Town Council - Special Meeting

All right, welcome everyone to Winterp Town Council special meeting. It is April 14th, 2026. It's roughly 6:30 and we are in the hall here. Order roll call, please. Councilor Costigan. Here. Councilor Tassinari. Councilor Malloy. Here. Councilor Dimes. Present. Councilor Romano. Present. Councilor Riordan. Here. Councilor Finn. Here. Vice President Swope. Here. President LoConte. Here. Please stand for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. How come that door is not open? Should be. Just having a tooth problem, so So open that back, don't worry. So Zoom's not going to be No. All right. Okay.

[snorts]

Again, pursuant to the Winterp Town Charter section 26CII, special meetings of the Town Council shall be held at the call of the Council President or at the call of any four Council members, notice of which shall be delivered at least 48 weekday hours in advance of the time set for such meetings, which was done. Uh meeting was called by uh Councilor Costigan, Councilor Romano, Councilor Riordan, Councilor Finn. There were two agenda items. Uh what I'd like to do first is um I ask the Council for unanimous consent to make to have Councilor Romano uh make a motion. So I ask Council if it's not a motion on the table, the motion is going to be considered. Excuse me. Going to be concerning uh opening up a public comment. Uh so I will ask for unanimous consent of the Council. Roll call, please. Councilor Councilor Costigan. So if you if if there just for explanation, if there's unanimous consent to have a motion, I would entertain a motion to allow a 20-minute public comment period. Councilor Costigan. Yes. Councilor Tassinari. Councilor Malloy. Yes. Councilor Dimes. Yes. Councilor Romano. Yes. Councilor Riordan. Yes. Councilor Finn. Yes. Vice President Swope. Yes. President LoConte. Yes. Seeing there's unanimous consent, I would ask for a motion to open up a you know to open up a 20-minute public comment period. There is a motion by Councilor Romano, second by Councilor Dimes to entertain a 20-minute public comment period. I think a roll call on that. Councilor Costigan. Yes. Councilor Tassinari. Councilor Malloy. Yes. Councilor Dimes.

Yes. Councilor Romano. Yes. Councilor Riordan. Yes. Councilor Finn. Yes. Vice President Swope. Yes. President LoConte. Yes. So we're going to open up a 20-minute public comment period. The public comment can be on either of the two [clears throat]

agenda items. One is um a a motion that will be made to have the town join in that G&J case. Uh the second will be a motion to to look at Council rules for a couple of items. So if anybody cares to be heard on either one of those two items, please feel free. Okay. Marcy, did you have anything? Yes, I did, but I defer to you. Okay. Here we go. Um well, here we stand again Marcy Oh, Marcy Hamilton, precinct two. Here we stand again taking a vote on what we will certainly causes us financial stress, a pushback for all projects, and impact our schools, after-school programs, infrastructure, climate, and even our trees. As I reflect on the 10 years of actively learning [clears throat] how this government works, I am saddened and frustrated, to say the least. We had been blessed with the Speaker of the House, Bob DeLeo, to keep Winthrop afloat with many grants and funding avenues throughout the years. We are a community that depended on the revenue from the state and federal government. We depend on MWRA for their support and an occasional pump. But they still push toxic trucks through our town. We have a $500,000 grant for Massport, and yet we allow them only to do the only two or three houses down on Point Shirley under their own mandates. Our beaches are directed by the DEP and the DCR, and they all have mandates and directives for their use. We are here with the MBT Here we are with the MBTA 3A law. We are stuck in fighting this law. I would like to hear from Mr. Mr. Sepulveda for his legal opinion, not personal, his legal opinion on this case, and what are the odds are of winning this fight. I

would also request on an audit of our financial records and future expenses for 2026 and 2027. And lastly, this might not be the time to say this, but I am requesting $4.5 million to finish the drainage job on Goldstone and Pleasant as promised without a drainage tax being applied to our already existing taxes. Thank you. Thank you. [clears throat]

Mr. Della Russo. Thank you. Mr. President. Is there a 3-minute time limit, um Mr. President, for each There is a 3-minute time limit unless um a Council chooses to make a motion to extend. I'll try to You do it within three. Thank you. Um I'm watching the last several meetings, it's come to a um big disappointment on the the entire process um that I've watched. Um I have levitated off the couch um yelling at my TV screen that they can't do that. They can't do that. Winthrop has been divided into three branches of government, recognized under the charter under section 1-3, the division of powers. When people remain in their lanes under the division of powers, government works well. When they do not remain in their lane, government doesn't work so well. And those lanes are an executive branch, which is the exclusive power of the Council [snorts] President, is the legislative branch, which is the Town Council, and the administrative branch, which is the Town Manager. We voted 20 years ago, maybe it's just a little over 20, maybe it's closer to 21 years ago, for this charter. We voted for powers to be vested within the Town Manager. I was happy and proud to see the Town Manager last meeting uh stand up and says, "You don't have the authority or the rights. You're impeding upon my exclusive job description in the charter." His exclusive job description in the charter, and one of the most important that's relevant to tonight, is to prosecute, defend, and mitigate lawsuits.

