City Council - Regular Meeting

🎵 🎵

All right. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the General Government Subcommittee meeting of the Springfield City Council. Looks like we are joined by City Councilor Kateri Walsh. We're also joined by City Councilor Jerry Martin, who is on the General Government Committee. And we have one item on the agenda, which is in-person participation at city council meetings. And with that being said, I will turn it over to Councilor Jerry Martin, who is the sponsor of this particular resolution.

Alrighty, thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you A, putting together the meeting and acknowledging me this afternoon. This is a resolution I brought forward, I believe, on the May 18th meeting to put our names to this resolution and to, as a council, support in-person participation. This is something I've heard throughout Ward 7, as well as the city of Springfield at large, where people and constituents expect city councilors to show up in person in the chambers of whenever reasonably possible to show support for, and to do the work in person for the residents of Springfield. So it did get, you know, we did have a robust discussion on the council floor regarding this topic. And as a result, it was ultimately referred to a committee. Since that initial meeting on the council floor, And in preparation for today's subcommittee meeting, I have just talked with some of my colleagues to kind of tweak the language and then kind of get a head start on this process. So just as a little bit of an intro to what we did for changes, I added a couple more lines for where, you know, the where asked section, just kind of, you know, further elaborating that, you know, effective government requires the clear communication, active engagement and collaborative problem solving among counselors. And that's best accomplished in person. Um, but the big real change came from the now therefore be resolved section. Previously it had language, um, for, you know, that elicited being an order, um, This being my first resolution drafted, you know, I kind of confused some of that language. So as opposed to having that order language, it has that resolved language. So now it will be resolved. You know, in-person requirement. I also, under the exceptions, it was previously stated that it should be as determined by the council president. However, after having a nice and long conversation with Councilor Santanello, he suggested that we remove the part that says as determined by the Council President, as it may, you know, may not be fair to some of our colleagues to have, you know, serious issues, medical or otherwise, be determined by, you know, one person. So that was one of the real big, I think, operative languages that was changed. So, and again, got rid of a lot of the section where we had rules review or effective order date or transparency of expectations. I just have the in-person requirement that all counselors should be expected to be in person. And then the exception section listed, you know, some reasons that we, you know, we would deem reasonable for a counselor to participate via remote. Uh, counselor chairman Hearst, I did, um, send you a new version of the resolution. If you can access it via your email, I'd be happy to also relate it to, um, counselor Walsh as well, but I sent it to you and Victor or excuse me, counselor Davila, um, to make sure that, uh, we can take a look at that. So.

Is it possible to get it to our administrative assistance in the hopes that we might be able to get it up on the screen or at least get it out to the rest of the counselors? I see Councilor Walsh is on. I guess it's just you and Councilor Walsh. I can pull it up on my phone if need be. But did you pretty much surmise the edits that you were going to make previously?

Yes. So all the edits that I had just kind of discussed right now, those are all in that new draft of the resolution.

So can you just give us just a quick bullet-pointed list of the changes from this one to the new one just one more time?

Can I ask a question before Jerry gets to the edits? And I'm happy that you removed having to ask us permission from the council president. But you know you and I don't see eye and eye on this particular issue. And one of the things that I really Things should also be removed is the idea or the suggestion that if a city councilor has to be absent for whatever reasons, and we know there are valid reasons for people who want to be on Zoom, I don't think it's disrespectful. And that language is, have you removed that language or is that language still in there?

From the whereas section, you're referring to like in the initial part right there?

Well, what I printed out today, when I read the draft, I think it's the fourth paragraph. Those are my notes. Okay, the whereas is okay.

It's in the fifth paragraph, Councilor Walsh, as I had it circled as well. It's the fifth whereas.

Okay. Okay. Okay. Well, wherever it is, is that language that it's disrespectful if you have to be absent, is that included?

It says it diminishes the seriousness and decorum of city council meetings. Is that the section that you're referring to, Councilwoman Walsh?

She's referring to where it says, whereas constituents have expressed concerns that remote participation is disrespectful and undermines public confidence in their elected representatives.

Yes, I see that.

On the fifth, whereas has disrespectful been removed?

I can remove disrespectful. I would like to keep undermines public confidence because that is the overwhelming feel I've talked to with

constituents i i don't i i don't want to you know in indicate that you're being disrespectful counsel so i don't mind i don't i don't i'm not referring just to myself but i think that people have circumstances where they they can't get to meetings family travel illness all kinds of things like that uh situations beyond their control um it isn't disrespectful it's it's um prudent to do it on Zoom. So I would really like to see that removed because I think that if city councilors want to participate remotely, that they have a valid reason.

