Search

Board of Aldermen 12-22-2020 Page 30

They make sure that the people are wearing a mask when they are up and around. They don’t let people
dance in the middle of the bar. So you know, that’s the kind of thing that we need to start enforcing. And |
support that 100% but to my colleague’s point 9:30 is just an arbitrary time. Because if | go into a place
and | eat, | am going to eat the same way | eat at 5:00, 6:00, 7:00, 8:00, 11:00 it doesn’t matter. So you
know, | would support doing more measures to really enforce what we have in place but | can’t support this.
| am going to stand with the hardworking people who have reached out to me, over 200 of them. | am going
to support them until our Federal Government decides that it is going to support them and | don’t see that
happening any time soon. So from now on, as always, | am going to stand with the people. Thank you.

President Wilshire
Thank you. Is there any Alderman who hasn’t spoken yet, I'll get back to you. Alderman Klee?
Alderman Klee

Thank you, Madam President. | am going to shut my video off because | think | am having some bandwidth
issues. | want to make a couple of statements and | feel guilty that | am kind of repeating some of the
things that others have already said. But one of the things that | wanted to make a point was is that | think
for everyone of us this is an extraordinarily hard decision. We've had hard decisions before but this is
taking what our extraordinarily wonderful Public Health people both the Board of Health and the Public
Health Department. We are going kind of — if we don’t vote with them we are voting against them. | have a
hard time just saying | am voting against our Public Health. So it is an extraordinarily hard decision but |
look at it as the City doesn’t have a big bubble around it and we don’t have a way of keeping all of our
people in. And I’ve said this before and | am going to say it again, if someone leaves Nashua and they go
and they drink in another City; Hudson, Merrimack, wherever and | believe that most of them will when they
want to go out. We can’t control that narrative, we can’t control their action, we can’t control the amount of
mask wearing and so on.

| think here in Nashua, | think we do a really good job. | would like to see it a little bit stronger and to
comments that Alderman Clemons has made, | do have Legislation in the works hopefully that will do
exactly what you had said and | am just hoping that we can define what those from very minor to $25.00 up
to exactly what he said, perhaps revoking some days/weeks licenses and go after those. | have a hard time
sacrificing the whole for a few. And | do believe it is a few. And sadly | don’t believe it’s just our
restaurants, but that is where the biggest spread is going to be because they are going to have their masks
off for a longer period of time. But! do see it in stores and | mentioned it yesterday so | won't go into it. But
| don’t want to say the “who” but | can say that it was someone in law enforcement who shared a story
about being in a restaurant and getting back up and going to walk to the bathroom and forgot to put the
mask on and was told, “excuse me, you need to put your mask on” which was funny to some respect but |
think it was a good thing, it was a reminder, we all make mistakes. We all get up that one time and so on.

So when we put through Ordinances and say a $25.00 fine or something, we have to be cognizant it and
our Nashua PD would have discretion, they would know when someone just made a little bit of a mistake or
something versus someone who says, “I’m not putting it on’. Someone who stands in front of a cash
register and berates a young cashier and says, “I’m not doing that too bad”. Those are the people that we
want to go after, those are the people that we need to be speaking to and addressing. I’ve been working
with the United Way now since, almost since this pandemic has happened. I’ve worked with handing out
masks, I’ve worked with handing out food. And what | see is that the lines are getting longer and the need
is getting stronger. | can’t do something to somebody and make what they are now calling hunger lines. |
can’t make those hunger lines longer. And | have had people who apologize to me because they need
food. That truly breaks my heart. | can’t add to it, | can’t add to that single parent who is in line because
they don’t have enough food to feed their children and so on. The United Way, Front Door Agency, all of
these people have just stepped up. They have been incredible.

