Search

Board of Aldermen Page 7
March 8, 2016

President McCarthy

| don’t recall that.
President Deane

It is my understanding that it takes ten votes to suspend, does it not?

President McCarthy

No, we have an ordinance that says that however we cannot by ordinance defeat the rules of the majority,
the will of the majority of the Board as set forth in the Charter. If you like | will ask the City Attorney to
comment on that.

Alderman Deane

That’s quite alright.

Alderman Moriarty

| would like clarification on that. | may be wrong but! am led to believe that if you have a super majority to
make that ordinance then it would take a super majority to undo that ordinance and override it.

President McCarthy

Only where the Charter requires a super majority is a super majority required.

Alderman Moriarty
What is R-16-007?

President McCarthy

Relative to the acceptance and appropriation of $40,000 from the State of New Hampshire Department of
Health and Human Services into Public Health and Community Services Grant Activity FY 2016 and FY
2017: Climate and Health Acceptance Plan (CHAP)

Alderman Siegel

So here we are again with the exact same legislation, nothing has changed and now it’s being
reconsidered and the reason why it’s being reconsidered is well, | guess the Board didn’t do their
homework. When | was objecting to this the reason it wasn’t tabled is because | knew exactly what | was
voting against, | made the case against this. Last evening, during Bobbi Bagley’s confirmation hearing |
asked Ms. Bagley what her top three priorities were for the Department of Health and not one of them
came close to being in the universe of this grant. | also asked if somehow she felt we had all of the
resources that we needed to accomplish what the health department needs to accomplish and remember
that we have an opioid crisis here and | obviously think that’s a high priority and there are grants that are
being considered for a first reading tonight which clearly fall into the purview of the Board of Health. This is
speculative and it’s not the highest priority. | made that argument before so even the sponsor of the
legislation didn’t know what they were sponsoring; the Alderman that was the liaison to the Board of Health
couldn’t provide any light in addition to what was there. Again, | read the legislation, | knew what this was
and | will insist that nothing has changed, if anything a clarification that we received, if you want to call it
that, makes it even more clear to me that this is not a priority for this Board. The argument was made that

Board of Aldermen Page 8
March 8, 2016

if don’t take this money then someone else will. That’s like walking down the street and seeing a wallet on
the street and saying you know what, if | don’t take the money out of that wallet someone else will.
Everybody wants to complain about government waste but what they are really saying effectively is
everyone is wasting but we get to do what we want. To me waste is when you are taking money to perform
a service or try to do a project which takes city resources that are scarce to begin with and redirect them
into an area which is not one of the highest priorities. If this were to take no resources; let’s assume that
nobody interacts with this grant at all, that would mean that nobody is providing any input to guide the city
so how does this help Nashua or the regional plan? Or, when this finally gets done, we will stick it on the
shelf and not react to it at all because that’s the only way it would take no resources so if it would take no
input and provide no viable output then it’s not really useful unless we believe that we have an excess of
capacity in our health department to address at best is not in our top ten of things that we need to worry
about. There are plenty of things that we do need to worry about and if this were directed towards that, for
example, any of the latest viruses that we are seeing spreading worldwide, okay but that’s not what this is
about. | can’t see that anything has changed other than hey, you know what; we didn’t have the
opportunity to come into the Chamber fully prepared to vote on this so let’s get a free pass. The legislation
hasn’t changed and the reasons to vote against it haven’t changed. Everyone wants forgiveness for being
unprepared. | hope this is a lesson to everyone who wants to sponsor legislation to at least read the
legislation and understand what you are voting on or what you are sponsoring so when it comes time to
discuss it if need be, you understand what it was that you put your name to.

Alderman Clemons

There are three things that have changed. At the prior meeting, Mayor Donchess, who is the primary
sponsor of this legislation, was not present and neither were two of the co-sponsors, Alderman-at-Large
Lori Wilshire and Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja. | attempted to make a motion to table so that when they were
present and they could explain perhaps why this was important they would be here and at least have the
opportunity to vote on it. It’s consideration that was not given to them and it’s a shame that we treat our
colleagues like that when we see an opportunity that maybe we can count numbers, count our hands.

Alderman Siegel

Point of order, Mr. President, that’s describing a motive to what | was doing and | resent that because that’s
not it.

