Newton City Council - December 1, 2025

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching!

Thank you.

Recording in progress.

Colleagues, if you could take your seats, please. We have a pretty full evening this evening. I am going to invite all of our Councilor-elects inside the rail. Councilor-elect Roach, thank you for observing protocol. You get credit for that. Some of the other Councilor-elects get demerits. So you're on. All right. It's a new campaign platform. Councilor Lipof, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please? Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.

The United States of America, which is a republic in which it stands, one nation, under God, invisible, with liberty and justice for all. Good evening, colleagues. I hope everyone had a very restful Thanksgiving weekend because our work now begins in earnest this week, tonight. tomorrow night, Wednesday night, next week, and then we finish up the term on the 15th. I've got Pretty full complement of folks this evening. Two online, Councilor Wright and Councilor-elect Silbert. and I think other than Councilors Micley and Getz, we otherwise have a full complement of folks. So this is,

We're going to start off with the items on first call. we then have a number of items on second call we'll take them up in the appropriate order uh just as a heads up there is one item a late filed item that's been docketed or being requested to be docketed by the chair of finance and because it relates to my future actions as the mayor, in abundance of caution, I'm going to recuse myself from any consideration or discussion of that. And Vice President Kalis will take the podium at the appropriate time. So with that, Chair Kelley for the Land Use Committee.

Thank you, Mr. President. So excited to give one of the final reports of the year. The land use committee met on November 18th. We took up several items. Tonight, we have one on second call. We have two on second call, though they're related. They're both the Riverside ones, so we'll get to those later. We took up also item 261-25, which was a request to allow parking in the front setback at 47-49 Ripley Street. And that was approved 7 to 1. We took up item 335-25, which was a request to amend a special permit number 189-81E at Eldridge Street. That was approved 8 to nothing.

There was a request to allow daycare use and waive parking stalls at 60 Needham Street. That was item number 336-25. We approve their request to withdraw without prejudice. and then there were a bunch of class two auto dealer licenses all were approved. I'm just going to read each one into the record. Number 343-25, which is Newton Auto Group. Number 344-25, which is Jacob and Associates. number 345-25, Roberts Towing, 346-25, West Newton Auto Service, all approved. by the committee. And finally, we accepted another request to withdraw without prejudice on item 355-24, which was a request to allow a mix of for-profit education

Personal Instruction, Non-Accessory Parking, Wholesale Bakery, Vehicle Storage and Vehicle Repair, Sales and Service, and to wave 41 parking stalls at 28-30 Riverdale Ave. And that was all we took up, but I would like to request some public hearings.

Councilor Kelley, do you need to take up the 1125 meeting too? Sorry? The 1125 meeting as well?

Oh yes, let's do that too. Held, held. Land use approved number 339-25, a request to exceed FAR at 12 Garden Road. That was approved. Number 340-25, a request to allow an oversized dormer, a dormer with an... Interrupted Wall Plane to exceed FIR at 15 Clinton Place. That was approved. Thank you for reminding me of these. And number 341-25, request to approve special permits 65-96 from 1996 to allow a second parking stall in the front setback at 63 Hyde Street that was approved 6-2. And now you have a public hearing. And now I would like to request some public hearings.

Go ahead, please.

Number 348-25 on December 2nd, which is on our page 280. Items 238-25 and 239-25 are on second call for tonight. Those are the Riverside ones.

Thank you, Chair Kelley. Chair Baker for zoning and planning.

Thank you, Mr. President. The committee report, as you may have seen, was an extensive document because it had supplemental information. But the only two actions we report this evening are 370. This is on page 273 of the report socket. Number 375-24-2, this is Zoning and Planning Committee requesting discussion and possible amendments to Chapter 30 zoning to allow additions to buildings with existing non-conforming height that increase the non-conforming height but do not go higher than the existing ridge line. And this was approved by the committee six to zero and with one not voting and one absent. and then on page 274, 4424 requesting reevaluation and possible amendments to the inclusionary zoning ordinance

that was approved by a vote of 6-0-1 and the information describing the changes is set forth in an extensive attachment to the committee report, which is available to everyone in the council and as well as the public. but I just want to indicate how much I appreciate the work of the committee but also the work of our consultant and our colleagues in the planning department and the law department in getting all of these changes done by the end of the term. So that's the report.

Thank you, Chair Baker. We've been joined by Councilor Micley, who's participating remotely. Chair Krintzman for Programs and Services, please.

Thank you, Mr. President. Report begins at the bottom of page 274. Programs and Services Committee met on November 19. First items on second call. Item 287-25, the appointment of Ellen Penso to the Council on Aging was approved unanimously by vote of five to zero. Item 314-25, requesting a home rule petition. This is the mayor requesting a home rule petition to modify the posting of legal notices for public hearings. It was approved by the committee by a vote of five to zero. and item 327-25, the creation of an older adult services gift account was approved by a vote of eight to zero. With that, I'd move the report.

Thank you, Chair Krintzman. Next, for Public Safety and Transportation, Chair Grossman.

Thank you, Mr. President. The report begins on page 275 and the committee met on November 19th. The first item 337-25 was the appeal of traffic council decision TC 50-25. which was a request to consider restricting parking along either one or both sides of a block of Islington Road between Commonwealth Avenue and Rider Terrace. that was approved seven to zero. And then item 342-25, the appeal of traffic council decision TC44-25, which concerned 15 permits for staff to park in the Austin Street Municipal Lot without paying the kiosk during enforcement hours. That was denied six to two. With that, I move the report.

Thank you very much, Chair Grossman. Next, for Public Facilities Committee, Chair Albright.

Thank you, Mr. President. The report also begins on 275. 324-25 was an appropriation of $297,400 for a pump station rehabilitation project. and that was approved six in favor, none against. 325-25, an appropriation of 325,000 for the Cheesecake Brook sub basin that was also approved six to zero. 326.25, request for discussion and ordinance to require energy use reporting by owners of buildings that are not subject to Newton-Burdo. This was voted no action necessary. 60 and 347-25 is a request for discussion and ordinance to allow voluntary energy use reporting by owners of buildings that are not subject to Newton-Burdo

that was also voted no action necessary six zero I should explain that those last two items by the energy commission were um we gave them a lot of homework to do so they have left to come back in the new term with something else and that moves the report.

Thank you, Chair Albright. Chair Gentile for the Finance Committee, please.

Thank you, Mr. President. The finance report begins on page 277. Docket item 157-24. Councilors Gentile, Block, Laredo, and Krintzman requesting that the mayor through the law department solicit proposals from outside special counsel to assist The city in the analysis of the city's rights and remedies to ensure compliance with an enforcement of applicable permits at the Turner Lane site in Auburndale. Just a quick commentary, which I don't usually do in first call, but we were joined by the law department that gave us an update and also informed us that they had solicited outside council because recently the project owners had filed for bankruptcy and to make sure that the city's interests are protected which is

tricky thing with the bankruptcy filing. They have gotten outside counsel, so the committee voted no action necessary, eight to zero. Next item is on second call, followed by 318.25, which is on second call. and we have 324-25, Your Honor, the mayor requesting the appropriation of 297,400 from the sewer fund surplus to fund the design and repairs and rehabilitation of three important sewer pump stations. This was approved by a vote of eight to zero. 325-25. Her Honor the Mayor requesting the appropriation of $325,000 from the Stormwater Operating Reserve to fund the development of a comprehensive stormwater infrastructure analysis. for the Cheesbake-Brooks Sub-Basin.

