Search

Board of Aldermen — 5/09/17 Page 4

REPORTS OF COMMITTEE

Budget Review Committee... ee ceceeeeeecteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenees 04/24/17

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the April 24, 2017, Budget Review
Committee accepted and placed on file.

Budget Review Committee... ee ceceeeeeecteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenees 04/27/17

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the April 27, 2017, Budget Review
Committee accepted and placed on file.

Committee on Infrastructure.........0..0.. ccc ceccecccecccecccecececeetececececereeeaceress 04/26/17

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the April 26, 2017, Committee
on Infrastructure accepted and placed on file.

Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee .......00..0..0c cc ccccececcceeceeeeeeeees 05/01/17

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the report of the May 1, 2017, Personnel/
Administrative Affairs Committee accepted and placed on file.

There being no objection, President McCarthy suspended the rules to allow Alderman Wilshire
to give an oral report of the Human Affairs Committee meeting held May 8, 2017, regarding
R-17-094.

Alderman Wilshire gave an oral report of the Human Affairs Committee meeting of May 8, 2017,
regarding Resolution R-17-094

There being no objection, President McCarthy declared the oral report accepted and
placed on file.

WRITTEN REPORTS FROM LIAISONS — None

CONFIRMATION OF MAYOR'S APPOINTMENTS

Conservation Commission

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT OF GENE
PORTER, 77 CONCORD STREET, NASHUA, TO THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION FOR A TERM
TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2019

A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:
Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Deane
Alderman Cookson, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron
Alderman Siegel, Alderman Schoneman, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty, Alderman O’Brien,
Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy 14
Nay: 0

MOTION CARRIED

Board of Aldermen — 5/09/17 Page 5

President McCarthy declared Gene Porter duly appointed to the Conservation Commission for a term to expire
December 31, 2019

Oath of Office administered by Corporation Counsel.
Cultural Connections Committee
MOTION BY ALDERMAN LOPEZ TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT OF LAUREN
OSOWSKI, 14 ARTILLERY LANE, NASHUA, TO THE CULTURAL CONNECTIONS COMMITTEE FOR
A TERM TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 2019
A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:
Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Deane
Alderman Cookson, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron
Alderman Siegel, Alderman Schoneman, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty, Alderman O’Brien,
Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy 14

Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED

President McCarthy declared Lauren Osowski duly appointed to the Cultural Connections Committee for a
term to expire December 31, 2019.

Oath of Office administered by Corporation Counsel.
Nashua Arts Commission
MOTION BY ALDERMAN LEBRUN TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDITH
CARLSON, 15 MANCHESTER STREET, NASHUA, TO THE NASHUA ARTS COMMISSION FORA
TERM TO EXPIRE APRIL 1, 2020
A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:
Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Deane
Alderman Cookson, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron
Alderman Siegel, Alderman Schoneman, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty, Alderman O’Brien,
Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy 14
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED

President McCarthy declared Judith Carlson duly appointed to the Nashua Arts Commission for a term to
expire April 1, 2020.

Oath of Office administered by Corporation Counsel.

Board of Aldermen — 5/09/17 Page 6
Ms. Carlson

| would like to thank the Board of Aldermen for moving onto the next step with the evaluation of performing arts
center. It was a wonderful Segway to an amazing week in the arts here in Nashua. We had a wonderful
festival on Saturday. Sunday a fantastic concert at First Church. This week we have selected an artist to do
the banner project for Holman Stadium of the first integrated baseball team in the US. All the funds were
raised privately and the artist is starting to work on that. Tomorrow, the Arts Commission is holding a reception
for a number of the arts audiences and community. We hope you will join us at 5:30 p.m. over at 30 Temple
Street. Of course there is the opening of the sculpture symposium. Then on Friday, both the ActorSingers and
Peacock Players are opening Greece and Singing in the Rain. | just wanted to mention that to all of you, and
thank you.

Planning Board

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CARON TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT OF GERRY
REPPUCCI, 17 BADGER STREET, NASHUA, TO THE NASHUA CITY PLANNING BOARD FORA
TERM TO EXPIRE MARCH 31, 2020

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

Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Deane
Alderman Cookson, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron
Alderman Siegel, Alderman Schoneman, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty, Alderman O’Brien,
Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy 14

Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED

President McCarthy declared Gerry Reppucci duly appointed to the Nashua City Planning Board for a term
to expire March 31, 2020.

