11.25.2024 Special Charter Review

to the special Dan Charter review committee meeting of November 25 2024 it is currently 5:00 p.m. we are meeting in the atrium of the Fall River Government Center pursuant to the open meeting law oh can we do the Pledge of Allegiance first there's no slag there some outside can we can we Face that way we all look in the same direction I think it's usually the same direction I pledge allegiance to the

flag the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation God indivisible with liy and justice for all it was pretty much it was same yeah pursuant to the open meeting law any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any media attendees are therefore advis that such recordings or Transmissions are being

made whether perceived or unperceived by those present and are deemed acknowledged and permissible and I will take attendance starting from my right Dan PA mad Reena Brown Kathy ovich Tracy Al and there is is a quarum and at this time we'll open up for public comment any public comment yeah yeah come on over thank just let me know to begin nope go right ahead thank you um colum D 560 Street um what street on 560 Race

Street sorry no I'm sorry I um so I came here today to discuss um section 9-8 of the city Charter and in the yday report n just 9-18 let let's just let's give us one second so we can pull that up col give us one second in the current draft or the charter we're operating under um Charter we're operating under and I believe is still in what I'm 45 9-8 public comment rules or policy yes

the public when scheduling such public comment periods the city council school committee and every multi-member Bo body shall Post Its public comment rules or policy on the city website and shall at least annually review the rules or policies and make revision as needed that's the current Charter and the recommendations I'm not going to read it because it looks like it was not changed

so there were no recommendations to change it all right now that we're all on the same page sorry colen no thank you thank you for reading that to the record and that's actually why I'm here today um there's two issues with that section of the charter I want to raise today um one I just believe that sentence just um handicaps every board and commission within the city from making its own citizens input

policies that benefit the public I personally um just from my few few months of experience of I'm hearing residents um GI some but I don't see the issue um with having residents come at a special meeting and talk about an issue that's been the school committee's perview and the school committee's agenda and I personally believe the section has been selectively enforced um there's questions as to if it can apply

in an emergency we actually wave that rule at of Rec school committee meeting to discuss a whole issue which I'm glad we did however I get so one of the issues is if get me right is one you you you're under the opinion that it's selectively enforced and for and it doesn't address emergency correct okay all right I got it go ahead and also I just don't see the reason reasoning even for that last sentence um

if if if a member wants to come to a special meeting we only meet school just speak for the school committee they only meet once a month um there might be an issue that can arise within that month um and individuals might come for sometimes we schedule special meetings um just don't see the issue and um with having that sentence removed and just allowing the school committee to debate

because um we've been having debates on our citizens in policy um in that section you can't really even have to debate on it just because we can't get through the first barrier which is which is the charter which is the charter so your suggestion is to omit the part that public input can be anything at regular meetings but this sentence that says at special meetings it's only limited to what's on that special

meeting agenda right in any new meeting within the jurisdiction right of of that of that committee and I don't think that's um I don't believe that's unreasonable and um a second issue as well that actually recently came about um is that section about convenience of the public um what does that mean um right now the school committee um in its draft form approved U we haven't we haven't on a final approval but um I

believe through second read uh we approved a decision that would move any citizens inut after 30 minutes we put C inut at the beginning of our meeting um after 30 minutes and as you all know we've had a lot of Reon had yeah you guys are busy over there yeah that's fine no that's good that's that's good that's a good thing that's not that um now the school committee if the rule

this rule finally passes will move citizens input after 30 minutes anyone who signed up will have to speak at the end of the meeting I've seen meetings go until 12:00 at night um yeah I I make the opinion that that's not anything I'll look that could be further um clarified right so let me get this right so you guys have a pending um kind of policy that right now if I go to the school committee meeting

and I go to 30 minutes with my input that I'll be asked to finish it at the end it is passed correct all right but I get I get up to 30 minutes before or you're moving it completely to the end let me let me clarify um in my just my understanding so individuals um speak um they get 3 minutes and they we go into 30 minutes anyone after the 30 minute

time slot will have to speak at oh so you've limited your public input to 30 minutes so if 100 people show up only the first first 30 minutes of public input is going to be allowed right now is actually our input policy is only 15 minutes we we don't we don't follow okay I think that's I get it you're limited you're the policy right now is if public input goes beyond 30 minutes

