City Council - Special Meeting

Councilor Skiddeen? Here. Camara? Here. Canuel? Here. Dion? Hart? Here. Peckham? Here. Pereira? Here. Raposo? Here. President Ponce?

Here. I just wanted to let the record reflect our Council Vice President is under the weather and will not be joining us this evening. Pursuant, everybody in the chamber please rise for a moment of silent prayer.

If we could keep Ms. LePage in our thoughts and prayers.

Thank you, Counselor. Thank you, and I salute you the flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made, whether perceived or unperceived by those present, and are deemed acknowledged and permissible. First item on our agenda this evening is citizens' input. Madam Clerk? Nothing. Very good. Next item on our agenda this evening is a priority matter that was objected to at the last meeting. Mayor and a request for confirmation in the appointment of Christopher Hathaway as the Director of Community Maintenance. Is there a motion? Motion to lift the item from the table. Second. The motion to lift the item from the table has been made by Councillor Raposo, seconded by Councillor Peckham. Discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion to adopt. The ayes have it. Motion to adopt the confirmation and appointment of Christopher Hathaway as the Director of Community Maintenance has been made by Councilor Kadim, seconded by Councilor Raposo. Is there discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Congratulations.

Thank you.

Next item on our agenda is committee reports. It's a resolution that the city council pursues legal action to get legal determination from a judge on the city council's authority to confirm reappointments in the city council's jurisdiction to investigate the city's departments and the city council's authority to hire outside agencies to assist with investigations. Motion to lift the item from the table. Motion to lift the item from the table has been made by Councillor Kadim, seconded by Councillor Raposo. Discussion on lifting the item from the table? Hearing none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. The City Council did get a communication from Attorney Rumsey this afternoon at 4.48 this afternoon, and I just have to say to Attorney Rumsey and the administration that we have to get a little bit better at getting these legal opinions an hour before our City Council meetings. The council in some cases doesn't always have the time to do our own necessary research. We don't have five staff or four other attorneys that represent us to seek other opinions. So I really need to refrain. I'm gonna ask the administration going forward to please refrain from giving these drops before meetings and try to give us some ample time to review opinions, especially legal opinions, because quite frankly, it's disrespectful. Is there any discussion on the item? Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt the resolution has been made by Councilor Kadim. Is there a second?

Second with discussion.

Seconded by Councilor Peckham. Discussion? Councilor in seat six, Councilor Peckham.

So I agree. I saw this about maybe 15, 10 minutes ago, 15 minutes ago. At what point, Corporation Council's here. Can I ask them a few questions in regards to this letter? Motion to waive the rules has been made by Councilor Peckham.

Seconded by Councilor Kanu. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Councilor Peckham has the floor.

Good evening, Attorney Ramsey. How are you?

Great.

So I have some questions in regard to these legal opinions. If we disagree, I know I've asked you this question in closed-door meetings. If we disagree with your opinion, who do we seek after that?

You don't. I mean, I'm the chief legal officer for the city. I mean, take it or leave it, you're stuck with my opinion.

Yeah, I disagree. So this isn't communist Russia. So if I disagree with your legal opinion that could direct us in a way that is not fruitful or efficient for city business, I don't have to go along with your opinion. We should be able to seek outside counsel. That's not how the law is, though. So what if I thought that you were giving me bad legal advice? You're still stuck with my bad legal advice. No, I disagree, Attorney Rumsey. Can you explain as to why I would be forced to accept your legal advice? Even if I disagree that it could be wrong. Would you like to read my letter? Absolutely. Go ahead.

And just for the record, this is my fourth time appearing on this exact issue. So having this what you're calling a last minute opinion is really, this has been going on for months. But there are things I want to put concisely in here for today, because as you know, this is your meeting. And I can only speak if I'm invited down. You waive the rules and I come down. I wasn't sure if I had an opportunity to speak. And I wanted to make sure that this council was advised of what my legal opinion is.

Attorney Ramsey, thank you for that. I want to just make the record clear. This isn't the first time you've dropped a letter off before this council before a meeting, and I want it to stop. So you can read your letter.

