So I apologize to the members of the public who have been here both virtually and virtually and in person.

The time is now 8 32.

It is Wednesday, November 5th, 2025.

I call this regular meeting of the Board of Representatives to order.

The invitation tonight will be delivered by Representative Annie M.

Somerville from District 6.

Come and do this, please.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Sean.

Okay.

I'm gonna say here if that's okay with everybody.

Do whatever it's your heart to do.

I'm gonna do what I do and ask for some blessings for all of us.

May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be pleasing in your sight, Lord.

May rock the rocks cry out and my redeemer to my redeemer, gracious one, as we gather for this found time as the 31st board of Stanford Boys of Representative and whole.

Let us reflect on those representatives who began this journey, not only with me, but with all of us, and are now departed from this world, and may be remembered, and may they be remembered.

All those they loved also.

Thank you.

Faithful, one of those who departed service.

I'm gonna go a little farther.

My spirit's telling me I have to say something else.

Remain with us in this life in this life, in whatever you believe for the beyond this life.

Be a bit be a blessing and flowing from your abundance.

We ask tonight for guidance, love, respect, honesty.

And as we take up uh these kind these items here tonight, for the good of all people of this world and of this beautiful, wonderful Stanford, Connecticut, the city of which we're dwelling in tonight.

Help us help us.

I got something else to say again.

Help us, dear servant, to listen for your still and small voice.

Voice and to open our hearts, our minds wide to solutions that profit with all that we ask you for your grace and love for your everything for all of you.

I love you.

I adore you.

If you would give me the opportunity, I appreciate it.

Let there be, I'm gonna stand up for that.

Yes, let there be peace.

Let there be peace in our heart, that's that we peace for one another.

I truly believe for this last boy, that the work we do will always be noticed, will always be the truth.

You will always stand when others might want it to be wrong.

I pray for you, and I ask you to pray for me.

Thank you.

Would everybody please rise for the pledge of allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag.

To the republic, for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Yes, but before I do that, um, on behalf of Representative Stella, I have two ceremonial gavels to present to first one is to Representative Sherwood.

Um this is to commemorate commemorate that uh you served as president from August 4th, 2025 to November 30th.

Uh the second one is for uh Rose Curtis on behalf of your husband who served as president from December 6th, 2021 until July 15th, 2025.

Thank you, Representative Stella, and the 31st Board of Representatives.

Thank you.

All right, now time to call the role.

Um representative Adams, Representative Adams, Representative Adams.

Are you present?

Baines present, madam clerk, thank you, Burns, President Madam Clerk, thank you, Blink, Present, Madam Clerk, Boger, Present, Madam Clerk, thank you.

Um Campbell, I'm here, Camperelli, present, madam clerk, I'm here, Curtis, Taylor Cruz, Fidelity, present, Figueroa, President, Gilbrine, Present, and thank you, Madam Clerk, Goldberg.

Good evening.

I'm here, Graham, present, madam clerk, Grunberger, Kazinski, President Madam Clerk, Lie.

Matheny, Present Madame Clerk, Mays, President, Moore, President Madam Clark, Morrison, President Madam Clerk, Patterson, Present, Madam Clerk, Pavia, President Clerk, Kier Louis, President, Madam Clerk, Pollock.

Uh Representative Pollock.

She was here.

Okay.

All right, she'll she'll let us know when she comes back.

Uh Rokata.

Present Madam Clerk.

Saftach.

Sanford.

Present.

Shaw.

Shaw.

Oh, okay.

Sherwood.

Present Madame Clerk.

Stella.

Strain.

Summerville.

Present, Madam Clerk.

Tomas.

President, Madam Clerk.

Vanderboard.

Present.

Walston.

Present, Madam Clark.

Thank you.

Watkins.

Present, Madam Clerk.

Weinberg.

Present.

Williams.

Present, Madam Clerk, and thank you.

All right.

Open the people and attend the factory.

Open the people in the expectant.

So we have 35 members present.

Two I know are in the meeting, but are not presently at their seats.

So I do declare a quorum.

Again, we're having technical difficulties.

I'm not sure that anybody can hear me.

I am going to log in online and see if people can hear us.

Oh, are we um We can hear you?

Oh, great.

That's fantastic.

I guess we'll just ignore the screens.

Okay.

Um, thank you.

If uh representatives who are on the meeting virtually, if for some reason you no longer can hear us, can one of you please call or text me immediately?

Thank you.

Um, madam clerk.

Uh roll call is concluded.

I think there were some people that didn't answer that you might need to go back to.

Representative Pollock, Representative Shaw, Representative.

They're not at their seats yet.

Um I'm pretty sure Representative Saftik is on.

I don't know if you want to try her again.

Representative Safdich, are you present?

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

I see representative Shaw and Pollock are returning to their seats.

So that means we have 37 people at present.

Representative Seftich, you have to unmute.

I believe it is star six.

Are you present?

Okay.

When you're able to announce your presence, please do.

Um we have 37 members, potentially 38 members present.

So we have a quorum.

Uh thank you, Clerk Cottrell.

Um, I believe there is one moment of silence.

Correct.

Yep.

Greenwich police officer and Stanford resident Robert Pascal.

We observe that moment of silence.

Uh, and may their memory be a blessing to those who knew them and those who love them.

Communications, Clerk Cottrell.

Okay, there will not be a steering committee meeting in November due to the end of the 31st board's term.

All items submitted will be held for the December 2025 steering committee meeting.

Please submit all items to steering to BOR underscore office staff at Stanford CT.gov.

The next steering committee meeting will be on Monday, December 8th at 7 o'clock p.m.

The 32nd board organizational meeting will be on Monday, December 1st at 8 o'clock p.m.

Birthdays this month.

Happy birthday to representatives Boger, Grunberger, and myself.

All votes at tonight's meeting will be conducted by roll call.

If you need assistance with Microsoft Teams, you can call IT at 203-223-7215.

Please do not call other members of the board or the board office staff.

If you're having problems speaking or hearing with your computer, you can always access the meeting through a telephone by dialing the phone number on the agenda.

1929 346 7262 and using the phone conference ID on the agenda.

Please call or text IT at 203-223-7215 or text the clerk at 475-489-5435 to let us know you are coming on with the phone number you are using, and we will make sure you are able to speak during the meeting.

If you decide to leave the meeting, you must text the clerk when you leave.

If you need to leave the meeting for a short period, text the clerk when you leave and return.

Members who do not text the clerk when they leave the meeting will be presumed to be present for all consent items.

If you do not respond during a roll call vote, your name will be called two more times after the conclusion of the vote.

If you do not respond, you'll be assumed to have left the meeting, and your name will not be called on the next roll call vote.

Um the board of representatives holiday party this year will be on Wednesday, December 10th at Zodis.

All current members of this board and all incoming members of this board, including the Board of Education, Board of Finance, are all invited.

I hope many of you will come, and we will also be celebrating and honoring um Rep Somerville's 48 years on the board.

Um I wanted to say a thank you to all of the Board of Reps members for all the hard work that you guys have done.

We have had 48 monthly meetings.

We've had four budget meetings, we've had uh four meetings on Fund 57 and numerous other special meetings and many, many committee meetings.

We've done a lot of work, and I want to thank you for that work.

Um, and whether you are re-elected or you um are going on to other things.

I hope that everyone here keeps that spirit of community service alive.

Um, I wanted to thank the fourth district for um allowing me to represent them for eight years.

I wanted to thank the board of reps for allowing me the privilege to be in leadership for four years, and I want to thank the office staff for all the hard work that they do.

It is very hard to um respond to all the demands uh that the 40 of us um have all of our requests, but we appreciate your work and we appreciate the late nights, and thank you so much.