Okay. I'd be very amenable to that. How about for that language, I could write, whereas constituents have expressed concerns that excessive remote participation by councilors undermines public confidence in their elected representative. Could I leave that? Would that be okay with you, Councilwoman Moore?

Well, I think it makes it a little better. But it still doesn't. Is it your intention with this resolve to eliminate all Zoom participation? Because I've obviously given this a lot of thought. We've discussed it. But the counselors are not the only ones that benefit from the technology of Zoom. I mean, we have... city officials that come to our meetings on Zoom. We have constituents that come to our meeting on Zoom. We have business owners who may not live in the state. I mean, there's a lot of good reasons to keep Zoom as an option.

So in regard to those, you know, very valid points that you address, Councilwoman Walsh, I do want to say first for

Constituents at large, at the end of the day, they pay our salaries.

They pay our benefits. They can show up however they want. If a constituent wants to participate via Zoom, they don't have to explain themselves to us. They foot the bill. They pay taxes. They do plenty to be warranted that accommodation, in my opinion. In regards to our department heads and elected officials, they are very generously compensated.

This is their job.

they should be expected to show up. So the department heads, I do expect to show up constituents. Again, if they, like I said, for, you know, previously, if they want to show up via zoom, I don't have as much of an issue with that. And in regards to like petitioners and business owners and whatnot, the standard practice has been that they showed up. I, I, in my limited time and to my understanding, talking with other colleagues, I, It's really a rare exception and not a norm that petitioners show up in person. And that's another reason why I push this, because they're bringing life-changing petitions. We should be able to look them in the eyes and be there in the room to explain why we're voting a certain way. So I hope that answers your question. your questions for all those kinds of people.

No, you know, I don't disagree that being in person is preferable, but I also strongly believe that there are definitely times when being on Zoom is a necessity for people. And sometimes we have presentations from people that live out of state that have projects here in the city and they're outside of Massachusetts. So I think it's unreasonable to request that they be in person when we have a tool like Zoom, which is an option that has been given to us by the government. I don't understand the need to remove it.

Well, and also I do want to reiterate to- I'm sorry.

I said, Councillor Martin, go ahead.

Oh, I'm sorry. Quite all right. Sorry, Councillor Martin. I lost my train of thought. What was the point you made? Oh, yes. Okay.

Yeah.

So the real spirit of this resolution is really for councillors to show up as well. Like that's the majority of this language. If we want to incorporate language for like, you know, other for lack of a better term, like classes of people, whether they're department heads or petitioners, I'm amenable to that as well. The real heart and soul of this resolution is for specifically the counselors. But again, in terms of the department heads, I fully expect them to show up. If you want to talk about out-of-state petitioners or business owners, again, I'm amenable to that as well.

Because I think if I remember clearly, the new project regarding Stockbridge Cardinal, the developers are from Chicago and have participated remotely by Zoom explaining the project. So I think that should still be allowed. But if you don't allow Zoom, how does everybody else get on it?

Again, this is for the counselors specifically.

But

I'll defer to the chair. I believe the chair wanted to say something.

My thought is that because when we're just focusing on the city council, it seems to single the city council out. And I think those who are against this resolution felt that way and also felt that this resolution had the appearance of being a bit divisive. And so I think that if you were to include the department heads who are coming before the constituents with just as valid, you know, whether it's orders or ordinances or resolutions, that it that it might be. a bit more palatable um to the entire council uh i guess a couple other questions that so that's just my recommendation um and i i think uh i think it's extremely important if you're asking for the council to show that the department heads show as well. And I think you ought to document that the same way in which you're attempting to document the city council letters be present. And then the second thing or the second question or another question that I have for you is, does this apply to the hearings meetings? I know you highlight the regular meetings and I don't know what it is that you, regular and special city council meetings. I look at regular meetings and hearing meetings as two different things. Is that not your interpretation?

