this is a meeting of the Fall River Commission on disability for Wednesday February 12th 2025 pursuant to the open meeting law any person may make an audio or video
recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium attendees are therefore advised that such recording or Transmissions are being made whether perceived or
unperceived by those present and are deemed acknowledged and permissible roll call chairman Dennis Pauli uh uh here Vice chairwoman Debbie
pachico here commissioner Lisa Silva here commissioner Dan robard here commissioner an O'Neal Souza here commissioner Katie Driscoll here and I want to start by welcoming
Katie Drisco she's newly sworn in congratulations thank you Katie and welcome welcome to the fall of a commission on disability thank you um the next item is public input I will
say it three times Well two more times yeah I'll say three times you give the um we give the dial in information when we post the agenda so um I usually ask three times so is there any public input is there any public
input is there any public input okay hearing N I will uh entertain a motion to accept the minutes for the meeting of January 88th 20125 motion to approve minutes of
January 8 2025 of the four of a disability commission second okay roll call vote chairman Dennis Paul selli yes Vice chairwoman Debbie Pico
yes commissioner Lisa Silva yes commissioner Dan robard yes commissioner an O'Neal Souza yes commissioner Katie Drisco okay this is this is Katie's first meeting
so she she would not have been at the last meeting okay next item is Chairman pelli this is Gary how we like speaking just as a footnote when I look at the January 8th minutes uh my name appears under the
members section it's probably best at least for the next meeting going forward to have me as uh others present uh because I'm not I don't believe um technically a member I'm just I hate to say just the Ada coordinator but that's my title
okay I we we'll we'll we'll make that correction and have that in the uh um yeah going forward um is there any I know we already do we need to uh do we need to retake the
vote I wouldn't think so Mr chairman because uh the it's a it's a technical typo it doesn't affect the body of the minute so I would say we we we've
approved them the the subsi of minutes uh as a public body they now become a public uh uh record and I say we just note it at the next meeting okay that sounds good to me okay so the next item
uh is work group updates is there anything under Ada I I I've heard nothing from the mass office on disability and so attorney Hoak do you have anything under Ada I do not
okay okay the next item is policies and I'm going to ask uh Vice chair debie Pico to um to introduce the policy to be discussed and and and voted on all right great thank you um Mr Pali
all right so um it was brought to my attention as chair of the policy working group that we had a policy that was um voted on potentially back in 2021 but never really captured in a in a manner that we have somewhere um what
the requirements are and and um what the next steps would be in regards to this policy like we did with the scholarship um policy so um in talking with jennis who um also by you know cheers that working group with me we're really trying
to clean up some of these loose ends and getting these policies on in writing so that way that house in one place and make sure that we're all on the same page so it appears that there was some discussion back in 2021 that there was something put in place for personal request for funding I know that the
policy was sent to the um commission members to take a look at so we can have a discussion I will read the I will read it so that way um it's on record so it is a personal request for funding the four of a commission on disability will consider proposals on an individual
basis to residents of Fall River on a case-by casee basis examples in such proposals may include ramps or the renovation of property for purposes of accessibility such as the installation of a ramp once funding has been approved by the commission the allocation will be sent directly to the service provider
and not the individual requesting services in the case of renovation for purposes of accessibility the funds will not be released until an in inspection by the building inspector has deter that the rules and regulations of the Massachusetts architectural access board
has been complied with all proposals considered by the commission will not exceed $10,000 it must be a direct benefit to the residents for River with disabilities so I basically took the information from one of the minutes that Dennis shared with me and just put it in a
formal um document that's got all ahead and all on there so that was um what was is before us to have a discussion and um kind of talk about next steps and what we want to do in these situations okay and this this applies to
individuals requesting funding um with disabilities so I am going to um throw it open for discussion and questions um at this time I can give
you I can give you uh um Let me let me let me start the discussion um I can say that uh there have been some questions raised about whether this is um appropriate use of commission funds or
not and I was asked to check with um you know with a few people including the Massachusetts office on disability um uh with Jeff Dugan um and although although the m
