Committee Report #3 – Feb 24, 2020
The Government Operations/Rules and Claims Committee with meet on Tues, Feb 4, 2020 at 10:00am to discuss potential amendments to the Rules of the of City Council.
Call to Order
Present: Simmons, Toomey, Zondervan, Sobrinho-Wheeler, McGovern
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 03:00
Good morning. A quorum of the government operations and rules committee being present I will now call the meeting to order. I'm Denise Simmons, chair, and present this morning is Councillor Marc McGovern. Mr. Neal Alpert, our Clerk, Mr. Anthony Wilson, Councillor Zondervan, Councillor Toomey, and Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. We will be joined I believe by Nancy Glowa from the clerk's (as she arrives). The City Manager gives his apologies for not being here this morning. I will now read the call: "The Government Operations, Rules and Claims Committee will meet to discuss potential amendments to the rules of the city council."
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 03:46
Our agenda is going to be as follows: I will give brief opening remarks, we'll then hear from our city clerk Anthony Wilson, after which I will introduce some items that were submitted in writing by the Vice Mayor Alanna Mallon, who gives her regrets about not being here, so please have the record show that she's an excused absence, and Councillor Zondervan as well as my own suggestions. I will open the floor to hear from - well, before we do that, we want to walk through the document rather quickly, only taking those pieces out where we want to make amendments. We will then hear public comment, take any unnecessary roads after that and then we will adjourn. So welcome to the first meeting of rules claims for '20-21 of the City Council term, as the term is just opening - as the term is in its opening weeks, and we have a new member and two new city councilors, we'd like to take this opportunity to review the rules that will govern the City Council through this term. Hopefully these proposed tweaks and adjustments will help the City Council function more smoothly going forward. This morning we'll ask our City Clerk, Anthony Wilson, to share some of his thoughts about the rules governing this body from his perspective as our resident parliamentarian, two members of the committee, Vice Mayor Mallon and Councillor Zondervan, have offered their suggestions for rule changes, and we shall bring those forward for discussion, I will introduce a couple of rule changes I would like to bring forward for discussion. And after that, as I said earlier, we will move into public comment. I would also ask; I went around just introducing everyone that was here present for the meeting. I will yield the floor now to our city clerk after which we will run through the agenda. And we might do this, which is when your particular change, we get to that item, we might just stop and say at this point, let's make this change. So, you have changes that you - for example, Councillor Zondervan, say you wanted to make changes in a particular section - I would say when that section comes before us, you could then offer your amendments. Clerk Wilson? You have the floor.
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 06:03
So just as a sort of brief overview, as I'm sure most of the people here are aware, the City Council rules function as a document that provides guidance on how the city moves forward – on how the council moves forward in handling its business. The primary function of the rules is to allow for smooth meetings that are predictable and regular. The city council and its operation in addition to its rules are governed by several other laws including the city's ordinances, state law most the one that most probably comes up is the Open Meeting Law. And so, rules changes by the City Council are often cabin by those other caveats. I see we have the City Solicitor here to guide the council as it makes rule changes within that regard. We've got at least proposals from three councillors: Councillor Zondervan, Vice Mayor Mallon, and Councillor Simmons, I've had a chance to review all of the submissions from all of the counselors. I have, I guess I will address my comments to specific changes or thoughts that I have on specific changes when they come before the body. But generally speaking, the council should consider as it reviews, the reviews these proposed changes, thoughts about logistically how this will affect the council – its operation in terms of reviewing legislation and passing that legislation on to potentially be ordained or adopted in some form or fashion by the body. With that, I turn it back to Madam Chair.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 07:50
Thank you, Mr. Clerk. So, without any further discussion, does everyone have their rules document? Some of us don't.
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 08:00
If I may, Madam Chair, if there are any councillors that have their laptops, the rules are available online on the City Council webpage. I can also have Naomie make copies for the remainder of the body.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 08:14
Okay, while you do that, I will just start going through. So, if you look at page one, it's rule one. Are there any changes? Let me give you a moment to get there. Councillor Toomey? If you would use your mic, or the mic closest to you. So, the Councillor just - I'll, let's wait a few minutes, let our Executive Assistant get copies, and when everyone has a copy, I'll continue. So, you now have a copy, and Councillor Zondervan, are you online? Cool. Alright, so rule one that's on page one. Are there any changes? Hearing none, we're going to move to Duties and Powers of the Chair. That's rule two.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 09:14
Are there any changes, would people like me to read them out to them? If not, I'll just go numerically through each rule. People need it read out? Hearing no, then I will not read them out. Rule three. Any changes?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 09:35
Rule four - are there any changes?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 09:45
Rule five. Are there any changes?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 09:53
Rule six, which talks about all final votes of the city council. Any changes?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 10:03
Rule seven - are there any changes?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 10:11
Rule eight, are there any changes?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 10:19
Rule nine, any changes?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 10:27
Rule 10, any changes?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 10:35
Rule 11, any changes?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 10:43
Turning to page three, we are now at rule 12, any changes? I don't have any changes, but I do want, I did highlight that when a question comes under debate to avoid personalities. This is something I always mentioned when I was chairing a meeting as a call, I did not do it for this meeting. So, I apologize, which basically goes over the rules of decorum for the public. I don't see public per se. But had there been one, I think it's always important to say what the rules of decorum are, particularly when we have people that are coming to a meeting for the first time and don't always know what the rules are, but speak specifically - this kind of talking to us right now about not engaging in personalities. And again, it was something that I practice, particularly as mayor, I know, Councillor McGovern, as mayor practiced the same method of operation, which is just reminding people, even when we talk to each other, we don't say well, Neal Alpert, I disagree with him. I would say something more like "the council just introduced that, I disagree." And by doing that, I think it also sort of dampens down any personality conflicts that might arise. I just want to note for the record that we've been joined by Councillor Nolan, I'll ask her to take a seat at the table, please join us. Okay, we are on page three. And what we're doing is we're taking each rule and asking if there's any changes. So, we're at rule 13 Yes. Please use the mic. Thank you.
Councillor Patricia Nolan 12:29
I really apologize for not being here earlier. I actually had a question on page two, would it be okay to ask that? And it may already have been addressed.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 12:37
Nothing. Do we have unanimous consent to go back to page two? Hearing no objections, Councillor, you have the floor.
Councillor Patricia Nolan 12:46
Thank you. I was in reviewing this, and again, I apologize if it's already been discussed, but on rule six - All Final Votes of the City Council on Questions Involving Expenditure of $50 or More - I was curious as to where that dollar amount came from and whether it's still appropriate, given the amount of money we're spending, I know on School Committee, it's more like $5,000. As you might remember that there are individual votes taken not that the information wouldn't be shared but that that seems like a relatively low amount. So, I don't know if that's already been discussed and if so, I apologize.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 13:14
We did not discuss it. It's interesting that you should bring it up because I put a question mark by it, but usually - I'm pleased our solicitor or our clerk actually can speak to this - usually all votes that we require money, we just take a roll call vote on and maybe that preempts the need to put on amount because every vote that has money requires roll call vote, but I will defer to the clerk and then to Ms. Glowa if you want to add. Mr. Clerk, you have the floor.
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 13:43
Yeah, I will end up turning this over to the city solicitor, but under state law, the expenditures of funds most of those require the expense and require roll call vote of the City Council. There's recently been an amendment to the state law, The Municipal Monetization Act, I think it may have changed the amounts that the city council was required for roll calls on, but the city solicitor would know more about that. I think, I don't want to put her on the spot.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 14:10
Madam solicitor, you have the floor.
Nancy Glowa 14:13
Thank you, Madam Chair. I do not know the exact amount I guess I would say that since it's been the practice of the council to take a roll call for the expenditure of money and that is something that's a significant part of the role of the Council. I would recommend leaving it alone but if you like I could look at the exact under the Municipal Modernization Act, what the floor is for the lowest amount that is required and report back to the council.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 14:41
So, we will put it we'll put a pin in this one that City Solicitor will come back because we do need to have a final looks through before we present this to the council. So, think of this as clearly a working meeting. Any questions we put them forward on the table, solicitor or the clerk will get back to us with final suggestions for which that we would then move this favorably forward to the council for adoption. Thank you. We're going to go back now to page three, I lost where I was. I was on 13. Are there any changes?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 15:17
I don't suggest any changes. But I do, I did highlight this to say, and I talked to the clerk a little bit about this, at some point, it might be just helpful for the council to have what I would call Robert's Rules 101, you know, what's the difference between a point of order and a point of personal privilege? Some people take those get those two confused, but also in addition, not this council, I'm happy to say but in the past people would take point of order as an opportunity to hijack the agenda in terms of changing the role of the order of who speaks by say, oh point of order. Mark has the floor is a point of order and then Marc says, "You know, I really don't agree with that because..." and then he goes on. That's not a point of order. That was hijacking the agenda, not to use you, you never do that Marc. But just to give you an example, so I think it's important for people to understand the difference between a point of order, a point of personal privilege, and there is another one that escapes me right now, just to know so when you know how it works, when to insert it, when not to. Mr. Clerk.
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 16:20
So briefly, and I can send something around, if councilors are inclined, to direct them to the specific citation, the Robert's Rules of Order but a point of order -
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 16:31
This lovely book that looks like a paperweight -
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 16:37
But a point of order is, is a particular action where the any councilor, essentially may raise it at any time to ask the question if the city council is following its rules as adopted. So for example, I can't think of a good example right now, but if a city councilor is - I think a good example may during public speak, if an individual speaking on something, it's not any agenda and the chair, or the mayor does not stop them, a Councillor may raise a point of order and say, "I believe our rules instruct us to keep people to, I think items and" -
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 17:14
I think I have an example for you. Yesterday, during Public Comment, there was clapping in the gallery. And I think I raised the point of order because that was something that we had laid down in terms of our rules of behavior, that we wouldn't do clapping, hissing, booing. And so to keep with that, so I raised that as a point of order because we broke with the order that we have been observing prior, which is we didn't do that because we didn't want to raise up one group of people to the disadvantage of another group of people. I yield the floor.
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 17:48
So, in summary, a point of order since simply directs the body to recognize its rules and enforce its rules as those instances arise. A point of personal privilege is, or a point of personal privilege is a little bit more flexible, in the sense that it is a member asking for something that they would not normally be entitled to, for example, an older member asking to stand during the proceedings or, or asking to be excused to get some water or to do something that is not particularly in conformity with the rules. It's really at the discretion of the chair whether or not to allow the point of privilege, but it's discouraged to allow members to do things that are in direct contradiction with the rule. So, points of the points of personal privileges are essentially for the comfort of a member. The only other place where I've seen it used that sort of might take it out of the comfort range, is a councilor maybe saying that their vote wasn't recorded properly or to say, you know, my statement was not properly reflected in the minutes, something like that. But essentially, it's to provide for the comfort of members in a specific circumstance.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 19:10
Councilor McGovern?