minutes you push it to after the that's your current policy at the end of the meeting at the end of the meeting I get it I get it and and if you're going to 10 11 or 12 whoever wants to do their public input is now pushed till 1 in the morning if it went that far theoretically is right if that if that passes in final read I didn't even know

you could limit it so there's that that's not for for the public right the ask question thank you uh Mr Das when was this policy proposed who proposed it and uh um it was made via a motion at um our our last meeting which I believe was um the week from today I it was last Monday our meeting um it it was me I I forgot we made the motion now the minutes are

publicly available so or just go back and look at the the meeting record the video um it did that motion I was the only one who voted against the motion um and the and the reason I did so because um that section of the charter which um deals with the convenience of the public right um without Fair argument to make that it could possibly not be at the convenience believe there was some

arguments that were made that um there are multiple boards and commissions in the city that have citizens inut at the end of um their meeting anyway um one I I mean just speaking again as a privacy speak myself should have Citi in put at a convenient time and have it at the beginning um two I would make the argument that not not every board in but many of them um

don't go as long they don't go until 11:00 at night um so even if there is um citiz put like an hour into the meeting that's not really inconvenient but we talk about you know 3 four 5 hours there's an issue yeah but can I what do they ask here because I because according to what I'm reading it's saying that basically everybody sets their shall develop and adopt their rules or policy so what is within our

jur within our ability here I think one of the suggestions was to take out the line that says um see where it says public comment shall not be limited to items on the agenda for a regular meeting provided it's within the jurisdiction but it's but the very last part of that says public comment at any special meeting shall be limited to items on the meeting agenda that part you're suggesting be stricken just the

part that says public comment at any special meeting in other words to mimic it between for to have it exactly the same whether it's a regular meeting or a special meeting special meeting correct there should be no in Mr das's comments and in his opinion there should be no difference in in in what can be discussed am I correct Mr Das again as one um individual I'd make the argu I I

would make the personal argument that um you should be you should have the right to speak on any matter within that board's jurisdiction regular or special right what I'm saying um but but what the issue is here we we can't debate that issue and have a vote on it because we can't because the charter is speaking to you and I believe the I believe every board and commission have should have the right to make that

determination right have their own policy decisions on what you can talk about see let's just say we discuss it it's voted to delete from respectively on I don't think that leaves a body to say they can only talk about special meeting agenda stuff I think the bodies always have to let public comment be on anything within the jurisdiction and and I and I will support that yes right yeah

no I'm with you too go ahead go ahead go ahead what so what is an example of a special meeting we we had we had that dat um I mean I I believe I don't know if there's language in the charter what um defines a special meeting um I believe under our our a special meeting is um meeting that's not on the regular docket I I know our meetings are supposed to be for

the most part the first Monday of every month um barring some special circumstances it may be a second or a third one right like let's just say there's a fire in one of your schools and it shuts it down it may require a special meeting a special emergency meeting of the school committee right for example if or if like something to that effect you the superintendent has to be filled

immediately because something happened wouldn't that require a special meeting if it wasn't in the time frame or an emergency meeting an emergency meeting is a special meeting like the school like the city council years ago had a few special meetings to address the issues of the can see in the mayor position I think they had special meetings they had quite a few right they had quite a few special meetings there

whether they're special or emergency I always think emergencies are special meetings because I think the notification requirements are different right Adam CH yes I'm sorry Dan thank you I would say to make it quick and this is just a definition off the top of my head that a special meeting would be any me meeting that is not uh the the calendars of the city council and the school committee are adopted yearly

usually in January and a special meeting would be any meeting that's conducted outside of the regular calendar of buiness right that's how I would Define it our special meetings for the most I I believe um least since I've been on the committee school committee and I we've had a few already are posted within the open the confin the open meeting on 48 hours notice and um it wouldn't really be the

the notice posted requirements start are the same yeah so it's just something that falls in between the regularly scheduled meetings I do think we have the ability to strike out that that requirement about the agenda items for the the special meetings but beyond that the the rules of each each committee each body have to be set within that body as long as it doesn't violate the charter correct for example I don't

think we could I I'll just give an example as to what I'm trying to say I don't think we could say to the city council or to the school committee uh that citizen import uh must go for 10 minutes for a speaker I I don't think we can do that no I don't think I don't think that I don't think the charter can do that either but you're looking for clarification on the convenience for the