Board of Aldermen 12-22-2020 Page 31

As far as the stimulus bill that’s coming out of DC we really don’t know if that’s going to come. So
December 31*, guess what? All of that unemployment safety net is gone. Maybe it will be there, maybe it
won't. We don’t know, we don’t have a crystal ball. But we do know that we are creating this issue
beforehand. Now | am going to talk about the flip side of it. We've got Christmas coming, we’ve got people
who are not going to be listening to the rules. They are going to be going and spending time with their
family they are going to basically spit in the eye of everybody and say | don’t care. And then they are going
to go out and celebrate and then we’ve got New Year’s Eve. If | had my way, I’d shut down New Year’s
Eve all across the State, all across the Country. You know, but all that is going to do is it is going to bring
people home. They are going to be sitting in their homes, they are going to be drinking and they are going
to be taking off their masks and they are going to be doing it. So there’s no good answer here.

| can’t support this curfew. | want to but | just really can’t because | look at the eyes and so on and | had
someone today tell me | can’t look at the downtrodden to make my decision. These people aren't
downtrodden they are being affected because of this pandemic. They have never ever been in food lines
before. They have never ever had to ask for help and now they are asking for help. | can’t add to that
burden | just can’t do it. So for that reason | cannot support this and | am apologizing for not being able to
support it because we have incredible, incredible public health people. Madam President, thank you for
letting me speak.

President Wilshire
Youre welcome. Next is Alderman Lu?
Alderwoman Lu

Thank you Madam President. | just wanted to make a couple of points. Last night someone that was
speaking was very distraught, she explained that she worked two jobs. She worked, | think she said at the
Greenbriar and then she also worked at one of the clubs in town. And regardless of how this vote goes
tonight, | just hope that everyone understands that the Board of Health and our Health & Community
Service Workers in the City have been acting in the best interests of everyone and doing their best to
communicate throughout the months what they recommended and what we need to be aware of. And
they’ve been doing a really good job of improving their communications and however this vote goes, just
know that they believe and | believe them that we don’t know how this is going to evolve over the next
several months. And we feel as though we’ve seen the worst and it’s time to lighten up. But just be very
cautious, think of — what | hear that | don’t feel great about is the sense that we all need, we have the right
to our entertainment. And | guess | want to caution people to maybe be more self — to give more and
entertain yourself at home if you can to the extent that you can because this is all that the Board of Health
is trying to do is to communicate that in mingling there really is risk. Just because it’s not a risk to you, you
may very well be coming into contact tangentially with someone who is going to suffer because of this.

| just want to say the Food & Beverage Industry isn’t being picked on it’s kind of like why do you rob a
bank? That's where people are going maskless. That’s where people are sitting about and you tend to see
it after 9:00 at night because before 9:00 at night, families are out having dinner together. But | just want to
encourage everyone to take the message regardless of whether there is a law or an ordinance that’s
attached to it, after tonight. And please show some compassion for your community. Thank you.

President Wilshire

Thank you. Anyone who has not spoken yet that would like to speak?

Alderman Harriott-Gathright

Harriott-Gathright.

Board of Aldermen 12-22-2020 Page 32
President Wilshire

Alderman Gathright.

Alderman Harriott-Gathright

| just want to thank everyone you see so many phone calls, and I’ve talked with people dearly about what
their feelings about the — most of those that called me personally were against the curfew. But! also had
several calls where they were for the curfew and I’ve had just as many against and for in terms of emails
and personal emails and personal calls. Like everyone else, this is a very difficult decision. One day | am
feeling this way and the next day | am feeling another way. So tonight | will have to make up my mind. |
want to say that | don’t think that any of us in any form really wants to hurt anyone in the Entertainment
Restaurant or any of that type business.

| do realize and | think most of us realize that there’s a lot more to be done in Nashua in terms of helping to
get the numbers down. One of the things that | feel very strongly about is enforcement. And not just Police
enforcement but also Health Department enforcement, because if we can shut down a place because of
the cleanliness, then we should be able to, since it’s a law now, we should be able to shut down a place if
they are not abiding by the law. And that works in both ways. So | still don’t know where | am right now,
but | am going to say that | am going to go with the Health Department who | think has done a fantastic job
and | just pray that it is not a long-term curfew. Thank you.

President Wilshire

Thank you Alderman Gathright. Anyone else on the Board that has not spoken yet that wants to? Ok
Alderman Lopez?

Alderman Lopez

Thanks. | just wanted to reiterate again that the 9:30 curfew is not arbitrary, the objection to it is arbitrary to
be honest, because if it was at 9:30 if it was 10:00 there’s no point where the restaurant industry would be
like, “oh yea go ahead reduce our resources”. Because what they are presenting to us that even just a
small impact on their business is not something that they can absorb and that this isn’t small, this is a
significant amount of money. Now there’s a lot of contradiction there because people are saying, this is
when we make our money, this is our revenue, but they are also saying, well we are not doing a lot of
business it’s practically a ghost town.

