All right, I think we're back on.

So I'm going to let Representative Camparelli continue.

I gotta figure out where I was.

We cannot hear Karen.

Ramiya, we cannot hear you.

Okay, can you try now?

Yeah, please try now and see if it works.

Otherwise, we'll gonna go back.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes, yes.

Can everybody hear me now?

Okay.

The thirty-first Board of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to pass this comprehensive tree ordinance.

It passed with unanimous support and only two abstentions.

That matters.

It reflects board consensus, careful deliberation, and a shared understanding of what is at stake.

The ordinance was not rushed, it took three years to develop.

It involved two public hearings and extensive public input.

The administration was deeply involved in crafting it.

Both director of operations and engineering were consulted, and adjustments were made specifically to address the concerns raised by residents and stakeholders, and important and most importantly, this ordinance does not take effect for 18 months.

There is ample time to refine, clarify, or improve it if needed.

Nothing about overriding this veto prevents future tweaks, but killing it now stops progress and sets us back.

The support for this ordinance is extraordinary and unprecedented.

Pollinator Pathways, the Sierra Club, on behalf of its 30,000 members, Save the Sound, Chris Donnelly, Deep's Urban Forester, the Connecticut Autobond Society, the Connecticut State Tree Group, Stanford's Environmental Protection Board, Robin Stein, the city's longest serving land use bureau chief, Aaron McKenna, Stanford's Associate City Planner, neighborhood groups, including Glenbrook, Hubbard Heights, and the Stanford Neighborhood Coalition.

Nettie Compton from Mill River Collaborative, more than a hundred emails asking us to override the mayor's veto.

On top of two public hearings and another hundred emails from residents urging us to pass this ordinance.

And we cannot separate this ordinance from the city's own comprehensive plan.

The city of Stanford spent nearly half a million dollars of taxpayer money on the 2035 Comprehensive Plan.

The planning board approved it.

The mayor approved it.

Hundreds of residents showed up angry and afraid about density and housing impacts in their neighborhoods.

I stayed silent during much of that process because that plan was packed with environmental protection.

Protections that made growth more acceptable, made growth smart, protections that promise residents their neighborhoods would not be stripped bare in the name of development.

The 2035 Comprehensive Plan explicitly calls for a tree commission.

One of the mayor's biggest problem with this ordinance is the tree commission.

Yet the 2035 plan asks for a tree commission.

Tree preservation and green space and climate mitigation measures in conjunction with population growth.

The people that crafted it, all experts, including our current planning board, understand that trees are everything to climate change.

And that is why they added that commission when they when they prepared the 2035 Comprehensive Plan.

And I applaud them for that.

I I really appreciate all that the planning board put into this ordinance in terms of climate change.

So I ask you this.

How far is it to ask residents to pay half a million dollars for a plan, promise environmental protections, and then gut the very heart of those protections less than six months after passing it, and having them pay for it.

Overriding this veto is about honoring our own planning process, about not pulling the rug out from under residents who were told that growth would be balanced with environmental responsibility.

And this is also about environmental justice.

Fairfield County received a D from the American Lung Association.

Stanford's own data shows residents in the South, West, and East Sides of the City live on average 11 years less than residents in North Stanford.

That is not an abstraction.

That is a lived experience.

Trees matter here.

Active tree management improves air quality by filtering pollutants, absorbing harmful gases, reducing heat, and lowering energy demand.

But that only works when it is done intentionally and intelligently.

That is why informed tree commissions matter.

Species selection matters.

Planning matters.

Without a commission, those neighborhoods wait longer for relief.

They continue to absorb the cost of inaction.

Many cities in Connecticut already understand this.

Harford, these are cities that already have tree commissions and tree ordinances.

Hartford, Greenwich, Hamden, Ridgefield, Old Lyme, Brantford, West Haven, Milford, Madison, New Canaan, and Norwalk as if transitioning to an urban forest commission.

Stanford is not leading here.

We are lagging.

Norwalk 521.

Stanford, 120.

Stanford is now the second largest city in Connecticut.

The Nature Conservative of Can of the Nature Conservancy of Connecticut did a study of tree canopy for the wealthiest to the poorest areas in Connecticut.

Stanford was in the top 10 of the largest disparities in tree coverage between neighborhoods.

Typically, poorer neighborhoods have less trees, resulting in hotter temperatures that neighbor that neighborhoods with a robust tree canopy.

Stanford needs tree equity to prepare for the effects of climate change and the urban heat island effect.

Governor Lamont said it best.

You think fighting pollution is expensive, you should see the cost of not dealing with climate change.

The cost is paid in health, especially for poorer communities, infrastructure demand, emergency response, and loss of quality of life.

Mayor Simmons herself signed an executive order prioritizing green infrastructure, resiliency, bioswells, tree planting, and preparation for extreme weather events.

This ordinance aligns directly with everything that our leaders are asking for.

It does not contradict it.

I want to put I want to be clear.

She faces political pressure that this board does not face.

That comes with her role, but we do not have to succumb to that pressure.

We can take some of that pressure off of her by passing this now and tweaking it later, rather than the other way around.

We work for the people of this city, and the people have spoken loudly and clearly repeatedly in support of this ordinance.

The commission is not a side issue.

It is the heart of enforcement, expertise, and equity.

This ordinance represents years of work by professionals, thousands of hours, and real financial investment by the city itself.

More importantly, it represents who we say we are as Democrats and what kind of city we want Stanford to be.

Do we as a board think that we can do better than the people that worked on this for three years and the 35 members, including every one of the people in leadership here tonight that voted yes for this ordinance?

I don't think so.

We would have to go through years of testimony, and then we can't enact the ordinance right away, so then we'd have to wait another 18 months.

So you're asking people in in the the most unhealthy parts of Stanford to wait another five years.

Cities of the future do not ignore climate change.

They do not strip neighborhoods of trees, they do not ask working class communities to absorb development and pollution that comes with it.

So development is is easier.

It is consistent with our values as Democrats, our science, our planning, and our promises.

And I yield.

Thank you, Representative Camporelli.

Anyone else would like to speak?

Representative Delacruz and then Representative Weinberg after that.

Thank you, uh, President.

Um I want to concur with everything that Representative Camporial just said.

And perhaps let me go over some of the services that we get from trees.

The number one service is combating global warming.

She alluded to Governor Lamont's statement on the cost of global warming.

Literally left unchecked, global warming is an existential threat, and the cost will be infinite.

So thank the trees for helping us with that.

The EMS emergency calls for asthma and other respiratory diseases.

The other a year.

So the so-called environmental justice communities.

So to help them, we need to plant trees in their area.

Imagine life giving oxygen.

That's a benefit, a service we get from trees.

They mitigate the urban heat island.

Something that Stanford needs to do.

For example, right before the right now, before the zoning board, the owner of the home goods shopping center by uh long high ridge has an application before the zoning board to clear cut something like three, four acres of land, which is forested with trees to expand the parking lot.

I think someone wrote a song about that.

So I think we need this ordinance now, and if we need to adjust it, we can work on that later.

We've received unanimous approval on the 31st board.

Thank you, President.

Uh and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Delacruz.

Representative Weinberg.

Uh uh, thank you, uh, President Shaw.

Uh I'm hearing uh lots of reasons for why Stanford needs a tree ordinance, and I agree with those reasons, but I'm not hearing very much about why ordinance 1320 is the right tree ordinance for Stanford.

What I am hearing is pass ordinance 1320 and we will fix it later.

I'm sorry, but that in my experience, that is not the way things work.

If we pass 1320 tonight, we will lose the urgency to fix it, to do the hard work to fix it.

If we don't pass it, I assure you we will feel enormous urgency to do the hard work to create and pass the right tree ordinance for Stanford.

That's the route that I recommend that we take.

And with that I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Is anyone else wants to speak?

Majority Leader Morrison.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um I agree with every principle that Representative Campirelli expressed and that rep and and the principles and science that Representative Dela Cruz expressed.

I agree that this city absolutely needs a comprehensive tree ordinance that is manageable, not bureaucratically overbearing and not financially uh overbearing on the taxpayer.

The only thing that I disagree on is the method by which we accomplish that.

Uh I voted in favor of this this ordinance, uh, fully expecting that this new board would have amendments to be proposed to it.

Uh with the veto, we have a second option to get that work done.

Rather than passing it into uh putting it into effect and amending it, forgive the phrase 17 ways from Tuesday.

Uh, many of the amendments interconnected with other elements.

If we take if we uphold the veto, take the ordinance exactly as it is now, commit it to the LNR committee, I will champion this alongside representatives Della Cruz and Camporelli, with the cooperation of the administration to take work holistically with the ordinance we have before us and craft it into what I hope will be a final form that will appeal to the public need, the needs of nature, the needs of the city, and without undue impact financially on the taxpayer.

So for those reasons, please understand I will be support, I will not be voting to overturn the veto, but I want this tree ordinance to move forward.

I don't believe the work on this is anywhere near done, and to uh refer back to Representative Weinberg, the hard work on this continues, in my opinion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Representative Hughes.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh I'm gonna have to vote uh against overriding this veto um in talking to constituents or voters during the election season, the cost of living, specifically the cost of housing was the number one concern, and that was whether folks at the doors were 92 or 18.

Uh, it's clear to me that Stanford has become largely unaffordable for the middle class.

I see this ordinance is only passing on more costs uh to the development of housing, the creation of housing.

When we make it more expensive to build housing, we make it less likely that housing gets built here.

The average rent in Stanford as it stands is 2600.

If we want to make Stanford affordable for everyone, we have to make hard choices.

And I think that is one of those.

We all believe in the importance of trees.

Trees are especially critical for downtown, which I represent.

We need more trees.

The level of tree planting that we've done in the past few years is not enough.

However, adding these regulatory burdens is only going to make it harder for businesses and for housing growth.

And for those reasons, I cannot support uh this ordinance.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Representative Hughes.

Um, before I go back to, I know um representative Camperley and Majority Leader Morrison.

Is that anyone else that like to speak for the first time?

Yes, representative blank.

Good evening.

Thank you for recognizing me.

Um I live in a semi-urban environment, uh, and where we have some city trees and some residential trees.

Um there are any number of issues with this ordinance as it was presented to us at the last minute by our prior uh organization.

Um I did not vote for it.

Then I will not vote to override the city's the mayor's uh veto, as I feel this was an encroachment on our ability to manage our assets as our own.

And I thereby would suggest we do so, but I will just leave it at that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Bleng, Representative McCuben.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Uh this evening, I this evening, and from what we've heard from the public and the administration, I haven't heard any opposition to the ideals that Representative Camporelli expressed, the importance of conservationism, the importance of preservation.

And I believe those values are important, and I believe that Stanford is not doing enough in those areas.

That being said, I agree with Majority Leader Morrison and Representatives Hughes and Weinberg that to me the issue here tonight is whether or not any of the issues we have with the ordinance itself are of such a critical nature that we must address them now, or whether or not we can pass this and amend later.

And I think unfortunately that those issues with the ordinance are of the former, that we do need to do the work now to fix those, uh specifically to highlight a limited number of them.

Uh I find issue with the commission's power to designate largely any tree as a legacy tree, which would have a number of additional uh restrictions there on them uh that otherwise I think would be inappropriate for what would not otherwise be a legacy tree absent their designation.

Additionally, there is language in there that requires public hearing for certain types of tree removal proposals, uh, regardless of whether or not uh opposition has been expressed.

I think that that is unnecessary, an unnecessary burden on the urban forester position.

Um to highlight two specific examples um of which there are more.

Uh, and so when we're viewing those specifically, I think these issues are are of a kind where they must be addressed now uh rather than after passage, and I yield.

Thank you, representative uh make you and representative Goldberg.

Thank you, madam president, and I appreciate your recognizing me.

Um I was never particularly enthusiastic about this ordinance, and I abstained when it came before.

And I've talked about at length why I didn't support it.

But let me summarize it in very simple terms for you.

What we have here is a camel, which is a horse designed by a committee.

I want a horse.

This thing is over-engineered, it's overthought, and it's too complex.

The administration has already committed to hiring an expert in this area who will advise us on the best way to move forward with the least amount of resources and the most amount of impact.

I'm glad that everyone's excited about trees.

But by the way, what I said last time was if you want more trees, then plant more trees.

This is not about planting trees.