I will. I'm writing this letter to address the city council's resolution to obtain judicial review of the following issues. One, renewal of contracts for department heads without council approval. Number two, council's authority to investigate purely executive functions. And three, council's authority to retain outside legal counsel. In summary, I respectfully advise this council to withdraw the proposed legal action for the following reasons. Number one, the Corporation Council is the chief legal officer for the city of Fall River and is the only person authorized to pursue lawsuits involving the rights and interests of this city. Under Massachusetts law and well-established principles of municipal governance, a city or town must act through a single, unified legal voice. In the city of Fall River, the Corporation Council serves as the chief legal officer of the municipal corporation. A key responsibility of the corporation council is to provide consistent legal representation and advice to all elected officials, board and committee members, and department heads. Elected officials, board members, and department heads do not possess the authority to independently retain legal counsel. Permitting multiple officials to seek separate legal advice or issue conflicting legal opinions undermines uniform legal policy, may result in unauthorized municipal action, and exposes the city to unnecessary risk. Centralized legal representation through the corporation council is essential to ensure proper compliance with mass law and the charter to safeguard municipal governance and to maintain coherent decision making across our departments. Elected officials, board members, and department heads do not possess the authority to initiate a lawsuit on behalf of the city of Fall River. Only the corporation council has the authority to initiate a lawsuit that may involve the rights or interests of the city. See section 2-527 of the code of the city of Fall River. Number two, this issue lacks an actual controversy. Courts and judges do not issue advisory opinions on hypothetical questions or abstract legal disputes. An actual controversy must exist before a court hears an issue. Number three, lack of contract and authority. The city council does not possess the authority to unilaterally enter into a contract on behalf of the city. Any attempt to directly engage outside legal counsel without proper approval could subject an individual counsel member to personal liability. Number four, potential misuse of appropriated funds. The city council does not have the authority to expend funds appropriated for audits or other purpose to pay for legal services. And five, no duty to defend or indemnify for intentional torts. The city of Fall River has no duty to defend or indemnify municipal officials for intentional torts, willful misconduct, or knowing violations of law, even if such acts are committed within the scope of their employment. In such circumstances, the individual officer official may be personally responsible for illegal defense calls to judgments or penalties resulting from the knowing violation of law. So the reason I brought this out there is we discussed

the legal aspect over and over and over again but i don't think that this council recognizes that going forward against the direct advice of council could potentially subject you to personal civil liability on these issues okay now can i ask you a question attorney ramsay absolutely now about eight weeks ago i asked you in regards to a separate topic um actually you had asked me if you could provide me evidence that that officer was undercover would i end and put an end to my resolution and i said yes I'm still waiting.

Point of order. That has nothing. No, it does. I'm getting back.

May I have the floor back? You have the floor, Councillor. I'm trying to understand the point of order, but you have the floor.

So I'm still waiting. Does that evidence exist?

Well, I would I would hold on. Let me just roll on the point of order. The reason I'm saying allowing it to continue is because the purpose of this resolution initially started with the police department as well as the city council's ability to to to conduct investigations of which Corporation Council.

I'm going to correlate this to my trust.

So yeah, Corporation Council. So let me just the reason I'm going to allow the conversation is continue is because of that constantly on the floor.

Thank you, Council President. Now it's been about eight weeks. I have I gotten that yet?

don't know if if that information did you give it to me if you gave it to me you would know if that information existed one at a time one at a time if that information existed about an undercover officers undercover employment it's not something i would discuss at the city council floor even if it did exist

Okay. Now, in that meeting that we were in, did you or did you not say to me, I didn't coerce you to say it, didn't you say, if I can prove to you that that officer was undercover, will you put an end to this? Not in those exact words, but right around the same thing. The Council President and Councilor Kadeem were in this meeting. So, did you or did you not say that?

I remember that conversation.

So, you did say that, and I have not received the evidence. I wouldn't be the one that gives it to you. So, I'll wrap this around. This is why I do not trust your opinion.

Okay.

I'm still waiting for the evidence. So the second I get the evidence, I will start trusting your opinion. I'm going to tell you something, Attorney Ramsey. I voted for you in 2021, okay? And I like you personally. I do. But at what point, it's either an A and B discussion here. Either the mayor is really smart or the city council is really stupid. And I'm going to go with probably A, right? That's what you think?

I'm not really following your line of thought here.

The line of thought is every single thing we do, you agree with the mayor. We're wrong.

That's absolutely not true.

No, it is. That's why we're seeking separate counsel, Attorney Romsey.

