He said he would be joining a little bit late.

Okay.

Alderman, uh all the women at large, Soshana Kelly, Chairwoman.

I'm here.

We have four so far.

We have Quorum.

Also in attendance, we have uh Alderman uh Patricia Klee, uh all the men at large, Alicia Greg, Alderman, uh Rick Richard Dowd, uh our Alderman at Large and uh President Lori Wilshire.

Um we have Alderman Tim Senate, we have Tim Cummings, Administrative Services Director, uh, we have Doria Brown, our energy manager, and uh uh Matthew Sullivan, our community and uh planning director.

Great, I think that's everyone.

Okay.

Um we will start with public comment.

Laurie Ordlano Nashua.

Um just a couple things.

Um I notice we only have one person interviewing for Board of Health, and I'm I'm wondering, and I didn't see the whole packet, I'll look online.

How many people applied for that new position with the Board of Health?

That's I I thought there might be more than one a single candidate looking to uh participate with the um health board.

As far as the new resolutions, um it looks like you have some with regarding the use of electronic devices during meetings.

Um I support this um to the extent that I think there's a lot of uh additional and extra phone stuff going on during meetings that should be kept at bay and um everyone should be focused on what's going on.

Uh virtual meeting participation, you know.

I I would like to see people's cameras on.

I do think it's important.

I also think if you have members who are attending by virtual meeting and they can't participate in non-public session, and then they go and vote on stuff that night that was based on the non-public session, that really isn't right.

And I watched that happen with the 14 Mulberry Street.

You spent an hour, an hour and a half in non-public session.

There was a uh several participants um on Zoom, and then when you came out of non-public session and you went into your regular meeting to do a vote, a member voted um in favor of Mulberry Street, not having participated in the non-public session at all.

And I I have to say I don't really like that.

If you can't be present for something that's being on voted on that night with is a non-public session, I think it's really uh poor form to vote for something.

Um and the compensation ordinance, you know.

I'm just gonna say this.

I think the board itself right now is struggling with attendance.

I don't think there's great attendance with this board.

And you gave yourselves all a pretty big big raise last year, and there's a lot of people that seem to conflict out or can't be here or have to be on Zoom or have other commitments.

And um, you know, I I see regular some regular people who are I would say um you know carrying the load, and I see a lot who aren't.

So um I think if you're not here, whether it's regular meetings or special meetings, I think they should all count because there's a a lack of um participation in special meetings, and you happen to run as many special meetings as you do regular, possibly more, and a lot of people don't come, board members, elected members don't show up, and they don't count against their time, and I think they should count against their time.

Thank you.

Any additional public comment state your name and town or city?

City to town, yeah.

Uh my name is Katie.

I live in Hookset, but I have a store on 100 Main Street.

Uh I'm here tonight to speak on secondhand dealer laws.

I'm basically representing the entire hobby space of second hand dealers.

Um, you know, Erica from the Relentless Dragon couldn't be here.

Michelle from Bizarre Games.

I've spoken with her.

I've also spoken with Gary, who's the owner of the coin shop just up the road from me.

Um I've spoken to a couple other secondhand shops as well.

Um, and we're pretty much all in agreement that something needs to be done.

My store gets to celebrate today being here for one year in Nashua.

Um but I'm gonna be straight with you guys.

If I didn't just completely disregard your law every day of the life, I wouldn't be here for a year.

Gary up in Main Street said the same thing as well, that they can't basically function the way it is as well.

Um so I'm hoping we can come to some kind of agreement where we meet in the middle on this because right now the whole hobby space is in agreement, like we can't function or be here under the current law.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any additional public comment?

Seeing none communications.

There is none.

We received a communication.

Oh, yeah, sorry.

And there's two separate communications, both about ADA requirements.

So like to accept them into the record.

Okay.

Interviews.

We have Board of Health Christian Jimenez, uh social worker, 21 Forest Hills Drive, Nashville, New Hampshire 3060.

Doesn't I have like terminals fire or something?

Okay.

Yep.

Great.

I see that Madam President is here to introduce her pick for Board of Health.

So we'll start with there and then we'll switch over to Mr.

Jimenez.

Sorry.

Excuse me.

Thank you.

So I have with me tonight Christian Jimenez, who is a licensed social worker.

And he's got quite an extensive background.

He's been in social work for 12 years now.

And he's got a pretty impressive resume.

He's done a lot of things with kids.

He's done things in Nashua, out of Nashua.

You know, lifetime membership membership at a local boys and girls club.

You can't hate that.

Somebody who does that.

So excuse me.

I know that he's uh he's qualified to do this, and um he's interested in the board of health.

He's interested in um, you know, he's in eager to bring his clinical expertise and passion to the board of health.

So I'm gonna leave it up to him to introduce himself.

So as she mentioned, I'm Christian Jimenez.

Um I saw the opening for the the Board of Health, and um, as I was just telling her, I'm you know, getting more involved in Nashua.

I recently am on the board uh for Little League, coaching two of my little kids teams in Little League, just trying to be more involved, and so when I saw the uh opening for the social work, uh I've been a social worker for um, as she said, since 2014, since graduating from college.

So I saw a chance and opportunity to kind of um get more involved with Nashua and however I could.

So I have a lot of experience as a social worker, so I think I can um you know bring some ideas or my expertise to help in some ways.

Thank you.

Um before I open it up to questions from the committee, there was a question that I also had in terms of how many uh resumes we would have gotten, because I think we have two seats um still open for the social worker.

We filled a nurse, it was just a nurse.

Okay, so did you receive any other or was this the only one?

This was the only one.

Director Bagris.

And a good one.

Yes, okay.

Just wanted to get that answered.

Okay, great.

Um, so I'll open up to questions from the committee.

Alderman Tebow.

Thank you.

Um, thank you, uh Mr.

Jimenez for putting in.

Um where do you currently work?

Can you the record?

Yep.

Wanda's therapeutic services.

Okay.

Um did the owner of the company uh give you um some advice to apply for.

I mean, he he just showed me that the position was open, that was it.

Okay.

All right, that's all I got.

Thank you.

Questions from other questions from the committee.

Alderman Johnson.

Thank you.

Thank you for applying.

Thank you.

What do you feel you're going to bring to the board?

Um, as I mentioned, you know, I have I have a lot of expertise in social work.

Um, I've recently done started doing counseling and a lot of other things, but um, you know, like I said, when there was a a social worker position, I feel you know, in that area I have you know knowledge that I can uh bring.

Thank you.

Alderman Senate.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

I I'm not on this committee, but I was um hoping that you could take a moment to speak about uh the relationship with your work as a um a licensed social worker and how it relates to the arena of public health and the work that our public health department does because you'll be working side along side by side with them should you become a member of the board of health, and I'd just like to get a little bit of your perspective on that.

Yeah, I mean, so when it comes to like you said, the arena of public health.

I feel um I'm I play a big part in the community, and I'm out in the community helping families, whether that be um you know, underprivileged, looking for housing, looking for jobs, um, you know, mentoring young kids, things like that.

I feel that's you know a big part of the uh you know the public health, as I mentioned.

I also do counseling at Wandela.

So you know, just different aspects that can help, you know, help the people of Nashville.

Thank you.

I have a question.

Um so you mentioned that you're doing counseling.

Um is counseling most of what you're doing now, or are you still very much involved as a social worker?

No, I mean uh forensic social work is what I do primarily.

Counseling case management is just a small part.

I also do uh court investigations, um, but mainly uh definitely forensic social work takes up the majority of my of my hours.

Can you tell me a little bit more about that?

It's forensic forensic part, it's uh through the through the court system.

So most of my uh clients have uh court cases, and so I am hired by the attorneys to help their clients with like I said, whether that be fine jobs, fine housing, um, take classes, parenting classes, sometimes I supervise visits, um, DCF visits.

Uh so some of my most of my work is trying to help these parents, you know, gain custody back of their children.

Okay, thank you.

Other questions?

None.

Okay.

Good.

All right.

Uh, we'll be taking up your nomination in a bit.

Thanks for coming in.

Okay, thank you.

Um up next, we have arts commission.

Uh I don't think we have the person.

So I don't think so.

I can't see who's sitting right there, but I think that's Laura Wana.

It is get a large podium in a way.

Okay.

Uh, we were slated to interview someone for arts commission, but I don't see him in the audience, so we will reschedule him to a later date.

Application to license Hoffers pedlers itinerant vendors license.

There's none.

Appointments by the mayor, there are none.

Uh well, I guess I'd like to make a motion.

Do you recommend the following appointment to the Board of Health as a social worker?

Member Christian Jimenez with a term to expire December 31st, 2027.

You want to take him individually?

Well, we're gonna can't take Michael McDowell.

You can't take Michael on the other one.

Stephanie's not well, we can do Stephanie because it's a reappointment, but we'll get all right.

Uh also to recommend the following reappointment to the Greeley Park Advisory Committee.

Stephanie Valentine with a term to expire June 13th, 2029.

You've heard the motion as discussion on that motion.

All right, all those in favor?

Aye.

I abstain.

I have three ayes.

It passes.

Okay, point of order.

Well, Alderman Lopez abstained.

Does should he um state why he abstained from because is he abstaining from both votes on both people just saying because the last guy works the same place I do?

Yeah, but I think that needs to be in the record.

I mean, probably should have asked to split them because I would think you'd want to vote on the other one.

Or no.

Pass anyway.

It passed anyway.

So you said that's fine.

Whatever.

So three A's, one abstention, and the abstention was due to a work conflict.

Yep.

Okay, great.

Unfiss business.

Um there's none.

New business resolutions.

All right, we have R-26-036.

Adopting the commercial property assessed clean energy and resiliency, Cash PACER program.

I'd like to make a motion for final passage to recommend final passage.

Okay, you've heard the motion.

I believe um Doria Brown is here to speak on it.

Wanna come up?

Good evening.

I just wanted to give an overview and on the commercial property assess clean energy resiliency program.

Um CPACER is a financing tool that helps commercial property owners fund energy efficiency, renewable energy, water conservation, resiliency improvements through long-term private financing.

One of the most important things to understand about this is that the program is not city funded.

This um will not use taxpayer dollars.

The financing comes entirely from private lenders, while the state program is administered through the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority.

The types of projects that would qualify for this program include commercial buildings or the eligible properties, include commercial buildings, industrial facilities, multifamily housing with five or more units, nonprofits and agricultural properties.

Um the eligible projects are HVAC, lighting improvements and controls, insulation and windows, solar and battery storage, water efficiency upgrades, and flood protection and climate resiliency improvements.

This makes the program flexible enough to support both energy projects and a broader infrastructure of resilience or a broader group of infrastructure and resiliency projects.

Financing is really unique.

Instead of traditional loans tied directly to building owners, the financing is attached to the property itself through a voluntary property assessment.

The assessment is used to generate a lien on the property, and it's similar to a property tax obligation.

Because the lien is attached to the property, lenders have a stronger have stronger security.

