Common Council - Special Meeting

July 22nd right around 530 p.m.

This is a special meeting of the Utica Common Council. City Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Burmaster, Vitar, Carcone, Urban, Beatrice, Wazluski, Colosimo, Tosta, Lamedico.

Present. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance followed by a moment of silence for the deceased members of the Council.

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

purpose of this special meeting is to review two drafts of local law number four of 2026 one submitted on seven eight twenty twenty six the other seven twenty two twenty twenty six It's a local law amending section 2.045 of the Utica city charter to establish a temporary suspension of the residency requirement for newly appointed members of the Utica police department. Do we have any motions?

Joe, I actually pulled my legislation and then your introductory local law of number four is submitted on seven. Eight is the one we can move forward with seven 22.

yes oh i'm sorry i'm looking at mine yes all right so we'll pull the proposal submitted on 7 8 20 26 any motions regarding the local law submitted on july 22nd motion second to introduce All right, since this is a local law, if we proceed with it today, we'd have to lay it on the table for a period of at least seven days, excluding Sundays. Do we have any comment, any points to be made, or are we ready to move forward?

I mean, I'm ready to move forward, Chief, unless you have any other comments. I mean, I think this is something that we've been discussing for the past several months. Obviously, everybody knows my feelings in regarding residency. Myself and my family live in Utica. But obviously there's an issue going on in the police department for recruitment. And I think this is something that the chief has echoed. And in the years that I've known him, you have never asked us for something, you know, to this nature. So if you don't mind commenting, that's all I got.

Yeah, absolutely. I guess tonight when I'm asking the council to approve a temporary five-year suspension of the police residency requirement, for new police officers as well as current police officers who are currently serving within their first five years of service with us. This is not about weakening our commitment to Utica, it's about giving this department a realistic tool to recruit and retain police officers during the serious staffing challenges The reason why I also want to include the officers in their first five years of service with us is because of the fact that we are losing officers to higher paid agencies. And one of the reasons they're leaving is because of the residency law. And I'm hoping this could be a retention tool as well as a recruitment tool. Just some talking points I have further on this. This is about filling police cars. Every vacant position affects response times, overtime, officer fatigue, proactive policing, neighborhood presence, traffic enforcement, and quality of life. I'll give you an example. Earlier this week, we had a shots fired scene on Lenox Ave and on Capitol Ave. We had over 30 shell casings that were in the roadway, three different firearms that were used. We used absolutely every single resource, every police officer available to cover the city so they can investigate that. To the credit of those officers, we made three arrests. We recovered three handguns, including people hiding in the attic of one of the houses. But that left the city exposed, and we had to rely on outside agencies to cover the rest of the call volume. Also, the current rule, removes qualified candidates from our job. I mean, we are hearing from mature candidates, people in their late 20s and in their 30s who want to serve in Utica but already have established homes and have spouses that are employed elsewhere or have children settled in other school districts. This residency rule is causing some of those candidates just to walk away and not express any interest in doing the job. The younger advocate pool, which we're seeing the majority of, is not enough. The most interested age group we're seeing is those 20 to 25 year age group. And quite frankly, they lack life experience and we've seen the last few times when they graduate from the academy, once they get out on the street they realize this is not for them. So that's why I think this would help us attract more mature life experience candidates to come in and possibly be employed by us. But again, I do this as also retention legislation. If we waive residency for the new recruits, but keep the rule on the officers already employed from years one to five, we've created an unfair system and risk losing those trained officers that we've already heavily invested in. Losing officers is expensive. When we lose police officers after one, two, or three years, the city loses the cost of recruitment, background checks, academy training, field training, equipment, supervision, and experience. Again, this does not lower the standards by passing this legislation. We are asking to lower the higher standards. Backgrounds, civil service rules, psychological testing, medical testing, academy requirements, field training, discipline, and performance expectations remain fully intact. Residency does not equal commitment. An officer's commitment is measured by professionalism, response to calls, constitutional policing, community engagement, integrity, and accountability, not only by the street where they sleep at night. I know it's temporary reviewable. I would like to just see, at least give us a five-year sunset clause to see if this improves recruitment and retention, and we plan on keeping that data. so that the Kamikazes could explore it later on. In closing, I basically want to say that, respectfully, this is a practical staffing tool. Eureka is competing for the same small pool of candidates in the surrounding police areas and the state police. We have seen the city of Syracuse waive and temporarily suspend their residency law, and there's also a local city department, it also is not following their local law so they can hire police officers. If this rule, if we keep this rule, it discourages qualified candidates and pushes the young officers out the door, we are making recruitment and retention harder than it needs to be. I'm asking for your support so we can hire good police officers, keep good police officers, and provide a level of public safety that our residents expect. Finally, passing this legislation does not weaken the Yucca Police Department. It gives us