Alderman Clemons

| think the appropriate thing to do is to allow for the entire Board of Aldermen to vote on this particularly
when the sponsors of the legislation were not present to defend it.

Alderman Schoneman

| just wanted to point out that some of the sponsors of the legislation were here. Furthermore, those that
did vote on it; did not know either so it’s not just that two or three of the sponsors weren’t here but the
sponsors who were here and everyone else who voted on it didn’t have an answer. | think that says that
it's simply superfluous and it was viewed as free money and we simply cannot go down that road anymore.

Alderman Wilshire

| resent the fact that this is superfluous. The Public Health Department would not have applied for this
grant if they felt it was superfluous. You got the information, you know what the outcomes are and you
know what they are looking at the grant for and | think tabling it would have been the respectful thing to do
so | am hoping this bill gets support this evening. | think they went to all of the trouble to get this grant and

Board of Aldermen Page 9
March 8, 2016

they were awarded the grant. It may not be the top three priorities but it is something that they will continue
to work on. | urge you to support this.

Alderman Siegel

Well, I'll tell you that we set a very bad precedent by constantly having the Michael Jackson Zombie
legislation maneuver. I’m sorry that in the previous term that Alderman Soucy came up with that because it
looks like this is going to be the new world order where we just resurrect legislation willy-nilly. I’d like to at
least for my colleagues sake, at least have an agreement, this happened this time but | would like hopefully
that this is not we are going to be doing business in the future. Obviously we can if we decide but the
same people that were so against this when that came up in the November 10" meeting of last term seem
to have been okay with it now so that’s a little bit of a problem. The second thing is that | don’t agree with
my colleague, respectfully, Alderman Wilshire, that this was something that we necessarily have to agree
with because a lot of work was put into the grant. | won’t argue that work was put into the grant but there is
a sum cost for things and just because there is a sum cost doesn’t make the decision something that we
do, that’s why we vote on things. There are things that we turn down as Aldermen that there is work that’s
done and we okay. We see it but we decide we are not going to go with it, we may decide otherwise on
this. Work is always put in, anything that comes before this Board work is put in. Let me read the
sentence here “Purpose of Grant Initiative, to develop a climate and health adaptation plan for the Greater
Nashua Public Health Region and implement an evidence based (as opposed to nonsense based, |
suppose) intervention to address a top priority health impact burden related to weather climate vulnerability
aimed at improving public health at the population level.” Where does that fit into the priorities of this city,
assuming you can even parse that sentence? This is the objection that | have. It doesn’t matter that the
money is available; at some point | think it behooves us as public servants to say okay, | understand the
money is out there but that doesn’t necessarily always mean that we grab it. That’s what | argued before
and that’s what | argue now. It wasn’t about vote counting, | didn’t count votes, | didn’t lobby anybody;
everybody voted independently on their own. | would have made the exact same statement had all 15
members of the Board been here.

Alderman O’Brien

In looking at this | hear my colleague, Alderman Siegel, but if | could bring a little something, I’ve been a
State Representative for approximately ten years and as many times issues come up to the House and I’ve
seen people within our Chamber say that a certain person couldn't be there that night and that particular
bill gets moved off the table. The main important thing is our job and the reason it’s done that something
that is brought up in legislation before us can be properly vetted. If the person that is here with the most
amount of information, | wasn’t 100% sure of this myself but the person who was here that probably could
have supplied me with that information wasn’t. Out of respect we should have moved to table but this
Board chose not to table and that to me, more than any other point that was brought up, is the most
dangerous. We should have the respect as Board, if a member is not here and cannot discuss the issue
before us; what was the rush? Why couldn’t we have tabled it and then we could have vetted it? | hope
that we now have the proper information to make a wise decision on this bill. You can say the merits of
climate change, | don’t Know, maybe the world is getting hotter or maybe it’s getting colder but evidently
somebody felt it was important to get a grant. Coming from my previous employment, to write a grant is a
lot of work so somebody really felt that this had merit and spent a lot of man hours on it and has brought it
to us and we should take the time and properly vet this and make the right decision.