assachusetts office on disability advises commissions I don't want to say that they oversee because really commissions and disabilities are municipal bodies they're not State bodies but the mass office and disability does you know exercise an
advisory role but we are a municipal body appointed by the mayor um and confirmed by the city council and we are really under the under the municip under the city of Far River but um I did talk with Jeff Dugan and it was
his opinion that um that that uh public funds he considers commissions to be public bodies and therefore public funds cannot be used
for private purposes um the scholarship program is different because there are different entities that work on that program and but when it comes to issues like prop property and things like that there are landlords and insurance issues and a
number of things that that he felt that Municipal commissions shouldn't be going into um and that was his opinion um part of part of my question and I didn't think to ask it is that under
22g um it specifically says that the funds are to be used by persons with disabilities and so there doesn't seem to be any uh there doesn't be seem to be any any um things that we shouldn't rule out or that we shouldn't do but um but
that that's Jeff that was Jeff's advice um or his his um his advisory role his advisory role basically is that that um a public body should not be funding private um private entities or private
property so I'm started the discussion and I'm just going to Y go ahead commissioner thank you very much uh let me first say I absolutely respect uh
Jeff Dugan I I respect the role that he serves uh with the mass office on disability we have worked uh in unison this commission has worked in unison uh with Jeff Dugan on a number of trainings
including access monitoring and others but uh being part of a municipal body we we operate under two uh statutes of ordinance okay that is chapter 40 section
8j of the Massachusetts General law which allows disability commissions to exist uh in the state of Massachusetts that's number one and then there's a separate section of state law
uh that's General War chapter 40 section 22g which allows uh commissions on disability to control all funding uh attained and associated with a handicap
pling Revenue so uh that's where our money goes uh and let me just advise my friends and colleagues here we are not all we are really doing we passed this policy in
2021 after much discussion the only the policy itself is is not going away okay the only thing that's on uh the agenda in this section of the agenda
is the amendment now uh this power policy was passed in 2021 we're now in early 2025 and uh today will Mark the first time that any private citizen has come
to us working for funding so I I don't believe this is going to be something that we're going to see every night and day or every week or whatever personally uh it was a battle to get a
policy like this uh enacted uh Mr Peli and myself uh worked on this and wrote it for a long time I know that he was the prior chair of a commission in Framingham and they didn't in sax at
that time assist private individuals with commission funding I see nothing wrong with it our job is to decide yes or no based on the merits of each policy of each proposal that each
private citizen be would would have to be a rident of Fall River with a disability but this particular vote in my mind is only on the $10,000 cap right now any private
citizen could submit a proposal in any amount of money and we are trying to cap private proposals uh to a maximum request of a $10,000 amount that's where we are with
this vote this vote has nothing to do with the policy in my uh in my opinion if we wanted to change the policy that's a whole another vote this vote is on the $10,000 cap Amendment of which there is
no there is no funding Amendment amount to this commission policy that has been standing commission policy since 2021 and with that are you anyone
else okay so it's Debbie Pico um so so Mr Robot so my understanding from you is that your thoughts on what's before us is that really we're just
discussing on whether or not it's just we're discussing on on the cap for personal request for funding that this was a policy that was passed in 2021 and I what I just basically have done is um captured it in a process so that way it's on paper and what the steps are
that's what you you you have been Mr chairman may I respond to the vice chair my friend go ahead go ahead thank you uh Vice chair you have basically Rewritten the existing policy in my opinion and
added a $10,000 cap where there was no cap on the on the previous policy voted on passed and adopted by this Commission in 20121 okay and I guess that was based on the discussion that my myself and Mr
Peli had as the two people that that are the chair and co-chair of the um policy working group that that's correct and that's perfectly proper and appropriate but the the only thing we're voting on
on this section later on in the agenda we are going to hear an actual funding proposals but we're not there yet right now this vote is dealing with the $10,000
cap and I guess maybe what I need to get guidance on whether it's from attorney hoac or someone else on the commission is whether or not this policy that was voted on in 2021 I want it to be considered as something that we do not move forward
