►
From YouTube: Charter Review Meeting of 12-2-20
Description
City of Chelsea
via WebEx and Chelsea Community TV
A
Hi
everyone
welcome
today
is
december,
2nd,
and
the
charter
committee
is
meeting
today
to
discuss
the
charter
review
of
our
city
charter,
of
course,
here
at
the
city
of
chelsea.
So
I
welcome
you
all
for
our
second
night
of
voting
for
all
the
different
recommendations
that
all
members
have
presented.
A
B
A
Any
measure
presented
going
forward,
you
won't
be
able
to
vote
for
things
that
had
already
been
discussed
previously
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting.
If
you
missed
the
beginning
of
the
meeting,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I
keep
that
very
clear.
So
attendance
is
crucial.
Being
on
time
is
crucial
and
you
will
only
be
able
to
vote
on
matters
that
are
present
in
front
of
you
during
your
attendance.
A
B
A
D
A
Henry
wilson,
henry
wilson,
I
see
you
he's
present
alex
parker.
G
A
And
miriam
rachentor
present
great,
so
I
will
open
with
the
public
speaking
portion.
There
is
no
one
here,
but
we
did
receive
a
late
communication
from
hlc
resident
that
every
single
commissioner
received
in
your
email.
So
you
can
have
a
copy
in
front
of
you
for
the
public
record,
even
though
it
is
a
late
communication,
I
will
go
ahead
and
read
it.
A
This
was
received
via
email
today
at
11
30
8
a.m,
by
sean
o'regan
from
78
garfield
ave.
Why
is
there
any
mention
of
wanting
to
change
the
city
from
districts
towards?
There
is
absolutely
no
need
it's
bad
enough.
When
you
go
vote
to
see
people
confuse
where
they're
supposed
to
vote.
Why
had?
Why
add
more
confusion?
A
The
ones
that
suffer
are
the
poll
workers
they're,
the
ones
that
have
to
listen
to
complaints?
Also
with
how
successful
voter
turnout
was
for
the
presidential
election
between
mail
in
and
in
person,
can
the
city
do
that
for
city
elections
as
well?
I
think,
with
doing
that,
voter
count
would
go
up.
There's
no
need
to
make
things
difficult
for
the
voters
here
in
chelsea.
This
was
received
today
by
a
resident
sean
o'regan.
A
That
being
said,
we
move
on
to
the
next
portion
of
our
meeting,
which
is
now
open
to
public
discussion
here
with
this
commission
with
the
matters
are
in
front
of
us
today
we
will
be
discussing
section
two
and
section
three
in
your
packets,
which
is
every
recommendation
that
all
of
you
have
come
up
with.
So
that
being
said,
let's
start
off
with
section
2.1.
A
D
A
The
composition
or
you
don't
and
allow
me
to
explain
it
this
way.
So
if
the
vote,
if
you
vote
yes,
you
want
to
change
the
composition,
then
we
will
consider
the
two
proposals
that
are
in
front
of
us
by
counselor
leo
robinson
and
counselor
todd
taylor.
If
you
do
not
want
to
change
the
composition,
then
we
will
go
ahead
and
leave
it,
as
is
we
will
make.
We
will
have
one
vote
to
decide
again.
A
Very
simply,
do
you
want
to
change
the
composition
or,
if
you
don't
want
to
change
the
composition,
if
no
one
wants
to
change
it,
then
we,
if
no
one,
wants
to
change
it.
We
won't
look
at
the
other
matters
in
front
of
us.
If
you
do
want
to
change
it,
we
will
look
at
the
two
proposals
in
front
of
us
todd
taylor.
I
see
your
hand.
H
So
so
I'm
gonna
withdraw
my
my
proposal
in
favor
of
leo's
proposal.
H
So
there's
no
need
to
have
that
vote.
You
can
just
vote
it
up
or
down.
So
it's
not
there's
no
reason
to
have
a
vote.
Whether
you
want
to
have
change
the
composition
or
not.
You
just
vote
on
the
thing.
It's
the
same
thing
so
I'll
withdraw
mine
in
favor
of
in
support
of
leo's.
A
Okay,
so
so
that
that
changes,
the
rule
that
changes
the
game
now
so
now
we
only
have
basically
one
proposal
in
front
of
us
to
change
the
composition
and
one
not
to
change
the
composition.
Before
we
go
to
take
any
votes,
I
will
go
ahead
and
open
the
floor
for
any
discussion
pertaining
only
to
section
1.1
a
so
if
there's
any
discussion
on
the
matter,
I'll
open
the
floor
for
that.
But
before
that
I
see
jason's
hand
up.
Sir
jason
go
ahead.
F
A
I
I
I
There
were
three
candidates
and
in
ward
5
there
were
six
candidates
and
then,
in
november
of
that
year
there
were
eight
candidates
for
at
large,
two
in
ward,
one
two
and
two
two
and
ward,
three,
two
in
ward,
four
and
five
and
two
in
ward
five
and
then
in
87.
There
were
eight
candidates
at
large
four
candidates
in
ward,
one
two
candidates
and
wore
two
three
candidates
and
one
three
four
candidates
and
and
two
in
award
five.
I
I
And
in
89
there
were
seven
at-large
candidates
in
what
one
they
had.
Three
candidates
wore
two.
They
had
one,
what
three
they
had
three,
what
four
they
had:
one
and
ward
five
they
had
three,
then
in
november
there
were
seven
at
large
two
and
one
one
and
two
two
and
three
and
ward
four
was
one
and
ward.
Five
was
two
and
all
I'm
trying
to
have
a
conversation
to
see
if
we
can
figure
out
more
participation
in
this
community
and
and
to
look
at
the
part
of
that.
I
Also
in
the
past
that
we
had,
we
had
a
name
counselors
to
the
aldermen
or
to
the
city
council,
because
candidates
left-
and
it
was
no
other
candidate
that
ran
in
that
district,
and
then
we
had
to
have
a
meeting
to
select
the
candidate
to
finish
out
that
that
that
term
and
as
we
can
see
on
on
the
school
committee,
this
past
election,
there
were
only
two
challenges
out
of
nine
positions.
I
So
part
of
this
is
to
get
a
conversation
going
to
see
how
people
feel
whether
they
think
we
should
go
back
to
nine
counselors
or
if
people
want
to
stay
the
status
quo.
I
think
whenever,
when
when
it
was
war,
there
was
much
more
participation
from
the
people
who
live
in
this
community
and
they
felt
more
involved
in
city
government.
I
A
Thank
you,
councillor
robinson.
