[0:11] Good evening. Um, thank you for coming to the um, June 22nd um, oversight committee hearing

[0:21] um, at 6 o'clock. I'm going to read the open meeting law. Um, pursuant to the open meeting law,

[0:28] any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting

[0:33] through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions

[0:39] are being made whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and are deemed acknowledgeable

[0:46] and permissible. We'll take the role. Councelor Ash. Council Deon present. Council Hubley.

[0:53] Council Mahoney. Present. Council McKe present. Council Riley present. Council Ryan. Council

[1:00] Yuan. Chairman Jacobs. Present. Members. You have a quum. Very good. Uh tonight at tonight's meeting

[1:07] um we're going to be addressing um 2026 uh-056 resolve on the Council of Aging uh department

[1:16] head theft and federal charges uh 2026-100. Order uh Quinsey Housing Authority Board appointment

[1:25] process review in 2026 101 resolve of the Quinsey Housing Authority Board tenant representation. So

[1:34] at this time I'm going to uh turn it over to uh Mr. Walker uh to say a few words.

[1:40] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, councilors. Uh thank you for the opportunity for

[1:46] the administration to outline its response to the theft and sub subsequent criminal investigation

[1:52] uh from the department head of the elder former department head of the elder services department

[1:57] responsive to this body's resolution earlier this year. We have a number of team members who have

[2:03] been working on this matter for some time with us tonight to provide a brief overview of the

[2:06] timeline of events, the city's response and remedi remedial actions that were taken. You will hear

[2:13] from the police chief Kennedy to talk about the investigation itself, municipal finance director

[2:18] Paul Delbaba to go over the review processes and treasure collector Marley Smith to review cash

[2:24] handling policies and changes that were made. Uh we also have with us solicitor Jim Timonss

[2:30] and to answer any legal questions and purchasing agent Kathleen Logan relative to any procurement

[2:36] questions. Um the mayor uh and his team took this matter extremely seriously, responded immediately

[2:44] and conducted a robust, responsible review. I want to stress that ultimately at its core,

[2:50] this is a case of an individual perpetrating a fraud on the city and its people.

[2:57] It was about this individual manipulating the system and manipulating the people and

[3:02] manipulating people to achieve that fraud, not a systemic breakdown in the system itself. That

[3:08] however does not mean there are not things we cannot do better. And this unfortunate matter

[3:14] was used to improve those sets of processes. Before I hand it over to the police chief,

[3:20] I would just start the timeline myself um that this matter came to the mayor's

[3:24] attention April 2024 upon the reports uh hearing some troubling information from a staff member at

[3:34] the council on aging department. I met with that council on aging department employee

[3:40] uh once. we established um that she that the employee would be uh protected that there was

[3:50] nothing to worry about and that we needed to understand the information. Um subsequent to

[3:54] that on a second meeting on I believe it was April 18th all of the full documentation was

[3:59] provided by this employee. Uh upon receiving that information I immediately spoke to Mayor Ko. Mayor

[4:05] Ko this was now after hours. My memory serves me right. It was probably 8:00 or 9 8 or 9 in

[4:11] the evening. Mayor Ko immediately directed me to contact the police chief and the city solicitor

[4:16] uh to evaluate the next steps. Uh with that, I'll leave the timeline to Chief Kennedy.

[4:27] Good evening, counselors. Uh as Mr. Walker stated, um on the evening of April 18th, 2024, I did

[4:35] receive a call from Mr. Walker uh informing me that um my presence was requested in the mayor's

[4:42] office with uh several other um members of um the mayor's team. Um I didn't really understand what

[4:49] was happening at the time, but um I was informed that there were some allegations of potential um

[4:55] financial malfeasants that came to light earlier that day and uh he wanted to talk to me about it.

[5:01] Uh so we went in, we met, I believe uh Mr. Walker, Mayor Ko, Solicitor Timonss, and possibly Helen

[5:07] Murphy. I'm not 100% sure on that, but definitely uh Mr. Walker, Mayor Ko, and Solicitor Timonss. Um

[5:15] uh upon hearing the allegations, I immediately spoke with our detective Lieutenant um who's in

[5:22] charge of uh Bureau of Criminal Investigations and one of our detectives who uh specializes in

[5:27] financial crimes. that night uh on the night of the 18th. The plan was also put into place that

[5:33] Mr. Timonss uh drafted um in order that we were going to serve to Mr. Clasby the next morning

[5:39] when he arrived for work. Uh so on the morning of the 19th um around 8:00 a.m. We had detectives

[5:46] sitting outside of the Kennedy Center. Um when uh Mr. Clasby arrived for work, uh we went in,

[5:52] I met him in his office, I served him with the letter that he was being uh put out on leave.

[5:58] uh pending the results of of our investigation. That was uh the morning of April 19th. Um and then

[6:05] uh our detectives really started working the case and over the course of the next couple weeks they

[6:10] gathered evidence um and uh we ended up um uh the um FBI and the US attorney's office reached out

[6:19] and asked if we would um work the case with them as it may have some uh federal implications. We

[6:26] met with uh our federal partners on May 14th and we agreed at that point to work with them

[6:34] um as there were some um uh you know potential mail fraud, wire fraud and uh inter interstate

[6:41] transportation of stolen property that we had already uh uncovered. Um so at that point really

[6:47] we started working it with our federal partners. Um, we gathered enough evidence that on May 17th,

[6:53] the mayor did um serve Mr. Clasby, a letter removing him from his uh position. And um on

[7:03] uh January 8th, 2025, uh as I said, uh Mr. Clasby was formally indicted by the US

[7:10] Attorney's Office for embezzlement, mail fraud, wire fraud, and inter interstate transportation

[7:16] of stolen property. So that's really um the rough timeline of what happened. Uh the Quincsey Police

[7:21] Detective Division was actively working with our federal partners during the entire uh length

[7:26] of the investigation. Um and um I think they they left no stone unturned. So uh with that,

[7:32] that's basically just a brief. I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Deaba from municipal

[7:36] finance and then I believe afterwards we could answer any questions you might have.

[7:48] Good evening, councils. Um, I'm going to talk about the approval process on

[7:53] um how departments enter in requisitions into our system, how they get approved, and how it flows

[7:59] through the system. Um, it it's not different now than it was back then. Um, but this is this is how

[8:07] the requisition process works. Um, first of all, a requisition is not a purchase order. doesn't

[8:14] give any approval to spend money right away. It's just a requisition for an amount and for a vendor.

[8:20] Um it is the however it is the beginning of the process of creating a purchase order and it will

[8:28] incumber funds uh within specific organ objects uh within a fund or a department to be used for

[8:36] specific purposes as um as stated. So the process begins by a clerk will first enter the requisition

[8:44] into Munis. That requisition that request is then approved by the department head at the department

[8:52] head level. Once approved at the department level by the department head, it is submitted

[9:00] to municipal finance for our review where we see it. Uh we'll see the vendor, the amount, uh the

[9:06] accounts. we verify that there's funds there uh to create that requisition and that's when

[9:12] it gets our approval specifically my approval. So upon that that approval the once I approve

[9:20] it mun right along the system to the purchasing department and they'll have the final review of

[9:27] the vendor the procurement the dollar amounts with the 30b law and so forth. Um once that's approved,

[9:34] purchasing will create a purchase order and they'll send one copy of that purchase order

[9:39] to the vendor and one purchase one copy of that will go to the department that requested that so

[9:46] they know that that money has now been encumbered for that expense with that vendor. Now to pay an

[9:54] invoice against a purchase order, a clerk will enter the invoice information and purchase number

[10:00] into munis. The clerk then sends that original invoice to municipal finance. Municipal finance

[10:07] will retain that with a copy um of the check, the purchase order for auditing purposes and invoice

[10:15] verification. uh for invoice verification includes uh reviewing the amount of the expenditure and

[10:22] matching that with the check uh and the invoice uh it's you it includes reviewing vendor remitt

[10:30] remittance addresses vendor names etc. So once that's all confirmed um it once again

[10:37] the department head after this process then needs to go in and approve that expenditure.

[10:44] So at different levels multiple people are looking as at this as it flows through the system. Um so

[10:52] once the department head approves the payment of the invoice MUN in Munice, it'll be cluded on the

[10:58] city warrant and then paid out. Um so that that really concludes the approval process, the review

[11:05] of each requisition that gets put into the system. Um with that I'll turn it over to Treasurer Smith.

[11:21] Thank you. Hi counselors. Thank you for having me. Um, so maybe I'll pick it back up on the

[11:25] timeline. Um, so on April 19th, I was made aware of an allegation of financial misconduct at the

[11:31] senior center. Over that weekend, I worked with chief of staff and the CFO at the time to execute

[11:36] a response plan. I secured a city laptop and worked with someone on my staff to physically

[11:42] be at the senior center for the duration of the investigation. I worked with local and federal

[11:47] investigators to supply documentation as well as worked with our forensic auditor auditor to

[11:52] try and determine the scale and scope of the issue. I was physically on site for the first

[11:57] week and then someone from my team was there for approximately 5 weeks while Quinsey police did

[12:02] their investigation. Throughout the evidence that was collected and almost 100 100 turnover sheets

[12:07] that were scanned and sent in to investigators, we determined that checks were being turned over

[12:12] to the treasurer's office, but cash was not. The Division of Local Services created a financial

[12:17] policy manual for the town of Sterling that I found in some of my research and they outlined

[12:22] the best practices for senior center operations. The senior center in Quinsey was following all

[12:28] of those best practices to a tea. This was not a breakdown in policies and procedures.

[12:33] This was pure theft by a bad actor. But I think what this did do was highlight

[12:38] where we can be better. And as such, my office created the city's revenue turnover policies,

[12:43] which we posted to our website in October of 2024. And I believe Mr. Walker sent those

[12:49] um around to this body, but they're also posted on our city website. Some key highlights included

[12:54] adding a cash inoff threshold of $500, at least weekly deposits, and the creation of departmental

[13:02] policies that sit underneath the citywide policy, which are required to be on file

[13:06] with my office. We also implemented the creation of an annual on-site audit in which myself and

[13:12] two members of my staff physically go to visit each department that accepts any form of revenue.

[13:18] We have a checklist of items um that I believe you guys all received as well um that my staff

[13:25] and myself will go through and we take this as an opportunity to physically see the department space

[13:30] where cash and checks are stored and to speak to the staff that's working um with any payments. So

[13:36] we're now on the second year of annual onsites. And again um the schedule was sent around. So

[13:41] everybody should have a schedule of the dates that we um have seen everybody for the first round. and

[13:47] now we're on our second round. Um, and I'd say overall they're going really well. So, I think

[13:52] the silver lining of all this is we've really taken this as an opportunity to help departments

[13:56] streamline some of their revenue capabilities. So, I keep using the school department as a good

[14:01] case study, but we've been working with their business manager. We installed a local mobile

[14:05] deposit check scanner and a cash counting machine. So, instead of that individual counting out 3,000

[14:11] $1 bills for maybe like a school field trip, she can simply put them through the cash machine. So,

[14:16] it's just one example, but it's really been and and I'm not this is it's it's genuinely

[14:21] been really nice to go see every department, see the great work that they're doing um and

[14:25] where we can be helpful. We're the we're in the weeds on on cash and finances every day. And so,

[14:30] we've really taken this as an opportunity to help other departments um and and kind of figure out

[14:35] streamlining. So, with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. I know the cash piece

[14:39] was the big the big headline piece, so I'm happy to answer any questions that you guys might have.

[14:47] All right. See you.

[14:56] Uh, thank you so much, Miss Smith. Um, I just want to, um, open this up for questions from

[15:02] any of my colleagues on the council if they have any questions for Miss Molly Smith in regards to

[15:08] this. Uh, Councelor Riley, Loans. Thank you. Um, you folks did answer some of the questions I have

[15:18] here, so I'm going to jump around a little bit and I don't know who can answer best, but so does the

[15:22] city have a written fraud policy in place, not just a cash management policy, but a a fraud a

[15:27] more comprehensive fraud policy? So, I think a lot of what we do is governed by mass general law. And

[15:33] so, Mass General law governs invoicing, right? And I'm going to speak for my colleagues here.

[15:39] Mass General law is going to govern procurement. It's going to govern invoicing. So a lot of that

[15:43] is already captured by mass general law. So is there is no fra written fraud policy? I mean I I

[15:51] think of fraud as being a little bit more broader. Um you know fraud can be time theft, lararseny,

[15:58] credit card and purchasing abuse and then external crimes like fishing, cyber theft. We certainly saw

[16:04] that with the with the uh pension system. So does anyone else want to say whether or not there is

[16:10] a written fraud policy in place? through you, m Mr. Chairman, I would I would just reiterate what

[16:17] uh Treasurer Smith said that, you know, some things are so self-evident that they don't

[16:24] require policy manuals, um it's standard practice, that you don't commit fraud, um that you don't uh

[16:32] misspend city money, that you don't steal. Um, so to the extent that there that there would be a a

[16:42] there would just wouldn't be a written policy, there's not a a written policy, and I don't mean

[16:46] this on flip council. I appreciate the question, but you know, there's no written policy against,

[16:52] uh, theft, um, blanket theft. Um, it's just part of the nature of doing business in a

[16:59] in a prudent and efficient and and legal way. Um, and just reiterate what Treasurer Smith said that

[17:07] uh all of our actions are governed by mass general laws. All of our procedures are governed by mass

[17:12] general laws and we're also audited uh every single year uh to find uh to look at operations

[17:20] and how we op and what mechanisms are in place and what needs to potentially change. So no,

[17:25] there is no formal written fraud policy because fraud is fraud. Well, the Office of Inspector

[17:32] General recommends that municipalities have a more written formal policy. So, I guess the answer

[17:38] simple answer to that question is no. Um, relative to the treasurer's policy, there was reference to

[17:44] the Munice accounts um being the responsibility to the department heads to ensure that they're

[17:48] actually recorded into the correct general ledger account. Um, but doesn't this create vulnerability

[17:53] if the department head is the one responsible for it? In this particular case, would not have

[17:58] we would not have found that. Yeah, it seems a lot of the policy falls uh in the in the purview

[18:04] and responsibility of the department head which in in this particular example would not have provided

[18:09] the kind of assurance that that there was checks and balances there. Yeah, I think my intention on

[18:14] on putting that in the policy, someone should be checking us as well. So, so someone should also be

[18:20] checking the checker and and so if the department head is turning over money to me, I need to I'm

[18:25] saying I'm putting it into your munis account and I want to make sure that people are also verifying

[18:30] what I'm doing and my team is doing. So, so this should be mutually um people should be mutually

[18:35] checking each other's work. So, I think in all of these things, what we realized is it it behooves

[18:41] everybody to to be double-checking and making sure the money is being posted into the correct

[18:46] MUN account that our bank reconciliations are being reflected on what's in the mun account. So,

[18:51] that was my intention on putting that in the policy. Thank you. Thank you for that. Um,

[18:56] have you had any unannounced site reviews or they all been announced? Um, so they've all been

[19:00] announced. I think the first year I think people Nobody likes to these have been very um awkward

[19:10] is not the right word because people I'm walking into these department onsites and and I've been

[19:15] really impressed with the reconciliations with the financial management that all these departments

[19:20] are doing. I think the first year people are on edge. I think nobody wants um no one wants to have

[19:26] me walking into their office saying are you doing anything wrong and so people have been really open

[19:31] to showing what they're working on. Um, so the first year I thought it would be a little unfair

[19:36] to do an unannounced visit. We have been I mean every turnover sheet that comes into my department

[19:42] is being scrutinized pretty extensively. My team any turnover sheet that's incorrect is going back

[19:47] to the department with an email to myself and the department head. So my intention is that

[19:53] um that over time there's maybe no errors that are coming through. Um but no. Okay. I I understand.

[20:00] And it seems like you've got a second round coming through so you might We've already started one.

[20:05] Um, so has the city implemented a confidential speak up or whistleblower policy and reporting

[20:11] mechanisms? It was reported that that would be something that would be coming through you uh,

[20:19] Mr. Chairman. Not at this point not a formal policy. Um, I I' hearken back a little bit

[20:25] to my initial answer. I think that's certainly a possibility. Um, and we've taken a look at it. Um

[20:30] but emphasizing that first point he made relative to the first policy is that uh whistleblowers are

[20:37] always protected. They're protected under state law. They're protected under federal law. Um

[20:40] they're protected by their their position within uh collective bargaining unit for the most part.

[20:46] Um and part of our process was to emphasize to talk to the department heads and um get more of a

[20:54] sense of what they felt would would be appropriate and where they're um whether or not that that

[21:02] would be an additional step that was necessary or it's one of those things that um may be uh

[21:07] more assumed and part of the normal day-to-day operation of doing business. Um I would say it's

[21:12] something that's still on the table. Uh but based on the the case just closed uh at the end of last

[21:17] week, I know we'll be taking another look at it. Okay. Thank you. Um the Go ahead. I I can take

[21:25] a break if you want. Is that okay? Um the report identified 262 transactions totaling $329,148,000

[21:34] versus the 36,000 that Mr. Clasby plead guilty to um including work for a non-existent business.

[21:42] Celtic safety consultants, cleaning companies who perform work on non- city buildings,

[21:47] excessive vehicle repair and towing from Schlagger's towing, sometimes multiple charges

[21:51] per day. Have these vendors been barred from doing business in the city or what other steps have been

[21:55] taken to verify businesses and charges going forward? I'm not sure. So, I'm happy to answer

[22:01] it. I um Paul fortunately or unfortunately was not here for most of it. I don't believe any of

[22:06] them have been barred. A lot of them didn't know they were doing fraudulent business. that business

[22:11] for sure is fake. So, and that I believe is what um they got him on for the the federal charges.

[22:18] Um I believe that's the um transportation what's the the transportation charge um crossing federal

[22:27] lines. But all the other vendors, my understanding through the investigation um was that they were

[22:32] largely unaware that they were also being duped. Well, how how could they be unaware that they

[22:39] weren't cleaning a municipal building? Oh, I can't speak to the cleaning one, but if I mean, I think

[22:46] the senior center has many vehicles. Um, and so I don't know if they were aware which vehicle

[22:52] they were towing. Okay, thank you. Um, if not for the brave actions of one or more whistleblowers,

[23:00] this fraud would likely have continued. Um, again, I've already asked once, but I I think it would

[23:06] behoove of us to have more uh robust policies for reporting suspected fraud, waste, and abuse and to

[23:12] review those policies regularly. Um, does the city implement any mand mandatory fraud training? So,

[23:21] again, I'll take this one just on behalf of the group. Um, so the state does require that we take

[23:26] mandatory training, state ethics training. Ethics training isn't fraud training though.

[23:31] fraud training would be through OIG. I don't believe the OIG requires that we take mandatory

[23:39] training. I guess the question is why wouldn't we encourage it just because it's not mandatory. Um

[23:49] the other question I'm and I'll leave this is my last one. I know Mr. Delibara, you've mentioned

[23:54] to me about the functionality in Munis to be able to attach invoices and track everything, you know,

[24:00] straight through the system electronically. It does seem like there is an awful lot of paper

[24:04] in this city. Uh, and currently only Quinsey Fire Department does that. Is that correct?

[24:13] Yes, that's correct. Where the entire process, the purchase order uh the and the invoice are attached

[24:20] with the uh copy of the check. Um the fire department's doing that. We've discussed rolling

[24:25] it out citywide. Uh it makes things just more efficient. Everything's right at your fingertips.

[24:29] You want some information, you can pull it right up. It helps us with our independent auditors when

[24:34] they come uh and want to look at an invoice. Uh so it is something that's on the radar. So we had run

[24:41] into that recently with the community preservation um correct check that I wanted. So what would it

[24:45] take to implement that? would seem to me that that would be an important um initiative to

[24:50] to implement sooner rather than later. At least start to roll some of these departments in that

[24:55] that are capable of of handling that. The paper is, you know, not an ideal situation. Well, paper

[25:02] can be altered and lost, right? An electronic record is an electronic record that's preserved

[25:08] as is forever. The auditors prefer to have electronic record versus paper. And um you know,

[25:14] I would too. I wasn't here when my predecessors started, you know, kicking the tires on a plan

[25:19] like this. But from what I understand, it would be no more than, you know, having some scanners,

[25:26] having some training, maybe some cost to implement uh this program with um a third party

[25:31] consultant who's done it before in other municip municipalities. So, I think there would be some

[25:36] cost um involved in it, but I don't think it would be a tremendous cost. Well, well, we we'll maybe

[25:44] have you revisit that at a future date. It seems like it would be important, and I I know you're

[25:49] on board with trying to make that happen. So, thank you, Mr. Delibra. You're welcome. Thank you.

[25:59] Um, Council McKe, you so um I'd like to understand a little bit more about the revenues that come

[26:08] into the city. So, I know there's various sources. Most of it, our money we make through taxes, but

[26:13] um there are some fees. Um I guess I'm surprised that no one noticed a gradual

[26:21] decline of revenues coming in from the senior center to the point where it went to zero

[26:27] um and seemed to stay at zero for for a few years. Um what what kind of oversight exists there and

[26:36] how can we improve that? So just as a point of clarity, the revenue was not zero. So revenue

[26:42] was still coming to us. So if you were at the senior center and you submitted a check to them,

[26:47] a personal check, that was still coming to us. Um I think CO had a lot to do with it. So after CO,

[26:55] um I don't think it was clear what the new flows were and what the new world looked like at the

[27:01] senior center. So I think that was really um a big factor. Okay. Um but this was happening be before

[27:10] co too right? So presumably the amount of cash was going down uh relative to things over time even

[27:18] before co so I started here in 2022 in this role um but it's hard to man so I wouldn't necessarily

[27:28] be aware of our less seniors taking yoga um so I think if if revenue is coming in and I think

[27:35] that's where these on-site visits are great for us to kind of wrap our heads around what's

[27:41] happening in each department. So if if the senior center made a policy saying all classes are free,

[27:49] we're not going to charge anymore. Um I wouldn't necessarily be aware of that. So that could

[27:54] explain the revenue. I equate this a lot. Um so Treasury is a is a bank. And so how I would

[28:01] explain this to the lay person is if you got laid off, Bank of America would not call you and say,

[28:08] "Is everything okay? I noticed you're not getting direct deposit anymore. So, it's the same thing

[28:13] here. So, Treasury would not necessarily call and say, "Oh, I've noticed that you've had a

[28:17] decrease in revenue. What's going on?" I think through CO um through changes in programming,

[28:24] revenue can change a lot. I'd also highlight this is a really immaterial amount of money

[28:29] to the broader city organization. And so, I think over time it's just enough to fly under the radar.

[28:38] I think it would be helpful if we thought um about how to track that over time. I'm sure we have data

[28:46] um you know, historic data going back. Um before I took office, I took an I think I probably learned

[28:55] about this from councelor Riley. I took a fraud class through the inspector general's office,

[28:59] like a Zoom class. Um, I wish I'd looked at my notes before tonight, but I remember them

[29:05] saying that there were certain things that over time you could implement um gradually

[29:10] to try to reduce reduce all these opportunities for fraud. So, one thing seems like um you know,

[29:18] just having a sense of what money is coming into the city and then if you see a blip in that,

[29:24] it seems like it would be smart to to for someone to be monitoring that and then looking into it.

[29:31] Maybe it's explainable and maybe it's not, but we could catch these kinds of things at an earlier

[29:36] point. Um the other question that I have is about um purchase orders. So, um I guess there's no no

[29:47] one who's like kind of overseeing whether purchase order is needed or used. Um I can answer that.

[30:00] Um a purchase order is always going to be needed because that's how we pay in the city. So we pay

[30:05] through munis which generates a purchase order. So a purchase order is always going to be needed.