and do moving forward like I do not believe commission should have a pol a personal request for funding I don't believe that that is our role I believe as a commission we are to uh it's for benefits of all people with disabilities so it's really about the city and making
the city accessible and in access to public places because um and I guess that's where um I'm looking for some guidance in regards to being the chair of the policy committee and I understand that this was done in 2021 and now we're just trying to fix some of these areas
that um need to be addressed so I maybe I'm looking for some guidance whether it's from someone else Mr pooi may I help the vice chair sure thank you very much uh Vice chair
Pico there can be there can be a a another vote to resend the policy that that if that's the will of the body but uh right now at this particular minute as the agenda stands the the vote is on
the cap we have every right if we choose to introduce something uh to attempt to resin the policy and that would be voted on and the chips would fall where they make it's perfectly within our jurisdiction just as it is to to pass
any policy uh that we can get the majority of the commission to support uh we can absolutely do the reverse there there's there's nothing wrong with that I I completely disagree with it and I'll never support uh uh uh
resending this policy as I think uh the two the two Avenues are completely different completely separate and can easily coexist and the evidence of this is is
in in four years uh uh we've had now one proposal so but it it is completely within the jurisdiction of any member of this committee uh to move to resend any
existing policy at any time are you first we have to vote on this particular cap um and that's what the discussion is on right now yeah okay thank you I appreciate the conversation so may I ask a question please it's
commissioner O'Neal soua the the policy here that I know I have a personal request for funding here and I don't mean to sound ignorant but where can I find these policies that the commission on disability adheres to where where are
they located that's a good question um one of the things one of the things that Deb and I this original policy can be found in the minutes of May 12th 2021 oh okay and
book or it's not set in Mass General law or ordinances that's a good point because that's one of the things see it's it's not it's not our intention policies that have already obviously policies that I've already you know that we've already
voted on what what what what w and I are really trying to do is get all the past commission policies and bring them over to Health and Human Services you know of Sandy and and the staff so that it's in one place because we're not going to be
we're not going to be around forever I mean we're just we want to have a formal record of of of official commission policies so right now what I've been doing is going through minutes picking out
policies you know um sending Debbie the minutes and taking those minutes and converting them into policies and sometimes we we may we may bring it to vote on and sometimes we may not because it's already been passed this particular
policy didn't have a cap on it there's another policy we passed on community impact and that has nothing to do with this subject but there's a cap on that too and that's not a controversial one so the personal request for funding that
the policy here this is the policy with the exception of the last sentence that will now impose the cap of $10,000 okay yeah exactly this is it yep that that that's it and and if this is
adopted we'll make sure that it's in health and human services so that there's a complete record um so that's I hope I'm answering everybody's questions on that as well so okay because I I happen to do a little bit of research
regarding the personal request and our community development agency does have a funding mechanism in place to be able to assist a property owner or a tenant to be able to get payment for renovations
and specifically addressed in those are a handicap accessible renovations to property where they reside okay so just so we'll be aware of that as well that there is the um the home program funding through Community
Development that does allow for payment of such requests that will be addressing later to be covered as well now was that the progr excuse me I'm sorry go ahead an I didn't mean I mean commissioner I you no I was actually going to yield so
I will yield the floor to you all right this is just a quick question is that now is that the program that starts out as a loan and becomes a grant in five years um similar it can and it keep can be forgiven um I have the requirement
for the program that I'm glad to scan an email to everyone okay great yeah it's a homeowners Rehabilitation home
funds y Mr chairman go ahead um go ahead uh commissioner thank you very much I I would I I I would hope and and as we look at this policy uh
as I said we've had now this is the uh this is the inaugural request uh the first one in four years okay the the policy itself gives any individual the opportunity and the
ability to request funding for anything so just because we we might say uh yes or no uh there may be other opportunities for this particular project uh what I want to do is keep the
