Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Charter review committee minutes 2010 11-10 draft

539 views

Published on

Published in: Education, News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Charter review committee minutes 2010 11-10 draft

  1. 1. Northampton Charter Review Committee Councilor Jesse M. Adams (Vice-chair) Colleen Currie (Secretary) Councilor Marianne L. LaBarge Councilor David A. Murphy Alan Seewald (Chair) Margaret Striebel Marc Warner NOVEMBER 10, 2010 - CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 7 P.M. PRESENT: JESSE ADAMS, COLLEEN CURRIE, MARIANNE LABARGE, , ALAN SEEWALD, MARGARET STRIEBEL (ARRIVED 7:55), MARC WARNER ABSENT: DAVID MURPHY ATTENDING: ADAM COHEN - VIDEOTAPING MEETING; ? - YOUNG WOMAN - WE NEGLECTED TO ASK HER NAME; SHE LEFT EARLY MINUTES AGENDA 1. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD NO PUBLIC COMMENT. 2. REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 6, 2010 MEETING COUNCILOR LABARGE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. COUNCILOR ADAMS SECONDED THE MOTION. MR. SEEWALD NOTED PAGE 2, “TALKED A LOT” - SHOULD BE “THE COMMITTEE HAS TALKED A LOT” . ASKED FOR FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES. COUNCILOR LABARGE MOVED TO AMEND AND TO APPROVE AS AMENDED. COUNCILOR ADAMS SECONDED. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 1
  2. 2. 3. REVIEW OF INPUT FROM CURRENT MAYOR AND CURRENT AND FORMER CITY COUNCILORS MR. SEEWALD - COULD PERHAPS USE AS JUMPING OFF POINT FOR WRITING REPORT. WE MAY HAVE GUIDED DISCUSSION, BUT BELIEVES THERE IS CONSENSUS THAT ISSUES DISCUSSED ARE SOME OF THE LARGE ISSUES PROBLEMATIC WITH CURRENT CHARTER. MAYBE COULD GET LIST OF ISSUES DISCUSSED AT LAST MEETING, AND ADD ISSUES COMMITTEE MEMBERS THINK OUGHT TO BE SUBJECT OF REPORT. MR. WARNER - DO YOU WANT TO DO AS DISCUSSION OF INDIVIDUAL ISSUES OR AS DISCUSSION OF ISSUES RAISED BY INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS? LISTED ISSUES: TERM LIMITS, ROLE OF MAYOR ON CITY COUNCIL, BUDGET PROCESS, APPOINTED POSITIONS/ELECTED POSITIONS. MR. SEEWALD - SINCE SPEAKERS ADDRESSED MANY OF THE SAME ISSUES, HE THOUGHT WE’D TAKE IT ISSUE BY ISSUE. THINKS FIRST BIG ISSUE WAS WHETHER THERE OUGHT TO BE GREATER SEPARATION BETWEEN EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES. COUNCILOR LABARGE - THINKS MAYOR’S COMMENTS RE MAYOR CHAIRING CITY COUNCIL WERE HELPFUL. ALSO TALKED ABOUT VALUE OF MAYOR ON SCHOOL COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF BUDGET. WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. BUT MAYOR SAID SHE BELIEVED IT WOULD BE IN BETTER IF MAYOR DID NOT CHAIR CITY COUNCIL. WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. FOUND THAT VALUABLE. NOTED IN MINUTES - ONLY NORTHAMPTON AND TAUNTON HAVE MAYOR CHAIRING COUNCIL. COUNCILOR ADAMS - SEEMS NEARLY UNANIMOUS, IF NOT UNANIMOUS THAT THERE SHOULD BE A CLEAR, MORE SIMPLE MODERN CHARTER, AND WE SHOULD SUGGEST A CHARTER COMMISSION. MR. SEEWALD - EARLIER MEETINGS - AT LEAST SOME MEMBERS HAD SAID WE WOULD NOT BE FULFILLING OUR MISSION IF WE SIMPLY SAID TO COUNCIL THEY OUGHT TO DO WHAT IT TAKES TO GET A CHARTER COMMISSION TOGETHER TO GET A NEW CHARTER, BUT WE OUGHT TO ALSO GIVE THEM A REPORT ON THIS CHARTER THAT A COMMISSION OUGHT TO TURN ITS ATTENTION TO IN CREATING A NEW CHARTER. PERHAPS I JUMPED THE GUN. IS THERE ANYONE 2
  3. 3. HERE WHO DOES NOT AGREED THERE OUGHT TO BE A NEW CHARTER? [NO RESPONSES.] IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO DOES NOT AGREE A CHARTER COMMISSION IS THE PREFERABLE WAY TO DO THAT? COUNCILOR ADAMS - I AGREE, BUT WOULD ALSO POINT OUT EVERYONE WHO ATTENDED LAST MEETING WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT. AT LEAST I DIDN’T HEAR ANY OPPOSITION . MR. SEEWALD - MY ONLY RETICENCE IS THAT CHARTER COMMISSION PROCESS LEAVES GREATER LIKELIHOOD OF FAILING AND LEAVING US WITH WHAT WE HAVE THAN A DIFFERENT PROCESS. SPECIAL ACT CHARTER ULTIMATELY NEEDS TO BE APPROVED BY VOTERS, BUT DOESN’T REQUIRE VOTERS TO ELECT COMMISSIONERS AND HAVE INCREDIBLE STRUCTURE THAT CHARTER COMMISSION PROCESS HAS. RETICENCE GROWS OUT OF FACT THAT LAST TIME WE TRIED TO HAVE A CHARTER COMMISSION IT FAILED. MR. WARNER - TWICE, ISN’T IT. WASN’T