[30:11] I guess I mean like the service that it's there for. So some of these were totally fraudulent

[30:18] um madeup services. If I could um and it seems like a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking

[30:24] here and somewhat of victim shaming as well. We were all you know just a surprise that this went

[30:30] on as all of you. Um to say that that Celtic uh safety consultants council Riley that was clearly

[30:40] fraudulent. Um, at the time that this was going on, we had a W9 from him and my coworker actually

[30:46] checked the Secretary of State's office in New York and he was registered as a company. Okay. So,

[30:52] we did do our due diligence as we always do. Nothing was done differently here. And again,

[30:58] just because someone manipulates a system and breaks the law, that doesn't mean we're all

[31:04] implicated and in on it. No, I didn't mean to imply you're in on it. I'm just thinking about

[31:10] the I know some other councils have just the the systems in place. Um it seems like um maybe having

[31:19] Do you have a question? Council president. All right, Miss Logan. Yes, Miss McHugh is speaking

[31:26] and council the council president's making faces and I didn't know she had a question. Miss Logan,

[31:31] please stop. Thank you. No, don't don't tell me to stop counselor please. Respectfully.

[31:38] Excuse me. No, I'm good. I'm good. Go ahead. Um Okay, maybe I'll just um I'll move on. Um

[31:54] yeah. Um I guess I have a question about the some of what I've read in um this isn't this isn't for

[32:05] you. I'm not sure who this is for, but um some of what I've read has concerned me about the the

[32:12] sense that um what was reported that the employees didn't like knew that he was sort of untouchable

[32:23] um because of his connection to the mayor. And so I know that um we say we don't have

[32:33] a whistleblower policy. Um, but it concern it concerns me that we don't have a W whistleblower

[32:40] policy when it seems like this is this is an actual issue where people were concerned about

[32:46] that. And I and speaking just personally from my my experience in six months in the council

[32:51] asking questions of this administration has not been wellreceived. though I can imagine that

[33:03] Catherine.

[33:07] Okay. All right.

[33:11] We're going to go into recess. Thank you.

[34:05] All right. Sorry about that. Uh, we're back from our recess. Um, thank you, Mr. Walker,

[34:10] for handling that. I want to continue the answer of that question. Thank you. Sure. Through you,

[34:16] Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the question, counselor, and it the perception uh has

[34:21] been uh very troubling to the administration as well. Uh I think uh over the course of the

[34:28] last several weeks, in the course of the last several months, this body has seen uh the way

[34:34] our departments operate in uh a general sense, in a larger sense, how well they work uh with with

[34:43] you folks, how the well they work in their jobs in particular. Uh it was troubling to hear that there

[34:50] would be some perception that somehow a employee was being told that someone was untouchable. Um,

[35:02] we have uh the mayor has a record in this city uh that goes back close to 20 years now uh under no

[35:09] circumstances uh has his integrity uh his honesty um in anything like that sort of thing um come to

[35:20] light. And I would I would sort of point out that ultimately this person did come forward uh and it

[35:26] is the reason why this um theft was stopped and identified. So ultimately the system the system

[35:35] worked. Uh this person was not uh intimidated to come forward. Uh this person was not afraid to go

[35:43] to the appropriate folks and explain to them what they thought was going on. And this person was

[35:48] confident uh that they had the ear ultimately of the mayor and of myself uh that all of this would

[35:54] end up going in the right direction. And that's that's what happened. As unfortunate as it is,

[36:00] the system ultimately worked. Now taking the point on a clear defined whistleblower policy,

[36:09] again I said that, you know, whistleblowers are protected. We feel they are protected. We

[36:14] are comfortable with our department heads. We've had these discussions with our department heads.

[36:17] Under no circumstances should any employee feel like they can't approach their boss,

[36:22] they can't approach their boss's boss about something inappropriate that they've seen. That

[36:28] is not the way we've operated. Um, and I certainly appreciate the question, but I I I I think in

[36:35] the end uh the system uh worked the way it it needed to work uh and the right thing was done.

[36:47] I believe there was a a report um stating that the the issue stretched back to at least 2014 when the

[36:56] um Mr. Clasby requested money to pay I believe a car payment. And so um it sounds like people were

[37:06] maybe nervous to come forward for um 10 years at least. Um, and maybe it just got so bad that it it

[37:14] became like, you know, they just felt important to to bring forward. But, um, it does seem like it's

[37:22] it's an issue whether or not it's um, you know, for good reason. It it seems to be a perception.

[37:30] Um, I guess I have a question about the um the FBI and the um US attorney's office um for Chief

[37:40] Kennedy. You mentioned that they um joined the effort they reached out to the city. Um

[37:49] I'm not I'm not sure at what point after the April 19th meeting. Um maybe in May. I'm not

[37:57] sure what whether I wrote that down right, but um how did they find out about it? So,

[38:03] it wasn't that the city reached out to them. How did they get alerted to this? Yeah. So,

[38:08] uh we do have a detective who's assigned to an FBI uh task force. Um, so I believe it

[38:14] was right after I I can't give you the the exact date, but right after it hit the the media, um,

[38:19] this U task force officer, detective reached out and said, "Hey, the the FBI is asking uh, if you

[38:25] would like any assistance with this." And I said, "You know what? We're we're still in the very

[38:29] early stages of of gathering facts. Uh, I have the utmost confidence in in the two detectives,

[38:35] uh, one detective and one detective supervisor who were working and gathering, uh, facts. So,

[38:40] at that point, I said, "I think we have everything uh under control." Uh, as they gathered more

[38:44] information, the uh task force detective reached out again and said, "Hey, that they're really

[38:49] interested in this." And so, we set that meeting. Um, so we set the meeting for May 14th, which was

[38:55] just a couple of weeks after we really launched the investigation. And it was during that meeting,

[38:59] we pretty much gave them everything we had. Um, they looked at it and they said, "Yeah, we'd like

[39:04] to we see some federal charges here and we'd like to work with you on this." So, we uh we welcome

[39:08] the assistance. Okay. So, it was after they saw it in the the news. Um I believe I'm I'm speculating,

[39:14] but I'm assuming that's what it was. Yeah. That they saw it in the news and reached out. Um Okay.

[39:20] And then, um this is a question for the treasurer. So, you had mentioned that you would actually like

[39:26] to be checked as well. So, who does that now? So, and that's what um councelor Riley's question. So

[39:35] when I'm alluding in the policies, so and maybe I'll walk through an example because that is how

[39:41] I think, but if a department comes in with a thousand deposit putting it towards a specific

[39:47] mun code and in my team, so how it works, and maybe we should have started with this,

[39:52] but how it would work is in the treasury window, they would come with either a cash or

[39:57] check breakdown. The turnover sheet is is the face sheet. So that's indicating here's the munus code,

[40:02] here's the department, um here's where we'd like it to go, and here's a breakdown of either cash or

[40:08] check what's in what's included in the turnover. We will stamp that. So we have a time and date

[40:13] stamp similar to what the clerk uses. So we will stamp that at the time of receipt. We will give

[40:18] the department a copy back. Um and then we will take a copy and we will input that into our daily

[40:25] batch. So all deposits um we make daily deposits to the bank. So all of that money is going out of

[40:32] our office daily. So essentially what I'm looking for from departments is to make sure that if they

[40:39] gave me $1,000 and I we're putting it to munice code 1 2 3 4 5 that it's getting to where they

[40:45] expect it to be. And so if you brought $1,000 for the senior center and one of my clerks fat

[40:52] fingered it and put it into inspectional services, I want to make sure that someone has said, "Oh,

[40:57] wait a second. I think I'm not seeing my thousand deposit as I expected." And we can do a little

[41:02] bit of research on that and see did it go into the wrong munus code? Did it um that's really the only

[41:08] possibility, but yes, so it it is important that someone is also checking us. Okay. Um,

[41:28] okay, maybe that's all my questions for right now.

[41:39] How are you, Molly? I had a nice visit with you and we went over a lot of these things. So,

[41:46] um I guess one of the questions that I have and I have them all over the place. So,

[41:49] the treasur you get the cash and and you you've only been here since 2022. So, you really can't

[41:54] talk back to 2014, correct? But and I think when you were using the example and I'm not trying to

[41:58] say your example wasn't good like a bank when you get laid off and you don't have that direct

[42:02] deposit going and the bank's definitely not going to know us. And I realize we're a city so we're

[42:06] pretty big but these are our departments. So when you see those turnovers going up or down or

[42:10] if they change something that should be something that a director should be communicating especially

[42:14] when the change of flow of money is changing. So if it was we're not going to charge for this

[42:18] anymore should be notified to the people who'd be collecting that money getting that money like

[42:23] we're we we're stopping we're not taking any of that. I'm just I'm just pointing that out because

[42:27] it's a little different than a big bank noticing whether or not I get direct deposit anymore versus

[42:31] a city whose you know responsibility is for the revenues coming into our city as well as

[42:37] collecting the taxes. And I'm not saying you did anything. I'm just suggesting that that so that

[42:41] would be something I think when coun councelor McKe was saying there should be kind of something

[42:45] we can look at. But you've only been here for two years and I wouldn't I don't know what they pre

[42:48] like 2014. I'd be curious. I would have gone back that far too if I could have. Yeah. And and yes,

[42:52] I mean the point is well taken. I think it's it's so hard. Um if you're charging $3 for an activity,

[42:59] it's a 500 $500 million a year is flowing through my department. So I wouldn't necessarily catch No,

[43:06] I know. I think that's the problem though is that because cash like that, like it's petty cash might

[43:10] not seem like a lot, but when you started going in there, you started to realize it was like $2,000

[43:14] a week. So when you see it's $2,000 a week, all of a sudden it's not petty cash anymore. Now it's

[43:19] actually it's it's impactful. And that money can easily be taken away. We have other accounts in

[43:25] the city. So when I talked about the COA and this is just one person who did a bad deed,

[43:30] but we also have revolving accounts in the schools. How many how often do those things

[43:33] get reconciled? We also have um the schools you just mentioned. And the other thing is when a

[43:38] turnover comes in, you collect the turnover from the the I say client from your department head,

[43:43] whoever's bringing it in, right? The clerk. But then that same turnover typically goes down to

[43:48] the accountants office so that they know too that at least that's how I understand it. The

[43:52] turnover comes into the treasures. You you mark it down. You say you did what you needed to do and

[43:55] then the accountants get it and there should be a reconciliation that's happening at the end of the

[43:58] month so that if it does get deposited into the wrong um account you're catching that fairly fast.

[44:04] Is that correct? So and and or weekly mostly. So you're mostly correct. I think the reconciliations

[44:09] that my team is doing, so I'm my team is making sure that if we've put it into this bank,

[44:14] so think physical cash versus munis cash, if we put it into this bank, that what we're reconciling

[44:21] is making sure the check didn't bounce, that the bricks guy didn't um stop at Starbucks on the way.

[44:26] So that's what my team is doing. There's there's so if someone has coded put the incorrect code on

[44:33] a turnover that wouldn't get caught throughout the whole life cycle um because we've expected

[44:41] it to go into this incorrect code and it did go into this incorrect code. So so for all intents

[44:46] and purposes everyone has done everything correctly. I think typically what happens

[44:50] is well reconciliation typically happens like when that department that's looking for the money will

[44:54] say no I brought this and I need deposit and I have my turnover sheets so this is where it

[44:58] is. So what I'm saying is whether or not you're reconciling everybody should be reconciling. So

[45:02] whether it's whether it's the treasurer's office or the accountant's office or even potentially me

[45:07] who brought it in and saying wait I should have I should have $10,000 here. I want to get a new van.

[45:13] Whatever it is I want to do that. That's what's happening there. So this cash that's coming in and

[45:17] cash is always dangerous. I always say this like it's better to pay like well actually that's not

[45:22] true because now people steal your credit cards so like all sorts of things happen but it is a

[45:26] trickier thing because cash is something you want to get in and get out as fast as possible because

[45:30] you don't want to be responsible for the cash at the COA at the schools at any place because it can

[45:36] easily something easily can happen. So obviously when it comes into the treasures office it's not

[45:40] like you have stacks of $100,000 sitting around because you get out to the bank every day and

[45:44] same thing with with um the COA. So I guess my question there is um if there's any way it could

[45:50] have gone back to 2014 because that's a long time 2014 to 20 24 10 years and it only seemed to go

[45:57] back I think to in the report it only was like the last two years that they were reconciling and how

[46:01] they came up with the number seemed a little like there's no real way to be able to tell right so I

[46:07] guess my question there too would be I have to go back to my notes um so the earliest what was the

[46:13] earliest date that we figured out that there was improperly. Was it the 19th when you went to when

[46:18] the whistleblower came? Like how did how did they just came to you with the whistleblower? Was that

[46:22] when we all found out? That was the first time that I became aware of it. Correct. Maybe it's

[46:26] maybe it's through I'm sorry. I'm guessing it's definitely not. So maybe to Mr. Walker. When when

[46:30] did exactly did this kind of get flagged? I had the initial meeting with the employee on the 16th

[46:36] of April. The subsequent meeting was on the 18th of April. What was the 18th of April? Sorry. What

[46:42] was that? What was the 18th of April? The second meeting. So the first meeting was was preliminary

[46:48] in in nature, general conversation. Um with the request that uh this seemed very serious. uh

[46:57] we needed to see the backup information that the employee had. Um that was produced um that at the

[47:06] subsequent meeting and it was at that subsequent meeting that you know basically the the the switch

[47:12] was flipped that this is that serious that yeah we needed to get the police and the and the city's

[47:17] lawyer involved. So it was identified and this is not this is not the reporter that identified

[47:23] it. It was in the report from the from the the um the feds cuz he he pleaded guilty, but it did say

[47:30] that people were intimidating and and employees were moving money. Did you investigate any of

[47:35] that either? Because it seems a little strange that it's actually documented that people who

[47:40] worked at the COA knew what was going on and they were they were hiding money from this person. So,

[47:45] this is this might have only got come out to you on 419 or 416 2024, but this sounds like it was

[47:50] going on for a long time. So, I'm just curious about that. Again, my knowledge starts at 4:16.

[47:57] Mhm. Um, and moves on to 418. Um, from there, you know, the investigation that took place and,

[48:04] you know, what was said within the federal filings certainly wasn't anything that was ever raised

[48:09] uh to our office. Okay. Well, it's in the federal filing that the employees were hiding cash from

[48:15] Mr. Glasby. Um, and then the other question that I had was, so I understood, you know,

[48:21] we have a PO and you have the PO. I understood. Thank you very much, Miss Hovind. I I understood

[48:25] how a PO works. Um, and I didn't have a question for you. I was just kind of embarrassed for you.

[48:30] That's truly what I was feeling. Yeah. Yeah. No, I was I was embarrassed for you. Hoben,

[48:43] I wasn't answering your question. I was answering Miss McKe. You said my name. Yes.

[49:12] Recess. You have to open. Okay. So, Catherine got

[50:32] the city of Quinzy. Um, that should not have happened. And as for the other spectator, um, you

[50:39] know, I'm not giving her a pass, but she's not, you know, an appointed member of the city. So, um,

[50:45] I just wanted to apologize. I want to thank the Quinsey police for taking care of that, and I want

[50:50] to thank Chris Walker, um, you know, for trying to conference with that individual. um before

[50:57] you know that just happened. So, thank you Mr. Walker. Council Mahoney, you can continue. Oh, so

[51:10] yeah, we're going to wait till 7. Okay. What are we doing? We're waiting till 7. So,

[51:17] um council, you on? Let me just hold on one second.

[51:23] Sorry.

[51:28] Thank you chairman. Before I started to ask this crispy case, everyone just saw what happened. Is

[51:39] she here some department head? I strongly suggest administration give a discipline of

[51:47] this kind of behave. Yeah. So, council, we can't really talk about that. that's under

[51:53] the purview of the mayor to to do that. You could certainly talk to Mr. Walker, you know,

[51:59] um outside of this meeting, but we we can't really talk about um any disciplinary that

[52:05] might happen between uh you know, now and then. So, um so just be advised on that.

[52:12] Thank you. Thank you. I just feel someone put the shim on this great grand hall. That's it.

[52:24] Okay, my first question is so follow up with councelor um McKe's comment this

[52:36] officious questionable behavior since seems start of 2014 is that correct you miss Chris

[52:50] I I am not aware ware of this the anything suggesting um and it may have been in court

[52:58] at at some portion of the the uh the proceedings but um I think the investigation that that took

[53:06] place the police department and the city uh was over the course of the last several

[53:11] years what we had access to. So I'm I'm not aware of anything going back as far as 2014.

[53:19] Yes. Thank you. And so Mr. Worker, so you mentioned you start to pay attention April

[53:27] 16th. Which year is that? 2020 through uh 2024 council. Okay. Um and how how long

[53:39] has this questionable behavior uh last lasted according to the court report? I don't know.

[53:51] Is there any I know the the city investigation uh went back a number of years

[53:58] uh to what we had access to. Um once we found out that something was going on,

[54:05] that's when the switch was pulled and all the appropriate parties were then involved.

[54:13] I don't have the specific dates on the investigation on what when uh how far back

[54:21] it went. Um my knowledge is that it was several years. Um and that's as far as I can go with it.

[54:32] I actually not asking you this question.

[54:34] I just asking from the report councelor Maris mentioned 2014

[54:43] So, this is um this is a story that ran in the Patriot Ledger

[54:51] uh June 17th or updated June 17th and it said that the US attorney Christina Barklay,

[55:01] sorry. Um okay. Clausby's known improprieties began in 2014. Barkley said when he asked

[55:12] his assistant director for $260 out of petty cash to make a car payment. For the 10 years

[55:18] that followed, the various women within the department would try to hide cash from him,

[55:22] moving it around the office from one drawer or cabinet to another, Barkley said. And

[55:27] that's the US attorney. So, it seems to have been going on for 10 years at least. Who?

[55:41] Thank you. Uh, council mar provide that information. So for 10 years employees

[55:49] are hiding cash from this jaw to that jaw. For 10 years that's kind of looks like in the movie

[55:58] and how many that means not just one employee found it. I'm wondering how many employees have

[56:07] reported this to either FBI or reported to the city. How many employees have reported

[56:17] through you? Again, council, no one reported anything um to the city uh until April of 2024.

[56:33] And uh so when when did that employee start to report to FBI? So that employee reported

[56:44] to FBI first. No, the employee reported to the city first. Okay. The city then informed the

[56:50] police department. The police department conducted a thorough investigation. At some point the police

[56:55] department was joined by the federal government in that investigation. Okay. Thank you for the

[57:02] clarification. And so as I read I remember the employee reported as anonymous. Is that correct?

[57:12] She didn't uh uh report she didn't tell her name. Uh no that's not that's not true. I mean I think

[57:22] again through you Mr. chairman, I think we refrain from using the the employees name,

[57:28] but it certainly wasn't anonymous to me. Uh certainly wasn't anonymous to

[57:32] the mayor. It certainly wasn't anonymous to the investigative team. Um that person

[57:38] uh is an employee of the elder services department and they saw something wrong and they raised it.

[57:50] Um my next question is since it's already last for 10 years multiple employees hiding

[57:57] cash around why only one employee reported to the city? How about other employees? Are

[58:05] they afraid of something or they just uh and I don't know what what to say

[58:16] through you. I think I answered that that question earlier about the process and what it takes and

[58:25] what that this person committed a crime and it was through the manipulation of people that he

[58:33] committed crime. It's why there ended up being a federal indictment. It's why there were federal

[58:39] charges is because this individual used those people in a way that was against Massachusetts

[58:49] state law and against federal law. And ultimately that's what took place here. My next question is

[58:58] uh did the employee just reported a cash being stolen or she also found those fake checks or

[59:06] the checks was not being used on the right correct use through you uh council. It was it

[59:13] was both that the employee was uh aware of issues relative to the cash and the employee was also

[59:22] uh aware of and the issues with procurement. So um sorry I'm just going to stop right there because

[59:32] according to the bell outside it's 7 o'clock. So, we're going to take a recess from this oversight

[59:37] committee hearing and we're going to open the rules committee and the ordinance committee and

[59:41] the general city council meeting and then we're going to come back and continue this conversation.

[59:48] I

[1:00:30] Okay. All right.

[1:00:36] Hello everyone. Um I am just officially opening up the rules committee meeting

[1:00:42] um for June 22nd. Um we will take a recess until after we come back from various other opening ups.

[1:01:12] Good evening everybody. We're going to open the June 22nd, 2026 um council meeting. I

[1:01:19] don't have my notes. That's okay. Um could you call the Could you Yep. Sure. We call the role.

[1:01:25] Councelor Ash. Council Deona. Council Hubley. Council Jacobs. Council McKe, Council Riley,

[1:01:33] Council Ryan, Moment of Council Win, President Mahoney, present. Eight minutes. If we could

[1:01:42] all stand um for a moment of silence. I'd like to recognize tonight for the passing of Quinsey

[1:01:47] High School graduate Ka Ka Garcia Costa, a young man remembered by his teachers and his classmates

[1:01:53] for the character and kindness he had. I ask that we all observe a moment of silence in memory of

[1:01:58] Ka Kron and support of his grieving family, his loved ones, and his friends. Thank you.

[1:02:09] Can turn to pledge allegiance to the flaggy

[1:02:22] and justice for all. Y if we could read the open meeting please. Pursuant to the open meeting law,

[1:02:31] any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting

[1:02:36] through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions

[1:02:40] are being made whether perceived or unpersceived by those present and are deemed acknowledged and

[1:02:45] permissible. Thank you very much. And then we're going to we go back to finding. We're going back

[1:02:49] to um oversight. Okay, we're going to we're going to reassess and go back to oversight.

[1:03:10] Back to oversight. Councelor Yuan, you want to continue your questioning?

[1:03:16] Thank you, chairman. Just keep my question. So, uh Mr. worker. You said that employee also found

[1:03:23] some check is had you Mr. Chairman. Um there were no fake checks. Um there were purchase

[1:03:33] orders that were originally deemed suspect and then purchase orders and payments uh to various

[1:03:41] vendors that were eventually deemed criminal. But there were no there were no fake checks.

[1:03:53] If the checks didn't really pay for the real services in the department should not be just

[1:04:01] only one person found it that mean and since it's last so many years must be multiple employees have

[1:04:10] found this problem I'm just wondering why why this kind of criminal can last so many years

[1:04:20] before it was recovered through you Mr. chairman again I would repeat the the answer is that he

[1:04:31] manipulated the system he manipulated people uh that is why criminal charges were filed my next

[1:04:41] question is from the report some other counelors also mentioned the one way of his manipulation is

[1:04:52] by frequently toted departments and openly referenced his close relationship with the

[1:04:58] mayor. I'm not pointed to the mayor but I just say one way of his manipulation is through this

[1:05:04] way which intimidate the staff from reporting him and that's why last so long to recover his

[1:05:12] criminal. So for this I want to know what's the administration's opinion about that?

[1:05:20] How to prevent this kind of things happen again? Staff being intimidated by some by someone who

[1:05:32] who has a close relationship to some powerful person. Sure. Through you, Mr. Channon. This

[1:05:42] is the dictionary definition of manipulation. Doesn't mean it was true. Doesn't mean people

[1:05:50] needed to have this concern that those employees had. Uh that is what when I say

[1:05:56] the word manipulation that is what happened. This individual manipulated people into

[1:06:02] believing a certain thing which allowed him to then perpetrate this fraud on the city.

[1:06:08] Uh again, I would go back to the overall history of this administration, the our department heads,

[1:06:17] the staff that we have. Um and there has never been any kind of indication like this. Um other

[1:06:26] than in in this particular case that people need to feel like they don't that they should

[1:06:33] not be raising questions when questions are appropriate to to be asked. We've reviewed this

[1:06:37] with department heads. We've reviewed this with staff. Um the level of comfort that people have

[1:06:44] in talking directly to the administration. We have a wonderful relationship with just about all of

[1:06:49] our collective bargaining units, with all of our leaders of our collective bargaining units. Um,

[1:06:53] and I can say personally that there's not a leader collective bargaining that isn't that is afraid or

[1:07:02] or uh in any way um uncomfortable coming directly to the administration with any kind of an issue.

