Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Administration And Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates CAFO attendance rule, chapter 278 reference and adding law department language to charter
Summary
Members questioned whether to put an in‑person attendance requirement for the CAFO and other department heads in the charter, discussed whether Article 7 should keep its reference to Chapter 278 of the Acts of 2018, and debated adding a Department of Law provision to the charter to resolve oversight ambiguity; the solicitor offered clarifying options and said much duty language exists in municipal ordinance.
Committee members used the September meeting to wrestle with three substantive governance questions: whether to require in‑person attendance by the CAFO and department heads in the charter, whether the charter should continue to reference Chapter 278 of the Acts of 2018 for combined school/municipal financial functions, and whether the charter should explicitly establish a Department of Law to end recurring disputes about oversight of the city solicitor.
The chair summarized advice from the Collins Center that, after reviewing 43 municipal charters, ‘‘very few instances [exist] where expectations are addressed and it really doesn’t belong in their mind in the charter,’’ referring to attendance requirements for department heads. The solicitor told the committee Chapter 278 originally provided a mechanism for combined financial functions but said the charter can include consolidation powers directly and that some provisions of the special act tied to borrowing are no longer effective. “If you’re changing your charter, you should just state specifically the powers and duties that you want in terms of consolidation,” the solicitor said.
A council member urged the committee to place a Department of Law provision in the charter to remove ambiguity about who oversees the city solicitor. ‘‘This document is the document that the city lives by…for once and for all… it should be decided,’’ the member said. Other members and the solicitor responded that much of the solicitor’s duties are already set out in municipal ordinance and that short, targeted edits to section 2‑8 could achieve the needed clarity. The solicitor offered to draft concise alternative language and to provide a municipal ordinance comparison to share with the committee.
What happens next: The committee asked the solicitor to prepare options for language changes (including whether to keep a Chapter 278 reference or incorporate consolidation powers directly) and requested a comparison to the existing municipal ordinance that defines the solicitor’s duties. The topic will be taken up again when the committee reviews Section 2‑8 at the next meeting.