There is the capacity rate for restaurants so | don’t think that they are necessarily making a lot of money
from a lot of different people, but | do think that those individuals are likely much more higher risk. While it
may not be apparent from a behaviorist perspective, to some people that people behave differently at night.
I’ve seen it, I’ve seen plenty of people that will be much more likely to drink, socialize, go home with
somebody. They aren't really doing that at 1:00 or 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon, | don’t even think there’s a
karaoke night or a trivia night that happens that early. It’s in the evening and that’s basically a function of
when people get off work or when they are used to it, you know, having the free time to do it, that’s when
they go. | don’t know that the restaurant industry can change that behavior and so | am conscious of the
fact that they are going to be asymmetrically impacted by this. But it was referred to as “unfair” earlier and
it can be unfair but definitely a problem. Gravity is unfair to some people, | mean the illness is unfair to
people. You can earn a lifetime syndrome where you may think you’re recovered but you have scarring on
your heart, on your lungs. | am mindful of the CIA Officer who had his legs amputated.

People are assuming that COVID-19 if you’re young you can get it, you'll be fine. No, if you’re young and
you get it, you are not necessarily fine at all. We know that children can get it and suffer horribly and we
know that it can stick with you. No one has managed to cure or recognize or develop a way to resolve the
damage that it does over the long term. And more importantly you can’t always control the secondary and
tertiary contacts that you have. That’s how it’s getting into long term care facilities, that’s how it’s getting to

Board of Aldermen 12-22-2020 Page 33

aunts, uncles, grandparents and while it is a problem economically that we are not supporting businesses
and restaurants anymore with things like the Payroll Protection Act and that kind of stuff, it’s also a problem
if they have to go and pay medical bills. Or if their restaurant is shut down for a week, two weeks, three
weeks because of an outbreak or if we have a full outbreak and a lockdown. Several people have said, you
know maybe what we really need to do is close restaurants down entirely. That is not what the Board of
Health is trying to do. They are deliberately trying to slow the spread, not stop the spread and | don’t
understand how those two arguments go together, that you’d be crippling businesses but it would be better
to shut the whole thing down.

So | am getting the sense that people are so passionate about protecting restaurants that they are not open
to other options. | know several Aldermen have said that they plan to submit Legislation to enhance the
mask ordinance, | don’t know where you were months ago but we could have used that for a plan for the
fall in September, October, November. As far as | know though, the issue isn’t necessarily with the
ordinance and | don’t even know that it is with the Police because they are not coming forward and saying
this is unenforceable, this can’t be done. Everybody here who says, I’ve seen a place that’s open and they
are not masking; or I’ve seen a place — you are part of the problem. You can’t just watch somebody walk
around without a mask or watch a business, as an Aldermen you cannot receive a complaint about a
business that’s operating inappropriately and not do something. So | assume everybody who is saying that
they are seeing these activities taking place is doing something about it. | assume that all of the restaurant
industry people who are saying, you know, we are going to do our best, we are going to make sure that we
are obeying all of the precautions are taking that home because you can’t go to your friend’s bar and hang
out with the other people from other restaurants while claiming you are keeping your own restaurant safe,
because you are not. You are all still occupying the same place and that’s where cross exposure is likely to
happen.

Restaurant workers are a high percentage of people who have tested positive in restaurants. They are
secondary contacts are often their neighbors, their relatives, other people that they see and have no idea
that they are positive because this is characterized by asymptomatic spread. | don’t think there’s a group of
bad actors in Nashua that are deliberately spreading COVID and trying to do this on purpose, because to
do that you have to get COVID. | think that there may be a number of people based on what the Board of
Health are seeing that are not compliant and are not making adjustments and changes in areas that they
need to be. But we are not listening to the Board of Health as to who they are, we are just speculating
here. And we are imagining that certain places must be responsible but not the ones that are present here
and that’s arbitrary.

| think if we want to empower Public Health to do more, than we should do it immediately and | think if we
want to empower restaurants to do more in terms of protections then we need to make tangible
contributions to that as a City. And | don’t think we can just say, well Legislation is pending and this is a
problem for Washington. This is a City that we draw revenue for, we should be looking at how we are
spending our money and where we are making discretionary choices for studies or development projects or
that kind of stuff and we should be making concrete plans with our upcoming budget to say, OK, we need
to make sure that if a restaurant is COVID positive has to close that we are supporting them during that
closure or we are doing something to make sure that their staff aren’t being unduly affected. Because staff
aren't responsible for the decisions that an owner or a manager is making. And a lot of times they have as
little power as anybody who is being told by their managers right now that their business is going to close if
pass this ordinance. They are all in the same boat in terms of being forced to work, forced to expose
themselves to risk and not having any safety net or recourse.