[1:07:10] Um, and that has been bar none the the way the process has worked over the last 18 to 19 years.

[1:07:20] So I would hate for again a person, an individual who manipulated the system, who manipulated the

[1:07:28] people to be suggested as symbolic of the way um this mayor and this community has

[1:07:36] operated over the last 19 years because it's just it the evidence does not back that up.

[1:07:46] My next question is this kind of intimidation is not just happened in one case. I can give you my

[1:08:01] own experience in 2024 when I when I connected signatures to repeal mayor's pay raise. I met

[1:08:13] several city employees even they even they are willing even they disagree about this

[1:08:23] pay raise they want to sign but they afraid to sign it and one extreme case is one firefighter

[1:08:34] who has signed his name on it but since his name is on the top of that signing sheet and

[1:08:42] He immediately taught it and asked me to give him another signing sheet with several names

[1:08:51] already on it so he can hide his name among those names. So what uh what is he afraid of?

[1:09:01] I thought in America signing petition is every citizen's constitution right should be protected.

[1:09:11] Why a firefighter supposed to be a most brave man even afraid about signing his

[1:09:19] name on the petition? And if this happened in this city and not just only one case, several

[1:09:30] employees also including teachers, they want to sign but they are not they dare not to sign.

[1:09:40] Um that's why I thought that this is not just one case uh staff been manipulated to be intimidated

[1:09:50] to report some very questional behave. I think the atmosphere the working atmosphere has some

[1:09:59] problems. Also residents have reported for years that nepartisan is rampant in this city.

[1:10:10] This city has entrenched power and entrenched interests that make change very difficult because

[1:10:19] no one wants their wasted interests challenged or affected. They will push back against

[1:10:27] reform-minded new counselors sometimes even to the extent of personal attacks. I can illust

[1:10:36] illustrate it more. Okay, let me just speak all I want to say. My home address and the councelor

[1:10:44] McKis home address were posted on that Facebook page with the words let her know how we feel

[1:10:53] followed to our addresses. This is openly inviting harassment. Yet many employees and officials who

[1:11:03] are active on that Facebook page said nothing about this. said nothing about this beyond an

[1:11:10] acceptable post. Silence is violence. Residents are taking note. I encourage I encourage residents

[1:11:20] to stay vigilant. Making change is never easy. Electing reformed counselors is only the first

[1:11:29] step. Real meaningful change can only be achieved through constant public engagement and oversight.

[1:11:39] Thank you to the residents who continue to stay involved and pay attention just like

[1:11:45] that employee is brave enough to report this criminal behave. We don't want another class

[1:11:53] B case to happen. We need to we need to clean house and end the culture of nepotism. Thank you.

[1:12:09] All right. Do any other counselors have questions? Councelor McKe. Um,

[1:12:16] so I wondered when did um Mr. Clausby take the helm of elder services?

[1:12:28] You would ask me that, council. Uh, it was well before I'm being whispered that it was 1999.

[1:12:36] Okay. So before Mayor Cook took office. Okay. So I guess one other point that concerns me is that

[1:12:46] in 2009, Mr. Clausby stepped down from the board of a nonprofit that he was on. Um, and according

[1:12:56] to the the ledger, he helped his parents move into a unit that had been owned by the nonprofit. Um,

[1:13:06] even though another, um, another person was first on the waiting list. So, um I guess I'm if he was

[1:13:17] there as the head of elder services before that and then showed this kind of judgment in 2009,

[1:13:26] it suggests and he was able to still hold that position. Um I don't know if anything,

[1:13:34] you know, I it doesn't seem like anything happened to him or he lost his position

[1:13:40] there. So that was a red flag that I think was a missed opportunity. Um through through you,

[1:13:46] Mr. Chairman, I don't know the veracity that that my recollection of that issue. Um was that that

[1:13:52] was during a year there were a number of things um as this body well knows that get thrown out

[1:13:59] in politics and and things are written, things are said. Um but the level of veracity that I have no

[1:14:06] is approaching now 18 years ago. Um I don't know the ver the the veracity in my my my my head is

[1:14:16] that that was largely uh disputed at the time and it was he said he said sort of situation.

[1:14:24] Okay. Um the other issue that um I just want to highlight uh we've brought it up before and

[1:14:34] um we're told that it's kind of a nothing burger, but it did it did raise concerns for me. Um when

[1:14:42] I was looking at the purchase orders for the fire gear um in the past, I noticed that um the former

[1:14:53] finance director's signature was on some of those from um two of those from months after he had left

[1:15:03] his post, which raised questions for me about who was overseeing these purchase orders And

[1:15:11] um I do I do think that kind of cumulatively we we need a better we need to look really carefully

[1:15:18] at these systems um because that shouldn't be allowed to happen even if it didn't go out to

[1:15:27] people. the fact that it was still there raises questions about who's overseeing it and if anyone

[1:15:33] is overseeing it and if so why is it being allowed to continue? Thank you. Is there a question? Was

[1:15:44] there Did you have a question about we just No, I'm just I'm I'm concerned about it. That's all.

[1:15:52] All right. Thank uh councelor Mahoney. I didn't really

[1:15:59] So I think I was talking to Molly when she first came up and I don't mean to go back and forth,

[1:16:07] but I I was going into the purchase order first. But so just for clarification,

[1:16:14] so you can't go back to 2014 or can you go back? It's just not your records.

[1:16:18] So I can go back to 2014 for MUNS receipts which I think councelor Jacobs requested and we provided.

[1:16:26] So we can what we can't do is provide the paper turnover sheet. So mass um I I can't I don't

[1:16:33] have room for 10 years of records in our office. So we follow the records retention schedule set

[1:16:38] forth by the state. So we only have the last two fiscal years in physically in the office. Okay.

[1:16:44] And then I don't know who this is for, but I'm assuming everybody in the city who has to touch

[1:16:49] physical cash is bonded. Is that correct? That is incorrect. That's incorrect. Um, so and why

[1:16:54] is that? Because if they're transferring money, they're supposed to be. I thought So I don't know

[1:16:59] the specifics on that. Um, so I'm bonded, right? So So my staff um people in my staff are bonded.

[1:17:05] I'm bonded. I don't know if um the extent of what that looks like for different departments,

[1:17:11] but it's certainly something I could look at. So maybe that's through to Chris Walker. Um

[1:17:14] that is a policy that should happen because if you're transporting cash from the COA,

[1:17:19] which is in North Quinzy to city hall, you're carrying whatever $2,000 a week,

[1:17:24] that should be bonded because that car could be stolen or something could happen. And you know,

[1:17:28] if you're not bonding them, then you're not that's another safeguard that we're not doing.

[1:17:31] And that's that's something that we should be doing and that's good practice. And I'm surprised

[1:17:35] we're not. So anybody that would be the schools, too. So if the schools are carrying money over,

[1:17:39] somebody should be whoever the delivery person should be at least bonded. It doesn't take much.

[1:17:43] It's an insurance policy. And if you did, if it was bonded, you could go back to 2014 and

[1:17:47] potentially collect some of that money that goes back that far. So if this was identified in 2014,

[1:17:52] my next question was, who was the assistant in 2014? And who is the assistant now in the for the

[1:17:58] not? I really would rather not. I just I'm asking a question. I need to know that because I don't

[1:18:03] know. I don't know. Okay. So you don't know who the assistant was? 20 in 2014. I don't know that

[1:18:08] we had an assistant. So I know who it was. So it was it before it was Marie it was somebody named

[1:18:14] Kathy Bose. So, the reason why I'm bringing that up is because tonight although we were talking

[1:18:21] about things and saying that and I'm changing the subject right now, but I'm going to change

[1:18:24] it because we're talking we we had a purchasing person up here who was directly talking to us

[1:18:31] talking down to us cuz she knows that she can say what she wants to at that microphone and there's

[1:18:35] going to be no this she won't be fired tomorrow. But here's the interesting thing going back to

[1:18:40] 2014. If I just look at the track record of what we're talking about, we're looking at in 2014,

[1:18:45] I just lost my notes because I had it written down someplace. In 2014, what we know is that

[1:18:51] um Glazby was the was the COA director. Kathy Bose was I think the assistant because I know when I

[1:18:56] would go in there, I was told I'm not invited in there because I'm not elected official, but I was

[1:19:00] an elected official, so that really bothered her that I got to go in. Chief Keenan was the chief

[1:19:06] and Mayor Ko is the is the mayor. Eric Mason was probably not yet the chief financial officer, but

[1:19:13] when this all happened, he was. And most of these people, well, Ko, Eric, Glasby, and Mark Kerry,

[1:19:21] who was in the recording studio, are all part of the Men of Divine Mercy. I find it impossible

[1:19:25] to believe that that optic isn't standing out to everybody. And I'm bringing that I wasn't planning

[1:19:30] on bringing that up tonight, but I'm bringing it up tonight just because of the actions of one of

[1:19:34] your directors coming up and speaking to us. completely unprofessional and yeah, I'm sorry,

[1:19:40] but that that needs to be said. So, when we talking about this, we're not trying to say

[1:19:43] that there's only one bad actor. What I'm trying to say is there was something really bad going

[1:19:47] on at the COA. The person's not bonded. We know that they were moving money around. It was in a

[1:19:52] report and we want to say that we've got all the safeguards figured out, but we don't bond people.

[1:19:58] And you know, the other things that we're not I haven't heard anything about reconciliation. We

[1:20:02] have revolving accounts at the schools. Are we are we are we reconciling those on a monthly basis? Do

[1:20:06] we know that there's no money missing from that's a lot of money in revolving accounts and it's

[1:20:09] not just that it's also in our water and so we have revolving accounts don't we do we reconcile

[1:20:14] those to the dollar I mean just curious because this is a as you said this is a half a billion

[1:20:20] dollar business that we're running here so and although this might be small money it's money

[1:20:24] that came from our seniors and we should all be horrified and why wasn't there anybody from the

[1:20:29] city representing those seniors at that at that judgment that's what I really want nobody from the

[1:20:35] city was Okay. So, so just as a couple points of clarity, so we absolutely reconcile monthly. Um,

[1:20:41] we reconciled to within $10 of fiscal year 2024. So, we we 100% reconcile. It's hard to reconcile

[1:20:48] something that was stolen. I know. I just I'm just pointing it out because not because I'm

[1:20:54] there certainly am not upset with you at all. What I am upset with is the optics of what we're

[1:20:58] what we're all living through. I'm a resident of the city, too, and it's embarrassing. So,

[1:21:02] then I might just say the second thing. So, I was subpoenaed for that. um for Wednesday and the FBI

[1:21:07] asked that I didn't that I not come. So So yes, there were certainly I was planning on going up

[1:21:12] until they asked you not to come. Correct. Yeah. It just looks bad again that this this optic of

[1:21:18] who was in trouble and that nobody from the city went to protect the residents, the pe the seniors

[1:21:24] in the city. It looked as though hey, you know what? We're just going to quietly step over here.

[1:21:29] And you and I realized the connections. I'm not by any means. I just point them all out to you. Those

[1:21:34] are connections in our city. Those are the optics. So if if you're working underneath Tom Clasby,

[1:21:39] the COA director, and he's saying, you know, you better not say anything to me. I'm I'm positive

[1:21:44] nobody's saying anything because that's that's the that's the reality of something. I mean, if you

[1:21:49] work in a family business, you don't say anything bad about the family, the guy that's running the

[1:21:52] family business to the brother. That's, you know, that's how it's working here. And I'm not pointing

[1:21:56] fingers, but I am suggesting like it's great to sit up here and say, you know, I think you did a

[1:22:00] great job, Molly. I really do cuz you called in on a Friday night. You've got three kids.

[1:22:04] You're probably like, "That wasn't my plan for the weekend." And you and same thing with you, Chief

[1:22:09] Kennedy. You did a great job. Same with you, Paul. However, it seems to me that there should have

[1:22:14] been flags much earlier than what you did. And you know, I think the only real reason, truthfully,

[1:22:20] this is just my opinion. The only real reason why this even got any anything he got walked out the

[1:22:25] door is because it was the the the federal part of it. I'm sorry. That's how it feels through you,

[1:22:30] Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry, council. That you can say you're sorry. I'm pretty mad already. So that's

[1:22:35] I'm sorry. No, that's that's just not that's just not true. He was terminated before the federal

[1:22:40] government was even involved. Mhm. So in 2009 when he did this and that's usually that's the start

[1:22:47] of something when somebody No, in 2009 you said you said that was a political thing. I don't know

[1:22:51] if it was a political thing or not. in 2009 he um got his parents into it and then um and relatively

[1:22:58] shortly after somebody else's family member got into the naval terrace as well. I I really did not

[1:23:05] want to go in that direction, but I will say that it is incredibly incredibly impossible not to look

[1:23:11] at the optics of what we're looking at here and to suggest that anything different is happening.

[1:23:17] I'm going to go to my end because this is probably better for me to you know.

[1:23:26] So ultimately this resulted in a federal criminal prosecution. What assurances can

[1:23:34] the administration provide that similar misconduct not occurring elsewhere in city government such as

[1:23:38] department heads coming up and just calling people out? That's that's the fact because she might not

[1:23:43] be stealing something, but she's she's certainly behaving in a way that's not really professional.

[1:23:50] What independent review has been conducted to verify that other departments do not have the

[1:23:54] same vulnerabilities that existed in the elder services? What safeguards now exist that would

[1:24:00] have detected this scheme much earlier earlier because it's been going on from what it sounds

[1:24:06] like since 2014. And there were people there with, you know, let me tell you, I don't think those

[1:24:10] people were afraid to go and tell the mayor what was going on. They might have even been helping in

[1:24:14] a bedding. How quickly would similar misconduct be detected today? These are real questions. I mean,

[1:24:23] you can tell me you have the safeguards in place, but how quickly would these things happen? Yeah.

[1:24:28] So, um, so I'm happy to go through the policies again. So, I I certainly, this is before my time.

[1:24:34] I am not aiding and abetting anybody. I promise. Um, I also I think we've put some really strict

[1:24:41] policies into place and we're doing the on-site. I can't change the past. Um, I actually don't know

[1:24:48] if I even met him. So, so I I can't change the past. I cannot change what we've done. I can what

[1:24:54] I can do is control what's happening moving forward. Moving forward, we are doing annual

[1:24:59] on-site. We are doing annual reviews. We are thoroughly looking at all of these departments.

[1:25:05] my team is calling departments saying, "We haven't seen you this week. What's going on?" So, that's

[1:25:10] something I I can't I can't go back in time, but but what I can do and what I can promise and I and

[1:25:16] I hope my track record speaks for itself, my team really is fantastic. Um, and so, so certainly,

[1:25:25] yes, something bad happened. I can put all the policies and procedures into place. My policies

[1:25:31] still don't say don't steal. They still don't say that because that's the law. They don't.

[1:25:35] And the thing is is there's this is this is one that actually stuck and somebody got caught. But

[1:25:39] this isn't the first time that you've heard of somebody's being removed because there and those

[1:25:44] are the rumors, Chris, that don't necessarily make it out there. But there's lots of those like

[1:25:48] something happened and this person's being removed because they were doing stuff during work time and

[1:25:52] they had stuff. I a lot of that's happening and I I just that those are rumors though. So, but this

[1:25:59] one was this was you know this was not a rumor. this is the real thing. So, I question, you know,

[1:26:04] I'm sure there's other things that are happening well within the city because I can tell you that

[1:26:08] the um the bravado of who you're connected to does matter in the city. And that's not pretend. That's

[1:26:14] not a pretend thing. I mean, it just isn't. And Molly, I know I know how hard you work. I came

[1:26:20] in and met with you. I met your department. I and I came in and met with Paul and his department. I

[1:26:24] know that you put those safeguards into place and I know you put your best effort forward.

[1:26:28] I suggest also getting them bonded though because that would be able to be something you could have

[1:26:32] cashed in on a little bit because of the loss. Not it'll probably be $10,000 but it's something that

[1:26:37] everybody that's carrying cash in the city should be and and that so then I'd have to come for an

[1:26:42] appropriation that it's it's dozens of people that doesn't matter. Yeah. So we certainly you can say

[1:26:47] it's dozens of people. That's like saying I'm only going to get one license to use Adobe like I you

[1:26:51] know you got to if you have if you're running a half a billion dollar budget then you need to

[1:26:54] have multiple people on it. And if you want to cheap out on it, then when the person steals,

[1:26:59] which happens, I'm not saying you're cheaping out, but I mean, if the person steals or gets

[1:27:03] robbed or something, then it's shame on us for not having that. I understand we're self-insured.

[1:27:08] What happens with the money that gets recovered from I believe it's Mr. Clasby's pension that

[1:27:13] he's going to have to pay back. What happens to the money that comes back into this? Does

[1:27:15] it go back into the Is this a question for Mr. Walker? I'm not sure who it's a question for.

[1:27:20] I think that would be miscellaneous non-recurring revenue. Sorry, I don't mean to make a joke. It's

[1:27:24] getting it's getting tense, but I I think it would go into miscellaneous non-recurring revenue. Um,

[1:27:29] and it would go back into the city's coffers. Mhm. So, it would go into free cash. So,

[1:27:33] and the reason why I asked that because where do where would it normally have gone to when

[1:27:36] it comes into the same place? So, it would go into the senior center account. It would go

[1:27:40] into the what? The senior center account. So, the $136,000 it would come in would normally when it

[1:27:46] came in the right way would go into the senior center account. And in this particular case, it

[1:27:49] would go into miscellaneous. Is that what you're talking? I'm just speculating. Sorry. I was just

[1:27:52] making I'm just asking. I'm asking. I was just making a joke. I don't know where it would go. I

[1:27:57] We could put it into the senior center account. Certainly. I wasn't sure. Yeah. I So, it's it's

[1:28:03] it's fine. You're lightening the mood. But but again, you know, when I'm looking at this and I

[1:28:08] I I did I found it a little bit just alarming for somebody who had done something so egregious to

[1:28:14] the seniors in our city, the people who we talk about and and should be most concerned about,

[1:28:20] but yet nobody from the city went there. And I I sorry councelor that again there were there

[1:28:28] were staff city staff from elder services at the sentencing on Wednesday. So only his family moved.

[1:28:36] Y uh if I may answer that question for you. Um the way the uh disposition in the federal court went

[1:28:45] um that's a uh reimbursement that's being paid to the city. Uh there was no penalty assessed against

[1:28:52] Mr. Clasby, but he was ordered to return the funds in the amounts 130 some odd thousand. Um it's a

[1:29:01] negotiated amount that goes back into the general fund. The only way it could go anywhere else would

[1:29:07] be through an appropriation process, but that's um I forget the term. I used to know the term,

[1:29:14] but there's a term for money that the city receives that's unassigned to any particular

[1:29:21] um matter or reason, and that money goes into the general fund. Thank you. So, I guess the last

[1:29:32] question I'd have is um so I've learned a lot. What has the administration learned from this

[1:29:38] um this organizational cultural reporting, oversight, accountability, public confidence,

[1:29:45] um lessons that have been implemented throughout the city government and how do we make people

[1:29:50] realize that it doesn't matter who you know, if you do something wrong, you're going to get fired.

[1:29:54] I just curious about that because it is a who you know here. So, I through you, Mr. Chairman, again,

[1:30:02] I obviously couldn't disagree uh more vehemently relative to that. I think the track record speaks

[1:30:08] for itself. Uh that there was a person that used that manipulated the system to criminal ends. Uh

[1:30:16] and that is what happened here. Uh the public has shown great faith in the city. Uh the city

[1:30:22] is showing great faith in the public. I would again look at the bigger picture and everything

[1:30:29] that goes on in this community. Um there is no reason and there is no real evidence that

[1:30:37] there's any sort of culture that was suggestive of what has been raised previously. It doesn't

[1:30:43] it doesn't exist. People may think a certain way. They may be manipulated into thinking a certain

[1:30:48] way by certain individuals who are perpetrating crimes. But it quite simply does not exist.

[1:31:11] All right. So I sorry I have a few questions here. Um Miss Smith, if I could just ask you a few

[1:31:18] questions. Sorry. So today I I had the opportunity um after work to go down to Elder Services and

[1:31:28] uh speak with Mrs. Hanley and you know on top of giving me a tour of everything that was going on

[1:31:34] at Elder Services um she let me sit in on while they were doing like the the fee remittance um

[1:31:41] and she kind of walked me through the steps of how it happens down there, right? Um I guess I'm just

[1:31:48] curious like what happens. He just walked through like what happens when it gets to your office. So

[1:31:53] that envelope is sealed, right? It has like the you know the cash is in there and it's wrapped up

[1:31:59] in the yellow sheet of paper that she has and it has the amount of people who took you know chair

[1:32:05] yoga zoom zumba you know and the amount of money. So what happens when it gets to your office? So

[1:32:10] the format what it will look like will vary by department but the procedure is always going to be

[1:32:16] the same. So the clerk at the time of receipt will verify the cash in front of the other departmental

[1:32:24] employee who's doing the drop off the turnover. Um so we will if there's cash a cash component. So

[1:32:31] maybe I'll if there's cash in the turnover we will run it through our cash recycler that will kick

[1:32:36] out any fraudulent bills and we'll double count the amount. We'll verify that amount with what's

[1:32:42] on the turnover sheet. If those two match we will stamp it paid. We will then prepare a deposit slip

[1:32:49] um to go to our bank. If the deposit has checks, if it's a small amount of checks,

[1:32:56] sometimes departments are dropping off two or three checks. We can easily do the math right

[1:33:00] there. There are sometimes where a department is dropping off dozens of checks. Um and so

[1:33:05] we don't have the capacity at that moment in time to to count it instantly. So, what we'll do is we

[1:33:11] will email that department um back their copy once we've verified and and gone through those amounts.

[1:33:17] If there's cash, it is always being counted at the time of the turnover. Um, as part of our new

[1:33:23] policies, you may not um leave a turnover in the window without a clerk receiving it. So,

[1:33:31] um so I'll use sorry, chief. I'll use police as an example where police are they're they're

[1:33:36] up earlier than my staff is. And so there was a moment in time where they were putting it into our

[1:33:41] um windows and leaving it. And so we've we've stopped that um entirely. So once it comes into

[1:33:48] my department, we've stamped it, we've verified the funds and the amounts. We will then batch

[1:33:54] all of the day's receipts together. Um we will put that into our cashbook, which is a ledger,

[1:34:00] um an independent ledger from Munis. We will then input the receipts into Munis into the respective

[1:34:08] code that was indicated on the turnover sheet. Um it will then kind of flow through the rest of the

[1:34:13] batching process. Um it will go over to our bank. Okay. So do you ever actually do any of that or is

[1:34:22] that just somebody on your staff that does that? Oh, we all do it. So, ideally, it's um you're

[1:34:27] separating all of those duties. And so, I have a front um clerk who will receive the cash, verify

[1:34:34] the cash, and stamp it. Ideally, a second person is also verifying that second that that amount of

[1:34:42] cash. So, we have a second sign off. That person will input it into Munis. they will put all of the

[1:34:49] receipts from Munis from that day in and then it will then flow into me and I will post the

[1:34:55] entire day onto um into the the system. So let me just kind of throw this out as an example and

[1:35:01] I'm not saying you're this is you but let's say you're related let's say Mr. Clasby brought those

[1:35:07] things in and you were related to him, right? Do you think it would be okay for you to remit

[1:35:14] those fees? No. No. Because I have it I did some research and the former city treasurer Deborah

[1:35:25] Coughlin and Tom Clasby are related through you, Mr. Chan. I mean, we're getting we are going down

[1:35:33] paths that are entirely in my mind respectfully inappropriate to suggest that the any treasurer

[1:35:40] collector of the city had we're just getting down to the levels of insinuation um that I don't

[1:35:47] believe respectfully is doing is doing anyone any good. Um, if there was a relationship there, it's

[1:35:53] it's third it's it's getting respectfully down a path. I'm just asking questions. I'm I'm glad to

[1:36:01] know that you would not you would recuse yourself as I think any person should. That's all that's on

[1:36:09] that's all I'm saying about that. If yes, I would not do that. Um, so the the uh person or the um

[1:36:20] sorry the uh vendor who was out of state uh from New York, what what uh service did they provide

[1:36:30] for the city? What service was it said was being provided? I think it was a fraud a fraudulent

[1:36:35] service. So no service was provided. Yeah, but what what service did they say was being provided?