Councillor Marc McGovern 19:11
So a lot of times - through you, Madam Chair - a lot of times people will say, point of order to just ask a question, Where are we in in this what what's the, is there may not be questioning that, that we're violating a rule, or it may not be a special request to stand or what have you, but they have just a general question of procedure, what have you, so what would they use in that case?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 19:43
Mr. Chair, Mr. Clerk?
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 19:44
So being put on the spot, obviously, you know, always my mind goes blank, but there's a particular question that comes up as a question of information. Again, the point of any of these particular motions points of order, points of personal privilege, or particular question to the chair or not to redirect debate, if a member needs to ask a question to clarify where they are in the proceedings that can be appropriate and important, so that the councilors know what they're voting on and sort of how the meeting is proceeding. But it should be the question of the point, the response, and then we'll back to whatever the body is doing, and not really a time for debate on those particular items.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 20:32
Any further questions on that? Councilor Toomey?
Councillor Timothy Toomey 20:34
I didn't see anything in here for a member or the chair to call for like a 10-minute recess? Should that be in here? I know last time at times we've had to, because the meeting kind of getting out of hand and stuff that maybe public safety issue that the chair, a member, would ask for a 10-minute recess. Should that be spelled out here? I don't see it here. So, is that allowed? Because I don't see it here. I'm just curious.
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 21:05
So, though the chair: the rule, I don't know exactly where it is, there is the rule for I believe the rule for calling a recess is in the rules, I'd have to sort of go through it to double check. But even if it is not, the city council rules specifically incorporate Robert's Rules which talk about a recess, which is a motion which members can call anytime it's one of the motions of what's called a privilege motion therefore can be called it anytime. And so, if it is not specifically laid out in the city council rules the city council can amend the rules to add it. I'm going to take a moment to sort of review I believe I've seen it in here. And it would be in order to call the meeting to recess for things such as the public being disorderly or people needing time to review a particular document something of that nature.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 22:01
Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Councilor Toomey? Are you yielding the floor? Ok then. Number 14, then. Any questions? Changes?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 22:17
Hearing none, we'll move to rule number 15. Mr. Clerk?
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 22:24
If I may, Madam Chair. So, I just did a sort of brief review of the rules. And so, the motion to go into recess is not specifically laid out in the rules. It's not specifically laid out in the city council rules. But it is a part of Robert's Rules, which these rules specifically incorporate if the council wishes to add a rule talking about recess, that's entirely appropriate.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 22:44
Thank you. So, to the councilor, are you asking that some note, some mention of how to properly call or put on the floor, the need to recess, would you like that incorporated in the rules?
Councillor Timothy Toomey 22:57
Something to consider, I think if it's in the Robert's Rules, and we can utilize that, that's fine as long as the chair and the members are aware of that. I think, certainly last term, the mayor called brief recesses several times. So, I just wanted to make sure that it's something that's allowed, and we can't be challenged on that.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 23:14
Absolutely. And I would agree we have had, fortunately or unfortunately, a couple of times in the last term to have to call a recess to kind of cool the temperature in the room. And so, it's good to know that tool whether or not you use it is not important. It's to have in your toolbox of operating procedures. Miss Glowa, I see you pulling the mic, would you like to have some input on this item? Do you yield the floor, Councilor?
Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor 23:43
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to note, as the clerk noted, that the rules provide that if something is not addressed in the council's rules, then you look to Robert's Rules. But since our rules do not explicitly provide for this, and this is an important issue as you've all just discussed, you could consider putting in here in rule 13 make a point of order request an explanation request a point of personal privilege or request a recess or request that the chair call a recess. So, you could make it more explicit if that would be of interest to the council.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 24:25
Thank you, Ms. Glowa. Councilor Toomey, yes?
Councillor Timothy Toomey 24:28
Madam Chair, I would move to amend, to add that language.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 24:32
So, we will add up to one to one of several motions that we would add to rule 13, Call to Recess. And this will also ask I think sort of drives home the point the need for us to then do a little tutorial because we're going to be adding new practices and procedures in that we know how to use them. Very good. Any further on this item? Having yielded floor, we'll move to number 14: any changes or amendments?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 25:04
Number 15? Hearing none, I move to rule 16. Councillor McGovern?
Councillor Marc McGovern 25:16
Just in terms of consistency: rule 16 and rule 35 both deal with reconsideration. In rule 35 -
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 25:28
Which is on page?
Councillor Marc McGovern 25:29
Which is on page 12, it notes that you have to be on the prevailing side to file reconsideration. So, I just think, for consistency, if we're talking about reconsideration and rule 16, we might want to say that as well.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 25:53
Very good. Any questions or discussion on that item? Then there will be language added to rule 16 on reconsideration for consistency, thank you. Any further discussion? Hearing none, we're going to go to Special Events, Presentations and Regular Meetings. We are at rule 17. Any changes to number 17? Hearing none, we move to rule 18. Hearing none?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 26:39
There's no change, but I think if we do a little sort of tutorial, it would be very important to talk about when meetings start: what happens when a chair is not there. And what happens when neither chair is there. The most senior member and then the most senior member by age, and I think people don't often know that until we have had a situation where the chair wasn't there, and no one knew, or could figure out right there in the moment, who should chair the meeting. And so, I think that'd just be important thing in terms of going over the rules once they've been promulgated, to do a little tutorial about those items, so that we'll understand and not be sort of trying to figure it all out. Also, in that rule 18, this is a curiosity to me: "All city council meeting show and no later than 12 o'clock midnight." Now, that's what the rules say. But I know that we have to our own probably discomfort, when we've had a meeting going that went past midnight, we would move to have the meeting extended, but it doesn't speak to that here. And so, I'm curious, are we not following the rules, or when it gets to be 12 o'clock, regardless, the meeting just adjourns? Or are we in safe waters, where we call for a vote to extend the meeting to a time certain? I yield the floor to you, Mr. Clerk.
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 28:13
I believe the practice of the city council to extend the meetings has been to suspend the rules, which is particularly to suspend the rule regarding when the meeting should end, which requires a two thirds vote. So - and the council has the power to suspend its rules on a vote of a number of its members.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 28:33
So, thank you. Thank you for the edification. I think it should be written in the rules because it's not there. I want to pause to welcome our mayor and thank you for being here. It's been the practice (and that we did on the school committee side for years), but when I read the rules, I said I didn't know that just says the meeting ends. And I think if it's not codified or put in writing someone from the public might just say - not challenge us on the floor because they can't do it, but might raise it as "Well there's nothing in your rules that say you can continue the meeting past 12 o'clock." So, if it's a practice, let's put it in the rules so that it's there in terms of transparency, and everybody and being on the same page. Councillor Nolan?
Councillor Patricia Nolan 29:26
Thank you, Madam Chair. If this is the appropriate time to raise a question on the regular meetings, it is a question of how summer meetings get scheduled and the question of whether instead of having just one summer meeting, which I believe has been the practice whether there might be a way to at least if not, it's right through July and August, at least have one meeting in July and one in August? Having attended many of the council meetings at that summer meeting, which is somewhat similar on school committee, but even less so is that those agendas can be huge and long because so much time has elapsed since the prior meeting. So, I wonder if it's the will of the council to at least consider instead of having just one meeting for all of July and August to have maybe one meeting in July, one in August, and if this would be the appropriate rule to amend to that, as a consideration?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 30:17
It would, it seems to me that this is the appropriate place to amend that. It says that "If agreed to by majority of the council at any other suitable public meeting within the City of Cambridge at 5:30..." - it says: "...from the first Monday in January, to and including the last Monday in June, and from the second Monday in September, to and including the last Monday of December," – it doesn't really look like it speaks to summer meetings. And so the interesting thing about the summer meeting, just I would say by practice, it was the practice for the council to adjourn – the idea is it gives you opportunity to retool, if you have children, you know, you have this block of time to reorder your life. And in the past, it gave us an opportunity when we were falling behind with some committee reports, minutes and things of that nature, to catch up. The current councils, not just this one, but the trend over the last several terms has been that we just plow through the summer. And that does make, that's why those agendas are so rich. Before? There was I'll call a "gentle persons agreement," we just didn't meet in the summer. And again, that's not the case anymore. And so, I think it's certainly something we should think about because two things have to happen. Either we amend the rules to have plow right through, we don't have adjournment, or we have a shorter adjournment, or we exercise the discipline, that anything that needs to be done gets done before June so that people do have that time.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 31:56
The only other thing I might mention is the impact on staff. So, we often when we do have meetings, we call staff to attend those meetings, beyond the clerk. We have a law department; if it's a particular area of expertise, it might be Human Services, or DPW. And the practice, I'm not saying it's the rule, has been people would say, "Oh, well, the summer it'll be quieter, and we can do what we've been putting off." So, I would say the Council has put before us the idea of maybe having more than one meeting in the summer. Are there - if you yield the floor on that, I want to see if there's any discussion on that. Otherwise, I will put it into the document as something for the clerk and the city solicitor to work on. Because what would that look like? Is it: do we meet, instead of adjourning in June for the summer, and then having one special meeting that the mayor calls, it means that we meet, are you asking that we meet in July and meet in August as opposed to just meeting and August? So, do you yield the floor?
Councillor Patricia Nolan 33:01
Well, I would answer that question with that I was not suggesting that we meet every single Monday through the entire summer, but just pick one meeting in July and one meeting in August, with the hope and expectation that that would perhaps make the fall meetings less rich, because we have dealt with some of the issues that come up over the summer. So that was the concept for consideration.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 33:23
Discussion - Councilor Zondervan?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 33:27
Thank you, Madam Chair. The rules do not speak to the July meeting. So, I'm presuming that's a special meeting that we just traditionally called at the end of July? So, it would seem to me that if we wanted to also have a meeting in August, that would also be a special meeting. And I'm not quite sure that we are in a place where we could amend these rules in an informed way, because we don't really know what the needs would be for a meeting in August. So maybe there's a way to have a sense of what the agenda would look like before we call a special meeting. I don't know exactly how we would do that. But if there's a certain number of submissions that are pending for policy orders, or city manager updates that we would identify a need to call this special meeting. And I don't know if we want to codify something like that in the rules, but I would be a little bit cautious about changing the schedule. Especially given that our current schedule, in terms of this July summer meeting isn't already in the rules. So that's a special meeting.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 34:57
Thank you, Councillor. Further discussion?