Repayment terms can be longer, financing is often more affordable, and larger infrastructure projects become more feasible.

Another important feature is that the property changes or that if the property changes ownership, the repayment obligation transfers with the building rather than the original owner.

So what would the city's role in this be?

If the city were to choose to participate in the program, the their role would be to adopt the resolution opting into the state program, enter into agreement with New Hampshire Business Finance Authority, which is written into the resolution.

That group would administer the program.

When the finance authority does all the assessments and work related to the program, the city will review the projects for compliance and coordinate the lien on the property.

That is the spiel.

Are there any questions?

I have a couple.

So you sit on energy environment with me.

I think this is an interesting program.

I assume that this sort of aligns with some of the energy goals and imagine Nashua plans that we have in Nashua.

Absolutely.

This would help assist the city with electrification if building owners choose to do energy efficiency projects that include electric HVAC and renewable energy projects.

And it also has an added tie to resiliency because when people do energy efficiency projects, it reduces demand on the grid and it helps save costs for everybody in the community.

And then I my follow-up would be in terms of logistics of this, once we enable it, is that it we don't see it again, or is every single property that goes for it comes through the board again?

It would not go through the Board of Aldermen, it would go through the assessors.

So the business finance authority would be reviewing all the projects, ensuring compliance, doing the assessment.

This is a new program, so the training for the assessors has not been established by the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority, but they are in progress on working on that.

And if if this were to move forward, they would get that training.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I just want to announce Alderman Clemens as has arrived.

It was a question.

All votes now need to be by roll call.

Roll call, yeah.

Then can you just let us know that you're here?

All the fun questions.

Thank you.

Yes, I will do that.

Um this is uh Alderman Clarkman.

I present, I think here everyone.

And I'm attending remotely because I am taking care of my wife who will go.

Thank you.

Alderman Johnson.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for coming tonight and explaining this.

So the if you sell your property, the lien stays on the property, so the new owners would take over the payments.

Is that it?

That's correct.

So it would be like solar.

So if you were renting or buying, so if you were leasing solar while you took a loan on the solar panels, this kind of stays like the same way with the solar panels.

So to respond to that, um, you can uh obtain solar in a lot of different ways.

Um, one of those ways includes a lease on the solar on the property, and that's when the payment would pass through to the property owner.

If you were to take a traditional loan out for solar, that would stay with the homeowner.

So in terms of the lease agreement for solar, which stays with the property, I would say that would be kind of similar to this, but the collateral for that um would be on the property instead of a higher risk for the solar installer who doesn't have collateral on that lease.

Okay.

Has this may I continue?

Yes.

Thank you.

Has this is there any other communities that have done this?

I know New Hampshire's working on it, but not in New Hampshire, any other states where you've seen the success in it.

Yes, I believe this program has been successful in California and Massachusetts, um, and a few other states, which I can't remember exactly which ones, um, but we are kind of late adopters of the CPACER program.

Uh a lot of communities or a lot of states also have a PACER program for um residential property as well.

So the state is starting at CPACER, and it's a well-established program across the country.

May I continue?

Alderman Johnson.

Thank you.

Would you be kind enough to send us some information on the different communities?

Absolutely.

Ed has had success with this.

Because that's how I will basically base my decision on, because I'd like to see success rates.

And if there's anybody who's failed, I'd like to see that too, and why they might have failed.

I think that's important.

I'll side Alderman Johnson.

Yes, I am.

Thank you very much.

The motion on the floor is to recommend final passage.

Any additional questions?

By roll call.

Yep.

Uh Alderman Thomas Lopez.

Yes.

Alderman Derek Tebos a yes.

Alderman Paula Johnson?

No.

Uh Alderman at large, Ben Clemens.

Yes.

And Alder Woman at Lars, Soshana Kelly.

Yes.

All right, it's 401.

It passes.

That motion carries.

As we go into new business ordinances, I'm going to request that we make an exception.

And pull from the table.

Oh, which one is it?

O 26007.

We were unable to hear it last time because Director Cummings had to leave early.

So if everyone has no objection, I'd love to start there.

All right.

O 26 007 amending the unaffiliated employee employees' personnel policies by adding a medical insurance coverage opt-out stipend.

I'd like to make make a motion to take it off the table.

You heard the motion.

Yes.

Alderman Paula Johnson.

No.

Alderman Ben Clemens.

Yes.

Alderman Thibault's yes.

Alderman and Shoshana Kelly.

Yes.

All right.

We have four to take it off the table, one no, so it carries.

Now you have to.

Yep.

Make the motion too.

All right.

I'd like to make the motion to recommend final passage of O 26-007.

You've heard the motion.

I am going to recognize Director Director Cummings.

Thank you for being with us remotely.

Yes.

For the record, Tim Cummings, Director of Administrative Services.

I'm having a little trouble this evening with my internet and connectivity, so there may be a delay, and I apologize for that.

Each contract for each individual collective bargaining group would need to adopt this particular language so they would have access to it.

So I just want to be clear this legislation at hand is just for the unaffiliated employees at this time.

And what it does is, and we've talked about this on a couple of occasions with the with the Board of Alderman, is it's a cost containment strategy where we would through a policy offer a stipend in lieu of providing health care and health care benefits.

You'd have to have eligible health care benefits, and that would need to be uh demonstrated.

And if you qualified, you'd be get paid out uh a stipend.

And the stipend is at various intervals, uh single, two-person and family plans at differing dollar amounts, um, and you'd get it paid out for the year based off of uh um your waiv of the of the health care uh benefits.

You'd have the ability at any time to be able to rejoin the program, but then obviously the stipend would uh stop, you'd have uh an ability to do this once a year at open and open enrollment.

Um the only other comment I would add is that uh we are trying to incentivize our employees by giving them a little additional money uh to look at alternative health care arrangements in a way to try to control some of our our health care costs, which are you know going up double digit year over year.

Right, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Cummings.

Questions to the committee?

Alderman T bill.

Thank you.

Um Director Cummings, so I've seen these at pretty much everywhere I've ever worked.

Um obviously the goal is to push people to other insurance if they are eligible for it.

So you you cut down the claims, you know, I have claims containment, so you're not cost containment for claims, obviously.

care costs which are you know going up double digit year over year all right thank you thank you thank you director cummings questions to the committee alderman t bill thank you um director cummings so i've seen these at pretty much everywhere i've ever worked um obviously the goal is to push people to the other insurance if they are eligible for it so we you you cut down the claims you know have claims containment so you're not cost containment for claims obviously um what would what would be the is there any downside to this like what's what would be the the the con of of offering this to employees um well i i i don't really think there's a downside this is not uh cutting edge program by any stretch this is pretty tried and true um uh in terms of a benefit being offered i i don't think um in all honesty it will get a lot of participation because i believe our employees one of the reasons why they like our organization is they like the benefits we offer most of our employees I think uh come for the benefits and so um uh I say that because they would still have the option to to participate I just don't think that there's gonna be a lot of participation but we felt as though that this is something we could offer in lieu of getting into plan design type conversations in a way to try to help control or contain some of the increases in the benefits budget great thank you alderman though yeah all right alderman Clemens uh thank you madam chair um you touched on it a little bit um but uh my question through you madam chair to director cummings is do you have an anticipated cost savings that this is going to save the city or are we just hoping for the best here it if I may madam chair alderman sorry director Cummings thank you that great question we don't have any data yet to point to in terms of trend um in consultation with our consultant if we could get and work towards a five percent um uh participation rate that would be considered good and would be excellent I think that that's kind of where we're striving to out of our entire universe of employees who have benefits if we could over a period of time grow to between five and ten percent that would be uh a recognizable uh industry standard as as acceptable um I think anecdotally I can say that we anticipate next year something in the three to percent in about three percent participating um and then we would we would obviously watch this over the coming years and have a conversation with you all as to if we're not seeing the level of participation we would like maybe adjust the incentive up or down as as we see what the trend as we see what the trend looks like we've set the numbers based on recommendations by our consultant and the way this is structured is we would have an ability once a year to adjust the the stipend up or down um and we would do that based on the data as we as we see participation yes follow up so my question my follow-up to this is how many how many of our employees now do not take our health care and those employees would then have this the ability to take this stipend correct so in other words if I'm an employee uh and I don't already take the health care I can add open enrollment do this nothing's different nothing has changed but now I'm you know 2500 dollars whatever it is richer if if I may madam president madam chair director cummings that thank you so it it is only those employees who have had health benefits provided over a three year period so you have to have the prior three years to establish eligibility and then you could have access to it okay okay that makes sense now what if what about new employees coming in who you know they're brand new they they haven't been around the the block and and if you could demonstrate that you have other health care benefits uh being provided to you you could you could gain access to the if you're if you're brand new from to the city yes okay okay um those those are my those are my questions thank you alderman johnson thank you very much um director cummings do you know any other municipalities um that are doing this and their success rate director cummings uh uh yes uh off the top of my head I'm gonna say Concord um has has a similar type program I know that there are a few other municipalities that do offer it as well I cannot tell you off the top of my head what their adoption rate is but I'm happy to get that and forward it on to the committee.

Director Cummings.

Uh uh, yes, uh, off the top of my head, I'm gonna say Concord um has has a similar type program.

I know that there are a few other municipalities that do offer it as well.

I cannot tell you off the top of my head what their adoption rate is, but I'm happy to get that and forward it on to the committee.

Thank you very much.

I'll set Alderman Johnson.

Yes, I am, thank you.

All right, the motion on the floor is to recommend final passage.

All set.

Please call the roll.

Alderman Lopez.

No.

Uh Alderman Thibault says yes.

Alderman Johnson.

No.

Uh Alderman Clemens.

Yes.

And Alderman Kelly.

Yeah.

Alderman Kelly.

That's three yeses to two no's.

It carries.

That motion carries.

Thank you, Director Cummings.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm going to go back to the top.

All right.

Um we have O-26-010 regarding use of electronic devices during meetings.

I'd like to make a motion uh to recommend final passage.

Motion on the floor is to recommend final passage.

Discussion.

Alderman Johnson.

Thank you very much.

I wrote this ordinance because I've gotten um calls and meet people, and they're kind of concerned that they see people on their cell phones, their head is down, and they feel that members of this board should be really concentrating on the discussion and not being on cell phones.

And it's really sad, but you know, we had to do it in school, bell to bell, because kids were using their cell phones more than what they should be.

And I remember when I sat in the house, um, they used to discourage the use of a flip phone back then.

That's how long ago it was, a flip phone.

And I did call the House and Senate, and they did say that they do not encourage um using the cell phone during general meeting.

Well, I called and I got the information.

You know, I'm not lying about this, but I did make that phone call.

And I think we're at a turning point here in this chamber that we really need to be focusing on the meeting, that not picking up these phones, you know, and using it.

And I think that you know, we should be able to use our tablets just for our mini meeting minutes.

And this is why I'm doing it, because my constituents asked me to do this, and I feel that this is appropriate.

