Paul Ruseau

22B Orchard Street

Medford, MA 02155

 

February 17, 2025

 

Councilor Justin Tseng

Governance Committee

Medford City Council

submitted electronically

 

Re: Proposed Medford Charter

 

Dear Committee Chair Tseng,

 

I hope this message finds you well. I want to express my gratitude for your leadership in reviewing the proposed charter.

 

As the longest-serving current member of the school committee, having represented Medford since 2018, I have several observations regarding the proposed charter that I would like to share.

 

During my interview with the charter study committee, I appreciated their openness to the insights I provided about the school committee. It was evident that the two members interviewing me were not fully familiar with the intricacies of my role, and they expressed gratitude for the context and understanding I offered. This interaction left me optimistic that the  proposed charter would be updated to accurately reflect the school committee's status as an executive body, distinct from other boards and commissions within the City of Medford.

 

Regrettably, I did not find any of our discussions reflected in the final charter draft. This omission was both surprising and disappointing. Throughout my four terms, I have dedicated myself to enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the school committee. However, the proposed charter language does not adequately capture the extensive scope and significance of our work, instead treating the committee as a secondary entity.

 

That no lawyers have reviewed this proposed charter language gives me great pause.  The charter is a legal document, and will be interpreted by the courts should issues arise.

 

I look forward to further discussions on how we can ensure the charter accurately represents the vital role of the school committee.

 

My comments are below.  I apologize for the length, but I felt it necessary for readability that the text I am addressing be included in the comments.  A few of my comments are merely pointing out what I believe are errors or omissions, some of which do not impact the school committee - but this is my government too - and I want a charter that is able to withstand any challenges as well as prevent confusion or misunderstanding so we can be assured of a stable and functioning Medford for all our future.

 

 

Comment 1: Page 1, Lines 2-6, Preamble

 

The text states:
“…The General Court may make clerical or editorial changes of form only to the bill unless [emphasis added] the mayor approves amendments to the bill before enactment by the General Court. The mayor is hereby authorized to approve amendments which shall be within the scope of the public objectives of this petition.”

 

My Interpretation:
My understanding is that if the Mayor and Legislature decide to amend the bill after the city council sends it to the Legislature, these amendments do not require city council approval, even if they go beyond clerical or editorial changes. Essentially, the Mayor and Legislature could potentially rewrite the entire document without the council's input. While correcting clerical errors is acceptable as long as the meaning remains unchanged, the council should have the opportunity to review, edit, amend, or reject any substantive changes.

 

 

Comment 2: Page 2, Lines 43-44, Section 1-7: Definitions

 

The text states:

“3. “City agency”, any multiple member body, any department, division or office of the city of Medford.”

 

Suggested Change:
Add ", not including the Medford Public Schools.”

 

Rationale:
The Medford Public Schools is often referred to as the ‘school department,’ but it is not actually a department of the City of Medford and does not fall under the Mayor's authority, regardless of the government structure. While I wish the term ‘school department’ could be phased out, it is unlikely to happen. It is important to clarify that Medford Public Schools is not a department or agency of the City of Medford.

 

 

Comment 3: Page 3, Lines 1-2, Section 1-7: Definitions

 

The text states:

“4. “City office or department head”, a person having charge of a city office or department.”

 

Suggested Change:

 

Add ", not including the Medford Public Schools.”
See Comment 2 above.

 

 

Comment 4: Page 3, Lines 3-5, Section 1-7: Definitions

 

The text states:

“5. “City website”, a site established and maintained by the city as its online repository of municipal information, whether on the internet or accessed through another comparable technology.”

 

Suggested Change:
Add ", not including the Medford Public Schools.”

See Comment 2 above.

 

 

Comment 5: Page 3, Lines 33-37, Section 1-7: Definitions

 

The text states:

“15. “Multiple member body”, any council, commission, committee, subcommittee or other body consisting of 2 or more persons, whether elected, appointed or otherwise constituted, but not including the city council, the school committee or an advisory committee appointed by the mayor.”

 

Suggested Change:
Line 37 add “or the school committee.”

 

Rationale:
Advisory committees created by the school committee operate under the policies set by the school committee. It is important that no external language infringes upon the authority of the school committee. The policy BDF, "Advisory Committees to the School Committee," is available at https://z2policy.ctspublish.com/masc/browse/medfordset/medford/BDF. This policy is nearly identical to those of other Massachusetts school systems and was developed by the Massachusetts Association of School Committees in compliance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30A:18-25.