So no, when I drafted this, my interpretation would be regular meetings, hearings meetings would fall under the regular meetings. I also would like to clarify as well for that, That was like under the one bullet point under now for therefore be a resolve. I did remove special city council meetings because I do know that they happen, you know, quite frequently. And that's kind of, you know, a more special circumstance. You know, not everybody can make those at the time. So I did incorporate just regular, but I will.

incorporate that hearings language as well so it's regular and hearing city council meetings so i appreciate that clarification and i guess i guess the only pushback that i have uh if we do incorporate incorporate the hearings meetings if that is your intention is that for the most part, especially as it relates to special permits, if you're looking for, in order for the petitioner to have their special permit approved, you need nine members of the city council to be present. And so what I would hate to have happen is that there are instances in which these individuals who pay a significant amount of money and whose businesses are, you know, time is money for them to come before the city council and be because we're not able to get a quorum in person, their items are not able to be heard. And so my fear is that that will occur. And if we had a Zoom option, at least for the hearings meetings, then that would make it certainly more palatable to myself and possibly to, it just makes sense from a business standpoint here in the city of Springfield. I do remember one meeting we had this year and we were hustling around to get a quorum and it wasn't until folks were able to jump on Zoom that that occurred. So it just seems to me like we ought to be able to extend that option for the hearings meetings.

I take your point, Chair, because I remember that meeting as well. But to that point as well, we had the Zoom option, but we still almost didn't have a quorum. We still had a push bonnet and we barely had nine people. So even with Zoom as a tool, that issue was still I'll just simply say to that is for decades prior to the advent and use of zoom quorums weren't, you know, meeting the number for a quorum was not as much of an issue and was done well, well before that. So I understand, but if we have the inability to form a quorum within the city council, like period like that, that speaks a lot more about us than, it does about zoom. I think, you know, that's, that'd be a sad state in my opinion. So I, I, I will digest that point. Cause when you bring up the monetary value of it, I do understand that too. Cause we don't want these petitioners to, um, pay the price, but in terms of worried about reform, it wasn't a problem for decades prior to this. And even when we had zoom, um, that quorum was an issue and I think that speaks volumes about the current state of things. So I wanna just, let me digest on that a little bit and I'll have that prepared and ready for the next regular council meeting when we bring this back up.

So just a couple other questions, medical emergency or serious illness, family emergency, extraordinary hardship. Yeah. Those are your limited exceptions.

Yeah.

Do we have an idea as to what those entail or are you leaving those up to the judgment of the council?

I'm leaving that up to the judgment of the counselor. Like I said, it was my conversation with, uh, counselor Santanello and removing the as determined by the council president. Um, it does get a little bit invasive when you have people determining what constitutes a medical emergency or serious illness. So I do respect that and I do respect that concern. So I will leave that to the individual counselor just to alert the council staff and get the Zoom link sent out to them given the special circumstance.

And then my last question, and then I'll defer back to you, Councilor Walsh, if you have any further questions, is the... Number four, this is a resolution. And so I'm not 100% sure that a resolution actually gets across what it is that you intend to get across. And so I see in number four, I am assuming if the resolution passes, you're hopeful that this goes to the council president and is referred to the Rules and Administration Committee. I've never heard of a Rules and Administration Committee. Is your intention for this to go back to the General Government Committee or to another committee to, in turn, make it enforceable? Or is your hope that... When is the start date for this, Councilor Murray?

So I took this... I took three through five out.

Okay.

In the new draft. So if you want to take a look at that as well. So three through five are out. And in my opinion, maybe I will... back in and say this order or not this order this resolution or this new standard you know should be the norm going forward for all future meetings so for you know after the June 15th meeting moving forward so my

So a couple of thoughts that I have, and I'll leave it to you in terms of how you handle it. If this is a rules change, then this is not a resolution. I don't know how much you can add right now to your resolution to make this a rules change. So I would definitely consult the law office in terms of what it would take for an actual rules change, because right now it just seems like this is just a recommendation. The other thing that I would say is that there's another item that I thought and I wanted. Council Walsh and I disagreed on it. And that was... Which is rare.

I think we should look for people who have wisdom. So...

There was another item, and that was including public speak out in the regular meetings as part of the regular meetings. I was a big fan of including it, but one of the reasons why I did not move forward with it was because I thought it would be extremely confusing for folks during the middle of the year or after the first four months of the council. And so it is my intention to bring it up in November slash December when we typically as a body consider rules changes so that we can actually start the year off with that particular change if it if the body desires. And so that is why I ask, you know, what are your intentions? Is this to be implemented immediately? And, um, you know, if so, it seems to me that you probably might need to think about changing the form of this from a resolution to an actual rules change.