Councillor Timothy Toomey 35:01
I strongly feel that the July meeting is sufficient. And I go back to a lot of the points that you raised. That is the time for - the committee meetings still take place during the summer, but it is a time certainly for the staff to sort of regroup and get a lot of committee reports done a lot of vacation time that takes place during the summer months. And I think it's in fairness to every staff that they have an opportunity to get some rest too. And after July meeting, the council can buy suspension of the rules, extend the meeting to complete the business. So that option is there. And I think we've utilized that several times in the past. And I think having that July knowing that there's the one meeting in July, people are focused on making sure that they get their policy orders in and conduct the meeting in an efficient way so that all the business is taken care of. So, whether we have a meeting at the end August and then usually the second Monday in September. I'm not sure how much that would alleviate a heavy agenda and in September, so I think leaving it the way the July meeting is more than sufficient.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 36:21
Thank you, Council. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, do you want to weigh in on this? Madam Mayor?
Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui 36:29
Thank you. I think I'd just add that if it's looking, to Councillor Toomey's point, I think, and Councillor Zondervan's point, I think if it's looking like it's going to be a busier season, then we have that conversation in early June. And look at the calendar right now. I'm looking at July and it's I think we usually do it for the last week, that last Monday in July. Sometimes it's that first Monday in August, and then between then, and then Labor Day, it's four weeks. And I know that folks go on vacation, and that's a prime time. So, either we do a meeting, maybe on July 15. And then if we want, we can do one, two weeks later if we are worried, but I think it's not in the rules. Better to not put it in now and then just have open communication through a communication or so forth.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 37:33
Thank you, Madam Mayor, Councillor McGovern, anything on this? Madam Solicitor? I thought that you wanted to speak.
Nancy Glowa 37:40
Thank you, Madam Chair. I did but it was on a different point, the earlier point about who would be chairing meetings. I believe that that's provided either in the charter or the municipal code. So I want to say that If the council wanted me to, I could look up that provision and report back to the council, if it is provided there, but I know that it has been traditional that if neither the mayor nor the vice mayor was present, it would be the most senior member. And if on occasion there have been two members of the same seniority than it would be what's already there.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 38:23
It's in the rule. And it says if the senior members have the same amount of years, then you go by age.
Nancy Glowa 38:30
I stand corrected.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 38:32
Okay, very good, thank you. So, on this point, I do understand what my colleague is saying about the agendas coming out of the actual term being so rich that by the time we get to July or August, the agenda's like this. But I do also hear what is codified in the rules: if we say that we will have a July and August meeting, then we would have to have a motion, I believe, to not have it because it's now in the schedule, which might get cumbersome, I don't know. That's number one. Number two: one idea is what we have been doing is the mayor just calls a special meeting of the City Council. We usually connect it with the senior luncheon so that people, people that tend to go away, but want to be here, the two have been sort of in the area of each other the summer meeting and the Harvard luncheon. Not to say that we should be scheduling what we do around Harvard's luncheon, but that has been the tradition. Again, I'm not rallying for that. I guess my recommendation would be, and I put this to the floor, is - let me go back. We have the provision already that the mayor can call a special meeting, correct Ms. Glowa?
Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor 39:56
Yes, Madam Chair.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 39:57
So if the mayor has the privilege and opportunity, right, to call a special meeting and it's been our practice to call a summer meeting, my inclination is to kind of not change that because again, I think it gets more cumbersome to have to have a motion at a meeting that's not happening to have a meeting, that's not happening. Any thoughts on that? Councillor Zondervan?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 40:29
Thank you, Madam Chair, perhaps it might be helpful to add to the rules, again, it's more for clarification than anything else, that state that if necessary, the mayor will call one or more meetings during the summer to conduct the council's business.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 40:49
Thoughts on that? Councillor Toomey, thoughts on that? Because you've said just stick with the one, you were arguing to keep just the one meeting, your colleague is saying we could put provision that says at the discretion of the mayor, we could add a special meeting. Your thoughts on that?
Councillor Timothy Toomey 41:07
It's redundant, the mayor can call a special meeting at any point for any purpose, so...
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 41:12
Ok. Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler?
Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler 41:16
Thank you, Madam Chair. Through you. I think that makes sense. To sort of clarify -
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 41:21
Which makes sense?
Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler 41:22
Adding the extra sentence sort of elucidating what the procedure could be.
Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui 41:34
I think because it calls out, I think we have a special meeting procedure, that it is redundant. I think the only thing it changes, and I would look to you, Solicitor Glowa, if we want to get more specific. But saying summer somewhere in the rules, I'm okay with the special mayor's discretion.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 41:58
Councillor McGovern? You're fine with leaving it the way it is?
Councillor Marc McGovern 42:14
So, I'm fine with adding that extra language for clarification. I do agree with Councillor Toomey that it's redundant, but I think we're redundant in other places as well. And it's not making a change. It's just highlighting what's already a rule. But I honestly, I - pleasure of the committee, I don't think it's necessary, but I don't think it hurts either.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 42:40
Were you looking like you want to say something? No?
Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor 42:43
No, Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's the pleasure of the Council.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 42:45
Councillor Nolan, and then Madam Mayor.
Councillor Patricia Nolan 42:48
Thank you. And for me, it actually surprised me to see in the rules that summer meeting isn't mentioned at all. And if I just read this, I would assume there was never summer meetings since it really only anticipates regular meetings January to June and September through December. So, it was actually a surprise to me as a member of the public who has been to those meetings that it's not actually in the rules that at least one summer meeting will be the language proposed is one or more doesn't even say it will necessarily be one summer meeting. So, for me, it's more clarity whether it's redundant or not. Because under special meeting, it doesn't say a special meeting, for example, a summer meeting. So, since the word doesn't appear anywhere, if you just read these, you would think the council didn't even have that summer meeting, which is to deal with the richness. So, for me, it seems like it would be prudent to add it because it's more clarifying as opposed to redundant because of that timing.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 43:39
Okay, very good. I think we're divided on this question. I don't even know how we would – I could ask the clerk or the solicitor to put language together, but my inclination - I would be leaning toward not doing it. It's sort of like the if it ain't broke, don't fix it kind of ruling and I just I'm afraid that - I want a little bit more wiggle room. And because it's under the discretion of the mayor to call special meetings, it's been our practice in every meeting that we have, however big or small whenever it may happen. It's all publicly announced or presented, people would know about it. So my inclination and if I can read the temperature, it's four not to change it, and three to change it, but I'm always concerned about told this five members of the committee segment to vote so - you're not on the committee so you would not have the option to vote on this, I don't believe, but the clerk could correct me on this. Councillor Zondervan?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 44:43
Thank you, Madam Mayor. I do agree that it would be redundant, and the purpose would be just clarification. The language that I'm proposing would say, if necessary, the mayor may call one or more special meetings during July and August to conduct the council's business. And so, it would just be a clarification for someone reading roles including newly elected councillors to have an expectation that there would be a potentially a meeting during the summer.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 45:18
So again, I think we're divided on that, on that question. And then in terms of the members that are actually voting members of this committee, there may not be sufficient votes, but I could call for a motion, and we can see if it's accepted.
Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui 45:34
Can you read the language again?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 45:36
So, moved. The language says if necessary, the mayor may call one or more special meetings during July and August to conduct the council's business.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 45:46
So, there's a motion by Councillor Zondervan to amend the rule to rule 18 to add language relevant to special meetings in the summer. Only members that are appointed to the committee can vote on that. Is that correct? Right. Right. So, all those in favor, say aye. Opposed?
Councillor Timothy Toomey 46:09
No.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 46:09
No. So there's how many, four of us present?
Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui 46:14
I'm ex officio, so I can vote.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 46:17
So, are you voting in favor of or against adding this language?
Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui 46:22
I'll vote in favor.
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 46:26
Through you Madam Chair - just for clarification there are five members present from the Committee. The members are Councillor Simmons, Councillor McGovern, Council, Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councillor Toomey, Councillor Zondervan. And the mayor is an ex officio member, which will make six members.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 46:46
Alright, so, on the motion that we add this provision, it appears that there are votes for the provision to be added. So, the provision goes forward as part of the recommendations in the minutes to the full Council on the affirmative vote of I don't know. Councillor Zondervan voted for it. Wheeler, Nolan -
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 47:13
That's right, Councillor Zondervan, Wheeler, and the Mayor and McGovern voted for it. Four against, four in favor.
Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui 47:24
I think I'm not supposed to vote.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 47:26
Say again? I have to announce the vote.
Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui 47:29
No, no, I'm sorry. I don't think I can vote.
Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor 47:34
Councillor McGovern just brought to my attention and I think he's correct that although the mayor is a member of every committee ex officio, I believe that the mayor does not vote. So, I wanted to clarify that. If I could add another point of order Madam Chair. I thought that this would be properly placed in rule 19, because in 19, because if necessary, "the mayor may call one or more special meetings during July and August" would properly fall under Special Meetings rule 19 not under Regular Meetings rule 18. So, if I could suggest to Councillor Zondervan, that would be the appropriate place for such a rule if it's agreed upon by the committee.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 48:25
Alright, so, a couple of things. On the vote of the Committee on Rules, that motion - pass on a vote of three in favor and two against - I think I had that right. But now I think we have to amend that vote, because Councillor Zondervan asked it to be added to rule 18 and the solicitor is recommending that it should be added to rule 19 - correct? So, then we will vote to add the amendment that was just voted that it be added to rule 19 and not rule 18. So, on the motion: All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Councillor Timothy Toomey 49:11
No.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 49:14
The ayes have it with four voting in favor and one voting against.
Councillor Timothy Toomey 49:18
Madam Mayor, further clarification: are we on 19 now? It's my understanding that four members - and it says, "any four council members can call a special meeting." But my understanding is they can call a special meeting but if five members don't show up, there's no meeting because there's no quorum, is that correct?
Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor 49:41
Yes, that is correct. A quorum of the council is five regardless of whether there's a provision allowing for four members to call for a meeting.
Councillor Timothy Toomey 49:52
That should be clarified, and so does it need to be?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 49:56
So Councillor Toomey is asking that we -
Councillor Timothy Toomey 49:58
I just don't want people to feel by four members we're going to –
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 50:01
It says four but actually you can't do it unless you have a quorum and the quorum is five. So, on a recommendation that that rule be cleaned up to reflect what actually happens, and not what's here, which is a little misleading. Any discussion on that? Do you have that Mr. Clerk? Okay. So, we're going to send this all to you as PDF with the red lines in it so you can see the changes a lot easier. Anything else on rule 19?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 50:36
So, on the motion to go from four to five, all those in favor say Aye? All those in favor say Aye?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 50:44
Sorry, point of clarification: are we voting to change the number from four to five?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 50:51
What Councillor Toomey has said in the solicitor has said to be true, it says four members could call a special meeting. But it takes five to actually to hold the meeting. And so, he wanted to change it from four members could call it to five, because that would reflect what the quorum asked for, if I understand what he said.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 51:17
Right that wasn't my understanding, I thought he was offering to clarify that. I think it would be problematic for five members to get together and try to call a meeting because then as soon as they're together there, it's already a meeting. So, I don't think we can change that number.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 51:35
So Councillor, we'll put that up for the solicitor or the clerk to address, but Councillor McGovern it looks like, did you want to...?
