9.25.23 Special Charter

good evening everyone and this is the September 25th 2023 meeting of the special Channel Review Committee we are in the atrium and one government center I am Dan robillard I am the vice chair of this committee and I'd like to stop by reading the open meeting walk pursuant to the open meeting while any person may make an audio or video recording of attendees are therefore advised that

from reporting or Transmissions are being made when the perceived or unperceived by those present and are Dean mcnowledged and permissible yeah could we have a salute to the flag please I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all

thank you man Mimi laravey Laura Washington Tracy Almeida public company if you have one in front of you it's right here did your name on the grass to the record please I'll give you then it's 25 french fries I have a comment that I had I had four issues one which debris called and sorry to say I think you guys missed the boat on a recall about Danny and saying you didn't do

the main problem with the recall last time which I remember was that the mayor got recalled the new one was about to run an election in one anybody in anything done to change that so I have a section here 8.5 in the first section any other elected city office uses a you know the trends are highlighted are darker you know if you've left an elected office it could have been available in

and then and not removed there after until 270 days after that election recalls to not be held this less than six months of the gym of Office of the person who drink causes God remain s at the time of certification on the petition form and I would go through others for recall I mean you get six months off at the end you can't do it for the first three

months and then you got to wait 90 days for the election that's another three months I mean a year then in the second far about halfway down the name of our officer surgery College Drop the grounds for the recall that stated in the affidavit and shall demand that the election selection shall demand the election of a replacement for such offices before I used to say successor I mean if we're having a recall we want

to replace the guy and get him out so I I just changed successor to replacement then at the bottom three competitions you need not be filed at the same time I remember I took in the front again recall to get the petitions with the Second Street went down to City Hall and handed it in and he took the founding member was saying okay that's it that's the only petition and you can't file anymore

so I put that in for the purposes of this section the Recon protection shop is considered file whenever the prison is responsible for its file and notified that he took in the writing the filing is complete so whoever they send people out at running the recall when they notify the city's book that the problem is all done then they're all done quality receiving notice that filing is complete the board of Election

Commission is made but shall not be required to have certified sentences and the recall applications already submitted so at the bottom of electric commission is one stop certifying those separate petitions as they come in there's nothing to stop them and it'll cut them instead of getting a whole bunch of things at the end

foreign

certified around and the number of signatures which are named the broadest of the city the Senate that number represented the total number of verbals out of debate are the most recent minutes for the elections are returning to recalls to take these to the city to work seed of recall election at the top I was putting in five working days originally I put in Shell immediately and I take my mind into five working

days now I'm kind of going back to shout immediately but I really I really think there should be a number again days by having such notice related to the last known place of residents of the officer our offices sought to be recalled then the last section eight if the officer was recall to start or not resigned from the office the officers shall continue to hold and perform the duties of the office for

which elected until they recall election s removed from office upon Citizen and recall election in the physician job between the city is breaking feel the current intercession sure he does turn of the travel control and efficiency in the office the mayor such as 2011 fulfilling Division Street in the state Council on second floor for death rate for throwing of agency on the scope committee 10 degrees in Dallas

I found one that was separate and simple to sell then he encrypt the name of the office he recalled from the office of Indian name of the office yes or no can't get much simpler than that the department of prohibitions I think your people trained fish from two years down to one I'd like to stay at two years and I guess my Cooper grass with number two no questions recall from an office

under 10 to the second 8.5 of this product shall be eligible to be attended to fill any vacancy created by the response everything the uh the group called person from running again shame on us and if you look at it you know you have to recall election you want to recall this guy enough yes or no doesn't she take care of that though Mr America G small letter G doesn't small letter G

take care of that issue that you just raised that the recalled individual would reappear on the ballot because it says here in G that any person who has been recalled from office or has resigned shall not be appointed to any office within one year after section that's not a vote I took that differently that's another job you can get another city job and you can't have it within two years so the fact that

that's a point of contention and my understanding is different than your understanding that this language needs to be classified yeah I want to say we spent a significant amount of time on this section I don't recall exactly what we did we were just what I think we I recall almost with an entire meeting at this section yeah we if not more than one meeting well if you think about it

we've had two recalls and there's two people that would recall didn't say and this is the exact same language that's been there all the time they didn't say well so I I want to say if I may that we we didn't adopt the language because it's here in small G or we I don't have my notes in front of me or we didn't change it um appointed but if I'm when I was reading

it that's what I interpreted it as and so the fact that you and I are interpreting differently is grounds for I'm not visiting no I understand what we have a point of difference and this Charters is supposed to resolve that so there's no points of difference and the fact that there's already a point of difference then we need to resolve it that's right number two in you remember we had extensive

discussions about this yes and one of the things that we discussed was whether the recall subject that we recall would be concluded from running in future elections and that presents a problem because he has a First Amendment right to run for office right so we didn't include that language because of the First Amendment concerns so what we did was we eliminated the re-election provisions of the recall

so that it's nice and clean he's recalled that the absence Provisions exactly okay because we had concerns even precluding the subject of the recall from running in the recoil election would create litigation that's right that's we know why we stayed away from because that is illegal is it not to preclude anyone from running well well I built it 7 to 10 other Charters from different cities

the shadow of the state California it is a program prohibition about a person that's been recalled not run again not in the future but you can't run to replace himself we certainly can't disregard a federal judge's decision and that is that in the hetzler decision he indicated that prohibiting someone from running for office is a violation of First Amendment rights now there may be other Charters that have language

that has not been tested yet but what we sought to do was to avoid litigation right so very simple we change the recall Provisions to uh is the person recalled yes no and then the absence provisions of life and so that would preclude that individual from running again or appearing on the same ballot is that correct there is no same ballot okay because that's correct right the absence provision

call for an election some days after the recall that's correct where the the subject of the recall may not appear on the ballot or it does it's not it's not explicit the language into China says that the Mary Street call that position is facing you can go to the vacancy language not the temporary absence of the mayor but the attempt the vacancy in the office of May temporary absence of the mayor and

the recall provision uh two entirely different things so as I recall it nothing had one thing has nothing to do with the other thank you come for Washington please so if I'm correct it's too short so you go in for the recall if you recall recall no recall there's not an election process on that ballot correct that's what we did totally so now we go to the provisions in the charter where

there's a vacancy whoever fills that vacancy correct and then we hold an election if it's time 180 days later that's I believe how we rectified yeah

yeah but there's time frames to it right depends on where in the term that the the vacancy takes place I just don't want you there's language in there address that the council president and council president fills in and it has to be within a certain time if it's in the first 15 months or within the last nine months but there's time language in there within the first 18 months

I'd like to see that bumped up to 30 days which section are you on no I mean which section are you referring to oh wait a second we can't take take these back we can't discuss these handouts pass them down here violates the open meeting law we didn't have them prior to the meeting pass them down I'll get these on the agenda next week we can't discuss them this week nobody had them before

