WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=gLm8HhqiOKU

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: gLm8HhqiOKU):
- 00:00:01: Meeting Call to Order and Initial Formalities
- 00:01:11: Christopher Hathaway Appointment Confirmation Vote and Passage
- 00:01:45: Resolution for Legal Action Authority Discussion Begins
- 00:03:50: Councilor Questions Attorney Ramsey's Legal Opinions
- 00:14:44: Councilor Kadim Questions Legal Opinion on Controversy
- 00:25:56: Councilor Periera Explains Stance on Reappointments
- 00:28:51: Councilors Debate Department Head Reconfirmation Process
- 00:33:22: Motion to Table Resolution for Further Consideration


Part: 1

1
00:00:01.040 --> 00:00:15.920
Council Scad >> here. >> Chimera >> here. >> Can >> here. >> Dion Hart >> here. >> Peekom >> here. >> Pereira >> here. >> Rapo >> here. >> President >> here. Just wanted to let the record reflect our council vice president is

2
00:00:15.920 --> 00:00:36.520
under the weather and will not be joining us this evening. Pursuant um everybody in the chamber please rise for a moment of silent prayer. If we could keep Mr. Leage in our thoughts and prayers. >> Thank you, counselor.

3
00:00:37.840 --> 00:00:54.000
>> Thank you. And I salute to the flag. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public

4
00:00:54.000 --> 00:01:11.200
meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and are deemed acknowledged and permissible. First item on our agenda this evening is citizens input. Madam clerk, nothing. Very good. Next item on

5
00:01:11.200 --> 00:01:28.000
our agenda this evening is a priority matter that was um objected to at the last meeting. mayor and a request for confirmation in the appointment of Christopher Hathaway as a director of community maintenance. Is there a motion? >> Motion to lift from the table. >> Motion to lift the item from the table has been made by councelor Raposo,

6
00:01:28.000 --> 00:01:45.360
seconded by councel Pekkham. Discussion hearing none. All those in favor? >> Opposed. Motion to adopt. >> M the eyes have it. >> Motion to adopt the confirmation and appointment of Christopher Hathaway as the director of community maintenance has been made by councel Kadim, seconded by councelor repos. Is there discussion?

7
00:01:45.360 --> 00:02:29.840
>> Hearing none. All those in favor? I opposed. The eyes have it. Congratulations. Next item on our agenda is committee reports. It's a resolution that the city council pursues legal action to get legal determination from a judge on the city council's authority to confirm

8
00:02:29.840 --> 00:02:45.280
reappointments in the city council's jurisdiction to investigate the city's departments and the city council's authority to hire outside agencies to assist with investigations. Motion lift from the table. >> Motion to lift the item from the table has been made by councelor Kadim, seconded by councelor reposo. Discussion on lifting the item from the table

9
00:02:45.280 --> 00:03:01.200
hearing. None. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it. The city council um did get a communication from uh Attorney Ramsey this afternoon at 4:48 this afternoon. And I just have to say um to attorney Ramsey and the administration that we have to get a

10
00:03:01.200 --> 00:03:17.280
little bit better at getting these legal opinions an hour before our our city council meetings. Um, the council in some cases doesn't always have the time to do our own necessary research. We don't have five staff or four other

11
00:03:17.280 --> 00:03:33.680
attorneys that represent us to seek other opinions. So, I really need to refrain. I'm going to ask the administration going forward to please refrain from giving these drops before meetings and try to give us some ample time to review opinions especially legal

12
00:03:33.680 --> 00:03:50.000
opinions because quite frankly it's disrespectful. Is there any discussion on the item? Councelor >> motion to adopt the resolution has been made by councelor Kadim. >> Is there a second? >> Second with discussion. >> Seconded by councel Pekkham. Discussion council in seat six. Councel Pekkham.

