5.6.2026 City Council - Ordinances and Legislation

Good afternoon, the City Council Committee on the Ordinance and Legislation, May 6th. Time is currently 5.15 p.m. We call to order. Clerk, call the roll, please.

Councillor Kadeem? Here. Councillor Canual? Here. Vice President Dion? Here. Councillor Pereira? Chair Raposo? Here. Pursuant to the open meeting, while 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 unperceived by those present and are deemed acknowledged and permissible. Item number one this evening is citizen's input. And I believe we do not have any citizen's input, so we'll move on to item 2A. It's the approval of the minutes for the April 21st, 2026 meeting. Motion to adopt. Approved. Second. Motion to approve made by Councilor Canyon,

seconded by Vice President Dion. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Item 2B is the approval of the minutes for April 28th to 2016. Motion to approve. Second. Motion to approve made by Councilor Canyon, seconded by Vice President Dion. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it.

Item number three is proposed ordinance traffic handicap parking referred to the committee on 4-28-2026.

It reads 5th Street West, 65 feet north of Rodman Street. Barnes Street North, 395 feet east of County Street. Dwelly Street North, 38 feet west of Montaupp Street. French Street North, 241 feet east of Barnaby Street. Griffin Street South, 94 feet east of Broadway. Middle Street South, 481 feet west of South Main Street. Palmer Street North, 40 feet west of Plymouth Avenue. And Union Street West, 18 feet south

of Hope Street. Any questions from the committee if we need to speak to the Director of Traffic? Other ayes? A motion. Motion that the ordinance be accompanied by an emergency preamble. Motion for emergency preamble made by Councillor Canemel.

Second by Vice President Dion. Roll call. Roll call on the emergency preamble.

Councillor Kadeem. Yes. Councillor Canemel. Yes. Vice President Dion. Yes. Councillor Pereira.

Chair Raposo. Yes. Motion passed through all readings.

Motion to pass through all readings made by Councillor Kadeem. Second. Second.

We just did. Okay, none more. Second by Councillor Kadeem. All those in favor? Aye.

Any opposed? The ayes happen. Item number four, proposed ordinance traffic miscellaneous referred to the committee on 4-28-2026. Section one is one-hour parking Pleasant Street North, 75 feet west of 9th Street. It reads Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Section two is handicap parking removals, Chavison Street West, 25 feet north of Bedford Street, Forest Street East, 198 feet south of Park Street, Plymouth Avenue West, 20 feet south of Fifth Street, and Walnut Street North, 124 feet east of Hanover Street. Will the Director of Traffic and Parking come on down please?

Hello, Ms. MacArthur. Hello, how are you? Good, good, how are you? Introduce yourself for the committee please. Stephanie McArthur, Director of Traffic and Parking. Thank you. Just ask the question, Section 1 please. Can you give some explanation on that please? Sure.

So that request came in through a business on Pleasant Street, Granite City Electric for one parking spot for customer parking. They do have a small parking lot but unfortunately their vans, their business vans do take up that parking. So for their customers they're requesting that one hour parking. Any questions from the committee? Councillor Canuell. I do

have questions about the striking out of the handicap parking on the four streets. Just kind of curious how those come about. Sure. So strikeouts are usually if any residents move or have passed away. Either the property owners or a family member will contact us and we will remove the parking spaces for those individuals. All right. Makes sense.

Thank you. Any other questions on the committee? Thank you. Is there a motion?

Recommend ordinance be passed through first reading. Second. Motion made to pass through first reading by Vice President Dion, second by Councillor Canyle. Any questions? All those in favor? Aye.

Any opposed? The ayes have it. Motion to lift item five from the table. Second.

Motion to lift item five from the table made by Councillor Canyle, second by Vice President Dion. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Item number five is a communication from the city resident regarding the parking ticket appeal process, which was tabled 4-6-2026. We'll invite... Attorney Fredette down to the table, please.

And actually, Director McArthur is still here. So, Attorney Fredette, if you can introduce yourself to the committee, please. Good evening, Counselors. Attorney, Associate Assistant Corporation Counsel, Kenneth Fredette, Office of Corporation Counsel. Thank you, sir. Ms. MacArthur, I know last time we discussed some possible changes to some verbiage, not only on the tickets themselves, but

also to the website. So I'll let you speak, too. Correct. So the changes have been made on the city website. It is posted on the City of Forever website traffic and parking municipal hearing link. So any resident who has access to the Internet can access that information. I know the question had become as far as how many parking tickets I had in stock. I do have quite a few parking tickets

still in stock. For the parking control officers, they're computerized tickets.

approximately have about 33,000 tickets still available in stock. So I definitely want to use those up. So it's 55 tickets per roll, comes 100 rolls per box, so 5,500 tickets per box. I still have six boxes available. So those do have to be utilized prior to changing that. In order to change that verbiage, I'm waiting on the company to discuss with their engineering team to see what the

formatting is going to be because it's technically going to have to change the formatting on the back of the ticket. It does state on the back of the ticket that there's a $10 processing fee. It just doesn't say that it's per plate as it is stated on the city website in the letter that is sent to the resident. So anytime anybody requests a hearing, no matter what way they request it, whether

it be online, via mail, or in person, they are contacted via mail with a date and time. And on that letter it does state that that hearing fee is paid per plate and required prior to the hearing date.

Understood. Attorney Fredette, do you have anything to add? No, I think that we are in full compliance based on what the language is on our current ticket. I think we exceed whatever needs to be on that ticket by way of educating the recipient as to what their rights are and how to go about I made the comment last time, make it this

time. I don't think there's anything unfair whatsoever in regards to the process by which tickets are given and the opportunity to appeal as provided.

Understood. Anything from the committee? Vice President Deion. Just one question. Sure. How long do you think it will take to go through 30,000 tickets? It all depends on the amount of tickets. My parking control officers. How much revenue would you like? How much you looking for?

