4.6.2026 Fall River City Council - Committee on Ordinances and Legislation

My marble coming.

Hey hey hey.

Hey,

hey hey.

Good afternoon. The city council committee ordinance of legislation will be called to order. Madam clerk, call the role, please here.

Here.

Vice President here. Council here. Chairman here. 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 medium.

Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and deemed acknowledged and permissible. Item number one on our agenda today is citizens input. There is none. Moving on to item number two. It's the minutes for the March 3rd, 2026 meeting.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Motion to approve made by Council Canuel, second by Vice President Dion.

Any thoughts? All those in favor?

Any opposed? The eyes have it. Item number three is proposed ordinance traffic handicap parking referred on 3102026 and 3242026 Osborne Street North 20 ft east of Brown Street and Stewart Street South 29 ft east of North Underwood Street.

We're looking for a motion for emergency preamble.

Motion emergency preamble.

Motion made by councelor Pereira.

Second.

Second by councelor Kadim. Roll call.

Motion councelor Kadim.

Yes.

Councelor K. Yes.

Vice President.

Yes.

Council Perrero.

Yes.

Chair.

Yes. Further motion from the committee.

Motion to pass through first reading, second reading, and enrollment.

Motion made by council kadem. Second by council purr. Any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? The eyes have it.

Item number four on our agenda is proposed ordinance traffic miscellaneous referred 31026 and 32426.

Section one parking prohibited during certain hour inserts. Progress Street North starting at Stafford Road from a distance of 282 feet westerly Monday through Friday 7 a.m. to 9:00 am and 2 pm to 4 p.m. Progress Street South starting at Stafford Road for a distance of 275 ft westerly Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. Section two is a

two-hour parking insert Pleasant Street southeast of C Street. And section three is handicap parking removals. Barn Street south 322 feet west of County.

Hunter Street south 184 feet south of William Street. Seabberry Street West 104 ft north of Bank Street. Sprag Street north 257 ft east of Bay and Tuttle Street East 64t south of Dwelli Street.

Is there a motion from the committee?

Motion to pass through first reading.

Motion to pass through first reading made by council. Second by vice president Dion. Discussion. Council Pereira, I have a question. What is this Progress Street and um Stafford Road? It's like both sides.

Correct. So that is Stephanie McCarthy, director of traffic and parking. Uh so that's for LNO school. So that's that portion of Progress Street.

Correct. Yep. So it would just be during drop off and pickup.

Okay.

For school.

That's what I thought. That's been crazy down there.

Yeah. With it being with it being too long to travel, if there's cars parked down there, when the parents drop off on progress, they can't get out to Stafford.

You yield, council.

I yield.

Any other discussion from the committee?

Motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor?

I.

Any opposed? The eyes have it.

Item number five is a communication from a city resident regarding parking ticket appeal process referred 31026.

We're going to hold discussion on this item. We can invite motion to lift from the table.

Oh, that's for six.

That's for six.

Can invite uh assistant corporation council down. Sergeant Ferris, director of traffic and parking is here. And the resident, if you want to come on down as well.

We need one more chair.

We're going to need one more chair.

Slide that chair over. He can sit next to you.

Thank you.

All these men and we didn't get up to help you. Terrible. Moving forwards.

Okay. Can we introduce one another first? I know M Mrs. MacArthur has already introduced herself. Sergeant Ferris.

I'm Sergeant Ferris for Police Department Traffic Enforcement Unit.

Thank you, sir.

Kath, assistant Corporation council, City of Fall River.

Thank you, ma'am.

Dana Boule, Fall River.

Thank you. So, just to be clear, the letter we received from the uh city resident is speaking about a question of the MGL and if the city has adopted it or not. Um, and then some general concerns. So, Miss Boule, I'm going to let you speak first to your concerns and then I will allow um our other invited guests to discuss this topic and then the counselors will uh ask questions as appropriate.

Okay. It's a little lengthy, but go ahead.

Okay. So I understand that the statutes such as MGL chapter 261 subsection 27A throughg apply specifically to court proceedings and not directly to municipal parking enforcement. I'm not claiming that they are the controlling law, but I am citing them to demonstrate that Massachusetts as a state already recognizes the importance of ensuring access to legal processes regardless of

financial status. While these statutes may not mandate indignancy waiverss for parking citations, they do reflect a broader principle and under home rule authority, the city has the ability to uh create similar standards administratively to ensure equitable access to the appeals process. The current system requires payment to access an appeal for individuals with limited financial means. That does

create a barrier to due process and effectively discriminates against those who cannot afford it. This is about ensuring that enforcement is fair, that residents are given reasonable opportunity to comply, that access to an appeal is not dependent on someone's ability to pay upfront. The data shows Oh, I did email you guys. You have it?

We do have copies.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Um, so that data shows that over $4,000 in citations were issued on a single street in a short period, often in clusters, within minutes, and under a condition that the city has since corrected. the number does not include the missing amounts in the balance column that shows paid in full. So, it's above 4,000.

Um, at that scale, the appeal process must be accessible. And in this case, it was not specifically due to financial hardship. When someone has to pay upwards of $100, as in my case, to appeal tickets, which happened in this situation, it does become a barrier for a low-income individual. I also want to briefly address how my situation was characterized in the memorandum by Mr.

Fet. My position has been framed as an attempt to avoid responsibility rather than to document inability to pay. That characterization is not accurate and Mr.

Fet's earlier response suggesting that if I could not afford to access an appeal, I should pursue legal action against the city itself. That is not a solution, and it highlights the exact barrier that this ordinance is meant to address. Although my personal financial situation is supported by verifiable documentation like my tax forms, it is irrelevant to why we are here today and

I'm not sure why it was mentioned by Mr.

Fett. Any suggestion that my documented income is not real is speculative and not grounded in fact. I also want to clarify that my place of employment and the specific details of my citations, which I will state for the record, would not have been issued had the traffic department consulted with the fire chief in the first place and his recommendation rather than exceeding it by more than double the footage. Um,

essentially eliminating the five spots in front of my house. And that's not something up for discussion or again relevant to today's meeting. That memorandum was inappropriate, unprofessional, and has nothing to do with whether there should be separate pathway for lower inome individuals.

This proposal is not about me as an individual. It is about whether residents in Fall River, regardless of income, have meaningful access to an appeal process. The data shows that dozens of citations can be issued on a single street within a short period, often multiple within minutes. And in those situations, the current app appeal process requires a fee per citation that becomes a barrier to review rather than

a pathway to it. And while it has been stated that multiple citations may be combined under a single appeal fee for the same plate, that information is not clearly disclosed on the back of the citation or anywhere publicly written on the state website. And in my multiple discussions with the traffic department since December, that information was not given to me. until my appeal period was

closed almost two months later. So if that information is not readily available to the public, then no one would be able to know about it. And again, that creates the pathway of hardship by having to pay for each single citation. Um, and when enforcement can occur at that scale, there needs to be a mechanism that allows residents to seek review without being priced out of the process. The

city today has the ability to implement a hardship waiver process. The question has never been and is not whether whether it's required, but whether our city wants to help low-income individuals or keep intact a system that is purely determinant on an individual's finances. The optics portrayed under the current appeal system is that you do not care whether residents can afford an

appeal or not. There is no other way to access one. I believe in complete transparency between government and resident and this is an opportunity to do just that and for the city to implement something that could help hundreds of low-income residents in Fall River facing unjustified unjustified citations and financial barriers to the appeal process um as it currently stands. I'm a former United States Army

uh reservist and I know that I did not sign a will at 19 years old for the government to not do the right thing for everybody regardless of their financial status.

And I'll leave it at that.

Thank you. Before I go to the assistant legal counsel, I'm going to go to uh vice president Dia.

Hi. Hello. Um, so when you received your first ticket, you had 21 days to appeal. How many more tickets did you get within that that 21-day period?

Eight total.

So, it would have been $80.

So, you had you got eight tickets in less than 21 days.

So, you had the ability to appeal all eight tickets.

Um, and it only would have cost you $10. It doesn't matter one or eight. They would have charged you $10 for the appeal.

But that's not written anywhere on the citation or the website.

Okay.

And in my communications within that 21 days, I wasn't told that.

Okay. So, so I didn't even have that information.

Within those 21 I guess my point is within those 21 days, you could have asked for an for an appeal.

If you had gone to the office, you would have known it was only going to cost you $10 because, just hear me out, had you gone there to appeal and they said $80, you would have said, "I can't afford $80." And you probably would have opted to leave to try to do exactly what you're doing now, a fairer process for a lesser amount. But had you gone, you would have known it would only

be $10. you would have been within the 21 days because in ordinance you cannot appeal after the 21-day window closes. So, we have a So, there's a couple of moving parts here.

So, I was in contact with the office from the day I got that ticket and was not told that information until well after the 21-day period. That's my point, okay?

Is I was in contact I was emailing asking about the appeal process and there's plenty of documentation of that.

I'm sure there is in the system emails. So that's not So you were in contact but you never called the office but you never appealed because I think that's the key to this.

The key is that the whole idea that you can pay $10 for one citation is not publicly known information and the office did not tell me that until after the 21-day appeal period. So if that's true then that needs to be stated on the back of the citation in the proper appeal process. You can't just I mean have information that no one knows about. And again, I was in contact with

the office multiple times over email and phone call well before the 21-day period about this situation. So, it should have been told to me my first call, second call, third call.

And perhaps maybe it should have and it wasn't.

Let's say so let's agree that it should have.

But my question again is, did you appeal any of the tickets within the 21 days?

I couldn't because that information was not told to me and I had eight tickets in front of me. I'm someone who makes $500 after expenses on my tax forms. I'm a food stamp collector. I'm in a lowinccome area. I'm a full-time worker.

I'm a full-time college student. I'm doing everything I can to not be low income, but right now I am. And the city's appeal process failed me.

Okay. So then my next question is so your first ticket did so once when you received the first ticket did you at that point realize that where you parked you couldn't park?

Yes. After I called the office because there as you know my street has been from a one-way to a two-way.

That was confusing for a while.

The no parking sign was up the whole time during construction.

Mhm. And it was also still had a one-way sign and still had a stop sign facing the other way. So there was three different signs not coinciding with each other. One saying one way, one stop sign facing the other direction and then the no parking sign while construction is happening. The day we found out that the new signage is enforced. We all woke up to $50 tickets. No one told us. There

was no letter in the mail. There was no one explaining that this is now an enforcement. We went to park we went to bed parking legally and apparently woke up to it being illegal to park there.