THERE ONE IN THE 1970'S? MR. SEEWALD - DOESN’T RECALL, BUT THE LAST ONE FAILED. AND AS I BELIEVE I SAID LAST TIME, MY INTEREST IS IN GETTING NEW CHARTER.I’D LEAVE IT TO PROCESS PEOPLE – THE COUNCIL AND MAYOR, WHO HAVE A BETTER SENSE OF THE POLITICS, TO GUIDE US THROUGH APPROPRIATE PROCESS. EITHER PROCESS REQUIRES APPROPRIATION. LAW REQUIRES APPROPRIATION FOR CHARTER COMMISSION. VERY FORMAL - BELIEVES HE REMEMBERS FROM EXPERIENCE IN AMHERST - OFFICE SPACE, CLERICAL ASSISTANCE, BUDGET, HIRE CONSULTANT. MR. WARNER - DO PEOPLE KNOW WHY PRIOR ATTEMPTS FAILED? PARTICULAR ISSUE OR WAS IT JUST NOT WANTING TO MAKE CHANGE. COUNCILOR LABARGE - PERSON FROM HER WARD ON COMMISSION. TOLD HER HE FELT THEY DIDN’T HAVE/DIDN’T SPEND ENOUGH TIME. MR. WARNER - WAS THE IDEA TO APPOINT A COMMISSION OR WAS IT PUTTING FORTH IDEAS OF WHAT CHARTER WOULD BE? MR. SEEWALD - DID IT FAIL AT APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSION OR DID IT FAIL AFTER THE COMMISSION DID ITS WORK? 3
  4. 4. [NO ONE HAD ANSWER. MR. WARNER NOTED INFORMATION ALSO ON WEB.] MR. SEEWALD - WORST OF ALL WORLDS IS FOR CHARTER COMMISSION TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THEN FAIL AFTER IT HAS DONE ITS WORK. MS. CURRIE - ASKED ABOUT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROCESSES FOR CHARTER COMMISSION AND SPECIAL ACT. FIRST ASKED FOR CONFIRMATION - CHARTER COMMISSION WOULD WRITE NEW CHARTER AND VOTERS WOULD DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO ACCEPT IT. WHO WRITES CHARTER IS DONE AS SPECIAL ACT? MR. SEEWALD - TYPICALLY MAYOR AND COUNCIL WOULD APPOINT A GROUP TO ACT IN ROLE OF CHARTER COMMISSION, BUT IT WOULD NOT HAVE STRICT TIME LINES, REQUIREMENTS FOR PRELIMINARY REPORT, FINAL REPORT, ETC. THAT STATUTE PROVIDES FOR. MS. CURRIE - THIS COMMUNITY IS IN THE MOOD FOR MUCH MORE INVOLVEMENT, MUCH MORE ACTIVE PARTICIPATION. WHETHER OR NOT IT ACTUALLY HAPPENS, THERE’S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT THAT. IF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINT A GROUP, I CAN JUST HEAR, “OH, WELL. THEY’RE DOING THAT AGAIN.” MR. SEEWALD - THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE MOTIVATION FOR THE MAYOR’S UNEQUIVOCAL POSITION THAT A CHARTER COMMISSION WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. THAT’S HIS RECOLLECTION OF WHAT MAYOR SAID. MR. WARNER - MAYBE SOMETHING COVERED BEFORE HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH COMMITTEE, BUT IT SEEMS THERE WOULD BE GREAT OVERLAP WITH WHAT THAT COMMISSION WOULD BE CHARGED WITH AND WHAT WE’RE CHARGED WITH. MS. CURRIE - WE’RE NOT CHARGED WITH DEVELOPING A NEW CHARTER. WE’RE CHARGED WITH RECOMMENDING WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A NEW CHARTER. MR. SEEWALD - OR WHETHER THERE WERE PARTICULAR FIXES THAT COULD BE MADE TO THE CURRENT CHARTER. THIS IS A COMMITTEE APPOINTED EVERY TEN YEARS. A CHARTER COMMISSION IS ONLY APPOINTED WHEN THE CITY DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE. 4
  5. 5. COUNCILOR ADAMS -WE’LL BE DONE EARLY NEXT YEAR. IF IT OCCURS, IT WOULD BE AFTER THAT. THERE WOULD BE NO OVERLAP. WE’D BE DEFUNCT AT THAT POINT. MR. WARNER - WASN’T THINKING ABOUT OVERLAP IN TERMS OF TIME, BUT OVERLAP IN TERMS OF MISSION. MR. SEEWALD - OUR MISSION IS A VERY SMALL PIECE OF WHAT A CHARTER COMMISSION WOULD DO. THERE HAS TO BE A PETITION DRIVE TO GET AT LEAST 15 PERCENT OF VOTERS REGISTERED AT PRECEDING SPECIAL ELECTION REQUESTING THAT THE QUESTION OF A CHARTER COMMISSION BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT. ELECTION ORDER OF 60 DAYS THAT PASSES. SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ON BALLOT RE WHETHER COMMISSION IS FORMER. NOMINATION OF COMMISSION MEMBERS. (READING HOME RULE CHARTER ADOPTION REVISION - FROM COUNCILOR NARKEWICZ ) FIRST VOTE TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOU’RE GOING TO NOMINATE AND HAVE AN ELECTION FOR CHARTER COMMISSION MEMBERS. IF THAT PASSES, YOU HAVE ELECTION OF CHARTER COMMISSION MEMBERS. CHARTER COMMISSION GETS ORGANIZED AND FUNDS. A CITY OF 12,000 TO 49,999 WOULD REQUIRE AN APPROPRIATION OF AT LEAST $5000, WHICH CERTAINLY WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH TO DO THIS WORK. COMMISSION HOLDS PUBLIC HEARINGS. ISSUES A