hold on first thank you chief for for laying that out um we could move around this way yeah i mean thank you chief uh one of the issues that i've that i've heard a couple times is that uh well if you're bringing people from outside the city uh that aren't used to working in the city uh how are you going to prepare them to work with the people the residents in the city in the inner city

So when we hire a police officer, regardless of where they live, they have to go through a six-month police academy. Then afterwards, they have to serve a 12-week field training officer's program. And during those 12 weeks, when they actually hit the streets, we can see if they're They have the muster to cut it as a police officer in the city of Utica. Sometimes we see those that don't cut the muster to either resign or they quit because it's not for them. So I think it's the FTO program, the supervision that ensures that these candidates from outside the city of Utica learn the city very quickly and are capable of it properly addressing and showing respect to our residents here in the city of Utica.

And you could see pretty much once they hit the streets and when they're on the academy, you could pretty much weed the ones out that you really don't think are going to fit the mold of the Utica Police Department. Is that correct?

Absolutely. Listen, I don't want the civil liability either if it's someone getting hurt or because they're not qualified to be on the street. So we weed those out.

Thank you very much.

Chief, the only question that I have, and this goes back to one of the subsections inside this legislation, is that in 2020, the city of Utica did the same thing. Those were with lateral transfers. Did you notice at that time when the city waived the residency for lateral transfers that there was a difference in the officers that you were able to recruit and were you able to retain them? And this is kind of how that piggybacked on this legislation to begin with, because this isn't something that's, we're not reinventing the wheel here. I wasn't on the council in 2020.

A year and a half ago, we saw five candidates that actually came over I believe Iliad Police as well as the United County Sheriff. We are losing it right now, and the main reason we're losing it right now is because we're one of the lowest paid police departments in the United County. Our starting salary has not caught up with the other agencies. They got smarter, they increased their starting salary, and now it makes it unattractable for a lateral transfer to come here because they would be sustaining a severe cut in pay to come here.

and the last thing they have i don't think this solves a retention problem for us just this based on this legislation i mean hopefully it works and i and i that's why i'm supporting it but i don't think this is going to be the end all to to to the retention problem and i mean that's something maybe you could speak on to kind of give a little reassurance that this isn't something that's

you know going to add 20 people to the police it may but just you know help keep some of the officers so some of the officers they have left shortly at the academy is that the usually the spouse did not want to uproot the family because they have six months from the time they get they get hired after the uh your appointment to move back into the city of unica and then usually what i find in some cases is that the spouse usually at that point doesn't want to I think we can retain some officers.

Okay, thank you. That's all.

Jack did answer my first one. One of the things we discussed at a meeting before was having it only to the end of the council term and a new council comes in and decides if we're going to continue by looking at data and everything. Is that something that could work for you or could not?