I'm sorry I don't mean to do that to you but if his documents we're going to discuss at the meeting we have to have them before we have to post them sorry sorry everybody oh yeah so what I'll do though if you want is I know we're going to have another meeting and I'll put this I'll put public input with attachments on the agenda I mean you can give the public input I'm

not stopping you from sharing whatever it is you want to share verbally if you want to read that into the record you can or you can say that you have an attachment and we'll put it on specifically as a an agenda topic under public input for our next meeting is he okay it'd be simpler to just yes next week have them put in as a recording for the next meeting

well I don't want any way shape or form for you or anybody else to feel that we are not beginning allowing you to do public input we don't have the next meeting scheduled yet but I just know that we cannot have these discussed by this board until we publicize the cells so but but I would put it on my agenda I'm just going to put it on the agenda publish

it gets published as long as it's 48 hours before the meeting so it always goes in by 2 p.m on Wednesday something to that effect I make sure that's always in by Wednesday if we have a Monday meeting I try to have the clerk have everything by Wednesday everything should be on there now I hand delivered it and made specific instructions for all our documents to start getting published with the agenda

because there was an issue of documents not being posted and as far as other than that the agenda was published the last Amendment Charter as of what we received at the last meeting I believe if there's another one I don't know but there wasn't the the agenda for this meeting there was an amended Charter and the the minutes of our last meeting all posted on the website uh for this

meeting because I worked at them at 8 15 this morning and so uh the the genre of the proximately 34 everything everything on my agenda everything five six seven eight and nine was provided to the clerk's office for publication I fulfilled my obligation if it's not on there somebody has to take it up at the clerk's office right and then it was titled amended I assume it was the amended job from the last meeting

that's the way this amended job ever I Source I I will confess I didn't read 35 pages and I chose not to print them but when I saw him at the job I figured that happened everything that we had done up to the last meeting there may be another romantic Channel if we make more recommendations or changes between now and the end of our service here there could be five more amendments

but this uh to say we did nothing on the recall in absolutely absurd and inaccurate we spent okay just I hate to interrupt would you like to read this in right now at public input or would you rather Reserve this document in its context well but here's here's my question we need to do a motion to submit this as an exhibit for the next meeting well I first I want to find out

what you would like to do I I will not not let this get discussed but we cannot look at what you've submitted I wanna I want you to make sure it gets discussed it cannot be it can be discussed if you want to get no no no not a special we're going to have more meetings anyways but I want you to to be totally satisfied with your right to public input

my suggestion and it's only a suggestion is that if this is documents that you want the committee to review and then discuss with more public input at another meeting than um on the next agenda for the next meeting under public comment I would put if the committee makes a motion to discuss the documents you've submitted no this is just the public meeting this is a public meeting of the charter

review right we meet every Monday just about we haven't met every Monday and we always have public input we don't limit it but when it comes to these documents right here we cannot look at them and we can't discuss the contents of these until they're published correct so I will make sure they're published and I'll put it on the agenda and then we'll be able to discuss them because

no no we'll know by the end of this meeting we'll know when we have our next meeting I mean I'm sure we're going to come up with a date because we're nowhere near done um so the state of California is

in fact from running again I think that he was a committee so failed miserably if they don't look specific language in it as if the person that's recall cannot run now as far as what you said about the other thing to fall uh we didn't have sorts right to run we didn't argue about you not having the right to run we argued about him having two jobs and if he ran in one

you would have to pick and choose the two jobs and that's what state author writes 268a which is in that practice that's certainly speak Russian rights in those two jobs but you cannot get paid someone you can all three jobs right now you don't want to get paid for the money it was it was always quoted that could only be paid for that had happened prior with uh with a former city council

that that would uh we're going backwards going back five years ago the intent of that China commercial stand correct then I'm going by my memory the intent of that language and I believe I said so at the time was to prohibit him from running for office because he was made he was a public employee that's my recollection of what happened I don't care if I could make one more point on the difference thank you uh

I seem to recall first of all we had at least one or more expensive meetings I believe one meaning was almost entirely devoted the court and my colleagues can can correct me if I'm wrong wouldn't be the first time I'm happy to be corrected I believe we spent almost an entire meeting on recall provision I further believe that I tried to make a motion to prohibit a recalled person from running

again the example I used was Gray Davis in California that motion either failed or did not respond of a second after which time we took the actions that we taught and came up with the the recommendation that we have made today that's the way I remember it with that ideal think about the recoil away we call it like that you want real flow to continue to feel better you might go flow to continue the

service and say man yes or no if you vote Yes and you went to the escrow you won the election if the answer to the first question is no now you want to have them have a second bite of the Apple to reverse the first recorded the first one but as I as I recall what we did after my motion failed if I'm correct okay what we did was we said if

there's a recall man there will not be a second ballot there will be another election but you can't disappear the question on the table is can the person that was recalled appear on that ballot I would remember it I don't think there's that against the law yes correct it is felons can run for president so so I feel like we'd be committing a similar kind of miss you that would make this important

to get in the way the last one is embarrassed with the whole situation well I get it

no I am I certainly understand um any further public input I'm going to put this I'm going to publish this and put this on the agenda and I'll you'll know the meeting because you're going to be here we'll give you the next date I mean we could try to set a meeting date now tentatively and see if it works for your calendar is that all right um I just want to just to take it out of

order um thank you I just want to discuss dates for the next meeting I never put it on the agenda but is there a second on the motion yeah all in favor how's everybody October 2nd or the 9th the ninth holiday so that's how we won't be able to get a room how is everybody for 10-2 next okay I'm sorry I just have something that's something I won't be I will I will be

away the 16th the 23rd the rest of October but that okay she's gonna go from Ms to Mrs how is everybody see November 6 is the day before the election this won't be available the hearing room might how about the 13th November 13th I have school committee meeting it was a school committee is getting in the way in this it does yeah that's if you get elected on the seventh you're

being no she's still in she's still she's still into it anyway that's hilarious you can't do November 13th it's hilarious and the sixth is not good who's eleven six yeah I'll see if we can get the hearing room can everybody do 11-6 that works for me well that's the day before election that's a crazy day it is a busy day but let me see if the hearing room is available all righty if the hearing

room is available then we'll do the eleven six we're gonna have another one after that anyways I'm sure they're not anywhere near done um and then how about the on November 20th 11 20. I'm good for that all right I'll check on those two dates so 11 6 or 11 20 are either one of those good for you does it okay so that's out well I can I can work it

around you I can put it on for me well we I want you to have an opportunity to go over it so I listen if there's no all again 11 6 but there's an Augie on 11 20. I can wait and put it on the agenda for the meeting that you are available for all right I'm uh two of us are gone for the rest of October somebody's getting married and there's honeymoons and vacations alrighty so