PRELIMINARY REPORT WITHIN 16 MONTHS OF ITS ELECTION. LONG, MULTI-YEAR PROCESS. THIS COMMITTEE COULD NEVER HAVE DONE THAT WORK. MS. CURRIE - WASN’T OUR JOB. MR. SEEWALD - NO IT WASN’T. THEN WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF ITS ELECTION, THE COMMISSION HAS TO FILE A FINAL REPORT. THAT GOES TO ATTORNEY GENERAL. THAT GETS PLACED ON BALLOT. THERE’S ANOTHER ELECTION. PROBABLY TWO YEARS. MR. WARNER - IF OUR RECOMMENDATION IS THERE BE A COMMISSION, IS IT BECAUSE WE BELIEVE CHARTER IS SO POORLY WRITTEN AND UNCLEAR AND NEEDS TO BE REWRITTEN, OR BECAUSE WE FIND SOME PARTICULAR THING WHICH REALLY NEEDS TO BE CHANGED IN THE GOVERNANCE OF THE CITY? SHOULD WE BE DEALING WITH THESE ISSUES OF WHETHER THE MAYOR CHAIRS THE CITY COUNCIL. MS. CURRIE - WE’VE TALKED ABOUT THAT - WHETHER ISSUES GET TOO MINUTE. BUT THERE WERE ISSUES IN THE BEST PRACTICES 5
  6. 6. COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS OF THINGS WHICH NEEDED TO BE LOOKED AT. IT’S NOT OUR ONLY MANDATE. BUT THAT’S WHY WE’VE ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS, WHY THEY WERE ASKED OF MAYOR AND COUNCILORS LAST MEETING, AND PRESUMABLY WILL BE ON THE AGENDA FOR THE PUBLIC FORUM. BUT I THINK WE DON’T WANT TO MAKE TOO MANY OF THOSE KINDS ... WE CAN REPORT WHAT PEOPLE HAVE SAID. I DON’T KNOW WHETHER WE WANT TO MAKE PARTICULAR RECOMMENDATIONS. AT BEGINNING I THOUGHT WE WOULD GO THROUGH CURRENT CHARTER AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION SECTION BY SECTION. COMMITTEE DECIDED ABSOLUTELY NOT. CHARTER NEEDED TO BE TRASHED. WE WERE GIVEN EXAMPLES OF OTHER CHARTER, WE ASKED MARILYN CONTRERAS TO COME BECAUSE OF HER EXPERTISE, AND TO GIVE US EXAMPLES, AND THERE THEY WERE. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MICRO-MANAGING THAT OUR CHARTER DOES, AND THE BROADER CONCEPT OF A STRUCTURE, AND LET THE WORK HAPPEN WITHIN THE VARIOUS PIECES. MR. WARNER - AND THE CLARITY OF THE ORGANIZATION IS EVIDENT IN THE OTHER CHARTERS, TOO. MS. CURRIE - THAT’S WHERE WE’RE HEADED. TO SOME EXTENT I AGREE WE SAY TRASH IT AND HERE’S A GOOD EXAMPLE, OR HERE ARE PARTS OF OTHER CHARTERS, BUT THAT’S NOT OUR JOB. MR. SEEWALD - DECISION TO PICK PARTICULAR PARTS OUT OF A CHARTER HAS POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS. EXAMPLE - IS THE MAYOR ON THE SCHOOL COMMITTEE? IF SO, DOES THE MAYOR CHAIR THE COMMITTEE? THOSE ARE STRUCTURAL THINGS WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE TIME OR ABILITY TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT POLITICAL RAMIFICATIONS. MR. WARNER - DO YOU HAVE A SENSE WHETHER THE EXPECTATION WAS THAT WE PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON THESE ISSUES? MR. SEEWALD - I DON’T. COUNCILOR ADAMS - WE HAVEN’T TAKEN POSITION RE WHETHER ANYTHING WAS A PARTICULAR NECESSITY FOR A COMMISSION OR SPECIAL ACT GROUP. HAVE TALKED ABOUT WANTING A NEW CHARTER. MAYBE POINT OUT PARTICULAR CHARTER(S) AS EXAMPLES. BUT NOT SPECIFIC ISSUES AS BEING MANDATORY. 6
  7. 7. COUNCILOR LABARGE - WE HAD PUBLIC HEARING. SPOKE TO MARY MAZZA - DISCUSSION RE HER OFFICE AT THAT HEARING - DID NOT KNOW OTHERS WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT HER DEPARTMENT. ASKED WHEN NEXT MEETING WAS. WOULD LIKE TO SAY WHAT SHE FEELS ABOUT HER DEPARTMENT. COUNCILOR ADAMS - TOLD HIM SAME THING. TOLD HER IF SHE COULDN’T ATTEND, COULD SUBMIT SOMETHING IN WRITING. MS. CURRIE - WAS CLERK’S OFFICE AMONG DEPARTMENTS ASKED ABOUT CHARTER? MR. SEEWALD - NOT SURE WHETHER THERE WAS A RESPONSE. WOULD HAVE TO LOOK BACK. ANYTIME SHE WANTS TO COME – PUBLIC FORM NEXT MONTH. BUT NEEDS TO BE ASSURED NOTHING WE DO HERE IS GONG TO EFFECT HER ROLE IN CITY GOVERNMENT. MS. CURRIE - HER OFFICE JUST CAME UP AS AN EXAMPLE OF APPOINTMENT VS. HIRING. PROFESSIONAL POSITION. MR. SEEWALD - MAYOR BROUGHT IT UP. SAID MS. MAZZA DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB. SHOULD BE PART OF PROFESSIONAL STAFF. COUNCILOR LABARGE - SHE DISAGREES WITH THAT. MR. SEEWALD - THE WAY I ENVISIONED REPORT – MAY BE BLEEDING INTO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5 – 1. ALL REVIEWED CHARTER, HEARD FROM MARILYN CONTRERAS, READ SEVERAL OTHER MORE MODERN CHARTERS. ALL AGREE A NEW CHARTER NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED (ALTHOUGH NOT SPEAKING FOR COMMITTEE). HEARD FROM OTHERS LAST MONTH AND PERHAPS A MAJORITY OF THIS COMMITTEE AGREE THAT CHARTER COMMISSION IS BEST OR MOST APPROPRIATE PROCESS FOR DOING THAT. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF MAJOR ISSUES BEYOND FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS OF OUR CHARTER THAT ISN’T JUST FORMING SKELETON OF A GOVERNMENT AND DIVIDING POWERS AND ALLOWING DETAILS OF EACH OF THOSE DEPARTMENTS TO BE 7