So if there is really this genuine sentiment that we are going to do stuff to help these restaurants, then we
need to. Because more than likely, based on what Public Health is saying and what the Board of Health is
saying, this is not going to go away because we voted it away. We are going to continue to see outbreak
surges, they are going to get worse over Christmas and over New Years in spite of all the well wishes of
everybody on the Board who are saying, we really hope it doesn’t happen. It’s going to get worse, this issue
is going to come up again and whether we have to face it because a curfew is even obviously necessary or
because a full lockdown is necessary, we need to be prepared.

Board of Aldermen 12-22-2020 Page 34

So we need to use the time that | think many people are trying to buy here and actually work. So | mean
there’s a lot of work ahead and these Holidays, if you are going to give them to other people, you can’t take
them for yourselves. You are going to have to work on the ideas and legislation that you are proposing and
really make good on it. Thank you.

President Wilshire

Thank you. Anyone who hasn’t spoken would, I'll get to you Alderman Lu but if no one has, if anyone
hasn’t spoken yet, I’d like to give them the opportunity. No? OK, Alderman Lu.

Alderman Lu
| just would like to move the question.
MOTION BY ALDERMAN LU TO MOVE THE QUESTION BY ROLL CALL
President Wilshire
The motion is to move the question; would the Clerk please call the roll?
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:
Yea: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Klee, Alderman Dowd,
Alderman Caron, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Lopez,
Alderman Tencza, Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Schmidt,

Alderman Cleaver, Alderwoman Harriott-Gathright 11

Nay: Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Jette, Alderman Laws,
Alderman Wilshire 4

MOTION CARRIED

President Wilshire

The motion before us is for final passage of Ordinance 20-044.
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Lopez, Alderman Jette,
Alderman Harriott-Gathright 4

Nay: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Klee, Alderman Dowd,
Alderman Caron, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Tencza,
Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Laws,
Alderman Cleaver, Alderman Wilshire 11

MOTION FAILED

President Wilshire

Can | get | get a subsequent motion? Alderman Clemons?

MOTION BY ALDERMAN CLEMONS FOR INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT BY ROLL

Board of Aldermen — 3/22/16 Page 17

was occurring on any kind of a basis, this legislation, | am quite sure, would be modified by my colleagues or
myself and it would be voted to be modified. So that is not an issue. Life safety issues are very different. If
somebody stops and there’s a gas leak or there’s a problem that’s not something we’re going to give you ten
days to rectify. | think everybody in this audience would recognize that.

One of the things that was interesting to note was the initial hearing. Quite a number of people were not aware
of Nashua’s blue book which is the code book. | think that, again, feeds into this sense that the legislation was
adopting all sorts of new things. If you didn’t know there was a blue book, you wouldn’t realize that the stuff
that’s in there is right out of it. | think if anything there’s a side benefit. Now more people are aware of what
exists right now. But if you go through all of these things, there’s nothing here also that doesn’t represent good
practice under any circumstance. | believe that most of the people in the audience already do that. |
remember half the people that were polled at the hearing had no contact with code at all. They didn’t even
know who they were, which is fantastic. That means that this is a complete non-issue for you. They are not
showing up because you are running your properties well. They are not going to be proactively going after
you. That’s not at all what we want to achieve. This is to deal with willful violators. There aren’t that many of
them so it’s a very narrowly scoped piece of legislation although again if you are not aware of the way things
work now it wouldn’t necessarily appear to be that way. | don’t want to belabor this too much, but | actually
would urge that my colleagues not table this. The reason is because this was worked on over a lengthy period
of time by city staff. There was a lot of thought put into this. | think it is eminently reasonable, again, given that
it is addressing willful violators and only willful violators.