No, in fact, I think... Yeah, it's obstructionist behavior, to be honest with you. Do you want me to answer? Yeah, go ahead. OK, I'll answer. So let's not even talk about the mayor and the city council. But let's hypothetically assume that somebody comes to me for advice on a daily basis. And I tell them 80% of the time they're right, 20% of the time they're wrong. And those 20% of the times, they take my advice and they don't do what they hope to do or intended to do based upon my legal advice. This council and anybody else in the city would have no idea that we disagree 20% of the time. So the difference is, and I'm still hoping, there's still one last chance for this city council to take my advice, is that you would take my advice. But you wouldn't know if the mayor disagrees with me because he listens to my advice or he follows what I instruct. That's what my job is. It's to advise everybody. This council, well, OK, I shouldn't say it. I shouldn't be so broad. I think it's a disservice to the residents of Fall River to suggest that I work for the mayor. The mayor doesn't have the ability to hire another outside legal counsel. I am the legal counsel for the entire city. The only difference between this city council and the mayor is the mayor appoints me and I'm confirmed by the city council. Once I'm in there, I work for the city. And I'm not at liberty to discuss the times that I've given him advice that he either takes or doesn't take.

Okay, so why does it seem to be every hot topic issue that comes up? We're the problem? Is it when when there are things talked about behind closed doors, like I just mentioned, that don't happen, and it goes by the wayside? Right? Everything goes by the wayside. It just gets forgotten about. So, for instance.

Completely inaccurate.

Your point of order. Hold on. Stop speaking over each other, for heaven's sakes. Councilman C2, your point of order.

My colleague just says every time there's a confrontation, we're the problem. So, I don't feel like I'm the problem with anything. So, I would appreciate if you just kept the entire council out of the weak argument. Maybe he might think he's part of the problem, but I don't, as a counsel, feel like we're the problem or I'm the problem.

Okay, fantastic. Thank you, counsel. Thank you. And seat six has the floor.

So I'm just trying to get to the point here, and I'll wrap it up. The reason that I don't trust your opinion with Seek Outside Legal Counsel is I'm still waiting for that evidence. So if tomorrow morning you can provide me with the evidence that that officer was undercover, then we can start to discuss all these other issues. Can I obtain that?

I will ask the police department if that's something that they're at liberty to give you. That would not be my role. It wasn't ever my intention to ever give you that, even if it existed.

You asked me if I wanted it. Oh, I understood, because I understood the argument. Did you not ask me if I wanted it?

I understood that in that meeting that you were upset about something. And I said, so it sounds like you would not be upset if you learned that that officer was, in fact, undercover, correct?

You said, if I can provide you evidence that that officer was undercover, would you mind this now? I'm still waiting for that evidence.

As I said, so I listened to your concerns. I understood.

And you never acted on it.

Point of information. Would you like me to answer? Counselor in C1, you're both, listen, you're both talking over each other. And Attorney Ramsey, let the counselor finish what he has to say. Counselor in C1. Just a point of clarification.

Deputy Chief Hoare, Interim Chief, actually acknowledged that the individual was not undercover at that meeting. in our presence. There you go. Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you. That just points us in a totally different direction. I'll just end it with this. There is so much controversy from the sixth floor down to us, right, that it's coming to a point where I'm, I'll leave it to me, I'm starting to feel disrespected. I apologize, Councillor Camara. and i can't let it go on any longer it comes right down to mr hathaway's appointment prior to this like it's always a mess the reorganization's a mess the appointment's a mess so i'm just going to say with that reorganization i'm attaching a forensic audit into dcm right to make sure that we just don't do the reorg we button up policy procedure and everything else and we find out what really happened to that from what i'm hearing $2 million that disappeared from DCM. Although I understand it was forwarded to the DA and they refused to prosecute, I would like to know how much money was taken from the taxpayer. With that, I yield. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. And seat one, Councillor Kadeem. Thank you. Just a couple of quick questions. So I, you know, i'm going to leave it the timing of the legal opinion with uh what the president said i i do take issue with the fact that we are receiving documents an hour before and i understand that you've provided to us in the past but to provide a new document at 457 when we had this meeting scheduled a week ago right i would just ask that we get this information in advance so that we can review it and then speak to it our ticket will uh you know, from an educational standpoint. But the first question I've got in your letter is states that or you stated that there's no actual controversy. I guess. Can you clarify that? Because then you mentioned that you've been down before us at least four times and have been discussing this for months. That to me would suggest that there's a controversy with regard to what's before us. So my understanding is and just looking at the law that we would have to prove that the council, that there's a dispute between the council and another entity in this particular instance would be the mayor regarding the interpretation of the charter. Is that correct?