So from that time I communicated with the office that there are more cars than there are spots. People have been parking in other people's driveways leaving notes saying please don't tell me. And if you look at the data within a 3-month period over $4,000 was uh issued in citations. That shows for the same license plates over and over. That shows that people are parking there because there's nowhere

else to park. We're not parking there because we want to pay the city. There were more uh cars than spots. We had no other choice in miles of radius of my neighborhood. My neighborhood is filled with three family, six families, triple deckers.

So, were any of your tickets issued during the construction phase?

No, not after not during the construction phase. But again, the first citation happened with no one even knowing that those signs were being enforced because they were up the whole time. And it still doesn't beg the uh it still doesn't remedy the fact that there are more cars than spots. People are still parking there because they have to. And the city corrected that. The city did move the signage, well be

moving the signage from 30 from 70 feet to 30 feet, essentially giving us those four spots back. And it wasn't just five spots on my street. It was 11 in the entire block because of all the new mass79 project. So it's not even just five spots. It was 11 spots.

So nobody parked there during construction?

Yes. People continued to park there during construction even with a no parking sign.

Correct. Because Yeah. And no one got tickets then for the months that it was up. So how are we supposed to know that suddenly it's enforceable? And then again, even if it's enforceable, it doesn't take away the fact that there aren't enough spaces in that neighborhood. 11 were removed directly in like a 100 ft radius.

So, I guess my last question will be um so after you received the first ticket, at that point you knew and understood it was enforceable and you couldn't park there, obviously.

But park there seven more times.

Did you not hear anything I just said?

No need to get cocky or wise. I'm I'm asking you. Did you Did you hear what I said?

I heard what you said. The fact that you wait a minute your question.

No, it doesn't answer my question because what you stated was we went to bed and woke up with an enforcable no parking. The day before we didn't know the next day we had tickets. My question was so that after so the next day at that point were you aware it was enforcable and no parking? And your answer was yes. So, if you knew it was enforcable and it was no parking, why did I park?

Why did you park there seven more times and get seven more tickets?

Because there was nowhere else to park.

Are you not You don't believe me? Go drive by.

I'm going to I'm going to step I'm going to step in one second.

And why does this have anything to do with whether there should be a pathway for low-inccome residents because it's $10 to eight tickets.

But that's not that's not told anywhere or written publicly. So, how are people supposed to know that?

The chair is going to step in. Again, I want to focus this meeting on the question of the MGL here. That's the topic of this conversation. It's not about what we're discussing right now at this point. So, I'm going to turn over Thank you, Vice President Dion. I'm going to turn over to the assistant corporation council to discuss the MGL that's in question here, chapter 902A and a half. Mr. Fet, please.

Thank you. Um, thank you to all you counselors tonight for uh, so my hope is I did send out a packet of information and my hope is you all got it and maybe had the opportunity to look at it. When I first came into this, this is as a result of of uh, being asked simply, can you take a look at the original uh, email uh, or or message that Miss Boule had put out regarding dissatisfaction

with members of the staff of the traffic department. and at that time uh in reading it took it as accurate when she reported that there was a MGL out there uh that quote provided the right to appeal parking citations to the district court. So I immediately pull up the statute and the first line of that statute which is in that packet I sent was if promulgated if accepted by it's for Boston, Cambridge and any

municipality that accepts the provision of the following and I stopped there because I went to our ordinances. Do we have an ordinance where we've actually accepted over time uh chapter 90 20 a and a half and there wasn't. So at that time I stopped my review and simply said we haven't undertaken the statute if that's what it stands for. So nor do we are we required to. Subsequently when

further messaging went out to all the members of of uh of this ordinance committee I think all the counselors altogether. Uh I went back and read 20 and a half. It has no application here whatsoever. Uh it's my guess that Miss Boule uh like many go on to Google and accept an A1 an AI representation of law that doesn't actually exist. And I and I provided that memorandum. U there is uh

first the only appeals that occur in the justice system are appeals of the decision of the parking clerk. 982 and a half sets up the provision by which parking clerks exist in municipalities.

then goes on to specify what kind of information needs to be on the ticket, including uh the appeals process. I don't think there's any obligation to import uh long boilerplate language that likely wouldn't fit on a ticket regarding the fact that it's per license plate. As if you give Miss MacArthur the chance, I'm sure she'll tell you that it's a parking it's your parking plate.

And with all due respect to the representation of the time frame, I also provided the tickets that Miss Boule picked up. She paid one on Breman Street back in two 2024. So, she knew very well. I assume uh that that there are no parking spots down there because she paid for a ticket. She then I never interrupted you despite the misrepresentations that have been I never interrupted once. I hope you can

do the same for me.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to remind the quorum in the council, please. It was one person speaking at a time. Thank you very much.

So the next ticket after having paid it in 24 was December 19th of 2025. That was a $110 ticket. She didn't pick up another ticket for 19 days. So in the 21 days that she had a right to appeal, she didn't avail herself of it. instead instead picking up a ticket on January 7th, January 21st, January 23rd, January 29th, January 30th, February sec 6th, and just recently, well, last month,

March 9th. So, the argument that she picked up all these tickets and didn't do it for because each one was going to cost 10 really doesn't make a lot of sense. She had 21 days on the on that December ticket, which was $110.

With all due respect, I'm a little dubious. As I point out, driving is a privilege in Massachusetts.

There's no right to drive. The state of Massachusetts regulates and we all do it. We have to pay for our registration, our insurance, our inspection, our maintaining, our fueling, excise taxes.

It's a lot more money than the $500 that Miss Boule claims all she has from working a job she's had for a number of years. I looks like you worked in Canton and then Stoden since 2021 at least. So And have you been living down here that whole time in that neighborhood? Then why is it that your your license shows the Somerset address which I assume that's where my mother lives.

All right. Which I assume you also use with your insurance company because you're telling is it cheaper to garage your car?

Miss Mr. Mr. FET.

Can I can I ask a question if I may?

Absolutely. Can you can you speak to the master general of chapter 90 12 2A and a half?

Yes.

Is it my understanding what you said is not adopted by the city?

So it hasn't been formally adopted by the city but the creation of a parking clerk has. So So if there if there is I could not the clerk's not in her head that it is.

So the clerk is going to clerk do you have copies? Madam clerk can you pass that out to the committee? Um so there is a order dated uh August 18th 1981 in which the provisions of chapter 90 sections 20A and 1/2 were of the general laws as inserted by chapter 351 of the acts of 1981 here and be the same except with that said however and and again this may be some new

knowledge so just the clerk will pass it around. I guess my question as the chair of the committee is to Miss Boule's question, does this MGL include mechanisms for financial hardship when it comes to the appeals process?

None whatso?

Okay.

The only appeal that's referenced in any of the statutes is the right to appeal before the superior court. You know what appeal costs in the superior court for a civil claim? $275. And there's no mechanism for reducing that whatsoever.

So you know first off and I said it at the beginning of this u u there's no applicability of this statute indigency which is also been maintained by uh Miss Boule as applying also does not because indingency under master laws 261 is for criminal uh person when you get arraigned in district court or superior court you meet with the probation department you provide a financial statement as well as biological data and

then you're asked do you intend to hire an attorney. If the answer is yes, they then determine on a scale of your income, your size of family as to whether you are eligible or not. If you are eligible subsequent to your arraignment, you owe and you end up owing the legal fee, fines, assessments of any kind from the court. That is when the inter agency process kicks in to determine how much you can pay and when

you can pay it and payment plans are made. But the but the issue is an attempt I'll say by Miss Boule to leapfrog the appeals process which already exists in the form of the parking clerk hearing them to get into court. You can't. It would be akin to a criminal verdict being appealed before the jury rendered it. So, the only thing that is appealable under our laws is a determination made by the parking clerk.

And when you don't show up for your hearings and you don't avail yourself within the 21 days, we don't there's no process for reducing the rate. There's a discretionary call, but you know what?

You have to actually show up to make your argument whether you deserve the ticket or not or why you shouldn't have to pay it. And my understanding is there is no restriction on the argument you can make. You can go pure sympathy ex explaining your financial situation, explaining why on a particular ticket you needed to park somewhere and maybe it's not that fair, but you have to show

up for those things. And instead, this is an attempt to leapfrog that entire process and get yourself in court all under the guise of despite the fact that I pay way more uh to even have a car lawfully on the roads in Massachusetts, I can't afford the transgressions I pick up in the form of violations, whether it's speed, moving tickets or non-moving like parking, which are strictly civil matters.

Thank you, Mr. Fet. Councel Kadim.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I appreciate everything that was said and I don't disagree with I guess what the administration's take is, but I think at the end of the day, Miss Boule is not really here looking to appeal her tickets. I think she's just looking at the process to be able to review a policy level to allow people to appeal.

So, I guess I just want to kind of bring us back to the appeal process. What's the current appeal process? Is it outlines either on the website or how how do people get notified on the appeal process?

So, it's listed on both tickets that are issued. So, issued through the police department and through parking control, it is on the tickets. It states they have 21 days to request that appeal and that there is a $10 processing fee for the appeal. I can assure you that when any individual contacts our office in regards to that, they are notified that it is per plate.

Okay?

But it wasn't until after the appeal window. Way after the appeal window. And if you listen to the times, there was 19 days between the first and the second.

But if you heard the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth pick, those were all within weeks of each other. So that does matter cuz even if I appealed the first one at $10, I'm still $60 in the hole trying to appeal those ones back to back because it's not listed on the back of the ticket and it was not told to me until well after the 21day period. We have that dated in the emails. And I

also want to note that u Miss Boule had mentioned that she had received numerous tickets within the 21-day window from her original violation. That is also not true.

It says it right there.

The signage that she also explained about that she said that had went up overnight. That also did not happen.

You say it went up overnight.

One at a time, please. I'll ask you one at a time.

So the So the signage did go up December 17th of 2025. Enforcement began on December 19th, which is when Miss Boule had received her first violation. She also um stated that residents woke up to $50 tickets. Her ticket was $50 specifically because she was parked in the wrong direction and a prohibited area. So other individuals who were parked just in the prohibited area would have just received a $25 ticket, not a

$50 ticket. Right.

So I think there's also some confusion there as well. Um she also did discuss that report that I did send out to all counselors who was on that email thread.

