Here is a copy of the Massachusetts General Law. I applied BOLD to sections below.

And here is the State website where I found registration reports;http://www.sec.state.ma.us/lobbyistpublicsearch/

PART I ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE I JURISDICTION AND EMBLEMS OF THE COMMONWEALTH, THE GENERAL COURT, STATUTES AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
CHAPTER 3 THE GENERAL COURT
Section 41 Docket of executive and legislative agents and lobbyists; educational seminars for legislative and executive agents;annual registration statements; annual filing fee; identification cards; advisory opinions.

Section 41. The state secretary shall keep a docket which may be in the form of an electronic database. All information required to be filed under this section shall be organized into the docket and shall be open and accessible for public inspection during normal business hours.

The state secretary shall offer educational seminars on the requirements of sections 39 to 50, inclusive, for all legislative agents and executive agents. The seminars shall be conducted in person or offered online through the state secretary’s website. All legislative and executive agents shall: (i) before registering with the state secretary and annually thereafter, complete an in person or online seminar offered by the state secretary; and (ii) complete an in person or online seminar offered by the state secretary upon any material change to sections 39 to 50, inclusive, or any regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. The superintendent of the bureau of the state house shall, upon request of the state secretary, provide at no cost to the state secretary suitable facilities for such seminars. The state secretary shall adopt regulations for the administration and enforcement of this section.

Each legislative agent, executive agent and lobbyist entity shall file an annual registration statement with the state secretary on forms prescribed and provided by the state secretary. The annual registration shall be completed not later than December 15 of this year preceding the registration year.

A client retaining the services of a legislative agent, executive agent or lobbyist entity shall also file an annual registration statement with the state secretary on forms prescribed and provided by the state secretary. The annual registration shall be completed not later than December 15 of the year preceding the registration year.

A client or lobbyist entity hiring, employing or agreeing to employ a lobbyist entity, legislative agent or executive agent after January 1 of the registration year shall, within 10 days after such employment or agreement, cause the name of the lobbyist entity, legislative agent or executive agent to be registered with the state secretary as provided in this section. Notice of termination of such employment shall also be filed promptly with the state secretary by the client or lobbyist entity.

The state secretary shall assess each lobbyist entity an annual filing fee of $1,000 to register the entity on the docket. The state secretary shall assess each legislative agent and executive agent an annual filing fee of $100 upon entering the agent’s name on the docket. The state secretary shall assess each client an annual filing fee of $100 for each lobbyist entity hired by them upon entering the name upon the docket. The state secretary may, in his discretion and upon written request, waive the filing fees not a not-for-profit client or a lobbyist entity which registers to exclusively represent not-for-profit clients.

Upon registration, the state secretary shall issue to each legislative agent and executive agent a license which shall entitle the holder to act as a legislative agent and executive agent for a client that has filed a registration statement pursuant to this section. A nontransferable identification card shall evidence this license and shall include the agent’s name and photograph. Each license shall expire on December 31 of each year. Out-of-state legislative agents and executive agents shall submit 3 passport-sized photographs to the state secretary upon registration.

The state secretary shall, upon written request from a person who is or may be subject to sections 39 to 50, inclusive, render advisory opinions on the requirements of those sections. An opinion rendered by the state secretary, unless amended or revoked, shall be a defense in a criminal action brought pursuant to sections 39 to 50, inclusive, and shall be binding on the state secretary, the attorney general or the district attorney in any subsequent proceedings concerning the person who requested the opinion and who acted in good faith, unless material facts were omitted or misstated by the person in the request for an opinion. Such requests shall be confidential; provided, however, that the state secretary may publish such opinions if the name of the requesting person and any other identifying information is not included in such publication unless the requesting person consents to such inclusion.

Officials dispute claims by marijuana company.       Say they didn’t offer support for pot dispensary.

And an editorial;

Editorial: Jajuga’s work on marijuana dispensary raises questions

The jist of all this was that Mr. Jajuga through his company, Jajuga Associates, lobbyied FOR Healthy Pharms, Inc.

Healthy Pharms Inc, a registered non-profit Massachusetts corporation won a license to open a medical marijuana operation in Haverhill Massachusetts.

Haverhill does have a moratorium on such dispenseries.

“Jajuga, who owns the consulting agency Jajuga Associates, said he was a consultant and adviser for Healthy Pharms. However, he declined to comment on the statements of Pillsbury and other public officials who questioned Healthy Pharms’ application to the state.

“When I do some work for a client, I really don’t discuss that work,” Jajuga said Friday.”

My simple question would be if he was a consultant and advisor to Healthy Pharms, why did he not list any work for them on his lobbyist registration to the State? I checked records for 2013 & 2014 and find no mention of Healthy Pharms, which became legal as a corporation in April of 2013.

*********************************************

So here for your Information….