I won't answer. I'm not going to answer that question. I'm going to be the fifth on that one. What do you average in terms of tickets annually for your clerks? So issuance for the parking control officers, I mean, I'd say per day. I'm looking at anywhere between 100 to 200.

That's per day per officer. Right. Per officer. I have four parking control officers.

So it all depends. We have the street sweeping program currently going on that runs from April to November. So unfortunately, depending on compliance, some days are greater than others. So it'll be relatively quick. And then once street sweeping program is up November 1, that's when snow season starts. It'll be less than a year. Six months. Yeah. All righty. With that, I yield. Thank you.

Anything else from the committee? Motion grant leave to withdraw. Motion made, grant leave to withdraw. Second. Second by Councillor Vise-President Dion. Any questions? All those in favor? Aye.

Any opposed? The ayes have it. And just to the clerk, I know the resident is not here. Can we follow up with a correspondence to what the final action was of the committee? So she is also notified. Can I just say one thing about calling her a resident? Yes, sir. Because I think it should factor in here.

As Councillor Pereira accurately noted, the person making this claim claims that her car is garaged in Somerset, has never paid an excise tax to Paul River on that particular plate. And as such, I don't think that resident is proper until she complies with law that requires her to change her address within 30 days of establishing residency. I have communications.

She's lived on Brayton Street for years. So every day she drives in Fall River, she's committing a crime because she hasn't made herself a resident in the terms of license obligations and notification to the RMV of your current address. I just posit that for the council to consider. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Okay. Motion to lift item six from the table. Motion to lift item six from the table is made by Councillor Canual. Second. Second by Vice President Dion. Any discussion?

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Item number six is a resolution to discuss potential amendments to the emergency parking ban ordinance. I will invite the city administrator down, Corporation Council, and the director of city operations.

You can introduce yourselves for the record, please. Stephanie MacArthur, Director of Traffic and Parking.

Al Oliver, Director of City Operations. Anne O'Neal Sousa, Interim City Administrator. Alan Rumsey, Corporation Counsel. Thank you all. I was the author of this resolution, so I'll just start real quick. I know we had a discussion about this back in January. It was tabled. Of course, we were fresh off from a snowstorm.

So I'm going to go to Director MacArthur first on this. Any thoughts or feelings about what I've kind of brought up to you on this? Can I request that we never talk about snow again after the last winter that we had? Understood.

So Interim Chief Hoare and I have had this conversation. Unfortunately, and like I said at the last meeting, with New England weather, we... Honestly, we would rather keep it more vague than not. We would much rather prefer a judgment call than not because we just don't know. I mean, we could be expecting 24 inches on a Friday, call on that parking ban, and then Thursday at two in the morning,

they announce, hey, we're only getting a dusting. So for us to, again, like I said, it is a team effort. I mean, everybody at this table can attest to that. We meet prior once we know the forecast or the anticipated forecast. we do meet prior, we watch that forecast. Essentially we do do three inches or more and that parking ban is in place. I think with the

advance notice and the towing automatically, it really does get people to move those vehicles for that parking ban. I mean, I don't know if anybody else wants to speak on Vice President, do you have? Yeah, I think I totally agree. I think I said at the last meeting, I think number one, there's too many variables. Things, I mean, you hear it all the time. You live

in New England, wait a minute and the weather's going to change. It's just not something concrete enough that you can nail it down and say every single time, this is the day, this is the time. I think it's just, there are just too many moving parts. And I think if you live again in New England, but especially in any area that does have parking bans, you have to anticipate there's going to

be a parking ban and there's no lacking for information. It's on the city website, the police website, it's on Facebook. You can call city hall, you can call the police. There are just so many ways if you're not sure to find out.

I don't know, I think just given the circumstances, I think it's, It's just the best it can be under the circumstances. So with that, I yield. And I would concur, too, that I know the conversation we had last time with Deputy Chief Horwitz here. We kind of jumped into the communication pieces and the outlets that they have.

And he was also talking about additional outlets that we mentioned as well. I'm going to go to Corporation Counsel Rumsey. Is there anything in the ordinance while we have this conversation going in the ordinance that needs to be updated as far as language is concerned? Yeah, well, a couple things. First, I guess, first thing, I had a

question. I didn't, honestly, I don't like the way it's written. It's confusing to me, which is, you know, that's a problem. So, for example, if you look at the ordinance and letter B versus F, are they essentially saying the same thing? Because I always thought, you know, parking on the east side for North-South Street or the south side for East-West, I mean, I thought the hydrant is on that side. It's kind

of, redundant isn't it DNF we don't have it in front I'm pulling up right now sorry well you can have it so anyway what I did was I prepared two kind of ordinances they're in draft form one essentially tries to keep the language of the original one I think simplifies it dramatically so I mean I can pass this around I'll put the the

one with bold is a little more simple to read I think with headings I mean it's a very rough draft form but if this ordinance committee prefers one versus the other, I can tweak it. I'd say the two major changes, well, I mean, I just tried to make it easier to read number one, but I also added, without talking to the chief of police, that I thought maybe the mayor, the chief

of police, or a designated representative that the chief of police, you know, we often have, I mean, the mayor's allowed to go on vacation, so, you know, I once lived in D.C. where I think the mayor of D.C. was on television smoking crack, but he got in more trouble for being away during a snowstorm. at least as far as the public was concerned. But you know, there are people in place when

the mayor's away that can declare an emergency. Okay. Vice President Diaz. Yeah, I think in regard to the 5 hydrants, I think in general, streets that run east to west, the 5 hydrants are on the south side, and streets that run north to south, the 5 hydrants are on the east side. But I know there are certain circumstances where it's opposite or there's a one way off of Stafford Road, and I

know because we would, had this issue with somebody trying to put in a driveway, and they have parking hydrants on both sides for some reason. So we do have those rare occurrences, but I think in general, the phi hydrants are on the opposite side of where you can park in a parking van. Right. If I said that correctly, yes, I agree with you on that. And as far as the notice