public because the other issue is so the special meeting strike that line is your recommendation yes and your other issue is better definition of convenience for the public I do because that's going because um what's taking place over the past question right I have one comment or concern is if you're holding a special meeting to deal with an agenda that is imminent that must be solved and

you open that up to public comment that may not be specifically addressing that particular emergency item it could impede progress on any sort of resolutions for the whole for the meeting to be called in the first place right so that and in the issue of expediency around the issue of expediency I don't I would be a little bit concerned about saying you know that anybody can show up to those emergency

meetings and talk about any agenda item that that particular body is is dressing that is more appropriate for General monthly meetings than it is a special emergency meeting so I don't necessarily see a problem with that I think it's it's could be dangerous to allow public meeting or public comment at those special meetings because you're trying to address the special maybe time Cent

issue it's probably just one item on the agenda for a special meeting right right your special meetings have they had more than one item on that special agenda they if they have a shorter agenda it concern because why couldn't they wait until the next meeting if you're calling a special meeting it's because you you need additional time to deal with these issues it's an it's an issue of expediency of imminence

and that would this could prevent that and I think the charter should protect that ability if the if these committee members are taking additional time to meet to address an issue you don't necessarily want that impacted by people showing up to talk about issues not relevant to the emergency issue so I would think that it's F in my view it's fine that way I understand your concern

um and I think we're also looking for ways in which the the public can have additional time for public comment it looks like there's so much comment particularly around the school committee meetings that's keeping you all there you know for Extraordinary amounts of time and i' maybe there's a a sort of limit on the whole public or the convenience of the public limitations in terms of how long they have to wait to

actually speak or all public comment gets moved up to the front I don't know I think there'll be a lot more emergency meetings if we do that because you're never going to be able to deal with all your issues around on the agenda if you open it up to public comment without sort of guard rails around it may I M chair I'm sorry may may I respond no absolutely thank you um just just a few

points our public comment is more of dialogue than it is you say you're Spiel and then you're on your Merry way we like the dialogue yes glad hear that um um so so just just a few things so going back to the um I definitely don't believe it's dangerous um moving that one section of the charter um and and again we can go through individual individual I think we should um I will

use um to respond individual cases that I've seen but I think it should just be clear across the road um the most most special meetings um are an emergency like the some of the examples that you mentioned they're just um some items that need to be addressed within a seate time frame however they don't I wouldn't necessarily say they're dire per se um I will say this some citizens input that

we received um had to do with mold in our schools um faculty and um members of um some students um becoming sick and that was said at a special meeting we had um an internal debate that we were even going to allow these individuals to respond I mean to even um talk about the topic they wanted to discuss and believe we VI I would saying in the convenience

of the public I'm glad we did it but we technically violated the TR or allow these individuals to speak and and as I said removing that one sentence um I think would allow individual boards and committees to make up their own decision um we're again we're elected by voters to make those decisions and just removing that one sentence would wouldn't necessarily change anything because every boarding

committee within the City have right so your own school committee could adopt a policy that says listen in public comment at a special meeting is only limited to the special agenda I mean I get what you're saying that but you want to be able to make that determination rather than worry about a charter violation if you do do that the majority of my committee and and I have to say I

don't think the majority of my committee and and I I don't and I don't know but I I don't think um I believe there's debate like um some of the arguments you made um but we can't really get into that debate because of that so if I go to a school committee meeting and on your special meeting agenda is the budget yes and I get up and I say well

listen I'm uh pretty upset about uh the mold at Sylvia school does somebody jump up and say you can't finish this isn't on the special agenda do they really do that I've seen it I I I have I have seen it but again but it's in within our Charter see that's problematic for me telling somebody shut it down Joe come back in two weeks when we have a regular meeting absolutely public when they can bring up

these issues and is this the only way that public can bring issues follow to the school committee I might have more problem with that you have to go to a school committee meeting to be heard rather than is there no other means of communication with the public there is and everybody's emails on the website there there are we we rece you get phone calls all the time some but I honestly do believe

um is a very good Avenue is a really good um way for the public can express them especially if that individual member beli something that's important um we don't receive every email I um there's been times where um I received um calls from parents saying oh we I emailed the school Comm did you get it um I said no I and I check my emails almost by the hour um

so again I just I I think within the convenience of the public there and also I believe it's been selectively enforced not just on on the the individual school committee level we've had special meetings of the city of the city council and I didn't even know that was a section I I I've I've as a citizen I spoke at city council meeting at special meeting on items that were not on me too