And you know, we really need to start concentrating, and it's not about a phone anymore.

The phones give us a lot of activity, we can do a lot on it, but when we're at this meeting, our focus should be at the meeting and not on these cell phones.

Thank you.

Alderman Thibault, and then Alderman Clemens.

Thank you, uh, Madam Chair.

So um I mean how am I gonna get my high score?

Um just kidding.

So um uh question to the uh the maker of the mo of the maker of the legislation, I guess.

Um how much papers do you have there of all the stuff we go over in front of you right now?

I have a lot.

You have a stack, right?

I saw you can remove the stack.

So my question is some people use their electronics to do that.

Um I used to sit next to one over a couple over from Alderman Clemens.

He once got called out for using his phone in a meeting, but he had zero paper at his desk and he didn't have a tablet.

He was using his phone to scroll down the the ordinances, and I know Alderman, they can speak for themselves, but Alderman Lopez does the same thing.

So I I know that sometimes we use our phone to you look up something if we don't have our tablets with us.

So it's not always people fooling around.

I know people see somebody on the phone.

I yell at my kids all the time for being on their phones.

It's not always about fooling around or talking to somebody that's not here.

Sometimes it's actually doing work, it's looking up something.

Now I can't speak for everyone.

I'm not saying everyone does that, but I believe um we do.

Um so I I don't think I would support this because I don't know how you would enforce it.

Like how would you enforce that somebody's doing work compared to not work?

So I mean we're not gonna have somebody walking around going, oh, you're talking to a family member, you're talking to you're doing work.

Um and the other piece is some of us have kids, and sometimes we gotta react and make sure everything's okay at home.

So it's it's you know, I mean, how else can they get to us?

And they come here and storm into the chamber.

I mean, sometimes we we have we might have an emergency.

I've seen people leave the chamber before after they get a call or they get a text.

So um, so I don't think I'll be supporting this tonight.

May I respond?

I have a list.

Oh, good.

Alderman Clemens, I have you next to put you on the list.

Thank you, uh Madam Chair.

Um, yeah, I this unfortunately uh well what Alderman Tebow uh just said is absolutely true.

I use my cell phone during the meeting to as opposed to my tablet.

I just prefer it.

Um it's easier for me to to get information and things like that.

But the other thing is too, I um I started this meeting tonight off on my cell phone.

It's how I logged in.

I'm on my tablet now because I was able to get upstairs into the office.

Uh but I was doing stuff to take care of my wife and um realized how late I was.

So I was like, you know what, I can I can log in on my phone, and then once I get upstairs to the to the office, I'll I'll go on uh I'll go on the the computer.

So you know, if we pass this, I wouldn't have been able to do that.

Um I just think it's I think it's unnecessary.

Uh I won't be supporting it.

Alderman Lopez, I'm going committee members first, but I also see Dowd Klee and Greg.

I'll get to you guys.

Alderman Lopez.

So I have using my tablet and I've been logged out at least three times with my email, and I have to use my phone in order to do the two-factor authentication.

Um it was pointed out at one point during a meeting that I was using my phone, and I at that time I believe I didn't have a computer, and I was just using it for the minutes.

Um for me, it's easier to see the phone often when I'm trying to scroll through or look through things because I have to look about four or five inches away.

So I mean, essentially, my fellow Alderman's asking me to do a meeting like this and make it just really clear to everybody that I'm legally blind, which I think is ironic considering some of the other legislation that's been put out.

I was that Alderman Johnson.

Thank you.

Uh, first of all, I want to respond to Alderman Clemens.

Um, it wouldn't have make no difference to you from home whether you're on your tablet or whether you're on your cell phone.

This has to do in the chamber.

And to my colleague Alderman Lopez, when it comes to a disability, there are certain rules and regulations, and that you would be entitled to it because of your disability.

The you know, it's talking about texting during the meetings, it's talking about not responding and not paying attention at times.

And the reason, you know, we talk about all this at times.

Well, I won't be able to do this.

My phone is always down like this.

And if I hear it buzz, I might pick it up and just look at it.

And that's about it.

Because I remember when I was in this chamber back when people's phones used to the flip phones used to ring, and we had a sign on the door that says, please shut off your cell phones because of it.

Because it becomes distracting.

What people are saying that they're concerned when they see people all the time, and their head is down like this.

They're concerned that someone is texting something to somebody outside of the chamber or they're discussing the meeting and telling people how to vote.

And it does happen at times, maybe not in here, but it's happened other places.

But this is what their concern is.

Because there's nothing under the right to know law that covers this.

And that's really a little hole in the right to know law that I hope it gets changed.

If you're on your tablet in here because you're doing a meeting, you're on the meeting.

But if you're texting people, that's not what you're supposed to be doing during a meeting.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Okay.

There's a couple of things that that bother me about this.

One, it's an ordinance, and I believe the maximum fine is a thousand dollars for an ordinance if you violate it.

And uh who's going to police it?

Are we gonna be stopping our meetings every 10 minutes because somebody says, oh, someone's using their phone, are they using it right or not right?

Uh and I use a tablet a lot when I'm here, but like tonight I don't have my tablet.

If I wanted to look something up on the city website, I'd use my phone.

And you have to look at it, so you have to be looking down, or that's kind of useless.

Um who's gonna make the final determination if you're misusing the phone?

The chair, or you know, I don't think that's been thing.

And and you know we all have families, and and I know several times I've had issues come up with my family when the phone rings, and I have to look and see what they're saying.

Um so there are times when it's necessary.

So I and I I the biggest problem I have with this is is the who's gonna police it, how are we gonna just you know justify the misuse and who's gonna determine that and and who's gonna determine if there's a fine because it's an ordinance.

I think if anything, it should probably just be rules of the of how we conduct meetings and have nothing to do with an ordinance.

How's that all in Dowd?

Yes.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

I have a few things to to say.

Um and I'm gonna speak about a time that I sat here as my husband was dying.

He was in a coma, and I was sitting where Alderman um I'm sorry, where Alderman Kelly, I think, was sitting.

And um, as I sat there, I received a message from his niece who was staying with my husband, and it was a picture of him that he had opened his eyes and he was waking.

I didn't say anything to anybody.

I got up and I left.

If I didn't have my phone or the ability to use my phone, I would not have known that he had come out of this coma.

So for that reason alone, I'm sorry.

Emergencies come up, family needs, as far as looking down.

Today I don't have it, but normally I'm looking down at my remarkable because I take lots and lots of notes, and I know you do the same thing.

As far as getting messages, um to the maker of the motion, I'm going to say that you sat in this chamber once reading from your phone from a message that you received from someone who had to leave, and you read all the comments that they wanted to make.

And you sat right there and you did that.

I'm not I'm not saying you're wrong.

I agree with what you did.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you did.

You you um helped held upheld the residents' need to be heard.

I think that was admirable.

I I agree with everything that you said, but that person had sent you a message and you they had left afterwards, and then you had read from there.

Um I saw you with your phone and doing so.

Um the other comment about the State House, I was a chair um on the um on the uh state federal relations and veterans' affairs committee.

And at that time, I told my people I don't want electronic devices that are gonna ring or buzz, and please pay attention.

I didn't police it.

If someone picked up a phone and was using it, then I understood that there was a need.

They were looking something up, has been commented by others that have said that.

Um I can tell you I've sat in the chamber, and I had um one um state rep whose husband was a uh senator, and she was sending messages back and forth.

She happened to be the party that was in the majority at the time, so you know nothing would happen to that person.

I sat behind another person who was getting messages from her husband about a gun bill.

Again, person in the majority.

So I know nothing was going to happen to them.

Um, as far as using our tablets versus using our phones, my tablet has the same capability of being able to receive messages and being able to receive emails as my looking up.

Again, I look down most of the time when people are talking because I'm taking very, very, very long, very detailed notes.

Um, and I'm looking things up.

Earlier, before people were talking, I was looking up information about 91A.

I did my homework beforehand, but somebody had said something, and I was like, hmm, I need to check that.

I'm not completely familiar, you know, uh, with every single word, and I did look it up and um I found contradictory comments to what had been said.

So I think that to say this and to the other comments of who's gonna police it, how is it gonna be enforced?

And while I do think that the public gets a misum interpretation of what is actually happening, um, I you know, I think we as individuals should answer to our constituents.

I think we should have to, if my constituents say, you're always looking down, what are you doing?

I would tell them exactly what I just said here.

So for all of those reasons, I hope this committee does not uh pass this um and sends it uh truthfully to IP.

Thank you very much.

Alderman Greg.

Um thank you.

So as someone who's currently serving in the House, I would say while they don't encourage us to use it, they don't say, hey, why don't you use this?

The more important piece is that they don't discourage us from using them.

And a lot of us use them.

Somebody will come up with a a bill, legislation, we might have a question on something, and so we are on them.

They are a tool.

What phones have become is far beyond what flip phones used to be when they were just you know ringing somebody and not even text messages were reliable.

You know, we did have pagers even before that, but these have become encyclopedias in our hand.

We can we can um go on to the city website, we can find out what's happening.

And I think we also have to understand we're all adults and we can police that and we own each one of our votes.

So whether or not somebody thinks we're paying attention or not when we vote, we still have to own that.

We still have to explain how we voted.

And we do have constituents that contact us, they're not all contacting one person, and I would say that rather than say, oh, we're gonna ban phones, encourage people who maybe if you're not their representative, encourage them to talk to the representative and find out why.

But I think passing legislation on this is the wrong thing to do.

Phones have become a tool, they're not just um a play toy.

Thank you.

Alderman Senate.

Thank you, madam chair, and thank you for uh giving me the opportunity to speak, even if I'm not on this uh committee anymore.

Um before I say what I wanted to, I I do want to acknowledge just because I've heard it come up in some of the discussion back and forth.

Um many my colleagues have made the point that you know they utilize these devices to access the city website, minutes, what have you.

That's allowed in the ordinance.

Um, you know, it it does allow for access to the city website board member packets, etc.

etc.

Um that being said, um not to step on Alderman Clee's toes.

Um you you had kind of alluded to the point I wanted to make.

Um I don't know who among my colleagues specifically has received communication in the midst of a meeting from their constituents.

I know I have, I know for a fact I'm not the only one, because I've heard a lot of questions whether I was sitting out there or whether I was sitting here, led off with I have a constituent who just contacted me and wanted to know and your question.

Um that happened via text message.

Um if it if that happened in the midst of the meeting, that happened in text message.

I have um impassioned constituents, um, probably several who are unable to come out and attend the meetings for that reason that I actually sponsored the uh reintroduction of Zoom for disabled individuals because it it would bolster their participation in the meeting.

Um lacking that uh I I can certainly be a conduit for them to get their questions on the floor here, and I would hate to see that go away because of the concerns over the use of devices in front of us.

I am very um tech savvy for the most part.

Um I I don't like papers, I have no qualms with the fact that my seat neighbor does.

Um I work in accounting, I see enough paper during the day.