 

 

Comment 6: Page 9, Lines 1-7, Section 2-9: City Council Confirmation of Certain Appointments

 

The text states:

“Appointments made by the mayor shall become effective on the 30th day after the date on which notice of the proposed appointment was filed with the city clerk unless rejected by a 2/3 vote of the city council within the 30 days, such rejection shall not be unreasonably withheld. [emphasis added] The question on rejection of any appointment made by the mayor shall not be subject to the procedure of objection provided in section 2-8(b) of the charter.”

 

Issue Identified:
The emphasized wording contains a triple negative, which inadvertently requires the city council to reject all mayoral appointments. This is likely not the intended outcome.

 

 

Comment 7: Page 14, Lines 2-4 and Lines 7-8, Section 3-8: Temporary Absence of the Mayor

 

The text states:

Lines 2-4: “…The city council, by unanimous vote of the entire membership, may determine whether the mayor is unable to perform the duties of the office.”

Lines 7-8 “…The mayor may at any point declare themselves able to perform the duties of office.”

 

Issue Identified:
The current language appears to grant the city council the authority to remove the mayor temporarily. However, it also allows the mayor to declare themselves fit for office, potentially undermining the council's decision. This section seems intended to address situations where the mayor needs to temporarily step down due to medical reasons or other personal needs, whether voluntarily or due to incapacitation. As written, the language does not effectively empower the council to act if the mayor opposes the temporary removal. Additionally, it suggests that the council could remove a mayor simply based on personal dislike, which may not be the intended purpose.

 

 

Comment 8: Page 14, Lines 10-20, Section 3-8: Temporary Absence of the Mayor

 

The text states:

“(b) The acting mayor shall have only those powers of the mayor as are indispensable and essential to conduct the business of the city in an orderly and efficient manner and on which action may not be delayed. The acting mayor shall have no authority to make a permanent appointment or removal from city service unless the absence of the mayor shall extend beyond 60 days, nor shall an acting mayor approve or disapprove of any measure adopted by the city council unless the time within which the mayor must act would expire before the return of the mayor. During any period in which any member of the city council is serving as acting mayor, such councilor shall not vote as a member of the city council.”

 

Issue Identified:
The current language does not specify any compensation for the acting mayor. Expecting someone to take a leave from their regular job to fulfill the duties of the mayor without compensation is a significant demand. It is important to address this oversight to ensure fair treatment and feasibility for the individual stepping into this temporary role.

 

 

Comment 9: Page 15, Lines 4-16, Section 3-10: Vacancy in the Office of the Mayor

 

The text states:
“If a vacancy in the office of mayor occurs in the last 14 months of the term to which the mayor is elected, the president of the city council shall serve as acting mayor and if the city council president is unable or unwilling to serve, the city council shall elect one of its members to serve as acting mayor. A majority vote of the city council shall be required to elect a mayor from among the members of the city council. Upon the election of a member of the city council as the mayor, under this section, a vacancy shall exist in that city council seat which shall be filled in the manner provided in section 2-10. Any person serving as mayor under this subsection shall not be subject to the restrictions contained in the second sentence of section 3-1(a), nor shall such person be entitled to have the words "candidate for reelection" printed against their name on the election ballot.” [emphasis added]

 

Issue Identified:
The emphasized language implies that a sitting city councilor who temporarily fills in as mayor and then wishes to run for re-election as a councilor cannot have the designation 'candidate for reelection' on the ballot. This seems unfair. The intent appears to be that a temporary mayor should not have this designation if they are running for the office of the Mayor, but the language does not clearly convey this distinction.

 

 

Comment 10: Page 15, Lines 23-28, Section 4-1: Composition; Term of Office; Eligibility

 

The text states:

“(a) The school committee shall consist of 7 members: 2 members elected at large by the voters of the city; and 1 each elected from the following districts comprised of combined wards within the city: wards 1 and 7, wards 2 and 3, wards 4 and 5, and wards 6 and 8. The mayor shall serve as the 7th member of the school committee and will serve as chair.”

 

The Mayor should not serve as the chair of the school committee. The rationale for maintaining this arrangement seems to downplay the significance of the school committee, treating it as just another committee to oversee. In reality, being the chair of the school committee is a substantial responsibility. Additionally, there is a widespread misunderstanding regarding the mayor's authority, with many—from the public to other elected officials and school and municipal employees—believing it exceeds that of other school committee members. This misconception creates significant issues. It is crucial now more than ever for elected officials to operate strictly within the legal authority granted to them, rather than any authority they choose to assert.

 

The structure of the school committee and city council should be consistent, whether it is entirely at-large, entirely ward-based, or a combination of district/ward plus at-large members. While I do not have a strong preference for a specific model, the district (2 ward) plus three at-large members model seems reasonable. Regardless of the chosen model, it should mirror the council's structure to avoid confusion among voters, who already struggle to understand our government's structure without multiple formats within a single city.