This was approved 8-0 and 327-25, Your Honor, the Mayor, requesting the creation of a department of older adult services for an upper limit of a million dollars to help fund affordable programs, events, and scholarships for older residents. This was approved by a vote of eight to zero. And this is where I need to request a suspension of the rules.

So I want to let Vice President Kalis preside for the moment.

Councilor Gentile is asking for a suspension of the rules. All those in favor, please.

Wait, let me, Mr. Acting President, let me just briefly give you the number and the description. It's 362-25 on page 282. and it's an item requesting some information on the future staffing of the executive department. So I'd ask for suspension of the rules.

Thank you, Councilor Gentile. Councilor Gentile is asking for suspension of the rules to file a late filed docket item. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. I move the report. Thank you, Councilor Gentile.

Kalis did such a good job. Maybe I'll just relinquish this for the rest of the evening. Last but never least, Councilor Danberg for real property reuse.

Thank you, Mr. President. There's no report tonight.

All right. Thank you all. All right. So, Mr. Clerk, we're ready to call first call.

Sir Albright.

Aye.

Councilor Baker. Aye. Councilor Bixby.

Aye, with the exception of 341-25, from which I am recused.

Councilor Block.

Aye.

Councilor Danberg? Aye. Councilor Downs? Aye. Councilor Farrell?

Aye, except for item 261.25 on which I vote no.

Gentile, Getz, Greenberg, Grossman, Humphrey, Kalis, Kelley, Krintzman, Leary, Lipof, Lobovits, Councilor Lucas.

Aye, with the exception of 342-25, for which I vote no.

Councilor Malakie.

I, with the exception of number 44-24 and 342-25, on which I vote no.

Councillor, do you vote no on both items? Councilor Micley.

Aye.

Councilor Oliver. Aye. Councilor Wright.

Aye, with the exception of 342-25, which I vote no.

President Laredo. Aye. On first call, votes are 24 to 0, with the exception of 341-25, where there are three no votes. and 261-25, no vote, 23 to 1, and 242-25, also a no, 44-24, So no and 34-25 is also a no. So three no votes on 341-25.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. I'll note we have a full complement of councillors here this evening, which is always nice to see. And except for Councillor Micley, everybody else is in the chamber. So we are now going to proceed to second call. I'm going to recognize the chair of the Land Use Committee, Chair Kelley. These are first three items, because they're broken up. One of them is broken up into two parts. relate to the Riverside project. Once Chair Kelley does her presentation, I'm going to suggest that any discussion be had on all of them. but then we will take separate votes on each of the items. Chair Kelley.

Thank you, President Laredo. As he just said, this item has been turned into three items. They're all related. Many of you have been following this project for I'm just going to try and encapsulate what happened at our last meeting and stuff that's relevant for us tonight. The Land Use Committee met on November 18th to review and vote on the Riverside project, which is before us and now three related parts. 238-25A and B, which is a zone change, and 239-25, which is the request to construct a mixed use development with residential, commercial, parking, and public open space. Thanks for watching! The original docket item requested 750 residential units, which has now been changed to 755 due to resulting site and building configurations in response to previous comments from the committee and the public.

The petitioner summarized text amendments, which included net reductions in lot area, maximum stories and height of buildings, and changes to access requirements and post-construction arrangements. members of the public spoke including many from the carpenters union who emphasized their view that this project should be built by union labor The law department clarified for everyone that this is not a decision within the capacity of the Newton City Council to commit to or enforce. Planning and law staff presented and clarified text amendments, draft conditions and findings, which we can go over some of that this evening for everybody's information. and the public hearing was closed. Regarding the rezoning item, this was split into two items, each requiring a vote. 238-25A refers to the text changes outside the height and stories and the zone change and 238B, which is the

construction of the project. Both are subject to second call tonight. Discussion of the request to construct the project followed. We went over our council order item by item, every single item. Planning pointed out that the conditions are very similar to the previous versions approved for prior Riverside special permit proposals with some modifications reflecting recent changes. A new issue arose recently that we hadn't been aware of before. Fire Chief Gentile is asking for a two-way radio communication system, which is like, these are my words, like a radio tower or antenna required by fire code. There was much discussion and explanation for this, which basically will provide safety and public benefit to the surrounding community in addition to this development locale. The location, construction method and cost are not yet determined, but the committee agreed to cap the expense to the developer to $500,000.

If costs go over that, the excess will need to be funded otherwise such as through city or mitigation funds. We went through the findings which are in compliance with dimensional standards, text amendments, and comprehensive plans. The findings include roadway improvements, appropriate setbacks, and architectural design. It was noted that the project meets energy and sustainability provisions and had the appropriate parking studies. The number of units for the project was discussed. It was noted that any increase to the 755 currently proposed number of units will require an amendment to the special permit. the committee discussed and approved the item subject to second call tonight that vote was eight to zero, a unanimous vote of all land use members in order to review the edited language of the draft council order, which is why this is on second call. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Kelley. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on any of these items? Councilor Block.

Thank you, Chair. Well, it's been a long road for Riverside. On April 22nd, 2018, the Lower Falls Improvement Association held its semiannual meeting. And at that meeting, Drawings were presented of the Riverside Plan at that time. It was a controversial presentation of one and a half million square feet, a hotel, two office buildings, 675 residential units. and before us today after subsequent amendments and the latest proposal we're at a Plan before us, which is 897,000 square feet.

No hotel, no office buildings, but over 750 housing units. So this evolution has been something that I've been involved with every step of the way. And I'm very happy to say that I'm able to support this it's not a perfect plan but then there probably is no such thing so at the appropriate time Mr. Chair I will move to approve the zoning changes and the special permit petition thank you

Thank you, Councilor Block. Councilor Krintzman.

Thank you, Mr. President. I first got involved in the Riverside development in 2007. I was president of the Lower Falls Improvement Association. The MBTA said that they were going to put out an RFP for the land. And the LFIA at that time decided we wanted to submit comments. We wanted to put in and an addendum to the MBTA's solicitation. Since then, I've been involved in numerous ways, including as a city councilor and including as a member of the Riverside Liaison Committee. This is not the ideal project. I agree with Councilor Block. I had hoped that there would be actually some commercial component. I thought office space was good. both for the site and for the city. I had hoped that there would be more retail. There's a little over 20,000 square feet of retail. I had asked for more retail. I thought that would have been beneficial. There's a lot of housing there. A lot of housing.

I had also asked to sort of keep the parking down because my position continues to be that the more parking we allow, the more traffic it's going to cause. I am pleased to be able to support this project tonight. I hope you all will as well. I want to say that this project came about as a result of the hard work of a lot of people. In particular, I want to mention Barbara Gruenthal and Liz Mirable from Lower Falls, as well as the entire LFIA. Robert Korf, Steve Bookbinder, Steve Roach, Randy Hart, Brent McDonald, and Kathy Winters did a lot of work on this obviously from the development side. former Councilor Chris Markowitz worked pretty hard on this as well. So I very much appreciate all the work that those individuals put in. Last but not least, I want to mention that Chair Kelley and the Land Use Committee did a fantastic job at going through this and going through this quickly. I'm pleased to support this, and I hope that you will as well.

