| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Heisenberg
Member
64 Posts |
 Posted - 01/14/2010 : 7:05:55 PM
|
I heard that the meeting was an absolute travesty. I heard everything was tabled and that Paul conducted the meeting like a circus!!!
I did hear that Peter Napolitano had a whole list of comments and that Kay Conway brought up something about having a consultant (or not having one). I also heard that Michael Lozzie brought up having more public hearings, though nothing was set in stone (glad someone at least tried lol).
|
 |
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 7:58:41 PM
|
| I'm sure I'm repeating myself, but I can't hold back. The voters of this city managed to put together a group of people that are hard pressed to work well together. There are too many conflicting personalities and a total lack of respect for, and by, committee members. It will be a miracle if they accomplish anything over the course of the next two years. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 8:03:16 PM
|
I need to get to one of these meetings!
"Ouch My Arm Hurts" |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 8:17:04 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by justme
I'm sure I'm repeating myself, but I can't hold back. The voters of this city managed to put together a group of people that are hard pressed to work well together. There are too many conflicting personalities and a total lack of respect for, and by, committee members. It will be a miracle if they accomplish anything over the course of the next two years.
What a true statement that - "The voters of this city managed to put together a group of people that are hard pressed to work well together."
It will be a trying couple of years and people that really want to see change have to stay on this and demand accountability. They all better put their past behind them and move forward.
Didn't over 3000 people vote to have a charter commission? I think every voter should have some input.
|
|
|
|
Heisenberg
Member
64 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 8:44:11 PM
|
Speaking of going to the meetings, I also was told that some members that did not want public comment at meetings are thinking about changing their minds and allowing public comment: guess only time will tell.....
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 8:50:46 PM
|
That would be great if that happened. I still would like to see all their meetings televised.
"Ouch My Arm Hurts" |
Edited by - massdee on 01/14/2010 8:51:07 PM |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2010 : 11:10:37 PM
|
I hate to be the one that's always letting the air out of the balloon but, what I heard from a couple of people who attended last night's meeting flies directly in the face of the notion that they are going to open their meetings (as opposed to public hearings) to allow the public to speak. Here's what I heard happened last night:
After the committee finshed questioning Stephen McGoldrick, Paul Schlosberg wanted to open the meeting up to questions for Mr. McGoldrick from the small audience that was in attendance. Bob Sansone jumped on the bandwagon and started speaking about setting a time limit for how long someone could speak. For a second, I'm told that it seemed that it might actually happen. Then, John Hanlon spoke up and chided Schlosberg, telling him that the committee had adopted rules and that he couldn't change them whenever he felt like it. The issue was then put to a voice vote where it failed. A roll call vote was asked for and taken and my sources couldn't remember if anyone besides Schlosberg supported it in that final vote.
From what I'm told, there are a couple of people on the commission that seem to feel strongly about allowing the public to speak at their meetings; the rest of them seem dead set against it. There's probably even less support for televising the meetings. I'm of the same opinion as you folks but I just don't see it happening. |
Edited by - tetris on 01/14/2010 11:30:21 PM |
|
|
|
Heisenberg
Member
64 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2010 : 12:05:13 PM
|
This is what I heard. If it is wrong please feel free to clarify I bumped into someone else, on the fly, that went to the meeting:
It was Benny Schiavo who at first did not want any public comment and then, not that he's changed his mind, but agreed to have public comment ONLY for Mr. McGoldrick. I don't know if he was one of the ones that initiated it, like Paul, but he did agree/want public comment for McGoldrick.
From what I got, the ones that voted no were: Hanlon, Martin-Long, Bono, and Sansone. Those who voted for was: Schiavo and Schlosberg. Hickey, Marcus, and Lattanzi were absent.
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2010 : 2:52:36 PM
|
From my sources, they concur that Schiavo also appeared to be in favor of the public being able to speak with Mr. McGoldrick. He could may have also been the one that brought up the time limit (he and Sansone sit next to one another) and he probably was the other one in the roll call to vote for it. My source thought someone else voted for it in the roll call but couldn't remember who the first time I spoke with them.
Sansone is definitely strongly in favor of the public speaking at these meetings; has been since day 1 from what I'm told. I'm also told that he tends to gets into a little bit of a huff if he doesn't get his way. May help explain his vote in the roll call. A tie vote would have failed as well.
Of the ones that weren't there, I told that Hickey is definitely against the public speaking (even though he asked a question of one the audience members at a meeting in December) and Marcus and Lantanzzi seems to be against it as well; Schiavo had fallen into that camp as well in the past.