No, I think time is of the essence. I've had conversations with our PPA presidents, a lot of our command staff officers. What we're projecting right now The year of 2027 is going to be a rough year for us. Right now, we're down 25 police officers. I can't count the ones that are on the FTO program, and I can't count the ones that will be sworn in on Friday. And even then, because there was a lack of pool of candidates, I'm still six shy of what I should be having to start my academy in July 27. No, the problem we're having is that time is of the essence, and we do project as many as 25 more returns that could potentially happen in the year 2027, and that doesn't include the potential loss of others that may quit or resign or go to the state police. So that's a very conservative number when I say 25 others that could leave.

We actually discussed that when we drafted the legislation. That was one of the concerns that I had, exceeding the council term.

yeah i remember you brought it up that's why i re-brought it up again um because i was just remember she had discussed that and brought that up so i was curious on that as well i don't think this much when it comes to policing we are being asked to do a lot especially this time of year yeah we are getting crushed between asking the police pools parks deal with the homeless situation on top of mental health and everything else. When I came in this job, it was strictly about law enforcement. Now we're getting into a lot of areas of social work.

Yeah.

All right.

Well, thank you very much for answering my question.

Chief first thing I want to say is thank you very much for coming here and always been open always taking my calls so in 2019 I ran for office, I had no idea anything about residency until I knocked on about 4, 5, doors, they were police officers and they came. And once I was elected, I came with you, and we put, I thought we made a big, putting the five-year window in, it was a win for us. Now we're going on to this, and I understand exactly what you're saying, but can you just, so this, what we're doing now, okay is it it's a temporary thing correct we're not waving we're not waving the whole permanently we're not waving the um referendum that people saying it's a permanent it's a temporary thing Hopefully it works quite frankly I'm gonna challenge you to call me or call any of my counterparts to come up with some better ideas because I think the biggest thing is the lateral transfer thing when Guys can't come here because it's gonna be less money and giving up vacations and all that stuff But I what I want to know is the five-year window and I agree with you and this people who've been here for two years We're gonna kind of wave that when does it all end? Is it a permanent thing or? what are we doing what is it it should be a five years as it's written in the legislation yes this is a chance to collect some data but the people that are okay so is this and i just want to make sure i'm understanding this and what we're passing here is a five-year window of we're waving it for five years not because i was under the impression too that it was going to be the council and then then then every the new council could approve it to do it again if they wanted to so Yes, right, right. So what are we actually doing here? It's a five-year deal here? Five years, so then whatever the council is in five years, we're gonna go back to that again and say, hey, this is working, let's do it again. Okay, that's fine. Right.

Okay, so we're not doing, that's fine. Okay. What happens, it happens, if we look at the list, we have 13 repeat candidates that took that test that we disqualified the last time and won't be pretty confident. Right. Based on even doing an updated background, they're likely not going to pass. Right. But even then, we find out half of those candidates, actually, half of those candidates will probably show up to actually take the physical guilty test.

And they won't pass.

And so now we're usually stuck with a pool of candidates, somewhere between 12 to 18. And now we're competing locally with multiple agencies who have the same candidates. And that's why we haven't been able to fill a contract.

Can you touch base on the fact, I don't mean to interrupt, I apologize, but one of the most important parts was when they do go take the test for the unemployment purposes, too.

Well, one of the eye-opens we had, we had a recruiting specialist that we had for a while. And when we started seeing a large amount of people that actually signed up to take our test and not follow up and show up to take the exam, we had to start calling around to multiple people that didn't show up. And what they found is that they were taken to civil service just to satisfy unemployment requirements that they applied. Because they have no intention to take the task. Or become a police officer.

And again, I thank you, and please reach out to me if you come up with any other ideas, and I'll do the same, because I think there's got to be other avenues beside this to help them. And I think financially is a big one, and vacation.

They're all financial, like Syracuse, they just announced a $10,000 bonus if you come out of their police department. I know the city of Rochester, because they're down over 120 officers. It's not just us, it's the community. The city of Rochester, if you stay an additional five years beyond 20, they give you a free health care. So all these agencies are suffering. Syracuse, I believe, is down 64. So all these agencies that I've talked to, we're all in the same boat.