any further public input okay moving on uh the August 28th minutes second all in favor aye okay the minutes moving on to the legal opinion at our last meeting there was a lot of discussion about public meetings versus public hearings and when we're done how should we should proceed so I pose these questions to The Corporation Council we've had 13 public meetings to date does that satisfy Our

obligation under 9 6 or 10-3 it's the current Charter language regarding two public hearings and I told him we discussed public meetings versus public hearings what's the difference and when we're done with a committee approved draft or like a new Charter draft we want two public hearings how exactly are those scheduled is it through the council through the president of the council once and then once our drafts

are done so here is the response from cooperation Council on those and I want to read it in there's a difference between a public meeting and a public hearing a public meeting is typically less formal it's used to discuss issues impossible Solutions a public hearing is typically used to allow public input and debate on the final version of a proposal or policy before adoption or in implant implant implementation

some words I just can't get out so Corporation councils made a couple suggestions they suggest two public hearings after the final version of the draft that we have approved is submitted so we have for example if we have five more because I went to speak to him afterwards if we have five more meetings and we finally have a draft that the majority of this committee approves that's the draft that

goes for publication in advertisement for public hearing technically there's no requirement that the public hearings take place before the city council um but the council may want to be included particularly since they must vote on the issue and they will likely want to hear the Public's input before doing so and per96 and 10-5 after we've had the two public hearings I assume we would meet again I'm

assuming that we get a final draft there's two public hearings with the council we will come back and meet again let's just say there is something tragically and legally wrong we would have to meet again and then and only then after everything we filed a report with the draft with the clerk they'll put it on the city council agenda they will take it up then the mayor takes it up then it travels to the

Attorney General's office to the conflict of law Division and if it comes back that everything's okay then we can request that it go on a ballot for a home rule petition vote and then it goes to the voters so I hope that answers everybody's question any discussion on that yes I understand why uh who have that's okay I thought since it was on odd shot of Wrath we are recommending it that we should

have at least one hearing fear before the before we send it there that's what I was working for is it's the majority of this committee whatever they want to do uh during the during the the uh summation of the last China process we had public hearings before the charter commission before we took our final vote to send it to the banner this is a little bit different I just feel we as

the channel Review Committee we are the group making these recommendations the city council the public should come be the best body to discuss the final version of the document that we send to the city council can you make that an emotion I I just don't I I still don't understand so maybe make a motion I make a motion that the charter Review Committee conduct a public hearing for members of the public to come and

give input on the final version of the recommendations that we will send to the city council but that we have that hearing and take a vote before and we send any recommendations to the city council okay we have some there's a motion on the table some discuss is there a second second discussion so what we're saying in if I get this clearly no what you are saying or what he is saying I'm understanding what you're

we need two public hearings the first public hearing be it here we then take a vote and then the second public hearing would be at the city council am I correct I I don't know how many public hearings are required what I'm looking for as one member is to have a public hearing on the final document with the changes that the public can review and make their comments on well even that night there could

possibly be changes if the if the debate was such that those changes were significant enough and the the majority of this committee felt they wanted to change it but these are our recommendations the public should come here before it goes to the city council well and we should take a vote like we should take a vote that uh we should take a formal vote as a committee before we send anything to the city all right well

we've had 13 I don't know the emotions it's your motion to have two public hearings in this committee I don't know how I don't know how I'd be satisfied with one for this committee so your motion is one public Hearing in front of this community yes before before we finalize yes that's that's his motion okay not right now yeah um we've had 13 meetings to date now this is 14 15 meetings are publicized we have

the public come in they input on every section that we have reviewed here and um we could call it a public hearing a parade a meeting we're going to get who we get they've had ample opportunity we've been meeting since when last February yeah but I thought that I guess but we're but that's that document is subject to change up until it goes to the council see it's not it doesn't go to the council before

the public hearings the public hearings are to really generate I think more public input more than we've had so but we've had 14 meetings remember that yeah but I just want to make sure we're the we could call next meeting a public hearing I just want to make attorney Rumsey said have these 14 meetings been hearings or meetings they're meetings their meetings so are we required to

have a hearing a hearing would just be letting people talk right not talking back no I get it I just want to just make sure that we've sufficed we've done all our public we've overcompensated we've over our competency because we didn't have to have them all public but we chose to have them all public meetings had to be public they don't they didn't ask they did not they did not have to be

absolutely Dan not gonna argue with you in any event is your motion to have a public hearing here and then another one later is that the motion Dan I don't know about another one away I will clearly tell you what my emotion is when we are done before we send anything to the city council I want the public to have the ability to come here give input and have discussions on the final product before

we send it to the city we don't discuss at a hearing we just take testimony from the public so and we vote after we can vote afterwards but we're not having a back and forth out of public hearing a public hearing is they come in public hearing yeah but what I understand it's the only thing different between a meeting and a hearing is that it's publicized differently I guess it's called the

public so it's publicized in the newspaper or through other same as here it's not different because it was led I was led to believe the last time we discussed this that it was that the public hearing was supposed to be a circulated differently and absolutely boy caring is very different and I will stay for the record and I'll stake my reputation on every one of these meetings had to be

posted in any event Dan instead of just arguing what's your motion I I've stated my motion three times so have a public Hearing in front of the charter Review Committee before the finished document goes to the city council is that the motion I want to vote by this committee before it goes to the council well so you got two motions because you can't because so you're we're talking about a

public hearing we're not talking about a vote you want to do two motions do two motions so your motion is have a public hearing here you actually made his motion the way I throw it is that he made a motion to have a public hearing before the final version gets sent I have discussion but I have discussion before vote Yes motion is a public hearing before the final draft goes to the city council

before we vote on it before we vote

so we're going to finalize amongst ourselves at our last meeting whenever it is someday and someday and then we're having there is motion then we're going to have a hearing just to hear what the public has to say we don't respond we just sit here we listen to them that's it are we accepting that night at that hearing whether or not we're going to the city but we have to have two public

hearings and Corporation Council suggested one should take place in front of the city council for the city council to hear the Public's input at a public hearing which I thought made sense please in a minute please so it switch made sense because when the document goes to the council it'll be at a regular meeting on their agenda and of course there'll be questions right but if one of those public hearing and I got

the logic one of the public hearings before the council to kind of get that out of the way yeah you know what I mean right so that we're present to answer questions given I think so yeah that makes sense I think so I think that that was what I took away from his opinion is that one of those probably shouldn't be in front of the city council that will help facilitate like a

decision some of them might have a question and one time right and that might answer there's the city council's questions at the same time so with question yeah go ahead so with that being said right when we send the document down to the city council it is going to be the document that we have voted on after two public hearings yeah the document when let me let me just back up

let's say in two and a half years we're done right because at this rate I don't see it happening anytime soon November of 2024 is the next election which would not be a nice Target date but and we don't make it we don't make it when we have some version of what we have nobody else has anything else they want to change right um and we have had two public hearings