Councillor Marc McGovern 51:44
I was going to say the same thing. I think if there were five members, it would be an Open Meeting Law violation. If all five members got on the same policy order to call a special meeting.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 51:55
Good point. So, you have to leave it at four to call, but five have to attend for the meeting to go forward.
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 52:03
If I may, Madam Chair: members may discuss scheduling a meeting. They can't discuss the substance of legislative items before them. But scheduling is specifically called out in the Open Meeting Law guide as something that members can discuss.
Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor 52:23
If I could - we have gotten guidance from the Attorney General's office on that point, and I would hate to have any confusion about how much can be discussed. The Attorney General's Office interprets that fairly narrowly. So I would respectfully suggest that you could leave this as four members could call a meeting, but point back to rule number one, which provides that all business to be conducted at any meeting requires a quorum of five so you could put that part in here, as well, to make clear that although four members can call a meeting, five members must be present for the meeting to be convened.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 53:03
Discussion? Councillor McGovern?
Councillor Marc McGovern 53:08
To our clerk's point: it wouldn't just be scheduling. I mean, I would assume you would have to discuss what you want the special meeting for. I would think, speaking for myself, if someone said, "Do you want to sign on for a special meeting," I would say, "Well, what are we having a special meeting for?" And the minute they say, "Oh, it's because I want to file a policy order on x," we have now entered into a discussion of policy. So, I think it's better to leave it. And of course, refer it back, there needs to be a quorum. But there's a difference between how many you need to call the meeting and then how many you need to hold the meeting.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 53:50
But further, there's provisions - and maybe in this rule, I didn't read it again - that say if something is sent to the Government Ops Committee from the Council floor, and for whatever reason I don't call a meeting, four members could get together and say, "We want a meeting on that subject." So, any further discussion? So as I understand it, we're going to leave the language as it is.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 54:21
So, as I understand it, there's a motion before - and then we're going to leave this as it is? Because I've kind of lost the thread here.
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 54:31
Councillor Toomey has proposed a motion to amend rule 19 to go from four to five members to call a special meeting. The council can vote that motion up or down.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 54:43
So, the motion before us is as read by the Clerk. Any further discussion before I call the vote? Councillor Toomey?
Councillor Timothy Toomey 54:51
Could you repeat that again, please? The purpose that I brought this issue was to inform especially the new members that even though that four members can call it, but if five don't show, there's no meeting. I don't want the impression "Okay, four members can call a meeting any time and then come in here, four members can have a Council meeting." That was my point of informing the new members.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 55:14
So, this is more a point of information than wanting to have a formal order? If that's the case, then please rescind your motion. Do you rescind your motion? On Councillor Toomey rescinding his motion, all those in favor say aye? Opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is rescinded. We are now going to Calendar Rule 20. Are there any changes?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 55:44
Hearing none, I'm going to move us to rule 21. Any changes?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 55:54
Hearing none, we'll move to rule 22
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 56:00
Any changes? Hearing none, I will move us to rule 23.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 56:08
Hearing none, moving to rule 24. Any changes? Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler?
Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler 56:17
Thank you. 24C? If that's - I don't want to skip over 24A or 24B, if there's anything else anyone wants to address, but -
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 56:26
24C, what is your...?
Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler 56:30
It's on Public Comment, and it's on 24 1A. It's around speaking time. I think Public Comment is really valuable. I think three minutes is plenty for most times. I've been at meetings where there are so many people signed up to speak it sort of place the meeting and that I've, as a member of the public been to meetings where so many folks are signed up that I've left just knowing that it would take forever to get to it. So I'm wondering if we might consider amending it if there are more than say 15 people signed up to speak that Public Comment would be two minutes, rather than three, and keep it three minutes for a smaller number of speakers, I would like to put that on as a potential amendment.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 57:15
Discussion? I think that's a great idea. It all ends up - and please correct me Mr. Clerk or Madam Solicitor - it's sort of the call of the mayor, generally you know if there's a crowd of people that the mayor would have the discretion to say "Because there's such a large audience, the Public Comment will be reduced to two minutes for each person," and then the timer will be accordingly so - Madam Mayor, and then Councillor McGovern.
Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui 57:48
Oh, no, I'm fine.
Councillor Marc McGovern 57:51
I actually like the idea of having a set number rather than to the discretion of the chair. Because that also holds true for committee meetings as well. Because then you run into, you know, some chairs say, "Well, there's 100 people, and we're going to give them all five minutes," some reduce it, so having consistency, so everyone knows, and that the chairs also need to be consistent with that, I think is a good idea. I don't know if 15 - I mean, 15 seems reasonable, but - I like that idea.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 58:24
So Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler suggests that we just reduce it when there's more than two, Councillor McGovern is saying maybe put in a sort of a schedule, is that what you're saying? Did you say 15?
Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler 58:37
Sorry, I was suggesting that if there's more than 15 people signed up to speak that it would be two minutes per person.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 58:45
Councillor Nolan, and then Councillor Zondervan.
Councillor Patricia Nolan 58:47
Thank you. I agree this is a concern. And yet, we're always trying to balance we want to hear from the public. We want to make sure their voices are heard. There's some people for whom it's quite stressful already to think of speaking. So, I don't know what the right answer is. I think it's critically important. People know this, because people sometimes have come here, they've carefully prepared their three minutes, I've sometimes been one of those, and then it's reduced to two. And you're kind of flummoxed and really concerned. So, I, I recognize we want to balance our desire, which all of us share, to hear from people, with ensuring that we're not going through two hours of Public Comment and then being tired when we get to the meeting. So, I think having a specific set number might be good. And if we do that, let's make sure we do everything we can to communicate to people as they walk in the door that this might happen, because then they might have time to amend some of their comments because it's, it's very stressful, particularly for people who aren't comfortable with public speaking, it becomes even more stressful to think that the time is coming up and it's dinging, and I haven't said half of what I want to say. So, I don't know if 15 is the right number, I would think it might be a little bit higher. It might be good to review the last couple years of how often that would have been triggered because if its every meeting that it would have been triggered then we might want to be pretty careful about doing it. I'm not sure I would want to limit it at every single meeting.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 60:08
Councillor Zondervan?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 60:09
Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree that 15 might be a little bit low. If we if we did 20 at 3 minutes, that's one hour, which is generally what we have allocated on the schedule. So maybe if we said, if there's more than 20. I'm not sure where this would go, but I had sent the suggestion to the clerk that if there was a way for people's communications to appear before us at the meeting, even if they were sent after Thursday at three o'clock, I know they can't be on the regular agenda because logistically that would be difficult, but if they could be printed out and on our desks or if there's some way for us to have people's communications also before us, during Public Comment, during the meeting, then it could also reduce some pressure on people to feel like they have to read their letter to us or somehow communicate everything in three, let alone two minutes, if they know that we have easy access to their communication so that we can get all of their comments.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 61:24
Further discussion?
Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui 61:35
So, I think, having done this three times chairing, there's folks who sign up after 5:30-6, and then you know, I'm figuring out how we manage that. Because there's a lot of people who walk in, and it goes to the other point of: usually the practice has been, for those who haven't signed up, please --
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 61:59
Which I want to speak to.
Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui 62:00
Yeah. So, we I think we should talk about all that scenario together, so I just wanted to raise that.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 62:08
I would agree. Councillor McGovern?
Councillor Marc McGovern 62:11
To Ms. Nolan's point. I mean, I think yes, I mean that certainly there are folks that for a variety of reasons, need more time at the podium, and I think traditionally, the chair has always, has been pretty good. And we haven't really had it necessarily this term, but if someone if English isn't their first language or something, we extend time and we do that, so I think there's discretion on the chair's part there to do that. I would also say, if we probably went back and looked, I would think that most of the people who speak at Public Comment are people who speak at Public Comment every single week and the same thing. And it's certainly their right to do that and I want to hear that, but at least when I was in the chair, you know, when someone was a new voice, I would give them a little more leeway, then the frequent flyers, as we say. And I think that the chair should have that discretion. So, I'm not too worried about that. And then to the communications, I mean, we do, I think, you know, we do tell people to leave their comments in the basket. I think we all look at the communications and the emails and stuff we get. So, you know, that is an opportunity for people in Public Comment. If they don't finish their comments, they leave them or email them, and we see them anyway.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 63:34
Thank you. Councillor Toomey?
Councillor Timothy Toomey 63:39
I concur with Councillor McGovern that we've certainly seen the chair - and a member can always move suspension of the rules to extend a minute to someone who we feel was probably new at public speaking, and I think we've always shown that deference in trying to assist that individual. So, we leave it to the discretion of the chair, and like I said, a member can move suspension of the rules to extend the speaker's time by a minute. And we've certainly done that many, many times.
Councillor Timothy Toomey 64:13
One issue that I have probably, you know, trying to figure out how many people are going to speak on a set subject. What I've seen, I'm sure everyone has seen it: I don't even know why we have that you have to sign up by a certain point of time, because that's gone out the window completely. Anybody can come in at any time. There's certain people who know that they have to sign up by a certain time and don't sign in. But when it's asked for people who have not spoken to speak, and then some of the same individuals didn't get up and speak so...I'm not sure why we even bother with that. Because it just seems that nobody respects that anymore. And I can see special circumstances of individuals. But some of these are the regular people who come here and know the rules. So, I just think that somehow that has to be tightened up somehow. Because you can have 40 people in the audience that we don't know what they're going to speak on. It could be one issue, and then just say, "well, don't sign up because they're going to restrict our time." And so, when we ask who hasn't spoken who would like to speak at eight o'clock in Public Comment, and 40 people can raise their hands and come up. So, I really think we have to look at somehow tightening. Or just do away with that rule, then you don't have to sign up. You just come Monday night and sit in the audience and just sign in at 5:30 and go from there. So that's something that I've just noticed. I think it's maybe a small issue to people. But I think in terms of running the meeting that it should be tightened up somehow. I'm just throwing that out there.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 66:09
And I certainly agree with you. Who has not spoken on this? Councillor Zondervan?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 66:15
Thank you, Madam Chair, I share Councillor Toomey's concerns as well. And I wonder if there is a way to maybe balance these two things. So, for example, I haven't fully thought this out. I'm just thinking on the spot, but we could say that, if more than an hour has passed in Public Comment 40 people have signed up, then it's at the discretion of the chair whether to allow other people to speak who are not signed up. That's one idea. Another option could be that we could say that people who are signed up can speak for three minutes. And then people who are not signed up, if they're allowed to speak, it's at the discretion of the chair to be three minutes or shorter. And that would also allow people who were prepared and who are signed up, they know that they will have their full three minutes, but people who just decide on the spot "Oh, I have something to say," they would know that their time might be limited. So, these are just some ideas to consider. I haven't fully thought this all out.
