Search

Board of Aldermen 09-22-2020 Page 60
Alderman Tencza

Thank you, Madam President. | think largely this new amendment to the mask ordinance does a good job,
clarifies things. | appreciate the language that was presented last night and tonight about presenting a
note if folks are able to do that and need to do that. My main concern still is shifting some liability back on
to businesses to not necessarily enforce this but just to making that call and putting themselves in that
position. | think | fear Alderman Schmidt’s concern about how the Police are going to be involved. | know
last night at the Committee Hearing Attorney Bolton outlined and Alderman Dowd outlined it a little bit
tonight. All really the busines is required to do is bring this issue up with the customer and then alert the
Police if they are not compliant. Then the Police essentially issue that person a trespass notice which
could lead to a second trespass notice which could lead to criminal charges. | know it’s a little maybe
farfetched, but maybe not if folks are shopping at places that they don’t have access to go other places as
well. So because of that | won’t be supporting this tonight but | think it’s a step in the right direction.

President Wilshire
Alderman O’Brien.
Alderman O’Brien

Thank you. |am going to support it but | do share the aforementioned concerns. | too have strong
concerns with a young lady all 110 pounds of her who is working as a Clerk and trying to stop somebody
coming into their business, particularly a guy that’s going after his second six pack of the evening and
telling him he’s got to wear a mask where he isn’t. So | see we have Chief Carignan here and | think to
allay, | would like to hear NPD’s opinion at this particular time on wnat they intend to do in those particular
type of situations to help out the shop owners who will be basically putting them in the front lines with this.
So with your indulgence, Madam President.

President Wilshire

Chief, do you care to weigh in?

Police Chief Carignan

Sure thank you very much. I’ve been listening to this argument for quite a while now and | respect each of
the sides. Alderwoman Schmidt, | will say that the scenario you painted happens frequently. | was at
Whole Foods this weekend and | saw a 16/1 7-year-old girl try to tella person that the store policy was to
have a mask. He walked right by her and told her he wasn’t putting a mask on. She had to struggle to go
get amanager. So it’s really difficult to put them in that situation. | will say without the Legislation that puts
the accountability on the businesses, it makes our job very, very difficult to enforce it. So | think with the
Legislation it would allow us to be able to go into a store and say, hey, tell them they are not allowed to be
in the store without a mask and if you do that and they continue to come to the store, call us, we will come
and enforce it.

There’s no expectation that any 16-year-old or 17-year-old or any store employee has the responsibility to
enforce that mask Ordinance. They should call us that’s wnat we are there for. If there comes a time when
the call volume is so high that we can’t get there in time, well that’s part of prioritization that we do all the
time. So we would make every effort to go and enforce it and supportthose businesses. We are not
looking to penalize businesses. But! will say that we’ve had a couple that we get repeat constantcalls on.
There are at least three businesses that we were talking about today that’s just always on-going and they
don’t care. They are in complete defiance of the Mask Ordinance. So we need the Legislation to help us
support enforcement, to put the responsibility on the businesses but at the same time we don’t want the
businesses to have to suffer the enforcementissue. And I'll answer any questions.

Board of Aldermen 09-22-2020 Page 61
President Wilshire

Thank you, Chief. Anyone else?

Alderman Lopez

Yeah, | just wanted to remind everybody that we were all 16 once and | personally | worked more than my
fair share at grocery store. |am more worried about Thanksgiving rush when people are trying to get their
food and we have to have ask a 16 year old how to figure it out how to get people through, get them to
manage the line. 16-year old’s do handle interaction with adults and when they can’t then they go for
another adult. This isn’t going to create any kind of new dynamics where nowa 16-year-old girl has to
shield the door or anything like that. If anything, it just gives her a reason to contact the Police and it’s fully
understood that she’s not doing it because she is a busybody which is the popular myth that’s kind of being
perpetuated locally. She’s doing it because it’s the law and she’s trying to uphold the law and she’s just as
responsible as anyone else. | think there’s plenty of 16-year old’s that will probably out mass an adult how
every many 6 packs he’s been drinking; but they are not necessarily going to start a fight every time either.
If the manager of that store is responsible for managing that property, typically they'll put somebody in a
role that they can handle, otherwise they have to bear the consequences and | don't think this is going to
be any different.

President Wilshire
Alderman Klee?
Alderman Klee

Thank you, Madam President. | want to kind of reiterate something that the Chief has mentioned. | had
contacted him | think about a week or so ago about complaints that | was getting about a couple of different
businesses and one in particular that I'd got a number of calls for. And this particular business had said
that they don’t need them because they are doing something else within their store that will, you know,
mitigate any kind of a virus. And while | do believe that they really felt that way, that’s not what our Health
Department was saying.

