only appropriated a certain amount of money uh $11,200.80 and we are the administration has gone above that. And I just believe fundamentally to councelor Dion's point this needs to stop. We need to we need to say no you can't just go it's $2500 today could be 25,000 tomorrow. Where do

where does it end? For me the dollar amount is doesn't matter if it's a dollar over it's too much. we appropriate what we appropriate and that's what we should be giving to people. So, um I think we have to go back and fix that first. That's my position on this and uh obviously we'll see where the will of the committee goes. Um and uh we'll go from there.

With that, you Thank you, Council Kim. So, again, I I don't disagree with the premise. You know, I I would I would say in a perfect world, the budget process is where we would have that check and balance, right? But when you have the ability to be able to transfer All right. So you're you're talking about 101. I'm not I'm not even sure. I don't have it in front of me. What what the salaries listed in

the budget is that the 101 is what was this is what was appropriated by the council.

So and this is the max in order. So it's $200 difference which is the right. So so there's a $200 increase, but you could tomorrow go make a or even tonight go make a transfer within is this um city administration or whatever human services that that block.

But the the only other thing that I would point out is I'm not saying right or wrong, just that more money was appropriated to account for cost of living adjustments in the budget that weren't included in those line items. So that was included in the budget.

No, no, I I recognize something.

If you if you've got if you've got vacancies currently, you've got enough money that's already being accounted for. And at the end of the day, the city council does not approve line item. It's it's salaries bottom line. So that's the only thing that we're approving. I said so we I think we need to figure out what the mechanism is to make sure that the ordinances is not being um ignored. And

I'm not saying it's ignored but um just exceeded uh because I I don't disagree. We we had the conversation about and I don't know that we went anywhere with it when we first had these conversations that we needed to have something in there that we understood that as long as there were reasonable cost of living adjustments that were similar to what other unions have had that that you would be able to

to exceed. It's to your point, not the 5,000 or the $10,000 or $20,000 increase that would require council approval. But um so I don't disagree uh with what you're trying to do. My I guess I just can't support it because all we're simply doing is correcting it for a week coming back because we know we're going to increase this, right? I don't think there's anybody at this table who's

saying we're not going to increase it from $100,000, right? So why would we then table it just to go back tell somebody we're going to reduce their paycheck say it's corrected and then increase it the very next meeting. I I just I don't know that that's the the actual fix. I think I think we're all clear that we need to make sure that the ordinances are being followed and not circumvented.

If I can I mean I I know that the last time we did this it was a comprehensive salary restructure. It wasn't talking about one you know position in general but it was April I believe that was submitted and it it was approved in October. So I think anything we do is going we you know we want your support when we do this. We want to collaborate.

It's going to take some time to get right.

And and I and I will say and I think maybe Mr. Malini may recall this when we first did this whole kind of upgrade and and just re revisited this whole ordinance was probably in like 2012 or something like that. And when when you start looking at all the the salaries, nobody was referring to the ordinance for for salaries. it was 22 and there were 30 that were out of compliance.

And I remember calling uh the clerk at the time saying, "Where are you getting this these salaries from? They're not consistent with what's in the the budget." And she said, "Well, you the administration has to send it down." And I was like, "Well, I don't think anybody knew that." So then we we went through the entire process, updated everything.

So, you know, even going prior prior to that, it was probably I want to say early 90s before that was even addressed. So, it's it's not it's not a one-off here.

It's it's happened before, but I I think we just need to correct it, but I don't know that this is the process. So, with that, I yield. Council Cano, I yield. I'm ready to vote.

Okay. So, the motion on the floor.

That That was my next sentence. Yes. Uh the motion on the floor right now is a motion to table. We had it made and seconded. Roll call.

It's just just to table.

Just to table. That was that was the motion to look on the table anyways for more information. Is that correct? Do you require more information? Um, that's fine.

Okay, forget it. Yeah, I just want to take No, no, that's fine. So, um, I guess can I You may counsel.

I'm only clarifying because if if it's to table to reduce somebody's salaries, I'm a no. If you're looking for more information, that would have to be referred to the full council. Correct. The committee can't make that decision. Be a recommendation to the council to lower that salary.

Okay.

The committee can't do that. Well, so I'm not Do you vice president?

So I'm not in favor of lowering their salary of of of penalizing the employee for something that wasn't their fault. I am on board with more information or sending it to full counsel to take action so this doesn't happen again.

So however that plays out.

Understood. Do you yield council?

Yes. I'm sorry. So again, the motion right now on the floor is a motion to table made and seconded. Roll call.

Motion to table. Councelor Kadin, yes.

Councelor Canuel, yes.

Vice President Dion, yes.

Councelor Pereira.

Chair Reposo.

Yes.

Could I just quickly Councelor Kadim, could I just request that you get the information to the committee as quickly as possible?

Yes. All right.

Yes. And and I would echo that and as soon as we have that information, we'll return this to the agenda again to discuss.

Thank you all. There is no other business from this committee.

Motion to adjurnn.

Motion to adjourn. Vice President Dion, second by councelor Canuel. All those in favor? Any opposed? The eyes have the city council committee on ordinance legislation now adjourned.