This Council cannot offend the charter. We are sworn in with the uphold the charter and the ordinances of our government. By voting the motion that was proposed last meeting, assuming it has not changed, ordering the Town Manager to direct Town Council to join a lawsuit directly offends the the the charter. So the again, I feel that this is an illegal motion on the floor. There should be a procedural call and a determination by the chair on the procedural matter of this motion, and whether or not it can even proceed is a question of great debate, and in my interpretation of this charter, it cannot proceed in the current form. So the other issue that has come up over the last couple meetings is the issue of attending intergovernmental meetings. Our charter again gives that exclusive control to the Council President. He's the one that attends those intergovernmental meetings uh with the Town Manager. He's the one that organizes the town budgets and presents it to the full Council. So [snorts] a lot of actions, and then, you know, people want to supersede it and say Robert's Rules of Order. Robert's Rules can only interpret an action of this Council when there is no other wording in our charter or ordinances to the contradiction of the Robert's Rules. So I know my 3 minutes is up. I do not want to uh be a hog here. You got plenty of people in this room. I will save my little comments for the end, but again, we all here voted for this charter. We are all sworn in to uphold the charter. Uphold the charter. is we're already involved in this lawsuit with counterclaims

that Mr. Sepulveda filed. How many lawsuits do we need to be involved in? By voting this, even if you had the legal authority to vote it, the mitigation power to solve that lawsuit then is taken away from the Town Manager because now you got a partner in a lawsuit that's going to tie up the town mitigation, prosecution, and defense strategy. Thank you.

[clears throat]

I remember Cellas Precinct 5. I had sent an email earlier, so I'm just going to read it cuz it's going to make my life a little bit easier. And it's titled ethics considerations for today's meeting. Um I'm writing tonight to regarding the special special Town Council meeting and the agenda item proposing that the town intervene in and it support the plaintiffs in Winthrop Says No to 3A Committee at all first the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities. As reflected in court filings, Councilor Costigan is a named plaintiff in this litigation. And the meeting was called in part at his behest. Because the proposed action concerns supporting the plaintiffs in the same case, this raises [clears throat] a potential issue under General Law 268A 19 including required recusal from participation. In addition, um another named plaintiff is an immediate family member of the current Vice President of the Council. Which may raise disclosure considerations under General Law 268A 23 prior to participation. I raise these points respectfully so that they may be reviewed in advance of the meeting including whether any disclosures, recu- recusal or continuance should be considered to avoid later questions regarding the validity of the Council's actions. Thank you. Thank you. Clara Rullave, Precinct 3. Good evening, Town Council. Um I think this is about fiscal respons- responsibility. And fiscal respons- responsibility not for the short term,

but for the long term of our population. 20% of our of our residents are 65, 60 and plus. What do they live on? Medicare, you know, fixed incomes. We are already big inflation, the cost price is going up, things that no one can control. The town can control how much the taxes are going to increase, how much fight we're going to do. And the town can control how they manage the budget. Making the decision of going in a fight that everybody knows and if you use the data is there that most likely we're going to lose is more constrained not only in the 20% of the people in fixed income, in the business owners, in the 20 20 and 19% of people that are um Hispanic of immigrants here that make minimum wage that they feel, you know, 5 to 10 Do they love Winthrop? Do they want to stay in Winthrop? We're making it more difficult. So, I invite you to think not only uh in the short term vote for what is your short term about, but the future of our residents. Make Winthrop better, good for everybody but taking everybody into account. Not something that is respectfully, not something that is like a big elephant that we we know that we we we don't have a way to win because the data is there. Not only what your daughter Councillor has consistently lost but the there is no way to win this. And it's just more debt for an already red budget in this town. So, this is about long-term strategic planning and thinking. And your responsibility as town our our representatives, you know, whoever voted for or nobody what are you doing for this town? Think bigger. So, you really want to record be recorded in the future as a you made the right choice in order to conserve the financial responsibility and the budget of our citizens and everybody in the community at large. Thank you. Thank you.

I hope somebody on the Council picks up

just checked out. Excuse me. I'm Jack out Precinct 4. Picks up one what I mentioned [clears throat] first. The last Town Council meeting. And that is a a new way to get money from Massport. This situation has to be brought to light of everybody in the town. Solicitor said that he talked to a consultant about the Mass- Massport contract either once or twice. It's a $20 million negotiation. I don't know how a person could forget whether they met with Massport either once or twice. I'd like to bring the whole situation to light. And and and and talk about somebody on this Council. Talk about negotiations with Massport with a fee on uh on passenger tickets. Like I said before, FAA funds soundproofing program by putting a surcharge on every single ticket that's sold in the United States of America. That's how they fund the soundproofing program. We can do the same thing uh to get to negotiate uh the the new contract if we bring it to light, if someone has a discussion about it and and and possibly and I FOIA'd the LLC that was the consultant that And I got a consultant that was didn't exist. And I kicked up the I wanted to bring it to light. Consulting company did not exist. I don't want to come in here and argue about who did what and said what. It didn't exist. Very detective about that. So, let's let's put a a number on the number of passengers

that come into Lo- Logan Airport. It's 45 million. If you ask for 2 cents per passenger, that'd be a million dollars. What you got? 10 cents, you can do the multiplication. It should be discussed. [clears throat]

Not one person, I don't think, maybe two people in this room have negotiation experience with with an entity like Massport. I don't think there's anybody qualified here that knows how to negotiate a 20 or 50 million dollar contract with Massport. Perhaps there's other people in this world or country that knows how to do it or have done it recently. So, put a request for interest in negotiating contract between Massport and Winthrop. Uh bring it to light. Ask ask for people to uh put in their bids to represent the town. I'm sure you're going to get a lot for a 20 or 50 million dollar contract, a lot of response. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, Gianna Cavallo, Precinct 2. Um I just want to say all of you were overwhelmingly [snorts] elected into your seats regarding 3A. That was the largest issue you all ran on. I understand things change particularly in the legal process and what have you, but again, I'm asking you to keep your promise to the overwhelming majority of Winthrop residents who know that 3A is not good for us. We are a very unique, dense, geographical population. We have no way to build. Everyone goes in and out of town constantly and sees the traffic. I'm just asking you all to uphold your promise on why you were elected amongst other issues. And there are resolutions that we can find and I understand going to a lawsuit is incredibly scary. From 2019 to today, we've only received just under $2.9 million in grants. So, I don't want to hear that grant money is this big issue because it's over 70 years. We that we don't we never get the grants. Where's the Charter 70? Where's the Charter 90 that we were promised from millionaires tax? We don't receive it. So, maybe we need elected officials to advocate for us to obtain more of these fundings from the state in order to implement the policies that they

