City Council - Rules & Government Relations Committee

CITY OF EASTHAMPTON OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Easthampton Municipal Building 50 Payson Ave., Ste. 100 Easthampton, Massachusetts 01027-2260 Telephone #: (413) 529-1400, ext. 460 Fax #: (413) 529-1417 MINUTES RULES AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS Meeting 01/26/23 Attendees: R&GR Members: Councilor Dan Rist, Chair Councilor Koni Denham, Clerk President Homar Gomez Remote Attendance: Councilor James Kwiecinski, Other Attendees: Councilor Owen Zaret, Jeff Bagg Meeting Called to Order at 5:30 pm. The meeting was video recorded Minutes approved Denham moved, Rist 2nd. Vote unanimous (2-0) 1. New Business A. Biodiversity Environment and Ecological Sustainability a. Chair Rist – Good committee to have and important not have several committees doing the same things. A few things to look at: No paid staff member should be obligated to be on the committee even as a non-voting members. They have jobs and can be called in. They can serve in a supporting role. Tackling all the issues, biodiversity, bees, sustainability, energy, etc. Policy and legislative action is great. Dropping membership to 7 members. It is more workable and more likely to get there. One city councilor is enough. Different commissions participation or their designee. Do we need an energy advisory committee if energy is also covered. The Mayor would have to disband it, but it feels like a redundancy. b. Councilor Denham - Combine energy advisory committee and this committee together. More holistic approach at the issues. It will be important for people who are interested in similar facets of the overall issue in the same room talking to each other would be important. Additionally, different city departments aren’t having to go and advise different committees. They can advise one group. c. Councilor Kwiecinski – can go either way about combining both committees. Understands the holistic approach as the issues will overlap. The energy committee does talk about a lot of different issues, which may be a lot for others  to be a part of that meeting. Curious why membership is 7 and not 9. With number you can get to quorum. d. Chair Rist – A smaller committee is easier to manage. If we get rid of the Energy Advisory Committee then we get rid of a member, and it brings it to 7. Both committees advise the Mayor and the City Council. One of your points is stewardship, and energy is a big part of that. Point 2 covers the Energy Advisory Committee and why do we need an Energy Advisory Committee to do the same thing? Conservation commission and Agricultural Commission need to be in the room to discuss the issues and compromise on issues like pesticides, native gardens, bees, etc. Sometimes there are conflicts in approaches. Has there been any feedback from different groups. e. Councilor Zaret – Important to have an integrated pesticide management plan. Agricultural side might have different needs or applications. Important to have them discussing plans. f. Chair Rist – If there are on the same committee then they can get the feedback from one another. g. Director Bagg- Committee should be aware of and use other citywide plans as a guide as priorities are shifting around. Through this committee’s work and the climate action plan, if farmland protection is a priority, then this committee would send it over to the Agricultural Commission to drill down and do that work. Things will get shifted around as priorities are identified. This committee would be reviewing city documents is a large part of this work. h. Councilor Zaret – Agrees with most points. Hesitant to absorb Energy Advisory Committee without conversations with them. Ordinance recognizes the different offices. i. Chair Rist – This ordinance likely couldn’t dissolve the Energy Advisory Committee. There should be a lot of conversation to make such a decision. What is that committee’s membership now? j. Mayor LaChapelle – They have quorum, and they have business before them. They work is complicated but it is long. k. Chair Rist – If someone from the Energy Advisory is on the committee then someone would take questions or comments back. It is exactly what happens on the CPA, so there is a reason not to get rid of the Energy Advisory Committee. l. Councilor Zaret – I agree. I voted the department members out for a variety of reasons. They could just be invited at the pleasure of the committee. We would want by ordinance that we would expect that the committee engage with those departments. m. Chair Rist – I don’t know that it would have to be in the ordinance. It seems like logical sense there would be expected engagement with departments. n. Councilor Denham – I had a conversation with a member of the Energy Advisory Committee who seemed open to combining the two. Combination would allow us to move