Marble. Hey. Hey. Hey, hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey. Follow me. City Council Committee on ordinances legislation we call to order. Madam
clerk, call the role, please. >> Council >> here. >> Can >> here. Vice President Dia >> here. >> Council Per >> here. >> Chair >> here. >> Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium.
Attendees are therefore advise that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unperceived by those present and deemed acknowledged and permissible. Item number one in our agenda this evening is citizens input which we have none. We will move on to item number two which is the minutes
from the January 27th 2026 meeting. >> Motion to approve. >> Motion to approve made by council. >> Second. >> Second by vice president Zion. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? The eyes have it. Item number three is proposed ordinance traffic handicap parking referred on 210
2026. They list as Bowen Street West 206 ft south of Slade Street. We have Corey Street South starting at 101 ft east. Locust Street North starting at
153 feet east of Lynon. Monttop Street West starting at point of 103 ft north of Globe. North Main Street East starting at point of 189 feet south of Locust. Snell Street North starting at 548T east of Lawrence Street. Trip
Street West starting at 74 ft south of Charles Street and Woodwin Street North starting at 20 ft east of King Street. We will need an emergency preamble. >> So moved. >> Motion made by Councelor Kadim. >> Second.
>> Second by Vice President Dion. Roll call, please. Yes. >> Council >> here. Yes. >> Vice President. >> Yes. >> Just to confirm that was a yes. >> Yes. Sorry. >> Councelor Pereira. >> Yes. >> And chair. >> Yes.
>> Motion. >> Motion to pass through all readings. >> Motion to pass through all readings made by councelor Khadim. Second by vice president Dion. All in favor? >> Any opposed? The eyes have it. Item number four on our agenda this evening is proposed ordinance traffic miscellaneous referred on 12726
and 210 20226. We have section one which is inserting Lindsay Street East from Quarry to Breman Street. Section two striking out Lindsay Street East from Ballard Street
to Breman Street. And section three is a strikeout. Relates to handicap parking. George Street south 146 feet west of Oregon Street. Grove Street West starting at 126 feet south of Walnut. Oliver Street North 151 ft east of
Broadway. And Pitman Street East 110 ft south of Webster Street. >> I have a question on this. >> Of course. I think we have a director of traffic and parking to come down. Good evening. >> Good evening, Stephanie MacArthur, director of traffic and parking.
>> Thank you. Um, Miss MacArthur, do you want to speak to the um proposed ordinance and then we'll go to the counselors? >> Sure. Is this the question about Lindsay Street? >> Yes. >> Okay. Yep. So, that is basically um with the 79 project being completed, there
was signage that was taken down prior to the project. Um it was for prohibited parking on Lindsay Street. Um starting at Corey Street all the way to Brightman. Once the signage went up after construction was completed, residents did come to the traffic board
with concerns um of the elimination of parking. Um the engineer and I went out. We did determine that there was space for there to be parking allowed on both sides of Lindsay Street. Um but not from Ballard to Breman.
Not from Dallas to Brightman. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Corey all the way down. >> Correct. >> Corey. >> Correct. >> And you know I I've been by there because you know I had gotten several calls >> and on the side on the left hand side if
I was going down towards Brightman from President Avenue, >> there's a whole big plot of land there that's grass that never gets cut. Whatever. Mhm. >> We couldn't make some diagonal parking there. Who would we have to talk to to do that? >> Uh, same thing. That would have to go through traffic board and engineering,
>> I think, because there's all six families there and three families and everybody has cars and it really jams up. Um, >> I was saying earlier, that's why I think we should have a full-time planner because that would have been caught. This planner wasn't around when they did that project. So, it's not his fault,
but >> when they're doing the projects like that, we need to look at where we can give people additional parking. Yeah, especially in those congested areas. >> Yeah. And I'm okay with that. The other question I have on um Brightman Street and Ballad Street uh about tickets that
go on when you had no parking signs there, if there's a curb cut >> and a driveway, what is the differential between a curb cut and a driveway? because some people had a driveway there before, but then they built a house and
the curb is still cut, but there's no it's not technically a driveway. There's nothing to get into. >> So, if the traffic department could look at that and if ordinance needs to change to stipulate what a driveway is and what a curb cut is because if people park in
front of where the curb had been cut from years ago, they're getting tickets. Yeah. So, so that that concern especially in that area specifically, they were blocking the sidewalk. So, because there is the curb cut, they were essentially going onto the sidewalk and obstructing the sidewalk. >> Yeah. So, if we could check that out. I
just don't know what the difference is. >> You might want to check that in ordinance and bring that to the ordinance committee. >> With that, I yield. Thank you, Mrs. Macasa. I >> Thank you, Council Daniel. >> So, this is going to increase parking on Lindsay Street, >> correct? >> Do we know how many spaces grant
roughly? Um it's roughly about six parking spaces. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else in the committee? >> Do we have a motion? >> Motion to approve. >> Motion to pass through first reading
>> made by councelor Pere. Second by councel. All those in favor. >> Any opposed? The eyes have it. >> Item number five is number five requires a lifting from the table. Motion to lift from the table. >> Motion to made lift from the table made by council. Second by council prayer.
All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? The eyes have it. Item number five in our proposed ordinance is traffic miscellaneous which was tabled on 1119 2024. It is the operation of heavy commercial vehicles restricted on certain streets which includes Wilson
Road northeast of Highland Avenue to Renbach Road and inserting in place thereof the following Wilson Road from North Main Street to Writtenback Road at all times. Director MacArthur, if you want to speak any updates on this. >> Um, no, there hasn't been any updates. I
mean, we have had some concerns from residents uh regarding the tractor trailers. I mean, unfortunately, once they're on Wilson Road, there was some questions and concerns brought to my department about putting up signage on Wilson Road, but the problem with that is once the tractor trailers are on
Wilson Road, it's too late. They they can't they can't make that turnaround. Um, so currently it reads from Highland Avenue to Rightham. So, that's when they're coming off of uh Route 24 South. Um, the question was brought to the table if we extend that and make it
Wilson Road completely starting at North N. >> Okay. And if I remember correctly, I think there was some some not sure about doing that because of the businesses that are on Wilson Road. >> Correct. >> Particularly. Okay. Council Pereira.
>> Well, what businesses are on Wilson Road that have tractor trailers coming? >> They deliver to the industrial park. The tractor trailers, >> right? So there's other ways we did innovation way to give tractor trailers a way to get one of the problems is the GPS systems on the trucks
>> send them to Wilson Road. However, I agree it should be from North Maine all the way to Rickenbach because the problem is many people on the top of Highland if you go higher than Gina's restaurant a lot of those people have stone walls and their property is being
damaged by these large trucks. So if the sign is down there, you know, or maybe a highway sign coming off that, you know, no trail, no tractor trailers coming down. >> I was in touch with state rep Carol Fiola and she there is some signage on
both 24 north and south. Um it just reads, you know, truckers notice for industrial park use innovation way exit 10. So it's prior to approaching advising the truck drivers to take the Innovation Way. But unfortunately, I think they're just following their GPS. And if their GPS is bringing them to
Wilson Road, once they get to Wilson Road, there's no turning around. >> But it's that's not really alleviating the problem. You know what about GPS, Mr. Dana? >> Huh? >> I don't know how to fix it. >> I'm looking to your help. I'm looking for your help. >> I'm assuming that's what's happening.
And there is some signage within Industrial Park. >> Speak. >> Yes. There's also signage within Industrial Park advising them to exit through Innovation Way as well. >> Well, some of the ones that they had, the signs that they had on Highland Avenue and Wilson Road,
>> you couldn't even see them. The growth of the trees covered them up. >> So, it's like, what's the sense of putting up a sign nobody can read? Um, and I know it's not your fault. Trees grow and you know, things happen. But I just feel bad for the calls. I've gotten
numerous calls from people that live on Wilson Road about their property being damaged and, you know, they're still going to be able to service the industrial park. So, I I'd also talk to the industrial park and see,
>> you know, what they've done up there. I know they've had meetings. They've tried to alert them, >> see what the success has been, >> check it out. Are there still a lot of trucks coming up? Are there not? >> They have to know who their truck drivers are. you know, maybe send a
letter to the truckers that come into that area to let them know that they can't, you know, or put a sign on the bottom, you know, no truckers allowed. >> Yeah. >> And they'll have to drive up and get back on the highway and figure it out. >> I don't know. Can we leave this one
here, table it, and >> we'll let we'll let the council speak and then we'll come back to that, >> you know, give Stephanie time >> to look into it. I yield. >> Sure. Uh, Director MacArthur, have have you received any communication since this was tabled from anyone regarding their concerns? Okay, >> council Kadim,
>> my only question is the I guess the definition for heavy commercial vehicles. So, the delivery trucks that would go to Gina, would they be considered heavy commercial vehicles? >> Correct. >> So, that would be a concern for them, >> right? So, I think that's >> Well, they're food deliveries.
>> Yes. So, I I think that's what I'm >> Yeah, but it's not a track, >> right? So I I guess if the concerns are the track the trailer trucks, then we would just have to at least try to identify a more I guess streamlined definition that
allows the delivery trucks to go to Genus, right? Because then essentially you're you're basically saying that she's right. >> That's that's my only concern because I think if you have a heavy commercial vehicle, it's going to be by >> uh the weight, right? So I think you run into a situation where that that weight
is going to just tie them >> Yeah. >> from getting delivered. So >> whether it's Cisco or what I mean I >> yeah I'd have to get in touch with Genus to find out exactly who delivers to that business.
>> I mean that's that's all. And then I I guess if if we if we had an an idea if you know who the uh the trucks were, right? We could contact the companies. I know I know we've had some uh some issues in SECONK with FedEx making cutthroughs through neighborhoods and and we've had conversations with FedEx
particularly um to make sure that the 18 wheelers aren't aren't going through >> uh neighborhoods and and they've they've complied with that. But you're right, I I think at the end of the day it comes down to the route that the GPS has taken. So >> I'm not quite sure how to fix that either. >> And I don't think it's I don't think
it's the same delivery drivers either. That that's the other issue that comes about with these companies within the industrial park. I I don't think it's the same people who are doing the deliveries. So, they're just following suit with what GPS tells them to go and Wilson Road >> and they could be private vendors, right?
