Latest news with #BoardofMayorandAldermen
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Reports say Manchester aldermen already have 'significant authority' over school budget
New reports from the Manchester city clerk and solicitor's offices suggest making the local school district a city department wouldn't give the mayor or aldermen much more power over the school budget then they already have. The reports appear as an agenda item for Tuesday's meeting of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen, scheduled for 7 p.m. at City Hall. An effort to ask Manchester voters if they support making the school district a department of the city, a topic debated on and off for decades, was given new life recently when Mayor Jay Ruais broke a 7-7 tie to send a request to look at either making the Manchester School District a city department or granting the mayor the power to set the district's budget to the aldermen for study, ahead of possible placement on the November election ballot. While the school district isn't a city department, aldermen must approve its budget. For the matter to appear on a municipal ballot this November, aldermen need to take a final vote on the matter by Tuesday, June 3. City Clerk Matt Normand and City Solicitor Emily Rice were asked to research the topic ahead of a vote on the matter, with the understanding that the goal was to give the mayor more say over the school budget, including line-item veto power. In her report, Rice writes that she investigated the issue through the lens of establishing authority of the aldermen over the budget of the Manchester School District. 'It is the opinion of this office that the Mayor and the Board of Mayor and Aldermen (BMA) possess significant authority in this regard under both the current charter and applicable state law,' Rice writes. Rice points out the mayor has 'extensive authority over the form, procedure and adoption of the city's annual budget,' and the school district budget is subject to the approval of the BMA. 'If the BMA rejects the budget as submitted, the school committee is required to 'submit a revised budget which shall not exceed the maximum dollar amount established by the board of mayor and aldermen,'" Rice writes, quoting the city's Charter. 'The Charter contains no language which would, after rejection by the BMA, permit the submission of (a) school department budget which exceeds the maximum amount established by the BMA. 'It does not appear that seeking to amend the Charter to make the school district a department of city government would be an effective means of attempting to add to the city's significant existing authority over the school district budget.' Rice adds any such amendment would be subject to numerous controlling state statutes and administrative rules governing the authority and responsibilities of local school boards, school districts and superintendents. In a report on his on findings, Normand writes he was asked to present to the board a comparison of charter sections related to the school district within the current City Charter (known as the 1997 Charter) and the previous City Charter (known as the 1983 Charter), to the extent that the district had previously been considered a department. Normand also reviewed the 1996 Charter Commission minutes. 'It is clear that the commission was very deliberate in maintaining the same level of authority for both the district and the BMA outlined in the 1983 City Charter while making minor changes they believed would clarify responsibilities of each,' Normand writes. 'In summary, there is no appreciable difference between the two charters as it relates to the school district. There is no section of the 1983 City Charter that represents the district as a department; in fact, the 1997 City Charter expanded the seats on the Board of School Committee from twelve members to fourteen members (at-large positions), reiterated that the school district budget shall constitute a single line item, yet gave future mayors the ability to veto all acts of the aldermen including actions related to the entire budget or any line item thereof, for the first time.' Efforts to bring city schools under the umbrella of city government have fallen short over the past 20 years.