Yeah, but a judge won't just chime in on an interpretation of the charter. There has to be an actual controversy.

Right, so we're here again with the actual controversy. You've just stated that for four times that you've been down here and we've disagreed with you regarding the appointments versus the reappointments, The other thing is there's a council standard. The council must prove it has suffered an institutional injury such as the executive branch subverting the charter-defined legislative confirmation or budgetary authority. So we've been saying it. It's been going on since this charter's been in place. Department heads have not come back before us for reappointments. So every single reappointment that's been issued by the administration is subverting the charter-defined legislative process from our standpoint. I mean, a majority of the councils feel that way. So I don't know how we're, in a legal opinion, stating that there's no actual controversy.

I think a judge would disagree with that. I think the legal definition of an actual controversy is different than what you think it is.

What is your definition of a controversy? When two people disagree? When multiple bodies disagree?

No, there would have to be something that could actually be litigated, not just a legal question. Legal questions aren't litigated. I'm trying to think of a hypothetical that would work for you. But there's often a case where the ACLU wants a legal issue litigated. So they will actually have somebody go in and perform an act and then get arrested on that act. And then they can challenge that state statute, that criminal statute that they wanted to challenge in the first place. But they don't just say, hey, we have a state statute. We think you should invalidate. I mean, I guess, for example, OK, here's a good one, which people get wrong. It's not the Fall River Ordinance. It was the state statute as to panhandling that was challenged. That was all set up by the ACLU or whoever brought that where they had to have an individual arrested under the statute before the judge would actually hear it. So you can't just ask about the statute.

No, but the issue before us is 2-10. So we are saying that Article 2, Section 2-10, city council confirmation of certain appointments, which is clearly defined, is being violated and the city council is being circumvented based on every single reappointment that has been made by the administration. That is a controversy. That has continuously happened.

I understand your argument. I was taking it as far as this had to do with the police chief issue, which is no longer an issue.

No. So, okay, that's fine. Unless we decide that we want to move forward with an investigation, then that would be the controversy. But the appointments and the reappointments are still a legal controversy.

On a clarification, is there a specific appointment to which the council is looking to challenge? I think that's what... All of them.

All of them. Every single one that has been reappointed and continues to be reappointed. Every single one. That's what you guys discussed in ordinance at length, right?

Actually, this started out as a discussion of contract renewals. It's now morphed into appointments, reappointments.

But it's still the same issue.

It is, but that's not the original. Well, actually, it's not the original issue I brought up. This was about contract renewals. Contract renewals and reappointments. And I consistently said that this city, the city council does not have the ability to have any say into contract renewals. And then somehow this resolution has now changed into reappointments because it's clear to me that we're trying to now treat department heads as if they're board members because board members are reappointed. Department heads are not. I don't think any department head in this city would think that they are being reappointed if and when they get a contract renewal.

Sure. The term, we've talked about it. I mean, I don't understand from a legal standpoint, when you have a contract, it has a term. When the term expires, you do not, and I disagree with your opinion that you have property rights to the position. You do not have property rights to the position. Your employment is ended at the expiration of the term, unless you are reappointed. And there's a...

successor agreement in place right i think that board members and employees the department heads are almost entirely different animals there's very little overlap in fact i don't think most board members consider themselves city employees but for conflict of interest purposes where do i find that in the charter not sure you will but i think that's it's pretty standard contract interpretation so i mean i don't find that board members don't go before hr they don't do but what's that have to do with confirmation it has to do with everything they're no it's the appointment process is a one-time appointment and then they're just employees in the city so then why is it that the charter article 2 section 10 for city council confirmation of certain appointments

It is department heads and also includes boards and committees. It is not separate. It is one paragraph. There is, it does not differentiate between the two. And I've made this argument before the boards and committees come back for reappointment. It doesn't say in that article that they have to come back for reappointment. It says that the city council has confirmation on appointments. The terms are the terms. It doesn't say anything about HR. I don't know that there's any reference in the charter about HR. And when you look at contract law, it is pretty clear that if your contract expires, you no longer have the right to that position.

Well, I point of clarification, if there is a contract, don't you have to give them a certain amount of time to tell me we're not going to reappoint? Sometimes that this line most contractors, so under those circumstances, then that person, if they didn't get a letter saying, you're not going to get reappointed, or re, you're kind of even negotiating, then you know, you don't have a job. But if if you don't provide that, and it's expected that it's going to renegotiate the contract, I just want to make sure that's

That's assuming that there's language in there. It has to have specific language. If there's no language in there, there's no, not all of them, but that doesn't mean they have the right, but that's just notification.