me too I jumped up at a finance meeting gave public input and didn't realize I was speaking at the finance meeting and not the general meeting because it was a time thing and I you know not to get into specifics I didn't realize till after I gave my public input that I just shared something totally not on the finance committee agenda totally unrelated to the finance and I really meant for it to be

at the general so I I for what we could I'll tell you what though we we do have a a forum tonight so we'll we'll bring it we'll we'll revisit this as a as a committee um when you finish your public comment but what I want to ask you though is do you have suggestions as to tailoring a more detailed explanation for convenience of the public have you thought about it I um I

almost wasn't going to mentioned it but um when you read it out loud that actually J my memory um I was excuse me um I would say visit um maybe certain hours um I think like again how we have like time place man and restriction maybe some some of the reverse um look at reasonable hours um maybe just prove that in the language um I think that would be or even if you want to go as

far as um within the beginning of a meeting um but but again I also have I also Shar a concern that as I just said earlier we shouldn't um handicap individual boards and um commissions from setting their own rules because of one section of one sentence in in a section of the charter um I believe if you focus within the hours um within the first hour of meeting room I'll allow that I'll allow

that out that'll be my Su so so they allow 30 minutes at the beginning of a school committee meeting and after the 30 they say okay that's it for public comment those of you that we haven't gotten to stick around and we're going to reopen public comment after our general meeting is that the little speech they give that's that that if it's p that's not that's not that's the proposed that's the

propos okay so the proposed is exactly what you just said I can all right so someone will get up and say okay 30 minutes of public comment is now closed we will resume the general meeting those of you that haven't been able to do public comment please wait around to will done we'll revisit public comment at the end of the meeting that's the proposed at the end of executive session as well

the end of at the end end that that could be at two in the morning I think that that's the point that he's making is that um executive sessions can go well into the Midnight Hour I don't it seems arbitrary to break up just I'll allocate 30 minutes it is their meeting so I feel very I kind of like I'm treading on by trying to create rules for somebody body

all right I mean we're talking about the school committee but the way this is written this is not just a school committee this is all multiple member bodies and I think we're treading on I I I think we can strike out that one sentence beyond that I don't know how far we can go I I well we can we can discuss it more uh Mr Das do you have any further public input no that that'll

be it thank you all right thank you so much Mr Das thank you for enlightening us on that okay any more public input all righty seeing none moving on to discussion of the charter report and at last the last meeting let me go to my notes here as I have notes maybe I maybe I do maybe I don't I always write on my agendas give me a minute for the the chairperson to get her stuff

together um we cannot vote on the minutes because I did not publish them so there's that I'll I'll refer to you what were we discussing at this meeting the mayor the mayor vacancy section 17 C mayor chapter 43 Mass General law section 17 see we were going to discussed the terms right oh here's I have 3-10 which was oh section 3-10 the 21 Day provision y if we could go there the vacancy and

the mayor's office yes vacancy in the mayor office 2-10 3-10 3-10 thank you um the current Charter in 3-10 in our recommendations in 3-10 our recommendation whenever a vacancy occurs in the office of the mayor by death removal resignation or incapacity for a period greater than 21 days during the first 18 months the charter we're operating under whenever a vacancy occurs of the mayor by death removal

resignation or any other reason during the first 18 months we put in 20 this 21 days regarding incapacity and I remember the discussions a lot it was like we we had a lot of discussion on that I have a know here though we were pulling cases is that so what did you discover about the 21 days anything and what happened was when I went to the city council meeting they were concerned with the if someone had

open hot surgery or but I remember when we had those discussions we were like are we just going to leave it vacant forever like shouldn't we have a time frame on it and that's what kind of prompted us to put 21 days well the time limit though really is Council shall call a special election to be held within 90 days following the date the vacancy is created so there is a time limit there of 90

days to fill the vacancy 90 days right 310 says whenever a vacancy the current Charter whenever a vacancy occurs in the the office of the mayor by death removal resignation or any other reason we wrote Death removal resignation or incapacity for a period greater than 21 days this Charter just says any other reasons during the first 18 months in the of the term for which the mayor is elected city council shall call a

special election to be held within 90 days following the date the vacancy is created to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the unexpired term I don't think that applies to an El that that applies to a resignation well we didn't Define any other reason and that was definition in the original charter vacancy is sub is very subjective what is vacancy correct what is the determination of vacancy and