Um, yes, that's, that's correct. So yeah, like I mentioned earlier, there's a little bit of confusion on my end because this was the first like resolution I've put together. Um, So I do understand the confusion between the resolution or order language. My intention as it stands right now, Chair, is to put together this resolution, put our names to it, and see the will of the body, see the will of the council. And if I get the majority, and if it feels like the majority of the councilors would like to see this implementation changed, then I, you know, I would consider other options, whether it be, you know, the order or rule change to be considered in November and so on. So I just, this is, in my eyes, the first step into, you know, so to say, test the water.

Okay. And the last thing I'll say, and I promise you this will be the last thing I say on this particular ordinance, is that if, you know, I would definitely reach out to the law department. Because of the nature of the changes that you've made, the question is, have you substantially changed the ordinance as we see it? And does it need to be refiled? And so that's not a question that I can answer. But I would imagine that before Monday, based off of the changes that you've made, and I haven't seen the official document, I think, I think you did say you sent it, but I'm going to imagine you're going to make additional edits. Yes. Are those changes substantive enough to constitute the fact that folks haven't been given sufficient notice because their material changes? So I'll defer to you in the law department, but that certainly will be a question that I will ask if this gets on the committee today. Councilor Walsh.

Well, you know, there's a couple of interesting points. And one of them is, you know, the Chicopee City Council just recently took this up and they defeated it because they felt that what was important was that people voted. And whether or not you're on Zoom or in person, your main obligation to your constituents is to actually vote. on issues. And if you take away the Zoom option, as you talked about with quorums, you might not be able to vote. Personally, I think it's more important to vote whether you're there in person or whether you're on Zoom. And that's our major obligation. Also, the state permits this through June of 2020. 2027, I would think that would be the time that you might want to make a change. I mean, this is a tool of modern government. And I don't understand why we're not embracing it. Because I think it makes it, I think it increases participation. And I don't know if we're going to come together on this particular issue. But if it is your intention to require department heads to also be present and not be on Zoom, I think that changes the whole tenor of the resolve. And I wouldn't be ready to vote on that without getting feedback. Do you have an exception for travel? I mean, there's a lot of things that happen that we cannot predict that might make it easier for a counselor to be remote. A lot of stuff happens that is unpredictable and unforeseen.

Um, yeah. And I, I, you know, um, councilwoman Walsh, I do understand that, you know, life gets in the way and that's, that's why I didn't incorporate, um, those exceptions, you know, to comment on, on the Chicopee city council. I, um, obviously very disappointed to see that that was the result of that. But also some of the comments I saw were like, someone crazy to me. Like someone said, we don't do the constituents work in city hall. We do the city business there. Well, what do you think you do the city business for? It's for the constituents. There, that's why you're showing up. So I understand that she could be voted it down. I wholeheartedly disagree with that. And I think it's a little tone deaf. And I just, I believe that this is what constituents wants. They expect their people to show up, their counselors to show up for them. I do just think it is an issue of putting that extra level of respect and effort for them. So I do understand that.

But you know, to be fair, This impacts the entire council. And I don't see that the entire council has abused that. And I think you're putting a target on our backs by saying we're not doing the work we're supposed to be doing.

I'm not trying to call any individual counselors. I never did some in the media. They used imagery that suggested that that was not my intention. But some counselors did start to abuse it. And I know, you know, Councilor Hurst made a good point last meeting referring to, you know, the year of 2026 and the absences, excuse me, the Zoom participation. But, you know, this was an issue that expanded years prior as well. So, you know, and I'm sure and I'm almost confident that it was even more abused in prior years. So it is, you know, some counselors, not all. a little too far in my opinion and i just want to reinstill and reaffirm ourselves to the constituents so that that's my intention behind this resolution not to call anybody not to uh you know be a jerk but to uh but to be as respectful as possible so that's uh that's my intention with that so

