You're live.

Yes, I have to remind me.

Yes.

Oh, that's right.

Good evening.

Tonight is Thursday, August 21st, uh 2025 at 7 p.m.

And we will begin tonight's council meeting by a prayer by Reverend Don Weekend by uh the Grace Harbor Church.

Good evening.

Would you pray with me?

Gracious and merciful God.

We thank you for the privilege that we have this evening to come before you in a free country and to seek your favor to rest over us as we go about the business of this great city that you have blessed each of us to be a part of.

We recognize this evening that there are places all over this world where there is a lack of liberty, a lack of leadership, a lack of security, a lack of medical care and clean water and food to eat.

And Father, we do not take these things for granted.

But we thank you for the blessings that you have given to us in this land in which we live.

God, we thank you for those committed to the city of New Bedford, our mayor, our city leaders, our fire department, our police, all of our first responders, those that put others before themselves.

And for this we give you thanks.

Amen.

Thank you, Reverend.

Tonight we're led in the Pledge of Allegiance by the Ward Five Councillor Joseph Lopes.

Thank you.

I am joined tonight by my colleagues in government, Council at Large Ian Abreu, Ward 2, Councilor Maria Giesta, Ward 1, Counselor, Leo Choquette, Ward 5, Councillor Joseph Lopes, Councilor at Large, Brian Gomes, Ward 6, Counselor, Ryan Pereira, Counselor at Large and Second Vice President, Linda Morad, Councilor at Large and First Vice President, Naomi Carney, and Ward 3, Councillor Sean Oliver.

I'll ask the clerk if there's anything to be read into the record.

Mr.

President, there is one letter from Council Burgo.

Dear Council President Burgo and honorable members of the I'm sorry, from Council Baptist.

You're sitting right next to me, yeah.

Dear Council President Burgo and honorable members of the council.

I am writing to inform you that I expect to be late for tonight's city council meeting as I will be attending a zoning board of appeals meeting at that time.

Please read this letter into the record to make my colleagues and the public aware of the reason for my delayed arrival.

Sincerely, Derek Baptiste, Councillor Ward for motion to receive and place on file.

Second motion made by Councilor Lopes, seconded by Councillor Oliver.

Anyone on the question of receiving and placing on file?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr.

President.

Yes.

Would you consider taking CR1 and CR1A out of order, please?

Without objection, taking C R1 and CR1A out of order.

Seeing none, I'll ask the clerk to read CR1 and CR1A.

Mr.

President, CR1 is a communication from the mayor to the city council submitting an appropriation of 3,290,458 from ordinary revenue and municipal receipts to the school department.

This was charter ruled on July 17th of 2025.

And CR1A is the order.

Motion to receive and place on file, take no further action.

Motion receive and place on file and take no further action.

Made by Councilor Morad, seconded by Councilor Lopes.

All those in favor call, please.

Roll call has been requested.

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Councilor Abru.

Yes.

Yes, Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes, Council Schulquette.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Giesta.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Lopes.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Morad.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Pass attend to zero.

Motion to waive rule 40.

Motion to waive rule 40 has been made.

By Council Morrad, seconded by Councilor Lopes.

Anyone on the question of waiving Rule 40?

Seeing none.

I'll ask the clerk.

To call the roll.

Counselor Abreu.

Yes.

Council Burgo.

No.

No.

Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shunket.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Giesta.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Lopes.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Morrad.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

No.

No.

Passes 8 to 2, Mr.

President.

Passes 8 to 2.

I'll ask the clerk to return to Mayor's papers.

Beginning with M1.

Mr.

President.

M1 is a communication from Mayor Mitchell to the City Council.

Submitting an order for the appropriation of $2,831,359 from ordinary revenue and municipal receipts to the school department.

M1A is the order.

Motion to grant the order as as uh before us.

Second.

Motion to adopt uh made by Council Pereira, seconded by Councilor Avery.

Anyone on the question.

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Roll call.

Roll call has been requested.

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Counselor Abrew.

Yes.

Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shoket.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Giesta.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Lopes.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Morad.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Passes 10 servants.

Passes 10 to 0.

I'll ask the clerk to read M2.

Mr.

President, M2 is communication from Mayor Mitchell to the Council.

Submitting an order for the transfer of 132,572 from police purchase of services to MIS Purchase of Services.

M2A is the order.

Make a motion receive and place on file and adopt the order as presented.

Make a motion to refer to the committee on finance.

I need a second on either of those motions.

Second.

Second to which one.

All right, so we have a motion to adopt and a motion to refer to the committee on finance.

Both uh one seconded by Council Morrad, one seconded by Councilor Giesta.

Uh we'll begin with the motion to refer to uh committee on finance, which takes precedent over adoption.

Anyone who would wish to speak on the referral to finance.

Anyone to speak on referral to finance?

Okay.

All those in favor on referral to finance say aye.

Aye any approval roll call has been requested.

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Council Abrew.

Yes, yes, Council Burgo.

Yes, yes, Council Carney, yes, yes, Council Schouquet.

Yes, yes, Council Giesta.

Yes, yes, Council Gomes, yes, yes, Council Lopes, no, no, Council Morad.

Yes, yes, Council Oliver, yes, yes, Council Pereira, yes, yes, passes nine to one, Mr.

President.

Passes nine to one.

That will go to finance.

And I'll ask the clerk to read M3.

Mr.

President, M3 is a communication from Mayor Mitchell to the council submitting an order for the transfer of sixty thousand three hundred and eighty-six dollars from public infrastructure purchase of services to public infrastructure structure capital outlay.

M3A is the order.

Motion to adopt the law.

Second.

Motion to receive and place on file and adopt the order as presented.

Second.

All right.

Motion to adopt and uh it's made by Councilor Pereira and Councilor Lopes, seconded by Councillor Gomes.

Anyone on the question of adoption?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read M4.

Mr.

President, M4 is a communication from Mayor Mitchell to the council.

Submitting an order pursuant to the provisions of mass general laws, chapter 40, section five B to establish a stabilization fund if you called the cable television public education and government access stabilization fund.

M4A is the order.

Motion received and place on file, refer to finance.

Second.

Motion to receive a place on file and refer to the committee on finance made by Council Morad, seconded by Council Pereira.

Anyone on the question for referral to finance.

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Before I ask the clerk to read M5, I want to want to acknowledge that the councilor of ward four has joined us.

I'll ask the clerk to read M5.

Mr.

President, M5 is a communication from Mayor Mitchell to the council.

Requesting the city council's approval of a change of polling location of precincts 3A and 3C, which is the Hayden McFadden School, to the holy name of the sacred heart of Jesus Church at 121 Mount Pleasant Street.

Motion receive and place on file and grant the approval of the change.

Motion made by Councilor Oliver to grant the approval.

Seconded by Councilor Choquett.

Anyone on the question of approval?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read M6.

Mr.

President, M6 is a communication from the mayor to the council.

Submitting the appointment of Heather Haggerty of New Bedford, Massachusetts to the New Bedford Port Authority.

Ms.

Haggerty will be replacing Raven J.

Hauptman, who has resigned.

This term will expire in December of 2026.

Second.

Motion to refer to appointments and briefing made by Councillor Abrew, seconded by Councilor Carney.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read CR2.

Mr.

President, CR2 is a communication from the mayor to the council submitting the appropriation of $803,586 from ordinary revenue and municipal receipts to the school department.

This was charter ruled on July 17th, 2025.

And CR2 is the order.

Motion to adopt the order is presented.

Motion to adopt made by Council Pereira.

Second.

Seconded by Councilor Abrew.

Anyone on the question of adoption?

Seeing none, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Council Abrew.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Baptist.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Kearney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shokett.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Giester.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

Councilor Lopes.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Morad.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes, would you like to be recognized for a vote?

On item CR2 on adoption.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Council.

11 to 0.

Mr.

President.

Passes 11 to 0.

We're now in new business.

I'll ask the clerk to read item one under new business.

Mr.

President, item one is an ordinance rezoning SS Bates Street, plot 10108 lot 317 from Industrial A to Residential C.

This was passed to a second reading on June 12th.

Move to be ordained.

Second.

Motion made by Council Pereira to be ordained.

Seconded by Councilor Giesta.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Councilor Abreu?

Yes.

Yes.

Council Baptiste.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Schulquette.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Giesta.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Lopes.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Morrad.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Pass 11-0.

Support.

Passes 11 to 0.

I'll ask the clerk to read item 2.

Mr.

President, item 2 is an ordinance.

Excuse me.

Amending Chapter 9, Section 4000, establishing the Classy Common Transit Oriented Development Overlay District.

And section 1200 for definitions.

Appendix A.

Table of Principal Use Regulations and Appendix B, Table of Dimensional Regulations.

This was passed to a second reading on June 12th.

2A is the appendix.

Move.

Motion made by Council Pereira to be ordained.

Second by second.

Council Baptiste.

Anyone on the question.

Seeing none, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Council Abreu.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Baptist.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shoket.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Giesta.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Gomes.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Lopes.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Morrad.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Passes 10 to 1, Mr.

President.

Passes 10 to 1.

Without objection, I'll ask the clerk to read items 3 and 4 together.

Without objection.

Mr.

President, item 3 is a report from the committee on appointments and briefings recommending to the city council approval of the petition for Mark DeCamber of Taunton, Massachusetts, doing business as side quest complete LLC, located at 127 West Rodney French Boulevard in New Bedford.

Requesting a waiver of residency in accordance with section 15-38 of the city code to obtain a license to deal in junk, old medals, or any other secondhand articles.

3A is the communication from the clerk.

And item four is a report stating the same thing, Mr.

President.

Counselor's this is for his partner Justin Williamson of Somerset, Massachusetts, also doing business as side quest complete LLC at the same address.

Motion accept report of the committee of votes and briefings to grant the petitions for our items three and four.

Motion made by Council Abraham to grant the waivers for items three and four.

Second.

Second by Council Pereira.

Anyone on the question.

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item five.

Mr.