How you doing, Chief? I haven't spoken to you in a while. I've been dealing with your deputy chief. He's doing a good job. I wanted to ask, you have police officers now that are non-residents of the city of Utica, right? Yes. Once they went on, did you notice that there was an increase in complaints from the residents of the city?

Actually, no. What I found is that the level committed doesn't make a difference where they live. I've seen a lot of those non-residents actually get promoted to other positions in the police department.

Yeah, because that was one of the big concerns from some of the communities that people that are not accustomed to the residents that we have in the city of Utica, that they might be a little bit tough on them and cause some problems. But if you're saying that it hasn't been a problem, I have to trust you on that.

Yeah, I have not seen an increase in the amount of citizens complaining and being against non-city residents. And again, I think what we have seen is that a lot of the people we have promoted for specialized units, they've earned it, not based on residency, but by their performance.

The reason why I asked you that when I was... and double ACP president and we just had. Police officers residents residents from Utica we had more complaints so I just want to know if they went up or down her house and then is it even her what's going on but since you just saw me and I'm good with that I will tell you as much.

The last question I had is people on probation can be, that has a criminal history, they can't be police officers? There's a lot of disqualifying factors. What we use is what we call the Professional Policing Act of New York State. And there's a whole list of items. Depending on what type of crime they commit, some can't possess a handgun, including people that have order protections or have been arrested for domestic violence. So this is an example. But again, the background process The interview process, the psychological testing, it's very intense, polygraphs. It's amazing information that we find out, and we filter out the ones that we don't believe would be good candidates for the police department. Okay.

All right, thank you.

You're welcome. Everybody knows how I feel about this. I've been saying since I got on two years ago, down the road we're going to have trouble not having enough policemen. And this is a very small step in the right direction. Referring to what Jack said about new people coming on, that just shows how important it is to try and entice some of the officers we have to stay on longer. And there's multiple ways you can do that with all kinds of incentives. And if you look all over the country, everybody's having the same problem. And everybody's doing it by enticing their veterans to stay on to help these young kids to get more acclimated to the job. So this is a great thing, but it's a very small thing. to curing the problem of not having enough police. And I've been saying this for like two years. Two years ago I started that we weren't going to have enough police. And you see it now. It's kind of getting too late. I'm glad we're finally moving on it, but we've got a lot more to do. And I think besides raising the starting pay for these young kids to get them in here, It's quite important to get some of the people not to retire right at 20 years and give them some very, very good incentives to stay because they're the ones that are going to acclimate these younger kids into being good. So this is good, but it's just a very, very small step in the right direction.

Thank you.

First of all, I want to thank you for coming in. want to echo on what councilman person beatrice said every time i call you you're right there for me yeah you've done some great things in west utica i know it's not such a great neighborhood but it's getting better and i support this and and i wish we could do more for you and that's basically all i have to say thank you thank you

Thank you for coming in and speaking on this. I know you've been advocating in all sorts of ways for the police department for many years now. I recognize that this is a need, and there's so few things that are in the council's control. So I am open to doing what we can do at the same time, and this isn't even directed at you, but I am questioning even the administration. I don't know if the mayor's listening or what, Starting pay has to get addressed, that's not in our control. The recruitment efforts as a whole, I would like to understand better because the mayor has that $300,000 of Pathways to Justice money sitting there. I hear that the expo for the Boilermaker just had the Oneida County Sheriff's Office and the troopers, but nobody from the city of Utica And I think our police department and our police officers are the best advocates to recruit people and to show other people why it's a great place to work, hopefully, and just to help increase the force. So I'm just hoping that the administration, and again, Chief, this isn't against you. I've seen you do amazing work over the years. The difference I've seen, I'm wondering what the mayor's vision is with things. And also, I think we can go back to, I don't know what the policy is when it comes to even, again, it's not the council's purview, but when it comes to tattoos and beards and long hair and things that do bring in and enforce a diverse police force that a lot of people are looking for, if those hurdles are currently in the police department, I'm wondering what, if we're willing to do this, I'm just hoping, we don't have to answer now, but I'm just hoping what the city's promises to everybody to also help encourage the recruitment expansion.