What this is about is using a stick instead of a carrot.

So I can't support the ordinance.

I will support the mayor's veto, and I will support what the mayor wants to do, which is to solve the problem of more trees in Stanford in an efficient and effective manner.

Thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Goldberg.

Anyone else would like to speak for the first time.

Okay, seeing no one.

Representative Camperley, go ahead.

Just to address some of the comments that were made.

You know, we always talk, especially as Democrats, about our ideals and the things that we believe in.

Um but then when it comes to actually doing anything, we don't actually do it.

And I think that this is a this is a perfect example.

We had a body, and and all the people that were on the prior board, including all the leadership, voted for it.

And was it perfect?

No, it needs tweaking, but to throw the baby out with the bathwater to me is just insane.

This represents thousands of hours of work and the city's time and money.

Um I also hear a lot of people talking about how much it's going to cost residents, and it's going to cost this person, it's going to cost that person.

When you look at climate change studies and trees and tree covers and communities that have things like tree commissions, they actually end up saving residents money because you have less flooding and less heat and less sickness and less death.

Um, you know, I think it's really short-sighted to say, oh, somebody's gonna have to maybe pay this amount of money to take out a tree when maybe people are gonna have less asthma and be healthy, healthier.

The other thing is that we are constantly putting affordable housing in places where there are no trees or green spaces.

Uh, you heard Melanie Hollis talk about how we don't have parks.

Like we we get like a D grade in terms of parks and green space.

You know, and and again, I am not suffering any of this.

I am fighting for the people that are.

I am surrounded by trees.

I am surrounded by green space.

I was born and raised in the Bronx with one tree in a one mile radius.

Okay, and my mother died of lung cancer.

Uh we will fix it later, just means that a body of 40 people will do the same work that a body of 40 people have already done.

We will spend years debating and tweaking this because that's how long it takes to pass an ordinance.

Ordinance does not just happen in three months or four months or five months.

There's always somebody that has something to say about this or tweaking that, and I get that.

That's part of the legislative process.

And we did that, and we unanimously passed this ordinance, um, other than two abstentions for the people that were in the room 35 to two.

Um prioritized over people getting green space.

We should not prioritize putting a building up when we don't give kids trees and green space and parks and things to play in.

This ordinance addresses all that.

The we'll fix this all later, and the mayor is committed to doing the may this or that.

This locks us into something that the the city's longest running planning board uh chief member said is a great ordin ordinance, and other professional foresters and and urban planners have stood behind.

Why do we think we know better than all of those professionals who have put their their seal of approval on this ordinance?

And I yield thank you, representative Campirelli.

Majority Lamorson.

From Majority Any Morrison, yeah.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh forgive me, I neglected to mention earlier.

Uh the mayor has already demonstrated a major commitment to what this tree ordinance is to affect long term, uh, in that the urban forester job has already been posted and will be filled.

Uh and one of the first things that the urban forest will will be uh tasked with is the overview of this ordinance and how it best fits the government bureaucracy and how to implement it and how to enforce it and how to make sure that the public is best served and in a timely fashion.

Um I I I will disagree with Representative Camporelli that we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I I believe that uh in its current form with its thousands of hours, an expert opinion contained therein uh that we are continuing the work on it.

And if the majority of the work has already been done, and if it is ready for prime time, just needing some uh tweaking, some adjustments as has been said, I think if this were a year ago and this item had not just overlapped from one board term to another, we would simply be recommitting this to recommitting this to LNR and continuing the work.

What I see what I am suggesting by upholding the veto is effectively practically doing just that.

And that's what I intend to continue working on.

Thank you.

Thank you, Majority Leader Morrison.

Uh Representative Delacruz.

I know we represent the people.

We received hundreds of emails from our constituents supporting this ordinance when it was being crafted and after it was vetoed.

I don't recall, and I've read practically all of them.

Not a single email arguing against the ordinance.

That should tell us.

That should tell us something, not a single email against the ordinance.

Hundreds in favor.

Uh we talked about we need to plant more trees, and that is fine.

It's uh something that we need and should do.

However, this ordinance also protects legacy treats.

A freshly planted tree takes about 30 years before it delivers the benefits of a legacy tree.

We must, you know, the best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago.

The next best time is now, but we must protect those trees planted 30 years ago because they are doing the work that we need done now.

The time to act is now.

And with respect to development, several AI platforms come to the answer that apartment buildings surrounded by trees command higher rents, uh longer leases, and sales for higher premium than other buildings.

So when we think about the impact on development, we are helping developers so that their buildings are worth more, rent for more, and have longer stays.

Thank you, President Shaw, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Delacruz.

Representative Le Pine.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh I uh want to express my agreement with the rationale and sentiments uh uh and commitment to get this revised that were expressed by Representatives Weinberg and Majority Lieber Morrison.

Um I think the position raised that this speaks to who we are as Democrats is an interesting perspective when considering whether or not to override this veto.

Uh it's time to rethink that very question.

And I would say that this piece of legislation, while well-intentioned and containing some very strong elements, is consistent with our party's bad practices of overly burdensome legislation, government overreach, and unintended outcomes in the name of environmental and community protections.

And uh, you know, one of the loudest national democratic voices, uh, Ezra Klein addresses very problem in his recent book, Abundance, and he writes, you can bog clean energy projects down in environmental reviews.

You can use a process meant to stop the government from building a highway through your town to keep a nonprofit developer from building affordable housing down the block.

And I would say this legislation as currently drafted is a great example of this very flawed approach, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Le Pine.

Anyone else would like to speak.

You have spoken two times, I presume that's okay.

Uh hang on.

I see um representative gross and representative Walton.

So we'll start with Representative Gross and then Representative Walston.

I agree with the sort of prudence of continuing to do the work.

We're discussing a veto.

So while the previous board, you know, might have, you know, worked so you know so much on it.

Um I say, you know, give us a chance to have our input, give us our chance to tweak it to make um you know corrections to make um you know edits where appropriate, so that we're passing, you know, the best legislation that we can.

So we're passing um, you know, legislation that we can be proud of.

Um, to say that, you know, this this room of people can't contribute any more that has been contributed is just entirely false.

I think we all bring very unique skill sets uh you know to the table and to the board.

Um, you know, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to you know pass the best legislation um that we can.

Just because it has been worked on does not mean that you know it cannot be worked on more and that cannot be improved.

Um, and that we could both, you know, do the best that we can for the environment to ensure that you know we are protecting our trees, um, you know, that we're having you know enough trees to to live a good life here in Stanford while at the same time making progress to lower you know the cost of housing um you know and making it more affordable to live here.

Um so with that uh you know give us a chance to work on it.

Um we're gonna come up with I think a better product.

Um and thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Gross, Representative Walton, and then Representative Field.

I was there uh when this vote passed on the last board, very long meeting, and you know, this ordinance has been under under construct for for a few years now.

And when I look at my um emails coming through, I want to piggyback off rep de la cruz.

There was not one person who said um they were against um the ordinance.

Everything that we received, override the veto, override the veto.

And this puts me back in a situation whereas I had to vote uh when the parents came out in full force for that plastic turf over at Stanford High.

I voted on the strength on the people.

And if I have the residents all hitting my inbox, telling me to override the veto, these are the same people who put all of us in office.

Who am I to sit there and say your voice is not being heard?

So with that.

Everybody had good points.

I understand.

But right now, our constituents they're talking to us really loud and clear.

So I'm going to be on the side of our constituents and uh be in favor of overriding the veto.

And then after that, we can tweak it, do whatever we have to, but I will stand with my constituents who put me here in this chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Walson.

Representative Field.

Thank you.

Um I guess uh first of all, thank you to everybody who's there's so many incredibly smart people here with incredibly persuasive arguments.

And I think I'm trying to reconcile the two ways I see forward.

And and I'm gonna ask a question.

I don't know if that's allowed.

It's my first time.

You can put me in uh board of rep jail if I'm wrong, but it's um it's either we override it and start again in essence, or don't override it, do it, and then amend it, right?

So I mean, those are really it's really a process issue because something's gonna change either way.

And it's it's a process issue.

So my question is which process is simpler and is it an easy way to answer it?

I yield.

Thank you.

Um Representative Hill.

Thank you.

I'm new to this too.

Uh I think all of us are trying to go in the same direction.

Um you can build a prettiest house.

But if the foundation is not solid, it'll fall.

And then it'll either be ignored or it will be exploited.

So I don't think we're starting over again.

I think we're learning lessons from the 31st board and um putting our input into it for the benefit of the people who elected us.

Thank you, Representative Help Representative Hughes.

Do you like to speak again?

Okay, go ahead.

Yeah, I just I just wanted to add that I I think there's more than you know, just slight amendments that need to be made to this um uh ordinance uh on page 15 of 31 tree commission review and authority upon referral from the urban forester, the tree commission may approve the application with or without conditions, or be deny the application if it determines that the proposed removal would materially and unreasonably compromise the health sustainability or continuity continuity of urban tree canopy, or if the applicant has not demonstrated that the removal is necessary to achieve a reasonable use of the property.

To me, that's too broad, and uh could also create a lot of litigation when it comes to new housing developments.

That only creates costs, creates delays, and further delays delivering more housing to the residents of Stanford, which is what they asked us to do during the previous election, and I yield to you, Chair.

Thank you, Representative Hughes.

Anyone else would like to speak representative Weathers, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um what I'm hearing this evening, it sounds like either way, there's more work to be done.

And like they said earlier, we have to decide which way is wiser, which I think I hear a little bit of fear.

Like people say, well, if you vote no, then you guys are making all these promises that you're gonna amend this, amend that, and that we'll have 18 months to do so, and then nothing gets done.

Like what people always feel about typical government.

Promises, promises, and nothing ever happens.

And so I think the general public kind of has like a fear of that.

So I don't know if this is allowed, you notice my first night.

Can we ask for like an extension on this?

Like some more time.

And the reason why I'm asking that is because if we came back and said these are the things that we've identified that need to be amended, and these are the suggestions, and this is the timeline, and made it more clear of what part two would be, then maybe people would feel more comfortable about this.

Because like right now, I don't even feel that comfortable to vote.

Because I've heard these arguments and they sound very fair.

And so, you know, I don't know the rules.

I didn't finish my Roberts Rules book yet.

I'm halfway through.

So I don't know if it's allowed to ask for us to revisit this or extend this because uh we keep going back and forth with it, and I think a lot of us maybe just feel uncomfortable with saying this is where I stand.

Okay.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, representative weathers.

Um, is there anyone else that'd like to speak?

Um I'm gonna let you speak one more time, but please so I'm gonna let our parliamentarian um take that one and explain if we needed to do that, how we know the procedurally do that.

So anybody interested in postponing consideration of this question could make a motion to postpone either indefinitely or definitely, uh depending on whether or not they're seeking to have this definitively considered at the next meeting or whether or not they're looking to essentially shelve it indefinitely.

But it sounds like representative weathers may be interested in making a motion to postpone this item to our next meeting.

Yes, that's what I'm asking.

Yes.

Point of order.

Yes, go ahead, representative Weinberg.

Yeah, I I I believe that uh I don't have the charter in front of me, uh, but I believe that the charter speaks to the time period between when the veto took place and when we need to take action.

I was just gonna bring that up.

I think um correct me if I'm wrong, I think we have 40 days from today that we have to take an action on it.

Is that right?

Um yeah, so I'm sorry, if I might.

Sure.

Yeah.

Is it 40 days from today or 40 days from the date of the veto uh notice?

It's 40 days from today.

Is that yeah?

Yeah, yes.

I would I would like for us to hold on.

I'm sorry, representative button.

Representative McEwen.

Um Madam Chair, if I may, the the charter explicitly states that the board may at the meeting or any meeting held within 40 days thereafter by two-thirds vote pass, etc.

etc.

etc.

So I would interpret that to be 40 days after today's meeting.

Yes, Representative Weibrout.

Uh so the the charter states that um the clerk shall promptly deliver the same meaning notice of the veto with the mayor's reasons for disapproval to the president of the board who shall in turn submit the same to the board at its next regular meeting, which would be today.

The board may at the meeting or at any meeting held within 40 days thereafter by two-thirds vote of the entire membership, pass the ordinance over the mayor's veto, then it continues on the yes, representative weathers.

Yes, I would like to make a motion that we send this back to committee.

Sorry.