When | spoke to Chief Carignan that was one of the things he asked me, “Have you guys passed this yet”
and | said, “No it’s still waiting to come to the Board” and he said the same thing that he just said here, “We
need this in order to do our jobs and work efficiently’ and so on. | don’t think they are going to get an
inordinate amount of calls, maybe they will, maybe people are going to try to challenge it. | don’t that’s
going to happen but | never say never. | think it’s important, | do understand wnat businesses feel like they
are going through but the majority of businesses that | spoke to want this. They want this strength so they
don’t have to be the bad guy, because they want to protect their employees, they want to protect
themselves and they want to protect their customers.

There are a few that just say, “nol don’t want this and | should be able to make up my own mind”. But |
think we do need to pass this and try to work out some of the glitches as they come by.

President Wilshire

Chief, you want to respond?

Police Chief Carignan

Thank you, Madam President, and sorry Alderman Clemons. | just want to state that we are not looking —
like when the original Ordinance was passed, we are not looking to run into businesses and start issuing

every business owner summonses. We get that this is a struggle for everybody, we get that it’s tough. But
when we have a business that we’ve gotten a complaint about 3, 4, 5 times, it would be nice to have some

Board of Aldermen 09-22-2020 Page 62

teeth to be able to go in and say, “hey we’ve warned you, we’ve told you, we’ve asked you, now you have
to start following the rules”. So we are certainly about the education for the business owners as well as the
customers, but without the enforcement, we really have no legs to stand on.

President Wilshire
Alderman Clemons?
Alderman Clemons

Thank you. So this | my question and I’m glad the Chief is here. This has been one of my major concerns
with this Legislation and the way it is currently written. So if we have businesses and we will say
businesses, that are not in compliance or we keep getting complaints and everything, let's suppose we
pass this Ordinance and you go down and you talk to the business owner, give them a warning and then it
continues to happen even after we pass this Ordinance.

My question is who is getting the thousand fine or who is going to Court? Is it the owner of the business, it
is the manager, is it the kid at the door. Who is going to Court?

Police Chief Carignan

Remember something Alderman Clemons, it is not necessarily $1,000.00 summons. What happens is we
goin and we give the person in charge which would be the manager, if the business owner is there, we
would give it to the owner. We give them a Summons and they have to appear in Court and answer to a
judge. The Police Department doesn't issue a fine or give them a setfine. It would go into a judge for the
violation. The judge would hear the facts and make a decision. Ajudge could say, “OK you have a $10.00
fine”, “you have a $100.00 fine”, “you have a $1,000.00 fine” based on the violation and the history of
offenses. So that’s beyond our control. We are just going in and enforcing that with asummons. We
would give it to the person in charge at the time, so if it happens to be the manager is the senior most
person. He would get it. The business owner is ultimately responsible for that fine and Attorney Bolton
could correct me if | am wrong, but a business owner is responsible for any penalties assessed. But
there’s not necessarily a $1,000.00 it is a summons to appear in court for the violation of the law and the
judge will hear the facts.

Alderman Clemons

Right, no and | understand that. | guess — here’s my concern and | hope that you have the discretion to
further investigate and | think you would. But my question is this, if you go there and one night you talk to
the owner let's say and the owner says, “No | am not going to ...” whatever, right? And even though you’ve
warned them and you again and when you go because you get a complaint again, there’s a manager there.
And the manager says to you, “Well look the Chief the reason is because I’m going to lose my job because
the owner told me don’t enforce the mask ordinance’. Who gets the fine?

Police Chief Carignan

So you need to think of it in terms of serving alcohol to minors. Let’s say Alderman Laws is working in
Penuchi’s and he’s serving alcohol to minors, he is accountable but the business is ultimately responsible
for that penalty and they could lose their liquor license based on the Liquor Commission. | mean there’s a
couple of different levels of this probably a little bit of an extreme example because he could also be
summonsed, but the business is ultimately responsible with the loss of that liquor license. And that’s where
the business owners if they have some accountability and they have some penalties that could be
assessed to them are just going to say, “Hey put a mask on, it’s not our policy, but the Police require it, |
can’tlose my license”. People get that and we are the bad guys all the time and I'm happy to be the bad
guy to enforce the Legislation if it is passed.