13
00:03:50.000 --> 00:04:06.080
>> So I I agree. Um I saw this about maybe 15 10 minutes ago 15 minutes ago. At what point um corporation council's here can I ask him a few questions in regards to this letter? >> Motion to wave the rules has been made by councel Pekum. Seconded by councel Canuel. All those in favor? The eyes

14
00:04:06.080 --> 00:04:28.720
have it. >> Councel Pekkham has the floor. >> Good evening attorney Ramsey. How are you? >> Great. So, I have some questions in regard to these legal opinions. If we disagree, I would just I I know I've asked you this question in closed door meetings. If we disagree with your

15
00:04:28.720 --> 00:04:47.199
opinion, who do we seek after that? >> You don't I mean, I'm the chief legal officer for the city. I mean, take it or leave it. You're you're stuck with my opinion. >> Yeah, I disagree. So, this isn't communist Russia. So, if I disagree with your legal opinion that could direct us in a in a way that is not fruitful or

16
00:04:47.199 --> 00:05:02.479
efficient for city business, I don't have to go along with your opinion. and we should be able to seek outside counsel. >> That's not how the law is, though. >> So, what if I thought that you were giving me bad legal advice? >> You're still stuck with my bad. >> I disagree, Attorney Ramsey. Um, can you explain as to why I would be forced to

17
00:05:02.479 --> 00:05:17.840
accept your legal advice, even though even if I disagree that it could be wrong? >> Would you like to read my letter? >> Absolutely. Go ahead. >> Right. And and just for the record, um this is my fourth time appearing on this exact issue. So having this what you're

18
00:05:17.840 --> 00:05:34.720
calling a lastm minute opinion is really this has been going on for months but there are things I wanted to put concisely in here for today because as you know this is your meeting and I can only speak if I'm asked invited down. You wave the rules and I come down. I wasn't sure if I had an opportunity to speak and I wanted to make sure that

19
00:05:34.720 --> 00:05:50.400
this council was advised of what my legal opinion is. So >> Attorney Ramsey, thank you for that. I want to just make the record clear. This isn't the first time you've dropped a letter off before this council before a meeting. And I wanted to stop >> so you can read your letter. >> I will. I'm writing to this letter to

20
00:05:50.400 --> 00:06:06.720
address the city council's resolution to obtain judicial review of the following issues. One, renewal of contracts for department heads without council approval. Number two, council's authority to investigate purely executive functions. And three, council's authority to retain outside legal counsel. In summary, I

21
00:06:06.720 --> 00:06:23.360
respectfully advise this council to withdraw the proposed legal action for the following reasons. Number one, the corporation council is the chief legal officer for the city of Fall River and is the only person authorized to pursue lawsuits involving the rights and interests of this city. Under Massachusetts law and wellestablished

22
00:06:23.360 --> 00:06:40.080
principles of municipal governance, a city or town must act through a single unified legal voice. In the city of Fall River, the corporation council serves as the chief legal officer of the municipal corporation. A key responsibility of the corporation council is to provide consistent legal representation advice

23
00:06:40.080 --> 00:06:56.479
to all elected officials, board and committee members and department heads. Elected officials, board members and department heads do not possess the authority to independently retain legal counsel. Permitting multiple officials to seek separate legal advice or issue conflicting legal opinions undermines

24
00:06:56.479 --> 00:07:12.960
uniform legal policy may result in unauthorized municipal action and exposes the city to unnecessary risk. Centralized legal representation through the corporation council is essential to ensure proper compliance with mass law and the charter to safeguard municipal governance and to maintain coherent

25
00:07:12.960 --> 00:07:29.599
decision-making across all departments. Elected officials, board members, and department heads do not possess the authority to initiate a lawsuit on behalf of the city of Fall River. Only the corporation council has the authority to initiate a lawsuit that may involve the rights or interests of the city. See section 2-527 of the code of

26
00:07:29.599 --> 00:07:46.560
the city of Fall River. Number two, this issue lacks an actual controversy. Courts and judges do not issue advisory opinions on hypothetical questions or abstract legal disputes. An actual controversy must exist before a court hears an issue. Number three, lack of

27
00:07:46.560 --> 00:08:03.199
contract and authority. The city council does not possess the authority to unilaterally enter into a contract on behalf of the city. Any attempt to directly engage outside legal counsel without proper approval could subject an individual council member to personal liability. Number four, potential misuse

28
00:08:03.199 --> 00:08:19.280
of appropriated funds. The city council does not have the authority to expend funds appropriated for audits or other purpose to pay for legal services. And five, no duty to defend or indemnify for intentional tors. The city of Fall River has no duty to defend or indemnify municipal officials for intentional

29
00:08:19.280 --> 00:08:34.320
tors, willful misconduct, or knowing violations of law, even if such acts are committed within the scope of their employment. In such circumstances, the individual officer official may be personally responsible for a legal defense cost, judgments, or penalties resulting from the knowing violation of