[clears throat] put in place. There's a new policy coming in or well, it's under review. It's an act. Uh the Freedom to Move Act where they're going to implement another tax on us commuters. You can only drive X amount of dollars. When does it stop? When does the ovaries stop? When do we stand up as just residents of the Commonwealth and say enough is enough? We're already taxed and burdened on this. Now you're asking that. The MBTA Act as a whole in itself is a wonderful idea. It can absolutely be implemented in certain communities. I do fully agree that we need more accessible housing for those that commute in and out of town and, you know, alleviate carbon and the environment and what have you. Unfortunately, Winthrop just doesn't fit that criteria. So again, I just want to ask, I mean, we've heard these talking points for over 2 and 1/2 years. I'm just asking you all to please uphold why the majority of us voted you each into your seats. And that's no on 3A. And that was the major issue what everyone campaigned for and why you won your seats. And if anyone needs help developing new ideas in order with regards to litigation or other ideas in order to approach the state for additional assistance, I'm more than willing to help in any capacity that I can. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, Kathleen Cappuccio, 49 [clears throat] Waldemar Ave. Um I have been a very proud member of the Winthrop Says No to 3A Committee um since it was formed on the day a couple of years ago. Um I'm just speaking tonight um because people have known that I've been involved um that effective Saturday um I withdrew from the Winthrop Says No to 3A Committee. I did not withdraw from the Winthrop Says No to 3A Committee because my opinions of the MBTA 3 law well, have changed. I'm vehemently against MBTA 3A.

MBTA 3A is bad for Winthrop for many, many reasons. Um the last couple of Town Council meetings have been very, very difficult to watch. Um And I And a lot of people know why they've been difficult to watch and I'm not going to get into that. Um but again, because I have been affiliated with the Winthrop Says No to 3A Committee, um I just wanted to let people know that I am no longer affiliated with the Winthrop Says No to 3A Committee. Um that is not personal against anyone on the Winthrop Says No to 3A Committee. Again, I still am vehemently against the Winthrop against MBTA 3A. Um but I am no longer a member and therefore, I'm no longer a member of any um legal action that's currently in place including without limitation the exemption case. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. All right. Lee Meyer, Precinct 4. Uh just shortly, I think it's a bad idea to get involved in this lawsuit. Uh I think it's going to add a lot of money where we don't have the kind of resources. Um yeah, you guys there's a majority of that won the election, but it wasn't a high turnout. People are busy. People want money used for us with trees and for flooding resilience. And it'd be a bad idea to commit us to a lawsuit. Thank you. Thank you. Carol. Hello, Carol Fichera, uh Precinct 4. I've stood here many times giving the reasons that I have felt that 3A is not good for our community. And just one point, I won't go over all of them, but one point I want to underscore is once the state comes into our town, you're talking about long-term concerns. They will have charge of those zones that are designated. That means the developers will have free reign over development. The ordinances in our town, the hearings

that we're required to have, the abutters' rights to protest, all of those things will be suspended. This is not affordable housing. This is developers building and making a profit and leaving the town and we're stuck with the state who is regulating our zones and we have no autonomy, no independence. I think that's a really crucial point that we must keep in mind. Uh in terms of the grants, we've gone over this before. We've received very little grant money over many, many years. There's no promise under 3A that we will have any amount of grant money. They say we will, but there's no commitment. If they're so concerned about this, then they should be giving us a commitment for how much money we'd be making to allay people's concerns that we're losing all of these grants. That may not be the case. So, I trust that the Council will make the right decision. I know it's a difficult one, but we have to continue to oppose this because I don't see any upside to us going to 3A. Thank you. Thank you. In the minutes. We will uh thank you all for your comments. Um There are two items uh on the agenda. The second item is going to be referred to Is there Do you mind if we just take that out of order? We can read the motion. It seems to be the vibe. You could just keep the same order. I'll read the motion. Have the rules changed? Yes. All right. Rules for amending Town Council Rules of Procedures, Rule 3 to say Matters to be placed on the agenda for the Town Council including but not limited to any ordinance, order, appointment, or other matters of business to be presented to the members for action at a regular meeting of the Town Council shall be submitted to both the Council Clerk and Council President in paper or electronic format by 1:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the regular meeting at which such matter is to be considered. All matters requiring a vote shall be submitted in full and in the form of a motion. Every effort shall be made to have all matters that are submitted for placement

on the agenda accompanied by material sufficient to inform Council members of the nature and purpose of the agenda item. If the same matter is submitted by at least four councilors, then that matter shall be placed on the agenda. The Council President or the Council Clerk shall submit the agenda in paper or electronic format complete with all motions and attachments to the Town Clerk no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the regular meeting at which such matter is to be considered. Um Section C. Other than amendments to existing motions, no business shall be considered by the Town Council unless one, there is a majority vote of the Council to waive Thank you. Um and that motion has been submitted by Councilor Romano. Second. Okay, it's been seconded. I will refer that to to Rules and Ordinances. Uh Chair, I believe you should be out of order. I I appeal the decision of the Chair. Okay, if you read Section 2-2 of the Charter and Council Rules,

