Loading...
2009-08-12MUll 2 cil U; al:� yala " IF I q vll;�? "I _17 -li lil, � lo h' 101, 'MI'l 7E�ITI m NM57 nall Mlad rl_;;��_ j ;A O(Oj 0 blamt - C ff�tril 31-14fl M iYOUT) P QI_114�WIMIA 32in himl,'E"o In I suggest the general reorganization of the Code into chapters with sections. Consistent with the Charter at 1 -7 (d), city agencies would refer to all departments, multiple member bodies and city officers, which would each be in separate chapters and all provisions pertaining to their composition and authority now existing in various places of the Code would moved into each respective chapter. The list of city agencies which appears on the City website is not consistent with the city agencies that appear in the Code. See the list at pages 38 to 39. Some consideration should be given to the proper name of each city agency. I recommend using names like the Building Inspector, Police Chief and Fire Department since that is what they are most commonly referred to as. Also, it facilitates alphabetizing the agencies since placing Department or Director in front of each name interrupts the alphabetical listing, although that's just what the Charter does. However, consistency is the main objective here. Slate notes that the Committee agreed with this and vote to approve this at the July 22, 2009 meeting. 2. Definitions Atty. Decoulos' comment 1 states: I found some of these confusing and unnecessary. They go beyond even the list of statutory definitions found in the General Laws at Ch 4 Section 7. Some of these definitions are in the Charter, but definitions for Initiative Measure and Referendum Measure are in the Charter and not here. It isn't necessary to repeat definitions that are in the Charter, butt have retained them anyway. Definitions marked by an asterisk * are in the Charter. They are all verbatim with the exception of City Officer. See comment at that definition. I have deleted many provisions for simplicity and as being common language anyway. I was somewhat troubled by the conflicting section definition which I believe would be difficult to apply and question whether the fact that the latest number of the provision should prevail particularly since the entire Code will be reformatted into new numbered chapters and sections. My objective has been to simply and stream line the code. I anticipate that deletions will be disconcerting to some who believe that provisions should be left in `just in case. " However, this can be antithetical to the concept of streamlining. City Council Ordinance Review Subcommittee Draft Minutes — August 12, 2009 Page 3 of 7 I `m just exercising my judgment that some faith has to be left to the certainty of common sense because attempting to over define can cause uncertainty rather than resolve it. I just see no reason to define the words may or shall in the Code. There are many other definitions that I would delete, but I have exercised some restraint in this regard. Also, many chapters contain their own definition sections. I did not address these because they are specific to the chapter and the respective city agency that deals with them. I would suggest though that the definitions section be moved to the beginning of each chapter where they appear so that will be consistent throughout the code. Slate notes that the Committee decided that the language in the current ordinance remain and that the Mayor be designated as a City Officer and that the City Council consider adding the designation to any city department head that is not currently listed as a city officer. Atty. Decoulos comment 2 states: This first sentence [in the definition of City Officer] is verbatim from the Charter. The list here that follows also appears at Chapter 17 -53 which also adds Director of Planning and Development and Director of Public Safety. Notably missing is the Mayor who certainly comes under the definition of the Charter. Also some, but not all, of the provisions establishing department heads and directors provide the designation of City Officer. The only significance I could find as to an employee being designated as a City Officer is that at 17 -4 service time for vacation time is cumulative but not consecutive and at 17 -53 they do not get monetary compensation for overtime. Note also that at 17 -47 (h) the term "any department head of the city shall not be eligible to receive accrued sick days at termination. " A department head would be more [the comment states less in error] restrictive than the definition of City Officer under the Charter and the itemized list cinder the section and under 17 -4. For example, the Director of the Council on Aging, the Airport Manager, the Chief Assessor and the Director of Community Services are not department heads, but each would come under the Charter definition as leaving charge of an office and exercising some portion of the sovereign power. Due to the clarity of the definition of City Officer in the Charter and the inconsistency of the provisions that otherwise itemize such officers, I have deleted specific references to the designation of any person as a City Officer. HOWEVER, the distinction needs to be carefully considered by the Council due to the limitations that exist in Chapter 17 on Personnel as noted above. City Council Ordinance Review Subcommittee Draft Minutes — August 12, 2009 Page 4 of 7 Slate explains that Assistant City Solicitor Munroe stated that he is of the opinion that the Charter designates city officers and they do not have to be designated in the ordinance. He noted that Decoulos drafted a table of city officers and suggested that the Committee present that to the City Council with the recommendation that the Mayor and the Director of Planning should be added to the list of city officers. He also suggested that members review the table when they get a chance and see if there are other recommendations for positions that should be designated as City Officers. Atty. Decoulos' comment 98 states: Many of the provisions of Article 4 contained detailed qualifications of some but not all city officers. The Council needs to carefully review this issue and whether to provide qualifications for these city officers or any others for that matter. For example, Article 4 provides that the City Engineer shall have the following qualifications: At the time ofappointment the Director of Engineering shall hold at least the following minimum qualifications: a bachelors degree in civil engineering and shall have had at least twenty years of progressively responsible experience in public works engineering and construction administration and be a registered engineer in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I have deleted the qualifications provisions because they were not universally provided, are unnecessarily restrictive on the Council which may want to accept an appointment an individual that may not have the specific qualifications such as IS years experience rather than 20, and most importantly, as being inconsistent with the Charter at 2 -10 which provides that the Mayor shall appoint all city officers, without regard to specific qualifications, although the Council can reject an appointment. Slate reports that Munroe stated that the language of the Charter does not specify this and the Mayor has the right to appoint people to positions and the City Council has the right to refuse any appointment by the Charter. Slate notes that the Committee discussed this at length several times over the course of this process and voted not to remove the qualifications from the ordinances. 