President, item five is a report from the committee on appointments and briefings recommending the city council approval of the appointment of Antoine Donier Murphy of New Bedford Mass as a constable.

5A is his appointment.

Motion to be received and placed on file and grant the appointment.

Second.

Motion made by Councilor Baptiste to receive and place on file and grant the appointment.

Seconded by Councilor Oliver.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Mr.

President, we wave the reading on item six.

It's a no-further action item.

Motion made by Council Morat to waive the reading of item six and take no further action.

Second.

Second by Council Pereira.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item seven.

Mr.

President, item seven is written motion from Councillor Giesta.

Requesting on behalf of Anna News at the Special Committee on Memorials and Dedications meet with a representative from the Department of Public Infrastructure to discuss the placement of a memorial plaque on the bench in front of the Lincoln Elementary School located on the corner of Quarry Street Nashley Boulevard in memory of Leon Leontina de Costa.

Motion to receive and place on file and refer to the special committee on memorials and dedications and the Department of Public Public Infrastructure.

Second.

Motion made by Council Giesta to refer to the special committee on memorials of dedication, the Department of Public Infrastructure, seconded by Council Morad.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item eight.

Mr.

President, item eight is a written motion from Councillor Choquette, pursuant to Chapter 53, Section 18A of the Mass General Laws, requesting that a non-binding public opinion question be placed on the municipal ballot on November 4th of 2025.

Substantially as follows.

Should United States citizenship be a requirement for a person to be hired as a police officer in the city of New Bedford.

Yes or no?

Receive and place on file.

Motion received and place on file and adopt as presented.

Second.

Motion to adopt uh made by Councilor Choquet, seconded by Councilor Oliver.

Anyone on the question roll call vote?

Alright, seeing none, a roll call vote has been requested.

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on adoption of this motion.

Counselor Abrew.

Yes.

Yes, Council Baptiste.

No.

No.

Council Burgo.

No.

No.

Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shokett.

Yes.

Yes.

Counselor Giester.

No.

No.

Councillor Gomes.

No.

No.

Councillor Lopes.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Morrad.

No.

No.

Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

No.

Fails five to six, Mr.

President.

Fails five to six.

I'll ask the clerk to read item nine.

Mr.

President, item nine is written motion from Councillor Gomes.

Requesting that the ordinance committee meet with legal counsel attorney David Garatowski to establish an ordinance in the City of New Bedford that would require any person hired by the New Bedford Police Department to be a citizen of the United States.

And further, the New Bedford Police Department provide the City Council with a checklist of the hiring of officer candidates and further the newly hired police officers appear before the City Council for confirmation and to be sworn in, as in past practices in the City of New Bedford.

Refer to the committee on ordinance.

Motion made by Councillor Gomes to refer to the Committee on Ordinances, seconded by Councillor Carney.

Anyone on the question?

Chair recognizes Councillor Gomes on his first.

Thank you very much, Mr.

President.

Mr.

President, before I begin, let me make it clear.

I understand that we have two or three officers that are on the force right now without their citizenship.

I do not want them off the force.

What I do want is the department to work with these officers to make them citizens of the United States.

Now, why is this before us?

Because it's been brought to our attention.

I realize that my colleague from the far north end wanted to try a ballot question that failed this evening.

But this ordinance, if we are to put into effect, would make every New Bedford police officer a citizen of the city uh citizen of the United States.

I believe that it's always been like that until just the past year or so, or whenever the finangling went on with the books and the change of um what they needed and whether they had to be a citizen or not a citizen.

I believe to carry the badge to enforce the law.

You must be a citizen of the United States.

There is this in no way is anything against the officers that have been put on the force.

They should have been citizens.

They were put on the force.

Let's help them to get their citizenship.

I understand we've got three good police officers out there.

I also understand what has been talked about as far as a language barrier with some of the community and why these officers have been hired.

That should not be, that should not be the point why we hire someone is because they can speak the language.

We speak the we hire them because they are capable of being a police officer.

We hire them because they are capable of enforcing the law.

We hire them because they are United States citizens.

I hope my colleagues will follow this recommendation to committee.

We can map it out, have David Garatowski uh draw up uh an ordinance and put the ordinance into effect in the City of New Bedford.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you.

Uh Chair recognize Council Oliver on his first.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I um I I rise uh to say that I will be supporting this motion to send it to committee as I supported the um the question before us with the uh ballot question for this uh similar uh measure.

Um can agree that uh the trust between commit the community and law enforcement must remain strong, and I think uh this ordinance or the uh or the discussing an ordinance to um either solidify the difference between practice and policy is what we need here.

Um what's gotten lost is what we did versus what we're doing, what we're going to do in the future, and I think um having the discussion in committee will uh will hopefully will come up with a favorable outcome for the city of New Bedford as to what we're looking to do here.

Um we can't be very fluid with um who we're hiring, what we're hiring, when we're doing, we're gonna change it.

It's a practice.

It was a it's a long-standing policy, it's not.

So let's get something to paper and figure out exactly what's going on and how the uh city council can better serve the police department who will better serve the city of New Bedford.

So with that, I I look forward to supporting this motion.

I hope the colleagues will as well.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

The chair recognizes Councilor Carney on her first.

Yes, very briefly.

Um I rise to support um my calling from the South End.

Um I do also believe that um to serve as a police officer in City of New Bedford or anywhere in the Commonwealth or in the United States, you should be a U.S.

citizen.

Um the three gentlemen that we have on the force now, I do believe they are they're great officers, and um and I want them to stay.

So when we create this ordinance, we'll have to put an exemption there and then give them a timeline.

Since they are permanent green card holders, I understand that the timeline for citizenship is a lot quicker.

I think it's about a year and a half versus some of the timelines I've heard.

So we need to put some policy in place.

Obviously, there's some policy missing within the police department, so I think this is a good move forward.

We'll get this ordinance in.

We give our gentlemen that are on the police force that do that have permanent green cards an opportunity to become citizens and stay on that force.

I don't want to see anybody lose their jobs because of this ordinance, but I stand to support it 100 percent.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Councillor Choquette on his first.

Good evening, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Support my colleague from the far south end.

However, I I think that, and I was speaking to this to some of the other counselors before, I feel as though with such a far-reaching issue that we should be examining all potential avenues, and I really had hoped that we would be able to incorporate some of this, you know, the the citizens' opinions through a voting ballot question.

Uh that would have been one part of all this, because even the eleven of us are not, you know, this issue goes far beyond just the eleven of us.

And this is an issue that may eventually find its way through the legal circuit to the Supreme Court the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts, or maybe even to the Supreme Court of the United States, if it's phrased correctly.

So until it is acted upon by justices at those levels, we as city legislators are about to make law on it, and this is truly like the undiscovered country of law.

Uh it's it's a very gray zone.

Um what I would say is that I also believe that the the three gentlemen who are now New Bedford police officers, I don't want to see any of them lose their job.

None of them did anything wrong.

Um the mayor or the hiring part of the New Bedford Police Department decided to play a game with the hiring guidelines, which were changed without consultation from this body or any other body, uh, and then altered retroactively.

Um first of all, that's a big problem, right?

And again, second of all, we have to make sure and take into account uh you know the fact that the three officers they didn't do anything wrong.

I mean, they were just victims of this whole scenario.

So we want to make sure that no matter what we do, these individuals don't lose their positions.

Um but going forward, we we have to take into account some hard truths.

And one of those hard truths is that in other countries around the world, this isn't even a question.

You know, if I myself or any of us who aren't citizens of, say, Mexico or Guatemala, or even of those folks who are here who aren't a citizen of Portugal, if we decided to move to that country and became legal permanent residents, we couldn't be police officers in any of those countries until we became citizens of those countries.

So this isn't some cruel American take on these principles.

This is what other countries do.

So I just wanted to make that point.

Uh you know, I just wanted to set that point out there that it this isn't just the big bad American legislature picking on anybody.

I mean, this is how it's done in other countries.

So again, I believe that someone with arrest powers over American citizens, they themselves must be an American citizen because if they're not, then their arrest power ability can be brought into question in a court of law, and any defense attorney worth their salt is going to ask the judge to throw out the arrests.

And several attorneys in this area, including former mayor Scott Lane has has said that.

So I think that I would go with former mayor Scott Lane's interpretation of this, who is an active and practicing attorney.

Um again, I yield the rest of my time.

Thank you.

Anyone else on their first?

Anyone on their second?

Seeing none, the question at hand is on referral to the committee on ordinances.

Seeing no further questions.

Roll call.

Okay, roll call has been uh requested on referral to the committee on ordinances.

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Counselor Abrew.

Yes, yes, Council Baptiste, yes, yes, Councilor Burgo.

Yes, Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes, Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shouquet.

Yes.

Yes, Council Giester.

Yes.

Yes, Council Golmes.

Yes.

Yes, Council Lopes.

Yes.

Yes, Council Morad.

Yes.

Yes, Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Passes 11-0, Mr.

President.

Passes 11 to 0.

Um, Mr.

President.

Uh Chair recognize Council Giesta.

Um, if I may, I'd like to make a uh motion to reconsider on item two and two A.

Motion has been made by Councilor Giessa to reconsider item two and two A.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Councillor Lopes.

All those in favor to reconsider item two and two A.

Or I should say, is uh anyone like to speak on the question of reconsidering item two and two A.

Um, I recognize Councillor Giesto.

Thank you.

Um colleagues, unfortunately.

I made a mistake and voted yes, and I would just like to make a motion to reconsider this motion so I can vote no.

Thank you.

Okay.

Anyone else?

All right.

Seeing none, all those in favor of reconsidering this item, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Item two is now before us.

I'll ask just for a refresher for the clerk to read item two and two A for us.

Mr.

President Item 2 is an ordinance in meaning chapter 9, Section 4,000 establishing the Classy Common Transit Oriented Development Overlay District in Section 1200 for definitions.

Appendix A.

Table of Principal Use Regulations and Appendix B.

Table of Dimensional Regulations.

This was passed to a second meeting on June 12th of 2025.

And 2A is the appendix.