Um this evening we have one honorary resolution.

Um it is a resolution congratulating representative Annie M.

Somerville on becoming the longest serving city representative ever in this in the city of Stanford, totaling 48 years in office.

Is there a motion to approve?

I'm sorry.

Uh sorry, representative on the line.

Thank you, Representative Safdic.

Your uh your presence is noted.

Um is there a second?

I got a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Are there any opposed?

There any abstentions?

That passes unanimously.

Okay, so this is uh Ms.

Somerville's 576th monthly board meeting this evening.

Okay, um, and I will read the resolution into the record.

Censor the board resolution congratulating Annie M.

Somerville on her 48 years of service on the board of representatives and on becoming the longest ever serving city representative in Stanford.

Whereas Annie Somerville joined the Board of Representatives on December 1st, 1977 as a representative for the 6th district.

And whereas since December 2022, after representative Somerville completed 45 years of service, she became the longest ever serving city representative, and then has continued on to serve three more years in that capacity.

And whereas after 48 years of commitment to our city and to the well-being of the residents of the 6th district, Annie Somerville will conclude her elected service on the Board of Representatives on November 30th, 2025.

And whereas she has a wealth of historical knowledge for newer legislators on the board of representatives, many of whom have looked to her for guidance over the years, and whereas Annie Somerville was elected to the was elected clerk of the board on December 3rd, 1979, and served in that capacity for 38 years until November of 2017.

And whereas Annie Somerville has contributed much to the quality of life in the city of Stanford through her public and community service, including work working with the Yearwood Center, Stanford Center for the Arts, St.

John's Urban Development Corporation, and as a member of the old town hall committee.

And whereas Annie Somerville has received many awards, including the Yearwood Center's Outstanding Community Service Award in 1985.

Numerous awards from the national and local NAACP chapters over a 50-year period.

And the local 1199 Solidarity Award in 2004.

And now, therefore, be it resolved that the 31st Board of Representatives congratulates Annie M.

Somerville on her 48 years of service on the Board of Representatives and on being the longest ever serving city representative.

Somerville's public service and commitment to the city of Stanford may serve as an inspiration for others who are eager to contribute to the well-being of the city.

Can I say something?

It's been a wonderful journey.

Didn't always get it right.

But those days of not doing that was less than those where I got it right.

We'll continue to help somebody along the way.

Better than blessed.

And I want to say I come from a little place called G-O-R.

Let the press print this.

Whether they're right or I'm right, or I'm wrong.

But the border reps in the city of this beautiful city of Stanford.

For me, it's beautiful.

Because I know where I come from.

I say to you, I leave this with you.

Every day when you get up and you put your feet on the floor.

If it's nothing but whatever's there, or nobody's there, or somebody in your mind is there, I'm so happy.

Mighty mighty glad to be still in the land of the living.

And all of those are going over for me.

I talk to them, she'll talk to them.

They don't answer back, but I talk to them.

So I say to you, thank you.

Thank you.

I love you.

I'm not gonna wait, and you're gonna look at there, and I'm gonna be sitting there next to David.

So the two of us, that's gonna make a one of those things.

So I love you.

And Nina, I want to tell you, keep up the good work, whatever you endeavor in life.

I found a friend in you.

But nobody ever tell you.

So Annie told you why she was living.

Keep going.

We don't, we don't always do get things right.

All our wonderful constituents get angry with us, we get angry with them, and we still come back, and we have whatever we got that eat it has some bread.

So I say, I love you from the bottom of my heart.

I love you from the spirit of my life.

I know my living has not been a thing.

And I'm gonna keep on doing it till the last breath.

If you need me, just call me.

I'll be there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Somerville.

Public participation session.

Uh as provided in the board rules, there is a period for public comment of 30 minutes unless extended by a vote of the board to no more than 50 minutes.

Speakers have signed up via email or by calling the board office, and we'll have no more than three minutes to speak.

The time for each person to speak may be shortened to no less than one and a half minutes, depending upon the number of people who have signed up, or will be no more than two minutes if the public comment period has been extended.

The board rules provide that the president may keep good order and decorum in any manner authorized by Roberts Rules of Order, and for the avoidance of doubt may shorten or cancel the speaking time of any speaker during the public comment period deemed in the president's old discretion to be disruptive or unruly.

Personal attacks against board members will be considered disruptive conduct and will not be permitted.

Per board rule 4E3A3 speakers may only speak on items that have not been subject to a public hearing.

Um so let me just set up my timer.

Our first speaker this evening is Dolores Gambini.

Um is she present or is she virtual?

Okay, hang on one second.

Dolores, can you hear us?

She needs to unmute herself.

Um Ms.

Gambini, uh press star six to unmute yourself.

Ms.

Gambini, are you able to press star six?

Okay, we will come back to Ms.

Gambini.

Um the speakers are in the following order.

Mr.

Mike Papa, Mr.

Karen Edmondson, Ms.

Sue Halburn, and uh Miss Fern Galpern Galperin.

Uh so going back.

Um Mr.

Mike Papa.

Point of order, Madam Chair.

Oh hang on a second, Mr.

Papa.

There's a point of order from the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Wait a second.

Is uh hang on, Mr.

Papa.

Go ahead, Representative Burns.

Thank you, Madam President.

It might be um helpful to the public to for those who might not know what public hearings have been held on to let them know so they know they cannot speak on those particular subjects.

Um thank you.

I can I believe I I'm gonna let Mr.

Papa speak first I believe it's there's there's been a public hearing on the leaf blower ban, there's been a public hearing on the animal um cat and dog and cat shops ban.

There's been a public hearing on the tree ordinance, there's been a public hearing on the um the beach pass item.

Uh the appointments committee item, the veterans tax exemption.

Uh which one was this?

Oh resolution lease on the transportation committee.

Um so you cannot speak on those items.

Okay, Mr.

Mike Papa.

Uh the floor is yours.

Yeah, you hear me.

We can hear you, go right ahead.

Yes, uh, good evening.

Uh thank you very much for giving me the opportunity.

Uh you know, I I won't speak uh uh any of those things.

I just want to uh congratulate uh Somerville and congratulate the all of the outcoming uh representatives that they work very hard and volunteering without getting paid and uh uh did uh eventually accomplish a lot.

You know, the question is that I want to ask is that uh, you know, uh just as an example that uh, you know, China, they uh the trends that uh they run with uh magnet, and we just don't have uh we don't know how to set up uh uh a public speaking over here uh and uh you know uh I think we do a lot of talk about we don't actually watch uh what we're doing in the theory.

Uh there is some excellence of the here and there.

You know, I know this is some uh excellence.

I want to congratulate the mayor on the re-election and uh she worked very hard.

However, uh we cannot really communicate very well.

Uh you know, uh I guess uh uh one of the reasons that uh an incident like tonight that uh you know there is a delay and everything that doesn't really motivated people to participate into the democratic process.

So somehow we have to get some new and fresh ideas.

We have this new board right now, and I'm glad that some of them in the medical field, some uh in the professional field, so to bring some new ideas, and then we have to put those ideas to work, okay.

We can just uh talk uh and and we uh look like we get the job done.

We we have a competitors around the world.

Uh and we have high technology.

We are we are very strong on certain things, but uh uh reminds me when uh we lost the manufacturing with picking bows.

People fall into complacency and uh and they always uh say we're that's the what we we do in a lot 50 years.

So we we have to somehow stop and thinking that way.

We have to think uh more proactively about doing things and save the taxpayer money by excellence through questions.

That's what we gotta do.

We have to somehow execute what we are talking in these meetings.

We can't just let things go to LNBS and then uh uh go fix the bridge where it's an emergency over there.