>> Correct. So, >> okay. With that, I yield. Thank you. >> Anyone else? It's the will of the committee. Would you like to do with the proposed ordinance? >> I'd make a motion to give uh Mrs. MacArthur an opportunity to reach out to Industrial Park and um you know to Gina
too because that's the business that's on. >> Second. >> Absolutely. Motion made to table by council prayer, second by vice president Dion. Any discussion? All those in favor? >> And opposed? The eyes have it. Mrs. MacArthur, when you have some information, just let me know. We can reschedule another meeting regarding the issue.
>> Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> Have a great night. >> You too. Item number six is a resolution to convene with corporation council, the fire chief, and the director of inspectional services to discuss the creation of an ordinance that would impose stricter safety requirements and more frequent inspections of assisted
living facilities was adopted on 8125. The resolution states, which was filed by council of Pereira, whereas the recent Gabriel House assisted living facility fire, was a tragic event for all within the for community, including residents, family members, and first
responders. And whereas this devastating occurrence has brought to light the significant differences of inspection and emergency procedure regulations for assisted living facilities versus those applied to long-term care facilities which are much more frequent in detail within Massachusetts general law where
stricter regulations for assisted living facilities such as more frequent safety related inspections from various government and private entities could assist with the emergency response time, evacuation protocols and adequate assistance for those who have mobility related disabilities. Therefore, now be it resolved that the committee on
ordinances legislation convene with the corporation council, fire chief, and the director of inspectional services to discuss the creation of an ordinance to impose stricter requirements for various type of inspections and emergency procedures for assisted living facilities within the city of Fall River. Gentlemen, good evening. If you could introduce yourselves for the for
the committee, please. >> Alan Ramsey, corporation council. >> Jeffrey Bacon, fire chief. >> Glenn Hathway, building commissioner. >> Thank you both. Uh, Councelor Pereira, if you would like to speak first on your resolution. >> Um, yeah, I here's the issue. There was
a a commission set up in the state house to look at assisted living programs prior to the fire at Gabriel House. That was supposed to be done like in August. And however, the fire was weeks before that. Um, so they push pushed it back a
little bit. And I think that the members of this committee and I got a copy and I'll share it with you or Lauren can get a smaller copy of what changes and what regulations they've done in the state. I
mean, some of the things that I noticed when I was at the Tomo Center that there was a huge problem with finding out what medications individuals were on, um, who their primary care physician was, who
their next ofkin or an emergency contact because everything was on paper. It should be on a computer. Another thing that I heard was that some of the air conditioning units in the windows were screwed in. So you couldn't just pop them out. And people who were on the
upper floors, there were people in wheelchairs on an upper floor. Can't use an elevator or anything. How do you get them down? And one of the the suggestions was almost like on an airplane how you have that blow up slide that comes out that every
place have a slide on the side so that in case of an emergency you can slide people down. it's easier and it's quicker to get people down. Um, some of the other things that were talked about as well was the number of staff that
needs to be present 24 hours a day, the training that needs to be done. A lot of that was done by the state and that's going to be going into effect if we want to do something above that, but I think we should look at what the state has done. So, I would say let's hold this
until everybody has had an opportunity to read what this commission has put in and see what changes they've made. Um I I know that Mr. Hathaway was there, the chief. Um maybe there's other things that you felt should be done. Have you
each had an opportunity to look at what the state has? >> You have not. >> I have. Yeah. >> You have. Okay. Is there anything additionally is what my question would be to you >> chief beacon if you would like to provide to the committee some information that you have prepared. >> Yeah absolutely. So um they did address
many of the issues that you're talking about. One of the things uh two of the big issues at Gabriel House were one sprinkler issues and two um there were people living there that shouldn't have been there. Um in order to live in an assisted living the reason that they are staffed so low is because you're
supposed to be able to self- evacuate. Uh so the state realized that um and they are one of the things that they're recommending or requiring I'm sorry is uh more robust evaluations and assessments of patients more regularly to determine who is who belongs in an
assisted living or who would be more uh better served in a nursing home. Nursing homes have um stricter regulations. One of the things is a much higher uh staff number 247 because there are people that are going to need to be evacuated. So that was one of the uh one of the issues
that was addressed. Um some of the other issues were um uh the assisted living is going to have to designate a person, hire a person specifically as a safety coordinator and a liaison to uh the fire department.
They're going to um increase their um their fire drills. The residents are all going to be aware of what is expected of them in the event that the fire alarm goes off. Um, these are all things that that came up and and they were things they were working on before, but these are all things that came up in the wake
of the Gabriel House and I was happy that they took the time um to pause for six months and and take into consideration some of the things some of the lessons that we learned um in our fire here in the city. Um, so they also have recommendations for the
legislature. So, I think it would that um that we probably I agree with you that we should look a little bit into this. I was very happy with the recommendations they were made and I think that we can certainly send a letter of support to the legislature for any of those changes that they're recommending recommending as well. Um
but I think it is it's actually really good and and >> a lot a lot of it doesn't pertain to what happened at Gabriel House. There's a lot of other stuff besides, you know, fire safety and and evacuation and things, but um as far as um what my recommendations were in my afteraction
report, they addressed almost every one of them. I was very happy with the uh with the report. >> How often are assisted living inspected by by the city? >> So, >> by your department? What was the law before was like what three years or something? >> Yeah, we do we we always inspected them
annually. >> Annually? >> Yep. And our inspection is a walkth through uh safety inspection. Make sure that all the exits are accessible um and check on their uh that they are having the proper sprinkler and fire alarm professionals come in and service their systems. >> Do we look at like what they're doing
with screwing in air conditioners into windows? >> Well, here's the the the the thing with that is so and I I'll use Gabriel House for as as a as an example. Our inspection of Gabriel House is in November annually. So there's no there's
no um uh air conditioners and windows in November. But the other thing that I know is that because that building was sprinklered, it wasn't necessarily uh the against the code to have those that plywood and those air conditioners in those windows. So um so yeah, so the
code is I mean it's you you have to have air conditioning, right? And because that was built before didn't have central air, you know, people you would have lost more people from heat exhaustion in the summer than you would because of the air conditioners were in the windows, right? Um at a fire if the
sprinklers work properly, then we're not even sitting here. So >> So if you say I I'm coming in and I'm going to inspect >> and I say you have to have a fire drill once a year so or twice a year. >> Yeah, they're more frequent than that, but yes. >> Okay. So you go in and you ask and I
say, "Oh yeah, we have them every three months, but I'm full of malarkey." >> Yep. We check their log book. Um the new requirements are going to be that we attend at least one a year. Okay. >> A full evacuation. >> Um so >> do you have the staffing to do that?
>> Yeah. Well, there's only one nursing There's only one assisted living in this in the city, River Falls. >> Gabriel's not here anymore. You still have the one on Colia. >> Yep. >> They don't have to have fire doors like nursing homes. >> I think they do. Uh the River Falls does, but yeah. No, the the requirements
are less even in the building code for a uh for an assisted living than it is for a nursing home. >> So something like Gabriel House that was already permitted, licensed, whatever, if rules change, they don't have to change. I mean, they've grandfathered in, >> unless they had done a significant um renovation. >> Renovation.
>> Yep. >> Okay. I'd like to >> Director Hathaway, would you like to add any thoughts here? So the fire chief is correct. Um first of all the windows that were in
that particular building were there and existing from the previous ownership of a hotel is from what I'm told years ago and they converted it with a sprinkler system in place and fully furnished
throughout the entire complex. an egress window is not required because the sprinkler system gives you um the ability to get out of the building and it's like the fire chief said the most unfortunate
things is that and nobody knew this they had defective sprinkler heads and that's where it started if like the chiefs uh had pointed out had they been working properly
we probably wouldn't be talking about this at this magnitude. So, the windows and them being blocked, um we do our inspection annually. Um some of those uh um air conditioners are in the
windows at the time. They're permanent, but we can't do anything about it because the window is not required to be an errrest window. It's not the correct size. number one, but number two, the sprinkler system gives them that exemption from the code.
As far as updates to the building, this building, like any other building, they avoid doing x number of dollar amounts of work or do just enough to stay under them being required to
conform to the new building code or an updated building code. and they haven't done anything in years there um to force them to even think about bringing anything up to code. They put a coat of paint on and we're done.
>> That was actually um the the state actually had a Zoom call with the city with some some of us from the city before they released this report to explain some of their reasoning. But one of the things that we did talk about, one of the legislative changes is to require nursing homes and assisted
living to um to be compliant with the current code, you know, every certain number of years regardless of of the work that's done. So that was one of the legislative changes that could potentially come down. >> So if I'm understanding, Mr. Hathaway,
some of the sprinkler heads were a problem. >> Yeah. Uh so we can only talk about what's in the public domain right now because of ongoing litigation, but it is it has been reported that um there were um recalled sprinkler heads in Gabriel
House. >> Okay. So if I know I've sold property and I had a sprinkler system and fire department comes and checks it all out, how how do you know if that sprinklers works unless you turn it on? >> That's where the sprinkler professionals
come in. The licensed sprinkler professionals that do their inspections are the ones who um they'll do flow tests. Obviously, they're not flowing the heads. Um every so many years they're required to take x number of heads down and test them. Uh if they pass then the system can pass and remain
in service. Um, I will tell you that um my assistant city fire marshal, Josh Hetszler, is currently in Utah speaking at a sprinkler uh protection uh uh the the national sprinkler fire sprinkler protection uh conference because he and
uh Sean Flannry, the current city fire marshall, are pushing for an amendment to the NFPA to um include annual in annual inspections um checking for recalled sprinkler heads. Just a simple check. there are no sprinkler heads present. There are no recalled sprinkler heads present in this
system. They're also going in front of the mass fire prevention uh regulations board to to pass it on a local level as well because the NFBA might take a little bit of time. So, we're trying to affect change and positive change based on what we learned at Gabriel House and I applaud those those uh those gentlemen
for doing that. Um but we are actively working to make things better. >> And what's your staffing like to do these extra, you know, inspections or do you have enough staff to do this? inspections that we've always done. I never have enough staff in fire prevention. Um, but right now I don't
have enough staff in line in and in in uh on the street. So, we got to focus on uh keeping the city safe on suppression and then hopefully down the road we can start to add to our uh fire prevention staff. >> Okay, with that I yield. Thank you. >> Thank you, Vice President Dion.