requirements, I also like to keep it vague because, I mean, this thing might have been written back before the Internet existed. Who knows? So, you know, we put reasonable measures that may include X, Y, and Z, but it doesn't mean that the city has to do any of the above. You know at some point the city will have to make a call whether it's worth spending money for you know I don't

want to specifically include television or radio when there's probably other ways to reach the public But I think it as long as reasonable efforts are made. That's fine. Yeah, I would agree especially with social media everybody knows everything so Yeah with that platform, I mean everything is out there. I agree with that I yield. Thank you City administrator, please We have tried

to make sure that at least 24 hours, when at all possible, a parking band notification goes out so that people do have the opportunity to either see it on social media, maybe hear it in print media, or hear it over the radio. So that's one of the things that we try very hard to do. We also worked on a potential... three inches or more automatic parking bin we're still

going to have to notify people just like we do right now because people will say I didn't hear the forecast we didn't know so I mean just adding any type of predicted inches in an ordinance for snow fire I don't think it's going to really help us at all Director Oliver sure I mean that three inches is somewhat vague because there are times where we do get three inches and we're able

to maintain it depending on the volume of snow coming down, the temperatures outside. So we'll hit the three inch mark but we're able to maintain it via the brine, via the salting. We can control that. If we can maintain that, we'll have no problem. Blades are not being dropped. So holding it to a three inches is not fair to anyone because dropping the blades is the last thing we want

to do but that's one of the things that we have to do. Understood. I mean, personally, as the author of the resolution, I'm comfortable with the idea that we are updating the ordinance, you know, getting some language changes, which I think is helpful because the last time it was written was 2008 at this point. So it is, it's a good thing that we are making some motions on that. So I guess

my question now, can we refer this officially to you to send back a final draft of the ordinance? Yeah, I think that's probably the best thing to do. I mean, if you want to take a little informal poll of whether you prefer the kind of scrap the old one with the brand new one or try to stick with the remaining, the existing language, that's fine. Yeah. I think what we'll probably do

is to give an opportunity for the committee members to review this that's in front of us for the first time or in front of me for the first time.

I think it would be good. We can refer it to the Corporation Counsel's office to then, you know, I know you mentioned you want to talk to the chief of police. Is that what you said before? Well, yeah. I mean, I think if you, if we're going to allow the chief of police to declare an emergency, then probably just to let them know, see if they think it's a good idea or

not. I mean, they may have reasons I'm not aware of. They think it's not a good idea. Okay. Fair enough. Any other questions from the committee? With that said, do we have a motion? Motion to refer to Corporation Council. Motion to refer to Corporation Council made by Councillor Caino, second by Vice President Dion.

Clarify. The entire item or just the proposed ordinance? The proposed ordinance. Made? Second. Okay.

Made by Councillor Canual, seconded by Vice President Dion. Any questions? All those in favor?

Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Mr. Rumsey, I'll give that back to you.

Great. Thank you very much, sir. And then when that's ready, just let us know.

Do you have something? Oh. Yeah, what I'll do is I'll make a copy and email it to everybody here. Please. And then you'll at least have it, because I'm not sure I even saved one of the copies, so. Fair enough. Gonna need it that way. Thank you, sir. All right. Moving on to our agenda is item number seven this evening. It's to convene with the city administrator, corporation council, and a representative

of four of a government television to discuss the creation of a proposed ordinance requiring all public meetings to be recorded, either video or audio, which was adopted on 4-14-2026.

I will note for the committee that Mr. Kochman, who is the director of... Fred TV and former government TV informed me that he was unable to make this meeting.

So I have spoken to him since to schedule this to another meeting. However, I did leave it on the agenda, A, because of timing, but B, Corporation Council Rumsey and the city administrator is here well. So if either of you would like to speak on this ahead of time. Yeah, I'd like to chime in if I can.

Kochman's is I think they do a really excellent job of televising almost every committee meeting that we have. We have a number of committees. But I was worried that there may be a few small ones that they don't have the staffing to do. And apparently that's the case. So they do advertise most. They don't advertise all of them. But we're trying to, I think it's admirable

to make an effort to televise all these. There are going to be budgeting issues, staffing issues, somebody gets sick, weather issues, cars break down. And what I worry about is that we have a meeting that's ready to go forward and for whatever reason it can't be televised that day. I don't want to invalidate the meeting and cancel the meeting. So I think it's an aspirational goal, but to make a requirement, I

had some concerns and apparently Mr. Kochman independently shares those same concerns. And just to clarify too, not necessarily televised, but at least recorded, because I know there are only two meetings at this point, it's the city council meetings and the school committee, uh, main meetings that are live. Other meetings are recorded and posted later. So I think,

you know, I just want to clarify that televised versus, you know, recorded and displayed later. So councilor Qadim. Thank you. Um, Mr. Chair, I was, I was just actually going to make the same statement. I don't, I don't know that they need to necessarily be televised live, but the recording itself. And I don't, I don't think that tonight, and I appreciate the, um, staffing issues and things of that nature, but

something as simple as an owl, which is just a desktop camera that can be utilized through a laptop, could be utilized. I had to do that in Seekonk when our local TV station shut down for a while, so that's how we broadcast our stuff. It's something very simple. It's just like you're going to use a camera for Zoom and just hit the record button. I don't disagree with you. I think we've

got a good majority of our committees that are being televised. I think just to have a select few not televised I think is a little bit detrimental, especially if people want to participate or even just figure out what's going on with that. Unless you attend those meetings, I think a lot of us don't even know what's going on with regards to those committees. So I, for one, I think if we can

just tweak the language that every effort will be made. I don't disagree with Corporation Council. I don't want the ordinance to restrict a committee from having a meeting, especially if it's an emergency meeting, without having the ability to televise that, right? Because there's nothing requiring that the meetings be televised. They just need to be open to the

public for open meeting law purposes. So I don't want to get away from that, but I think if we can get some type of language that satisfies the need that every, I don't know, I guess every effort will be given to make sure that these things are recording, recorded and then we go from there. I don't know if we can get some language like that but that's what I'd like to see.