30
00:08:34.320 --> 00:08:49.600
law. So, the reason I brought this out there is we discussed the the legal aspect over and over and over again, but I don't think that this council recognizes that going forward against the direct advice of council could potentially subject you to personal

31
00:08:49.600 --> 00:09:06.880
civil liability on these issues. >> Okay. Well, can I ask you a question, Attorney Ramsey? >> Absolutely. >> Now, about eight weeks ago, I asked you in regards to a separate topic. Um, actually you had asked me if you could provide me evidence that that officer was undercover, would I end and put an

32
00:09:06.880 --> 00:09:23.839
end to my resolution? And I said yes. >> I'm still waiting. >> Point of order. That has nothing to >> No, it does. I'm I'm getting back. May I have the floor back? Council, >> you have the floor, counselor. I'm trying to understand the point of order, but you have the floor. >> So, I'm still waiting. Does that evidence exist? >> Well, I would I would hold on. Let me

33
00:09:23.839 --> 00:09:38.959
just rule on the point of order. The reason I'm saying allowing it to continue is because the purpose of this resolution initially started with the police department as well as the city council's ability to uh to to conduct investigations of which corporation council uh

34
00:09:38.959 --> 00:09:55.279
>> I'm going to correlate this to my trust in the uh corporation council. >> So let me just the reason I'm going to allow the conversation continue is because of that. Council, you have the floor. >> Thank you council president. Now it's been about eight weeks. I have I gotten that yet? >> I don't know if if that information >> How long did you give it to me? If you gave it to me, you would know

35
00:09:55.279 --> 00:10:11.760
>> that informationist one at a time. One at a time, please. >> If that information existed about an undercover officer's undercover employment, it's not something I would discuss at the city council floor, even if it did exist. >> Okay. Now, in that meeting that we were in, did I did you or did you not say to

36
00:10:11.760 --> 00:10:28.240
me, I didn't coers you to say it. Didn't you say if I can prove to you that that under under that officer was undercover, will you put an end to this? Not in those exact words, but right around the same thing. the council president and council kadimmer are in this meeting. So did you or did you not say that? >> I remember that conversation.

37
00:10:28.240 --> 00:10:44.399
>> So you did say that and I have not received the evidence. So I'll be the one that gives it to you. >> So I'll wrap this around. This is why I do not trust your opinion. >> I'm still waiting for the evidence. So the second I get the evidence, I will start trusting your opinion. I want to tell you something, Attorney Ramsey. You I voted for you in 2021. Okay? And I

38
00:10:44.399 --> 00:10:59.920
like you personally. I do. But at what point it's either an A and B discussion here. Either the mayor is really smart or the city council is really stupid. And I'm gonna go with probably a right. That's what you think because every single >> Don't fall on your line of thought. >> The line of thought is every single

39
00:10:59.920 --> 00:11:14.720
thing we do, you agree with the mayor. We're wrong. >> That's absolutely not true. >> No, it is. That's why we're seeking separate counsel. Attorney? >> No. In fact, I I think >> Yeah. It's obstructionist behavior to be honest with you. >> Do you want me to answer? >> Yeah. Go ahead.

40
00:11:14.720 --> 00:11:31.839
>> Okay, I'll answer. So, let's not even talk about the mayor and the city council. But let's hypothetically assume that somebody comes to me for advice on a daily basis. And I tell them 80% of the time they're right, 20% of the time they're wrong. And those 20% of the times they take my advice and they don't

41
00:11:31.839 --> 00:11:47.360
do what they hope to do or intended to do based upon my legal advice. This council and anybody else in the city would have no idea that we disagree 20% of the time. So, the difference is, and I'm still hoping there's still one last chance for this city council to take my advice, is that you would take my

42
00:11:47.360 --> 00:12:04.640
advice. But, you know, it's it's you wouldn't know if the mayor disagrees with me because he listens to my advice or he he follows what I instruct. That's what his my job is. It's to advise everybody. You this council Well, okay, I shouldn't say I shouldn't be so broad.