>> Yeah, I just have one comment and one question. So just the fact that they allowed people with wheelchairs to live on a second floor knowing they had no means of escape on a fire to me was absolutely almost criminal. So my question is with the new regulations are they forbidding
them from putting people in wheelchairs on the second floor? >> No, that's everywhere in the city. There are people who can't who are immobile living on you can't stop people from living on second floors and all of the highrises and all the senior living and the board and places everywhere in the city that has an elevator. You got
people who can't go downstairs living above the first floor. >> So I look at people in assisted living and nursing homes at a different level than ones that live and are able to live alone. So just the fact that their
disability or whatever the the issue is requires assistance. >> Yep. >> That doesn't change anything. >> I don't think so. Not in the eye of the uh of the code. Again, um this was the first sprinkler uh this is the first building with sprinkler systems in the
United States that had a multiple fatality in the history of the United States and sprinklers. Right. So um those buildings are designed to protect them in place. Um there isn't a way to evacuate there isn't enough people to evacuate that
many people efficiently during a fire right regardless. I mean even in a nursing home it would be to move them somewhere else on that same level and shelter them there would be the the the best means to do it because I think we saw how labor intensive it is to move anybody out of a building at that fire
if you watched any of the body cam or any of the the footage from outside the building. So I would agree with you. In an ideal world, I would love to have only ambulatory people above the first floor. I just don't think it's practical. >> Okay, that's it. I yield. >> Thank you.
>> Councelor Kadim, thank you. So my only question was and I I think you answered it. Um so in the recommendations that are before us or at the state level, >> are there changes to the code itself? So the building and code, fire codes, >> recommendations to >> to be changed. Okay. And those I think I
we'll take a look at and I I think it is a good idea to send a letter of support on behalf of the city and the fire department to to the legislators. >> Yeah. No, I I don't disagree. I was I just wanted to make sure that there were changes in in the building and fire codes that are that are taking place because if not then I'm not sure that we have a whole lot of say if it's not in
the code books, right, in terms of enforcement. Correct. That's my concern. >> That's what uh Attorney Ramsey and I were speaking about. >> Yeah. I mean, the only thing I was going to add is there's really not a whole lot we can do because the building code and the fire code would preempt any ability from the city to impose something more
stringent. So, it's great that they're looking at it. I mean, there's there's rule, you know, there's suggestions in place on where we can write if we make suggestions to somebody, which I can forward along to the fire chief who can probably, you know, write that letter better than anybody at this table. >> But there's not a whole lot the city can
do to have stronger rules than what the fire code and building code have. Okay. Um, with that, I yield to Council P. >> I'll give this to uh Lauren so that she can make copies. >> I have it down. >> Oh, you have it? Um, so that she can
make uh copies. And I did talk to Rep. Fiola because she was a big part of being on this commission to do this. And they're also going to be looking at uh regular, you know, nursing homes as well. I mean, that's the most vulnerable members of society and we need to make
sure that they're protected. So I I make a motion as the chief suggested to send a letter of support. >> Should we do it from this committee or from the council as a whole? >> I I I would probably say from the from the council as a whole would make the
most sense. >> Okay. So can we make a motion to file a resolution to go to the council as a whole? >> Sure. I don't I don't see why we can't do that >> from this committee. Okay. I'll make a motion that we send to full counsel >> a letter of support um >> to the state
>> a letter >> to them all. >> Yeah. Do them all cover the whole >> So the motion is to make a resolution to send a letter of support on behalf of the entire city council to the delegation in support of these
recommended changes. Made by councelor Pereira, seconded by councelor Kadeim. Any discussion on the motion? >> All those in favor? >> Any opposed? The eyes have it. >> Anything else? Councils on this. Okay. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Are we Yeah. >> Were you looking? Will you look at the table? >> Do you want to table this counselor or are you satisfied? >> No. I think that we can give it a grant leave to withdraw and if we if we have
some other things after we read that we can put in a resolution based on that. It's up to the committee if you want to table it. >> The will of the committee >> I'd say give it leave to withdraw. We've discussed it >> in the form of a motion. >> Form of a motion. >> Motion grant leave to withdraw made by council prayer. Second by council
Kadeim. All those in favor. >> Any opposed? The eyes have it. >> Thank you. Item number seven on our agenda this evening is resolution to convene with the director of human resources incorporation council to discuss the creation of a screening committee for
the chief of the police, fire and emergency medical service departments adopted 422 2025. For the record, the resolution states, "Whereas there has been various methods utilized to find, interview, and select qualified experienced candidates for the
leadership within the police department and emergency medical services EMS department over the years. And whereas other municipalities within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts such as New Befford, Marshfield, and Somerville have created screening committees for the candidate selection process. Whereas these committees consist of various
elected officials, attorneys, members of local organizations, and individuals who have retired from either the police department or EMS department respective to the department in need of a new candidate. Now therefore, be it resolved that the committee on ordinances legislation convene with the director of human resources corporation council to
discuss the creation of a screening committee for the process of hiring a new police chief and chief of EMS when these positions are vacant. >> Director of HR, introduce yourself, please. >> Nick Molini, director of human resources. Thank you. The um author of the resolution, Council Pereira, would
you like to speak first? >> Yeah. I I just um I Well, I look at this and I'm not certain when I know that the we put to the state that we wanted to have a civil service chief
of police. Um and I don't know how long that's going to take because you have to give people opportunity to take the civil service exam etc. How long is that going to take? It's not going to be like within next you know the next six months. >> So that was signed January or approved
January 29th 26. >> Um so at this point the civil service calling for a list will take a little while. Um there's a a full process that we would go through through civil service and HRD to get a list. Um, but just for some context, I know that with
the captains and lieutenants assessment center that they've been working on since November 1st, there's still been no test for that. So, it will take a little bit of time to get this set up. >> So, the time that we're going to be able to get a new chief through civil service will be what, a year, a year and a half,
>> I would say. Probably less than that. Um, but we will call for a list here. A list will be eligible for two years. Um, I don't know if you want to get into it, Alan, but under the home rule petition, it says that we'll fill the vacancy um or or we'll fill with a civil service
chief upon vacancy of the current chief. >> So, it's upon vacancy of the current chief. >> Yes. Correct. >> All right. I just think that when we did interviews, when we did Chief Reine, I think that was very good. You had a number of people and the interviews were
all televised so that the public got to see it. You talk about making things transparent, but then we fail to be as transparent as we can be. Um, and that was my thought process in doing this for
not just a chief of police or what, you know, for for those positions in general. However, I don't want it to feel like the council is overstepping their rule and stepping into what the mayor's office should be doing. So, I'm
kind of looking for attorney Rumsy to give me a balanced perspective on that. If a mayor decided this is how I'm going to do this, that's fine. Do we have the authority to tell the mayor this is what you must do? >> The short answer is no. I mean, I think you were on the right path there and I
think you understand. I mean, it's the mayor by the charter has the authority to appoint the chiefs that you've mentioned, police, fire, and EMS. um it doesn't prevent this city council from persuading the mayor to be, you know, have a seat at the table. And you know,
in my years here, I know I think there's been three new police chiefs since I've been here. And I think one of them there was a committee, one of them there was interviews with other people involved and and and one of the chiefs was not at all. So, I mean, it can go any way. I I
think, you know, I don't know if it this the council wants to do it by way of resolution, but I mean, there's there's ways to um try to work with the mayor for a seat at the table, but ultimately I don't think that uh the city council can invoke an ordinance or rule that requires a mayor to do it a certain way
since it's the executive appointed authority. >> Well, I just think it's crazy every time we do it, we do it different. I'd like to have some consistency on how we're going to do it. But >> I think I can share with you and I have spoken with the mayor about this issue
and it it's sounded like he would was on the same page and more than happy to include city council input on on these hires. So there was no opposition I'd say. >> Yeah. And I didn't even put in this resolution that you know one of the city council should be on it.
people that, you know, former police chiefs or detectives and people that are retired, maybe people from out of the area, like what are you looking for? What is the criteria that we're looking for? And I'm not necessarily I've heard people say, you know, we should just
hire outside. I understand that. But at the same time, what message do we give the people that work for us? You're not good enough to reach this rank because you're not from outside. It's that's and chiefs that are
in here or police officers that are in here right now, they know the players, they know the gang members, they they know the hot spots of the city. That has some weight to it as well. I think getting the best person for the job sounds good, but to always say, well, we
should just the best thing is to hire from outside. I I think that's kind of a kick in the pants to people that work here. We got to go get somebody else because you're not good enough. Well, and even if you go outside, it's going to be limited at this point because they've got to be civil service, right? >> So, you're still talking Massachusetts.