that's what we were trying to they don't say they're vacant we were trying to to nail down could a person not show up for work and we did we thought 21 days which was three weeks that if somebody is incapacitated for three weeks illness jail stuck in a foreign country it could be any reason why somebody doesn't show up for three weeks that a vacancy would be deemed to have occurred that's I remember very

vividly the discussion was reelect these people to do a job the mayor is the head administrator of the city and if you're out for 21 days then we need to start thinking about a permanent replacement vacancy here is arbitrary I think this is that's rather short yeah but we have to balance it with 3-8 is the temporary absence of the mayor which is sickness or other cause and that's

for more than 21 consecutive days so we have that tempor I think this was the discussion we had at the last meeting temporary versus like permanent permanent yes exactly but again that's even somewhat subjective the person hasn't identified whether it's going to be a permanent see in acting mayor in 38a we put 21 days in because the current current Charter says whenever by reason of sickness or other cause the

mayor is unable to perform the duties of the office the president of the city council shall be the acting mayor we put in temporary absence for more than 21 consecutive days can we can we just in section 3-10 can we say whenever a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of Mayor by death removal resignation or incapacity like and and differentiate take out the I still think that when it's dealing with incapacity it's

subjective whether or not it's permanent or not it still would it hold up in court 21 days I don't think you're going to hold up I I think that's relatively short in fact it's extremely short I i' rather have the language this is probably only the second or third time in the last what I actually like the language in the existing Shadow I I 21 days is you can have a surgery and be be uh

out for way longer than 21 days I actually think in 38a we have to take out for more than 21 consecutive days I think that it has to come out of there because we're talking about for 21 days no one's acting see uh whenever by reason of sickness or other cause the mayor is unable to perform the duties of the office for more than 21 consecutive days I think we got to strike that out

because he could maybe in two in 14 days he could can't leave that job undone let's right go the city council president would take over right as he does right now even though there's no specified trigger of when that happen I think there needs to be a trigger in 310 but no no 21 days in 38 I think in 38 whenever by reason of sickness or other cause I don't know if

we we add things to other cause or we just put we just leave it the mayor is unable to perform the duty of the office the president of the city council shall be acting mayor I think that 21 days has to come out of 38a but I think 310 needs a triggering clause to tell a mayor you don't show up for nine weeks we've got to deem it vacant we didn't elect the

president of the city council to be the mayor for the rest of your term MO motion to strike 21 days out of 38 motion to strike 21 days out of section 3-8 a little a a there's also a 3- c 38- c that talked about 21 days are we just voting on a right now hang hang hang on one second succession in the new one I don't have 21 days in the new one

in the event that the mayor announces his inability before the expiration of 21 days these Provisions shall apply immediately upon that notice it's still under a 3-8 a is the last sentence right well there's a little C there too well no that applies no that just talks about how we're going to fill it that's just about succession motion to strike wait a minute wait a minute Dan we're making

sure that it's the correct place so the motion is to strike for more more than 21 consecutive days out of 3-8 small a yes I'll second that motion and then the last any more discussion on 38 small a okay do you want to though while we're addressing no I just want to talk we're just talking about Dan's motion is to strike whenever by reason of sickness or other cause the mayor is unable to

perform the duties of the office the motion is to strike for more than 21 consecutive days but then that last sentence in 3-8 ties into the 21 days so I would do that all at the same time the same time as they related correct so both of those sentences so the motion also says in the event that the mayor announces his inability before the expiration of 21 days these P Provisions that comes out

that comes out too all right so the motion for clarification is regarding 38 small a to strike in the first sentence for more than 21 consecutive days and in the and the entirety of the last sentence is there a second for that motion who seconded it who did you did did oh I did yes I second it why I have a question in the event that the mayor announces his inability these Provisions shall apply

immediately in the event that the mayor announces his inability these Provisions shall apply immediately so we're just taking out taking out the 21 the before the 21 days I would accept the amendment of Mr madow okay I'll second that so now the new motion ready in 38 small a is to strike sentence number one for more than 21 consecutive days and in the last sentence to strike before the expiration of 21 days but

wait do we need that you need a triggering thing for the um you need a you need triggering language to get to 38c he could say it himself Anil apply if the mayor says look I can no long do this can't do it and then the provisions oh okay so no one has to deem him he could volunte volunte got you got you okay that makes s can't do this y so the motion 38a