Alderman Moriarty

| just wanted to bring down this discussion for a minute with regard to Mason’s Rules. Regarding Alderman
Siegel’s point of order, it wasn’t a point of order it was a personal privilege. Just for anyone who is new,
when you call a point of order what you are saying is that you recognize that a procedural rule has been
violated. Alderman Clemons, by offending Alderman Siegel, was not a violation of a procedure but an

Board of Aldermen Page 10
March 8, 2016

offense and Alderman Siegel has every right to raise his hand and call personal privilege and call him out
on that. Unfortunately, | begrudgingly accept the ruling on the fact that we have required ten votes to
suspend the rules can be undone by only eight votes. In Mason’s Rules it says that a majority does not
have the power to make a rule that cannot be modified or repealed by a majority so if a majority makes a
rule that says a super majority has to do something then that same majority can undo that rule that makes
a super majority. Of course we didn’t follow that procedure, we just ignored it and actually that would have
been a point of order. My question is Mason’s talks in terms of rules; it doesn’t talk in terms of ordinances
so the fact that the Board made an ordinance that requires ten votes to suspend the rules makes me think
that what we really need to do is submit an ordinance to undo that ordinance. Just like you may rule that
we can’t do that because the Constitution says we can’t and just like in the United States if you pass a law
that’s unconstitutional it’s still in effect until someone challenges it in court. So, in some sense | believe
that ordinance is still in effect until somebody actually legally challenges it. I'll finish by asking our new,
esteemed Corporate Counsel if you can please research this and tell us if there is a difference between
Mason’s Rules and how it defines a rule versus an ordinance. If the ordinance is in effect is it still in effect
until it’s legally challenged even though it might be unconstitutional and finally, what is it going to take for
us to change the Constitution so that it takes ten votes to suspend the rules because it’s ridiculous... there’s
a reason we have rules and just to be able to throw them out the window with a majority | think is absurd so
| am all for a Constitutional amendment and put it on the Charter vote and put it on a ballot and have the
people of Nashua make it so it requires ten votes. That’s the question that | have.

President McCarthy

Alderman Moriarty, would you please turn to rule #1 and read it to the Board?

Alderman Moriarty

Sure. It is necessary that every deliberative body be governed by rules of procedure in order that the will of
the majority of its members may be determined and revealed in an orderly manner. Right, so the majority
can decide to do whatever the heck it wants. | agree with that and that’s why | am thinking what we really
need is a change in the city Charter that says to suspend the rules takes ten votes. Thank you for all of
your patience.

President McCarthy

Attorney Bolton, would you like to answer?

Attorney Bolton

I'd be happy to research this further because what | say just off hand may not be the last word on the
subject. It strikes me that my recollection is that there is an enactment somewhere in the city Charter
that provides that the Board of Aldermen will adopt by ordinance rules of procedure so | would say this is
both an ordinance and a rule of procedure. Just as a side, that provision exempts those rules of
procedure from the otherwise veto power of the Mayor because they are to govern the Boards own
procedure. Basically | guess it’s recognition that the Mayor has no role in telling the Board how to
conduct its business. While it is certainly possible to by ordinance repeal that existing requirement, the
existing wording, that would lead to tend to indicate that there is a requirement of a ten vote super
majority to suspend the rules, | tend to agree with the President that that was not a proper rule when
passed and therefore, this Board does not run afoul of anyone else by not following it. If the desire is to
absolutely repeal it and avoid confusion then our office would be pleased to prepare that for anyone who
wishes and if you want a more detailed answer | would be happy to provide a written opinion after a little
more research but off the top of my head that is my understanding.

Board of Aldermen Page 11
March 8, 2016

Alderman Siegel

Regarding the vetting process, | would point out that the person most appropriate to vet in a sense was
Alderman Lopez who is our health department liaison who was at the meetings | presume when this was
discussed. | would also point out that if one looks at the Human Affairs Committee meeting where this
was discussed at the committee level where everyone was present and it was supposedly vetted the
meeting minutes indicate that there was no discussion whatsoever so the opportunities to vet it at that
level didn’t occur for one reason or another. The appropriate parties were present and there was an
ability to vet but | guess that just didn’t happen in my opinion.