  8. 8. FORMULATED THROUGH CITY COUNCIL’S PROCESS OF PASSING ORDINANCES. HERE ARE THE BIG ISSUES WE’VE SEE - AND THESE WERE BIG ISSUES DISCUSSED IN 70S AND 90S: BETTER SEPARATION OF POWERS SO MAYOR IS NOT CHAIRING COUNCIL MEETING. WE COULD SAY THERE IS A CONSENSUS AMONG COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND MANY WE HEARD FROM THIS IS AN ANTIQUATED MODEL AND OUGHT TO BE CHANGED. MAYOR’S ROLE ON SCHOOL COMMITTEE - MEMBER? CHAIR? LENGTH OF TERMS TERM LIMITS - ADDRESSING COUNCILOR ADAMS, I KNOW YOU’RE A BIG SUPPORTER. COUNCILOR ADAMS - AS I HEAR AND THING MORE ABOUT THIS, NOT SURE COMMISSION NEEDS TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. MR. SEEWALD - COMMISSION WILL ADDRESS WHAT IT DECIDES TO ADDRESS. NOTHING WE SAY BINDS COMMISSION EITHER WAY. COUNCILOR ADAMS - IF WE HAD A MORE SKELETAL CHARTER, COUNCIL COULD DECIDE WHETHER IT THOUGHT TERM LIMITS WERE APPROPRIATE. AND FRANKLY, DURING ALL THE DISCUSSION, THINK I’VE BEEN TALKED OUT OF THE IDEA TERM LIMITS ARE THE WAY TO GO. MR. WARNER - IT DOES SHOW UP IN OTHER CHARTERS, THOUGH. MR. SEEWALD - WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON CERTAIN THINGS, MOST NOTABLY THE MAYOR NOT CHAIRING CITY COUNCIL, AND HAVING A BETTER SEPARATION OF POWER. WE CAN INDICATE THAT. OTHER ISSUES THAT WERE DISCUSSED - LENGTH OF TERMS - PERSONALLY FEELS TWO YEARS FOR MAYOR TOO SHORT. NEEDS TO START CAMPAIGNING FOR NEXT ELECTION SHORTLY AFTER TAKING OFFICE. COUNCILOR LABARGE - EVEN TWO YEARS FOR COUNCILOR - A LEARNING PROCESS, JUST AS FOR MAYOR. HAS BEEN A COUNCILOR THIRTEEN YEARS. ALWAYS LEARNING. BELIEVES IT SHOULD BE FOUR YEARS FOR MAYOR AND FOR COUNCILORS. 8
  9. 9. RE: HOW LONG A COUNCILOR SERVES - BELIEVES VOTERS SHOULD DECIDE. IF DOING A GOOD JOB, RE-ELECTED; IF NOT, YOU’RE OUT. MR. SEEWALD - ANOTHER ISSUE THAT CAME UP - AT-LARGE/WARD MIX. THESE ARE ISSUES THAT CHARTER COMMISSION NEEDS TO LOOK AT AND MAKE DECISION WHETHER CURRENT DIVISION IS APPROPRIATE. COUNCILOR LABARGE - ALSO TALKED ABOUT PRESIDENT AND VICE- PRESIDENT FOR CITY COUNCILOR. SPOKE TO COUNCILORS IN SPRINGFIELD AND EASTHAMPTON. WENT TO MEETING IN EASTHAMPTON. RUN THE WAY IT SHOULD BE. LIKES THAT SYSTEM. MR. WARNER - STILL STUCK RE OUR ROLE. HAD SENSE WE WERE TO OFFER GUIDELINES ON HOW WE THOUGHT THIS FUTURE CHARTER OUGHT TO LOOK. WOULD OFFER POSITION ON ALL THESE ISSUES - TERM LIMITS, SEPARATION OF POWERS, COUNCIL OFFICERS. COUNCILOR LABARGE - DON’T KNOW WHY WE CAN’T STATE A RECOMMENDATION. MR. SEEWALD - HE’D LIKE TO HAVE LIST OF ISSUES WE’D LIKE TO ADDRESS IN REPORT. NEXT MEETING WE HAVE IS PUBLIC FORUM. MEETING AFTER THAT WOULD NEED TO TAKE POSITION ON THESE VARIOUS ISSUES IF THAT’S WHAT WE’RE GOING TO DO. THEN WE NEED TO PUT TOGETHER A REPORT. MAY BE DIVIDED ON A NUMBER OF THESE ISSUES, AND WE CAN REPORT THAT. WOULD REALLY LIKE TO MAKE LIST OF ISSUES WE SHOULD BE PREPARED TO DISCUSS AND TAKE A POSITION ON AT OUR JANUARY MEETING. I’VE GOT FIVE ITEMS ON MY LIST. SEPARATION OF POWERS MR. WARNER - COULD YOU EXPAND ON THAT? MR. SEEWALD - ESSENTIALLY, ISSUE OF MAYOR CHAIRING CITY COUNCIL. MR. WARNER - SURE, BUT COULD BREAK IT DOWN FURTHER TO WHAT ARE THE POWERS ... (VARIOUS VOICES) - COULD WE JUST GET LIST? MR. WARNER - SURE. 9