Thank you, Councilor Krintzman. Oh, Councilor Gentile.

So thanks to Councilor Kelley as the chair of the Land Use Committee. This has moved through quite efficiently and with a significant amount of support as it turns out. and with very little comment from me, so I'm not going to push my luck and I'm going to keep it short, but I just wanted to indicate that I too support the project. I hope you all heard what Councilor Krintzman said. It wasn't a mistake. It was 2007 that we first heard about the project. I can still remember being on the outside deck at the Indigo looking down with Alderman Sangiolo and Alderman Haney

and we were being briefed on a proposal for the site and it was at least a million and a half square feet. and even more, I think. And I just remember looking at the two of them and we were shaking our heads. So it's been a long road. This project, I'm supporting it for pretty much two reasons number one it provides more housing than any of the other iterations that we have seen and we hear daily the need that we have for housing and for affordable housing of which there will be a significant number of units. And then secondly, while I understand that people would rather see some more commercial,

The good news for the two neighborhoods being Lower Falls and Auburndale is that all of the other projects had two high rises in them, towers, 10, 11 stories, maybe even 12. and the traffic that was going to come along. And this particular project, all of the studies show that the traffic will be significantly less which is what we've always been concerned about at the site. So those are two of the reasons, the two main reasons why I plan to support the project.

Thank you, Councilor Gentile. Councilor Oliver.

Great. Thank you, Mr. President. In all due respect to everything we've heard, and I completely agree with everything I just heard, I'm still going to vote no on this project. I expect to be the sole person who does not. And that's OK. Because I'm only doing it so that I can stand up and simply ask this group What do we feel, and this is a rhetorical question, I don't expect answers tonight anyway. At some point, properties like this are no longer going to exist in this city. and Newton doesn't just need housing. We have to protect all of the interests of the city.

It's the only reason I can't support this project, just like I couldn't support the amended version of Northland. We have to find a different way to balance the needs that we all know we have. Unfortunately, I'm going to be voting no, but I'm with you all in spirit, at least 98% of the way.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Oliver. Anyone else who wishes to hear? Councilor Malakie.

Thank you. I, too, am going to be voting no for basically the same reasons that Councilor Oliver stated. I also voted no on the Northland revision. To me, I would rather see Waite and City Development that does include a worthwhile proportion of commercial space on something that we're calling mixed use. We can't keep approving project after project with minimal amounts of commercial and expect to get anything different. Once it's built on, we're not going to get that space back. And to me, it feels like we're looking at short-term interests when we should be looking at the long-term Thank you.

Anyone else wish to be heard on the item? All right. Seeing none, Block, I believe you wanted to make some motions and we're going to need three.

So what order would you like them as? I think there are two zoning.

I think we should do the two zoning ones first. Sure. and then the land use special permit one. I will note for the first zoning change that only requires a majority vote, the second one which relates to height and um the number of floors requires two-thirds and i is that that correct mr clerk all right So, Council Block, do you want to move the first portion of the zoning item?

Yes. Is it item 238.25? Is that correct?

That's correct.

That's A.

Is there a second for the motion? Seconded by Chair Kelley. We're going to do this in a roll call, please. Councilor Albright.

Aye. Councilor Baker. Aye. Councilor Bixby. Aye. Councilor Block. Aye. Councilor Danberg.

Aye.

Councilor Downs.

Aye.

Councilor Farrell. Aye. Councilor Gentile? Aye. Councilor Getz?

Aye.

Councilor Greenberg? Aye. Councilor Grossman?

Aye.

Councilor Humphrey? Aye. Councilor Kalis?

Aye.

Kelley. Aye. Councilor Krintzman.

Aye.

Councilor Leary. Aye. Councilor Lipof.

Aye.

Councilor Lobovits. Aye. Councilor Lucas.

Aye.

Councilor Malakie? No. Councilor Micley?

Aye.

Councilor Oliver? Aye. Right. Aye. President Barreto. Aye. I apologize. On this motion, the ayes are 23.

You distracted me, Councilor Gentile. All right. Next, the second part of the zoning item. Again, Councilor Block.

This is item 23825B.

All right. A motion to approve by Councilor Block. Do I have a second? Councilor Gentile? Pardon? Any further discussion, we are going to call the roll on this one again. Remember, this is a zoning item.

Councilor Albright. Aye. Councilor Baker. Aye. Councilor Bixby. Aye. Councilor Block. Aye. Councilor Danberg? Aye. Councilor Downs? Aye. Councilor Farrell? Aye. Councilor Gentile? Aye. Councilor Getz?

Aye.

Greenberg. Aye. Councilor Grossman. Aye. Councilor Humphrey.

Aye.

Councilor Kalis.

Aye.

Kelley, Aye. Councilor Krintzman, Aye. Councilor Leary, Aye. Councilor Lipof, Aye. Councilor Lobovits, Aye. Councilor Lucas, Aye. Councilor Malakie. No. Councilor Micley.

Aye.

Councilor Oliver.

Just to clarify, Mr. Clerk, this is 238.25 correct? Correct.

Yes, sir. Aye. Councilor Wright.

Aye.

President Laredo. Aye. On this motion, the ayes are 23, the nays are 1.

All right. So the third in the trilogy of the Riverside project, Councilor Block.

Move to approve item 239-25, special permit petition.

Do I have a second for the item? Seconded by Councilor Krintzman. Any further discussion on this item? Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, call the roll, please. Councilor Albright.

Aye.

Councilor Baker. Aye. Councillor Bixby. Aye. Councillor Block. Aye. Councillor Danberg. Aye. Councillor Downs. Aye. Councillor Farrell. Aye. Councillor Gentile. Aye. Councilor Getz?

Aye.

Councilor Greenberg? Aye. Councilor Grossman?

Aye.

Humphrey. Aye. Councilor Kalis. Aye. Councilor Kelley. Aye. Councilor Krintzman.

Aye.

Councilor Leary. Aye. Councilor Lipov.

Aye.

Councilor Lobovits? Aye. Councilor Lucas? Aye. Councilor Malakie? No. Councilor Micley? Aye. Councilor Oliver? No. Wright. Aye. President Laredo. Aye. In this motion, the ayes are 22, the nays are 2. All right.

I'm going to recognize Councilor Gentile. I think you have a motion you want to make, Councilor Gentile?

I do. Thank you for recognizing me. At this point, at this time, I would like to move reconsideration of docket item 238-25 parens A and parens B, and docket item 239-25.

So Councilor Gentile, just so we have an explicit record, I'm going to suggest we take each one up separately. So we have very clear records. So there's a So we have a motion by Councilor Gentile to reconsider 238-25A for our new colleagues and those watching at home. Reconsideration is something that a party on the moving side of a vote can ask for within 24 hours after the vote. Gentile's motion this evening is so that somebody doesn't wake up tomorrow morning who voted in favor of this. have a change of heart, run into the clerk's office, ask for reconsideration, and we then take it up on the 15th.