Um, but this this tablet is a tool that I do go beyond the city website for.

Um we talk a lot about infrastructure in here, we talk about a lot of locations.

I've been in the city 32 30 some odd years.

There are still streets I don't know the location of my name, and I I've got to pull them up to find out where I'm talking about to orient myself with the locations that we're discussing sometimes in here.

So to codify this as an ordinance, I I feel is maybe heavy-handed.

I I do agree with um my colleague at large uh Alderman Greg that you know we are adults, we we can to an extent police each other, and you know, we it is incumbent upon us to pay attention, and if you know, and if somebody is dwelling down here, specifically more down here, um, then you know that that can be an issue, but um you know what what we see in front of our eyes doesn't always uh tell the entire story.

So that's all I wanted to say on the matter.

Thank you.

Alderman Johnson.

Thank you very much.

Um to my colleague Alderman Clee.

I understand.

Um and the night that I had my phone, I was told he was going to text me and I said, do not text me.

I took a picture of it.

So when I was reading it from the phone, it was a picture.

It was not a text message in the meeting because I felt that if I'm going to ask other people not to have text messages, it would not be right for me to say, okay, text me, and then during the meeting, I pull up a text message.

No, and so I did take a picture, I still have it on my phone because I felt that was if I could have copied it, I would have copied it and put it into paper form.

I'm a paper person, that's just who I am at my age, but you know, I understand everybody's concerns with this, but you know, I am concerned too about sometimes the overusage of it.

But motion on the floor is to recommend final passage.

Clerk call the roll.

Uh Alderman Thomas Lopez.

No.

Uh Alderman Tebow is a no.

Um Alderman Paula Johnson.

Yes.

Uh Alderman at large, Ben Clemens, Vice Chair.

No.

And Alderman at Large, Soshana Kelly, Chairwoman.

No.

That's four no's and one yeah.

That motion fails.

We have to dispose of it somehow.

Oh.

Um so we don't push it over to the Madam Chair.

Yes, Alderman Clemens.

I move for indefinite postponement to recommend indefinite postponement.

Motion on the floor is to recommend indefinite postponement.

Clerk, please follow the roll.

All right.

Um Alderman Thomas Lupez.

Yes.

Uh Alderman uh at large Ben Clemens.

Yes.

And Alderwoman at large, Roshana Kelly.

Yes.

That motion carries.

Yes.

When they definite postponement.

All right.

Um now we have O-26-011 regarding uh virtual meeting participation.

Uh motion is to recommend final passage.

Discussion.

Alderman Thibault.

Thank you.

Um I originally endorse this.

Um and the reason why I endorse this I is I think generally, if people can put their cameras on, I think they should.

Um with that, I also understand that there's times when people can't and shouldn't.

And originally I was going to put in a amendment for like an exception by the president.

Um, but then I just decided maybe it's just not just not vote for it.

But I do think if if you know, if you're in a hotel room and you're away from way from you know, you're away from work or whatever, and I don't see why you can't put on the camera.

We all have to show our faces.

So if I grimace, you know, I expect people to grimace over there too and show their face.

But I get it.

If you're really sick or you're dealing with something, I wouldn't expect you.

I know I I came on the camera a couple years ago with pink eye, and I probably shouldn't know about a double pink eye.

Probably shouldn't have, because I look like hell.

But um I did anyway, and uh because I feel strongly about it, I feel strongly at work about it.

It's one thing we try to do a lot at work is we try to show our face at work.

Um and because we're working with people that aren't you know in our site.

So but again, I I you know again it's one of those things where you know, like all the all the women at large, Greg said, you know, we're adults.

Try to, you know, if you can do it, please do it.

And if you can't, you can't.

And and and uh I think I think again, I think we can do that ourselves and we can decide when it's appropriate to do that and appropriate not to do that.

Yeah, thank you.

Alderman Lopez, and then Alderman Clemens.

I do a lot of work with telehealth, and um we do have to be able to see our patients, we do assess them.

But there's also times where the internet slows and that will get in the way of actually participating.

Uh I think we already saw tonight uh connectivity issues uh taking place.

Um I don't think uh a blanket rule is the smart thing to do here.

Um as is pointed out several times.

This is I think it's a a solution in search of a problem.

I'm not aware of any aldermen showing up in their bathrobes or whatever or doing any kind of ridiculous things.

Um I think generally we can trust our colleagues to represent their constituencies appropriately, and if they're not, that's up to the constituents.

Yeah, Alderman Clemens.

Well, thank you, madam chair.

Yeah, I I can speak, you know, I tend to not put on my camera because I've had when I when I've done it in the past, I've had connectivity issues.

People have trouble hearing me.

Um with with it not on here, it's just it's just easier.

Um, you know, if I will try to put it on if I if the internet connection is strong, and sometimes it's stronger than than others um than other times.

Um but in general, you know, I I tend to to leave it off.

Um ultimately, you know, I'm going through a lot personally.

Um so I I participate remotely and I appreciate the fact that I'm able to do that.

Um you know, ideally, I I I wish I could be in the chamber with with all of you.

I don't like participating remotely like this.

Um especially because it slows down the meetings with all of the the roll call votes.

But you know, I um I I will say, you know, at the end of the day, we all have a decision to make when it comes to how we serve our constituents.

You know, we had an alderman who uh decided that you know, for him uh it it wasn't worth the the effort, and he resigned, you know, earlier in the in the year.

Um for me, I believe strongly that I have a lot to offer to the city uh and that I I want to continue serving.

And um, you know, at the end of the day, if my constituents don't like the fact that I'm not showing my face, then they they don't have to vote for me.

And I I respect that decision.

Um but you know, I I don't think that a mandate to compel me to put my camera on is going to do is going to change the outcome of of anything that I decide or don't decide.

So I'll settle in Clemens Alderman Senate.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

Um a lot of the a lot of my colleagues have um alluded to the the drain on bandwidth that a um an additional device is the the truth is that when you're connecting to anything remotely like that um each additional functionality that you add in is a drain on your bandwidth.

Um if the if the decision came down to being able to see my colleagues who are participating remotely or being able to hear my colleagues who are participating remotely, I'd pick hearing them 10 out of 10 times.

Um prior to the advent of Zoom and Teams or whatever else you you have.

We had Alderman who routinely participated uh via telephone and came in through the nice circle thing up there.

Um I I feel that we have come leaps and bounds.

I I'm a fan of the tools that we do have.

Um I personally have no qualm um utilizing my camera.

I I should probably buy a new one if this one goes in because uh spent six bucks on Amazon's kind of lousy, but um but you it does lead into a whole glut of um accessibility.

Uh does somebody own a camera?

You know, you can get the six dollar special on Amazon, it's not gonna be that great and it's gonna drain your bandwidth.

Um it again, like I said, I have no problem.

I I'll even put on a funny background to amuse you guys from remote, but um I just I I don't see the um the need necessarily oh the other point I wanted to make um my colleague to the other side um travels pretty frequently and is often in um you know hotels participating remotely due to business.

If you've ever tried to commit to something remotely from the convenience of hotel Wi-Fi, it's a wonder we can hear and see him as well as we can.

I know he makes an effort to put his camera on whenever possible.

Hotel Wi-Fi is lousy.

Um you know, and and I would hate to rob that accessibility uh of him just because the you know the requirement may interrupt his connectivity.

So that's all I have.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I had you next.

Uh thank you, um, Madam Chair.

Um while I think that this is um an admirable um type of thing.

Um first off, I want to comment that in this here it refers to, you know, in accordance with RSA 91A, and it very specifically says members participating electronically are required to keep their cameras on during the meeting.

So I went looking through RSA 91A to make sure um to see if that comment was in fact there.

And while I did kind of find it um under RSA 91A, Roman numero 4B, um that Roman number four is very specifically to state boards and to state committees, and it's very specific that that's what it is, it's not municipal committee, so we're not violating that particular thing of the RSA.

Um they have to um to do that, and actually it even comments that that um they just have to have one third of the people present for quorum.

So um, and we don't follow that either.

But um, keeping with all of that, I'm gonna echo a comment that was made before.

I think we're all adults, and um the truth is some of us um um I I rarely come in from um on Zoom, but again, when my husband was was dying and I had to be there to take care of him because there was nobody there at that time, and I would I would zoom in.

But it was important for me to be at that meeting, and I did not want my unruly hair and lack of cleanliness, so to speak, um, to become a meme on Facebook, and let's face it, it would have.

Um so I I chose to keep camera off.

I've chosen to keep camera off because I have issues with bandwidth.

I use the camera on my iPad.

Um I also try to when I'm speaking, put my camera on, but I can't always um do that again if it's a bandwidth and people are saying I can't hear you.

First thing I do.

I remember when we originally had Zoom and we were all zooming in, they would tell people, please all shut your cameras off because we're not getting anything here.

So cameras take a lot on the on the bandwidth.

Um, you know, so I think as was stated 10 out of 10 times, I want to hear my colleagues, and I want them to hear me more than I want them to um see me.

And yes, I have used Wi-Fi in hotels, and unless you pay for the premium, um, you often do not have a good connection.

You see that one little bar or or something to that um to that thing.

I think bottom line is we don't need to be told, and unless there's a state rule that mandates this, and maybe because I've said this now, someone's gonna run and try to create one.

Um we're adults, and if we're gonna allow our members, and truthfully, I voted against members being able to zoom in.

When we got rid of Zoom, I said nobody.

I was one of those people that said nobody.

Um but you know it's passed, it is, and I think we're all grown-ups.

I trust my colleagues to do the right thing.

And you know what?

If they're sick and they're in their pajamas, I really don't want to see their pajamas.

I'm sorry.

I'd rather have their camera off in Alderman Thibault.

Yeah, you should have had your camera off that day.

I had to keep looking down, I'm sorry.

It was not a good look for you.

But thank you.

Yes, Alderman Greg.

I'll wave.

I think it's all been covered.

Thank you.

It's all been covered.

Okay.

Alderman Johnson.

Thank you very much.

I wrote this, and I did not, as corporation counsel, so they did all the legal stuff, not me, so you can't blame me on legal.

Okay.

I'm not an attorney.

I don't plan to be one anytime soon.

I wrote this because it's always, and I do a lot of Zoom with what I do at work at times.

And my cameras always have to be on.

And if I'm taking classes through Zoom, my cameras have to be on because if not, I don't get my credits for my classes.

And even during COVID, there would be like 20, 30 people on Zoom, and we all had to have the cameras on, and nothing went wrong.

I mean, we were lucky, maybe we were lucky.

But is it more I guess professional that when you're having these meetings and if you zooming and you have your face on, that you're becoming you're really part of the meeting because people see you.

And although you're not physically sitting in your chair around the horseshoe, you were still on in the horseshoe by zooming.

And that was basically what it was about.

Was because you know at this meeting, and you should be part of the meeting, and you're being there with your face even on Zoom, you're part of that meeting.

I'm not gonna sit here and beg, you know, for this because I know everybody's mind is made up already again.