[1:36:39] I believe it was a consulting um consulting for what? Yeah. Are you coming? I believe it was a

[1:36:46] consulting. Um I'm not sure. You want me to give it? Sure. Yeah. Counselor, that was uh part of

[1:36:53] the fraud. Yeah. I know. I'm just asking what was the I mean because there was obviously uh a form

[1:36:59] filled out was obviously given to Mrs. Logan and the purchasing department. So there was obviously

[1:37:05] some um you know service that they said that they were providing. I'm just curious what that service

[1:37:12] is. If we don't know that's okay. Maybe you can tell me later. I'm just curious to the to the

[1:37:16] extent that we're conducting a productive oversight hearing um where the legislative

[1:37:24] body of government is trying to work with the executive branch and help improve things. Um,

[1:37:31] I can tell you that there's nowhere really to go as far as further inquiry into the company in New

[1:37:38] York because that was clearly a shell. Although, as the treasurer explain, uh, the purchasing agent

[1:37:45] explained, it all checked out. That was part of the fraud. They had a, uh, federal ID number.

[1:37:52] They were registered in the state of New York, but they didn't provide service. And I don't know if

[1:37:58] anyone read the sentencing memorandum. I did. I still haven't been able to find I checked tonight

[1:38:07] for the first time tonight. I heard about the 2014 um incident. And the only thing I can find

[1:38:15] in the record and the federal court about 2014 is that when we started that's when the city

[1:38:21] started doing what are those sheets called for the cash? Turnover. turnover sheets. Um the way

[1:38:28] it's reported in the federal court is 2014 is when the turnover sheets began. Um there's no reference

[1:38:37] to what it is and and I saw the same thing that council McKe said she saw. It was only reported

[1:38:44] in the Patriot Ledger. Um which I note I recently corrected some date errors in. But to the extent

[1:38:52] you want to go down that road, there's no road whatsoever to go down with uh former treasurer

[1:39:00] Deb Coughlin who is an outstanding individual question I had had no record. Excuse me. That's

[1:39:06] not May I finish my answer, please? And then the question I'm addressing the chair. The

[1:39:11] question I had. Could I get a point of order from a council? The question The question I asked This

[1:39:16] isn't supposed to happen. No, I'm No, I'm not. The question I had was what service because there

[1:39:24] was a form filled out was given to the purchasing department that said what service this fraudulent

[1:39:31] person was providing. I'm just curious what was the service because I'm hoping that someone in

[1:39:37] the purchase department looked at this and said, "Oh yes, this is the service they're providing.

[1:39:41] That seems logical to the services for elder service." So what I'm asking is what was the

[1:39:48] service the fraudulent service that that that was being provided. All right. Well, I answered that

[1:39:56] and it was part of the fraud. So there was clearly no service. um they were listed as a consultant

[1:40:05] and the purchasing department cannot look behind one contract for the amount of money involved when

[1:40:12] they're running 40,000 transactions a year. So that was part of the fraud and I had moved on to

[1:40:18] councelor I'd rather former treasure coughlin because to bring her name into this was the

[1:40:25] microphone just turned off. Yep. You're all done. Thank you. Well, I'm not all done. Okay. for the

[1:40:31] record and I'll let at least the people present here that this is how this transparent group of

[1:40:38] individuals who are supposed to be working with the executive branch are actually working. You're

[1:40:45] making insinuations that are an absolute disgrace about a treasurer who served with honor had no

[1:40:52] reason to recuse herself from anything and it's a disgrace that her name was brought into it.

[1:40:58] We are here to participate in an oversight process and this has been a political rally

[1:41:06] similar to what I objected to back in January. This is an over it's not an oversight process

[1:41:11] when you come in here and don't answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

[1:41:19] Would anyone else like to Would anyone else like to answer that question? Do you

[1:41:23] know the answer to that? Chief Kennedy. Chief Kennedy. Yes. Yep. Thank you. Sorry. Yep. Um,

[1:41:33] at the beginning, I don't have my notes up here yet. They removed, but at the beginning,

[1:41:36] you said that um, a detective was dispatched out, I think, on the 18th. I don't have the notes. Who

[1:41:42] can you say who that was? Who was the detective who initiated this investigation? Yeah. So, well,

[1:41:48] I had two detectives working that night after I left the mayor's office. Uh, Detective Lieutenant

[1:41:52] Steo Donghue and, um, Detective uh, Bill Mont. uh who does a lot of our financial crimes work

[1:41:59] happened to be working. So uh I gave them the heads up that night and uh they immediately

[1:42:04] started working on it. Okay. Thank you. I just was I just was curious. That's all. Um

[1:42:19] all right. Uh any of the coun you have a question. I can't see that.

[1:42:28] Thank you, chairman. This question is for an missed worker. So, just follow your comment.

[1:42:37] You keep saying it's just the one bad actors, one bad actor manipulate people into thinking

[1:42:48] they they can't report him, intimidated him. But I want to ask how about other employees like that

[1:42:59] firefighter they are not sign petition even he finally signed to hide his name whom manipulated

[1:43:06] him and the several teachers want to sign it they are not sign it even though teacher always

[1:43:13] teachers always teaches student to uphold your constitution right but finally themselves dare

[1:43:21] not to sign the petition what they wanted sign who manipulated them and this I just asked these two

[1:43:31] questions and I would like to know what kind of at atmosphere in this city and what's the answer

[1:43:42] the administration can give right uh through you Mr. chairman. Um, in response to that question,

[1:43:50] first of all, it's very difficult to know, um, I'm not questioning your veracity,

[1:43:58] but the truth of the allegations that have been conveyed to you. So, you're asking us to respond

[1:44:04] to pure speculation. I'm sure you're familiar with the fact having worked in the public sector at the

[1:44:11] library with folks who are in a union that there can be fissurers within a union and there can be

[1:44:19] people who get along with others and people who don't and whatnot and there are statements that

[1:44:25] that can be made. So we can't respond to that type of question raised by you because it's really in

[1:44:33] the world of allegation human interaction that goes on everywhere. So the city is not taking

[1:44:39] any steps to address the world of rumors in the workforce. That's that would be overwhelmingly

[1:44:47] difficult to do. Thank you. Uh followup. So in 2024 we did report this kind of uh situation

[1:44:58] like uh employees want to sign the petition but they are not. Instead of alarmed by this kind

[1:45:06] of situations city administration should be feel really cautious why employees are afraid of it.

[1:45:16] Instead of doing that you are very defensive about uh we put forward this question. I think

[1:45:25] to work with to to work with resident to ensure a health open environment for not only for employees

[1:45:39] for people work together. We should really take a serious consideration of why people will be afraid

[1:45:50] to exercise their constitution rights. I think for any any officers, any employee, any resident,

[1:46:02] if you live in America, a democratic country, the beacon of democracy, you should take this matter

[1:46:11] seriously and consider how can we improve. I just say that. Okay. All right. one of the conflicting,

[1:46:22] you know, viewpoints you have to consider. You were talking all kinds of constitutional

[1:46:29] um notions and teachers teaching in high school and that's all terrific, but it's also the case

[1:46:35] that for the government, for the executive branch to get involved in a situation where people have

[1:46:42] conflicting views, and that's really what you're talking about, some on one side of a petition,

[1:46:47] some on another. we can't be taking steps to enforce someone's right to sign a petition

[1:46:54] for fear that we will be impeding the right of someone who opposes the position. So that's our

[1:46:59] major reason for staying out of things like that. And although you know your your general notion is

[1:47:06] um is a good one and a fair one. Uh the problem is as we've seen plenty this year

[1:47:14] um you know the democratic process can get a little messy and a little difficult because

[1:47:20] views conflict. So that's why I we wouldn't be taking any further steps in that regard.

[1:47:31] Um

[1:47:41] Thank you. Um, since I brought this forward, I would like to ask that you just indulge me with

[1:47:45] a few um, closing remarks. I want to thank Chief Kennedy, u, Miss Smith, and Mr. Delabara for being

[1:47:51] here tonight and answering our questions. Um, but I do think that there are some areas that could be

[1:47:56] improved. Um, I think comprehensive fraud training or I'm sorry, comprehensive fraud policy, not just

[1:48:02] a cash management policy would be beneficial encompassing cash and procurement and municipal

[1:48:08] finance. Um, I think that the fraud training that myself and and certainly Council McKe have been

[1:48:13] through should be available and and required of all department heads and employees. I think a

[1:48:18] third party whistleblower reporting um mechanism should be implemented separate from the city.

[1:48:24] And I think a review of procurement and purchasing policies and procedures um should definitely be

[1:48:29] revisited. Some of the questions that I asked here tonight, while I can appreciate um why Miss Smith

[1:48:34] was the one fielding those, u many of them really should have been gone to the purchasing and what I

[1:48:38] witnessed here tonight did not give me confidence that there have been lessons learned in that area.

[1:48:43] Um, I personally had an incident with a public records request a couple of years ago. Um,

[1:48:49] that I was asking for basic information and um, the response from the purchasing head was uh,

[1:48:57] that she found my tone threatening. She CCed Chief Kennedy and um, I never got the information that I

[1:49:03] requested and I backed off. I did feel intimidated and I did not pursue it and instead I ran for

[1:49:09] city council again. Um and finally, I think that the Munis implementation for electronic

[1:49:14] invoice payments um should be implemented across all departments within a year. And

[1:49:19] I think that that's a reasonable goal. I think it would protect against fraud, waste, and abuse

[1:49:23] and help to detect any anomalies in reporting. So, thank you very much for being here tonight.

[1:49:34] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh Molly, I did have a couple questions if you have a if you can indulge

[1:49:39] me. Um did you say that the site visits are one time annual or semiannual? So we've started doing

[1:49:47] them annually. It's a it's a significant lift for my team. So um there's only three people in

[1:49:54] the treasury staff. So it's it's hard to take everybody out of the office. Um but yes, we've

[1:49:58] been doing them annually. And are you all going together? Is so it's myself and two of my staff

[1:50:03] members. Correct. Um, do do the do the departments receive the annual department revenue site visit

[1:50:09] checklist? Is this internal for your office or is this do you send this to the the department

[1:50:14] prior to your visit? So, a little bit of both. We do prepare um we we gather some information

[1:50:18] before we've gone. So, um just so that it's a more informed discussion. So, we're making sure they're

[1:50:24] sending us their updated policies and procedures before we go. Um so that if we have changes, I

[1:50:29] don't I don't like to go anything without reading it through. Um, so I am a preparer for meetings

[1:50:34] and so we prepare for meetings and so we we look at their policies and procedures before we go

[1:50:39] in. Okay. Um, and the with respect to the actual reviews, are the reviews public or where where are

[1:50:50] the reviews kept or held? So they're not public um in this binder. So So they're not public. We

[1:50:57] certainly could look at um a lot of these things. Again, the departments on the whole are doing a

[1:51:02] really lovely job. Some of these things are are tweaks to um what I was referencing earlier,

[1:51:07] having a second person there when they're counting the cash, for example. Um so they're not public,

[1:51:13] but it's certainly something we could explore. And and you mentioned this is largely modeled

[1:51:18] after the town of Sterling. Is that right? Um so maybe a point of clarification. So DLS department

[1:51:24] um division of local services had gone into the town of Sterling I presume for some type of

[1:51:30] um review and they drafted financial policies for the town of Sterling. So when I was doing research

[1:51:38] um because my goal was is always like well what is everyone else doing? So I was trying to find best

[1:51:45] practices for the senior center and so if DLS was kind of blessing those best practices my thought

[1:51:52] was we should do the same and as I was doing the reading on that we were already doing it. And then

[1:52:00] um you know this may be a good a good note for for you to end on at least with with my questions. Um

[1:52:06] I do have a few other points but I know you have a program an app rolling out on July 1st. You know,

[1:52:12] I think what kind of the overarching sentiment here is the less cash the better because the the

[1:52:18] less uh room for error or margin of error or room for for fraud or a bad actor as as you say. So

[1:52:24] um I know you have Pay Quinzy MA rolling out next week if you wanted to touch on that. Yeah,

[1:52:31] thanks for the plug. Um so yes, we are launching a new online payment system um with the goal really

[1:52:37] being to give departments the opportunity and the um the mechanism for accepting non-cash or check

[1:52:47] payments. So and actually councelor Ryan perfect timing. So, councelor Ryan had the same question

[1:52:52] on can we look at maybe eliminating cash and I think um my my prior life in the private sector we

[1:53:01] were always striving for efficiency and that cash would have been the first thing to go. When you

[1:53:05] look at government, we need to service all types of people. We need to offer payment methods that

[1:53:12] um for the unbanked population for people who maybe don't want a credit or debit card for

[1:53:17] um populations that that don't have bank accounts. So, we really need to be able to provide services

[1:53:24] to all sorts of people. So, eliminating the cash I I do think changes um the services that we can

[1:53:31] really offer to different types of people. Um thank you. And then um I guess I'll just end you

[1:53:37] know I I know a number of my fellow counselors um discussed tonight you know whistleblowing and just

[1:53:44] really reiterate that the city is an employer. You know the employees of the city many are in

[1:53:48] different unions and certainly there's a human resources department. You know they we are the

[1:53:53] employees of the city are afforded protections. Massachusetts has uh you know whistleblower

[1:53:58] statutes and whatnot. So certainly to the extent that that was brought up today, just you know make

[1:54:02] sure that of course everyone at home to the to to that point. Um with respect to the and Molly

[1:54:11] this isn't really a question for you but just something I wanted to note the the um internal

[1:54:18] audit service uh elder services operations review date August 27th, 2025. There is um you know a

[1:54:26] spreadsheet in here with what's labeled um list of AP transactions deemed suspect after review

[1:54:33] of invoices. I just want to make sure that to the extent that this is that this list is is public

[1:54:39] that folks um you know see businesses on here that certainly shouldn't be implicated in this. Um and

[1:54:44] I I don't want to see that spiral. Um, I know that this investigation was obviously investigated by

[1:54:52] a number of bureaus, QPD, federally, um, a number of different boards. So, to the extent that this

[1:54:57] list, um, has transactions from two businesses, uh, reiterate that, um, as far as I'm concerned

[1:55:03] sitting here, they shouldn't be implicated in um, in this. So, thank you very much.

[1:55:18] Thank you chairman. Um through you. So like most of us when I saw the news reports of this fraud

[1:55:27] and crime I was deeply saddened. I was deeply saddened but that by the fact that I mean all

[1:55:34] fraud and all crime is obviously on its face bad but this is skimming instances of skimming dollars

[1:55:43] from seniors who have a fixed income and for chair yoga right I mean just that type of thing it it

[1:55:50] was just really upsetting um right after getting sworn in I reached out to director Hanley and

[1:56:00] asked if I could come down and and go through all their procedures that they've put in place in her

[1:56:05] tenure. I know she came in sort of after it all happened, but I wanted to get an appreciation and

[1:56:10] understanding and just compare them to that which I'd seen in my various business careers. and she

[1:56:16] took me through all of the different transaction handlings, the different recordkeepings,

[1:56:21] the different reconciliations, um how cash is transferred into envelopes reconciliations down

[1:56:27] to the $2, uh amounts. Um in some instances they, you know, the the head count differed from the

[1:56:34] money count, but it was because the instructor checked in and the instructor doesn't pay for

[1:56:39] the class. So, they're really getting down to the the the fine transactional amounts. One question

[1:56:46] did occur to me, and I know it doesn't change it from um being a cash transaction, but Molly, um if

[1:56:53] you might for a moment, um is there the in order to reduce the frequency of cash transactions, is

[1:57:00] there a way that maybe seniors could put down say $50 and then have a credit or some type of thing

[1:57:05] just to reduce the the the volume of transactions? I know it doesn't make it cashless, but I'm just

[1:57:10] trying to think a little think aloud a little bit on that. Yeah, that's certainly something Director

[1:57:15] Hanley and I had looked at. Um the software I believe does provide for that optionality. I'm

[1:57:21] not sure what the fees that come with that are. Um but it's something I know she's been excited

[1:57:26] about trying to roll out. Um I listened to her budget meeting. She said she had four decades of

[1:57:32] of seniors going there. So, I think that's that's a big breath of um different types of of payment

[1:57:39] methods. So, I'm sure it's something that we can roll out in the near future. Yeah, it just might

[1:57:44] reduce the amount of cash handling. Um but the going all going cashless, while it sounds great,

[1:57:50] it also has its trade-offs because now we're paying transaction fees related to that. So,

[1:57:54] it erodess from the revenue in some way, but in in in a lot of ways, it seems like a fair balance to

[1:57:59] to move as much cashless as possible. Um, also I I had Miss Hanley take me through all of her

[1:58:06] different recordkeeping and where, you know, board of trustees minutes were kept and all that kind of

[1:58:12] thing. And and I was not surprised at all having um encountered Miss Hanley over the years uh when

[1:58:18] she was the recck department. Very thorough, very diligent. Um, and so, uh, I was pretty happy to

[1:58:24] see see that, you know, I I feel good knowing that the leadership in place right now, um,

[1:58:30] going forward and for the past since Miss Hanley's taken the helm, um, is riding the ship and doing

[1:58:37] so with integrity. And I really appreciate that. And, uh, that's all I have for now. Thank you.

[1:58:50] Yep. Sorry. Um, so I don't know who to ask us for it. So I think it goes back to reconciliation. If

[1:58:56] I could just ask one last question about that to you, Molly. It might be to you to Paul. I'm

[1:59:00] not sure. Um, so you're using turnover sheets and the senior activities. That's how they pay

[1:59:05] for it. When the theft happened, did the seniors still were you still collecting stuff from them

[1:59:10] or how did those those trips and everything still went on, right? You just say the end of your So

[1:59:14] they were collecting the money for the trips or whatever they were doing. So they're coming in,

[1:59:17] they're giving the $3 for yoga, the $10 to go to bingo. I don't know what they were doing, but then

[1:59:22] some of that money paid for trips too, didn't it? So did the trip still happen even though they were

[1:59:27] being money was being embezzled. So they they did. So after what's come out of the investigation is

[1:59:34] if you paid for the trip with a check, then that did make its way down into my department and then

[1:59:40] into the city's coffers. if you paid for ca for that trip with cash. Um, it was not. So, did they

[1:59:47] have to pay for it again or did the city pay for the trip? I mean, how did that get reconciled? I'm

[1:59:51] only speaking from my thought of spending a couple weeks there after that um during the incident. I

[1:59:58] I believe all the trips and hopefully I'm not misspeaking, but I believe all the trips you

[2:00:02] had to pay with a check. Okay. So the I was just asking that because again I'm going to go back

[2:00:07] to the fact that this is the unfortunate part of this is that I do think that this could be

[2:00:12] happening in other departments. Just saying that you know there's there's some I feel like there's

[2:00:16] some really unstable things that were happening here tonight. But at the same time what I realize

[2:00:21] is that the focus, you know, this is a connected person no matter how we look. You may not have met

[2:00:27] him but everybody knew who he was and and he felt like he was above reproach. He thought he could

[2:00:34] do whatever he wanted and he did do whatever he wanted and it seems like he did whatever he wanted

[2:00:38] for a really long time without being checked and then maybe when he decided to go just a little

[2:00:42] bit step further because he needed more money to get the money across federal lines. I mean this

[2:00:47] is the stuff we watch on Netflix not really come you know we don't really think it's going to be

[2:00:50] happening here in Quinsey. Do you do you as you're reconciling do you the department heads that come

[2:00:55] in because you said earlier you know if they call us and say do you send the mun reports to them or

[2:01:00] do they have access some of them don't have access to munus reports so I'm not sure if they do to be

[2:01:03] able to reconcile it themselves to be able to be able to flag something that might have got mis

[2:01:07] misdone so all department heads or all departments as part of our review um and is written into our

[2:01:15] new policy is that well new two years is that all departments need to be doing a reconciliation

[2:01:22] um against the turnovers that they've provided us. So if you've deposited if you've given the

[2:01:28] treasur's office seven turnovers be looking and making sure there's seven deposits in your mun

[2:01:34] account and those figures are correct. Yeah. So the reason why I was bringing that up and

[2:01:37] I don't I don't think the library has a ton of free like petty cash that they deal with over

[2:01:41] there. I think they do though and I know the director basically said I don't know how to

[2:01:45] use munus and and that's my concern like like it's one of those types of things where you

[2:01:50] know you can put all the safeguards into it and say everybody has to do some things but

[2:01:53] if they don't have the training they don't know how to do it and it happens it doesn't happen

[2:01:57] just because you're not doing it. It can happen because everybody gets comfortable and things

[2:02:00] change and you kind of have to refresh them even though you're like I already know how to do that

[2:02:03] but you know we all take annual tests for like ethics and everything else that we have to do.

[2:02:08] or a designate. So, so if the department head So, so I do know that there is someone in the

[2:02:14] library and and I won't name names, but there is absolutely someone in the library that is looking

[2:02:19] at their mun deposits and verifying them with what my team has done. Okay. And I do I want to thank

[2:02:25] you, Molly, because I know how hard I mean you are extremely proud of your staff when I came in and

[2:02:30] the transition that you've had in that department. I'm not saying anything about any that was prior

[2:02:34] to you. I'm just saying that you you run a really tight ship and I love that about you. And I also

[2:02:38] want to thank Chief Kennedy because you know this is this is this was probably not your like

[2:02:43] the highest part of your day when you come in and go, "Oh, it's one of ours." Like that's horrible

[2:02:48] to have to deal with no matter who it is. And the same thing with um Paul, you kind of stepped in.

[2:02:53] But what I will say that's really disturbing to me is every time somebody stands up at the microphone

[2:02:58] and talks to us like we're dealing with something really bad because we're asking questions,

[2:03:01] it's offensive. That's how I feel. and that we're supposed to be working together. I mean,

[2:03:06] solicitor Timmons came up and basically said we should be working together and we are working

[2:03:11] together. There are uncomfortable things that we have to talk about and I'm just saying that

[2:03:16] because I I have asked for things and I work I work well with Mr. Walker, but when we're

[2:03:20] looking at this in particular, this is this is a giant stretch across a lot of departments. We

[2:03:26] don't have the procurement person here tonight to answer questions because she had to leave

[2:03:30] um because of her behavior and her behavior. I'm going to go back to that because her behavior is

[2:03:34] a reflection on this administration. It's a reflection on everything that we're talking

[2:03:39] about tonight that we're asking questions and we can't have that civil dialogue back and forth.

[2:03:43] She didn't come up to answer questions. She came up to attack us. That's what she was doing. She

[2:03:47] was up here like I don't like the way you look. And I don't care about that, but I care about

[2:03:51] what it looks like to the rest of the people at home. And that's our job. We got elected

[2:03:54] to come in and ask these questions. And I didn't I didn't create the Clasby situation. Clasby created

[2:03:59] the Clasby situation. And you know, I remember when you were growing up, you're kind of like,

[2:04:04] don't hang around that one because you're going to get in trouble. It seems like there's a lot

[2:04:07] of like people who get in trouble in the city of Quinsey that are part of the city of Quinsey's

[2:04:11] administration. Seriously. And that's true. So, be careful who you hang out with. But thank you

[2:04:16] very much. I really do appreciate everybody's willingness to come up and answer questions.