Motion received and place on file and adopt the order and the appendix as it presented.

Motion made right.

Yes.

Motion made by Council Morad uh to be ordained.

Pass to be ordained.

Second by Councillor Pereira.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Council Abrew.

Yep.

Yes, Council Baptiste.

Yes, Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes, Council Carney.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Shoke.

Yes.

Yes, Council Giesta.

No.

No.

Council Gomes.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Lopes.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Morad.

No.

No, Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes.

Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Passes 9 to 2, Mr.

President.

Passes 9 to 2.

All right.

And we will go back to item 10, I believe.

Yes.

I'll ask the clerk to read item 10.

Mr.

President, item 10 is a written motion from Council Gomes requesting that the New Bedford Board of Public Health hold a public hearing on the proposed waste transfer facility by parallel products doing business as South Coast Renewables with the residents of the far north and of New Bedford.

This meeting would provide an opportunity for the residents that we were not that were not notified or aware of the last public hearing to address the proposal and ask questions of the New Bedford Board of Health.

And further requesting that this meeting be held before the Board of Health votes on the proposal by parallel products doing business as South Coast Renewables.

Refer to the Committee on Public Safety and the Board of Health.

Motion made by Councillor Golmes to refer to the Committee on Public Safety and Neighborhoods and the Board of Health.

Second.

Second by Councillor Carney.

Anyone on the question?

Chair recognized Councillor Golmes on his first.

Thank you very much, Mr.

President.

Mr.

President, as you and many others in this room spent um some of um my colleagues spending three nights in a row at Pulaski School during the hearings.

Talk about what they uh their uh property values and and stuff like that.

And it turned it it was that, but at the same time I had on one side of the stage, I had parallel products and their lawyers or whatever.

And then you had the proposals that would come up, talk about fire uh uh safety and all that.

And it seemed like even if something was said that seemed to be uh detrimental to the project, the lawyers would start to answer the questions, and then those that were before them, I can't remember the names of uh the services or whatever would say yes, that that is right that that can be done.

That didn't give the opportunity, and the small window that they gave the opportunity for the general public to speak, I thought was very short, and many of my colleagues sitting here know that they wanted to get them people out of there as fast as they could.

At one time, I think the moderator even said um we're going to just take so many more.

In an issue like this, you take them until the night ends.

The city council has sat in issues that affect the city, affect the people to the wee hours of the night.

They could have sat there.

This is how they notified, by the way, the neighborhood, that there was a meeting.

There was no right uh letter sent out.

There was no notification.

This is how we tacked these to polls.

Many of those people in that far north end had no idea about this meeting, had no idea about what was going on.

This is not the way we notify people when you're making an impact on their life on the quality of life, the health and well-being of the neighborhood.

This is not how you do it.

You don't tag the polls and expect people to see them.

You send out a mailing.

This is why I'm asking for this meeting with just the Board of Health.

If it has to be governed by the Committee on Public Safety, Mr.

President, I'm not saying that we would be on the stage.

We would just be somewhat the sponsors.

We would work with the ward one counselor if it that's possible to get the school and have the Board of Health come in just one more time, and please listen to the residents of that area and the business community that it will um affect.

I appreciate the time.

I hope my colleagues will follow the recommendation.

The people of the far north end and the people of this city deserve to speak to their Board of Health without anyone governing over them.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you.

The chair recognized Councillor Carney on her first.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

President.

Um I I agree with my good counselor from the South End.

Um I did not like the way that meeting was held, and it just seemed all one sided.

I mean, uh what really got me is the fire expert that comes from, I don't know, sh Indiana.

Indiana, thank you.

So we have a fire expert that comes from Indiana.

We have all these people that have no idea what the city of New Bedford's about.

I would have rather seen my fire chief there to talk about the stuff within parallel products and how they're going to attack anything that happens.

But no, we have people from all the country that are testifying in the North End of New Bedford for this project.

I didn't like it.

I am so 100% in favor of what councillor from the South and wants to do, because the people got the short amount of time.

This is their neighborhood.

It was more about the parallel products and putting it there than it was about the concerns of the neighbor.

There was one gentleman that spoke during the at the end that actually, oh, it was it was it was phenomenal.

But the moderator did want to shut him down until the crowd kind of balked at it, so he went on, and he was actually an expert, an expert in this field, and brought up a lot of different things.

And so that's why I think we just it's it's deserving of the people of the North End for the Board of Health to listen to them on this project.

I know that if Tom Davis was there, this would never had happened in that industrial park.

They stopped it for years from any of that stuff happening.

And then after he retired and left, there it was.

There it was, and that it that well, I don't want to call industrial park in the business park, the business park of New Bedford.

Thank you very much, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Chair we're gonna have Council Joquet on his first.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh I rise to support this.

Uh and I would also like to uh politely uh invite Mayor Mitchell to attend.

I think he should show his face to the people of Ward 1 and go on the record and fully say that he is against this project being placed in Ward 1.

Enough of the double talk.

Um it's it's time to you either side with us or not.

You're either with us in Ward 1 or you're against us.

And that's that.

Thank you.

Chair recognizes Council Lopes on his first.

Council President, at the appropriate time, can I be recognized for a friendly amendment to the makers to the original motion?

Thank you.

Anyone else on their first?

Chair recognize Councillor Morat on her first.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, I rise to support the motion from my colleague from Clara Street.

What happened on August 4th, 5th, and 6th was a tragedy at Pulaski School.

It's really such a shame.

Um those of us that were in attendance, uh I appreciate Councillor Giesta, Councillor Carney, you, Mr.

President, um, myself, and Councillor Gomes.

We listened to the moderator.

Hope I didn't miss anybody.

We listened to the moderator.

Oh, did I miss Councillor Choquette?

I must have missed him.

We listened to the moderator tell us on the very first night that the only public input there would be was on the third night at nine o'clock.

The meetings ran from 6 p.m.

to 10 p.m.

And there'll be one hour of public input from 9 to 10 on the third night.

And by the way, the Board of Health members couldn't take into consideration any of the comments that were being made by the members of the public.

That's what he told us.

And that first night I went up to him during the first break.

I introduced myself, and he said to me, Oh, yeah, that's right, I know who you are.

You and Councillor Gomes filed the appropriate paperwork to be interveners at the uh hearing, but I denied your application.

So you public officials took the time to write the appropriate documentation.

I'm I'm denying you to have the ability to speak at the public hearing as an intervenor.

It's like really.

No, no, that's not what these hearings are for, blah, blah, blah.

But he did concede on the third night.

And the only reason he conceded was because the guy from Indiana talked fast and we had plenty of time.

He he ended early, so we had plenty of time for people to come to the podium.

It was it was it's awful.

It's just awful.

It really is.

And it's just a shame.

As part of my comments and my colleagues were there and know, I reminded the Board of Health members that you know they came before us here.

They told us that they care about the public health in the city of New Bedford.

They told us that they would act whenever anything was before them, you know, in the best interest of the residents of the city of New Bedford from a health perspective.

I reminded them that they are our representative to protect the health of the well and well-being of the city of New Bedford, no matter where it is, uh, the South End, the North End, wherever.

And then I reminded them that they swore an oath that they would do that.

I certainly hope that they disregarded what the per what the um facilitator told them and listened to what the people of the city were telling them.

And I certainly hope that when this hearing is held between now and September 18th, I think that's the date the decision needs to be rendered, uh, that they will listen to what the general public is is telling them about what this project will do to the quality of life of the people that live in that area.

You know, uh we had experts come up and say, Oh, there's not going to be any smell.

And what I said is you live in New Bedford, you ever been downtown, you smell what's coming from the waterfront?

That's exactly what's going to happen.

There's no way the smell is going to dissipate between where it is and where the people are living.

I mean, it's just absolutely ridiculous.

And the fire expert come in and talking about you know how the local fire department would, you know, would be able to respond and take care of whatever the fire was, and the men and women of New Bedford Fire Department will be able to do it.

But I walked up to him during the break and said, Excuse me, did you talk to our chief at all?

Oh no, I didn't do that.

Well, that's great.

I'm glad you're standing up here talking about what a great uh response there's going to be.

And by the way, do you know there's one fire station and there's one engine in that fire station that you know services the business part?

It's just it was just asinine, it really was, and it's just a farce, and it's a shame.

And to my colleague from Ward 1, that man upstairs that says he's the mayor of the city of New Bedford, represents the residents of the city of New Bedford, the hundred odd thousand people.

He can't come and speak and say that he's um opposed to this because he signed a document that said he would not speak publicly in opposition to this project.

He signed a document.

So that bullshit, and that's exactly what it is on the radio where he's double talking.

All he's trying to do is save face.

He sold this city and the residents of the North End, myself included, down the drain for tipping fees that he thinks he's going to use to plant trees in the city of New Bedford.

I'm sorry.

This project is a disaster.

It's obnoxious, it's a disaster, it doesn't belong in the business park.

Who would ever think that you would put this kind of facility in it in a residential area?

Who would do that?

Nobody would do that.

Nobody but the city in New Bedford.

And now we're just going to be a dumping station for everybody else's trash.

We don't need this.

If you haven't taken the tour, you should do it.

Go to Crapo Hill, Council Lopes and I did it.

It's amazing what they are doing up there.

And what they are doing is extending the life of that facility.

And they're doing a great job at it.

And by the way, we were told that there wouldn't be any seagulls on the rail cars, as Councilor Lopes and I stood on the top of the hill, beautiful view.

You can see for miles.

We stood on the top of the all the seagulls, you know, they have to actually mitigate those seagulls so that they're not dumping diving down and grabbing the trash and going off into the sunset.

You see what they do in the parking lots down the south end, my colleagues that live down there?

That's exactly what is going to happen all over the North End.

And we're going to allow this in 2025.

We're going to allow this or 2026 if it ever gets approved.

It's just a mess.

And it shouldn't be.

So John Mitchell's on the record saying that he thinks this is a great deal.

Going to give the City of New Bedford a place to put its trash to handle its trash at a lower rate somewhere down the road when he's gone.