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Hendersonville leaders looking to relocate post office
HENDERSONVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) – The City of Hendersonville is a step closer to relocating its post office. Leaders say the one they have now is very outdated, doesn't meet the needs of residents, and constantly has lines out the door. In this week's Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting, Alderman Mark Skidmore stated that they haven't had a new post office built since Jimmy Carter was president, which was in 1976. Right now, the post office is located at 105 Imperial Boulevard. Skidmore says the building is consistently packed with people. Neighborhood News: Stories impacting your community | Read More There has been a lot of chatter about where the post office will be relocated, but a specific location is not mentioned in the resolution, because the board does not have the authority to make that decision. It's on the federal government. The resolution simply notifies leaders in Washington that the city is in need of a post office, and it gets the process going. Skidmore says another conversation they've floated around is having multiple post offices instead of one larger one. 'There's been a possibility, which I think is a very wise suggestion, that maybe we have two post offices. Keep that one there, and then maybe explore somewhere else, which is fine with us.' As the city continues to have this conversation, they agreed to form a committee that can head up the responsibilities to make this happen. Do you have news happening in your neighborhood? Let us know by sending an email to neighborhoodnews@ Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Manchester aldermen approve rule change to allow vulgar language at meetings
Speakers participating in the public comment portion of aldermen meetings in Manchester can now use vulgar language or profanity if they choose — though city officials hope they won't. Manchester aldermen voted 8-6 Tuesday to adopt changes suggested by The New England First Amendment Coalition (NEFAC) to the Board of Mayor and Aldermen's Rule 3, amended last year to say that 'speakers shall be civil in their language and presentation. Profanity, threats, and the use of vulgar language or fighting words are prohibited.' 'A woman who spoke earlier said people have told her to 'blank' herself,' NEFAC President Greg Sullivan, an attorney who regularly represents the Union Leader, told aldermen Tuesday. 'And that's respectful, and that's what we hope citizens of Manchester will continue to be, but as currently standing, rule three will not pass constitutional muster.' The rule was amended last spring, after pro-Palestinian protesters disrupted aldermen meetings starting in February, bringing one session to a halt with loud chants of 'Free Free Palestine' and 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.' The group demanded a resolution calling for a cease-fire in Gaza. The new changes approved Tuesday night say 'speakers are encouraged to be civil in their language and presentation. True threats and the use of fighting words are prohibited, in addition to any and all speech or actions which violate any applicable law. During public comment, speakers shall only address the Chair. The audience shall likewise not engage any conduct that would prevent the Public Participation sessions from occurring or would otherwise violate any applicable law.' 'The First Amendment protects the speech that we hate, and I can give you examples from across the country and from the Supreme Court where there is vulgarity that's been protected,' Sullivan said. 'We certainly, as a coalition, do not condone it. We hope that it is never a problem for this board or the mayor, but to me, it is a matter of constitutional law that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society or the government finds that idea or that speech offensive or disagreeable.' Former New Hampshire Union Leader journalist Mark Hayward first sounded the alarm regarding Rule 3 several weeks ago. On Tuesday, he urged aldermen not to add the job of 'speech police' to their plates. 'Terms like profanity, vulgarities, language — they're vague, they're ambiguous, they're open to interpretation,' Hayward said. 'A few months ago, a guy who speaks here, Glenn, was up here. I remember because I was here and he used the word 'poo.' He was describing what was coming out of his sewer pipes into his sink. Now what if he used — Glenn, who's a stand-up guy — what if he used the 'CR' word or the 'SH' word, and you shut him down? 'You'd be saying that, hey, gutter language is more important than gutter-borne diseases.' Alderman Tony Sapienza argued that, constitutional or not, 'it's a bad look for us to limit people's speech.' 'If somebody wants to come here and use profanities, they're going to look like a knucklehead, that's the penalty they're going to pay,' Sapienza said. 'But I've been here for 10 years. You're the third mayor. I've served under every single mayor from either party, and people come up and say all kinds of nasty things to them. That's part of the job, you know? All of a sudden, we got to have this big reaction, because some people came here and expressed themselves. This is America last I knew.' Alderman Crissy Kantor supported leaving Rule 3 as written. 'I believe in freedom of speech, but everyone deserves to feel safe,' Kantor said. 'My Jewish friends did not feel safe coming here last year. You know, they couldn't come and voice their concerns. This is real, this was not okay, and I'm sticking with leaving it the way it is.' A motion to receive and file the suggested changes failed on a 6-8 vote, with aldermen Dan Goonan, Pat Long, Christine Fajardo, Sapienza, Jim Burkush, Bill Barry, Dan O'Neil and Joe Kelly Levasseur opposed. A later motion to adopt the changes, with those same aldermen voting in the affirmative.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Impact Plastics employee Johnny Peterson honored for heroism during Hurricane Helene