[2:04:23] who are blaming you. Did any of the other counselors have any questions before I I just

[2:04:29] I just want to um have I have some closing remarks as well? Uh similar on what President Mahoney just

[2:04:34] said. Um this is the oversight committee. Um it's supposed to be somewhat uncomfortable.

[2:04:41] It's kind of where we go to ask really difficult questions. I know that in the past there have been

[2:04:47] other chairs of the oversight committee where they didn't meet. No questions were asked.

[2:04:52] um at least for the next 16 months that's not going to be the case. Um we are going to have

[2:04:57] regular oversight uh committee hearings and hard questions um are going to be asked. Um as for what

[2:05:08] happened earlier um when Miss Logan had to leave um you know I've known Miss Logan for 20 years.

[2:05:17] Um, she's always been a familiar face to me, a friendly face when I go out in in public. Um,

[2:05:24] I was a little caught off guard by her um, behavior here tonight. I I just want everyone at

[2:05:31] home to know that that's not the Katherine Logan that I've come to know over the last 20 years. Um,

[2:05:38] um, you know, I' I've known her a long time. Her I had her mother as my favorite math teacher in

[2:05:43] school. And you know, I know that she's she has done good work for the city and we all have,

[2:05:49] you know, times that aren't so great. Um, but it is my hope that she will reflect on this and,

[2:05:56] you know, be sending some apologies um to some of the counselors um here that were spoken

[2:06:03] about tonight. Um, on a kind of a separate note about Mr. Clasby, um, you know, we talked a lot

[2:06:10] about him. you know, tonight I just wanna, you know, he got caught up in, you know,

[2:06:17] put himself in a bad situation and he uh he got caught up there. Um I did know him. Um you know,

[2:06:27] just from being around in in local politics for years, um I was, you know, like the mayor said on

[2:06:34] one of his podcasts, when um this event happened, he was surprised. Um, I was also surprised. Um,

[2:06:43] Mr. Clasby was always somebody at an event that would come over and ask how I was doing, ask how

[2:06:48] everybody was doing and my family and and that's the person that that I knew um up until, you know,

[2:06:54] this event uh happened. But sometimes we we take a separate path and we go down a dark road and,

[2:07:02] you know, people can be, you know, disappointed. Um, so, um, I just wanted to to say that. Um,

[2:07:11] but this will close this part of the, um, oversight, um, hearing. Uh, we have two more

[2:07:18] things on here. Uh, 2026100. Um, it's order the Quinsey Housing Board uh, appointment process

[2:07:26] review. So, um, back on I'll wait till Yeah. back on um February 23rd. This was initially uh

[2:07:39] it was initially introduced to be on the February uh 23rd, 2026 city council meeting,

[2:07:46] but I I believe that was the one that was cancelled for the snow. Uh so it was pushed

[2:07:50] off until March 2nd. It had to do with the appointment of two of the members of

[2:07:55] the Quinsey Housing Authority Board. One of them was uh Timothy Baker. um who's an atlarge member

[2:08:03] um of the Quincsey Housing Authority Board and the other one was a John Del Carly. He is

[2:08:08] um the res tenant representative member. Um so we discussed it at the March 2nd, 2026 meeting. Uh

[2:08:16] the council voted to table those appointments um and requested additional information regarding the

[2:08:23] nominees and the appointment process so that members could make fully informed decisions.

[2:08:29] The council requests included information regarding the nominees qualifications and

[2:08:34] prior service as well as documentation related to the tenant representative appointment process

[2:08:40] under general law chapter 121b section 5. The council made these requests not as a criticism to

[2:08:47] any individual, but as part of the responsibility of this council to exercise thoughtful oversight

[2:08:53] and to ensure that public appointments are being made through a transparent process that complies

[2:08:58] with the applicable state law. Since March 2nd, members, I know I have um and I know council

[2:09:05] yan has uh of the council have continued to seek additional information. I recognize that gathering

[2:09:10] records and coordinating responses, you know, can take time, but I am disappointed that none of the

[2:09:16] requested documentation has been provided here tonight. I had hoped that by the time of today's

[2:09:22] hearing, we would have information necessary to fully address the council's questions and bring

[2:09:28] this matter to a conclusion. I believe that both the council and the administration share that same

[2:09:34] goal to ensure that the public has the confidence in the appointment process in the important work

[2:09:40] that has to be done by the Quinsey Housing Authority. Transparency and communication are

[2:09:45] essential to maintaining that confidence. Today's hearing is not intended to assign blame. Again,

[2:09:50] it's not. rather it's just an opportunity to better understand the process that if

[2:09:55] it was followed to obtain the information we had requested um and to work collaboratively towards

[2:10:01] resolving any outstanding questions. I appreciate everyone who's taken the time to participate in

[2:10:06] this process and I remain hopeful that through open dialogue and cooperation we can provide

[2:10:12] clarity for the council and the residents of Quinsey Housing and to the broader Quinsey

[2:10:17] community. With that, I look forward to any discussion that's going to happen here tonight.

[2:10:20] And I'm going to ask um Mr. Walker to tell us why we don't have the information that we requested 3

[2:10:28] months ago. Um hold on. Sorry. Through you, madam, Mr. Mr. Chairman. Um you know, quite simply,

[2:10:35] I think we talked about it last week. I I think uh the communication to the administration uh

[2:10:42] relative to some initial questions I think that was responded to and and there was some slippage

[2:10:46] there. Uh the council then filed a comprehensive order uh requesting documentation or ordering

[2:10:56] documentation. There were some issues with that. Um the administration has not signed that order.

[2:11:04] uh it has not evaluated that order that we're within the time frame of that. Um so based off

[2:11:09] of the fact that that order was submitted last week with a lot more uh information beyond the

[2:11:16] information that was initially requested um we're taking our privilege and determining

[2:11:23] how best to handle what was actually filed in the order and address it in the fall.

[2:11:34] So, I'm gonna I'm I'm gonna say something. I'm just put on my my work hat for a second,

[2:11:42] right? So, it's the end of the school year, right? And what do you think I got going on

[2:11:47] at the end of the school year? Who's coming up to me every 5 seconds? I need extra time for

[2:11:53] this. I need extra time for that. Right? So, and I say to them, you know, you can have that time,

[2:11:58] but I like to put it right back on the students. How much time do you need? So, I'm going to ask

[2:12:04] how much time do you need to get the documents that we've requested? There's two things. First,

[2:12:12] there is what was in the actual order and whether or not all of that documentation was properly

[2:12:18] requested. Uh secondly, the base level information that that you have s sought, I think we'll most

[2:12:24] certainly be ready to go in the fall. Okay. So there's there's one piece of information that I I

[2:12:30] would like immediately and we did talk about this um offline earlier is the letters that went out

[2:12:38] to the tenant agencies. Um because I I you know you said you could get that from me tomorrow. I

[2:12:45] believe so. Okay. So you believe so or it's going to happen? This is M Mr. Chan. This is not a court

[2:12:51] of law. Yeah. Well, no, because I I just want because the thing is is according to state law,

[2:12:56] we have you have to let that sit for 90 days. So, what I'm saying is if the letter doesn't exist,

[2:13:02] we should get that letter out ASAP. So, that way at the end of the summer, the 90 days, you know,

[2:13:08] we get to the end of September, the 90 days has has gone by. That's why I'm looking for

[2:13:13] that letter so we can actually make sure we're following the state law. So, do we think we can

[2:13:21] have that letter tomorrow? We believe so. And and if if if the letter was not produced or

[2:13:28] can't be produced, would the administration be amendable to producing a letter and starting the

[2:13:33] nomination process over for the Look, I again the order is not properly before this body as

[2:13:42] it was submitted last week because it has not been signed. Uh whether or not it's a proper order or

[2:13:47] not is being reviewed. If that's the direction we're going, we we'll file what we need to file.

[2:13:54] We'll be ready to go in the fall. I would just say from a practical perspective that the mayor's

[2:13:59] appointees are already sitting. They've been sitting. These are follow-up terms that the

[2:14:04] mayor's appointees succeed until their successors are appointed. If this body does not choose to

[2:14:10] confirm those appointees, those me bodies those members are still members of the body. Correct.

[2:14:16] But we still need to make sure we're following the state law which says that when their term expires,

[2:14:22] which was on February 2nd, we, you know, we 90 days before that, we were going to submit a

[2:14:30] um a letter to the 10 or 11 tenant agencies in Quinsey housing, which we're required to do by

[2:14:37] law. And as far as I know from the tenant agencies I've talked to, they did not receive a letter. So

[2:14:44] that's why I'm trying to confirm if the letter exists. Okay. So I'm hoping you I am hoping that

[2:14:51] we can get that tomorrow. So that way if we don't have it, if for some reason it doesn't exist and

[2:14:57] again, you know, as you said, it's not really a huge deal because the members are already sitting,

[2:15:03] but we can at least get the ball rolling so that we can come into compliance with state law.

[2:15:14] see what I can do. Okay. Uh, any other counselors have any questions? Council,

[2:15:19] you want? Hold on one second.

[2:15:24] Go ahead.

[2:15:27] Thank you, chairman. So, I would like let a resident know how this confirmation process is.

[2:15:36] So in March administration just send two orders ask city council to confirm two appointees of

[2:15:47] the housing board member with no CV no no information whatever and they just give to

[2:15:55] city council say confirm it. Confirm what? And is this the standard practice of administration

[2:16:03] to submit a po appointment for city council to confirm? I just feel that's very strange.

[2:16:13] Uh I would like to ask Miss worker is that the standard practice of the administration

[2:16:18] just submit to order say confirm these two appointees with no information whatever.

[2:16:26] How do we know these two appointees CV previous experience qualification and we

[2:16:35] have to do research and find out find out oh this is the current incumbents so if

[2:16:42] it's incumbent you should have a performance record and for I know why you are not a rush

[2:16:49] because without a confirmation since they are incumbent they can still sit at on that seat

[2:16:56] to keep connecting compensations until you find the find a new appointee to confirm you. So

[2:17:03] they don't care they just sitting there doesn't matter you confirm or not confirm. So the whole

[2:17:09] confirmation process is become a ceremonial for at least for the previous city council I guess

[2:17:16] if they if they do like this just confirm it without any information but we don't want this

[2:17:22] city council don't want to just do ceremonial work we want to really if you want to me confirm give

[2:17:29] me information let's let's check if this one is qualified otherwise how how how can we confirm

[2:17:39] I would like to know Mr. workers opinion about this

[2:17:47] through you madam chair madam chairman the I'm just so used to the finance committee meetings

[2:17:54] um look there's been a process here the council's asked for subsequent information that has not been

[2:17:59] asked for previously uh initially it was going to be scheduling the two appointees in front of the

[2:18:05] body uh the council was with within their rights to ask them questions that changed to different

[2:18:13] kinds of information culminating in last week a couple weeks ago when the council reminded

[2:18:19] that we hadn't addressed this issue which I took ownership of that we have not and then subsequent

[2:18:24] to that there was an order that was put in place which sort of now trumps our response to anything

[2:18:31] we're going to evaluate that order we may not sign that order we may be able to provide the

[2:18:35] information that the council feels appropriate Um, that's essentially where we're at. It's not over

[2:18:43] complicated. It's not any attempt at anything. It's the information requested has moved a little

[2:18:51] bit. We've certainly um not been in any great hustle. Sure. Um, but it's not that complicated.

[2:19:06] So in the first meeting I did ask at least the administration have to provide a CV

[2:19:13] the performance record and any statement of conflict interest to the city council the the

[2:19:22] basic information but how many months passed three months passed the administration never

[2:19:29] get back to me and then I emailed you several Several weeks ago, I asked her,

[2:19:35] so what's the standard administration's process to to do this confirmation?

[2:19:41] Specifically, what kind of information usually admin administration provide to the city council

[2:19:50] about this appointee for confirmation and you said oh that's on me and I will see what I can

[2:20:01] get to to the city council. That's it. till now I still didn't get anything again because

[2:20:10] there's an order that's been passed by this body that trumped my last discussion on this prior to

[2:20:16] the order being filed was we will discuss and perhaps we can get that done at the meeting on

[2:20:23] the 17th but the meeting on the 17th an order was filed that order now formalizes a process

[2:20:30] it formalizes the council's wishes which is fine uh in a way that needs to be reviewed

[2:20:34] by legal to see if it's in proper since it's an order whether or not it's properly in front of

[2:20:39] the body or not and that's the way we're going to approach this. My next question is this always the

[2:20:48] this way when the previous city council confirms the appointees. No, usually what will happen is

[2:20:55] the council will ask uh if the appointees can appear before the body and if that's the case,

[2:21:02] they'll appear before the body, answer a couple questions and we generally move on.

[2:21:10] So, uh, thank you and and I and I and I hear you on that and I know that that's how this

[2:21:16] conversation started. Um, was that they were going to come before the body and then you had

[2:21:22] said to me that you didn't think that at least one of the parties was capable or or would be

[2:21:30] comfortable doing that. and and I said to you at the time that that I totally understood

[2:21:36] um I I could understand that um you know I I think that person as after going through the meeting

[2:21:42] minutes does you know very valuable work um on that board and um you know I think that's what

[2:21:48] kind of like precipitated the discussion about us you know maybe having like a I know this was just

[2:21:54] kind of like a back and forth like a resume andor a statement of interest. I know those were kind

[2:22:00] of more um informal and we did go back and forth about that a few times, but those things um never

[2:22:07] materialized. Um you know, there's a whole slew of different reasons for that, I'm sure. But, you

[2:22:13] know, that was the catalyst for the order because the you know, again, we're working together here.

[2:22:23] um the congenial way in which we were working together seemed to be kind of breaking down.

[2:22:30] Um I don't know why because it always seemed very much like oh yeah we're going to get that to you.

[2:22:36] Oh this is going to happen. There was never any breakdown about it but then nothing ever

[2:22:41] um materialized. So, that's one of the reasons why I put the order forward. And it really just

[2:22:47] is those same things that um you know, we kind of more informally talked about um you know,

[2:22:56] offline. Um you know, but again, I I do want to get these two members confirmed. I know that

[2:23:02] they sit on the board um until their successors are chosen. Um but you know the the people who I

[2:23:10] represent um a lot of people who live in housing um they have concerns um and they feel like this

[2:23:20] is just another kind of slap in the face that like their concerns aren't heard. um they feel

[2:23:27] like their concerns aren't heard um at the Quinsey Housing Authority board meetings and now they feel

[2:23:34] like the city council well not the city council they feel like the administration is laying them

[2:23:39] down because it's the administration's um you know requirement to follow this state law and it's it's

[2:23:47] not this is not in an effort to you know chastise the administration. This is our um this is our

[2:23:57] duty, you know, to some of our most vulnerable residents. This is their one uh representative

[2:24:05] on the board and they already feel like the board is not doing a great job representing them and now

[2:24:10] they feel that their one representative, you know, is not even being held to task for, you know,

[2:24:17] their own confirmation. Um, I'm just going to open up to anybody else who has a question about this.

[2:24:24] Uh, councelor Mahoney. Yeah, hold on one second. Really have a question, but I do think we have,

[2:24:30] you know, we have time to come back at the beginning of September for this and we could

[2:24:34] probably just move this. And if you do have anything, u, Mr. Walker, that you can share with

[2:24:38] them, great. But, you know, if we and if it can't be in the first of first meeting of September,

[2:24:43] maybe it can be the second meeting in September. But we're not going to solve this tonight. So,

[2:24:57] so the other thing on the agenda tonight is the uh resolve that I have um sorry uh 101 um 2026

[2:25:09] 101. Um, it was read into uh at the city council meeting uh last week, so I won't read it again.

[2:25:16] Um, I'm hoping that um the my fellow counselors have had time to review this. Basically, just as a

[2:25:25] summary, there's five members on the board. One is appointed by the governor um and that's Josephine

[2:25:31] Sheay right now. Um two are appointed at large. um one another one is appointed at large but needs

[2:25:38] to be an AFL CIO member and the last one is the tenant representative. All this resolution does is

[2:25:47] ask the mayor when making his appointment to the Quinsey Housing Authority Board that he consider

[2:25:57] um appointing from one of the at two large members or at large members or two of them

[2:26:03] that he consider um appointing another member or somebody who lives in housing. Um, you know,

[2:26:12] I think I had said at the previous meeting that, you know, there's kind of like two I

[2:26:16] don't want to say there's obviously more than two camps, but there's two large camps in housing.

[2:26:19] There's there's elderly um and then there's family housing. It does seem like the elderly housing um

[2:26:27] the tenant representative has been someone um who lives in elderly housing and the people who live

[2:26:33] in family housing feel like their voices aren't being heard. Um, so I would entertain a motion to

[2:26:41] um accept this order 2026 101 um to move it into the general city council meeting uh for passage.

[2:26:57] Not not out of not out of committee. There's one more. We don't have to. Okay. So, how do we So,

[2:27:06] it's in the calendar, so we can just pull it out.

[2:27:11] All right, disregard. We don't need to we don't need to move. I thought we had to vote on that.

[2:27:15] But, um, again, I hope that, you know, um, in the general counsel meeting, you know,

[2:27:19] my fellow counselors um that we will pass this. Again, it doesn't um require the mayor

[2:27:25] to do that. It's just us asking him um from this request from the folks who live in housing. Does

[2:27:33] anybody have any questions about that? Councelor Riley, hold on one second. So, sorry. So, are we

[2:27:41] we're going to just take this up under reports of committees. Okay. So, I would just like to make a

[2:27:46] a general sort of statement because I know I've said it before that these boards, committees,

[2:27:50] and commissions um is there are definitely lots of people in the city of Quinsey that would love to

[2:27:55] be participating in a lot of these and it does seem like most people are appointed sometimes

[2:28:00] for decades. Um, I hear there's a book that has all the um expiration dates of when people are

[2:28:07] supposed to be in the case of this one because it's federal housing, I would imagine that's why

[2:28:11] it needs to come to the city council. Um, not all appointments come to the city council, but it does

[2:28:17] seem like and this particular one kind of in a funny way. Um, I had attended the Quinsey Housing

[2:28:24] Authority board meeting as I had done several of them and I told them you have two appointees who

[2:28:30] are whose term is expiring and the question they asked me was which two? They didn't know which two

[2:28:36] were expiring and so I told them and then you know a few weeks later this order came. So, I'm going

[2:28:41] to reiterate that these boards, committees, and commissions have been locked up for far too long.

[2:28:46] Um, if there's expirations of terms, nobody pays attention, and it's something that really should

[2:28:51] be revisited. I think there's one person that handles the book and the appointments, and there

[2:28:55] should be a little bit more um opportunity for people to be involved in these boards.

[2:29:05] Anyone else for any comments on this? Um, I just also want to say that I did um reach out

[2:29:12] to the housing authority. You know, they have a a very um very usable website. Um, there's also

[2:29:18] a member on there that's the AFL CIO member, and I did ask them um just for kind of transparency

[2:29:24] purposes to label them as the AFL CIO member. They told me they weren't going to do that,

[2:29:29] but I did um I did ask them to do that. So, I think that would be useful for someone who's

[2:29:36] doing some research like I was doing at the time to try and figure out who was who and

[2:29:40] who was meeting um which qualification. But um I just wanted to add that in. So,

[2:29:46] if I don't have any other questions, I will u make I need a motion to adjourn this oversight

[2:29:52] committee meeting. We have a motion to adjourn from councelor Riley. Very good. All right.

[2:30:01] Let's we're all set here. Thank you so much. And we'll move on to we doing rules. rules.

[2:31:11] Okay. So, I would uh before we go into the rules committee, um I would like to open the ordinance

[2:31:20] committee meeting for tonight as well. Um and then I will recess the ordinance committee meeting. And

[2:31:26] now we'll go into rules. Um so for this one um this is where we're where councelor Yuen has has

[2:31:36] put this forward um like the first thing uh when we first took office. So this is an ordinance to

[2:31:43] try to um ensure that we have everything posted on the website 48 hours in advance of meetings. So,

[2:31:54] if there's any additional supplementary material, that will go online for everyone in the public to

[2:32:02] to see. So, um I'm hoping we can kind of keep this moving uh tonight pretty fast. So, um because we

[2:32:10] have a lot to get through. So, councelor Yan, do you want to briefly speak to this? Um okay.

[2:32:21] So

[2:32:24] I was going to I was going to read through it so

[2:32:28] resident can hear. But we read it on January. I didn't read the whole it.

[2:32:44] Okay. At least I want to read the title of each sections so resident can hear. Then I have a

[2:32:51] small amendment to uh propose. Okay. So the title of this ordinance is uh safeguard transparency,

[2:33:03] public access to information and the democratic participation in city council proceedings.

[2:33:12] And so section one legislative fundings and the democratic purpose. So I should I can read one. So

[2:33:27] um whereas the city council of the city of Quincy affirms that transparent government and informed

[2:33:34] public participation are fundamental to a healthy local democracy. And whereas public confidence in

[2:33:43] municipal government depends upon depends upon the timely and meaningful access to information

[2:33:50] used by elected officials in deliberation and decision making. And whereas Massachusetts

[2:33:58] General Laws chapter 38 section 20 requires that a meeting agenda be posted at least 48 hours prior

[2:34:07] to an open meeting excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and the legal holidays in order to safeguard the

[2:34:14] public's right to notice and participation. And whereas city councilors and members of the public

[2:34:21] alike must be afforded adequate time to read, analyze, and understand the materials related

[2:34:29] to matters scheduled for consideration by the city council. and various supplemental materials

[2:34:36] including presentation slides, reports, memorandum and supporting documents are routinely relied upon

[2:34:47] during city council meetings and often form the basis for policy decisions affecting residents.

[2:34:55] And whereas the late posting, selective disclosure or withholding of such materials in impedes

[2:35:05] meaningful public engagement, limits informed the debate and endmines democratic accountability. And

[2:35:14] whereas the preparation and the timely posting of all necessary materials in advance of city council

[2:35:22] meetings promotes administrative efficiency, ensures professional prep prepar prepar prepared

[2:35:31] by city department and prevents reliance on lastm minute reports or incomplete documentation for

[2:35:40] matters of significant public public importance. And was ensuring that information is is accessible

[2:35:49] to public at the same time it is provided to city councilors strengthens transparency

[2:35:56] protects democratic norms and promotes trust in local government. Now therefore be it ordained

[2:36:04] by the city council of quincy as follows. So definition, agenda, supplemental materials

[2:36:15] including any document, presentation, slider deck, report, memorandum, exhibit,

[2:36:22] data and other written and electronic material prepared for, submitted to, or presented to the

[2:36:30] city council in connection with an agenda item. Emergence. A sudden and enforcing circumstance

[2:36:39] requiring immediate immediate reaction to protect public health, safety or property for which the

[2:36:46] once public posting of supplementmental materials is not practic um practicable.

[2:36:56] Section three timely public posting of supplemental materials. This I just

[2:37:03] quickly say like uh 40 yeah at least publish it 48 hours before the meeting exclude weekend and

[2:37:13] holidays and the limitation on late or last minute materials. And the section five is a prohibition

[2:37:23] on first presentation voting to protect a public deliberation. To protect informed deliberation and

[2:37:33] meaningful public engagement, the city council shall not take a final action or vote on any

[2:37:40] proposal, order, ordinance, resolution, contract, or other substantive matter at the same meeting at

[2:37:48] which such matter is first presented to the city council. And as an emergence as defined in section

[2:37:56] two is declare is declared and stated on the record later I have a little amendment of this. So

[2:38:04] section six enforcement and certification section seven transparency and compliance reporting. So,

[2:38:14] city clerk shall submit an a new written report to the city council summarized

[2:38:21] compliance with this chapter including the number of city council meetings held,

[2:38:27] any instance in which emergence exceptions were invoked and any known failure to post

[2:38:34] required a supplemental materials. Such report shall be made publicly available.