With that I yield. Thank you. Vice President Diaz. Yeah I was just going to say how many aren't recorded? Because I know that there are like the traffic board for example. You don't watch their meetings live however you can go back and watch the video on demand. Yeah they usually post it the next day.

Yeah. Or sometimes earlier than that. So If I may, Council, I think as of two months ago, the Library Board of Trustees meetings were not being done that way. Two months ago, they started being recorded and posted. And that's actually what was half the reason I prompted writing this was because that was one of them, which, and not to go on, you're on the floor, but the question that

I was going to have is exactly that. Which of the boards and commissions that exist here in the city, which ones are currently not being? But you're on the floor. Yeah, no, so I just saw, so we have, I don't know, numerous committees and boards, like an incredible number. So apparently there's only two that are subjected to that. And we probably have,

I don't even know, 30 commissions and boards. We have a lot. To include all the committee, subcommittees, yeah, that's probably about right, 30-ish, it looks like.

So I think in that respect we're doing a good job, but yeah, that might be an option, some type of thing where theirs can be recorded as well so people can view them if they choose to after the fact. That I yield, thank you. Yeah, and I would add too, and again, really the purpose of this is kind of to strengthen what we are already doing, and again, I'm not in any

way criticizing what they're doing. I think they do a fabulous job. I firmly believe in how can we take it a step higher. So for example, the meeting of the Library Board of Trustees probably was recorded on some sort of similar one position camera there. And it was hard to understand the committee members, the discussion that was going on, because I would imagine the only microphone that was attached there is not

like what we have here. It was probably the one mic on the camera itself.

So then trying to listen to that meeting and hear what the discussion is was a little difficult. So even if it's, again, trying to strengthen this, if it's a position where funding is needed to get equipment for these offsite recordings like the sewer commission, the water commission, for example, um, that could be an opportunity to think about the other thing. And one thing I think about too, and again, this will be

expanded when Mr. Kochman is here is that, you know, we have the first floor hearing room downstairs that's equipped, set up microphones, cameras and all for a good, adequate meeting. So everybody can be heard. You know, I know not all the boards and commissions utilize that. So that's another thing to think about as well. And again, just for food for thought as we kind of go down this road. Councilor Canuel. Thank

you. No, I love the intent here. I think the be it resolved portion of it, I think really helps to address, I think, some of the concerns because it says all public meetings to be recorded with either video or audio equipment.

So I think when we think about audio, I mean, someone could easily take out an iPhone and use the voice recording feature of that. I feel like, you know, making sure at a minimum we have at least the audio of what transpired I think would go a long way to allowing people to hear the discussion points that went on even if video wasn't allowed in that case. Yeah. And

the Commission on Disability does their meetings via teleconference and it's a video of the audio essentially that's posted and I believe the Health Board, the Health Commission, meets on Zoom. and that recording is posted as well. So again, there are definitely options, but I would like to see as one counselor where we're in a position where there are no boards and commissions that are not recorded. I would like to

see all of them personally speaking as one. And again, for open transparency purposes, I think that's the best. But again, like I mentioned, I think there are some opportunities to make it better. And I realize government TV is probably limited in some senses of funding. So if that's a conversation we need to expand and try to help

them out, then maybe that's a conversation the committee can have with the city administration.

City Administrator, do you have anything to add? I mean, just at the present time, the Retirement Board and Cultural Council are the only two not currently being recorded.

So it's a small number, so maybe with working with Mr. Kochman, see what resources he'd need to be able to add those to. Okay. That's good. I think we've had a good discussion to start, and of course we have a future meeting coming up, and Mr. Kochman will be here, so some of the story has been discussed.

We'll be able to expand on and see what we can do moving forward. Anything else from the committee? Motion to table. Motion to table made by Councillor Canywell. Second.

Second by Vice President Deon. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Yes, have it.

Item number eight is to convene with corporation council to discuss amendments to 2-151 of the city code regarding city council standing committees, adopted 12-9-2025.

This resolution was filed by Councillor Pereira. in regarding to the standing committees. And I will say for the record that we did have a similar resolution filed that was looking at the standing committees. But we definitely hold discussion on this as well. Corporation counsel. Yeah, I'm not certain what the committee wanted. I know that on February 11th of 26, we did amend the

names for G and I, which would be real estate and human services.

we've mended the name so I'm not sure what else is the committee wants to look at so I mean I printed it I have it in front of me I'm ready to help where needed but I'm not sure what what's needed okay anybody from the committee before I comment I think in reviewing the ordinance myself too I know the number of committee members obviously outside of the ordinances committee which is the

bigger of them all are all set up Obviously, I think what is an appropriate number of members? I think all of them are three, except this committee obviously is bigger, and obviously the Finance Committee, which is the council itself. But I'm comfortable with that. I don't know if any other committee members have anything to add or change or what we feel we like to do with this. Given council, I'm sorry.