Yeah, what I will say is that we have relaxed some of our grooming standards, like you talk about beards and whatnot. You've got to remember, I'm a guy with almost 39 years of a job, and I'm a traditionalist. I still wear my hat. I still don't believe in having a beard or facial hair. I realize that with time, things have to change as well. Right now we have officers that want to wear beards, they get medical excuses or religious reasons, they're allowed to use beards. My concern with allowing beards is that I just want to make sure if you did have them, the supervisor's going to be able to make sure they're properly groomed so they don't go out in the street looking like a ZZ Top. That being said, tattoos, we're allowing tattoos. We started doing it several years ago. I'm just going to make sure the tattoos they're putting on their body aren't something that would be offensive to the public going forward. But we are looking for ways to improve and recruit people, especially in modern times. I know that even With my years on the job, my life experience, I have to change as well. And I think we've done that. I rely heavily on my command staff as well and their input. But I think we're finding that we're in the same boat. This is a nationwide crisis when it comes to recruiting and hiring. It's also happened in the private sector as well here in the people at different companies They're having a hard time hiring and you know, I go to these seminars They tell me one of the reasons is there's the decline in birth rate while seeing the higher increases of mental health and substance abuse which disqualifies a lot of candidates as well, so The selection pool that's out there is very slim. We're all fighting for the same candidates and It's tough

No, thank you very much for coming in and advocating for this. And the last question, if the council would be willing. I know we have the PBA president here. I'd love to hear from the union president. Do you mind, Josh, saying a few words? Or did you have anything you want to share?

I think the chief did a good job of explaining enough recruitment and it should have been done in 2016 when we were negotiating that contract and it didn't happen so we're a little bit behind now and we're going to try to play catch up by adding all these things in um i know that Starting pay is higher. We have met with the mayor one time. I can't get another meeting with him. His sense of urgency isn't there to settle a contract with him. He's kind of dragging his feet. That's his thing that he does with everything. So we are trying. I'm sending him emails, sending the law firm emails, saying, hey, let's meet. Let's get this rolling here so we can... be competitive the residency is a small portion of being competitive in these other departments i think it's important that we include the officers that are on now not just the ones that are coming on i think it did help with laterals because people are they were established some of the older officers that come out

if you don't mind it's very difficult to have you from your seat i mean if you can just please come up because there's a microphone there people can't hear you from the audience if you don't mind please and can you touch base on the difference while you're here and what happened in 2016 as far as the resident amount with the monetary amount that was tied to that actual component that never was followed through

Well, I wasn't the union president at that time or even in the union as a board member, but we voted on a contract you know, promise raises and all those things for residency and then the residency fell through. But I think we could see the writing on the wall at that time that residency was important in recruitment because all the other departments were lifting that to get officers in their departments. So we're, 10 years ago we saw that and it didn't happen. We left that alone. There were other things that we were trying to target. Obviously, starting wages and salaries and stuff like that were important, so we stopped focusing on the residency and tried to get other things in our contract. Does that answer your question?

I remember it came up and there was a huge monetary amount that was tied to it. It was like almost $3,000 to $5,000 a year per employee that lived outside the city. And they tried involving the council in it, and the council really wasn't involved in the negotiation component. So it was kind of like... They tried to tell us one thing, and it was obviously totally different, that we weren't really involved in that contract to be tied to it. So that's the only thing that I want to touch base on, which kind of turned me off when that was presented in 2016.