I hope you realize that you can search for registered lobbyists in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Here is the web address.
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/lobbyistpublicsearch/

So I read the local newspaper and see that my City Councillor is a registered lobbyist.
I do a quick search and see the following.
Search detail for: Jajugaassociates,Inc
Registration year: 2014
Registration type: Entity
Address/phone: 146 Forest St Methuen, Ma, 01844 US / 978-807-0079

Client information Harris Corporation
Employed 01/01/2014
Details about your lobbyist or entity’s efforts
Jajuga Associates provides the Harris Corporation strategic direction and guidance in dealing with the Public Safety, Transportation, and Utility market sectors within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Will be interesting to see how the Council debates on these issues.

Scares me a bit that we have two registered lobbyists elected to our Council.

The second one comes up like this in a search (Lisa Yarid Ferry (Dewey Square Group, LLC)

Just thought you all should know about your elected officials.

Shame that the papers they are required to file with the City about Ethics and Conflict of interest are not posted on-line.

Guess that would be too much transparency.

Here is one that begs for repair in an age of openness.

This is from the Municipal code.

Section 6-1. Authorization

Pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 108A and 108C of Chapter 41 of the General Laws, there shall be established plans which may be amended from time to time by vote of the City Council at a regular or special Council meeting:
(a) classifying positions in the service of the municipality other than those filled by popular election, those under the jurisdiction of the School Committee, the Mayor, and those for which incumbents render contractual services which are nor provided during regularly established working hours, and which do not appear in Schedule A of Section 7 following, into groups and classes doing substantially similar work or having substantially equal responsibilities;
(b) authorizing a compensation plan for positions in the classification plan;
(c) providing for the administration of said classification and compensation plans; and
(d) establishing certain working conditions and fringe benefits for employees occupying positions in the classification plan.

Section 6-4. Classification Plan

(a) All positions in the service of the municipality, except those excluded by Section 1, are hereby classified by titles appearing in Schedules A through K of Section 7 which is made a part hereof. These classes of positions shall constitute the Classification Plan for paid municipal services.

(b) The title of each class, as established by the Classification Plan, shall be the official title of every position allocated to the class and the official title of each incumbent of a position so allocated and shall be used to the exclusion of all other on payrolls, budget estimates and other official records and reports pertaining to the position.

(c) The title of a position which is held by an employee with a dual or a multiple Civil Service rating shall be that recommended by the employee’s department head, or by the administrative authority having jurisdiction over the organization unit to which the employee is assigned with the approval of the Mayor.

(d) Whenever a new position is established or the duties of an existing position are so changed that in effect a new position is created, upon presentation of substantiating data satisfactory to the Mayor, the Mayor shall allocate such new or changed position to its appropriate class.

(e) No position may be reclassified until the Mayor shall have determined such reclassification to be consistent with the Classification Plan. The Mayor may, however, when he considers such action to be necessary for the proper functioning of services, authorize a new classification and assign same to an existing compensation grade or determine the rate to be paid to an incumbent employee.

Section 6-5. Compensation Plan

(a) The Compensation Plan shall consist of Schedules A through K of Section 7 which provide minimum and maximum salaries or wages for certain of the classes in the classification. The salary range of a class shall be the salary range of all positions allocated to the class. If no range is provided, the single rate appearing in Schedules A through K shall be the basis of compensation paid to an employee occupying a position under the appropriate class title.

(b) Each employee shall continue to be paid on the same basis as in effect at the time of adoption of this ordinance unless otherwise provided in the Compensation Plan.

(c) No administrative authority shall fix the salary of any employee in a position in the Classification Plan except in accordance with the Compensation Plan.

(d) No person shall be paid as an employee in any position subject to the provisions in the Classification Plan under any title other than one appearing in Schedules A through K of Section 7 under the title specified by the Director of Civil Service of the Commonwealth based on the duties of the position as determined by the job description prepared by the Mayor.

(e) An employee in continuous employment in a class appearing on Schedules A through K of Section 7 shall receive the increment between his/her present rate and the next higher step rate as follows:

(1) After completion of six months at the minimum or entrance rate.

(2) Thereafter, one year from the date of his/her previous increase.

(3) The increase in rate which this increment represents must be recommended by the employee’s department department head and approved by the Mayor.

(4) The increase shall be based on performance of the employee during the preceding six month or twelve month period and not solely on length of service.

(f) An employee receiving a promotion to a vacant position or to a new position as defined in Section 4(d) shall, upon assignment resulting from such promotion, receive the rate in the compensation grade of the vacant or new position next above his/her existing rate. If the resulting adjustment is less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) on an annual basis for apposition class assigned to Schedules A through K, the adjustment shall be the second rate above the existing rate but within the compensation grade of the vacant or new position.