I think that's a big challenge, I ask the new people coming in.

But I wanted to thank the the best people that they worked very hard.

And uh still we we haven't seen things uh coming up the way we wanted to.

But the theory is going in the right direction overall.

We are right in the middle of the work, so I think we probably make it to Fortune 500 magazine is the theory that uh that uh works with everybody uh and uh you know they create a good place to live.

But there is a lot of work to need to be done, okay.

And we should focus on executing, not just on uh on talking.

All right, thank you very much.

You'll give me the opportunity.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Papa.

Uh our next speaker is Kieran Edmondson.

Mr.

Edmondson.

Is he on by phone or hi everybody?

I am Kieran Edmondson, a water side neighborhood resident of the city, a step of Connecticut, and I would like to take a very brief moment to share my thoughtful concerns for today's final meeting.

So all the members of this board about honoring representative at any and Summerville, my naming her name uh as the City Hall rumor and renaming a street address in honor of her as she has dedicated her life as a public pastor 48 years since 37 to residents since today is the final meeting of this board, especially with any Somerville, as she spent uh 48 years to serve us Jeffers citizens uh and that she has served as the clerk of the board for a period of 38 years.

And I would like for all of you tonight to give her such an honor to name her name and one of the um says that at the city hall of and to rename a park uh in honor of her service, so we can't show respect for a lifelong service to represent that is to those who are retiring from politics in Stanford.

Um I wish you all lucky in next license, and those who are remaining for the next four years that go like the field on server or Skipper citizens, and those people and those represents who are the certain US Armed Forces or law enforcement um organizations.

Thank you all for a service part of the next Tuesday celebration.

Happy early Thanksgiving to everybody, and let's make sure all new members uh of the 32nd board representatives the very best of luck.

Thank you all very much.

Uh enjoy evening and good night from Kieran Matthew Edmondson.

Thank you, Mr.

Edmondson.

Our next speaker is here in person.

It's Ms.

Sue Halburn.

Good evening.

My name is Sue Halpern, and I live in the South End.

The City of Stanford can never thank the Board of Representatives enough for the tremendously important service you have provided to the residents and businesses over the years.

The board creates city ordinances, approves budgets and contracts, and makes decisions on issues that affect our health, environment, and quality of life.

My first experience with the Board of Representatives goes back to 2019.

The board has dealt with many issues in the South End, but I would just like to recall one case in particular.

In 2019, the South End Neighborhood Association filed a protest petition against a planning board decision that allowed BLT to build 476 apartments on a parcel in the heart of our historic district instead of the 128 allowed under an existing regulation.

The city charter gives the board of representatives the authority to review decisions of the planning board.

The board of representatives supported our petition.

BLT sued the Board of Representatives.

And even though our efforts failed here, the Board of Representatives took a stand for the neighborhood.

This is just one example of the hundreds of issues the board has to address.

Let us not forget the challenges, the 30th and 34st boards who continued the business of government through COVID restrictions that began in March 2020 until March 2022.

Life was lived through Zoom.

My thoughts and regards go out to the family and friends of Anthony Spadicini, a former board of rep member who was the first COVID death in Stanford.

Again, thank you all for the indelible mark you have made in Stanford's history.

Congratulations to the new Board of Rep members and the incumbents moving forward.

It's been an honor collaborating with you all and best wishes wishes in your future endeavors.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sue Halpern.

Our next speaker is Miss Fern Galpern.

Is she online?

Has she been made a okay?

Miss Galpern, can you unmute?

Miss Galpern.

Okay, uh, let's go back to Dolores Gambini, whose phone number ends in 58.

Miss Gambini, can you hear us?

You can press star six to unmute yourself.

Um Ms.

Galperin.

Um hopefully we can get Miss Galperin.

I do see that Representative Adams is on.

Representative Adams, are you present?

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um I will try Ms.

Gambini and Miss Galperin momentarily.

Are there any members of the public that would like to speak this evening on an item that was not that did not come before the board for a public hearing?

Please raise your hand.

Anyone?

Go ahead.

Please state your name for the record.

Good evening, members of the 31st board.

My name is Dave Adams.

Uh I currently live in Glenbrook.

Um, I've known a lot of you for the last eight years, and I've helped in your campaigns.

I've had you over my house.

Um we've worked together on things.

And I have to say that I'm incredibly sad to see you go.

I think that this was probably the most influential time of my life.

Um I really hope that you stick around that you continue to serve a community in one form or another.

Because uh they just don't make them like you.

They don't um thank you so much for your service and uh thank you for putting up with all my uh extreme expectations have a wonderful evening.

Thank you, Mr.

Adams.

It's my understanding that Ms.

Galperin is the phone number ending in 6-6.

Um I believe we have made you an attendee.

If you press star six, you can unmute yourself and we will be able to hear you.

Hello.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes, we can go right ahead.

Okay, terrific.

Thank you so much.

Um, and I reiterate uh what was said previously.

Thank you to uh this esteemed board for all your hard work.

Um I just hope that you saw my email earlier today and only wanted to acknowledge something I feel that I think we all feel, which is um the gas-powered leaf and just um manufacturers of this equipment.

Um it's a major failure on their part uh for continuing to manufacture these yard tools that are more lethal than cigarettes and automobiles.

Um and I just want to um encourage us to protect all guys.

Yes, um, you cannot speak on an item that was already before this board as a public hearing for a public hearing.

Okay, so you're you're welcome to continue speaking.

You just can't talk about the items that are on the agenda, like the leaf blower ban that already had a public hearing.

Okay, well, I I okay, so in your votes this evening um on every topic, I just hope that all members of the board will draw upon better angels of our nature, as Abraham Lincoln once said, uh, to recognize our innate capacity to do what is right and good in making our decisions tonight.

So I thank everyone again.

Uh really appreciate it.

Good luck.

Thank you, Ms.

Galperan.

Um, I would like to go back.

Is Dolores Gambini on with a phone number ending in 5-8?

Let me know if she comes on.

Is there anybody else in the room that would like to speak?

Raise your hand.

Okay, seeing nobody.

Um, is there anybody else online that would like to speak?

I see a hand up.

I don't know.

Uh okay, that was um Vern.

So with that, I will close the public participation session.

Um is there a motion to waive the steering committee agenda or the steering committee?

Okay.

Motion and a second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Are there any abstentions?

That passes unanimously.

Appointments committee, Chair Patterson.

Good evening, thank you.

Our committee met on Wednesday, October 29th at 6.30.

We were unfortunately plagued with technical problems.

Um, so our our uh minutes.

Um our session um was very poorly uh documented.

But um let me give you the results of what we did to in case people didn't get it uh on online.

Um we took up the following items.

A 3124, the Board of Ethics, Evan Guttman, he was approved by the committee 601.

A 3125, the zoning board of appeals, Lauren Jacobson was approved by the committee 610.

The historic preservation advisory committee, Nicholas Ponzo was approved by the committee 52.

The Arts and Culture Commission, um, Liz Van Kurlin, uh Kaolin, um was approved by the committee 700.

The Social Services Commission, A3128, Shawnee Ben Dove was approved by the committee 700.

Uh A31229, Stanford Golf Authority was approved by the committee 700.

And the ordinance the uh the zoning board of appeals, Jeremiah Ryan was approved.

Um zero zero.

And I'd like to move those on to uh unanimous consent.

Chair Patterson, I believe.

Uh do you mean that you want to move items one through seven?

Yes, please.

Uh I believe that items two and three are can't be on consent because there were no votes.

All right.

So the ones that I believe could be on consent would be item one, four, five, six, and seven.

And I would like to move those.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Oh, uh, are there any opposed?

Are there any abstentions?

Representative Sherwood abstains on item one on item seven.

