Search

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 37

problems with Italian American Day. The thing is that | don’t believe that we are pitting our citizens against
each other. Truthfully | can honestly tell you that I’ve had a lot of phone calls on this and it’s really been
equal. It has not been lopsided one side so | don’t feel that whichever way | decided, whichever way |
voted | would be alienating any of my constituents because | think it’s fairly even on both sides. | don’t want
to continue to see Christopher Columbus Day. | really don’t. | just do not want to send the message that we
are trying to do anything to the Italian Americans and | know that that’s not what anybody is saying. We are
saying let’s right the wrong and as Alderman Schmidt truly put | properly, we are not really recycling the
day, we are just kind of saying this is not acceptable and let’s send him away. And | agree with that, |
truthfully do. Everything that I’ve read, just honestly disgusts me. And the fact that he was never on our soil
confuses the crap out of me and pardon me for using such language, but it does. | don’t know why we
celebrate it other than it was just a name grab. | will stop there. | think I’ve made my points.

Alderman Dowd

| do support and | think it’s long overdue that we have the Indigenous Holiday. | am afraid at this point in
time that we are putting Democrats against Republicans. | hope that’s not the case, but anyway | do
support that part of it. | have two clarifying questions that I’d like to get answered. One is we have several

contracts, including some that are coming up before us soon that list Columbus Day. Attorney Bolton, in
the contracts when it says Columbus Day for a Holiday is that related to the Federal name of the Holiday?

Attorney Bolton

It's related to the date whereby tradition Columbus Day is scheduled. I’m sure the various bargaining units
who have that in their contract won’t miss a day off. They will point it out to us.

Alderman Dowd

So we don’t need to amend the contracts then?

Attorney Bolton

It’ll work out just fine and people will get the day off. | don’t think it'll be a problem.
Alderman Dowd

Yeah I’m sure they would. The other question | have is for any of the State Reps, where is this as far as
being considered by the State for a State Holiday?

Alderman Schmidt

Thank you, Madam President. The Bill is already being created. It will be coming up in January, hopefully.
It will pass this year. It came very close to going through all of the process but we had a very unusual year
if you noticed so some things got put aside. But yes, this is definitely something that is coming up again
and | do believe that it will pass.

President Wilshire

You're all set Alderman Dowd.

Alderman Dowd

Yes. | think Alderman O’Brien wants to add in.

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 38
President Wilshire

Oh yeah, I’m going to get to him. Alderman O’Brien.

Alderman O’Brien

Thank you. | am going to, as most of you know | grew up in Boston and | went to a high school called Don
Bosco Technical High School. It was taught by the name Don Bosco who was taught by the selection
orders which is predominantly Italian. So let me do some favor to my former teachers in expressing an
Irishman coming to the defense of my Italian friends. Growing up in Boston, Columbus Day had a lot of
meanings particularly for the Italian American Community. In the north end it was greatly celebrated, it’s a
moment of pride for them. It’s a long-standing holiday before it even became a Federal Holiday. Like
Alderman Klee mentioned, it has its roots early in the United States in 1792 in New York by the Tammany
Hall Society. And it was also used by the Massachusetts Historical Society to celebrate the 300"
Anniversary of Columbus landing in the new world.

But at the 400" Anniversary, in 1892, right before that, there was a lynching in New Orleans where a mob
had murdered 171 Italian immigrants. The President at the time, Benjamin Harrison, declared Columbus
Day as a one-time National Celebration. The Proclamation was a wide effort to try to placate the Italian
Americans at the time and also used to ease diplomatic tensions with Italy. So to say that it doesn’t have
any embrace by the Italian American Community, it does. | don’t understand what Alderman Clemons
means by it going to a public vote, pitting on group against the other, because that’s exactly what you are
doing here. | would like to be very selective when | am going to throw a baby out with the bathwater. | have
a lot of empathy to the Native Americans and | support any other effort to recognize an Indigenous Peoples’
Day. But to do it on the backs of another group that has by long history, long history embraced Columbus
Day as their day. | don’t know of any other Italian American Day that they can embrace. | mean to me it
would almost be like you are taking away St. Patty’s Day away from me. I'd fight you tooth and nail on that
one.