I move I'm taking the Yeah, well, if you read Section 2-2 of the Charter, the Council President shall attend and preside at meetings of the Town Council, appoint the members and offices of Town Council committees, assign committee uh Council agenda items to Council committees, and perform other legislative duties. That is my ruling. This will be referred Page 59 Page 59 of of Robert's Rules. Councilor Councilor Costigan, I've made a determination. We can move on. Um And I'll let Councilor Romano would you like to make the motion Councilor Costigan? Sure. Yeah, sure. I'll make the other motion. Councilor Romano would you draft the matter? I move the Town Council finds that it is in the town's interest to intervene in and support the plaintiffs in docket number 2484 CV02351A in action in Suffolk Superior Court. To that end, we direct the Town Manager to dictate that the Town Attorney is hereby requested and required to intervene in that suit and advance the town's interest of being free from excessive excessive state-mandated development especially under GL C40A Section 3A. Okay, there's a motion by Councilor Romano. It was seconded by Councilor Costigan. Discussion on Uh if you want please to discuss it around or what would you like to Uh Councilor Costigan. Uh I'll just make a couple of comments before I speak on the exemption case. Uh And again, it's the exemption case. We're not defying the state in any way. Uh I have no financial interest in this exemption case. As you know, I care about Winthrop itself. As far as the messiness of of these Council meetings, uh that is democracy at its best.

Uh that's why uh we have a democracy. So, there isn't violence. It's all verbal. So, I just want to sort of expound on that as well. And again, we are elected by the by the town. So, we are elected officials. Uh by over 15,000 residents in this town as well. And yes, we were elected as it relates to a slate as it relates to the 3A and the exemption case. And again, all we want to do is be heard as far as the exemption case is concerned. Uh that is it right there alone. So, uh again, I believe this to be the the fairest way to do so um as elected officials. Thank you. Um Councilor Romano. Yeah, hopefully my voice doesn't crack too much. Before I vote [clears throat] on this matter, I would like to make a brief disclosure for transparency. I have stated that I am against the MBTA 3A law and that our town should be exempt. That has not changed. On my campaign, I spoke often about this, but I had not stated that I would support signing our town onto a pre-existing lawsuit. Prior to my election as Councilor at Large, I was involved with the Winthrop Says No to 3A Committee, which is associated with litigation related to the motion presented by four of our councilors. I'm no longer affiliated with that committee. I was removed from online groups and have no ongoing involvement in its activities or communications. I'm basically exiled. Uh Because of my prior involvement in other lawsuits my name is on, I contacted the State's Ethics Commission and I did speak to the attorney of the day. And I filed a disclosure under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 26A Section 23 B3 with the Town Clerk. I also want to state clearly that I have no financial interest direct or indirect in this matter.

And for some clarity, I want to touch on what financial interest is. So, the definition, if you really look into it, the law prohibits participation if the matter affects the financial interest of a family member regardless of whether that interest is large or small, positive or negative. Even if they were his own case, the success or failure of a lawsuit could impact their professional reputation, future client acquisition, or the financial position of a law firm if they were a partner, which constitutes a financial interest. So, that also ties in with your immediate family. So, under Section 19 of the Conflict of Law, immediate family includes any counselor's spouse, parents, children, and siblings of either the counselor or their spouse. So, I have no uh connection for any financial interest whatsoever in the matter. My name is on other lawsuits. I believe there's one still existing and open. Um talking to the attorney, it bears nothing on voting on a motion right now. Uh I am confident in my ability to evaluate this issue fairly and objectively. My decision will be based solely on information I have gathered for what is in the best interest of the town of Winthrop. [clears throat] I am making this disclosure so that there's full transparency and so that the public can have confidence in the integrity of the process. If this motion moves forward before I would ask if it gets passed and put it to town here and uh town council, uh town lawyer, is that I'd like to see the full layout of the cost, potential cost it would be, the head count of resources being utilized,

the length of time potentially we could be tied into this. Would you understand? If you go to court, it could be tied up. So, I would like to see a cost factor tied to uh joining the lawsuit on top of just saying, go join the lawsuit. Thank you. Vice President School. I must I came the other day about I don't know if I can something happened on the playground that children like and you were getting bullied. Somebody You have that kid. We don't do that. That's not what we're about. And when we find something that we find that is not in our best interest as a town, we have three possibilities. We can we can vote on it. Um we can take it legally legal suit on it. Or we can demonstrate. Those are the three things that I can think of that we can do when we don't think a particular law is in our best interest. And I think what you're seeing us trying to is to seriously consider what the long-term implications of this law is for us. Long-term. And long-term, it doesn't look positive. And we have gone through this many times and I don't want to bore you with issues at the new school or issue of the other costs of losing home rule or because we've been through this. So, this is an exemption case. This is not about telling the state that we don't that 3A is terrible and we're trying to get rid of the law. We're just saying that for us,

with our little town of Winthrop, of 1.6 square miles, this law doesn't help us and it's not a positive thing for our town. That's what we've been saying. That's what I've been saying. By the way, I filed three disclosures. Um if you want to read them, they are with the town clerk. You can read them. They're the [clears throat] same things that that Curry said. As you know, this case is pro bono. Um my daughter is not a lawyer by profession in terms of her work. She has another full-time job that has nothing to do with being a lawyer. So, none of that impacts where we doesn't doesn't affect her job at So, our it doesn't certainly affect mine. So, that's basically That's um that's nothing There's no financial obligations, there's no legal corporate