Councilor Cahill. Given this was Councilor Ferrer's resolution, perhaps it might be appropriate to table this matter until she's able to maybe clarify her intent or anything further that she'd like to see on this. Will of the committee, sir. Do you yield, Councilor? I yield. Councilor Cadeem. Just curious, are we reading this resolution to mean just the committees of the council? I took this as all the

committees and commissions that currently... that we currently have because I know. Yeah, because you're talking city code. Right. And I know Councilor Pereira had started this endeavor trying to just go through and like we were talking about the police commissioners that were still there but you know those nobody was being appointed to that so

really kind of eliminating the police commissioner standpoint. So I thought maybe that's what we were looking to do was just to number one look at the committees the viability of them if they're still needed or if they need to be updated, if they've taken on additional duties to kind of really clarify what those committees are. But I

wouldn't disagree. I think it probably makes sense to table this item until Council Poirier will come back just to make sure that we've captured what the spirit of the resolution was. But I do think it was just the totality and not necessarily the council committees. Gotcha. Do you yield? I do, thank you. Vice President Deanne. Yeah, I agree with Councilor Kadeem because also I do remember her at one time

referencing the fact that in the charter that these committees are supposed to be looked at and evaluated every so often and that hasn't occurred. So I think that was part of the reason why she also submitted this resolution. And again, it's along the same lines as what Council Kadeem just stated, but it's directly related to the charter requiring it. So with that, I yield. Councilor Kenyall. Council

Vice President Deion made the point I was going to bring up, which is we have a charter provision that says this is supposed to happen, and it hasn't happened yet. So with that, I yield. Fair enough. Councilor Kenyall. So I guess if we're going to table this, I would just, I'm not sure who would request this through either the clerk's office or the administration just to give us a list of the

outstanding committees and commissions that exist. And then I think from there we can kind of go down that list to identify which ones are active and not active. And if they're not active, try to figure out why they're not active. And some of it may be, you know, Massachusetts General Law had some changes and now the authority is no longer with that Board of Commission.

And then we could essentially abolish that committee or whatever the case may be. And I think it'd also be helpful to know if there's any parts of the ordinance that would reference any of these commissions or committees that we should know about while we're doing this review. So with that, I yield. Do you want to make that to the clerk to have that given to us? I will. I'll just let discussion

happen first. Okay. Sounds good. Vice President DeYoung. Yeah, no, I just want to say that probably just you could do it through the clerk's office because very recently within the last month, maybe six weeks, I did exactly that because I had the original ones that I had gotten when I first got on the council and everything was outdated. So I reached out to the clerk's office. I said, can you give me

updated all the committees, who's on them? So they did all the committees, who's on them, the up to date dates of appointment, reappointment, when their terms are up, and also any of them that have an ordinance related to them is in the booklets about this thick. So they already have done the work, so it's just as simple as reaching out to them and asking them

for more copies. So I don't think we need a form of motion, if you can just send that to us. Yeah, perfect. And just to clarify, Council, the City Clerk's Office is the one who updates that? Correct. Got it, thank you. Do you yield? Yeah, with that I yield, thank you. Councilor Camel. As I review this a little closer, Councilor Pereira was referencing 2.151 of the City Code, which is

specifically talking about the City Council Committees, Committee on Finance, Organizations, Legislation, Public Works, Regulations, etc. I don't know that the scope of what she's written here, talks about what we were just talking about a moment about the boards and commissions which I think is separate so you know when it says be it resolved if required committee

members listed within 2151 as I look it up that is only pertaining to the City Council committees correct and for the record that's the way I read it as well you know it's the first statement says standing committees then it goes on to the duties and responsibilities of City Council committees but Understood. So I think, you know, to that point, I think, you know, we should probably ask the question what happened

to the resolution that the council adopted June 26th or so of last year during that meeting that was sent to the mayor requesting that the boards and commissions review get reviewed because that has not happened. I think that does need to happen to the point of my colleague next to me. So that, you know, anything else from the committee on this? Is there a motion? Motion to table. Motion to table made

by Vice President Dion, second by Councilor Canuel. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

The ayes have it. Item number nine. Motion to take items nine and 10 together.

Motion to take items. And lift from the table. Yep. Lift to take items nine and 10 together will be first. Made by Councilor Canuel. Second. Second by Vice President Dion. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. Motion to lift from the table. Motion to lift items 9 and 10 together from the table made by Councillor Kadeem, seconded by Councillor Kanyu. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

The ayes have it. Item number 9 is to convene to draft, it's resolution convened to draft the proposed ordinance requiring City Council approval for any contract renewed or extended by the Mayor for contracted employees, department heads or division managers. Table 4626.

the proposed ordinance requiring city council approval for certain employment contract obligations tabled 4-6-26

anybody on the committee would like to speak on this first or corporation council i think this is my third time being down on the issue so i don't really have anything else to add fair enough sir is there a motion

Vice President Deon. I don't know if Councilor Canuel would like to speak to what he has written, so, or if we just want to move forward with a motion to move forward with it. Yes, I...

With that I yield. Councilor Canuel. Yeah, I think I just kind of took the request from the resolution the council adopted back in December was that this committee draft one. And I think, you know, I just kind of put pen to paper to what I perceive to be the intent of it. I think, you know, Councilor Kadeem in previous discussion items has, you know, raised the prospect of, you know, whether or

not this is really in the best interest, I think, of the city in terms of retaining employees and attracting talent. So I think at this point we have to make a decision about whether or not, you know, this is in the best interest of the city to move forward, or if we think, you know, for the time being, you know, we don't pursue this further. I'm curious to hear

my colleagues' thoughts. Do you yield, sir? I do. Councillor Kadeem. Thank you. I think just in terms of, if you're asking for my opinion, my statement was I don't, from a philosophical standpoint, don't necessarily agree with this provision in the charter. However, it is in the charter, right? So I think if we, As we typically do,

we state vehemently that we're going to follow the charter regardless of whether or not we agree with things or not. This is my opinion. Again, I know that we're just rehashing this. I disagree with the legal opinion that's before us just on a number of fronts. When we look at what was issued to us today, it's just talking about we only have the right to the initial appointment.

Again, we went into contract terms. What does that mean? Corporation counsel has said that there's a property right or a right to the position. Again, I just looked at the legal definition. If an individual contract is renewed, is that considered a reappointment? And again, just what I'm finding online, and I'm not saying it's accurate, but this is What we typically do, we'll throw

something into Google and get a response, and the mayor has often done that. It says reappointments in many contexts, particularly in academia and government, a renewed contract is functionally and legally deemed a reappointment, requiring affirmative action by the employer to reengage the employee for a new term. So I still maintain and feel that the appointment and the reappointment should come back before us.