Those passed unanimously.

Go ahead, uh Chair Patterson.

And I would like to move um is item two one of the ones that I can like to move item two, second.

Okay, there is a motion and a second for zoning board of appeals for Lauren Jacobson.

Is there any discussion?

Okay, uh, we will take this to a roll call vote.

Go ahead, Clerk Cotrell.

Okay, because we don't have a screen.

I'm just gonna repeat the item again.

This is A31.225, zoning board of appeals, the reappointment of Lauren Jacobson Adams, yes, Baines, yes, Burns, abstain, blank, yes, ma'am, Boger, yes, Campbell, yes, Camborelli, yes, I'm a yes, Curtis, Jayla Cruz, Fidelity, yes, Figaroa, members who are present in the room this evening, please put your microphones on when you vote.

Thank you, Gilbride, Goldberg, yes, Graham, yes, Kazinski, yeah, excuse me, yes, Lai, yes, Mithini, yes, mays, yes, more, Morrison, yes, Patterson, yes, Havia, yes, Pierre Louis, yes, Pollock, yes, Rokata, yes, Safdich, Safdich, Stanford, yes, Shaw, yes, Sherwood Abstain, Stella, Strain, Sumerville, yes, Tomas, yes, Vandervoert, yes, Walston, yes, Watkins, yes, Weinberg, yes, Williams, yes.

Okay, that item passes with 34 yeses, one no, and four abstentions.

Um, okay, that item passes.

Uh Chair Patterson, go ahead.

The next item is for the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee, I believe.

Nicholas Ponzo.

I'd like to have that moved.

Is there a second?

Hey, is there any discussion?

Okay, uh, we will take that to a roll call vote.

Go ahead, Representative uh Cotrell.

All right.

Um again, because we don't have a screen.

I'm gonna repeat what we're voting on.

We're voting on A31.226.

Historic Preservation Advisory Committee.

We're voting on the appointment of Nicholas Ponzo.

Adams.

Yes.

Yes.

Burns.

Blank.

Yes, madam Clerk.

Boger.

Yes.

Campbell.

Abstain.

Camporelli.

Abstain.

I'm a yes.

Curtis.

Yes.

Jayla Cruz.

Fidelity.

Yes.

Figueroa.

No.

Gilbride.

Yes.

Goldberg.

Yes.

Graham.

Yes.

Grunberger.

Sorry.

Kacinski.

Lie.

Yes.

Okay.

Lie.

Yes.

Matheny.

Yes.

Mays.

Yes.

More.

Morrison.

Yes.

Patterson.

Yes.

Tavia.

Yes.

Pierre Louis.

Yes.

Pollock.

Yes.

Rukata.

Yes.

Saftich.

Sanford.

Yes.

Shaw.

Yes.

Sherwood.

No.

Stella.

Those are no.

Okay.

Strain.

Somerville.

Yes.

Tomas.

No.

Vandervoert.

Yes.

Walston.

No.

Watkins.

Yes.

Weinberg.

Yes.

Williams.

Yes.

Okay.

The item passes.

Hold on.

Let me tell you the votes.

Representative Stafdick is saying she can't unmute herself.

I can call her, I guess.

I don't know.

Yeah.

Hold on.

Let me put you on speaker.

Hold on.

Representative Staffdick.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Representative Safdick.

Okay.

I have 30 votes in favor.

No, sorry.

31 votes in favor.

Six votes against and two abstaining.

So that passes.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Representative Patterson.

The next item.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Phil Burns, you passed, and I didn't go back to you.

That is correct.

I abstained.

Oh, you abstained.

Okay, then that actually makes it 30 votes in favor, six against, and three abstentions.

My apologies.

Oh boy.

And members of the board who are on uh teams, can you hear me?

Is President Sherwood?

Yes.

Yes, Down Claire.

Okay, sorry, our screens just went black.

So but they're back now.

Okay.

Um go ahead, uh Chair Patterson.

The next item is A31231, which was an ordinance, a public hearing for final adoption.

Amending chapter six of the Court of Ordinances, authorities, boards, and commissions.

Uh the duties and responsibilities of appointments committees.

And that was approved by the committee after public hearing 610.

I'd like to move that item.

Second.

Okay.

Um I think we had a motion, right?

And a second.

Okay.

Um Representative Weinberg.

Uh thank you.

I move to amend this ordinance by adding the following words to the end of section six-123 duties and responsibilities, as follows quote.

Before the candidate's name is included on the applicant list on the city's website, the city clerk shall provide the candidate the opportunity to opt out of having the candidate's name included on the applicant list.

Okay.

There's a motion.

Is there a second?

Okay, can I can somebody please tell me who that was?

Because I did not see that.

Sorry, second by Representative Morrison.

Um Representative Weinberg.

Thank you.

This section requires the city to maintain a list publicly available on the city's website of every person who applies for a position on any city board or commission.

Those names will remain on the publicly available list for four years.

Without this amendment, it will be easy for anyone to divide the list of applicants into three categories.

First, applicants who were nominated by the mayor for a board or commission and approved by the board of reps.

Second, applicants who were nominated by the mayor and rejected by the board of reps.

And third, applicants whom the mayor chose not to nominate.

The first two comment categories will are already a matter of public record because they would have those individuals would have come before the appointments committee and if uh and then subsequently before the full board.

The third category, however, is not currently a matter of public record.

There are significant negative unintended consequences of making this third category a matter of public record.

First, it may very likely discourage some people from applying and taking the risk of the world knowing that the mayor didn't nominate them.

Second, and more insidiously, it will create a public record of rejection for those candidates, which could hurt them when they apply for a job and their prospective employer as is typical practice today, performs a background check or even does a simple Google search on their name.

Third, it would include the names of applicants who applied for a border commission and then decided to withdraw their application, thus creating the appearance of rejection without the reality of rejection.

Now some applicants may be may be perfectly comfortable having their names on this public list, but others may not.

Thank you, and I yield thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Right so is um right now we don't have a screen, so I can't tell if anybody on the on the phone has their hand up.

So if any representatives have their hand up that are on virtually, can you just please let me know and I'll allow you to speak to the seeing that that is not the case and I see no hands here.

Oh rep um representative Graham.

Chair, is uh is it my opportunity to ask uh through you to Representative Weinberg a question?

If um Yes, I just wanted to ask uh Representative Weinberg, is is he sure that the re it's a responsibility of the city clerk as the city clerk has no knowledge of any information of who the actual um appointments appointment members are or the chair of the commission.

So I don't uh believe it's the responsibility of the city clerk.

Um representative Weinberg, since that question was asked to you.

Do you have can you respond?

I'll read the uh I'll read the section um unamended, uh although I don't think the amendment changes um would change uh the answer to the question.

It says that any elector desirous of serving on any city board or commission may express such desire in writing, addressed to the mayor, city clerk, and appointments commission.

Each of the recipients shall the recipients in this case being uh the mayor, city clerk, and appointments commission.

So each of those recipients shall forthwith forward a list of all candidates to the city clerk in order to ensure alignment of the applicant list and shall retain such com respondents on file for four years.

The list shall be updated every three months on the website as set forth in subsection seven and below.

So it sounds like it doesn't say unless it says in subsection seven who's responsible for the website update.

Uh it does say that the mayor city clerk and appointments commission um receive a notice uh an application from uh the individual who is uh asking uh to serve.

Um, and then each of the mayor, city clerk and appointments commission will know will notify the city clerk of the receipt of that letter.

Uh I don't know that the city clerk needs to notify the city clerk.

Um presumably there's some redundancy there in the way this is written.

Um, but it it sounds like um it it sounds like the city clerk is supposed to maintain the applicant list.