whether one is here after that last meeting of ours then the other one maybe in front of the council and then we come back one more time and we look at everything and then if there's changes we make the changes that would be the final document gotcha so because we've had the two public hearings and and we've had one more meeting right so that document goes to the city council

and it's the only thing on the agenda because the charter is pretty clear it's the only thing that can be on the agenda that day and that is when they will vote to approve that's all they thumbs up thumbs down they can't make changes and then it goes to the mayor's office and he says thumbs up thumbs down yes yes and then it goes to the Attorney General's office so can I just say we

just reverse the order public hearing at city council and then a public hearing here and then a vote and then a final meeting right yes hearing with the city council fearing with us and at that hearing with us we then vote yeah that sounds good to me excuse me we will that's the frustration it's not it's not the final draft it's just the first one it's a public hearing whatever

is presented at the two public clearings is the same document so there can be changes to that the document that we could even be the doctrine we have in hand right yeah for all we know it's the one we got we don't know yet because so we have a motion in a second on the floor can I just clarify uh Mr robillard that we could and you would be okay with city council public

hearing and then a public hearing with us and then a vote quite frankly I'm confused okay because these are our recommendations our recommendations are supposed to be sent to the city council they shouldn't go to the city council in my opinion as one member until we are all done here that that's what I'm saying when the city council sees our final version that is running for prime time we should be all done

here but don't we believe that by including the city council in that process in the public hearing process initially that it would be the final final after that point because even if we final if we made the final final version and send it to the city council they may have issues with it then it would have to come back and start all over again because not only are they the city council they are constituents and

they're voters in the city and they would ultimately also go to the voting booth some November in the very near future and vote on it if I've ever made it to the ballot the suggestion by Corporation Council was if you have a public hearing with the city council it would not only educate them on some of the recommendations we made we would be able to answer the questions um apartment in fact I

in fact I believe the city council in their wisdom would demand some kind of Republic hearing since they have to vote on what we send them all I'm saying is when we make the final report whatever that is the final report should wave this body with a vote up or down to send to the city council that's the way I believe this should be done I think it's back well look when the city

council gets our report they can amend it they can change it they can tell us to throw it in the sewer if they want to we are making recommendations we are sending those recommendations to them prior to those recommendations we've been here I think the public should have an opportunity to come here before the body that makes the recommendations to send to the city council the city

council will be involved in the process one way or the other but we are the ones making the recommendations the public hearing should be conducted here before we vote to send anything to the city okay so there's a motion on the table and I believe the motion is to have a public hearing before the charter special Charter review committee meeting and another public hearing to be established where when and who I think

that's it a public hearing here and a public hearing there is that the motion my vote is yes and I think the motion was seconded can you read back the motion as it stands now Mr Machado it'll be one of two yeah it doesn't matter correct that's how I feel

the original motion was um to hold a public hearing before this committee folks on the final version yep yep that's the simple motion is a public hearing here in this committee before we vote on the final version roll call so the motion is a public hearing before the charter review yeah

that's fine with me anybody guys you want to vote on this I don't favor yes unanimous moving on uh discussion of the charter review report that is the one titled special Charter Review Committee Special Report it's not numbered by pages and it goes well it goes it's on the agenda we're discussing it right now it's titled Special Report I don't know about 10 pages I only had issue with one thing in that

if you don't mind the third paragraph because of the frequency of the meeting some members had difficulty attending all the meetings while there was a quorum at each meeting some items were tabled so that a majority of the members could participate I thought we voted that out struck them the reference we struck the reference to school committee and city council I make a motion to strike it I don't like it I

think it makes us sound like we're not doing our job uh I have some comments about go ahead go ahead um we in fact did that there were a few meetings where we didn't have enough members present so what we did was we tabled the votes so that he could come back to a meeting where there were more members present but we always had a forum except for one meeting we only had one meeting that we

didn't have a quarter and we put him in we tabled some of the votes so that the majority of the members of this committee could vote I think that's a very positive thing it's we've you know we're telling the we're putting in this report that you know hey we purposely tabled certain folks because you know while there was a quorum we didn't have a full complement of members can we leave that first sentence out

well there was a quorum at each meeting some items were tabled and taken up at another time so a majority of the members would be present maybe take out the first sentence um so if we took out because of the frequency of the meeting some members have had difficulty attending all the meetings just strike that and then rephrase the next one there was a quorum at each meeting that's the truth we've

had a lot of meetings and because of that people have difficulties with this we should actually ultimately put the number of meetings that we had well we did yes this has 13 meetings um how much would be labored yeah it's not going to be edited now because we could have 35 meetings so that number will change that number will change right but we are we will did we vote to put the natural number of meetings in

there yeah we did okay but I just I think it's more important to let them know that we had a quorum at every meeting except for one because there was one only one that's what the phrase while there was a quorum at each meeting means yeah but we had one meeting there was no quality well you can't meet at the you can't I will probably without a quorum yeah that's

fine I just don't like the idea well wait a minute Dan slow it because of the frequency of the meeting some members have had difficulty attending all the meetings I just I don't know why they need to know that is yelling I'm talking to Paul I'm asking him while it's in there please don't interrupt me again so the first sentence is I just want to know why they need to know that because it's

a public report no I know that would be I believe accurate as to what happened we had frequent meetings that caused some numbers to have difficulty in attending um nevertheless and we tabled items so that not just a quorum of members could vote but so that a majority of members I question the relevance well let's see how the vote goes so I wanna I wanna strike the first my motion is to strike the first sentence

because I don't think it's relevant that's it that's my reason we're yes where's these this special report going to where is this going this travels with it this travels with the okay that's what I thought because if the charter says have a we have to have a report of our recommendations okay and then you know what we recommended no any second on the get rid of the first sentence motion fails

the first sentence stays I want the record to reflect that at the September 25th meeting of the special Charter Review Committee I am feminently opposed to this sentence that reads because of the frequency of the meeting some members have had difficulty in attending all the meetings I find it irrelevant and that's it as a number of members had conflicts is stricken from I I don't have yeah he

took out the school Community stuff oh you don't have this one okay and I did have it off I mean I don't I don't necessarily see the relevancy of the adding that piece but it does talking about my school committee meetings well we took it because you specifically pointed out school committee commitments I mean I think it does tell the public that we believe it was a frequent meeting

schedule for this so that's it does do that it tells the public that there this was there were a lot of meetings yeah it wasn't arbitrary these decisions were not made arbitrarily they were so all right so other than that in the report anybody else have anything they want to discuss about the report other than the number of meetings will change all right and there's also this also like a