Anyone
else
wish
to
speak
on
the
matter
and
defend
and
any
proposal
which
there
they
prefer.
I
see
mary
burke.
E
So
judith,
do
you
want
me
to
speak,
so
I'm
I'm
going
to
speak
against
changing
is
that?
Okay,
if
I
speak
at
this
point
again,.
A
A
So
I'm
opening
the
floor
for
anyone.
This
is
before
we
take
a
vote
opening
the
floor
if
you're
for
or
against,
I
think
it's
important
and
the
benefit
of
everyone
to
hear
both
positions
so
mary.
However,
you
you
feel
strongly.
E
So,
first
of
all,
I
definitely
respect
you
know
my
colleagues
opinion
in
this
area.
I
think
for
me
it
this
represents
something
bigger.
It
represents
that,
when
you're
reducing
the
number
of
counselors
you're,
reducing
you're
in
you're
increasing
the
voice
of
the
constituents
to
fewer,
though
fewer
representatives
at
the
city
council
level,
the
other
thing
is
that
you
know
in
receive
a
ship.
E
E
You
know
I
would
prefer
to
leave
it
as
it
is
with
the
the
two
extra
council
members
and
we're
talking
about
two
seats
extra
compared
to
previous
or
compared
to
the
proposal,
and
certainly
that
gives
more
access
to
our
constituents
when
they
have
more
counselors
to
reach
out
to
you
know
in
terms
of
the
data
that
you
know,
council
robinson
has
presented,
those
numbers
also
form
relate
across
the
nation
to
decreasing
numbers
of
civic
involvement
of
people
running
for
offices.
E
So
that's
not
something
that's
unique
during
those
those
years
to
chelsea,
that's
across
the
board.
I
think
what
you've
seen
in
particular
this
past
year
is
a
dramatic
increase
in
people
wanting
to
engage
with
the
city
council
engage
with
the
school
committee.
Certainly
our
youth
have
have
stepped
out
and
and
really
wanted
their
voice
heard.
E
You
know,
I
think
that
we're
seeing
an
increase
at
the
same
time
we're
going
to
continue
to
see
an
increase,
because
you
are
looking
at
the
the
number
of
chelsea
residents
increase
due
to
all
of
the
you
know,
one
north
building,
all
of
the
the
building
and
development
that
has
gone
on.
So
I
think
that's
a
piece
of
you
know
the
real
problem
is
engagement,
and
so
how
are
we
engaging?
E
Not
only
our
citizens
to
run
for
office,
but
also
you
know
to
to
certainly
vote.
I
think
we're
we're
we're
already
started
down
that
road
as
well
with
the
mail
in
voting.
You
know
continue
that
I
think
we're
going
to
see
a
huge
change,
we're
at
a
tipping
point,
and
so
I
would
you
know.
Certainly
let's
have
conversations
over
the
next
10
years,
but
let's
not
change
it.
E
Now,
until
we
see
if
the
pieces
that
we
have
successfully
put
into
place
now,
actually
are
taking
the
route
and
then
the
last
thing-
and
certainly
I
did
mention
this
in
in
some
of
the
you
know
what
I
wrote
up
prior
to
that
is,
you
know
centralizing
government
and
decision
making
for
me
is,
I
don't
think
it's
the
right
way
to
go
for
us,
and
this
is
what
ultimately
we
would
be
doing-
is
centralizing
decision
making
in
the
with
fewer
voices.
G
All
right,
in
addition
to
what
mary
said,
I
would
say
you
know
that
there
has
been
and
continues
to
be,
an
issue
with
civic
engagement
in
chelsea.
I
think
a
lot
of
that
is
a
function
of
in
part.
G
The
fact
that
chelsea
is
predominantly
a
city
of
renters
people
who
are
a
little
more
transient
and
don't
get
or
haven't
become,
as
involved
in
the
city
life
as
we
would
like,
but
I
would
say
it's
they're
an
incumbent
upon
our
elected
officials
to
reach
out
to
these
different
constituencies
to
talk
to
them
to
engage
with
them
to
encourage
them
to
get
involved
in
the
various
aspects
of
city
life.
You
know
all
the
different
things
where
residents
can
get
involved.
G
You
know
and
encourage
them,
as
they
do
so
to
think
about
running
for
office.
Changing
you
know,
reducing
the
number
of
counselors
isn't
gonna.
I
don't
think
that's
gonna
happen
that
would
not
have
any
impact
on
increasing
engagement
and,
as
mary
said,
I
think
it
also.
It
will
decrease
the
voices
that
we
residents
have.
You
know
you're
you're,
consolidating
the
power
in
you
know
with
fewer
people,
which
I
just
think
is
not
the
right
way
to
go.
H
So
some
of
the
reasons
that
I've
heard
against
this
proposal-
I
would
disagree
with,
and
you
know
one
of
the
things
that
that's
been
mentioned
is
that
it
it
somehow
lessens
somebody's
access
to.
H
Their
elected
officials
having
less
elected
officials,
every
voter
will
still
have
three,
but
now
I
suppose
they
would
have
four
under
this
proposal
at
large
counselors
and
they
would
still
have
their
ward
counselor
so
nobody's
losing
any
voice
at
all.
They
still
have
access
to
their
at
large
and
their
ward.
H
Counselor
speaking
as
someone
who
who
who
is
serving
on
the
city
council,
I
would
think
that
there's
that
less
counselors
makes
it
easier
to
make
to
come
to
decisions
and
makes
the
decision-making
process
a
little
a
little
easier
and
as
far
as
the
notion
that
the
current
system
has
been
working,
I
I'm
not
sure
that
it's
really
working
very
well.
H
I
think
that
I
think
that
making
something
a
little
bit
bigger
and
getting
more
people
involved
in
in
a
race
is
is
what
creates
the
engagement,
because
we
don't
have
mayor.
I
think
that
you,
you
know
having
a
bunch
of
unopposed
people
run
for
office.
I
don't
think
that
that's
working
and-
and
I
would
agree
with
with
charlene
when
she
says
that
that
a
lot
of
the
problem
is
that
we
have
you,
know
seven,
almost
80
percent
renters
in
the
in
in
the
city.
H
I
think
that
is
a
problem,
but
I
think
that
there's
a
solution
to
this,
and
and
and
that's
that's
trying
to
create
something-
that's
a
little
bit
bigger
to
take-
you
know
not
to
take
the
place
of
a
of
a
mayor
but
but
make
the
races
a
little
bit
bigger,
bring
more
people
into
eligibility
to
run
like
leo
had
said.