The thing is, in 1934 as a result of lobbying and Alderman Klee brings out well | don’t know why you
support Columbus. Well you’ve got remember Columbus to America, he wasn’t a conquistador he was an
explorer. And when Columbus came to American he flew underneath a Spanish Principality Flag of
Ferdinand and Isabella, looking for the way to get to China at the time in the near east. It was the Knights of
Columbus that pushed for Columbus Day. Mainly because Columbus and the Spanish, it was the first time
that the religion of the Catholic Religion was brought to this particular nation. And to the Italian Americans
as you know, predominantly like us Irish are Catholic in nature. So it does have a religious connotation
equally as well to it and that’s why it has the support of the Knights of Columbus. | am a Hibernian; the
Knights of Columbus job is to protect churches in the Catholic faith and it’s the same as the Hibernians
because at one time in our American History the no name party burned Irish Catholic Churches. Because
of that, the Hibernians, our job was to protect the priest. And it’s the same with the Knights of Columbus.

So they embrace this particular day and other presidents have even done it. And it was in 1966 that it
really came to become more and celebrated. In 1969 much to the push by Mario Lucia from Buffalo, New
York, an Italian American, to become a National Federal Holiday. And why on this particular day, because
believe it or not it also coincides with the Canadian day that they celebrate Thanksgiving. They’ve been
celebrating their Thanksgiving since 1957 and it is recognized by the bond market and the US Postal
Service and many other agencies. As a matter of fact, even branches of our military it is very close to the
founding father’s birthday of the United States Navy which was founded on October 13 in 1775. And
believe it or not, Columbus Day being a fellow sailor | guess, also observes Columbus Day as well as the
Marine Corps. They are rewarded with a 72 or 96 hour liberty period. | support most definitely like | say my
empathy is great on having a day to have an Indigenous People Day. Definitely it needs to be done, but to
do it on the back of another ethnic group, prejudice of one group first is to bring up over the prejudice of
another group does not equal to a positive reaction. So | am not going to support this although | do support
an Indigenous Peoples’ Day.

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 39

And then | also would like to say, what are we doing? Why is it in this particular venue of a municipality?
We could have people that have one leg in Hollis where they say its Columbus Day and person with
another leg in Nashua that could be an Indigenous Persons Day. | would feel much more comfortable if
this was litigated and heard up at the State. And that the whole State rules on this in particular. And | think
that would be a much better venue that have it done here in the municipality.

We've got a lot of things on our plate to worry about. We've got DPW contract that’s 3 years in arrears.
We've got the Fire Fighters contract that hasn’t been done. Yet! am not saying that this isn’t an important
issue, but we have our own municipal objectives that we need to really focus on. Yet this and by itself a
very important subject and | don’t mean to say that it isn’t. But! question the venue that it’s in. | would
much rather have it at the State. But | want to go on record | support the concept wholeheartedly. But to
do it on the backs of my Italian American friends. | don’t want to go down that road so therefore
unfortunately | can’t support it in its present format. Thank you.

President Wilshire
Thank you. Alderman Harriott-Gathright.

Alderman Harriott-Gathright

| actually was going to give this long speech but actually | would like to move the question and | do support
it.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN HARRIOTT-GATHRIGHT TO MOVE THE QUESTION
ON THE QUESTION

Alderwoman Kelly

Alderman Wilshire we’ve been talking for a while, can you remind people that the motion is to put it on the
ballot and not to approve.

President Wilshire

The Motion is to move the question. Right, the question is to put it on the ballot correct.
Alderwoman Kelly

| just wanted to make sure everyone was clear.