If we don't like what's in here, then there's a process to change the charter.

We just can't ignore the charter. I don't know that that's prudent on us, especially that we take an oath to uphold the charter and the ordinances of the city. So I, for one, this is a disagreement, and I've said this at another meeting or in another context with something similar to this, that I think it's up to the council to make a determination as to whether or not they agree with

the legal opinion. If we don't, agree with the legal opinion. I'm prepared to make a motion that we move, make a recommendation to the full council that we move forward with court assistance and making the determination as to whether or not the city council does have the authority, which is as it's written in the charter, to see

whether or not reappointments are included in the appointments. We've had this conversation with regards to appointments to commissions and committees. They come down before us for reappointments, right? So it's in the same same paragraph there's no change there's actually an actual call out if you read the following sentence that calls out the boards

and committees in particular saying that they must reside in the city right so if if the intent was to take the boards and committees and have an exception to it it would have been called out there's already an exception to the boards and committees that that is highlighted in that paragraph. So from my standpoint, my motion is to recommend that the council pursue court action or legal action

and pursue it with the court to get a determination as to whether or not the city council under 2-10 has the authority and is required to reappoint and or confirm reappointments. That's my motion.

Motion made by Councilor Canuel. Councilor Caneim for that matter. Is there a second?

I'll second it. Okay. Second by Vice President Deon. Discussion on the motion. Councilor Caneim.

Is there not any happy medium that we could potentially achieve absent court action? Is there a mediator or I guess a...

If I may, I think I may have asked that question at the last meeting.

And I think the answer, and I don't want to quote you, Corporation Counsel, but I think the answer was no. No. You are correct. I mean, I'm reluctant to bring this up because it was my opinion before and it's still my opinion now that when you have black and white language in front of you that the, you know, interpretation or history or this is what we meant to do

or didn't mean to do is irrelevant. It's only when it's ambiguous and you need some interpretation. But is this council even aware of the email submitted by the former chair of the Fall River Charter Commission? Is this committee even aware that he wrote an email? Not requested by my office. I think he submitted it to the Herald News is what I think he submitted it to. Yes. Is this commission

seeing it? Do they care to see it? As I said, I don't really think it's relevant for the same reasons I didn't think the... the opinion of the person in this room was relevant two weeks ago but here's an email that was written.

I guess can you elaborate what the email says and what the relevant CES of it? Yeah, I think at this point if you'd like to introduce it to the committee, Cooperation Council, I'm fine with that. Do you want it read into the record?

I'm fine with that. I'm comfortable. I said I did not solicit this. It was forwarded to me. It basically is in agreement with my legal opinion which Okay. So can I just... Point of clarification? Well, it's not, I guess, I mean, we had a charter committee member come down before us and he spoke several times.

He's here now. I mean, are we going to take his statements at work? He's just, he had just the amount of votes and weighted vote as any other member, like the chair doesn't have any different vote than any other member, right? They're just running the meeting. So if we're going to then say that the chair... their opinion has more relevance and or not saying that so I guess I honestly think neither

one is is relevant because of the same reason I said before you know that being said we're talking about the chart has been existence and now was 2017 right so nine years I don't think there's been a single renewal that's come before this council We have a legal opinion saying it doesn't need to come for the council. And I guess I'm trying to figure out

why you wouldn't take your council's legal advice on this issue. Because it's not like I'm coming in and saying we've been doing this wrong for the last nine years.

We have to do it this way. This is just the way it's always happened under the charter. I'm sorry. No, no, no, no, no, no. I didn't mean to be here when he was talking. I just, I wasn't sure if. Councillor Canyle has the floor. Sorry. I was going to my colleague. Sorry. He yields. I thought it was Michelle. Councillor Canyle. I apologize. That's all right. No, I, I, listen, I,

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is if there's no relevancy, then why bring it up at the, at the committee meeting tonight, right? Well, I think there's, I mean, there seems to be this, you know, this distrust, which I'm not sure why it exists. So when you have the council president say that there's nothing in the charter that gives the, that's a one bite of the apple, that there's nothing

in the charter that says that. I mean, he actually says it quite well in his email, arguably better than I did in my opinion, frankly. But I think I'm trying to give both this commission and the public at large more trust. I mean, it was my independent opinion before I knew that email existed. So I guess this is, and it I don't know if it's about trust, but it

comes back down to legal definitions and terminology, right? So just on the face, when we start talking about contracts and terms, anybody who is employed for a contract, an individual contract, has a term. There is no guarantee, and this is where we disagree, there is no right to an employment past that term of the contract. You do

not need to terminate the individual when a contract expires. If there is no willingness on an administration to enter into a successor agreement, the individual who signed that contract knows that there is a specific end date, no different than any other term, so that their employment is for a period of time. Hence the reason why people will

come down before this council and start talking about when we're looking at ordinances, well, we want to be in the union. There's more protection. The reason that there's more protection for a union, besides the union representation for any type of grievance and in the collective bargaining agreements and terms in the agreements is that they don't have

to be reappointed. There's no reappointment clause. Their contract goes and what they're negotiating is the terms of the contract in their successor agreement. It's not their employment.

This is an employment agreement, individual employment agreement, which are typically three years, one year, two year, but typically three years, and at the end of the three years, there's no guarantee that you're going to have another three-year contract or a one-year contract or a two-year contract. When the contract renews, there are a lot of people that tend

to look for other jobs because there's no guarantee that they're going to be renewed.