 

A child growing up next door to me will attend one elementary school, one middle school, and our one high school. The physical location of these schools is irrelevant for representation; what matters is where the resident lives. A school located in my ward is no more "my school" than any other when it comes to representing my constituents. There may be an instinctual belief that ward-based school committee representation offers something unique compared to at-large representation, but this does not hold up when considering a resident's perspective as their child progresses through the school system. No elected official can reside in a ward or district encompassing all the schools a child will attend, so there is no logical basis for arguments centered on the physical locations of schools.

 

 

Comment 11: Page 16, Lines 6-7, School Committee Organization; Chair, Vice Chair, and Clerk (Secretary)

 

The text states:

“SECTION 4-2: SCHOOL COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION; CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND CLERK (SECRETARY)”

 

Suggested Change:
Replace "Clerk (Secretary)" with "Secretary (Clerk)" to ensure consistency with the rest of the document.

 

 

Comment 12: Page 16, Lines 9-13, School Committee Organization; Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary (Clerk)

 

The text states:

“Immediately prior to the first regular committee meeting in January or as soon as practical after school committee members-elect have been qualified following each regular city election, the school committee members shall choose from amongst their membership a vice chair and secretary (clerk) who will each serve for 1 year.”

 

Suggested Change:
Add “chair, " to the list of positions to be selected by the school committee members.

 

Rationale:
The chair should be elected by the body, as the chair is, by definition, the servant of the body. This is another reason why the chair should not be the mayor. If the mayor is not deemed a suitable chair or is not serving the body effectively, there would be no recourse to select a different chair. Electing the chair ensures accountability and responsiveness to the needs of the committee.

 

Suggested Change:
Strike the phrase "who will each serve for 1 year."

 

Rationale:
The school committee should have the autonomy to determine the duration of service for its leadership positions, rather than having it dictated by the charter. Notably, the charter does not impose similar structural controls on the city council. It seems inconsistent that one elected body is allowed to decide its organizational structure while another is not.

 

 

Comment 13: Page 16, Lines 15-16, School Committee Organization; Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary (Clerk)

 

The text states:

“With the assistance of the superintendent of schools, the chair shall prepare the agenda for the school committee meetings. The chair shall preside over all regular meetings of the school committee, regulate its proceedings, and decide all questions of order. The chair shall appoint members to various subcommittees after seeking each member’s views regarding interest and availability. The chair will have the same powers to vote upon measures coming before the school committee as any other member of the school committee. The school committee chair shall perform such other duties consistent with the office as may be provided by charter, by ordinance or by other vote of the school committee. The vice chair shall preside in the absence of the chair.”

 

Suggested Change:
Strike "With the assistance of the superintendent of schools, the" and replace it with "The chair.”

 

Rationale:
Basic to Robert's Rules of Order, the chair is responsible for setting the agenda, although the body can override it since the agenda ultimately belongs to the body. The superintendent works for the committee, and it is the school committee that sets the agenda.

 

Suggested Change:
Strike "and decide all questions of order.”

 

Rationale:
Robert’s Rules of Order make clear that while the chair does decide all questions of order, the body may override the chair by ‘questioning the ruling of the chair.’  This language implies that the rulings of questions of order belong only to the chair and removes the premise that the chair is the servant of the body.

 

Suggested Change:
Strike "The chair shall appoint members to various subcommittees after seeking each member’s views regarding interest and availability.”

 

Rationale:
Subcommittee appointments are the responsibility of the entire school committee, not just one individual. The chair is meant to serve the body, not dictate its organization.

 

 

Comment 14: Page 16, Lines 40-45, School Committee Organization; Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary (Clerk)

 

The text states:

“…provided, however, that a city officer or other city employee who has vacated a position in order to serve as a member of the school committee may return to the same office or position of city employment held at the time the position was vacated if it has remained vacant but shall not be eligible for any other municipal position until at least 1 year after the end of service as a member of the school committee.”

 

Suggested Change:
Strike the entire section.

 

Rationale:
This restriction has not been applied to the city council, indicating an inconsistency in how the charter governs different elected bodies.

 

 

Comment 15: Page 17, Lines 40-42, Section 4-5: Powers and Duties

 

The text states:

“3) Adopting and overseeing the administration of an annual operating budget for the school department, subject to appropriation by the city council;”

 

Suggested Change:
Change "department" to "system."

 

Rationale:
The school system is not a department of the City of Medford, and this change will accurately reflect its status.