Alderman Klee

Yeah | was going to do the same thing thank you Alderwoman Kelly.

Attorney Bolton

This vote is to move the question.

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

Yea: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Klee, Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Dowd,

Alderman Caron, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Tencza,
Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Cleaver 10

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 40

Nay: Alderman Lopez, Alderman Jette, Alderman Laws, Alderman Harriott-Gathright
Alderman Wilshire 5

MOTION CARRIED

President Wilshire

The motion before is to amend Resolution 20-077 and putting it on the ballot.

MOTION BY ALDERMAN KLEE TO AMEND R-20-077 AND PUT IT ON THE BALLOT

Alderman O’Brien

Excuse me, point of order. Was that a vote on moving the question?

President Wilshire

That was a vote on moving the question.

Alderman Dowd

Now it’s the question.

President Wilshire

Now it’s the question, right.

Alderman O’Brien

OK thank you.

President Wilshire

The Motion is to put the R-20-077 question on the ballot. Would the Clerk call the roll?

Alderman Jette

Madam President, | have a point of order question for Attorney Bolton. So the question we would be
putting on the ballot is renaming Columbus Day as Indigenous Peoples’ Day in Nashua. Not selecting
another day as Indigenous Peoples’ Day which | think was what Alderman Klee was looking for. | just want

to make sure we understand what we are voting on. What we would put on the ballot is the question of
renaming Columbus Day as Indigenous Peoples’ Day am | not correct about that.

Attorney Bolton

Yes | think the question would actually read something like, Shall the Board of Aldermen or should the
Board of Aldermen vote to rename Columbus Day as Indigenous Peoples’ Day or words to that effect. And
| Know this was coming, | could have been more thoughtful as how to word it all. | think that’s how it would
come out.

Alderman Klee

Madam President?

SECTION 8.11. Changes in Ownership. The Company shall cease to be owned 100% by
the Guarantor or 50% or more of the voting stock in the Guarantor should be acquired by a Person or a
Person and one or more Affiliates of that Person.

SECTION 8.12. Guaranty, Etc. The Guaranty shall, at any time, cease to be in full
force and effect, or shall be revoked or declared nul! and void, or the validity or enforceability thereof
shall be contested by the Guarantor, or the Guarantor shall deny any further liability or obligation
thereunder, or shall fail to perform its obligations thereunder, or any representation or warranty set forth
therein shall be breached, or the Guarantor shall breach or be in default under the terms of any other
agreement with CoBank (including any loan agreement or security agreement), or an Event of Default of
the type set forth in Sections 8.06 through 8.10 hereof shall occur with respect to the Guarantor.

SECTION 8.13. PWW. The Consent and Agreement shall, at any time, cease to be in full
force and effect, or shall be revoked or declared null and void, or the validity or enforceability thereof
shall be contested by PWW, or PW'W shall deny any further liability or obligation thereunder, or shall
fail to perform its obligations thereunder, or an Event of Default of the type set forth in Sections 8.06,
8.07, 8.08, 8.09(A), or 8.10 hereof shall occur with respect to PWW, or an Event of Default of the type
referred to in Sections 8.09(B) or 8.11 shall occur with respect to PWW and, in CoBank’s sole discretion,
such event could have a material adverse effect on the condition, financial or otherwise, operations,
business or properties of the Company or in its ability to conduct is business or perform its obligations
hereunder, under any security instrument or document, or under any other Loan Document.

ARTICLE 9
REMEDIES UPON DEFAULT

SECTION 9.01. Remedies. Upon the occurrence and during the continuance of a Default or
Event of Default, CoBank shall have no obligation to make any loan to the Company and may
discontinue doing so at any time without prior notice. In addition, upon the occurrence and during the
continuance of an Event of Default, CoBank may, upon notice to the Company:

{A) Termination and Acceleration. Terminate any commitment and declare the
unpaid principal balance of the loans, all accrued interest thereon, and all other amounts payable under
this Agreement, the Promissory Notes and Supplements, and all other Loan Documents to be
immediately due and payable; provided, however, that upon the occurrence of an Event of Default under
Section 8.08(F), any commitments shall automatically be terminated and all such amounts shall
automatically become due and payable. Upon such a declaration (or automatically, as provided above),
the unpaid principal balance of the loans ard all such other amounts shall become immediately due and
payable, without protest, presentment, demand, or further notice of any kind, all of which are hereby
expressly waived by the Company.

