Board of Aldermen 05-14-2019 Page 40
O-19-045
Endorser: Mayor Jim Donchess
Alderman Linda Harriott-Gathright
Alderman Patricia Klee
Alderman Tom Lopez
Alderman June M. Caron
Alderwoman-at-Large Shoshanna Kelly
Alderman Jan Schmidt
Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire
UPDATING THE FINANCIAL STANDARDS FOR THE CITY’S WELFARE GUIDELINES
Given its first reading; assigned to the PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE by
President Wilshire
PERIOD FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Paula Johnson Just hold on to this, it kind of fell off, I'm kind of short. Paula Johnson, | still live in
Nashua, exhausted from this whole thing. | don’t know how | ever sat on this, maybe ‘cause | was
younger. | would like to thank the Aldermen for that bill, the smoking, | want to say it takes courage to
vote what you feel is right, you beat a dead horse to death, you know, it went round and round. And
some of the Aldermen that | don’t agree with many times, | want to say thank you, because yeah does
it have to be at the State Level?
Yeah | think it’s better at the State Level that they address it so then it’s at throughout the State, not
just one community, another community, State Law supersedes City anyway.
I’m here to talk about and | know it’s going for its first reading, O-19-044. Let’s talk about that
legislation and what has happened. | was the original sponsor of that legislation, remember Alderman
Wilshire, remember Attorney Bolton. No? Well let me refresh your memory. The reason | did the
compensation and what was the intent of this? The intent didn’t have anything to do with pregnancy or
adoption, it wasn’t the reason why. And it had nothing to do with any of this. It had to do, we had an
Alderman, if you remember correctly that never came to Committee meetings. He would show up
more times at the full Board meeting and yet he was being paid to sit around the horseshoe for
meetings and the full Board meeting. That was the intent of this. Not the intent of somebody being
pregnant or adoption. And I’m a woman and | have the right to say that.
And | have the right to say what the intention was; because | was the original maker of it and there was
no action. But over the years, it got watered down a little bit. And the reason | made so clear and | sat
down with Dori Clarke and we really worked on this. So nobody would be left out but the question
was, why should you be paid for meetings that you did not attend? Simple as all that. You go to work,
you get paid; you don’t go to work, you don’t get paid. There is no sick time really here because it’s
not a job. That’s why we never put in certain things because this is not a job this is an elected position.
You go to the polls, you have the voters vote for you; you get a stipend, it’s not a paycheck it is a
stipend. By rights it is not even supposed to have taxes taken out if you look at the US Code. This
was added in after. So this is why | wrote this piece of legislation. No action was taken because that
person, after it got written, decided to show up to the meetings again. So this isn’t a job and if you
can’t fulfill your duties because of maternity or adoption, there are other ways to be in touch with the
Board. You can Skype, you can FaceTime.
There is a member of the Board of Education that doesn’t come to any meetings anymore because
he’s ill and he’s telephonically. So you don’t have to have this in legislation that says because you are
pregnant or you have an adoption that you can’t come to meetings. You can call in at every meeting
and you can still be part of the meeting and be paid for your presence. So when we did this, it was
based on the attendance at meetings of the Full Board of Aldermen and the meetings of the standing
committees; that’s what you are paid for. All the work is really done in the Committee. Am | correct?
Of course | am correct. And then you bring it to the Board to vote on it, which is assigned. And
absence will be excused only if due to illness, which illness could cover pregnancy because you don’t
