Melrose Residents Have Their Say About Name Change

MELROSE, MA — The Board of Aldermen met Monday for what could be one of the last times under that name. Several topics were brought up during the meeting, but the one that prompted a number of residents to speak was the potential name change for the board.

President of the Board Jen Lemmerman (please, readers, retire the "Lemmerperson" quips) has introduced an order that would change the board's name to the more gender-neutral and widely accepted city council. Melrose is the last community in Massachusetts with a board of aldermen.

The move prompted heavy response, and Monday night was the first opportunity for residents to speak on it. Eight people spoke during public comment, all regarding the name change, with the majority in favor of it.

"By adopting a more modern and inclusive name we demonstrate Melrose's commitment in making our city more equitable to all people," Maya Jamaleddine, chair of the Human Rights Commission, said. She called the term aldermen "antiquated and non-inclusive," terminology supporters of a change have echoed.

"I see this as an opportunity for the city in a lot of ways," Mark Viola said.

"It's really all about our ideal of being one community open to all," he continued. "A title has power. Words and language have power."

Ellyn Ruthstrom said Melrose is a forward-thinking city, and that this "seems like such an easy mistake to fix."

"Be modern, Melrose," she said. "Make a change."

Not everyone was onboard.

"If it's already been voted [in 2016,] I don't know why it's being brought back up," Helen Chisholm said. "I'm sure there are other things in the charter that need to be brought back up."

There were other thoughts about whether there are more important things the board could be spending time on. Chris Call, a crossing guard, said in an email read at the meeting that while he doesn't care what Melrose's governing body is called, he was dismayed to hear them discussing a change while there are other issues, including safety ones, to be tackled.

Lemmerman offered the opportunity to co-sponsor her order to any aldermen who wants to.

The order was moved to the Appropriations Committee, where it will be discussed Thursday night.

There will be a new mayor following the fall election, but how soon after? An order was put forth to extend the term of a mayor who took office in a manner such as the one Mayor Gail Infurna did.

The current City Charter calls for a mayor who is elevated from president of the board to serve that term until the next election. If someone else is elected, which will be the case as Infurna is not running for re-election, that person would take over once the results are certified in the fall.

The amendment introduced Monday night would have the mayor serve the balance of the term, which would go through the end of the year.

If passed, it's unclear how quickly if the Charter change would take place in time for Infurna's term would be extended.

The order was put forth by the mayor's office, Patch learned Wednesday morning. The mayor's office did not immediately respond to request for comment.

Section 3-10(c) of the City Charter currently reads as follows:

Powers, Term of Office - The mayor elected under Section 3-10(a) or (b) shall have all the powers of the mayor. A person elected under subsection (a), shall serve for the balance of the term unexpired at the time of election to the office. A person chosen under subsection (b), shall serve until the time of the next regular election at which time the person elected to fill the office for the ensuing term of office shall serve, in addition, for the balance of the then unexpired term.

Most of Monday night's discussion was in the Appropriations Committee regarding another tweak to the City Charter. Alderman Frank Wright's order of establishing a minimum amount of votes a runner-up would need to fill a vacated seat in the Board of Alderman passed, 10-1, with Alderman Mike Zwirko voting against it.

If everything goes through, the runner-up for ward alderman would still need to have garnered at least 40 percent of the total votes cast, while an at-large alderman would need to have received at least 40 percent of the votes the top vote-getter received.