Thank you, Councilor Martin. I do see one constituent on here, Erica Cruz. Erica, if you would like to say a brief comment. I'm assuming that you're on here just because I know Erica in support of this. And I heard you have public speak out in support of this resolution. I'd imagine that there are going to be some folks that are watching this

uh after um and so if you would like to say a couple words before we close out then feel free if not thank you chair i appreciate you like reiterating what jerry said we're not trying to hold the whole council uh the whole council accountable but if we're gonna hold two or three accountable we have to hold the whole body accountable and we have heard concerns regarding um you know individuals, constituents coming to speak out to address issues, speak out and their concerns are not followed through. And I think that's where the constituents feel a disconnect because there's too many counselors that do join on Zoom and then their cameras are off and it discourages them to even reach out to those certain counselors. And as mentioned, it's not every counselor because we know there's counselors out here doing great work. But respectfully, there's counselors that are doing more work than others because they show up. And I just wanted to reiterate that because showing up matters. And when you're in those seats, the ones that do show up, and granted, as for me, when I spoke out, I'm not asking you guys to show up for special meetings and stuff like that. In my humble opinion, I think it's respectful enough for you guys to at least show up on Mondays when you guys have public speak outs following the regular meetings. because it's fair for them, you know, the constituents to come and speak out and then they can follow up with whatever's going on in the meeting. And it keeps them engaged because then right after speak out, they can sit and join the meetings. And I don't think we're asking too much, at least for me, I can't speak for every other constituent. But as for me, I think I'm not asking for too much to at least have one day of everyone being present. What you guys do after that, like, I mean, I think Zoom is a great tool for you guys too. Honestly, like I said in the speak out, I'm not opposed to Zoom at all. I think you guys should have Zoom for emergency purposes, absolutely, or reasonable accommodations. Like I told Jerry, we should definitely have reasonable accommodations for the ones that are there for ADA purposes. But respectfully, I think we should at least show up one day out of the week. But that's all my comments.

Appreciate you, Ms. Cruz. I appreciate your advocacy as well. I've seen you quite often over the course of the last month. So I certainly appreciate you. So with that being said, Councilor Martin, if you have any final thoughts on this or Councilor Walsh, I don't want to leave you out if you had anything else to say. I'll defer to you and then I'll let Councilor Martin close before we take a vote.

Well, some of the discussion today has really been interesting. Your point about is this really a rules change, which we traditionally do at the last meeting of the year to have it take effect? I mean, does this impact the resolve? And should this go to the law department if that's the intention before we vote on it?

My perspective, and I'll say this last, is that, Jerry, I would recommend that you go to the law department in advance just to make sure that the changes you make are not material. What you don't want to do is get to the regular meeting and you find out that the changes are material and it may necessitate another subcommittee meeting. I just would and I would make sure that this is what you want, being that this is your, you know, your first resolution. And then I just would make sure that the changes that you made from the previous resolution to now, those are not on the regular agenda, certainly as I see it, as I saw it. And so the question is, are there material changes being made?

uh that need to never would require you to to refile so double check that um and i will give you the final word before we take a vote um no i just mr chair thank you so much i know i was uh very aggressive in trying to get this meeting forward but it's just something i'm very uh passionate about and i wanted to make sure that you know um we're getting uh the constituents heard in my opinion. So looking forward to making these changes. My question would be, I guess, if it's still just a resolution in nature, I don't think any of it really is binding in the essence until that rule changes is made. So I will follow up with the law department. I will make those changes and redistribute to the remainder of the council as well as I see it. So just again, thank you for putting together a meeting. Thank you, Councilwoman Walsh for your input. Um, and thank you, uh, Ms. Cruz again for your advocacy and being here in our supports. So, yeah.

So, so what I will do before we close, uh, is I will have, uh, you council of Martin, uh, make a motion to send this, uh, back to the regular, um, full body of the city council. Uh, certainly, um, I'm not in agreement as is until I see the final copy. And so we certainly can't send it back in the affirmative. But what we can do is send it back. What I will do for you, Councilor Martin, I've certainly, I will let you know, I've seen it before where folks kept it in committee since there are only two of us on the General Government Committee here. However, I will not do that to you, sir, and certainly will vote to send it to the full body, but I need a motion and I will second that motion.

All right, so moved. I move to move it to the floor.

Seconded. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All right. With that being said, this will move forward to the general government's, I mean, to the full body of the city council. Can we have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second.

What if the law department wants you to make changes? Doesn't that change this?

Then it won't come out of unfinished business.

Yeah, because you have to post stuff. I mean, you can't just change things and not have it be posted.

Yeah, if the law department sees it as an issue, which I'm assuming that Jerry will rectify before our next regular meeting, then we will leave it an unfinished business and we'll have another meeting on it following next week's city council meeting.

Sounds good. Thank you, counselors.

Not a problem. You all take it easy.

Yes, thank you for having me.