  10. 10. TERM LENGTH WARD/AT-LARGE DISTRIBUTION CITY COUNCILOR OFFICERS INCLUDING VICE-PRESIDENT ELECTION VS. APPOINTMENT OF POSITIONS MR. WARNER - TERM LIMITS? MR SEEWALD - EVEN IF WE HAVE UNANIMITY OPPOSING IT, IT MAY BE AN ISSUE A CHARTER COMMITTEE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT. COUNCILOR ADAMS - ARE WE GOING TO TAKE A VOTE OF THIS COMMITTEE ON EACH OF THESE ISSUES RE WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE SOMETHING THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER? IF WE VOTE NO, THEN COMMISSION WOULDN’T CONSIDER. MR. SEEWALD - BELIEVES MR. WARNER’S IDEA WAS TO RECOMMEND WHETHER COMMISSION SHOULD ADOPT A PARTICULAR POSITION, AM I RIGHT? JUST AN EXAMPLE, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT RECOMMENDATION WILL BE - WE THINK THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER TERM LIMITS, BUT WE DON’T BELIEVE TERM LIMITS ARE APPROPRIATE. SCHOOL COMMITTEE - MAYOR’S ROLE MR. WARNER - I’VE GOT OTHERS. THESE CAME UP AT LAST MEETING. NUMBER OF SIGNATURES TO GET ON BALLOTS PROCESS FOR INITIATIVE PETITIONS AND REFERENDUMS COMPENSATION FOR COUNCILORS’ STIPEND COUNCILOR ADAMS - NOT A CHARTER ISSUE. MR. SEEWALD - THAT’S AN ORDINANCE ISSUE. MR. WARNER - NONE THE LESS, IT IS SOMETHING THAT DOES SHOW UP IN SOME OF THE OTHER CHARTERS. MR. ADAMS - YOU WOULDN’T FIX AN AMOUNT. MR. WARNER - NO, WOULDN’T FIX AN AMOUNT, BUT SOME OF THE OTHER CHARTERS SAY SPECIFICALLY .. NOT FOR COUNCIL ONLY, BUT 10
  11. 11. FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AS WELL - THERE SHALL BE NO COMPENSATION. COUNCILOR ADAMS - HOW IS THAT NOT AN ORDINANCE ISSUE? MR. WARNER - CAN USE AN ORDINANCE TO SET WHAT THE COMPENSATION WILL BE. BUT IN THE GENERAL SENSE THAT YOU WOULD SET UP A CHARTER AS TO HOW YOUR CITY GOVERNMENT WORKS, THIS LAYS OUT A FRAMEWORK THAT’S MUCH FOR DIFFICULT FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO CHANGE. COUNCILOR ADAMS - WHAT WOULD BE IN THE CHARTER THAT WOULD DO THAT? MR. WARNER - IT SAYS THERE SHALL BE NO COMPENSATION IN TERMS OF SALARY, MAYBE FOR EXPENSES. EASTHAMPTON, GREENFIELD - NO COMPENSATION. MR. SEEWALD - NOT REFERRING TO MAYOR OR CITY COUNCILOR, BUT TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. MR. WARNER - BUT DOES SAY WITH REGARD TO MAYOR, IT’S A FULL TIME JOB AND THE MAYOR SHALL HAVE NO OTHER JOB. MR. SEEWALD - NOT A BIG ISSUE THAT WE NEED TO POINT OUT. MR. WARNER - JUST SAYING THESE WERE THINGS BROUGHT UP BY PEOPLE LAST TIME. OTHER THINGS WERE INDEPENDENT BOARDS AND AUDITS. MR. SEEWALD - INDEPENDENT BOARDS AND AUDITS. WHAT’S THAT. MR. WARNER - TWO SEPARATE THINGS - WHAT BOARDS ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE CHARTER, OR WHAT PROCESS WOULD BE FOR CREATING NEW BOARDS AND HOW THEY WOULD FUNCTION INDEPENDENTLY OF OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. COUNCILOR ADAMS - SEVERAL BOARDS IN THE CITY, FOR EXAMPLE, CULTURE AND RECREATION, WERE CREATED PURELY BY ORDINANCE AND OTHERS ARE REQUIRED BY CHARTER AND MAYBE STATE LAW. ARE YOU SAYING WE SHOULD REVIEW THAT? 11
  12. 12. MS. CURRIE - THESE ARE ALSO THINGS YOU’RE SAYING CAME UP AT THE LAST MEETING, AND THEY ARE NOT COMING TO MY BRAIN WHATSOEVER. MR. SEEWALD - THERE ARE CERTAIN BOARDS THAT HAVE TO BE CREATED BY STATE LAW. I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THE ROLE OF BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS MR. WARNER - AND WHETHER THE WATER BOARD SHOULD HAVE CONTROL OF THEM. MR. SEEWALD - I THINK RAISED AS AN EXAMPLE BECAUSE CHARTER IS UNCLEAR. PEOPLE SOMETIMES THINK COUNCIL HAS THAT CONTROL AND WHEN YOU WADE THROUGH THE CHARTER, ACTUALLY BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS HAS THAT. BUT WHAT I THINK WHAT WE’RE LOOKING FOR – AND I’M OPEN TO HEARING DIFFERENTLY – ARE THE RED FLAGS IN OUR CHARTER. ANY CHARTER IS GOING TO BREAK DOWN THE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT AND WHAT THEIR ROLES ARE, AND CREATE A SCHOOL COMMITTEE, AND PROBABLY A BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS TO CONTROL STREETS, SEWERS, WATER. MR. WARNER - BUDGET - BECOMES BUDGET EVEN IF COUNCIL DOESN’T APPROVE IT. WAS THAT A SUGGESTION THAT IS A PROBLEM, OR WAS THAT SOMETHING ELSE? OTHER CHARTERS HAVE CLEAR SENSE OF FISCAL PROCEDURES COUNCILOR ADAMS - ISN’T THAT STATE LAW? MR. SEEWALD - I DON’T KNOW. COUNCILOR LABARGE - ONLY POWER IS TO REDUCE, NOT TO INCREASE. MR. SEEWALD - IF YOU REJECT MAYOR’S BUDGET, WHAT HAPPENS? COUNCILOR ADAMS - IT BECOMES THE BUDGET. MR. SEEWALD - IS THAT AN ISSUE FOR A CHARTER COMMISSION TO LOOK AT – THE BUDGET PROCESS. COUNCILOR ADAMS - I DON’T THINK SO. NOT AS IF THE COUNCIL HAS RESOURCES TO DEVELOP ITS OWN BUDGET. 12