[snorts]

there's nothing financial involved. And I do hope that we as a community can get this behind us. Um this is not a uh a lawsuit. I mean, I think Attorney Civiletti has his own lawsuit in defending the town because we have been sued by the Attorney General. He has a lawsuit. Some of it Some of the issues that he presents in his lawsuit are very similar to the ones that I've seen in the exemption case. And I do think that for the benefit of us, it would be um it would behoove us to to stay the course here and defend this case. Thank you. Councilor Done. Thank you, Town Council President. Although I do not support the MBTA Communities Act, otherwise known as 3A, um I believe that cuz I do not believe that it aligns with the many challenges that the town of Winthrop faces, such as density, flooding, failing and aging infrastructure. And although I do not support that act, I also do not support an exemption case filed by private citizens. I would rather encourage the council to focus on constructive alternatives that reflect the needs and priorities of our town and our residents. We do not have the responsibility to enter into litigation on behalf of the town of Winthrop. As a town councilor, I serve in the legislative branch with the town's government with responsibilities focused on setting policy, adopting the budget, and enacting ordinances to benefit the public. I am expected to act as an agent for the public, ensuring that the public interest is my primary primary concern regardless of personal considerations. It is also my responsibility to conduct myself in an orderly manner as per council rules to

ensure public business is handled effectively. I also want to share a couple of housekeeping issues that I have with this special meeting that was called. Although I support the democratic ability for four councilors to call a special town meeting, I do not believe that placing the special notice in my mailbox is the correct way to deliver such notice. According to 18 USC subsection 1725, the mailbox restriction law or otherwise known as the federal mail restriction act of 1984, it is illegal to place mailable matter without postage into any mailbox approved by the Postmaster General. This includes flyers, newspapers, letters, advertisements. A violation of this law by any by anything being placed in a mailbox that doesn't have proper postage or isn't delivered by the USPS is a violation of this law. This law applies to anyone who is not an official postal carrier. So, in the future, please take this into consideration. I also want to um talk about the open meeting law for a brief second and then I'll finish up. Um in Massachusetts uh MGL 30A Section 20B of the open meeting law gives specific requirements for how documents must be handled to ensure public transparency. Also, Massachusetts General Law sec 940 CMR 2903 requires topics that are being discussed in an open meeting to be listed sufficiently and reasonably advise the public of the issues to be discussed. In this case, a copy of the exemption case was not given as supplemental um document to the motion and I think that that next time that would be applicable and appreciated if we had supporting documents with the motion. Uh thank you. Thank you, uh Councilor Done. So, um I wrote down some notes just

listening to public comment and really have much prepared. But I want to start by hitting on financial costs, which I know you've heard a lot about the town of Winthrop and the resources or the funds to fight this lawsuit. I just want to remind everyone that the attorneys have been and are continuing to work pro bono. So, um my understanding is this isn't going to cost the town any additional money to join beyond what we're already losing in grants for our non-compliance. When it comes to the us being a legislative branch, um the way that this works is the way this motion was written was it's directive towards the town manager. So, we're not we're just we as the town council, it's my understanding we're allowed to advise the town manager and give him orders on what we think should be done. And that's all we're doing here today. Um when it comes to ethics, I heard that mentioned a couple times. My understanding is that there is no financial interest for any councilors involved beyond the interests of the town in general. I mean, this this exemption, if it passes, benefits the town as a whole, not any individual person and their jobs or their career or anything like that. And um so, some people have also have been reaching emails talking about we need to comply and that's more of a long-term discussion and um I don't think it's the time yet to have that discussion. I was voted in large part to at least attempt to try and fight back against 3A. But um even so, making this exemption [snorts] today does not limit us in any way if you want to comply in the future or take any other measures, including Attorney Civiletti's case, which I also support and I'm also want to I also want the town to support as well. This is in large part, I believe, why I was elected. Uh 3A was the central issue of the last election. Even if some people say that it was that there was other important issues, and there definitely were other important issues. I think in large part, people at the ballot box had 3A in their minds first and foremost. And I think it's time we do something and act because as the council president has mentioned in previous meetings, uh these grants are starting to add up and

long-term I mean long-term something has to be done and we need to take action in the short-term now to protect our long-term future. Many of you have said that and I agree but just my way of doing something is this exemption case. And that's the way I see it that's way forward. So thank you. Thank you Councillor Councillor I've been pretty clear from the beginning that 100% against 3A. Nothing I say or any councillor says is going to sway anybody in this You're either on one side or the other. I would hope that depending on how this vote goes we can put this behind us and move forward and start doing what needs to be done for this town. I look at this lawsuit like a tool. It's another tool we can use to fight the state to stop stop 3A being imposed upon us. I can list all the reasons why I'm against 3A you probably know it you've heard it from other councillors. But tonight I will be voting to join this case because it's another tool it's not the only tool but it's another tool we can use to try and fight the state. Thank you Councillor Councillor Thank you Councillor Terry uh a lot's been said um but as you know I'm the newest councilman um here and uh you know before I got sworn in and uh and up until now um talked to people around town whether it's plaintiffs friends family members um coaching parents neighbors um I would like to look at both sides of things right I'm not just looking at one thing. And just the overwhelming uh response is well why not why not just see an exemption through um this is what people are saying

[clears throat]

to me um throughout the town and and I agree uh like Councillor Redden said I think it's a tool we can use and it's it's to my knowledge it's not costing us any money which is very beneficial. So um that's where I stand. Thank you. um I'd like to just say a couple of things about this. First of all as has been discussed the last meeting and this meeting again on who we are and what um I was the first person in this town to come out publicly against 3A and that was January of 2025. um I've always been opposed to 3A and I've been opposed because of the overreach. I did not run a campaign based on this exemption and I want to make that perfectly clear. um You know I hope nobody that put their name on a ballot ran on a single issue because as been discussed tonight there's a lot more things going on in this town other than 3A and there will be a lot of things going on in this town once 3A is is gone. So to run on a single issue to me is not a reason to run. um We talked a lot about this potential suit because this is what's on the agenda tonight uh we haven't talked a lot about the counter suit that the town has put in. It is a very strong counter suit that is on the website I encourage people to read it. We talk about um the exemption there [clears throat and cough] looking at it through that way we also look at the 8th and 14th Amendment to the US Constitution and we think that is a way to