We typically do not do motions for reconsideration unless there are substantive items like this one, like the budget, other things where we're near the end of a term and we want to make sure that action's completed. So there's a motion for reconsideration by Councilor Gentile. Do I have a second? Seconded by Councilor Krintzman. Can we do this in a voice vote, Mr. Clerk? All right, so if you are in favor of reconsideration, that means you want to relitigate this item, you vote yes. and if you're happy with the result that you just voted for, you vote no. So there's a motion to reconsider the first item. All in favor of reconsideration, please say aye. No ayes. Against reconsideration, please say no. No. All right. Reconsideration fails. Councilor Gentile, second item.

I move reconsideration of docket item 238-25B. All right.

Do I have a second for the motion for reconsideration, Councilor Krintzman? Again, voice vote. If you want to revisit your vote, you vote aye or yes. If you are happy with your vote, you vote no or nay. All in favor of reconsideration, please say aye. All against reconsideration, please say no or nay. No. All right, you got two for three, Councilor Gentile. Go ahead.

Final item 239-25, I would move reconsideration.

All right, do I have a second for the motion? Councilor Krintzman. Again, yes or aye is in favor of reconsideration. No or yay is against it. We'll do this on a voice vote. All in favor of reconsideration, please say aye. saying none. Against reconsideration, please say no. No. All right, reconsideration fails on all three items. They are officially passed by the city council. Before we go to the code of conduct item, which I suspect is going to take us a fair amount of time this evening, we have two Items that Councilor Gentile has placed on second call. I would hope that they are quick and that we can dispose them. So I'm going to recognize Councilor Gentile. You can speak to both of them collectively, Councilor Gentile, but we are going to take separate votes.

Thank you, Mr. President. So the two items are 299-25 and 318-25. There are matters related to workers' compensation. In finance, at the last meeting, we were doing some agenda cleaning, some house cleaning, and there was sufficient interest in order to see this carried over to the next council. Under our rules, in order to be able to do that, I need to ask for a suspension of the rules to refer the items to the 2026-2027 Council, which is the motion that I'm making now. Morris.

So, Councilor Gentile has a motion on 299-25 to refer to the new council. Do I have a second for that motion? Seconded by Councilor Greenberg. Any discussion? Can we do this in a voice vote, Mr. Clerk? So if there's no discussion in favor of sending it over to the new council, please say aye. Councilor, hold on, hold on. Councilor Oliver.

Sorry, I'm just curious. I'm supportive of the idea of pushing it out to the next council for next term. But I am curious. Are there docketers attached to it? What's the mechanism?

The mechanism is referred to the new council. The new council takes it up with all the precedent that's behind it. The only things that you cannot refer over are land use items. They cannot be sent over because we sit in a quasi-judicial capacity and the same judges need to be in place. Great. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else wish to be heard on the item? We'll do it in a voice vote. All in favor of referring it to the new council, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, the ayes have it. And you have a second item, Councilor Gentile?

Yes, it's docket item 318.25, same subject matter, and I would move suspension of the rules to refer this to the 2026-2027 council.

Do we have a second for that? Councilor Greenberg seconded. We'll do this on a voice vote again. All in favor of referring it to the next council, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Both items referred to the new council. I'm going to recognize Chair Krintzman from Programs and Services for our last item of the evening.

Thank you, Mr. President. This is item 25-24, item to develop a code of conduct for the Newton City Council. Programs and services met on November 19th. Ultimately, the code of conduct after a series of votes, a series of amendments, many language changes, many iterations of the discussion, The committee voted six to zero to one to approve the item subject to second call. By way of background, I don't want to speak for the doctors, but I think there were situations that came up within the city council over the last number of years that that some folks were frustrated there was not a mechanism to handle either through the city's HR Services, or otherwise through the city council. And so it became the thinking that there was a code of conduct that was needed to be put in place for the city council. This was the docket item. that handled that.

We handled it in programs and services and largely through the rules subcommittee, though this was not docketed as a amendment to the city council rules officially. So there will sort of be more on that later. But at this point, I think I can conclude the report and leave it up to maybe Councillor Humphrey to manage his amendment.

So let me, because I do anticipate some amendments, let me just try to give you a quick overview of how I intend to proceed with this tonight. Right now before us is an item from Programs and Services, which is a code of conduct in and of itself. it is not, as of now, not a formal rule of the council, but merely, merely is the wrong word, A policy that has been set forth by the Programs and Services Committee that we as a collective body are being asked to approve. There are some amendments proposed amendments to this code of conduct. I think Councilor Baker is a couple I know. Humphrey as a couple. My plan is to take what I would consider the more technical amendments, the linguistic amendments first.

Then there are a couple of more substantive changes that are proposed. I'll hear those next. And then hopefully, we'll be able to vote on the item however it's amended, whether it is no amendments, some amendments, or a series of amendments. So with that, Councilor Baker, I know you have a couple of proposed changes. I'm going to recognize you first, and then I'll recognize Councilor Humphrey. And of course, anyone else who wishes to add anything, that's of course in order. So we're going to deal, I hope, with the amendments one at a time. So Councilor Baker.

Thank you Mr. President and I want to thank the chair of the committee and the colleagues on the committee and especially Councilor Humphrey for the degree of effort that he has put in on this project along with and he'll speak to the process himself, but I just think that should be acknowledged right up front. The text that we're talking about is the last part of the attachment to the programs and services report. in order to find what we're talking about as the base document, I would refer you to the end of the report. There's a red line version of a prior, excuse me, there's a red line version of the proposed code of conduct that shows lots of changes and then a clean version at the back end. My amendment relates to the clean version at the back end. And they are really

Some small amendments that, as I understand from Councilor Humphrey, although he should speak for himself, he's comfortable with entertaining because they really relate to language and trying to keep the language parallel. The clerk, I think, has access to that through Ms. Holden. Can you put that up, Mr. Clerk?

Coming up now.

So these are the changes basically in subsection E, where it says safeguarding the institution of the council and respecting the public trust. The earlier portion of the document, if you look at it, speaks of shoulds rather than shall. And I felt that it was important to clarify. So that language would be should strive to be well-informed. Then item two is no change. Then item three is counselors should show respect for the public they serve, including during public comment or hearings. That's slightly reworded. And then item four is no change. Item five is should conduct themselves so as to main public confidence. That's, again, a slight modification. And then at the item B, or excuse me, 4A, it said counselors

Rather than it is the duty of elected officials, the councilor should self-police and hold themselves accountable to the code of conduct. So those are, I think, clarifying amendments, and I would move them at this point. Thank you. I'd be glad to speak to them if necessary.

Do I have a second for the amendments? Seconded by Councilor Humphrey. Is there any discussion on these amendments? Councilor Wright, just on the amendments for the moment.

I wonder why E3 didn't change to should because it has a shell there. If we're changing all the shells to should.

I think the, let me go back to the original text. The one I kept was... Or four, I should say.

Four as a shell.

Yeah. This one I think is important to maintain because shall safeguard confidential information. That's the, I think, is important mandate. That is different from the others which are advisory.

Any further discussion on the amendments? Seeing none, let's try to do this in a voice vote, and we'll try to adopt all the amendments together. Those, if you vote yes or aye, you're in favor of the language amendments as proposed by Councilor Baker and seconded by Councilor Humphrey. If you're opposed, that's a no or nay vote. All in favor of the amendments as proposed, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. The docket item is now amended with Councilor Baker's amendments. I'm now going to recognize Councilor Humphrey. And again, let's take up the smaller amendments first, and then we'll get to the more substantive ones.