The board may then consider motion override the veto of the next regular meeting or at any meeting held within 40 days after the mayor's voice is submitted back to the board.

So if we're already taking it up, does that mean that we've already taken it up?

So we're taking it up today.

Yeah, so I don't I'm not I I do not believe that the it's an or, so it's an either-or, right?

So it's next regular meeting or at any meeting held within 40 days.

We've already taken it up, so I personally do not believe that we're allowed to take it up again, but that is up to the parliamentarian to decide.

Go ahead.

I would conclude differently.

Uh the language is explicit where it says that the board may at the meeting, again, referencing its rec next regular meeting, which is today, uh, or at any meeting held within 40 days thereafter by two-thirds vote of the entire membership pass the ordinance, not consider it or take it up for discussion.

And the ordinance shall thereupon be effective without further action by the mayor.

So I would again come to the conclusion that it isn't when we may consider it, it is an outside time by which we may choose to pass it.

Uh point of order.

Uh go ahead, representative boudreau.

Uh, if we do uh vote to postpone it, would there be any possibility of amendment if it gets recommitted, or is it still just the same up-down vote happening a month later?

It will be just the same up-down vote happening a month later.

So to clear up, there will not be any more amendments that we can make at this point.

Next month we will take up the same same uh ordinance.

Does that make sense?

Okay.

Yes, representative Delacruz.

Mike, please.

Uh thank you.

If the ordinance is recommitted to steering, and then this cause the next LNR committee meeting.

The LLR committee meeting cannot entertain amendments.

Is that the parliamentarians rule?

So to to clarify, the motion to postpone definitely would not result in a recommit of the item to any committee or steering.

The motion to postpone definitely would place this item on the agenda of the subsequent board meeting.

Go ahead, the presentative paper.

Is there a motion on the floor?

Can we move the question?

We not yeah, it hasn't been moved yet.

So she just we haven't even gotten to it.

So I'm gonna give the floor back to representative if you'd like to make that motion.

Yes, I make the motion that we send this back to committee.

Sorry, we're just you're gonna have to make a motion to postpone, not to send it back to committee.

It does not go to any committees.

It will be it'll be back in the agenda in the full board agenda next month.

Is that the motion you would like to make?

Yes, it is.

Okay.

Is that a second second?

Okay, there's a motion to postpone it until next month, and there's a second uh discussion.

I I Majority Leader Morrison was gonna say sorry about that.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh as this cannot go back to committee for discussion, uh it will only result in the same additional conversations among and between ourselves and with our constituents.

Uh and I don't believe I I understand Representative Weathers uh motion, the need for it.

Uh but I don't know that enough of if if I heard you correctly, the you want us to try to identify reasons for taking it up one way or the other going forward.

I don't know that in one month without even the benefit of a committee meeting at which we can discuss it, that that could be accomplished.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I saw a hand here.

I'm gonna come back to Representative Graham.

I'm gonna come back to you, Representative Delacruz.

I'm gonna give it a President Shaw through you to uh Representative Morrison.

I just want to clarification because the previous conversations that we were just discussing, everyone says, oh, we could uh just send it back and make corrections, but if there's no possibility to do that, then we need to know that.

I don't I I need a clear cut uh uh description of what we're doing here.

So if we do not pass the ordinance, therefore we have to go back to the drawing board and create a new ordinance.

Is this correct?

I'm gonna let majority leader speak.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

Through you to Representative Graham.

If the if the veto is upheld, the the ordinance passed by the 31st board is is finished until such time as someone on this board reintroduces it as a new item to the LNR committee, at which time we can take it up in that committee and continue the work.

Thank you.

I know thank you.

Representative Delacruz, and then I'll go back to Representative Gold.

Uh thank you, President Shaw.

Uh I'd like to pursue two things.

First, I want to understand from the parliamentarian that return that returning it back to committee is not allowed.

Is that the interpretation of what can be done?

That returning it to committee cannot be done.

Go ahead.

I would say that my premium's comment was limited to what the effect of a motion to postpone definitely would do.

A motion to postpone definitely would not send it to committee.

Procedurally, I think this board could properly entertain a motion to commit.

Uh and as to whether or not that's advisable is a question for this body.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

I am not clarivoyant enough to speculate on what may happen in committee.

Some of the amendments that are being suggested tonight could very well be handled in committee.

So I believe I seconded a motion to recommit to steering.

Point of order.

Yes, representative Weinberg.

Yes.

I I I believe that if the uh if the mo if the motion is if if this item is postponed until our February, uh our February meeting, uh the question before that February that that that meeting is whether to um uphold the veto or to override the veto.

Um it is not so contemplating changes or amendments in uh the ordinance that was passed by the 31st board, I believe, would be out of order.

Um is that correct?

That would be my understanding.

So while it so it could so if it went back to as as some are suggesting, if this item went back to committee, there are no act other than um sustaining the veto or overriding the veto.

There were no other decisions that that committee that the committee could take.

Is that correct?

Yes, that is my understanding as well.

So the idea that the committee could amend is is just is just not the case.

That is correct.

Point of information.

Representative Delacruz, I'm going to okay, state your point of order, but I'm I have a lot of other speakers that I just want to clarify.

My understanding from the parliamentarian is that a motion to recommit is acceptable.

And the motion that I second it was a motion to recommit.

Not a motion to postpone the motion on the floor is a motion to recommit.

That is not correct.

The motion on the floor is that Representative Weathers made was to actually postpone it until next month, not to recommit.

Okay, if that is the case, I stand.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Representative Hill.

Yeah, I think we've we've been riding this horse for a while.

And and uh some of us are getting a little tired of it.

But uh I I think that this is simple.

Either we vote to override the mayor's veto on the legislation that is before us, or we vote not to override the veto.

I think it's that simple, Matt uh, Madam President, and I yield.

Thank you.

Um Representative Hughes, would you like to speak?

I had your hand raised.

Okay.

Uh Representative Graham.

Can we move the question?

Second.

Had one hand back there, so I'm gonna let Representative Walston speak and then we'll close it.

You know what?

It's sorry.

It's thank you for that.

We'll we'll I'll withdraw that.

That we can move the question.

It's fine.

I thought if you move the question, if there's a hand up, don't you have to take the hand up before you can move to question?

Have to, it's we don't have to so we will see no other hands, we will vote on the motion to postpone this until next month.

Oh, so we'll do the move the question.

Okay.

So the sorry.

Uh we will vote on moving the question first.

Okay.

Brief point of order.

Yeah.

Um a motion to uh move the question requires two-thirds vote of present in voting, correct?

That is correct.

Okay.

We'll do a roll call word for this one.

Apologies.

Uh Representative Adams.

Yes.

Parker, can you please read what the question is?

Yeah, so the the question at hand is just whether or not to move the question.

So we'll vote.

If this vote uh passes, we will then vote on whether or not to delay the uh the ultimate vote on the veto.

If this vote does not pass, we will not do that.

And we will go back to discussion on the topic.

Is that hopefully clear?

All right, thank you.

No.

No.

Okay.

So uh yeah, uh Rami, are you comfortable handing it to Eric?

Yes.

Uh Eric, please.

Thank you.

The motion on the floor is to move the question on representative weather's motion to postpone this item to next month.

This motion to move this move of the question simply is whether or not we will end discussion on repers web representative weather's motion.

All right.

Well uh let's we'll start the oh I like to withdraw the motion.

I would draw a second.

All right.

So we are then back to discussion, Rami.

Okay, so we withdraw the motion to move the question.

So we're back to discussion on representative weather's original motion, which was to postpone this up until next month.

Is that any more discussion on that motion?

Representative Walston.

I'm not in favor of moving this because countless hours have gone into this ordinance, countless, and my time and my energy.

And enough research has been done, and we need to vote either we're going to override it or we're not.

I don't think we need to kick this down a little bit long uh a little bit more down the road.

Let's just do this tonight and move forward because look how much time we're here now dealing with this.

I don't want to deal with this next month.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Walston.

Any other representative Didalo.

Can I move the question?

This one.

No, we're we're I think with this ends the discussion if there are no other hands, and we'll be voting on that motion.

Thank you.

Okay.

Seeing no other hands.

Now we'll take a vote on the question that's in hand, the motion that's in hand, which is to postpone this veto, uh taking action on this veto until next month.

And I'm going to uh just a parliamentary inquiry.

Uh uh Representative McEwen, is this a simple majority or is it a two-thirds?

Simple majority for postponed, definitely.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Okay.

So Claude Johnson, roll call, please.

All right.

It's a roll call vote just to uh on the question of delaying the vote.

Uh so I'll start with Representative Adams.

Yes.

That was a yes apologies.

Yes, Representative.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh Representative Beckham.

No.

Uh Representative Blank.

Representative Bouchard.

No.

Representative Boudreau.

No.

Representative Bradford.

Representative Camparelli.

No.

Representative Delay Cruz.

No.

Representative Dillow.

No.

Representative Dorsey.

No.

Representative Field.

No.

Representative Finkel.

No.

Representative Gardner.

No.

Representative Gilbride.

No.

Representative Goldberg.

No.

Representative Graham.

No.

Representative Gross.

No.

Representative Hill.

Representative Hughes.

No.

Representative Hyatt.

No.

I myself vote no.

Representative LePine.

No.

Representative McKinnon.

No.

Majority Leader Morrison.

No.

Representative Pabia.

No.

Representative Politia?

No.

Deputy Majority Leader Pollock.

No.

Representative Price.

No.

Representative Salais.

No.

Deputy Majority Leader Sanford.

No.

President Shaw?

No.

Representative Shore?

No.

Representative Stone.

No.

Representative Sylvestri.

No.

Representative Walston.

No.

Representative Weathers.

Yes.

Representative Weinberg.

No.

Representative Weirs.

No.

Representative Yeager?

No.

And Representative Zachary.

No.

Right.

There are two yeses, one abstention, and the remainders are no's.

So that is.

Oh, apologies, yes.

I think Representative Blank hasn't voted yet.

It'll be a no.

No.

It'll be a no.

Okay.

Representative Beckham, uh, just to confirm.

Uh would you mind your vote is no?

Is no.

Perfect.

All right.

Yep.

So I have um Barbara, correct me.

I have two yeses.

Uh David Blank, you are a no.

Um so two yeses and the remainder's a no's.

Agreed.

Uh so with that simple majority.

All right.

Two S's and 36 no's.

So to so the motion failed.

So we are back to the original veto.

Um, yes, there's no more discussion here.

So I think we can go ahead and vote on the original veto.

Just to clarify on this, this for the for the vetoes for the charter, the voting threshold is two-thirds of the full board.

It's not two-thirds of president voting, so it's two-thirds of full vote.

But before I do that, um, pardon Jair McEwan, can you just make sure that I so if you are in favor of overriding, so I want to make sure the the question is framed correctly because I know we changed it.

Um, Ms.

Montova, can you pull up that question, please?

No worries.

I think we could take a little break.

President, a point of order.

Those of us who are calling in cannot see the form of the question.

Thank you, uh Representative Zachary.

Um Ms.

Monto will move it.

I think you need to move that to the other screen.

They said they can't see it.

Point of order.

I believe the vote is to approve the ordin.

Yes.

Hang on, change.

Trying to fix it, but it says, let's just make sure that can represent Zachary.

Can you see it?

Online now?

It's too smartly, it's too small to see.

Yeah, I'm not sure if they can.

It's the screen, so we can re can read it in the record, sorry.

I don't know if they can make it any.

Is that a good thing?

There you go.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

So I'm gonna, I'm gonna before we go to take the vote.

I'm gonna make our parliamentary and make you tell us exactly how we have to vote on these, so we're not we're not confused.

Thank you, President Shaw.

I would I would respectfully recommend the language to read um to approve a motion.

Excuse me.

Um the question before the body is a motion to approve the ordinance over the mayor's veto.

You can feel free to of course replace the word the ordinance with an appropriate reference.

Can you please explain how we vote if we are in favor of things?

So you can you please explain that?

Sure.

So a vote, a yes vote, an affirmative vote on this question would be in favor of enacting this ordinance into law over the mayor's veto, thereby overriding or overturning the mayor's veto.

A vote against this question would not enact this ordinance into law and would uphold the mayor's veto.

So if you are in favor of overriding, you vote yes.

And if you are in favor of not overriding the veto, you vote no.