strike for more than 21 consecutive days in the first sentence and strike before the expiration of 21 days in the last sentence all in favor I I I I motion passes so in 38 a we eliminated 21 days so for more than 21 consecutive days out before the EXP aeration of 21 days out 11:25 24 now moving on to 3 10 the current Charter says whenever a vacancy occurs in the office of the

mayor by death removal resignation or any other reason during the first 18 months of the term for which the mayor is elected the city Council shall call a special election the recommendation was whenever a vacancy occurs in the office of the mayor by death removal resignation or incapacity for a period greater than 21 days during the first 18 months the city council had a problem with that short time

period I have a problem with leaving it open ended just is there a way to like differentiate temporary versus permanent or temporary versus longterm I don't know well if they don't declare a vacancy in the office of the mayor then they can't have a special election and if you have someone sitting in that position who cannot perform the duties of that job and they don't resign and they're not

recalled the city council president sits there till the for the entire term but wait a minute but but are we covered though is the time line there leaving it does it basically leave it up to the city because it says if we took out for a period greater than 21 days just if we remove that during the first 18 months city council shall call a special election to be held within 90 days

following the date the vacancy is created to fill the vacancy so is that a time so are we leaving it up to city council within 90 days so at day 33 call they can't even call one unless there's a vacancy see what we wanted was a triggering event we wanted to say we were trying to say that unless you resign or die or are recalled because that's removal right there's no triggering event for a

special election you cannot have a special election unless you die resign or already recall and we wanted the discussion centered around we wanted a triggering event to H be able to let the city council call a special election and our triggering event was if that person is incapacitated for over 21 days and the city council was like what about open hot surgery and I get it 21 days maybe that's not enough maybe it

has to be I don't know 9 days but do you let the city council let's just say God forbid something happens to the mayor and and he's incapacitated literally cannot come to the office or perform his job duties and and it goes on for four months yeah but the council president they there for the whole term yes see no I have a problem with that well that that's why we wrote

I have a problem with not having a triggering event I think that was one of the issues that that was one of the issues that's why we adopted the language in the first place but it's is it is it an overcorrection I guess is the question correct are we over correct could we could we add okay whenever a vacancy occurs blah blah blah or incapacity and kind of tyeing that language like and is no longer performing

the mayor can't verbalize let's just say he can't verbalize a resignation can't can't verbalize it but then we're handcuffing ourselves by saying greater than 21 days because what if at day seven he can't verbalize we have to still wait 21 days I I just I thought 21 days was pretty decent to somebody not be in that office but that's all they're the they're the head administrator of the

city well the temporary the temporary AR would have the had city council take over right in City counil going to it's not going to be empty it's not going to be empty but there a line of succession but if you don't have a triggering event there's no special election it's so it's just going like that no but no till the end of the term I I guess I'm not how do

you know that there's no special no triggering event because whenever a vacancy occurs in the office of the mayor so the triggering event is death removal resignation or they're incapacitated right the that's not what it says it says any other reason oh what if we just change it to incapacitated okay then the next sentence says the city council shall call a special election to be held

within 90 days so there's the city council should they could call a special election after 70 at day seven could say you know what we need a special election yeah for for those four triggers death uh resignation or death removal resignation or incapacitate is incapacitated that's pretty wide scope no I don't know I just feel like somewhere line of succession I'm going tell you where lot of it came

from um I just feel like there has to be a a distinction between 3-8 and 3-10 I mean what happens if it happens to the president of the United States the vice president would take over for the remainder of the ter period why why can't it be the same here well one because the acting mayor cannot do all the duties of the regular mayor because we don't give the acting mayor the same Authority that a regular

sitting mayor has that's why the the acting May gets gets more Authority after 90 days I mean if something happened to the president the vice president would take over they'd be in charge with the whole country I mean I get that you I get what you're saying like 21 days but that could work both ways that could work in favor or not in favor because what if we need to do something after seven days

versus having to wait 21 days or what if someone is going to be out for longer than 21 days we've been a city since 1854 I I think this has come up once would you know having read the decisions um particularly the decision I cited um judge Yan's decision concerning the removal um and he said basically he said term other cause and context does not give the council unfed discretion to remove so

that's I think we included my memory is we included a Time period so that the CH was specific yeah and gave the city council the authority to then say okay the time has expired that's specific now we call a special election if we want you know if we think that it should be a little bit longer you know but I think we included my memory is we included a specific time so that the