have this become a federal case where we have a much better opportunity to be successful. One thing I've learned in the last 2 and 1/2 years is I probably shouldn't be a lawyer because these things just go on and on and on and it seems to be the only ones that are successful are the lawyers in the end. Because it's it's torn this town apart in many ways but the lawyers let's say this is pro bono but for the most part lawyers are getting paid regardless of the outcome. um [clears throat]

it I also look at this motion and I it will be voted on tonight I'm sure but I would suggest amendments to it. I would suggest an amendment to strike the word dictate because the council cannot dictate to the town manager we can suggest we can strongly suggest um town attorney we have zero authority over the town attorney and we cannot instruct the town manager to instruct his employees or our employees. um so I would request a little amendments to make it more clear and more succinct and more proper. um You know I think I think the one consistent thing here is everybody on this table I think said that they were against 3A for whatever reason. um Now you have to fight if you're against something you have to believe in that. However you also we also took an oath to look out for the betterment of this town and every citizen of this town all 18,000 change or 19,000 change depending on what census you're looking at. um I think Councillor Romano just said too I I know he's a strong opponent of this and and a strong opponent of against 3A but also understands that at some point there are limitations. And we have to take those limitations seriously but we have to fight for what's best for Winthrop. But it's not an all or nothing thing there's very few things in life that are all or nothing and there are compromises to be made. um as far as the talked about money in this and and it was mentioned how attorneys are working pro bono the town would never

regardless of the attorneys have attorneys that are not affiliated with the town in some way shape or form argue on behalf of the town of Winthrop and its citizens. We will have to have our own representation if we were involved in this as we are involved in our case. Uh we would not have outside attorneys who are not affiliated trying to fight for our town cuz that's it's not their responsibility and it's certainly I'm sure the town manager who his job is to make first and foremost the interest of all the citizens of this town and not to put us in a distressed position. um You know I agree and it was said in public comment about how and it was said in up here how this has torn the town apart in many ways and and I do believe and I say this all the time but I do believe that everybody has the best interest of Winthrop at heart it's just different means to the same end in some respect but um we talked about recusal as well. um And you know we talked I think most of the talk I've heard on recusal has been financial interest financial interest financial interest. There's also a perception of impropriety just a perception alone to me is a reason to seriously consider recusal. We can't ask somebody to recuse them in the end they have the opportunity to vote they have the right to vote. People have the right to object to that after the fact but um you know a financial interest it could be positive it could be negative it could be whatever if we are saying that there could be a detrimental effect to property values or a positive effect on property values that's a financial effect one way or the other. um but again just perception of impropriety just you know in good conscience do the right thing. um You know there were there were plaintiffs going this case that we're

discussing that members of the town council past member of the town council again I don't think they should be on the lawsuit representing themselves to me and I I could be wrong in this but representing themselves as town council but representing themselves as individuals in the town. Not on behalf of the um Yeah. I think this I think Councillor Finn might have said it or Councillor Redden but nobody's changing their mind out in the audience we're not you know we're just trying to bring facts to light and [clears throat] trying to do the best we can we're not lawyers but I think you have to look in the end in the end what's best to me is what's best for this town. um And there are financial ramifications no matter what people might say there's financial ramifications. Time is a financial ramification the amount of time that would have to be put into a suit that is um you know there have been motions to dismiss this and and I encourage people to read that and look at the language and see what outcome that might have a very good chance of being so you know time is time value of money they always say but they always say there is a cost to people's time as well. So um I don't want to belabor the discussion. I thank everyone on the council for their comments and if there is no further discussion I will move the question. Mr. Councillor President I just do want to point out I mean as you mentioned the as drafted it is in conflict with charter so I would suggest an amendment to change it if you if you suggest

I did suggest Yeah, but the council can direct the town manager to town manager to bring your charter. I didn't direct your charter, but bring your charter. The town manager has oversight over all legal cases, so Yep, I have that right here. Yeah, you have the language. So, I do I did suggest

with the charter, so I mean you can advise, you can suggest. I would just say if you change that word, it would certainly make the motion valid. Otherwise, we'll be in a awkward position of you know, having a motion on the table that's not in line with the charter, that's all. Yes, I I think that line should be amended to potentially say we direct the town we direct the town we instruct the town manager um to intervene or to join. You know, I think we should not mention the town attorney because we can't have any direction and we cannot dictate to the town manager. Uh [clears throat]

Yeah, absolutely. Who does the town attorney town manager. That's why I think it says that the town manager would be because the attorney civil liberties part two, is that right? But we can't be directing the town manager to an employee. We have no jurisdiction on any employee. It's like the DPW director. So, we direct just the town manager. Is that what you're saying? And and we suggest, we don't direct. We suggest. I think you can use in consultation with the town attorney. That's not the right thing and that's not So But he He doesn't Well, I think regardless, it I'll ask the town attorney.

[clears throat] You know, I've been looking at this probably for a year uh when 3A lawsuit started heating up and the Attorney General started rattling her saber. And I [snorts]

there is there's a provision in the charter and I know who I work for and I know who's where where the instructions and directions flow. And my understanding, my reading of this always been it was before this issue came up here is that there is a separation of powers. So, the council cannot interfere with or directly or indirectly cause another instruct another employee of the town what to do. The town council the council can request that the town manager, who under the terms of the charter, is the only individual who has the right to initiate, prosecute, and defend litigation. I work for the town manager. The town manager says you're going to do this you this litigation, I do it. He may ask me, as he has in the past in business situations that were with contractors and vendors what do you think the best thing to do might be. We talk about it. I have one opinion, he has another. He wins. So, that's the way that's the way it works. I've had in the past council has called me and said, "Hey, you need to do this." I said "Yeah, I'd love to do it. However, there's a way that the charter draws the path to get there and and it's not it's not directly." The other thing and and I wasn't I I didn't want to jump into the uh public comment because there were some really good points being made and I I value hearing because I have friends who are very strongly for 3A, very strongly against it and we're still friends. And you know, you can have a you can