Okay.

Is everyone clear?

All right.

All right.

Uh Representative Adams.

No.

No.

Representative, no, correct?

Yes.

No is to right.

No, Mr.

Yes, Maureen.

Sorry, point of order.

I'm I'm might be misunderstanding, but I'm hearing curse words coming from the public.

If we could I'm hoping I'm wrong.

Can we please make Yes?

I please ask the public to maintain a decorum.

We're trying to we're trying to do a meeting here.

I'm sure I heard it wrong, but unless there's a document.

I still would ask the members of the public to please maintain a decorum while we conduct a meeting here.

Thank you so much.

Representative Beckham.

No.

Representative Blank.

No.

Representative Bouchard.

No.

Representative Boudreau.

Yes.

Representative Bradford.

Representative Camparelli.

Yes.

Representative Dela Cruz.

Yes.

Representative Didalo.

No.

Representative Dorsey.

No.

Representative Field.

No.

Representative Finkel?

No.

Representative Gardner?

No.

Representative Gilbride.

No.

Representative Goldberg?

No.

Representative Graham.

Pass.

Representative Gross.

No.

Representative Hill.

Representative Hughes.

No.

Representative Hyatt.

No.

I myself, no.

Representative LePine.

No.

Representative McCune.

No.

Majority Leader Morrison.

No.

Representative Pabia.

No.

Thank you.

Representative Please.

No.

Deputy Majority Leader Pollock.

No.

Representative Price.

No.

Representative Salas?

No.

Deputy Majority Leader Sanford.

No.

President Shaw.

No.

Representative Shore?

No.

Representative Stone?

No.

Representative Sylvestry.

No.

Representative Walston.

Representative Weathers.

No.

Representative Weinbird?

No.

Representative Weir.

No.

Representative Yeager?

No.

And Representative Zachary.

Representative Zachary, you're still online?

Yep.

No, it uh took a second to unmute my mind.

No worries.

Sorry.

No worries.

Thank you so much.

So we have two passes.

Yes.

Representative Graham.

Would you like to uh I'm gonna vote no?

No.

And then my second pass was Representative Walston.

I'm voting yes for the people.

All right, so we have one, two, three.

I believe I am counting three yeses with the remainders of no.

Yes.

Two.

Yes, yeah, you're right.

Yeah.

Sorry, I just can't count.

My bad.

Thank you, Clerk Johnson.

So that motion to override fans.

Thank you.

Okay, moving on to the next one.

Next ordinance.

LR 3208 ordinance regarding the mayor's veto of ordinance 1321 regulating the sale of dogs and cats and pet stores.

Originally LR 31072.

Is there a motion to tack action on it?

You had taken an uh doing a motion to override the veto.

So to pass the pass the ordinance.

Okay.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, there's a motion and a couple of seconds.

A discussion.

Representative Pavia.

Thank you, President Shaw.

Public, thank you all for coming out here.

I love the signs.

And I love this person's dedication.

You've been holding it the whole time.

I love that.

A lot of strength right there.

Weeks ago, two months ago, this body voted clear and deliberately to ban puppy mills in our city.

It was 35 to 1.

35 to 1 on the 31st board.

We did so because the facts were undeniable.

That these operations prioritize profit over animal welfare and create suffering behind closed doors and lower the standards of care we claim to stand for as a community.

Well, nothing's changed since that vote.

What has changed here is some political pressure?

And that should concern every one of us.

If a vote grounded in ethics, compassion, and public interest can be a band, can be abandoned the moment it becomes inconvenient, then it's not governing.

It's called calculating.

That's hypocrisy.

This override is not a rebuke of the mayor.

It's a test of our integrity as a whole.

Do we stand by the values we cited when we voted on something?

And when that vote was so popular, again, 35 to 1.

Do we stand by the people who elected us and are here with cool signs?

Or do we retreat now that the cost of doing the right thing has gone up?

Our residents are watching, animal activists are watching.

And most importantly, history is watching.

If we believe banning puppy mills was right then, and it's the right thing to do now.

And if we abandon that belief tonight, let's be honest about why.

Not for politics, not for optics, but for consistency and credibility, our animal friends, and for conscience.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Representative Pavia.

Representative Weinberg.

I've visited these stores here in Stamford.

I've visited these stores in Danbury.

I want to get rid of these of these stores.

I also believe in following the law.

As most people here know, I was the person who voted against this ordinance back in November.

I voted against this ordinance for one reason only, which is I've read both the uh both corporation council's analysis of the law concerning this body concerning Stanford's ability to pass this and and and enforce this ordinance.

I read the assertions by um by others who uh claim that um that we do have the power to pass and enforce this ordinance.

I found their explanations unconvincing.

I found our attorney's um explanation very convincing.

I appreciate everyone's ardor on this subject.

I just cannot get past the legal impediments to the ordinance.

And I worry about the significant financial risks to Stanford's taxpayers if we override the mayor's veto.

I am fully aware that uh a law firm has offered to provide pro bono legal assistance if there is a if the if the city becomes embro, if we pass this ordinance and the city becomes embroiled in a lawsuit.

However, that that pro bono assistance is not going to cover, it's not going to indemnify the city and therefore indemnify our taxpayers against such things as court costs, against such things as recoupment of lost profits, if as I believe would be the case, we lose we lose the law, we lose the lawsuit.

So while I appreciate their willingness to uh advise counsel legally, they are not eliminating the taxpayers' potential potential costs.

So does this mean we just throw up our hands and accept the existence of these of these uh of these pet stores?

Um I believe that is not the case.

There are many things we have been doing that we can continue to do, things that we've stopped doing that we can start doing again.

That will close these part these pet stores in Stamford.

There was a pet store, as many of you know, there was a pet store on Long Ridge Road.

Um, and the reason it closed, the biggest reason why it closed, is because people who felt passionate on this issue protested at that store, and it eventually became economically unfeasible for them to stay in business.

There's a store, as we all probably know, there's a store on Summer Street.

We can do the same.

I uh please, if someone organizes such a protest, please let please notify me when and where I will be there, just as I have attended protests in Danbury when the people in Danbury have notified me of when those when those protests are taking are taking place.

That is different from the blanket prohibition that has previously gone before the state legislature, as I understand.

Um we can we can support as the mayor has done, as people in this audience have done, as frankly my wife and I have done.

We can support the construction of Stamford's new animal shelter.

Uh there are people here in this audience who I know who I know vo who I know volunteer at this at the animal shelter.

I salute them for doing that.

I've promoted the animal shelter and SASA, the organization that's raising funds to supplement the city's contributions for the animal shelter.

I'm actually, I'm very proud that my social media posts on this subject have actually stimulated additional donations to build to build the um the new animal shelter.

These are some of the things that we can do to rid our city of the pestilence of these stores.

What we should not do, what I urge us not to do is something that is not legal.

And that is the reason why I urge my colleagues to um to fail to pass to sustain the veto and not pass this uh this ordinance.

Thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, representative Weinberg, representative Didalow.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, I'm not really going to be addressing this to the board.

I'm addressing it to the people out in the audience here as well as at home watching on this device.

Um I'm happy that you're here, and I'm happy that you are participating in your local government.

And it makes me overjoyed.

Um I want you to know how myself especially, but also a lot of our board members have considered this ordinance, especially the new members of the board that have recently come on.

Um, I read the corporate council, I reached out to Mayor Simmons, I went through.

Um, I also reached out and I'm wondering if we were able to get a retainer from the pro bono, because yes, that's hard going and juggling the fact that the city may get sued.

Um I was going and thinking about how to term what this will be.

I classified it and people will disagree as a gamble.

And there is a gamble that no one will sue the city.

And that would be awesome that the publicity, they call the bluff and we pass it.

And I think for a lot of you people in the audience at home that are sitting here, that bluff is something you're willing to take, and I find that admirable.

And I want you to know that I would speak for the board here that we find that admirable.

Okay.

Personally, I cannot call that bluff.

Okay.

And that sucks.

And I want you to know that that sucks.

Okay.

And I hope you disagree with me, but I also hope that you understand that as a new member, as someone coming on that wasn't here, and I see these signs and I see them waving, and I've gone through and thought about it.

I'm not willing to gamble that.

I can't take that.

However, I am hoping that you're able to go through and that I'll be there when you go and you take that gamble up at the state legislature, and I would be there.

And I'll be there to support you there.

And you can disagree with me on that, and I respectfully hope that you disagree with me on that.

Um, but personally, I can't take that gamble.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, representative Diddle, representative prize.

Thank you, Madam President.

I wasn't going to speak on this, but uh something keeps on coming uh again and again to the forefront of my mind as I uh I listen to everyone uh considered opinions, uh, and that's the word if.

If we get sued, if we lose, those are ifs, and this is a fight that I'm willing to fight because this is important.

And yes, there is a risk that we end up in court, and yes, there is a risk that we end up losing.

This is a fight worth fighting.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, representative price, representative campbrilli.

Thank you, madam president.

This is not a question about the ordinance's legal standing at this point.

Ramiya, Eric, Maureen, Dan, all of us knew the opinion of corporation counsel when we voted yes.

Nothing has changed since then.

The facts are the same, the arguments are the same.

The only thing that has changed is political pressure.

Uh my colleague, Representative Pavia, I think put his finger on what the the veto means for both this ordinance and the tree ordinance.

Political pressure.

We voted for this ordinance because the reward outweighed the risk.

We had conflicting legal opinions.

We have the humane society of the United States stating unequivocally that we do have the authority and offering to represent represent us for free of charge.

We also have the National Lawyers Guild stating in their professional opinion that this board has the power to act.

The state of Connecticut has turned a blind eye.

It has not intervened.

It has not preempted us.

It has not acted.

Knowing all of that, the 31st board, after working on solutions for six years, voted knowingly to pass this ordinance, understanding it might be challenged because it was the right thing to do, and because our constituents in droves came out and begged us to.

As Mahatma Gandhi said, the greatest of a nation of its more is its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats animals.

Stanford and the 345 representatives who voted yes showed exactly what their moral compass is when we passed this ordinance.

We were Democrats and Republicans, both sides of the Democratic uh party, by the way.

And although we serve a small city, make no mistake, what we do here is not small.

It will affect the rest of the state and other states, especially with New York banning all puppy mill stores.

They're definitely coming north.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg understood this deeply.

Her strategy for advancing justice was not to wait for permission.

It was to legislate and litigate and to force clarity.

That's what we're asking this board to do.

Force clarity.

She understood that progress often begins when legislators act courageously and allow the courts to respond.

That is exactly what Stanford did when it voted yes.

Let us be clear about the legal landscape.

We have three opinions before us.

The 30th and the 31st board debated this at length.

We heard hours of testimony.

We weighed the risks carefully.

And after all of that, the 31st board voted 35 to 1 to pass this ordinance.

We did not do this in a vacuum.

We received over 200 letters urging passage.

Since the veto, we have received over 150 additional emails asking us to override the veto.

Corporation counsel provides advisory opinions.

Those opinions are not binding law and they do not replace judicial review.

The board is a co-equal branch of government with both the authority and the responsibility to exercise independent legislative judgment.

And unlike the mayor, we do not force we do not face the same political pressure.

We are a volunteer board.

Our obligation is not political convenience, it is principle.

We have been here before.

In the lifetime fitness case, this board was advised by legal counsel, by corporation counsel that it would lose.

It chose to proceed anyway.

It won at trial and it won again on appeal.

That history alone shows why advisory opinions, while important, and I respect them, are not the end all.

Ask yourselves, especially those of you who are new to the board.

Did you run because you wanted your time here to matter?

Because you are passionate, because you believe in democratic values, that they should be lived and not just spoken.

We are Democrats.

We believe this was we believe this was right when we voted for it.

Nothing has changed.

And I owe I I ask you to please vote yes to this ordinance.

Our taxpayers are here.

So we've really done every single thing that we could.

We passed this or this ordinance to clarify to get clarity on the law from the only uh voice that could actually clarify it, and that is the courts.

And I yield.

Thank you, Representative Camparelli.

I have Representative McEwen, Representative Delacruz, and then Representative Goldberg, and then I'll add you.

Go ahead, Representative.

Thank you, President Shaw.

I'd like to begin my comments by speaking to the fact that I'm a big supporter of animals generally.