43
00:12:04.640 --> 00:12:19.839
I think it's a disservice to the residents of Fall River to suggest that I work for the mayor. The mayor doesn't have the ability to hire another another outside legal counsel. I am the legal counsel for the entire city. The only difference between this city council and the mayor is the mayor appoints me and

44
00:12:19.839 --> 00:12:35.600
I'm confirmed by the city council. Once I'm in there, I work for the city. And I'm not at liberty to discuss the times that I've given him advice that he either takes or doesn't take. >> Okay. So, why does it seem to be every hot topic issue that comes up? We're the problem. Is it

45
00:12:35.600 --> 00:12:52.240
>> when when there are things talked about behind closed doors like I just mentioned that don't happen and it goes by the wayside >> right everything goes by the wayside it just gets forgotten about so for instance >> completely inaccurate hold on stop speaking over each other for heaven's sakes conscency too your

46
00:12:52.240 --> 00:13:07.600
point of >> order just says every time there's a confrontation something we're the problem I I don't feel like I'm the problem with anything so I would appreciate if you just kept the entire council out of we argument and just say that Maybe he might think he's part of the problem, but I don't think I don't

47
00:13:07.600 --> 00:13:23.920
as a council feel like we're the problem or I'm the problem. >> Okay. Thank you, council. Council seat six has the floor. >> So, I'm just trying to get to the point here and I'll wrap it up. The reason that I don't trust your opinion would seek outside legal counsel. I'm still waiting for that evidence. So, if tomorrow morning you can provide me with the evidence that that officer was

48
00:13:23.920 --> 00:13:40.959
undercover, then we can start to discuss all these other issues. Can I can I obtain that? >> I will ask the police department. That's something that they're at liberty to give you. That would not be my role. It wasn't ever my intention to ever give you that even if it existed. >> You asked me if I wanted it because

49
00:13:40.959 --> 00:13:57.360
Martin asked me if I wanted it. >> I understood that in that meeting that you were upset about something and I said, "So it sounds like you would not be upset if you learned that that officer was in fact undercover." Correct. >> You said if I can provide you evidence that that officer was undercover, would you now? And I'm still waiting for that

50
00:13:57.360 --> 00:14:12.000
evidence. >> As I said, so I listen to your concerns. I >> You never acted on it. Point of >> Would you like me to answer? >> Councelor C1, you point. You're both Listen, you're both talking over each other and and attorney Ramsey, you let the counselor finish what he has to say.

51
00:14:12.000 --> 00:14:28.079
>> Councilman C1, just for point of clarification, uh, Deputy Chief Horror, interim chief actually acknowledged that the individual was not undercover at that meeting >> in our presence. >> There you go. >> Thank you, counselor. >> Thank you. >> That just points us in a totally

52
00:14:28.079 --> 00:14:44.000
different direction. I'll just end it with this. There is so much controversy from the sixth floor down to us, right, that it's coming to a point where I'm I'll leave it to me. I'm starting to feel disrespected. I apologize, Council Chimera. And I can't get let it go on any longer. It comes right down to Mr. Hathaway's appointment prior to this.

53
00:14:44.000 --> 00:14:59.360
Like, it's always a mess. The reorganization's a mess. The appointment's a mess. So, I'm just going to say with that reorganization, I'm attaching a forensic audit into DCM, right? To make sure that we just don't do the REOG, we button a policy, procedure, and everything else. and we

54
00:14:59.360 --> 00:15:14.880
find out what really happened to that from what I'm hearing $2 million that disappeared from DCM. Although I understand it was forwarded to the DA and they refused to prosecute. I would like to know how much money was taken from the taxpayer. With that, I yield. Thank you. >> Thank you, councelor. And seat one, councel kadine. >> Thank you. Just a couple of quick

55
00:15:14.880 --> 00:15:32.639
questions. So I, you know, I'm going to leave it the timing of the the legal opinion with uh what the president said. But I I I do take issue with the fact that uh we are receiving documents an hour before and I understand that you've provided to us in the past but to provide a new document at 457 when we

56
00:15:32.639 --> 00:15:48.639
had this meeting scheduled a week ago. Right. I I would just ask that we get this information in advance so that we can review it and then speak to it articulate um you know educational standpoint. The first question I've got in your letter, it states that or you stated

57
00:15:48.639 --> 00:16:06.240
that there's no actual controversy. I guess can you clarify that because then you mentioned that you've been down before us at least four times and have been discussing this for months. That to me would suggest that there's a controversy with regard to what's before us. Um so my understanding is in just

58
00:16:06.240 --> 00:16:23.279
looking at the law that we would have to uh prove that the council that there's a dispute between the council and another entity uh in this particular instance would be the mayor regarding the interpretation of the charter. Is that is that correct? >> Yeah. But a judge won't just chime in on an interpretation of the charter. There