But I'm trying to look at it from a different perspective.

And why would you want your face on Zoom when you're at a meeting?

Because you are at a meeting sitting around a horseshoe with a professional board.

And if you were this was a corporation, and your corporation said, like I have to do it for classes at times, and they do Zooms, my camera has to be on all the time, or I don't get my three credits.

And then I've wasted three hours of time because I did not have my camera on, and I don't see anything wrong with it.

I think it's great.

The community gets to see that you're participating, that you're part of the meeting, just like if you were sitting in the chair, and if you had a get up and use the restroom, you get up and use the restroom, just like you would if you're sitting around the horseshoe.

I think there's nothing wrong with it because we're professional board and people should see us sitting around.

He has a professional board.

Thank you.

Motion is to recommend final passage by roll call.

All right, Alderman uh Thomas Lopez.

No.

Uh Alderman Derek Thibault is a no.

Alderman Paula Johnson.

Yes.

Uh Alderman at large Ben Clemens.

No.

And Alderman at large, Soshana Kelly.

No.

That's four no's one yay.

Motion.

Alderman Clemens.

Motion to indefinitely postpone.

To recommend indefinite postponement.

Yes.

I will call.

Yeah.

I'm just making sure no one has to speak to it.

All right, Alderman Lopez.

Yes.

Alderman Tebos a yes.

Alderman Johnson?

No.

Alderman at large Ben Clemens?

Yes.

And all the women at large Soshana Kelly.

Yes.

That's four yeses, one A passes or gets postponed.

Whatever.

Yeah.

Alright, next up is O-2526-012 amending the definition of secondhand dealers.

I'd like to make a motion to recommend final passage.

Thank you.

The motion on the floor is to recommend final passage.

I know the prime sponsor of this is here, so I was gonna let Altnerman Senate introduce this to us.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to present this tonight.

So this ordinance was actually born out of a um a prior ordinance that died in this committee uh during the 2020 uh 2021 term uh which would have clarified that coin dealers are not second-hand dealers.

Um this came about um as you heard during public comment due to a number of people in a particular um industry for lack of a better term uh facing challenges with their um with their line of work as it relates to um primarily hobbyist shops um that may deal in secondhand goods that they purchase from members of the public.

Um the laws on the um that are on our books currently uh require a number of um regulations of them to operate in this manner.

Uh chief among them that I I believe uh is the pain point is the um the requirement that any goods that they purchase um for eventual resale uh in this particular example that we have um hobby products, trading card games, um gaming products, collectibles, what have you.

Uh those products have to be held for 30 days um before they are allowed to in turn price them and put them out for sale.

Uh in this particular line of work that can be problematic, the um the pricing of these items, especially if they're an in-demand item, uh, can be particularly volatile.

And it is the opinion of um many within this industry, and uh an opinion that I share that while we understand um the purpose of um these regulations, um, primarily serving to cut down on the sale of uh stolen goods.

Um we're really only barring one door in an industry that has grown to uh open several more doors that we as a municipality really can't put our um fingers in the dam to plug um uh when these ordinances were passed, um eBay, if it existed at all, was likely in its infancy.

Um e-commerce has exploded where anybody has access with certain degrees of anonymity.

Um I I know I myself just out of concern when I used to sell on eBay.

Um I would be required to say where is the product located?

Well, I lived in North Nashua at the time, so I said 03055, so I was in Merrimack.

You know, I wasn't in Nashua.

Um I could sell from a post office box, so whoever received the goods that I sold would never know that I was located in Nashua.

I could have purchased a post office box at no Merrimack um post office.

And so what we wanted to do here is take the ordinance that had been written back in 2020 that would have um clarified that coin dealers are not secondhand dealers and expand that uh a little bit.

So we included all the language because that ordinance never did wind up going through it, just stalled tabled and died at the end of the term.

Um and so we are covering um a redefinition under commodity metals, that commodity metals shall not include uh numismatic coins, currency, and precious metal coins and ingots.

Um beyond that, however, um we are clarifying that um individuals whose primary business is the purchase and sale of these um numismatic coins, currency, and precious metals and coins, as well as trading cards and collectibles are um are not classified as secondhand dealers, so that we can sort of free up the uh process that they have to go through.

Um we've included definitions of trading cards in here as well as sort of a broad spectrum uh definition of collectibles, um, so that ultimately what we can do is uh encourage um business here in Nashua, a brick and mortar business where so much of this is becoming e-commerce.

Um I can't speak to the methodology that the um that people in this industry do follow when they are when the issue of potentially stolen goods comes up.

However, I can speak to the fact that I know that there is a breadth of communication amongst these uh dealers.

You heard our speaker during the um first public comment period tonight, rattling off the names and the locations of where these uh folks operate out of.

There is a is a very strong community here.

Um I know personally that when I've walked into their shops, the very first thing I see before the things that catch my eye and drain my wallet is my smiling face on their uh on their camera systems.

Um this is secure business happening.

Um I I feel that this would be beneficial to our uh business community, and I do just want to say for the record that uh one thing I endeavored to do here with this is to keep it all above the belt.

This um as it relates to the coin dealers, uh, this legislation uh died on the table back in 2021 because um uh this committee was waiting for the input from then Chief Karignan prior to submitting this to legal at all.

I alerted the police chief to what it is that I wanted to do when the agenda was available and we knew for certain that it would be heard here.

I contacted the police chief again, inviting him to come speak.

Um the last correspondence that I received from him was that he would speak with his detectives and they would let me know prior to the meeting if they wished to uh come and speak on it tonight.

Um I say that just because I know that folks may be looking for that input.

Uh I I do want to be crystal clear that that opportunity was offered a number of times.

Um I'm happy to answer any questions that I can on the matter.

Thank you, Alderman Senate.

That was a very clear and thorough overview.

Alderman Tebow.

Sure.

Um thank you.

So would Matt Director Sullivan be the one to talk to this from their angle, like from the city's side, or who who would speak to why we should or shouldn't do this from I don't know if he's the one.

Is that part of code?

Um I see Alderman Clemens' hand up, so I'm gonna ask because I think he was.

He might know the answer both to that.

Oh, or Alderman Senate, you know.

But real quickly before Alderman Clemens chimes in.

So we did get um just a little bit of um input um from another individual who indicated that they wouldn't um be joining us to speak specifically.

It wasn't that heavy a concern, just letting us know again examples of the situation uh with you know theft of cards and things like that.

And that was from uh city clerk uh Dan Healy, um, who is the department responsible for licensing these businesses as either secondhand dealers or pawnbrokers?

Alder Mativa.

Yeah, I I mean I just my question there was just to make sure there's no unintended consequences that I'm not seeing.

I mean, it hasn't been a baseball card store in Nashua for many years.

I gotta go to Drake It and get cards and Drake it by a guy who lives in Nashua and owns that store.

So um, but he also owns a ice cream shop right there, so he's probably not gonna come back to Nashua.

But um it would be awesome if you could move his store here and I didn't have to drive 20 minutes to look.

Um so I think I'll support this.

It sounds like it's a good idea.

I just wanted to make sure there was no unintended consequences that I'm not thinking about.

So thank you.

Alderman Clemens, and then I see your hand Alderman Clay.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

So I guess I understand the urgency uh of the matter um, you know, as to why people would want to make quick sales.

I'm just wondering like what other jurisdictions around us do.

Look, for example, like in Massachusetts, is there you know, is there a uh is there a waiting period for for these types of items when they come in to to a collectible shop or you know, other parts of New Hampshire?

Like I'm just curious to see like what would this make Nashua unique, or would it actually get us more in line with what the industry is?

Do you know through you to the author of the legislation?

Do you do you know what that is?

Alderman Senate?

Uh thank you, um Madam Chair.

It's a mixed bag.

It's a mixed bag.

Every municipality is a little different.

Um what I encountered in my research, talking not so much with other municipalities, but um other operators.

And I think we heard a hint of this a little bit during the public comment.

Uh I I went to my shop that's in a different uh location as well.

They're certainly not in Nashua.

Uh and I asked them about this, and they said, Yeah, but it's never come up.

Which, you know, kind of I think speaks to what I was speaking to at the beginning, in that this is given the expanse of the marketplace uh in the modern world.

I think that this is um in any municipality that does have it.

I I think it's um I think it's dated oversight.

Um, especially when you look into the breadth of shops that are likely not adhering to that 30-day rule.

Um, you again, a lot of these shops they fill their places with things that they purchase through secondhand e-commerce.

Those goods they purchase on eBay from a guy in Idaho, Iowa, California, could be just as stolen as something that the guy picked up down the road and is trying to turn a quick buck on.

It's a good idea.

Will it stop?

What's that?

Is it down the road like that one?

Sure.

Maybe right outside our front door, Alderman Lopez.

Um there is a mixed bag out there.

Um I looked in like I said, I looked up in Manchester.

Um I've looked in Concord, they do have similar laws on the books.

I I can't speak to how hardly they're being enforced, though.

I'll set Alaman Clemens or do you have a follow-up?

No, I have a I have another question, if I could.

Um this speaks to the 30-day requirement.

Do we have requirements in the ordinance?

Do you know right now in regards to logging like where an item who the item came from and that that sort of thing?

Do we have that in the ordinance?

And uh would that would that be required for these particular dealers?

Those requirements are on the books for uh dealers that are codified under this definition right now, yes.

Okay.

So these but if we pass this ordinance, these these folks would not be subject to those requirements, correct?

That's correct.

So I guess I feel like maybe we could have like a middle ground here where you know we can waive the 30 days, but I would still like to have some sort of record, and I'm sure that these shops do it anyway, right?

But I feel like if we if we have a requirement on the books that we have them be licensed as the secondhand dealers, we waive the 30-day requirements, but we make sure that they're recording where these things came from.

We're kind of reaching a middle ground um that satisfies the need for you know uh uh a detective, for example, that's looking into stolen property.

Um I don't know your thoughts on that or what what what you feel how you feel about that, but that's something I I certainly think we should think about.

I'll set Alderman Clemens.

I am.

I'm actually gonna um go to Alderman Gregg next because she's a co-sponsor on this.

Thank you, um, Madam Chair.

And so sorry, I missed that.

That's okay.

I just you know, so I did some research too, and um, and looking at this, you know, kind of what's happening, and this is something that traditionally um secondhand dealer laws were built around serialized goods.

So this was back when they had pawn shops and stuff like that.

So it was stuff like electronics guns, jewelry, those kind of things had serial numbers.

So that's why they started like in a lot of um places 30-day waiting periods because they would check the serial number and stuff.

Now what we have now is older laws trying to fit into a modern world where we're selling different things.

We have cards, we have um toys, you know, we have things that don't have serial numbers.

So that 30-day waiting period shifts now because there's no way to check a serial number to check, you know, on these different cards.

So it becomes an over-regulation problem.

