Board Of Aldermen

Board of Aldermen 05-14-2019 Page 37

final passage. There was a motion to indefinitely postpone, then there’s a motion to table which takes
privilege over the motion to indefinitely postpone and it is perfectly in order and it’s not debatable.

Alderman O’Brien

Roll call on tabling yes.
President Wilshire

Will the Clerk please call the roll?

Yea: Alderman Lopez, Alderwoman Kelly, Alderman Jette,
Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja, Alderman Tencza, Alderman Schmidt 6

Board of Aldermen 05-14-2019 Page 36

take care of other business, see what the State had to do and so on. So | agree with the indefinite
postponement.

Alderman Clemons

Board of Aldermen 05-14-2019 Page 35
President Wilshire

It was defeated. Indefinite postponement would mean we can’t bring this matter up again in this term.
We could bring it up next year in January.

Alderman Jette

And if the motion for indefinite postponement fails then it could be brought up again.

Attorney Bolton

It is still before the Board, you have not disposed of it.

Alderwoman Kelly

Board of Aldermen 05-14-2019 Page 34

ON THE QUESTION

Alderman Lopez

| object to indefinite postponement because again a month ago when certain promises were made and
concessions were made the point was raised that not all the Aldermen were here and | know that
Alderman Laws was particularly interested in this legislation but was unable to address it due to family
emergency.

Alderwoman Kelly

Board of Aldermen 05-14-2019 Page 33
during the Personnel Administrating because that was one of my kind of issues is that we’ve made the
fines much lower, now the State does say “up to” so it could be $0. It does not have to be $250.00 it
does not have to be $500.00 they put the words “up to $250.00”. The third offense does start with a
letter and so on and it becomes tougher and tougher. | think the way that this was intended, | don’t
know | wasn’t there when they wrote it back in 1997 all the way to 2010, but | do think it was for the

Board of Aldermen 05-14-2019 Page 32

Alderman Gathright
Ok.

Attorney Bolton

If it’s a violation then it would be $1,200.00 that’s a guess.
Alderman Harriott-Gathright

Board of Aldermen 05-14-2019 Page 31

Board of Aldermen 05-14-2019 Page 30

Alderwoman Kelly

Board of Aldermen 05-14-2019 Page 29
Alderman Jette

Board of Aldermen 05-14-2019 Page 28

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

To Attorney Bolton, that same paragraph, if we inserted “no person 21 or older or business”.

Attorney Bolton

You could do that.

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

And that would get rid of ....

Attorney Bolton

That would get rid of the liability for one 16 year old providing it to another 16 year old.

Alderwoman Melizzi-Golja

Or an 18 year old providing it to a 15 year old.
President Wilshire

So are you making that an amendment.

Alderman Lopez