ERWIN, Tenn. (WJHL) – Johnny Peterson has been considered a hero within the Erwin community since Hurricane Helene struck. During Monday's Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting, one local representative ensured that his sacrifice wasn't forgotten. Peterson was one of six employees at Impact Plastics who died during Hurricane Helene. Peterson died while trying to save his co-workers. His daughter, Alexa Peterson, said Johnny was a selfless man. 'To know that other people appreciate him and that they see the sacrifice,' she said. 'It eases the pain of his death in some way.' District Four State Representative Renea Jones put a stamp on Johnny's heroic acts, issuing a proclamation to honor him. 'All the things he did that day impacted not only that day, but the recovery as well,' Jones said. Johnny's family attended the meeting, accepting the proclamation in his honor. Alexa said she thinks her father would be happy with the recognition. 'He wasn't very extravagant,' she said. 'I don't know that he would have felt super comfortable if he had been here, but I think he would have felt proud to have been recognized for what he did.' As many move forward and continue to rebuild, the Peterson family's process will look much different. 'As a county, I hope we can rebuild and move forward,' Alexa said. 'As a family, I don't really know what that looks like. We're just taking it one day at a time.' Rep. Jones said she hopes the proclamation will serve as guidance to the county. 'I hope it helps some to heal,' she said. 'I hope it helps to motivate.' When asked what they would say to Johnny if he were here, Alexa gave one sentence: 'We miss you,' she said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Franklin ordinance regulating signs, flags takes heat from free speech group
Can you have too many American flags in your yard? A Franklin city ordinance is facing pushback from a leading First Amendment organization for potentially violating the Constitution by regulating how residents can display flags and signs on their properties. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression sent a letter to Franklin's Board of Mayor and Aldermen on April 22 saying the city's current policies regarding temporary signs on private property violates the First Amendment. The letter was spurred by an incident spanning back to September, when the city cited a Franklin resident for having too many American flags in his yard. The citation was based on a city ordinance that regulates flags and 'temporary signs,' which the city considers to be a sign 'intended for temporary use' other than 'temporary construction signs and campaign signs.' The rule states that residents can only display two temporary signs at a time, and only three flags. Temporary signs cannot be displayed for more than three months in every 12-month period. After considerable public pushback earlier this year, the city board held a workshop in March to discuss updating the terms of the flag rule, potentially allowing more flags for holidays, longer spans of time, or more flags per flagpole. According to Milissa Reierson, communications manager for the city, the meeting was "just to obtain some feedback," and "no ordinance language was drafted and presented." According to FIRE, however, the discussed changes still do not adhere to the First Amendment. 'These numerical restrictions violate the First Amendment as not narrowly tailored to serve significant government interests while leaving open ample alternative channels of communication,' Brennen VanderVeen, program counsel and public advocacy at FIRE, write in the letter to the city. FIRE wrote that the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, whose decisions govern the city of Franklin, previously cited a case in the 4th Circuit that determined ordinances limiting temporary signs did indeed run afoul of the First Amendment. 'In reviewing an ordinance that limited property owners to two signs, the Fourth Circuit observed that the county could have promoted its aesthetic interests much less restrictively by regulating only the design and condition of signs, the distance of signs from the street, and the length of time that signs are posted,' the case read. FIRE also asserts Franklin's ordinance inherently discriminates based on the content of signs displayed. 'Temporary construction site signs fall under a different provision of Franklin's zoning ordinance, while campaign signs are listed as regulated by state statute,' the letter read. 'How Franklin regulates any given temporary sign thus depends on its subject matter. For example, there is no harm posed by a 'This is Trump country' sign that isn't also posed by a 'Vote for Trump' campaign sign, and vice versa. Singling out one but not the other for restriction is purely arbitrary and certainly not narrowly tailored to addressing any problem.' More: Shelby County woman wins First Amendment case for profane election sign Reierson stated on April 24 the city had not received the letter and that the Board of Mayor and Aldermen are 'reviewing the ordinance.' Reierson also pushed back on FIRE's statement that the city regulates the content of residents' signs. 'It is important to note, our ordinance does not restrict any content on flags or signs,' she said. 'We do however, like many other cities, limit the number of flags on a property.' The USA TODAY Network - Tennessee's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Have a story to tell? Reach Angele Latham by email at alatham@ by phone at 931-623-9485, or follow her on Twitter at @angele_latham This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Franklin law regulating signs, flags takes heat from free speech group