Um, but, you know, it's going to be up to the city to determine eligibility for that. Um, you're also talking, I guess, two different screening processes at this point because you're going to have a civil service screening process where you're going to be, >> right, >> given, you know, a list of scores and and a certain amount of applicants who
are interested. And then if you're talking something like New Bedford did where they pulled in um I want to say 13 different members of the community that included council members, retired law enforcement judges, but ultimately it was Mayor Mitchell's decision. Yeah. So
the recommendations went through and it was his appointment at the end of the day. >> Well, I'm going to yield and let hear what some of my colleagues perspective is on this. I'm open. >> I yield. >> Vice President D. So, um, I did write a resolution that'll
be on our next agenda relative to this subject and trying to move forward with the civil service process now that it's been approved. Um, I understand that until it's vacant, it doesn't happen. Um, but it doesn't mean that
um that we can't pursue the process. Um obviously now that we've been approved to have civil service, a committee wouldn't be necessary because you would have an outside um an outside committee, an assessment
center who would actually do that. Um people who aren't from Fall River, people who aren't involved in it, but they do these assessments on a regular basis. So that would eliminate that the need for that. Um
I think I believe also our first step is we need to change our ordinance to be in compliance with the new civil service uh regulation as well. I'll defer to uh corporation council for that which I included that in my resolution
as well because right now it's just uh appointed by the mayor uh with a contract up to three years nothing relative to um civil service or anything other than what we're doing now. >> It can definitely more more specific. I
don't think it's you know so It's better to be more specific and include the civil service law in here, but at the same time, I think it's always assumed that you're you're complying with existing law, which for us is civil service. So, it's it's I mean, it's it's not wrong at this point,
but it can be better. Um, >> now it's my understanding that if there is no list that the mayor does have the ability to call for a test. >> Yes, >> you don't have to wait a year or two years for a test to come up. He can lit
actually call for a test. >> So, I mean, that would obviously push the timetable up significantly if that were to happen. He intends to call for a list. >> Okay. >> So, we spoke about calling for a list. >> All right. So, that'll definitely move
the uh >> and again that list is good for two years, but there is going to be some, you know, lead time into getting that process done. Um I think even civil service is discussing creating their own assessment process. So, I don't know where they're at as far as that goes,
but I think you have the option for an assessment center or the new civil service uh internal assessment process. >> Um what was the other thing I was just thinking along that line? >> So, um also we there's the ability to um
you can have the civil service test um also include captains because very often you don't have enough deputy chiefs to be to take the tests. Maybe you don't have enough chiefs who are interested in changing departments. Um, so that you could also include captains in that
testing. >> It's up to the city to determine the eligibility for that stuff. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. With that, I yield. >> Thank you, Council Kadim. >> Thank you. So, I was just going to ask the same questions as my colleague had just mentioned. So, the civil service, I
mean, the I I know it says um upon the vacancy or whatever the the case may be, but the contract was for a one-year contract. So my question was going to be is is the mayor going to be calling for a test? So >> we will be calling for a test. >> Okay. And do do you know when?
>> I don't we we discussed today just that we would be calling for one and that there would be some lead time up to that. >> And so can you just talk about the process a little bit because um so the assessment center is not guaranteed. We make the determination on the assessment center. Yes. Correct. Right. >> Yeah. And depending on how many applicants you have, you may have to go
up to bid. I understand. Um >> so it's not necessarily an automatic. So I I think the administration would need to call for it. And then just in terms of this resolution, I I don't think the resolution is making a deterine is intended to identify um who's going to be hired, but more of a selection
committee, right? So a vetting process of candidates similar to what you would have for a superintendent. So you have a a search committee that puts three names forward. So if we've get five names from um from civil service or how many other names it is, it's it's just a initial, I
guess, interview of of those applicants that would be moved forward to the to the mayor. And at the end of the day, he ultimately has uh the say on who he's going to hire. I mean, he can, I guess, at that point really choose not to take any of the recommended names before us, but I think in the past and and I'll
turn to my uh colleague Pereira on this because she'll know about this. Is was it the police commissioners? Is that who in the past were the essentially the interview committees for chiefs moving forward? It used to be the police commissioners. That's when, God rest his
soul, uh, Judge Milton Silva was a police commissioner. >> And because they didn't do what an administration at that time wanted, they got rid of the police commissioners. And then we had police commissioners that really didn't hire or do any of the interviews or do any of the promotions.
And that's why we got rid of the police commissioners because we're paying them, I don't know, it was $2,500 uh a year and they weren't even meeting. Mhm. >> So, >> but there so we in the past I guess that's where I'm I'm going is in past practice we've had >> at least a board that would review
applicants that came before us and I think that's essentially what >> uh my colleague was looking to do with this resolution and I don't want to speak for but I don't I don't think there's anything wrong with um putting putting an ordinance in that would suggest that we would have a committee that would do um essentially a vetting
process uh for um you know the position of chiefs for the public safety. That's that's just my take. And I don't think it's circumventing the ordinance. We're not we're not suggesting that uh the search committee is going to be the one that who's hiring or choosing to to hire the the individuals. It's just a matter of you
know having a vetting process. So I I still support the resolution that's before us whether there's an assessment center. I think even at that I think this um search committee would want to see the results of assessment center because an assessment center will give you a complete report of what those
individuals do. um and and they'll put them through uh public relations. They'll they'll do contract negotiation examples, all kinds of uh scenarios, and you want to see how how they've graded. And each candidate or applicant has has a different scoring. So, I I would think
that the search committee would want to see that as as well in terms of who they would be putting forward. So, I don't I don't think this um negates anything that could potentially be moving forward in terms of an assessment center or um handcuffing the administration from
making the decision on who they want to hire. It's just or a recommendation at that point. With that, I yield. Council, >> most of my questions have been answered, but I do have just one for corporation council. Um how do you define vacancy?
Is that when a contract expires or when someone actually leaves the position? How would you define that? >> It' be when somebody leaves the position. >> Okay. >> So, I mean, hypothetically, and you know, hopefully don't we're not going to
go there, but hypothetically, um, you know, we've had department heads who have stayed past their contract terms. Maybe they're still negotiating um the terms of the next contract, but they stay in place. They continue to work. They continue to get paid. I don't think anybody would suggest the
position's vacant just because uh the contract has gotten um wasn't renewed timely. >> Okay. I will hold my other question related to that for our later discussion around the renewal contract employees.
Thank you. Great. >> Thank you. >> Anything else from the committee con vice president? So, I'm curious because you mentioned something about civil service in the um within their bylaws or I don't know how
you would refer to it. Do they address assessment centers? >> I don't have enough information on it other than when we reached out that they're working on something internally for their own assessment center. So, we can use an outside delegated we come to
a delegated agreement for a sole assessment center, but I guess civil service is also working on their own process. It would be interesting to get more information on that um to see what route they're taking and and how that may or may not affect us for
that matter. Um also um I'm under the impression that right now there's some form of assessment uh based interviewing going on for promotions within the police department. And what what do those assessment teams look
like? I don't have a whole lot of information on that other than they were looking at using assessment centers for that. Um I think the deputy told me November 1st they started that process and they still are waiting for an exam on that the actual assessment. So I mean
that gives you a little bit of an idea on the timeline you know or a few months past that at this point and it still hasn't been conducted. >> Okay. Thank you that I yield. >> Thank you councel Kadim. >> Thank you. I'm just going to I guess pull a page out of uh Mayor Kugan's
book. And I I actually Googled vacancy. So I want I want to see what my uh chat GPT told me. So according to J Chat uh GPT, a vacancy occurring upon the expiration of a contract is legally defined as an unfilled position or unoccupied space resulting from the
natural end of a fixedterm agreement, which is what I've always maintained. Um, so I would I would say that a vacancy is when the contract expires, hence the reason for the terms. So I I I still maintain that and and the reference I don't know who Barnes Walker
is, but um there's a it's referenced. So he's he's getting credit for uh for what AI is saying. So, uh, I I just I just I I guess I have a difficulty in terms of if we if we're given contracts and there's a term associated with it. I
think everybody would agree that the the expiration is at the end of the the term. And I understand there's success agreements and things of that nature, but to me that's that's when a vacancy expires unless you enter into a a successor agreement. That's I know corporation council and I disagree on
this matter, but I just want it for the record again. I yield. But there >> and and I think we're going to discuss that in our later agenda item anyway. uh excuse me, council prayer. >> But there have been contracts that have expired and the person stood there till it came down and we renewed it
>> or it was renewed by the mayor, not >> so they're essentially an employee, >> but they're an employee at the will because the mayor is not telling them, hey, your contract expired theirs for the door. You got to pack. >> I just like to get a a chief that is going to give us some longevity. >> You know, I've been here I think I've
been through one, two, three, four, five, six. I've been through nine chiefs. That's a lot of chiefs. >> I haven't been here long and I've been with four. >> Okay. >> So, and you know, honestly, councelor Kadim, I mean, what you're reading, I think in
most cases it there is a vacancy because most people contract leaves, they leave. Um, but I think you know, when you're talking about an employee that continues to come to work every day and the other side of the contract, so in this case, the mayor who was fine with them still coming to work, isn't looking to
terminate them. They don't have to go through HR again. They don't have to resign up. They don't have to uh renew their benefits. Um I agree they would be at will if you tried to terminate them at that point. Um it would it'd be a different contract status if you tried to terminate them. But I I think most
people from the general term and I think the courts would agree that there's no vacancy if they're still there for and particularly for our purposes of the special act that was just passed in January, >> right? But there would have to be mutual agreement, right, to extend employment, right? So whether it's in writing or
not, there has to be an understanding saying after the term of the contract, yes, I still want you to. >> Yes. And that's why I say if there's if they come to work, right, they're there voluntarily and if they get paid, you would think the other side is okay with it. That's so I would agree with you on that. Yes. >> But I I think that that's what happened
with HR. >> I'm sorry. That's what happened with HR with um when Meline was here that you know her contract had lapsed, but her she was the only one whose contract had to come down to the city council to be voted on. Nobody else's contract had to
come down. The mayor could just do it. And because it got to the council late, there was a span of time that she, you know, wasn't working with a quote contract, but she was still getting paid and still doing her job. So I don't know
about but at this I would just like to see on this resolution that um did he yield? >> I did for you. You have the floor counselor. >> Yeah, I'm sorry. >> No, no, it's okay. >> I was a little confused there for a minute. >> Council Per has the floor.