summary what is it in the summary there's also going to be well there's also going to be a an addition of this meeting the last one that's referenced is August 28th yeah an edition of this meeting and whatever other meetings we have and then in the summary it will include what the ultimate voters yeah the last page so okay I get you all right no but uh so that we won't vote on it yet because

we don't have the final Special Report all right I'll put it I'll continue to put it on the agenda just so we can all be updated with the changes to it good because I missed the first one I saw the one without okay oh well oh see you'd have been like me yeah gave a report at the last meeting did you like yeah this is the same report but he updated it and took out the language

yeah yes with every meeting that we had um all right oh you know something I I put table of contents last it really should be happy second all right all in favor yes all right can we go to number nine I think it just table of contents mm-hmm um well I think the page numbers if there's any major changes the only thing that changes is the page numbers right I had I was missing um a page

so I took it out of the old one and put it in the new one so when this meeting is done Paul and I will have a discussion and I'll make sure that everybody gets all the updated stuff at the same time okay but the table of contents right and if they're a substantive changes in our draft just the page numbers will change but the but the section in the in

the titles of the sections will not change correct and is everybody okay with the section the titles and the all right so and again we can't put this to a vote yet it may change all right but if nobody has any comments on it I may not put it on the agenda next time or I'll just keep putting it on in case somebody wants to bring it up all right right um I just noticed the typographical

error yeah

um so it looked okay yeah yes except for the a at the end of definitions yeah if we if we remember then we right uh number eight discussion of the charter draft I had a two three um I number under definitions number six emergency it says a sudden generally unexpected occurrence or a set of circumstances or a set of circumstances demanding immediate action should that be like included to say

um you know uh like uh notwithstanding whether illness disease acts of God legally like should it include some of the emergencies so it's not discluded genomes because here's one of the things when we had issues in the mayor's office years ago I when I was reading it thought that that was an emergency situation I kind of thought a mayor indicted would open charges and bail conditions that

prevented him from leaving the Commonwealth of Massachusetts I thought that kind of created somewhat of an emergency that's what I was thinking about when I read this right and you know how sometimes they will you know when they're defining something it'll say something like including but not limited to that's what I was kind of thinking like should it say including but not limited to weather illness uh you know

Health welfare acts of God War uh I didn't know if we should add that kind of language well I want to put language in there because because lawyers pick apart words and they pick apart phrases that's what we do right so I don't know let's say a hurricane comes through and somebody says oh it's an emergency and then they look and oh well weather's not in there and somebody makes the argument that a hurricane is

in an emergency what basis what base what would we need to say that a hurricane is or is not an emergency I just I don't wanna I don't want to leave emergency open to interpretation I want to put everything in it well go ahead well if you put stop listing things something's not listed and that means it's not an emergency so I didn't I wanted to put included but not limited to so

leaving the definition broad allows for anything to come in so Rina mentioned the hurricane but so if you mentioned you know a hurricane what happens if there's a volcanic eruption you know that's not included in the list so if you start listing things there's a danger that things not everything will be included if you leave it Broad and that's to determine at the time yeah but I don't want it to just say here's the

emergencies I want the phrase I want I was thinking a sudden and generally unexpected occurrence or set of circumstances demanding immediate action I my what I was thinking was comma including but not limited to and list all that stuff my concern is that there is an emergency and somebody argues it isn't because broad interpretations are what goes up could I just get clarity on one point

whatever the definition of emergency is going to be what is the result or purpose of in other words what's the outcome it's in the charter like for uh certain things the mayor can and can't do like if there's an emergency he can do this or even acting mayor like emergency is referenced in those areas like if an emergency occurs then they can do this this and this that's the times it's mentioned

it's the only time yeah I apologize fit that he can do whether or not he or she could do whether or not it's listed in the Java well it's just it has to do with time frames like it it really emergency in the charter is mentioned like and I'm just making this up all right a mayor has 14 days to do this this and this and then the council has

90 days to do this this and this in the charter it says yeah accepting cases of emergency where you know if they have to do it they can do it it's that's the only time it's mentioned I know I know that when one other thing somebody collect me if I'm wrong that were times about legislation being an emergency and almost that every council meeting that there's traffic there's traffic

ordinances and traffic issues that the council takes up as an emergency at every meeting involved on something called an emergency Preamble at every council meeting every two weeks that there's traffic recommendations and traffic ordinances and the council has to vote on an emergency preamble to get the the recommendation through all four Council readings right I just you know why I thought that to

put including but not limited to because no one saw covid coming no one saw covet coming no one saw the close of government as we know it no one knew what to do and it wasn't until we're already in the middle of it that it's a it's an emergency and the states not all states declared a state of emergency like is it an emergency if the state declares a state of emergency that's why

that's why I thought of that because I was thinking back to coven if the state the state of emergency all cities in towns in Massachusetts have to abide by it all 352.

that's all that was my two cents I didn't know if we needed to expand it to put including but not limited to enlist a bunch but I didn't put a motion I didn't put a motion out I did not I just wanted to know what everybody thought I feel like we should be as explicit as possible but if we are our exposed with not to eliminate also like to

so I I agree with you I like the not limited too I think it expands it I think it defines it there is I think there's a danger in each of them and Mr Machado brings up a good point that anything that's not in the list could be argued that's not when it's not included but you you bring up a good point as well that it's a subject for interpretation so I feel like on

both ways there are some there's some risk yeah like I don't you know I'll tell you you can litigate anything anybody can file a lawsuit on anything it could be the most Preposterous thing ever that's every Citizen and non-citizens right to be able to file a lawsuit I just you know is really just when I was looking at it I went that's kind of short should we expand it but not limited to uh inclement weather

um what else acts of God no okay illness we're not using the term God Health and Welfare isn't there like was coveted disastrous Health and Welfare wise so Health and Welfare would work the right to Health and Welfare conditions by which I don't know War I I think illness or I I don't know not how epidemics or medical I don't know pandemic pandemic how about medical emergencies right

yeah I never want to see it either I don't think I ever used it okay so here we are Implement with a medical emergency War um civil unrest civil unrest yes all right do they go to any specific s or powers and no like I'll show you I'll read an example of one I guess that while I'm confused any other language specific so what do we have we have weather right intimate weather civil unrest

um uh natural disasters and are you saying but not limited to well I think we have to drink but not limited including but not limited here we go broad definition of America it's just Broad and we'll go back and visit it but here here's one under section 2-9 under ordinances and measures 2-9b emergency measures and emergency measure shall be introduced and it goes on and on to talk about emergency measures and I don't

know if those emergency matters in the event of this kind of emergency I just think that um we should expand I'm trying to find another one because I remember it under the powers and um we don't call I've never heard anything referred to as a matter before the fully powerful way that was Maryland contrary squeaky little voice so what is it reading now take a vote to include this language

one more time is there a motion well not yet we want to make sure we get all the emergencies in there well the language of the motion a sudden generally unexpected occurrence or set for circumstances demanding immediate action including but not limited to inclement weather medical emergencies civil unrest natural disasters death what death that covers it all Armageddon Armageddon so I make a motion that under