Um, it should also be noted that the Breman Street, that is all of Breman Street. So, I think she might be confused that it might be all in that one area, but it is Breman Street completely. So, from North Main to Lindsay Street. So, those violations could be anywhere from bad inspection stickers, bad registrations. I mean, there's numerous parking violations that are issued on Breman Street, and it's

not specific to that location. And listen, I I recognize that uh parking tickets are fines that are issued either by the police department or by traffic, nobody likes them, but it it's a mechanism for enforcement, right? I I think it becomes a public safety concern. Obviously, that's why we have no parking or specific reasons for that.

But just to get back to what's before us in terms of potential policy changes because we can't wave any tickets that are before us. If somebody calls the office and they um say that they're unable to afford the I guess the filing fee, is there a process to wave that? Do we have a current policy?

There is no policy in place, but we do give the constituent time to pay it. So right now, my hearings are scheduling out into December.

Um so it has to be paid prior to the appeal. That's what we let the constituents know. If they call and want to book a hearing, we schedule the hearing. They have to pay that $10 prior to the appeal. Okay. And so are they so it's per place? So there correct depending on the timing it could be multiple hearings or do you try to lump all I do it all in one hearing.

Okay.

Yep.

All right. So it would just be a $10 fee.

Correct. It's a processing fee. Uh it's printed out for all the documentation that is going to be at the appeal. Plate information, registry information, um any photos that are taken by the officers, that's also printed as well.

Would there be any, I guess, um, reservation from the from the administration to just simply put if there's any concerns about uh, payment for the I guess the appeal fee to contact the office just so that it's stated somewhere like would would you It's on the ticket.

That's not a parking violation ticket.

Yes, I guess that's not what No, I'm talking about affordability for the It looks like that.

Yeah, this is the one. Yep. There's two forwards. I guess would you be opposed to putting that either on the website or somewhere on the on the tickets?

I mean, it does state to contact the office with any questions, but it doesn't I I Yeah, I guess for somebody that's may not necessarily know that they can even question that. I guess would So, you can actually go online and appeal a parking ticket and you don't have to provide that $10 processing fee and it automatically puts the ticket in a suspension under review.

So, you can go onto the portal. Yep. You can go onto the portal. You can request a hearing and it will automatically put that ticket. So you won't acrew any fees from there on. It would just happen to be go to the portal and to do so.

Where is that information available?

It says right on the ticket thing you can go right to the portal and an appeal without payable to parking. But it doesn't say anything about not having right. But you have you'd have to go onto the portal. You'd have to go onto the portal and request it through there and it would let you know.

And then you wouldn't be charged the $10.

Correct. You're not charged a $10 until either the day I mean I have people who don't pay until the day of. They come to the hearing and they pay it on the day of.

But why was none of this information provided to me within my 21 days?

Again, I can assure you if you contacted the office and question have multiple again if you questionific ladies I'm going to ask once again one at a time please.

We have documented information between her and I starting on December 19th.

That was never told to me until February 19th. That's 2 months later. So what happens when that information is not given to any resident? I can't be the only one in this situation.

Council Kadim, you still have the floor.

No, I I yield for now. I all my questions were answered. Council Pereira.

Yeah, I know that this is about Breman Street, but I did get a call today because it was on the agenda that we were going to be talking about. this talked about Lindsay Street as well that there were people were able to park and then after the construction was done they put up no parking signs and again just like this young lady said there are a lot more vehicles on the road before

if one family had one car that was the most now mom has a car dad has a car kids have a car that's why I think all through Lindsay Street they have a big grass area with this new construction.

They should have put vertical parking there to give more parking to the residents, but that was the same problem. And they were saying that, you know, they get double tickets because the parking clerks are down there not just once a day, but they're down there two and three times a day, whether they're trying to enforce the signs and everything that's here. The other thing is when there's a change of some sort,

if you're going to make a street uh that was a one-way, changing it to a two-way or making it a one-way notification is given, but the notification is given to the landlord of the property. If the landlord doesn't reach out and tell the tenants, the city doesn't know who resides in every apartment. So, that's another thing because I owned a house and they changed it to a oneway and I

called Stephanie and said, "Hey, I didn't get any notification, but the house was on the corner and my tax bill comes in on one street and the oneway was on the other street." Um, but I I think that that, you know, says it all.

I mean, what's concerning to me is there's nowhere to park there. You may have to park far away from your house, but what else can we do? I mean, we can't create parking places. We have allowed many people come in and they want a curb car for their property because they have a yard where they can bring cars off the street and get them on. And I've I've had a conversation with traffic that we

have a lot of streets that are two ways and there's parking on both sides and we need to look at making a lot of streets one ways because, you know, one's coming this way, one's coming the other way and there's pocket and they can't get by. I mean, I've seen people fight. I literally got out of my car and backed a girl's car up for her because she and another girl were fighting. Neither one

of them knew how to back up. I backed up her car and we made that street a oneway because it was happening so frequently.

Um, I was going to say that the back of the ticket should explain that it can, you know, that you can get more than one whatever, but it does say it on the ticket. So, but I agree that there is a problem with parking in the city. It's a bigger problem than just in this Brighton Street area.

Um, but I mean to park again. I mean, the other thing that I'll bring up too is when attorney Fet talked about registration of a car, if your car, that plate is registered in a town, then we don't get excise tax on that, which is unfair. And I see a lot of cars with license plates from Florida, Mississippi, New York, New Jersey. We're not getting excise tax. And it's not somebody that's coming to visit for

Easter. It's somebody who's lived here for three years. And that's another issue that the police department needs to be looking at as well. But I yield.

That's all I have.

Thank you, Council. Council Can Thank you. I do agree with my colleague sentiments. Um, I think the I would like to see the ticket language updated. As I look across this, there's nothing that talks about being able to appeal online.

I think that's a big thing because it does know on both types of tickets, there will be a $10 processing fee upon request, which is really kind of open, I guess. And I think being able to do that online, and you I think you said it doesn't hold the $10. Um, my question I think is when someone pays a $10 fee, there are different levels of violation, right? So, if

there's a $10 appeal on a $25 ticket, do they get their appeal money back? If they do not because that processing fee is for the documentation that needs to be printed for the appeal. Um, so the plate history, registry, uh, registration information, any photos taken, especially like in a case like this where there's numerous tickets, that would be four or five photos per plate per, I'm sorry, per ticket that

would be printed. And then all the registry information. So that's what that processing fee covers.

Okay? So even if someone for some reason was issued a fee inappropriately or for whatever reason, they there's no mechanism that didn't get that. Okay.

Um, the other thing I just want to talk about I think is around the enforcement of this.

Um, and just I think in general when we make substantial changes in this case it began 1217. We wrote out eight tickets on the 19th, the first day which is the week before Christmas. Um, and I just feel like we should start, you know, maybe a week of warnings potentially rather than writing, you know, actual monetary citations. I just feel like it's, you know, be the right thing to do

for people who live here. I think it's a a way to give people an opportunity, particularly when it's not something that is, you know, had been a certain way for so long and now it's some a different way. So, that's my suggestion.

I don't know if there's a way we could look at um when we make a change uh to ordinances um around traffic or anything like that. uh that there's a 7-day grace period where we will go out there, we will issue warnings of sorts. This ordinance has changed because I think um my understanding is there was no real warning sent to anybody who lived in that area. No mailings or anything around that. Correct.

No. Nope.

Not not correct. Yep. So once the signage is posted, so Department of Public Works, um, if I remember correctly, I want to say they were down there because there was barriers down there, uh, making it a oneway. Um, they were down there about a week prior removing all the signage, removing the barriers off of their just to, you know, let the residents know of the change.

Um, so it was about a week prior before enforcement started.

Okay. I think just we don't know what time people coming home. It could be dark, could be late, could be tired. But I think I think it would be just nice if we put some paper on something says, "Hey, as a heads up, we'll give you one courtesy warning or something like that." But I'm not saying a week, you know, every day, but I just feel like there's a a nice way to let people know,

especially if we're not mailing out things to those residences.

Okay, that's my feedback with that yield.

Council Per, ju just a quick question, Stephanie, on you the citations that we do.

Yeah. Um, and they're printed. How many do you have printed so far? How many how often do you reprint them? Because maybe when you reprint them to add that they can also go online and, you know, not have to pay the $10 fee if they're online.

So, we could add that. Yeah, I could definitely I could definitely consider adding it. Um, I know the ones that we issue for the police department, I just ordered about 9,000 of those. So, it's going to take some time before those are all issued completely.

the park and control officers. Those I mean I can consider it but again same thing I order those by the bulk so it's going to take some time prior to the new ones coming in.

Okay with that I yield.

Thank you council.

Uh Sergeant Ferris if I could ask a question to to Councelor Canuel's point.

Is there a such thing as a quote unquote warning education period? I mean that's something that certainly do we do it with the uh the one-way streets. We'll post somebody. We'll put one of the uh trailers up just indicating that there's been a change in um in the law and um that's certainly something that can happen.

Okay.

Uh attorney for debt. Uh so just to go back to your memorandum and I want to ask a particular question. Um you mentioned that uh I could not find a single town or city in Massachusetts has an enacted indigency based financial waiver to tickets or appeals of them. So, I'm just I'm just Can you elaborate on that a little more because I was curious myself that um if a resident does present a hardship, Yes.

there is no anywhere in Massachusetts where that's allowed where a person can claim a a um financial hardship.

There's no statutory authority. Again, there's no restriction.

Use the microphone, sir.

Oh, thank you. So, there's no restriction on what you argue when you get your appeals hearing. So let me tell you uh uh Taunt, New Bedford, Reeer, Attalboroough, Brockton, list after list. I checked and went online. Is somebody doing something that we're not?