(g) The employee receiving a promotion and adjustment in rate pursuant to the provisions of the preceding sub-section may receive the next increment of his/her compensation grade effective following completion of twelve months at the rate resulting from the promotion.

(h) The employee who is transferred to a similarly rated or to a lower rated position for the convenience of the municipality shall enter the new position at his/her rate in the position from which he is transferred.

(i) Each administrative authority shall include in its estimates, required by the provisions of Section 31A of Chapter 44 of the General Laws, a pay adjustment section setting forth in detail the amounts which will be required for anticipated pay adjustments during the ensuing year and shall furnish a copy thereof to the Mayor.

(j) No department head, being first initially employed by the City of Methuen, shall be entitled to a retroactive cost-of-living adjustment for the first year of service in the City of Methuen.

(Ord. #641, Eff. May 6th, 1998)

Section 6-7. Reserved

Did you notice anything missing?
I would premise that this is an easy fix. My guess would be that it will not get fixed.

I was surrounded by my family and we all listened.
I noted some egregious mis-truths perpetrated by one candidate. Political expediency seems to breed this.

I was a member of two Water and Sewer Task forces.
These were groups organized by the Methuen City Council to review the water and sewer rate and rate setting process.
Our viewpoint was not met with overwhelming support.
That’s water under the bridge (chuckle).

I, again, heard that the Water Treatment plant capacity was increased to meet the needs of the citizens of Methuen. This statement is the crux of disagreement between the Task Force and the Administration.

The Methuen water works can now and has for the past 15 years at least been capable of producing from the Merrimack River 10 million gallons of water per day.

After about $19-$20 million worth of work, it still can only produce the same amount of water.

The cost was to upgrade the plant not increase it’s capacity.

The Plant should now have a more streamlined maintenance program and the cost of producing water should be decreasing as overhead costs for maintenance activities decline.

Even after all that work and cost and the numerous bickering about rates, costs are increasing.
Water rates are still being discussed as inadequate to generate the revenue required.

Even after all this time, this article is still true.

Well, the answer will surprise you.
Let’s look at the School Committee policies.
There is a policy on Assignment to schools.
This policy states:”Each school within the school system is defined by attendance boundaries set by the Committee. It is generally expected that youngsters will attend the school within the attendance district of his/her residence. However, the Committee recognizes that there are situations in which it is beneficial to both the youngster and the school system to allow a placement outside of the attendance district. The Superintendent is authorized to grant or deny written requests for individuals to attend a school outside designated attendance areas according to the following guidelines:”

Some of those guidelines are:
“2. When a youngster moves to a new residence and that new residence is in a different attendance district, a request to remain at the previously assigned school will be honored subject to the availability of space in the school.

4. In all cases in which a placement outside of the attendance district of residence is granted, parents will assume the responsibility for transportation to and from school.”

So it appears that the criteria to look at is the availability of space in the school..
The policy even states each schools space.
“A school is deemed to have space available if the total enrollment of the school is at or below its design capacity and the classroom to which the youngster is assigned will not exceed twenty-five students.”

Comprehensive Grammar School ——————–Design Capacity 1200 students
Marsh Grammar School ———————————-Design Capacity 1370 students
Tenney Grammar School ——————————–Design Capacity 1370 students
Timony Grammar School ——————————-Design Capacity 1370 students

I do not know the age of this officials child or what grade the child is in. It is actually irrelevant to the discussion.
Let’s look at school enrollment for the period in question. Keep in mind that children in the Central district will attend ,usually, the Timony School.

From the Department of Education website for Massachusetts we find;

Year  Marsh Timony Tenney
2007 1397 1456 1446
2008 1370 1427 1427
2009 1366 1454 1431
2010 1342 1437 1375
2011 1328 1379 1376

So the truth is that the Tenney and Timony schools have been over capacity for the period in question and per the published policy it was well within the discretion of the Superintendent to grant the waiver and even made sense to exacerbate overcrowding.

The newly elected official was, probably, just trying to maintain continuity in the child’s life and probably didn’t realize the additional benefit to the school system of his request.

The good news is that the data shows the School District has been making strides to even out the student count in our schools.

Hope this answers any questions about this issue.

I admit that I was hoping for a training program to be required for Councilors.

Read and make up you own mind.

August 22, 2011

OML 2011-35

Peter J. McQuillan, Esq.
City Solicitor
41 Pleasant St.
Methuen, MA 01844

RE: Open Meeting Law Complaint

Dear Attorney McQuillan,

This office received a complaint filed by Jack Burke, dated March 28, 2011, alleging that the Methuen City Council (the “Council”) violated the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, § 18- 25. The complaint alleges that Methuen City Council Chair John Cronin “sent around an e-mail to other city councilors asking them for their feedback” on whether they would support an item Councilor Cronin was considering adding to an upcoming Council meeting agenda. The complaint was first filed with the Council on January 18, 2011. We received the Council’s response to the original complaint on or about January 31, 2011.