That
was
the
situation
in
the
in
the
past,
and
I
just
don't
see
how
how
this
makes
an
awful
lot
of
sense.
H
It
was
always
the
way
that
leo's
proposing
to
return
to,
and-
and
this
is
kind
of
artificially
kind
of
carved
up
way-
they
went
to
it
so
aldermen
wouldn't
have
to
run
against
each
other.
So
I
just
you
know
to
me
to
me:
it
just
makes
more
sense.
I
don't
think
it's
a
major
deal
in
in
whether
it's
9
or
11.
I
don't
think
it
will
make
necessarily
that
much
difference,
but
I
do
think
that
it
would
make
things
better
and
easier
for
people.
H
It
doesn't
remove
any
access
from
the
voters
to
their
elected
representatives
at
all
they're
still
going
to
have
their
at-large
and
their
ward,
counselors,
and-
and
you
know,
when
you
have-
I
mean
if
it's
better,
to
have
more,
why
not
expand?
Why
don't
expand
it?
Why
don't
I
have
15,
you
know
I
I
just
I
don't.
I
don't
quite
get
the
logic
of
this.
I
mean
if
you
look
at
other
communities
of
our
size.
H
You're
gonna
find
if
it's
a
town,
that
they
have
a
select
board
made
of
either
five
or
seven
people
so
having
11
people
in
chelsea
just
is,
it
seems
a
lot.
You
know
it's,
it's
such
a
small
in
such
a
small
city.
So
that's
my
two
cents.
I
don't
think
it's
gonna
make
or
break
the
city
either
way,
but
I
would
be
in.
I
would
be
in
favor
of
of
this
proposal
and
I
would
encourage
everyone
to
vote
for
it.
Thanks.
Thank.
A
You
todd
so
now,
if
I
can
speak
from
the
chair,
so
I'll,
be
speaking
against
changing
the
decomposition.
So
I
will
be
voting
no
on
this
measure,
and
I
will
say
this.
I
will
say
that
first
of
all,
chelsea
is
the
third
densest
city
in
the
state,
and
I
see
the
unique
value
of
having
more
district
city
councillors
present
in
our
composition
of
our
legislative
body,
because
every
city
councilor
has
a
concentrated
focus
the
opportunity
to
focus
in
their
specific
region,
specific
area.
A
I
am
the
city
councilor
for
district
five
and
I
made
the
intentional
decision
on
running
for
district
five,
because
I
knew
I
wanted
to
concentrate
my
efforts
in
that
specific
district
and
honestly,
when
I
keep
hearing
about
the
past
and
the
past-
and
you
know
taking
me
back
to
1985
quite
frankly,
scares
me
because
when
I
think
about
1995,
which,
by
the
way
I
wasn't
even
born
yet
during
that
time
I
was
born
in
1991,
but
when
I
think
about
the
90s
and
the
history
and
the
dark
times
and
the
corruption
that
our
city
went
through.
A
I'm
sorry,
but
I
am
terrified
of
going
back
to
the
past
the
fact
that
there's
a
60
minutes
video,
where
we
got
national
attention
because
of
the
corruption
of
this
legislative
body.
When
you
asked
me
to
look
at
the
past,
that's
what
I
remember
and
and
sitting
here
as
a
council
member,
I've
been
serving
three
terms.
I've
had
the
honor
to
serve
with
peers,
who
have
jointly
with
me
and
all
of
us
we've
passed
progressive
legislation
that
we
didn't
actually
think
of
on
our
own.
It
was
it's
all
the
progressive
legislation
that
we've
made
history.
A
Like
recently,
we
just
passed
an
office
by
the
way,
councilman
robinson,
I'm
sure
you
spearheaded
that
which
was
a
diversity,
inclusion
and
equity
office.
The
support
from
this
council
was
strong.
A
This
room
is
packed.
Sometimes
we
have
plenty
of
people
here
that
they're
standing
out
in
the
hallway,
because
they're
interested
and
they're
engaged.
So
if
we're
going
to
talk
about
participation,
voter
participation-
I
would
say
this
voting
is
emotional
people
vote
for
the
candidates
that
drive
them
candidates
who
who
make
them
inspire
them
to
go
out
and
vote.
So
maybe,
with
the
question
that
we
should
be
asking,
is
when
you're
running
for
office?
Are
you
really
inspiring
the
voters
to
go
out
there
and
vote
for
you?
A
So
if
it's
about
participation
and
and
getting
more
people
out
there
to
vote
for
specific
candidates-
and
I
think
that's
the
candidate's
duty
to
go
out
there-
knock
on
some
doors
and
entice
people
to
come
out
and
vote
for
you.
So
that's
my
two
cents
on
in
terms
of
participation.
I
I
don't
want
to
go
back
to
the
past.
A
I
think
we've
made
plenty
of
progress
now
with
that
and-
and
I
am
very
proud
of
serving
with
10
other
members
here
in
council.
So
so
that's
how
I
see
this.
I
really
hope
that
everyone
here
really
considers
what
with
the
way
they
vote,
but
I
will
be
voting
no
on
this,
because
I
believe
we
should
continue
to
keep
the
the
composition
of
our
council
the
way
it
is
so
anyone
else
wish
to
speak.
A
A
J
First
and
then
leo
so
henry
go
ahead.
My
concern
is
having
less
people
on
the
council,
how
that
affects
the
productivity
and
the
growth
of
our
community
by
our
leaders.
There
are
leaders
out
there
that
I
can
personally
say
are
out
there
hitting
the
pavement
every
day
winter
summer
spring
whatever
and
there's
some
that
you
know
only
certain
times.
You
see
them
out
there,
but
my
concern
is:
how
is
that
going
to
change?
J
I
mean
if
you,
if
just
saying
you
drew
you
said
you
won
11,
you
want
to
keep
it
at
11.,
11
city
council.
We
had
since
I've
been
here
for
over
30
years.
I
haven't
seen
a
much
improvement
with
those
councils
being
engaged
with
the
community.
Some
are,
but
not
all.
If
we
have
less
will
that
change.
Also,
that's
another
question.
You
can
ask
yourself
because
we're
talking
about
engagement,
community
engagement
so
having
less
people
on
the
council.
J
Would
it
help
us
to
get
more
involvement
in
my
residence,
more
engagement
with
my
residents,
we're?
Having
more
will
that
help,
but
if
we
have
more
people
on
the
city
council,
I
feel
that
all
city
councils
need
to
be
more
engaged
in
the
community.
So,
like
you
said,
entice
your
your
constituents
to
vote
for
you.