59
00:16:23.279 --> 00:16:38.480
has to be >> an actual controversy. >> Right. So we're here again with the actual controversy. you you've just stated that for four times that you've been down here and we've we've disagreed with you on regard regarding the appointments versus the reappointments. The other thing is as a council standing

60
00:16:38.480 --> 00:16:53.839
the council must prove it has suffered an institutional injury such as the executive branch subverting the charter defined legislative confirmation or budgetary authority. So we've been saying it it's been going on since this charter has been in place. Department heads have not come back before us for

61
00:16:53.839 --> 00:17:10.799
reappoint. So every single reappoint that's um been issued by the administration is subverting the charter defined legislative process from our standpoint. I mean a majority of the counselors feel that way. So I don't I don't know how we're in a legal opinion

62
00:17:10.799 --> 00:17:26.160
stating that there's no actual controversy. >> I I think a judge would disagree with that. I think what the legal definition of an actual actual controversy is different than what you think it is. What is can can what is your definition of a controversy when two people

63
00:17:26.160 --> 00:17:42.720
disagree when multiple bodies disagree? >> No, there would have to be something that could actually be litigated, not just a legal question. Legal questions aren't litigated and there I'm trying to think of a hypothetical that would work for you, but there's often a case um

64
00:17:42.720 --> 00:18:00.400
where the ACLU wants like a legal issue litigated. So they will actually have somebody go in and perform an act and then get arrested on that act and then then they then they can challenge that state statute that criminal statute that they wanted to challenge in the first place. But they don't just say hey we

65
00:18:00.400 --> 00:18:15.679
have a state statute we think you should invalidate. I mean I guess for example okay here's a good one. The which people get wrong it's not the fall river ordinance. It was the state statute as to pan handling that was challenged. that was all set up in by the ACLU or

66
00:18:15.679 --> 00:18:29.760
whoever brought that um where they had to have an individual arrested under the statute and before the judge would actually hear it. So you can't just ask about the statute. >> No, but the the issue before us is 2-10.

67
00:18:29.760 --> 00:18:46.000
So we are saying that article 2 section 2-10 city council confirmation of certain appointments which is clearly defined is being violated violated and the city council is being circumvented based on every single reappoint that has

68
00:18:46.000 --> 00:19:03.120
been made by the administration that is a controversy that has continuously happened >> your argument this I was taking it as far as this was had to do with the uh the police chief issue which is no longer an issue. >> No, that so okay that's fine. We we

69
00:19:03.120 --> 00:19:19.919
could unless we decide that we want to move forward with with an investigation then that would be the controversy but the appointments and the reappointments are still a legal controversy. >> Point of clarification is there a specific appointment to which the council is looking to challenge because

70
00:19:19.919 --> 00:19:33.919
I think that's what >> all of them all of them all of them every single one that has been reappointed and continues to be reappointed. every single one. That's why you you guys discussed an ordinance at length, right? >> Actually, this started out as a discussion of contract renewals. It's now morphed into appointments,

71
00:19:33.919 --> 00:19:51.919
reappointments, >> but it's still the still the same issue. >> It is, but that's not the original Well, actually, it's not the original issue brought up. This was about contract renewals. contract consistently said that this that this city does the city

72
00:19:51.919 --> 00:20:08.320
council does not have the ability to have any say into contract renewals and then somehow this resolution has now changed into reappointments because it's clear to me that we're trying to now treat department heads as if they're board members because board members are reappointed department heads are not

73
00:20:08.320 --> 00:20:23.840
>> so so how >> I don't think any anything department head in this city would think that they are being reappointed if and when they get a contract renewal >> sure when the term we we've talked about it I mean, I don't understand from a legal standpoint when you have a a contract, it has a term. When the term

74
00:20:23.840 --> 00:20:39.039
expires, you do not, and I disagree with your opinion, that you have property rights to the position. You do not have property rights to the position. Your employment is ended at the expiration of the term unless you are reappointed and there's a a successor agreement in

75
00:20:39.039 --> 00:20:54.559
place, right? I I think that board members and employees, department heads are almost entirely different animals. There's very little overlap. In fact, I don't think most board members consider themselves city employees, but for conflict of interest purposes.