Zoning Board of Adjustment

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS TO CONFIRM BY VOICE VOTE THE APPOINTMENT OF THE
FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS AS ALTERNATE MEMBERS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
JAMES P. WELCH, 3 GREENWOOD DRIVE, NASHUA, FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE SEPTEMBER 11, 2017,
AND EFSTATHIA BOORAS, 44 BALCOM STREET, NASHUA, FOR A TERM TO EXPIRE OCTOBER 1,
2018

A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:
Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Deane
Alderman Cookson, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron
Alderman Siegel, Alderman Schoneman, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty, Alderman O’Brien,
Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy 14
Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED

President McCarthy declared James P. Welch and Efstathia Booras duly appointed to the Zoning Board of
Adjustment for terms to expire September 11, 2017, and October 1, 2018, respectively.

Board of Aldermen — 5/09/17 Page 7

Oath of Office administered by Corporation Counsel.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS — RESOLUTIONS

R-17-093
Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
AMENDING THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND FOR FUNDING THE JULIA T.
WARD PRIZE TO A MEMORIAL MURAL PROJECT AT THE AMHERST STREET ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
Given its third reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-17-093 BY ROLL CALL
A Viva Voce Roll Call was taken, which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Deane
Alderman Cookson, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron
Alderman Siegel, Alderman Schoneman, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty, Alderman O’Brien,
Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy 14

Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED
Resolution R-17-093 declared duly adopted.

R-17-094

Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess

Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire

Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja

Alderman June M. Caron

Alderman Tom Lopez

Alderman Richard A. Dowd
RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF UP TO $213,700 FROM THE
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES INTO
TRANSIT GRANT ACTIVITY “FEDERAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE
COMMUTE (“JARC”) PROGRAM”

Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-17-094
ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Wilshire

This is the grant we discussed a little earlier that allows the two busiest routes to have routes every
half hour. They go to the Pheasant Lane Mall which gets people to and from work at the mall, and
they go up Amherst Street as well. It’s every half hour instead of every hour. | think it is really

Board of Aldermen Page 10
June 28, 2016

no choice. We could have voted it down and gone to arbitration and have it spit right back at us with the same
net financially but with a very demotivated workforce. It would have been a net loose, although | am
sympathetic to the notion that in the future we should be very careful about negotiating contracts with “me too”
clauses. | think the Budget Review Committee did a very reasonable job reviewing everything and | would like
to thank the department heads who really stepped up to the plate. | think overall the city is run relatively
efficiently and where there may be possible savings that can be had | think they are outside the scope or the
control of the Board of Aldermen. | would recommend to my colleagues that unless you have a very specific
idea about how you would change the budget after all of those review periods and what you might do after the
careful consideration that we made, | would urge you to vote for the budget even if it is reluctantly.

Alderman Lopez

| rent an apartment and a lot of people in my Ward do as well and we are not at all immune to tax increases
because our rent goes up as well and | know that a lot of the people in my Ward that are on fixed incomes rely
heavily on quality city services being offered. We can’t allow the quality of our services to degrade because we
are not paying people competitively. | did attend the Budget Review Committee meetings and | did learn a lot
about how these decisions have to be made and weighted. | am in favor of the budget as it was presented. |
am always mindful of the situation that our residents are facing when on a fixed income and how our taxes
impact them.

Alderman LeBrun

| echo many of the statements made by Alderman Schoneman. | too am on social security and | have not
seen an increase in the past three years except for | believe a 1% the year before last. | also paid my tax bill
recently and | do not get the services that many people get. | pay for my services and | pay my taxes so other
people can get services. | will not vote for this budget. | had not voted for the past state budget nor have |
voted for the past county budget. Until we begin to reign in government and make government more workable
and smaller in size | cannot vote for any of these budgets.

Alderman Siegel

By “reigning in government,” do you have a suggestion by what that specifically means tangibly and what cuts
and changes you would make? | have paid my taxes and | am on well water and a septic system and all of my
children have graduated from the school system. So as far as services that cost everybody a lot of money, |
am not using many of them however, it is unfortunate that | have to pay the bill too and | feel the pain. It’s a lot
easier to say no without explanation than it is to say no but here’s what | would change.

Alderman Clemons

In response to Alderman Siegel | would eliminate the spending cap and bring in a real budget that we could
look at without regard to that and see what our real needs are. It could be that we would end up spending less
than we do now but more likely it would be a little bit more but | think it would be fair.

Alderman Siegel

| would say to Alderman Clemons that is beyond the scope and power of the Board of Aldermen and therefore
is not a viable option.