Alderman Lopez

Alderman Siegel is 100% correct. | probably should have vetted it when it came across at the initial
meeting. The discussion at the Board of Health meeting was to simply announce that the grant was at the
Board of Aldermen and there wasn’t more detail, to my knowledge, given about the substance of it. In the
last Board of Aldermen meeting, Alderman Siegel had already described the grant in a tangential way but it
is essence he was correct in how he described it and the concern that he raised about not knowing the
specifics, | agreed with at the time because | had not had any specific details about the $40,000 we were
accepting. Since then | have reached out to the Board of Health Chair and he has provided more
information and a much more detailed copy of the grant. He also forwarded it to the Board of Aldermen. It
is in my opinion something that is useful. | did listen to the minutes of yesterdays’ Personnel/Administrative
Affairs Committee meeting and | think what Bobbi Bagley was speaking of when she said that there’s a
great need; when Alderman Siegel has asked if the health department has all of the resources it needed
she mentioned specifically need for capacity and need for partners so while a focused approach on
substance abuse and recovery and the opioid problem at a detox level might only focus on the people who
are addicted. A public health model would actually include multiple stakeholders and community partners.
The kind of research that you would do to study climate change can also be used as an education tool to
engage people in discussing what the Public Health Department does. It could build more partnerships
and resources for the Public Health Department so having that information | am much more in favor of it
now than | was at the previous meeting. | would like to apologize to the Board for not making that
information available at the beginning. As Alderman Siegel said, it was a teaching moment and | am
listening.

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

Unfortunately | was not here two weeks ago when this came up but it has always been my understanding
that the purpose of this grant was really to give us some baseline information so our health department
could have a sense of where there might be a need to address issues related to climate change be it virus’
coming into the area or whatever but | have always viewed this as there is an unknown and this would give
us some money and resources to start looking at what we might expect and then provide some groundwork
for developing a plan to address those issues. | do agree with Alderman Siegel, when | got this document |
read the purpose of the grant initiative and had to reread it several times. In my mind though, very clearly, |
think the final product results summary is what kind of wraps up where this is going and why it would be of
importance to the city.

Alderman Cookson

Two quick points, one is that | am looking at the information that was provided, as a result of not having it
at the last meeting, it’s unfortunate that we didn’t have more information but now that we have it | just have
a few questions. | am looking at the table on the second page, it goes through several different outcomes,
specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound and | just want to verify that for the third row,
increased access to information regarding the priority, climate and health impact in the region that the time
bound is actually that this will occur in the summer of 2012? | am assuming not. Lastly there is a comment

Board of Aldermen Page 12
March 8, 2016

in the last row that says improve the municipal capacity to understand and address the priority climate and
health impact. Through all of this conversation it’s talking about sub-contracting it out to NRPC. NRPC is
the group that will be conducting and facilitating this for us so we are accepting a grant for $40,000; the
City of Nashua. | am assuming that we are just going to hand over the $40,000 to NRPC so they can do
this because of the sub-contracting and yet all thirteen municipalities in the region will receive the materials
of which we have accepted this $40,000 grant. My question is what other municipalities are contributing to
this grant and not just the City of Nashua?

President McCarthy

| can’t answer that other than to say that it’s a grant and | believe that NRPC had one of the member
communities; probably Nashua because our name was on the title apply for it. We applied for it and the
state gave to us to benefit all the other communities.

Alderman Cookson

So, not just Nashua but all thirteen municipalities that are part of NRPC?

President McCarthy

That would be my assumption.

Alderman Siegel

There were certain comments that were made off-line; not by any of my colleagues here but that somehow
this had something to do with climate change denial or any nonsense like that. My objections have zero to
do with that and | want to make that publicly clear. | would also like to thank my colleague, Alderman
Cookson, for pointing out that this table is rather amusing in that it appears to have been cut and pasted
and basically reused. | understand that there is a lot of motivation to do that kind of stuff but it doesn’t
exactly inspire a lot of confidence about the amount of vetting that actually went into that.

Alderman Moriarty

Is the motion currently to reconsider and if it passes do we then have to vote to pass it?

President McCarthy

Yes.

Alderman Moriarty

Is this motion to reconsider procedural and therefore non-debatable?