At the time, we were told if we passed this contract, then residency would go through. Right, and they kind of included us in something that we didn't have the barriers to be involved in. That wasn't the case. But like I said, we're 10 years behind. That should have happened 10 years ago. But it didn't happen at the time. I think it will help. It has helped with laterals. Some of the officers, and I say older officers, older officers to get on in their late 20s, early 30s, are already established. Their kids are already in school. They're not willing to move into the city to have a job as a police officer and uproot their family, like the chief said, so they choose not to come to Utica as a police officer.

um the only thing that i want to say and this will this i'll wrap it up because i think that everybody's on board with this and laying on the table and obviously we have to call a special meeting um in the next week but i just want to say that i really appreciate the fact that obviously with the new fire union and you being in the police union and kind of understanding evolving through a previous administration new administration i don't appreciate the fact that this has been dragged on that long um under this current administration I think that it's not beneficial to anybody. I don't think that it's beneficial to the employees. I know being without a contract is extremely As far as morale goes in each department, it's not fun not having those contracts settled, trying to plan for your future and whether or not your health care is going to increase, whether or not your health care is, you know, whatever components are involved in those contracts. So I want to just say publicly, and I know we've had conversations, and Chief, I know I've talked to you and Mark included, but I really believe that these need to be settled. And I don't appreciate the fact that this current administration has not been able to come to the table and do that because I think that that's going to, a big cloud over his head. And I don't know who he listens to. It's certainly not me because I would have came to the table a long time ago to try and get that settled. So I appreciate you coming here and defending your fellow union member and trying to come to a solution and working together. I just want to say thank you.

All right. Officer Harrington, unless you have anything else. All right, we appreciate it. We're going to turn it over to Judge Garamond to say a few words here.

You understand that I have continually said to you that I do not interfere with the legislative activities Actions of the Common Council as long as what you do I think can pass muster In the courthouse that is on Elizabeth Street As you know After 38 years on the bench I've read a lot of legal documents a lot of memorandums of law and I can say that I make and had made decisions from which I have never been reversed and the basis is that I read them and I think of them as being able to explain to any single person without legal experience and understand Why so or so? I read this second page here, and especially the provisions that are contained under D. There are a number of them. And quite frankly, I find them to be confusing and contradictory. When you have this five-year thing, which I also think was ill-advisable because it was again begging the question. Every time a police officer gets appointed and there's five years, that means the police officer appointed and 2027, five years, it brings him into 32. The one in 28 brings him into 33. And all these dates keep piling up. And when you are wondering what the rights are of the individual police officer, you have to keep going back to this compilation of years and requirements under this law which I find very confusing. Just a second. I think this law begs the question. I said before the meeting to someone that the Department of Public Safety is in the Charter. And Department of Public Safety really is the police officers, the commissioner, and the members of the fire department. The commissioner of the public safety does not live in the city of Utica. That was done under a so-called provision that you could do that. I'm not arguing that you can or cannot. I think I've done it enough times. When you look at the two major departments, though, on the Department of Public Safety, it's the police and fire. Now, the fire department has none of this five-year or any events of confusion. Once you are make all the qualifications under civil service law and you get appointed the fire department you can live in oneida county utica or a contiguous county and that came about because the fire department and some officials went to albany and got the public officers law amended to provide a specific provision that starts out that says regardless of any charter or any other law to the contrary, a police, a fireman appointed in the city of Utica may live in anywhere outside of Utica, may live in Oneida County or a contiguous county thereof. So when you think of equal protection under the law, federal law, where is the equal protection? Where for some reason you are infatuated with this five-year provision. I don't know. Why?

Judge, can you honestly... Just a minute. Let me finish my... Then you can make your argument.

Hold on, Judge.

Please get to the point.

Wait a minute. I have the floor, don't I? Do I have the floor?

Do I have the floor, sir? Please.