(B) Enforcement. Proceed to protect, exercise, and enforce such rights and
remedies as may be provided by this Agreement, any other Loan Document, or under Law. Each and
every one of such rights and remedies shall be cumulative and may be exercised from time to time, and
no failure on the part of CoBank to exercise, and no delay in exercising, any right or remedy shall operate
as a waiver thereof, and no single or partial exercise of any right or remedy shall preclude any future or
other exercise thereof, or the exercise of any other right. Without limiting the foregoing, CoBank may
hold and/or set off and apply against the Company’s obligations to CoBank the proceeds of any equity in
CoBank and any balances held in any account maintained at CoBank (whether or not such balances are

then due).

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 41
President Wilshire

We've had a motion to move the question.

Alderman Klee

No | just wanted to clarify that Alderman Jette is incorrect. | did want to just put the question as it stands
now on the ballot. That was my intention. Thank you, I’m sorry.

President Wilshire
Would the Clerk please call the roll? The Motion is to put this on the ballot?
A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:

Yea: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Klee, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron,
Alderman Jette 5

Nay: Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Lopez,
Alderman Tencza, Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Laws,
Alderman Cleaver, Alderwoman Harriott-Gathright, Alderman Wilshire 10

MOTION FAILED
President Wilshire

That Motion fails. We are back to the Motion for final passage of Resolution 20-077 by roll call. Would the
Clerk please call the roll?

MOTION BY ALDERWOMAN KELLY FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF R-20-077 AS AMENDED, BY ROLL
CALL

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

Yea: Alderman Klee, Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Clemons, Alderman Lopez,
Alderman Tencza, Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Jette, Alderman Schmidt,
Alderman Laws, Alderman Cleaver, Alderwoman Harriott-Gathright,

Alderman Wilshire 12

Nay: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Dowd, Alderman Caron 3
MOTION CARRIED
Resolution R-20-077 declared duly adopted as amended.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS — ORDINANCES

O-20-009, AMENDED
Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Richard A. Dowd
Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons
Alderwoman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman Patricia Klee
RELATIVE TO PUBLIC COMMENT

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 42

MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD TO AMEND O-20-009 BY REPLACING IT WITH THE GOLDENROD
COPY OF AMENDMENTS MADE AT THE PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, BY
ROLL CALL

ON THE QUESTION
Alderman Dowd

I'd like to speak to it. I’d like to explain the rationale for the Golden Rod revisions to O-20-009, which
makes changes to the Board of Aldermen’s rules and order of business, Section 5-14 Order of Business.
This Ordinance and the clarifications proposed for revision this evening is not meant to overly restrict the
public’s input to the Board of Aldermen. Rather its intent is to provide some clarification and guidance to
these procedures. The full intent of the Ordinance is to establish guidelines to structure public comment to
allow more than one person to comment on an evening’s agenda or comment in the general at the end of
the meeting. The Board has had the aforementioned rules in place for some time limiting public comment
to 15 minutes with a provision to allow that it be extended if there were more people who wanted to provide
input and the majority of the Board were OK with extending the period of public comment.

For the most part, this has been the practice we have followed, though we have often on occasion has a
period monopolized by individuals who often went beyond their 5 minute restriction of the time with their
comments and some went beyond the 15 minute allowance. Some also commented at the first 15 minute
period on items not provided for by the rules of order. The first Public Comment Period is restricted by
current rules to communications requiring final approval by the Board of Alderman that evening or other
items that are going to be acted upon with final approval for that evening.