76
00:20:54.559 --> 00:21:09.760
>> Where do I find that in the charter? >> I'm not sure you will, but I think that's it's pretty standard contract interpretation. >> So, I won't find I won't find that >> board members don't go before HR. They don't do >> But what's that have to do with confirmation? >> Has to do with everything. They're no

77
00:21:09.760 --> 00:21:26.320
it's the appointment process is a one-time appointment and then they're just employees of the city. >> So then why is it that the charter article 2 section 10 for city council confirmation of certain appointments? It is department heads and also includes boards and committees. It is not

78
00:21:26.320 --> 00:21:42.559
separate. It is one paragraph. There is it does not differentiate between the two. And I've made this argument before. The boards and committees come back for reappointment. It doesn't say in that article that they have to come back for reappointment. It says that the city council has confirmation on appointments. The terms are the terms.

79
00:21:42.559 --> 00:21:58.960
Doesn't say anything about HR. I don't know that there's any reference in the charter about HR. And when you look at contract law, it is pretty pretty clear that if if your contract expires, you no longer have the right to that position. >> Well, I point of clarification, please.

80
00:21:58.960 --> 00:22:14.000
>> Your point of clarification. If there is a contract, don't you have to give them a certain amount of time to tell me we're not going to reappoint contract or sometimes not? If there's language >> in most contracts, there's land. So, under those circumstances, then that person if they didn't get a letter saying you're not going to get

81
00:22:14.000 --> 00:22:29.679
reappointed or re your contract negotiated, then you know you don't have a job. But if if you don't provide that, then it's expected that you're just going to renegotiate the contract. I just want to make sure that's >> that's assuming that there's language in there. It has to have specific language. If the if there's no language in there, there's there's there's no not all of

82
00:22:29.679 --> 00:22:44.799
them, but >> there that doesn't mean they have the right, but they it's just that's just notification. >> Yeah, that's basic on all contracts, I would think. >> Right. But at that point, we would still have to >> notify them, >> confirm the reappoint. That's it's a an appointment.

83
00:22:44.799 --> 00:23:00.000
>> It's it's different. I mean, I think you understand the structure of boards. A lot of them are structured so that they have to be on certain years. So, for example, a ninep person board, three years will be year one. three three members will be year two and three the next year and they have very spec

84
00:23:00.000 --> 00:23:16.960
specific terms whereas department head confirmations by the city council once they're confirmed they go to the mayor's office they negotiate a contract it can be for a day can be six months it can be three years it's any set term that the mayor and the employee agree upon >> that the employee and the mayor agree

85
00:23:16.960 --> 00:23:32.720
upon but it states that they need confirmation from the city council hence the controversy that we are dealing with right there. There is a clear discrepancy in terms of how we are interpreting this and this is a legislative authority. The

86
00:23:32.720 --> 00:23:50.240
administration, the executive branch is circumventing the city council. So, I don't understand how we're sitting here saying that we cannot go to court and ask a judge to rule on this matter. Are you subject to uh section 2-10 confirmations of the city council?

87
00:23:50.240 --> 00:24:06.480
>> I was. >> You're not anymore. Well, I was already confirmed over six years ago. >> So, my colleague in C3 asked the question if there was a conflict of interest. Can you can you how how is that not a conflict?

88
00:24:06.480 --> 00:24:21.760
So, if if you're if you're subject to this section and we disagree that you require requires uh the reappointments require confirmation, how are you giving us a legal opinion if it impacts your job and salary?

89
00:24:21.760 --> 00:24:37.039
It's a decision that impacts every single department head, then I'm one person of a member. It's not too different than, for example, if you negotiate a tax rate for the city and you happen to be a you have to be a city resident. Although it does affect you the tax rate, whether you lower taxes or

90
00:24:37.039 --> 00:24:53.200
raise taxes, it will have an effect on you. You are one of a large body of member. I mean, there are numerous department heads in here. So, it's not something I'm making an opinion just for myself. No, I recognize that. But but you are subject to that confirmation. So you

91
00:24:53.200 --> 00:25:08.400
could get outside legal and have outside legal issue an opinion on this. >> Would you like would you like me to seek an outside opinion on this issue? Councelor Kadim, >> I I would. And one an outside legal opinion for an attorney or

92
00:25:08.400 --> 00:25:24.320
a law firm that has not done any work for us or does regular work for us. Yes. >> Does or doesn't >> does not because it's just going to go to Matt Thomas. That's where it's going to go. I mean, he's already said he's gotten an opinion. >> Well, I know you've already have the

93
00:25:24.320 --> 00:25:40.400
opinion of councelor I mean, attorney Thomas, who has had a cons opinion consistent with mine, but I will consider going and getting a third opinion if you'd really like. >> I would appreciate >> affiliation like you said at the city. >> I would appreciate that. >> I would like some time to consider it,