That
should
be
a
done
thing
every
day
for
two
years,
four
years
whatever
you
know
it
should
keep
on
going
and
going.
You
should
just
wait
till
election
time
to
do
that.
J
Engagement,
conversation
with
so
there's
a
balance
here
and
there
they
have
eight.
They
have
11..
So
that's
going
to
improve
our
engagement
with
our
community
and
our
residents.
Then
I'm
saying:
okay,
let's
just
do
the
eight,
but
if
you're
going
to
keep
everything
the
same
as
we
have
with
11
city
counselors
leave
it
alone.
J
I
One
thing
that
you
said
there
wasn't
a
city
council
that
was
in
trouble.
It
was
all
the
nations
had
nothing
to
do
with
the
city
council.
I
just
want
to
make
that
clear
to
the
audience
who
is
listening,
that
it
was
the
mayor's
it
had
nothing
to
do
with
the
counselors
or
all
the
men
who
represented
the
city,
but.
A
It
was
the
mayors
that
brought
us
to
a
situation
where
we
have
a
city
charter
in
front
of
us
and
when
we're
discussing
the
changes
in
our
government
government
legislation.
So
I
I
again
what
my
point
with
this
is
chelsea
and
there's
no
denial
of
that
had
very
dark
years
and
that's
why
we're
here
today
with
this
charter,
so
todd
taylor.
H
Sorry
having
problems
with
that
button,
yeah
so
look
I
I
just
have.
I
have
a
hard
time
with
trying
to
tie
the
number
of
counselors
on
that
and
whether
they're,
whether
they're
from
artificial
districts
or
whether
they're
actually
in
the
wards,
have
any
tie
to
corruption.
I
mean
this
is.
This
is
absurd.
H
I
think
that
I
think
that
there's
reasons
for
for
corruption
and
the
reason
the
biggest
way
that
that
the
charter
changed
the
city
and
I'm
sure
cheryl
will
back
me
up
on
this-
is
that
they
got
rid
of
the
mayor
and
they
went
to
a
city
manager,
style
of
government
with
a
weak
city
council,
so
so
nobody's
disputing
that
okay,
but
to
say
somehow
that
returning
to
nine
counselors
would
be
returning
to
the
dark
days
of
chelsea
corruption
is,
is
completely
ridiculous.
H
I
mean,
with
all
due
respect,
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
corruption.
In
fact,
it
has
a
lot
to
do
with
efficiency
and
like
henry
was
saying
when
you
have
counselors
that
are
that
are
actually
fully
committed
to
their
doing
their
jobs
in
a
responsible
way.
I
think
that
that
actually
makes
the
engagement
better
when
you
have
people
that
are
fully
engaged
in
their
job
to
to
take
calls
24
7
to
to
go
out
and
and
meet
with
their
residents
to
do
you
know
the
things
that
city
councilors
should
be
doing.
H
You
know,
I
think
that
that
makes
for
for
for
a
better
political
system.
Full
stop.
So
you
know
somehow
to
try
to
tie
this
to
the
to
the
corrupt
days
of
your
is,
is
is
just
you
know,
I
I'm
sorry.
I
just
can't.
A
Explain
so
todd,
okay
and
I'll
respond
to
that.
I
have
two
more
people
and
I'm
gonna
give
you
the
two
of
you,
mary
and
and
mimi
priority,
but
I'll
respond
to
something
I
did
not
say
that
having
less
counselors
brings
us
back
to
corruption.
What
I
said-
and
I
quote
again
when
I
think
of
the
past
and
going
back
to
the
past-
I
have
never.
A
I
have
never
wanted
to
say
that
having
last
means
corruption.
What
I've
said
is
when
I
think
about
the
past
in
chelsea,
and
you
asking
me
to
bring
us
to
the
way
things
were
done
back
in
the
day.
That's
what
I
think
of
it
brings
me
memories.
It
scares
me,
but
I've
never
said
less
city
councillors
means
there's
going
to
be
corruption.
What
I
do
think
is
that
there,
if
there
is
less
city
councillors,
there
will
be
less
representation
and
it
will
set
barriers
for
people.
A
Like
me,
people
like
my
colleagues
that
for
the
first
time
made
history
in
this
city
that
has
been
majority
predominantly
latino.
The
fact
that
six
years
ago
we
made
history
by
being
able
to
elect
a
council.
That
really
represents
the
people
it
serves.
That
opportunity
would
have
not
presented
itself
if
there
were
less
counselors
here.
So
the
issue
that
I
have
with
having
less
counselors
is
you're,
giving
more
power
to
a
select
few.
So
I'm
going
to
make
it
very
clear
for
the
record.
I
never
said
less
city
counselors
means
corruption.
A
I
said
going
back
to
the
past
and
the
way
things
were
done
in
the
past
reminds
me
of
the
dark
hours
that
this
city
experienced
with
corruption.
So
it's
a
matter
of
less
counselors,
less
representation
for
this
city.
So
I
will
that's
where
I
will
end
my
comments.
I
will
give
the
floor
to
mary
and
then
mimi.
So
mary,
you
have
the
floor.
E
So
so
I
just
want
to
bring
out
two
points.
I
think
we're
where
we're
trying
to
cure
one
thing
with
another:
we're
trying
to
cure
engagement,
whether
it's
voter
engagement
or
it's
engagement
from
our
representatives,
I.e
city
councils
through
reducing
the
number.
I
don't
see
that
as
actually
being
a
way
to
go.
We
are
a
federalist
system
in
the
united
states,
we
are
representative
government.
Our
city
councils
represent
us.
E
The
efficiency
that
was
referenced
before
having
fewer
doesn't
necessarily
mean
efficiency,
because
it's
whose
efficiency,
who
will
be
the
voice
that
gets
passed.
I
want
the
voice
that
gets
passed
on
any
issue
to
be
the
voice
of
the
constituents,
the
majority
of
the
constituents
to
me
that's
efficient.
I
think
democracy
is
efficient
when
things
do
slow
down
and
there
is
debate
and
there
is
a
give
and
take-
and
maybe
it
takes
more
than
two
meetings
or
three
meetings,
or
sometimes
that
is
also
being
efficient
in
a
democracy.
E
And
so
you
know
we
do
not
cure
engagement
by
reducing
the
number.
We
cure
engagement
by
setting
the
expectations
and
and
shame
on
us
shame
on
us
as
the
voters
in
in
chelsea.