Could we better our situation here in Fall River by essentially enabling something that doesn't exist? Certainly not statutory required, doesn't appear anywhere. Um uh let me say this. Boston and a couple other municipalities don't charge a fee. They however have staff devoted entirely to parking tickets in Boston. You can get a hearing five days a week from nine o'clock in the morning

to 4 in the afternoon. We don't have that here. And and neither does Brockton and neither does Tauntton. Most municipalities, towns and municipalities have gone to internet and uh uh uh as their only written requesting a written explanation within the 21 days of the ticket. That is across the board. Every single uh municipality or town I looked at required that 21 days. And that's not

a coincidence. That's because of the language of Massachusetts statutes establishing the right to issue parking tickets and having a parking clerk to oversee uh the the the process of of ticket writing, ticket appealing, ticket payment. Um but nowhere, not a single municipality when I went searching and I searched a while has a provision for indigencybased relief for the uh for the

fee to appeal the ticket. After that, it's purely on the parking clerk. They can accept every any argument they wish to to find credible uh and whether it's strictly sympathy, as I've said before, uh and and and offer a lessening or complete relief from the tickets. Um uh and that by the way uh it's been suggested that I offensively uh use the term avoidance of responsibility. As I've I've explained, if any of us

tonight go out and find a ticket on our car, one of three things has to happen.

We're going to pay the ticket. We're going to ignore the ticket and deal with consequences or we're going to appeal it under a process that's been established.

That is how you avoid responsibility is being successful in your argument, just like every case that goes on in court.

So, no offensiveness uh was was imparted. It's not a malicious thing.

It's just the English language as to if you're successful, you're going to avoid responsibility for tickets you've picked up if you can convince a parking clerk to do that.

And when you can't reasonably access one of those three things, there need to be a fourth pathway.

So, so I'm going to ask to the parking director, Miss MacArthur, is there any policy changes that you feel need to happen here? Um I know council Canuel, council Gadim, I think all of us have have kind of agreed that there's some language that needs to possibly be amended here, but is there any policy changes from this level that we are and um council you can jump in as well on

this? If there are any policy changes that this committee needs to consider terms and ordinances are concerned for this, I think if the council is of a majority view that we need that language on the ticket, that's absolutely within your purview. and and I can't think of any other lack of of uh right or ability we're giving uh Miss Boule who just interrupted me before to say financially

we're procluding that is not I think a a reasonable argument to make you you get a ticket it c it costs a certain amount uh to appeal it um when you're picking up tickets having gotten them at what point do we decide that you're kind of flouting the law here and just you know in what the hopes that we're going to win. Another thing that should be pointed out here is that after the 21

days these tickets are flagged by the registry for loss of license privileges and that is ongoing right now with Mule and she's going to have to handle that aspect as well. But um I cannot think of any statutory change that needs to take place other than what has been suggested if you feel it's right uh in your in your voting that some language that you can appeal these online uh and thereby wave the fee.

Council Kim make a motion.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh just a couple questions first. Uh so I guess just in terms of notice education you know I appreciate what what my colleagues are stating. I I will say that try to provide I guess notification. we're assuming that the only people parking on the street are the the residents, which is not the case, right? So, anybody has the right to to park on the street. So, to provide, you know, enough

notification to all drivers, we just simply can't do. Um, I don't disagree that, and I I guess I would ask you, anytime we have changes, we don't initially go out there and just start ticketing on on day one, right? Do you?

They did. They did.

Nope. They started December 19th issuing parking tickets. The change was December 15th.

Okay. So, There was still construction going on between the 15th and the and the 18th, but it was 4 days before the tickets were issued. Okay, that is correct. Yeah.

So, I'm okay with that. I understand that. Um, I do support again, like I said, the update on the language. Uh, I guess once the you know, the tickets are you've got to order a new batch of tickets. I would I would suggest that uh the website be updated to to reflect that language as well.

Um, just in terms of the fee itself, so the $10 cost, you you mentioned it was for printing tickets, doing the research, correct? That doesn't even include any personnel time associated with research.

Y um I guess the only other thing I would I would suggest that would be a little bit of a change here would be if uh somebody wins an appeal. I guess the waiver and it's only a $10 fee that the city we uh wave the $10 fee as well so that there's not a monetary value associated with the ticket, right? So, um, from my standpoint, if if you appeal, but you still have to pay $10,

you know, I understand it, but you successfully, you know, appeal the ticket. So, there shouldn't be a monetary, uh, fine or I know it's not definitely a fine, but it's it's service is technically a processing fee. It's not technically associated with the ticket itself for the violation itself.

I guess I would I would just say that we would hold off. That would be part of the ticket. So, it wouldn't be paid in advance so that we can just wave that for any successful appeals on tickets.

That's that's what my suggestion would be. So with that, I I think we've really kind of discussed this at length. I see my my colleagues looking, so she might have a little bit more, but I I just from my standpoint, I I think that's where we need to be.

Um and I I think we really kind of talked this to death, so I yield.

Vice President D.

Yeah, I just want to make one statement.

Um and I'm not suggesting you want to wave the fee, that's fine. I have no opposition to that. But what it just made me think that if um if you go to traffic court and you appeal the ticket and they say, "Yep, you're all set. You don't have to pay the ticket. You still have to pay the court costs."

Yeah.

They don't take that away.

No, I I I don't I don't disagree.

And it's much more than $10.

I recognize that.

I know.

And they make And with that, I yield.

If I can make a point to that, you know what? you're facing an argument there is that the clerk's office would have some sort of incentive not to find a person completely asable if it was to keep the $10 and the ticket. So, uh you know there's always that other other uh blade on the sword as or other cut on the sword, but um I don't think it's a bad

idea counselor and and maybe leave it to the discretion of parking clerk. Council Pereira, I just want to make a motion that the traffic clerk be instructed on the tickets to add a statement regarding the ability to appeal the ticket online at no cost.

Can we clarify that it's a request, not an instruction?

Again, instruct the parking clerk. We can request.

I'm going to tell her that. That's what I think she should do. Okay.

Just just for the language of the motion counselor.

Thank you, Stephanie. Appreciate it. And I don't know if that has to come back to us to look at or So, can you repeat your motion for the clerk please?

My motion is that we request that they change the parking ticket to include the ability to appeal online, therefore waving the $10 fee.

Motion made by council Per.

I just want Can I touch something?

Sure.

Is there a second on the motion?

Second.

Second by councelor Canuel. Discussion.

M language as far as waving the fee, I can't put that because we wouldn't be waving the fee.

Okay.

It would just be it wouldn't be due until the appeal date.

Okay.

So, as far as language of waving the fee, I can't.

So, we will put So, the motion should be that it will be listed on the ticket that the individual is able to apply online for an appeal. How's that? Is that good?

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay. Motion made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?

All those in favor?

I.

Any opposed? The eyes have it.

And I think what I would request uh Miss MacArthur, once you have that language ready, you could let me know so we can revisit this this topic. This way we can close it out. Um so I would entertain a motion to table table. Second.

Motion to table.

Motion to table by council purr. Second by vice president Dion. Any discussion?

All those in favor? Any opposed? The eyes have it. Thank you folks very much.

Thank you.

Item number six needs a motion to lift from the table.

Motion to lift from the table made by council Pereira.

Second.

Second by councel. Any discussion? All those in favor?

I.

The eyes have it.

Item number six is a resolution to convene to draft a proposed ordinance requiring city council approval for any contract renewed or extended by the mayor for contracted employees, department heads, or division managers tabled 33 2026.

I will invite Corporation Council Rumsy down to the table, please.

If you could introduce yourself, sir, to the committee?

Alan Ruby, Corporation Council. Thank you.

Council, any thoughts before council prayer?

I I'll tell you my feelings on this.

Before when someone received a contact from the city, it would come down and the council would vote on that individual. After that, when it was to, you know, go over the contract again, they were going to redo the contract. The only one that ever came down was uh the HR person when it was Maline Carell that was here. No one else's would come down but hers. This council voted that hers wouldn't have to come

down anymore because it wasn't fair to her to have to come down and nobody else. I think we're a form a strong mayor, weak council, and the mayor selects people. I I understand wanting to look at uh reviewing contracts.

However, I'll be honest with you. I don't know of any counselor that is going to be able to renew, you know, to vote to renew someone's contract here.

I'm not here in city hall 24/7 or at least here when the doors are open. I don't know if that individual has been called in by HR, if they're a problem with that individual's work, um, what they're doing. So, it would be unfair for me to vote on somebody's contract not knowing anything that's happened in human resources, etc.

Um, if somebody does and wants to bring it to the mayor's attention, we've heard this or there's concerns, you know, do you let us know? I mean, so what are we going to have executive session and see?

Uh, is there anything with HR that's happened? Are people disgruntled in that department?

So, I just think it's it's a hard thing to do. You want to renew people's contract, run for mayor and you can renew it. I just think it's some I think that this council, from what I've seen, is stepping out of bounds on a lot of things. my personal opinion and therefore I am not in favor of doing this of renewing people's contracts that I have no knowledge of their work history with that I yield councel

so I just want to say that I think one of the reasons this is coming up is because mayors sometimes when they can't get the votes on a three-year contract for somebody say well I'll do one year and we'll see how it goes and then when that one year comes up and then let's just do it for another one, two or or three, whatever it be. Um I do have a question for corporation council. Um on

the March 5th, the clerk of the committees sent a request um requesting a legal opinion. Um I have not seen that legal opinion come through yet. Have you sent that to the clerk or what's the status of that?

No. So, the last time we were here, I gave the oral opinion and you presented me with a well, you were recitating a couple cases. I said, "I'd be happy to review the cases you gave me and and I've done that." Um, so cases you sent to me, first one was city council Walam versus Vin Swillow. Um, point of clarification, Attorney Ramsey, do you have copies of that for the committee?

Um, I have one copy. I'm happy to make I mean, they're kind of my notes are written on them, but they're really irrelevant. So, I'm not sure you want to review them. They're kind of a waste of time.

Proceed.

Um, the Walam case, the purpose of the Waltham case is a zoning statute and the the statute changed in the middle of a proceeding and the question is whether or not the there was a retroactive application of a zoning statute. It really has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The second case that was sub uh submitted to me was Bloom versus City of Worcester. Uh bloom is a presump uh

preeemption issue. Um so you know I guess arguably has slightly something could to do with this issue. Uh preeemption basically means whether or not the city council can enact an ordinance that is in violation of mass general law. Obviously it can't. The question is whether or not mass general law preempts the ordinance. What's interesting in this case is the city council was arguing against their own

human rights ordinance. um was it was a subpoena power where the city council wanted their ordinance saying it was invalid. It was against uh Mass General law. So not really applicable to our our case at hand here. Third case I would suggest is probably an AI hallucination.

The MLAN versus mayor versus Holio does not exist. Um and the fourth case that I was given to review was Anderson versus Boston which is really Anderson versus city of Boston. There's a number of Anderson cases. It was a little but I did find what I think is the right one.