Because you know, he won't be here when this thing is a disaster in the North E.

But the people who live there now and who have lived there forever and ever, it will be their disaster.

So I support this.

Let's do it.

I doubt the Board of Health will come.

You might have to talk with attorney Garatowski and see how you can subpoena them to come.

We just might have to do that.

But the people in the city, the people in the north end of the city are, it's a travesty.

It's just an absolute shame.

And um I I told Council Gomes not too long ago, this gets approved.

I'll be laying on the road in the business park.

I hope all of you will be with me.

No truck will be coming in there.

Thank you.

Anyone else on their first?

Anyone on their second?

Chair can't do Councillor Chaquette on his second.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh, I agree with everything my colleague from the far north end of Christian at Avenue just said.

Um.

And Attorney Guratowski, can you make sure you have to do whatever is necessary to bring these people from the Board of Health into these meetings?

Anything up to and including subpoenaeing them or using any legal matter that we have to.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Councillor Lopes, your friendly amendment.

Understanding the importance of the meeting and the importance of the neighborhoods that we move it from Pulaski School to Newmandon Middle School.

Um I remember as a young child they had this for the sewer treatment plant at Roosevelt to Junior High to ease the parking congestion and make sure that there was ample seating for everyone to attend.

I have no problem with that.

Okay.

So changing the location to Normandon.

Um due respect to my colleague uh what street do you live on now?

Plymouth Street.

Umandon, the manda middle school is not an auditorium.

It's a cafetorium.

And the seating there is not conducive to this kind of meeting, nor are the acoustics.

So I I don't know if that's the best venue for this.

Um I'll defer to the maker of the motion as to what he thinks regarding that issue.

Mr.

Pros.

Councillor Golmes.

I I want to thank my colleague.

I I understood what he was saying and uh immediately it made sense.

We had a brief discussion, uh, three of us back here.

Um we're we're gonna keep it the way it is.

We will keep it at Bulaski.

We just got some great concerns about the parking or whatever, but I guess that night we will double park on um Rayleigh Road, both sides of the street, if that's where it has to be done uh in order to get this meeting facilitated.

Right.

Councillor Ferrer says we'll close the streets.

Absolutely.

That we do have the power to do.

We can close the street.

All right, so we'll leave it as is.

Okay, great.

I just want to thank my colleagues for the consideration of the general public and the safety and well-being.

But we'll say it Pulaski.

Stay Blasky.

Okay.

Anyone else on their first?

Anyone on their second?

Seeing none as a reminder, uh, the question at hand is uh on referral to the Committee on Public Safety and Neighborhoods and the Board of Health.

Seeing no further question, all those in favor, or did you want a roll call on this?

I know.

I don't think I need one.

I think I know where everyone is.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, the ayes have it.

Chair recognizes Councillor Choquett.

Yes.

Uh Mr.

President, I would like to rise and make a related motion relative to Councillor Gomes' prior item.

I would like to read in place on file the following.

And if I could read it, thank you.

Um an ordinance relative to special permit granting authority, be it ordained by the city council, the City of New Bedford as follows.

Section one.

The seventh, twelfth, and thirteenth rows of Table J industrial of the appendix A table of principal use regulations of Chapter 9 of the Code of Ordinances are hereby amended by striking the word BA or Board of Appeals in said row seven, biomass recycling facility.

In said row 12, material salvage and recycling facility.

And in said row 13, recycling collection facility, wherever it may appear, and in certain place thereof, the following CC, which stands for City Council.

So the re the purpose behind this is those three types of facilities.

I have a feeling second.

Well uh Council Trickett, first make the motion, and then we'll I'll I'll give you the opportunity to speak on the related motion.

Sure.

So I would like to place that on file and then also make a motion to refer to ordinance committee and also planning.

All right.

So that motion uh was to refer that uh ordinance to the committee on ordinance and uh you said the uh planning.

The planning board, and that was seconded by Councillor Morad.

Anyone on the question?

Chair recognizes Councillor on the question.

So now the short energy to speak on it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Yeah, I just wanted to say any of those three types of facilities may cause substantial um duress to the surrounding communities.

So I think that it would be in everyone's best interest if those types of facilities came before us rather than the Board of Appeals.

Um that's all.

Thank you.

Would anyone else like to speak on the question?

All right, seeing none, uh a motion has been made by Councilor Jacquet to refer refer this ordinance to the Committee on Ordinances and the Planning Board, seconded by Council Morad.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have.

I'll ask the clerk to read item 11.

Mr.

President Item 11 is a written motion from Council Gomes requesting that the city take immediate action to enforce the code of ordinances, section 22-13 and 17-18 related to advertising on trees, poles, and streets of the city.

Illegally attached signage carries a mandatory fine and said fine can be assessed daily on every sign found illegally attached throughout the city.

Refer to the Department of Inspectional Services.

Motion made by Councillor Gomes to refer to the Department of Inspectional Services, seconded by Councillor Lopes.

Anyone on the question?

Chair recognizes Councillor Gomes on his first.

Thank you very much, Mr.

President.

Many of my colleagues through um drive out throughout their wards throughout the city.

I don't know if you have noticed the abundance of signs that are starting to come up on polls.

I'm very proud to stand here before you and some people were here when we instituted this because we felt we didn't want our city to be trashed like some other cities that we've been, especially the biggest cities where there's signs all over polls, stickers all over polls.

Matter of fact, bring to my attention.

You know the sign that I showed you?

From the board from um whoever put it up, uh South Coast Renewables, whoever was responsible, I'm gonna find you a hundred dollars for every day that I find these all over the north end, because that's what this law was all about.

It's really not funny because um our city is not going to look like some of the other cities.

If you've noticed, you're seeing poop scoop, we'll pick up the poop scoop, we'll paint the house, we'll clean the yard, we'll do this, we'll do that.

We have a lot of businesses in this city that uh pay a lot of money to advertise, and should these companies should not be getting away with this, and you should not be able to just put these signs anywhere.

We've seen these signs, everything from King's Highway on the Berm or the grass.

That's another thing.

You gotta understand the berm of the grass is not the property of the owner.

That's it belongs to the city.

Any sign attached or put on a property has to be attached to the property, not the grass berm on the sidewalk.

That's an illegal sign.

So, including for us, putting a political sign, we could be fined a hundred dollars for every day.

There is a lot of money on polls all over the city right now.

Uh this is an ordinance that I put in place because I didn't want our city to look, and I had the support of this council when we did it.

And it worked out for a little while.

Matter of fact, how we used to catch these guys was we would dial the number.

I would dial the number.

Linda's shaking her head because she would do the same thing.

We would call them up and say um talk to them about your service and tell them, by the way, where are you located?

Because remember, there's no address on there.

And they would tell you proudly, yeah, we're located in North and on a Christian Avenue.

So we know where to send the citation to when the find to you.

So that works.

You know what I mean?

Um so uh you know, on a funny note, uh that's the truth.

But um, I don't want to see these signs on our city streets, and as I said, a lot of businesses pay a lot of money to advertise to do it all right.

We're not that city.

We're not that city where you just stick things on polls and leave them there and and benefit from um an easy way of advertising throughout the city.

I would hope my colleagues would support this.

It's a cleaner city without them things all over our city.

Anyone anyone else on there first?

Anyone on their second?

Seeing none, the question at hand is on referral to the Department of Inspectional Services.

Oh, Chair recognized Councilor Gomes.

Mr.

President, could I make a friendly amendment to my motion?

Of course.

Requesting, requesting that the Department of Infrastructure, any truck out there, any formant or whatever, begin taking these signs down immediately.

Immediately.

We we don't have the staff really to go after these people and go through the process of getting the money, but let's send them a clear message.

You wasted your money in the city of New Bedford.

We'll take them down.

So if I could get the commissioner to do something like that, I'll authorize his guys as they're out there doing work across the city.

You spot these signs, take them.

Thank you.

Okay, dope.

So motion to refer to Department of Inspectional Services and take action immediately to remove them as they see them.

Made by Councillor Gomes.

Seconded by Councilor Giesta.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item 12.

Mr.

President.

Mr.

President, item 12 is a communication from Ann Lauro, preservation planner to the city council regarding a building demolition review at 955 Rockdale Avenue, map 62, lot 93.

This is a circa 1936 wood framed garage advising that the structure is not located within a national register historic district.

The garage structure is of no notable historic significance, either recorded or found with the existing condition of the structure.

The garage requires demolition to be reconstructed as a two-story structure for a different purpose.

And in light of these findings, the preservation planner has determined that the wood framed garage at 955 Rockdale Avenue is neither historically significant nor is it a preferably preserved structure.

Motion received and place unfile the communication, grant the demolition.

Second presented.

Motion made by Council Morat to receive and place on file the communication and grant the demolition.

Seconded by uh Councilor Lopes.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor of granting the demolition say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item 13.

Mr.

President 13 is a communication from the city clerk to the council.

Sweeting an application for renewal of your private liberty license on behalf of Tanya DePena at 47 Lauren Drive in New Bedford doing business as comfort transportation LLC at the same address.

This license will expire on June 30th, 2026.

Motion receive and place on file and grant the renewal of the license as presented.

Second.

Motion received and place a file and grant the renewal as presented, made by Council Morad, seconded by Councillor Carney.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor of granting the renewal.

Seeing none, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Without objection, I'll ask the clerk to read items 14 through 18 together.

They're all due private livery license.

I'll ask him to read them together.

Mr.

President Item 14 is communication from the clerk to the council.

Sweeting an application for a new private liberty license on behalf of Samario Bacari and Ali Bakari of three revolutionary way, apartment 110 in Hopkinton Mass, doing business as Magic Wheels Transportation LLC, located at 44 Liberty Street in New Bedford.

This license will expire on June 30th, 2026.

Item 15 is for a new private liberty license on behalf of Denise Afonsica at 240 County Street, Apartment 1 in New Bedford.

Doing business as Ms.

D's transportation at the same address.