Alderman Schoneman

The issue | don’t think is trying to find services or things that we can cut. Services have stayed essentially flat;
they are no worse than they were last year. There is an increase in taxes and there is an increase in the
budget. The issue is where that increase seems to be going; it seems to be going towards salaries and
pensions. We can’t come in here and say we are going to cut the salaries because they are contracts that

Board of Aldermen — 5/09/17 Page 8

important to know that people are using the transit system to get to work, and it is important | think that
we continue to accept this money.

Alderman Lopez

As they pointed out, it is about 50 percent of the bus ridership population. It is a very, very well used
service and provides a great benefit in Nashua.

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

Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Deane
Alderman Cookson, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron
Alderman Siegel, Alderman Schoneman, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty, Alderman O’Brien,
Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy 14

Nay: 0

MOTION CARRIED
Resolution R-17-094 declared duly adopted.

R-17-096
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Ken Siegel
Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Tom Lopez
AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN EASEMENT FROM GIRLS INCORPORATED
OVER LAND LOCATED AT 27 BURKE STREET

Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-17-096

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

Yea: Alderman Wilshire, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Deane
Alderman Cookson, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron
Alderman Siegel, Alderman Schoneman, Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja
Alderman LeBrun, Alderman Moriarty, Alderman O’Brien,
Alderman Lopez, Alderman McCarthy 14

Nay: 0
MOTION CARRIED

Resolution R-17-096 declared duly adopted.

Board of Aldermen — 5/09/17 Page 9

UNFINISHED BUSINESS - ORDINANCES

O-17-033
Endorsers: Alderman Ken Siegel
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
LIMITING THE SECOND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AT BOARD OF ALDERMEN
MEETINGS TO ITEMS WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD
Given its second reading;

MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF O-17-033

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Siegel

This is a fairly straightforward piece of legislation. What it does is just restricts the public comment to things
that we have some control over. |’m going to address this whole issue of “free speech” head-on. We already
restrict what can and cannot happen in the Chambers here. You cannot campaign for political parties. You
can’t waive signs. You can’t have commercial sponsorships here. We don’t panhandle in the Chamber.
There’s a whole host of protected free speech according to the court system that we restrict. This restriction, |
think, in no way hinders public access or public comment because if we can’t act on anything then what’s
happened and what did happen, which prompted me, is people kind of parachuted in here knowing there’s
cameras, were waiving signs and clacking around with noise, and just making a general ruckus about an issue
which we have absolutely no control over.

It seemed to be not fair to people that want to have public comment on things that are relevant that the Board
can act on. Nor, is it fair to staff to have to transcribe this. Also, we have had instances as we well know
where we have an individual who probably needs some attention from some facilities that maybe are mental
health facilities asking us to help them with them being on fire. Again, this is not within our purview.

Now that said, anything within our purview and there’s quite a lot, | don’t care what somebody says, where they
come from. If they want to be nasty about what decisions we’ve made or how, have at it. That’s fine for me
and probably fine for everybody else. That’s what we do. But! see no restrictions here, no limitation of public
access or any kind of restriction on free speech that’s meaningful in any way by scoping us to things that are
relevant to what we can act on.

We are not the only body that would do that. If you go before the Zoning Board, they are very strict. The
Planning Board, the same thing. We are wide open, and | think it works sometimes but other times it doesn't.
So | would urge my colleagues here to pass this piece of legislation. | think it’s healthy for everybody.

Alderman Clemons

No matter how you slice, this is a restriction of speech. We allow dialogue now that we would not allow if this
gets passed. No matter how you look at that, you are restricting some people from their right to speak before
us. While | can appreciate the fact that there are certain people who come before this Board who have
differing opinions than | do and who some of us may deem their speech unworthy of our attention, | think that
every citizen has a right to come and speak before us about what they feel the Board of Aldermen can help
them with.

It is now our place to put a judgment on those people or what they are saying. We all know Mr. Cutter. He
comes before us all the time and he wants us to take land from his neighbor and give it to him. We can’t do
that. That has been explained to him by three different corporation counsels, two different mayors, and a
number of people who have been on this Board and are still on this Board. Yet, Mr. Cutter believes that we
can do something about it, and that’s his right. That’s his right to come here and tell us how he feels. The

Board of Aldermen — 5/09/17 Page 10

same thing with the woman who you mentioned feels that she is on fire. That may not be what your definition
of sanity is, but it’s her right as a citizen of Nashua and a citizen of the United States to come before the public
board and tell us what her issue is with a certain department in the city.