Wes,

THE CITY OF NASHUA “The Gate Ci’

Injormation Technology Division

January 6, 2016
Mayor Lozeau,
Reference: Clarification of CTAB process in regards to minutes and attendance

In reviewing the Personnel and Administrative Affairs Committee video replay, dated December
14, 2015. | was surprised that there was a significant discussion regarding the CTAB meeting
procedures. The Personnel and Administrative Affairs Committee appeared to be under the
impression that the CTAB meetings do not follow the City’s meeting procedure guidelines and
that attendance has not been documented and there were no published minutes.

| would like to provide some clarification that CTAB does follow the City’s meetings procedure.

The board's previous meeting minutes are reviewed and accepted at the beginning of each
meeting. The written minutes along with attendance are documented on the City's website.

Lb

ve

Bruce Codagnone

229 Main Street « Nashua, New Hampshire 03060 » Phone (G03) 589-3300 « Fax (603) 594-3434

Board of Aldermen 09-22-2020 Page 63
Alderman Clemons

Ok! understand that | guess to a degree. | guess | am going to ask Attorney Bolton, is that true that the
business owner would ultimately be responsible for the fine?

Attorney Bolton

Well to use the Chief's example, if Brandon serves an underaged person, Brandonis responsible for that,
he can pay a fine. The owner may also be subject to loss of the Liquor License, it’s not necessarily one or
the other. | believe ...

Alderman Clemons

Pm talking about the Mask Ordinance.

Attorney Bolton

May | continue?
Alderman Clemons

Yes.

Attorney Bolton

If you read Section 16 it defines “business” and it defines “owner” and it is very expansive. In Section 11 it
makes the business and the employee potential defendants because it says, “no business and no
employee of any business shall provide goods or services etc”. So if you’ve got a situation where the
owner is ordering the employees to break the law, all of them could be cited. | think what would happen if
that were the case, is the Police would use their discretion and whatever action was taken would be taken
against the owner. Nowif the owner, as far as we can determine, as far as the Police can determine, is
telling his employees “enforce the mask ordinance” well not “enforce” but follow it, obey it, make sure the
customers who come in are adhering to it. The owner is saying that to the employee and some employee
takes it upon himself to ignore the Ordinance and it becomes known that hey, if you go in there on
Thursday afternoon, Joe is working, he doesn’t care about the mask ordinance. Well perhaps, if there are
enough complaints by people, the Police will take a look at Joe and if he’s the only miscreant, he’s the one
who will be summonsed. But there’s a lot of discretion built into this and just for that purpose so that the
appropriate person can be the one who is summonsed to Court.

Alderman Clemons
Ok thank you for the explanation, | appreciate that.
President Wilshire

Alderwoman Kelly?

Alderwoman Kelly

Thank you, ve taken notes and changed my notes and trying to keep up with the conversation here, | think
it's been very productive. | want to make the point that we have our Police Chief here and he is asking us
to simply to allow for some mechanism of enforcement. He’s also telling us that he’s going to use fair
judgement when he engages with our community; whether it’s issuing warnings, working with those people
and we know that’s how our Police Department generally operates. So | hear people’s concerns here but |
also know that this is a Public Health Issue, something that we have heard from our experts over and over

Board of Aldermen 09-22-2020 Page 64

again. And while | am frustrated that it has become so polarizing for people, | don’t think that’s a reason to
not pass this.

If we use that mechanism, we would look at it and not make — we don’t make laws based on the possible
misconduct for people who refuse to followthem. And as a City that was a border town, we were leaders
onthis. There are other cities that are now considering doing this because of the success we’ve had and |
think we need to continue being a leader on this.

President Wilshire
Anyone else? Alderman Laws.
Alderman Laws

| kind of want to echo wnat Alderwoman Kelly just said. If we are doing this because our medical experts
are telling us that wearing a face mask will help curb the spread of this disease and here we have our local
Law Enforcement Expert telling us that he needs us to help him and pass this Ordinance so he can ensure
that he can keep the public safe. It’s the same thing, first of all. Second of all, | never serve minors. | think
that’s important to put that out there.

Police Chief Carignan

| do want to concur, |do want to concur he is very, very good.
Alderman Laws
Thank you.

Alderman Lopez

For all minors.
Alderman Laws

Third | think that we need to consider that, | mean | understand the concems for the safety of the 16-year
old who has to confront somebody. But! think we also need to consider that by passing this Ordinance
and giving it to the Police to enforce, we are also protecting that 16-year old from potentially getting COVID
and brining it home to her grandparents and killing them. You knowit works both ways and | feel like the
alternative, you know, $1,000.00 fine for businesses that refuse to adhere to this Ordinance, | mean they
deserve it. We live in a society of laws, if you don’t want to follow the laws, you pay $1,000.00 fine. I don’t
think that politicizing this and thinking that whatever you think about science, | don’t think that trumps the
right of people to live healthy, safe lives; people who go to work and have no other option should be able to
go to work and not have to worry about getting COVID because somebody doesn’twant to wear a mask.
That’s it.