Item 16 is a new private liberty license on behalf of Rotilia Aguilar Arigo at 7 Phillips of Seven Phillips Avenue Apartment 1 in New Bedford, doing business as transportation Cabrera Aguilar at the same address.

Item 17 is on behalf of Venancio Mendes, uh 35 Independent Street in New Bedford doing business as Vinancio Transportation at the same address.

And item 18 is on behalf of Thierry U is I.

Second.

Motion made by Council Priority to refer items 14 through 18 to the Committee on Appointments and Briefings, seconded by Councillor Carney.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor of referral referring items 14 through 18 to appointments and briefings.

Say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, the ayes have it.

Mr.

President.

Yes.

Could I have a point of information, please?

Sure.

I just want to uh correct the record.

When I was speaking on item 10 regarding parallel products, not only did I forget the ward counselor, but I forgot my colleague from Ward 5 who is in attendance as well.

So I just want the record to be straight.

Thank you.

Yes, I'm sure he appreciates that.

Thank you, Councilor Morad.

I'll ask the clerk to read item 19.

Mr.

President Item 19 is a communication from the Department of Environmental Protection Waterways Regulation Program, providing public notice of the water reason waterways application by the New Bedford Port Authority to authorize a change in use of filled tide lands and a marine bulkhead for water-dependent industrial and supporting uses at 40 Hervey Tishon Avenue.

Motion received and place on file communication.

Motion received and place on file made by Council Morad, seconded by Councillor Gomes.

Anyone on the question?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

I'll ask the clerk to read item 20.

Mr.

President, item 20 is a communication from Councillors Gomes and Moorad submitting a copy of a letter sent to the President Donald J.

Trump requesting that Z Lee Zeldon, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and Robert F.

Kennedy Jr., United States Secretary of Health and Human Services issue an immediate cease and desist to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the New Bedford Board of Health with regard to the positive determination of suitable site suitability for South Coast Renewables LLC proposed solid waste facility, which is to be located at 100 Duchenne Boulevard.

Motion receive and place on file communication.

Second motion received in place on file made by Council Morad, seconded by Councillor Gomes.

Anyone on the question?

On the question, Mr.

President, could we have the clerk read the letter?

Because I would like the general public to know what exactly what we sent to Washington.

Yes.

I'll ask the clerk to read uh the letter now into the record.

Honorable President Trump.

As the longest serving members of the New Bedford City Council, please allow us to introduce ourselves.

We are Brian K.

Gomes and Linda M.

Morad.

Councilor at large Gomes, a registered Democrat, and Councillor at Large Linda Morad, a registered Republican, respectfully and urgently request that you and senior members of your administration assist us with a critically important environmental issue that will soon affect the lives of thousands of hardworking New Bedford residents, which we join you in representing.

As a bit of background, New Bedford is the ninth largest city in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, boasting a population, a population of just over 101,000.

We are a blue-collar working class city with a median household income of approximately 48,000 annually.

Previously known as the willing capital of the world, New Bedford has a rich history and maintains its working waterfront where since 2001, our commercial fishing fleet and accompanying seafood-related industries continue to generate the highest annual value of any fishing port in the United States.

Known in the previous century as a hub for industrial and textile manufacturing, New Bedford has numerous brownfield and superfund properties, most of which have been contaminated by the pollutants commonly used in factories and industrial manufacturing sites during that time period.

Additionally, since 1995, New Bedford has been the site of a regional landfill which accepts solid waste disposal for residents and businesses from not only our own city but for surrounding communities as well.

Several years ago, Parallel Products, a company from Louisville, Kentucky, opened a regional recycling facility in New Bedford.

Over the last three years, the company has rebranded itself as South Coast Renewables LLC, and the same company has petitioned the Mass Department of Environmental Protection for approval of a regional solid waste facility that will accept 1,500 tons per day of municipal solid waste and operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The documentation submitted by the company projects that 278 trash hauling diesel trucks will approach the site daily utilizing two-lane residential streets that surround the proposed site.

The property located at 100 Duchenne Boulevard is on the periphery of the 100-acre New Bedford business park, one of the largest employers in the area, where 34 world-class companies employ over 3,000 area residents.

The Duchenne Boulevard site also abuts beautiful residential neighborhoods in the far north end of the city, where within 250 feet of this facility, there are 92 single family homes, and with an additional one and within an additional one mile radius, there are 2,045 single family homes, two elementary schools, three city parks, six public housing developments, two long-term nursing facilities, several child care facilities, and numeral restaurants and commercial establishments.

The outcry in opposition to this project from the community has been overwhelming.

The residents formed South Coast Neighborhoods United and enlisted the support of the nonprofit environmental advocacy group, the Conservation Law Foundation.

Together they have submitted thousands of letters voicing opposition, demanded informational forums, and organized numerous public demonstrations.

The local State delegation representing this area and the entire New Bedford City Council are all on record urging the denial of the company's petition for site suitability.

No one in their right mind would ever imagine that locating this type of solid waste facility in this beautiful residential neighborhood would be approved.

Yet despite the residue yet, despite the environmental injustice of this project and the long-term detrimental effect this solid waste process facility will have on the surrounding residential area and the disregard for the public health and welfare of the residents and business community, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection on July 7, 2025, issued a positive determination of site suitability and has ordered the New Bedford Board of Health to move the petition forward.

Mr.

President, we are asking you to elevate this issue to the highest levels within your within your administration.

It is our sincere hope that you would ask Lee Zeldon, Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and Robert F.

Kennedy Jr., United States Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue an immediate cease and desist to both the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the New Bedford Board of Health with regard to any approval of this site suitability.

Mr.

President, if we are to protect the health and quality of life of our New Bedford residents, as well as the visibility of our city's the viability, I'm sorry, of our City's business park, we will need the assistance that only you can provide.

We welcome the intervention of Administrator Zeldon and Secretary Kennedy, and will provide any information and documentation regarding this petition.

As we see you working for the citizens of our great nation, we too are working hard to represent the best interests of our families, neighbors, and residents.

We have a great desire to move our city forward, just as you do for our country.

We know that once you and your administration look at this incredibly obnoxious proposal, you will no doubt concur that this does not fit the Trump administration's goal to make America great again.

Thank you, President Trump, for all you are doing on behalf of this nation and for your time and attention to our request.

May God bless and keep you and your family safe, and may God bless America.

Sincerely Brian K.

Gomes, Councillor at Large, and Linda M.

Morad, Councillor at Large.

Chair I can add Councillor Gomes on his first.

Mr.

President, you look great up there smiling.

You just look great.

I just want to compliment you.

You know what I mean?

And you're still smiling, and I'm loving it.

I am loving it.

Well, Mr.

President, uh, we fired off the letter, and um it's it's not a final alternative, but it's an alternative to the vote possibly taken by the Board of Health and trying to protect the people of this city.

Uh, as we smile about this and uh maybe don't agree with the letter.

I know that my colleagues on the City Council are adamant about the issue, and you stated that that evening as you took the podium to support the people of the North End, as many of my other colleagues did.

And we will continue to do that.

And this is why this letter has been fired off to the most highest authority looking for the assistance in stopping this project.

That is how much this project has affected not only members of this council, more importantly, the neighborhood.

You have gotten an opportunity to see the eyes and the faces of those people.

You have gotten an opportunity to hear them speak, and they are not all the greatest speakers.

You can hear the nervousness in their voices.

That is why when we have people come here, I often you'll hear me say, it's your house.

Relax.

Don't be nervous to speak for the people, but some people are very nervous doing that.

I have seen the faces, I have heard the conversations just as many of us in this room have, and we are adamant to do something to the highest extent to stop this project from coming to the city in New Bedford.

I thank you for the opportunity, and I thank the good clerk for reading that letter, because I thought it was very important that the letter be read to the general public.

We don't have the news media as we've had before to do um at least uh tell the people about what is going on in this council, not only in this council, the good work that's done in committee, the good work that's done in in other um uh committees on on this city council.

And for me, it's always been a bother.

You know that since you've been here, because I don't think the recognition is given to us that we rightfully deserve.

You don't have to agree with everything that we do.

We don't agree with each other and things that we do in this building.

But we do have the uh we should have the ability or the right to get the information out to the people that serve us.

And I thank you very much, and I thank the clerk again.

Anyone else on the first chair of this, Councillor Choc?

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I concur with the letter written by my two colleagues.

Um I think that it is a foregone conclusion that had Senator Ted Kennedy still been alive and the Senator of Massachusetts, he would have stopped this butt-cold.

Um Senator Kennedy loved this city of New Bedford.

Um that being said, and I'm willing to entertain letters to anyone up to and including the Secretary General of the United Nations and the Pope Leo of the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

But getting back to you know, seriousness here, I think that we need to address send a letter to Senator Elizabeth Warren, yeah, Senator Warren, uh, because there are several of us in this room who are members of the Democratic Party.

Two of us are members of the State Committee of the Democratic Party.

So I believe that we should co-co-write a letter to Senator Warren saying that we are so desperate for help that this body actually sent a letter to President Donald Trump for help.

So where is Senator Elizabeth Warren?

She needs to come down here, and so does Senator Markey and show that they a know where New Bedford is, but also B to stop this project.

This is an outrage.

And again, I thank my colleagues for their original thinking.

And I again I I would like to have a letter written on behalf of this council to Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Ed Markey and sent by my two colleagues who are State Committee members of the Democratic Party of Massachusetts.

Thank you.

Anyone else on there first?

Mr.

President, just point of information.

I know the clerk didn't read the listing of people we copied, but I just want my colleagues to know that we did copy Senator Warren and Senator Markey.

We have not we also copied uh the Congressman Keating as well.

Uh we have not heard back from them.

Um we do we have had communication from the White House, and uh hopefully it will move forward.

So thank you for that, Council Morat.

Anyone else on there first?

Anyone on their second all right?

Mr.

President, though, excuse me for interrupting you.

I I anybody who wants to send the letter, send it.

