Salem city councillors spent nearly two hours Monday night, November 9, going through their own rulebook, and came out with a list of changes most of them appear ready to pursue: a guaranteed minimum of 90 seconds for anyone who signs up for public comment, a narrower rule on who can force a vote to be reconsidered, a yearly meeting to review the rules, and a deadline for committees to take up what the council sends them. Nothing was adopted. Both items before the Committee of the Whole were kept in committee on voice votes, and any change will have to come back as a written amendment.
The two matters, numbered 363 and 364, were filed by Ward 6 Councillor Katelyn Holappa as a review of the council’s Rules and Orders and of its standing committees. Council President Alice Merkl chaired. Ward 1 Councillor Erin Turowski was absent. This account is drawn from the Salem Access Television recording of the meeting and the clerk’s posted notice; minutes have not been published.
Who gets to ask for a second vote
Holappa opened with Sections 14 and 15 of the rules, which let any member move to reconsider a vote. Under Robert’s Rules of Order, she said, only a member who voted on the winning side can do that. She pointed to an order from the police chief last month for temporary cameras, which she believed she alone voted against. Under Salem’s rule she could have moved reconsideration and held up a time-sensitive measure for two weeks. “It shouldn’t be up to any one councillor to completely derail conversations for a period of two weeks or more because they lost a vote,” she said. Merkl said the city solicitor had confirmed the difference between the two rulebooks.
Ward 7 Councillor Andrew Varela, Ward 5 Councillor Lydia King and Councillor at Large Kyle Davis favored falling back on Robert’s Rules. Davis said the minority is heard through its votes and its speeches on the floor. Ward 3 Councillor Jason Sydoriak suggested a middle path that would bar the losing side from seeking reconsideration only on matters such as the budget and zoning. Councillor at Large Ty Hapworth said the current rule recognizes that mistakes are not exclusive to the prevailing side, though he would not be sad to see it go. Ward 2 Councillor Andrew Smith said the council already has a tool for urgent items: moving reconsideration in the hope that it fails, which closes the question that night.
Ninety seconds at the microphone
Section 26C caps the public comment period at regular meetings at 15 minutes unless the president extends it or a majority votes to extend it to a set time. Speakers must sign up in advance, and by practice each gets no more than three minutes. When many people sign up, each one’s share shrinks. Holappa proposed a floor of 90 seconds so that residents know what to prepare for. “You never quite know how much time you’re going to get,” she said.
Varela, King, Smith and Councillor at Large Conrad Prosniewski supported a minimum. Varela said the council should sit through the comments whether three people or 100 show up. King said the same floor should apply at committee meetings and described how the president or the council could set a total, such as 45 minutes, and take speakers in sign-up order. Prosniewski said the preamble read before public comment should be rewritten to state the minimum and the three-minute maximum plainly.
Hapworth urged caution. A hard minimum, he said, could let opponents of a zoning measure talk past a statutory deadline, and residents who tune in for road race permits, block parties or utility hearings should not have to wait through 90 minutes of comment. He also said the power to lengthen or shorten the period should rest with the chair, not a council vote. Davis proposed 60 seconds so that no one who signs up is shut out. Sydoriak noted that the real pressure comes from the number of speakers, not the seconds each one gets. Merkl said she had raised the same concern with the solicitor when she became president and that any language should be reviewed there first, because extending the period at some meetings and not others can look like cherry-picking.
A rules meeting every year, and a clock for committees
King proposed writing an annual rules meeting into the rules, held just before the first regular meeting of the year, with the prior year’s rules in force until the council votes. A standing date, she said, takes the tension out of asking for a review. Hapworth, Holappa and Varela agreed. Hapworth recalled that until 2023 or 2024 the rules still required the clerk to mail meeting notices on paper because no one had looked. Varela said a set meeting keeps newer members from being at a disadvantage.
Davis raised a rule used in Boston that requires a committee to meet on a referred item within 30 calendar days, with extensions for research or legal review. Varela and King said 30 days is too short and suggested 90. King would apply the clock only to the first meeting on an item and leave later ones to the chair, so that the council is not forced to keep revisiting or vote down an idea that is not ready. Holappa and Sydoriak agreed; Sydoriak said the Committee on Ordinances, Licenses and Legal Affairs, known as OLLA, is “always getting slammed” and its chair needs room to set priorities. Hapworth said he had never seen a chair hold an item against the will of a committee, noted that the full council can pull an item out of committee on the floor, and warned against creating deadlines the council may regret, but called 90 days reasonable for a first meeting.
Two housekeeping fixes also surfaced. Hapworth found that Section 29B of the printed rules points to Section 32 where it should point to Section 30. Sydoriak said the online version already has the correct reference and that the paper and online copies need to be reconciled before anyone starts marking up either one.
Too much lands in one committee
On the standing committees, Varela said OLLA carries too much of the council’s work and that he intends to file an order creating a personnel committee to review appointments and reappointments to city boards and commissions. He said he had spoken with Lynn Councilor at Large Brian LaPierre, who chairs that city’s personnel committee, and with a Woburn councilor whose committee interviews every board appointee. King backed the idea, saying strong candidates do not want “a rubber stamp” either, but said committees should have five members; three-member committees, as in Beverly, make it too easy for two councillors to form a quorum without meaning to. Holappa said Marlborough has a personnel committee with 20 boards and commissions, while Salem has 47.
Hapworth said he could be persuaded on board appointments but was wary of putting volunteers through public interviews, and he opposed bringing department heads before the council, which he said steps outside the council’s role because the mayor runs city operations. Sydoriak said the council should first define what its confirmation power is for, and that if interviews happen every candidate must get the same questions. Smith and Hapworth said much could be fixed without new committees by sending items to the committees whose descriptions already fit: Public Health, Safety and Environment, which handled the camping ordinance; Community and Economic Development; and Government Services, which Merkl called underused. Merkl said any move of licensing matters should be checked against state law.
The budget
Holappa floated sending the annual budget to the Committee of the Whole instead of Administration and Finance, so that all 11 councillors take part in the department reviews. Varela and Davis liked the idea; Davis said the president could name another member to chair those sessions. Smith disagreed, saying a smaller committee builds expertise, and pointed out that the city code lets the council hire its own budget analyst, a provision he could not recall being used.
From the public
Jeff Cohen of 12 Hancock Street, a former councillor, spoke on both items. He urged a flat 90 seconds for every speaker and a visible countdown clock like the one he saw at an Everett City Council meeting. He recalled the 2017 sanctuary city ordinance hearing, which he said was moved to the Bentley School, drew more than 800 people and ran until 2 a.m. He cited a Southborough court case on public comment and said chairs should not interrupt speakers. On the budget, he said the council changed almost nothing in his four years, since it can cut but not add, and he argued against more committees and against making board volunteers, who are hard to recruit, justify themselves in public. A second resident, speaking by Zoom, said a two-week delay is a small price on close votes and told councillors to learn and follow their existing rules, including the limit on how often each may speak, before changing the public’s.
What happens next
Holappa moved that both items remain in committee, Varela seconded, and both carried on voice votes. Merkl said she would bring back details on the rule for pulling items out of committee. Varela’s personnel committee order is expected on a future agenda.
The recording is on Salem Access Television’s channel, and the clerk’s notice of the meeting is here.