There’s a lot of other instances that | could mention, but the bottom line is we serve the taxpayers, we serve
the people of Nashua. We also serve guests of this city, property owners of this city, visitors of this city. When
they feel compelled to sit through a meeting and ask us to put some crazy zoning ordinance in, we should
listen to them because these are the extreme examples that | point out of things where this body doesn’t have
any control over what could happen.

However, there might be a situation where somebody comes and addresses us about a problem that we didn’t
know about that’s going on in our community that we don’t have any authority over. Maybe a crime that’s
going on in a certain area or a maybe a certain problem in a neighborhood that the Board of Public Works has
jurisdiction over. But it doesn’t matter. The point is we should be open and listening to the people of this city
and the people who take the time to take that microphone and address us. That’s what we are elected to do
and that’s what we should do. By passing this, we are eliminating some people’s right to speak to us, and | will
not support this.

Alderman Moriarty

| can’t pass an opportunity to agree with Alderman Clemons. As a representative we help people out. It’s hard
to define what’s not the jurisdiction of the Board. You understand what I’m getting at. | could certainly support
something like a timer. Besides from that, I’m with Alderman Clemons. |’m not going to support this.

Alderman Lopez

| think Alderman Clemons is exactly right that we have a responsibility to represent people and be available to
our constituents. | don’t know that this meeting needs to be the only venue for that. | particularly think it’s
important for aldermen to be available to people in their community so they can have discussions with them,
and also so the aldermen can direct them towards ways that they can actually achieve their goals.

| think leaving this is an open forum where people can come and present issues in general, it strikes me as
vaguely condescending because we're giving the impression that if somebody comes and makes a public
presentation and shares information specific to their experience that we’re immediately going to do something
about it when if we don’t have the jurisdiction or the authority to address it, they have just shared their situation
with the entire public and it’s on public record for no purpose. | think several of the examples that have been
brought up have been ones that have also included other parties to the situations involved. It is insensitive for
us to address those issues in a way that Mr. Cutter is having issues with his neighbors, he needs to articulate
his neighbors and identify them every single time he presents to the full Board of Aldermen. He has been
coming to the Infrastructure Committee and presenting there instead. There has been some discussion, and |
think it’s been productive.

Likewise, with the individual who has grievances with the Director of Public Health, etc., | think help could be
provided, like positive guidance and effective advice versus assuring ourselves that having a public comment
at the end of our meeting therefore gives everybody the chance to say what’s going on. | think we need to do
a little bit more than just letting people use the microphone when they want to. We should actively be trying to
help with resolve their issues.

Finally, | would also like to point out that there is a sensitivity issue to the people behind individuals speaking at
the mic. It is intimidating to do public comment. It is intimidating to come before a board of strangers and
articulate an issue. If you’ve done your research and you are really focused on a particular issue that the
Board may be addressing that night and you wanted to comment relative to it, it is very distracting to have
somebody who may come in from an entirely different state with an alternative agenda who is presenting that
in a manner that’s not necessarily appropriate. Who wants to follow that? It takes time away from the people

Board of Aldermen — 5/09/17 Page 11

who have pertinent conversations and may really feel passionate about an issue that we are dealing with. I’m
not sure it’s fair to them either.

Alderman Siegel

| kind of resent the fact that somebody is labeling me as somehow restricting free speech. That’s not the case
at all. | was very clear on that. | really don’t appreciate that. The other thing is | really appreciate my
colleague, Alderman Lopez, bringing up the fact that as aldermen we deal with a wide range of issues that are
often outside our purview and we provide guidance at that point. The question is: Is the public comment
period at the end of this meeting an appropriate place for people to just come in and just literally say things that
have nothing we can act on as a body? Often we help people individually and that includes Mr. Cutter. And, |
might add that we have the ability to override the rule. We can suspend the rules and accept this comment if
we deem it appropriate or we don’t agree, for example, with the President’s assessment that that might be
outside the purview of the Board. We maintain that authority. | just do not understand why this becomes such
a touchstone. | think it’s popular. Oh, |’m in favor of free speech because |’m against this. I’m sorry; | believe
that’s utter nonsense. Pure nonsense.

Alderman LeBrun

|, too, reluctantly agree with Alderman Clemons. | hope that doesn’t hit you the wrong way. | would never
restrict public input at any of my committees at the State House nor at Hillsborough County, and | certainly
cannot vote to do so here in this city. Thank you.