I mean, I I the more people that know how outrageous this is, um, you know, maybe somebody, if you if you as members of the Democratic Party write the letter, maybe somebody will pay attention to what's going on.

We also copied the Governor, but um we have we have not heard back from her either.

So thank you.

Chair can ask Councillor Holmes on a second.

Mr.

President, just to bring to the General Public's attention, these letters were sent certified because we wanted to make sure that they got there and we received the cards back from all these people.

So no one can say that we did not contact them or try to get uh communication to them.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh this was already a motion receive and place on file.

We already voted on, so this is all set.

So we are now on to item 21.

Mr.

President, item 21 is communication from Council City Council President Burgo submitting a copy of a letter dated July 23rd of 2025 from Solicitor Eric Jakes regarding an opinion request related to the confirmation of the police chief in 21A is the communication.

Um If we can do motion motion to receive in place of file the communications.

Yes, motion to receive in place on uh file the communications made by Council Pera.

Second.

Second by Councillor Giesta.

Um the question.

Uh just a moment, Councilor Carney.

If I could just have uh that's what I wanted to ask them.

Thank you, Councillor Carney.

Yeah, I'm gonna have attorney Garrett Towski just come up for a moment.

Um just because I feel like there have been a lot of questions uh not just within our body, but also uh in the general public regarding uh what I hope to uh will to action that we hope to take place here.

If you could just give us a generalized uh understanding.

Okay, so I'll try to be as brief as possible because I know you all want to get out of here, and my 83-year-old mother wants me to call her back so she can tell me how she did a bingo tonight.

So I gotta get to that.

Um so this is important because it speaks to the council's fundamental duties.

Um there's been some fanfare about the council president's press release this week.

And um it should be said that the that the council president just didn't come up with this out of the air.

Um when the new chief was appointed, um, the president called me and asked me if he thought that the council had a role in the confirmation of the police chief.

And I told him that I thought that he did need confirmation by the council, and this is the reason I knew that, or I thought that was because several years ago Councillor Dunn had called me, um former counsel dunn when he was on a Ward 3 counselor, um, had called me when the last chief was appointed and not sent to the council, and I told I looked at some research on it and felt told Councillor Dunn that I thought, based upon what I found that the council needed to confirm the police chief.

Um at the time he decided not to pursue it for whatever his reasons were, he didn't pursue it, but that remained my opinion.

So in my conversations with the president, I said, well, you know, I may be missing something.

So perhaps you should ask the solicitor, and we can get the solicitor's opinion, and maybe he'll he found something that I just couldn't find that exempted the police chief from city council approval.

So the president went ahead and asked the solicitor for an opinion about it and received one back on July 23rd.

Um the president sent it to me.

I think we we discussed it, and I felt that the that the solicitor's opinion did not really address the issue properly.

And in fact, led me to believe even more strongly that the council has to confirm the chief.

And so let me tell you what my line of thinking is on this so you understand why I believe that, and um, and then you can make up your mind whether you agree with me or not.

So the city charter is first and foremost how it constructs government, similar to the Massachusetts Constitution or the Federal Constitution.

It is the framework of your government and it provides duties and responsibilities to branches of government that cannot be overturned by ordinance.

Okay?

Just as you can't make a law that viol or the state legislature can't make a law that's in conflict or violates the state constitution, and the federal congress and president can't make laws that violate the United States Constitution, nor can the city council and mayor create ordinances in conflict with what the charter says.

Okay?

So the charter says all heads of departments, members of municipal boards, and except school committee, um, officials appointed by the governor, assessors shall be appointed by the mayor, subject to confirmation by the city council.

That's the charter.

That is what your responsibility is.

The mayor appoints them, you confirm them in order for them to take their role in those positions.

That's the charter.

No ordinance can change that.

You cannot exempt anyone by ordinance and say, well, this department head doesn't need confirmation.

You would need to change the charter in order to do that, or there must be a state law because the charters are directed by state law.

There should be a state law that may exempt a particular position from being a particular department head or border commission member from being confirmed by you.

So the after you read that the council confirms mayoral appointments of department heads, the next step is this.

It says in the code that the police chief is a department head.

Now you defer to the charter, department head gets confirmed by the city council.

Very clear.

Now the only sort of conflicting language in the code is in 2-21 that says the mayor shall be the executive head and general directing authority in control and management of the police and fire departments.

So someone may be able to argue, well, it looks like the mayor is the police head of the police department.

I would argue that the mayor is the head of every department.

Because 2-20 says that the mayor is the executive head of the city.

Okay?

So that means that that the mayor, is anyone going to argue that Danny Romanowitz doesn't answer to the mayor?

Is anyone going to argue that the mayor isn't the head of DPI, that Commissioner was the commission's life?

Commissioner Pond doesn't answer to the mayor.

Of course.

Jamie Pond, he answers to the mayor.

The mayor is the executive head of the city.

Now that language was put in there, I believe, in 1963, the language that specifically says the mayor is the executive head and general directing authority and control of the management of the police and fire departments, because there are were there were stories and things that I've heard about how certain chiefs in other towns and cities, and perhaps at the time in New Bedford in the 60s, where when someone became the chief, they felt they they acted independently of the mayor, that they didn't have to answer to the mayor.

They were the chief of the department, could tell them what to do if the so I think that was put in to make clear that they are the department head, the police chief is the department head subject to 1991, however, is always subject to the orders of the mayor.

Like every single department head.

No department head acts individually.

The mayor operates oversees all of them, and that's what he's elected to do.

And so my thought on those is the 2-21 where it says the mayor shall be executive head of the police and fire departments, does not mean that the that the chief is not the department head, especially since 19 91 says the chief of police shall be at the head of the police department.

Very clearly states that.

So to me, the only question is is he the department head?

Now, if he is the department head and you agree that he's the department head, you should confirm him unless we can find some other specific exemption.

That's why I asked the president to ask the solicitor.

Maybe he knows of one.

And when the solicitor gave his opinion, he he offered no such exemption whatsoever.

Nowhere in his opinion does he say, here's the law that exempts the chief specifically from that section of the code, the state law that exempts him.

He makes some references to he basically says this, that he he acknowledges that the charter says that all heads of department shall be um appointed by the mayor, subject to confirmation by the city council.

He says this section applies generally.

Yes, of course it does.

I agree with that.

You don't confirm people that aren't department heads, and you don't confirm positions that are specifically exempted.

For example, in the charter, and he says, even the solicitor says, I'm not confirmed by the city council, because the charter says, but the city solicitor shall be appointed and may be removed by the mayor without confirmation by the city council.

It specifically exempts the solicitor.

He mentions fence viewers and dog officers not being confirmed by the city council.

Since one of those department heads, they're not.

They're not department heads.

He mentions that five own of the five members of the housing authority, only four are appointed by the mayor subject to confirmation by the city council.

We know because there's a specific law in the state law that says the governor has an appointment.

Right?

He talks about the director of the airport, that the airport commission appoints the director.

Correct.

Because technically he oversees, but the real head of the airport, the department head of the airport, is the commission itself, whom the mayor appoints, and you confirm.

So it's very clear to me that there is no exemption whatsoever that he pointed to in his opinion that exempts the police chief from your confirmation.

If there is one out there, I don't know of it, and apparently the solicitor doesn't know about it either, because he didn't put it in his in his opinion.

The one thing he does cite, however, is that he cites Chapter 41, Section 1080, where the mayor acting as appointing authority can establish an appointment an employment contract with the police chief.

Nobody disputes that the chief and the mayor can enter into the contract.

But what he failed to mention in that section when he wrote to the council president was, and the president pointed this out, that in that in that section um 41108-0, it says nothing contained in this section shall affect the appointment powers of any city or town over its police chief.

Meaning that that section giving the chief and the and the chief and the mayor ability to to enter into contract does not change in any way how he's appointed.

Meaning the charter appoints dictates how he gets appointed.

So this is why I think this is part of the council's fundamental duties is to and powers under the charter is to appoint department heads.

And the only question is, is the chief a department head?

If he is, show me the specific exemption.

No one has done that.

In fact, I think that the mayor was even on the radio with the media saying the law says that we don't have to, and never cited the law.

I was waiting to hear what is the law.

I want to look at it.

I'm anxious to see it.

And no one can point to it.

And so I'm waiting still for someone to point to it.

I could be stand to be corrected.

I'll stand before this council and say, I was wrong.

I miss this specific section.

But nobody can point to it.

And just because the code does not specifically say the chief of police shall be confirmed by the City Council.

It does not need to, because the Charter says so.

And no ordinance, again, no ordinance can change the charter.

You cannot change the charter by ordinance.

You cannot exempt anyone by ordinance.

The state law can exempt them, or if they're not a department head.

Imagine the charter also says that the mayor is the executive head of the city, right?

What if what if we've passed an ordinance that said, now we're going to make Council Carney the executive head of the city?

And it's in the ordinance.

The mayor would say, you can't do that.

The charter says I am, right?

That's the same thing.

Nothing in the you cannot pass an ordinance that negates the powers and duties given to you under the charter.

There has to be a specific state exemption, or the chief of police is not the department head.

That's the way I view it.

I haven't seen anything that yet has changed my mind.

But if I do see it, I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong.

Um but as of right now, I think if if I've seen everything, I don't think I'm wrong.

It's up to you how you want to proceed.

The chair organized Councilor Abraham is first.

Thank you very much, Council President Bureau.

Uh, attorney Garatowski.

Um I heard what you your your argument and um so I'm wrapping up now my tenth year here.

So since I've been here, we've had for police chiefs, we've had Lazat, Quadero, and Olivera.

So I won't speak to prior my tenure here, but you know where I'm going with this, I think.

Is it safe to say then, or in your legal opinion, those three chiefs that have been here since that lease, or I've served since at least I've been here, they were improperly serving in their positions.

Well, I you know, I think that if the if the council doesn't challenge it and say, look, we we think that we should be confirming it.

Um I think that nobody says anything, things happen.

You know, I don't think that the solicitor is going to be sending, you know, um uh a former chief a letter saying you owe all the money back because the law didn't didn't um um allow you to be the chief.