[2:38:43] So effective date. So basically is this. So I have a a little amendment to section

[2:38:52] five prohibition on first presentation voting to protect a public deliberation.

[2:39:00] So, so over the past six months, I have observed several orders being voted on at the same

[2:39:09] meeting in which they were first presented. Examples include councelor Hub's resolution

[2:39:17] urging passage of Massachusetts House Bill H91 and the Senate Bill A 2556 to modernize the

[2:39:26] funding for community media programming. the order and the order regarding MSBA accelerated repair

[2:39:34] program feasibility initiatives and the order requesting the administration to provide a two

[2:39:42] physical year capital bonding plan. So because of orders and resolutions do not create a law

[2:39:49] in the same manner that ordinance do I believe it is appropriate to allow some flexibility for

[2:39:57] routine or straightforward matters. Therefore I would like to amend section five so that the

[2:40:05] prohibition on first presentation voting applies only to ordinance and contracts.

[2:40:12] So specifically I move to strike the words proposal order and resolution from the

[2:40:22] relevant sentence in section five. So that only ordinance and contracts and other substantive

[2:40:32] uh substantive matters and would be prohibited from being voted on upon first presentation.

[2:40:44] So um thank you. So uh that's a motion to Yes. So mo I um hear a motion to amend section five um

[2:40:54] striking proposal order and resolution and leaving ordinance contract or other substantive matter.

[2:41:01] Um we don't need a second. Um on the motion. Yes. Councelor Hibily. Yes. Thank you Madam Chair. Um,

[2:41:11] so I I completely agree. Uh, actually, let me back up a little bit. So, uh, one of the first

[2:41:17] conversations I had prior to getting sworn in, I want to say maybe it was back in nove, maybe late

[2:41:23] November, early December, um, reached out to, uh, to become president, um, council person Mahoney

[2:41:32] and brought up that I found that there's a lot of materials being provided sort of last minute,

[2:41:39] right? not not getting things in enough time to review it. And the watermark that I used was so

[2:41:46] with our school committee in the city of Quinsey, they receive their package of information on

[2:41:52] Friday for the following Wednesday meeting, giving them the whole weekend and a few days to digest

[2:41:58] and reach out to professionals, let's say, or someone in the administration. And the way things

[2:42:05] kind of happen on the council is you get something on Friday for the Monday meeting and you got to

[2:42:10] bug people over the weekend to get your answers. So I thought that was inefficient and I was hoping

[2:42:14] we could get a better order. I I completely agree with you what we're what the intent of this is the

[2:42:21] only and I also agree with the I would say 2/3 of the amendment that uh is being proposed and so I'm

[2:42:32] totally fine with resolutions uh council UN did a good example of a resolution a lot of times a

[2:42:37] resolution is simply like back oh there's two good examples actually the the QAV thing was simply

[2:42:44] to author a letter to send to our delegation to encourage them to pass something that was

[2:42:50] before that body uh to modernize the um money that the the revenue source for QAV. Another one was

[2:42:58] very time-sensitive in that there was uh veterans benefits that could be impacted and we needed to

[2:43:05] get our letter in and we uh it didn't it fell off the agenda for the previous meeting so we wanted

[2:43:10] to get it in quickly and it's simply generating a letter of support. Right. So those things

[2:43:13] totally get it. That makes complete sense. Um the only thing that gives me pause are things like

[2:43:19] orders. So I'm complete through you madam chair uh council. I'm totally with you with the exception

[2:43:27] on on proposal and resolution resolution. Sorry. Um the only thing I'm not with you on is the order

[2:43:33] one. And so my question is that um I think so for example orders can call for money appropriation.

[2:43:41] No. Nope. Okay. All right. Um, so I just want to think that one through a little bit. I did

[2:43:45] look at this and thought it was great, but that's the only thing that's getting kind of stuck. Um,

[2:43:50] I'm wondering what types of uh I just hadn't had time to think through the types of orders.

[2:43:57] I thought about the other two, but just hadn't had time to think through the other orders. Any

[2:44:01] I'd like to hear my uh colleagues thoughts on that one just to make sure I'm not missing anything.

[2:44:06] Yeah. Council. Oh, I just answer his question. and just answer uh councelor Hub's question. So order

[2:44:16] I remember that MSBA that accelerated the repair that did ask money but it's called order and my

[2:44:26] that ask administration to provide two fiscal year capital bonding plan I also put it also order so

[2:44:37] um question if anything related money maybe we shouldn't vote it on the first time is that is

[2:44:43] that your suggestion or I I'm trying not not just money. Money was the first thing that came

[2:44:47] to my brain, but I'm just trying to think of, you know, we all campaigned on being very thorough,

[2:44:52] going through the process, taking our time, not kind of rushing things through. So,

[2:44:55] I just that's the only thing that got kind of stuck. Um, but I that's why I want to hear

[2:44:59] from my colleagues, just their opinions on it. Does anyone else have something? I was going to

[2:45:02] say something. I'm raising my hand for myself. So, councelor Riley, you're calling yourself.

[2:45:10] So, I I can understand the need to want to um get all the information in advance. We've all

[2:45:16] been saying that coupled with though sometimes the need for some flexibility. So, I'm not sure how I

[2:45:22] feel about the um the order um specific one. Um but I understand and this this came up with the

[2:45:29] um Eastern Nazarine College presentation when we had been presented with a slide deck of 30 slides

[2:45:33] that we had not seen. So, this speaks to the need to get this stuff further in advance. Um,

[2:45:39] and so I want to be supportive of it. I want to get the language right and and put forth

[2:45:43] something that we can all get behind tonight. So, um, just to speak on the order question,

[2:45:51] um, I've noticed that everything that comes before us, resolutions, ordinances, anything has an order

[2:45:58] number. Um so um and as I was look researching things um earlier on uh about trying to sort

[2:46:09] all this stuff out things that are just orders I think are kind of directives. So, for example,

[2:46:16] um the council has the stated right in the in the code or in the charter to that if it requests

[2:46:26] information within um 7 days of the mayor, then the the mayor has to come back with that

[2:46:33] information or through a representative. So, um that's what I would consider sort of a directive

[2:46:39] to say like we would like this information. So, um, personally, I would strike order because there

[2:46:47] might be something that's time-sensitive that we would, um, want to be able to, I believe,

[2:46:54] like with, um, councelor UN's request for the two years of, um, capital project um, information. So,

[2:47:04] given the the deadline that we were under, I think that's a useful thing to be able to to say. So,

[2:47:10] I would I would argue to have order in there while also saying of course like whenever possible,

[2:47:20] we should always give as much notice as possible. And I think, you know, when you've when you've

[2:47:25] brought that up before about some things that I've said, let's do this tonight. You know,

[2:47:30] we're in a hurry. Um I take your point. So I think whenever possible, we'll try to

[2:47:36] um give the maximum amount of of notice and not do things in the same night, but there may be

[2:47:41] times when we need to say like we need this information in the next seven days. Yeah. And

[2:47:47] and and my question doesn't come up from a source of knowledge. It comes from a source of being new,

[2:47:51] right? I just wanted to think it through and to see it because that was the only one that I got

[2:47:55] stuck on when I heard the three that we wanted to change. Um, could I propose a what would you call

[2:48:02] a friendly amendment of just doing the two and then revisiting it at a later date if we feel like

[2:48:08] it's not effective for us? Maybe give us some time over the summer to think about it. We could always

[2:48:12] amend things, right? Just throw it out there. So, we just strike a proposal in the resolution. Yeah.

[2:48:27] So I I hear uh councelor Hibli's suggestion. So you mean we leave order, ordinance,

[2:48:34] contract and other substantive matter uh in the language? So

[2:48:39] those four items shouldn't be voted on on the first time it was presented. Correct.

[2:48:50] Yeah. Yeah, I mean I I honestly don't know enough about the distinction between a proposal and an

[2:48:56] resolution and order. I So resolutions I'm totally fine with because I think we have precedent for

[2:49:01] that. Um I'd be open to my colleagues opinions on this, but that was my only that was the one thing.

[2:49:10] Yeah, I am I'm really sorry. I was I was having a side conversation. So

[2:49:18] um what what what were you just saying very quickly? I thought we were I just

[2:49:24] discuss discuss if we leave the order in the language or not. I was saying you wanted Yeah,

[2:49:30] I think so leaving it in means there we're not going to vote them through that night. That's the

[2:49:36] point I was going for. Whatever whatever wording change has that effect and that's what I'd like.

[2:49:42] So you would like to remove order? No, not from her motion from her amendment. Apologies. Okay.

[2:49:52] You would like to leave order um in this remove proposal resolution. I'm okay with proposal or

[2:50:00] resolution being removed. And and council, you are accepting? I think I can accept.

[2:50:07] Okay. You're accepting this friendly amendment. So, we have um a motion to amend section five

[2:50:14] to delete proposal and resolution from this list and leave order, ordinance, contract,

[2:50:22] or other substantive matter. Um, so we don't need a second. Um, anyone else on the motion? Uh,

[2:50:31] count. Oh, I'm sorry. Councelor Riley first and then councelor Jacobs. So, I'm a little

[2:50:36] bit confused. This is where we're kind of dancing around this. I I thought councelor Huby, you said

[2:50:41] that you thought you would want to be able to pass an order in certain circumstances. So, we want

[2:50:46] to No, the opposite. I No, it says the council shall not take final action or vote. So, I think

[2:50:53] we need to really re make sure we're stating what I think leaving order in is so whatever whatever

[2:50:58] doesn't allow us to take action on an order is the language that I want. I I I thought it was

[2:51:04] just ordinance. I thought we were agreeing that we would not take action simply on an ordinance,

[2:51:09] but that proposals, orders, resolutions, and I guess we said ordinance and contract was I

[2:51:16] don't know when we'd vote on a contract, but I thought we were trying to say that we would take

[2:51:21] action on an order if necessary in the same night that it was introduced. It's not ideal,

[2:51:26] but that we would be able to take action if we if we but I'm not sure what the language is. Let me

[2:51:32] let me try to let me try to clear it up. I'll do my best. So, there was an amendment offered

[2:51:36] to remove proposal, order, and resolution. I made a friendly amendment to only remove proposal and

[2:51:43] resolution and leave order in there because they're of the nature of orders. But I could

[2:51:48] be wrong about that. And I say I'm not speaking out of authority. I'm speaking out of being new.

[2:51:53] Yeah, I think I do think that the orders as we're talking about them, like if we really needed to do

[2:52:00] something like the order for the um the two years of data, if we struck this from section five,

[2:52:09] um we it might limit our ability to um No. No. Council Riley's right. Shall not take

[2:52:19] final action or vote. So, you don't want order on there. don't want proposal. You don't want

[2:52:22] resolution. You just want to keep ordinances from not passing in one night and contract and

[2:52:29] contracts. Everything else will be able to be passed in one night cuz it says shall not take

[2:52:33] final action or vote. Okay. Okay. Yeah. All right. All right. I think I followed that.

[2:52:42] I think councelor Huby I think councelor Haley's question is more so which of these

[2:52:50] um five um iterations of documents or or items that may be before us which are binding and which

[2:52:59] which are I think councelor Huby you're really asking whether an order is binding

[2:53:04] if we're voting on an order or whether it's whether it's something more along the lines of

[2:53:09] um a resolution or proposal. I think that that would probably solve the confusion.

[2:53:21] But the so the order is usually a request, right, of we're ordering documents or something

[2:53:28] to be given to us in a certain amount of time, right? That's the only real order

[2:53:32] that would be that would be in front of us. So with that in mind, I guess councelor Hubi,

[2:53:37] that may determine which avenue you're going. Okay. I think I can accept the amendment that

[2:53:46] uh council put forward. Okay. As originally put forward. Okay. So now we have the original

[2:53:54] amendment. So we would uh remove proposal order and resolution from this list. Uh oh wait oh we

[2:54:09] because we're saying shall not take final action on any no yeah or yeah so take away

[2:54:16] proposal order resolution leave ordinance contract or other substantive matter. Um,

[2:54:22] so now we're back to the original. Um, anyone else on Oh, Councelor Jacobs, did you have

[2:54:28] something? No, no, she should say May. I'm just kidding. That was a call back. Um, okay. Uh,

[2:54:36] councelor um Ryan to be clear, we are removing we are keeping ordinance and contract in section five

[2:54:45] and removing proposal order and and resolution. Okay. Okay. Um, shall we take a roll call vote?

[2:55:00] So, that's me. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. It's okay. It would only be the committee. It would only

[2:55:05] be the committee members also. So, councelor Ash. Yes. Council Hubley. Yes. Council Riley.

[2:55:10] Yes. Council Yuan. Yes. Chairman. Yes. Okay. So, that passes. Um. All right.

[2:55:20] So, um is there anything anyone else wants to or is there a motion

[2:55:28] um or any other discussion on this um ordinance? Councelor Riley, just a motion to move it out. A

[2:55:37] motion to um accept as amended and move it out of committee with a favorable recommendation.

[2:55:45] We don't we don't need a a motion. I should have also raised my hand first. So would you actually

[2:55:54] um we need to add um where in the city code this ordinance would go. So, oh yes, chapter. So,

[2:56:08] yeah. So, be it ordined be ordained by the city council of Quincy that the general ordinance of

[2:56:14] the city of Quincy be amended by adding a new chapter entitled transparency and the public

[2:56:21] access to city council materials. So, just add a new chapter in it.

[2:56:31] It would really it would really fall into the city council. Okay. So,

[2:56:36] so um so the council clerk has suggested putting it in the code where the city council is where the

[2:56:44] city council rules live which I think makes sense. So that would be chapter 19 and then

[2:56:50] um we would be adding a section 9. This would be chapter 19 section 9. So, um, Councelor Riley,

[2:57:00] is that all right to if I make a motion to amend this to add, uh, this ordinance to chapter 19,

[2:57:09] section 9? Okay. And and um any on on the motion, councelor Ash? I'm not not on that amendment. So,

[2:57:19] if you want to vote on that, that's fine. Okay. Uh, anyone else on that amendment? Okay.

[2:57:26] Um shall we take a roll call vote on that motion to approve um as amended with council um on

[2:57:33] putting it into chapter 19 section 9. Councelor Ash, yes. Council Hubley, yes. Council Riley,

[2:57:39] yes. Council, yes. Chair McKe, yes. Okay. So, councelor Ash. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think

[2:57:49] I would suggest and make a friendly amendment to change the word substantive to dispositive.

[2:57:56] Dispositive. Yes. I think that that um so this reads um vote on any ordinance, contract or

[2:58:05] other substantive matter at the same meeting. I think just dispositive may be the the better word

[2:58:10] to accomplish the meaning there. So instead of substantive, change that to dispositive.

[2:58:19] Um, do you do you accept that as a friendly amendment, council? I guess first of all,

[2:58:26] could we have a definition of dispositive? I don't I don't actually know what that means.

[2:58:30] Yes. Dispositive means having the power to decide, resolve, or determine the outcome of an issue.

[2:58:38] Having the having the power to decide, resolve, or determine the outcome of an issue. I guess

[2:58:44] my my fear with substantive is something maybe substantive to one of us and not substantive sub

[2:58:49] substantive to all of us. Okay. So something now we're really going getting going going down the

[2:58:55] the weeds. Um I I I think dispositive accomplishes the what is sought with the um the essence of okay

[2:59:04] this ordinance. We have a motion to amend section five to change the word substantive to dispositive

[2:59:14] in the list of things or other um dispositive matter at the same meeting. um on the motion. Oh,

[2:59:24] council Yuen just to clarify. So council lash so if you change it to this positive means will be

[2:59:32] no no discussion or like will because you said substantive maybe someone think it's substantive

[2:59:41] another one is not but if you change it to dispartive means no argument no no dis

[2:59:50] that through you madam chair dispositive would be the the adjective so to to discern the type of

[2:59:56] matter So the a dispositive matter is um a matter that um where we have the power to decide in one

[3:00:06] evening. What would come out of voting on that would be something that would um be conclusory.

[3:00:14] We'll say for that that'd be I'm not not rehearsed here on this but um subst my my fear with the term

[3:00:21] substantive is that we we I could think something was substantive and important and another

[3:00:27] um of my fellow counselors could feel differently. Right. Okay. So it's um it's substantive is a bit

[3:00:34] subjective and dispositive is less subjective where it would be like something that would have

[3:00:40] would be decided by that. Yes. Yes. Okay. So, any other discussion on the motion? Okay. Uh,

[3:00:50] can we take a can we take a roll call vote? Sure. Council Ash. Yes. Council Hubley. Yes.

[3:00:55] Council Riley. Yes. Council Yuan. Yes. Council M. Yes. Okay. So, I we might have to um take another

[3:01:03] motion then to approve this as amended unless there's no other further discussion on this.

[3:01:10] Motion to approve as amended. Okay. Motion to approve as amended. Councelor uh Riley,

[3:01:16] um can you please take a roll call vote again? Council Ash, yes. Council Hubley, yes. Council

[3:01:22] Riley, yes. Council Yuan, yes. Jenna McKe, yes. Five passes. Okay, thank you. Um I think that's

[3:01:31] the only thing that we had in rules committee. So um now I will adjourn rules committee.

[3:01:40] Motion to adjurnn. Okay. And now we will uh switch gears to ordinance committee. Um I want to

[3:02:05] Could

[3:02:16] you pass?

[3:02:22] Okay. So,

[3:02:29] so now we are moving into the ordinances um for the raises that were passed in 2024. Um

[3:02:39] I just wanted to give a little update. Um, so I had a bunch of different versions of this

[3:02:48] because I was struggling to understand like whether we could repeal something,

[3:02:53] etc. The the importance of the word repealed to me was because I was concerned about pension issues.

[3:03:00] Um, that that there existed um on the books a law that said the salary is a certain amount

[3:03:08] um and how that would affect the pension. So, um, Solicitor Timmons asked the, um,

[3:03:17] Quincsey Retirement Board, uh, for clarification on this point and sent an email, um, uh, where

[3:03:25] the interim executive director of the Quinsey Retirement System, Anthony Sarnakiaro, um, said,

[3:03:34] "You are correct. The mayor's retirement allowance will be calculated based on his three highest

[3:03:40] years of regular compensation received for which he received creditable service and not the amount

[3:03:48] in the ordinance. So um that's comforting. I then asked um C letter Timonss if the mayor would be

[3:03:57] amendable to additionally um writing a letter to say that he would not try to appeal this. Um um I

[3:04:06] haven't seen my email for a few hours. Solicitor Timonss, is there any any update on that?

[3:04:30] Yes. Uh, it's still off. It's back on. Turned it on. Um, your your question is whether the mayor's

[3:04:41] going to write a letter and I have not got an answer for that yet. You asked me on Friday.

[3:04:47] I didn't get to see the mayor on Friday and he was not around today. Um I'll suggest to you that

[3:04:54] I I'm not quite certain. I mean any letter the mayor sent you would be um a word that Mr. Walker

[3:05:03] particularly likes. Nougatory, it's not going to mean anything. Um the fact of the matter is the

[3:05:11] Quinsey Retirement Board supervised by Pier Act, they determine what the pension is and it doesn't,

[3:05:18] you know, there's it doesn't matter what the mayor thinks or what a court appeal might be. There's

[3:05:24] a formula and it's based on whatever money you've paid into the system and that money is taken from

[3:05:33] your actual paycheck. So what was explained in that letter to you that's outcome determinative

[3:05:41] here. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. So um and I don't know if you had a further chance

[3:05:47] to look at these ordinances that I gave you. I I think I made all the changes you suggested.

[3:05:52] Were there any additional issues? No. I I I got them this morning there and they're all brief,

[3:06:00] which that's always a good thing. brevity can frequently result in better clarity and

[3:06:06] um the amendments you made are they're they're actually the ones I suggested

[3:06:12] uh quite some time ago. It was really the word repeal that was an issue and I'm delighted we

[3:06:20] got that resolved. Okay. Yes. Thank you. So, um, I had sent my ordinances that I solely wrote and

[3:06:29] there was no outside counsel involved to solicitor Timonss and he was kind enough to um, make some

[3:06:37] suggestions and I have just sent those around here. I'm comfortable not using the word repeal

[3:06:45] um and instead using the word delete in some cases or amend in some cases um because we specify what

[3:06:51] the salary is and because we have this letter from from the Quincy Retirement Board. So,

[3:06:57] thank you for getting that. Um so, um I move to um well, I guess we should do them one by one. Um,

[3:07:07] I move to um accept uh order 2026 029 as amended uh in the documents before you. This is uh setting

[3:07:22] the mayor's salary um uh to the current salary that he's actually receiving and and and not the

[3:07:30] $285,000. Um so are yes on the motion. Yes. Thank thank you Madam Chair. Um this particular item's

[3:07:45] been going around for the last two years. It's been a long 48 months whatever 24 months. Um,

[3:07:56] you know what? What's weird to me is the mayor stated in October 2025 that he was going to come

[3:08:04] in with the lower amount from 285 to 225,000. Um he stated that you know to the newspapers to the

[3:08:15] public and with the condition that he wouldn't proceed with anything until the new term had

[3:08:22] come in and the and whomever the new counselors were going to be would have an opportunity to

[3:08:30] um speak about the $225,000 adjustment. Um he so council order 2026-012 came in on January 20th of

[3:08:41] 2026 with this new council. So it's $60,000 less of what is the $285,000 proposal. So he the mayor

[3:08:53] had already suggested that he wanted to go down to his salary the 225. So what confuses me is

[3:09:00] why don't we just talk about that? Why why why do we have to do this? So, um, as we've discussed in

[3:09:10] previous ordinance committee meetings, we're going to, I think, do this in two parts by necessity.

[3:09:16] Um, because, um, the first part is repealing, deleting, amending the ordinances that still exist

[3:09:25] on the books. So, the the ordinances that still exist on the books have these higher salaries.

[3:09:32] um even if the mayor is not taking them, they just still exist. Um so the first step is to sort of

[3:09:39] clear the paperwork and um undo that. And then the second step, which um I would like to still

[3:09:48] pursue beginning in the in the fall, is to discuss the 225, discuss all the other numbers as well.

[3:09:58] um so and and have like a rigorous discussion with data from comparable um positions etc. So

[3:10:06] just to clarify I should have said that before this is just these three orders before you are

[3:10:13] just trying to sort of clear things away so that we can start from scratch and um and that's what

[3:10:20] we're what we're doing here. That's why it's going back to the original salary. So you're going to

[3:10:24] come in the fall fall of 2026. Yes. September. Yes. Okay. So, you're going to come back in

[3:10:30] September after this break or you know and we'll start discussing you start discussing the 225. So,

[3:10:35] that'll be on the table. Yeah. Okay. That that's good clarification because in my thoughts is if

[3:10:41] you're going to do this, why don't we go right into the 225 and start discussing it now. So,

[3:10:46] you want to collect data. Is that what you want to do? Want to collect data? Want to have

[3:10:51] discussions with everyone. So we um yeah, this was one of our top priorities for a lot of us

[3:10:58] um when we got into office and so um I would I would like to get this part of it done

[3:11:06] uh before the break and then we will come back and discuss it. So me and you have a clarification

[3:11:10] that we're 225 is going to come in in the fall in September and we will all be able to speak on

[3:11:15] that will be part of the discussion. Yes. Okay, that's fair enough. I just for you know you're

[3:11:20] running the ordinance so I don't know what your thinking is because was we don't talk outside of

[3:11:24] this so I don't know when you're coming in with these particular items and that's been proposed

[3:11:30] back in January. So I would have thought that we were going to speak about it in in conjunction

[3:11:37] with this particular item. It kind of goes hand in hand to be honest with you. I think I think in the

[3:11:41] past I've I've talked about separating it out so that we could do um um a second one, but I realize

[3:11:48] that it is quite confusing. I mean honestly this this issue of salaries and what we can and cannot

[3:11:56] do legally has been really naughty and I think um actually is is the case for a lot of communities

[3:12:04] around the state because you have two laws that say directly conflicting things about what you're

[3:12:10] allowed to do. Um and this council can't do certain things that affect our salary now. So,

[3:12:18] we've written some of us have written letters for this term, etc. It's just gotten it's been very

[3:12:24] confusing. So, he he did write a letter, you know, deferring it just like the counselor, the original

[3:12:29] counselors did. Yeah. But we but it's still on the books. So, that's what we're doing here. We're

[3:12:34] just trying to clear the books from the previous ordinance that set the salary at $285,000.