So maybe not as much in New Hampshire, but you're seeing this in other states and other cities where they are changing this law to um match what's happening in the modern world, especially when it comes to um cards, whether it be Pokemon cards, sports cards, those are wildly volatile um values.

And so if they can't sell them right away, that actually causes an unfair business practice for these businesses trying to um work in this space.

So I think the legislation as it stands makes sense.

It's a modernized um view on what we look at when we talk about people that are selling cards or resellers or whatever, and those traditional secondhand dealer laws are still going to, I think, apply to gun jewelry, that kind of stuff, where they have serial numbers they have to check.

I also know that all of these businesses keep records when they're getting goods and stuff in on where that's coming from, who the person is, and they have their own way of you know evaluating if this seems like a person is um, you know, to they're certainly not the law, but it's it's on their money.

So they're also doing their own evaluations and being very protective of what they take in.

So I think this is just the right thing to do.

I think right now we're over-regulating this space.

Okay, I'll set.

I had Alderman Kleenex.

Uh thank thank you, um, Madam President.

Um I was the co-sponsor with Alderman Tenza on the original bill, and I was very disappointed with um the chief at the time um because he wasn't coming forward, he wasn't um and the reason I, as well as um Alderman Tenza sponsored this bill was because Mr.

Galbo had come forward to us and explained to us that he had been operating on a particular way forever, and uh one of the um NPD um officers had come in and basically told him he had to stop selling things right away.

And and the volatility is real.

If they hold something for 30 days, they could lose the majority of the value.

If they take in something that is stolen, um and the police come in and they um they they confiscate it, they're out of the money that they paid for it.

So the truth is they're going to be very careful about what they take in, and yes, they do have logs.

I would assume that the legislation, even though you've changed a few of these definitions, so on the legislation that was requiring the logging and so on is still going to remain, if I may ask, Madam Um Chair, to the to the maker of the uh for anybody that remains to find.

Okay.

Yeah, as a pawnbroker or a secondhand dealer.

Yes.

Yeah.

So they still have to maintain the written um uh documentation as to where it came from and so on.

The log.

To be clear, these shops wouldn't, because we're reclassifying them.

Okay, okay.

But any shops engaged in the sale of wares that are still subject, jewelry, diamonds, things of that nature.

So these particular people are not gonna have to.

That's correct.

Yes, they just modeled right off of the 2020 legislation.

Right.

Okay.

So um, and and it it it died.

Um myself and Alderman Tenza were very, very frustrated.

Um, I don't know how I didn't end up as a sponsor of this because I I fought for that one and it just died here in in committee.

It is um, you know, I I hate to say that anybody is breaking the law, and I I understand that the speaker came up and kind of admitted to it and threw some other people under the bus.

But um, and I respect the honesty of it, but the the the truth is it's the only way they're gonna stay in business um to be able to be able to do this.

So I think this is legislation that should be passed.

I would have no problem with amending it to say that they should keep a log, but I think all of these people are.

And I also want to make a comment that if someone came in and was um selling stolen goods, um that would be something that would get noticed and and and so on, because the police would be there all the time, either confiscating or saying, you know, who did you sell this to, and so on.

I I think it's it's very important um that we we help these people, and um I know um Mr.

Galbo um lost quite a bit of money um because he had to wait those 30 days when he would have people who wanted to to buy within a week or something like that, or the value of that property um dropped because suddenly um so he wasn't able to take as as um Alden Wood and Greg had pointed out um he wasn't able to take advantage of the of the time of the sale at the the apex of it and had to as it was coming down.

So we don't want to do that to our businesses, and I I hope that you do pass this, even if you do put an amendment as what um Alderman Clemens was speaking of.

Thank you.

All right, Alderman Clemens.

Yeah, thank you.

Um yeah, I I'm I'm in agreement with everyone here as far as lifting the 30-day requirement on these types of business, but I I can't support this unless these folks are still classified as secondhand dealers and subject to the at least the regulation that they um record, you know, these sales um the way that other uh dealers do.

And the only reason that you know, and it's been said that that they do it anyway, so it's not like this is going to create some sort of extra burden on them, but I think that it's incumbent upon the city to make sure that we're doing right by by our residents, and so I would entertain a uh a motion, but I don't know enough about the entire section right now to be able to to make that motion in a coherent manner.

Um so you know, I I don't know how the rest of the committee feels about that.

Um, but I do think that it is an important caveat that we should that we should consider.

Alderman Lopez.

Um for my part I understand what uh my colleague is suggesting, um, but I do think this is clearly a time-sensitive issue for businesses that you know our businesses downtown particularly are struggling.

So I don't want to wait for us to do our research, you know, on an issue that we could probably offer an amendment to at the full board and at least move this forward.

Um so it's not a deal breaker for me.

I think if we wanted to make an amendment that obligates the record keeping, that's fine.

If it's the if it's being done anyway, I think the police can probably get their hands on it if they want it.

Um and I think we could always also go back and amend the ordinance again if we need to.

So I would rather see this move forward just because I don't want to see businesses suffering.

Um, as was pointed out, this was attempted years ago, and we were overdue.

Alderman said it.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um I would caution an amendment on this legislation only because it treads into a realm of being more cumbersome than a typical amendment that we might see at the committee level um just because of the current nature of this ordinance.

This would involve going into subsections of the ordinance that we're revising, looping them into the um current legislation as it's written and rewriting those sections because right now the way the ordinance is the definitions feed the regulation, not the other way around.

Um we're declassifying for lack of a better term, uh, these particular dealers that have by their definitions regulations um put upon them.

Um we would need to, I think, sit down with legal in order to do what is being proposed, um determine a new definition for the um for the particular dealers now that would for lack of a better term sort of walk between the raindrops of these um these current regulations um applying some but not others to them.

Um I I can look at that in the interim, um, speak with my contacts out there in the uh field and um look into the work, but it it feels more cumbersome than just a uh a typical um uh amendment to the legislation.

Thank you.

Alderman Dowd, then Alderman Greg.

This quick from my standpoint.

If there's nobody here from any of the sit city divisions that is an opposing of it, I see no harm in passing it.

What's that Alderman Greg?

Then Alderman Clemens, I see you now.

Thank you.

Um so I just wanted to point out too that we are not we are talking about something that is more of an inventory thing.

The reason the only reason that you had 30-day holds and stuff was because for serial numbers to check those, these are not things that they can do that with.

So this is a very different thing.

Obviously, businesses are keep track of their inventory and stuff.

I don't think that's something that we want to regulate to make sure people are keeping their inventory sheets up.

However, I think it's common practice.

So I think this is good to go.

I do think it would be a mistake to try to amend this because I think we're still kind of leaning back on that.

What um pawn shops used to have to be obligated to do, that's just not the case anymore.

Okay.

Alderman Clemens.

Yeah, just to counter that point.

If we don't do it, then somebody does go and they sell a stolen piece of you know, a stolen trading card, whatever it might be, then there's nothing to go back on that person to say you weren't following the law.

In fact, they were following the law, they were following the law that we deregulated.

So that's that's where my concern comes in.

Um I understand what Alderman Senate was saying that yes, this is going to be it would take a little bit more time to go through and make this you know jive with the rest of the the section, which is kind of what I was alluding to earlier.

Um I I'm not going to support it at this point in time because I do believe that we should be protecting the citizens of Nashua against theft uh that could potentially come up uh in this case.

But I I overall do agree we should get rid of the 30-day period.

Okay.

Yeah, so just uh hopefully one final point um to um what Alderman Greg was speaking about in terms of the um original intent versus the reality of today.

Not so much the coins.

I feel everybody's pretty comfortable with the coin aspect of this, but the industries that we're looking at here in regard to serialization and everything.

This is you know, it the 30-day hold.

Um I feel becomes a little more cumbersome when we're um considering somebody's VCR in the late 80s that may have been stolen and pawned off.

Um I'm gonna show my lack of familiarity with this, but somebody's Pikachu card.

Um my son collects Pokemon cards, and to the best of my understanding of them.

Um the cheap little yellow Pikachu that he has, the the Pikachu is the Pikachu is the Pikachu.

Um I know some card packs get into your one of fifties and things like that.

And so there's a bit more identification there, but there's very slim identification on this product to begin with.

Um I am comfortable with these industries as they are today.

Um, these are not the pawn shops of the 80s, the CD bars on the window and everything.

These proprietors of these businesses take their work very seriously.

It's a passion project to even enter into uh a business like this because it's for most of them for for everyone that I've been able to frequent for 15, 20, 30 years, I've seen just as many go under in the window of a year.

Um not for reasons related to this, um, you know, in terms of logging their inventory and where it came from.

Thank you.

Alderman Clemens.

Yeah, I think I think the lack of serial numbers, the lack of uh of the fact that these objects have traceable elements is more the reason that we want to make sure that there's a requirement to document them properly.

Okay, the motion on the floor is to recommend final passage.

No further discussion.

All right.

Uh Alderman Lopez?

Yes.

Alderman Thibault's a yes.

Uh Alderman Johnson?

Yes.

Alderman Clemens?

No.

And all the women at large, Shoshana Killy.

Yes.

That's four yeses to one that passes.

Uh if there's no objection from the committee, I'd like to take a brief recess before I finish our agenda,

I do we have to tell them.

I'll wait for their yep, there we go.

Okay.

Okay, so we just finish.

All right.

So it's not on the script, but it is on the public, and it was on the agenda on the one that was sent out.

So um next uh ordinance is O twenty six-zero one four, amending the Board of Alderman compensation ordinance.

I'd like to make a motion for a final passage.

Recommend final passage.

Discussion on that motion.

Yeah, I'd like to discuss it, please.

Alderman Phibo.

Um so on this one, and it's funny that this was brought up tonight when we probably had the most aldermen at our committee meeting that I've seen in a long time.

Um, there was a couple other ones here earlier.

Um so you know, for me, I've been this year, I've been at every meeting I've I'm supposed to be at, so I'm a lucky knock on knock on wood.

I've been lucky, nothing's happened that I've had to miss a board meeting.

Um I think it is important to be here, but I also understand that there's reasons why people can't be here.

Um so I look at it this way.

You know, it's up to you know the president to notice when we're if we're if if she believes that we have uh over taken days off and for her to mention that to us.

But I also think it's the voters at that point.

You know, if the voters don't look at us and say, hey, that person's never there or they're not there when they think they we should be here, then I mean that's that's where they vote us out, they fire us, right?

Um so I I don't think I'll be supporting this just because I I don't it's another one of those things where why why we can police ourselves.

Why why do we have to have have this rule on the on the book?

So that's my thoughts, my initial thoughts anyway.

Um I don't think attendance strictly speaking.

I I do think we need to have minimum standards and that the the full board meetings are important, but it's also really important to go to the committee meetings.

Um very active committee meetings and very active in the community too.

That's never getting tracked.

Uh I think there's plenty of aldermen too who might go to the official board meetings and everything and have zero interest in listening to what their constituents have to say.

Um and not be particularly engaged beyond that.