And this evening, the comments I've heard from the public and otherwise, I haven't heard any disagreement as to the value of this ordinance or the urgency of the issue it looks to solve.

That being said, I would caution the board generally that it is important to give strong deference and heed to the advice of its counsel um, specifically because when we seek to legislate areas that are knowingly unlawful for us to do so, we erode the authority and reputation of this board.

If we're passing laws that we know are unlawful, who are we to require the citizens of Stanford to obey them if we ourselves can't obey the law as written?

That being said, I also think where areas of law that are unclear, it becomes a political question as to whether or not it is worth the fight.

Uh, and that's a decision that this body should make, whether or not it is worth the fight in an area where it is unclear.

That being said, I after having taken strong deference to corporation council's opinion.

I'm of the opinion that their reasonable minds can differ as to whether or not we are preempted by state law on this specific issue.

And as a result, I'll be voting in favor of passing this ordinance as written.

Um, however, I do so with again the caution that going forward we do not make a practice generally of disagreeing uh with the findings of our legislator, it seems our corporation council.

Um I simply don't think it's appropriate for us to decide what opinions we like and what we don't like.

Uh and I think that sets a dangerous precedent that may impact an issue that is less clear as to its value.

Uh so with that being said, I am supportive.

Um, and with that I yield.

Thank you, Representative McHugh and Representative Delacruz.

Thank you, uh President Shaw.

Uh first, I want to address the fear of being sued.

That turns the city into a toothless tiger.

We telegraph, oh, we're afraid of being sued.

Any entity can try to do whatever they shouldn't.

Oh, don't worry about it.

The city is afraid of being sued.

And as and as far as legal opinions, there have been legal opinions that have been reversed.

And some of you are new on the board, but I'm going back maybe seven or so years ago, where the zoning board approved the lifetime fitness country club in one of the high ridge office parks.

The community surrounding that area was so against it that they actually followed the charter.

Uh presented a petition.

And the answer advice from corporation council is that the board should not attempt to reverse the zoning board decision.

We reverse the zoning board decision according to the charter.

And the developer sued us.

Corporation council having advised against our action, said we have to get you an outside lawyer.

To make the story short.

The developer appealed.

We won on appeal.

Finally, it went to the state supreme court.

And the Supreme Court validated the zoning board of reps decision.

We had the courage to stand for our constituents and fight the fight.

Now, I'm in support of the override based on the following considerations.

The legal opinion on preemption is flawed.

Both law officers' legal opinions are flawed with inferences not permitted by statute section one-2C, the plain language rule, which states extra textual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered.

The opinion has several extra textual assumptions.

The opinion asserts that the state has enacted statutes covering animals that implies that the state has preempted the field, the field.

That is exactly what the plain language rule prohibits.

Had the state intended to preempt the field, it would have amended section seven one-148 of the municipal powers act below.

I have the act below that references animal cruelty.

Essentially, the Municipal Powers Act in section the animals states, this is the power given to us.

Regulate and prohibit the going at large of dogs and other animals in the street and public places of the municipality, and prevent animal cruelty.

That's a power that is granted to us.

If the state had intended to preempt the field, it would have amended the Municipal Powers Act to remove that reference, that power.

Thinking about this and all the hundreds of emails that we got in support of this ordinance, not a single one against it, makes me think about who do we represent.

We got hundreds of original original passionate emails, each in its own way advocating for the ordinance and the overrides, posed me a dilemma.

Who do I represent?

Our constituents or some other entity.

I resolved that I represent the constituents.

Thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Delacruz, Representative Goldberg.

Uh, thank you.

I just wanted to make a small correction to the record.

So actually, Representative Weinberg voted against this, and I abstained.

I had originally planned to vote against it at the last moment.

Um the legal question came up, and I was in flux, and I articulated that at the time.

Um since then, I've had a chance to do the research on the legal opinion.

And I, you know, uh I wish I had voted against this with I wish I'd had the courage to go with my conviction and vote against this with Representative Weinberg, because the fact of the matter is we're a country of laws.

Our legal counsel has told us that the state has supremacy here.

So if you're gonna follow the law, you're gonna not you're not gonna override the veto.

What I suggest to you that we all do is modify our behaviors.

If you want, as Representative Weinberg has pointed out, don't buy from puppy mills, you know, protest puppy mills.

Put the energy that we're gonna spend defending, I'm sure the lawsuit that's coming, into uh into talking to our legislators and attempting to um convince the state legislature that they need to give us this authority cleanly.

I'm happy that everyone's passionate about this issue, but the way you're going about solving the problem is the wrong way.

Focus on the solution, not on the emotion.

Thank you, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Goldberg, Representative Graham, uh, Representative Finkel.

I see your hand, I'll I'll call you in uh after a couple of people.

Representative Graham.

You have to thank you, Chair Shaw.

Um I just want to say, in my opinion, animal cruelty is not just uh incurred with by legal pet stores or puppy mills, but we have illegal kennels that produce the majority of the puppies and and dogs in the state of Connecticut.

Um the illegal kennels are people who are breeding their their pets at home.

I wish this language would have included that.

Um and I feel like um it's not gonna be as effective as it should be if we're only focusing on pet stores, because I didn't know there was a pet store in Summer Street.

I think that's just a grooming store.

I don't see any pet stores too much in Stanford, but I do know that there are people who are uh obtaining kennel licensing and they're breeding dogs, and whether they're doing it in a safe and kind manner, I don't know.

Now I'm not a dog lover, but I am compassionate, and I will be voting to overturn the veto just as a vote of solidarity with Karen, and I believe that the dogs should be treated in a more humane um setting, but we have to also look that for the state for legislation because these pet stores and these uh out out of state breeders are not the problem.

It's the people who are or are definitely breeding their dogs at home and selling them, and it's it's a known fact in Connecticut and in the majority of the big cities, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Graham.

Representative Walton.

I would like to start off and say nothing can stop an idea whose time has come.

Time is up now for these puppy mills.

I'm going to give you my overview.

I look at the female dogs in these puppy mills being they're being raped, forced to have babies or puppies, they're sick as a dog, mother dogs, but they're sick.

And it's nothing, you know, they're living, they're putting out these beautiful puppies, they're going to beautiful homes, but they're stuck, stuck, producing, producing, producing to their insides of no good.

I'm a dog lover.

My carapoo, she's gone, and I found her on a church step in a dirty, dirty, stinky bag.

Love the love that girl.

So I always will tell people I like an older dog, go to the dog pound, find you a dog.

You want a dog or an animal, go to the dog pound.

And again, I wanted to start for the record that I have read your emails, my constituents, and I will stand with you again.

So I will be overriding the veto for the strength of the constituents and also to save some female dogs.

Thank you.

Thank you to President of Walston.

Representative Finkel.

The floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam President.

We've talked about that we're a country of laws.

And in 2019, there was an opinion that was given to the Board of Representatives at that time.

And that board decided that they did not have the power to pass an ordinance.

So they passed the resolution.

In 2025, nothing changed.

And the fact that nothing is changed, except for the fact that the board at that time decided to ignore the information from legal counsel.

As the lawmakers of this city, we want everybody in the city to follow the laws of the city.

So we should follow the law.

And the emails that we have received.

From Weathersfield.

What that tells me is there are a lot of people in this state that feel the way we do.

And let's do it the right way.

Let's have people all around the state notify their representatives in the state and get the authority and the local municipality to be able to make this type of ordinance and do it legally.

And I yield.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Finkel.

Any other discussion?

Majority Leader Morst.

Thank you, Madam President.

I agree with everybody holding a sign up there.

I have a dog.

He's an 85-pound labradoodle, and he's gorgeous.

I have a cat as well.

Puppy Mills are an absolute disgrace, and all of us want them to find no harbor for business in Stanford.

Ultimately.

And under home rule, we can only enact legislation that is local, that is local to the town.

If it of it is if it is of a statewide concern, we don't have the authority under home rule to do that.

And clearly, if by nothing more than the evidence of the uh number of towns, Representative Finkel just uh outlined that we've got plenty of input from.

This is clearly larger than a Stanford issue.

But this is not an issue purely of local concern.

In general, when a local charter provision conflicts with state statute, the courts have to undertake a statewide versus local concern analysis.

And this would not pass that.

If we take a look at the home rule and local control report from the Connecticut Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, which is a state agency, we look at page six of 10, paragraphs four and five.

A statutory provision, a prohibition against enactment.

In other words, when it comes to the governance of municipalities' silence on an issue is not authority.

Connecticun governments are authorized only to conduct their affairs when expressly granted the right to do so by the General Assembly.

There are some number of representatives in our General Assembly who have brought bills forward because they believe that in the absence of the state giving us express permission, that we don't have the authority.

That's why they felt it important twice in the last five years to introduce bills specifically saying we want municipalities to have the authority to do this.

With respect to 7-148 and cruelty to animals, again, I it's abhorrent.

But if a local pet shop it has animals for sale and is treating them well, we can't hold them responsible for animal cruelty if they didn't actually express cruelty, cruel behavior to the animal under state law.

So we don't have the authority to do that as well.

When state legislation finally does get passed, we should have an ordinance ready to go the next day, because we absolutely must do this, but only when we have the state authority to do so.

The comparison to the case uh referred to earlier, that was about something that this board already had the legal authority to do, and our method of doing it was questioned, and legal opinion said that we would not win, and we did.

But this is different.

We don't have the legal authority to do it, and we are challenging the state, and we're challenging outside businesses to sue us.

Now, I agree with Representative Della Cruz that we should not appear like a toothless tiger.

However, as the lawmakers of the city and representatives, we do have an obligation to be stewards of taxpayers' money.

We have been offered legal support from outside groups, and for that I am grateful.

But with that offer did not come any kind of contract or guarantee that says they will they will represent us pro bono for as long as as many cases as may come forward last, that they can't just back out in the middle.

And what happens, given that there have been no cases brought by any of brought in any of the other 168 municipalities in Connecticut, there's no case law on which to base uh the opinion that we would be successful or not in a lawsuit.

We would be the test.

Let's say we were defended and and lost the case.

Are our taxpaypayers indemnified for whatever damages we may be saddled with?

I don't see that in the offer as well.

So it doesn't, it is heartwarming, it is empowering to a certain extent that we have been that organizations are willing to stand with us, but we still have an obligation to the taxpayers.

I voted in favor of this item.

That was my message to the state to get their act together and ban these sales or grant municipalities like Stanford the authority to do so.

I cast that vote under the belief that it would be vetoed.

I had no idea whether or not it would be, but I I expected it would be, and it was.

But now that we are faced with actually enacting something that is not legal, we do not have the express authority from the state under home rule.

I can't vote to enact it.

But that's not the end of this either.

We have to get our state representatives to put something forward and put something forward immediately, and let the fact that this ordinance came forward and was passed and is now garnering a tremendous amount of attention because of the veto and because of our process as a result.

We have brought it to their attention, hopefully, with all this, and we need to push for more.

So the question of how we stop this from being a practice in uh the the sales of these animals in Stanford, how do we stop that?

It lies with the state, and we have to join together and fight it at the state level.

We don't have the authority to pass an ordinance here.

I'll yield for now.

Thank you.

Thank you, Majority Morse representative.

Um, had I known I'd have to go after Eric, maybe I wouldn't have said anything.

But um just two points as I wrestle with this.

It's uh I read in the Connecticut examiner that there really is no explicit state statute that bars municipalities from regulating the commercial sale of animals, so home rule powers allow Stanford to act.

Now I know there's a lawyers here and other people that have other opinions, and in the last veto, I had asked a question, but nobody really answered it.

I don't know if anybody can speak to it or answer this one.

I just want to know if that's right.

And the second point is CBS News reported that similar municipal bans around the country argue that uh if this were clearly illegal, those ordinances would also be vulnerable, yet they have stood suggesting litigation risk is being overstated.

So I don't know how real this fear is that we're gonna be sued.

Is it possible?

Sure, but is it realistic based on what other municipalities have done with the similar ordinance?

Not really.

So those are just two questions I have.

Any feedback is appreciated.

Thank you.

And I love the signs too.

Yes.

So um, Representative Field, just for future purposes, if you have a question directed to somebody, you can ask that question through me to either the parliamentarian or somebody else.

So if you'd like the either majority leader or the parliamentarian to answer the question, we can do so.

Would you like an answer to uh parliamentarian or majority leader, please?