Alderman Clemons

| support the concept of this legislation. | think it's something that is going to be very useful for the code
enforcement department. | support them in their efforts for wanting something like this. However, I’ve listened
to you folks at the Personnel Committee meeting. Some of you were there and then a lot more of you are here
tonight which is good to see. I’ve listened to some of your complaints about the legislation. It is in the
legislation that if penalties aren’t paid within ten days there is going to be a subsequent fine. That is a problem,
| think, with the legislation. In addition to that although the state law that governs this legislation says that there
has to be a warning issued prior to any of these citations being sent out, | think it would be helpful if the
legislation stated that just for everyone’s peace of mind. | don’t think it would hurt if we were to add something
like that. There are a couple of other things that | can see that were brought up as being issues with this. |
also think it wouldn’t hurt to have more input on it. As it stands, | cannot support it. | will not support final
passage. However, | would support sending it back either to Personnel or to the Substandard Living
Committee so it can be worked on to address the issues that were brought up tonight by you folks.

Alderwoman McGuinness

Where does it say in the text of the ordinance, where does it talk about willful violators and where does it say
someone making a good faith attempt won't be fined? | just don’t see the language in here.

Alderman Siegel

The enabling statute is the wait period. That’s been the policy of code, and there’s no reason to believe that it
wouldn’t continue to be the policy of code. Again let's remember where we are right now there’s a policy in
place. This is dealing with violations. The things that lead up to that, issues, and | can address the tenant-
landlord issues. As was addressed at the public hearing, tenants that willfully destroy property inside their
living space, the code have very explicitly not gone after landlords for that. It’s not the job of the city. The city
has no standing in a civil action. But again this doesn’t change a situation that exists right now. If there’s a
conflict between a landlord and a destructive tenant and there’s an issue that’s created such that code gets
involved, they get involved and this has nothing to do with it. This has to do with the willful violation where
there’s an issue and the tenant or the landlord doesn’t correct it. The tenant also according to code
enforcement is on the hook for some of these things. It isn’t just that the burden falls on the landlords. We talk
about landlords, landlords, landlords but there’s more to this because it’s administrative enforcement of other
issues such as health department fines. Again, | would urge my colleagues to look at what the intent is and

Board of Aldermen 12-22-2020 Page 35

ON THE QUESTION

President Wilshire

The Motion is for indefinite postponement, discussion on that motion? Alderman Jette?

Alderman Jette

So a motion for indefinite postponement as | understand it means that this subject could not be, legislation
regarding imposing a curfew could not be reintroduced until a new Board of Aldermen takes office in
January of 2022. | don’t understand why we would put ourselves in a position where even though you may
have voted against it tonight, you are saying that there is nothing that could happen that would change your
mind about this. And | think, you know, | appreciate my colleagues who voted differently than | did. |
respect your positions on this, but to say that this couldn’t be brought up again next year if things changed,
if things got really worse, that you wouldn’t entertain being able to enact a similar Ordinance given different
facts, | think is a mistake. The reason | voted against moving the question, it was a parliamentary
procedure to close debate and | think we ought to always be ready to discuss issues and change our
positions one way or the other if the facts change and the facts warrant such a thing. So that’s why | would
be against this indefinite postponement. It strikes me as a parliamentary move to prevent us from taking up
this matter during the rest of our term, which | don’t think is fair.

Alderman Dowd

Parliamentary question?

President Wilshire

Alderman Dowd.

Alderman Dowd

I’d like to ask Attorney Leonard, this motion as | understand it, if it’s indefinite postponement, you can’t
bring the exact Legislation back. | don’t think it precludes something similar with different aspects to it. For

instance, if we wanted to do something to adjust the rules we could do that, but it’s just this exact
Legislation could not come back, is that correct?

Attorney Leonard

Yes that is my understanding, how we interpret it, that it would have to be the exact same Legislation.
Unidentified Speaker The lawyer is wrong again.

President Wilshire

OK are you set Alderman Dowd?

Alderman Dowd

Yes.

President Wilshire

Alderman Clemons.

Board of Aldermen 12-22-2020 Page 36
Alderman Clemons

Yeah | was going to make the exact same point and in particular, you know, curfew having forbid there be
riots or whatever, you know, that’s the most common reason to put in a curfew. No we would be able to do
that and because it would be unrelated. We could even do a related Legislation in the future, it just couldn’t
be identical and so really the purpose of indefinite postponement, the way that | understand it and the way |
was basically for lack of better words, “taught’, the understand of that by at the time Alderman McCarthy
and Alderman Bolton was that it was the way we dispose of Legislation when we are, when we’ve debated
it because we didn’t recommend it or because we didn’t pass it. We have to do something else with it and
the thing to do with it is to, you know, if debate is exhausted on it, it is to indefinitely postpone it.