Thank you. So just briefly on process here, this is the docket item from Councilor Albright near the beginning of the term, or maybe it was Yeah, I think it was the beginning of the term. And we did discuss, as Councilor Krintzman said, we did discuss this somewhat in the Rules Committee. We weren't quite sure where this should live. ultimately the law department made a few suggestions so when the time is right and we've dealt with all the language we'll get to a point of voting on whether or not to include it in the rules formally But we heard a presentation from a Newton North High School intern, Malia, who was assigned to research a whole bunch of different codes of conduct. Carol Moore, our previous clerk, had also been working on that. and so we sort of compiled all those things together, different sections, different options from around Massachusetts, from around the country,

the document that you see before you is what ultimately came out of the programs and services discussion and then the amendments that we're going to be considering now are things that we either didn't really find consensus on I think in committee or there was points where the committee didn't agree, but I thought that the full council should at least have the opportunity to consider them. We'll start with what I had labeled Amendment 2. That's the closest we have to a technical point. Some people may disagree. That's fine. We can have a discussion, vote it, and then move on. So this is section 3D. And basically what this section is doing is incorporating the harassment prevention policy that we have for city staff into a body of text relevant to the council specifically because that doesn't currently apply. The committee had a few very small wording changes there. I would like the council to at least consider

the version that we had originally looked at, which I have highlighted. I don't know if we can put that up on the screen.

Is that a red line version, Councilor Humphrey?

I had put it in blue highlights to make it very easy.

However you do it, I'll just call it highlighting.

Yeah, there we go. Thank you. and these I'm considering these together right if you if you don't like it or whatever just vote no and we'll go back to how it came out of committee that's you know I prefer this language. This was the language that we had worked out in discussions with the law department and the HR department. I think it's a bit stronger. I understand that there is a separate question of what you mean by will not be tolerated in that we are kind of discussing how if any enforcement mechanisms we should have. but this is the proposal that I would like us to consider for that language. I think it's a stronger statement to make and it is consistent with the language in the staff policy.

Is there a second for that? Seconded by Councilor Albright. On the amendment only right now, we'll entertain discussion. Councilor Baker.

Thank you, Mr. President. I did not support this, the language that Councilor Humphrey has proposed because I thought that This was in different from tone than what we were trying to present. So I'm not going to support his amendment. I think that the language we have is important. But I think that the changes here are not going to be helpful to trying to make sure that we follow what we need to do in this particular way. So the committee voted, I think, wisely in this case to remove the language. I understand his desire to return it, but I think the committee vote should stand. Thank you.

Kalis.

Just a point of clarification, maybe through the president. Councilor Humphrey, can you read what you're changing?

Humphrey. Go ahead, please. I'm sorry. We'll let the chair of programs and services. Okay.

I'm talking from two.

right originally you can't see the language that came out of committee here the way it came out of committee where the first highlighted word harassment that actually was instead of a period before it was a comma and it said including okay so. It read, it is the goal of the city council to promote an institution that is free of any harassment, including because of one's race, color, national origin, ancestry. And then it ends at the word harassment. Does that make sense?

Yes, thanks. Thank you. The second piece is just will not be tolerated. My red line is crossed out here. It's just in there. So it ends at the word harassment.

The will not be tolerated does not appear in the version.

The will not be tolerated is additional language that Councilor Humphrey is proposing. and what he's proposing is in the second creating a second sentence beginning with the word harassment rather than the comma and the word including. but not including was in there, correct? Okay. Any further discussion on this item? Councilor Albright.

I'll just add that I think that harassment is a pretty important one. And for all the reasons that are listed there, color, national origin, ancestry, age, et cetera, et cetera. So I think adding will not be tolerated at the end makes the statement even stronger. Thank you.

Anybody else wish to comment on this? Councilor Farrell?

Thank you. Is there a clarification about what that will not be tolerated means, how that will be implemented?

If Is that a question to the President, to Councilor Humphrey? Councilor Humphrey, you could try to answer that.

Thank you, Mr. President. As I said, I think we're In this, we're just making a statement about general principles of what we do and don't tolerate. There is no mechanism discussed in this portion, and there may not be a mechanism on that, but I think it's a statement point.

Councilor Farrell, go ahead. You may conclude your remarks.

I understand the importance of the statement. But when you say will not be tolerated, it seems to me there is a consequence attached to that. And if there is, I think it should be expressed. Thank you.

Anyone else? Councilor Baker, I'll recognize you again.

I think Councilor Farrell has pointed out that the difficulty is there is first you need an actor and an actee or whatever the right grammar is here. But I think the problem is that you have addressed the issue that really led us to delete that in committee. I think the statement is very strong without these additions, and I hope the council will approve.

All right, so no further discussion on this item. We're going to call the roll on the amendment because I know there's several who supported at least. I don't know what the count's going to be like. So if you are in favor of Councilor Humphrey's amendment is seconded by Councilor Albright, you'll vote yes or aye. If you are happy with the language as it came out of committee, you'll vote no or nay. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Councilor Albright.

Aye.

Baker, Bixby, Block, Danberg, Downs,

Aye.

Councillor Farrell.

No.

Councillor Gentile. Councillor Getz.

No.

Greenberg.

Aye.

Councilor Grossman.

No.

Councilor Humphrey.

Aye.

Councilor Kalis.

No.

Kelley. Aye. Councilor Krintzman.

Aye.

Councilor Leary. No. Councilor Lipof.

No.

Councilor Lobovits. No. Lucas. Aye. Councilor Malachy. No. Councilor Micley.

No.

Councilor Oliver.

No.

Councilor Wright.

No.

President Laredo.

No.

On this motion, the ayes are 9, the nays are 14.

So the amendment fails. All right, Councilor Humphrey, you have additional amendments to propose?

Thank you. Yes, I do. This I've labeled as Amendment 1. This is under Section 2. In committee, it had been condensed down to just the part that's not highlighted in 2A. Everything else was dropped. This is my proposal to put that back in. You know, not make or break, but I think it would be better to do it this way just procedurally for making it clear what's happening.

Is there anyone who wishes to second this motion? Councilor Lobovits, you want to second it? Okay. All right. I'm going to recognize Councilor Baker to speak to the item.

First, Mr. President, I think it's hard to read, so I think that it may be helpful to have it read out. But I will just indicate that I don't know whether Councilor Humphrey can do that or the clerk can do that, but maybe it's visible to his computer, but it's hard to read on this screen.

So I'll take the liberty of doing it. As I understand it, A was strictly the first sentence that was there. Humphrey's proposed amendment adds additional language in A and a new B and a new C. The additional language in A is as follows. This signed acknowledgement will be kept on file and remain easily acceptable to everyone, including other officials, municipal employees, and the public. in the event that any member declines to sign the form, that fact shall be noted by the city clerk on the form. B, signed statement to accept the code, quote, I have read and understand the Newton City Council Code of Conduct will comply with the requirements set forth in this document.

And then C, the acknowledgement process shall be repeated during the term if the council amends the code of conduct with immediate effect. All of that is brand new language, Councilor Baker.