President Wilshire

Ok. Alderman Clemons

Alderman Clemons

Thank you. | appreciate the fact that the Chief came in and clarified some things for me. | know that when
this passes that it will be enforced fairly and | appreciate that. With all of that said, | can’t support it

because | feel that the fine is too expensive as | was (inaudible) with that wen we first passed this. And
secondly, | won’t support it because | don’t think it’s appropriate to ask somebody for a doctors note.

Board of Aldermen 09-22-2020 Page 65
That’s just my personal opinion and! can’t support that for those two reasons. Thank you.
President Wilshire

Ok anyone else? The Motion is for final passage of Ordinance 20-029 as amended. Would the Clerk
please call the roll?

A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows:
Yea: Alderman O’Brien, Alderman Klee, Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Dowd,

Alderman Caron, Alderman Lopez, Alderwoman Lu, Alderman Jette,
Alderman Schmidt, Alderman Laws, Alderman Cleaver,

Alderwoman Harriott-Gathright, Alderman Wilshire 13
Nay: Alderman Clemons, Alderman Tencza 2
MOTION CARRIED

Ordinance O-20-029 declared duly adopted as amended.

NEW BUSINESS — RESOLUTIONS

R-20-074
Endorser: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman-at-Large Brandon Michael Laws
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman Skip Cleaver
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF $821,500 FROM THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION INTO TRANSIT
GRANT ACTIVITY “BUSES AND BUS FACILITIES GRANT PROGRAM”
Given its first reading; assigned to the HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by President Wilshire

R-20-075

Endorser: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman Skip Cleaver
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderman-at-Large Brandon Michael Laws
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire

Board of Aldermen 09-22-2020 Page 66

RELATIVE TO THE ACCEPTANCE AND APPROPRIATION OF AN ADDITIONAL $7,060.53 FROM
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTO DPW GRANT
ACTIVITY “SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL - CHARLOTTE AVENUE”

Given its first reading; assigned to the HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by President Wilshire

R-20-076
Endorsers: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman Richard A. Dowd
Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman Skip Cleaver
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderman-at-Large Michael B. O’Brien, Sr.
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman-at-Large Lon Wilshire
AUTHORIZING AN ENERGY PERFORMANCE CONTRACT AND LEASE FINANCING
ARRANGEMENT
Given its first reading; assigned to the BUDGET COMMITTEE, FINANCE COMMITTEE, and SCHEDULE
A SPECIAL BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEETING ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2020, AT 7:00 P.M. by
President Wilshire

R-20-077
Endorser: Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman Skip Cleaver
Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons
Alderman-at-Large Brandon Michael Laws
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
RENAMING COLUMBUS DAY AS INDIGENOUS PEOPLE DAY IN NASHUA
Given its first reading; assigned to the PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by
President Wilshire

NEW BUSINESS — ORDINANCES

O-20-031
Endorser: Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman-at-Large Ben Clemons
Alderman-at-Large Brandon Michael Laws
Alderwoman Elizabeth Lu
PROHIBITING DOGS IN FENCED-IN TOT LOTS
Given its first reading; assigned to the PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE and the
ANIMAL & DOG PARK ADVISORY BOARD by President Wilshire

Alderman Lopez
Madam President?
President Wilshire
Alderman Lopez?

Alderman Lopez

Should we also refer to the Animal Park Advisory Board?

Board of Aldermen 09-22-2020 Page 67
President Wilshire

Yes, we could do that Alderman Lopez. Thank you.

O-20-032
Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Brandon Laws
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman Skip Cleaver
Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
Alderwoman Elizabeth Lu
REDUCING THE FINE FOR OVERNIGHT PARKING VIOLATIONS
Given its first reading; assigned to the PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by
President Wilshire

PERIOD FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
President Wilshire
Ms. Ortolano, please?