Um, and then if we look at seven um it just says that the commission creates and maintains a web page.

Um it sounds like the commission is responsible for updating the website, but as we've as we all know, um the the the practice I suspect would be that the commission would ask the city administration to actually do the website updating since uh the commission does not have direct access to making changes on the website.

Uh that was pretty long-winded, so I I hope it answered your question.

If I may answer that, I do believe that the uh commission does have access to update the website.

And the reason why I wanted clarity on um whose responsibility it is, because when the FOIA requests come, we want to know who has uh access to the information.

I um historically I don't believe that we've ever in the city clerk's office had uh access to anybody who applied for any board or commission.

We just have the agendas in a minute, and I don't know if it's a responsibility in the charter for the town clerk to do so.

Um Representative Gilbright, did you have your hand up?

Okay.

Um I just want to say that this issue has come up on this board in the last board uh for basically all eight years that I've been on the board.

Um look, this ordinance has been has gone before corporation council.

We've worked with corporation council on this.

There's no legal issues with it.

There the idea that we need to go and change it right now because of this concept that someone could be rejected from a job.

Um based on the fact that their name is on a website saying that they applied for a volunteer board or commission.

So an employer would have to go look at that list, find the applicant's name, then go back to the board or commission and look at who is currently sitting on that board or commission and to find out if they were appointed or not.

It's it's not like the website is gonna have like a big red stamp that says this person was denied.

It's just a list of names of people who have applied for something.

Um so I don't think that this is necessary.

Also, I want to inform the board that if if this amendment passes, this item cannot pass this evening.

It would have to go back to a public hearing.

Which I don't know, maybe it's uncouth for me to say it, but I do not believe the incoming board will pass this.

I just don't.

So I believe it passes the way it is tonight, meaning that the majority of us in this room and virtually vote no to this amendment.

Or the item is effectively dead.

That's my opinion.

I can't read the future, although sometimes I try, but when I try, that's what I get that it's not going to pass on the next board.

I don't think this is necessary.

I don't think it is going to be a personal detriment to anybody.

And I said this in the committee meeting, and I'll say this here.

Anyone who puts their name forward to be on a board or commission, A should be proud of themselves, and it would be somebody I'd want to hire, to be honest, because that shows that they have a an interest uh in public in their community and in doing things uh voluntarily, which I think speaks loudly about the person.

But I don't think that it's a detriment.

I just don't.

So um I really hope that members of this body consider the gravity of this, consider how much transparency it would bring to the city and vote no on this amendment because it would effectively kill this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um next, I have um Representative Walston.

Um Representative Graham did answer my question that I had.

Um, have you ever received an application?

So she answered that.

And my second question is who actually receives the application.

That's you know, if they apply, where does it go?

Who's looking at it?

And I am in favor of this ordinance because I would like to know who's applying, how many times they're applying, why they um why they have to keep applying.

And I'm saying this on the premise of uh one of one of uh our constituents who spoke tonight, Sue Halparn.

I know that she's applied numerous times to one of the boards, and she's been rejected every time.

I would like to see that on, you know, with this ordinance if it passes.

I want to know after a while, because we're always saying that it's really hard to get someone to volunteer, but if you have someone to volunteer, I understand.

Point of order.

Yes, Representative Cattrell.

This is not germane to the amendment.

I'm getting there.

Um, Representative Walston, can you get to the germain part, please?

Okay, almost lost my thought.

So she applied.

I would want to see, and I remember I heard the word the mayor's vision, and I get all of that, the mayor's vision.

I'm not saying talking about this mayor or anybody like that.

I'm just saying, what if we have a mayor who wants certain type of people on their boards and commissions?

You know, their ethnicities of one way, or maybe they want all men or all males, they have a problem.

So I would like to see everything in this ordinance.

So I would say yes to this ordinance.

Thank you.

Thank you for acknowledging me, acting chair Fidelity.

Um, through you, might I ask Representative Weinberg to slowly restate his proposed amendments as the preference would have been written visual marked up for those who are visual people.

So if you could kindly reread it, I'd appreciate it.

Sure, Representative Weinberg.

So this would come at the end of at the end of section uh uh six-123b, which is what I read it previously in response to uh representative Graham's question, and it would read as follows Before the candidate's name is included on the applicant list on the city's website, the city clerk shall provide the candidate the opportunity to opt out of having the candidate's name included on the applicant list.

Of course, that means that the uh that the default is for the applicant's name to appear on the list.

Um it is only if the applicant takes affirmative action to opt out that his or her name would not appear.

The situation that uh Representative Weinberg, just to read the statement, please.

Your right to silence me.

Thank you.

That's all for me.

Thank you.

Um sorry, representative Stella.

Okay.

Okay.

I had a problem with the mic before.

Um.

But this ordinance is really about transparency.

I mean, one of the issues that people have had for a very long time is that they don't understand the process.

They don't understand who's being put forward.

Um, and I just don't see a problem with any time where as elected officials, why we wouldn't want to enhance transparency.

I mean, the representative himself that's proposing this item, this this amendment stated himself that there was problems with the website itself.

And that's what I'm trying to fix here with this with this proposal.

I mean, with this um ordinance.

But I believe it's insincere for anyone to try to amend it the night of our last meeting.

Point of order.

No.

Hold on.

Yes.

I I I believe that uh suggesting that one is being insincere is an attack on one's motives, and that would be out of order.

It's fine.

Just discount it.

I'll take the word into CERM because I don't want to hurt anyone.

That's fine.

Thank you.

I'm okay with that.

So the point is, just the idea of making that amendment tonight on our last night.

When we this item has been on the appointments committee since April of 2025.

And not once did I ever get a call or any input, a text, anything regarding this.

You know, to me, you know, the idea uh the other notion that I hear tonight is that this may actually hurt an applicant when they apply for a job.

Because this is something that's put on a website for four years.

Right.

Now when you go in front of a job and get interviewed, they interview for many reasons why you were let go, fired, whatever the situation, why you decide that you want to start a new job.

I very I doubt it highly that someone can't articulate the reason why they were never either interviewed, or maybe just simply saying, well, the mayor had he or she just had another vision, and that's fine.

I don't think someone's gonna say you're fired, or we're not gonna hire you for that.

But what's more troubling is to for for someone or anyone to believe that when we've had people, and I won't mention the name because that is on the record, and it's been on the newspapers and so forth, that we've grilled someone for over three hours, over three hours in the appointments committee, over and over again.

You would have sworn that that person was applying for the for uh a national position and we were Congress.

The abuse that person took that night, and that's one of many that have been, and it will always remain on the record, always be on video.

So the idea that all of a sudden, because you put someone's name and you say the person was not interviewed or rejected, simply just stating that that is more harmful or detrimental of that person getting a job over the way some of the people have conducted themselves on this board and interview some of the people that have come in front of us.

Again, that's the part that I can't, and I'm not saying um that's the part that I'm having a problem here.

I've I've listened for eight years since I've been on this board, there's been numerous problems about the appointments on process here.

Many people have said the same thing, and yet no one has put anything forward, and when I do, I get resistant all the time.

Not anyone willing to say, hey, this compromise, hey, this fixed the problem.

The only one that's actually extended that hand was Nina Sherwood that helped me with this ordinance.

It's our last meeting.

I hope we could just vote on this item.

It's not perfect, but I think I really believe this puts us in the right direction.

Thank you.

Representative Weinberg.

I'm sorry, I thought you had your hand up before.

Thank you.

Does anyone um okay?

I don't see any hands here.

Uh Representative Mays.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I think it's really nice to be able to put a ribbon on this and say this is all about transparency.

But in fact, I don't see it that way.

I see this as an issue of privacy.