Let me be clear that we don’t wish to limit what anyone can provide for comment from the public. That is
why we have allowed for public’s ability to provide written comments to the Board and have them included
as part of the meeting minutes. As part of the meeting minutes these comments are available as well to the
General Public on our web site. All public input requires a name and address included with both oral and
written comments in order to be accepted. This revised Ordinance also clarifies wnat may be addressed at
each public comment period as a guide to whoever is Chairing the Full Board Meeting or Chairing the
Committee Meeting.

It further clarifies that a speaker providing oral comments in either public comment period be limited to 3
minutes and that they only get to speak once. This allows a person to clearly state their position on any
items of business and no one may delegate any part of their time to another speaker. This is a rule
followed by most Board of Alderman or Selectmen meetings in the State of New Hampshire. While the
specifics of timing people is not in the Ordinance at this time, we have had the timing light system installed
in the new Aldermanic Chambers and will use it hopefully when we return to our new chambers.

Further clarification identifies that this public comment period is for comment only and not for question and
answer period with the Board of Aldermen. Only the Chairperson may receive a question and determine if
someone answering this question will help clarify the item being discussed for the Board of Aldermen. The
Chairperson may answer the question or delegate the one person who may answer the question.
Questions and dialogue are only allowed during public hearings on subjects that require public hearing by
law. Public Comment periods are not to allow speeches on any subject and all discussion should be
relevant to items that fall under the purview of the Board of Aldermen or the Committee conducting the
Hearing.

The second Public Input Period is for comments relative to the purview of the Board of Aldermen or City
Government and have the timing spelled out in the revised Ordinance. Again, the public has the ability to
provide written comments to the Board on any subject, via mail or e-mail, which may be included in the
minutes of the Full Board or Committee Meetings, having justification on that subject. Matters that are
under the purview of the Administration Branch of the City of Nashua should be addressed to the Mayor’s
Office. Thank you.

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 43
President Wilshire

The motion is to amend Ordinance 20-009 by roll call. Any further discussion? Alderman Clemons?
Alderman Clemons

| want to clarify something that was said earlier and that is that there is no restriction in this the way that we
are amending this to prohibit comments outside of the purview of the Board of Aldermen on the second
comment period. Is that the case? Can | have Attorney Bolton answer that question?

Attorney Bolton

| don’t Know if that’s the case. This has been amended since my Department looked at it and | don’t know
what it says in the Golden Copy on the subject.

Alderman Clemons

OK. | can tell you that | don’t feel comfortable with that. | think we should have a public comment period
that allows people to speak to whatever they want to speak to. | do think it should be limited in time to 3
minutes. | agree with the changes on there that made sure you are being reasonable and respectful and
things like that, those are obviously not mandatory and they are guidelines. But | guess | just want that
clarified if we could. Thank you.

Alderman Dowd

As | read the golden rod copy, no it doesn’t specifically say that so you are right. It doesn’t limit, in the
second comment period, the subject matter. But there is the time limit.

Alderman Clemons

Thank you and that is how | was hoping that this was going to be presented and | fully support the changes.
Thank you.

Alderman Lopez

It’s kind of ironic | think that in public comment | felt like it was used to target things that may not accurately
be said as well. In the comments made at the (audio cuts out) | was actually objecting to specific
behaviors. | was saying that Public Comment should not be used because we as Aldermen are providing
validity to this comment. Like you can go to the Aldermanic Chamber and talk all you want when there’s
nobody in the room. But because we are sitting here, we are lending a certain level of importance and
visibility to it. And we are the ones that setting the meeting and running the meeting, so in that case, we
bear responsibility for what took place.