But um I think that they should be confirmed because I do think it does create some problems if you know about it and you don't fix it.

Well, I think because I know I heard one argument saying, well, Lazart, Quadero, and Oliveira, they were punted up from deputy chief, and they were within they were internal, so that made it different.

And I said, well, I don't understand how that would make it different.

We just had an advice and consent vote on Brian Medeiros, who he was the deputy to Scott Krueger.

So I don't think that it doesn't make a difference.

I think I think that it did make a difference years ago when the chief of police was under civil service, because there was a civil service provision under Chapter 31 that dictated how you make promotions and how you appoint police.

That's why you don't con even though the code says you confirm police officers, you don't because they are appointed under civil service.

But in 1996, there was special legislation that the police chief was taken out of civil service, and that's when the the um Mayor Tierney hired Art Kelly, and he came before the council for approval because he was out of civil service, came before the city council.

I think Chief Manese came before the City Council.

I think Preventure did.

Yeah, there were others that came that came before the council.

But then one time maybe some mayor didn't submit it, and then the following mayors just copy what had happened, and it becomes this custom that isn't appropriate until someone corrects them.

Yeah.

Um last question from me on this.

Um The Mayor said on uh on the record when he was on the radio program uh on WBSM earlier this week that Superior Court does not offer declaratory judgments.

He had said something along those lines that that will what we're seeking is not even correctly before the courts.

Do you concur with that statement he made?

No, I think there would be a dispute on the authority that that is specific legal authority between a municipal, and I think that um you could request that the judgment be done.

Um I think that you could make that request.

What other that that's what you do when there's a dispute about a legal um there's not going to be evidence about it.

It is just going to be here's here's what happened, here's the law.

What is what can you declare the rights of the parties under the law.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I'll yield.

Chair recognizes Council Giester on our first.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um that was you answered my question, David, because I was going to ask, have there been other chiefs of st of uh police that were confirmed by the City Council?

And clearly there were.

And somewhere along the line, that changed.

The question is, do we know why and how?

Yeah, I I don't know.

I do know in in the in the opinion that the solicitor gave to uh the president, um there was some mention of a of a of an opinion by the late Arthur Karen and I think said Ross Brooker.

Um we've asked, I think the President has asked for those opinions so we could look at them and we never receive them.

Okay.

Um so um I I don't know what they say, but I would presume if there was some specific exemption written in them that the solicitor would have put that in his letter to the president and did not.

So I mean it could be the same things that are in here that I I disagree with.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Chair recognition has Councillor Morat on her first.

Thank you.

Um David, what a stupid thing to fight about, right?

And we're always worried that the solicitor doesn't have enough people to work for him and can't get stuff done, we can't get PNSs, and we're arguing about this.

And in addition to that, you know, we should be celebrating a new chief instead.

I wonder how he feels.

I mean, uh it must be pretty uncomfortable at this point for him to know that he is in the middle of a battle between a body he's trying to get to know and a guy that hired him.

Um it's really really unfortunate.

I'm sorry to see this going in this direction.

Has he been sworn in?

No.

Is he legally on the job?

No.

Yeah, I I don't know.

I uh I I would say that he's not legally on the job because he hasn't been confirmed whether someone sworn him in or not, I have no way of knowing.

You're sworn in by the clerk, right?

You're sworn in by the clerk.

Well, you can be sworn in by others that are authorized to give oath, but most of the time they go to the clerk in the city because the clerk can do that for the city.

So he could have been sworn in by a judge.

Is that what you said?

Yeah, I think Justice of the Peace and things of that nature, yeah.

Mr.

President, that would be an interesting um question to ask.

Yeah, I think it should be made very clear that this has this my opinion and it and I think the presidents and everyone has nothing to do with the the person who was appointed.

I agree.

And I and I would presume, I mean, he was here the other night and did quite well before the council, and I think most people likely would vote for him.

I don't know where that would come go, but um I I don't I uh it has nothing to do with him particularly.

Um it's just something that has to do solely with who has the authority under the charter and what is the council's authority being subverted in this case happens to be um the chief.

It's really a shame that this administration chooses to follow the law in some cases and not in others.

I mean we all know about other issues that we're dealing with with this administration where they pick and choose what section of the code they're gonna they're gonna deal with and which they're you know what they're gonna do and what their practices are and you know it would be interesting to see if if he gets a letter saying he owes his payback.

But thank you, Mr.

President.

Chair recognizes Councillor Carney on her first.

Oh thank you.

Excuse me.

Um I I thought Chief Codero was sworn in before us.

But so the I don't remember, but no, it's like I thought it I I thought it was standard practice that they came before us, so I guess I'm losing my mind too because they thought they were in front of us.

Um but so the only dispute is whether or not the police chief is a department head or not, correct?

Um because that's what the chat is stating, doesn't specifically say who, but whether the police chief is a department head.

But but we did swear in the fire chiefs, don't we?

The Jeopardy Chiefs and the Fire Chiefs, we swear in those guys.

Yeah, well I would say that the fire chief has to be sworn in under the under the same provision of the charter, right?

The fire chief is the head of the department and so um, but they're both chiefs.

What he s what Attorney Jake seems to be indicating is that the code specifically says something about the fire chief shall be confirmed by the city council.

And they're saying that the that the code, the the the city ordinances are silent about whether or not the chief of police has to be.

My my thought is this.

You doesn't matter what the code says.

The charter says it.

Department head.

Right.

So you don't need to have every ordinance about every department head say confirmed by city council, because the charter covers that.

Right.

Right.

You don't have to have laws that say you have free speech because the Constitution covers that.

You know, you don't have to have laws that tell you you have free speech.

The Constitution covers it.

You can't have laws that say you can't have free speech, but because that would be in conflict.

But you don't need a law that says Council Carney, you can say this.

And if it doesn't say you can say this, you do you can't say it.

You say, yes, I can say it.

I have a First Amendment right to say it.

Right.

Same thing with the Charter.

The Charter is the governing document.

Correct.

So the department head.

It's it's it's what the dispute is in that is whether or not you consider the chief of police a department head.

Correct.

And and I noticed that one of the articles written that I saw had a quote from the mayor's appearance when he was setting up his commission to a screening committee, said, and then I'll have him confirmed by the city council, just as any other department head.

Right.

So he even the mayor views the chief as the department head.

Correct.

And stated that, and then somewhere between then and now has changed his mind, and I'm not sure why.

Maybe they looked back and saw that Chief Oliveira wasn't said, well, we don't need to confirm him.

I don't know.

But that's the problem is when precedent gets set, and later on you start following that precedent that was really incorrect, and then you you multiply the the mistake over and over again because you keep following what happened before you.

And I think that may have been what happened now, and now everybody's digging in in their positions, which I think is is too bad.

But I'll again I'm I'm happy for someone to show me a specific exemption of the chief or something more concrete that the chief is not the department head.

But I don't think anyone thinks the chief of police is not the chief the head of the department.

I think everybody uh would agree with that.

And even I don't think even Attorney Jakes, in his opinion, made the argument that the chief isn't the department head.

He never said that.

Um so I think everybody agrees with that.

So then if he is, where's the exemption?

That's that's all I'm asking.

Somebody show it to me.

I can't find it.

True.

Thank you, Counselor.

Any other questions for attorney Garatowski?

President Berger.

Chair recognizes uh Councilor Pereira.

Thank you.

Attorney Garotowski, your logic is sound to me.

Um looking at the information and the communications before us, I would happen to agree.

Uh I I know my colleague from the South End uh already kind of uh said about uh um some some sort of petition in superior court.

What is the proper procedure at this point if we wanted to pursue this further?

Well, I I I guess we could we could request a declaratory judgment from the court um file a complaint for for a declaratory judgment of the the rights of the parties.

Um then um but I would need a vote of the council to order me to do that um if that was the route that the council wants to go, and then I would go forward and and begin drafting a complaint to do so.

Very good.

Thank you, uh President Burgo.

Anyone else?

Let me come oh Chair recognizes Council Oliver on his first.

Thank thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh uh Attorney Jaritaski.

At the very least, to uh dispose I know I know the argument, is he a department head, is he not, whatever.

But at the very least, he does have to be sworn in.

I know that other chiefs have been sworn in because the way that our the way that I I've I've seen everyone swear in, it says the Constitution of the United States, the Massachusetts General Law, the Charter and Ordinance of the City of New Bedford.

Yeah, I think there's something under the st under the statutes about municipal officers that requires an oath, I think.

I'm not exactly sure what the section is, but there's a whole section on municipal officers, and I believe that requires some sort of oath.

So we don't know as a body if that oath has happened through the case.

There are other avenues as we are made aware now that it it necessarily doesn't have to go through the clerk.

It can and has in other instances with Chief Oliveira and Chief Cordero.

But we don't know if that's happened yet.

I don't know.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Mr.

President, thank you.

Chair recognizes Councilor Baptiste on this first.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I'm not going to be long like you said you wasn't going to be long, but it was kind of long.

But can't we just write a motion to have him come before the body so that we can ask him questions and get him in front of us just to skip all the everything else?

There's there's there's two things, right?

So those are two different distinct things, right?

One is you can ask the chief to come before you and and the appointment to come before you and discuss things with you.

But the question is your confirmation required to make him the chief, right?

So that that's a different thing.

You know, you can invite any city employee to come before you and talk to you.

That's fine.

The question is what authority do you have over that particular appointment?

What if the chief comes before you and he he's not satisfactory for some reason?

You find some glitch in his qualifications, and you say the council says we're not going to confirm him.

And I'm not saying that's going to happen, but what if that were to happen?

And you the council doesn't confirm him, and the mayor says, Well, I don't care.

I I've already made him the chief.

He's already got the uniform.

He's been he's been in the position, he's in the office, he's he's on our payroll.

Well, then you'd say, well, how can that be?

He hasn't been confirmed.

So whether he comes before you or not doesn't clarify that you're confirming that person.