Um once again I don't think is relevant to the issue at hand. In that case the question is whether or not a municip municipality had authority to appropriate funds to influence the result of a referendum. So it was something that was supposed to go before the citizens to vote on and the city council I'm sorry I don't think it was city council the mayor wanted to appropriate I think the mayor and the

city council wanted to appropriate funds and uh the court ruled that that was not permissible. that was uh preempted by state law. So none of it really touches what's important to our case at hand because you know what we have is mass general law which is applicable to everybody. But what we have also is the charter which is applicable to Fall River and Fall River only. Um nothing's

changed from my prior opinion. You know if you look at section 1-3 of the charter, it talks about the separation of powers. you know, um, legislative branch shall never exercise any executive power and the executive branch shall never exercise any legislative power. Um, you know, contracts, contract renewals are clearly an executive function. And when you're talking about appointments, there's, you know, two

relevant parts. One is appointments by the mayor. It says the mayor shall appoint subject to review by the city council, all department heads. And in the legislative part for the um it talks about what the city council's rule here is city council confirmation of certain appointments. And I'm reading here the mayor shall refer to the city council the name of each person the mayor

desires to appoint as a city officer. So I mean there's also some a little bit of common sense here I think which is you know when the mayor appoints a department head the name is what is approved by this city council. Now, the city council often does go to the mayor's office and wants to review the resume, wants to do a little bit deeper dive into the qualifications of the person, but I

think you know what the charter is saying, and I don't think it's a gray here. I think it's pretty black and white. They're approving the person.

They have to make sure that the mayor's appoint is qualified for the position.

And that's kind of a one-time thing. Uh I I think if you are qualified in day one, whether in year two, year three, year four, you're you're you're not going to get less qualified for the position, which is why the city council's review here is just to confirm the name. I I don't think the city council can somehow gain additional responsibilities after this person is employed by the city. You know, I know

we've had discussions about, you know, the difference between an employee versus a member of a a committee. There is some slight difference. So, for example, a committee member will get sworn in for x number of years and they get reworn in when that term is up. But that none of that applies for a city employee. You know, once employed, you know, we'd like to keep the people here for as long as they continue to do a

good job. You know, as uh councelor Pereira mentioned, it's really the administration, the executive branch that knows whether or not the employee does a good job or not. Um, and it's it's it's basically an executive power.

And there's that's that's the charter we live by. And there's I don't think it gives the the city council the ability to to review renewals as they come. And and just one other thing I'd like to say is, you know, I've been consistent with that opinion. I mean, I I was before this city council saying that if you don't want the person, you know, I know agreements are made. They're maybe made,

you know, um behind closed doors in public in any way, but you know, once the city council approves a person, I I've warned that that person's in. you don't have the right to go back if if the mayor decides to renew or extend or whatever the mayor decides to do.

If I may, before I recognize my colleague again, the committee did ask for written opinion.

Yeah, I was expecting to issue the opinion and then have this meeting afterward, but I I have not completed the opinion. I'm still happy to do it.

I'm telling you what what it will say.

Um it won't change from what I'm telling you today, but I will provide a written opinion.

That'd be great. Thank you, Council King. You still have the floor.

Thank you. Um, first, uh, if we are following our ordinances, the written opinion should be provided to us within 10 days of that request. So, uh, that's correct. I apologize. It's took me a little longer to read the cases you sent to me.

Correct.

Spent some time looking for them.

The council to my left said that it was previously applied to HR Director Koelloo that the city council had to reappoint or reconfirm that individual.

So my question, first question is if we previously had the power, why can't we have the power again?

Can I answer that?

Because somehow it was done and it was done without any kind of legislation or any kind of ordinance to it and it wasn't fair to her. She came forward and said she didn't feel it was fair to her that she was being treated differently as a city employee than anybody else.

But there was never an ordinance to do that. Why it was done, I have no idea.

It was done with one of the previous mayors that her contract came down.

Do we know how long that practice existed where we till she retired?

I mean like how many years did we go through this appointment?

She had to come down that I know of. She came down twice that I can remember.

And the administration or the corporation council at the time challenged the council's authority at the time?

No, there wasn't any authority by the council. It was just that the mayor at the time when she was hired, she was hired under Bob Korea and she came down and then the next person that came in for mayor continued just to bring it down. They just brought it down not knowing that they didn't have to bring it down. And then we checked and found out through legal that she was being treated differently. Hers didn't

have to come down. So the council then voted that it, you know, hers would be the same as everybody else's that the mayor could just do it.

Okay.

Coach K, I would just chime in real quick.

Do you remember?

I I I had no part in that. I did not give an opinion as to that. I can tell you that there are, you know, there are times when I see things that are probably not being done um 100% how ordinance or charter requests, but you know, you don't always change things until asked to be to look into them.

Second question I have is when the mayor sending down an order for the council to confirm, he's putting a term limit on there. He's saying in in a couple cases was last year with the director of financial services uh one year. So this individual is coming down for one year.

So he's not putting it down just the name. He is putting the name for a period of time. So what's the relevance of the time period when we're putting it down because it seems like the mayor is telling the council, I'm going to put this person in for this set amount of time. So, if he was just doing it to confirm the name as you described, why wouldn't he just say, "I will request

confirmation of so- and so to this position." Period.

I can't really speak to why the mayor would do certain things. Um, I can tell you that what's required is the name.

Um, you know, typically there's a resume available in HR for people to look at. I know there was a time when the resumes were usually sent down the city council.

that practice has largely stopped because résumés really shouldn't be public records, particularly if the person's not going to get the job. Um, but city council members do come up and look at it. Um, they do whatever the extent of investigation. Now, as to what the mayor verbally agrees to or doesn't agree to, I can't comment on. It's not really a part of the the legal procedure, but I understand that there

are conversations had between the council and the mayor. But I would argue that when he's putting a term limit in the written order to come down before us, that is a written agreement, no longer verbal, what was agreed to behind doors, that he's actually saying we're going to put this person in for one year period. And that's where we can go if we write this ordinance to confirm, reconfirm after when he's putting

specific language like that in down before us. Do you not see it that way? I do not um you know I I would I've been consistent with my advice which is you either approve the person or you don't.

You don't get to decide how much they get paid to a degree. I mean there's obviously you know you control the person strings. Um you don't control the term. You don't control the HR discipline when it happens or if it happens. Um you know there's the legislative versus executive function.

You know the truth is and I'm not suggesting it's a good practice. I mean, I would imagine and it's I don't know this for a fact, but you know, I've heard rumors that there was a time when most of the contracts were at will, which there makes a lot of sense that say you hire somebody and they're they're an employee until they're not. Um the problem with that practice is is that it's sometimes

difficult to get somebody to take the job, you know, particularly if they're coming from we think we get qualified people who have experience. You know, they they're probably jumping ship from another job. They want some asurances to come here. So I think you know the the contract terms probably extended from that rationale that you know why would somebody come here from another

community unless they're given at least two years you know one year two years three years wherever it may be.

Okay the last question I have is around the contract renewals themselves. When a mayor is extending somebody renewing somebody there he is indirectly committing future city funds that go beyond a fiscal year.

And I think that's the crux of, you know, what we're trying to do is reel in any appointments that are going beyond the fiscal year that the current city council has appointed. If you're saying we're going to give this person three more years, you're committing whatever dollar amount that contract value is because once he signs that contract, aren't we on the hook for that?

Well, with that employee, you're you're kind of mixing in two things. One is the term which I'm suggesting you have no say in once you confirm the person initially. The other is the salary and that there is some control from the city council. Um you know it's it's not something I've done extensive research to discuss today but they are very different things. Um you know it's the city council approves

budget line items and the the mayor can't go above that. Even if they wanted to give a raise that somehow goes above that budget line item they would not be able to do so. But the the the contraries to true as well though. So for example, if you're playing an employee X amount and they do not get a raise in year two, you wouldn't be able to reduce that amount either. Um so you

know once there's a commitment to have an employee, uh there's no ability to reduce their salary, but you can cut budget line items which can tie the the hands fiscally of the executive branch.

So that's really where your power comes from here, frankly.

Yeah. And I think that's where we were I was looking that, you know, we would have this power to, you know, determine when the mayor has sent down a written order with a certain time limit that when we're trying to go beyond that, we'd be able to limit it. But I'll yield to my colleagues like to hear what they have to say.

Thank you, Council Gim. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Uh so while I respect uh my colleague uh colleague council Pereira and uh corporation council I absolutely disagree with them in terms of the overstepping. The city council can't possibly be overstepping. Um I don't disagree that there's a difference between the executive branch and the legislative branch. Uh and our powers are legislative in nature. I guess to corporation council, would the charter

not give us our authority?

Authority to do what?

Whatever the charter says, I would assume under the contract.

No, no. I the charter, if I go to the charter and I go to the legislative body, it would outline exactly what our authority is. Right.

Correct. Have it here. If you No, no. I I' I've got it up. So I guess my point is is when you first read that uh you know the legislative should not get involved in the executive branch and the executive branch shouldn't get involved with the legislative branch. I would agree with that and I just want to put as a caveat I philosophically oppose with this article in the charter as it's

written philosophically. However, when we're not talking about our philosophical stance on it, we're talking about the legality of what was given to the city council as a legislative body. So 2-10 city council confirmation of certain appointments.

And as I read this, I just want to remind everybody that department heads come down before us for confirmation. At no point are we making appointments. We are just confirming the appointment which is an executive authority. We don't do any discipline. We don't do any negotiations of the contract. So we are performing zero executive functions of of the executive branch. What we are

doing is exercising the city council's authority which is article two of the charter section 2-10 city council confirmation of certain appointments and before I read this as councelor Dion has eloquently pointed out which is really really important here for all board appointed board members they come down to the city council for appointment and reappointment every single time. There

has never once been a challenge to say that any board members that have come back down for reappoint should not be coming back before the council. They do and we vote on it. We confirm those individuals again. And I understand that they have terms they get sworn in. If we're just saying that because department heads don't get sworn in, that's what's really stopping it. That to me, I don't know where the legality

of that comes from. All the contracts that we have have a term limit. No different than an appointed board member. So the 2-10 city council confirmation of certain appointments. The mayor shall refer to the city council and simultaneously file with the city clerk the name of each person the mayor desires to appoint.