So I think strictly speaking, the stipend is supposed to offset some of the expenses that cost that come with being an alderman.

I know for my part, I just donate mine and use it for things like the block party.

Um because I'm not a money individual, and everyone comes to the the elected official and says, like, hey, can you sponsor this?

And I'm like, no money.

So um I don't necessarily view it as income per se.

I know some aldermen do and they rely on it.

Either way, I don't think it reflects the full scope of service if we only focus on the attendance in the meetings.

And I think if somebody is you know, maybe they aren't able to help out in one other area, they may be very good at all other areas, and it's up to their constituents to decide that's it.

Elsa Alderman Johnson.

Thank you very much.

I may have we can go down three for three tonight, but you know.

Um, if you read this ordinance, it already exists.

It already exists that if you are absent from three or more regular meetings.

So the only thing I've added on here, if you're on a committee and you're absent more, and you combine them all, the count you combined a total of three or more regular meetings of the board, special meetings of the board, and committee meetings.

Because doesn't everybody say the work is done in committee?

So if you're out, if you're not attending your committee meetings, then you're not doing the work that you're supposed to be doing.

And so it's very clear in the ordinance, because it was changed, because it it said health, but maternity, paternity, or adoption leave, or extenuating circumstances, that I believe was in there.

But three of the things were added in back at the beginning.

Now I did a little bit of research here, and um a constituent sent me, you know, how many people are out already.

But I remember back in December, because I came to the meeting back then of 21 when an older woman at large was at three meetings, and it was said very it was relevant here.

If in any quarter any member of the board of aldermen is recorded absent, three or more meetings of the board, city, city clerk shall transmit communication, and it goes on.

That important paragraph.

And then what happened was because I came in here, and I was not happy with that, because it was Alderman O'Brien, the MEC recommended indefinite postponement on that.

Because what happens is when we miss it, at that time it would have been 1250, you wouldn't get paid because you didn't show up for three regular meetings.

Now it's a little bit more money.

I believe it's like 2250 a quarter.

So if you miss one full board, one special meeting, one committee meeting, those are three meetings in that quarter, you forfeit your stipend.

And our constituents expect us, except for these circumstances, it's not maternity for me anymore.

Could there be extenuating circumstances?

Could be your health, you know.

Other than that, we should be here.

If you're traveling and you're dialed on business, you know, if you have a legitimate reason why you can't be here, then that's good.

And this is why it expanded it a little bit more, because you know, people aren't coming to meetings, and it is my tax dollars also that's paying me and everybody else to come to these meetings.

And now constituents expect more because it wasn't me on the board that voted for the $9,000.

I was at 4,000 on the board of ed both times, and I was 5,000 on this board.

Now you're up to 9,000.

I think they expect a little bit more for us to be there.

And let's, you know, it's like I said about Zoom.

We're professional board, our faces should be on there for zooming when we're at meetings.

But everybody thought, no, it wasn't important.

But this is very important because this is 9,000, and we hear our constituents coming in here over the budget.

And when they think that we're not coming to these meetings, and they're paying us, whether you donate your money, which thank you, Alderman Lopez.

I didn't donate to her.

But no, but I'm just saying, whether you donate it or not, you're still getting paid, and they expect you to be here, except for certain circumstances.

Thank you very much.

Alderman Clemens.

Uh thank you, uh, Madam Chair.

Um, when this was originally brought up, it was brought up uh by former Alderman T-Boom, and uh that was back in want to say it was 2009 nine, and at the time there was an alderman who uh nobody knew where he was and he wasn't showing up to any meetings, and then all of a sudden we found out that he was actually in jail.

Um so you know, I know at the time that um Alderman T-Boom brought this up to make sure that you know people were attending the full board meetings, and the rationale was uh back then that you know the the full board meetings are the meetings where the vote counts, if you will.

Um the committee meetings, we make recommendations, yes, we do the work, absolutely they are important.

Uh but the final vote really is at the full board meeting.

And um, so it was you know agreed at the time that this was an important uh step, and I agreed with it and I supported it.

Um the other time that I supported this was later on when some colleagues wanted to add the maternity leave, and it was my suggestion to put in paternity leave as well as adoption leave to this, because I thought that that was uh an important piece to recognize.

And you know, so uh I I think what we have works, I think um is vital for us to make sure that we are attending the full board meetings.

I think the committee meetings are important, if not for the sense that that is where the work is done, however, it's not where the final decision is made.

Final decision is made at the full board of aldermen.

Um so you know, if with just as an example where I'm dealing right now with my wife being extremely ill, I will make decisions as to which meetings I believe are more important for me to attend, depending on what's going on with her health on any given day.

So as an example, I might decide that you know, and it could be a last minute thing because you never know what's gonna happen with cancer.

So, well, I'll decide, you know, could be I could have every intention of going to a meeting, and then something comes up, and so I decide well, I'll watch the recap uh of what happened, and then from that, you know, make a decision at the full board meeting, which you know, I will attend and try to make every effort to attend, you know.

I think if we were to somebody in my situation or somebody who is dealing with uh significant illness, if we were to put this this on them in every single time they had to, you know, basically beg the president for for an exception.

Um I I just think that you know, again, it's been said before, we we are adults, we can police ourselves, and at the end of the day, uh it's my responsibility or it's anybody's responsibility to explain to the voters any questions they have.

And if one of the questions they have is why were you not at so many meetings or this meeting or that meeting, I'll give them an answer, and if they like the answer, fine.

If they don't, they don't have to vote for me.

And that's kind of I've always felt that way.

I've always had that attitude.

I've won elections, I've lost elections.

It is what it is.

Um, but I am who I am.

Uh I know that there are several people on this board who you know face different challenges that come up at different times.

They might not be what somebody else thinks is an extenuating circumstance.

Um, because that definition could be different from one person to the next.

So I say that we keep the current ordinance as it stands.

It's something that I fully supported in the past, twice in the past, and I will continue to support it, but I will not support these changes uh this evening.

Are you okay if I do committee first?

Alderman Thibault, then Alderman Lopez.

Thank you.

Uh Madam Chair.

I Alderman Clemens said it well at the very end there.

What's an extenuating circumstance?

Like who's gonna decide what what thing is more important than somebody if somebody else's stuff, right?

Uh, to me, an extenuating circumstance can be much more, you know, this way than other what somebody else might think.

Um I think you know, Alderman Lopez said it exactly, and I was I'm one of the few board members that are still here that voted against the pay raise.

Um, I think most of them got either quit or got voted out, um, unfortunately, um, for some of them.

But um I voted against it, and now I'm gonna take it uh because I I need it like anybody else.

But I if I didn't get it, I would have been fine either way.

I just thought at the time it wasn't the right time to do that.

Um that being said, I think it the money we get is more important than just being here in body.

It's the work we do in our communities, the people we talk to.

You know, whether I take a call on my lunch break, you know, at work, um, or uh I send an email on my lunch at work that you know, in the middle of my day.

Uh it's the some of you may know I sent out a newsletter.

I don't think that's uh a shock to anyone in this room.

Um so you know, that takes time.

That's not something quick to send out.

It's going to events.

I go to a lot of events outside of just being in here.

So the money is about doing the job of an alderman, which is more than just meetings.

That doesn't say I'm not saying people shouldn't show up for the meetings.

They absolutely should when they can, but it is it is much more um involved in than just being here in the meeting.

It's the research we do for the bills we we uh put together.

It's the questions we ask of the city staff, it's the times we come in here to talk to city staff.

Um, you know, Alderman Johnson goes to a lot of meetings that she's not on the committee for.

Um, and I used to do a lot of that too, but uh it's hard to do.

Uh it's hard to get to everyone.

There's one every night, pretty much.

Um, and sometimes two.

So I think you know, we all do what we think is appropriate for the job, and if our constituents don't think it's appropriate for them, then they'll vote us out, I'm sure.

Um, so my thoughts.

Alderman Lopez.

Yeah, I just kind of wanted to revisit the stipends of over 9,000 uh refrain.

It's not worth more because we got a raise.

It's the same amount of time and energy that we're putting in.

The and I might be stepping on Alderman.

Please uh comments here, so sorry, but the purpose was to adjust the amount because when the last time it was adjusted before our most recent one, some aldermen were still using their flip phones.

So it was way out of date.

And the you know, inflation increases, the compensation amount increases.

Um, and it was the will of the board at the time to do that.

That didn't that wasn't a raise, we didn't get more money to do more things.

It was a relative scaling.

And the purpose of doing it the way that we did it when we did it was specifically to avoid politicizing it and to avoid future boards having to debate over whether or not they were gonna give themselves a raise or whether some of them were now not moneyed enough individuals to be able to afford representing the community.

So I just feel like we keep some voices in the community keep claiming that that was a straight up raise.

I don't feel like I got it for a motion.

Alderman Clee.

Thank you, um, Madam President.

I have a few things to say.

Um, and I want to start with a comment about um the the reference to the um aldermen um who who missed who missed meetings.

The truth is to the speaker who made that comment, you don't know why that person um didn't make the meetings.

You don't know if they had a health issue, you don't know if they had um as in in the case of myself and alderman Clemens had a you know a family member who was so ill that you couldn't leave them, or had a um child care issue or anything else like that.

Um so while the public wants to get on social media and complain and and so on, um, you know, they're HIPAA laws that they don't have to divulge that they that they're sick, and they don't have to divulge.

They have to answer to their constituents.

And if it's as you pointed out, an at-large person, then they have to um to to that.

I think that we should not force um anybody to have to do that.

Also, I want to make a comment here about three meetings when it was the Board of Alderman when Alderman Tebow had put that in.

That was just about 50% of the meetings.

Considering the meetings, and I look at this here, and considering the meetings that we have, the special committee meetings that we have, and the meetings that you have, and if you're on like finance and joint special and infrastructure and and so on like that, you can meet sometimes literally four days a week.

And there are things that happen and that we can't do that.

Um you're saying, okay, take all those meetings, and now you can still only miss three meetings.

I'm sorry, but that just does not equate out.

And as was pointed out, the reason why we had these was because it was an alderman who was negligent and was arrested and was in jail for six months and didn't show up and didn't call, and and there was no way of being able to get them.

That's why Alderman T-Boom put that in, and I agree with what he did.

I think that we should be accountable to um board of alderman meetings because that is when the final decision is made.

And I agree with your comment about the work happens in the committee.

But if there was a committee meeting that I could not make, trust me, I would be watching that.

There are times that even committees that I'm not on, I'm walking my dog and listening to it.

I try to be here through most of it, and based on this um and yourself, you're here a lot.

Um, does that mean you would deserve more money?

No, we don't, because we don't look at it as if we're being paid for that.

And to what my colleague um Alderman Lopez had said, um, yes, we brought it up.

It had not been moved in 25 years.

And what we did was we looked at what the cost of living had gone, what the inflation was during that time, and we actually went down below it a little bit.

And then we took the politics out of it and said we were going to um attach it to the CPI so that it would not go 25 years, and then we sit here and debate and fight with people and so on.