Somebody who does not want their name to appear on a website, I think should be able to opt out of that.

Now, if there's somebody who's really curious about anybody who has been put in front of the mayor for an appointments position, that information can be obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

So if anybody's really curious about it, they can use that to get that information.

But otherwise, I think that we have to respect people's privacy if you don't mind your name on a website.

Thank you, Representative Williams.

So my background includes privacy regulation on Wall Street.

And I really struggled with the amendment that Representative Weinberg proposes because yes, I do feel very strongly about protecting the rights of individuals when their personal information is not they're not made aware that it's being posted publicly.

Um in reviewing the City of Stanford's privacy disclosure, their legal disclaimer, posting the name of an individual and the uh role for which they've applied does not trigger breaches under state law and how we define it in the state of Connecticut.

So it's kind of a it's more of a a nuance.

And I don't feel like I would approve the amendment for that purpose because they're private there's this is not a privacy violation.

And I don't think there is an expectation of complete privacy in this process either.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Representative Shaw.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Through you to Representative Williams.

I just have a question.

Um, in your in your view, would you the name and the applied position is fine, but what about the status?

I mean, let's say it's saying approved or denied, is that make a difference if that's on the website?

In terms of the privacy issues, when it comes to can I respond?

When it comes to a a privacy violation of a breach of privacy, it you require more personal identifiers than just a name.

You require the person's address, their account, like an account number if they had an account, their date of birth.

So if information that was on their application wasn't redacted, that would be a problem.

Uh it would be technically a privacy breach.

But if it's their name and the position to which they've applied and perhaps their status, which I don't believe that is actually going to be posted for my interpretation.

Um, I don't believe that that would be a privacy breach under state law.

Thank you.

Okay, but I'm confused.

But I thought that's what the whole amendment is about, is opting out of what the status is, right?

Is that not true?

Go ahead.

Uh the the status, the status of one's application can be inferred.

Um it it it I don't believe that um that the way the ordinance is currently written, uh that it discloses the status.

But as I was as I said earlier, uh you can divide applicant the list of applicants into three categories.

Um so that the third category, which is that the uh which is that either the mayor chose not to put the name forward in nomination, or the person withdrew their application, that can be inferred very easily from the other private from the other public information.

Thank you, I yield.

Representative Cattrell.

Um, like Representative Williams, I have also done privacy training.

I've done privacy training when it comes to protecting the information of minors as I work in a public school.

And information such as one's name or a position that they have I've applied for would not in based upon the privacy training that I took.

Um and we're talking about minors where it's more sensitive.

Um that would not be considered a privacy violation.

So when it comes to adults, um I would say that that is definitely not a privacy violation.

But as uh others stated, it doesn't, it'll just say that a person applied for the position that's at whether you are approved or denied once that application is submitted to the board of reps for an interview, that's public information, whether they're approved or denied.

If it's just a name of an applicant and they applied, you have no idea whether the mayor's office didn't get a chance to interview them, whether they did and they decided to go in a different direction, whether they had so much interest.

All it is telling you is that they applied.

That's it.

Nothing more, nothing less.

They're not going to give the person's address and their age and their social security number.

It's just who wanted to apply for zoning, who wanted to apply for the special events and patriotic commission, who wanted to apply for X, Y, and Z, who went through the process and submitted an application.

That's it.

That is really all you would see.

So I think that this amendment is overkill, and I will not be supporting it.

Thank you.

Representative Graham.

I just wanted to add that in previous years, when a FOIA request comes, they ask for specific information.

And you have to be compliant, whether it's emails, whether it's attachments or details.

So we don't know if if even if it's not posted publicly on the website, that does not mean that someone cannot request it.

Yeah, Representative Graham, just to the motion, please.

And I yield.

Okay.

Okay.

Representative Pollack.

Thank you.

I I just want to make sure I understand this correctly.

That the amendment is saying that it will give a person the ability for themselves to opt out of being on the website.

Is that correct?

Or clarify?

Yes.

Uh no one in the in city government can opt someone out.

It's only the it's only the applicant.

Thank you.

So if I was applying somewhere and I had a job, I wouldn't want it to be public in fear of losing my job.

I would like that opportunity to be able to opt out.

This notion that because it's our last night and it's the last chance to me is not appropriate, as we should be doing what is right, not because of timing.

And I hope everybody here follows their best judgment and responsibility of the board.

Thank you.

I will support this amendment.

Representative Camporelli.

And to think that I would or anybody else would judge someone for signing up to volunteer but being rejected.

I mean, what is the difference between I ran for election in 2021 and the people of this city rejected my application to serve them?

I'm not ashamed of that.

I that's just part of the game.

When you sign up for public service, uh it's not a secret, there's no shame in being rejected.

Um I would never judge somebody or not hire them.

And the likelihood that this would even come up on a Google search is very, very low.

I mean, so low that it's just not, I don't even know why we're talking about it.

Uh so I will be voting no.

And I yield.

Representative Morrison.

Thank you, Chair Fidelity.

Uh, to care to Representative Camporelli's point, yes, I I completely agree uh with what you were saying.

If you run for public office, if you apply for a border commission and are then selected for an interview by the mayor, you still up until that point have a choice to accept that forwarding to the board of representatives for interview and consideration, at which point you have chosen to be on the record permanently being interviewed and then running the risk that you pass or fail.

But up until that point is what we're talking about.

If you're simply applying and you're on a public list and you sit on that list for a year, I think it should be up to the individual to choose whether they feel a negative inference in their individual situation could be inferred before they have accepted the commitment to be on the public record by being put forward by a given mayor.

So I'll be voting for the amendment.

Okay, I am looking at the screen.

I don't see any hands.

And so I'll just ask on time, and I don't see any hands here.

So Clerk Catrell, I think we're ready for the vote.

Okay, so this is an amendment to A31.231 at the end of section six dash 123-b before the candidate's name is included on the applicant list on the city's website.

The city clerk will give the candidate a chance to opt out of the list.

Okay.

Okay, Adams.

Yes.

What did you say?

Yes.

Okay, sorry, I couldn't hear.

Thank you.

Baines.

No.

Burns.

Blank.

Yes.

Boger.

No.

Campbell.

No.

Camborelli.

No.

I'm a no.

Curtis?

No.

De La Cruz.

Fidali.

No.

Figueroa.

No.

Gilbride.

Yes.

Goldberg.

Yes.

Graham.

No.

Kazinski.

No.

Lie.

Yes.

Matheny.

No.

Mays.

Yes.

Moore.

Morrison.

Yes.

Patterson.

No.

Pavia.

Pierre Louis.

No.

Pollack.

Yes.

Rocatta.

Yes.

Safditch.

No.

Sanford.

Yes.

Shaw.

Yes.

Sherwood.

No.

Stella.

Strain.

Sumerville.

Tomas.

No.

Vanderbord.

No.

Walston.

No.

Watkins.

No.

Weinberg.

Yes.

Williams.

No.

Okay.

I'm returning back to Representative Burns.

No.

I'm returning back to Representative Pavia.

Okay.

Uh Clerk Cotrell, Representative Pavia.

Can I unmute himself?

Representative Pavia.

Uh, you are on speaker phone.

What is your vote?

Okay.

Um, I will just keep you on speaker phone for now, I suppose.

I should call the tech.

Um Barbara, can you tell us the vote total on that, please?

Vote total is 12.

Yes.

27 no.

Zero abstain.

Thank you.

Okay, that concludes that vote.

Um back to you, Representative Patterson.

Oh, I'm sorry, back to the main motion.

I apologize.

We're back to the main motion.

I'm sorry, uh, Chair.

So that failed.

Yes.

The motion to amend failed.

Yes.

Right.