>> Okay. Um, I would just like to see that we suggest to the mayor we file something whereby when there's a position like this that there is a committee put together and that it be televised
because I think that gives the entire community, you know, the ability to watch and listen and hear what people have to say. I think if we're going to use the word transparent, why not try to do it? That's what I think. So, I make a motion that it go to council floor. is
to be added. With that, I yield. Thank you. >> With what action, counselor. >> Um, I would send it for first reading. >> It's a resolution. >> It's a resolution. >> Yeah. As a resol. Well, put it in as >> I guess you want to forward it. >> Forward it. >> Forward it to corporation council. Keep the draft >> and then he can draft it. Send it. Come
back to us with it. >> Send it to the mayor. >> That would that would make the most sense. >> You got it. So council she she's a you want to >> Yeah. >> So you're going to send it to cooperation council to to draft. >> I think it's been requested at this
meeting right now that a ordinance be drafted related to the creation of the committee. >> Yes. >> So if that committee be formed. >> Yep. If you want to consider tableabling the resolution here. Yes. >> That it stays here and then when draft is ready it can come back up in the
table. So, should we make an official um motion to request a ordinance be created and then table the resolution? >> If you make that motion, then I just send a letter to >> Fair enough. >> No, I think that's good. >> Would you like to make the motion to make that motion >> request a ordinance be drafted by
corporation council in regards to this item? >> Correct. >> Motion made and seconded. >> First by council purr, second by council can of discussion council kim. >> So, just I just want to be clear. of the ordinance request going to corporation
council. We're going to allow the administration to determine who >> serves on that committee. >> Correct. Okay, I'm good with that. I yield. >> Any other discussion? >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? The eyes have it. And in regards to the resolution, do we have a motion?
>> Motion table. >> Motion to table made by councelor Canuel. >> Second. >> Second by councelor prayer. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. >> Any opposed? The eyes have it. >> Thank you very much. Item number eight on our agenda this evening is the proposed ordinance for
salary amendment for the director of municipal buildings and code enforcement/ inspector of buildings referred to the committee on 210 2026 director Malini would you like to speak on this please? Yeah. So, this is something that uh had come up as part of
the budget process um when the mayor had met with uh you know each department going over their uh budget. Um Glenn Hathaway, our director of buildings uh is at the cap in ordinance of the not to exceed amount. He is at the cap. Um so this is a request from the mayor to
increase the cap. Uh we did have um the health department um that we were the health director we were putting down on last meeting, but unfortunately the snow uh kind of ruined our plans on that and they would have synced up tonight to have both been on uh for discussion at ordinance, but those two positions were
identified as being at the cap and wanting to be increased. >> Any discussion from the council? Council, >> do we have I don't see any documentation. Did you do any comps in terms of where we are with the um I guess the director of municipal
buildings and code enforcement so that >> yes >> I do. Yeah. So um I mean I can read them to you. I can provide these to you after but um current salary is 103 241. Uh Adelboroough is at 128 Brockton 142. Um
New Bedford I'm excluding because they lump facilities into theirs as well. Um, but they have a separate uh code enforcement that falls under the director of facilities and buildings there. That's at 95. >> I'm sorry, who is that? >> Um, that's New Bedford. >> New Bedford.
>> But their director doesn't really comp with >> And they're they're commissioners, right? Is that >> I know we call director, but they're are they do they legally hold the title of commissioner? >> I would have to check on that. >> So, can we just can we just confirm that? >> Yeah. >> Because I think Glenn, you're the
commissioner, right? Yeah. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, I thought you meant for New Bedford. >> No, no. I Well, I I do want to make sure that they are they hold a commissioner's license. That's the only thing. >> And were those the only comps? >> Uh Rainham 108, Somerset, uh 58, Swansea
79, Taton 18 116, uh Westport 88. >> Okay. And then my my other question, I know we're only talking about the director, but where are we with the local inspectors? I know they're in the unions. Are they >> We adjusted them uh last July 1, so
they're about 72 73,000 annually. >> Okay. >> All right. I yield. Thank you. Thank you, Vice President Dump. >> Yeah. Just a uh question. And so he's the commissioner of municipal buildings, but in ordinance is still the director
of municipal buildings. So do do we need to change that as well? >> I think we should do some title cleanup. Yes. >> Yeah. Um yeah. So that would be at the same time. >> We can do it at the same time. >> So that we update the title and the um
not to exceed. I yield. Yeah, we can we can amend it here once the discussion is over. >> Any other counselors want to speak on this? >> I make a motion that uh we increase it not to exceed the 120,000 and amend
>> amend the title >> the title to commissioner versus director. >> So then >> go ahead. No, no, take your time. No worries. So, what's the what's the title you're looking for? Building commissioner. >> Is that what you're looking to change?
>> Yeah, it's commissioner of buildings codes. Um, enforcement officer, inspector of buildings instead of director of municipal instead of director commissioner of municipal buildings and code enforcement slashinsspector of buildings. You're just going to instead
of director Yeah, >> it's commissioner. Just a question to corporation council out of my own curiosity. What is the the changing of director versus commissioner? Does it have any effect here that we should be concerned about? >> Not that I'm aware of
>> except that he's referred to as a commissioner. >> Correct. So >> So if he's a commissioner, let's call him a commissioner. >> Correct. >> So almost if you got your PhD, you're a doctor, then we refer to you as a doctor. >> He's a commissioner. We refer to him as a commissioner. >> Correct. >> Um,
>> no. No, I I don't think it's appropriate, Mr. Hathaway, at this point because this is about you particularly. So, >> just the wording that you're referring to, I just >> Yeah, I don't think it's appropriate, sir, to speak at this time.
Thank you. Any other anything else, Vice President Dion? >> In your opinion, is he the director or is he the commissioner? I mean, if I'm going by just the title that's in ordinance right now, he's the director of municipal buildings. So, I
honestly don't know as far as the commissioner goes. >> Okay. So, how about direct slash commissioner? So, we cover both because apparently there must be some designation or something um that he's referred to as a a commissioner instead. I mean, I don't
know. >> Yeah. >> I'll yield. Go ahead, >> Council Kim. So both could be true at the same time, right? So the title itself is the director of whatever division he's serving. He is a building commissioner, right? So that's a very
distinct title and there's a uh license that goes with that. He's the only one that can issue occupancy permits. A local building inspector has no ability to issue an occupancy permit. He's got to sign off on occupancy permit. >> So he will obviously be the registered with the state as the city's building
commissioner. Now, what we call him, right? It it I guess really doesn't necessarily matter as long as we have a designated as a commissioner >> as a commissioner >> with the state. So, >> so call him a commissioner. >> If we want to include commissioner, that's fine. I we just at some point the city always needs a a commissioner in
order to issue occupancies permits. That's the only thing. >> I mean, just from doing the comps, that's commissioner used almost everywhere else. >> Yeah, that that's that's fine with me. I don't I don't care what we call Mr. pathway or wherever follows them. As long as they got a commissioner license,
I'm okay with it. >> People need to occupy buildings. >> Yes. >> Do you yield? >> I'll mean I'll just put my two cents in. I think I think we address what's in front of us now and if we want to do title changes later, my recommendation
would be to do it later, but that's I one counselor would feel that way. I'm I'm more concerned about the the ordinance in front of us currently. So that's just my two cents of the matter. Council Pereira, >> I say if we're going to do it, let's do it all the way. So my motion would be as
it stands um that we approved not to exceed the 120 and add commissioner to the title versus director. >> Okay. So we have >> that's my motion. >> Can I just ask for clarification? >> Go ahead. >> Are we crossing out? So are we striking
out director and inserting in its place? >> Okay, >> that's the amendment. >> You want that as amendment? I'm mentioning >> whether it be commissioner slashdirector or just commissioner is irrelevant to me >> slash input commissioner. >> Okay.
>> Okay. So the motion at hand here by council Pereira is to um amend the current resolution to reflect uh inserting in place thereof the following commissioner of municipal buildings >> and code enforcement inspector of buildings. Is that correct? >> Correct.
>> Is there a second? >> Second. Okay, >> you may. >> The only section of this ordinance that's being amended is the portion that's being inserted, right? Leaving the part being struck out as is because it's being taken up, >> right?
>> Okay. >> Yes. So, we're striking out um 50-301 that reads currently and then the insertion on that. Okay. We have a a motion made and seconded first by council par, second by vice president Dion. Discussion on the motion.
Councelor Kadim. So what was the motion? Is the motion commissioner slashdirector of municipal buildings and code enforcement? >> Uh the the standing motion right now is to strike out in the second section thereafter inserting in place thereof.
Strike out director and insert in its place commissioner. >> Okay. So director will no longer Okay. I yield. Thank you. Councelor can >> just my question is around the effective date currently listed as 11 2026. Would
it be more appropriate to update that to something like March 1st or forward? >> Mr. Molini, >> I mean, we could do whatever the will of the body is. I mean, we've done these before where they've gone retro several months. We've done them where it's the next effective, you know, effective upon
passage. Um, I mean, we had just put one one uh to be clean with the the half of the year. >> What are the implications if we leave it as January one? retro. >> Yeah, he could go retro to 111 if he were to do it that way. I don't know that that, you know, is the mayor's intention. I'm not sure what his
intention is on that, but it does open the door to retro. >> What's typical for the rest of our um I think you you mentioned clean half a year. So, I see like 1 and the other effective date was 71. Is it typical that we line up with those dates or are
there more off like March 1st or other? We typically try and do July one when we do these things because it lines up with the fiscal year. Um, so most of the ones that you'll see in there were July one. When we did our last comprehensive wage restructure, it was all effective July 1. So that's why that's the majority of
those dates. Um, there may be a few. I don't have that part in front of me, but there may be a few that are off cycle. >> Yeah. As I scroll through our ordinances, it looks like vast majority of 71. I don't see any one ones.
>> I Okay, so we have a motion on the floor has been made and seconded. Roll call. >> Just for clarification, this is a roll call on the amendment to strike out directors on the amendment. Council. >> Yes.
>> Here. Yes. >> Vice President. >> Yes. >> Per. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then we need to vote on the first reading as amended.