  13. 13. COUNCILOR LABARGE - HAVE NEVER SEEN COUNCIL DECREASE BUDGET. MR. WARNER - IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WORKS? SHOULD THERE BE A LINE ITEM VETO? IS THIS ANOTHER AREA WHERE IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO LOOK AT WHAT OTHER PEER CITIES AND TOWNS ARE DOING. IF 97 PERCENT OF OTHERS ARE DOING IT DIFFERENTLY, IS THIS AN AREA FOR IMPROVEMENT. COUNCILOR LABARGE/MR. SEEWALD - ARE YOU VOLUNTEERING? MR. WARNER - OF COURSE! I THINK WE SHOULD DIVIDE THE TASKS, GO THROUGH HALF A DOZEN OTHERS ... MS. CURRIE - NOT OUR JOB TO GO INTO THAT MUCH DETAIL. I KNOW YOU CAME INTO PROCESS LATE. BUT THAT’S WHAT I THOUGHT WE WERE DOING AT THE BEGINNING. YOU CANNOT GET THE FLAVOR OF THE REACTION BY READING THE MINUTES, BUT THE REACTION WAS INTENSE. NOW I GET IT. OUR JOB IS BROAD, NOT DETAILED. WE HAVE THE OTHER EXAMPLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING GUIDANCE, BUT NOT TO DO SECTION BY SECTION. THIS IS NOVEMBER. FEBRUARY IS OUR LAST MEETING. MARCH WE HAVE TO PRESENT OUR REPORT. USING THIS LIST AS FRAMEWORK FOR PUBLIC FORUM, SEEING WHAT ELSE COMES UP, WE MAY ADD TO THE LIST. COUNCILOR ADAMS - JUST DEVELOP LIST AND MOVE ON TO NEXT AGENDA ITEMS. MR. SEEWALD - THINKS WE ALREADY DID AGENDA ITEM #5. AFTER DECEMBER PUBLIC FORUM, ARE WE GOING TO TAKE VOTES ON THESE ISSUES IN JANUARY? COUNCILOR ADAMS - I THINK THAT’S THE WAY TO GO. MR. SEEWALD - THEN ASSIGN SOMEONE TO DO DRAFT TO REVIEW AT FEBRUARY MEETING. WOULD LIKE A REPORT TO REVIEW IN FEBRUARY, AND GET IT TO THE COUNCIL BY MARCH. COUNCILOR ADAMS - WOULD BE GREAT. RIGHT ON TIME. 13
  14. 14. MS. CURRIE - DON’T WANT TO DO REPORT ONLY ABOUT PARTICULAR ITEMS. WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE/HOPE WE’RE TALKING ABOUT INCLUDING THE BROAD RECOMMENDATION TO SCRAP WHAT WE HAVE. MR. SEEWALD - I THINK IT STARTS WITH A RECOGNITION OF THE STRUCTURAL PROBLEM WHICH THIS CHARTER HAS AND THE INABILITY OF A COMMITTEE SUCH AS OURS TO MAKE MEANINGFUL RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONTINUE TO PATCH UP WHAT WE HAVE. WE NEED A NEW CHARTER FROM GROUND ZERO UP. AND, BY THE WAY, HERE ARE SOME OF THE MAJOR ISSUES THAT HAVE PERSISTENTLY ARISEN WITH CHARTER WE HAVE, AND WE WOULD HOPE A CHARTER COMMISSION WOULD CONSIDER THEM IN ITS DELIBERATIONS. MS. CURRIE - I DON’T KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE POSITIONS ON THE ISSUES. I THINK WE CAN IDENTIFY THEM AS HAVING BEEN BROUGHT UP IN BEST PRACTICES RECOMMENDATIONS, BY COUNCILORS, AT LAST WEEK’S MEETING, IN PUBLIC FORM. NOT SURE WE HAVE TO TAKE POSITIONS ON THEM. CAN STATE OTHERS’ POSITIONS, BUT I DON’T KNOW WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THEM. OUR JOB WAS TO RECOMMEND, NOT TO TAKE POSITIONS. MR. SEEWALD - IF WE LOOK BACK, THESE ARE ISSUES WHICH CAME UP 30 YEARS AGO AND 10 YEARS AGO. MS. CURRIE - AND STILL PEOPLE COULD NOT BRING THEMSELVES TO VOTE TO MAKE CHANGES. MR. SEEWALD - THAT’S MY BIG CONCERN HERE, MY CONCERN ABOUT THE CHARTER COMMISSION. I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR VOTER PARTICIPATION, THERE’S JUST SO MUCH VOTER PARTICIPATION. THERE’S ALSO A GREAT DEAL OF EXPENSE INVOLVED. EVERY TIME THERE’S AN ELECTION... COUNCILOR LABARGE, I THINK YOU TOLD US HOW MUCH ONE COSTS. COUNCILOR LABARGE - A SPECIAL ELECTION - 15 TO 20 THOUSAND DOLLARS. COUNCILOR ADAMS - THESE WILL BE DURING GENERAL ELECTION. WON’T REQUIRE SPECIAL ELECTION. 14
  15. 15. MR. SEEWALD - WELL YOU’LL NEED A SPECIAL ELECTION TO DECIDE WHETHER COMMISSION MEMBERS WILL BE NOMINATED. THEN A SPECIAL ELECTION TO ELECT COMMISSIONERS. COUNCILOR ADAMS - IS A SPECIAL ELECTION REQUIRED? THAT’S NOT GOING TO FLY SO WELL. MS. CURRIE - IF YOU ONLY HOLD AN ELECTION WHEN YOU’RE HAVING AN ELECTION ANYWAY, IT WOULD TAKE FOUR YEARS. COUNCILOR ADAMS - BETTER OFF DOING IT THAT WAY THAN ADDING THE EXPENSE OF A SPECIAL ELECTION. WENDY WILL KILL US. TAXPAYERS WILL TOO. MS. CURRIE - THAT’S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT THEN, WHETHER WE DO SPECIAL ACT AND LET YOU FOLKS PICK THE GROUP WHO ARE GOING TO BE THE COMMISSION. MR. SEEWALD - THEN IT JUST GOES ON BALLOT AT THE END. I’LL PROBABLY GET SKEWERED FOR SAYING THIS BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH ... MS. CURRIE - BUT THE COUNCIL DECIDES THAT, DOESN’T IT? COUNCIL DECIDES WHETHER COMMISSION OR SPECIAL ACT? MR. SEEWALD - COUNCIL