Councillor Marc McGovern 67:43
I think this needs a little more thought. I mean, just trying to troubleshoot that, you know, you'd certainly get folks who would [say] "Why do they get three and I get two?" and it gets into that whole thing where if it's consistent for everybody. I would also say I think that the sign-in is important just in terms of when you're in the chair, you know, when you get to that end and you say "Anyone who hasn't signed up who wants to speak?" and seven hands go up, and you don't know everybody's names, and it gets people started. You know, the sign-in is good for keeping order. One thing I've noticed since we've gone to the online sign up, especially, is that a lot of times you get one person who signs up for multiple people. And so, it's also a way that sometimes people use that to stack the public comment. I've heard people say this: "let's get our 20 people at the beginning," so that by the time the other people go, you know, maybe they've left. You know, I've heard groups organize in that way. And when you have to call in and give your name, then that doesn't really happen because Naomi and Mary know you sign up just for yourself. But online, I think people are signing up for multiple people or they come here, and they sign for multiple people. So, I mean, that's just another part of this that I don't think it's the intent of our rules to allow that, but people have figured out how to game that a little bit. And maybe it's not a problem. But if you have, especially a long meeting that you're going to have hours of Public Comment, if you're forcing people of a certain point of view to be at the end of that, then they're going to get less attention and people are going to leave. So that's just another bug in this whole thing. So, I don't know if we can solve all that today, but I think it's worth looking at.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 69:41
I don't think we can solve it all today. And this could take a meeting in and of itself. You know, Public Comment is sort of the center point of council meetings for people that attend, because it's their opportunity to be in front of the council to state their case, if you will. But to be as open as possible, it's gotten a little clunky. As one person that opened the gate for it, "Did anyone that didn't get signed up want to speak?" it was for that one meeting, and now it's like run out the barn and down the road, and do we get that issue back into the barn? I'm almost inclined to say: the rules say you have to be signed up by six o'clock, and if you're not you're just not. Only because some people are better at knowing this and some people are not, number one.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 70:29
Number two, and I think Councillor McGovern was going here: some people say, "Well, I don't have to get there until eight o'clock because I know Public Comment is still open, I get to still speak." And then we don't get to the business. So, I almost want to go back to where we were: "If you've not signed up in person by six o'clock, I'm sorry. Please put your communication in writing, which everybody can do." And I believe it's given to us, even if it's left in that basket by 12 o'clock. You might want to open that up, it will be on the record. But we're not extending it and extending it and extending it. So, my, my recommendation would be that we follow the rules as they are. And then if you're not signed up by six, I'm sorry. But if you have a written communication, you can certainly leave it, say, in the basket, and the clerk will pick it up, and it will be part of the record for that meeting. Yes, Madam Mayor.
Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui 71:27
Thank you. So, if the committee decides to go that route, I think two suggestions I'd have would be to make sure that we do something either - right now the computer terminal is in the Council office. Is there a way to move that outside? I think people don't know how to sign up, on certain levels, or they need to be reminded. And you know, I've said during that last meeting, "If you've just come in, go sign up." I could do that. But what I'm afraid of, and this has happened, is that there's some folks who are the frequent flyers who do have that expectation of "Wait, I did sign up, I wanted to talk." And so, I can see that happening. And then I'm in a position to say, "well, we have rules, we've decided this." So how do we, if we are doing this change, make sure...?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 72:22
A couple of suggestions. One would be: we could say the rules have changed, this particular rule is changing, it goes into effect - I'm just making this up - on March 1. Number one. Number two: one of the recommendations, and I talked to the clerk about this, is that we have information on easels that go up when you come in, and they come down after Public Comment that say, "These are the rules of Public Comment. You have to sign up at the kiosk, sign up for Public Comment closes at 6pm, and there are no exceptions." I think whatever we do, it needs to be put out in the public domain in a way that people see it. Because you're saying that there are people that are regulars, they come every meeting regardless, and there are people that are coming for the first time and they don't know the rules. And so this going after six o'clock, or extending "you can talk, you can talk, you can talk," it's something that's never been put in the rules, but now it's become a common practice so it feels like it's in the rules. And I just feel like it's a slippery slope. It's the road of good intentions, but it's taking us to a place that we necessarily don't want to be. So, one of my recommendations would be that we just go back to the sign up by 6 o'clock, and if you were feeling giddy and you want to say 6:30, you can say 6:30 for people that are coming from work and are trying to get here. But I just feel strongly about closing that door. Ms. Glowa, I feel is itching to say something, then to you, and then to the mayor. Ms. Glowa, did you want to say something?
Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor 73:49
Madam Chair, I want to just speak to Councillor Zondervan's earlier point about the written communication. So, if people still want to discuss this issue, I can wait.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 73:58
Ok we'll come back to it. Is this relative to when people can sign up?
Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui 74:04
Yes. So, rule 24C, 1-B, we say here, under procedure: "An individual may sign up to speak before the City Council via telephone to the City Council office on Mondays from nine to three, or online via the city's website starting at nine on the Friday before." I don't understand why it's 3 pm. So, if we change it to five, I don't understand that break.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 74:34
Okay. So, one change you're asking is to make it from nine to five, and not nine to three. I would want to have the executive secretary of the city council, who is the keeper of that part of it, do you have any strong feelings about - what it says in the rules is that you can sign up to three o'clock...? If you're not on mic, we can't hear, so please come to a mice or come to the table, whichever your preference.
Naomie Stephan 75:05
So, the break from three to five predates me. We don't need it. People can sign up from three to five online. So, if we were to go to a system where we set up a kiosk here, then we could do it between three and five. We don't need the break.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 75:22
Very good. Thank you. So, it doesn't seem that it causes any logistical complications. More? Madam Mayor, any more on this? Then to you and then to Councillor Toomey.
Councillor Marc McGovern 75:37
I have a different amendment on Public Comment. But if we're still talking, if Councillor Toomey wants to comment on this thread.
Councillor Timothy Toomey 75:44
To follow up on the mayor's suggestion, and it does get very crowded when people coming in to sign up, and probably a lot of people don't know that they have to come into the Council office. So, I would suggest following what the mayor said and work with Naomi Stephen to possibly have a more welcoming sign, and outside of the Council office, so that when people coming in know where to go. And I would suggest that maybe rotate every week one of the legislative assistants could staff that little booth. Because, Naomie and certainly Mary Horgan, they're very busy at that time. So I think maybe utilize the legislative assistants in that way so that, as people come up the stairs or get off the elevator, and the individual will welcome them and say "If you're here for Public Comment, please sign in here" and I think that would maybe alleviate a lot of the crush that comes between 5, 5:30 of people going to the Council office. And we're coming in, so it gets very crowded and very confusing. So that's something, maybe we can talk to our Council Assistant and see if this...
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 77:14
If a Council assistant could do this? I think that needs a little bit more conversation. During one term, I had a page, or an usher. It didn't work all that well, but the idea was a high school student whose job was - it was kind of like a little civics lesson. You know, you sit there, and you sort of guide people to put your stuff in this basket, you leave your card there, you sign up here. I think there's some merit to some sort of Wayfinding around this Public Comment piece. Councillor Zondervan, is this relative to signing up for Public Comment?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 77:46
Yes. Thank you. I just wanted to be clear about what we're proposing. And I think last night, I was a little bit confused by the by the vote. I believe what we're saying is that if people are going to be allowed to speak, who have not signed up, then there would be a vote by the Council to suspend the rules.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 78:13
I'm going to pause for a moment. That used to be a practice we always exercised if somehow, we're going to extend someone's talking time, you're talking about.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 78:21
No, if people have not signed up to speak, but we wish to allow them to speak anyway, then there would be a vote by the Council to suspend the rules.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 78:31
Not to interrupt but just to edify. There was a time we voted for everything. If you wanted to cough, we'd vote for that. So, I kind of appreciated it, since everybody signed on to the fact that we were going to allow more public comment. so, I just wanted to give you that background.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 78:50
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I agree. I think maybe there can be, I think we could be more clear about that. So, we can say you know, suspending the rules to allow people who have not signed up to speak. And maybe we can even have a little poll that first shows us how many people want to speak before we vote, so that we can have that information and decide whether given the businesses that's before us, whether we want to open it up like that.
Councillor Marc McGovern 79:27
On this, and eventually get back to me, but I wanted to comment -
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 79:30
What I'm going to actually do is kind of reign this in and go back to the top of, because we're talking about all of 24, and it's getting a little confusing for me. So, I want you to speak, I think the clerk wants to say something, and then I'm going to go back to 24 and just take it 24 A, B, C so I can kind of follow the symmetry.
Councillor Marc McGovern 79:47
I have concerns about that, just because what I've seen in practice is that whether it's the School Committee or the Council, most councilors don't want to be the one to vote not to allow people to speak. And what happens is some councilors kind of stick to what the expectation is, and other councilors don't. And it ends up becoming actually a divisive conversation amongst the elected officials. I feel very strongly, for example, that I don't think - I never vote to suspend the rules to allow someone to speak on a late order, for example, because I think what happens with the late order is, if I'm filing a late order, I tell the people who support that order: "Oh, I'm filing this late order, come and speak to it." But if it's not on the agenda, other people don't know. And I've gotten into that situation on the School Committee tons of times last term where I would say, we shouldn't allow people to speak on a late order because it's not known to the public ahead of time. But committee members don't want to be the one to make someone upset. And so, then that one person, the chair normally, looks like they're the one trying to deny the people the right to speak. So, I think that gets really - unless we all agree on something, I think it gets really sticky in that regard, and I find it to actually create a lot of tension rather than make things easier. But I do want to make one amendment on this before -
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 81:12
What I'm going to do, if there's no more discussion on how long we speak, or [how long] people speak in Public Comment, I'm going to take us back to rule 24A and go item by item, because it's getting it's bouncing back a little bit too much. Yes.
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 81:29
Through the chair, just for the edification of the Council. I noticed that there was a rule 24 CB which described the procedure by which a person could come and give public comment to the to the council. I suggested to the mayor last night, during Monday's meeting, that to allow people who haven't signed up to speak, you may want to suspend the rules to allow members to speak. I think that if you're going to have a rule in your rules, that is going to make requirement of individuals to make comments, then you do have to go through some sort of procedure to then deviate from them, whatever the rule happens to be, just for the edification of the Council.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 82:10
And I think that's a good point. So, on Public Comment, is there any more discussion, because I'm going to take this back to rule 24A, just to take it procedurally through the items. Councillor Zondervan?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 82:22
Yes, thank you, Madam Chair, and to the Clerk's point: I'm reading these rules, and I think it is unclear. It doesn't say that an individual who's not signed up for these rules isn't allowed to speak. So, I think we need to clarify that. I don't think we can necessarily resolve all this today, because there's a lot of thoughts about it, but I do think we need to be very clear about what's the rule, and then if we need to vote to suspend the rules.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 82:55
I agree with you. I think Public Comment is such a big item and an important item, we might want to just pull it out, and I could appoint two people to work with me just to pull this out and make some real sustained recommendation. Because it's just so big.
Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui 83:16
And Madam Chair, I want to just add what I'm hearing is we have these two conflicting tensions, right? Either we're saying, just sign up between 5:30 and 6, or then we're leaving this other opportunity open. So, I don't think both can exist. I don't think both can exist. So, I think getting together with you and whomever from the committee, but the committee has to decide which way they want to be consistent.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 83:43
I want us to move through this because this meeting I'm really trying to keep it to two hours. And we do have some recommendations that we're not taking up. Let's go through rule 24 as much as we can, and anything else that's left over I would ask two people to say let's sit down at another time before we call the next meeting to make recommendations on how you want to see Public Comment changed. Councillor Zondervan?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 83:53
And thank you, Madam Chair. Just a point of order: I think we would still need to discuss it in committee because right now, if there's two members of the committee, that's a quorum. So, I agree that we should move through the agenda right now, but I think if we want to come back to this, we should either have another meeting or...
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 84:27
There's two ways to do that. We could not adjourn this meeting, so this meeting is still going. And then, as long as we have two members, we can - so what I would say is: I will recess this meeting, just because we haven't adopted any changes, I'll recess this meeting, have two people come that want to sit down and flesh out this with the clerk and the solicitor, and then come back. And when we come back, we're not coming back to a new meeting, we're coming back out of a recess of this meeting. Am I within my jurisdiction to do that?
Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor 84:58
Madam Chair, that sounds great. I've just been struggling a little bit with some of the tightened enforcement of the Open Meeting Law requirements by the Attorney General and the conversation about late orders and resolutions. I just wanted to bring to the committee's attention that I have a concern about allowing public comment on late orders and resolutions because the way the Attorney General has explained their interpretation of this, there should be discussion at the Council on matters that have been previously notified and posted to the public. So, if we're talking about a late order or resolution that was not in any way posted, then I would suggest that there not be public comment. And moreover, I believe the practice recently has been, quite properly, to read in their entirety, a late order or resolution at the time that they're being brought up when that agenda item is before the council, and that way, people who are either present can hear the entirely order or resolution, or if they're watching it on TV, either at home or later, they can hear what it is that the council is about to discuss. But if there's a late order or resolution that's not been posted, and people are commenting upon it, then people listening don't necessarily know what that's about. So, I wanted to encourage the committee to consider removing that from items that can be considered.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 86:43
And where is it?
Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor 86:44
In 24C-1A, the list of things, the long paragraph we were just discussing. It seems to me to be saying that you can discuss, at the end of that next to last sentence, that you can discuss late policy orders and resolutions in Public Comment. And I would recommend deleting that from that list of items that are --
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 87:15
I can't even find it. Okay, thank you. So, you're asking that be struck? Very good. Any discussion?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 87:30
In this section, just so people know, because we're recessing this meeting, the mini-committee on this will also look at that again. So, this will come back to the small committee about striking and the reason why we strike it, and then when we come back and the full committee will say, we'll have a full explanation of why we're making the following recommendations. Councillor Zondervan?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 87:51
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in response to that, I think I understand the solicitor's concern. I guess, my question is: if we do delete that, then essentially there is no opportunity for the public to comment on late orders at all, which creates different problems. So, I'm not sure exactly how we would address that.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 88:16
If I may say this, it says somewhere in these minutes that, not unless some late policy orders, if it's not an emergency, you shouldn't do it anyway. And I think that it speaks to Councillor McGovern's sentiment and mine that you can't talk about transparency and then have a late policy order, not unless it's an emergency. Resolutions? A little bit more flexibility. You know, you find out that your neighbor had a loss in their family and the funeral is on Wednesday and we're meeting on Monday. That, I think, justifies, not that you need to suspend the rules to do that.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 88:53
But policy orders are a bigger deal because it says it speaks to this in the rules that even how you say what's a policy, and what's an order, and how it has to be presented, because you're changing the rules. So, I think we should always try to keep to the rules as much as possible. And if it's not an emergency, then we shouldn't even have a late policy order. If you bring the late policy order, and you say, I'm going to lay this on the table. So now you've done your due diligence, you brought in that late policy order, but you reserve the ability to really comment on it until the next meeting. Councillor, did you yield the floor?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 89:37
Thank you, Madam Chair. I completely agree with you. I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm just raising a concern that if there is a late policy order, and we remove it from this rule, then there is no opportunity for the public to comment on that policy order at all.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 89:55
Maybe I misunderstand, Councillor Zondervan, and I look to the city solicitor. I thought she was saying there's no public comment on that late policy order, not that you couldn't submit it.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 90:09
Yeah, that's what I'm saying.
Councillor Marc McGovern 90:11
And I would just - on that two things: one, we can always move suspension. We do it all the time and change the rules and do that sort of, you know. But to be honest, I actually think it should be a rule that you can't speak. Because I've seen it abused so many times. You know, one person's emergency is another person's non-emergency. And what happens is, someone files a late order that they want to do X, and so then they tell all of their supporters, "I'm filing a policy order." So those people know about it. So, they come, and then that councilor says, "I want to allow these people to speak on a late order," people feel compelled to let them do it because otherwise they get (in the press) that they're stifling first amendment rights. So, they say yes, and now you have only a certain group of people speaking in favor of a late policy order that nobody else knew about. It completely flies in the face of transparency; which we say we want to be about. So, I don't think we should allow it. And if there's a compelling reason, we always have suspension of the rules, and the motion maker can say, look, this is why I think this is different. And then we can, we can do that. But I really, I feel pretty strongly about this, I've seen it abused way too many times.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 91:34
So Councillor, what we're going to do, and members of the committee, we're going to - let's get through rule 24, taking in as many changes or suggested changes as possible, knowing that this meeting is going to be recessed, and two of this body, including me - so three people from this body will kind of look at those recommendations and bring that back to when we when we have the meeting again, so Just because in the spirit of time, you have a number of suggestions to this council, Vice Mayor Mallon and myself, I want to make sure to get on the floor before we have to adjourn.
Councillor Marc McGovern 92:10
Madam Chair? I'm just have another amendment, which we may be able to do right now, but if not, put it in the queue for 24C
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 92:19
What I'm saying is I want to put all of the conversation around it, and maybe just put it on the table so that we at least get through to the end of the docket.
Councillor Marc McGovern 92:27
So, one thing I think we should be clear about speakers, so people know: speakers are not allowed to cede their time to other speakers. Madam Chair, when you were mayor and we were on School Committee together, we would have during the Innovation Agenda conversation, I'm not kidding you, people would come with their five, six, and seven year old kids and say "I cede my time to my mother." And the person who has more friends would get 10 minutes to speak, and the person who didn't have anybody ceding their time would get three. And we just don't we don't allow it, we always say we should put it in the rule so that people know, so someone doesn't come with five people... So that would just be somewhere in 24C-1A, it can be tacked on anywhere: "Speakers are not allowed to cede their time to other speakers."
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 93:19
And also, just to follow up on that point, it also says something about "I'm reading this letter from my dog Skippy." And that's always a little crazy place, you know, because how do I know that your dog Skippy really wanted that read into the record? And so, I would just say as we talk about this section, who has the authority to speak for someone who is not present? Anything else? Because I'm going to take us to the top or 24.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 93:48
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm still confused about process. So, I understand that the plan is to recess this meeting. I don't understand how three members of the committee could get together offline and work on this subject matter, because that would be a quorum of the committee.
Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor 94:12
Madam Chair, I think that's correct. So, you could post the meeting with a smaller group.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 94:18
I could post the meeting and whoever comes as long as we have a quorum. And I wouldn't be strong-arming people that didn't sign up to work on this particular - and it will say the call was "to continue the discussion specific to rule 24A." So, on 24A, is there anything that talks about the order of the business? Does anyone see any changes? I wanted to add this: nowhere in the order of business does it say how you call the meeting to order. I don't know if that's an operational thing, Mr. Clerk, which talks about stating what the rules are, decorum, that kind of thing. It just says public Comment, it's like relative to the business. And so, I'm just asking, do we want to add to the call? It just says Public Comment, as if we didn't call the meeting to order at all. I want it to say, "Order of Business - call meeting to order, read the call, and the rules of decorum." That's what I would like to just add in so that everybody has the same standard. When you call a meeting, you say, you know, "The meeting of x, y, z. This is this is the reason why we're here. Relative to Public Comment, we do this." Does that need to be in the order? Or is it something that we...I think it should be as a part of the Order of Business so that everybody has the same standard? Mr. Clerk?
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 95:53
So, I just want to want to wrap my hands around what you said Councillor Simmons. So, are you saying that...?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 96:01
In the call as it's written, it just says "At every regular meeting of the City Council, except for roundtables, the order the business shall be as follows." And then it says Public Comment. And I'm saying the order of business will be as follows: "Call the meeting to order, introduce the rules, then Public Comment."
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 96:21
I think that's up to the will of the Council as to how they want to go through their meetings. I think currently it's structured - the order of business is structured in terms of potential legislative actions by the Council. So, the meeting goes to public comment, reading of the record from the previous meetings. But yes, I would think that the Order of the Business? That can be structured based on the will of the Council, whatever the body feels is most appropriate.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 96:55
So, then my question, we'll take this up in a more robust manner at the continuation of this meeting, is one of the things I'm looking for is continuity and consistency that meetings should all follow the same order for a couple of reasons. One, as you move through the cycle, anyone that ascends to the chair of the mayor, this is good place to get the experience on how to properly run a meeting. So that's number one. Number two, that everyone that comes to the meeting has the same expectation because the meetings are always run the same way. I've sat in meetings, and I'll be brief because we're running on a time, where the chair of the meeting says, "Okay, let's get started." There was really no call to get the meeting to start. And then at the meeting, they said "Okay, we're all done." Okay, let's adjourn, and everybody got up and left the room. The meeting was improperly adjourned. And so, I just think it's those little nuances that are not correct procedural form that we carry through the way we run meetings even at the highest level, which is a business meeting at the City Council.
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 98:01
I'm sorry, Madam Chair. If you're referring to the order instructions of committee meetings, then I would think would be, I guess adding those types of instructions to rule 27 or in the section. The next section is on page seven, Start Communication to Committees. And those rules specifically address the operations of committees. So, if its rules about how the committees should run their meetings, I think presumably --
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 98:28
I think that should be okay. I could concede to that. I just want order. That's what I'm basically asking. Symmetry, transparency, and predictability. You know what to expect when you come because the meetings are all run the same way. So, the Clerk says in terms of how the council committees run, that that change should been put on Number 27. And if there's no objection to that, I would like to add that. Alright, so there's no objection will go forward. 24B? Yes? What?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 99:12
Alright, point of order. I'm not clear what we're adding to what?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 99:15
So, I had said I wanted to add some expectations, for lack of a better word to call it, in the meetings in terms of the order of the business, particularly that the committee meetings should mirror how business meetings of the council are run. The Clerk says that should be added to rule 27.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 99:38
Correct. And I agree with the Clerk. However, it's not clear to me where in rule 27 we would add that right now. So, I guess my suggestion would be, let's wait till we get to rule 27 to discuss that.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 99:55
That's what the other thing that we can do too. So, I will yield it on 24A, and move it to 24, and I'll have the Clerk remind me when we get there.
Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor 100:04
Madam Chair. I'm a little confused also. So, looking at 24A, on page five at the top, I thought you were talking about perhaps adding to the rules before Public Comment: "announced call of the meeting, make statement about rules." And then at the end of that list, after announcements, add adjournment. So that the council would vote to adjourn, which would be the proper way to adjourn the meeting. And at the beginning, when you had talked about wanting to announce the call the meeting before Public Comment, you could put that in that list of items if that's what you were getting at.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 100:51
Thank you. Thanks for reminding me. So, if I can bring your attention back to 24. What I was asking not only that the committees did it - so in here, it looks like we open the meeting with Public Comment, as opposed to a Call to Order. So, I wanted to put that in the rules, and then announce how our meetings are operated. And then at the end, you see it says announcements but doesn't say you adjourn. Everybody on board with that? Okay.
Councillor Marc McGovern 101:27
Not only do we do the Call of the Meeting first, but typically we do the accepting the minutes before Public Comment. Right? So those just need to be changed in the order.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 101:41
You're right, it doesn't say - it says, "reading of the record," and I guess that is supposed to be where we adopt the minutes and we need to make that more clear."
Councillor Marc McGovern 101:51
We usually do that before Public Comment. So, in this list, we should flip those.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 101:56
Alright, so we're going to flip -
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 101:58
Point of clarification?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 102:01
I just want to go back to Councillor McGovern. And so, you want to take number two, which just says "reading of the record," if request, and say "adoption of the record" before Public Comment, because that's usually where it happens.
Councillor Marc McGovern 102:14
Yeah, I mean, honestly, we could do Public Comment first. I don't necessarily think we have to accept the minutes first. But we need to be consistent. If the rules in here say we're going to call the meeting and then Public Comment is going to happen before anything else, that's fine. But that's not how we do it. That's not how we do it, so they need to jive.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 102:36
Right. Either follow the rules or change the rules to mimic what we do. Councillor Zondervan?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 102:41
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like clarification on what exactly "reading of the record if requested by the City Council means."
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 102:48
I don't even know. I took that as it was the adoption of the minutes. That's why it's a very good point that it says reading of the record, which I assume is the minutes, and we adopt the minutes, we don't read them, and we do it before we go into Public Comment, I believe.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 103:04
So, can we get clarification from the solicitor or the clerk as to what that actually means?
Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor 103:10
I would defer to the clerk. I don't know what it means either. So, my recommendation would be to just change that, Number two, to adopt minutes of prior meetings.
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 103:23
I'm an agreement. So, I read those rules and I assumed that meant the adoption of the record. I think the council probably should change that rule to be the adoption of previous minutes of the City Council, whatever the language is, and place it where the council believes is appropriate in its order of...
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 103:41
In order sequence as typically. I want to welcome Vice Mayor Mallon to the meeting. Thank you for joining us. Is there anything else in terms of the order of business? So, we're going to make some modification, we're going to have call to order because that's what we do. We're going to add adoption of the minutes and strike reading of the record and we're going to put that before Public Comment, as is our procedures, what we just normally do. And then at the very end number 15, will be added and that's going to be adjournment. Okay, very good. Vice Mayor, we're just going through the rules. Do you have a copy of the rules with you? Do you need a copy? Okay, we'll get you a copy. And it's online as well. We are at 24B - any changes? None?
Councillor Denise Simmons 104:43
24C. We talked a little bit about this. In terms of striking the late policy orders and resolutions. Were there any other changes?
Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler 105:03
I had talked a little bit about under 24C-1A adding a line - and I incorporated the suggestion from a couple other councilors: if 20 or more speakers have signed up for Public Comment before the start of the meeting, each speaker shall limit their comments to no more than two minutes.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 105:19
Very good. So that is a change being recommended by Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Are you introducing that as a formal motion?
Councillor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler 105:28
I will submit that as a motion.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 105:29
There is a motion on the floor by Councillor Sobrinho-Wheeler to amend 24CA to read something to the effect "In the event there are 20 or more speakers signed speakers signed up, that the amount of time allocated would be two minutes." Discussion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? The ayes have it and that motion has been adopted.
Councillor Marc McGovern 105:56
And then I will just formerly do a motion that speakers are not allowed to cede their time to other speakers.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 106:05
Okay, so also Councillor McGovern puts on the table for a vote: "Stopping the practice of allowing a person to come and say I cede my time to so and so and so." Does everyone understand that? Discussion? Hearing none, on the motion by Councillor McGovern, all those in favor say aye. Opposed? The ayes have it, and the changed is being offered.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 106:36
Okay, we talked about public comment. So now there's that - Councillor Zondervan.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 106:43
Thank you, Madam Chair. Are we striking late policy orders and resolutions as well?
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 106:51
Striking resolutions?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 106:53
Late policy orders and resolutions on 24C-1A.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 106:59
I have - yes, strike it.
Councillor Marc McGovern 107:06
I'll move that we strike late policyholders and resolutions.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 107:11
On a motion by Councillor McGovern to strike the second to last line. I think the second the last line.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 107:21
It's part of the second to last sentence but specifically we're taking late policy orders and resolutions.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 107:31
We're just striking the late policy orders and resolutions. So why don't we just say that? To strike late policy orders and resolutions - discussion?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 107:43
And the "and" before it.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 107:45
And the what?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 107:47
The word "and" before "late policy orders."
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 107:49
Well I struck it in my - "and late policies and resolutions from other city offices," period. All those in favor say Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it, the change has been adopted. 24-1B? We said we're going to change the online from nine to three to nine to six.
Councillor Timothy Toomey 108:17
If it's possible, on this one here, I think this is so important for the public to be aware of what we're doing. I made some suggestions that we're having a better system of someone outside the council office directly helping people. You know, when a lot of people we've seen certainly the council office, as I said, the two staff getting ready for the council meeting. A lot of members of the public who come in who are not as computer savvy as others, and I count myself as one of those people, and they have very difficult time trying to sign up online and it creates a line, and someone has to help them. So, I really think if there was a way to just hold this one and have a more full discussion on just how this whole process should be. I think that really needs to be reformed. I think it's important that we hear from the public, but we want the public to know, you know, that they're welcome here and how they can participate. I just think this here needs further discussion.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 109:26
I agree. I agree. What I think you're talking about is not quite but a little bit like hospitality, which may not be a procedural piece. So, I would ask that we make the change in line three from nine to three to nine to six. And to your question about how do we operationalize signing for public comment, this smaller group of folks bring back a recommendation saying, We changed the rules to reflect this, we might say the public will sign up through the page or the - you know, we'll operationalize that, because I think the two are a little bit different. So, I want to take you back to, if you yield the floor, are you yielding the floor now?
Councillor Timothy Toomey 110:06
Just to follow what you're saying the operation part of this is like, especially if it's a first-time person coming into City Hall, because we know at the beginning of the meeting there's a crowd in front of the chamber doors. And so, you don't know which way to go to, and you might get a little intimidated and say, "Well, maybe I'm not." So, I just think we have to have a better operational way of welcoming the public who probably never stepped foot in City Hall into that, you know, "this is your time for public comment, this is your place." And I just don't think, you know, the people who come in, they know exactly what to do. But someone new coming in the doors can feel very intimidated and not sure or feel embarrassing that they're not as aware of other people. So, I just think that has to be a more, I don't want to repeat the word "welcoming," but it has to be more inviting.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 111:02
Thank you. Councillor Zondervan.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 111:05
Thank you, Madam Chair. I do agree with Councillor Toomey. However, I don't think we would capture that in the rules. I think the rule change we're proposing is via telephone on Mondays from 9am to 5pm.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 111:21
Five or six?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 111:23
Yeah, I would say five, because the staff needs to prepare for the meeting to start at 5:30
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 111:31
Very good.
Councillor Marc McGovern 111:33
Naomie is over there giving me the six signal.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 111:39
Ms. Stephan, why don't you take a seat at the table? See, Councillor Zondervan is making a way for you. Thank you for joining us.
Naomie Stephen, Executive Assistant to the City Council 112:00
I think 6pm, because so many people don't make it here by five. So then when you have people that are coming in later, they can still sign up even though the meeting's already started.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 112:12
Discussion?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 112:14
So that's already provided for in, "on Mondays between five and six, a computer terminal will be available to the public in City Council office for online sign up." So, what we're discussing now is by telephone, so if someone were to call the office after five to sign up, versus if they came in person, they would sign up via the computer.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 112:43
Not to speak for our executive, but I think what she's saying: if you're in transit and you have access to a computer, and you know you may not get here at the 11th hour, it gives you to the 11th hour, but I'm not speaking for her. I mean, did you want to discuss?
Naomie Stephen, Executive Assistant to the City Council 112:59
Are you talking about the break between three and five? If someone calls in?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 113:05
No, we're saying that we would change the rules so that someone could sign up by telephone until 5pm. And then after 5pm, in person at the public, at the City Council office, using the computer.
Naomie Stephen, Executive Assistant to the City Council 113:22
Yes, I think that makes sense, particularly if you add, like sort of making the kiosk or signing up improves, and if there's an extra hand to help with it. What ends up happening primarily now is there's a crowd that forms at five o'clock, and there's typically only one person in the office. Another change that we've asked for is - the thing that takes the most time as people never know where in the agenda, what they're signing up to speak on, is. So, we've asked for IT to look into creating as a drop down on the sign-in page, so that they're already pre-loaded and then they just are clicking on their thing, as opposed to trying to figure out where the agenda is and if it's even on the agenda sometimes.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 114:10
Thank you. So, the change is till five now, and not till six. It says, "in which must sign in to speak before the City Council via telephone to the City Council office on Mondays from 9am to five." Correct? Any further discussion? Miss Glowa? Were you itching to say something? Okay. Any other changes in that part? Do I need a motion?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 114:33
So, moved.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 114:34
So, on a motion by Councillor Zondervan to change rule 24 C section A under 1-B to the third sentence from three o'clock to five o'clock. All those in favor? Aye? Thank you. Opposed? The ayes have it and the change has been adopted. We're now to Roundtable Working Meetings.