So | was bringing up the fact that it should not be a forum where City employees specifically can be
targeted by members of the public, where they can prepare in advance and unleash a very detailed
complaint or disclosure. | mean such members of the public could go to the Mayor, they could talk to the
direct supervisors of those employees, they could go to the newspaper if they want, but that’s something
that | think is specifically what Aldermanic Meetings should be used for and | think it detracts from other
commentors who wanted to make comments as well when those people derail the subject at hand. So |
was objecting to that in the meeting that | don’t think public comment should be used to target people who
are city employees. | also brought up that | didn’t think it should be used to target the Mayor, because as
Aldermen we don’t really have much to do about how much (audio cuts out) is modeled or whatever beliefs
or people claim about him. If there’s a legal issue, there’s a legal issue, there’s a civil case to be made,
that’s fine. But jut announcing it in public | think is bad form. And then additionally | think neighbors
shouldn't use it as an opportunity to berate each other. | did have an individual in my Ward who for years

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 44

would come to every public comment in a meeting even though he was repeatedly told that these concerns
were not in the purview of the Board of Aldermen, he would do it anyway. And when asked why he was
doing that, he said that he found it amusing, it was a habit and for entertainment, but he was calling his
neighbors criminals. He drove them out of their location. When they moved | met with them, shortly before
they left and they said that they just couldn’t handle being (inaudible) and threatened with criminal action
during Board of Aldermen’s meetings repeatedly which happened over a course of years.

So those were (audio cuts) | wasn’t really, | don’t care what kind of language people use. If they want to
swear to me in the face, | probably have done it on the record myself so | am not going to throw stones
there. But | do think it was worth bringing up that there should be some level of decorum and respect in our
rules, if the public demonstrates an inability to (audio cuts out) of their own volition and | think that’s the
case. | think some members of the public come with an ax to grind and they will (inaudible) people and use
it as their personal podium with the bullying. So | raised those concerns but in the course of the Committee
Meeting, Alderman Dowd pointed out that essentially my concerns were met by making sure that
comments were respectful in tone and were subject to the purview of something that the Board even had
relevance to. So | just wanted to clarify the comments that | was making. | wasn’t particularly interested in
tone policing. | just want to make sure that someone isn’t overtly misusing the microphone when we give it
to them.

Alderman Klee

Thank you, Madam President. | wanted to kind of speak to something actually before | became an
Alderman, before | was actually elected to the Board. | sat through a lot of meetings that you all had had.
And there was one in particular that really stuck out with me. It was a meeting that went well into the night, |
think it ended somewhere after midnight. And we sat on those very hard benches with the less than
adequate cushioning and | was squirmed and wiggled through that entire meeting and couldn’t walk for a
day afterwards. It was as long as it was more because of the public comment. The public had the right to
comment. The public brought some very good points to it and | think it was worth hearing them. The thing
is that no matter how much we tell people, please don’t repeat themselves. We do it here as Aldermen and
people are going to do it because they are there and they want to have their voices heard. It’s not that they
want their 15 minutes or so on.

But | do think that for the most part, | think when the public is trying to make their point, they can do within a
specified time frame, whether it’s 3 minutes or whether it’s 5 minutes. | do think they can get their points
out with that. And like today when you have 64 people who want to speak at a well packed agenda, | think
that we do need to have some kind of time limits. | also remember at that particular meeting there was an
individual citizen who came and very nastily spoke to an Alderman, directed their comments specifically to
that Alderman. | was taken aback by the anger that was in that particular person’s voice. When that was
done and the Alderman got to speak at the end of the meeting, | remember a couple of Aldermen that
almost demanded an apology from that individual who had actually left the room but they wanted it on the
record that they were demanding an apology from that particular person.