[3:12:43] It's still It's still confusing me because he's never received it.

[3:12:47] He's never taken it. I don't think the sometimes people in the public to be honest with you still

[3:12:53] to this day think he took the the salary increase. They still don't know that. Yeah.

[3:12:57] It's cuz it's headlines. It's Mr. uh Bandino's up there. He's got like great headlines. Councelor

[3:13:04] um Mahoney has a comment and you you don't see the true facts that you know and I'm just trying

[3:13:09] to state the true facts. I think councelor Mahoney can speak now. Sure. Go right ahead.

[3:13:17] So the facts are that there was no there was a one report and this council said yes to that

[3:13:24] one report for 285 and the public really was upset. There was a signature drive and that's

[3:13:28] also out there and I think the signatures were due back. I'm not sure where that stands but

[3:13:32] that was to 183. The mayor did put in did put his own ordinance in for 225 and he did defer

[3:13:38] his salary is what he was calling a deferral but he couldn't take that salary because the state

[3:13:42] came back ethics came back and said you couldn't take it. ethics also came back and said that the

[3:13:47] counselors couldn't take it. So, it's not like you were doing a big thing. You were just doing

[3:13:49] what the ethics told you to do. So, where we're at right now is you have an ordinance on the

[3:13:54] table that says the mayor salaries at 285. We're going to we're going to I'm not going to try to

[3:13:58] use the right word. We're going to delete amend delete that salary back to the 150. We have the

[3:14:04] we have the ordinance that the mayor put in for 225 and we will probably be getting soon enough

[3:14:08] from the judge what the what our next call will be whether that's accepting it or letting it go

[3:14:14] onto a ballot but my guess is know we will want to have that accepted here. So we'll be at 183 to

[3:14:19] 225 and that's phase two of this. This is really just bookkeeping to make sure that we're taking

[3:14:24] care of this where there's no mistakes of how we're handling it. There was not the big the big

[3:14:29] question that we had here was the word repeal. I think that's all fixed now. So, this just simply

[3:14:34] takes takes it back to the same place it was where currently Mayor Ko is being paid. I don't think

[3:14:39] there's anybody that's suggesting that he's not. The salary would go up at the next election. And I

[3:14:45] think the conversations that we have to have here in the council have to happen in the next 6 months

[3:14:49] so that we can come to that conclusion as to what the salaries will be for both council and for the

[3:14:54] mayor. And I think it will be a fair conversation that will be driven by data that we'll all have

[3:14:59] and it may be someplace between 183 and 225. He set the cap at 225. It was two it was 285 when

[3:15:06] he came back and said, you know, I'll take 225. That's great, but that's not it's not the the job

[3:15:11] of this council is to come up with the data that actually supports what that salary is going to be.

[3:15:16] So, I just want to make sure we explain that. the will of the people would have been if that ballot

[3:15:20] question got onto the ballot, it would have been last November that would have been done, but that

[3:15:24] didn't happen. So, that's also kind of tied up in court. So, we're just trying to get this passed.

[3:15:29] I believe the goal tonight is to get this past this step so that we can come back in September

[3:15:34] and start doing the due diligence that we said we would do to be able to come up to that position of

[3:15:40] what the salary should be for the mayor. I don't think I really don't think anybody here I know

[3:15:45] I haven't said that the mayor doesn't deserve a raise or the person who sits in the mayor's

[3:15:50] seat. We always keep saying it's not the person, it's the it's the position. But in this particular

[3:15:54] case, I do believe that 285 was for the person, not the position. I think that's the difference

[3:15:58] there and that's what that's what residents felt. Now we're taking this conversation back to say

[3:16:03] this is about the position and now we want to be fair about what we're doing and whether that it

[3:16:08] lands at 183 because some people feel strongly that it's 183 and some people feel strongly that

[3:16:12] it's should be 285 and other people feel it should be 225 but the cap is now 225 because the mayor

[3:16:18] brought it in at 225. So that will be the cap and the base will be 183 because there was a petition

[3:16:22] out there I believe when the jud judge comes back to tell us and I think that's where we're at. So,

[3:16:26] I think I I'm perfectly okay to move on, but I just wanted to make sure that I stated that for

[3:16:30] the record. So, you know, because there's nobody that's trying to fool anybody or cause any damage

[3:16:36] to anybody. Thank you, Councelor Hubley. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so I came in prepared

[3:16:47] to support the contention that um, Solicitor Timman said about the repeal thing. I reached

[3:16:54] out to other people and work in municipals and talked to one that's been on for like 17 years or

[3:16:59] so. Um he was like, "Yeah, if if you do the repeal thing, that will kind of wipe everything out." So,

[3:17:05] I'm very happy to hear that uh tonight we're it's I want to commend um Chair McKe with a K

[3:17:14] um for uh for for collaborating with Mr. Timmons and following his guidance. I think

[3:17:22] that's a good example of working together with the administration. So, I appreciate that and

[3:17:28] um so I'm prepared to support these, but I'd like to hear from my colleagues. Councelor Riley.

[3:17:36] Yeah. So, could we just get an update on where the ballot signatures sit? I thought that we

[3:17:41] were supposed to have them certified last week. Um which would have been nice to know where that

[3:17:46] was where is that stand legally? I don't think we I certainly don't know. My solicit my intention

[3:17:58] um just to share it in with the body um because I guess if those signatures are Could we just get

[3:18:06] an update? Okay, thank you. So, Timonss, do you have an update that you can provide the council on

[3:18:12] um where the signature petition the the petition signatures stand? Um I do not really I have not

[3:18:22] been directly handling that case. I'm aware of it and I know that there was some talk going on

[3:18:28] at the end of last week. Um, I saw one of the plaintiffs here, um, someone with whom I've

[3:18:37] spoke on a few occasions. I was going to try to catch him to see what his thoughts were,

[3:18:41] but there was some talk going on. I know that the city clerk's office has completed what the

[3:18:48] court ordered regarding uh the count, but both sides, the lawyers on both sides have um have

[3:18:57] questions that they're sending back to the court to get some clarification. So, it's still kind of

[3:19:04] floating but clo closer to an end point. So, and then when um whenever this comes to whenever the

[3:19:16] various parties um come to a mutually agreed upon decision um potentially that that language could

[3:19:27] come back to this body for um acceptance as is. No, it'll it'll be a court order. a court order,

[3:19:36] but the actions of the body tonight could end up mooding that case. That's another question I'm not

[3:19:43] fully aware of. Um, we'll have to see. Okay. Yeah. All right. So, a court order is a court

[3:19:50] order. Now, it's not going to come back here for any reason. Okay. So, I think um I think there's

[3:19:57] so much uncertainty with what's going on with the court that um I I think we can move forward on

[3:20:06] um deleting, amending, repealing these. Um yes, councelor Riley was my question. Oh, I'm sorry.

[3:20:14] Go ahead. So, Solicitor Timmons, I guess that was my follow-up question to you. If we take action

[3:20:21] on this tonight, is it going to impact that court case in any way? To the best of your knowledge,

[3:20:26] I realize you're not the one overseeing that, but well, the essential question I don't want to do.

[3:20:31] Let me just Sorry, don't mean to interrupt. I don't want to further complicate this. So,

[3:20:36] that's my question is if we take the action and we vote this positively tonight, is it going to

[3:20:43] affect the court case in any way to the best of your knowledge? Okay. It's been my position all

[3:20:49] along and um you know I I don't believe that it has ever been not accepted by the council that the

[3:21:00] law is clear that the council sets the salary for the mayor and the city councilors. So the action

[3:21:07] you're taking now is well within your authority. um because of how things played out a year ago,

[3:21:16] uh there was a group of um folks who filed a lawsuit um because they didn't agree with how

[3:21:23] they had played out. But I think, you know, I'll definitely be reporting the outcome of what goes

[3:21:32] on here at this meeting. And I know the judge has been monitoring whether the council was going to

[3:21:38] take action on these motions because these motions address the essential questions. Um, I can't

[3:21:45] speak for the plaintiffs, but these motions are returning the salaries to what they were um at the

[3:21:52] time when the plaintiffs brought their lawsuit. But it may be the case that they have some

[3:21:58] further discontent and that they'll be continue to pursue it. I'm just not certain. But I think that

[3:22:06] um you know these are autonomous rails and that the council is acting within its authority that

[3:22:13] you could have done this last January or a little later. I think if we hadn't if uh the chair and I

[3:22:19] hadn't got into the little squabble about repeal, it probably would have been done because the

[3:22:25] essential components of it are are being addressed. Thank you. Okay. Councelor Ash.

[3:22:34] Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so I'm just looking at the the docket online. It looks like

[3:22:39] the initial deadline for um the city to look again at the um signatures was June 18th at 5:00 p.m.

[3:22:48] which would have been last Thursday. I believe there was a joint motion to extend meaning both

[3:22:54] parties, the city and um the plaintiffs in each uh of both in both cases filed the joint motion

[3:23:01] to extend that deadline to this Friday at 5, which was allowed. So, as far as as far as I can tell,

[3:23:08] it looks like the the the current deadline um for the clerk's office to revisit those signatures is

[3:23:14] this Friday at 5. Thank you for looking that up. All right. Um, so I have a motion um on the table

[3:23:24] to accept this amendment in front of us uh for 202629 uh deleting the $285,000 in the ordinance

[3:23:36] and um inserting the 15943. Anyone else on the motion? Councelor Deona. Thank you, M. Thank you,

[3:23:46] Madam Chair. I appreciate the clarification that we were going to revisit this in September. Um,

[3:23:52] for me, the 225 is already on the table and for me, I don't I don't think there's no need for

[3:23:57] this to be honest with you. To just take it a step further, he's already agreed to go to 225. It's on

[3:24:03] the books. 2026-012 on January 20th. It's on this new city council. Um, that'll be my reasoning,

[3:24:13] by the way. That'll be my reasoning that the 225 is already proposed and on there. So, no, no,

[3:24:20] no note taken, please. Um, no, because sometimes it's written. I just want to clarify. So, will So,

[3:24:28] you'll be voting no. I assume you're saying voting no on this because the 225 already exists, right?

[3:24:34] Okay. So, does it for me? It there's no need to do this. Is there anyone else on this motion? Okay,

[3:24:40] let's let's um move. We have two more to get through. So, um, could you please count,

[3:24:45] uh, call the role? Council Ash, yes. Council Deon, no. Council Hubley, yes. Council Jacobs,

[3:24:51] yes. Council Mahoney, yes. Council Riley, yes. Council Ryan, yes. Council Yuan, yes. Okay,

[3:24:59] thank you. It passes. Uh, 8 to1. Um, just for those at home, um 8 to1, Council Dabona,

[3:25:07] uh, the the no vote. Um, okay. 2026 030. Oh, I'm sorry. We pass as amended. Yeah. Yes. Thank you.

[3:25:18] Um, do I need to make another I'm going to put you down as the motion and I'll call on it. Okay. So,

[3:25:24] that was just to accept the amendment to Oh, that was Oh, okay. That was to accept the amendment.

[3:25:30] Now, we have to accept the motion as the order as amended. Yes. Okay. So, um, councelor Riley,

[3:25:41] would you like to make Oh, just a motion. Yeah. Okay. So, a motion to accept as amended. Okay.

[3:25:47] And then, uh, can we do a roll call vote, please? Council Ash. Council Deon, no. Council Hubley,

[3:25:52] yes. Council Jacobs, yes. Council Mahoney, yes. Council Riley, yes. Council Ryan, yes. Council

[3:26:00] Yuan, yes. Shannon McCree, yes. 8 to1. Okay. 8 to1 passes. Uh, councelor Deon as the no. 2026 030. Um

[3:26:10] I make a motion to um accept uh this amendment that sits before us that puts the council salary

[3:26:21] from um 44,500 um back to well to 29,800 because we cannot change our own salary by ordinance

[3:26:33] during this term. It'll have to start January 3rd, 2028 at the start of the next term. On the motion,

[3:26:44] councelor Deona.

[3:26:47] Councelor Deona, on the motion. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I appreciate you amending

[3:26:53] this and writing it a little bit differently, which is uh which is good. Um, let's take a step

[3:27:00] back here. Let's let's go into this one a little bit here. Um you write in here the deferment

[3:27:06] letter which was not aware of the new city councilors um because it was confidential at the

[3:27:13] time. So all city nine counselors signed it. They were deferring their raise back in October of 2024

[3:27:23] to be pushed to January of 2026. That's if you won your if you won the seat. Um and we did that. take

[3:27:31] it a step further with the deliberations of that salary. It was originally salaried at 40 47,500.

[3:27:41] The motion was made by councelor Ash to to decrease it 3 $3,000. I seconded it and it

[3:27:47] became 44,500. So clarification purposes, there was a discussion. We knocked it down 3,000. It

[3:27:54] got to 445. Um, only two people that got it was me and Mr. Ash because everybody else had been

[3:28:04] unseated. So, just, you know, I think and you know, it's funny because I was over the summer

[3:28:12] and he he's sitting in the audience tonight. I ran into Mr. Mike Carter at Stop and Shop.

[3:28:18] I was getting groceries as I was coming out the summer. He was getting ballot initiatives,

[3:28:23] signatures. He directly said to me that I'm okay with the the salaries of the counselors. I think

[3:28:31] you deserve it. He also stated a step further that he was okay with the school committee at

[3:28:37] $20,000. Now, no one ever talks about the school committee's increase 3 years ago that went from

[3:28:43] $9,000 to $20,000, which is more than doubled. No one speaks about it. It's unheard of. But he was

[3:28:54] okay with it. He said those two salaries, school committee and city council should be those rates

[3:29:00] should be that salary. So I said, "Thank you." We had a conversation. Oh, sorry. But that was

[3:29:09] our conversation. I had it that summer. Just for clarification purposes. Okay. So, Council Deon, if

[3:29:16] you wouldn't mind, we we do have to get through. Is there Oh, I haven't tal all I haven't talked

[3:29:21] all night. I let you guys deliberate. And to be very honest with you, you know, I have a rule book

[3:29:28] here. And rule 10 says I have up to 15 minutes to speak. I'm going to speak about this matter as

[3:29:33] long as I can before I need to. I got 15 minutes in the book. And it also says rule 11, speaking

[3:29:40] to Cororum. No member shall interrupt it while speaking. I'm not finished. I'm talking about this

[3:29:44] item that's on the table right now. Okay. I have that right. Okay. I apologize. Go ahead. Okay.

[3:29:53] I didn't speed anybody up that went over 15 minutes on all these other deliberations.

[3:30:00] But for this one, I I I don't feel like we should do this. Now, is this another one we're going to

[3:30:05] revisit in September? All of them. So, all of the ones that we're we're dealing with tonight is kind

[3:30:13] of bookkeeping and then we're going to discuss with data um what the salary raises should be

[3:30:22] because nobody thinks that there shouldn't be a salary raise for the council or the mayor. Um,

[3:30:29] it's just I think the process was not one that was clear, transparent, um, and involved public input,

[3:30:39] but there was nothing that was done that was wrong. But we we deliberated about it in the

[3:30:44] city council, this particular item. This it was voted on, but there wasn't um public input. Um,

[3:30:53] that what didn't exist back then? Well, there was a there many requests for public hearing.

[3:30:58] um on this issue and they were denied. And who who was who was the council president? Who was who was

[3:31:05] the ordinance chair? Who was the over um who was the uh finance chair? That's like me telling you

[3:31:11] or councelor M or President Mahoney or counselor Riley, I don't like the way you're doing running

[3:31:17] these meetings. I want to oppose them. So I think what we we have before us um we have before us

[3:31:25] this uh this ordinance. We have a motion on the table. Um we we will get back to the what level

[3:31:36] they should be in this in the fall, but um I would respectfully request that we keep our comments

[3:31:45] very specific to this ordinance right now. Okay, I'm almost done. Thank you. Um, but I'm not going

[3:31:52] to support this. I mean, you have a situation where you're kind of going backwards here.

[3:31:58] This has already been initiated. Like, doesn't This is another one I don't understand. I really

[3:32:06] don't. But I appreciate you coming back in in September and revisiting this. So, you're you're

[3:32:11] going to come in in September 2026? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Councelor Mahoney. again. Um,

[3:32:20] this is I think you were in the same election as we were null and people were very upset because

[3:32:25] there was an input on it and I understand that counselor Ash had to drop the salary from 47 to

[3:32:31] 44 and it could very well be the salary could be 44, but it needs to be a real discussion with data

[3:32:37] driven information. It's as simple as that. And I know it can be very threatening um when you have

[3:32:42] a raise and somebody's talking about dropping it back to 29. It's we're not asking you to drop it

[3:32:46] back to 29. We're just saying that the salary should be 29. We can have this conversation.

[3:32:50] And the goal I think what we really should be focusing on is not taking as much time as we

[3:32:55] need to get this through, but to start really deliberating about this in September so we can

[3:32:58] get to an answer so that we can have it done. But to do that, we have to get past this point. So,

[3:33:04] I will be supporting this and I will be supporting the the deliberations as we bring information

[3:33:08] forward because I think it's an important piece of what people were looking for in that last election

[3:33:13] which is really just how do we come to these how do we come to these numbers? How do these things

[3:33:17] happen? You know, and it's not just the salaries, it's a lot of things in the city. How does this

[3:33:22] happen? How does this happen underneath somebody's watch? You know, and that was a big You're right.

[3:33:27] You know, I appreciate the fact that you are here. Well, but I do appreciate the fact that we have to

[3:33:31] have these conversations and you'll be part of them. So, I think it will be a good conversation

[3:33:37] just just to follow just Okay. Very brief very very briefly. You can Yep. Just to follow up on

[3:33:45] that. I agree 100% that we're going to have this conversation in September and we'll have a little

[3:33:49] more data and I appreciate that. That's not on here. It's not on the um the ordinance change

[3:33:55] here without any deliberations here in September. So, I'm coming into this thinking we weren't even

[3:34:00] going to talk about it. So, we got clarification tonight. I'm looking forward to the discussion and

[3:34:04] uh I I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Uh Council Jacobs. Uh thank you. Good evening.

[3:34:11] I just want to um thank you, Councelor McKe, for really keeping this on track. Um I will be

[3:34:18] supporting this tonight. I I do want to um just echo some of the things I heard here. You know,

[3:34:24] um there was an election. This was a big part of the election. Obviously, um there was a group

[3:34:29] that started the petition to lower the salaries originally. I was part of that group. Um my front

[3:34:37] porch was one of the areas where hundreds of people came to sign the petition. And you know,

[3:34:43] the biggest question I got was, you know, people the biggest thing I noticed was that people didn't

[3:34:48] want to sign the city council one. You know, for every like one signature someone would sign the

[3:34:52] city council, like four people signed them. the mayor's raised one, right? So there is a sentiment

[3:34:58] out there which has been you know mentioned here by councelor Deona that you know and a member of

[3:35:04] the audience that you know there is some sentiment out there that people are not as you know you know

[3:35:11] affronted by the the city council one but I do believe that in my heart of hearts that the

[3:35:18] process was flawed. Um, you know, I do want to just say to this board, the city council that,

[3:35:24] you know, it's very possible that, you know, this could come back at 44,5, you know, I don't know.

[3:35:30] Um but you know I I do believe that um there should be a public you know comment a period

[3:35:37] where people can you know address the address the city council and and I think that would if

[3:35:43] if if that had been done and the finance committee chair was former world one city councelor. Um I

[3:35:48] I think things could have stayed just like this and we probably might not have had the election

[3:35:54] that we had back last year. So that's that's all I want to say about that. Thank you uh council.

[3:36:03] Thank you chairwoman. So I would like to say from my experience about uh connecting signatures to

[3:36:12] repeal race and organized protesting protest uh I feel people mainly upset about two things. One

[3:36:22] is the process. So the formal city con council just rushed through approved mayor's 79% pay

[3:36:32] raise and themselves 50% pay raise without giving a single public hearing despite the uh widespread

[3:36:44] protesting. So people are upset that and second is they do think uh 79% pay raise from 150 to 285 is

[3:36:57] too huge jump and so the new salary 285 will put mayor's salary the top three or top four

[3:37:08] like mayors in whole nation. So people compare the uh mayors in New York City, Chicago, Boston,

[3:37:17] Houston and they feel like uh mayor of city of Quincy compared all those big cities. How come

[3:37:26] the mayor city of Quincy get paid more? I think I I I heard people talking about that they they also

[3:37:36] um in the beginning is some consulting company suggest the number the higher the range the higher

[3:37:48] end is 385 even 385,000 right 370 370 and the lower end is 295 Right. Yeah, I remember that.

[3:38:02] So mayor even didn't take that suggestion. So he suggested 285,000. I just think that number

[3:38:12] given by that consulting company is totally out of touch. So I feel and the reason we want to

[3:38:21] do this to kind of going back to like have a clean slate so we can have a proper process then compare

[3:38:31] uh other city other towns and do analysis. So with the residents involvement with this new council,

[3:38:40] we can set set up a proper process and to get a number for for the race. We we don't we

[3:38:49] never say like a mayor or council shouldn't have any race. So that's just my comment.

[3:38:58] Okay. Councelor Ash. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I do have um just a couple

[3:39:05] comments and then um a potential amendment, but I appreciate um that council Deona. Um

[3:39:11] I I was I did make the the revision to the initial proposal from 47,500 to 44,500. Um

[3:39:18] that was the quite frankly the the the revision that I thought would have support. you know,

[3:39:23] um I I know that I voiced my concern over the process as did councelor Deabona and that

[3:39:30] um that concern is largely what led itself I would like to think anyway to the um the next agenda

[3:39:37] item which is 031 and the CPI index. Um there was really no no path forward to future increases

[3:39:45] or future revisions. I understand that that uh those parameters are not perfect. Uh but that was

[3:39:51] um quite what what the the will of the body was at that time. I look forward to discussing um those

[3:39:57] you know the the potential increases or revisions to that in the future. Obviously, this is um a

[3:40:03] matter that has garnered um a lot of um engagement and certainly people um that have organized and

[3:40:12] um made their their voices and their opinions known and that is hard work in and of itself. So,

[3:40:19] um whether or not you agree with with the mission, certainly commend those people for

[3:40:23] using the democratic process to do that. Um, but that being said, I I do look forward to discussing

[3:40:31] uh these more in the fall. I think all of my fellow counselors are now 6 months in realizing

[3:40:36] um the the all-encompassing nature and the and the the greatness and also the the time um consuming

[3:40:45] um part of this gig which makes it um so great and so rewarding. and part of actually this ordinance

[3:40:51] is must feel to all of my my freshman colleagues part of kind of that reward in a way. So,

[3:40:58] um I just wouldn't be would be remiss not to say that. Um I did um similarly take issue

[3:41:04] with the the repeal um the the repeal word and sentiment. Um I am fine with with this as as

[3:41:12] um as it stands with the delete or amend um and look forward to discussing it more in the fall.