Laurie Ortolano Hi, | wanted to just provide a little clarification to some comments made regarding the Right
to Know position. | think the City and the Legal Office in particular have created a very expensive process
for wnat’s happened here. Any general request, certainly from me, that isn’t even a Right to Know was
sent to Legal and for quite some time they were responding to general inquiries with denials because they
didn’t constitute Right to Know questions, which | was aware of. | wrote a number of Memos, really
frustrated to stop the lunacy, and asked them to stop doing thatbecause | didn’t know. If | asked fora
phone number and | gave you that example, it went up to Legal to be responded to. | just found that
ludicrous. | can tell you | e-mailed the newspapers and | asked them wnat their process is. | gota
response back from a reporter who told me in 10 years they’ve only had to file like 5 Right to Knows. They
go right to the City Division and ask for anything they want and they use Carrie Miller if they need direction
through the Mayor's Office on where to go. And that is works beautifully, requires no written
communications or instructions. And if the press can get information that easily, so should the public.

| also think the City has practiced very aggressively, the Legal Office, malicious compliance. Unlike any
other Government Group I’ve seen, they will not communicate with the public to clarify a request. So Ms.
Colquhoun and got on and told you howshe asked for open permits. Apparently, they couldn’t search for
just open that would have been like compiling but they didn’t communicate that to her and they sent her
31,000 records, which she would not have taken. But there was no option to say no and somebody worked
on that. Just to let you know, I’ve sent you all the letters from Attorney Lehmann regarding the transcript.
We never asked for the transcript, he asked for the audio/video recordings, period. We got a response
back within 6 days from Celia Leonard saying that they were going to transcribe them. And that was fine,
that was on June 8". We really believed that within a month we’d have those. It’s almost four months now
and we still don’t have that information. If | knew it was going to take them that long or be too expensive, |
would have paid for it and found the transcriber. It has taken the City almost 3 months to find a transcriber.
| am not certain why it took so long. But! can tell you my husband through his business, accesses these
people like nothing. And they are not expensive services anymore. So | would have moved that along to
help but the option wasn’t there for us.

Also, | think the biggest problem happened when you promoted somebody into the Assessing Office as the
Manager who had no understanding of Right to Knowor what public information was down there. Thatis
probably your biggestissue here and what caused all the problems.

As far as all of the pages requested, | can tell you that the City produced for discovery, 15,000 documents
that | have requested since they have been collecting them and they sent to my attorney and |. And | went

Board of Aldermen 09-22-2020 Page 68

through and cataloged them. At least 12,000 were not requested by me. So when! put ina Right to Know
and ask for e-mails they sent me an extra 500 e-mails that weren’t within the date range | wanted and
redacted them. | didn’t want them, | didn’t ask for that range. They sent me 3,500 pages of the KRT new
assessment data. | didn’t ask for that, | just asked that it be put on-line and the City put it on-line, but they
sent me the 3,500 pages. They sent me manuals | didn’t want. You know it comes out to three-quarters of
the information | didn’t ask them for, they gave it to me. And when! Manuela say that she has spent 1,100
hours working or 1,000 hours, or two weeks a month, well you know, that’s a lot of scanning and working
and potentially redacting that | didn’t ask for. So you know, | can go to the DRA put a request in have the
attorney call me, have a worker call me and ask for clarification, handle it and be done. It’s really simple.
That process doesn’t exist for some of us in the City. And if you start redacting documents like you are
doing in Assessing, you're going to need more than one person because your Permit Department has a lot
of data on it; phone numbers and e-mails. And everyone is down there accessing it publicly and they are
not being slowed down from doing it. It’s the assessing data that’s being raced up to Legal.

President Wilshire

Ms. Ortolano, can you wrap it up please?

Ms. Ortolano Yes, |am extraordinarily disappointed in the Mayor. He does not take responsibility and he
shifts the blame totally on the public. ve been wronged by this City, | think Attorney Bolton runs a pretty
unethical office and | have certainly seen my costs run up legally because of what's gone on in there.
Thank you.

President Wilshire

Is there anyone else from the public that would like to give comment?

Laura Colquhoun Laura Colquhoun.

President Wilshire

Hello?

Fred Teeboom Can | speak?

President Wilshire

Mr. Teeboom?

Fred Teeboom Yes.

President Wilshire

Yes.

Mr. Teeboom I'l be very brief because you've been over 4 hours. First of all R-20-064 were you approved
$100,000.00 for the Records Management position on the Right to Know question. First of all, | suspect
that Ms. Ortolano stopped asking for Right to Know Law Request at number 1,100 hours | think and
hundreds of thousands of documents | think were drastically reduced. So | suggest that $100,000.00 not be
spent on the position of a permanent employee, is sort of implied with the fringe benefits it’s been
$7,000.00 that the $100,000.00 be spent a contract so when the requests follow these so-called Right to
Know Law Request which | dispute obviously, reduce this down to a slow number like | was used to when |

was an Alderman and you can eliminate this new position without difficulty. So | recommend you make into
a contract position.