Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee

PERSONNEL/ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE JUNE 2, 2015 A meeting of the Personnel/Administrative Affairs Committee was held on Tuesday, June 2, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. Chairman Paul M. Chasse, Jr. presided. Members of the Committee present: Alderman June M. Caron Alderman Ken Siegel Alderman Michael Soucy Alderman Sean McGuinness Also in Attendance: Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman David Schoneman Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman-at-Large Daniel T. Moriarty PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Ed Mooney, 44 ½ Amherst Street I rise regarding O-15-046 - Prohibiting the Passing of Objects to or from the Occupant of a Motor Vehicle on a Roadway. I am uncertain as to what it means to be referred to the committee after it had been voted down by the full Board but I ask that if it’s going to be voted on that you voted down in committee and that it would not be sent to the full Board again. That would require one of the endorsers to vote against it and I think that would be a courageous thing to do. On the face of it, it’s a bad law. It says more of what it doesn’t do as opposed to what it is supposed to do. There are already four “shall not apply” paragraphs and that’s just only going to grow. The Concord law is a bad law and it’s a bad template for this law. The one thing that the sponsor says would be a fruit would be prohibiting panhandlers. My feeling is that based upon the history of the Concord law, that that is the intent of the law which is to prohibit panhandling. I would have much more regard for this piece of legislation if it just said there shall be no panhandling in the City of Nashua and then define what that means and define the consequences of those found doing it. I would still be against it but it would be a much shorter law and much more forthright and then we could talk about what it is rather than what it is not. INTERVIEWS – None COMMUNICATIONS - None APPLICATION TO LICENSE HAWKER'S, PEDDLER'S, ITINERANT VENDOR'S LICENSE APPOINTMENTS BY THE MAYOR – None UNFINISHED BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS – None Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 2 UNFINISHED BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-15-046 Endorsers: Alderman Michael Soucy Alderman David Schoneman Alderman Sean M. McGuinness Alderman Ken Siegel Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire PROHIBITING THE PASSING OF OBJECTS TO OR FROM THE OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE ON A ROADWAY  Amended & Re-Referred – 4/28/15 MOTION BY ALDERMAN SOUCY TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE ON THE QUESTION Chairman Chasse I am one of the Aldermen who voted it down after what I saw from those pictures from Paula Johnson, she gave me a copy of them and I was kind of flabbergasted. I have never seen the firemen out there doing their boot drive because they do it on a Saturday and I’m on the golf course. Some of those pictures that I saw, they were standing in the lanes and yes they had yellow safety vests on but that doesn’t make them Superman. From what my tells me is that they are very aggressive with that boot, they walk right up to your window and my feeling is that there is a law that says that they are not supposed to be out there already but I am looking for support for this one. Let’s put the nail in the coffin and get it done. If it doesn’t work, we can always throw it out after but to me being in the middle of the traffic really got my goat. I’m also going to ask Mrs. Johnson to bring those pictures to the full Board and have them passed around. Alderman McCarthy So I understand that we are not doing this specifically and directly for the purpose of outlawing the firemen’s boot drive? Chairman Chasse We will eliminate everything, this will cover it all. I know that it’s a noble cause for the firefighters but those pictures were very disturbing. Alderman McCarthy How long have they been doing it? Chairman Chasse What difference does it make how long they have been doing it? Alderman McCarthy I think it’s interesting that this Board never chose to do anything about it before until Mrs. Johnson came to complain about the fact that we hadn’t passed the panhandling ordinance. Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 3 Chairman Chasse I never knew how they handled it, the panhandler’s staying right on the median and they won’t walk up to your car unless you raise your hand or roll your window down. This is aggressive, this is a safety issue. Alderman McCarthy How many accidents have there been? Chairman Chasse Does that matter? Alderman McCarthy Yes. Chairman Chasse No it does not. Alderman McCarthy Yes it does matter if you want to make a safety claim, the number of accidents that have been caused is the metric as to whether it’s unsafe or not so yes it does matter. Alderman Soucy What really matters, it is a safety issue but what really matters is nothing that we do as a Board can give them permission to do what they did. State law trumps anything that we do so let’s look at 265:40; Pedestrians Soliciting Rides or a Business, “No person shall stand on the traveled portion of a roadway for the purpose of soliciting a ride, employment, business or contributions from the occupant of any motor vehicle” so it’s against state law. When the firefighters were doing it in the past, my understanding was that they were doing it like the panhandler’s do; standing on the median. We cannot authorize or give them a permit or allow them to be in the middle of the road. No matter what happens, they are going to have to change their way of collecting money. If we don’t proceed with this law then they can stand on the side of the road like the panhandlers but they cannot go back into the middle of the road. I know it hasn’t been enforced in the past because maybe people were unaware of the law or how they conducted the drive. It’s not just the firefighters. About four weeks ago there was another Christian group out there walking up and down the ramps of Exit 6, Amherst Street, Spit Brook Road and three locations at once; not on the medians and not on the sidewalks but in the middle of the road with cans wearing little permits on their necks. When this lost 8 to 6 at the full Board I said okay that’s fine; I decided that I would try to do a re-write rather than prohibit, I re-wrote the legislation to regulate the exchange of items in a roadway. I’m trying to make something that I believe to be unsafe a little safer. I brought up all types of stuff such as you can’t do it before sunrise, after sunset, you have to wear a vest, you can’t go out to the middle of the road, which they can’t anyways because legal brought this up to me. You can’t touch a motor vehicle. Then after a lot of reflection I said there’s no way I can support issuing a permit to an activity that I believe is unsafe. The last thing I want to see is someone get run over by a car and have a Nashua permit with our City seal on it in their back pocket. What type of liabilities would that expose us to? So now I am watching this panhandling now turn into the firefighter ordinance to the Christian ordinance. Where are we going to draw the line? Is it okay for the girl scouts to sell their cookies on the side of the road? What about the middle school kids selling the candy bars? I’m in agreement with Alderman Chasse; I had no intention of seeing this come back to life today. In fact, I would have rather have seen it tabled rather than doing the regulating part. However after the point that he’s making with the fire department I won’t support a re-write but the actual prohibition as written – I think it’s time we do it and it is a good law. It’s Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 4 worked for Concord. It’s safety and free flow ordinance that prevents firefighter’s, Christian groups, cub scouts, girl scouts, panhandlers, anybody from conducting business on a City street, that’s all. Alderman Caron I understand what you are trying to say. Panhandlers don’t go out into the street unless someone opens a window and is going to hand them money. With the situation that happened last week with the firefighter’s there is a state law that says you are not supposed to be in a travel so I think that any citizen who would see this, a lot these firefighters in one place in traffic would have probably picked up the phone and called the police. You haven’t convinced me that this is not just about the panhandler’s. The firefighters have been doing the boot drive for a long time. I’ve seen them in the road and it’s not anything too unusual but as you stated before, there is a law already on the books concerning safety and travel and being in the travel lane. My theory is that you are still putting the onus on the panhandler’s. If I had seen that group on Exit 6 I would have made a phone call to the police. You still have not convinced me that this is the right thing to do. The problem I see is that we come up with these ideas and these laws because of one thing and then we have so many of them that we can’t keep track of what’s going on. I can’t support this at this point in time, I am sorry. Alderman McCarthy Okay so we believe that what the firemen did was illegal by existing