Again executive branch the mayor desires to appoint as a city officer department head or as a member of a m multi-member body. So I'm just going to stop at that sentence. So it already includes multimember bodies. We are already reaffirming multimember bodies, but we're not doing it for department heads.

That to me there there's very clear that it would be consistent with a multimember body, a department head, or a city officer.

Appointments made by the mayor shall become effective on the 45th day after the date of which notice of the proposed appointment was filed with the city clerk unless approved or rejected by the city council within 45 days.

Now when you start reading this, if there was any intention to exclude any part of a city officer, department head or a member of a multi-member body, the charter commission would have included that in in there. And the very next sentence is the only is the only language that is specific to any of those that I just mentioned. And it's reference to a multimember body.

and it states all individuals appointed to a multi-member body shall be residents of the city. If appoint if an appointed individual removes from the city the position shall be immediately deemed vacant. So what I would say is is that if we went to court and we said okay the intent was that the the city officer department head or member of a multi-member body that is being recommended um for confirmation by the

mayor for an appointment would all be consistent because they literally went through and said you know what there's a a big a big difference between the city officer department head and a member of a multi uh of a multi-member body because you are required to be a resident for a multi-member body. And they included it in the language in 2-10. So everything else should be consistent. So if we are reappointing a

multi-member body, then we should be uh reappointing a department head and we should be re reappointing a city officer. I know we've had this conversation. We keep going around and around. Um I appreciate what corporation council is saying in terms of his uh legal opinion. At the end of the day, the only the only recourse that we have is to challenge the charter, bring it to court, and have a judge rule because we

are going nowhere with this. And it's it's not overstepping. This is and again, I disagree with this. However, it is laid out clearly in the charter and we need to uphold the charter. This is what we were elected to do. We can't pick and choose based on the powers and the authorities that are given to the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the school committee when we feel like it's appropriate. And that's

just my take. I I think we have the authority right now to reappoint every single member. And in terms and I and I talked about this at the last meeting to say it's based on qualifications that we're making a determination based on qualifications for day one. Half the times we're not even part of interview process. We we may get invited to go see resumes, but we don't have uh always the opportunity to even have any

conversations uh with individuals that are being appointed. They're just coming down before us. We have to do our own research. And I've said it before that there are times that when you hire individuals, um they they don't pan out to be uh the individuals you think they are, right?

And you know, we've we've had conversations with a number of department heads that have come back down before us and and we've questioned their um you know, the work that has been submitted to the city council or or things of that nature that would also question our our personal opinions as to whether or not they should be reappointed based on job performance, right? And I understand that we don't do

evaluations in a legislative standpoint, but at the end of the day, the charter says confirmation of appointments. It's identified. And it's hard to say that when a contract term expires that you are not making another appointment for the individual. It's a it's a successor agreement. It's a reappoint. And we already have the authority and have already been doing reappoints on multi-member bodies consistently.

Consistently. So I don't know how this is any different. Um I would just say that you know we're going we're spinning our wheels here. We know what corporation council is going to give us in terms of an illegal opinion. Now, I think it's just a matter of whether or not the city council wants to to move to the next step and and challenge the charter and and the opinion once we get

the legal opinion uh from corporation council and and have a judge officially rule on it. Now, if we go to court, the judge may agree with corporation council and then we know where it stands, but the judge could also rule rule in our favor because I I you you got to believe that 2-10 was put in there for a purpose and the purpose from the charter committee would be for confirmation of appointments

including reappointments. That's just my personal opinion. With that, I yield.

Council vice president Dion.

Let's see. I'm going to start with Maline Coelloo.

So, Mayor Coogan and myself both got elected the same year.

Maline Coelloo did come down before the council since I've been on the council for her contract to be renewed.

So, it was renewed under Mayor Coogan.

I don't honestly ever remember in the six years I've been on the council voting to not have the the um HR director not come down to to to my recollection I voted we voted that one time she was renewed and then ultimately a couple years later she retired. So, I don't think I don't recall and I could be wrong. And if I'm wrong, I I I have no problem said it meant I'm wrong um or

being corrected, but I don't ever remember anything coming down before the council to vote on it because she just kind of retired, went away, and I feel like that was the end of it.

Can I interject?

Yeah, I would like you to. prior to her retiring, it came down that she was the only one that would come forward um to have her contract renewed and they stopped that after. So, okay.

No other HR, you haven't had from HR, but you said the city council voted to not have it happen and I what I was saying was I don't ever remember voting on it. Well, we did we did talk about it and uh have Lauren look it up on when that happened because that was that was changed that it wouldn't be if if it was only her contract that came down or not even her only that

the human resourc would come down that that wasn't fair. Um, I don't know. I can call Maline and ask her if she remembers when that was, but I know we we did discuss it and I think it came to an ordinance committee that that would stop because it was only her and it didn't seem fair that it was only her. I mean, the other thing is, you know, you're looking at um,

you know, department heads coming down and go ahead. I'm gonna let her fill. I just um so I'm going to ask this question. So we agree that um in terms of um the price of a contract dollar amount that's under the authority of the city council.

We have the per strengths.

Yes. It's not necessarily on each individual. Um I'd have to look at that a little closer, but I know like you vote on budget line items. So I'm not sure how specific that always gets for you because I don't always see what you vote on.

So I'm thinking of you. So yes, so if so if if an employee gets uh is is renewed at the same level, we cannot reduce it.

I agree with you 100%.

However, if the mayor increases, we have the ability to reduce it because we have the ability to reduce line items.

Yes. Um with some there's Go ahead. I mean, I think I understand what you're saying. I I think what So, so I'll give an example. Last year, for example, um before before the budget, there were numerous people who received increases. We had $20,000 increases, $30,000 increases, $16,000 increases. So theoretically when it came to budget time we had the ability to say reduce that by 16,000 reduce that by

20,000 reduce that by 30,000 and reduce it in the budget.

Correct. It's it's sometimes difficult for you to assign that to a specific employee is what I'm suggesting.

Correct. So, you know, if you have $100,000 for the city council budget and it's 50/50, 50,000 one person, 50,000 another, uh the next year you could, you know, somebody leaves and make it 6040, you're still within the 100 is what I'm suggesting to you. I mean, but the 100 is what you're limiting.

Okay. So, but we we would have the ability, let's say two people in a department got a total of $40,000 just for numbers. So, we would have the ability to say, uh, I want to reduce the salary line item by $40,000.

We have the ability and the right to do that.

It's correct. As long as it's not against the contract that was pre-existed, correct?

The vote.

Okay. Um, and I and so it's it's we don't necessar So, I don't know. That's just another part I guess of the whole conversation. Just a question. um in terms of the the um charter and the committees and boards and department heads etc.

We do have committee members and board members who are municipal employees and special employees. So, how do them being employees differ from department heads who are employees in terms of reappointments coming before the council, I guess, is my question.

Well, I think what most people would consider them, they're employees, we're talking about board members, committee members correct?

They're really just employees for conflict of interest purposes. Um, they're not city employees like everybody else. So, for example, um they're not going to get HR benefits.

They're not going to they're not taking a salary. Um they're they're completely different than what the city considers an employee like a salaried employee.

They're treated completely separately.

And I, you know, I I I take exception to the idea that somehow they're the same.

They're not.

No, I wasn't saying they were same. I was asking what the difference was because those the ones that are considered municipal employees and special employees do get compensation and do get paid.

So that's why I'm curious. Um special employees is I I I think that's a different animal that really isn't relevant here. But you're you're there are a couple boards that I do get paid.

I'm not sure exactly what they are.

There are a couple that do.

I think maybe uh the pensions possibly most boards are not paid. They're not paid members.

Um there's there's a number of them that are more I didn't bring my book with me, but there's a number of there's more than I think I think you'd be surprised at how many um that there there are.

Um but anyway, so that that's just a question I had um that people who receive compensation are considered municipal employees just how that differs. That was just a question.

Now in terms of the discussion um obviously there's two sides to the coin there's an argument on each side of the coin the one thing that we have not done is very often you hear when people are discussing the charter and this has happened not not related to what we're talking about now but in the past um when there were murky waters when things weren't um we had the gray areas

and they would say, well, the argument goes to intent. What was the intent of the charter commissioners when they put this charter together? And intent would make the difference between what the answer is and what the answer isn't. So, the one thing we have not done is asked the opinion of any charter commissioners who worked on this charter.

Would their clarification make a difference? with their they can speak to intent. They can speak to if something was intentionally done and why it was done is is that something um I feel that's something that's pertinent to the discussion. I don't know how anybody else feels and with that I'll yield. I I can answer that if you'd like.

Yep. Thank you. So I mean the history matters and and I think what we have here is you have you know for approximately 80ome years um Fall River was considered plan A charter and in that the mayor appoints without not subject to any approval by the city council. So one of the major changes in the charter of 2017 I think it was so you know we're talking now nine years um was gives the city council the

ability to kind of confirm the the mayor's appointee. That's a big change.

Um now when you want to talk about what the intent was it is important if you get there and what I would suggest is if it's if it's unclear what the meaning that I mean first you go by the plain wording in the the charter itself and I would suggest to you that it is it's to me it's not confusing. I don't think that we would have to go back and even

ask for the intent because it's clear as day. So, as I said, you take this with the 80-year time frame of the city council had no say whatsoever, and now it says that the name is coming down.

That's it. That's the change. And, you know, we're now considered a modified plan A. I don't even believe in a plan B that the city council would have the power that the suggestion here. And, you know, I I I respect councelor Kimm's opinion. I would say that as I listen over and over over the last six years, we agree on most things. Um, I strongly disagree with councelor Kane on this one issue.

U, I don't think it's a close call. I think if we were to spend money, get an outside council and go to a judge, I think it's a waste of the city resources. I think it's suggesting that an employee, a salary employee has to come down for a reconfirmation.

I mean, I think we would agree that the city council doesn't have the ability to discipline, correct? or suspend or do any of those executive type functions, but you're essentially suggesting that this city council has the power to terminate because if they don't get approval, they're gone. Correct. So, I I I think it would be when you're talking about an 80 plus year history of what

the mayor's and executive function is in the city of Fall River. this charter would have to be expressly give this city council council um powers that we're trying to somehow infer which is really not what's what's here. I don't think this is a close call frankly.

Um so and and and I'm not saying this trying to be a wise guy at all.

I appreciate the debate honestly. um to say that for 80 years we were this um so that is meaningful.