President McCarthy

It's generally debatable as to the merits of reconsideration. We tend to me a little bit more lax with the
rules about the debate of that motion. | wanted to comment that | got the information that was sent to us
from the Department of Health and frankly, I’m not sure where | stand on the substance of the matter itself
even after reading it. | am concerned with the way this resolution was handled at the previous meeting and
the fact that we voted on something that the way we did. As Alderman Moriarty read to you before rule #1
says that the purpose of the rules is to expose in advance the will of the majority of the body. The motion
to pass failed 7 to 6 with two sponsors who we can reasonably assume supported the bill were not there.
What | would assume from that is that the will of the majority was a majority wanted to pass it. We didn’t

Board of Aldermen Page 13
March 8, 2016

use the rules to serve that purpose which is what they are there for and that is my whole concern with the
way this piece of legislation was handled. As | understand it, it is a pass through grant at NRPC. | don’t
know for sure that | think it’s valuable but | tend to defer on grants to the wisdom of the Human Affairs
Committee because that’s the purpose of that committee. What concerns me are the rules and frankly |
agree absolutely with Alderman Siegel. | spoke with Alderman Clemons and in fact urged him not to make
the motion prior to this meeting just because of the way it would turn out. | think we need to go back to
using the rules to work together and not to see how we can nefariously get our way around the majority of
the Board, if that’s what is happening. I’m not saying that anyone has done anything nefarious, | am saying
that it would have been a good idea at the previous meeting to defer it to the motion to table and take the
vote when 15 people are here and can state their positions on it and have their votes count. What | would
ask the Board to do at this point is to, given the discussion that we have had, is to reconsider it and send it
back to the Human Affairs Committee. Let’s get some real information on it. It may turn out that we don’t
want it but there are still some unanswered questions as near as | could tell and we ought to have those
answers before we do anything with it. | would ask that the Board reconsider it and return it to the Human
Affairs Committee for further study.

Alderman Deane

| would like to know what the prepared motions were for this piece of legislation that Alderman Clemons
has in front of him.

President McCarthy

| am not sure | know what you mean.

Alderman Deane

The motions are prepared for him prior to the meeting.

President McCarthy

Correct.

Alderman Deane

I’d like to know if there is a motion there to re-refer it to the Human Affairs Committee or not.

President McCarthy

No, there is not. That’s my opinion and my opinion only. Alderman Clemons had said that he wanted to
make a motion to reconsider it. | told him and | told the legislation assistant that the proper motions were a
motion to allow reconsideration by a party not on the prevailing side and if that passed then a motion to
reconsider. Does that answer your question, Alderman Deane?

Alderman Deane

Thank you.

Alderman Clemons

| also did send out a communication via e-mail to the entire Board telling everyone that | intended to do this
at this meeting.

Board of Aldermen Page 14
March 8, 2016

Alderman Cookson

What wasn’t done was that the public was not made aware that this would be brought up for
reconsideration this evening with the opportunity for them to sign up for public comment for items to be
acted upon this evening and they were not given the opportunity. At some point in time, somebody should
have made that known to the public.

President McCarthy

That is true and thank you for pointing that out. Are there any other comments on the motion to
reconsider? There were none.

A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Dowd, 8
Alderman Caron, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja, Alderman O’Brien,
Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy

Nay: Alderman Deane, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Siegel,
Alderman Schoneman, Alderman McGuinness, Alderman LeBrun,
Alderman Moriarty 7

MOTION CARRIED

R-16-007
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Tom Lopez
RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $40,000 FROM THE STATE
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES INTO PUBLIC
HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES GRANT ACTIVITY “FY2016 AND FY2017 CLIMATE AND
HEALTH ADAPTATION PLAN (CHAP)”
Given its third reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-007
MOTION BY ALDERMAN COOKSON TO RE-REFER TO THE HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:
Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Cookson, Alderman Dowd, 13
Alderman Caron, Alderman Siegel, Alderman Schoneman,
Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja, Alderman McGuinness, Alderman LeBrun,
Alderman Moriarty, Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Lopez,
Alderman McCarthy
Nay: Alderman Clemons, Alderman Deane 2

MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-16-007 re-referred to the Human Affairs Committee.

Board of Aldermen Page 15
March 8, 2016

R-16-008
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
ADDING FOUR ADDITIONAL PARCELS TO THE “SPIT BROOK ROAD ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION ZONE”
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERWOMAN MELIZZI-GOLJA FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-16-008

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Moriarty

| just want to note that it was not a unanimous vote to recommend final passage.

Alderman Siegel

| read the minutes from that meeting and | felt like | left economic earth at one point. | was happy that a
majority voted for that. | can’t understand why we would vote against something like that. | think if it were
up to me | would make all of Nashua have a lower BPT and BET; it’s the biggest job killer that New
Hampshire has so congratulations; we should do everything in our power to get 300 manufacturing jobs
into Nashua. It would be insane to vote against this.