Apologies, can you repeat the the question?

Oh, geez.

The first question is that apparently there is no explicit state statue that bars municipalities from regulating the commercial sale of animals, so home rule powers allow Stanford to act.

So in response to that question, I think that it would be bordering on legal advice for me to advise as to whether or not there is a statute that is responsive to your question.

So unfortunately, I think that I would have to either direct you to to your own research or to the opinion of the attorneys of the board.

I don't think it'll be appropriate in my role as parliamentarian to give you that answer.

Okay.

So I apologize.

Majority Linda Morsa, did you have a comment or response?

Yeah.

Um, under home rule, again, home rule gives municipalities the right to uh govern themselves by choosing the form of government they have.

We have a strong mayor government with a legislature.

We can um set our zoning laws, we can amend our charter, as I said earlier on the previous item, uh, without interference by or or interference from the state or permission from the state to do these things.

However, the powers that we have on our own under home rule are limited.

This is a things that are not granted under home rule are still only our within our purview if they are expressly granted.

And the absence of a grant absence of that permission, uh silence on the issue is not tacit permission under the law.

So, unless it is expressly granted by the state, and in this case, the state has by its actions committed to occupying the legal space.

Uh uh preempted, it has preempted us from acting because they have uh they have regulated dogs and cats with certain in certain aspects.

They have delegated the powers uh of of this to the Department of Agriculture.

So they have taken actions that indicate they are preempting municipalities from going any further.

So in the absence of them specifically saying in the absence of a bill in Hartford being passed that gives us that authority, we do not have it.

So this is so if if there's no explicit state statue that bars us from regulating that, you're saying home rule powers do not allow Stanford to act.

What we have is home rule on top of Dylan's rule.

Dylan's rule says that municipalities only have the powers expressly granted to them.

Which one which one supersedes the other?

Dylan's rule is first.

Okay.

And it means that we would not be able to amend our charter without the state legislator approving legislature approving it.

We wouldn't be able to set zoning laws without the state legislature approving it.

Home rule sits after Dylan.

Okay.

And that's what gives the municipalities the power to do the things that we are allowed to do under home rule.

But anything beyond home rule and how we conduct our government, those powers still need to be expressly given to us.

And parliamentarian, you agree with this.

I mean, I'm just asking.

Representative, you can't go back and forth like that.

So let's just finish the conversation.

And if if parliamentarian would like to speak again, he will.

Is that okay with you?

Are you good?

Thank you.

Would you like to speak?

I know I have you, Representative PV.

I've not forgotten about you.

Thank you, President.

To Representative Field through you.

Was I recognized?

I'm sorry.

Sorry, I and I recognized Representative McHewin for now.

Oh, okay.

I got you.

I got you on the apologies.

So I just wanted to make a clarifying point.

And I also want to give a disclaimer you may or may not have heard before, though I am an attorney, I'm not the board's attorney.

And I think it's important to make that distinction.

Uh um representative uh field um with respect to some of your questions and with respect to the comments from majority leader Morrison.

I wish to clarify at least my personal opinion and my personal understanding of the the legal question at the very least.

Specifically, in my opinion, I think that municipalities and state uh in Connecticut uh are entities of of limited jurisdiction that are empowered to act based on express grants of authority.

That being said, I think that on this specific issue, section 7148 C7D 2 of the Connecticut General Statutes explicitly grants to municipalities the authority to regulate and prohibit the keeping of wild or domestic animals, including reptiles within the municipal limits or portion thereof.

I don't see any reason why that wouldn't allow us to prohibit the keeping of animals for the purpose of sale, or a subset of that being cats or dogs.

So to that point, the question then becomes, and this is the question that specifically our legislative council has given an opinion on whether or not that express authority has been limited by preemption from some other state law.

Council is of the opinion that the answer to that question is yes, that state law otherwise, which specifically a licensing scheme, and I'm not gonna go into the minutiae of their opinion, but they are of the opinion that the licensing of the sale of pets and dogs does conflict with the purpose of this ordinance and therefore would preempt or trump it, for example, as to whether or not you agree with that, that's up to you.

But that is the question in my mind.

Uh, the legal question here is simply whether or not we are preempted from using authorities that are in fact explicitly granted to us, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative McCunan.

Uh we'll go to Representative Pavia next.

Uh and David Cruz, do you have you on the list of pavia, uh, Representative Camparelli, and then back to you.

That's all right.

Thank you very much.

Um, I there's a lot of great passion in here, and I understand the arguments about it being against um state law, but I I just would say, friends, you're gonna hear a lot of political stuff like this Dylan's law and this whatever the like point nine seven thing.

It it doesn't mean anything.

When they were when they were trying to uh um uh the Jim Crow laws were overturned because of a municipality, okay.

They were able New York City sued New York State in 2024 to um to put limits on um tobacco sales and fade them out.

These are municipalities, there's a dozens more.

Um so if we want to be these, I keep hearing be these Democrats tonight.

We're these Democrats.

Well, if you ask anybody in like TV right now, I suggest Bill Maher or Daily Show people, like they're all saying we need to grow a pair, right?

Look at the people here, they're here with these signs.

We all know that this is wrong with what was happening to animals here.

We all know that.

We're trying to find any loophole, any any loophole, whether again it's Dylan's law, it's Steven's law, or it's anything.

Let's just do the right thing.

Pretend like uh Michelle Lachlan is singing in the eyes of the angel behind me talking right now.

You know, this is a common sense one, guys.

State law has been overridden by municipality for again.

It's what ended the Jim Crow laws.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Pavia, representative Camporelli for the second time.

And then representative Del Cruz, you're next.

So uh through you to Representative Field, the the law is ambiguous.

It's not it's not set in stone, and the only way for us to force this is to bring it to a court.

And that is that is what we decided to do after years and years of doing every other thing that we could, including sending a resolution to the state um asking them to make a judgment call on this.

Um Ruth Bader Ginsburg did most of her work by forcing issues like this, just like what Representative Pavia just said, um and and sending them to the court because the law was not definitive, it wasn't clarified.

And so I I just think that we decided that the small risk that was involved, because let's face it, pet co smart, none of these big companies even sell animals anymore.

So who's gonna sue us really?

Is the governor of the state of Connecticut gonna sue us?

I don't think so.

Maybe maybe if we pass this, if we vote to override, it forces also the state to protect us by making the law clearer so that we don't get to the point of a court case.

That's what I'm hoping.

I'm hoping that this forces really forces the state to take action and and legislate on this because we put we sent them a resolution the last session, they didn't they didn't take it up, they just didn't take it up, and I yield.

Thank you.

Um before I go second time to you, uh Deputy Majority Pollock for the first time.

Thank you.

Um I I actually was going to refrain from speaking because uh uh there's a lot of points that have been made.

Um I keep coming back to we need to do what's right, and even though it's hard, and honestly, the hardest thing in the world for me is to support the veto.

That's what's hard here, and I think that's what most of us are being presented with.

Again, I I don't have to advocate my passion for animals.

Uh I walk the walk, volunteered my whole life, animal rescue sanctuaries.

I have three animals at home that I've rescued off of the streets.

I I'm very passionate.

That's what is so hard about this.

And it was hard, I'm sure, for the mayor to veto this ordinance.

All of this is hard.

And I do know that there's state representatives who are changing their bill and putting it forward.

And I want to put all of our efforts into doing what we all want to do is get the law changed.

Um I commend my colleagues who have worked very hard at the city level getting things done.

I don't see them here today, but I was gonna call on them to give examples.

We have prevented, I want to bring everybody in this room over there, um, lucky dog, everybody is involved.

I think if we combine our efforts, and it doesn't have to be a this side or that side and create this moral dilemma.

Uh this is very, very difficult.

And I would like to do everything I possibly can, so I will yield the floor, but I just want to say I agree with Representative Finkel, Morrison, Goldberg Didlow, and others with not overturning the veto and supporting the mayor at the state level and all of our state legislators.

Thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Polak.

Um, I'm gonna recognize you in a minute, uh, Representative Goldberg.

I want people to be mindful it's 1045, and we haven't even started our board business.

So I know it's a very passionate subject, but please all keep it brief.

Thank you.

Representative Goldberg.

Thank you.

Uh, this would be extremely brief.

Um one of my colleagues just said who's gonna sue us, is it the governor?

I'd just like to remind everybody of what uh Dana Lee, I believe was the attorney that was speaking at the committee that undertook this, and he said he had been told explicitly by the Secretary of Agriculture's lawyer that if we adopt this, they will sue us.

So I I don't think it's a matter of if we're gonna get sued.

The the the Secretary of Agriculture has already said you passed this, we're gonna sue you because we think you're treading in our territory.

So I don't know, you know, I I think we know exactly who's gonna sue us.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Goldberg, Representative Delacruz.

Uh thank you, President Shaw.

Uh to answer the question as to whether we have the power to do this.

Rayo Representative quoted a section from the municipal powers act.

And I earlier quoted another section of the Municipal Powers Act that gives our board by ordinance the power to in Section D regulate and prohibit the going at large of dogs and other animals in the street and public places of the municipality and prevent cruelty to animals.

I mean that is as clear as it can be.

And the fact that the state did not amend the municipal powers act to remove that section or the section that was quoted earlier, says that they did not intend to preempt the field.

How can there be any question as to whether we have that power or not?

It's right there on the act.

During the legislative and rules committee meeting, I ask for language in any relevant state statute that included preemption language, as required by the plain language rule, section one-2 Z.

None was provided.

No state statute that included preemptive preemption language could be provided.

We have received two external legal opinions that counter the law office legal opinions on preemption.

One from a major international law firm, so confident in their opinion that it has offered to provide pro bono defense, should the city be challenged in court by any entity.

There can be no question that the municipal powers act has given the city that authority.

Thank you, President Shaw.

And let me just add that as has been stated before, passing this ordinance will prompt us representative majority leader Morrison mentioned, may finally prompt the state to pass it.

Our state representative, Jake Jonathan Jacobson, is on record saying that they will reintroduce the bill and by us passing this ordinance, we'll give them the support they need to act.

Thank you, President Shaw, and I yield.

Thank you.

Um Representative Delacruz.

Representative Evans, did you have your hand up?

Yes.

Okay, go ahead.

I'd like to make a motion that we vote on LR 32008 ordinance regarding the mayor's view of ordinance 1321.

Can we please put this to a vote?

So there is already a motion and there's discussion, but we are end of the discussion, so we are going to go forward and vote on it.

Okay, seeing no other discussion, let's take it to uh roll call ward and Ms.

Montawa, will you pull up the Excel?

And it is the same type of motion that we did and the way we uh you want to change it to the is that okay.

Okay, so similarly, if you are in support of the ordinary uh if you are if you want to override the veto, you vote.

Yes, and if you are not in favor of overriding the veto, you would no.

All right.

So, John.

Right, uh roll call vote on the question at hand.

I'll start with Representative Adams.

Sorry, can you read the question?

Uh yes, so this is uh a motion uh at hand in order to approve the ordinance related to the uh the banning of the pet sales.

Um and so in it sorry.

Over the Murray.

And if you are in favor of letting the veto stand, you would vote no.

Uh and with that, um representative adams.

No.

No.

Uh representative Beckham.

Yes.

Representative blank.

Yes.

Representative Bouchard.

No.

Uh Representative Boudreau.

Yes.

Representative Bradford.

Representative Camporelli.

Yes.

Representative Daily Cruz.

Yes.

Uh Representative Didalow.

Pass.

Representative Dorsey.

Yes.

Representative Fields.

Yes.

Representative Finkel.

No.

Representative Gardiner.

No.

Representative Gilbride, are you on the call?

Question of privilege.

She's messaging that she needs to be escalated to vote.

Oh.

Barbara or Sheila, are you able to end with that?

All right, we'll we'll circle back to you, Representative Gilbride.

Um was that her voice?

All right, we'll circle back to you, Representative Gilbride.

Uh Representative Goldberg?

No.

Representative Graham.

Yes.

Representative Gross.

No.

Representative Hill?

A yes would be to overturn the veto.

A no would be to let the veto stand.

Representative Hughes.

Yes.

Representative Hyatt.

No.

I myself vote no.

Representative LePine.

Yes.

Representative McKeon.

Yes.

Majority Leader Morrison.

No.

Representative Pavia.

Yeah.

Representative Politia.