state law and yet there was no enforcement on it? Where was it? Chairman Chasse On Spit Brook Road. Alderman McCarthy How long were they out there? Chairman Chasse I believe it was four hours. Alderman McCarthy It’s tough for me to believe that a police cruiser did not go by that intersection in the course of four hours so we can reasonably assume that the police knew it was going on and that the police are familiar with state law and knew that it was illegal. I guess I have to wonder why wasn’t something done about it if it was illegal and why do we think that something will be done about it if we it, God forbid, a violation of the ordinance in addition to being against state law? Alderman Soucy We are looking at two separate issues. We are looking at the issue of being in the roadway and then being on medians and sidewalks; they are two complete different issues. The issue of being in the roadway probably wasn’t enforced for a lot of reasons. Maybe certain police officers are unfamiliar with the law, maybe they thought they were allowed to do that, I’m not sure but it’s not this Board’s domain to decide on the enforcement of laws. This law has come to light over this ordinance. The fire department, whether we like it or not, are going to have to change because now the state law is out in the light. If we do not pass this ordinance and that’s up to the Board here, then the fire department will be allowed to solicit their boot drive in the medians, on the side of the road or whatever but being in the middle of the road, now that we are aware that there is a state law that trumps anything that we do that’s going to be done. I’m quite sure of that. The second part, being on the side of the road like I said, that’s going to depend on this Board. We can put a nail Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 5 in the coffin and just stop the exchange of items altogether or we can allow organizations such as the fire department to continue their boot drive and to allow panhandlers or any other group to go out and exchange items on the side of the road. The ordinance that I have proposed really has nothing to do with being in the middle of the road, that’s a no brainer, that’s not going to happen; this is about the side of the road and medians exchanging items with vehicles on a roadway. Alderman Siegel No matter what happens, the fire department is going to change the nature of how they do their boot drive so for those who objected to its effect on the boot drive, publicity is already going to have an effect on the boot drive. There is the law and I can tell you that some firemen came up to me and they said that they were actually embarrassed by the positon their union took because their primary function is a public safety organization and the union’s position before this Board was contrary to a public safety statement. Now there’s a varying opinion as to whether you think it’s really a public safety issue because they are firemen who are clearly marked or not but their primary mission is not to run boot drives. They can certainly do it at a variety of places much more safely which benefits everyone. No one is going to stop giving money to the MDA and everyone will be safer and they will be compliant with the law, which they are not right now. I don’t see any logical way to vote against this, it seems like a perfectly valid ordinance. Alderman McCarthy I guess I disagree and I do find a reason to vote against it. I heard Alderman Chasse a few minutes ago very passionately say we need to do this because what the fire department did was unsafe. Then we said what the fire department did was illegal and that’s going to change anyway and there’s no reason to pass additional legislation to make that change. The fire department cannot stand in the travel lanes while traffic goes by. The boot drive, if it were to be conducted under state law would be done by standing on the side of the road. The text of the ordinance precludes doing that. The compromise that I thought we were headed for which would have allowed permitting with safety constraints, etc. when moderated with the state law that keep people out of the travel lanes. We’ve resulted in a case where the boot drive could still go on but conducted safely according to state law. Putting this law in as it is just makes it completely illegal to do that even if it’s conducted safely so I was likely to support it in the direction that I thought it was going but this is simply making something more illegal that’s already illegal and I hardly ever vote for those because if we aren’t enforcing the first one then the second one isn’t going to make it any better. Alderman Soucy I understand what you are saying, Alderman McCarthy but again, we are talking about two separate issues. They wouldn’t be allowed to be on the road if it passes. I was going to go with the regulating and I know you and I talked briefly about that but I believe this, I argued for a 3-month period that this was an unsafe activity, not being in the middle of the road but as the ordinance is being written, the exchange of items when you are on the side of the road. I can’t justify permitting something that I believe to be unsafe. Can we make it safer, yes, by forcing them to wear a vest, by telling them that they need to done by sunset and before sunrise, but it’s still an unsafe activity and to permit something I believe to be unsafe and somebody gets injured, that’s a liability. I’d rather remain silent on it than permit it. The issue of being in the middle of the street is no longer an issue. The fire department can still do what they need to do on the side of the roads and I imagine that won’t be as profitable for them because they will have a very limited ability to actually recover or exchange any solicitations and they will probably end up moving someplace else but that would be up to their union. Alderman Donchess Can you re-read the state law again? Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 6 Alderman Soucy It’s 265:40, Pedestrian’s Soliciting Rides or Businesses; it was last revised in 1963. Under section I it states “No person shall stand on the traveled portion of a roadway for the purpose of soliciting a ride, employment, business or contributions from the occupant of any motor vehicle.” It’s pretty direct, it doesn’t talk about permits or anything else; it just states that you can’t be in the roadway which is common sense to me. I’ve never accused panhandlers of being in the roadway, they are usually on the side of the road and I was unaware that firefighters were in the roadway. Alderman Donchess If the firefighters are by the side of the road and maybe they are soliciting and someone stopped at the light and indicate that they wish to make a contribution, does the firefighter violate that law if he steps into the roadway to accept the money? Alderman Soucy You can’t stand on any portion of the roadway so the firefighter would have to remain on the median or the sidewalk. Alderman Donchess But it does say “cannot stand in the road for the purpose of making a solicitation” so I think the word solicitation means a request for money. Let’s say the solicitation is made at the side of the road and someone says here’s the money. Is the firefighter actually standing in the roadway for the purpose of making a solicitation? I would say that is not crystal clear. Alderman Soucy And this is why you are an attorney and a pretty good one. You are right it does say that “no person shall stand on the traveled portion of a roadway for the purpose of soliciting a ride…” So, if he does step into the road then that probably wouldn’t be a problem however it would still be a safety problem as no one should be going into the road with traffic. Alderman Siegel I’m having a very difficult time realizing that absent of the fire department boot drive the debate would be much different. Why is the fire department boot drive shaping our policy like this, I find that unfathomable, it just makes no sense to me. For something twice per year for four hours a day we are going to not do something that has clearly been supported. If there are other reasons why people don’t support it that’s fine but that seems to be the focus of the conversation. Alderman Schoneman I agree that the firemen boot drive should not guide the process. I think they have many other options. I’d like to go back to what Alderman Soucy said about remaining silent on the issue. We can’t anymore. My concern at this stage and I’m not a lawyer, would be if some kind of accident does occur and someone is injured and we a potentially liable, someone could come in and say you knew that this was a problem, you addressed and you didn’t do anything about it. I think if we know something is dangerous and we don’t take steps; I am a firm believer in personal self-responsibility but the reality is that the City could be liable for not taking steps to prevent something that we know is not good or dangerous in this case. Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 7 Alderman McCarthy Perhaps Alderman Donchess can comment further on that point but my understanding is that there is ample case law that says the government is not responsible for the safety of any individual through its inability to enforce public safety laws. I think that’s been contested and the liability issue is not one that I think is a big issue. To get back to Alderman Siegel’s point about this being about the boot drive, I see that as just an example of the unintended consequences of the law. What I said when I voted against it was I hate to put in place laws that take away the good parts of our society to protect us from the bad, we do it a lot. A big example that took place that was unknown to some extent over the last couple of days in Washington is that the Patriot Act, whether you like it or not, did not meet the Constitution of the United States in terms of powers invested in the National Security Agency. I just don’t like it when we have knee jerk reaction to something that happens like the problems we currently have with the panhandlers and rather than step back and take a real look at what the problem is, we do something and we don’t always understand what the something does to the rest of our existence as a city and I think there’s a better way to do this but I don’t know what it is yet. I don’t see that we are making policy around the fire department, I see that the fire department has been doing that for years and years apparently without incident and now we are just going to say no to that and do perhaps a number of other things that we didn’t know were going on that were not a problem and were good simply because we are trying to solve this other problem. It seems to me that education can solve the panhandling problem. What we really need to do is to tell our drivers not to stop for these people because they are not who you think they are. They are not necessarily soliciting money to help there poor homeless family but to support their drug or alcohol habits and there are much better ways to help those in need than to give money to people by the side of the road. That’s the message that we need to get across and if everyone was adhering to that these guys wouldn’t stand out there for eight hours a day and go home cold with sore feet and decide not to do it again. Alderman Donchess First, just by asking the intent of the ordinance doesn’t in my mind argue one way or the other, I am just trying to figure out what the ordinance really prohibits, it may prove what they are doing but it might not. I don’t think it’s that clear either way so I’m not really arguing as to what should be done, not the ordinance but the state law. We have a situation where the police department has got budget problems and we just heard the other night that have cut back 80% of the downtown patrols. The downtown patrols actually do, at least deter the most aggressive panhandling because although the officers do not arrest anyone, they do move those people along. We are cutting back on the downtown patrols; we’ve got people exchanging gun fire at various times in neighborhoods near City Hall. We are looking at a budget where we are going to have one less police officer, where we are going to have a continuation of a virtual elimination of the downtown patrols. Having the police officers around the exits trying to apprehend panhandlers, doesn’t it just add another responsibility to their already heavy load? Are we reducing their efforts with respect to more serious problems and not the panhandling downtown? Alderman Chasse The initial part of it, when it first goes, if it passes there is going to be a little work for the police department to get them off the streets but the way it says right here is going to eliminate everything. It might take a couple of months for the police to tell the panhandlers or anyway that you can’t do that. Sooner or later they are going to go away. The panhandling downtown is a totally different issue and I’ve got some ideas on that but that’s later down the road. To me this makes it the safest way, it stops it for everybody and I don’t care how long they have been doing it, there’s always that possibility of safety and that’s for the firefighters but for the other people in the cars. Alderman Soucy I disagree with Alderman Chasse and to answer your question as a past police officer, police officers are in their patrol cars and that’s their function to look at in their area. This is like a fifteen second conversation say Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 8 with the firefighters. Guys, this is the law 265:40 and I don’t believe for a second that our fire department was out there doing anything with the belief that they were circumventing or violating state law. They believed that they were allowed to do that and I believe they even asked the City and the City was probably unaware of the state law. As far as the panhandlers, it’s not going to take months, it’s a conversation with a panhandler, hey, you can stand here with your sign all day long but you can’t exchange any items and you can’t go onto the road. They don’t want conflict or to give their names to the police and they are going to go someplace else where it’s less restrictive, it’s a win/win. We get our firefighters; we get all of our groups and all of our non- profits out of the middle of the road. Alderman Donchess I still have this area of concern. Let’s say we have a motivated panhandler who is a drug addict and the guy knows it is not illegal to hold a sign and that a police officer has to see him take money in order for there to be a violation so he just stays there. Now let’s say a cop says to move along and the panhandler says I’m not doing anything illegal so the cop has to stay and see the transaction and let’s say that does happen. The cop issues the panhandler a violation or a warning and as soon as the police officer walks away he gets right back at it. The next time he gets a ticket but if he’s determined all he does is walk 10-feet away and wait for the cruiser to leave. The next time he’ll get another ticket and so now there is a prosecution and now the cop has to go to the district court and what if the guy doesn’t show up or what if he does, he’s homeless and has no money. The cop is there on overtime and in order to enforce the ticket he still has to prove his case and if the guy doesn’t show up the court issues a guilty finding or whatever. Does the court put out a bench warrant for police officers to go find someone on a violation level offense? That is highly unlikely. It would not be difficult for a determined panhandler to evade this law. Alderman Soucy Okay, you may have one or two determined people but let’s say you have a group of ten that have been identified and nine are done but we have that one determined person. This is what the police do, if they can’t get somebody to comply with the law then you give them a violation, there’s a process, if they chose to pay it or not is on them. If they chose not to pay it a warrant could go out for failure to pay and guess what, he’s very easy to locate because he’s still determined on a corner panhandling and there he is, warrant and you pick him up and he pays his fine. If he doesn’t pay his fine I think the typical is about $20.00 per day. They don’t want that police interaction and a lot of these people, very determined panhandlers, and it’s not just about panhandlers, they really don’t want to be identified and if it’s a heroin addict, does anybody here understand how much damage one heroin addict can do to a community? We are talking about he’s got job and the only way he can support his habit is breaking into cars and windows and your house to support his habit. You get rid of one heroin addict then you are reducing the amount of time that police officers have to spend investigating burglaries, criminal mischief and all these other crimes that come with it. That is a fruit of thing if you take a heroin addict off of the street but this legislation isn’t only about heroin addicts, it’s also about keeping people out of the roadway. Alderman McCarthy I’m mostly concerned about the stuff that we’ve heard about this group of apparently organized substance abusers where somebody who is “pimping” for them will put them out at an intersection and leave them there for hours at a time. Some people are routinely committing felonies and I sincerely doubt they will be dissuaded by the full force of the Nashua revised ordinances from being out there. It may actually be much more unpleasant for them not to be on that street corner than to be hassled by the Nashua police every once in a while because the police are generally pretty polite and not abusive to the people that they have to interact with; maybe not so for some of the other people these guys deal with on a daily basis and if you succeed in getting them not to stand on the median where at least the money they get for the habit is voluntary, I think it will drive them back to breaking into cars and houses to get the money. We are not solving the problem; we are not getting them to stop. I’d love to get them off of those corners but I don’t know that we can do it just by putting another ordinance in place. Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 9 Alderman Soucy Okay so we’ve talked about heroin and addiction and poverty so let’s just take it for what it really is; a free flow of traffic safety issue for a lot of reasons. This will make the panhandlers be gone and take the firefighters out of the street and all of the non-profits out of the middle of the road. The panhandling issue is a fruit. I don’t see any down side, I really don’t. Alderman Siegel Alderman McCarthy mentioned the unintended consequences but what we are talking about here is banning basically solicitations in a roadway so it’s hard for me to understand what compelling social needs there are that we have to address by allowing that behavior. Alderman McCarthy We already know that solicitation in the roadway is illegal. Alderman Siegel No, it’s not; not in the roadway, just the side of the road. Alderman Soucy Roll call. A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman Siegel, Alderman Soucy, Alderman McGuinness, 4 Alderman Chasse Nay: Alderman Caron 1 MOTION CARRIED NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-15-135 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman June M. Caron Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja REGARDING WRITING TO THE NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE SENATE URGING RESTORATION OF CAPITAL FUNDS FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE CAPITAL CORRIDOR RAIL PROJECT MOTION BY ALDERMAN SOUCY TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 10 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Donchess I did come up with a proposed letter and I don’t know if you want to see that now or if you want to have a discussion about this. Alderman Chasse First of all I would like to ask City Clerk Bergeron if he would like to step in the ring as he is the man with the knowledge. This letter is what? Alderman Donchess The proposal here is to write to the New Hampshire Senate and now it should really be both the Senate and the House, regarding the continuing of the rail project. There was $4 million incorporated in the budget proposed by the Governor for the purpose of drafting a detailed financial plan accomplishing further engineering work, doing an environmental impact statement, getting environmental permitting and preparing federal funding applications. The $4 million would not be for further study, it would be to advance the project and I believe that me and most of our constituents think that extending the rail as proposed by the rail transit authority to Nashua to Manchester and to the Manchester Airport would be a significant economic benefit for Nashua and Southern New Hampshire as well as the entire State of New Hampshire through the tax revenue that would be drawn. We ourselves have purchased land using federal money for a rail station in the area near the bridge to Hudson. The Manchester Board of Aldermen is considering and I think it’s passed similar legislation and so what this proposes is that we as a City, as a Board of Aldermen, go on record to say that we really think that this project should be continued and we ask that the $4 million be restored to the capital budget which is where it appeared. In terms of a status report what happened is that the $4 million was not included in the capital budget passed by the House and then the Capital Budget Committee in the Senate also did not include the $4 million in the budget that it recommended but there’s not been final action either by the Senate or by the Legislature at this point. I think that give you my reasons for proposing this. If this were to pass and we were to write a letter to the Legislature someone would have to draft it and it wouldn’t necessarily be something…I mean I just came up with an example of what we could say and I think that it could be done in the committee or later but I did come with a letter that would at least give you an idea of the kind of thing we could say if the Board wishes to act on the resolution favorably and contact the legislature on this issue. Alderman Chasse Well, the way I look at it is let’s pass the legislation first and get it to the full Board and once it passes the full Board then if you feel like writing a nice little letter you have all the ducks in a row and all you have to do is fill in the blanks. Alderman Siegel I’m certainly for rail in Nashua but my problem with this is that it’s going to ask for something which we aren’t going to get. This is not going to happen. First of all the legislature as a whole is going to be against this going all the way up to Manchester and I can tell you that the Executive Council is not going to vote for this. They will potentially vote for rail in the southern tier of Nashua. That was a conversation I had directly with Dave Wheeler and Dave Wheeler is the swing vote and he would support that but he’s not going to support the rail up to Manchester. By the way, the last study that was done that I read I thought quite frankly was poor. I didn’t think the work that was done was done very well. If we are going to support something, let’s try to support something so that what we get is a benefit to Nashua and is actually achievable. I don’t think it’s achievable to bite off the entire elephant and expect the rest of the legislature to care that we wrote them a letter. Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 11 Alderman Soucy I’m kind of in agreement with you, Alderman Siegel that maybe this cycle, the elected officials probably won’t support this but elections change. If we were to write this letter, who gets final approval on the draft of the letter? Would it come from the Mayor or would it come through the Board? Alderman Donchess I think that’s up to the Board and that’s why I came with at least a proposed letter because there are various ways you could proceed. One would be for the committee to approve a letter and then have the Board vote on a known quantity as opposed to some unknown abstraction or I suppose the Board could pass the resolution and ask someone to write the letter and the letter could come back to the Board. I don’t think that it should be sent unless the Board sees what we are going to say. I do disagree with Alderman Siegel in one respect which is that the legislative strategy; I mean Wheeler is one vote on the council which is a significant vote but in terms of trying to get this through the legislature, if Manchester is left out of the equation then who is left to support this, then they are against it so I think extending it to Manchester has a benefit, the economic benefits per dollar are greater with a larger project than a smaller project and I think we need a sort of Hillsborough County Coalition to get this thing passed. That is a matter that we can debate forever because it’s a matter of legislative strategy but I don’t think it hurts and I only think it helps to put us on record in favor of this. Alderman McCarthy I actually think it would have been good if the resolution included the text of the letter because I assuming there will be a round of second discussions afterwards. As to whether we should ask for it or not, I really don’t care what Councilor Wheeler’s opinion is. This Board is to make policy for Nashua and the number of constituents that he ignores to make policy for himself is not my interest. I’m not going to let one member of the Executive Council determine what the Board of Aldermen says is good for 86,000 people in Nashua. I am very in favor of us sending a letter to the legislature to let them know where we stand and Manchester should do the same and let’s worry about figuring out how to get a letter together that a majority will read rather than what Wheeler thinks the Board of Aldermen should have as an opinion. Alderman Soucy What do we hope to accomplish with this letter? Wouldn’t we be better served by speaking with our own Nashua contingency of Representatives and our Senators here to ask them to propose legislation or to get them on board with the letters too? They are our State Reps; would that be a better way to do that rather than sending a letter through this Board? Alderman Donchess I think this is clearly going to be a long-term process and certainly this isn’t going to be the silver bullet but I think we should express our firm support and in my opinion, the City and other communities in this area should work together to and in a more orderly fashion than is going on right now to educate people as to the benefits that could be derived from this and that ideally we wouldn’t be acting independent of the City of Manchester but would be working in concert with them. In my opinion, we should do both and probably more than those two steps. Alderman Soucy Have we started working with our State Legislator’s from Nashua to get this process going? I’m not sure if they are in favor of it or not or if it’s a partisan issue where it’s democrat vs. republicans? Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 12 Alderman Donchess Well I think we have met with the Legislator’s. What happed in the House was not great, the capital budget went to a House committee and when the issue of the capital budget came up there was not an effective or much of any presentation to the House committee as to the importance of this. It was cut out of the capital budget in the House really without any explanation as to what it would accomplish. Then it went over the Senate and then there was the effort to revive it. In any event, I think it helps to put the City on the record as to our feelings. I think it bolsters our own legislative delegation and it is one step that we can take to try to improve the chances that this will pass even this year or in the future. Alderman Siegel Just to address Alderman McCarthy’s comments, my focus is specifically on Nashua. I’ve pointed out Executive Council Wheeler as an example but the point is that the majority of the legislature does not understand even remotely the economics or even the simplest characteristics of rail transport. That is it is a predictable time back and forth independent of weather. Even people local to Nashua, some of the more well- known representatives don’t seem to have a clue and that’s unfortunate. What they stated is that they don’t understand the economic benefits and why are we doing this large scale project. My point in concentrating on Nashua, I understand Alderman Donchess’ legislative strategy point but my point is to show something which is an attractable benefit to the City of Nashua with an expenditure that’s understandable and to serve as a provable reason to adopt this. I am trying accomplish something and when I say you don’t eat the whole elephant at once, this is a very large project with people that don’t even understand the most basic elements of why this is a benefit. I certainly agree that it’s a benefit and I think everybody here seems to understand why it is but that’s not going to work. As far as our Legislature’s working together; Manchester and Nashua, I think that would be great but when we sat here with the Legislatures at the state level I was most impressed by how divided everybody was and how unfocussed they were on things that matter to the City of Nashua. I found it depressing so I’d like to believe that it could be otherwise but this is my experience. Alderman McGuinness I have no problem with the letter. Alderman McCarthy is right. When I’m voting on something I’d like to know what the content of the letter would be. If we vote on the principle of doing the letter and then see what message we are sending to the legislature. In general I think we’re almost unanimous on the Board on the concept of rail. It gets down to the details as Alderman Siegel as articulated. Again I have no problem with the letter and sending a message to the legislature. Maybe Alderman Donchess has drafted something we can all take a look at. I might propose tonight that we simply table this and then accept some exhibits from Alderman Donchess and suggested language. Our future discussion on this at next meeting maybe may be the content of the letter and the message that we want to send to the legislature. Chairman Chasse I don’t’ think we should table this. What we should do is do something here. Send it up to the board. Once it gets up to the Board and it is passed, that gives permission for the letter. Then somebody can draft the letter and we can vote on it at the full Board. Alderman McGuinness I’m not crystal clear on the process there, but at some point there has to be concurrence with the message. Chairman Chasse The way I’m reading the resolution it’s only given permission to write the letter. If it fails, you don’t have to write a letter. Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 13 Alderman McCarthy As a pragmatic measure of process, I would suggest the following: we send the resolution back with a recommendation for final passage. Alderman Donchess send his proposed letter to the Board of Aldermen as a communication. That would allow us at the full Board to make a motion to forward the communication in accordance with the terms of the resolution to the legislature or to forward an unedited copy. It gets us to the point to have that discussion and move on. I think it’s important that we move sooner rather than later. I understand the issue with the legislature. I spent two days testifying before the House and Senate Committees a couple of years ago against the bill to disband the Rail Authority and was somewhat dismayed. I absolutely share your befuddlement over the behavior of our Delegation with regard to things in Nashua. At one point in the past our Delegation had 29 reps that were divided in 15-14. On an average day, Nashua got one vote in the legislature of 400 even though we have 8 percent of the state’s population. That doesn’t help anybody. It’s really hard for me to believe that in the same ward you can have people vote opposite. Clearly the effect on the person who lives next door to you is one or the other. It’s either good or its bad. We really need to sort that out. That’s one of the reasons to send the letter, to educate the legislature who doesn’t know much about this. People who live north of Concord have no idea about this. There’s a vast array of funny perception about rail. I had somebody say to me once who was involved in the process quite thoroughly that New Hampshire has never been a rail state. That’s fascinating because Warner is the town that I rent a cottage every year and has 3000 residents. In the middle of the 20th Century there were four train stations in Warner. Most of the state in the north end of the state wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for the rail industry. It’s kind of funny for us to say that. It is clear that we need it. There are simple things you could say. There is no city the size of Nashua that is this close to Boston that does not have rail service. It’s not understood because the other half of New Hampshire is in a completely different economic sphere than the southern tier of the state is. I think those are the points we need to make to the legislature to get them to understand that. In terms of the viability of Nashua and the southern tier and perhaps the viability of the Manchester Airport as a transportation center is dependent more than anything else on getting rail extended into Southern New Hampshire. I think this is one of the most important things the legislature needs to deal with and we need to convey that to them. Alderman Soucy Okay, I’m on board. I’m hearing state legislature and state senate. I’m thinking if we’re going to move this, we’re probably going to have to some slight amending. Is it your intent that you want this to go to both the senate and the house or just the senate? Alderman Donchess I think given what’s happened since I proposed this. Alderman Soucy Then I would propose that we need to change the title regarding writing to the New Hampshire State Senate to the State Legislature. Also in the last paragraph: “NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Aldermen of the City of Nashua to write a letter to the New Hampshire State Senate” should be changed to the “New Hampshire State Legislature” … ”requesting that the $4 million in rail funds be restored to the capital budget and stating the benefits that would accrue to our community and to the State of New Hampshire by the extension of rail service to New Hampshire as recommended by the New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority.” Then I would add: “Said letter to be approved by the full Board of Aldermen prior to being sent.” This way we will approve it at the full Board prior to sending it. Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 14 MOTION BY ALDERMAN SOUCY TO CHANGE THE WORDS “STATE SENATE” IN THE TITLE AND IN THE BODY TO “STATE LEGISLATURE” AND ADD A FINAL SENTENCE TO READ: “SAID LETTER TO BE APPROVED BY THE FULL BOARD OF ALDERMEN PRIOR TO BEING SENT” MOTION CARRIED. MOTION BY ALDERMAN SOUCY TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE AS AMENDED ON THE QUESTION Alderman Schoneman What is this $4 million going to do? Alderman Donchess We have to rely to some degree on the Rail Transit Authority and their communications with the MBTA, which operates the one into Lowell. Apparently the MBTA is interested in extending service. In addition, Dan Kelly who, at least before the Rail Authority shrunk in size, was Nashua’s representative. He’s communicated directly with the MBTA that they are interested in the service and they are generally extending their network. The $4 million, according to the research that I have done, which includes reading the analysis of what the State DIA thinks the money is for, the Governor’s Office and the like, various things need to be done in order to make the project more specific rather than we’re going to extend rail to X, Y and Z. A necessary step in making this a reality is to quality for the federal subsidy that all mass transit in the United States have. It would be to draft a more detailed financial plan than currently exists, to do a more detailed level of engineering work on the improvement of the tracks and other steps that need to be done to make the rail service physically a reality, to undertake an environmental impact statement which is necessary for any kind of federal subsidy that would be offered to this extension, and to prepare the applications necessary to obtain federal subsidy. Federal subsidy is available for both the capital expenditures needed to be made to improve the track, stations and other aspects. Secondly there is federal subsidy for the operation of the service. Alderman Schoneman The biggest obstacle I understand is the overall cost of it. Will this study change the cost or the federal funds that are available? Were the assumptions valid in the first study? Alderman Donchess What do you mean by the first study? Alderman Schoneman The one that was just finished. Alderman Donchess It will change that I think no one is suggesting that New Hampshire be alone in doing rail without federal support. All mass transit in the United States, and I would argue road travel, is subsidized in the sense that the government builds, pays for and maintains roads for us to drive on. It changes in the sense that without these steps, we can’t get federal money. If a state undertakes and does these steps and then does the project, we’re likely to get federal money to pay for most of the project. We change the state’s position to one in which we can actually get federal support by doing these things that are necessary to qualify. Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 15 Alderman Schoneman Does this change the percentage that New Hampshire and Nashua would have to pay? Alderman Donchess Without these steps and doing what’s necessary, the project never qualifies for federal support. It’s not a feasible project without federal support. You assume there would be federal support. It doesn’t change the overall cost or the level of support that there would be. My understanding of the cost is that the subsidy that would be required on an annual basis would be for the state in the area of 5-7 million dollars a year. Once the federal support is qualified for and available, which is of course an annual subsidiary, the number of jobs, the economic activity that would be created, even the tax revenue that would be generated would exceed that cost on an annual basis. Thousands of additional jobs would be required in the sector because of that. The expansion of rail in other places has shown the economic activity results from rail. Say 1500 jobs for Nashua and 3500 for the State of New Hampshire, that’s a lot of jobs. There’s considerable economic activity and benefit for the context of the multi-billion dollar state budget for the annual expenditure of 5 or 7 million dollars. When this issue was discussed before the Capital Budget Committee, a representative from a company from Manchester testified. They are a tech company that employs worldwide 300-400 people. In Manchester, I’m not sure of the number but somewhere in the neighborhood of 200-300 people. This is a private sector employer. They testified that as they surveyed their younger employees that they got a couple of answers. If it really became a certainty that rail would never be extended to New Hampshire that a lot of their employees would not want to work there anymore. As they interviewed young applicants, they hear from the applicants that they would be much more likely to be willing to move to Manchester if there were rail available. If this becomes an uncertainty there is not going to be rail then they are definitely considering moving out of the state. If they do understand the market, those same thoughts and ideas would apply to Nashua as well and all of Southern New Hampshire. We become much more attractive to that type of industry and to younger people who we hope to attract if we have this amenity. As the second oldest state in the United States, if we just turn our back on the steps and the things that our younger generation would like to see us have then we probably resign ourselves to becoming the oldest state in the United States and maybe just fade into non-existence after a couple of generations. That’s an overstatement. MOTION CARRIED R-15-136 Endorsers: Alderman Ken Siegel Alderman Michael Soucy Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman David Schoneman Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman Sean M. McGuinness ESTABLISHING THE PERMITTED LOCATION FOR THE OUTDOOR DINING PERMIT FOR THE CITY ROOM CAFÉ MOTION BY ALDERMAN SOUCY TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE ON THE QUESTION Alderman Siegel This has been discussed at the Board of Public Works. I think this is now a fairly solved problem. I’d like to make a motion to table in committee. MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO TABLE MOTION CARRIED Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 16 NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES O-15-049 Endorsers:Alderman-at-Large Daniel T. Moriarty Alderman Ken Siegel Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman June M. Caron REQUIRING EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE REPORTS MOTION BY ALDERMAN SOUCY TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE ON THE QUESTION Alderman Siegel This is fairly simple. We have some reporting requirements for individuals involved election. What this basically does is treats exploratory committees similarly to those individuals. Basically if it quacks like a duck, it’s going to report like a duck. For those that were interested and one of the questions I’ve been asked is if this is retroactive for this election year. The answer is no. That would be unenforceable. There’s a problem right now that we in that these exploratory committees can raise as much money as they want. They don’t have to report it. They can spend it as much as they want. When the candidate finally files, they do not have to report how much money was spent and they can report the contribution from an exploratory committee as coming just from an exploratory committee, if that’s what they so desire. They do not have to name the individual contributors. The whole intent of this ordinance is to promote an open election and more transparency. I think it’s necessary. It’s sad that it’s necessary because now we’re in this era where we have these exploratory committees where we have candidates wandering the dessert for months at a time with tens of people advising them like sultan. Apparently part of a process of deciding whether or not they are going to run is how many tens of thousands of dollars you can get when you have money bombs or whatever you want to call them. I just think that if people do that, that’s fine but the way we are structured now we’re just not ready to handle that in a transparent way that it helps for an open election. That’s what this ordinance is designed to deal with. Alderman Chasse I have a couple of questions for Clerk Bergeron. How do other cities handle this or hasn’t it come across other cities? Mr. Bergeron As far as I know we’re the first. Alderman McCarthy I’m totally sympathetic to what the ordinance is trying to do. The question I have is when does it quack? When a candidate becomes a candidate we know because they go to Clerk Bergeron’s office and turns in paperwork that says I’m a candidate. I’m not sure I understand for purposes of a legal razor when an exploratory committee becomes an exploratory committee. Alderman Siegel In the ordinance it actually defines exploratory committee. To read the clause that’s been added to the existing ordinance. “Any organization of two or more persons formed solely for the purpose of determining the feasibility of an individual’s candidacy for office.” There’s nothing wrong with that. You don’t have to file if you just have a couple of people get together and say let’s figure this out. Clearly it would be inappropriate to Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 17 make onerous restrictions on people getting together. What the clause adds is where there are expenses and activities that go beyond what would be reasonably interpreted as exploratory. As a perfect example we have currently the money bombing of one of the candidates. This is raising tens of thousands of dollars which seems to be celebrated online and on Facebook posts. There are websites; there are all sorts of forums and money being spent. I just found out apparently there’s outbound polling being done. A company has been hired to do this. This reasonably goes beyond what would be interpreted as deciding whether or not to run. Of course what’s the enforceability? I think the court of public opinion is the most powerful court of enforceability. There’s no specific penalty like many of the things we do. We have ordinances in place and behaviors that are expected. We are tasked to and entrusted to behave appropriately. Our ultimate penalty is to the public exposure of behavior which is not in concert with our ordinances as individuals. Certainly finances can have regulations. If we don’t follow them, we get slap on the wrist publicly, but we don’t pay fines for that. I think the pressure would be even greater on candidates for public office to behave according to the city ordinances because I don’t think the public appreciates when people flaunt the regulations that we have. I think this regulation is certainly reasonable. I had a lot of conversation back and forth with Attorney Bennett and Attorney Clarke about the potential side effects. That’s where we crafted the whole idea of do you want to prevent people from just getting together and having a conversation and then penalize them. That’s not okay. So the definition of an exploratory committee as written really tries to account for that. Alderman Moriarty I’ll try to simplify it. If you’re a candidate the issue is when you file when you received money. That’s an important thing to address. The definition of an exploratory committee in a large sense is somewhat irrelevant because the exploratory committee, in and of itself, doesn’t have to file or claim its existence according to the ordinance until it receives funds. Just like a political action committee that has a group of people that are politically active. They have to file and claim their existence only when money gets involved. Money can either be given to an individual in which case the existing laws already cover that or