Okay. So, the conclusion of what I'm saying is... In my 28 years here, I've never seen the residency law really ever enforced, period, number one. Number two, if you're going to give equal protection to the police department, the fire department got through a different source and went by you and around you. then why you keep having this confusing provision about the five years? And I read it and it confuses me. And I thought that there's only one way to address the residency law regarding the Utica Police Department and the Department of Public Safety. Either the fire department and the police department and the commissioner are residents of the city or they are not. And the two are not and one is. And the five-year provision, and the thing I'm thinking of, and I'll direct this right to Councilman Testa, what happens in a common council like yours As the years go by, each of you terms will expire. And you will serve out your term, but what you have done during your term continues until it changes. So what I'm saying to you, to me, what you are attempting to do tonight has no finality to it. The continuous references to what happens after five years I think is a bit confusing. And I think someone who was reviewing it would find it a little bit confusing or not. You have to understand that as a, just like any one of you, you are entitled to your opinion and your opinion must be given due credit. I do not ask you, to do anything that I'm discussing. I'm just pointing out to you, I cannot sit here and look at a colloquial law that I did not compose and read these provisions, and if I say I'm a bit confused, I'm saying I'm doing it on the basis of my experience. Now that doesn't make me right or wrong, it just, I cannot sit through this meeting and just remain completely silent because I have a feeling without any amendments, there is a strong desire in this council to give a relief to the fire, the police department in some form from the residency law because I think they think in their mind that is the right thing to do. What I don't find is a feeling that you should bite the bullet and give the same right of residency or non-residency to the police department that already exists not only for the fire department but even the commissioner of public safety. And you constantly approve ordinances pursuant to the law that'll allow people not to live in Utica for the very reasons that have been discussed here. A lot of people who would like to be police officers I'm not going to uproot their families, schools, their home life, sell their house, all those other things. but they still might want to be a Utica police officer.

Judge, the one thing that I gotta say is that we waive residency requirements for people that are in DPW parks. They don't have to go through an academy and go through the training and so on and so forth that the other residency requirements actually offer. Now, I'll tell you this one too. When I was on the council, they added an amendment to the, I wanna say it was fire police, where they put a reverter clause in there. and I didn't agree with the the reverter clause being in there however because it exceeded my term and then you come back and you gotta we had an argument over whether or not we were adding five police officers and it looked like I didn't support the police department and so on and so forth when it came to that I think that this is a little different for the simple fact that you're giving the police department the the authority to waive that requirement knowing that they have people in an academy okay that they already have to transfer before their job actually starts okay because they have to be a utica resident at that time according to that clause that's in the actual charter and and i understand what you're saying as far as you know the consecutive years go but i think this is very simplistic in stating that at the end of five years this this local law goes back to where it originally was because it's no longer effective so if if on august 1st we we pass this local law right that that waives that requirement Five years from now, after August 1st, the chief can no longer have that same requirement unless this local law is still waived in that same time requirement. So I do think that it's different for us to actually allow those waivers for somebody that's in the, even the golf commission, we did it one year for the guy that, you know, that came in and he lived outside the city and he had a help with, you know, the, the, with Bailey view. this is not the same because they do not have to go through the same training they do not have to go through you know the the wherewithal it what did you say chief it was 12 weeks even after they went through the six week academy like that's that's a that's 18 weeks worth of time when the council finally gets a piece of legislation that says hey we're not going to waive your residency requirement i mean that's different you're you're In my opinion, and I'm not a judge and I haven't spent 38 years in the council chambers, but it's apples and oranges in my opinion.

Do you understand the federal equal rights amendment?

I understand that 110%.

You must treat everyone the same.

We did that with lateral transfers. So what makes this different with this legislation that we're presenting and the legislation that was passed in 2020? Can I ask you one question?

Sure, absolutely. Councilwoman? Yes. because I find that you are very erudite, you're well read, and you're usually very well prepared. I just don't understand why that the provision and the condition has been appointed out to you when you have the opportunity to eliminate any challenge to what you do because you do something that grants and is along the lines of equal protection. When you take your biggest and most important department, in my opinion, they're all important, but public safety now is at the top of the list. People could go into Walmart and not be frightened. People could go into the grocery store and not be frightened. People could do all the things we did all growing up and not be frightened. We don't live in that world right now as far as I'm concerned. You can't even go to the mall and be sure somebody's not going to pull out a gun and shoot at you. I'm saying to you that the philosophy that we have followed for years, and remember, who wrote the residency law? I did. Then you know how long ago? Something like 60 years ago?