Thank you. I appreciate the intent behind this, but I do think that the short version says what it needs to say. And I think the rest of it produces a rather cumbersome process and one which I think will make it difficult to make this as effective oddly enough as it should be. So I'm respectfully going to oppose the motion and that's the way it came out of committee and I hope the committee recommendation will stay.

Others who wish to be heard. Do we should be heard? Anyone else on the side? Councilor Albright.

So it makes it cumbersome to create a file folder and put the forms in a file folder and put it in a file drawer or else digitize them and put them online. I don't see how it makes it very cumbersome. to just save the signed statements and put them in a file drawer and make them accessible. That seems pretty simple to me. And they could be digitized and put online. And also, I like the fact that Councilor Humphrey has decided what that signed statement should read. I've read and I understand the Newton City Council Code of Conduct will comply with the requirements. It seems very basic. So I'm not sure what there is to disagree with on this one, but thank you.

Councilor Grossman, then Lucas.

Thank you, Mr. President. A clarifying question to my colleague from Ward 7 through the chair. It seemed to me that my colleague was not suggesting that that we decline to save and file the forms, but rather that we just decline to include this language because It's extra language that's not necessary to support the point.

I'm going to, to Councillor Baker, if you want to respond directly.

I think that's correct. Also, if this ends up being a section of the rules, you will have a portion of the rules which is going to be subject to a special process as opposed to the rules in general. and again we were all given a copy of the rules at the beginning of the term so I think that the deletions that the committee made were made made sense in this context and the information will still be available.

Thank you. Does that, are you all set, Councilor Grossman?

Yes, I just, my inclination with this type of thing is that simpler is sometimes more elegant and more effective, as my colleague from Ward 7 had stated. I certainly think the process that's suggested here makes sense and is something We can easily and almost definitely would adhere to anyway. I just don't know that it needs to be spelled out here. And I think there's something to brevity as well.

Thank you. Councilor Lucas.

Thank you. So I'm going to be all over the map, okay? So bear with me. So is this, you know, it says you have to sign this. This code of conduct, is that something we have to sign every term or is it you sign it once and we're done with it? or is it going to be a case where we sign it once and then if it's amended we might have to sign it again for the next term?

So I think, Councillor Lucas, it says upon taking the oath of office, you take the oath of office each time you're elected. So it would be every January 1st, a member of the City Council would have to sign this document without Councilor Humphrey's amendments.

Okay, so without the amendment, we have to sign it no matter what?

You sign it to begin with. It says upon taking the oath of office and you do that typically on the 1st of January of every two years.

Yes, that's right. Okay, and then the other question was, and I think Councilor Baker, I think might have stated my question, and that is, if the code of conduct If it becomes a rule and we vote on the rules at the beginning of the term, why do we have to sign the Code of Conduct?

I'll make that a question addressed to the chair of programs and services since that is in the original item.

Sure, I can say that at least I believe the thinking in council was that we acknowledge receipt of things when we're sworn into office. You receive different policies of the city. You receive your paperwork. you acknowledge receipt of those. So this was one more thing that you could acknowledge receipt of. Oh, thank you. All set.

I'll let Councilor Humphrey, you wanted to offer something on the amendment.

Well, yeah, just briefly, you know, I think this provision we found was relatively standard in terms of other codes of conduct, but respectfully, I don't think most of us are reading through every page of the rules when we're taking office, even if we're voting on it. You may, but plenty of people don't. And the reason it's often called out in that way is to say that you have read through this particular document.

Okay, Councilor Albright.

Yeah, if people think that it's too long, then perhaps a statement could be added to the first to the to

If you're going to do that, you need to do that through a friendly amendment to what Councilor Humphrey has.

So let me make this statement and then ask Councilor Humphrey for a friendly amendment. So it would say they received this code of conduct, and then there would just be another sentence. This signed statement will be maintained by the clerk and be available to the public.

So, Councilor Humphrey, that's what she considers, Councilor Albright considers a friendly amendment. Are you going to accept that?

Well, I mean, I don't really object to it, and I guess it's simpler, but I don't know. I mean, there's a section that was adopted by the committee, and that's fine.

If people feel that this is too complicated, then- Can I make a suggestion here, folks? We have an amendment by Councilor Humphrey. It's proposed. Let's vote it up. Let's vote it down. If this thing passes, there's nothing to prevent the council next term from making modifications to this. And this is committee work. Thank you. right now. I mean, I'm respectful of what Councilor Humphrey is doing, but the idea that we're going to amend amendments to have other amendments with linguistic changes on the floor of the council, I don't think is good policy. So, Councilor Albright.

I just want to quickly respond that I think I docketed this item maybe two years ago. So it really isn't that easy to amend the rules or add codes of conduct or do things. It's not very easy and it doesn't happen very often. My suggestion is we do the best we can tonight.

Okay, thank you. Councilor Humphrey, we all set?

Yeah, I think just for the sake of simplicity and getting us out of here sooner, we'll say I'm going to stick with this as the proposal and people can take it or leave it. It's not going to break the document.

Any further discussion on that item? We're going to call the roll on this, please. If you're in favor of the amendment, you vote yea or aye. If you're against, you vote no or nay.

Go ahead, please, Mr. Clerk. Councilor Albright. Aye. Councilor Baker.

No.

Mr. Bixby. Aye. Councilor Block.

No.

Councilor Danberg. Aye. Councillor Downs.

Aye.

Councillor Farrell. No. Councillor Gentile. Councillor Getz.

No.

Greenberg.

Aye.

Councilor Grossman.

No.

Councilor Humphrey.

Aye.

Councilor Kalis.

No.

Councilor Kelley. No. Councilor Krintzman?

No.

Councilor Leary? No. Councilor Lipof?

No.

Councilor Lobovits? Aye. Councilor Lucas?

No.

Councilor Malik? No. Councilor Micley?

No.

Councilor Oliver?

No.

Councilor Wright?

No.

President Laredo.

No.

In this motion, the ayes are 7, the nays are 16.

All right. So we are still with the initial proposed a lot of committee with the amendments proposed by Councilor Baker having been accepted. Councilor Humphrey, do you have further amendments?

Yes, I do. So we'll go to Amendment 3, which is a proposal on 4B, and this would be dealing with what's marked as subsection two there. And again, this gets into the question of enforcement. How is this enforced? because what made it out of committee essentially didn't really have an enforcement mechanism. Many of the examples that we looked at typically had a role for the president basically taking someone aside and dealing with what happened if there was a violation of the code of conduct. So this is in line with that proposal. And again, it's just that particular one. I've separated these out because they're substantively different from each other.

Is there a second for the motion? Albright, second in the motion discussion, Councilor Baker.

Again, because it's just difficult to read, I hope the President would do the same.

I will be happy to read this.

Then I'd like to comment, thank you.

All right, so right now, This is addressing and remediating violations section B1. Every count is in the initial language and Councilor Humphrey is proposing to add three additional paragraphs. Am I correct? Could you scroll down a little bit, Mr. Clerk?

just the first of those three right now is what we're talking about.

So Roman numeral?

Two. Any city councilor? No, that's three. Mr. President, do you want me to read the way it appears now at a committee?