We don’t do that. We sit there and we take the beating or berating and | have no problems with it because
truthfully | am elected official and | think | signed up for that and that’s kind of the way life is. | do have a
problem when a private citizen comes in and not just says something bad abut a City employee. They
have a right to do that and as was mentioned you have the right to question it. But we have sat through
meeting after meeting after meeting where private employees that are hired, not appointed, but hired are
called names; names that | think are less than appropriate language. And that’s where | think that we do
have to some kindness. And as Alderman Lopez pointed out, no | don’t want to be tone police, but | do
think that we should try to expect at least some decent conversation. We can disagree politely without
having to do name calling, without having to truly rude behavior. And although | do agree with what
Alderwoman Kelly said, you know, my definition of rude may be something completely different than hers or
Alderman Dowd’s or yourself, President Wilshire.

The bottom line is | like the changes that we made to this. | think it’s necessary and | do think we need

Board of Aldermen 10-13-2020 Page 45

some civility. So this while it may be coming now | think is probably something that is probably overdue.
And | can say that | think it was something that should have been put in by other Boards. | witnessed
meeting where, at times, things got out of hand. So | think this is a way of being able to give the public the
right to speak but yet make it more concise and not repeat the same thing over and over and over again
within the speaking time.

Alderwoman Kelly

Thank you. | want to start out by saying that | support this Ordinance, most of it, as everybody has pointed
until my turn here | had some questions around the wording around being rude. And | just wanted to
potentially bring up again what my concern was and ask if Attorney Bolton would potentially be able to
answer my question. So my concern was this, | absolutely think that we should allow people to have a time
limit all those things. My concern is that the term “rude” is very subjective and that it will allow (inaudible)
the meeting and while | know Alderman Wilshire does an incredible job, to shut people down because of
their definition of rude and | am concerned about that. So my question is, do you see, obviously your office
wrote this but do you see the same concern from a legal standpoint.

Attorney Bolton

Yes. | am not only concerned with the word “rude” | am concerned with the word “civil”, | would have to say
that some of the discussion tonight heightens that concern. The fact is you are talking about creating a
public forum. When Government creates a public forum, it cannot regulate the content of the speech. You
can have reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, thinking probably cut people off if they are
shouting uncontrollably, if they are making threats of violence or try to incite other people to violence. |
think you can probably prohibit profane language, although | don’t know that | would advocate you doing
so. | absolutely am of the opinion that you cannot stop someone from criticizing a public official or
employee.

If you let Mr. X get up and say, | think the City Clerk does a wonderful job and the election went wonderfully
and she’s great, which she is, then Mrs. Y wants to get up and say, | had a horrible experience and | think
the City Clerk ought to have done something more to prevent that and goes on and on about how inefficient
she thought the situation was and how poorly it was handled. You’ve got to allow all of that. And if
someone wants to criticize the Mayor one of you, you have to allow that. And | think someone could speak
pretty strongly and pretty forthrightly and you still have to allow that criticism. If you start letting people
heap praise on officials and employees, you’ve got to allow for the other side. You cannot base whether
someone has the right to speak on the content of the speech.

You don’t have to allow it. You don’t have to create the public forum. You could only have it at Committee
Meetings, you could only have it at the end of a Board of Aldermen Meeting, you could only have it at the
beginning. You could restrict it on things coming up that evening. There are a lot of things you can do. But
using words like “civil” and “rude” to prevent people from saying things you don’t like, you cannot do that.
Myself and the other lawyers in the office will be in Court day after day and it can cost money. The other
side gets attorney’s fees in cases like this and they are not hesitant about presenting big bills. So | think
this is something to be very careful about when you’ve got these words like “rude” like “civil”. It is fine if
they are applied neutrally, but it is awful easy to slip into when you are getting praise, to let that person go.
But when it’s criticism well that’s the definition of uncivil or that’s the definition of rude. | would caution you
not to do that and as | say, some of this evening’s discussion about | don’t think City Employees should be
criticized or | don’t think someone’s neighbor should be criticized, you are not going to have the opportunity
to prevent that and still have a public forum. So | would recommend you be careful.

Alderwoman Kelly

| would, given Attorney Bolton’s response, and thank you for that, I’d love to put it to the maker of this
Ordinance to potentially send it back to Committee.