HAS TO DECIDE THAT. WHETHER YOU’RE GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY AND HAVE THREE ELECTIONS... MR. WARNER - IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE TO USING A CHARTER COMMISSION? MR. SEEWALD - YES. THE STATE LEGISLATURE CAN PASS SPECIAL ACTS IF A COMMUNITY VOTES TO ASK THE LEGISLATURE TO DO SO. MR. WARNER - SPECIAL ACT WOULD BE ESTABLISHING AN ENTIRELY NEW CHARTER? MR. SEEWALD - EXACTLY. MANY, MANY COMMUNITIES HAVE SPECIAL ACT CHARTERS. AMHERST HAS A SPECIAL ACT CHARTER. UNDER HOME RULE AMENDMENT THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT VOTE A LAW THAT APPLIES TO ONLY ONE CITY OR TOWN UNLESS THAN CITY OR TOWN HAS ASKED FOR THAT. COUNCILOR ADAMS - WHEN WAS THE HOME RULE AMENDMENT? 15
  16. 16. MR. SEEWALD - MID-SIXTIES. BEFORE THAT LEGISLATURE COULD VOTE TO MAKE CITIES OR TOWNS DO WHATEVER THE LEGISLATURE WANTED THEM TO DO. THERE WAS NO LIMITED. THE HOME RULE AMENDMENT CREATED THIS LIMITATION. THERE IS NO ‘UNIFORMITY IN MUNICIPALITIES” REQUIREMENT. SO IF THERE IS A REQUEST FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, SIGNED BY THE MAYOR, TO THE LEGISLATURE TO APPROVE A SPECIAL ACT CHARTER, THE LEGISLATURE CAN DO IT. THE LEGISLATURE WOULD GENERALLY LIKE TO SEE THE SPECIAL ACT CHARTER GO ON A BALLOT. USED TO BE THE LEGISLATURE WOULD JUST PASS THEM, BUT IN MORE RECENT YEARS THE LEGISLATURE HAS BEEN LIKING TO SEE A MUNICIPAL ELECTION AT THE END OF THE PROCESS AFTER THE LEGISLATURE HAS APPROVED IT, AND IT DOESN’T BECOME EFFECTIVE UNLESS AND UNTIL THE VOTERS PASS IT. THAT’S ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE. MR. WARNER - WHAT’S THE DOWN SIDE TO THAT? MR. SEEWALD - THE DOWN SIDE TO THAT, AT LEAST IN PERCEPTION, IS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR CAN APPOINT PEOPLE TO THIS COMMITTEE WHO WILL MAKE THOSE DECISIONS. THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR WILL THEN ENACT IT, AND SEND IT TO THE LEGISLATURE. IT DOESN’T INVOLVE AS MUCH CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AS A CHARTER COMMISSION DOES. MR. WARNER - EVEN IF YOU ASSURE THAT IT WOULD HAVE A REFERENDUM. MR. SEEWALD - DON’T FORGET THAT CHARTER COMMISSION MEMBERS ARE ELECTED BY THE VOTERS, SO THE VOTERS ARE ELECTING THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CREATING THE NEW CHARTER. MR. WARNER - SEEMS MORE EXPEDIENT. MR. SEEWALD - BUT MUNICIPAL PROCESS IS OFTEN NOT ABOUT EXPEDIENCE, AND PARTICULARLY THE WAY THINGS HAVE GONE IN THE CITY, THE DESIRE TO INCREASE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND OPENNESS IS PALPABLE. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU AND THE OTHER COUNCILORS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE. MS. CURRIE - IN SPITE OF ALL THAT WAS SAID IN LAST MONTH’S MEETING, YOU NOTICE THE ROOM, EXCEPT FOR MR. COHEN, IS A LITTLE EMPTY. THERE WAS ONE PERSON HERE, AND THERE WAS NO SPEAKING. 16
  17. 17. MR. SEEWALD - I’LL BE VERY CURIOUS TO SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE SHOW UP NEXT WEEK. I DON’T THINK THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT’S REALLY RALLYING PEOPLE OUT THERE, AND I’M REALLY CONCERNED THAT A CHARTER COMMISSION PROCESS IS JUST GOING TO WITHER. MR. WARNER - WOULDN’T IT BE APPROPRIATE TO GET FURTHER INTO WHAT HAPPENED IN 1994 AND IN 1972 WHEN THIS PROCESS WHEN THIS PROCESS HAPPENED BEFORE? WHY DID IT FAIL? COUNCILOR ADAMS - IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT, GIVE DAVID STEVENS A RING. MR. WARNER - WHO’S DAVID STEVENS? COUNCILOR ADAMS - HE WAS ON ONE OF THESE THINGS. COUNCILOR LABARGE HAS TALKED TO HIM COUNCILOR LABARGE - WASN’T MICHAEL BARDSLEY? MR. SEEWALD - PAT GOGGINS WAS ON THE LAST ONE. COUNCILOR ADAMS - THOSE WOULD BE THE PEOPLE TO TALK TO. MS. CURRIE - DOESN’T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN NOW. THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW. DIFFERENT PEOPLE, DIFFERENT TIMES. IF YOU WANT TO DO IT FOR YOUR OWN CURIOSITY .. MR. WARNER - I’LL DO IT FOR CURIOSITY PURPOSES. BUT IF IT WAS A MODEL THAT WAS DONE TWICE... LET’S SAY WE’RE WALKING DOWN THEO THE SAME PATH THAT PEOPLE WENT DOWN THIRTY YEARS AGO AND SIXTEEN YEARS AGO ... MS. CURRIE - THAT’S WHAT MR. SEEWALD IS SAYING. DON’T DO THAT AGAIN. DON’T DO THE COMMISSION. DO THE SPECIAL ACT MR. WARNER - WELL, I DON’T KNOW. WAS THAT THE PATH THEY WENT DOWN IN THE PAST? WAS IT THE COMMISSION? I KIND OF LIKE THE IDEA .. THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTING A BUNCH OF PEOPLE... 17