Charle was specific and just was sort of open before and I think everybody had a problem with that there was a lot of areas like that and we were looking to tighten up language we were looking to tighten up the ambiguities in the charter and I just I don't know I just felt when when judge usin said hey your Charter doesn't say it I'm not going to interfere with the governing of your

City kind is what he's saying I my job is not to tell you what should be there I'm just telling you it's pretty vague you just really don't know how it's going to land until it's put in practice and I think that's the biggest problem we're dealing with a lot of you know scenarios and which we don't know how it's going to play out it'll be the p in put in practice will determine what the

right timeline I just I feel like incapacitation right it the old chter says all other reason right the other the Old Charter says or any other reason is so it still doesn't give the city council the authority to say all right it's been like four months this mayor's incapacitated could we ask the city council for a recommendation because they are in the habit of being in the of these things and maybe it has they've

even gone through this some of them were serving during these times where we had vacancies in in the mayor's office office and so I wonder if we that the recommendation is that a timeline be put in there that's decided upon by the city council rather than us because I really don't know how it's put into practice if it was something I had to work around and and enact then I would I would have

a recommendation but I just don't so I think it could be advantageous for us to request a timeline but let allow the city council to determine an appropriate timeline for the triggering event to call a special election because that's really what we were trying to do was to something that would hold up have a triggering event for a special election so I'm looking at like incapacitated means empty of strength

helpless or powerless that describes a state where you don't have the capacity or ability to accomplish something so would that cover I mean would that because incapacitated wasn't in the previous J is not in there that yeah capacitated was would that cover the concern that the judge had to say that you didn't have the power to do that well that was a different section that he's talking about okay so and it

was um that was the section where the city council could vote to remove the ma that determines the what but not the when we need to what so incapacity they don't have the capacity the ability the capacity or the ability to accomplish something for how long so that's where we get fuzzy on the timeline but I think that the reason why we put the 21 days in the was so that there was a clear indication specific

you know it's 30 maybe they're more comfortable with the month you know 30 days within 30 days well I guess though I wonder if because at the city council meeting were they were they referencing both 3-8 and 3-10 because 3-8 is temporary which would be covered by open heart surgery or whatever and so we removed it from there whereas 3-10 is a more like they ain't coming back well and if I if you're having

surgery and and the city council president is going to be the active mayor and it's agreed upon around a timeline so I have surgery and there's going to be a 12we recovery period the city council president becomes the acting mayor and I'm and that's agreed upon before the the charter would prevent that and so that I'm also not trying to you know impede any agreement that might be suitable for the city do we need a

special election if there's an agreement between city council president and the mayor about difference between 21 and 30 I think that's why it's been intentionally big is to allow for that is to allow for to allow for those sorts of agreements and and and without having to spend City money on on elections Etc so those things are concerning on on one side right I understand that but on the you're

talking about the opposite of that when you want to remove a mayor because and and they're unable to communicate or resign what's the timeline around that and that could be maybe it could be very explicit unless agreed where the removal section any idea we took that up to take the mayor out of office yeah it was eight let me see I got the which one's my old and which one there's a new one's the old

one have recall was was it in where recall was invation oh no section 38 in the old 38

yep and we took out that part of we took out the P of the council to remove the

is this this one the city council by an affirmative vote of seven members shall determine whether the mayor is unable to perform the duties but that doesn't take him out that just says he can't do it yeah so that's what why do we take that out jud's decision yeah and we also have the recall Provisions so the voters can remove well recall is different than impeachment though right remember we had discussions about

that and we don't have an impeachment

provision I I just like the idea of a triggering event but I'm just one opinion but I I kind of like the idea of a a triggering event it clarifies I mean it but it limits too do we know oh better wait till he gets back did he leave for good I don't know okay did you say we have no we no longer he leave the building did did he go out the building

okay can we even discuss when we don't the I don't think so I don't even think we can take a motion to adjourn do we just get up we're just going to sit here until he comes back all right we'll give it a couple minutes are there restrooms that way yeah there's restrooms right maybe that I am the chairperson I will do a

bathroom 6 o' 5:59

we no longer have a okay yeah I'm just going to declare it on the record okay yeah I saw him go to that door I noidea what you do uh a quorum no longer being present this meeting of the special Charter Review Committee is adjourned