I think for 80 years we had the speed limit was 75 but when it was changed to 65 it didn't matter that the previous 80 years you could drive 75. So for me I don't I don't feel that's pertinent to the discussion or or the argument. Um, I get what you're saying in terms of history in some situations, but in this I I don't And my other thing is I'm a

little bit confused because what we have is a home rule charter. How is a home rule charter a partial part A type of government? I don't understand. I to me we went from type A to a charter a home rule charter. I don't understand how we have both.

If you can clarify I mean Technically, we just have the home rule charter. Yes, you're right. Um, when there's voids that the charter doesn't address, we go back to what we were. So, that's why sometimes it's it's said maybe it's inarticulate, but we're it's kind of a modified plan A because really the charter didn't have any it didn't have a ton of dramatic changes really from how we existed for the 80 years

before the charter. There were there were relatively small changes. I know they considered some big changes, you know, whether it's like a four-year term for the mayor, things of that nature.

Um, I mean, I would suggest the city council confirmation of appointments were one was one of the larger changes.

So, yes, it's we are operating under the fall river home rule charter. That's correct. I I think it's it's fair to kind of summarize it. It's kind of like a modified plan A. It's not really a plan B. It's more of a plan A than a plan B.

Definitely plan B.

And then I'll only um make because I I I Googled this today because I was curious. I went to Mass General law um and under Mass General law, I guess there are some municipalities that explicitly explicitly state that mayor has the mayor has full um they can choose who they want. They can do the contracts. They renew the contracts. the city council has absolutely no part in it, but it's very explicit.

And this might be the answer to why that that contracts are only three years because in those situations, if a if a mayor um even though they have complete and explicit authority exceed a three-year contract, it then does go before the city council, which is kind of odd, but so I don't know if that has anything to do with the history of three-year contracts or not. Um, but with that, I'll yield.

Council Pereira, just one question to just add probably turmoil to this discussion, but um, the mayor does have the ability to put somebody on for 90 days.

Yes. Which can be extended up to 150.

That's a temporary appointment. That's without city council approval, though, right? Can extend to 150. So if and and he can do that just up to 150 days and then um it has to come down.

Correct.

I mean some of what I I look at I mean I know we've had department heads in front of us that counselors have disagreed with certain things that they're doing.

Um but then when you talk to the department head after and say why didn't this come down? Well the mayor didn't have it ready to bring down. So I've done all this work. Here it is here, but I don't have, you know, it's got to be on the agenda and the mayor has to send it down for the council president to put it on the agenda. So, I think sometimes it's unfair to department heads, too,

that are here that, you know, you have a city administrator sometimes and the mayor will, you know, they're talking about something, mayor will say, well, you know, we're not going to bring all this down or we're only going to say so much. and my colleague uh could um councelor Kadim can certainly attest to that things like that happening because maybe something's not ready yet or what

have you. Um I just I don't really like the 90 days myself, but I understand it's there and it can be done up to 150 days. I think some people get a one-year contract because maybe there weren't the votes on the council for a three-year.

So, let's go with a one year and try and maybe that's what the mayor wants to try. If it's more than that, then then we look at but I I mean I don't want to put words in the mayor's mouth because that wasn't part of the conversation. But, you know, there's a suggestion at least that if the mayor gives a one year, maybe the mayor wants a little bit of a trial

period and if the employee doesn't work out, they're probably gone in a year. If they work out, they'll get extended.

Other employees get a two or three year off the bat. I mean, I know um I know many employees have gotten three years off the bat. And I want to add one thing. It kind of touches on what you said. This is not part of the legal analysis. So, I'm not suggesting it has anything to do with my legal opinion, but I think it would be difficult to get good employees to come here if they have

to continually come before the city council for approval because then you're kind of mixing in um a political aspect when somebody just wants to do their job. They want to they want to do a good job. And now all of a sudden every one, two, three years, whatever that term of the contract is, they have to seek nine people's opinion, some of which may have just been elected. You know, you know,

let's say your contract's up for renewal January 6th. You know, we we might have new city council members that have been on the job for three days. Um, I I understand the legal purpose, but I think logistically it's probably not the right result either.

Council Pere, you saw before?

No, I'm fine. Uh, I would I would say to something that uh councelor Dion brought up about people being on boards and commissions. I don't know that anybody from the city that's on a border commission is paid to be on that border commission, but some boards and commissions are set up that they need to have somebody from the park board on this board or somebody from um um historical society on a board. So those

kinds of things, but they're not paid.

The ones that I can think of, anybody from the city that's that's on the board is usually set up by ordinance that you have so many people and you have to have people from different Yeah, there's that also.

Yeah, but they don't get they don't get paid for it though. But there are to my knowledge they don't I mean there would be some significant legal hurdles and logistical hurdles too if if for example um you know some employees have a 60-day sick leave uh buyback when they resign, retire, leave leave the city's employment. I mean that could be quite costly for the city if for example somebody has a

two-year contract and we let's let's hypothetically take this other interpretation. Is the city going to buy out all their vacation time and sick time and then rehire them? And then we're going to do this every one, two, or three years, whatever the contract term is. Logistically, um treating a city employee, a salaried employee, as if they're being rehired or reappointed every two, three years, I think doesn't

really work.

I yield.

Council Daniel, thank you. Uh so first I want to agree with my councelor councel Kadim's statements. Uh I I think it's time for the council to take this to the next level and challenge whether or not we can put an ordinance in place that says we require it. Uh renewals of contracts, you know, should we require it is a different question than what we're discussing, which is whether or not we

can we have the authority to amend the ordinance to require it. Um, I would also say that to some extent, and I mean this with all respect, but I think your opinion in this case is has a bit of a conflict of interest as well because I think what's the conflict?

You're a contracted employee, which if this were amended, you would have to come back before the council.

So, can you raise or lower taxes?

Yes.

Yes.

Yeah. Aren't you a member of the city of Fall River?

Yes.

Yeah. Is that a conflict for you? Answer is no.

My point is I take very seriously when you're suggesting I have a conflict. I do not have a conflict here. I mean, you and I can both make decisions for the city of Fall River as a whole. That we are a member of we're residents of the city of Fall River. I live in the city, too. Um, but this is not something that is for my financial benefit. My contract is not up for another approximately two

years. It's not something I'm ruling in favor of myself. I mean, I look, we can disagree. I'm fine with that. Um, I do take offense when you're suggesting that there's some kind of ethical violation I have.

I'm not suggesting And I also take offense when you want to spend significant tax dollars when you haven't given me a case that's relevant.

I looked at the four cases you gave me.

None of them were on point. One of them is a hallucination.

So, one of them doesn't exist. Yes. So, you cited McClean versus Holio as a halluc as a quote an AI hallucination. I got it right here. Um, perhaps I'm misinterpreting how it's applied to case law here, but I very easily It's Hugh versus ML, sorry, Hugh McClean versus Mayor of Holio. Citation 216, Mass 62 argued September 23rd, 1913 to October 22nd, 1913 in Suffach County. Can I have

the citation because you didn't give me the citations on your email to me.

Let me pass it.

I just passed that to him.

So I I do take exception to you know something being cited as an AI hallucination. I think you could have reached out at any time to clarify. You could have responded to my email a month ago and said hey I wasn't able to locate this council canuel and I would have been happy to provide this for you. I take you know I do things research thoroughly. I'm certainly not I don't

have a jurist doctorate. I but I do do my homework and my research. So, okay. But look, that's fine. I I can tell you that what you provided to me does not appear that you read the cases and provided me what you read from these cases. To me, it looks like AI because these are not what the cases stand for.

They're not what they represent. And I'm I'm I'm also willing to work with you, but we're talking about filing a lawsuit against my opinion, going to Spirit Court, and I don't have a case on point that even suggests I could be wrong. I mean, shouldn't we get something tangible that I can read and say, "Okay, there's a gray area here. Let's talk about it." I mean, we're talking about

going to have a judge decide something that is to me black and white.

So, I think what I'd like to see this ordinance committee may do is move to the next item, which is the ordinance that was requested to be written um and potentially look to adopt that and you know, if there's a challenge to be made, let the the mayor or yourself do it at that time and and determine whether or not we have that authority that you council.

Thank you. Um, I guess I'm going to I'm going to preface this again because there's there's a lot in this charter that I don't agree with.

Right. So, again, I I appreciate what you're saying in terms of is it in the best interest of of hiring employees for um attracting and retaining employees?

No. But at the end of the day, I think what we're talking about again is the legality of it. So, uh, my colleague had asked whether or not we control the contracts, and I and I disagree that we can control the dollar amount in the contracts. Um, we have the authority to implement an ordinance uh salaries not to exceed, but that usually comes down from the administration that's in there.

But individual contracts, unless they've got a dollar amount uh for not to exceed it, if it says negotiated, we don't necessarily get a get a say for it. Um I can appreciate you know through the budget process that we can reduce uh the salary line item. That's a totality. So unless there's only one individual uh who's in that department then I I think that's the only one that we can really

impact on a on a monetary basis. So um just for clarification my own personal opinion on that and I I will al also say to my uh my colleagues point in terms of uh moving forward and handcuffing future future councils what I would say is is that every single uh employment agreement that we have before us are all one-year contracts because they're all subject to the appropriation. There's

only three um three actual uh positions that are not subject to appropriations under Massachusetts general law chapter 41 section 108. That's the town manager/town administrator or any variance of that job title. Uh the town accountant which would be the city auditor and then um I'm sorry it's town so it's two town counter city auditor. Uh so again two different titles I mean two different uh

two similar positions two different titles. depending whether you were in a city or or a town. So outside those are the only two positions that can have multi-year contracts that are not subject to appropriation that you would actually have to pay out those contracts. Every other uh even though we give three-year contracts, two-year contracts, they're all subject to to an appropriation. So as long as there's an

appropriation there, that's uh where it is. Just in terms of the statement where uh we would have the authority to terminate somebody, I would argue we do not have the uh authority to terminate nor are we terminating anyone um on a reappoint any individual contract. And if you talk to anybody um who accepts individual contracts, uh the exposure is is that you have a contract for a set

term and there's no guarantee uh to get a contract renewal, right? So, anybody in the in the position of, you know, whether it's a city auditor, city administrator, town manager, um, planner, uh, superintendent of public works, or whoever it may be, they understand that when they sign a contract, it's for that specific term.