  18. 18. MR. SEEWALD - (LAUGHING) YOU HAVEN’T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO THE WAY THINGS HAVE BEEN GOING IN CITY GOVERNMENT LATELY. IT’S A LOT MORE CHARGED THAN IT SEEMS ON ITS FACE. I THINK WE’RE GOING TO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHETHER WE’RE GOING TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL - IF WE’RE GOING TO MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATION - WHETHER IT’S A CHARTER COMMISSION OR HOME RULE. MS. CURRIE - O.K. YOU’VE CONVINCED ME. IT’S HOME RULE. BUT DO WE HAVE TO DO THAT TONIGHT, OR DO WE DO THAT IN JANUARY. MR. SEEWALD - WE DO THAT IN JANUARY. (MS. STRIEBEL ARRIVED. MR. SEEWALD UPDATED HER ON DISCUSSION TO THIS POINT.) 4. PLANNING FOR DECEMBER PUBLIC FORUM MS. CURRIE - HAD TALKED AT AN EARLIER MEETING - GETTING IT INTO THE GAZETTE, GETTING IT ON THE RADIO - CHAIR GOING ON RADIO. MR. SEEWALD - HOW DO YOU GET IT ON THE RADIO COUNCILOR LABARGE - CHRIS COLLINS MR. SEEWALD - WILLING TO DO IT. JUST WONDERING – IS THIS AN HOUR LONG SHOW? COUNCILOR ADAMS - FIFTEEN MINUTE SEGMENTS. MR. SEEWALD - BILL NEWMAN HAS A SHOW. COUNCILOR LABARGE - DOES HE? COUNCILOR ADAMS - THAT MINUTE THING? MR. SEEWALD - NO. I HEARD HIM INTERVIEWING JOHN OLVER - A LONG INTERVIEW. COUNCILOR LABARGE - I THINK IF YOU CALL WHMP RADIO AND ASK FOR CHRIS COLLINS, AND YOU TELL HIM YOU’D LIKE TO COME ON 18
  19. 19. AND TALK ABOUT OUR COMMITTEE, AND WHAT YOU’D LIKE TO ANNOUNCE, IT SHOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM. MR. SEEWALD - HOW ELSE DO I GET THE WORD OUT? COUNCILOR LABARGE - ADAM COHEN, ON HIS WEBSITE. MR. COHEN - IF YOU COULD MAKE A ONE PAGE FLYER WITH THOSE FIVE KEY ISSUES, PEOPLE COULD PUT THAT OUT. MR. SEEWALD - WHO’S GOING TO MAKE A FLYER. MR. WARNER - I CAN MAKE A FLYER. COUNCILOR LABARGE - WE CAN ALSO PUT IT ON OUR WEBSITE FOR WARD 6. DISCUSSION RE OTHER WEBSITES/PEOPLE TO CONTACT. MR. WARNER - I RAN AFOUL OF MY UNDERSTANDING OF OPEN MEETING LAW BY DISCUSSING THINGS IN AN EMAIL. IF I SEND A FLYER TO BE REVIEWED, TO WHAT EXTENT IS THAT PROCEDURAL AND TO WHAT EXTENT IS THAT EXPRESSING OPINIONS. MR. SEEWALD - YOU CAN SEND ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ME. WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT - TWO PEOPLE ARE NOT A QUORUM OF THIS COMMITTEE. ONCE YOU SEND AN E-MAIL TO ALL OF US, THEN YOU RUN AFOUL. YOU CANNOT COMMUNICATE WITH A QUORUM. COUNCILOR ADAMS - THAT’S ON SUBSTANCE. WE CAN DISCUSS PROCEDURAL THINGS - SCHEDULE THINGS. MR. SEEWALD - WILL REVIEW FLYER. WILL SEND TO MARY (MIDURA) FOR FORWARDING TO COUNCILORS, FOR POSTING ON OUR WEBSITE. COUNCILOR LABARGE - CHANNEL 15 - NCTV - AT NORTHAMPTON HIGH SCHOOL REVIEWING MEETING DATES. MR. SEEWALD - WILL DO BEST TO KEEP FOLKS AT PUBLIC FORUM FOCUSED ON CHARTER. 19
  20. 20. MR. WARNER - DO WE POLL THOSE ATTENDING ON ISSUES WE’VE IDENTIFIED? MR. SEEWALD - HAPPY TO INTRODUCE ISSUES. MS. CURRIE - FLYER WILL BE OUT THERE WITH ISSUES ON IT. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM THEM. MR. WARNER - SUGGESTING PAPER BALLOT. MR. SEEWALD - WHAT WOULD WE DO WITH THAT? MR. WARNER - INFORM OURSELVES. ALSO IF YOU PRESENT IT AS SEEKING OPINIONS, NOT ONLY OF THOSE SPEAKING, MAY BE WAY TO INCREASE ATTENDANCE. MS. CURRIE - THEY’LL SEE THE ISSUES. EITHER THEY CARE OR THEY DON’T. SUPPOSEDLY THERE’S A HOT BED OF CONCERN OUT THERE. DISCUSSION RE NUMBERS WHO MAY ATTEND; NUMBERS INVITED TO LAST MONTHS MEETING. MS. STRIEBEL - SEES LIST OF ISSUES; DOES NOT INCLUDE STRUCTURAL EFFICACY OF EXISTING CHARTER. IS THAT UNDERSTOOD ... MR. SEEWALD - REVIEWED DISCUSSION ON THAT ISSUE. 5. PLANNING FOR JANUARY AND FEBRUARY MEETINGS AND PREPARATION OF REPORT (THIS ITEM COMBINED WITH AGENDA ITEM 3.) 6. ATTENDANCE AT NEXT MEETING ANYONE WHO WILL NOT BE HERE ON 8TH ? COUNCILOR ADAMS MAY HAVE AN ISSUE. 7. NEW BUSINESS NONE 8. ADJOURN - 8:20 P.M. 20
  21. 21. MOTION - COUNCILOR ADAMS; SECONDED - COUNCILOR LABARGE. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 21

×