definitions emergency is expanded to say including but not limited to any more discussion no all in favor okay motion passes and by the next meeting somebody comes up with an unexpected emergency that you think the languages should be in there that's in the definitions of the thing I want definitions number 20 referendum measure a measure adopted by the city council or the school committee that is protested

under the referendum procedures of this Charter does it have to be protest see protest it sounds so I think that was in there I don't think I don't think but I I think our language is different right did we change the language a little bit under referendum so the the charter I think that that makes sense the definition number 20 is in quotes anything that we're defining goes in quotes and it says

referendum measure and the definition is a measure adopted by the city council of the school committee that is protested under the referendum procedures of this Charter that actually doesn't can you take a peek and maybe come back with something yeah all righty because I don't think that makes sense I make a motion that Paul visit number 20 and uh clean up okay clean it up yeah public

it's January to December or July to July calendar calendar year is January is July to y so do we have to put like a calendar year January to December well or do we leave it all encounter your years yeah so should we put a calendar year January to December in there no because I wonder what happens is that I did not realize early on in my career that July to July

was a fiscal year and I couldn't figure out one why they were making challenges like that and two why that was such a big deal but it it specifies it in here when it comes to budgets right yeah I think that makes sense so can we put after calendar year January to December there's a motion to put second thank you all in favor yes okay motion passes and we want to Define fiscal year I I think

so too maybe we should go to Define it because we should put yeah the public will have more difficult motion to Define uh fiscal year we'll add it in with the fsar yes okay thank you all in favor all in favor thank you motion passes to add fiscal what is that July 1st July 1st July 1st to June 30.

nice oh thank you all right moving on I know that we Revisited this but I just I thought we we talked about it I thought it was changed maybe it wasn't under Section 2-3 prohibitions and it's this is under the council and it says no former member of the city council shall hold any compensated appointed City position until one year following the date on which the former members service on the city council is

terminated I there's so many and here's what I thought there are so many people there are so many appointments available on boards and commissions and you know why not let a former City councilor or a former school committee because it has it in school committee too I mean if they're not on the council or the school committee anymore why can't they within that year get a job I could see holding it

I can see the hetzler stuff like got repealed but what harm would there be in a former city elected official holding a city job if they're qualified there should be a yeah there should be a be if this should be a lot some time when the time they weave they're elected position I think but but what's the reason why I mean is it is it they're not using their Council position to get the job they're

going to hopefully get appointed because they're qualified for it they might have dealt with issues that were involved with the agency and and could implicate misdoings you know I can't okay but a whole year how about six months I can't recall that but I exactly but I remember having a decent amount of discussion about this and I remember attorney Mitchell uh bringing up a reason why this should

be a time frame right I I can't wait what if what if a city council person doesn't get reelected in November and a math teacher position opens up and they bought a master's in math and they need a math teacher we're going to tell them so sorry you can't have that job in for a year I don't think that the liberal Waits the job any compensated it says no former member

of the city council shall hold any compensated appointed City position is it a point it's very different in employment versus an appointed position I was reading I don't see as a committee this person maybe did not get elected now his or her influence is on this committee on a board making decisions and I think that could be viewed by the public as an appropriate and so that's where I was reading this

not in terms of an employment got an appointment on a city board when the voters in Fall River have spoken to not elect this person and make that person part of the conversation this person is still being appointed by somebody internally to make the or be a part of those conversations and decisions well that's I think I hear you I think here's what I think I think we need to define the difference between a

compensated appointed City position and compensated appointed City employment because that I read this and I thought they can't be a school teacher no I didn't think that see I I want to just say I think that is because what you don't want to happen is to someone to be uh school committee member or a city councilor or and say okay I'm going to resign and take this position it could look oh

I'm resigning right now and I've got this job it could it could be a dangerous slippery slope to say like okay right you know oh I've served on the council for six months I voted the way you wanted it I'm going to be the chief of police of Fall River and so right that eliminates those things but listen also I I thought that the provision was preclude someone who's elected to using influence

using influence right and what we know is that the person remains a city councilor for months after the election right and during that time they can certainly put pressure on someone to okay give me this job yes yes I'll vote I'll vote in the next three months I'll vote your way yeah but you know what the rest of the paragraphs yeah but look at the next paragraph the very next sentence this section shall

not prevent a city employee who vacated a position in order to serve as a member of the city council from returning to the same or other position upon expiration of the term for which that person is elected so we're saying a former employee can can leave that job go on the city council but the minute that city council ends they go back to that job but the other but the city but

you but Laura if your term ends you can't get I think it's safe personally I think it's I think it's safe I think because no but you're saying the opposite in the last no I'm not because I'm leaving my job as a patrolman uh Washington and I'm calling to serve on the school committee now and I'm going to be a paid position there when I'm done serving I am going to get my job

back I that is because that's in the provision but as patrolman Washington is gonna go and I've voted your way now I want a new job I want you to create a position for me I want to be the chief of police they can go right back to it no that's not the last point he says no or other position then we should take that out then I would think you know

and what I was thinking when this when this was brought up is why would a city employee need to vacate a position in order to run for election because that's the head that's the headset decision so maybe we need to change it maybe that sentence comes right out comes right up yeah yeah which one the last sentence this shall not prevent a city employee who vacated a position in order to serve

because someone does not have to vacate a position I just I don't know I read it I just I think a year is a long time can't we change it to six months I just think that it keeps super qualified people from good jobs I think it keeps the city under the move that the last sentence be deleted because a city employee we know has a right to run for city office

right I think it's so this is no longer well wait a minute so I know is there a second hold on hold on a second okay there's a motion in a second can we then dispose of that motion that if the chair or anybody else wants to make another motion make it as two separate motions when you have a motion in a second there's discussion we've had discussion let's

vote on it so there's a motion on the table because I didn't make a motion I just wanted to look at it I didn't make emotions yeah so you want to take out that whole sentence yeah because it's no longer relevant this section shall not prevent a city employee who vacated a position in order to serve we lost that call already no no we didn't the employee position he didn't have to right but

that's what that's saying they don't have to that's why yeah this is saying they don't have to

yeah it's extreme so this section shall not prevent a city employee who vacated the position hey hey hey hey chill out we're discussing it please I'm not going to even say it again please we're discussing it if you're in a hurry you can go so the motion is to take that out completely let's break it it's not and we didn't do that before no I don't we missed it it's

a Miss because we discuss this in length and it is not needed because we already know you don't need to vacate a position anymore you just can't get it again yeah so it's exactly so it's just a misstep it's exactly since that ruling that statement is now exempt so it's archaic it's from the last messed up Charter we're fixing it so if you're on the city council you