If
we
keep
electing
people
who
are
not
engaging
fully,
but
that's
on
us
and
and
that's
what
we
have
to
teach
us
and
we
have
to
teach
others
but
reducing
my
ability
to
have
a
voice
and
representation
on
the
city
council
as
a
as
a
as
a
constituent.
K
I
just
want
to
say
I
agree
with
mary
I'm
going
to
vote.
No,
I
think
what
people
are
missing
is
how
they
vote.
If
you
can
only
vote
one
day
a
week
and
it's
very
difficult
for
people
to
vote
that
one
day,
I
think
what
the
last
election
clearly
showed
is
that
if
you
give
the,
if
you
give
it
a
longer
time
period,
people
will
vote
so
we
have
not
had
that
with
the
city
council
election
and
obviously
the
national
election
always
turns
out
to
be
higher.
K
Voter
turnout
always
does,
but
this
was,
I
just
think
the
record
number
of
voters
have
turned
out
in
this.
National
election
cannot
be
overlooked,
so
I
just
think
people
are
more
aware.
Maybe
it'll
die
down,
maybe
it
won't,
but
I
think
I
agree.
The
city
is
too
dense
to
go
down
to
nine
and
efficiency
is
not
a
reason
to
go
down
to
the
council,
so
I'm
gonna
vote
no,
but
I
really
think
we
need
to
get
some
data
and
get
because
data
is
looking
into
the
past.
K
A
Okay,
jason.
F
I
I
think,
I'd
just
like
to
remind
people
that
the
point
of
this
vote
isn't
to
then
all
of
a
sudden
the
council
changes
to
nine.
If
this
passes,
all
we're
doing
is
opening
up
for
the
council
to
then
dig
deeper
into
the
ability
to
change
to
nine.
The
council
can
still
deny
it,
but
at
least
we're
just
giving
them
the
opportunity
to
dig
deeper
in
research
and
help
determine.
F
Will
we
increase
engagement?
Will
it
be
more
efficient?
Do
we
still
think
people
can
be
heard
that
need
to
be
heard
that
and
I
think
we're
just
opening
we're
just
removing
an
obstacle?
I
guess
I'll
say
to
allow
the
council
to
dig
deeper
we're,
not
the
ones
that
are
voting
to
definitely
change
the
council
tonight.
F
A
Thank
you,
jason,
yeah,
absolutely,
and,
and
it's
exactly
it's
exactly
that
it's
simply
presenting
our
recommendation,
but
this
conversation
is
important
because
every
single
one
of
you
was
appointed
to
do
precisely
that
and-
and
this
is
an
open
forum
for
everyone
to
defend
their
own
opinion,
share
opinions
and
and
that's
the
way
we
grow.
So
that
being
said,
jason
thanks
for
opening
up
the
the
segment
here
to
move
on
to
a
vote.
So
does
anyone
else
have
anything
else
to
say
or
we
can
move
on
to
a
vote
great.
So
I.
B
A
You
yes,
it's
not
about
who
has
a
final
say,
it's
more
about
having
a
productive
conversation
in
a
safe
space
where
people
can
share
their
opinions.
So
so
I
really
value.
A
F
I
feel
like
your
comments.
I
think
I
feel,
like
your
comments
are
implying,
that
I
was
trying
to
halt
the
conversation
that
wasn't
the
point
of
my
my
comment.
It
was
just
I
was
trying
to
reassure
people
of
what
my
point
was,
but
your
comment
continues
to
imply
that
I
was
trying
to
stop
conversation
that
wasn't.
A
With
you
that
it's
important
to
have
the
conversation
as
well,
so
again
the
the
vote,
we're
going
back
to
the
vote.
If
you
vote
yes,
it
means
that
you
do
want
to
change
the
competition.
So
the
matter
in
front
of
us
is:
do
you
want
to
change
the
composition
of
the
council?
This
is
section
2.1.
Do
you
want
to
change
the
composition
of
the
council?
If
you
vote?
Yes,
it
means
you
do
want
to
change
the
composition
of
the
council.
A
A
Yes,
so
if
we
won't
know
what's
in
front
of
the
council,
is
there's
no
change
of
composition
and
if
you
vote
yes,
you
do
want
the
change
of
competition
and
that
automatically
makes
your
proposal
considering
that
todd
taylor
withdrew
his
right.
If
we
vo,
if
people
vote.
Yes,
then
your
proposal,
leo
robinson's
proposal
of
decreasing
council
members
to
nine,
will
be
presented
to
the
council.
A
I
H
J
G
F
K
B
D
L
That
there
was
a
change
in
composition
of
the
city
council.
L
Your
role
was
a
majority.
I
was
in
that
meeting
where
you
said
a
majority
of
those
present
passes.
A
majority
did
not
pass
the
the
vote
to
change
the
composition
of
the
city
council.
A
A
G
G
A
Surely
so
so
that
that's
a
great
question,
so
the
votes
that
we're
making
now
is
we're
agreeing
so
we're
we're
voting
either
in
favor
or
against
different
proposals.
The
pro
the
proposal
who
gets
the
majority,
that's
what
will
be
included
in
the
final
packet
presented
to
the
council.
The
council
will
see,
however,
how
you
stood
on
a
particular
case,
so
in
the
final
package.
L
So,
basically
charlene,
even
if
it
went
to
council
council,
does
not
have
the
authority
to
make
the
final
decision
on
the
composition
of
council.
That
would
always
go
to
the
voters.
So
right,
what
is
presented
to
the
city
council
is
the
recommendation
of
the
charter
review
committee.
They
may
do
nothing,
they
may
make
changes.
This
is
everything
they
this.
This
spurs
discussion
amongst
the
city
councilors.
L
H
Wow,
so
so
cheryl,
I
just
want
to
clarify
one
thing:
it's
my
understanding
that
the
city
council,
individual
city
council
members,
can
bring
when,
when
we
take
the
the
recommendation
of
this
commission,
the
city
council,
any
additional
members
of
the
city
council
or
whoever
any
members
can
bring
up
for
debate,
ways
that
they
would
like
to
see
the
the
city
charter
amended.
Of
course
it
would
something
like
this
would
have
to
go
before
the
the.
H
Voters
but
city
council's
role
is
to
actually
it's
not
just
a
up
or
down
vote
on
this
particular
recommendation.
They
can
do
whatever
they
choose.
L
L
Counselor
cannot
just
put
on
the
floor.
Let's
change
the
chart,
there's
a
process
within
the
charter
right
now
that
says,
and
with
under
the
state
law
that
you
have
to
get
signatures
to
change
it.
The
way
you
want
to
change
it
and
then
present
it
to
the
city
council.