No one said that.

Or I couldn't hear.

Thank you.

So we're back to the main motion.

Okay, we're back to the main motion.

A31.231.

Ordinance for final adoption.

Amending chapter six of the quote of ordinances, authorities, boards, and commissions, section six-123, duties and responsibilities, appointments, commission.

Adams.

Baines.

No.

Excuse me.

Burns.

Blank.

Burns.

Okay, I guess he left he left the meeting.

Uh Boger.

Yes.

Campbell.

Yes.

Camborelli.

Yes.

I'm a yes.

Curtis.

Yes.

De La Cruz.

Yes.

Fidelity.

Yes.

Figueroa.

Yes.

Gilbride.

No.

Goldberg.

Graham.

Yes.

Kazinski.

Yes.

Lie.

No.

Mithini.

Yes.

Mays.

No.

More.

Yes.

Morrison.

No.

Patterson.

Yes.

Pavia.

Uh Representative Pavia is on Representative Sherwood's cell phone.

Can you just repeat that?

Representative Pavia.

Yes.

Okay, Pavy is a yes.

Pierre Louis?

Yes.

Pollock.

No.

No.

Okay, thank you.

Rokata.

Yes.

Safditch.

Yes.

Okay.

Sanford?

No.

Thank you.

Shaw?

No.

Thank you.

Sherwood?

Yes.

Thank you.

Stella.

Thank you.

Strain.

Thank you.

Somerville.

Okay.

All right.

I could hear that even though your mic wasn't on.

Uh Tomas.

Yes.

Thank you.

Vanderbord.

No.

Walston.

Yes.

Watkins.

Yes.

Weinberg.

No.

Williams.

Yes.

Okay.

Returning back to Representative Adams.

Oh no.

Was that a no?

Okay.

Representative Burns returning to you.

Thank you.

So concludes the vote.

Barbara, can you please tell us the total on this one?

I just want to confirm.

Was Representative Adams a no?

He was.

Okay.

Then we have 26 yes, 12 no, zero abstain.

The item passes.

All right.

Thank you.

Um uh representative Patterson back to you.

Is that conclude your report?

The final item is item nine, A313.

That was a review.

Demographics of Stanford's board and commissions.

We had no speakers, so no action was taken.

I would like to note um representative Stella's um efforts on these two resolutions.

It has been a very long effort, and um I'm glad that it's done.

So that concludes my report.

Thank you, Chair Patterson and the appointments committee of the 31st Board of Representatives.

Representative Boger, go ahead.

Madam President, seeing as how the gallery is full of people that I assume are waiting for a number of the ordinance.

I would like to make a motion to suspend the rules so we could take up L and R next out of order and specifically to start with um I'm sorry, specifically to start with item number five and then commence back to the regular order, please.

And I so move.

Second.

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Are there any abstentions?

That passes unanimously.

Uh Representative Burns, please start with item number five on your L and R agenda.

And I am going to relinquish the floor to Minority Leader Fidelity.

Madam President, Madam Chair, um, the legislative and rules committee of the Board of Representatives met twice this month for the second time in two months.

Uh Monday, October 27th, and Tuesday, sorry, yeah, Tuesday, sorry, Monday, November 3rd.

This matter was taken up on Monday, November 3rd, if I recall correctly, and that is number five on this evening's agenda, LR 31.072, ordinance for final adoption regulating the sale of dogs and cats in pet stores.

Uh and madam chair, I shall move.

Second.

Thank you.

Uh I see no hands.

I know we switch at this time.

Out of order.

Okay.

Um, I take that back.

Representative Weinberg.

Just to be clear, we are on the pet shop ordinance.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Thank you.

Okay.

We all share the same goal of treating animals humanely and doing away with puppy milk pet shops.

However, with the deepest regret, I will vote against this ordinance.

This is not a difference in values, only in approach.

I want to rid Stanford of pet shops that sell dogs and cats.

Their business model exploits animals for no reasonable human purpose.

This business model is deeply abhorrent to me.

But passing an ordinance that I believe violates state law and creates enormous risk for the taxpayers of Stanford is also abhorrent.

And that's what this ordinance would do.

It just appears to be a direct violation of Connecticut state law.

If it passes, it will have no force of law and will do nothing to ban these types of pet shops in Stamford.

I deeply respect the desire of animal rights groups to test the state law.

But there are better ways to bring about change.

And as legislators, we have a duty to follow state law.

Attorney Toma has given us at best a 20% chance of prevailing in court, and I believe that's actually generous.

That in any case, that's mighty slim odds for a test case.

Attorney Toma has also written to us about the financial consequences of a lawsuit.

Even if we prevail, and even with the participation of a pro bono attorney, Stanford's taxpayers will incur significant legal costs.

And if we lose, which appears likely, we can expect the court to require Stanford's taxpayers to reimburse the pet stores for their legal fees and lost profits.

But that doesn't mean that we can take no action.

Instead of proposing illegal ordinances, many people, including I suspect many people here in in in in the in the gallery, have taken concrete actions to stop puppy mill stores in Stamford.

We picketed the existing stores and got at least one of them to close.

Representative Lye worked with the zoning board to make future puppy mill stores in Stanford and attractive.

And then there's the new animal shelter.

Volunteers lobbied for a new state of the art animal shelter.

Mayor Simmons put funding for it in her budget.

Residents created the Stanford Animal Shelter Alliance and raised money to help supplement the city's funding.

I wrote a post, uh a social media post about the new shelters groundbaking breaking event.

That post has promoted the the new shelter, has received over 8,000 views on social media, and has actually triggered additional donations.

All of these actions reduce the marketing power of puppy mill pet stores, they improve the care of stray animals, and they make it easier, most importantly, for residents to adopt them, which is what we want to happen.

My and unlike this ordinance, none of these actions violate state law.

The sponsors of this illegal ordinance could have gone in a different direction.

They could have reiterated a resolution condemning puppy mill pet shops and urging the state legislature to allow municipalities to ban them.

We've already done that.

We can do it, we could do it again.

That would be completely legal, and we could promote it to other municipalities if we have with other resolutions that we've passed.

So they passed similar resolutions and increase the pressure on the state legislature.

These resolutions from municipalities throughout the state would have greater influence on the state legislature than a single court case that goes nowhere.

I wish I could vote for this ordinance, because I very much want to eliminate these puppy mill pet shops in Stamford and through and frankly throughout this country.

But I have an allegiance to the law.

And as legislators, we should all have an allegiance to the law.

And that's why this is the wrong method for accomplishing a very important goal.

We should move, we should take action in other ways.

If there is a protest organized outside of the remaining puppy store, puppy mill store here in Stamford, I will look forward to joining that protest.

It's worked before, it will work again, and because of the efforts of Representative Lye and the zoning board, we can feel extremely confident that once we picket these stores, the existing stores out of existence in Stamford, there will not be new stores in our city.

Thank you, and I yield.

I apologize.

Uh Representative Burns, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

That's what you said the first time, maybe I misheard.

Um Representative Weinberg believes that what we are doing is contrary to law.

We heard from the law department.

Law department said, in their opinion, and I believe they were giving a conservative opinion, this had a 20% chance of winning if it went to suit, which means it's not unethical for an attorney to bring such a case.

Which in this case would essentially be the state saying we are for puppy mills.

Of course, what they're really saying is they are against cities taking actions that they that they believe are entirely their power, uh, and are jealous that we are appear to be appropriating it.

But I think in the public and in the media and in the newspapers and in the TV and in the radio, it's gonna be the state is in favor of puppy mills.

Therefore, I don't think we're gonna get sued.

And if we do get sued, the higher-ups for the attorneys bringing the suit are gonna say, what in the world are you doing?