Councillor Marc McGovern 115:04
Madam Chair, and I apologize, I do have to leave right at 12. On this, over the last few years, we have gradually moved towards televising Roundtables. We used to not do it at all, then we would do some of them, and now it's at the request, it has to be put in the policy order. I just think we should televise all Roundtables and working meetings for a whole host of reasons. But I can explain if there's questions.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 115:32
No, because we only have five minutes, and what I'm going to suggest is that I want to read the changes that my colleagues have put forward onto the record so that when we do our work, we can continue. So, on number two, because they - and then we have Public Comment that we haven't gotten to. Not unless, I can also entertain a motion to extend the meeting for another 15 minutes, which will also help us. So, let's go back to what's in front of us. Did you want to speak on this piece?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 116:04
Yes. So, I believe we changed the rules so that all meetings in the chamber are video recorded. I don't know if that applies to Roundtable working meeting -
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 116:15
It doesn't.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 116:17
I think that would be where we would change that.
Councillor Marc McGovern 116:23
I would, Madam Chair through you, I would think - I don't know I guess I would look to the City Solicitor. I would imagine we would put it under the Roundtable portion, where we talk about, I guess it could go either place or both.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 116:41
So, where's?
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 116:44
If I may, just for the edification, because I don't believe that the auto video recording is in the rules. I believe it was a policy order. So, I don't think it's something that's in the rules.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 116:54
Okay, very good. Councillor McGovern, so you're asking still to make?
Councillor Marc McGovern 117:01
I'm asking that we add to 24 C2: "All Roundtables, working meetings will be televised."
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 117:10
Want to put "when possible," and the reason why I say that is what if the Roundtable's not here? What if we took a Roundtable or working meeting outside in the community? So, if you say, "Will be televised," you've boxed yourself to where you'll have it. Councillor Zondervan?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 117:26
Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess again, I would suggest that rather than doing it here we made a rule change to codify our practice that all meetings of the City Council in Sullivan Chamber are televised, because this is where we have the equipment in order to do that.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 117:47
I wouldn't say Sullivan Chamber, because sometimes we're in the School Committee chamber so, that's why the "when possible" makes more sense. You said all meetings in the Sullivan Chamber, but we take our show on the road, not very often, but once in a while where there is filming capability. So why not just say "when possible?"
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 118:05
Yeah, so we could do both. We could say "In Sullivan Chamber or, if possible, in a different location." But that creates a clear expectation that if it's in the chamber, it will be televised.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 118:16
I have no disagreement; I just don't want to box us in. Miss Glowa.
Nancy Glowa, City Solicitor 118:20
Madam Chair, I was going to suggest that we look back to rule 18 Regular Meetings, because that's the section that talks about when meetings are held, and you could put in a sentence at the end of that first paragraph that says - or you could put it at the end of the section that says - "All regular meetings, as well as Roundtables/special meetings of the city council, shall be televised, unless technically infeasible."
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 119:00
If I may, just to piggyback on the Solicitor, on section 24 C, specifically talking about public comments, I don't know if that would be the appropriate place to talk about.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 119:08
So Councillor McGovern, given what we know which we change it to the appropriate section, and the only discussion now is it's "all Roundtables will be, and working meetings will be televised." My only concern is that what if we use it shall be, and I just want to have enough wiggle room that if the Roundtable were in the community, it certainly could be filmed, but it couldn't be recorded live. I want some language in there that allows us that flexibility. That's why I said, "when possible." Or however, when technically possible. Councillor McGovern, any more on that? Councillor Zondervan?
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 119:49
Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree. And again, I would suggest that we put in "when held in the Sullivan Chamber" or if possible - that we add "when held in the Sullivan Chamber or if possible, elsewhere" and that we add committee meetings as well, because that's also already the practice.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 120:11
Committee meetings are already in the rules to be televised.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 120:14
It's just our practice now that any meeting of the City Council in this chamber is televised so we would just capture that in our rules and then add that if it's being held elsewhere, if it's technically feasible, that we would also broadcast it or video record it.
Anthony Wilson, City Clerk 120:40
I would just ask for clarity from the Chair on what the motion is before the body. I currently have all meetings of the City Council, Roundtable/working meetings be televised when technically possible.
Councillor Marc McGovern 120:54
Madam Chair, I will rescind that because we've determined this is not the appropriate section to put it in, and when we ever get to that appropriate section, I will make it again.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 121:06
Okay, so we have two minutes in this meeting that was supposed to go for two hours. So, before we do anything else, I'd like a motion to extend the meeting for a half an hour with a stop at 12:20 to allow for Public Comment. Because otherwise we're rolling right to the 12:30. First of all, can members, so there's the motion to extend the meeting. Discussion? Can people not do that? Because if we're going to lose quorum or the body, then we should just go right to Public Comment, recess the meeting, and I'll reschedule without - and I will just make another motion that the changes be put into the record. So that can be taken up at the next meeting. So, I need to extend the meeting first.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 121:50
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I agree, and I don't see anyone for Public Comment. We can certainly -
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 121:56
Mr. Hawkinson feels compelled to speak.
Councillor Quinton Zondervan 121:59
So Yeah, I would support a motion to have Public Comment and then recess the meeting until the next possible time.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 122:08
Okay. So, there's a motion by Councillor Zondervan to go to Public Comment and then recess the meeting, that a meeting will be called as soon as possible to pick up the items where we left off but also to formally have the committee accept the suggestions that were put forward. So that's before us as well. So, on the motion to extend the meeting long enough to have Public Comments and to have the suggestions of my colleagues added to the record for discussion at the meeting when it resumes. All those in favor say Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. We will go to Public Comment, after which we will recess.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 123:01
Please give your name and address for the record.
123:03
Thank you, Madam Chair, John Hawkinson, 84 Mass Ave. [Note: This is not his actual address. He lives at 2 Clinton St., Apt. 5.] It was my intention to address you primarily regarding quorums. But quite a number of I think important issues came up during your discussion and thank you for having it. So, I'd want to just touch on those quickly. I think most importantly, this question of the reduction of time for Public Comment from three minutes to two minutes, when there are more than 20 speakers, it's a really, really big deal. A lot of people have difficulty articulating their comments, their speech, fitting it into three minutes. And that's the nature of things. Not everyone is a professional speaker. And I think pushing it to two will make it extremely challenging for many people, and maybe at the point of abrogating their rights to express themselves and I would urge the council to look at it very, very carefully. And certainly, to billboard it clearly that it's coming, maybe present at the public meeting of the council that you've been under consideration in a really explicit way before adopting that sort of change. Because I think it's very important.
John Hawkinson 123:04
Also, with respect to the question of addressing late items, I want to remind the council that the charter under Section 98 provides that the rules of the City Council shall provide the citizens and employees of the city a reasonable opportunity to be heard at any such meeting in regard to any matter considered there at, so I think a rule change that bars speaking to late items, essentially is a charter problem. And so, I think you should look very carefully at that. Smaller items: with respect to this question of personalities and naming councilors, I think, urge you to be very careful with the First Amendment, which you know, requires you to have only reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the speech of the public and saying that the public can't reference a particular councilor by name when that's really the only practical way to explain some event that's of relevance and pertinent to business before the council is really troubling. I don't think that's what personalities and Robert's Rules means. I understand the council has interpreted it differently than I have. But I don't think that's what it means. It means essentially try to avoid saying names where you can, but where you must.
John Hawkinson 125:11
And I have some other comments, I'll put them in writing because I think that you'll be meeting again. But with respect to quorums, what I really want to address you on, I think the change a couple of sessions ago to two member quorums for subcommittee meetings was extremely ill advised. It means no single councilor can speak with any other single councilor about business before a committee. And while you can quibble about what's business with our committee, most stuff is business before some committee. And furthermore, it sets the expectation that councilors are not required to attend their committee meetings. Only two people are required for a committee of five. I think the expectation ought to be that all members should attend meetings where practical. Of course, that won't always be the case. But it should be at the expectation and the goal and lowering the quorum from nominally three for a committee of five to two really hurts that expectation. So, I would strongly urge the council to revert the change made, I think it was two sessions ago. And to return the quorums, to three, or whatever the appropriate is for the number of committees that have more than five members, it's different, but half plus one, roughly. Thank you for your attention.
Councillor E. Denise Simmons 126:23
Thank you for your comments. By the vote of the members, the voting members presents, we agreed that we would recess the meeting after public comment. Does recess require a motion? On a motion to recess by, the motion is by Councillor McGovern. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? The ayes have... Can I rescind that? Did I also say that the information from this previous meeting would be forwarded? Thank you. Alright. So, all those in favor say aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The meeting is recessed to a time that will be set by the chair. Thank you for your attention.
1. A communication was received from Councillor Mallon regarding the City Council rules
RESULT: PLACED ON FILE
2. A communication was received from Councillor Quinton Zondervan regarding changes to the City Council Rules
RESULT: PLACED ON FILE
From: Zondervan, Quinton
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 11:27 AM
To: Wilson, Anthony
Cc: Totten, Daniel
Subject: Council rulesDear Anthony,
As instructed by the Mayor I'm sending you the following suggestions I have for changing our council rules:1. Quorum should be a majority of each committee; 3 for committees of 5, 5 for committees of 9. We had maybe 2 or 3 instances last term where quorum would not be reached under those rules, and if the rules are clear and the expectation is that people show up for committee hearings it will be even less likely to be a problem. With a quorum of only 2 for most committees we are too easily stymied by OML restrictions in terms of talking with each other outside of meetings. More importantly, with such a low quorum, actions by the committee could reflect the will of less than one third of the body, and limits necessary knowledge dissemination. For example, Councillor McGovern incorrectly stated last night that we have no data on the tree cutting moratorium, but exactly that data was presented in a committee hearing that he did not attend last fall.
2. We do not allow signs in the chamber by members of the public, which makes sense in terms of stick mounted signs, etc. but last term someone was asked to remove a home-made cardboard sign she wore around her neck. Physically it was no more obstructive than a large coat or jacket, and had she printed the same message on a T-shirt we wouldn't be allowed to ask her to remove it or cover it up, given her first amendment rights to express herself. I think it's important to clarify the rules to maximize freedom of expression, without, of course, veering into disruptive or problematic behavior.
3. Our rules around public comment are challenging. It makes sense to limit people to 3 minutes given the time constraints, but we could be more clear with people that they can write the council anytime on any topic, and that the purpose of public comment is to summarize/highlight their message rather than a constrained time period to tell us everything they have to say. We also should allow people to sign up on the spot, even during public comment, so that they don't have to waste time telling us their name and address as part of their 3 minutes. It's also very confusing to members of the public that if they send a letter to the council and cc the clerk after Thursday 3pm it won't be on the agenda. Just as we have late communications from each other and late resolutions, we could have late communications that are made available to the council prior to the meeting so we can review them during the meeting, even if they are not on the printed agenda. After all, those communications will be incorporated into the record of the meeting.
Thanks for considering these suggestions.
Best,
Quinton Zondervan, Cambridge City Councilor, 617-901-2006