5. Designation of Public Safety Official Only the Fire Chief and the Police Chief have been designated public safety officials under the Code. The Charter does not use the term public safety official but rather at 3 -3 it permits the Mayor "to appoint a department head related to public safety for a term of not less than three nor more than five years. " The removal procedures are different for such department heads. There are other officials that may also serve as public safety City Council Ordinance Review Subcommittee Draft Minutes — August 12, 2009 Page 5 of 7 officials which have not been so designated in the Code such as the Director ofPublie Health. The question then is what officials are to be appointed for up to five years. I have deleted the references to the Fire Chief and Police Chief as public safety officials. The foregoing is a revision of my comment at 111 in the text. Slate noted that the Committee noted to leave this section they way it is currently written. 6® PromulLyation of Reaulations Various City Agencies have authority from the Code to promulgate regulations. The Charter at 8 -4 requires that all City Agencies file with the City Clerk all regulations adopted. For consistency, I recommend removing provisions for only specified City Agencies to promulgate regulations and provide a general provision permitting the adoption of regulations consistent with the Charter. The Council could require its approval of the regulations before they become effective. Slate notes that Munroe explained that only the City Council can allow the promulgation of regulations by order if not allowed by statute (Harbor Management Authority, Health Department, Municipal Inspections etc.) He notes that anything else has to come before the City Council. He suggested that there cannot be a list of certain agencies in the ordinance. It was noted that since the Charter already regulates this, it is understood that certain agencies have the ability to do this by enabling legislation and no further action is needed. 7. Fees There are provisions permitting the assessment of fees throughout the Charter. Determination should be made whether these fees are current and consideration should be made as to whether the fees are appropriate to adopt by Ordinance to appear in the Code. It world be less cumbersome for the Code to provide that each City Agency may adopt a fee schedule subject to prior approval by the Council which would assure that the fees assessed are currently valid. Slate notes that the Committee reviewed the list submitted by Finance Director John Dunn. Discussion ensues as to which Boards and Commissions can set fees. 8e Legislative history, cross references and editor's notes In many sections of the Code, there are references to the dates of enactments of the section. Many of the sections have legislative history and some are quite lengthy see pages 146 and 249. I am not sure of the actual utility of these references. Since past versions of the Code are available, I suggest that they be deleted from this revision, particularly the cross references and editor's notes. Slate reports that Munroe feels that legislative history, cross references and editors notes are not required but are handy to have especially given the current state of the ordinances City Council Ordinance Review Subcommittee Draft Minutes — August 12, 2009 Page 6 of '7 and recommends that they are kept, particularly the date and Order 9 of the last ordinance change /amendment. Slate states that he agrees and recomm that they be kept. Hobin and Grimes agree. 9® Review of references to General Laws There are many references to the General Laws throughout the Code. Many of the statutes referenced may have been amended or repealed since the enactment of the particular Code provision. These references should be checked for currency so that the Code is consistent. This would not be an insubstantial undertaking and is beyond the scope of this revision assignment. Slate reports that Munroe recommends that those that exist now be left in. He also note that Munroe acknowledged the unlikelihood of anyone being able to keep up with them. Hobin moved to keep the references to General Laws in the ordinances. Grimes seconds the motion. The motion carries. There are a variety of provisions for fines and enforcement throughout the Code. I did not detail them or analyze whether all chapters provided for enforcement mechanisms. In a general way, these enforcement provisions seemed somewhat scattered. All such provisions should be manifest and appear consistently in the respective chapters so that they cannot be overlooked by the public. This too would not be an insubstantial undertaking and is beyond the scope of this revision assignment. Slate reports that Munroe acknowledged that some Boards and Commissions can levy fines, but the enforcement is difficult if people do not pay. Hobin suggests that no further action is needed. ITHEN 1. In addition to these foregoing major policy issues, I have made over 350 comments in the text which also must be addressed for me to continue with this assignment into the final editing and reformatting into chapters and sections so as to generate a table of contents. The Council may consider permitting all City Agencies to comment on the provisions pertaining to each respective City Agency to assure that the provisions are both current and that the agency is in compliance. Discussion ensues regarding the comments and the revisions that the Committee has made. Slate suggests that the Committee direct Atty. Decoulos to revise the document according to the wishes of the Committee as outlined in the response to his comment letter of June 2, 2009. He noted that the amount of comments should be reduced significantly Grimes agreed and expressed concern that reviewing all 350 comments City Council Ordinance Review Subcommittee Draft Minutes — August 12, 2009 Page 7 of 7 would be time consuming. She also noted that some of the comments that she reviewed /Ii would require a Vouncil to make the changes. State suggested that he would direct Atty. Decoulos to revise the document and get a draft to the Committee by August 26, 2009 so that the Committee can review it before the next meeting. The next meeting of the Ordinance Review Subcommittee will be held on Wednesday, September 2, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. There being no further business to come before the Committee this evening, Hobin moved to adjourn the meeting. Grimes seconded the motion. The motion carried. MEEMMS