If there was a reason to bring back similar Legislation we could. The other thing is too, we have also
undone, although | wouldn’t recommend it, we’ve undone indefinite postponements in the past, as a past
practice of this Board. So nothing is ever dead, the Board can always do what it wants to do but this is
basically not, it’s not to kill or stifle or future debate or anything like that. It’s really just we need to do
something and | think the public deserves us to make a decision on this one way or the other. So that’s
why | made that motion. Thank you.

President Wilshire

Thank you. Alderman Klee.

Alderman Klee

Thank you Madam President. | understand indefinite postponement and | understand that we can tweak it
and change it and do that. | am just wondering if it wouldn’t be better to just table this and | know there are
people out there that are saying, no then there’s too much chance that it could come back. But from what
Alderman Clemons has said, it sounds like it could come back anyways, it’s just a little more difficult. |
personally would prefer to see something like this kind of tabled. And | agree with Alderman Jette in
respect that we don’t, | don’t ever like tying my hands to the point where | can’t do something. And while |
am not in agreement with this particular ordinance, | can’t say that maybe down the road, it is something
that we are going to need.

And | don’t want to completely take it off the table and kill it in that respect. So | don’t know how this
particularly works, may | ask for a tabling motion. That would be non-debatable and then we would have to
vote on that and then we could go back to Alderman Clemons’ if it failed is that correct?

President Wilshire

That’s correct.

Alderman Klee

So | would prefer, | am going to ask for a tabling motion then.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN KLEE TO TABLE O-20-044 BY ROLL CALL

A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman O’Brien

Roll Call Interrupted by questions

Board of Aldermen 12-22-2020 Page 37
Alderwoman Lu

| need a parliamentary inquiry.

President Wilshire

Alderman Lu?

Alderwoman Lu

So didn’t we have a motion that was failed to pass? So is it still on the table, | thought that if we took, if we
voted on something that it was no longer on the table.

President Wilshire

It’s not on the table.

Alderwoman Lu

But we can still table it?

President Wilshire

We can table it.

Alderwoman Lu

OK we can table a motion that has already been voted on.
Alderman Dowd

No.

President Wilshire

Attorney Leonard?

Alderwoman Lu

| thought we voted on this already.
President Wilshire

We did.

Attorney Leonard

| think you could put it on the table and then it could always be taken off again once you voted on it, that’s
your vote this evening, but if you table it, it can be brought back.

Alderman Lopez

| would just like to make things (inaudible) for the question. | thought originally that Alderman Klee was
tabling Alderman Clemons’ attempt to indefinitely postpone, so what happens if we table that? Is the chair
in the room that we are putting this on or just tables?

Board of Aldermen 12-22-2020 Page 38

President Wilshire

Alderman Clemons.

Alderman Clemons

Thank you. The motion that we, the original motion by Alderman Lopez was to pass the ordinance and we
rejected that motion. So then the piece comes before us again and then we have to — because we rejected
moving it forward, we rejected passing it. So now we have to make another motion to do something with
the Legislation. So in other words, it’s still before us. The motion that | made was to indefinitely postpone;
the motion that Alderman Klee made was to table it. Tabling it puts it on our Agenda basically on the table
until somebody takes it off of the Agenda, indefinitely postponing it takes it away for good until another
Alderman files similar Legislation down the road. So that’s basically the difference between the two and
the two motions and why we are voting again.

Alderman Dowd

Parliamentary question of Attorney Leonard.

President Wilshire

Alderman Dowd.

Alderman Dowd

| believe that the only time you can take it off the table is if somebody that voted in the winning side could
bring it up again.

President Wilshire

And | believe that would have to be at the next meeting.

Alderman Dowd

Well it can’t be before the next meeting and it would be only at the next meeting and | think it’s only that
somebody would have to bring it back that voted nay. Not somebody that voted yes. | believe that’s the ...
Attorney Leonard?

President Wilshire

It would have to be someone that voted on the prevailing side, yes.

Attorney Leonard

Yep, | agree.

President Wilshire

OK so Madam Clerk, where are we, we are in the middle of a vote?

City Clerk Lovering

We are for a motion, we were in a motion for indefinite postponement and then recognizing Alderman Klee
| don’t know if we recognized her motion to table.