policies and decision making more quickly. o. Chair Rist – I don’t know that they understood that we would be dissolving their committee. p. Councilor Kwiecinski – Wants to speak with the Energy Advisory Committee regarding combining them before any decisions are made. Maybe diluting the Energy Advisory Committee to only have one member. q. President Gomez – One option is to speak with the Energy Advisory Committee and see about adding more members to their committee. Second option is to  change from 9 to 7 members of BEES committee, as well as change language from “shall” to “must” be from specific committees. r. Chair Rist – Language – Shall means must – you don’t have a choice. The idea of a designee gives the opportunity to someone who can’t sit on the Conservation Committee, hypothetically, but how about you sit on this committee for us. Designees can be assigned when other members are overstretched with prior commitments. s. Mayor – Energy Advisory Committee – should stay separate. Committee has a purpose, but it is premature because we are starting our Climate Action Plan. Our Conservation Agent is working with the Energy Advisory Committee on aggregation and that study is already begun. Climate Action Plan is coming and will have very specific goals and that are tied to specific grants. There is value with this committee, which has great ideas, to write it without the Climate Action Plan, there may be little interaction with Mayors because there will be focus on environmental impacts, which are prioritized by professionals. These priorities are more likely to be funded. t. Chair Rist – Will the Climate Action Plan include biodiversity? The Conservation Agent is in favor of this Committee. u. Mayor LaChapelle – Yes. It is holistic. Joining the Bee City USA would go forward and not stop because of a new committee. City has a lot of committees, but people are struggling with time commitments with committees. We need to review committee scope. Responsibilities are changing. v. Chair Rist – Can we join Bee City based on a resolution. Can that happen without creating a committee. We didn’t know about Climate Action Plan w. Councilor Zaret – Might be a landing spot for consultant. Doesn’t fit with consultant. x. Director Bagg – Different ways to approach – Climate action plan is the umbrella that will create a list of actions for the city. City is looking to reduce our carbon footprint, which is primary conversation at state level. Ordinance focuses on resiliency. Identify future action steps that the city should be taking. y. Chair Rist – Who does this work? z. Director Bagg – Work will be directed by departments. Climate Action Plan isn’t necessitated by this committee and can move forward without it. Bouncing of the Energy Advisory Committee because of the carbon element. The Climate Action Plan doesn’t need this committee, but it could be useful in the future to implement later steps. aa. Chair Rist – This committee could be dealing with the biodiversity aspects separate from the Climate Action Plan. bb. Councilor Zaret – Tasks the committee with other tasks around biodiversity and sustainability. Ad hoc was recommended because they could create policies and give them to the City Council and then dissolve. Given other discussions it seems that there could be a longer use for the committee. If the Council is intereste in the Bee City, then it needs somewhere for those conversations to occur. Agrees with importance of performance. Tasks related Xerxes. More than just resolution. cc. Chair Rist – More holistic approach is important, and this committee could be useful. Address issues that are not covered by the Climate Action Plan. This is a useful committee to have in order to cover issues that aren’t covered by other committees or the plan. I could go either way. I think we need to change membership, but I’ll vote for it. Energy Advisory Committee would be a member. dd. Director Bagg – Listed actions are not easy to do and will take time to get there. A lot of the committee’s work will not be done until Climate Action Plan is done, which it will be completed in the next year. From the plan will come priorities. Any committee will take up to a year to get off the ground and oriented. Have a plan to identify ways of getting funds. ee. Chair Rist – This committee could be up and running when the Climate Action Plan is completed. ff. Councilor Kwiecinski – Having the committee up and running they can get going on bees and moves onto other larger projects with the guidance of the Climate Action Plan. gg. Councilor Zaret – It will take time to get going. The committee can work on Xerxes criteria which could take months to discuss and get going. Partnership with school and other ongoing projects. Then it’s an advisory committee. There’s work that can be done without stepping on other committee’s toes. hh. Chair