 

 

Comment 16: Page 18, Lines 25-41, Section 4-6: Filling of Vacancies

 

The text states:

“c) If a vacancy shall occur in the office of school committee at-large or in that of district school committee member and there is no available candidate to fill the vacancy in the manner provided in subsection (a) or (b), the remaining members of the school committee and the city council shall meet in joint session to elect a person to fill the vacancy. The notice of the meeting to fill the vacancy must be posted at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. A person elected by the school committee and city council to fill a vacancy shall serve until the next regular election, at which time the vacancy shall be filled by the voters and the person chosen to fill the vacancy shall immediately be sworn and shall serve for the remainder of the current term [emphasis added] in addition to the term to which elected. No vacancy shall be filled under this section if a regular city election is to be held within 120 days following the date the vacancy is declared to exist. A person serving as a school committee member under this section shall not be entitled to have the words "candidate for re-election" printed against the person's name on the election ballot.”

 

Issue Identified:
The suggested process is inefficient and burdensome. School committee members undergo extensive orientation, including legal and other training necessary for effectiveness. State law mandates attendance at a course offered by our professional association early in our first term. Having this process occur once in November and then again in January is wasteful, and the superintendent of schools manages this process of orientation. Additionally, having two separate inauguration/swearing-in timeframes lacks rationale and is unfair to those being sworn in immediately after the election.

 

 

Comment 17: Page 19, Lines 26-27, Section 5-1: Organization of City Agencies

 

The text states:

“…public hearing will be held, not less than 7 nor more than 14 days following the publication. An organization or reorganization plan shall become effective…”

 

Issue Identified:
The current language is confusing and imposes a very tight timeframe. However, it is important to note that this does not impact the school committee, as it is not considered an agency of the City.

 

 

Comment 18: Page 23, Line 39 - Page 24, Line 13, Section 7-2: Preliminary Election Procedures

 

The text states:

“The 2 persons who receive the highest number of votes for nomination for an office at the preliminary election shall, except as provided by this section be the sole candidates for that office whose names shall be printed on the official ballot to be used at the regular or special city election at which the office is to be voted upon and no acceptance of a nomination shall be necessary to its validity. If 2 or more persons are to be elected to the same office at the regular or special city election, the several persons equal in number to twice the number to be elected, receiving at such preliminary election the highest number of votes for nomination for that office shall, except as provided by this section, be the sole candidates for that office whose names shall be printed on the official ballot. If the preliminary election results in a tie vote among candidates for nomination receiving the lowest number of votes which would entitle a person receiving the same to have that person's name printed on the official ballot for the election, all candidates participating in the tie vote shall have their names printed on the official ballots, although in consequence thereof there shall be printed on the ballots the names of candidates exceeding twice the number to be elected.”

 

Issue Identified:

This entire section can be simplified.

 

 

Comment 19: Page 25, Section 8-1: Free Petition

 

The text states:

“The city council or the school committee shall hold a public hearing on every petition addressed to the city council or the school committee that is signed by not less than 25 voters, along with their addresses, and that seeks the passage of a measure. The hearing shall be held by the city council or the school committee, or by a committee or subcommittee of the city council or the school committee, and the action by the city council or the school committee shall be taken not later than 10 weeks after the petition was filed with the city clerk or the school committee. Hearings on 2 or more petitions filed under this section may be held at the same time and place. The city clerk or the school committee secretary shall mail notice of the hearing to the 10 persons whose names appear first on the petition not less than 7 days before the hearing. No hearings shall be required on a petition addressing the same content more than once each year. Notice by publication of all such hearings shall be at public expense.”

 

Suggested Change:

Strike the entire section.

 

Rationale:

I do not believe this section should be included at all. Elections occur every two years, which is a relatively short period. The thresholds set here are low enough to potentially trap the school committee in a continuous cycle of responding to groups acting in bad faith, aiming to disrupt the committee's work. Additionally, there is no provision to halt a petition that is illegal or places the district in legal jeopardy, such as one that targets district employees or students.

 

 

Comment 20: Page 29, Line 23, Section 8-4: Ineligible Measures

 

The text states:

“(iii) the city budget or the school committee budget as a whole;”

 

Suggested Change:

Strike “as a whole”.

 

Rationale:
This suggests that measures to strike parts of the school committee budget would be permitted. Allowing the public to alter our budget in this manner could lead to significant issues. Such changes could have unintended consequences, including hindering our ability to meet obligations to our union partners. This would create a chaotic situation, undermining the careful planning that goes into budget preparation.