>> Okay. A motion. >> Motion to not to exceed the 120. >> Motion to pass through first reading as amended. made by councelor Pereira. >> Second. >> Second by councel deem. Any discussion? All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? The eyes have it.
>> Thank you all. Item number nine requires a motion lift from the table. >> So move. >> Motion made to lift from the table by councel. Second by councelor prayer. All those in favor. >> Any opposed? The eyes have it. Item number nine is a resolution to
convene a to draft a proposed ordinance requiring city council approval for any contract renewed or extended by the mayor for contracted employees, department heads or division managers tabled 1218 2025. Um this was filed by councelor and vice uh president cliff
Ponzi. Whereas city clear policy guidance is necessary to ensure accountability, transparency, and continue continuity of essential municipal services when contracted employees reach the end of their current contracts. And whereas the city charter and city ordinances do not currently include a requirement for city council
approval or review prior to the renewal or extension of contracts for contracted employees. And whereas it is in the best interest of the city of Fall River and its residents to establish city council oversight for all contractual employment arrangements that involve city funds or operations. Now therefore, be it resolved, excuse me, that the committee
and ordinances legislation convene to draft a proposed ordinance requiring any contract renewed or extended by the mayor for contracted department heads or division managers shall also require formal city council approval before such removal or extension becomes effective. And they may further resolve that the committee and ordinances legislation shall include with the proposed
ordinance all currently contracted employees and all department heads or division managers under contract to ensure the requirement of city council confirmation for any renewal or extension of such contracts. Um we'll start with council Pereira.
>> I would just like to hear from the law department because I don't know if the charter doesn't say this. How are we putting things in to change the charter? And I think it's we're legislative. We're not executive. So I have an issue with this with much thought. And some
people in city hall who do have contract positions saw this and said, "You know what? I don't want to go down to the council to renew my contract because they treat us like we're not doing things right." And I think it puts the employees in a very difficult position
as well. Um that's some of the feedback that I've gotten from people. So, I will share that, but I'll yield to >> Attorney Rob. >> Attorney Rob. >> Yeah, I I think council prayer is spot on with this. I I understand the purpose of the proposed ordinance, but I think it would conflict directly with the
charter. Um, you know, as things stands right now, negotiating the contract terms and the extensions are clearly executive functions. Um, I mean, right now, the way it works is it's the name that is sent down to the city council for approval.
um it's not the term of the contract. It's not it's not the amount of money who gets paid. It's just the name that gets sent down. So even the idea that the renewal there's more power at the city council. Um I mean frankly doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But I mean getting into the charter provisions, you
have uh 3-3. It says the mayor shall appoint subject to review by the city council. You have uh section 2-10 essentially says the mayor shall file the name of each person. Um, and 1-3 says the legislative branch shall never exercise any executive powers. So, I
understand the the idea behind it, although, you know, this isn't really a legal opinion. I think it actually would be more problematic um for the same reasons that council Pere was just mentioned. You know, when you have somebody who wants to come here, let's let's assume it's it's a great employee that the the mayor loves, the city
council loves, everybody loves. if this same person is looking for a job where every one, two, or three years, depending what the term of the contract is, they have to come back before city council um versus going to another community where you're hired, you do a good job, you stay at your job. And we'd love to have people stay for 20 years
because they're doing a great job. I I think even even if we were permitted to enact this kind of renewal process, I think it would be detrimental to hiring good employees in the city. >> Anybody want to speak from the committee? Council Canuel, you're up next.
>> So, so that's two questions, right? Can we do it and should we do it are two different questions. I believe the council possesses the authority. And I believe the Supreme Judicial Court has held that the city council has that authority. City Council of Waltherm
versus Vincuolo. They've reaffirmed that a city council possesses broad legislative authority over municipal affairs unless the charter explicitly restricts that authority, which ours does not. Similarly, Bloom versus City of Worcester. Silence in the charter does not automatically create executive
authority. McClean versus mayor of Holio appointment authority does not expressly grant unilateral authority free from legislative regulations. Anderson versus city council uh of Wolam. Supreme Jud Supreme Judicial
Court reaffirm municipal council's uh appropriations for contract renewals um are subject to the city funds. So basically the city council holds the city funds and therefore contract renewals take city funds and therefore legislative oversight is appropriate. So
I I found four presidents that says we can do it. what council Pereira has mentioned and what you've mentioned is should we do it which is a completely separate question but I hold that we do possess the authority >> well just to be clear I said you cannot do it I wasn't I wasn't iffy on that I
mean when I was talking about the should that's the aspect of is and we can agree to disagree on that that I think it would be more difficult to hire qualified candidates but I I was trying to be clear that you cannot enact an ordinance in Fall River because I mean just to get into the legislative history
we had 80 plus years as a a a plan A city which is a strong mayor city which did not require any city council approval of appointment of department heads. So the charter that was approximately at this point eight years ago I think it is maybe seven years ago I mean one of the major changes of the
charter was to then have the confirmation the approval process of the city council department heads. So when you look to the the language in the charter, it is important to look at the history too, but it says the mayor shall appoint subject to review by the city
council, all department heads. It says that the the mayor sends down the name of each person they desire to appoint as a city officer. If they required any further renewal, it could have explicitly said so. And I think the the proper legal interpretation is
considering the history of everything in here plus just the plain meaning of the words in front of you that the charter review could have taken it would have been very easy then to put exactly what you're suggesting there in the charter and this is something that was approved by the voters and I I don't think there's wiggle room. I don't think it's
a close call. >> Well, we talked earlier that uh vacancies occur and I agree with councelor Kadeim's reading of a vacancy when the contract ends. We've had one-year contracts. We've had three-year contracts. I believe that when those
contracts ends, if the mayor is looking to uh renew those contracts right now, it is ambiguous and could be interpreted the way you are saying it, but I believe that we could put this language in that says all contract renewals have to come back to the city council for approval
and that's what they would have to abide by at that point. There's nothing I I don't see I think we have enough precedent here that another outside legal opinion would I think concur with this that you know the silence in the
charter gives us the authority to enact or an additional requirement. I'm not a lawyer, but I I've found enough press in here that >> I think it would be a waste of money. >> Clarify. What do you mean by waste of money?
>> You're talking about getting an outside opinion for something that doesn't require an outside opinion. I am a lawyer. I'm giving you opinion. I'm telling you it's black and white. It's not a gray area. I have no reason to give an opinion that's contrary to what the law is. My only concern is what the
charter says. I mean, I'm trying to enforce what the charter says. You're talking about a situation where right now when a name comes to the city council, you don't approve the contract. You approve the name. You're basically saying that this person is competent and qualified. And then the mayor or the,
you know, city administrator, whoever it is, but the administration, the executive board, executive body at that point, they decide whether it's going to be a contract of six months, two years, whatever that term is. They decide the health benefits. They decide the compensation. So you're now asking for
more power for a renewal of somebody who the administration has determined to be doing a good job. They're going to have to come back down here to have more control over hire in the first place. >> Of course. >> And I think it's, you know, I think the disagreement is, you know, we're we're
talking about a legislative body clearly trying to exert executive control. I mean, it'd be no different if the mayor said that he could approve his own budget. I mean, it's just it's that black and white. >> But the city councils of Waltham, the city council of Wester have both done
what we are seeking to do. How do you explain that? >> I'd be happy to look at what you have. I would at this point I seriously question whether or not they have the sim same charter that the city of Fall River has. I mean, we're operating under the city of Fall River's charter. It's a modified
plan A. how most people describe it. I don't know what charter they have, but I guarantee you they don't have the same exact one we do, but I I'm happy to look at whatever you have. And, you know, I I'm I'm more than happy to change my mind if
I believe I'm wrong. There there's I you know, I I've been wrong before. I'm seriously doubt I'm wrong on this one. >> Okay. And then I'll yield to my colleagues. Uh I believe you guys when you take votes on people you approve the name and then separately you approve the
contract. I think you just said we don't take that vote but I believe we do right. >> No we don't. >> We don't. I thought, >> but may I counsel? >> Councelor Canuel, with all due respect, you've done some work. You have some questions. I would be more than willing
to uh make a motion to table for you to be able to share with attorney Ramsey what you have and let him look and see what charters they have because you took work to do that. And I think it's, you know, I respect you as a colleague and I
think you have um the right to have the attorney Rumsey look at that and we'll table we'll come back to it. >> Okay. >> Because I you know you're looking to do the best job you can and I really appreciate that about you. So I I would say can we table this? >> We have one more council to speak if you
don't mind council. >> Oh sure. >> Thank you. Council Can you yield? >> I do. Council Kadim, >> thank you. >> You were doing so well. I I agree with my my colleague. I I think there's two different arguments. It's it's not about um whether we should
do it, right? That's that's a different discussion, but whether we can do this and and I still and I know you're saying this is black and white. I I I disagree. I I think it's black and white in the sense that as you had stated in any other community, if you go before a board of selectman and they're negotiating a contract, once your
contract expires, there is a requirement for the board to renew your contract and take a vote to extend your contract. So with that, it's a new contract. You can call it a successor agreement or whatever you want, but you still need
the vote. So in the charter I I would my argument would be the intent of the charter commission was not to include any successor agreements because in their mind once a contract expired it was an expiration. So once you entered into a successor agreement it would
require the same requirement that has been established in the charter to have the uh confirmation done by the uh by the city council. That's my stance and I don't I don't disagree with corporation council. I I think the case law is is
nice to have, but you have to really go in and see what you know what the details of the details of the case and the lawsuit was all about and you know the the um charters and the uh ordinances or bylaws that were uh referenced in there. So they may not be pertinent uh or they may be pertinent in
making our argument in terms of where we're going. But I I think it's it's my stance has always been we can do it. The the charter clearly states that the uh confirmation has to be done at the uh city council for department heads. Now whether or not we want to do it, I don't
disagree with my my colleague and corporation council. I I think you know there I'm sure there are a number of department heads who do not want to have to come down uh to the city council uh every 3 years, two years, one year, however long the term is. But I think part of it is is, you know, those
individuals that are that are concerned about it. It comes down to performance. I mean, and and you know, when we have department heads coming down before the city council, the city council does interact with department head. So, if they've got questions, they're legitimate questions. Folks may not like the fact that it plays out publicly, but
that's just the forum we're in. It's a it's a public forum. um you know and and we can agree to disagree on on issues, but I think the main issue here from my standpoint is whether or not the the charter allows us to do it. And I I personally think it does. Um you know,
because the definition from my standpoint is that the contract is expired uh and a new contract is coming up and at that point would require a confirmation of the um of the city council. So, I I think we're just reaffirming what the what the charter says and already authorizes the council
to do. And I know we're we're going back and forth in terms of we're a legislative body. I didn't write the charter. They put the language in there. Right. So, there's there's a reason why the charter commission put that language in there. Um and I mean there's a there's a number of items in the charter
that I don't necessarily agree with. Uh but unfortunately, we need to follow it. I just think the intent is for department heads to come back down for confirmation, not not to negotiate the contract. Um, obviously if there's an appropriation that's needed for the
contract, that's a different story, but for confirmation of the uh the person filling the position. That's where I stand on that. So, I I think we have the ability uh to to move that and then we can talk about a a discussion. I I think we should support this and move this forward. With that, I yield. >> Vice President Dion.
