Board of Aldermen Page 12
March 8, 2016
in the last row that says improve the municipal capacity to understand and address the priority climate and
health impact. Through all of this conversation it’s talking about sub-contracting it out to NRPC. NRPC is
the group that will be conducting and facilitating this for us so we are accepting a grant for $40,000; the
City of Nashua. | am assuming that we are just going to hand over the $40,000 to NRPC so they can do
this because of the sub-contracting and yet all thirteen municipalities in the region will receive the materials
of which we have accepted this $40,000 grant. My question is what other municipalities are contributing to
this grant and not just the City of Nashua?
President McCarthy
| can’t answer that other than to say that it’s a grant and | believe that NRPC had one of the member
communities; probably Nashua because our name was on the title apply for it. We applied for it and the
state gave to us to benefit all the other communities.
Alderman Cookson
So, not just Nashua but all thirteen municipalities that are part of NRPC?
President McCarthy
That would be my assumption.
Alderman Siegel
There were certain comments that were made off-line; not by any of my colleagues here but that somehow
this had something to do with climate change denial or any nonsense like that. My objections have zero to
do with that and | want to make that publicly clear. | would also like to thank my colleague, Alderman
Cookson, for pointing out that this table is rather amusing in that it appears to have been cut and pasted
and basically reused. | understand that there is a lot of motivation to do that kind of stuff but it doesn’t
exactly inspire a lot of confidence about the amount of vetting that actually went into that.
Alderman Moriarty
Is the motion currently to reconsider and if it passes do we then have to vote to pass it?
President McCarthy
Yes.
Alderman Moriarty
Is this motion to reconsider procedural and therefore non-debatable?
President McCarthy
It's generally debatable as to the merits of reconsideration. We tend to me a little bit more lax with the
rules about the debate of that motion. | wanted to comment that | got the information that was sent to us
from the Department of Health and frankly, I’m not sure where | stand on the substance of the matter itself
even after reading it. | am concerned with the way this resolution was handled at the previous meeting and
the fact that we voted on something that the way we did. As Alderman Moriarty read to you before rule #1
says that the purpose of the rules is to expose in advance the will of the majority of the body. The motion
to pass failed 7 to 6 with two sponsors who we can reasonably assume supported the bill were not there.
What | would assume from that is that the will of the majority was a majority wanted to pass it. We didn’t