[3:41:17] Um I will suggest one um friendly amendment to this and that would be to strike um to

[3:41:30] strike the clause that says after the state ethics commission raised conflict of interest concerns.

[3:41:39] Why? simply because that that isn't in the um the mayoral

[3:41:43] um revision and I do think it reads it, you know, if if we just say it was

[3:41:51] administratively deferred until January 5th, I think it accomplishes that without kind of

[3:41:57] uh you know, the the negative connotation with of that clause.

[3:42:03] So, just to just to clarify, the reason why I had this uh preamble for the for the council one as

[3:42:11] opposed to the mayor one is because I wanted to clarify why this change wasn't taking place until

[3:42:20] 2028 because we'd gotten a lot of um criticism for somehow getting into office and then grabbing

[3:42:27] the money, etc., etc., when we really couldn't do anything about it. um through this ordinance

[3:42:33] process. So that's why I I included the um the preamble here. Um, I see your point that it's

[3:42:44] sort of suggesting maybe that there's something different about the council versus the mayor, but

[3:42:48] given that the whole front is different in this uh order, um, I I would tend to leave it because it's

[3:42:59] accurate and um, it gets a point across that there were there were there were reasons why um, the

[3:43:09] previous council had to defer taking those raises. Um, it was it was because of this state conflict

[3:43:18] of interest law. Um, Councelor Riley. Yes. Am I on? Um, I'd like to make a motion to accept

[3:43:26] councelor Ash's friendly amendment. I don't think it adds anything to it and it's fine without it.

[3:43:34] Okay. So, we'll take a we'll take a vote on the friendly amendment. Um, yeah, I can just add to

[3:43:41] that. Yeah, thank thank you, Council Riley. But really, you know, the goal I think with

[3:43:46] the legislation that we're drafting, it should be as um subjective as possible. And I think that

[3:43:53] that this specific clause, so how it would read without this clause would simply say, whereas

[3:43:59] ordinance 2024-056 established the salary of each city council at 445 effective January 125 and was

[3:44:06] administratively deferred until January 5, 2026. I don't think it takes um anything away and I think

[3:44:12] it's certainly accurate. Um so that's why I would suggest that amendment. If if we could take a a

[3:44:18] vote on that, I'd appreciate it. Okay. Actually, I noticed that next the next part, the whereas

[3:44:24] actually mentions the state conflict of interest law anyway, so I changed my mind. I'm okay with

[3:44:30] your removing after the state ethics commission raised conflict of interest concerns. Oh, sorry.

[3:44:39] Okay, Councelor Ryan, through you, Madam Chair, um would we want to add that same language to

[3:44:46] the ma to the um 2026 29 We've already voted on it and I think we should just Okay. move move along.

[3:44:55] Um okay. So um councelor un the same question. Okay. So okay so we we have a motion to accept

[3:45:07] this with the deletion of after the state ethics commission raised conflict of interest concerns

[3:45:16] um at the end of the first whereas paragraph. Um, can we please take a roll call vote? Council Ash,

[3:45:22] Council Deon, Council Hubley, yes. Council Jacobs, Council Mahoney, yes. Council Riley, yes.

[3:45:30] Council Ryan, yes. Council Yuan, yes. Chairman McGee, yes. 8 to1. Okay, that was 8 to one. Um,

[3:45:38] with councelor Jacobs, uh, no. Okay, and now we have to pat we have to what? One more um item and

[3:45:47] not subst not specific to that um ordinance, but I just want to um alert clerk Manning just simply

[3:45:54] on the agenda. I think that the the titles of the actual ordinances should be changed because they

[3:46:00] still read a repeal. I don't think that that's sub that matters really for our business tonight,

[3:46:07] but just um alerting the body to that as well. Thank you. You want to say like amended? I think

[3:46:12] it should say deleted or deleted. Is that fine? That's how you've reworked it, right,

[3:46:17] Council McGee? Yep. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So now I guess we have to vote to accept order 202630

[3:46:28] as amended on the motion. Councelor Deona. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um thank you, Madam Chair. I'm

[3:46:35] going to support this one. I'm going to tell you why. I was going to give the reason why up there.

[3:46:39] Um, you're going to revisit this in September and you we got a commitment here tonight. So,

[3:46:44] we're going to revisit this. So, I'm okay with it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Please take a roll

[3:46:49] call. Council Ash, yes. Council Dabona, Council Huby, yes. Council Jacobs, yes. Council Mahoney,

[3:46:56] yes. Council Riley, yes. Council Ryan, yes. Council Yuan, yes. Juni, yes. Nine members. Okay,

[3:47:03] moving on to order number 2026 0 31. Um this is taking away the annual. So, in addition to the

[3:47:14] 79% and 50% raises, um there were there was a an ordinance put into place to um in beginning in the

[3:47:24] 2030s give annual increases to those salaries so that we wouldn't have to come back and do

[3:47:30] all this every single time and it wouldn't be such a long time between um raise ordinances.

[3:47:38] But because there wasn't a whole lot of discussion on that one either, um uh I have put forward this

[3:47:47] uh ordinance to undo that so that we can again revisit the whole concept of of incremental raises

[3:47:55] beginning in September. So um I motion to approve the order as amended before you on the motion.

[3:48:07] Okay. Um, oh. Oh, councelor Cuby. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, uh,

[3:48:17] I plan to support this, but I did want to mention a few things before I did before we went forward

[3:48:22] with it. And that is um so my brother-in-law, my late brother-in-law, Wayne Nickel, served on

[3:48:31] the Lemonster City Council for I think it was 25 years until his passing. Um and oddly enough, he

[3:48:41] put forward this exact same thing for Lemonster, which they've had in place for many, many years.

[3:48:47] And the feedback I've gotten from council members in Lemonster is very positive about it. And they

[3:48:54] said it kind of takes the politics out of it. It prevents us from having to not want to revisit

[3:49:00] this if you know people feel concerned about the election. Just takes it the politics out of it and

[3:49:04] lets lets it trend towards the proper um rate. And now I'm not saying commut consumer price index is

[3:49:10] the exact right thing although that is what they do. Um, but I think if we can if we revisit this,

[3:49:15] so I'm voting to to get rid of this, but I I I feel like it might be on the right track is

[3:49:20] really what I wanted to add. Um, and there was a currently sitting member that I spoke to who

[3:49:26] had been on for 17 years and and that was the feedback that I got. So, I think it's on the

[3:49:31] right track. Um, but I understand the intention that we're going to revisit this in September.

[3:49:35] Uh part of me says that anytime a elected official wants to go for an increase in compensation,

[3:49:42] they should put that before the people. That's one argument that I have. But then the other argument

[3:49:47] the other argument I have is, you know, maybe we just take the politics out of it. So, you know,

[3:49:52] I I can I can talk myself in and out of it in both ways. Uh so I'm looking forward to the vigorous

[3:49:57] conversation we'll have in the fall. Thank you. Um uh councelor Dono. Thank you. Thank you, Madam

[3:50:05] Chair. So, you really want to just get rid of this completely? Is this what you want to do and start

[3:50:10] all over? Exactly. So, again, I I don't I'm not against that. Um I did hear from the public 2%,

[3:50:18] I did hear 3%, I did hear go with exactly what everybody else gets for the salary increase. So,

[3:50:24] we we'll have this conversation again. Is this another one in September? Okay. Yeah. Um but yeah,

[3:50:32] that was just the feedback I got on just talking to several different people from everywhere was

[3:50:38] the increases and what you do every year. And it's always it's always a tough situation. Trust me,

[3:50:43] I was been up here all these years. We've only put it in front of us twice before that happened.

[3:50:48] It happened my very first year up here and we agreed not to take it. It was only like I want

[3:50:54] to say it was a 3% increase and it wasn't really worth it. So, we didn't do it back in 2016 and

[3:51:00] then it came up again while I was council president. Unfortunately, it didn't work

[3:51:04] and then it happened again in this pastime. It's never it's never going to be a good time to talk

[3:51:08] about this stuff. People are going to say you're taking a two or 3%. We'll talk about it more,

[3:51:12] but you're taking a two or 3% every year. You're getting an increase. What about taxes? And you

[3:51:17] guess what? You'll be part of the process. Tag you're in. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Did you accept

[3:51:25] Did you We have to accept the amendments and then we can vote it. I don't think we had Oh, we you

[3:51:30] replacing, right? Yes. Yes. Just accept that for this one. Yeah. Okay. Just to keep it consistent

[3:51:37] with all of us. Yes. All of them. Okay. Um so we should vote first to accept this amendment

[3:51:45] as it reads and as you have it in front of you. Um can you please take a roll call? Council Ash,

[3:51:50] yes. Council Dona, yes. Council Hugley. We're we're voting to accept this amended version.

[3:51:58] Yeah. Yeah. Uh would do you accept this amended version of this? Yes. Okay. Council Jacobs,

[3:52:06] yes. Council Mahoney. Council Mahoney, do you vote? Do you accept this amendment? Yes. Okay.

[3:52:11] Council Riley, yes. Council Ryan, yes. Council, yes. Chairman McKe, yes. Okay. Now uh motion to

[3:52:19] accept this as amended. Um please uh councelor you taking the motion. Okay. Uh she's did you

[3:52:27] want to make that motion? Okay. So councelor makes a motion. Um on the motion. Okay. Let's

[3:52:34] take a roll call. Councelor Ash. Yes. Council Dona. Council Hubley. Yes. Council Jacobs.

[3:52:39] Yes. Council Mahoney. Yes. Council Riley. Yes. Council Ryan. Council. J. Yes. n. Okay. Well,

[3:52:49] that wasn't excruciating. Thanks everybody. Um, so we are going to um that's all we have. So,

[3:52:58] we're going to we're going to move into the regular council meeting and adjourn ordinance.

[3:54:06] I'm going to have you read I'm going to have you do it again. If you could just read it

[3:54:09] into the to the Okay. Yep. Sure. Uh so this is a review of the open meeting law complaint

[3:54:14] regarding meeting on June 15, 2026. It was a late item. Late item. So, because this is a late item,

[3:54:22] we're using um we're using rule 27, which is allowing us to have the late item and it would

[3:54:27] require two-thirds of a vote of the members of the city council to be allowed into this meeting. So,

[3:54:30] do they have to take that vote now? Yes. So, if we could take a vote to allow this

[3:54:33] into the meeting tonight because I we just got this I just got this open meeting law

[3:54:36] violation yesterday and if we were to um not have it on the agenda tonight,

[3:54:40] it would have we would have had to have a special meeting. So, we're just having it tonight. So,

[3:54:43] we're going to take a roll call vote on that. Okay. Council Ash, yes. Council Dabona,

[3:54:48] yes. Council Hubley, yes. Council Jacobs, yes. Council McKe, yes. Council Riley, Council Ryan,

[3:54:56] yes. Council Yuen, yes. President Money, yes. Eight. Okay. So, I'm going to move into this. So,

[3:55:06] this item is an open meeting law complaint filed by Miss Leah Del Gloria. It was received by the

[3:55:10] city council, myself on June 21st, yesterday, 2026. Under Massachusetts open meeting law

[3:55:16] and regulations of the attorney general's division of open government, the council

[3:55:19] is required to review the complaint and and determine whether any action is appropriate.

[3:55:25] The complaint alleges that the proposed amendments on council orders 2026-030 and 2026-3031 were

[3:55:33] trans transmitted by councelor Maggie McKe to the clerk committees and subsequently distributed to

[3:55:39] the members of the city council outside of a posted public meeting. Before proceeding,

[3:55:45] I'd like to to clarify the purpose of the review for this evening. The council is not here to

[3:55:50] discuss the merits of the ordinances or proposed amendments or the source of the amendments. We are

[3:55:55] not making findings regarding the intent or the content of any individual council member. The sole

[3:56:00] question before the council tonight is whether the facts presented established deliberations

[3:56:04] among a quorum of city councilors outside the properly posted public meeting. The council has

[3:56:11] reviewed the complaint. You all have the you should all have the complaint in your package

[3:56:15] today. The emails correspondents referenced in the complaint in the document distributed to the

[3:56:19] members of the council. The materials reviewed show that a proposed amendment were submitted

[3:56:22] to the clerk of committees and subsequently distributed to the members of the council

[3:56:26] for inclusion in the meetings materials and consideration of future future public meetings.

[3:56:32] From what I can see, the council has found no evidence and I have not found any

[3:56:35] evidence that the members discussed or proposed amendments through email, exchanged opinions,

[3:56:39] responded in an other debated of merits outside the proposal, attempted to reach the consensus or

[3:56:44] otherwise engaged in deliberation outside the post of public meetings. Um, some of us weren't even

[3:56:48] aware that we got the email. The council further notes that the proposed amendments had not yet

[3:56:53] been discussed by the council and were intended to be considered in a future public meeting. Based on

[3:56:58] the information reviewed, the council finds that the communication at it as issued consisted of the

[3:57:03] distri distribution of documents and there is insufficient evidence to establish that

[3:57:09] deliberation occurred among a quorum of the city councils outside of the posted public meeting.

[3:57:14] The council remains committed to transparency and compliance within the open meeting law and will

[3:57:18] continue to exercise care regarding communication and distribution of materials relating to matters

[3:57:24] that come before the city council. Um before opening the discussion, I want to address

[3:57:30] one procedural matter. The complaint references council councelor McKe by name. I consulted with

[3:57:35] council um city city solicitor Timmons regarding whether um whether there were any participation

[3:57:41] concerns related to this complaint. Um and I was advised that council McKe can participate in the

[3:57:46] discussion and vote on this matter. According all members accordingly all members of the council are

[3:57:51] eligible to participate and discuss this vote. So at this time I'd like to open the floor to

[3:57:56] discussion regarding the complaint of the proposed and the proposed written response. Councelor McGee

[3:58:02] second you um I would like to address the latest open meeting law complaint against

[3:58:08] this council which concerns suggested amendments to two ordinances attempting to repeal salary

[3:58:13] increases passed by the previous city council. This complaint raises two separate issues. One

[3:58:20] is how counselors should communicate outside of public meetings. The other is whether individual

[3:58:25] counselors are allowed to hire a personal attorney for legal advice. We addressed the second issue

[3:58:31] last week establishing that the open meeting law does not preclude a single counselor from

[3:58:35] consulting with a personal attorney, a fact that solicitor Timmons acknowledged. So, the claim in

[3:58:41] this document that my hiring my own attorney at my own cost to look over local laws I had

[3:58:46] drafted carries quote serious OML implications is simply false. Let me now speak to the other issue

[3:58:54] and I'll start by providing some context. At the April 6th meeting of the public works committee,

[3:59:00] one counselor had suggested a number of amendments to proposed ordinances on sewer and storm water

[3:59:05] violations. Another counselor responded that it would be helpful for counselors to receive

[3:59:10] any such suggested changes ahead of time to give everyone a better chance to consider them. With

[3:59:16] that in mind, after making some changes to two ordinances I had drafted months earlier to try

[3:59:21] to repeal politicians pay raises, I asked the council clerk to email the suggested amendments

[3:59:27] to all the other counselors and to also post them publicly on the city website. My intention was to

[3:59:34] get the information out to both the council and the public so that everyone could have

[3:59:38] time to review the minor edits in advance of the meeting. In fact, that sort of public information

[3:59:45] sharing is supported by a dicta or opinion that the Supreme Judicial Court published in 2018.

[3:59:52] The dicta was about a case where the chair of the select board in Wayland circulated individual

[3:59:58] members evaluations of the town administrator with board members ahead of a public meeting about the

[4:00:03] evaluation. They did not share the written evaluations with the public until after the

[4:00:09] meeting. The Supreme Judicial Court wrote, quote, "If board members wish to circulate documents

[4:00:16] containing board member opinions among a quorum in advance of an open meeting, as here, prior and

[4:00:23] relatively contemporaneous public disclosure of those documents where permissible is necessary in

[4:00:30] order to comply with the open meeting law and to advance the statute's overall goal of promoting

[4:00:35] transparency in governmental decision-making." So there is a strong argument to be made to support

[4:00:42] the sharing of suggested amendments ahead of a meeting as long as that sharing happens with

[4:00:47] the public at the same time as with the body itself. That is the same kind of argument that

[4:00:53] allows counselors as some in this body did with regard to the request for new firefighter gear,

[4:00:58] for example, to write letters to the editor or social media posts stating how they will vote

[4:01:04] ahead of a public meeting where that vote will take place. If it turns out that the

[4:01:09] public does not feel comfortable with that type of wide information sharing, however,

[4:01:13] I will refrain from doing it in the future. But my intention was to increase transparency,

[4:01:18] communication, and efficiency in government. As an ironic aside, I will close by noting

[4:01:24] that on May 18th, council never got a chance to discuss the amendments I asked the council clerk

[4:01:29] to share with the public and the other counselors ahead of that meeting. And those amendments never

[4:01:34] will be discussed because the amendments I suggested to the raise ordinances tonight

[4:01:39] came from the city solicitor. So the two amended versions suggested on May 18th and referenced in

[4:01:45] this open meeting law complaint have had and will have exactly no impact on council policy.

[4:01:57] Thank you.

[4:02:00] Does anybody else want to speak on the ordinance on the on this? Do we have a motion? Um,

[4:02:05] what I'm looking for is a motion to approve that. I can respond back. Um,

[4:02:10] and we we'll take a vote on that. Councelor Riley.

[4:02:16] Yeah. I'd like to make a motion that we find that there's no violation and allow the president to

[4:02:20] respond to this matter and respond to the um, Secretary of State's office. Okay. Do we have a

[4:02:25] second? Seconded by Councelor Ryan. Did you want to speak? Okay. Second. Anybody on the motion?

[4:02:31] Second. Ready for roll call vote. Councelor Ash. Yes. Council Deona. Council Hubley. Yes. Council

[4:02:38] Jacobs. Council McKe. Yes. Council Riley. Yes. Council Ryan. Yes. Council. Yes. N. All right. So,

[4:02:50] we're moving on to item number two. Okay. Item number two. 2020606 ordinance rules safeguarding

[4:02:59] transparency, public access to information and democratic participation in city council

[4:03:02] proceedings. Councelor McGee. So um we had a meeting of rules committee earlier this evening

[4:03:12] and we passed it um with amendments um with a positive recommendation out of committee. All

[4:03:18] right. So we need a motion to pass. Motion to accept it by the full body. Okay. A seconded by

[4:03:24] council on the motion. Roll call vote. Council Ash. Yes. Council Dabona. Council Hubley. Yes.

[4:03:33] Council Jacobs. Yes. Council McKe. Council Riley. Yes. Council Ryan. Yes. Councilw. Yes. President

[4:03:40] Mooney. Yes. Nes as amended. All right. So once again, I'm going to um take into effect rule 27.

[4:03:49] um taking um the late item that will require two-thirds of a vote that was

[4:03:53] added to the agenda tonight. That was just to bring the ordinance amending municipal

[4:03:57] code for strengthening the auditor auditor um powers of the auditor. So before we do that,

[4:04:02] we have to take a we have to take a vote to be able to do those. Do I need Yeah,

[4:04:07] we're just going to take a roll call vote. Yeah. Okay. Councelor Ash, yes. Council Deona, Council

[4:04:14] Huby, yes. Council Jacobs, yes. Council McKe, yes. Council Riley, yes. Council Ryan. Yes. Councilman.

[4:04:22] Yes. Yes. All right. So, moving on. So, what you have in your package tonight, this is a while ago,

[4:04:29] too. I feel like it was a snowstorm. We were um we we were all in agreement with with the language,

[4:04:36] but we didn't have it in the right right sections within the um within the ordinance itself. So,

[4:04:41] that has been updated and it's been redlined and provided to everybody here this evening. And if

[4:04:47] everybody thinks it looks okay at this point, I'll just need a motion. Motion to approve as amended.

[4:04:54] Motion to approve as amended by councelor Riley. Seconded by I did actually That's fine. Thanks.

[4:05:03] Thank you. Uh, Madam President, with respect to um page 3, section 66-16, there's a miscellaneous

[4:05:11] provision that reads um the city auditor should be prohibited from contributing to either by

[4:05:16] financial or inind contribution participating in the campaign of any candidate for Quinsey

[4:05:20] City Council or mayor or in the campaign of any Quinsey city council or mayor of Quinsey for any

[4:05:25] other political office. I guess my question with that provision is is that is is that

[4:05:31] um does that sentiment is that carried out in any other departments or um are we setting a

[4:05:38] precedent here or and has that provision? I didn't change it. That was that was the

[4:05:42] actual language that was there. Okay, understood. Thank you. That was existing. I I did I saw it in

[4:05:49] um that's all good. All right. Thank you. Sorry. I can't answer as far as other departments, but

[4:05:54] Okay. Is that your only question? Yes. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Second by council Ash. Um,

[4:06:01] roll call vote. Councelor Ash. Yes. Council Deona. Council Hubley. Yes. Council Jacobs. Yes. Council

[4:06:08] McKay. Yes. Council Riley. Yes. Council Ryan. Yes. Council. Yes. President H. Yes. Moving on

[4:06:15] to item number four. Item number four. 2026 029 ordinance repeal of may raise ordinance 2024-055.

[4:06:26] So this is council McKe. So um this was uh discussed just now in the ordinance committee

[4:06:33] and we u made amendments and um passed this ordinance um as amended out of committee with

[4:06:41] a positive recommendation. Excellent. So I make a motion to approve it as the full body. Okay. Do

[4:06:47] we have a second? Second by councel here. Do you have someone to speak? Yes. So point of order. Um,

[4:06:54] I believe councelor through you, sorry. Uh, I believe council Ash mentioned something about

[4:06:58] having to adjust the way it reads on the agenda or is that did I miss the end of that conversation?

[4:07:02] Because right now it says repeal and we changed it. Does that matter? I just want to make sure

[4:07:07] before we went forward. That's not part of the order, but I'll change for historical.

[4:07:11] I'll change She'll change it for historical housekeeping thing, not Okay. Thank you.

[4:07:18] So, we have a motion by councelor McKe, seconded by councelor Hubley. Anybody

[4:07:24] else? Roll call vote. Council Ash, yes. Council Deona, no. Council Hubley, yes. Council Jacobs,

[4:07:31] yes. Council McKe, yes. Council Riley, yes. Council Ryan, yes. Council Yuen, President Money,

[4:07:38] yes. Moving on to item number five. Item number five, 2026 030 ordinance repeal of council Ray's

[4:07:48] ordinance 2024056. Councelor McKe. So this we had a positive recommendation out of committee

[4:07:55] um as amended and I move to um pass this uh that version uh in the full council. Okay. We

[4:08:03] have a motion to accept seconded by council on the motion. Roll call vote. Council Ash.

[4:08:10] Yes. Councelor Deon. Yes. Council Hubley. Yes. Council Jacobs. Yes. Council McKe. Yes. Council

[4:08:16] Riley. Yes. Council Ryan. Yes. Council. Yes. President Mooney. Yes. Nine members. Number six.

[4:08:25] Okay. Item number 6, 2026 031. Ordinance repeal annual raises for elected officials. Ordinance

[4:08:32] CO number was 2024090. Council McKay. Positive recommendation as amended out of committee. And

[4:08:39] I make a motion to approve that version by the full council. Okay. Motion by councelor McGee,

[4:08:45] seconded by councelor Yuen. On the motion, not seeing any. Roll call vote. Council Ash, yes.

[4:08:53] Council Deona, yes. Council Hubley, yes. Council Jacobs, yes. Council McKe, yes. Council Riley,

[4:08:58] yes. Council Ryan, yes. Councilw, yes. President Mahoney, yes. So, next is upcoming meetings.

[4:09:07] Tuesday, September 8th, um at 7:30, we will have a council meeting. So, I'm sure you'll all miss

[4:09:13] us for the summer. Motion to adjourn by Councelor Riley. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.

Quincy City Council: June 22, 2026

Transcript