ability open and on the floor uh a a as a existing commission policy to allow individuals to come forth to the commission if they have proposals and that each of those
proposals uh be decided uh solely based on the merits like we do with every proposal here if it's something we want to support uh we should if the majority doesn't then we shouldn't do it but uh
we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water uh and we should work at each uh individual proposal on its merits and within the situation of The Proposal that's before us and uh that's it thank
you w um can I ask um commissioner um an an O'Neal Su a question do you know if there's an income eligibility um for people to to get
these Rehabilitation um there are there are and that determines um for the home program there's the adjusted income limit um and Rental limit and it's depends on
household size and then uh depending on the um income in that household whether it be an adjusted income and then um any rent involved yes and it can loan up to
$15,000 of um money that can either be deferred or forgiven okay okay y thank you thank you anybody else yeah I'd like to know more about oh go ahead commissioner I'm sorry so I was
just going to go back to the point that mrad um stated I think the main thing that we need to just resolve right now is what's before us and and it is um a motion to accept the current policy with the cap that has now been placed on this
policy um is what is before us I think that's what um I think Mr has reminded us I think that's what we need to decide right now what I what what's on the agenda and what is before us and then we can always come back and revisit um this policy at
time I have a go ahead Mr chairman yeah I I have I have a question for attorney Hoak and and that's the city's position on something like this um the commission engaging in um this kind of a policy
what what's the city's legal position I mean there's really I mean I have to be honest there's the only thing that's in writing from the state is 22g and 22g has no except exemptions or exceptions or it
doesn't say you can't do this or it doesn't say you can't do that the language in 22g you know says for persons with disabilities and that's what the that's what the the funds can be used for um and I
think um I I have to tell you when we did this in Framingham we did not have a policy with this kind of Protections in it we did not we just gave the money to the person this policy you know it doesn't
go to the person it goes to an entity and there's some accountability the inspector has to make sure it's okay I mean that's that that that's a little different than what we went ahead and did in Framingham and I wasn't arrested
for allowing commission funds to go to an individual and framing him but um yeah Mr chairman to know City's position is yeah uh so Gary hoek here uh in answering your question I think if I was
the commission um the first thing I would consider doing is asking the law department for a legal opinion to be sure that you're comfortable uh knowing that you can allocate These funds which are technically public funds for the
purpose of uh individuals on private property uh who who will be benefiting so that would be the first um thing I would suggest before you allocate those
funds um and then my two cents secondly I I I recognize you have this personal request for funding policy but frankly it's uh I would I deem it inadequate um I think you would need a better policy
uh you know detailing out the criteria the need uh it it's so vague as written that I I it maybe it's intentionally done where it gives the board extreme discretion but with extreme discretion
um comes discrimination and uh I think it should be more narrowly tailored exactly what fits the criteria and what doesn't but you have no criteria um but that's that's jump in the gun I I think you first should request a legal opinion
from the law law Department because hypothetically the Law Department can say uh you know we deem the dispersement of public funds to individuals as you know uh in consistent with chapter 40 section 22g uh I'm not saying that it
will uh you know and I'm not maybe I'll get a sign the case but I I think you need a legal opinion first to make that determination um there's there's already uh disagreement right think of you know Jeff Dugan says you can't Danny robelot
commissioner says yeah I think we can you say hey look at 22g it's for the benefit of those with disabilities we can um I I think for your own Safeguard you should you know have a docu supporting your position if in fact that is the the legal the law Department's
position well in the interest of transparency I co-authored the policy so you know um but but uh I think I'm hearing another voice Mr chairman yep did I ask attorney how we
act the Ada Co coordinator and assistant Corporation Council for the city of FL River re question uh is that okay Mr chairman oh it's okay with Mead thank you attorney how we act uh
state law would supersede uh Municipal law and the ordinances of city of for river is that correct yes thank you so so as chapter 46 thank thank you attorney how we act Mr
chairman can I have the floor for one additional second yes thank you so a as chapter 40 section 22g uh is state law it would supersede anything that any legal
opinion May deem if it's different than the state law and having a a wealth of knowledge and experience now now having served on two chat groups uh with uh with three lawyers on the second body