Your new number two is it is the role of the city council president to enforce the code of conduct as needed or to recuse themselves in favor of the vice president or president emeritus in case of a conflict of interest for or an accusation against the president. That is additional language that you want. That's one piece of the additional language you want.

I'm suggesting that we consider these separately as I think they all deal with a separate thing.

All right. So that is the separate second item, Councilor Krintzman.

Just wondering if you want me to read the way it appears coming out of committee.

I would like you to do that so we can actually see what the differences are.

Okay, so 4A is the way it came out of committee. Councilors should self-police and hold themselves accountable, okay?

Could we put these up? Is there any way to put these up side by side, Mr. Clerk?

That is going to be difficult.

All right. Never mind. We'll just let Councilor Krintzman read it as it came out of committee. Go ahead, please.

Or be read as follows. The enforcement of the code of conduct is summarized as follows. Every counselor is encouraged as part of a bystander intervention approach to speak up. about perceived violations of the code of conduct and to offer support to affected colleagues, city staff, or members of the public.

Hold on. Can you get it back on?

Want me to read that again?

Yes, we're going to get it back on.

Section to say should, I think, and then my amendments, just to be clear.

Coming back now.

All right, so this is This is as proposed by Progressive Services and... We're in 4B.

Yes.

Go ahead. Do you want to read that, please?

The enforcement of the code of conduct is summarized as follows. Every counselor is encouraged as part of a bystander intervention approach to speak up about perceived violations of the code of conduct and to offer support to affected colleagues, city staff, or members of the public.

I'm trying to understand, forgive me.

So what came out of committee, Mr. President, just ends there, the part that he read. So everything after that is up for discussion because we couldn't come to an agreement in committee.

Well, it sounds like we came to an agreement, but the committee came to an agreement, voted it out, and you're differing with the vote.

The tenor of the discussion on that particular area of the code was that one person had one proposal, another person had another proposal, and then at least two of us had another proposal. So we were not able to reach an agreement. So we said, okay, here's where it ends. If it ends there tonight, it works. I am suggesting that there would be additional language.

So I just want to be clear. The committee issued a report. It voted out an item. It voted out that item with the language that was presented by Councilor Krintzman. you wish to change that language, you're making your amendment. We clear on that?

Yes.

All right. You have three different paragraphs you want to add and you'd like each one considered individually?

Yes.

All right. And Councilor Albright, did you second the first one? All right. We're going to debate the first one then, Councilor Baker.

So again, part of the challenge of this process is to figure out where we've come from and where we're going. So I want to just preface my concern about the amendment because what we did in committee was to formalize We have statements of best practices. Members of the council will have seen them on the website. We also have a provision in section three of the rules relating to city councilor conduct. And the question that ultimately came up was, what is this? Is this a statement? Is it a part of a rule? Is it an ordinance? That wasn't clear at the time. Subsequently, the law department has indicated that these changes really, if they're going to be binding, should be part of the rules. I think that's an important clarification and that's why I can support the item at this point. That wasn't clear at the time of the committee discussion. However, the question then in committee we discussed, what is the appropriate enforcement mechanism?

And at the time, it seemed that the committee agreed that the committee, excuse me, that the fundamental idea behind this was to set forth standards as the preface of the preliminary language in the actual approved document, excuse me, approved by committee indicates, set forth standards so that everybody knows what they're expected to do. And but it's ultimately upon each counselor to take on the responsibility of Enforcement. What this does is to give the enforcement power to the president. I think there was a difference in the opinion of those who favored enforcement whether the president should be the right enforcing authority and we have possible other amendments for an alternative that may come before us this evening but the point I think is important is key here is that this is formalizing the conduct that we want to undertake and be accountable for, but we're ultimately responsible to the voters.

And so the process of having an enforcement mechanism built into it is not something that the committee favored. I didn't favor. and indeed is not part of our rules in general. So I think it's important that we keep the draft that came out of committee with a slight amendment that I made earlier and go on from there.

So look, folks, this I will just share with you while Councilor Humphrey is entirely within his rights to grace this in the full council. That's what the full council is here for. This is, in many ways, wordsmithing type things that often take place in committee, and the committee hammers it out. The will of the committee as such, we move on. But with that said, is there anyone else who wish to be heard on this item before we vote on the amendment? Seeing none, we're going to call the roll on the amendment. If you favor it, you vote aye. If you're against it, you vote nay. And remember, it is just what Councilor Humphrey has labeled bullet point two. Go ahead, Mr. Clerk. Councilor Albright.

Aye.

Councilor Baker.

No.

Councillor Bixby.

Aye.

Councillor Block. No. Councillor Danberg.

No.

Councillor Downs.

No.

Councillor Farrell. No. Councilor Gentile? Councilor Getz?

No.

Councilor Greenberg?

Aye.

Councilor Grossman? No. Councilor Humphrey?

Aye.

Kalis, No. Councilor Kelley, No. Councilor Krintzman, No. Councilor Leary, Aye. Councilor Lipoff, No. Councilor Lobovits? Aye. Councilor Lucas?

No.

Councilor Malakie? No. Councilor Micley?

No.

Councilor Oliver?

Aye.

Right.

No.

President Laredo.

No.

In this motion, the ayes are 7, the nays are 16.

Okay. So, Councilor Humphrey, do you still wish to go on to your other amendments?

Yes, they are severable.

So your next amendment, just so we're clear, is state would state, could you go scroll that back? would say, make sure I read this correctly, any counselor who violates the code of conduct should be encouraged to make an apology to the affected party acknowledging the harm and intent to avoid subsequent harm. Such apologies should be made during a public meeting when the violation has occurred in a public meeting or has been generally known to the public to maintain or restore public confidence in the institution of the city council. That's what you're proposing, Councilor Humphrey?

It is. All right.

Is there a second for this? Seconded by Councilor Albright. Is there anyone? I'm going to recognize Councilor Baker to speak on this.

Again, colleagues, I think the committee report reflects the fact that we felt that this was something that was beyond the scope of a good start on the code of conduct. I think the difficulties of trying to imagine this being implemented are self-evident, so respectfully, I can't support the motion to amend.

Okay. Further discussion, Councilor Krintzman?

Thank you. I also didn't support this in committee, won't be supporting it now. I had some problems with the enforcement provisions. For a living, I interact with legislative bodies in different parts of the country, and I am very familiar with codes of conduct, things like that. and what most elected bodies do is they have a committee of the elected body that handles ethics complaints or complaints about the code of conduct so that they can police their members. Again, elected individuals are ultimately accountable to the voters. but within the body, there has to be some mechanism to enforce. It's why many of you received my email, which was proposing a ethics committee be formed of the city council. but that was proposed as a amendment to the rules and as the president explained earlier we're not talking about the rules so I've been told that that's out of order but the point is that I didn't prefer this enforcement mechanism.

I preferred an alternative enforcement mechanism, and I continue to oppose this one as well.

Thank you, Councilor Krintzman. Councilor Leary.

I learned that information in kindergarten, and I just think it's not appropriate here. It's getting way into First of all, I just want to say what Councilor Krintzman said is absolutely right. That's where I think it belongs. I just think this is unnecessary language.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to be heard? We're going to call the roll on this. If you favor what has been labeled number three by Councilor Humphrey, you vote yes or aye. If you're against, you vote no or nay. Call the roll, please.