So
there
needs
to
be
something
presented
to
the
city
council.
H
L
L
H
L
So
it's
a
little
weird,
the
way
that
you're
phrasing
it
when
this
recommendation
goes
before
the
city
council
right.
You
review
this
recommendation
right
if
this
friendly
amendment
says
friendly
amendments,
but
if
you
wish
to
do
something
outside
of
this
process
by
adding
to
it
or
changing
it,
you
have
to
do
that
separately.
L
So
this
is
this
process.
Is
these
are
our
recommendations
to
change
the
chart?
This
is
you
know.
The
city
council
is
on
this
committee
for
a
reason,
and
they
could
totally
change
did
not
barred
from
it.
If
you
are
saying
that
it's
a
waste
of
the
public's
time
is,
if
council
is
sit
on
the
subcommittee,
the
the
residents
sit
on
it
and
then
they
send
it
forward
and
a
counselor
does
what
he
wants
to
do
anyway.
H
But
that's
how
that's
how
it
works.
That's,
basically
how
it
works
in
the
rest
of
city.
Government,
too,
is
that
the
city
council
would
have
to
approve
most
of
of
what
you
know
comes
before
it
and
not-
and
you
know
the
planning
board
makes
a
recommendation
to
the
city
council
when
it
passes
or
not
passes
and
the
city
council
in
the
past.
I
know
for
a
fact,
because
I
sat
on
the
planning
board
can
ignore
what
the
planning
board
has
recommended
so
by
a.
D
Charter
counselor,
because
whatever
you
pass.
I
H
L
A
J
A
I
A
Oh,
oh
trust
me.
We
have
a
long
night.
We
have
plenty
of
more
items
to
vote
on.
So
if
we
can
move
on
to
the
next
item
on
our
list,
which
is
section
2.1,
this
was
introduced
by
mimi
and
what
she
is
requesting
is
a
change
to
city
council
term
from
two
years
to
four
years.
Are
there
any
comments
here
regarding
changing
terms
from
two
to
four
years
for
city
council.
E
Hi,
so
if
I
remember
mimi's
rationale
for
changing
two
to
four
years
at
the
same
time
as
voters,
if
we
are
going
to
hold
our
legislators,
our
city
councilors,
you
know
accountable.
I
think
two
years
is
a
way
to
hold
them
accountable
in
a
in
a
shorter
time
frame,
and
so,
for
that
reason
again
to
to
be
able
to
give
voice
to
constituents
on
the
democratic
process
is,
is
we're
I'm
centered,
so
I
would
be
voting
no.
A
Okay,
any
more
comments,
great,
so
we'll
move
on
to
a
vote.
So
a
yes
vote
is
you
are
in
favor
of
the
recommendation
presented
in
front
of
us,
which
is
to
change
the
council
term
from
two
years
to
four
years.
If
you
vote,
no,
you
are
against
it.
So
that
being
said,
I'll
start
with
myself,
I
will
say
I
will
say
no
leo
robinson
calvin
brown
he's
absent,
melinda
vega,
maldonado,
no
talk,
taylor,
no
rosemary
carlisle.
G
K
A
A
Okay,
we
move
on
to
the
next
item
the
next
recommendation
in
front
of
us,
which
was
something
that
was
brought
up
to
us
by
sarah
neville,
which
is
a
resident
of
the
city
of
chelsea,
and
her
recommendation
is
to
add
ranked
choice,
voting
to
section
2.1
so
notwithstanding
any
general
special
law
to
the
contrary,
elections
for
the
office
of
district
city
councilors
shall
be
conducted
using
ranked
choice
voting.
So
if
you
are
in
favor
of
this
recommendation,
you
can
vote
yes.
If
you
are
against
it,
you
can
vote
no.
A
H
J
F
A
Okay,
charlene
mclean.
B
K
A
Okay,
so
recommendation
is
denied.
We
have
one
two,
three,
four,
five,
six,
seven,
eight
nine
against
three
in
favor,
one
absent
we
move
on
to
the
next
matter
in
front
of
us,
which
was
something
introduced
by
mary
burke.
The
recommendation
request
the
change
of
spelling
of
counselors
with
two
l's
from
counselors,
with
two
else,
two
counselors
with
one
l,
so
she
wants
she's
requesting
for
this
change
to
be
made
throughout
all
of
section
two,
which
is
2.1
a
2.1
b
and
the
rest
of
the
sections.
A
So
are
there
any
comments?
If
not,
we
move
on
to
voting
if
you
vote?
Yes,
you
are
accepting
this
recommendation.
F
A
So
so
I
will,
I
will
accept
so
what
I'm
hearing
is
jason
is
requesting
a
friendly
amendment
to
instead
of
just
include
section
one
that
we
make
this
request
for
the
entire
charter.
So
we
have
an
amendment
in
front
of
us
for
the
entire
charter.
If
you
are
in
favor
of
this
amendment,
vote
yes
for
the
entire
charter,
if
you're
against
vote.
No,
so.
A
C
H
I
F
A
Okay,
now
we
move
on
to
the
next
section
in
front.
The
next
recommendation
in
front
of
us
by
leo
robinson,
as
section
2.2
city
council
organization,
replaced
the
word
city
with
council
before
clerk
to
read
as
follows.
After
the
councilors
elect
have
taken
the
oath
of
office,
the
city
council
should
be
called
together
by
the
council
clerk
for
the
purpose
of
conduct
in
an
election
among
city
council
members
for
the
office
of
city
council
president
and
vice
president,
to
serve
at
the
pleasure
of
the
city
council.
A
I
Well,
in
the
pa
in
the
past,
actually
the
city
clerk
used
to
actually
serve
as
the
clerk
to
the
city
council,
which
was
changed,
and
the
city
council
has
its
own
clerk,
and
the
charter
has
never
reflected
to
show
that
the
city
council
has
their
own
clerk,
who
runs
the
city
council
meetings.
I
A
Great
thank
you
leo.
I
will
also
be
voting
in
favor
of
this.
It's
it's
clearly
acknowledging
the
fact
that
we
do
have
have
a
clerk
who
has
plenty
of
responsibilities
here
as
well.
So
I
will
be
voting
in
favor.
It's
honestly,
a
a
small.
At
this
point.
I
would
consider
it
a
a
grammar.
Well,
it's
not
it's
on
a
grammar,
but
it's
more
of
a
word
change
that
really
reflects
the
way
things
are
are
done
here.
So
I
completely
agree
with
this.
A
A
H
D
D
F
G
A
Okay,
we
have
one
more.