can't get a job but if you have the job you can run for city council just can't get paid for both correct right and then if you're on the city council you can't get a job for one year we're sick right if we take them well we didn't say anything about compensation in here it's actually yeah foreign so the first one says if you have the job bye Keith if you're on the city council

you can't have a city job you can only have it if it was prior to the election what I'm saying is the first sentence even okay

well I don't want to take it out if we have to end up putting it back in I don't know why we'd have to put it back well because the first there's a problem with the first sentence yes read the first there's a problem with the first sentence no I know involving the less then we'll then we'll go to the first yeah we are right now so that one says to delete it completely yeah

all in favor aye I'm in a vote no okay okay motion so now motion passes so the last sentence is deleted move to the first sentence now and why okay so I'm gonna read it yeah holding other City position except as otherwise provided by the charter no member of the city council shall hold any other compensated City position unless that position was held prior to the election okay that is a problem that is a problem

so that lasts the last couple of words that's the problem just position right unless held prior to the election right you cannot hold two positions to paid positions should come out that last part that's a conflict of interest right yeah just no member of the city council shall hold any other compensated City position period you can't put that because so you're saying police officers can't run for city council

it would be compensated so but where is the fire department no we don't we know but where's the compensation that we deleted was compensation addressed in another part of the charter it's being addressed in 2-4 right below it okay right so then I remember the city council shall hold any other compensated City position okay and you want to take that out I want to lead that part in and only

remove unless that position was held prior to the election because it's indirect conflict with each other we already know that a city employee cannot hold two compensated positions so it's a redundantly confusing language if we just end the sentence after position they can only get paid once unless that position was held prior to the election because the first part of the sentence is fine it's the second part of the

sentence that makes it an inaccurate right is there a motion I'll put it out a second all in favor aye nay I I'm a no on that one too motion passes so the first sentence is going to accept as otherwise provided by the charter no member of the city council shall hold any other compensated City position period that's how it reads now and then the next sentence says no former member of the city

council shall hold any compensated City position until one year following the date on which the former members service on the city council has been terminated that stays as written and then the last sentence is out this section shall not prevent a city employee who vacated the position not to serve that sentence is out is that how that reads yes alrighty because if we visited that one we have to go over to

school committee we have to go to all right yes uh section 4.3 prohibitions no member of the school committee shall hold any other compensated City position does that stay or go that's what it is what we just said we actually aligned the two we aligned the two all right so that one stays and then no former members well we should I'm sorry I'm good we should just make them exact yeah yes and it is

really yeah but um no because it is so can you make those two um prohibitions to read like the city council one because this one's written differently I guess it was not a chain but I thought we voted to mirror them way back we did we did so um I make a motion that the prohibitions under city council Mira the prohibitions under school committee and we will um adjust them accordingly motion is

seconded motion all in favor already yes that's unanimous all right um moving on the compensation piece also be replicated as well so it should read exactly the same I guess do they read the same now they do but we should make sure that they do we make a motion that the compensations mirror each other as well they don't they're different we got a little ahead of ourselves I'll I'll look to make sure that they're

but all right no motion then the clerk will read it

city council establishes the compensation for the school committee yeah all right moving on okay you know what I well I um C-section 2-7 access to information the first one says in general the city council may make investigations into the Affairs of the city and into the conduct and performance of any City agency does that include the school because I thought the school was separate can you which one do you want

I'm on Section 2-7 access to information it's part of the city it's one Department well in general the city the city council may make investigations into the Affairs of the city and into the conduct and performance of Eddie city except for schools huh except for schools I thought it should say except for the schools because if because wasn't there didn't the city council get involved

they did investigating yeah but they but they shouldn't they shouldn't have superintended we already had the invite but they shouldn't have we had the investigation going we were just getting the school the city council violated the charter by demanding everybody appear in front of it for that investigation right and when the charter clearly says that they're separate separate entities

yeah and I don't like precluding the city council from investigating something that should be investigated even if it is on now when they learn that the school committee was also conducting investigation then they can back off but in the event that something was happening within the school system in the school committee were was not investigated that Council should happen I hear you I hear you but it's opening a

whole can of worms because the city council does not govern they do not the school committee I'm going to tell you if you go and read through that information requests city council can require that people come before it to give information and it specifically says at the end but not within the jurisdiction of the school committee if you go down to notice city council by resolution can request the attendance of

any officer or employee of the city but not including the school committee correct or employees of the school department to appear before it

but they yeah between the two elected bodies well that's enough they just attend we do attend yes right but they but I thought that that number one should say except the school department I I just um well but this just the school the city council vote on the budget school department budget approves yes they approve it they send their budget so how do they reliably do that if they can't collect information about the

school department well it has Provisions in here about budget but not the operation budget information yes because it's City performances I didn't say anything about budget it says conduct and performance of a city agency that's what in general is talking about little small letter a talking about the foreign

no go ahead Dan thank you uh at the last meeting was a meeting before Mr Pacheco who at his title uh Escape fan was down before the city council looking for a Warner working for approval looking for approval of bus contracts uh there's something on tomorrow night's agenda regarding the Robert Medeiros uh Preparatory School right so to say that school department employees can appear before the city council

the city is in charge uh the school department is not in charge of the buildings so the city ultimately is in charge of every building okay so second Kenny Pacheco the CEO ultimately in order to do the work in these schools have to go in front of this the city council okay so we don't own the schools the city owns the schools I agree um what was the other one he mentioned it was the uh

so RPA right so RPA oh and the bus contracts so the city the school department does not pay for uh FRP s Transportation I agree the city pays for the transportation therefore anything that has to go through for transportation has to be either brought to the mayor brought to the city council because the school department doesn't control those monies so we're in agreement we're in agreement

that's why Kenny pachico has to present or request certain things to the city council my opinion School Department officials ought to be able to appear and not be recorded from doing such in the China I have a suggestion as to access to information paragraph Yes the city council may make investigations into the Affairs of the city and into the conduct performance and budget of any City agency

how about financial matters well that's budget honey budget so I moved to add that language there in budget because I'll tell you what though Mimi I think the other paragraphs protect the um exclusive domain of the school committee over to people I think we've had a bad experience with the city council kind of violating the charter right um but the school department has its own lawyer you can say no up yours if it's

not about budget or right you know all right I so there's a motion to add budget second and it's been seconded all in favor aye okay and then um here's the other one I wanted to ask resolution so I'll include the subject I actually had a question of uh Laura so 270 says the city council by resolution requests the attendance of any officer or employee of the city but not including the school committee or

employees of the school department to appear before under this section the resolution cell include the subject in which the city council seeks information and may contain specific questions no officer employee is that how you would get the mayor and the administration down before the city council as you send this Written Letter we got some questions about it yes I've got a request but it can never be sent to this