If this were to change, I'd be as happy as everyone else. I just don't want any to get their expectations too high that it will change. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 11:06:10 PM
|
EVERETT CHARTER COMMISSION AGENDA
Sixth Meeting, Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 7:00 PM
Hearing Room B, City Hall Everett MA
1. Call To Order- roll call
2. Reading & Approval of the Previous Meeting Minutes of January 13, 2010
3. Report of Officers
Chairman: a) Michael Curran b) Kopelman & Paige P.C., Mark Reich c) The discussion continues on retaining the bicameral government or changing to a unicameral government. d) New office & email e) Conflict of Interest
Clerk: a) Stephen McGoldrick service agreement & resume (emailed) b) Charters from Attleboro, Gloucester, Leominster, Watertown, Worcester. c) Notification of $5000 in Commission account.
4. Budget Committee Report of January 27, 2010, 6:30 P.M.: The Commission initiated a process to construct a budget for expenditures.
Unfinished Business
5. Resolution/Sansone: Be it resolved that the Charter Commission compile a comparison chart of nearby communities & of those provided to us by Marilyn Contreas, policy analyst at the Dept. of Hearing & Community Development.
6. Resolution/Sansone: Be it resolved that the Charter Commission list possible sections/articles/categories that should be part of our Charter.
7. Resolution/Sansone: Be it resolved that the public testimony of Michael Matarazzo, L. Charles DiPerri, John Burley, Ronald Donofrio and Peter Napolitano be further discussed.
New Business
8. Resolved/Lattanzi: that the Charter Commission schedule meetings for April, May & June as follows: Wednesdays at 7 P.M. at Hearing Room B April 14, 28; May 12, 26; June 9, 23, 2010.
Adjournment
Respectfully submitted, Alfred J.F. Lattanzi, Charter Commission, Clerk
ajflattanzi@comcast.net |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 10:58:05 AM
|
Anyone go to the meeting last night? Can you give us an update?
"Just Clowning Around" |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 6:49:27 PM
|
Someone told me that a Town Manager has been discussed at one of these meetings. Is that true? Any opinions, pro or con?
"Just Clowning Around" |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 8:28:50 PM
|
If you look at their agendas on the city web site, it's not an issue that they have covered in their regular meetings at least according to what's been published. However, it was an issue that was brought up at the public hearing and rumor has it, some one got read the riot act for bring it up.
I heard that last night, they took a vote on what form of government they are proposing going forward with. The vote was 6-1 in favor of a unicameral form, but the vote was left open so that the two members who were absent could weigh in on it. Please, don't ask me to explain that, I can't. I also heard that most of the meeting consisted of presentations and Q & A sessions with two more consultants. It also sounds like they'll be taking a vote on hiring one at their next meeting. |
|
|
|
Heisenberg
Member
64 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2010 : 2:21:02 PM
|
Massdee: A city manager was brought up at the public hearing; however, nothing has been officially put on the agenda to discuss such a change. However, my source (and by that I mean friend) says that there has been numerous unofficial talk/discussion about it both from commission members and the public.
What I got out of my friend who went was that, the consultants that were there, like all the others, are really not asked about resume/qualifications stuff at the meetings. I guess since the commission already has their resumes they prefer more of a Q&A session in regards to their own personal questions. No decisions have been made in regards to a consultant.
Also, what the commission has decided to do is rather than take official votes on topics they're going to do unofficial polls of the commission. I guess certain members want everyone there or it's wrong to do anything...also, it was said that if something is officially voted on it would be harder to overturn if they wanted to change their minds.
The commission is in favor of unicameral form of government (6-1) the only one dissenting was Hanlon.
Everything else was pretty much tabled.
As always, if I am wrong in something I said and/or missed, please feel free to clarify. As I’ve said before, I’m getting this second hand and my friend might have forgotten something, or I might have remembered it wrongly.
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2010 : 2:54:36 PM
|
Heisenberg,
I heard pretty much the same things as you did. I was a little too liberal in my post though with the term vote as I was just trying to put up a quick post at the time. Thank you for clarifying that for everyone.
I did hear one additional thing though. If any member of the commission disagrees with the direction of the charter that is proposed to the public, they have the right to present a minority report to the public along with the proposed charter. Mr. Hanlon has stated more than once during the debate on the form of government that he will not be doing that even though he does not agree with this direction. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Charter Review