have a dichotomy here as as I do. My name is on a lawsuit. It's on page 23 of the lawsuit that the Attorney General filed against all of us. And on page 11 through 23, it's our countersuit. We sued back to the Attorney General. And we did it by three counterclaims violation of the un unfunded mandate document um violation of equal protection and violation of the Eighth Amendment by withholding money that we have been getting as grant money over the years and come to expect it, although we're not some of these grants are competitive grants. But when they say you can't even apply to become eligible for these grants that tells me you're not trying to entice us. It tells me you're not trying to coerce us. It tells me you are punishing us. And under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which is applicable to the states under the 14th Amendment it is unconstitutional and illegal to exact an excessive fine or a punishment. And that's exactly what the Attorney General is doing. I don't like 3A. I've been saying it for 3 years. I don't like it. I don't like it when the government comes to town because they see that you have a problem. In this case, it's their problem, not our problem. And I stepped that out in my in my lawsuit in my counterclaim.

And we denied when the Attorney General alleges in her lawsuit that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a housing crisis. I said Nobody's defined crisis. We deny that there's a crisis. There may be a housing problem. But that problem is self-inflicted and we didn't cause it, you did. So the fact that they're being heavy-handed and the fact that Tony and his team have been trying to do a work-around and get some sort of a plan in place where we could not be dragged down the path of painful litigation for three or four years and be shut off from grant money or being qualified to have grant money that we would get the grant money we would be technically compliant and we're still working to try to be technically compliant because you know, the old saying, two is one, one is none. If we only have one plan, we're going to lose. So, we if we have a backup plan and we have a way that if the SJC comes to town and with a court order and says, "You all need to vote." "And if you don't vote, we're going to put the vote in for you and we're going to order you to comply with 3A and then appoint master, appoint a judge, or whatever they're going to do and we're not going to like and we're going to have to eventually potentially do that. So, we have to be prepared for that. Because as you know best plan never ever survives the first shot. And so we're doing all we can with with regard to being sued by the Attorney General. I'm offended by the suit. The attorneys for eight other towns are offended by the suit.

And whether or not we like it we're in it. We in this in this situation don't have the pleasure of saying when this fight stops. We may not be interested in the fight, but the fight is interested in us and she's not going to let up. I talk to these people almost every day. And over the course of the last 3 months, it started with the meeting that we had with the previous secretary. We all went in and we talked to the AG and we talked to the housing secretary and we're trying to have a a sort of a a nice middle ground where we could get the money be I hate to say paper compliant, but we would be compliant. And it was voted down, so but you still keep talking because you can't stop that dialogue because all you're going to end up with is becoming in an adversarial situation that we're in now. I wonder how many people have read the 2024 that's before this council tonight. I wonder how many people have actually read it. I wonder how many people have read the Attorney General's response. I wonder how many people have read the motion to dismiss that case brought by the Attorney General and the brief that was filed in support of that motion. Same thing for the 2025 exemption case. It's almost mirror image of the 2024 asking for the same thing. What the Attorney General is saying, there is no legislative um there's nothing in the way in the law or in the legislative legislative sphere that has a process for an exemption. You either comply or you don't comply

and that's what the Attorney General says and that's why we're being sued. We have three suits back against the Attorney General. We have nine defenses. One of them is the man is is the mandate of exemption. So, that's going to be litigated in the suit. It's very fresh. It's a 2026 suit. [snorts]

I've heard I have friends on the street who think I have a nice great job up here and it's it's really comfortable. Um but and it is it's comfortable. But I don't think any of them understand what it takes to become part of somebody else's life. You don't put your name on it. You don't run up to the Superior Court and grab the clerk of the judge whose session the case is assigned and say, "I want to sign in." That's not the way it works. The way it works is in any case and I've seen where the Attorney General has intervened in other cases. So, I'm going to school on them to to an extent to see how they did it and how long it took them and what we can expect as as an argument back. You have to have a brand new complaint already locked and loaded and ready to go. You have to have a motion to intervene in somebody else's case because we're not part of that case. So, we have to file a motion to become part of that that case. The motion doesn't go to the court. It goes to the Attorney General. The Attorney General has 30 days to respond whether or not they agree that we should become the Town of Winthrop that is a plaintiff in the case against them. And then they're going to probably oppose it. They're going to write a brief. They're going to file their memo. They're going to file their their motion and then they serve it back on me. I now have another 30 days to respond to their reply. And write another brief and get more affidavits do more research. Um So, we're up to 90 days and that's

just assuming that nobody asked for extra time because this summer time some people in the Attorney General's office may go away. They may ask for time. They've asked for time in other cases. I've asked for time in other cases. Once you then have all of those papers together my motion, my complaint which is both new and my brief and all of that, I serve that on the Attorney General. They give it back to me. We have a 9C conference. Only then after we can't settle that case can we bring the paperwork to the judge. Talking 4 months before it hits the the desk of a judge. There are thousands of cases that are going to be entertained or looked at before that motion ever gets looked at. The Attorney General is going to say, "Wait a minute. You're too late. You're late to the game because we've already fully litigated this. We filed motions to dismiss. We have oppositions to those. Those have to be decided first. Do you want us to put that on hold?" They probably won't and I guess a judge is not going to He wants to see off the docket. Same thing in the 2025 case. There was I read something that the that the attorneys representing the saying no to Winthrop says no to 3A have obtained a stay of the Attorney General's case against the Town of Winthrop. No, they haven't. They have filed a motion asking for a stay.