This
was
presented
to
us.
The
recommendation
in
front
of
us
is
by
jason
stalker
section
2.10
first
sentence
of
section
2.10
had
ad
language
that
limits
compensation
to
available
appropriations
like
we
do,
for
compensation
to
city
manager
in
section
4.4,
to
read
as
follows:
compensation
the
city
council
shall,
by
ordinance,
establish
an
annual
salary
for
its
members,
but
such
compensation
shall
be
within
the
limits
of
available
appropriations.
So
that's
the
section
that
he
wants
to
add
to
be
succinct
with
what
is
established
on
section
4.4.
F
A
L
Just
to
be
clear,
city
council
makes
the
appropriations,
so
it's
they
would
appropriate
their
own
salaries,
but
the
city
council
currently
cannot
give
themselves
a
raise.
They
have
to
give
the
next
council
a
raise
just
to
let
you
know.
I
A
L
I
A
Okay,
so
that
explains
it
so
so
again,
the
motion
in
front
of
us
and
and
what
jason
has
introduced
again
has
been
to
add
language
that
limits
compensation
to
available
appropriations
like
we
do
for
compensation
to
city
manager.
So
if
you
are
in
favor
of
this
recommendation,
then
vote
yes,
if
you
are
against
vote.
No,
so
for
me
no
judith,
garcia.
No
leo
robinson,
no
calvin
brown
is
absent.
Melinda
vega,
maldonado.
B
H
D
F
A
A
A
So
now
we
move
on
to
the
next
item
in
front
of
us,
which
is
a
recommendation,
we're
moving
on
to
section
three,
which
is
school
committee.
So
now
we're
changing
topics.
We
covered
city
council
section
two.
Now
we
move
on
to
school
committee-
and
this
was
a
recommendation
presented
by
mary
burke
and
it
is
regarding
section
3.1
should
remain
as
written.
So
I
believe
she
is
referring
to
the
composition,
eligibility
election
term
powers
and
duties
to
read.
A
As
it
has
read,
there
shall
be
a
school
committee
composed
of
nine
members,
one
to
be
known
as
the
at
large
school
committee
member
she'll
be
nominated
and
elected
by
and
from
the
voters
at
large,
eight
members
to
be
known
as
district
school
committee
members
should
be
nominated
and
elected
by
and
from
the
voters
of
each
district.
One
such
member
to
be
elected
from
each
of
the
eight
districts
into
which
the
city
is
divided
in
accordance
with
section
7-4.
A
G
I
think
this
one
mary's
recommendation
to
leave
it
unchanged
and
then
the
next
one
from
jason
haven't
these
been
rendered
moot,
since
we
did
not
change
the
composition
of
the
city
council
since
we're
not
making
that
recommendation.
These.
G
I
understand
that
I
understand
that,
but
I
think
they
were
tied
to
the
the
the
origin,
the
previous
section.
If
we
were
going,
if
we're
going,
if
we
were
to
recommend
changing
the
composition
of
the
city
council,
we
should
then
also
look
at
changing
the
composition
of
the
school
committee.
Since
section
2.1,
you
know,
did
not
pass.
A
A
So
we
do
have
to
vote
to
see
if
you
recommend
a
change
in
school
committee
or
not
so
it
we're
taking
it
as
two
different
bodies,
because
the
charter
is
written
that
way,
so
it's
written
as
two
different
entities
this
this
specific
group
is
going
to
decide
if
we
want,
if
we
also
want
to
change
or
not
change
the
this
school
committee,
but
I
just
want
to
be
clear
that,
because
we
tied
in
the
city
council
one
it,
the
motion
did
not
pass
meaning
there's
going
to
be
no
change
to
the
composition
of
city
council.
A
So
so
this
is
entire.
You
know
the
vote
that
will
be
in
front
of
us
because
there's
only
two
proposals
here.
The
the
only
proposal
we
have
is
mary
saying:
keep
it
as
is
and
jason's
suggesting.
If
there's
any
change,
then
we
should
change
this.
You
know
if
jason
decides
to
withdraw,
then
we
can.
We
can
go
ahead
and
withdraw,
but
otherwise
we
will
be
voting,
but
I
see
jason
so
I'll.
Give
him
a
moment
to
speak.
F
Well,
I
guess
two
things
one
I
I'm
mine
can
be
withdrawn.
It
was
more
of
a
placeholder
in
case
we
did
vote
on
2-1,
but
should
we
really
be
voting
on
people's
decisions
to
keep
things
the
same
shouldn't?
We
just
be
voting
on
changes.
This
is
just
I
don't
know
why
we
would
vote
to
say.
Yes,
I
like
3.1,
as
it
was
stated
previously.
A
A
D
A
A
I
still
wanted
to
include
it
for
the
sake
of
transparency
or
respect
for
all
of
your
time
in
presenting
and
writing
recommendations
so
that
that's
simply
it
again,
these
things
happen.
Amendments
are
presented,
new
ideas
are
presented,
people
have
the
right
to
withdraw,
and
that's
why
again,
it's
it's
in
front
of
us.
So
if
you're
interested
in
withdrawing
this,
then
I
I
can
go
ahead
and
withdraw
it,
and
then
we
cannot.
We
won't
vote
on
the
matter
because
it
doesn't
make.
A
F
A
A
Okay,
so
it
is
automatically
withdrawn,
so
there
is
no
motion
in
front
of
us
to
change
section
3.1,
so
we
move
on
we
move
on.
Actually
we
have
a
next
one.
The
next
recommendation
in
front
of
us
would
be
by
jason,
stalker,
section
3.1
cross
cross-reference
cross-reference
to
2.2,
where
we
state
that
the
city
councilor
sits
on
the
school
committee
as
a
non-voting
member,
so
it
would
read
as
follow.
The
school
committee
shall
elect
from
among
its
members
one
school
committee
member
to
sit
as
a
non-voting
member
of
the
city
council.
A
F
A
Great,
so
I
will
also
speak
on
the
matter.
I
am
actually
in
favor
of
this
because,
as
as
jason
mentioned,
it's
it's
the
idea
of
being
mindful
with,
what's
already
previously
stated,
and
actually
we
do
have
a
school
committee
member
who
who
sits,
who
attends
our
city
council
meetings,
so
I
think,
having
language
in
our
charter
that
really
reflects
the
way
we
operate.
We
do
have
the
school
committee
member
that
does
sit
at
the
city
council,
even
though
they
can't
vote
they
are.
They
are
present
in
some
of
our
meetings.
L
I
didn't
see
your
hand.