to the school department only at budget time correct okay it was more of a question yeah so I was going to just that we add in there but not including the school committee or employees of the school committee except as to budgetary issues yeah I I like that I I think that should be in this there's nothing wrong with it because that's the that's the so there's a motion to it to add accept

budgetary what was it budgetary issues concerns um there's a motion to add except budgetary issues I don't know I I don't know okay well think about it read the sentence it'll say this the city council shall by resolution request the attendance of any officer or employee of the city but not including the school committee or employees of the school department except for budgetary issues to appear before it under this

section I'm not even sure that it's for budgetary reasons because of the annual budget meeting I think that's the only thing the only meeting that we have to go to that the administrators have to attend that the charter says so that's something that we may have to already wanna revisit it yep why don't you find out then so um Mimi so the budget is only discussed annually we have yes one time yes annually yes

okay it's the no budgetary issues come up but they do come back yes because he goes to be before there right so he it is a budgetary issue whether it be the building of the school department right on a budgetary issue the pertinent word is request right yes it's not so indeed it is right so we are the city council May request specific information no city council service we shouldn't request to send to any officer

high resolution request request it's a request on budgetary issues in the room there's arguments about transportation and indirect costs between the city and the school committee every year why don't um so you want to add me budgetary um after see where it says but not including the school committee or employees of the school department yeah except for budgetary issues that the only time

that the school department and the committee would be requested to go before the council is for a budgetary issue so let's say though next week or in two weeks they want to talk about the buses so they would have to send something written right matter of fact to have somebody answer to because it's budget Council would the city council would have to send something to the admin probably Maria Ponto right I'm not

even sure that's to come down on a budgetary issue yes many times yeah yes so for requests budgetary issue um do you want to leave one of those okay all righty in any event so do you want to add comma except for budgetary issues after the employees of the school department except for budgetary issues correct yeah that's where except for budgetary so let me repeat just for transparency the city

council Shell by resolution request the attendance of any officer or employee of the city but not including the school committee or employees of the school department comma except for budgetary issues you know it might have to be two sentences I'm going to tell you why it's a run-on it's grammatically confusing um I think you have to um I think you have to make it two sentences somehow what are you talking about so

it'd be the city council shall by resolution requested I'm on 270.

city council shall by resolution request the attendance of any officer or employee of the city period this does not include the school committee or employees of the school department unless it's for budgetary issues do you follow me if we leave it one it's a law if we make it two it's clean is emotion to make it two sentences second clearly defining that the only time the school community and employees can be

down is for budgetary if you look at it yeah then there's a lot of monetary issues between yeah so the motion is that DB changed two sentences for budgetary issues regarding the school department or its employees yes is there a second second all in favor aye motion passes you got that now beautiful okay all righty and then these are just me looking at this again so yeah yeah all right two nine C

uh no B and it's talking about an emergency measures and all through the charter we always talk about quorum quorum quorum right but for emergency measures and this is talking about the city council right an emergency measure if it goes before it right it says a preamble and it's talking about emergency measures and how that counts has to come up with them but a preamble which declares and defines the emergency

shall be voted on and require shall require an affirmative vote of a minimum of six members of the council what's a quorum of the council so why doesn't it say Quorum six is two-thirds because is that why

by the council every two weeks around traffic so super majority is six of the nine right and a quorum is five is five yep and so for an emergency measure do you want to keep it the super majority vote or can we make it the quorum emergency measure should be first of all do we have the right to say I don't know right I was going to say when an American how many votes are

required for an emergency like why can't it be Quorum because if it's an if it's an emergency it should it should be the two the super majority yeah so it should be the six I think so but why don't we just put two-thirds then here's all I'm saying is that what if something happens and and you don't have the six can you just put can you just put two-thirds of this yeah of two-thirds

instead of then just put six six uh city council members in parentheses or something if you want to do that well all I'm saying is is that if this vote takes place it should require a sixth so leave it here yeah in order for the council to override or veto all nine counselors have to be present sitting in their seats otherwise can't even come up I got you all right leave it at six all

right 210 city council confirmation of certain appointments it's talking about the mayor referring to the city council all his appointments and it says that I actually like what 45 days no no I wanted to change it I just didn't know does it have to be 45 can we make it 30 like quicker like I wasn't 45 a long time I don't I don't have any opinion the section reads 210 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 as a city officer department head or as a member of a multi-member body appointments made by the mayor shall become effective on the 45th day on which notice of the proposed appointment was filed with the clerk

unless approved or rejected by the city council within the 45 days all individuals appointed to a multi-member body shall be residents if an appointed individual moves the position is vacated but they have two meetings every 30 days why can't it just be 30. except for it's except for July and August they meet once so it could just be 30. in the summer so but I mean if you haven't two

meetings and like just take this board for instance it took two or three months for it to get approval because because of the 45 days I just felt like for especially for these kind of appointments that the sooner you can get it going the quicker it did it took a few months for this board so I just thought yeah wait and we were appointed that I had a little bit and it's going to take five years

I I make an emotion to change the 45 to 30. there's a motion to change that 45 to 30 on the table there's a second any more discussion we have jurisdiction right because the 45 is in the original yeah all right um there's a second any more discussion all in favor okay I motion passes to change that to 30 days um I'll tell you the other thing and I noticed it for the mayor and for school

committee in the city council qualifications it says resident do you know in here it doesn't say resident for mayor or school committee it just says mayor qualifications we're on article 3 executive branch 3-1 listen the chief executive officer of the city shall be a mayor elected by the city at large any voter shall be eligible to hold the office of Mayor the mayor shall devote full-time and blah

blah blah blah but it doesn't say resident of Fall River okay right in the motion you want to make your motion right now well listen swear to God even under school committee eligibility a school member shall at the time of the election be a voter it doesn't say resident I just wanted it to say resident that's all it should you want to change voter to Western residents because someone who lives in

Brockton would be could come in be a voter to be a voter so you make that emotion let's make an emotion I'm making a motion they're ready to be resident all in favor all right but I just want to make this clear if it says it in city council it should say it in school committee I should say it in mayor resident okay thank you and then that's a great Find attorney Brown oh thank you

what time is it seven minutes okay hang on we're moving right along well there's so much oh yeah I wanted to check the weight again um here's what I want to say see the appointments by the mayor and we refer to Article Five section three three appointments by the mayor and it's just it refers to Article Five can you put the title of the Article Five in there it says like all all appointments to the

multi-member bodies shall be the terms established under Article Five under expiration of the term of any member of a multi okay can you put the title good fine because Article 5 is titled administrative organization so if we could just because remember we decided right right okay um I think we should leave up there is there a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn adjourn oh sorry yes

um I have to check the availability it's either going to be 11 6 or 11 20.

or both well I gotta check the availability first and then um I'll I'll email everybody it's right off the thing because I I can't make the um the commitments without making sure we have a spot huh is there a second on the motion to adjourn all in favor aye aye