Yes.

No.

Representative Price?

Yes.

Representative Sloss.

Yes.

Deputy Majority Leader Sanford?

No.

President Shaw?

No.

Representative Shore?

No.

Representative Stone.

No.

Representative Sylvestri.

No.

Representative Boston.

Yes, for the people.

Representative Weathers.

Representative Weinberg?

No.

Representative Weirs?

No.

Representative Yeager.

No.

And Representative Zachary?

No.

We will circle back to the passes.

We have Representative Didalo first.

No.

And then Representative Gilbright, are you able to vote?

He needs to unmute.

Barbara, are you able to, or Sheila?

Sheila, are you?

She she's a presenter, but she needs to unmute herself now.

Kara is at you.

All right.

Is it is she allowed to vote over the phone?

All right.

Yeah, put her back, please.

All right.

One second, Karen.

I'm gonna put it to the mic.

Uh all right, Representative Gilbright, how do you vote?

No.

Thank you.

I believe that is all the passes.

So now we shall tally the votes.

I have 16 yeses.

Okay.

I have 16 yeses, and the remainder being no's.

Uh my understanding is that there would needed to be a two-thirds majority of yeses in order to pass, and thus this did not pass.

That's correct.

So the motion to override fail.

Okay.

Okay, moving on to the third veto item ordinance.

A 32.002 ordinance regarding the mayor's veto of ordinance 1326.

Amending chapter six of the Card of Ordinances, authorities, votes, and commissions, 6-123, duties and responsibilities, appointments commission.

Does anyone would like to take an action on this?

Okay, seeing none, we will move on to the next one.

PR32.001 ordinance regarding the mayor's veto of ordinance 1325, amending chapter 231-3, Article 1 of the Court of Ordinances, Resident Use of Vehicles on Beaches and Parkland originally PR31.050.

Does anyone like to take any action on this?

I'd like to take up a discussion on this item.

So are you so are you making a motion to to pass this?

Is that what you're referring to?

Because we have to discuss behalf to motion to you have to make a motion to pass that.

No, no, no.

I don't want to, I don't want to make a motion.

I read it.

I'm good.

Okay.

Thank you, Representative Graham.

Okay, seeing no other hands on this.

I think we are done with the discussion on the ordinances, and we will continue back to our standing committees.

With just for the education of the public, would you explain what just happened for them?

So by not taking it up, what de facto happened?

Um, so we by take not taking any action, it will the mayor's veto stance assist.

Is that good?

Thank you.

Okay, then moving on to the committees.

So the steering committee report, is there a motion to waive steering committee report?

So moved.

Um is that a second?

Second.

Second.

Okay, all in favor of uh uh waving steering, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Any abstentions?

Okay, the standing committee report is vaped.

We will move on to the appointments committee.

Um, co-chair Gardner.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh during our ordinary meeting, we were given an overview of the boards and commissions process by Bridget Folks from the Maz office and Dr.

Paula Russell from the city.

A report was made.

That's all.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Moving on to fiscal committee, co-chair Morrison.

Thank you, Madam President.

The fiscal committee met Monday, December 22nd at 7 p.m.

Hybrid.

We took up the following items.

Item one, F32.001, 107,000, 107,521, additional operate additional appropriation operating budget, OPM purchase order requesting spending authority for prior year purchase orders to carry over several fiscal year 25 purchase orders into fiscal year 26 to maintain continuity of operations.

Funding source is the fund balance, and this was approved on consent 700.

Item two, F32.002 for 1,190,120.

Additional appropriation capital budget.

Project C65200, citywide vehicle replacement and upgrade for the immediate purchase of three rear load refuse trucks and two asphalt hot box machines to reduce costs, improve citizen services, and decrease fix it complaints.

Approved 700.

Item 3, F30.003, a resolution amending the capital budget for fiscal year 2526 by amend by adding an appropriation of 1,190,120 for the citywide vehicle replacement and upgrade and authorizing 1,190,120 in general obligation bonds of the city to meet said appropriation.

This was approved 700.

Item 4, F32.004 for $2.3 million.

Additional appropriation capital budget.

So the committee took no action.

Item 5, F32.005.

The resolution amending the capital budget for fiscal year 25-26, adding an appropriation of $2.3 million for the Pernalane area stormwater infrastructure and authorizing $2.3 million in general obligation bonds of the city to meet said appropriation.

Board of Finance held the item, so our committee took no action.

Item six, F32.006, $500,000.

Additional appropriation capital budget project C22046.

Completion of the Pernalane Area Sanitary Sewers and unforeseen issues that occurred during construction.

Approved 700.

Item 7, F32.007, 250,000.

Additional appropriation capital budget.

Project C 56174.

Citywide signals zoning approval for 800 Long Ridge Road for upgrade to the traffic signal at Long Ridge Road and the site driveway.

Approved 700.

Item 8, F32.008, 1,050,000.

Additional appropriation capital budget.

Project CP4242.

Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation.

Funds will be used to upgrade miscellaneous sewers, manhole frames, and covers.

Approved 700.

Item 9, F32.009, $250,000.

Additional appropriation capital budget.

Project CP 7306.

High Ridge Road and Long Ridge Road sidewalks per the zoning approval for 800 Long Ridge Road.

Approved by Committee 700.

Item 10, F32.010, $15,115.

Additional appropriation grants budget.

Board of Education Intern at the Welcome Center as Customer Service Support.

Located at $11 West North Street for 12 weeks, 30 hours a week at $30 an hour.

Board of Education Services for the Blind will reimburse $130% of the costs.

Approved $700.

Item 11, F-32.011, $37,200.

Additional appropriation operating budget.

City of Stanford's portion of the port security grant.

Approved by Committee 800.

Item 12, F-32.013, 148,800.

Additional appropriation, grant money.

2025 port security grant funds for the police and fire departments, engine replacements, handheld radio enhancements, jet propulsion systems, and anti-exposure and rescue swimmer PPE.

Approved 800.

Item 13, F32.014.

Resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into and sign agreements with the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security for 2025.

Item 14, F32.015, 150,000.

Additional appropriation capital budget.

Project CP400055.

Strawberry Hill Solar Panel Project to complete the photovoltaic installation.

Construction Administration Services and Construction Contingency for potential unforeseen issues.

Approved 800.

Item 15, F-32.016.

Resolution amending the Capital Budget for fiscal year 2526 by adding an appropriation of 150,000 for the Strawberry Hill Solar Panel Project and authorizing $60,000 of general obligation bonds of the city to meet said appropriation.

Approved $0.00.

Item 16, F-32.017, $642,727.

Additional appropriation grants budget for the Department of Health to implement a public health approach to address community gun violence covering program salaries, training, materials, outreach, and administrative cost.

Funding source $100% state funds.

Approved 800.

Item 17, F-32.018.

Resolution authorizing the mayor to sign an agreement with the Connecticut Department of Public Health for Public Health Approach to address community gun violence.

Approved 800.

Item 18, F-32.019 for $600,000.

Additional appropriation grants for Stanford LGP grant funded parent coaching support, including staffing, training, and program services.

Funding source $100% state funds Shine Early Learning Incorporated.

Approved 701.

Item 19, F32.020.

Resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into and sign an agreement with Shine Early Learning Incorporated for School Readiness Programs.

Approved 701.

Item 20, F32.021 for $335,000.

Additional appropriation capital budget.

Westover Solar Panel Project to complete the photovoltaic installation state project $135-0293 PV.

Construction Administration Services and Construction Contingency for potential unforeseen issues.

Approved 800.022.

Resolution amending the capital budget for fiscal year 2526 by adding an appropriation of $335,000 for the Westover Solar Panel Project and authorizing $134,000 of general obligation bonds of the city to meet said appropriation.

Approved 800.023 $6,500.

Additional appropriation grants.

Funding is to support the purchase of non-capital equipment.

Approved 800.

Item 23, F32.024.

Resolution authorizing the mayor to enter into and sign agreements with the Department of Emergency Management and the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security for the regional EMPG Hazmat grant.

Approved 800.

Item 24, F32.025 for 186,400.

Additional appropriation, capital funds, a project C65201, citywide technology replacement and upgrade to expand and upgrade public Wi-Fi at the Lathan Wider Community Center and Boys and Girls Club of Stanford.

Approved 701.

And finally, item 25, F32.027.

Approval of an agreement with high link for IT infrastructure upgrades under RFP 2026.

Approved by committee 800.

And I would like to move the consent agenda consisting of items one through three and six through twenty-five.

Thank you.

Is that a second?

Second.

Okay, since these are all consent agenda items, we tried this.

Any so we'll try this by voice, but do you have a question or anything?

Okay, sorry.

You saw your hand up.

Uh we'll try this by voice board.

All those in favor Mike.

All right.

All those in favor of approving the consent agenda items number one through three and six through twenty-five, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Any abstentions?

Okay.

Those items pass unanimously.

Thank you, Madam President.

That concludes my report.

Thank you, Co-Chared Morsen.

Um the next committee is legislative and rules.

Chair McEwen.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um excuse me.

Um with respect to the legislative and rules committee.

Um we met on December 23rd at approximately 702 p.m.

I considered several items, the first of which is LR32.006 and approval for an agreement with Sustainable Strategies Inc.

for federal lobbying services under FRP number 2025.0281, which was approved by committee 900.

Item 2, LR32.001, approval of an amendment to the Board of Rules to strike out section 3A19 and amend section 3A17 to operations, parks, and recreation, and amend all references of parks and recreation to operations, parks, and recreation in the rules of order.

Excuse me, which was approved by committee uh 540.

Uh, item LR32.002 approval of an amendment to the Board of Representatives rules of order to strike out section 3A11 and 3A113 and amend section 3A112 to housing education and commerce.

Uh amend all references of education and state and commerce to housing education um housing education and state and commerce.

That item was amended uh removing reference to housing um and only merging uh committees uh education and state and commerce, which passed as amended 900.

Item 4, LR 32.003, approval of an amendment of the Board of Rules order through strike out section five, uh rules of related to the rules of procedure, paragraph B55, and replace it with a rule submitted uh that is part of the legislative record.

Uh that rule was that proposal rule was amended uh and approved as amended by the committee 810.

Excuse me.

Um item number five, LR32.004, approval of an ordinance amending section 214-32 of the code of ordinances to allow the city to accept a private road only requiring a petition signed by no less than two-thirds of the owners.

That item uh was recommitted to steering uh 900.

And then finally, item LR 32.005, approval of a resolution, amending the board of rules of order uh to strike out section E3 and replace it with a submitted proposed rule attached to the legislative record.

Uh that was also recommitted by the committee in a vote seven two zero.

And at this time, I would make a motion to add to the consent items LR32.006 for approval and also to recommit LR32.004 and LR32.005 on consent.

Sorry, just a question for the recommitted items.

I don't not I don't know if I can just do it as a consent or should we just do you want me to just do the the consent the LR006 first and then we'll do the I don't so I mean personally I would I would conclude that if these items are on the board's agenda separate from a committee which is our historic practice and they need to be independently disposed of and so the committee's recommendation to recommit these items in my opinion needs to be approved by the board.

Point of order who raised the point of order?

Me.

Yes, representative campaign.

It's the first item.

Oh, it's out of order.

I'm sorry.

No worries.

Okay.

So we will take up the item LR 32006 and LR 32004 and LR 32005 as consent agenda items.

Which one?

Sorry, hold on.

Okay.

So the so let's do to be simple.

Let's just try to do this first.

LR th so we're just going to uh there's a motion to um move LR 32006.

It's on the consent agenda.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

Um since it's a consent agenda, let's try with this by voice word.

All in favor of approving item LR 32006, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

So that passes unanimously.

Okay.

So now we will go to LR 32004.

So this is a motion to recommit to steer uh to steering.

Um is there a second for this item?

Second.

Sorry, you would like to move both LR 32004 and 005 to re recommit both of those to steering.

Is that correct?

Okay.

So is that is that a second for those?

Second.

Okay.

Any discussion?

Not seeing none.

Let's try this by voice board.

All in favor of recommitting L R 32004 and L R 32005, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Okay.

So those two items are recommitted to steering.

Okay.

Uh Madam President, at this time, I'd like to make a motion uh for the approval of item LR 32.001.

Second.

Okay, so there is a motion to approve L R 32001, and there is a second.

Um any discussion on this.