We find that while the actions of Councilor Cronin violated the Open Meeting Law, the Council took appropriate measures to prevent a further violation and took remedial action to cure any effects of the violation. In reaching this determination we reviewed the January 18 and March 18, 2011 complaints; the Council’s January 31, 2011 response to the complaint; and the notice and minutes of the Council’s January 19, 2011 meeting. We also spoke with you by telephone on April 19, 2011. Finally, we reviewed a supplemental response from the Council, dated April 20, 2011.

FACTS
Over the past year, the City of Methuen has undertaken a charter review process through a Charter Commission. One member of the Charter Commission was Councilor Cronin. One topic debated by the Charter Commission was whether the City Council should consider a ballot question on abolishing term limits for municipal offices. The City Council would have to approve a ballot question before a municipal special election could be held. The Boston Globe reported on January 13, 2011, that Councilor Cronin would not bring the ballot question to the City Council for a vote “if he determine[d] he lack[ed] the council votes needed to schedule a special election.” John Laidler, Four Names Emerging as Methuen Mayoral Candidates, BOSTON GLOBE, January 13, 2011. On January 14, 2011, Councilor Cronin sent an email to all of his fellow city councilors with the subject line “TR-l 1-1 Resolution for the Submission of Term Limit Questions on the Ballot of a Special Municipal Election (Re. of CIr. Cronin).” The text of the email was as follow

The above requires a vote of the City Council to go to the state with a Home Rule Petition to have a Special Election. Please advise whether or not you support this concept via a phone call [phone number redacted] or email.

According to the Council’s January 31, 2011 response to the complaint, none of the councilors responded to the request by email, though three city councilors responded to the email by telephoning Councilor Cronin. h a letter to this Office dated April 20, 2011, in response to a specific request from our office, the Council affirmed that “the content of those telephone conversations was general in nature and referenced simply the agenda for the forthcoming regularly scheduled City Council meeting. No dialogue specifically referenced the subject matter of the complaint.”

The Council convened an open meeting on January 19, 2011. The meeting notice included the topic “TR- 11-6 Resolution for the Submission of Term Limit Questions on the ballot of a Special Municipal Election (Req of Chr Cronin).” The minutes of the meeting reflect that during the public participation portion of the meeting, the complainant, as well as another individual, addressed the Council regarding a possible Open Meeting Law violation by Councilor Cronin in soliciting Council members’ opinions regarding the term limits topic. Both residents requested that the Council remove the topic from the meeting agenda. When the Council reached the New Business portion of the meeting and began consideration of the term – limits topic, Councilor Cronin stated that he thought it was only fair that the public understand the Open Meeting Law allegations raised earlier in the meeting. Councilor Cronin explained that the topic was added to the agenda a week before the meeting, but he acknowledged that “the email I sent out, although I did not realize it at the time, was not appropriate according to the open meeting law.” Councilor Cronin went on to state for the record that, “[t]here was no intention of biding anything on my part because I talked to reporters before it went on the agenda and I told them what my plan was so there was no intention to hide anything from the public.” Councilor Cronin then explained his reasons for supporting the ballot question, but removed the agenda item from the Council’s consideration “because of the confusion I caused.” Council Cronin added that, “I want to make clear [that] there were no emails sent to me, I did not receive any emails, and I don’t believe the Council office received any responses.”

DISCUSSION
The Open Meeting Law was enacted “to eliminate much of the secrecy surrounding deliberations and decisions on which public policy is based.” Ghiglione v. School Conmittee of Southbridge, 376 Mass. 70, 72 (1978). A “deliberation” is defined as “an oral or written communication through any medium, including electronic mail, between or among a quorum of a public body on any public business within its jurisdiction.” G.L. c. 30A, § 18. The Open Meeting Law defines a “meeting” as “a deliberation by a public body with respect to any matter within the body’s jurisdiction.” Id. The law requires that meetings of a public body be properly noticed and open to members of the public, unless an executive session is convened. See G.L. c. 30A, § 20(a)—(b), 21.

Councilor Cronin’s January 14, 2011 email to a quorum of his fellow Council members, requesting that the members report whether or not they support a special election for a ballot question, was a deliberation in violation of the Open Meeting Law. The email was a “written communication” sent to a quorum of the Council on a matter of “public business within its jurisdiction.” G.L. c. 30A, § 18. Councilor Cronin’s solicitation could have resulted in the Council making policy decisions outside of a public meeting had Council members replied. The councilors showed commendable restraint in declining to respond to Councilor Cronin’s email.