Alderman Moriarty

With that introduction I’ll comment on a couple of things. Keeping taxes low in order to make New
Hampshire competitive with the nation; there’s nobody on this Board that can hold that mantle other than
me as far as a champion of keeping spending under control and taxes low and trying not to run the seniors
out of the city. I’ve been talking about reducing the BPT and BET for years. | absolutely 100% agree. |
like the idea of the term “revitalization,” the economic revitalization zone, something like a blighted area.
The issue that | have has to do with corporate welfare, the type of thing that citizens across the nation have
lost faith in Congress because of special favors and the tax codes that gives breaks to favored interests.
It's a non-uniform application of the law. The reason why we can’t balance our budget is because you have
subsidies of this organization and subsidiaries of that and this congressional district subsidizes that. What
happens is the general population gets stuck footing the bill. If we want to reduce the BET and the BPT all
across New Hampshire uniformly | am all for it and I’ve been saying that forever. The problem is when you
give special favors and in this particular case the ordinance is requesting that we add four properties to this
economic revitalization zone in south Nashua. The four properties are BAE Systems. If we give a tax
break to BAE then that’s not revitalizing anything, it's one of the most mature companies in the State of
New Hampshire, it's been here for fifty years, its healthy, it's not going anywhere and it is here to stay.
This bill does not revitalize anything. You say you want to revitalize Spit Brook Road? Spit Brook Road
does not need revitalization, it's doing just fine thank you. This particular property area is the most
expensive real estate in all of New Hampshire; it’s the complete opposite of revitalization. Regarding giving
the special favor, the tax break to BAE in order for them to create jobs is also not true. They have already
paid for these jobs. They eliminated 70 — 74 high paying senior people last September. Giving them a tax
break isn’t going to encourage them to hire more people, it’s already in the plan and we are rewarding an
organization for axing 74 loyal people who had been working for the company for 10, 15, or 20 years.
There is a legitimate reason to vote against this. | wasn’t going to mention all of that because | think we
are stuck on roll call with this and | didn’t want to put my colleagues on the spot by making them back me.
It's corporate welfare for an organization that has not treated their employees well recently. They kept it
under the minimum; if you lay off 75 people you have to give a press release so they only laid off 73 people
and didn’t have to make the press release. Just to show good faith | am going to abstain from this one.

Board of Aldermen Page 16
March 8, 2016

Alderman Siegel

If you want to recuse yourself you normally do that before the discussion but just for everybody's education
as someone that is actually an entrepreneur that starts businesses in New Hampshire let me give you a
little education about the BPT. The Business Profit Tax is the one biggest joke every because in order to
avoid it which is fairly simple you just run your business so you don’t have profits which unfortunately has
the side effect of making it very difficult to get capital from commercial banks because they see no matter
what the cash flow into all the companies pockets that the people who own the company or have shares in
the company, it doesn’t matter because they are not showing a profit. The other way to get around that is
to just be a LLC. which happens all of the time. Here we have an established corporation trying to have
300 manufacturing jobs and we are going to tell them you know what, you are not located in the Millyard so
we can’t help you, in which case they will say, that’s great maybe we will go to Merrimack. I’m beside
myself that this is even an issue because this will help Nashua tremendously.

Alderman Dowd

| will also be recusing myself as | am still an employee of BAE but in fairness to the previous comments, |
totally disagree with Alderman Moriarty.

President McCarthy

Since we seem to be sticklers for the rules this evening, | would point out that our rules, by ordinance,
declare that unless you have a stated conflict of interest under the terms of the ordinances which involve
employers or employers of relatives you must vote. Alderman Moriarty, would you point out what the
conflict is that precludes you from voting?

Alderman Moriarty

If you are going to insist that | vote then | will vote but in defense of Alderman Dowd he can actually get in
trouble at work if he votes for this so you should grant him so leniency.

President McCarthy

| believe that he has a legitimate statement of conflict.

A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Deane, 13
Alderman Cookson, Alderman Caron, Alderman Siegel,
Alderman Schoneman, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja, Alderman McGuinness,

Alderman LeBrun, Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Lopez,
Alderman McCarthy

Nay: Alderman Moriarty 1
Abstain: Alderman Dowd 1

MOTION CARRIED
Resolution R-16-008 declared duly adopted.