Yeah, that's basic on all contracts, I would think.

Right, but at that point, we would still have to confirm the reappointment. It's an appointment.

it's it's different i mean i think you understand the structure of boards a lot of them are structured so that they have to be on certain years so for example a nine person board three years will be year one three and three members will be year two and three the next year and they have very specific specific terms whereas department head confirmations by the city council once they're confirmed they go to the mayor's office they negotiate a contract it can be for a day it can be six months it can be three years it's any set term that the mayor and the employee agree upon

that the employee and the mayor agree upon, but it states that they need confirmation from the city council. Hence, the controversy that we are dealing with, right? There is a clear discrepancy in terms of how we are interpreting this, and this is a legislative authority. The administration, the executive branch is circumventing the city council. So I don't understand how we're sitting here saying that we cannot go to court and ask a judge to rule on this matter. Are you subject to section 2-10 confirmations of the city council?

I was.

You're not anymore?

Well, I was already confirmed over six years ago.

So my colleague in C3 asked the question if there was a conflict of interest. How is that not a conflict? So if you're subject to this section and we disagree that the reappointments require confirmation, how are you giving us a legal opinion if it impacts your job and salary?

It's a decision that impacts every single department head that I'm one person of a member. It's not too different than, for example, if you negotiate a tax rate for the city and you happen to be a city resident. Although it does affect you, the tax rate, whether you lower taxes or raise taxes, it will have an effect on you. You are one of a large body of member. I mean, there are numerous department heads in here, so it's not something I'm making an opinion just for myself.

no i recognize that but but you are subject to that confirmation so you could get outside legal and have outside legal issue an opinion on this would you like would you like me to seek an outside opinion on this issue counselor khadim i would and one an outside legal opinion for an attorney or a law firm that has not done any work for us or does regular work for us yes Does not. Because it's just going to go to Matt Thomas. That's where it's going to go. I mean, he's already said he's gotten an opinion.

Well, I know you already have the opinion of Attorney Thomas, who has had an opinion consistent with mine. But I will consider going and getting a third opinion if you'd really like.

I would appreciate that.

I would like some time to consider it, but at least I understand the argument.

Okay. If that's the case, I'd put this on the table so we can get an outside legal opinion. So I mean, that's something that I've said from the beginning. That's all we were looking for. I don't know why we had to go through this entire process if we could have just gotten that.

Motion to table?

Is there some councils that want to speak?

With that, I yield.

If I may, before we do, Council in Seat 7, Council of Pereira.

The only thing I want to add to this is back on January 14th of 2020, the only department head that came down to be reconfirmed by the council was the HR person, Madeline Coelho. Shortly after that, she did leave. But on January 14th of 2020, I filed a resolution. It went to the Ordinance Committee. The Ordinance Committee sent it to Corporation Counsel. And the response was that it wasn't fair that she would be confirmed and no one else had to come in for confirmation. And that stopped. So five years later, we're gonna change it again and have everybody come down. Department heads that I've spoken to about this issue have concerns with the reappointment of their positions. Because if they take a job and they have a contract for three years and they have to come down again to be reconfirmed, we're reconfirming the individual, not the contract or whatever the terms of the contract are. That we're only confirming the dollar amount. But what I'm hearing from people is, I take a job for three years here, and then I have to come to the council. What if the council doesn't Give me three more years, then where am I? And I think that is a legitimate concern from people.

Just a point of information. Just a point of information? So I don't have to take the floor. So there's a difference between your philosophical opinion as to whether or not department heads need to come down and what the charter reads. I disagree with what the charter reads. I don't think department heads should come down for reappointments, but that's not what the charter reads. There's a difference between that, without a yield.

Well, I just wanted to state that openly. If any one of us here got a job somewhere and had a contract for three years and had to come back not knowing if it's going to be renewed after three years, why would I apply to come to Fall River? Why would I apply for a job? And for me to reappoint someone here, I'm not in this building 24-7. I don't know what grievance has been filed by a department head, people in the office, what concerns. I don't know what's gone down to HR because that's confidential. We don't get that information. So... If my colleague made a motion to table, this will go on at nauseam. I really wish that we spent time doing positive things for the city. However, was there anyone else to speak, Mr. President?

Yes, there is.

Okay, well then I yield. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor in seat six, Councilor Peckham.