There is not a guarantee, whether you're good, bad, or indifferent in terms of your job performance, that you're going to be awarded a successor agreement.

Right? That's just part of uh the exposure. And that's why a lot of people want to go into unions because that's when we start talking about protection.

You're not subject to term limits, right? That that's the conversation that's being had. So I would still maintain that the city council is in no way making any termination and it's not truly a termination. It's an expiration of a contract. So the contract has expired. That's that's the term of the agreement. Everybody knew at the end of the the term that you may not have a a position after that because you have the

position for that specific period.

Whether it's a one-year agreement, two-year agreement, three-year agreement, that's your term uh for employment. Uh I'm glad Council Canuel went first cuz you got yelled at. I didn't. Uh I'm I'm going to I'm going to agree with you because I was going to ask the the same question. And um and I don't I don't mean disrespect for this, but I I guess I was just going to ask in

terms of uh whether or not it would make sense to do outside legal just because obviously you're part of it. um heard your stance. I'm good with it. But I don't disagree uh with the perception of, you know, the legal opinion coming coming down. And I'm not saying that you would give us an opinion that's uh any different than what you would normally give us anyways. I'm just saying that

there potentially is a is a perception.

So I'm glad you went first.

You took the heat. I will uh I'll just say I concur with my colleague. Um again, with that, I I I just think, you know, we're having these conversations.

Um, I think we can all agree, maybe we can't all agree, but I think a majority of us at this table based on what was said would agree if we were talking a philosophical opinion as to whether or not this article should be in here that we would all agree that it's not in the best interest of the of the city when we talk about attracting and retaining employees. However, none of us were on

the on the charter commission. None of us put this forward. Um, so at the end of the day, Charter Commission put it forward. It was voted on. This is what we're dealing with. This is the charter that we've got to whether we agree with it or or disagree with it, we've we've got to enforce, right? And there's ways to change the charter. Like, so if we don't like something in there, there's a

mechanism for us to to change it. I will say that in terms of challenges, and I I I just didn't have time. I was trying to look it up before uh the chairperson called on me, but there is something in the um in the charter that basically said that you couldn't hold um a position in in local government and be an employee and hold an elective position. This ch this charter had that

in there and then it was overruled uh under the uh Hetsler rule. I call I'll call it the rule. I don't know.

That's kind of what people refer to. So, it's the Hetsler rule, which was in and listen, Josh. Um, is it Josh?

Yeah, sorry. I was I was going to say Kler. Sorry, I was getting confused. Um, Josh ran for school committee, right?

So, he knew the charter was going in there and and from my standpoint, he knew that that was a real uh potential that that reality that this could be approved by town at uh at the ballot and that he could potentially not hold an elected office. um and it happens and then he challenged it and the court upheld it and said that he could still remain as a firefighter and still serve

on the school committee. So, you know, challenges and then I think a lot of us disagreed with with that um or his opinion and and he won. So, at the end of the day when we go to court and I know corporation council Ramsey understands this, especially when you're dealing with mediation or any type of court case, it truly is sometimes just a flip of a coin in terms of how things

are interpreted. Um, I, you know, I I just think from my standpoint, uh, I feel strongly that the way that this is written and and my interpretation of it is is how I see it.

And I guess I wouldn't say it any other way any other way, but um, I know corporation council is seeing it differently. And so if if we're strong on this this situation and we feel like um we want to cont maintain the authority that was given to the city council, the only other option and and avenue is is to go to court and ask for a judge to to render an opinion on on

this article. Um unless there's a different way. I mean, I I think I asked this at the last ordinance meeting and and not suggesting that that's the way we all want to go, but I I if we feel strongly about it, that's that's the way to put this put this to rest because I don't I don't think we should be adding ordinances to something that the charter, in my opinion, already clearly

states. So, that's just my take. I'm done having talking about this conversation. I think we've we've had a enough going back and forth on this. So, with that, I yield. Tony Ramsey, can you respond to that question?

It's it's I mean I guess my only thought is and I don't want to put words in your mouth. Um I know we disagree. I I I think this is a clear-cut issue, but we can, you know, respectfully disagree. I'm fine with that. Um but I don't think it would be a wise use of tax dollars unless two things also exist, not just you and I disagree. One would be some kind of

legal authority for it. Um, a case that somehow I think is on point that might cast some doubt in what I'm suggesting to you. Um, and two, more importantly, that this is something that you would want to implement. And and and this is why I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Logistically, I think this would be a nightmare. um regardless of what the charter says, it's it's not really going to be beneficial to the city of Fall River. So, set another way, do we want to spend money to get a result that we don't want anyway? Meaning, it's we're never going to use. It's going to be Well, I wouldn't say, okay, it's not that we wouldn't use it. It's it's going to make

the quality of employees that want to come to the city of Fall River. Um, it's going to downgrade. It's It's going to be a problem. I don't And I think you've touched on that. As I said, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I don't think this is the right.

But I guess I guess my I guess my only rebuttal to that is is that we don't have an opinion or or have an option as to whether or not we want to follow something on the charter where we've sworn an oath, right, to follow Massachusetts general law uh before city city charter and and ordinances. So, I don't think we get to pick and choose which ordinances or charter provisions

we want to follow. I think we've got to follow them all. We we may not like them. That's why I suggested if there's any any changes that there's a process to the change. Now, again, from a philosophical standpoint, yes. But I I think at the end of the day, I mean, if the council feels strongly about this is within authority and that that's the reappointment, that's that's the only way for us to go,

right? Whether we explain it well, whether we agree with it or disagree with it, I I I think we've got to there's enough councils. We're in ordinance to try to create an ordinance.

And from my standpoint, I the majority is there in terms of saying that this is what we want to see. This is what the charter says. And if we're getting legal opinion that it's not there, then that's truly the only next step.

I guess what said I can say that better than I did before. The Hula case, I wasn't working here. I I I was pretty sure that it was going to be overturned.

Hedler was going to win that.

Um so I'm suggesting that if I were working at the time, that's the advice I would have given you. Like I see a weakness here. He has a first amendment rights to run. You know, it's difficult to have a a law, a charter, an ordinance that prevents the person elected by the people from taking office. Um you know, I would have been giving you different advice for that issue than this. That's all I meant by that.

Council prayer. Also, if I'm not mistaken, I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. The firefighters union put up the money to fight that. It wasn't taxpayers money, wasn't it? The firefighters union.

Well, I mean, it was taxpayers money because the the city went to court. So, the firefighter union firefighters for for uh him.

Y So, the state statute with the pan handling another example where you know people get it wrong. People like to say the city of Fall River had an invalid law. That was not the case. It was mass general law that our Fall River police officers enforced and you know I I think my office would have told you that that mass general law is going to get overturned.

You know, they fought the fight and we saw it coming. We know that's not once again this is not in that same box in my opinion.

I just think that you know we've discussed this back and forth. I don't really want to spend taxpayers money looking at this. I don't see that there's a huge advantage to it. I would make a motion leave to withdraw in the form of a motion.

In the form of a motion.

Motion grant leave to withdraw made by council of prayer. Is there a second hearing? No second. Is there any other action from the committee on this item?

A motion uh to table the item until we receive uh legal opinions. Motion to table the item until we receive a written legal opinion made by councelor Kadim.

Second.

Second by councel prayer. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. Any oppose? The eyes have it.

Item number seven is a proposed ordinance requiring city council approval for certain employment contract obligations referred to the committee on 324 2026.

Do you yield to council?

Any discussion from the committee?

Yeah.

I would just make a motion to refer to corporation council just to review unless you've already reviewed and have com.

No.

Review the proposed ordinance.

My address of sorts.

I've reviewed the agenda. Um, no. Have you I guess did you review the ordinance?

So, what was it to the agenda?

Yeah. Yeah. Item number seven.

So, I was I was going to make a motion to refer it to corporation council for review but he has

this is it's kind of wrapped in with number six, right?

It it is. Yeah. So, I mean, I think it well, it seems like we've already had the discussion. So, no, I I don't I don't disagree, but I I I guess I would um send it forward it to corporation council because I don't want to give it grant to withdraw unless you've got amendments or you I mean, I think um from my standpoint, I feel like I would like to see this

adopted and pushed to the council subject to any structural changes that need to be made to it. Um I think we know that corporation council doesn't agree that we possess the authority. I think this is looking to you know go with the spirit of what councelor Ponte had uh put in his resolution that we put this specific language into our city code to so there is no ambiguity.

So I I would make a motion to refer to cooperation council to have this ordinance reviewed.

That's my motion. And could I add to that motion that we also table it in this committee?

We'll be two separate two separate motions first. So first the motion to refer to corporation council. Yes madam city clerd.

Run that one more time please. So the item can be taken committee with a request that be reviewed by corporation council but it can't be referred in correct. Gotcha. Um so can I just discussion I guess on the motion and then do you want to read redo your motion?

I I'll remove it. I just want to Okay. So we have a motion on the floor by council Kadeim. Is there a second?

Second.

Yeah.

Second by council for discussion council kim. just for discussion purposes and I I know what your legal opinion is is I guess when it goes to you can outside of that that legal opinion saying that we don't have the authority can you also just look at if there are if this were to pass right and just say it went to the mayor it's obviously the mayor can veto if it gets over overridden is there

any other legal concerns that you may have with the language that's that's in here can you do that's so we've got an over we've got an overarching this is absolutely not within the city council's authority Uh we get that we're we're still looking at this ordinance. What other items A B CDE E under section one and then section two uh if there's any I guess a amendments or legal changes that would be recommended.

I'm happy to review it again. Um and frankly I didn't give too much time because we it's been my opinion that we can not enact an ordinance that would be in violation of the charter. But I understand what you're asking for. I'm happy to do it.

Okay.

Thank you.

So I'll withdraw my motion.

Okay. Is there another motion on the table?

Uh motion to table and refer to cooperation council. Is that not can't do both.

How are we referring it?

Okay.

It's not referred.

So, so moved. I I make I make a motion to table this and uh request that corporation council review the ordinance.

Second.

Motion made by councelor Kade, second by councel. Any discussion on the motion?

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

The eyes have it.

There is no other business in front of this body today.

Second.

Motion to adjourn my bait council per second by council. Any discussion? All those in favor? I any opposed? The eyes have the committee on ordinance and legislation is now adjourned.

Hey hey hey.

Hey hey hey.