[clears throat]

But they didn't file I forget where they filed it procedurally. There's a little disagreement as where it should have been filed. That's a process. That's that's not substance. So you know nobody likes to be second or third or fourth into a case. A case that's already locked and loaded ready to go. And if they have to wait for me to come and catch up with them a case from 2024 and a case 2025, that's going to drag that on as well. My case this case is fresh. All of those issues plus the counterclaims against the the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the housing uh uh contingency and the Attorney General those are going to be litigated right now. They're going to be litigated all together in a Apparently, it looks like uh this case is going to go all as one with our counterclaims and our constitutional claims. And maybe those same constitutional claims um are going to end up in federal court even though the Constitution of the United States is applicable to the state. Will a Superior Court judge say, "I'm not going to rule on a federal constitutional claim." Fine. I know how to get to the federal court. I've done hundreds of federal cases. And I think they will take those constitutional claims a little more seriously. So, I guess the the point is we have this all bundled together as one as a package. With our answers

with our counterclaims, with our defenses one of which is is the exemption ready to roll all as one as a new case not something that's been sitting on the docket for 1 or 2 years. If it's the pleasure of the council to be involved now in three lawsuits because we have the 2025 lawsuit that's sort of never ending in the 2024. That's a real tough thing to do to be to be spreading your assets so thin when we have one lawsuit Town of Winthrop and the Attorney General in a case all together with all these issues at once. If you vote to do it I'll do it. Tony if Tony tells me to do it I'm sure he will if you tell him to ask him to. He's going to tell me to but that's fine. But bear in mind the most important piece of [clears throat] litigation that's that's pending right now is that case that was brought against us by the Attorney General. And the ball we hit back with a very fat bat back to them with the counterclaims. That's the most important case to be litigated here and and to be decided because all of those issues will come down in the same decision. It's not going to be cherry-picking. So, I'll do what you want to do but just you know, understand it's going to drag because of the rules they give everybody it's it's it's on a time schedule. And you know, it's going to be fall at least before any judge ever sees this motion to intervene. Whereas

the Attorney General only has a couple more days to respond to my counterclaims and then we're off to the races. So, I mean just I'm not going to tell you what to think but I'm I'm just suggesting it's something to think about. Enough people telling other people what to argue what to think. And I'm just saying this is something that I think you ought to consider as a matter of not only logistics but a matter of practicality and yeah and maybe of you know, spreading your resources a little too thin. That's all I have to say. Do I have any amendments to be made? Could you Could you um Could you repeat or Jim, would you repeat what your recommendation is? Well, I mean if you if you want to keep the motion basically the same, I would just take that middle sentence and change it to to that end we request the Town Manager to intervene in that suit to advance the town's interest in being free from excess state mandates especially in the 3A section 3A. Yeah, if you lose the word order you won't be in conflict. I'll have to you know, if you keep it the same language I'm going to have to respond. I mean if there's another whole side to this I'm I'm not going to get accused of not following the charter so I will respond to the council with my own letter. You know, get legal counsel and respond and tell you it's not legal and then you'll have to decide what you want to do with it. You know, but I'll take whatever action the council wants me to do and I certainly have no problem joining the suit but it's got to be done correctly. That's all I'm saying. And you can't order the town that's in conflict with the charter. If you just want to advise or change that word whatever you want to do. I'm certainly happy to do it but it just can't be the way it's drafted now because you can't it's in violation of the charter to order me to do that because you I don't have any authority over the legal matters. Uh Town Manager Manfra if we if we change the wording to say we suggest you do this, would you take us up on that suggestion?

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I'm not looking to fight with the council. I just want to make sure it's legal and done in properly. Yes. Okay. Then um I'll make a motion to amend it. Can I um I will the way I have it written down and you can tell me if this is acceptable. Um the Town Council finds it's the town's interest to intervene in and support the plaintiffs in docket number 2484 CV02351A an action in Suffolk Superior Court. To that end, we request the town manager in consultation with the town attorney to be requested and required to intervene in that suit and advance the town's interest in being free from excess state mandated development, especially under GL C48 section 3A. Yeah, but we strike the word Yeah, you got to Yeah, that's what I thought. Yeah, you have to strike required, just requested. Well, we required as in the town manager requires the town attorney. But, you can do that, right? We can just strike

Okay, yeah, just strike the word required and then everything else is fine. Uh so, same

copy of that writing? So, there was a motion, there's an amendment to the original motion, which Council Milano just read. Would you choose Yes. I'll read it now. The town council finds that it is in the town's interest to intervene in and support the plaintiff in docket number 2484 CV02351A an action in Suffolk Superior Court. To that end, we request the town manager in consultation with the town attorney um is hereby requested to intervene in the suit and advance the town's interest in being free from excessive state mandated development, especially under GL C48 section 3A. So, there's been an amendment made. Is there a second to the amendment? Seconded by Council Costigan. Any discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, roll call, please. Councilor Costigan?

Yes. Councilor Destinaring? Councilor Milano? No. Councilor Dimes? No. Councilor Romano? Yes. Councilor Reardon? Yes. Councilor Finn? Yes. Vice President Spoke? Yes. President LeTerry? Yes, to the amendment. So, now as amended enter the discussion as amended. Seeing none, roll call vote on the amended motion. Councilor before you do that, five votes are required to pass this. Again, roll call, please. Councilor Costigan? Yes. Councilor Destinaring? Councilor Milano? No. Councilor Dimes?

No. Councilor Romano? Yes. Councilor Reardon? Yes. Councilor Finn? Yes. Vice President Spoke? Yes. President LeTerry? No. Uh I believe it was five to three. [clears throat] Three voted motion. Passed. Uh seeing no further business, uh tonight I consider this meeting adjourned.