Rist – Will there be trouble finding members? ii. Councilor Zaret – There won’t be trouble finding members. jj. Mayor – Models other deliberative bodies and would be another example of lack of diversity on committee. A great way to get public opinion. Huge shift in municipal funding. I don’t think this is a priority for people in the city. These are important, but not a priority of residents. The people who are most impacted by climate are People of Color, and I can’t say that this committee be diverse and reflect who is impacted most by climate change. kk. Chair Rist – I agree but how do we solve that? ll. Mayor LaChapelle – We need to think about why they aren’t diverse and not create another one. mm. Councilor Zaret – With the citizen engagement with this committee, there is an opportunity to create very simple climate solutions to our residents. nn. Mayor LaChapelle – If this is a committee of action, similar to the Rail Trail or the Pond, it’s fantastic, but they self-fund. oo. Chair Rist – That’s interesting, I didn’t see any funding aspect. This is advisory for this committee. pp. Mayor – There can’t be any staff support on a regular basis. Can we add other stakeholders, like Acadia or the Land Trust. Maybe it’s a roundtable discussion. The climate action plan includes public meetings, similar to what we are doing with Main Street. This also touches on what this committee is suggesting to do, like plantings. qq. Chair Rist – But that is specific to Main Street. This committee is about the whole city. rr. Mayor LaChapelle – It certainly is. Look at increase in traffic and speeding. If we address these issues, we are looking at decreasing carbon. This committee would touch upon this. This committee is useful but concerned about frustration that the impact won’t be smaller unless it is self-funding. ss. Chair Rist – I don’t understand funding. tt. Mayor LaChapelle - If we wanted to have an educational program, you have to pay for it. uu. Chair Rist – Committee would need to find grants to fund this project. This is frustrating. A lot of people want the City to pay for things when there are a lot of grants to pay for things. It means that someone has to look for them. That’s the type of thing that this committee could do. If you want a recycling program, find the money. Don’t come to the city.  vv. Mayor – It’s the way we have to go. We are already shifting funds from other departments into Public Health, Planning, DPW for these types of initiatives. I understand the interests in the public. This is a very big committee that touches all areas of the city and other committees. We have a Climate Action Plan. It is different. The number one priority with climate action is fleet buying. ww. Chair Rist – We are talking energy there. xx. Mayor LaChapelle – No it is climate. We have to stop focusing on energy. Our focus needs to be carbon. The biggest contributor to city’s carbon footprint is cars. With all of the enthusiasm across the committees that we have now. Can other committee take on some of these responsibilities? Idea is great. Experts have put together a Climate Action Plan. yy. Councilor Zaret – Just because the scope is this big doesn’t mean the committee will work on all of these things. The items on the agenda would be fed by the Mayor’s office. Some the other committees like conservation or agriculture don’t fill some of these gaps. zz. Chair Rist – Sees redundancy but thinks it’s important, particularly biodiversity issues. aaa. Mayor LaChapelle – Could we have focused work in New City. We worry about public input. This is another way. Also, concerned about diversity make-up of committee. bbb. Councilor Kwiecinski – start moving forward with tasks and then move onto other things. ccc. Chair Rist – Tasked with projects, New City, Bees. Doesn’t have to be in the ordinance, but we give them the tasks. ddd. Councilor Denham – How do we be efficient? Who’s responsibility is to review committee purposes. Who’s doing what? Who’s responsibility is it to keep track of those responsibilities. eee. Chair Rist – Mayor asks all committee to review committee purposes for existing, mission, and goals. Have they changed? Most committees are appointed by the Mayor. Make a couple of edits and vote on it next meeting. Will identify another meeting time. fff. President Gomez – All of the City committees are created by ordinance, it is up to City Council to review. B. Charter Changes a. Chair Rist – Section 2-10 – No problem with changes. This used to be 30 days. Need to make it 45 days because of the summer. If you make it too long it is stuck in council. Affirm a member or most to deny a membership. Members take their jobs seriously and has no problem with the changes. b. Councilor Denham – There is problem with the application process, not the vetting process. We don’t communicate expectations, process, and