Just a rebuttal to Councilor Pereira. I think coming down every three years, the people that would take the job are the people that we want to take the job. they'd probably do a fantastic job if they knew they had to come down every three years before the city council to get their job re-approved. So that's the way I look at it. We have such a high turnover of department heads here that I actually don't think that's a bad idea. Thank you.

Councilor Cede, Councilor Raposo. And I think, too, the other thing to consider is that the city, you know, for a while has not done any sort of reviews on department heads. I mean, they're making that motion now to start reviewing their performance. And I think absent of no process to review, hypothetically speaking, you could have a department head not really do their job and get renewed. So there's really no check and balance in that system. Now, granted, to the HR director's credit, they're making – strides on that. But up to this point, that didn't exist, which becomes problematic for a person here who was sent in to confirm a person originally, and then they don't perform to the duties that we confirmed before.

So thank you. Thank you. Hearing no further discussion of I just want to say constancy to

Might as well just chime in. So I guess as a department head, you have an option and a choice. Be nice to the people that confirm you, you'll have a job. If you're not nice to the people that confirm you, you might be out of a job. It's a risky situation.

Point of clarification. It's not about being nice, counselor. It's about doing your job, right? So if you meet performance of what you were confirmed to do in your job description, it has nothing to do with being nice. has everything to do with doing your job. But to this point, there has been no evaluation of all these individuals until now.

Thank you, Counselor. Counselor in C2, you have the floor.

So I've seen plenty of counselors upset with plenty of department heads. And let me tell you, whether they were doing their job or not doing their job, the confrontation and the discussions back and forth was not nice at all. And let me tell you, if those people had to get confirmed, they probably wouldn't. get confirmed yet they were outstanding employees not just because a employee or a department head doesn't do what a counselor asked them to do doesn't mean he's not doing his job doesn't mean he's not performing what he should be performing there was a time here when someone years ago and it's happened in a lot of cities and towns something was going on the city council called department says hey what's going on they would change their actions because this city council was getting pretty upset and let me tell you they felt like they were gonna go talk to the mayor to get rid of them so um it's it's not about just doing your job being nice not being nice it's about you do what's right and most department heads in this city since i've been here have always done what they thought was right we haven't had perfect department heads we've had a lot of departments come and go but for the most part their heart is in the right place their intentions are in the right place and they do a really good job sometimes counselors realize it sometimes counselors don't realize it sometimes counselors put a lot of demands on department heads that they really shouldn't sometimes they don't put enough to demand on department heads when they should so it's all how you want to throw it up in the air i mean when i said be nice not be nice you know what i meant it's that's about what you're going to do for yourself at that point and that's the wrong person you want working in the city sometimes the city council needs to be told sorry i can't do that for you and they don't like to hear it with that are you thank you counselor constancy one council looking

I just want to circle back at what the real issue is because we are notorious for just diverting away from the real issue, right? So again, from a philosophical standpoint, we can argue that back and forth. At the end of the day, the issue is that the City Council has confirmation authority. That includes reappointments. Whether we agree with it or disagree with it, we are not given the ability to confirm reappointments. That's the issue at hand. Not whether we like department heads, not whether or not we have evaluations or anything like that, because at the end of the day, there's nothing in the charter that says that we do evaluations. All it says is that we confirm, and that is it. So the confirmation, we're not looking at contracts, we're not looking at anything. It's a confirmation of an appointment. We are not giving the right to confirm the reappointments. That is the sole issue at hand. I mean, we can sit here and debate the philosophical standpoint on whether or not we agree with it and all this other stuff, but that's not the issue. The issue at hand is that the charter, in my opinion, is very clear that the city council has confirmation authority, and that's being circumvented. And as a city council, we should challenge that. That's the issue at hand. Nothing else. With that, I yield.

Thank you, Councilman Cede. Councilor Raposo. Motion to table. Before I may, on this item, entertain that motion, if I heard correctly, our corporation council indicated that he was willing to get an outside legal opinion on this item. Is that correct, Attorney Ramsey? Not entirely.

I said I wanted some time to think about it. I understand the request, and I want to think about it, and I'll get back to the council.

I will make a motion to table this until the next council meeting.

Motion to table to the next council meeting which is Tuesday has been made by consulate the team seconded by consular proposal all those in favor I post the eyes have it. Most of which are going to be made by consular pose a second by Council of Peckham all those in favor I pose the eyes have a good night.