The three councilors who spoke with Councilor Cronin over the telephone regarding the meeting agenda did not address the email’s specific request, according to the Council’s April 20, 2011 letter. The Council affirmed that “the content of those telephone conversations was general in nature and referenced simply the agenda for the forthcoming regularly scheduled City Council meeting. No dialogue specifically referenced the subject matter of the complaint.” More to the point, the phone conversations with Councilor Cronin did not involve a quorum of the Council. There are nine members of the Council, and five councilors constitute a quorum. As the phone conversations, even if serial in nature, were between or among at most four members of the Council—less than a quorum—there is no violation of the Open Meeting Law resulting from these phone calls.

The Open Meeting Law complaint that followed this violation was filed with the Council on January 18, 2011. At the January 19, 2011 Council meeting, Councilor Cronin acknowledged his error and took responsibility for the violation. Councilor Cronin withdrew the term limits topic from the meeting agenda as it had been tainted by the email deliberation, even though it had been added to the meeting notice more than 48 hours before the meeting, as required by the Open Meeting Law. See G.L. c. 30A, § 20(b). Additionally, you wrote a memo in your capacity as City Solicitor, dated January 24, 2011, to the members of the City Council describing the nature of the violation and requesting all members to review the Guide to the Open Meeting Law provided by the Solicitor’s office. These steps, combined with the release of the email in question, were the proper remedial actions given the nature of the violation.

We note that, despite the complainant’s contention, we do not believe Councilor Cronin acted to intentionally violate the Open Meeting Law. Councilor Cronin even told a reporter that he was going to poll the members of the Council before adding the topic to the agenda. Once he was made aware of the violation, he acted appropriately to remedy the situation.

CONCLUSION
Councilor Cronin’s January 14, 2011 email was an inappropriate solicitation that resulted in deliberation by the Council in violation of the Open Meeting Law. However, we find that the Council’s actions in response to the complaint filed on January 18, 2011 were appropriate. The Council 1) acknowledged the potential for a violation; 2) publicly released the email sent by Councilor Cronin; 3) removed the tainted topic from the agenda; and 4) requested that all Council members review the Open Meeting Law Guidebook. We have confidence that the Council will avoid such email communications in the future.

We now consider this matter closed.
If you have any questions regarding this determination, please do not hesitate to contact me at the number below.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Sclarsic
Assistant Attorney General
Division of Open Government
Ph: 617-963-2045

cc: Jack Burke

Recently I have been asking a lot about motion to withdraw.
I am told that resolutions or ordinances have been withdrawn and when I attempt to verify those statements there is no recourse or trail to show that to be true.

I checked the rules and procedures of the Council and Rule X section b) states:A motion shall be made and seconded. To clarify the debate, the Chairman of the City Council may ask the Clerk to read the motion from the notes. A motion may not be withdrawn without the consent of the second. When the mover modifies the motion, the second may withdraw. (highlighting added by author)
This is the only use of the term withdraw in the document.

The bottom line is that if a motion is placed on the agenda and the agenda is accepted, all items on that agenda belong to the Council as a whole. If they are voted upon for first read, even if tabled for any reason, they still belong to the meeting/Council.

The only way they can be removed is by a motion to withdraw and a vote taken.
For too long the City Council has used informal processes to obscure or hide actions taken.

I ask that each City Councillor and Councilor candidate read Robert’s Rules and ask that the next Council FOLLOW there own processes and procedures.

Here is a more technical explanation of the Motion to withdraw taken from Sonoma State University based upon Robert’s Rules of Order Made Simple. Also see; Robert, Henry M. (2000). Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 10th ed., p. 283–284.

Requests and Inquiries

c. Request for Permission to Withdraw or Modify a Motion.
Although Robert’s Rules of Order specify that until a motion has been accepted by the chair it is the property of the mover, who can withdraw it or modify it as s/he chooses, a common practice is that once the agenda has been adopted, the items on it become the property of the meeting.
A person may not, therefore, withdraw a motion unilaterally; he or she may do so only with the consent of the meeting, which has adopted an agenda indicating that the motion is to be debated.
Similarly, a person cannot, without the consent of the meeting, change the wording of any motion that has been given ahead of time to those attending the meeting-for example, distributed in printed form in advance, printed on the agenda, a motion of which notice has been given at a previous meeting, etc.If a person does want to change the wording, they must move to substitute or amend before the body can consider the changed motion.
The usual way in which consent of a meeting to withdraw a motion is obtained is for the mover to ask the consent of the meeting to withdraw (or change the wording).
If no one objects, the chairperson announces that there being no objections, that the motion is withdrawn or that the modified wording is the motion to be debated.
If anyone objects, the chair can put a motion permitting the member to withdraw (or modify) or any two members may move and second that permission be granted.
A majority vote decides the question of modifying a motion–similar to amending the motion.
A two-thirds majority is needed for permission to withdraw a motion, as this has the effect of amending the agenda.