Councilor Albright. No. Councilor Baker. No. Councilor Bixby. No. Councilor Block.

No.

Councilor Danberg. No. Councilor Downs.

No.

Farrell, No, Councilor Gentile, Councilor Getz, No, Councilor Greenberg, Aye, Councilor Grossman, No, Humphrey. Aye. Councilor Kalis.

No.

Councilor Kelley. No. Councilor Krintzman.

No.

Councilor Leary. Lipov, Lobovits, Lucas, Malakie, Micley, Oliver, Councilor Wright.

No.

President Laredo.

No.

On this motion, the ayes are 2, the nays are 21.

Humphrey, do you wish to proceed with number four?

Yes, so this is the final proposal that we had considered. I'm honestly not sure what was so objectionable about it that it got removed in committee, but this is just a simple proposal encouraging The president to refer people to trainings if there's some ongoing issues here, although I just changed it to violates, and it says may it's not a requirement. But you know, facilitating setting that up. So I think it's a good step.

Is there a second for this? Councilor Lobovits has seconded this discussion. Councilor Baker?

Do you mind reading it again, Mr. President?

Of course. Is it if or when, Councilor?

It's when, and then I took out repeatedly.

When any member of the City Council violates the tenets of the Code of Conduct, the city council president or the vice president or president emeritus in case of a conflict of interest for or an accusation against the president may ask the member to attend a training session to be arranged with the help of the Clerk of the Council's Office and the City of Newton Human Resources Department. Such training might be offered in-house or externally by the Massachusetts Municipal Association or another organization the department or clerk might recommend.

Again, Mr. President, I think this language is Laudable intent, but unfortunately I think it creates a whole process possibility that didn't seem wise in committee and I don't think is wise with the council. I don't recall anything where members of the council are required or even advised as a possibility to undergo training for a violation of the rules. So I respectfully will oppose it.

Is there anyone else who wish to be heard on this? Seeing none, let's call the roll, please. Again, a yes or an aye is in favor of the amendment, a no or a nay is against it.

Councilor Albright.

No.

No. Councilor Bixby No. Councilor Block No. Councilor Danberg No. Councilor Downs No. Councilor Farrell No. Gentile, Getz, Greenberg, Grossman, Humphrey, Kalis, Kelley. No. Councilor Krintzman.

No.

Councilor Leary. No. Councilor Lipof. No. Councilor Lobovits. Aye. Lucas.

No.

Councilor Malik. No. Councilor Micley.

No.

Councilor Oliver.

No.

Councilor Wright.

No.

President Laredo.

No.

On this motion, the ayes are 2, the nays are 21.

All right, Councilor Humphrey, do you have any further amendments?

That concludes my amendments, which means that we have a completed code draft here. I had submitted to the city council a proposed amendment to the rules. This was at the suggestion of the law department as a mechanism for incorporation. This would create what we have just agreed on as a new article. This would be Article 13 of the Rules and Orders of the City Council. and I think that that is the most appropriate mechanism you know there are other things that could be considered they felt that that was the most comfortable place to situate it if it were instead to be something like a best practices document that is sort of pretty loosey goosey, not really binding in any way. And I think it's more appropriate to have it be incorporated as part of the rules.

Okay, thank you. Is there a second? Hold on, hold on. Is there a second for Councilor Humphrey's motion? Seconded by Councilor Lobovits. Discussion, we'll recognize Councilor Baker, then Councilor Oliver.

So I would rise to indicate my support for this incorporation in the rules. My reservation in committee was that it wasn't clear to me where and how this uh code of conduct would live as part of our city council Board of Trustees Meeting. that was promulgated by a prior president and is not binding. At least as part of the rules, it will be part what everyone on the council expects to read and be available to the public. and I think it's a wise way to put this. Otherwise we have to make it an ordinance and that requires the signature of the mayor and a whole different process. So I think this is the right place to put the revised code of conduct. Thank you.

Can I just make sure I understand? You're speaking in favor of Councilor Humphrey's amendment.

Just because I disagreed with him so much, I wanted to make sure I stood when I agreed.

I want clarity. That's all. Councilor Oliver.

Thank you again. It was my understanding, and perhaps a question to Councilor Humphrey through the President, or perhaps even the Chair of Programs and Services, was my understanding that if The City Council did not want to adopt this as part of the rules. It could still exist as a non-binding and so forth. So I think that's a really important element that we Thank you.

Let me try to respond procedurally, if I may. If we do not accept Councilor Humphrey's amendment, we can still vote this item, this code of conduct, but it would be a policy, no more than a policy. It would not be embedded in any ordinance or any rule, but it'd be a policy much like other policies that we've put together from time to time sometimes called best practices but the same thing if we adopt this then it becomes part of our rules just to be clear so we can still Either way, we can and will vote on the proposed code. The question is whether it's incorporated in the rules as Councilor Humphrey has suggested and Councilor Baker supported or not. Councilor Humphrey, go ahead, please.

Yeah, so I think there are some range of options. The question is, what is the best, strongest option? The law department, I think, did clearly say that this was the most Thank you. Thank you. You have already as a body readopted the rules. If it's a best practices document, if it's something more nebulous, if it's an ordinance, that gets into much trickier territory in terms of carrying it over from one body to the next, whereas this we know is going to carry over if it's part of the rules. I think that's the cleanest way of doing it and the most straightforward.

Thank you, Councilor Humphrey. Councilor Oliver. Great. I appreciate the clarification because it simply means that if we want this to have more teeth, I think that's a fair statement. And if we don't add it to the rules, it doesn't go away. It's just non-binding. I just wanted to clarify.

That's also a fair statement. It's a statement of intent, not part of the rule. So there is a difference. All right. Anyone else wish to be heard on the amendment? I'm still going to do the amendment on a... Did we get a second for that amendment? Seconded. Was there a second for that amendment? Councilor Baker seconded. Let's do a roll call quickly on this one. So we're really clear. I'm sorry, Councilor Downs. Could you speak into the microphone, Councilor Downs, and rise, please?

I don't understand the amendment we're voting on.

were voting on Councilor Humphrey's amendment to make this code of conduct part of the rules of the city council. Thank you. Okay? And without it, it becomes a statement of intent Not a part of the rules. Okay. On the amendment, if you call the roll, please. Councilor Albright.

Aye. Councilor Baker.

Aye.

Bixby.

Aye.

Thank you. Councilor Block.

Aye.

Councilor Danberg. Aye. Councilor Downs. Aye. Councilor Farrell. Aye. Councilor Gentile, Councilor Getz.

Aye.

Councilor Greenberg. Aye. Grossman, Humphrey, Kalis, Kelley, Krintzman, Leary, Lipov, Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. President Laredo. Aye. On this motion, the ayes are 23, the nays are 0.

OK, we're now prepared to vote on the main item. did have a motion at some point to move it, but I'll take another one. Councilor Humphrey, you want to move to adopt?

I would love to move to adopt, and I think we can probably do it on a voice vote, given that.

All right. Can we vote on this in a voice vote, or would we prefer to have it on the record? I'm happy to do this in a voice vote. Do I have a second, by the way, for this? Albright seconded. All right. All in favor of passing this code of conduct as amended to become part of our rules, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. We are adjourned at 921 p.m. Thank you all very much.

Thanks for watching!