We
right
now
have
a
delegate
from
the
school
committee
that
attends
our
city
council
meetings.
I
believe
it
might
be
miss
rosemary
carlisle,
similar
to
the
fact
that
we
have
a
city
councilor,
who
is
a
delicate
to
the
committee.
So
what
is
this
language
doing
for
you?
What's
the
difference.
F
It
I
think,
because
if
you
went
to
the
school
committee
section
here
in
3.1,
you
wouldn't
know
that
there's
a
member
of
the
city
council
that
sits
on
the
school
committee
as
a
non-voting.
But
if
you
read
the
2.2
section
in
the
city
council
composition,
you
would
see
that
someone
sits
on
the
school
committee,
so
this
is
just
to
help
tie
it
together,
based
on.
If
you
just
started
flipping
this
and
started
with
the
school
committee
section.
You
wouldn't
know
that
okay.
A
A
I
think,
if
someone
walks
into
this
council
meeting
and
looks
at
rosemary
or
any
delegate,
that's
here,
they
might
not
know
what
her
role
is,
and
I
think
this
really
solidifies
that
in
a
written
statement.
So
so
I
am
voting
in
favor
of
this
just
for,
for
the
purposes
of
of
being
able
to
solidify
that
anyone
else,
jason.
Anyone
else
wants
to
speak
okay.
So
if
you
vote
yes,
you
accept
the
recommendation.
If
you
vote
no,
you
do
not
accept
the
recommendation,
so
judith
garcia,
yes
leo
robinson,
yes,
calvin
brown
is
absent.
H
F
A
F
F
D
A
D
A
A
A
A
A
E
E
Okay,
thank
you.
I
understand
what
mimi
wanted
to
do
by
making
this
recommendation
to
give
teachers.
You
know
a
voice,
even
though
it's
a
non-voting
piece.
I
would
be
against
it,
however,
because
teachers
are
only
one
of
the
unions
in
the
school
department
in
it.
You
know
for
equity
sake.
If
we
did
a
teacher,
we
would
have
to
do
a
para,
a
clerk,
an
administrator.
E
These
are
all
various
unions.
We
have
aft
mta,
that's
me
steelworkers,
union,
etc,
and
so
each
of
them
would
then
want.
You
know
a
non-voting
piece.
The
other
piece
is
that
this
is
a
government's
body
and
so
in
in
essence,
it's
management
and,
and
they
would
be
labor,
they
do
have
remember
they
do
have
public
speaking,
which
they
use
beautifully.
You
know
at
every
single
school
committee
meeting
so
that
public
speaking
is
still
in
a
very
similar
way.
E
It's
a
non-voting
participatory
structure
for
for
our
teachers
to
be
able
to
participate,
but
it's
also
fair
in
that
it
allows
everybody
to
participate.
L
L
Bit
more
involvement
in
labor
than
than
the
city
council,
so
when
it
says
the
school
committee
shall
also
have
a
teacher
as
a
non-voting
member,
is
it
a
chelsea
public
schools
teacher,
because
this
is
a
little
vague?
Is
it
a
teach
someone
who's
in
the
education
field?
The
language
seems
to
be
a
little
bit
against
a
little
vague
to
me.
So
I'm
just.
K
A
So
I
will
say,
mimi
chooses
to
withdraw
so
we
will
not
be
taking
a
vote
on
the
matter
because
she
chooses
to
withdraw
great.
So
we
move
on
to
the
next
section.
The
next
recommendation
in
front
of
us,
which
is
a
recommendation
received
from
sarah
neville,
which
is
she's
a
a
resident
from
the
city
of
chelsea,
and
essentially
what
we're
looking
at
here
is
to
add,
to
section
3.1,
add
to
the
school
committee
section
brand
choice
boating
within
our
compositional
eligibility,
election
term
powers
and
duties
so
notwithstanding
any
general
or
special
law,
so
the
contrary.
A
A
These
are
two
different
bodies,
and
this
was
the
way
it
was
it
was
presented.
So
that's
a
that's
a
great
question,
so
we're
voting
again
ranked
choice,
but
now
is
for
for
school
committee.
So
a
yes
vote.
Is
you
accept
this
recommendation?
A
H
F
G
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
I
I
like
that.
I
don't
know
how
so
that's
an
amendment
in
front
of
us,
but
before
I
will
give
the
floor
to
mimi.
I'm
sorry,
charlene,
apology.
L
G
L
A
Yeah,
okay,
so
so
what
we're
saying
is
so
I
I
see
what
mimi
introduced
here
is
basically
one
of
those
other
scenarios
where
we're
already
doing
it
that
way,
so,
as
might
as
well
write
it
and
have
it
in
writing.
So
I
I
agree
with
that.
So
what
I'm
hearing
here
is
a
friendly
amendment
where
we,
instead
of
eliminating
elected,
we
keep
elected
and
we
add
what
mimi
suggested.
So
so
we
keep
what's
in
front
of
us,
but
we,
the
friendly
amendment
that
that
jason
is
introducing,
is
to
keep
the
word
elected
in.
G
A
G
Yeah,
I
I
think
it
would
be.
Let's.
B
G
A
A
A
I
Okay,
in
the
past,
the
increases
I've
done
been
done
simultaneously
with
the
city
council
and
the
city
council,
in
conjunction
with
the
school
committee,
would
vote
collectively.
The
city
council
would
vote
to
approve
the
school
committee's
pay
raise,
and
the
city
council
would
also
be
doing
it
in
conjunction
with
the
school
committee
and
in
the
past,
the
council
would
take
a
look
at
other
communities
as
to
what
they're
being
paid
and
try
to
come
up
with
a
neutral
increase.
I
A
Committees
got
it
okay.
Anyone
else
wish
to
speak
on
the
matter
great.
So
again,
what
we
have
in
front
of
us
is
a
friendly
amendment
to
add
the
words
as
approved
by
the
city
council
after
the
word
schedule,
and
to
leave
the
word
elected
to
to
to
this
section.
Essentially,
what
mimi
is
requesting
is
to
add
something
that
we
already
do.
So
we
go
to
vote
judith,
garcia,
yes,
leo
robinson,
yes,
calvin
brown
is
absent.
Melinda
vega,
maldonado.
D
J
F
F
G
A
A
A
A
We
have
completed
sections
two
and
three.
That
being
said,
thank
you
so
much
for
your
participation
this
evening.
I
look
forward
to
seeing
you
at
our
next
meeting,
we'll
we
will
be
discussing
sections
four
and
five
have
a
great
evening.