don’t understand applicant needs or preferred mode of communication. We haven’t indicated how we will be communicating with them regarding follow-up. Our purpose is to remove barriers and to encourage participation in government, and to give Chairs people who can participate in their committees. This change feels like it slows down that process. c. Chair Rist – After discussions with previous committee chairs, it was problem. I don’t have a solution. But giving more time, we’re only talking about 15 days, I don’t think that will slow down the process. Those chairs are working really hard to get answers to the council. d. Councilor Kwiecinski – Agrees application and expectations is flawed. Process for contacting, etc. That can be done outside the change in the Charter. Shouldn’t be addressed in the Charter. He’s good with moving it to 60 days. We can do it faster if it is something that can be accomplished. Do we need 60 days if there is a matter of rejection. e. Chair Rist - We’ve approved most appointments in one meeting. We need to be prepared for controversies. The purpose is to reject a member. Giving the council more time to investigate a rejection isn’t a bad idea. It’s only happened once. f. President Gomez – Twice. g. Chair Rist – Twice in 26 years. h. Councilor Kwiecinski – Reading 2-9 and 2-10, these have to make more clear. The items aren’t different. i. Chair Rist – I think that has to be made as a future agenda item to discuss 2-9. j. Councilor Kwiecinski – The items are different, and they elicit what we are talking about. k. Councilor Zaret – Fine tuning can happen. There’s good information, but the committee couldn’t meet. It felt like a reasonable extension. If we voted to extend, why not just change the process to already include 60 days. The process won’t take that amount of time for each application. We could have given more justice to that conversation. l. Councilor Denham – In 26 years, appointment rejections has only happened twice. Why do we think that merits a Charter change? I don’t want this to give opportunities to go searching for reasons not appoint applicants. m. Chair Rist/President Gomez – That’s not the intent. n. Councilor Denham – I’m not saying it is the intent, but I don’t want that to become the intent. People use such opportunities to prevent participation. This is particularly important when we are talking about access, BIPOC residents serving on committees, and other underrepresented populations. When we are talking about access, we need to be mindful of what participation looks like. This doesn’t happen that often to warrant such a change. o. President Gomez – the opposite can happen. The Mayor can submit an applicant and not provide enough time for a review. The 45 days starts when the Clerk receives the application. p. Mayor LaChapelle – 45 and 60 – wants to see 2 meetings a month in the summer. Happy through administrative code to codify application process. Current form is a helping form. Have the goals identified. Shouldn’t be a long process. q. Chair Rist – Section 2-9 (b) provides an explanation for rejection by a councilor that is also second. r. President Gomez – Section 2-10 – public. Not able to talk about it because the public was not publicized. s. Councilor Kwiecinski – 2-9b question relates to 2-10. Motion is to reject the appointment. t. Chair Rist – doesn’t want 1 councilor to overrule the will of the council. Why that language there. If the majority wants to reject the appointment, 1 or 2 members can’t push through an appointment. u. Councilor Kwiecinski – Can it be changed to a vote on any appointment made by the Mayor shall not be subject to, instead of rejection. v. Chair Rist – explanation rejection of an appointment, not affirmation. The entire section is on rejection, not affirmation. This is about the Mayor’s appointments,  not Council appointments. We must approve Charter changes by the legislature. Concurrent approval with an approval by the mayor. w. Mayor – Wouldn’t vote against the will of the Council. x. Chair Rist – Staggered compensation for Mayor. Puts in writing that we can stagger payment. Can do it over four years. y. Councilor Kwiencinski – This is too complicated. Simpler language would be better. z. Chair Rist – Language is to codify the process. Why not put into the Charter. You can’t raise the Mayor’s salary while that person is still in office. aa. Councilor Kwiencinski – I agree it needs to be done, but not put into the Charter. bb. Councilor Zaret – It is clarifying language. It’s not changing what we already do. cc. Councilor Kwiencinski – By defining what we “may” do, if someone comes up with another idea, will they be able to do it in this new way. dd. Chair Rist – “May” gives flexibility. 7:18 pm - Motion to adjourn – Councilor Denham, Councilor Kwiecinski – 2nd. Vote unanimous (3-0) Next meeting: February.