Alderman Schoneman

| appreciate all of the viewpoints that were expressed here. | understand what Alderman Siegel is saying
about the appropriateness of this forum, but | also agree with Alderman Clemons and his point about this being
the forum where people should be able to come and speak. | don’t plan on supporting this. There are other
boards that have a specific targeted audience or function, let’s say. If someone came before the Historic
District Commission and wanted to speak about a topic, some of the folks we’ve heard here where it’s totally
off, | would say that that doesn’t belong there. But if there’s a board in the city that is more general than any
other, | think this is it, and | think this should be the place where people no matter what they have to say can
come in and share their views. | think whether it’s free speech, right or not, can be debated | suppose. The
fact that people can come in here and speak their mind at the end of the meeting and be heard with whatever
they want to say | think is an important part of how we function. | think people are much more able to face their
own issues if they have some kind of venue where they can speak. If this is it, I’m in favor of it and | plan on
not supporting this.

Alderman O’Brien

| look at this as not really a restricted type of a thing, and I'll tell you why. At the beginning of our agenda it says
“period for public comment relative to items expected to be acted upon this evening.” We have a public
comment period at the beginning, yet we put some form of mind to pitch. We designated what can and cannot
be discussed. Taken away completely the second public comment period would probably jeopardize, in my
opinion, some free speech issues but that’s not what we’re doing here. The reason why | supported this, and |
am still going to support it, is because we are limited the second public comment period to a subject matter
within the jurisdiction of the Board so we can designate when somebody does get a little bit out of bounds.
Who is going to make this decorum type of decision? It would probably revert back to the President of the
Board of Aldermen. If the situation comes in, this gives us the ability to allow the person to have their
communication and free speech, but if they start going a little bit off base, it gives the power to where it should
be, to the President of the Board, to curtail the conversation back and try to refocus it. Again, this is not limited
the second period public comment. It’s basically just giving it some rules of decorum to which any legislative
body has certain rules of decorum on when the public can speak or not speak. It is usually at the call of the
President or the call of the Chair. Thank you.

Board of Aldermen — 5/09/17 Page 12
Alderman Wilshire

| am not going to support this legislation. While | do understand that sometimes listening to people talk about
things that we don’t agree with or that might not be under the purview of this Board, | think it is important to
hear people and especially people who live in this city, that own property in this city. | can’t vote to stop them
from speaking to this Board, so | won’t be supporting this.

Alderman Dowd

To shed a little light on the Zoning Board, having been the previous Chair of the ZBA, what was happening
there was people were coming and testifying for hours with stacks of paper. The only thing the Zoning Board
is allow to hear are things related to the five points of law for that particular case. Seventeen years ago, give
or take a year, | instituted in support of the full Zoning Board the stop light limiting the people presenting the
case, mostly lawyers, to 15 minutes and then people rebutting was less time. What was happening was the
Zoning Board meetings had a lot on their agenda and it used to get extended into a second night which
became problematic for everyone. That’s where the ZBA came from.

| don’t think anything we have jurisdiction over that we ought to restrict anyone from speaking on it. It is very
hard, though, to determine what we have jurisdiction over. That would be another thing we would have to
decide. | would support limiting speakers during the second public comment period to 15 minutes. We used to
do that before. It might still be in place. We could enforce that and then if we want to extend it, we could have
the Board vote on it. If it is something way off base and it doesn’t pass then that person is done speaking. |
think that takes care of all of these issues. So, I’m going to recommend an amendment to O-17-033.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD TO AMEND O-17-033 BY STRIKING THE UNDERLINED WORDS IN THE
SENTENCE IN PARAGRAPH (17) AND REPLACING THEM WITH: “NO SPEAKER COULD EXCEED 15
MINUTES WITHOUT THE BOARD VOTING TO EXTEND”

ON THE QUESTION

President McCarthy

| believe, Alderman Dowd that the next sentence limits the entire public comment period to 15 minutes which
already has that effect.

Alderman Dowd
| was referring to any particular speaker.

President McCarthy

| would just point out that for anyone to speak more than 15 minutes, we need to extend the entire period as
well.

Alderman Dowd
| saw that coming. My point is that if we’re only going to have a 15 minute period that’s what we have, we

haven't recently voted to extend it. We just let it go on and on. If we have that rule in place, we ought to
enforce it. If we want to extend it then take a vote at the full Board.

President McCarthy

Do you wish to continue with your motion to amend?