94
00:25:40.400 --> 00:25:56.159
but at least I understand the argument. >> Okay. If that's if that's the case, I' I'd put this on on the table so we can get a, you know, an outside legal opinion. So, I mean, that that's something that I've said from from the beginning. That's all we were looking for. I I don't know why we had to go

95
00:25:56.159 --> 00:26:12.559
through this entire process if we could have just gotten that. But >> the table, >> there's some councils that want to speak. >> With that, I yield. >> Uh, if I may, um, before we do, consulate 7, council Pereira. The only thing I want to add to this is back on

96
00:26:12.559 --> 00:26:29.600
January 14th of 2020, the only department head that came down to be reconfirmed by the council was the HR person, Maline Killo. Shortly after that, she did leave. But on January 14th of 2020, I filed a

97
00:26:29.600 --> 00:26:46.720
resolution. It went to the ordinance committee. The ordinance committee sent it to corporation council and the response was that it wasn't fair that she would be confirmed and no one else had to come in for confirmation and that stopped. So five years later we're going

98
00:26:46.720 --> 00:27:01.520
to change it again and have everybody come down. department heads that I've spoken to about this issue have concerns with the reappointment of their positions because if they take a job and they have a contract for three years and

99
00:27:01.520 --> 00:27:17.440
they have to come down again to be reconfirmed, we're reconfirming the individual, not the contract or whatever the terms of the contract are that we're only confirming the dollar amount. But what I'm hearing from people is I take a

100
00:27:17.440 --> 00:27:33.840
job for three years here and then I have to come to the council. What if the council doesn't give me three more years? >> Then where am I? And I think that is a legitimate concern from from people. Um

101
00:27:33.840 --> 00:27:48.880
>> just point of information just point of information >> so I don't have to take the floor. So there's a difference between your philosophical opinion as to whether or not department heads need to come down and what the charter reads. I disagree with what the charter reads. I don't think department heads should come down for reappointments, but that's not what

102
00:27:48.880 --> 00:28:04.480
the charter reads. That there's a difference between that. >> Well, I just wanted to to state that openly. If if any one of us here got a job somewhere and had a contract for three years and had to come back not

103
00:28:04.480 --> 00:28:21.200
knowing if it's going to be renewed after three years, why would I apply to come to Fall River? Why would I apply for a job if I knew and for me to reappoint someone here? I'm not in this building 247. I don't know what

104
00:28:21.200 --> 00:28:36.640
grievance has been filed by a department head, people in the office, what concerns. I don't know what's gone down to HR because that's confidential. We don't get that information. So if my colleague made a motion to table,

105
00:28:36.640 --> 00:28:51.679
this will go on at nauseium. I really wish that we spent time doing positive things for the city. However, uh was there anyone else to speak, Mr. President? >> Yes, there is. >> Okay. Well, then I yield. Thank you. >> Thank you. Council Pekkham. >> Um just a rebuttal to council Pereira. I

106
00:28:51.679 --> 00:29:08.000
just I think coming down every three years we the people that would take the job are the people that would want to take the job. So they'd probably do a fantastic job if they knew they had to come down every 3 years before the city council to get their job reapproved. So that's the way I look at it. Um we have

107
00:29:08.000 --> 00:29:24.480
such a high turnover of department heads here that I actually don't think that's a bad idea. With that I yield. Thank you. >> Thank you. Council repos. >> Yeah. And I think too the other the other thing to consider is that the city, you know, for a while has not done any sort of reviews on department heads. I mean, they're they're making that that

108
00:29:24.480 --> 00:29:39.600
motion now to start reviewing their performance. And I think absent of no no process to review, hypothetically speaking, you could have a department head not really do their job and get renewed. So there's really no check and balance in that system. Now granted to the to the HR director's

109
00:29:39.600 --> 00:29:56.240
credit they're making strides on that but up to this point that didn't exist which becomes problematic for a person here who was sitting to confirm a person originally and then they don't perform to the duties that we confirm them for. So I yield. >> Thank you. Um hearing no further discussion if I just may

110
00:29:56.240 --> 00:30:11.600
>> I just want to say >> constant C2 >> might as well just chime in. So I guess as a department head you have an option and a choice. Be nice to the people who confirm you'll have a job. If you're not nice to the people that confirm you, you might be out of a job. It's a risky situation. >> Clarification concern. It's not about