July 1, 2011
Pursuant to the provisions of the Methuen Municipal Code, §6-24, the Mayor announces the following vacancy:

Title of Position: Human Resource Director/Assistant City Solicitor
Status of Position: Permanent Full Time

Statement of Duties
The holder of this position will have the following duties and responsibilities:
1) Establish and maintain with confidentiality as required by law the employee records files including employee materials and health records in accordance with HIPPA laws.
2) Coordinate with and manage the civil service hiring process under Massachusetts Law. Said duties including the filing of all documents with and providing information to the Civil Service Commission, EEOC and applicable agencies.
3) Design and submit to the executive for approval and distribution human resources policies, procedures and programs. Coordinate and distribute all employment policies, procedures and programs to the departmental officers and employees as legally required.
4) Conduct and oversee training of employees on issues including ADA, FMLA, Mass. FMLA, MCAD, Civil Service ERISA, HIPA, COBRA, EEOC, and other employment related regulations.
5) Oversee departmental development, Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS), employee relations, training and development, benefits, compensation, organizational development, and employment.
6) Participate in collective bargaining as directed by the Mayor.
7) Manage recruiting and staffing logistics.
8) Oversee performance management and improvement systems.
9) Handle organization development.
10) Conduct and manage employment issues including internal inquiries of complaints and ensuring city government compliance with regulatory concerns and reporting.
11) Conduct employee orientation, development, and training.
12) Oversee employee relations.
13) Manage employee communication.
14) Manage employee safety, welfare, wellness and health; and
15) Manage employee services and counseling including workers compensation, IOD benefits, health benefits and insurance.
16) Establish and maintain workforce management policies.
17) Oversee and coordinate return to duty of employees on injury or other leave.
18) Under the direction of the City Solicitor, this person assists the City Solicitor with any legal matters that are presented to the city or school department. He/she shall represent the city in all proceedings before any court, administrative board or legislative committee. He/she will conduct civil lawsuits, draft legal documents, ordinances and resolutions and advise employees as to their legal rights.

Qualifications:
To perform this job successfully, an individual must be must be able to perform each essential duty satisfactorily. The requirements listed below are representative of the knowledge, skill and/or ability required. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.

The successful candidate will posses the following:

 Master’s degree or equivalent; or four to ten years’ related experience and/or training. A member in good standing with the Massachusetts Bar and experience in the field of municipal law.

ï‚· Ability to read, analyze and interpret common technical journals, financial reports, and legal documents. Ability to respond to common inquires or complaints from employees, regulatory agencies and members of the community.

ï‚· Ability to apply principals of logical thinking to a wide range of intellectual and practical problems.

Salary: $69,722 Min. – $83,666 Max.

Last date for applying: July 15, 2011

Qualified candidates submit resume and cover letter to: Human Resource Department, 41 Pleasant St. room 205, Methuen, MA 01844

____________________
William M. Manzi III
Mayor

Article I. General

Sec. 3-1. Definitions
Sec. 3-2. Chief Administrator(A) Chief Executive (1) Duties (2) Powers
Sec. 3-2A. Temporary Absence of Mayor

Article II. Departments

Sec. 3-3. Departmental organization
Sec. 3-4. Oaths of office
Sec. 3-5. Administrative policy and procedures
Sec. 3-6. Reserved
Sec. 3-7. Department of Treasury and Tax Collection
Sec. 3-8. Reserved
Sec. 3-9. Department of Public Works
Sec. 3-9A. Repealed (see Appendix V – Initiative Petition)
Sec. 3-10. Department of Records
Sec. 3-11. Community Development Department
Sec. 3-12. Department of Assessment
Sec. 3-13. Fire Department
Sec. 3-14. Reserved
Sec. 3-15. Police Department
Sec. 3-16. Joint Human Resources Department – (JHR)

Article III. Boards, Commissions and Officers

Sec. 3-16. Civil Defense Director
Sec. 3-17. Conservation Commission
Sec. 3-18. Constables
Sec. 3-19. Contributory Retirement Board
Sec. 3-20. Animal Control Officer
Sec. 3-21. Board of Health
Sec. 3-22. Historical Commission
Sec. 3-22A. Historic District Study Commission
Sec. 3-23. Licensing Board
Sec. 3-24. Registrars of Voters
Sec. 3-25. Commissioners of Trust Funds
Sec. 3-26. Youth Commission
Sec. 3-27. Housing Authority
Sec. 3-28. Veterans’ Services Director
Sec. 3-29. Methuen Cultural Council
Sec. 3-30. Council on Aging
Sec. 3-31. Disability Commission
Sec. 3-32. Tourism Committee
Sec. 3-40. Board of Library Commissioners
Sec. 3-50. Residency Requirements
Sec. 3-60. Boards and Commissions Cost Reimbursement
Sec. 3-70. Public Advertisement for Boards and Commissions
Sec. 3-80. Establishing Ten Year Limit on Terms of Office for Members of Boards and Commissions
Sec. 3-90. Travel and Participation in Training Sessions Where Private Entities Provide Financing

Please note that the section of the Municipal Code referenced above has TWO section 3-16.
Article II. Departments
Sec. 3-16. Joint Human Resources Department – (JHR)
and
Article III. Boards, Commissions and Officers
3-16. Civil Defense Director
All sections in Article III. Boards, Commissions and Officers are misnumbered by 1.