and one lawyer on the inaugural body when you get uh law for uh multiple lawyers in a room everybody's got a different opinion so right now uh this our general funding policy
for the for River disability commission and our account exists under state law which was adopted by the city of FL River uh when Ed lamit was the mayor who
was the mayor that uh put this commission forth under chapter 40 section 8j for the original commission and then chapter 40 section 22g to allow the commission to control
the revenue obtained from handicap Park so right now we can ask Corporation Council Rony how weak and the third member whose Name Escapes me I apologize to him I see him very often uh in the
downtown uh area but uh right now we are acting on state law for which this uh our funding mechanism comes from
and that provision of state law has been adopted by the city of Fall River so right now what I think we should do is accept or reject the cap on this
proposal and then if we want to revisit the proposal amend it change it that's that's for a different day I would just make one point uh to those that are
concerned about uh uh the fact there's home renovations involved here uh that that is for the current and only request that that uh will soon in this agenda
come before this body to date but uh the the uh the funding the personal request for funding policy uh which I was privileged to co-author with chairman
foreli would not just be used for home renovation okay a an individual could come and request anything and we would decide on the merits of that proposal whether we want to support that
request for funding so the personal request for funding policy make no mistake is is not when is not just for home renovations okay that's home renovations
is what's on the agenda today but uh and again this is our first request in four years so we may be hyperventilating o over nothing here uh that remains to be seen but the fact uh
not every request that we may see although we've only had one in four years is going to be unnecessarily affiliated with with home renovation a and uh accessibility
Improvement request to private property what I will fight for and what I believe is right is that individuals have the ability to come before us to request uh funding for anything for any purpose and
that we as the the funding body decide yes or no and with that I am um if I may um chairperson uh so I I just want to clarify did commissioner robelot state
that when this policy was voted on and approved that there was a legal opinion rendered at that time no no at the time may may I respond since I would mention Mr
chairman go ahead thank you uh uh commissioner O'Neal Souza I I never said at any time and if I did I misspoke that there was never a legal opinion rended about this policy my question to
attorney Hoak was does state La what's uh our funding the commission's ability to control any money is based on State Law chapter I just was not quite
certain whether you had said that there was a legal opinion that was all you know what in the interest of not repeating ourselves I just want to say that no there was no and I want to specifically answer uh commissioner O'Neal's question no there was no legal
opinion in in 2021 um we thought that we had a good model for example for the scholarship program um and that's where we got the idea of going through entities instead of going to the individual I think the
other thing um and I I I can tell you that um where my heart is is is heading um if anyone's interested but um um you know but I
I I'd like to see the thing I I like about the policy and maybe it it has to be reworked maybe you know I don't want to put I I don't want a policy that involves people with disabilities with
income eligibility there's enough of that you know just because people with disabilities may be making more money or whatever they have disability related expenses in something else whether it's PCA services or whether it's anything
else and and so I don't want to see a policy with eligibility with income eligibility you know and and I don't mean to be flippit about it but that's you know that that's where I come from and if if the policy needs to be
reworked uh even even if for caution I am not I am not opposed to getting a legal opinion because I don't want to get the city in trouble that's my intent here but I do believe that 202g allows
commissions to help individuals with disabilities and as a municipal body coming up with the kind of policy and criteria to make that happen as a municipal body I think we're capable with the resources that we have with the
Corporation Council I think we're capable of coming up with something you know that's not going to get the city in trouble may I uh Gary how may just chime in for a second yep um you know I heard
what commissioner robolard uh indicated and I you know I have great respect for commissioner Robel art um with that statement his comments presupposes uh as your comment chairman
that chapter 40 section 22g authorizes the dispersement of those public funds for private youth uh I have chapter 40 section 22g in front of me and it does
say that the funds shall be used solely for the benefit of persons with disabilities but for you to then take the leap and interpret that broadly to include the private sector private residents