So to keep bringing up that we're now being paid $9,000 or a little bit more, probably because of the CPI now, um, I I think is is kind of ridiculous.

I was, you know, like many here, um, I was up in the State House, and we got paid a hundred dollars a year, which was just a joke.

I mean, we used to laugh and say, you know, our business cards, our pins, and our license plates took away that hundred dollars.

Because we also pay taxes on that, just like we pay taxes on this money here.

Um, so but that is not what this is about.

This is about whether or not they should they should get paid.

It's not about how much they're getting paid, um, because that has already been debated.

Um, and as as um Um Alderman Thibault had said, I too do a newsletter.

I got my newsletter out at 2 a.m.

Um this morning because it takes me six to seven hours to write that newsletter to put all the information to put all the links to all the committees um and and so on.

Um it is it's an exhausting type of um uh work that we do here.

I come to a lot of meetings because this is how I learn, and this is how I'm able to speak as I am doing right now, and I think that's what's really important.

I think to the the current one says extenuating circumstances for the for the absence.

You know, are we going to and we put that in specifically because we didn't want to list every potential um circumstance, and and I think that that works well enough.

I don't think that you just say three meetings of specials and regular and so on and so forth, because then if that's the case, I want extra credit for the meetings I show up at, just in case I can't make those other meetings.

So we'll have to have a little bit of a ticket type thing.

But again, it was created for a a um an alderman who was arrested.

Um it was rightly so put in.

It does hold us accountable.

Um I wish more people would show up in meetings.

I have been at meetings that um there wasn't quorum.

And the truth is, you know what the majority of those meetings were?

There were joint meetings with the police commissioners.

If we had one board of aldermen that couldn't make it, we would have quorum because they'd only send one out of their three commissioners.

If God forbid there were two, and um, to be honest with you, one of the aldermen who often comes in from Zoom because he has to work was on that committee.

Um he didn't make quorum.

We had to commit meetings.

My husband was so sick, and I couldn't make those meetings.

They didn't have quorum, and it was because they would only send one of their three people.

Um truthfully, I had a little bit of a of a meltdown and demanded that they start sending more.

Now they send two.

Um, but in any case, um, I you know, I think that if we start having these issues, then we can talk about it.

But to say three of all the meetings that we have, I mean, I look at this and um technically there's one, two, three, four, five, six meetings in four days.

Um, you know, if you happen to be on those those particular committees, um, it can be very frustrating.

It can be very frustrating to have to constantly and just special meetings alone.

When I was on the board of Alderman when I first started, and probably the same thing for you, um, Alderman Johnson.

I we never had as many special board of Alderman meetings like we do now.

And the reason why we have so many special board of alderman meetings is because we're trying to be as transparent as possible and trying to do as much discussion and education and so on to the public as well as to ourselves.

It's just truly impossible.

And um, while I did run and I am here, I don't think it's fair to speak to um others that um you know perhaps work out of town and can't make it, you know.

Um that could be an accinuating circumstance.

So I I think it's it's kind of uh and I and I and I feel bad for the way I'm going to say this.

I think it's ridiculous to expect that we can only miss three meetings of all of the meetings that we go to within a quarter when the previous standard was a 50%.

So thank you.

Any additional comments?

Alderman Johnson.

Thank you very much.

I remember when I was on the board the first time, we had a member that didn't come to a lot of meetings, and that's when this whole discussion started, because he would not show up to meetings.

And you know, again, you're expected to be here, you have to work, you have to do things.

You I come to as many meetings as I can, and I work during the day, and by the time I get home, I'm running in, eating and I'm out the door.

And but that's what I ran for because I wanted to give back, and I felt that I guess I could give some thoughts and try to get some of my views down here on the board, but it's okay.

Um I know it's gonna probably be indefinitely postponed.

That's how I figure it's gonna go.

Thank you very much.

The motion is to recommend final passage.

Clerk, please call the roll.

All right, uh Alderman Lopez.

How uh Alden T Row and no uh Alderman uh Johnson.

Yes, men at large, Ben Clemens.

No, all the men at large, uh all the women at large or shana killy.

No, no.

We have four no's and one yeah it fails.

Do you have a motion, Alderman Clemens?

Motion to recommend indefinite postponement roll.

All right, uh Alderman Thomas Lopez.

Yes, T Bose, yes, Alderman Johnson.

No.

Alderman at large Clemens.

Yes.

And all the women at large, Sha's Ronnie Kelly.

Yes.

Postpone four to one.

All right.

I have not been um notified that anything's coming off the table.

I'd like to take something off the table.

I'm sorry, I'd like to take something off the table.

You can make a motion.

I'd like to move that take from the table.

Oh-26-002.

You've heard the motion discussion.

I'm not going to support taking it off the table because we have asked in the past for people to give us enough heads up so that the public can be here to weigh in.

We also have six pages of new documentation that was handed to us at the beginning of this meeting that I have not been able to look forward through, so I will not be taking this off the table.

I will not be voting to take it off the table.

The committee can do what they would like.

Excuse me, I didn't understand what you said.

I didn't hear you.

Did I not speak clearly enough?

Generally, when we have something on the table, we are notified as the chair when it's coming off so that the public can come and speak to it, so that it's not suddenly they're unable to speak to it.

You also handed us two new handouts that we just got.

So I'm not ready to take this off the table.

I'd like to speak on it, please.

You can't.

You can't speak on a table.

And truthfully, it's not a good one.

Well, we're still talking about removing.

She can speak.

Yeah, taking it off, not putting it on.

Oh, okay.

I apologize.

Yes, you're right.

Thank you.

You can, yes.

I apologize.

I found this information last night and I brought it in.

I wasn't I wasn't thinking about taking it off the table until like around one o'clock in the morning.

And I think with all the new federal regulations, if you read this mandate for participation, ADA for disabled to participate in public meeting via Zoom.

This is new information.

And now if you listen to any um shows, if you um I guess the granite grock, I'll use as an example.

If there's an article, it's now video, it's in voice mode because this is now the federal government for the hearing impaired and the visually impaired.

And this does not cover any HIPAA, which it went to there was no HIPAA violations to begin with.

I've talked to the medical profession, and I went back to attorney clock.

So I will lay it back on the table till next month to give everybody a chance to read this, because this is now from the federal government.

So you're rescinding your motion to take it off the table.

Yes, I am.

Okay.

So ahead.

Just a point of personal privilege.

Uh did I missed the beginning of the meeting?

Did we accept in place on file those those documents?

Yeah, you wouldn't have them either.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

I just wanted the opportunity to be able to look at them.

Sure, but I didn't know if we had accepted them.

I said it at your desk, or we can send it um electronically tomorrow.

Yeah, we'll give them the Donna.

So thank you.

I'll set it.

Okay, public comment.

Name and town, please.

Um, Katie Lamar.

I don't know.

Um I know when we spoke about secondhand dealer laws, I kind of wanted to just like touch on like some of the security things that go on.

So the community integrity behind the collectibles market is massive, and I don't think the public has a great understanding of this.

Just the other day, I literally read a Reddit post about an individual who lost a $10,000 Magic the Gathering deck at an airport, and it was actually recovered because there was another Reddit post about three hours later describing that exact deck in the deck box that it was in.

The community speaks.

Not only do players speak on those kind of platforms, um, but we as store owners, we're also lurking on those platforms.

So in terms of security and stolen stuff, we're pretty aware of what is missing, and even the uh network, you know, just stores calling other stores, things like that.

That is there.

I also did want to put like some ease of mind as well.

We have a very thorough like take-in form sheet.

Like we take everything down, their driver's license, their address, a phone number to call them in case you know it takes forever, their name.

So it's not like you know, there is no record keeping to this.

Hell, I had to turn in the records of a gentleman to the Nashville PD a couple weeks ago because he was caught stealing from one game store, and he uh essentially is now on charge for theft of money from me.

So do keep in mind that we are being like really diligent on this end as well.

It's not like we're just like uh cool, nice card.

Here's ten bucks kind of thing.

Um we are very much keeping records and keeping track of who is coming through our stores, and you can kind of tell the people with the suspicious behavior as well that are just kind of there to make a quick buck.

So I do just want to put that as like a ease of mind point that this stuff is already happening.

Some of it is because of how the law is written, but some of it also is just for us for record keeping, and I think my accountant would like to know how much I'm spending or not, you know.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Lori Ordolano, Burke Um Nashua.

Um, I have a question for you about your approval of members of the ethics committee.

I wrote um email to the board maybe a little while ago, and I noticed the ethics chair Tim Bush was his term expired January of 26.

And he was not renewed by your board, but Weisman was renewed.

He came in, he also expired January of 26.

And he came in or his resume was brought in.

I don't know if he actually showed up for the interview because he was already appointed, but he was renewed and now has a new, I believe, three-year term is what they run on.

So we had our ethics meeting, which was you know, this 30-day hearing was now eight and a half months old.

And when they did the roll call, they only called four members.

There's there's five on the city website.

So my question to you are there five ethics committee members and is attorney bush still a member?

And why didn't you renew him?

And I and when you know it was unique because when they did the roll call vote at the meeting last Thursday, they didn't call his name out.

So usually if you don't call somebody's name out, they're not a member.

But he's on the sheet.

So I'm trying to figure out what's going on, and I will tell you, I see a tremendous lack of transparency in that committee.

And if attorney Bush is gone, nobody would be happier than me.

I can't tell you how uh concerned I am about his lack of the right to no law policy, his subversion to absolutely not put things in writing so that you can't find it through a right to know request.

And I never met a more gender-biased man in my life.

Working with him for three years and watching my petitions be kicked out for four months, five months, this one eight and a half months, when all other men who have brought petitions in since 2017 had their petitions or their complaints heard within 30 days.

I don't understand it.

I just I don't care how much you don't like me.

This complaint, which involved Derek, and I think he's just as frustrated and perhaps he blames me for it, but the committee had an obligation to hear it.

And it's a committee you picked.

And on Thursday night, the three new members nominated Weissman to be the chair who couldn't come to the meeting.

He has had terrible attendance.

Why are you I don't know why they're picking a guy?

You have roughly this commitment for the ERC is five meetings a year.

Not a heavy lift.

And Weissman couldn't make three, and you've picked him as chair.

Why did you put him back on?

If he couldn't come in September, he couldn't come in December, and he can't come in May.

Why is he here?

And now he's chairing.

So if you somebody could get me answers instead of me filing right to knows, I would really prefer that.

Thank you.

I don't see any additional public general discussion.

Any remarks by Alderman.

Okay.

Do I have a motion?

Motion to adjourn.

You've heard the motion.

We need to take it by roll.

Alderman Lopez.

Yes.

Uh Alderman T.

Bosey, yes.

Alderman Johnson.

Yes.

Alderman at large Clemens.

Yes.

All the women at large Soshana Kelly?

Yes.

And we are adjourned at 9 10.

Thank you, everyone.

Good night, everyone.

Night.