So then you're the one that caused this.

And I believe in it. I believe in it because the place I lived in 60 years ago is not the place I live in today. And that's why laws change. Because circumstances change. I think if you look at the legislative findings... All I'm saying to you, if I'm telling you that I'm a bit confused as I'm reading all of this, because it's going around the bush. And I would have preferred seeing something that took the problem head on. that the Department of Public Safety is different than any other department in the city. And you have already a department there that does not have any of these requirements. There's no five year provisions, there's nothing. And why you have to insist that you want to continue that fantasy

for the fire police department i don't understand judge you wrote that legislation for us that last time though and we don't want to permanently waive the residency requirement like we whatever happened with the fire department was out of our control that was done through a state act that was done through state action i think i think that at the end of the day and if you read the legislative findings and what our actual goal and intent are on this legislation is to help help the police department with their recruitment and retention components that is that is all we are doing and that's all in our that's all in our authority to actually do and i think that the chief has has come here now for and i say just in this legislative time for the past nine months asking us for this with something like this because someone won't mind saying what would be the what would be the end outcome to this that somebody would that somebody would have to move to utica we're getting sued for other things when it comes to monetary amounts in regards to the city this is not the same if it comes down to the end conclusion that we would actually have to move to the city of utica i mean chief that's an understanding that if there is a lawsuit that comes based on this legislation that that could be a requirement of the officers that you did hire at that time i mean we can't predict the future but i think that we're trying to help with with the future issues and that's all i i've got because to me lay the legislation on the table and that's the motion that i'm going to make i don't want to say i have the last word when i do not object

As you know, I really sit here silent because most of the things you do to me, they may be questionable, but they don't flash a law into my eyes that I say you may be violating and might cause you some embarrassment in the courthouse. I see here And I mentioned it to the majority leader when I was coming here. The equal protection law of the federal constitution says that everybody's treated the same. And I said here, I say here, here's a prime example of two departments that exist side by side and one is treated different than the other. tonight again they're being treated different there is no such provisions in the other department of the city of public safety that has that provision and that's all i'm saying and that is why I'm here, because I'm talking about a legal issue, not a social issue or anything else, a legal issue. And I cannot leave this podium tonight not having said anything. Thank you very much. And I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying anything about it like that. I'm just making a legal point, which is what you hired me for. But I don't tell you how to vote. I don't tell you what to vote on, and I can't tell you that this wouldn't pass the muster of the courthouse. I would not do that because I can't predict what some other person with judicial experience looks up to something. So I hope you've given me the benefit of the doubt that I'm not trying to make you do anything. I'm just pointing out the thing that bothers me as your legal counselor, but this is gonna lay on the table like the counselor says, and maybe during that period, you know you can't vote on it until it's in its final form anyway. it always must lay on the table in the final form any amendment would have would cause for another seven day delay thank you so i i think that you've got plenty to think about in seven days thank you so we have a we have the motion we have the second to lay it on the table any opposed no okay

I mean, unless you want to take a vote.

Do we have any opposed? No. Okay. So it's laid on the table. The next order of business is calling a special meeting to address this. I think the soonest we can call a meeting is July 31st. It's next Friday.

Everybody good for that 31st? I will be out of town July 31st.

We have the Monday, August 3rd would be the next option after the weekend.

I'm okay with that. August 3rd?

Yeah. 530? I'm good for August 3rd. Everybody good? Bobby, you good?

Okay. 530 work for everyone?

Yep. We're good.

All right, 530 Monday, August 3rd. Motion to adjourn? Second. Second. All right, adjourned.

Thank you, August 3rd.