um question. When you were reading, at one point, was it stated that it had to be specifically written that um a city council didn't have the authority to do it? >> Correct. >> Can you read that again?
>> Yeah. Let me find which one. Uh, city council of Waltham versus Vincuolo Supreme Judicial Court reaffirmed that a city council possesses broad legislative authority over municipal affairs unless the charter explicitly restricts that
authority. Okay. >> So, I think here we are and we've been here many times since this charter was >> voted on. Lack of specificity. Um, so many times we don't have a clear
yes, this was our intent and this is what we want. No, this is not what we intended and no, you can't do it. And I think and I think we're and again in one of those areas of the specificity is not there. There is nothing that in this
charter that states no, the city council doesn't have that authority as but again that's case law in a different city. It may be a different charter. I get it. And that's something that you're going to have to look at. Um I because I find it interesting that I know in one of
those paragraphs it mentions that the um that the mayor uh sends down the person for the position, but in that same paragraph and in the same line, he also sends down people for boards and
commissions to be appointed named. >> Yeah. I mean, boards and commissions are different than employees because that >> Yep. >> they get reworn in at the end of their term. If they get if they get renewed, they get reworn in. It's it's very different for an employee who doesn't have to go through the hiring process
again. And just let me >> but just to finish my thought and then then um but it's in the same paragraph and it's in the same sentence and those people are sent back down to us every time to be reappointed. So why wouldn't
it why wouldn't we just assume well where the city council confirmed them once if if the mayor feels the person on the board's doing a good job he can just reappoint them without without us without it coming back to us for the reappointment because it's in the same sentence in the same paragraph.
>> Well I think the answer may just be that they're not employees that >> why did they include them in the same paragraph same section same sentence? That's that's where I get hung up. if it was two separate issues, it should have been in two separate areas. Um,
>> you know, aside from, you know, the mayor appointing and the confirmation, I think sometimes people overlook section 1.3, which is entitled division of powers. Um, you know, I I think it's clear, I think everybody at this table would agree that contract negotiate is
an executive branch function. So 1.3 says the legislative branch shall never exercise any executive power and the executive branch shall never exercise any legislative power. I mean I I think I don't know how any interpretation
could get around 1.3 for something like this which is clearly an executive power >> but we're not hiring. It's just a confirmation. We're not we're not saying who's we're not putting the people before us. We're just confirming what's who's coming down. I think the the change that the charter
made that allows the confirmation of the the name the first time. I mean, that's that's the one difference. It's to say that you get it every time there's the end of a term or renewal of a contract. I I I that's not what the charter is intended. I I don't think this ordinance will be permitted. As I said, I'm happy
to look at what councelor Canuel has prepared. Um and if it changes my opinion, so be it. But I I would be surprised. >> Vice President Dan, you yourself. Oh, I'm sorry. Um, no, I'll yield. >> Council Canuel, >> just question to my colleagues. When you
guys have voted on because we haven't I haven't had an opportunity yet to vote on somebody. When it comes down, I thought there's usually a term attached like we're going to appoint, for example, Miss Aari. I thought there was a one year on that when it came down. So isn't the why would there be a term
attached to it if there wasn't an expectation that that person would return when that term ended? Can I happy to answer but he was asking >> point of clarification council Kim? I can apparently if if I'm in agreement with you that the terms mattered which
is why we said that for Miss Opy that we were actually gonna have a one-year contract but apparently if that didn't wasn't the case then we got snookered and just to get us to a vote on something cuz regardless based what we're what we're being told is is that whether it's a one-year agreement or a
two-year agreement or a three-year agreement it means absolutely nothing because the intent for the council was it was coming back down to us. This is why we're in the situation where we're in. We were told by the administration that it's only going to be a one-year contract with the expectation that it was coming back before us. And now we're being told it's not. We're being told
that we can't do this by the charter, which I disagree with. >> And so hopefully that answered your question. We council got snookered. That's the nice way of >> I do understand your frustration, councelor Kim, but I I just want to for the record I was at I was at one of the meetings when this was discussed and I
was very clear at the time that if you're not comfortable with whatever term that the administration gives, you should v vote no because the the administration is not bound by an agreement that may have or may not have been made for any term. >> But you also told us to file a
resolution for an ordinance and we're here. >> No, no, no. I I said you can you can use your political persuasion to to keep it to a year or two or three years. I said >> go back go back watch the meeting. You you told us to uh file a resolution for an ordinance which is how we got here.
>> I believe I said file a resolution. I meant file resolution so that the mayor saying please send down you know you can ask for it but he doesn't have to. I will I will review I will review the meeting and if but I will I will stand corrected but I am telling you it was it
was my understanding that you essentially said if you don't like it you can you can file you can create an ordinance essentially and that's where we are. or an ordinance committee. >> I can tell you what was intended at the time and I apologize if if if it was misinterpreted, but I've been
consistent, at least in my mind, on this, which is you approve the person, you don't approve the term. If you're not comfortable with u whatever term the mayor would give, you should vote no. And I said, what you can do is I probably did say file a resolution, but the point was simply like a resolution
asking the mayor to do something that he doesn't have to do, but asking that he does it anyway, such as like a committee. But the word of the meeting is snookered. That's the answer question. >> Councelor Daniel, you still have the floor. >> Councelor Dion, >> so
let's put the contract aside. So why wouldn't the person come back when their contract expires and a new contract is necessary because it's not a new employee. And
honestly, most of these, and I'm not trying to fight the hypo here, but most of these would get renewed before their expiration terms. So, yes, there are some people be at will for a short period of time before a contract gets renewed, but I would say that was that would be unusual. The more usual thing is as you approach the end of the
natural termination of the contract, uh, a new contract is renewed and extended and signed prior to the expiration date. >> Point of clarification, but what's the effective date? the effective date is in essence at the end of that contract term, right? So, it's just a successor
agreement. It's no no different than the CBAs that we we approve. >> Not necessarily. Sometimes it's immediate. So, you know, if you have a two-year contract, you negotiate one at a year and a half. I think most times I'd say maybe not. Maybe I don't have enough sample size to tell you, but when
it's signed, it takes effect right then and there. You you trash the old one. So, let me ask this because we do from time to time have employees whose contracts have expired.