The person should not be named the chief of police and take the oath and be in the office and putting on the uniform and all that stuff until he's confirmed by the city council.

Right now, that's not what we have.

So that's what we want to clarify.

What are the what are the can the court tell us does the council have confirmation power over the chief of police or not?

That's what we're looking to do.

It's different than just inviting him to talk to you.

I was just, you know, look asking for alternative ways of the remote.

Well, the alternative would be that the council before doing it could always just say the city council is council order that the mayor's appointment for chief of police be submitted to the city council for confirmation and send that to the mayor.

If he returns it unsigned or vetoes it or whatever he wants to do, then you don't have to ask for a uh a court action.

You could just make a motion first to say, Mayor, we you know, move that you submit the chief's appointment for confirmation to the city council.

You could ask that that be done.

You could do that by motion.

And if that if he doesn't do it, then you could go to the court action after that.

But that would be your call as to how you want to proceed.

Um it's up to the council.

Now I know that the the the president has asked already and hasn't received that.

And so that's why the president was suggesting another action.

But you could do it by vote of the council first to see if he if the mayor decides, well, why don't I just submit it for confirmation because why fight about it?

Probably gonna have the votes anyway.

Why fight about it?

So uh and in my opinion.

If you come in front of us to get funds as as a department head, you got department in the name of the police department, like what why doesn't that make you a department head?

So that's it is like common sense you would think that it has a department in the name and you still come in front of the city for everything else.

So why wouldn't you be a department head?

I don't know.

But I was just late.

I yield.

Anyone else for Attorney Garatowski?

I like the motion.

I make a motion at this time, Mr.

President.

I move to instruct Attorney Garotowski to file a complaint in the appropriate court for a ruling on the dispute relative to the confirmation of the chief of police.

Motion made by Councillor Pereira.

Seconded by Councillor Giesta.

Anyone on the question?

Roll call.

Council, do you have a Yeah on the question?

Councillor Carney.

Just to to my colleague from the South End.

Um I know that it's just been asked by the President to their to the uh to the mayor.

Um I thought all along that all these the police chiefs have been confirmed to us.

I you know, so did so did the mayor right here.

Thought it was that the uh confirmation comes before the city council.

I was wondering if he would just let's do right the send a motion from this council to the mayor asking him to for the confirmation versus going right to court.

I would rather see us just ask him as a body, not just between you.

Because you you just asked him, we didn't ask him as a body of the city council.

It was just you asking the mayor.

And if you guys go at it all the time, it's he's gonna tell you no anyways.

So I mean, if it's a body asks, maybe it might do that.

That's why I think he listens to us all the time, you're right, Councillor Carney.

The chair recognizes Councillor Aver honors first.

Thanks a bunch, Mr.

President.

Uh I've got to agree with uh my colleague from Jenny Linstrate who spoke before me.

Um I think it's important for us to get a judgment or a ruling I do because it sets a dangerous precedent for future mayors and city councils going forward, and they can play God and they can play games on who appoints who for when, and I choose to do a confirmation and advice and consent here, and I don't choose to do it there, and I think it really creates a very dangerous cat and mouse game.

But um I do think attorney Garatowski brought up a pretty good counterpunch to that or a counter-argument that maybe as a council we do file a motion and um and beseech uh the mayor to send the chief before us for an advice and consent vote and hearing um that's not on the dole of the taxpayer as litigation would be on the dole of the taxpayer.

Um, obviously we're trying to save as many pennies as we can.

I don't know.

Um if there's an appetite for it, that's great.

If there's not, uh uh that's fine too.

Um I'll vote for this to go forward, the counselor from what six is motion, but um I thought Attorney Garatowski's idea was pretty well taken by me anyway.

Um, you know, guy, I know Mr.

President, I know you have been asking the question, and I respect that.

I know you have been doing that, and I'm sorry you haven't been getting the answers that you've been asking for and you've needed and that you deserve um as the president of this council.

But maybe as to Councillor Kearney's point, maybe if all 11 of us have a motion now and we're united, maybe that kind of moves the needle a little bit.

It might not, but just an idea.

I'll yield it this time, Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Chair recognize Councillor Oliver on his first.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh I haven't been here very long, only about two and a half years.

But in that time, um there's been a lot of uh items that have gone up to that corner office and returned unsigned.

I haven't seen many that come signed when the uh body um unanimously sends something up that way.

Um it's been said in this council uh on the radio, m multiple places that um you know he doesn't play well in the sandbox.

Well, this is the sandbox.

Um I think we know where he stands.

Um unanimous motion to get that forward doesn't set precedent.

Um this does.

We're fighting for our right to act as a body and um have a say in what goes on in our local government and who is representing the head of the police department.

Um I I I was had the honor of serving on that screening committee, and I think that uh Chief Thought is is um is a fine choice um for that position.

And I think that uh there are many colleagues on this council that may feel the same way if you met him already.

Um what we're fighting for is what is our role here, and I think that that's what we have to do because we're not getting the answers from this from the the corner office that you have asked for.

So let's uh also I would uh I would recommend that we support the motion that is before us now uh to seek um you know a legal ruling as far as what our role is when it comes to the appointment of the chief of police.

Because we can send up a motion and it can come back unsigned, or he can even approve it and send it down here to appease us, but it still doesn't set the precedent that that is our role.

So that's what we have to do is send a clear message that this is our role and that's what we are fighting for.

Thank you, Mr.

President, for the time.

Thank you, Councillor Oliver.

You're welcome.

Um Chair recognized Councillor Pereira on us first.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I've been here for what feels like a lot longer than the counselor from Ward 3, and every motion that we've sent to the third floor has come back unsigned.

So I can verify to that.

Uh but what I would say is uh just as it was pointed out by my colleague from uh the the South End, um uh we didn't I did not ask Attorney Garatowski, but there would be no cost for file, there would be no minimal cost to to the taxpayers.

The only thing would be the filing fee in court.

There wouldn't be legal fees.

This is just uh there's no evidence to present, there's no witnesses to call, there's no witness prep or investigation that would occur.

It's just here's this is what we have.

What's the ruling, Your Honor?

And and um if if I'm wrong, the attorney would be flailing all the round, but he's not, so I would assume I'm right.

It'd be the whatever the filing cost is in court until what to what the colleague from Ward 3 stated.

This is about the uh precedent moving forward, not just for us, but for future counsels in determining the role of this body.

At the end of the day, we have uh uh finite amount of power.

And one of our core powers is confirmation of mayoral appointments.

We shouldn't be so eager to turn the turnover on this one.

We we need to very clearly send a message to this administration and future ones that the council either confirms or doesn't confirm the chief of police.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Anyone else on there first?

All right, the chair recognizes Council Abra on his second.

I am sorry, Mr.

President.

If you would indulge me, I just have one question for Attorney Garatowski if you'll allow.

Sure.

Attorney Garatowski.

I'll be very, very brief, I promise.

B 10.

Hi, David.

Um my good friend who spoke before me.

Um I'm not sure I necessarily agree.

Is he correct?

Because my understanding is is that yes, there is the filing fee, but your hours for doing this and presenting and going and filing and doing all this work, these are billable hours.

Well, the way the theory is.

How does this all work?

The way the code determines it says you should have a legislative council, and then it says you can file in a court, and it says that there can be additional um fees charged to the city for any type of litigation.

Um I don't I don't anticipate that I would submit a bill to the city because of as council Pereira points out, you'd file a complaint, maybe write a memorandum, um, which I already have most of the research done.

And um, there's not it's not a trial, doesn't it would be basically just here are the facts, please look at the law and apply it to what our facts are.

I don't think there's a factual dispute here.

The the dispute is you know what how does the law apply?

Um so I don't think it would be that extensive of a litigation.

So I just wanted to know because I don't know if this was within the scope of your council approved stipend every year that you get as our legal counsel, this was above and beyond the.

Yeah, I mean it it is say it does say in the code that when there's litigation filed on behalf of the council at the direction of the council that you can bill for additional um amounts.

I don't think I would be doing that other than what any out-of-pocket costs would be for any filing or service of process or some things like that.

Okay.

I just wanted that for the record.

I just want to be very clear so we're all on and a correct understanding of how the billable hours or lack thereof or whatever they are, how that plays out, just so the taxpayers know what we're getting into here and if we are gonna go forward.

That's the same.

I'm aware of your your concerns about costs and you know, budget cuts and the like, and you're cutting the solicitor's office and trying to be trying to be efficient here, and I I'm I'm well mindful of that.

Thank you very much, David.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I'll yield anyone else on there first.

Anyone on there second?

All those in favor say aye.

Oh wait a minute.

We what are we voting on?

Oh sorry, yes.

Uh a motion uh has been made by Council Pereira.

Yes, could you read it again for our colleagues?

Was there not a motion from point of view?

Okay.

No, just by uh Council Pereira.

If you but if you could just read it again for a move to instruct attorney Garatowski to file a complaint in the appropriate court for a ruling on the dispute relative to the confirmation of the chief of police.

And that was seconded by Councillor Giesta.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

There is a tabled item.

Remain on the table.

All right.

Motion to take up and adopt consent set.

Second.

Made by Council Pereira, seconded by Councillor Carney.

Anyone on the question of taking up and adopted consent?

Seeing none, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The ayes have it.

Motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Uh made by Councillor Pereira.

Seconded by Councillor Baptiste.

I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on adjournment.

I'll meet you there, cover my prayers.

I want you to do it just so that we don't know who is actually here in the room.

I want a roll call done for adjournment.

Are we adjourned?

Not yet, because we haven't done the roll for adjournment.

Councilor Abrew.

Council Baptiste.

Yes, Council Burgo.

Yes.

Yes, Council Carney.

No.

No, Council Shouquette.

Yes, Council Giesta.

Yes, Council Gomes.

Council Lopes.

Yes, Council Morad.

Yes, Council Oliver.

Yes.

Yes, Council Pereira.

Yes.

Yes.

Passes 8 to 1, Mr.

President.

Passes 8 to 1.

We are adjourned at 8.56 p.m.

Yeah.