And to be renewed, re-newed, reappointed, if you're entering into another agreement, that would tell you that there's a reappointment to that. And as I mentioned before, the reappointment requires an action, right? So you're reappointing. So if you have, as it's written here, that there's confirmation on the appointment, how would there not be confirmation on

the reappointment? And then how do you get around the fact that the administration sends down every reappointment for boards and committees when it's in the same section of the charter? Those are the discrepancies. that we see and it's not what we're seeing here in terms of how you describe the terms, how you describe the reappointments. They're

not consistent with how that's interpreted with other municipalities. It's very clear when you have an individual contract, the term expires upon a three-year contract, if it's a three-year contract. Right? I mean, at what point, let's just take the superintendent. We were going back and forth, the school committee was gonna fire the superintendent,

everybody was saying let her finish out her term. What happens if they let her finish out her term and they didn't wanna renew? What happens at that point? They don't need to fire somebody. She's no longer the superintendent. But we're being told that she has property rights to that position. No, she does not. It's for a specific term and that's what we're saying. And from a philosophical standpoint, I understand the

negative components of it. But this is – when we say that it's clear, it's not clear. I have a specific difference of opinion on how this reads compared to the Corporation Council. And I, for one, just want it clarified. And I'm not saying that things were done – anything was done wrong. It may be inconsistent with what the charter – it may not be malicious or the intent, but we have different

opinions on how that section is read, just like we have different opinions on whether or not we can conduct an independent – legal review, independent investigations into any city departments, right? So those are the conversations that I think we need to have in moving forward. The only way, there's no mediator, there's no compromise, then we need to just get the official opinion and ruling from a judge. And I'm

prepared to go in that direction. I think if we're ever gonna challenge any, of the charter in terms of how it's written and the authority of the city council. The city council's authority is questioned every single meeting, every single meeting. And as councils, we just sit here and decide we're not gonna do anything. If you folks wanna do that, that's fine. My motion stands. I wanna go to court with this

and I want a judge to rule on our authority as a city council to reaffirm appointments, because that's the way the charter is written. With that, I yield. Vice President, yeah. So we have two other issues and I think everybody will agree. I think to a certain extent on this subject, the waters have been muddied. And what I mean by that is how many times recently has the city council been asked, okay,

okay, I know we don't really have the votes, but would you agree with one year? Just give one year. We'll see how it goes and then beyond that we can figure out what we're gonna do. Well, if we have no say in the reappointment, what's the point in the one year? Because at the end of the one year, it's not one year anymore. It's I'm gonna give two more years. I'm gonna

give three more years and we have no say, it happened. And we potentially have no say in it unless the administration changes their mind. So it's kind of a moot point. Why bother saying? well just agree with it for one year when that one year can just automatically turn into three more. So I think that's muddied the waters a tad. And then the other thing is, so here

we are back a few years ago, very similar. So we have two charter commissioners all voted in by the same people, all with as Councilor Kadeem said, equal standing with two opposing opinions, one supporting the city council, one supporting corporation council. Well, then to me, that indicates it's not black and white because the charter

commissioners can't even agree. So when it's not black and white and they can't agree, then somebody has to make a decision. And there's only one person that can make a decision. And it's unfortunate that we get to this point, but I think if that's the route the city council as a body decides to take, I think it should be amended to include opinions on other matters as well

that are very pertinent and have been talked about recently. But let's wait and see what the rest of the discussion brings. With that I yield. Councilor Canyell. Thank you.

So I think Councilor Kniem's position is we have the authority in the charter. I think I've been more along the lines of I think we can give ourselves the authority by writing it into ordinance and I think I'll address to that end of it because when I look at 2-2-21 it talks about the appointment of to both city boards and commissions. So this is

what we've written into the ordinances. And it said the mayor shall appoint or nominate a successor to any member of a city board of commission whose term is expired within six months. It goes on to state later, specific language, except as otherwise provided in subsection A or as otherwise provided by law, all members of city boards and commissions shall continue to serve until their successors are appointed

or until nominated and confirmed as the case may be. So I think the key words for me in that is the as confirmed part because that to me implies that it has to come back down to the city council for re-confirmation in those cases. And so for me, I think my position's more of, I don't know that the charter explicitly says it because black and white does not say that, but I

believe the city council possesses the authority, if we write it into orange, just like we've done in 221, that's been on the books for, I think it was last amended in 2007. So that one's been unchallenged for almost 20 years, or probably longer if that was amended last at that time, that we could add, you know, the potential orange that we have before us to give the authority. I'm curious

to Corporation Council's thoughts because 221, and I have it right here for you, does specifically write the until nominated and confirmed piece of it so what I guess to what Counselor Kstein was saying how is it that boards and commissions have to get that but not the department heads I guess when all of them have that initial confirmation before us. If I can address that I

mean of course I assume what you're saying is 221. That's for boards specifically. So I mean the legal analysis, the proper legal analysis is that the charter authors clearly understand how to make somebody come back for reappointment, reconfirmation when the term ends. And they specifically added it to boards and commissions. And the fact that

they didn't have that same provision for department heads and city officers means the implications that they knew how to do it and they chose not to. So that article that you're section that you're reading is actually a very strong argument in favor of my opinion. Except this isn't the charter I'm reading from. This is the city code, which is what the city council has created, or made over

time and adopted. Look, I mean, I can say the same things over and over again. I mean, this is my third time down. I don't need to belabor the point. I put it in writing. There's not much else to say.

I'm confident I'm correct on this. I don't think it's a gray area. I don't think it's a closed call. I think even on top of all that, we have nine years of doing it exactly like I'm suggesting it's been done.

So to then now, nine years later, talk about filing a lawsuit, which costs money for an issue that has never been an issue. And even though we've had numerous renewals in the last nine years, this is not a new issue. It just seems to me to not really be the issue that needs to go forward. So just to be clear, I'm understanding that from your legal opinion, addressing specifically

the charter that you don't believe the way it's written, we have the authority to do it. I guess the separate legal question I would have is since the City Council at some point last amended in 2007 has that language for boards and commissions about reconfirmation could the City Council doesn't then possess the authority to require department heads who also had appointment

confirmation down here before us if we were to write it into ordinance City code just like we've done with boards of commissions wouldn't we have that authority no I mean once you have an executive authority you can't you can't write an ordinance that gives you executive authority so I mean that I mean that would be the distinction I mean well I mean the arguments

the difference between councilor Kadeem's argument and yours I think largely is councilor Kadeem his argument that the charter gives the city council the power And frankly, although I disagree with them, that would be the only way to get it. I think the idea that you can write an ordinance then give you the power is also incorrect.