 

 

Comment 21: Page 29, Lines 31-32, Section 8-4: Ineligible Measures

 

The text states:

"(vii) a proceeding repealing or rescinding a measure or part of it that is protested by referendum procedures;”

 

Suggested Change:

Strike vii.

 

Rationale:
This approach seems anti-democratic. If we allow one group of citizens the ability to change policy, it stands to reason that another group should have the same freedom to alter policy, even if it means reverting to a previous policy or shifting in a different direction.

 

 

Comment 22: Page 30, Lines 5-8, Section 8-5 Recall

 

The text states:

“b) A recall petition may be initiated by the filing of an affidavit containing the name of the officer sought to be recalled, provided that the affidavit is signed by at least 500 voters for the office of mayor or councilor-at-large and at least 300 voters for any other elected official;”

 

Suggested Change:

Strike “for the office of mayor or councilor-at-large and at least 300 voters for any other elected official”.

 

Issue Identified:

The threshold for recalling school committee members is set lower than that for city councilors. This discrepancy makes no sense and lacks justification. The thresholds for recall should be the same for all elected positions to ensure consistency and fairness.

 

Additionally “any other elected official” can only mean school committee members as we are the only other elected officials in Medford.

 

 

Comment 23: Page 31, Lines 8-11, Section 8-5 Recall

 

The text states:

“Should the person be a candidate in the subsequent election, that person will not be allowed to have "candidate for reelection" appear on the ballot at such election.”

 

Suggested Change:

Strike this sentence.

 

Rationale:

This provision is unnecessarily punitive. If a recall effort fails and the individual is not unseated, it is unjust to impose the arbitrary consequence of losing their 'candidate for re-election' designation on the ballot. This rule could be exploited by groups aiming to systematically strip this designation from candidates they dislike, even if they anticipate the recall will not succeed.  A failed recall should have no consequence for the elected official who succeeds in remaining in office.

 

 

Comment 24: Page 31, Lines 15, Section 8-5 Recall

 

The text states:

“e) The form of the question to be voted upon shall be substantially as follows: Shall [here insert the name and title of the elective officer whose recall is sought] be recalled? Yes No”

 

Suggested Change:

Replace “recalled” with “removed from office”.

 

Rationale:

I honestly don’t think most people know what ‘recalled’ even means.

 

 

Comment 25: Page 32 Line 42 - Page 33 Line 2, Section 9-5: Periodic Review of Charter 

 

The text states:

"b) In any year where a charter review is taking place, the mayor and city council shall provide for a review to be made of the city charter. This review shall be made by a special committee to be composed of 5 appointees of the mayor, 3 appointees of the city council president, and 1 appointee by the school committee vice chair. The mayor shall appoint the chair of the special committee.”

 

Suggested Change:

Replace  “5 appointees of the mayor, 3 appointees of the city council president, and 1 appointee by the school committee vice chair.” with “3 appointees of the mayor, 3 appointees of the city council, and 3 appointees of the school committee.”

 

Rationale:

The school committee is a co-equal branch of government according to the organizational chart.  Additionally, the council president and school committee vice-chair (or chair, if not the mayor) should not hold such power - these individuals are servants of the body.  These not to run the show, dictate policy, or make unilateral decisions.  Decision-making authority should only be exercised by these leaders if explicitly authorized by the body.

 

 

Comment 26: Section 9-5: Periodic Review of Charter

 

Issue Identified:

There is no provision for the replacement of members, whether they voluntarily leave, or are asked to leave by a majority vote of the charter committee.

 

 

Comment 27: Page 33 Line 2, Section 9-5: Periodic Review of Charter 

 

The text states:

“The mayor shall appoint the chair of the special committee.”

 

Suggested Change:

Strike this sentence.

 

Rationale:

The chair is the servant of the body, and in this case, the charter review committee should select their own chair, and be able to replace said chair as they see fit.  No one person should appoint a chair, ever.

 

 

Comment 28: Page 38, Section 10-6

 

Issue Identified:

There is no language indicating when this charter takes effect for the school committee.

 

 

My final remarks are that this document can be simplified.  By integrating the school committee language and bringing numerous aspects of this into sync with the city council, there is a need for less text.

 

Why would there be a separate section for filling vacancies for the city council and the school committee?

 

The charter should be readable.  I do not mean just that the language is well understood, also it cannot be too long.  While this isn’t a terribly long document, it could be substantially shorter - and the shorter it is the better the chance it will get read by our constituents.

 

Thank you for receiving my feedback and please let me know if you would like any further explanations about what I have written here.

 

 

 

Respectfully submitted as a resident of Medford,

 

 

 

Paul Ruseau, Medford School Committee Secretary