I noted this when I read the ordinance that is being proposed by the Ad Hoc Consolidation Committee to give a job to the current Chief of Staff. That job is called the City Director of Human Resources / Assistant City Solicitor.
So far the legislation has been to copy the Order from 2007 and add wording to create the said position.

They recommend adding the following two sections to the current Sec. 3-16 Joint Human Resources Department – (JHR).

19) Under the direction of the City Solicitor, this person assists the City Solicitor with any legal matters that are presented to the city or School department.
He/She shall represent the city in all proceedings before any court, administrative board or legislative committee. He/She will conduct civil lawsuits, draft legal documents, ordinances and resolutions and advise employees as to their legal rights.

20) He/She will be a member in good standing of the Massachusetts Bar and shall have experience in the field of municipal law.

I propose that this section not be tampered with.
If you add these two lines as written it will require both JHRD’s to be practicing attorneys.
Do not hire a NEW City HR Director.
Simply create the JHR office that was promised in 2007.
Proper staffing for both branches.
Create goals and measure the Director on achievement of those goals.

These sections will also be added by amending the existing code.
The poorly worded Order has the following as Section two.
The Department shall be managed by two Joint Human Resources Directors (JHRD), one whose primary purpose is to oversee the School Departement Humen Resource Department.
The City Joint Human Resources Director shall also serve as an Assistant City Solicitor and shall exercise such authority as is provided for in Chapter 3-Section 3 (b) and Section 5 of the Municipal Code as a full Department Head.
The CityJoint Human Resources Director/ Assistant City Solicitor shall be a member in good standing of the Massachusetts Bar and shall perform legal work for the City at the direction of the City Solicitor.

So the School Department JHRD is to oversee the School Departement Humen Resource Department, but the City side JHRD has no such responsibility for the City Human Resource Department, instead becoming a Department Head in the Solicitor office. I know that’s not what they meant but it is implied due to poor wording.

They added an (s) to the word Director in second (paragraph) line of the existing code.
Section four and five below tell the rest of the story.

Section four changes this line from;
The department shall in addition to the Director have such other employees as recommended by the executive. The salaries and benefits for these employees shall be set by the city council by ordinance. The costs for the position of the (JHRD) shall be born equally by the general government and the school system.
To:
The department shall in addition to the Director(s) have such other employees as recommended by the executive. The salaries and benefits for these employees shall be set by the city council by ordinance. The costs for the position(s) of the (JHRD) shall be born equally by the general government and the school system.

Section five changes this from;
The Director of the Joint Human Resources Department shall be appointed by the Mayor provided that the Mayor seeks and obtains the consent to such appointment from the Superintendent of Schools. The Director’s appointment shall also be subject to approval by the City Council. The Mayor shall be the appointing authority of the additional employees in the department subject to recommendation of the Director.
To;
The City Director shall be chosen by the Mayor, with the assent of the Superintendent of Schools.
The School Director shall be chosen by the Superintendent of Schools, with the assent of the Mayor.
The City Director appointment shall be subject to approval by the City Council.
The Mayor shall be the appointing authority of the additional employees in the department subject to recommendation of the Director(s).

So we no longer need consent but only a tacit assent to make the appointments.

My suggestion is;

Here is the current Section 2.24. Department of Law

A. The Department of Law shall consist of the City Solicitor who shall, in accordance with Chapter 182 of the Acts and Resolves of 1985, be appointed by the City Council. The City Council shall, on or before January fifteenth in odd numbered years, elect, by ballot or otherwise, a City Solicitor to hold office for a term of two years and until his/her successor is qualified. He/she shall enforce all laws and act to protect the interests of the City and he/she shall:
1. Advise Council
Advise the Council or its committees or any City officer, when thereto requested, upon all legal questions arising in the conduct of City business.
2. Prepare Ordinances
Prepare or revise ordinances when so requested by the Mayor, Council or any committee thereof.
3. Give Opinions
Give his/her opinion upon any legal matter or question submitted to him/her by the Council under rules adopted by said body or by any other City officer.
4. Prepare Legal Instruments
Prepare for execution all contracts and instruments to which the City is a party and shall approve, as to form, all bonds required to be submitted to the City.
5. Prosecute Offenders and Defend Officials
Prepare, when authorized by the Mayor, all charges and complaints against, and shall appear in the appropriate court in the prosecution of, every person charged with the violation of a City ordinance or of any regulation adopted under authority of the Charter, or with the Council of a misdemeanor as declared by the Charter or by virtue of its authority. In any prosecution for violation of any regulations adopted by any board or commission created under authority of the Charter, the City solicitor shall act under the directions of such board or commission, subject to such paramount control as is given to the Administrator of the Charter.
6. Settlement of Claims
Have the power to adjust, settle, compromise or submit to arbitration, any action, causes of action, accounts, debts, claims, demands, disputes, and matters of favor of or against the City of in which the City is concerned as debtor or creditor, now existing or which may hereafter arise, not involving or requiring payment to exceed $500.00; and with the permission of the Mayor, may do likewise in matters not involving or requiring payment to exceed $2,500.00; provided the money to settle claims generally has been appropriated and is available therefor.
7. Make Reports
a. Immediate report of decision. Immediately report the outcome of any litigation in which the City has an interest to the Mayor and the Council.