111
00:30:11.600 --> 00:30:28.000
being nice, counselor. It's about doing your job, right? So, if you if you meet if you meet performance of what you were confirmed to do in your job description has nothing to do with being nice. >> Has everything to do with doing your job. >> Thank you. >> But to this point, there has been no evaluation of of these individuals until now. >> Thank you, councelor. Councilman C2, you

112
00:30:28.000 --> 00:30:44.640
have the floor. So, I I've seen plenty of counselors upset with plenty of department heads, and let me tell you, whether they were doing their job or not doing the job, uh the confrontation and the discussions back and forth was not nice at all. And let me tell you, if those people had to get

113
00:30:44.640 --> 00:31:01.440
confirmed, they probably wouldn't get confirmed. Yet, they were outstanding employees. Not just because a employee or a department head doesn't do what a counselor asked them to do, doesn't mean he's not doing his job. doesn't mean he's not performing what he should be performing. There was a time here when

114
00:31:01.440 --> 00:31:17.120
someone years ago and and it's happened in a lot of cities and towns. >> Something was going on at the city council called department says, "Hey, what's going on?" They would change their actions because this city council was getting pretty upset. And let me tell you, they felt like they were going to go talk to the mayor to get rid of

115
00:31:17.120 --> 00:31:33.840
them. So, um it's it's not about just doing your job, being nice, not being nice. It's about you do what's right. And most department heads in this city since I've been here have always done what they felt was right. We haven't had perfect department heads. We've had a lot of

116
00:31:33.840 --> 00:31:50.080
departments come and go, but for the most part, their heart is in the right place. Their intentions are in the right place, and they do a really good job. Sometimes counselors realize it. Sometimes counselors don't realize it. Sometimes counselors put a lot of demands on department heads that they really shouldn't. Sometimes they don't put enough demands on department heads

117
00:31:50.080 --> 00:32:05.600
when they should. So, it's all how you want to throw it up in the air. I mean, when I said be nice, not be nice, you know what I meant? It's that's about what you're going to do for yourself at that point. And that's the wrong person you want working in the city. Sometimes city council need to be told, "Sorry, I

118
00:32:05.600 --> 00:32:20.799
can't do that for you." And they don't like to hear it. >> With that, are you >> Thank you, councelor. Councilman C1, Council Lady, >> I just want to circle back at what the real issue is because we are notorious for just diverting away from the real issue, right? So again, from a

119
00:32:20.799 --> 00:32:36.240
philosophical standpoint, we can argue that back and forth. At the end of the day, the issue is is that the city council has confirmation authority. That includes reappointments. Whether we agree with it or disagree with it, we are not given the ability to confirm

120
00:32:36.240 --> 00:32:51.840
reappoints. That's the issue at hand. Not whether we like department heads, not whether or not we have evaluations or anything like that. Because at the end of the day, there's nothing in the charter that says that we do evaluations. All it says is that we confirm and that is it. Right? So the

121
00:32:51.840 --> 00:33:07.519
confirmation we we're not looking at contracts. We're not looking at anything. It's a confirmation of an appointment. We are not giving the right to confirm the reappointments. That is the sole issue at hand. I mean we can we can sit here and debate the phil philosophical standpoint on whether or not we agree with it and all this other

122
00:33:07.519 --> 00:33:22.720
stuff, but that's that's not the issue. The issue at hand is is that the charter in my opinion is very clear that the city council has confirmation authority and that's being circumvented and as a city council we should challenge that. That's that's the issue at hand. Nothing else. With that I yield.

123
00:33:22.720 --> 00:33:38.559
>> Thank you. Councelor proposal >> motion to table. >> Uh before I may on this item uh entertain that motion if I heard correctly our corporation council indicated that he was willing to get an outside legal opinion on this item. Is that correct attorney Ramsey? >> Not entirely. I said I would I wanted

124
00:33:38.559 --> 00:33:54.320
some time to think about it. I understand the >> the request and I want to think about it and I'll get back to the council. >> I I will make a motion to table this until the next council meeting. >> Motion to table to the next council meeting which is Tuesday has been made by councel Kadim. Seconded by councelor Raposo. All those in favor? Opposed? The eyes have it.

125
00:33:54.320 --> 00:34:03.480
>> Motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn has been made by councelor reposo. Seconded by councelom. All those in favor. The eyes have it. Good night.