Um yes.

Um go ahead.

Yeah.

He's muted.

Can you unmute yourself?

Sorry.

Um I'd like to make a motion to send this back to committee.

If that's possible.

Are you making a motion for LR 30201 to send it back to committee?

Okay.

Is that a second?

I'll second.

Any discussion?

Yeah.

Um I think these are hold on, representative Adams, go ahead, President Weinberg.

Question for the parliamentarian.

Uh, does uh representative Adams' motion to recommit this item supersede the motion that was made to uh uh to bring it to the floor.

It was made in second to bring it to the floor.

Uh I would say yes.

I think if the motion is proper.

Um okay.

Um any discussion on the motion to recommit.

Yes.

Um I think these are two very important um committee.

Um and I think operation is have been busy um committee.

There was and um I think they deserve to be um separated.

Um like the young lady was speaking about the polks and the reval and uh to redo one of the parks and holding the green space and how public hearing.

I I think they deserve to be um um separated and deserve to give the community the time to talk and discuss um the item to come before those committee.

I mean I know I heard some people say something about we didn't get any um item representative Adams.

I'm a little confused.

Are you speaking to recommit?

Are you your reasons are to recommit or to because it's a little confusing to me?

But the reason this motion is to recommit, so I would like you to keep your discussion on whether why you wanted recommitted.

Oh I like to I would like to recommit because I think these um two um committees need to be separated um because of the amount of items that come through them and they deserve um the time spent um for operation in parks to be separated.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um I would not be in favor of recommitting this to committee.

Um I think that it would be an ineffective use of the committee's time to engage in a discussion that it is literally already had.

Uh we have reported out of committee.

We have had a discussion, we've come to a vote, and we're presenting that recommendation to the board.

If there are disagreements as to the merits of the item, we have that discussion now.

If you think that it should not be merged, vote no.

Recommitting it to committee to then repeat the discussion there to then have another vote to come back to this body to meet seems completely inefficient.

And I yield of order.

Uh if we recommit, can we commit it to operations or does it have to go back to legislative and rules?

It will be going back to legislative and rules.

Representative Sanford.

I have nothing to add other than what Representative McCuan said that there's no point in redoing what we just did.

So I I would not be in favor of recommending this.

Thanks.

Thank you, Representative Pollack.

Uh I will only add one thing because I agree wholeheartedly to that sentiment.

Um the only thing I would add is that it I know that we're trying to do things to test it out, and recommitting it will delay us a whole entire month.

And if these uh combinations of committees don't work, we could discuss it at the next meeting.

Uh I yield.

Thank you, Representative Pollock.

Any other discussion?

Yes, Representative Shore.

Yeah, no, I'm not clear on on any of the parliamentary aspects of this, but uh I do think this warrants a little bit of discussion.

Um this has only been discussed in committee.

And uh, you know, we're talking about the parks.

I mean these are touch points that everybody in the city at some point or other experiences, and I think it warrants uh uh more of a discussion than it's uh that than is occurred so far.

Thank you, representative short representative Goldberg.

Thank you for recognizing me.

I I would just point out that this was uh heavily discussed.

It it only passed five to four, so it was hardly a um uh a glowing endorsement from the committee.

I think the concern is it's 11:30.

We spent a lot of time on other issues tonight.

It seems like to me there is an appetite for a more fulsome discussion on the board.

I mean, uh on the floor of the board.

Um I I am deeply appreciative of the desire of leadership to get this done and to move it forward.

But it seems like to me with a five to four committee vote and the questions I'm hearing.

Maybe we slow this one down a little bit and take it back to committee and let everybody participate so that next time it comes to us, everybody's clear on what's going on.

Just my thoughts.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Goldberg, Representative Graham.

Yeah, I just want to reiterate reiterate with uh Representative Goldberg said.

Um these are two very active committees.

I was on operations and without the parks and rec agenda items, the operations meeting was just as long as this meeting is tonight.

So I can't imagine having both of these committees combined.

So I don't know um how that was um proposed or why uh it was proposed, but nevertheless, um if it doesn't go back to committee, I vote no to uh combine these two committees.

Thanks.

Thank you, Representative Graham.

Any other discussion?

Seeing none, we will take this a roll call ward, and this is just to the motion to recommit.

And if it based on what what the outcome is, we'll go back to the main motion.

But right now it's the motion to recommit.

No question is any item will go to public hearing, or just uh one-time deal.

No, there is no public hearing on this.

This does not require a public hearing.

And the public, there's a couple of people in the public that spoke about it today.

Okay.

Right.

This is a roll call vote specifically on the question of recommitting this uh back to LNR.

Uh Representative Adams.

Yes.

Representative Beckham.

Yes.

Sorry?

Yes.

Thank you.

Uh Representative Blank.

Oh.

Uh Representative Bouchard.

Yes.

Representative Boudreau.

No.

Representative Bradford.

Representative Camparelli.

Yes.

Representative Dale Cruz.

Mike was a no.

Yes.

Sorry.

Can we time it all the time out while Barbara gets cowed out?

Ah, sorry.

Apologies.

I do not watch the screen.

I do my own written notes.

Is it um can we can we submit uh Rami and I's written notes for the sake of this one?

All right.

Uh in the May address a question of the parliamentarian.

Yeah.

Uh is there any rule saying we can't use mine and Rami's written notes for the purpose of boonswork?

All right, let's do that.

You want to barring any objections.

Beautiful.

Uh Representative Dillow.

No.

Representative Dorsey.

I abstain.

Uh Representative Fields.

Yes.

Representative Finkel.

No.

Representative Gardner.

No.

Um Representative Gilbride, are you on the call?

If not, you can I am good.

I my answer is a no.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Representative.

Representative Goldberg.

Uh pass for the moment.

Representative Graham.

Yes.

Representative Gross.

No.

Representative Hill.

No.

Representative Hughes?

No.

Representative Hyatt?

No.

I myself am a no.

Representative LePine?

Yes.

Representative McKeon?

No.

Sorry, no.

No.

Majority Leader Morrison.

No.

Representative Pabia, are you on the call?

I don't believe so.

Uh we will circle back.

Representative Pleecia.

No.

Deputy Majority Leader Pollock?

No.

Representative Price?

No.

Representative Salas.

No.

Representative Sanford.

Sorry, Deputy Majority Leader Stanford.

No.

Represent Shaw.

No.

Sorry.

Representative Shore.

Yes.

Representative Stone.

No.

Representative Sylvestre.

No.

Representative Walston.

Are you on the call?

Yes.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay.

How do you vote, Representative Walston?

Yes.

All right.

Thank you.

Representative Weathers.

No.

Representative Weinberg.

No.

Representative Weir.

No.

Representative Yeager?

No.

And Representative Zachary.

No.

No.

All right.

Oh, sorry.

Right.

Representative Beckham.

Would you like to vote?

No.

No.

No is the answer.

Okay.

Representative Goldberg.

No.

Representative Pavia, just confirming you are still not on the call.

Don't believe so.

And I believe that is all the passes.

All right.

Nine.

Nine.

And I have nine yeses.

Yeah, that uh.

All right.

Uh so we have nine yeses uh with the the remainder no's.

Uh let me two, three, and no up four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twenty, third.

I have twenty-eight no's twenty-eight no's nine yes that's one.

Correct.

So the motion to the motion to sound I'll repeat this again.

Twenty-eight no's nine yes as one abstention, so the motion to recommit fails.

So now we are back to the main motion to approve this item.

Um is that our discussion on the main motion?

Representative Sanford.

Yeah, thank you, madam president.

Um, I've heard a lot of discussion about it's it's too big to handle with two different committees, parks, rec operations.

There's there's other big committees too.

There's fiscal that handles a whole bunch of items.

I I I appreciate everyone's concern with my ability to handle an operations item and a parks and rec item.

But the reason we're doing it is because it makes sense by how the city is aligned and how we can operate.

For instance, if you have park police that operate in the parks, but they report up to operations.

We don't want director Murray in there.

We want Director Canonis instead of inviting both of them to do their two different meetings, we can accomplish everything in the same meeting.

All right.

So we're we're getting more done and more value out of the meetings because we have all the important people that need to be there at the same meeting as opposed to breaking it up over the course of weeks or months or of something of a holiday, and you have to delay it.

So you can get all the people you need in one setting and run the meeting and get things done.

Now, the way I operate, and I'm I know it gets late, but we're not gonna have 55 review items over the course of four years.

So our meetings are gonna become more efficient and more effective because we're gonna make sure that we're getting stuff done by having all the important people there and not having to invite different people to a different meeting and oh, we'll have this on a secondary committee meeting uh with parks and rec, even though it's an operations thing.

My point is we we can we can have the same discussions and just put it with a different which we're not gonna not talk about parks and rec.

We're just gonna put it into another meeting so that we have all the important stakeholders, everybody involved uh that can speak to it.

So that's all I have.

I I yield.

Thank you for uh letting me speak.

Thank you, representative Sanford.

Any other discussion on this item?

Representative Goldberg.

Thank you for recognizing me.

I I think sort of the simple way to think about this is we want to align our oversight with how the city runs the administration.

So I've always thought that the idea of one committee per cabinet member was to wait to go.

I feel like this aligns with that, so I'm generally supportive of it.

Um however, I I don't know that we've done a great job of just giving that simple ex uh uh explanation.

So I hope that helps my colleagues with the idea that you've got a department head under the mayor, we should have a committee that provides oversight.

That's the way I'm thinking about it, and that's the way I hope my um colleagues are thinking about it.

I yield.

Thank you, representative Goldberg.

Uh representative Graham, and then I will recognize you next, representative Adams.

I just wanted to say it can go both positive and negative if we have one person in the administration that's gonna be handling numerous items for both committees, and that person does not show up to a meeting, that just delays the process.

I don't I don't believe um that uh we should depend on one entity to handle most of those items.

Divide and conquer has always been the best policy and and best practice, and we've had that numerous times in the uh operations committee, whereas we had to uh delay a meeting because of a no-show uh on the administration's uh part of something that was very important to us that we wanted to discuss.

So I I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket.

I yield thank you to presentative representative Adams.

Yeah, I I uh I guess I want to point out to everybody that um just about every department almost in the city reports operation, which is Matt Canoes, and uh each one of those individuals that report to him um do a different segment of the city, whether it be the parks or police or uh ground cutting stround cut in pulse clean it all report to him, but when we bring stuff to the committee, it's the head of that department, not to hit up operation that always comes because most of the time they need the information that's on the ground.

So um Matt Canoes could not report back um to everyone in his uh his department without his apartment his being there.

So I just thought that uh the way we did it, I didn't see anything wrong with it.

And I think operation um committee was the longest running committee.

I mean, I think I mean we would finish 9 30 to 10 o'clock every n every time we had a meeting, because it was it was that much uh on the agenda.

So I just think it should be separate.

I know everybody wanna get out quick, but um, this is what we sign out, sign up for and most of the time when we're reviewing items as the turf and the material on the turf and the the um the chemicals in the rubber, sometimes it takes time, and sometimes if um the head of the department brings in expert, they can explain it.

So I just thought it would be more efficiency and more education to the community if they were left separate.

Thank you.

Thank you, representative Adams, representative Gardner.

I think we've uh we've heard from Deputy Majority Leader Samford that as the new chair or the chair of this proposed new committee, that he believes that this is fully within the scope of his his abilities and within his powers and within his role.

We should all instill our trust in him as the chair of this committee and believe him when he says that this is a possible thing for him to achieve and is a good idea and will benefit the city, ultimately benefit the taxpayer as well through increased efficiency and increase the ability we can the amount we can achieve on that committee.

It's sounds like a very positive thing, and I believe we should all trust his judgment on this.

And if I imagine I believe that uh Deputy Majority Leader Samford would come back to this, come back to this board should the new committee not work, he will come back and propose that we revert back to the current standing.

Thank you.

Thank you, representative Gardner.

Any other discussion?

All right, seeing none, we will take this to a voice vote.

So this is a motion to uh sorry.

Did I say a voice word?

I'm sorry about that.

It's too late.

Yes, we will do a roll call away.

Clark Johnson.

Uh just to confirm this is a roll call vote uh on the actual um motion itself here to uh make the amendment as proposed.

Uh we'll start with representative Adams on the call.

To pass it as is, um no.

No.

Okay.