And they're gonna drop the suit.

Or there's gonna be some sort of um a settlement that really is just symbolic where the city says, okay, we consider it annulled, but it will have created enough noise that the state legislature will hopefully finally do the right thing.

Thank you, madam chair.

Uh thank you.

Representative President Sherwood.

Thank you.

Um minority leader Fidelity.

I first and foremost want to thank the members of the public who are here tonight, who have been to multiple public hearings over the past eight years on this issue, the almost 170 people who wrote into the Board of Representatives in favor of this item.

Uh, I also want to thank um Humane World for Animals and specifically uh Annie Hornet, who's back uh in the back there, who is the head of the Connecticut Humane World for Animals.

Um I just want to make it very clear to all those who are listening that nobody except a Connecticut judge can say that this ordinance vi that that this ordinance violates state law.

Not a fellow rep member, not a member of corporation council, not the attorney general of the state of Connecticut, only a Connecticut judge.

And the only reason a Connecticut judge has not ruled on it is because it hasn't been before a judge.

So that's a problem.

We have a problem, we have a breakdown of government.

We have a problem with our state statutes, okay.

And I believe we have a problem with interpretation.

But for anybody in this room who had the right to vote on this item, if you believe in your heart that it is wrong to sell puppies in the state in the city of Stanford, you should be voting yes on this ordinance.

Because if some brave legislature in the state of Connecticut doesn't if we don't put this forward, if we don't have the courage to pass this, and I hope that Mayor Simmons does not veto it.

If we don't have the courage to pass this, it's just gonna continue to go on where the state is wishy-washy, and the the state legislature by a failed leadership.

Sorry, no offense to the state, but you guys have not made this a priority.

I know that there have been specific state representatives like Representative David Michel when he was in Hartford, made this a priority, but it is not coming to the floor for a vote, even though it passes committee, and enough is enough.

We have sent two resolutions to Hartford on this issue from the city of Stanford.

Nothing has been done.

There are many other municipalities in the state of Connecticut that want to put forward legislation but don't have the courage to do it because they're afraid to get sued.

I am not afraid to be sued.

If there was one issue that I would want to get sued over, it's cruelty to animal.

And you know what?

If if the attorney general's office, William Tong, and who's uh got lawyers in in in the Department of Agriculture, want to come to the city of Stanford and sue us, I can't wait to see the headlines.

I can't wait to see Lama and Tong sue the city of Stanford over an animal cruelty ordinance because they want to protect puppy mills from Pennsylvania.

Bring it on.

That's what I have to say about that.

And I don't think that there are taxpayers in the city who wouldn't want to see the city of Stanford leading the charge in the state of Connecticut to prevent puppy mills and animal cruelty.

I think it's a no-brainer.

I think that's why we're elected to make decisions like this.

Okay.

And so if you care about animals and you're concerned about the fact that New York State has done the right thing and banned the sale of these animals, and now these puppy shops and these kittens and animals are being sold in Bridgeport and New Haven and Hartford and all across the state of Connecticut.

The buck stops here with your vote.

Because what you do tonight is going to define whether or not the rest of the state can follow suit and do the right thing for the animals.

So I really hope I hope that if you have some fear in your heart about being sued, that you you vote yes, because A, that's the brave thing to do.

But B, in the worst case scenario, if this goes before a judge because somebody wants to sue the city about this and it fails, and we lose the case.

At least Hartford will know that it has to do something about this.

That it can't just be left in the mid-air.

There's other municipalities who have put resolutions forward.

Nothing's being done.

So we have to take the first step.

We have tried and tried and tried.

This is the only path.

If you care about this issue, you vote yes.

There are the humane world for animals, is willing to help as much as the city would like in terms of uh legal arguments.

This is a no-brainer.

You have not gotten a single email from the people you represent asking you to vote no on this because they're concerned about tax dollars.

Enough is enough.

And with that, I do believe that this will pass tonight.

I look at all of you, and I believe that there are the votes to pass this.

So I just want to say to Mayor Caroline Simmons, please do not veto this.

Lead the charge on this issue.

It is a fight worth fighting for.

Thank you.

Point of order.

Yes, what is your point of order?

The representative clearly impugned the motives of those that did not that would not support this.

That is out of order and inappropriate.

I ask that you direct her to not do so going forward.

Under consideration.

I have to look at my list, sorry.

Um, representative Lai, you're next.

Thank you.

Um, so I'm very proud of the work that I was able to do with the zoning board to get pet shops closed and so or zoned out of certain parts of the of the city.

And um, but when I worked with the zoning board on that, that was always I always thought of that as a temporary solution and was hopeful that the state would act.

Um, unfortunately, they they didn't.

In the interim, I've done a lot more research on this topic.

I I have um a legislative report from uh the Office of Legislative Research from the uh objective research for Connecticut's legislature dated August 13th, 2019, which specifically addresses pet shop laws.

And even within that document, nowhere does it say anything about municipalities not being able to ban the sale of cats and dogs.

What it does talk about is how we can't supersede um how once once a license is granted, we can't regulate how the animals are treated inside that store.

So it does specifically say that we're able to address the sale through zoning regulations, which are land use regulations.

Um, so I think there's some gray area there that would allow this board to move forward with banning the sale of cats and dogs within the city of Stanford.

I think there's enough gray area that this is worth taking to court uh should be sued.

So I will be supporting this.

Thank thank you, Representative Lai.

Um Representative Boger, you're next.

Thank you, Chair.

I feel like this is a pepper Alley.

Um, you know, I'm I'm a police officer.

I have a I have an allegiance to the law, but I have a higher allegiance to morality.

And um I agree with everything that's been said in support of this.

And I'm actually very impressed and touched by the um, you know, it's not a secret.

There's there's kind of two different factions on this board, even though the vast majority of us are the same political party, but it seems we we had a lot of cross faction support on this one, and I'm very proud of that.

Um, we could be we could be a catalyst here uh uh of change.

It took bravery.

Um sometimes the law, sometimes the laws are sometimes the situations we find ourselves in aren't right um morally.

You know, somebody had to stand up against slavery, someone had to stand up against Jim Crow, somebody had to stand up against a lot of things, and these animals can't speak, so we have to speak for them.

Um as my as my very close dear friend Representative Bonnie Kim Campbell often says to me, um, this is good trouble.

And I say it's time to get into it.

Thank you.

Um, Representative Del Cruz Delacruz, followed by Representative Campbell.

Uh thank you.

Um minority leader Fidelity.

Fidelity.

Segue in on what President of Sean Boyer just said, blind allegiance to the law.

The world history is stained with those that followed blind allegiance to the law, decimating the lines, the lives of countless.

So I also have a higher allegiance to morality.

And then with respect to the law, there ain't no law that forbids Stanford for taking this action.

All the assertions that were made by corporation counsel were patently wrong.

They're mostly uncertifiably wrong.

Imagine to say that because the legislature they didn't take action on an item because they ran out of time.

It was the intent of that to deny Stanford the right to do this.

I mean, that's patently certified wrong.

That because no action was taken, the opposite then becomes law.

I can't, I still scratch my head trying to find out what logic led to that misguided conclusion.

So uh in conclusion, let me say that I will support this ordinance.

And I'm of the school that says take action and ask for forgiveness later.

We're trying to protect animals and shield them from cruelty.

Uh and so I yield.

Thank you.

Representative Campbell?

Well, I have two points to make.

The first one is I was doing some research.

And it's interesting.

Disney keeps a lot of information in their vaults.

And you know, the last film they did on 101 Dalmation, that heella Deville said she wasn't going to do no more puppy factories.

And she's live because we got puppy factories in Connecticut in Stanford.

So I'm definitely voting.