b. Annual report of pending litigation. Make an annual report, to the Mayor and Council, as of the first day of July of all pending litigation in which the City has an interest and the condition thereof.
8. Control Legal Services Incidental to Council Action

Have charge of all legal services auxiliary to Council action in connection with the appropriating of property to public use.

9. Keep Records
a. Suits.
Keep a complete record of all suits in which the City had or has an interest, giving the names of the parties, the court where brought, the nature of the action, the disposition of the case, or its condition, if pending, and the briefs of counsel.

b. Opinions and Titles.
Keep a complete record of all written opinions furnished by him/her and of all certificates or abstracts of titles furnished by him/her to the City or any department or official thereof.
10. Notwithstanding that a public employee (as defined in Chapter 258, Section 1, Massachusetts General Laws) shall not be liable for negligent or wrongful acts as described in Chapter 258, Section 2, if a cause of action is improperly commenced against a public employee of the City, alleging injury or loss of property or personal injury or death as the result of the negligent or wrongful act or omission of such employee, said employee may request representation by the City Solicitor. The City Solicitor shall defend the public employee, if authorized by the Mayor, with respect to the cause of action at no cost to the employee; provided, however, that the City Solicitor determines that the public employee was acting within the scope of his/her office or employment at the time of the alleged loss, injury, or death, and further, that said public employee provides reasonable cooperation to the City and the City Solicitor in The defense of any action arising out of the same subject matter. If, however, in the opinion of the City Solicitor representation of the public employee under this section would result in a conflict of interest, the City Solicitor shall not be required to represent the public employee.

(1973 Ord., as amended by Ord #38, Revised; as amended by
Ord. #215, Adopted Dec. 2, 1985, as amended by Ord. #284,
Eff. April 20, 1988; as further amended by Chapter 145 of
the Acts and Resolves of 1996.)

Everything below this line I would propose to alleviate any workload problems in this office.
If more is required, then the Solicitor will have to present a workload and show that he is unable to carry out his duties due to the workload presented.

B. Assistant Solicitor
1.Office established.
There is established the office of assistant city solicitor.
The assistant city solicitor shall be elected by the city council upon recommendation of the city solicitor. Appointment of the assistant city solicitor shall be for a fixed term of two years and until his/her successor is qualified , which may be renewed or extended without limitation, pursuant to an employment contract which shall be entered into between the city and the assistant city solicitor at the time of appointment, and which shall also set the compensation to be paid to the assistant city solicitor, and such other specific terms and conditions of employment as may be recommended by the city solicitor and accepted by the mayor and the city council at the time of appointment.

2.Duties.
The assistant city solicitor shall be under the direction of the city solicitor and shall assist the city solicitor in the performance of the duties of the office and shall perform such other duties as may be assigned by the city solicitor.
The assistant city solicitor shall have the authority to represent the city in all proceedings before any court or other tribunal, when so requested and directed by the city solicitor.
In the absence of the city solicitor, the assistant city solicitor shall be responsible for the management and supervision of the office of the city solicitor.

3.Qualifications.
The assistant city solicitor shall be an able and experienced person learned in the law and an solicitor and counselor at law in the courts of the commonwealth.
In addition, said person shall be experienced in the area of municipal law.

C. Outside Legal Assistance.
The office of the city solicitor may also engage, by contract or otherwise, such clerical, legal, paralegal, and investigative personnel as may be provided for in the annual appropriations for said office.

D. Use of City employed personnel.
The office of the city solicitor may also engage, with the approval of the Mayor and City Council, properly qualified, per section B.3., personnel from other City Departments, as temporary Assistant solicitor for short term, specific assignment to alleviate workload congestion.

To me, this makes more sense. It keeps any conflict of interest between personnel who work for the Council and the Mayor, clearly defined. It allows for the Solicitor to contract to alleviate issues but requires clear responsibility to justify these actions to the City Council.