um is not stated in state law it might and it may be the correct interpretation uh but without researching uh this further I I as both the Ada coordinator and assistant
Corporation councel can't make that bold um presentment that it's in 22g that authorizes this commission to spend those funds for that private incidentally 22g also says that I I
believe that you also need the approval of the mayor and uh I'm not speaking for the mayor and may but I I don't know if the mayor would simply sign off on something like this without knowing for sure if public funds can be used for said purpose that's it with that I
yield Mr chairman may I briefly respond okay because I think we need to um I think we need to move this along but go ahead go ahead go ahead Commission attorney hak I have great respect for you as well I've known you
for a long time and we've worked together well I look forward to that continuing uh and the reason I took uh to use your term the reason I took a week socalled is because there's nothing
explicitly in the language that says it does not and going going back and uh doing some work on a chatter and having the chatter uh going having gone to court a judges has said if it's not
there uh we're not going to we're not going to assume uh things that are not written there and that uh so I I believe uh it is it may not be but I it uh maybe
the state War maybe that section of the state law needs to be amended but until such time as that there's nothing in there from my re that say it doesn't uh prohibit it I'm
going to go on the assumption that it does and again we we had one proposal in four years so this this is not something we're going to see every day every week every month and that's it thank you for
your time I okay are there any further questions let me ask this question from the rest of the commission do you think it would be appropriate then um not to table this but rather to refer this to the
Corporation Council to get a safe legal opinion from the city I'm going to make that in the form of a motion chairman okay and that it be referred to the law department for a legal opinion okay okay go ahead second okay we're going to have a roll
call vote chairman Den Pauli yes Vice chairwoman de Pico yes commissioner Lisa Silva Commission Lisa Silva okay should I just skip over I don't know if she
left I don't know if she's having trouble muting or unmuting [Applause] too do we still have a quum if she's not vot if she's not on yes okay commissioner Dan Ro you know what you guys let me just say I think I got a
text saying somebody had to leave that may have been Lisa I'm not sure but I did get a text no that was me Dennis that I was gonna have to leave in a few minutes so no that was me okay all right okay I'm sorry commissioner Dan robard this is to
get an opinion from The Corporation Council correct that's correct yes commissioner an O'Neal Souza yeah commissioner ktie Driscoll
yes is back I got buffed off the call sorry should we okay I think we need to call commissioner uh Lisa Silva is back commiss commissioner Lisa Silva I have no idea what the conclusion was that we're voting on because I got
bumped off the call okay we're voting on a motion to refer this matter to the legal department for an appropriate opinion okay yeah actually the motion didn't say appropriate I I'm sorry and I don't know if it's the
proper time to do this but this is commissioner O'Neal Souza if we could possibly T the personal request for the funding okay I actually have some information on that okay um given the fact that I didn't know where this vote
was going to go and what the discussion was going to be like I contacted the southeast Center for Independent Living and I told them I advised them what was happening and we decided to um to to
come back next month depending on the vote of this commission so they're not here today um I I just didn't think and especially if it was a an advent a vote against or whatever I just didn't want
to I just felt funny putting skills in that position of you know so um they're going to they would have been on the agenda next month so they're not here today um so we're going to move on to D
I'm see rather you all have the budget statement for the month of January if you don't please let me know I can I can I can get it to you and I have nothing under the which is uh
Outreach is there any old business is there any new business given the um given what I just reported is there any other new business uh Mr chairman yes given what
you reported is it appropriate to uh just table that matter so that it it can yeah actually that's that's not a bad idea why don't we do so that we have a complete record on it um can I will I
will entertain a motion to table the ramp proposal Mo motion to table the private funding request proposal second do I hear us oh okay roll call chairman chairman Dennis Pauli yes Vice
chairwoman Debbie Pico yes commissioner Lisa Silva yes commissioner Dan roard yes commissioner an O'Neil Souza yes commissioner Katie Driscoll yes
okay um so the motion passes um so our next meeting will be March 12th do I hear a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn okay roll call vote chairman Dennis Pauli yes Vice
chairwoman Debbie pigo yes commissioner Lisa Silva yes commissioner Dan roard yes commissioner an O'Neil Souza yes commissioner Katy
Driscoll yes where your thank you everyone