money can be given to a political action committee in case the laws defining a political action committee cause that action committed to disclose where it gets funds. A candidate could say they got $100,000 from one entity, but there will be other paperwork that applies to that action committee. This sort of does is it fills in the gap where if you have something that doesn’t technically fall under a political committee as political committees are defined currently. It defines another type of organization and requires that organization to file. It’s not a candidate. It’s not a political action committee. It’s somewhere in between. That organization can still give a single donation to a candidate. That individual candidate can still say it got one lump sum, but again, you can just go back and look at the paperwork that defines this organization to find out the individuals. Sometime in the future surely there could be other invented organizations possibly. At least this goes a long way towards shoring up. Mr. Bergeron The exploratory committee comes from the federal election commission. We took the language from the federal election commission. All the other provisions dealing with how to record the money and what quantities replicate what’s required of candidates and political committees currently under city ordinances. When an individual’s exploratory committee morphs into a political committee or those funds actually become part of the candidate’s reporting requirements, they are following the reporting and recordkeeping requirements that would be required of them as a candidate or as a political committee. Attorney Clarke and I both felt it was less important to be able to determine when the potential candidate crosses that threshold and becomes a candidate as it was to ensure that the proper recordkeeping was being maintained. Alderman Moriarty At some point the sources of all the individual contributions will be recorded here with the candidate that’s filing. If the candidate has one giant contribute, you will be able to get the individual listings from that organization just like a political action committee. What this doesn’t do, which we may think about amongst ourselves for future, is there is no single contribution limit for a municipal election. You could have a candidate Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 18 who is funded by somebody who has a lot of money and could give a single blank check of $50,000 or whatever, some unlimited sum, that in and of itself would be disclosed. Obviously you would know how the person is giving the large sum. That’s always been allowed. We may consider setting campaign finance limits if we wanted to just like they do for federal law. Alderman Siegel The intent of this legislation was to regulate exploratory committees. It wasn’t to deal with the separate issue of campaign financing. I would recommend we leave it in its form right now. Alderman McCarthy In terms of expenses, I can understand that right now there’s no regulation on the collection of funds by an exploratory committee. But if funds are actually expended for purposes towards the election of a candidate then either they’ve already filed for office and are a candidate or it has to be done by a political action committee because the state requires that all political advertising be associated with one of those two things. What expenses are required? There’s a gray area on what’s a legitimate exploratory expense. One might claim that polls would in fact be something that you might do if you considered running for office. What’s the test for whether an expense if from an exploratory committee or something that does not require that it be from a PAC or candidate? Mr. Bergeron I agree with the first part of Alderman McCarthy’s’ comments that this is a grey area. We used the federal election commission definition as to when what an exploratory committee is. There are some individuals exploring the possibility of running for President of the United States who by all indications are actually out there campaigning. The federal election commission hasn’t clamped down on them and said you are now a candidate. Again I think the more important thing during our discussion was to make sure that whatever is being received and expended at some point is recorded. I know my office doesn’t care whether it’s disclosed as an exploratory committee or a political committee or as a candidate. We just want to get that information out to the public. We have built into this reporting requirements of June 1 and December 1 for exploratory committees. Those two dates were selected because those are the dates that incumbent reports have to be filed with our office so there’s consistency there. It also somewhat ensures that they can’t fail to disclose their income and expenditures until such time as they declare to become a candidate. Chairman Chasse This will have no bearing on the election that is coming up? Alderman Siegel I didn’t say that. I said there is no retroactive reporting requirements. Whether or not it has a bearing is up to the candidates since this ordinance I hope will be adopted and the candidates that have exploratory committees are publicly committed to following basically the guidelines that are going to be put in place here and that they wouldn’t reveal its finance sources. Again, even if it was a requirement there’s no penalty for it except for the penalty of public opinion. I wanted to answer the question that you originally posed. As I said in the beginning obviously there is a grey area as Mr. Bergeron said. One could say that telephone polling is a legitimate activity because it really doesn’t trigger this. However we’ve got situations where you’ve got someone actively renting spaces and having conferences with people spending money on marketing materials, websites, and PayPal fees to collect money. Again in the court of public opinion that would probably cross the threshold. I think it’s very, very important to note that even our current ordinances would require us to disclose our information. Really, I don’t know what the penalties are, but they certainly wouldn’t’ be commensurate with the damage done by not following the laws. Because this is an election, the most powerful enforcer is the enforcement of public opinion. Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 19 Chairman Chasse What is the penalty? Mr. Bergeron Off the top of my head, I don’t know. I think it might be $50 or $100. Alderman McGuinness I’m not sure I like this too much. Talking about the grey areas and potential abuse out there, I don’t think I can support this. I’d like the opportunity to do this by voice vote to give me the opportunity to vote nay. Alderman McCarthy With regard to enforcement, this is an ordinance and it is a violation of the ordinances. The general provision allows for a fine up to $1,000 if we choose to give such a fine. Mr. Bergeron I believe that is probably correct. A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman Caron, Alderman Siegel, Alderman Soucy, 4 Alderman Chasse Nay: Alderman McGuinness 1 MOTION CARRIED O-15-050 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman Sean M. McGuinness Alderman David Schoneman PROHIBITING UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THE CITY SEAL MOTION BY ALDERMAN SOUCY TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE ON THE QUESTION Chairman Chasse Has this never happened before? No one has ever used the seal? Mr. Bergeron They have, Alderman, but usually if you ask them to stop doing it, they do. This time around the individual didn’t stop. I think it’s more about getting something on the books that simply says you can’t use the city seal for personal reasons or for business reasons because the city seal is the property of the city. The language in our Code of Ordinances now simply says that the city clerk shall have custody of the city seal. That goes back to our 1915 Charter. It’s a lot easier to reproduce, replicate and distribute the city seal today 100 years later Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 20 than it was back in 1915. The hands out I put on your desks are some examples of how the city seal has been used recently. The first one where it says “Nashua Emergency Alerts” came from a group named Nashua Alerts. They were using this on Facebook and last June when it came to my attention on page two; this is the posting I made on Facebook asking them to take it down. Their response was we changed the city seal. There should be no confusion. We’re not associated with the city. But they did take it down and for that I was very appreciative. On page 3, I asked the Telegraph to stop rebroadcasting some of these Facebooks or twitter notices because they were kind of spreading that misapplication of the seal. It looks like a city communication. For a while, I thought the Telegraph. I found out at the end of last year, first part of this year from our Emergency Management Director that they were continuing to use the seal on twitter. I don’t tweet so I wasn’t aware of that. Sure enough I noticed on the Telegraph website that the tweets are being rebroadcast on the Telegraph website. The seal is out there. It looks like the communication has been branded by the city. It looks like a city announcement, and it’s not. The last page is an example of a campaign piece. This