OK. Thank you. Counselor Kadim. So I've been hearing this lately, and I guess I just want some clarification on this. It's a waste of taxpayer money. Who exactly gets to make the determination of what is a waste of taxpayer money? Well, I mean, I think my authority is to file suit on behalf of the City of Fall River, so I make that call on a regular

basis, but you know, I understand it. It's still a valid point you're making. I understand it. Right. Because I... You're an elected official. Right, right. And every time I try to suggest something, I'm being told that I'm wasting taxpayer money. Yep, I'm right.

In my mind, whether you agree with me or disagree with me, my intentions are to protect the residents of the City of Fall River, right? So the City of Fall River residents voted on a charter. It is very clear. I'm in disagreement with what's before us, and yet I continue to constantly hear on a number of occasions that we are wasting taxpayer money. It's in the media. It's being told to us.

If I don't vote a certain way, I'm wasting taxpayer money. I just want to know where I can go to find the actual definition of what wasteful spending is or wasting taxpayer money is, because I'd like to know what that barometer is so when I'm making my decisions, I can go and say, you know what? I probably shouldn't go down this road even though it's the right thing to do because

it is wasting taxpayer money. I just want to know where I can get that clarification. Okay. Because, and if there is none, I would just suggest that all parties, the city council, the mayor's office, anybody in local government, stop saying that we're wasting taxpayer money if you can't define what wasting taxpayer money means and how we get there. Because in my mind, We have a charter and we are elected

to uphold the charter. So we've got a disagreement, but I do have a compromise.

So if we're willing to take Mr. Meyoza's email saying that we don't have the authority to do the appointments or the confirmation of reappointments, I will forgo that as long as we also take Mr. Meyoza's opinion that he sent to me on another point of a charter. So he sent to me, And it's, quote, Hi, Sean, you are correct. Article 2 of the charter was intended

to give the city council more authority and allow for investigations in any city agency.

As a former city councilor, I personally felt it was important that there was balance between the two government branches of local government. So you disagreed with that. So what I will tell you is I will accept this email saying that we don't have the authority to do reappointments if you accept my message from him saying we have

the authority to conduct investigations into departments. That's, that's. Well, as I said from the beginning, that opinion is irrelevant to, to the charter interpretation because the charter interpretation for this was a black and white thing. It was not an ambiguous issue. That being said, I actually, from the portion you just read, I

wouldn't have disagreed with you. The charter does give the city council the power to do investigations, but I think what's implicit in that power is that it's for legislative or budgetary purposes, not for purely executive functions. So I wouldn't even disagree with what that portion of what you read to me from Mr. Meoza that's accurate. You do

have investigatory powers. No way. To give the council more authority, which means it's not just legislative. Because we have all the legislative authority now, so to give us more authority would mean that it would have to go beyond the legislative authority. We have the legislative authority currently. So I don't want to belabor the point, but from my

standpoint, to me, it comes back down to how it is written, how we've handled items in the past, because there is nowhere else that would suggest that, you know, Boards and committees need to come back down before us for reappointments, but they have.

So they've all come back before us. I still think that's a strong argument to be made. I still think the terms of a contract is a strong argument to be made. I think that reappointments, as it's defined legally, is a strong argument, which would give us the authority as a legislative body to confirm reappointments.

Because at the end of the day, if you're on a contract, your contract expires at the end of that term. You are being reappointed. So my motion is on the table and that's the direction I'd like to go. Do you yield, counsel? I yield. Any other discussion on the motion? Counselor Canuel. I think if we're going to move forward on that motion, I think then we should potentially

dispose of the proposed ordinance because I think it weakens the argument of my colleague.

I think he's saying that we possess the authority in the Home Road Charter, therefore we would need to write it into the city code. So with that, I would make a... subsequent motion to leave to withdraw the proposed ordinance. So we'll take the, we'll take Counselor Kadeem's motion first. Clerk, can you reiterate to the committee what the motion is, please? I can't. Councilor Kadeem, can you reiterate

your motion, please? That the Committee on Ordinance Legislation make a recommendation to the full council that we pursue legal action to get a legal determination from a judge on the city council's authority on reappointments.

Motion made. And we already did have a second on the original motion. Discussion, Vice President Dion. I would like to amend that to also include the investigative authority of the city council and the ability to hire outside agencies to help us to investigate situations. I'll second that.

We have an amendment on the floor made by Vice President Dion, seconded by Councillor Kadeem. On the amendments discussion, Councillor Kahnewald.

I think I'd just like to move forward with this. I feel like we keep talking about it at every meeting. subsequent months keep coming up I'd really like us to just get this all settled and move forward whatever the ruling may be so.

Understood. Yield. I didn't yield yet. Did I? You did. Did I? Vice President Deon?

Yeah well I guess that was the point I just wanted to amend it because if we're gonna go let's let's not go five times let's take what's important and do it all at once and be done with it. With that I yield.

On the amendment All those in? Of course, on the amendment, can you repeat your amendment? To include the city council's authority to investigate. 2-7A. 2-7A

and be able to hire outside agencies, whether it be.

Legal. Yeah, legal, whether it be an investigator or an attorney, whatever the case may be. whatever way you think is best to.

On the amendment, all those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. And on the motion as amended, it was made and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

The ayes have it. So now to. Motion leave to withdraw the proposed ordinance.

Motion made to grant leave to withdraw the proposed ordinance made by Councillor Canuel, second by Vice President Dion. Discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. And there is no other business in front of the committee this evening.

Motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Made by Vice President Deion, second by Councillor Cagnon.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. The committee outworn its legislation is now adjourned.