They're still working with no contract. >> For whatever reason, the mayor hasn't renewed the contract. Um, so if and when the mayor determines he's going to offer them a a new
contract, why wouldn't that person come down to be appointed by why wouldn't he send the appointment to the city council to approve the person? Because at that point, the contract is completed. They're here
without a contract. Theoretically, the mayor can say, "All right, I decided I'm not renewing your contract. It's time for you to go away." Then the person just has to go away. Correct. There's no recourse. There's no anything. Your contract's already
expired. And I and and I, as mayor, have determined that I I don't want to renew the contract. Therefore, your employment with the city has come to an end. I mean, I I I think what you're asking is I mean, what's the what's the purpose and intent of having the city council confirmation, and I I think most would
agree it's that you want somebody who's qualified for the position. You don't want a political hack who comes in who can't do the job, but somehow is tied politically to the person hired. Um, so it's a checks and balances issue. It's it's not who the nine city councelor
want to hire. It's approval of who the mayor wants to hire. It's it's not substituting your judgment for the mayor's. It's saying that this person is competent and qualified for the position. So once you've made that approval, um that person's not going to
get less qualified in their job over the course of the >> Well, I think I mean you have to there's no perfect system, but you have to trust that the administration is in a position to know whether or not the employees are are doing a good job or not. They're the ones who work with them every day or
have exposure with them every day as opposed to, you know, the city council which is the legislative body which is more concerned with the budget and the legislative body. So, I mean, I'm sure the nine members here hear rumors here and there. I would suggest they're not always accurate. The people who work in that department, work with them
handinand know whether whether they're not they're doing a good job. And I think at that point, you just have to trust that the executive branch is doing their job, which is getting rid of the bad employees and keeping the good ones. But it's it's not it's not two executive branches have to both both agree on
something. That's not the purpose of just checks and balances here. >> No, I I understand and I can agree with you on that. I guess um so even in private industry there have been people who on paper have looked like the
most amazing employee anybody could ever hire. And after they're hired they find out they weren't so great after all. they were just really well spoken or whatever the case may be and ultimately will let them go because they turned out not to be what they thought they were going to be. I mean, nobody has a
crystal ball. Um, I don't know. I guess my point is if if an employee stands up to the expectations then we don't wait for the contract to
expire before we renew a contract or discuss renewing a contract. I don't know. And and and again, you know what? Let's just take the contract out out of the conversation. to me once you get to that point. >> It's almost like you're you're looking
for a new appointment because you didn't act before it expired. And with that, I'll yield. >> Council Kadim, >> thank you. So, I guess I'll tell a quick story in terms of the competent and qualified, but you know, people don't get less competent and qualified. So, I
had a a former fire chief who told me a story that uh one day he had this employee and he called him into his office and on his on his desk he had a piece of paper and and the employee sat down and he handed the piece of paper over to him and he said, "Uh, what happened to this individual?" So, the employee looks at the paper and it was
his resume. He goes, "What do you mean?" He goes, "Well, what happened to that employee?" He goes, "That's the employee I hired. Who are you?" Right? So, long story short is when we don't know who we're going to get when we hire people, right? So we do interviews, you have resumes, but they may not work out the
way you intended them to work out. So yes, they may not live up to the expectations in terms of qualifications or competency that you meet, which is why, you know, I think from the city council standpoint is is that we want to be able to reaffirm our confirmations
that have been put forth when contracts expired. and whoever is accepting a contract that uh signs a contract um prior to the expiration and you know whether it's six months or a year before their contract expires and then shaves off that six months or or a year I think
needs to get some legal advice because um I know if I have a year left on my contract and I sign a successor agreement for another three years I hope I have a four-year agreement in place right my one year that's left on my contract plus the three-year for my uh new contract which would be effective at
the expiration of my first contract. So, um I guess overall, I mean, we're going to go back and forth. So, we're going to be in a in a disagreement from the administration uh to I don't know if it's a majority of the counselors or uh minority of the counselors in terms of whether or not the charter allows us uh
to do this and whether or not it is our right uh to reaffirm uh our confirmations as as the agreements expire. Uh so the only avenue we would have is to sue the city to get a judge to rule on because ultimately that's
that's the ultimate decision, right? So uh if we want the final closure on this, we we need to get a judge to rule on whether or not the city council has the jurisdiction to move forward. That's where we're going to have to go with this. I'm not saying that that's >> I think there are probably other avenues
we could at least discuss. And you know what I'm suggesting is I will look at what councelor Canuel has provided first of all to see if that changes my opinion. Secondly, I think I if if it's the majority vote of this council to
disagree with me, then I would suggest, you know, could we get an outside person that we all agree on to give an opinion? I think that is a much less costly way to resolve a conflict than than file a lawsuit. But, you know, >> you know, I >> listen,
>> I think we all want to do is right and nobody here, I think, is trying to do something against their interpretation of the charter. So, it's a good thing. I mean, we're not nobody has a secret agenda here. >> No. >> Um, so I think there are ways that we could work through this short of what you're suggesting.
>> And I'm not that's not what I was necessarily suggesting. I'm just trying to figure out if we get to a a point where there's a stalemate, like how do we move forward with this? Um, and and again, it's just number one to I mean, I think we got to figure out what the charter really says. And I and I'm again, I'm not disagreeing with you or
my my colleague in terms of when we're looking at um I guess trying to recruit and retain employees. I don't know that this language is necessarily the best language. However, it's in the charter, right? So, I I can't ignore it, right? I mean, I wish I could ignore a lot of the
language that was in there, but um you know, I I've seen some bad charters, but I have never seen one that tops this one. This one was uh was quite interesting, and we I know we had a we had a consultant come in to to help us, but it it just there's there's a lot to be inter
>> Excuse me, clarify that. What one >> uh for the charter? >> Oh, >> yeah. So um it just leaves a lot of interpretation and um which again creates creates the issues. So I personally again and I don't want to be label the point I I feel like we have
the authority to do that. So I I I think I would like to see what corporation council can do in terms of trying to identify um reviewing some of the case law that uh council can put forth. See if it it does um give any merit to what we're dealing with and and just get some
clarification on what we're looking for. And and I I think ultimately I mean we're we're five members. I don't I don't know if we're all in agreement, but I think at the end of the day, this still has to go back to full counsel and make a determination on what the full council wants to see and um and how we want to proceed with this. With that, I
yield. >> And I I'll just add I think I think at this point with the discussion, it would be appropriate to request a formal legal opinion from corporation council, including some of the points that council can brought up. Um and we receive that legal opinion from you,
>> Attorney Rumsey. >> Yeah. Um makes the most sense >> and then from there we can decide what our next course of action would be. Again, just my suggestion to the committee council. >> Just want to add the school committee when the superintendent's contract ends
takes a vote to potentially renew, right, or put a successor agreement in place. What authority gives them what gives them that authority? Is it the charter? >> The charter. Okay. So, if it's written into the charter that the school committee possesses the authority to
renew the superintendent's contract, why wouldn't the city council then be able to put in language that explicitly gives us the authority? >> I don't have the superintendence portion of the charter in front of me. But I would suggest that if what you're saying is true, which I think it is, that
actually cuts against your argument. It's showing that the legislative body that put this in knew exactly what they were doing. They did it for the superintendent. So the fact that they didn't for department heads means they intended to exclude it. So I I would say that that was a an argument in favor of
me and not your position. >> Could I just point of clarification? >> Just point of clarification. Uh so >> state the state state law gives them the authority and reform. >> Yeah. So they they have that's one of their >> sole hiring authorities from the school committee is is the superintendent,
>> right? business manager and I think nurses which is kind of strange but those are the three that they can hire. I I mean I I think sometimes people forget and this is I mean councelor Kadeim is the one who I think
I probably agree with most which is interesting you thought we disagree. Um I mean we routinely talk about there's a difference between the legislative branch and the executive branch and I think too many people believe that this legislative body has the ability to make
all these changes that they really don't. I mean, um, it's it's it's still a strong a modified strong mayor city. It's it's a modified plan. A the the day-to-day operation of the city is largely run by the mayor. Um, you know,
what this legislative body does is it creates ordinances which, you know, largely affect the day-to-day life of our citizens, the way to make it better for the citizens and the budget, which is probably the biggest aspect is the budget approval. Um, you know, the what routinely happens here and and it's
fine, it's perfectly acceptable, is, you know, I've seen this board over and over, this body over and over again exert political pressure for employees they either like or dislike. >> And, you know, that's that's the way it it historically has worked because there is no power to do
it other than to exert your political pressure. But there's no way in my opinion to have an ordinance that gives you more power than or gives you executive power just like the mayor can't write an executive order taking away legislative power from you. >> Council can you still have the floor?
>> I'll yield to council Pereira. >> You know this is my thoughts on that. When you have a contract that comes down like we did for the business person. I don't even think it's a CFO. Whatever.
Three of us, councelor Dion and Sean, we Kadine, we voted against it because my feelings are that somebody who's going to be handling finance maybe should have an accounting degree. Just a thought on my part. Everybody else, other people
voted for it, hence she's there one year and I didn't like the one year, but let's see. Maybe it'll work out. We've had department heads in front of us and we're questioning them on certain things in the city when they've done that work and it's up to the mayor to bring it
down before the council. So that department head gets criticized or critiqued or questioned over something that that department head had had no control over. Then I got a call from the mayor. There was somebody that he wanted for city
administrator. We're going to go in and we're going to meet with the city administrator, an attorney, someone that I happen to know, that I had worked with who did an exemplary job, very smart, very astute, good researcher, doesn't have a lot of municipal experience.
Okay. Well, well, some people didn't want to vote for that individual because he had no municipal experience. Now, my thing is, whoever the mayor is, you need to have a city administrator that you can trust, that you can work with, you
know, that knows how to look into things, that knows how to handle a variety of issues. Now, you say to that person, okay, do a flowchart of what should be what. Well, wait a minute. I'm just coming in. You want me to do a flowchart without talking to every
single department head and seeing what their I think that was a setup. But nevertheless, if that person didn't get to be city administrator because not enough municipal experience, then maybe if you want somebody with a lot of
municipal experience, then maybe you got to pay 200,000. You've got to pay. So, it's not fair to that individual to have something like that happen. I've been in interviews for positions here, and you know what I
learned after? I was lied to during the interview. Lied to. And if somebody is not doing their job, that falls on HR. That HR needs to document. People come in with complaints. Document. So you
have a paper trail of whoever is not doing their job and help them help them to do a better job. I know that now we're doing performance evaluations that we haven't done before. And now they're starting to do performance evaluations.
I think that's a plus. But I just I feel that if if I was going to go get a job and I was going to get a three-year contract and I'm doing my job, but then I get in front of nine counselors and there's a few of them that don't like me because their friend
that works here didn't like me and then they're not going to vote. I'm going to be I'm doing my job, but I'm not going to get the job because there's political influence. No, that's my personal opinion of what I've seen and heard here. And I think that it's the mayor's
responsibility to get somebody in. And if that person isn't doing a job, we communicate with the mayor. We can call the mayor. We can call Nick. I had a conversation with Nick today about an issue. We can do that. But I just think you're going to have a hard time getting
people. We have a hard time getting people because we can't pay. We can't pay. We just had to increase the commissioner, increase his salary. Look at what they're getting in Swansea in Westport, a little town, versus all the buildings
we have here and all the buildings that they're building. He has to get more money. He deserves more money. And I think councelor Kadim brought up a good point. What about the inspectors that work there, too? You know, we have to do that. I'm very torn on this because I really believe it should be the mayor's
job. But I like I said before, I want to give councelor Canuel the opportunity. He did research. He has questions that you know, you provide him the information to what he has because I think that's fair to do to a colleague.
So that would be my I said that we were going to table until >> would we like to first make a motion to request a formal legal opinion from corporation council. So move. >> Okay. Motion made to request a formal legal opinion from corporation councel
made by councelor Kadim. Second by councelor Pereira. Any discussion? All those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? The eyes have it. At this point it would be appropriate to table this resolution. >> Motion to table. >> Second. >> Motion to table made by councel par. Second by councelor can. All those in
favor. >> Any opposed? The eyes have it. We have no other business in front of this to >> second. >> Motion to adjurnn made by councel. Second by councelor prayer. Are all those in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? The eyes have it. The city council committee on ordinance and legislation is now
>> adjourned. Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey, hey.