ordinance had been introduced before this campaign piece was distributed. I did talk to the individual who was using the city seal in his literature, and he is going to stop doing that. He apologized for doing that, and I appreciate him stepping back from it. That’s the reason for it. If someone wants to know if they can use the city seal or not, at least there’s something in our Code of Ordinances that says no, you can’t because it is city property. The language to the ordinance, sec. d, comes from state law as it pertains to the use of the state seal. Sections a, b, and c are from other city ordinances that also created language that said the city seal is the property of the city and is to be used for branding; it’s to be used for indicate an official communication to be used on city stationery, city vehicles, and city property. Alderman Siegel Are we protected by copyright law or trademark? Mr. Bergeron No. Trademark law is funny, because I have looked at that. Trademark language in New Hampshire pertains to a symbol to identify goods made or sold. Then it goes on to say that trademarks can’t be registered if it consists or compromises any state or municipality. There’s nothing in there that says that a city or municipality can trademark its seal. As far as copyright goes, I think that applies to creative activity, whether it’s writing or composition or art work and not necessarily a seal. I have heard of some cities looking into copyrighting seals, but I don’t know of any that have done that. Alderman Schoneman Is there any other graphic property of the city, like an image of the city that could not be used? Mr. Bergeron I think police and fire badges. They have their own symbols. That might be an instance. I can’t think we can prevent someone from using an image of city hall or photographs of public property. I think the seal and badges we have some control over. Alderman Soucy If we don’t have a copyright or a trademark, under what authority do we own this property? Mr. Bergeron It’s in our Code of Ordinances. It’s just like any other corporate seal. We couldn’t go to Johnson & Johnson and start using their seal. This is property of the corporation. We designed it. We own the design. It’s in our ordinances. It’s our property just as much as stationery or a vehicle or a park. Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 21 Chairman Chasse Who owns it? Mr. Bergeron The corporation. Chairman Chasse Not the residents? Mr. Bergeron No, in the same sense a police vehicle isn’t owned by the residents. They pay for it and it is used for public use and public safety purposes but Joe Schmo couldn’t go up and hop in a cruiser and drive away. There’s ownership through use for 100 years. It’s been our Code of Ordinances. It says this is our symbol; this is our seal. In that sense, I believe we own it and I think someone would be hard pressed to try to trademark it and use it for profit purposes. Alderman McCarthy I think one of the reasons why the trademarks actually exclude municipalities because municipalities don’t need it. They have a right to declare their own seal to be theirs. MOTION CARRIED TABLED IN COMMITTEE MOTION BY ALDERMAN SOUCY TO TAKE FROM THE TABLE R-15-126 MOTION CARRIED R-15-126 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CHARTER TO ALLOW WARD ELECTION OFFICIALS TO FILE A DECLARATION OF CANDIDACY AND PAY AN ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT INSTEAD OF SUBMITTING A PETITION OF NOMINATION  Tabled – 4/13/15 MOTION BY ALDERMAN SOUCY TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE ON THE QUESTION Alderman Donchess Right now signatures are required. Fifteen, yes. The proposal was to create an alternative to file a fee. Chairman Chasse Let me make an amendment. Let’s make it a $5 fee with no signatures. If they want to go work in the wards so be it. Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 22 MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO AMEND TO PAY A $5 FEE WITH NO SIGNATURES REQUIRED ON THE QUESTION Alderman Schoneman Are there still two paths to get on the ballot? Signatures or the fee? Chairman Chasse How about if I amend it to make it either or? Alderman McCarthy I would rather just drop the number of signatures to five. I think it’s reasonable to request some number of signatures. I don’t see any reason to have the other monetary way of doing it. Chairman Chasse I’ll make my amendment $5 or five signatures. How is that? Alderman Siegel I thought it was to make it the same as the state regulations. That was the whole reason. Chairman Chasse I don’t believe so, no. Alderman Donchess The underlying deeper purpose was to make it easier to qualify. Following state rep filing requirements made it easier to qualify, but that’s not a safer thing. The whole point is to make it easier to qualify. I just picked it because that’s the way the state does it, but there’s no magic in that. MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO AMEND TO ALLOW WARD ELECTION OFFICIALS TO EITHER PAY A $5 FEE OR SUBMIT FIVE SIGNATURES TO SUBMIT A PETITION FOR NOMINATION MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE AS AMENDED MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO TAKE FROM THE TABLE O-14-025 MOTION CARRIED O-14-025 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman Ken Siegel AMENDING THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE TRUSTEES OF TRUST FUNDS  Tabled – 8/25/14 Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 23 MOTION BY ALDERMAN SOUCY TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE OF O-14-025 ON THE QUESTION Alderman McCarthy I have the proposed amendment. It’s the same as it was that was passed out last time. It basically brings the CERF process into the budget process. It makes the allocation of funds in the CERF process and the annual budget or a separate budgetary function done by resolution. The selection of expenditures and verification contracts would be done by the finance committee the same as it is for everything else. MOTION BY ALDERMAN SIEGEL TO AMEND O-14-025 WITH THE COPY AS PROVIDED BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY ON THE QUESTION Alderman Schoneman Looking at Paragraph D, I think you might want to change the wording there a little bit. It says: “During that fiscal year, the city may purchase that equipment, or equipment that will serve the same stated purpose as the listed equipment as long as the price does not vary by more or less than ten percent…” It sounds like it can only vary by ten percent. Probably not vary by more than ten percent of the estimated replacement value. Is that what you mean? Alderman McCarthy That would make sense. MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO AMEND THE COPY ACCEPTED BY ALDERMAN MCCARTHY IN SECTION D, BY DELETING THE WORDS “OR LESS” MOTION CARRIED MOTION BY ALDERMAN CHASSE TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE AS AMENDED MOTION CARRIED O-14-017 Endorser: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MERIT EMPLOYEE RULES AND REGULATIONS EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2014  Amended & Tabled 4/21/14 O-15-038 Endorsers: Mayor Donnalee Lozeau Alderman-at-Large Daniel T. Moriarty Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown AMENDING THE COMPOSITION OF THE CABLE TELEVISION ADVISORY BOARD  Tabled – 3/16/15 DISCUSSION Chairman Chasse O-14-17, we tabled that back on 4/21/14. I have never seen anything from the mayor on it. She was Personnel – 06/02/15 Page 24 supposed to bring us a new chart. We never got it. It’s going to sit there I guess and die. I don’t know what she did, if she gave any reasons to the individuals. She was supposed to bring us a new graph and we tabled it back in April of 2014. Alderman Siegel The exact circumstances were that we asked for an updated copy of the table and the changes to the table. We were told that we would get one while in budget season. We apparently didn’t clarify which budget season we were talking about because it’s now getting into this budget season. I would just urge the chair to potentially ask again if it is important to get it done. There’s nothing we can do now. Chairman Chasse Also under discussion, O-15-38, that one is still sitting there. The last thing I requested was the attendance records for the individuals on that committee. Mr. Moriarty was supposed to get that for me. I haven’t seen it. Alderman Siegel He was here and left. Chairman Chasse From what I’m hearing, some of the individuals that we are trying to get off the committee are the ones that go to all the meetings. I don’t think we’re going in the right way. I think we want to eliminate the ones that haven’t been showing up. Alderman Siegel The problem was the existing legislation sort of was contorted to allow one particular individual to stay on the committee. That was the problem we had. It was my understanding that Alderman Moriarty was going to change the legislation and bring it back to this committee to get rid of that stuff. He was here and decided that he really didn’t want to stick around for his legislation. PUBLIC COMMENT- None REMARKS BY THE ALDERMEN – None POSSIBLE NON-PUBLIC SESSION ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN CARON TO ADJOURN MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared closed at 9:02 p.m. Alderman Michael Soucy Committee Clerk