Procedures – Appointments – Committees Topics of Gardner City Council Meeting.
Listen to the entire meeting on any device, CLICK PLAY.
The Gardner City Council met on January 20, 2026. The most significant actions involved a comprehensive overhaul of the council’s internal operating rules, a contentious debate regarding the term length for the City Solicitor, the rejection of a mayoral proposal to declare a municipal lot as surplus, and the formal acceptance of a state grant for park renovations.
Procedural Reform: The Council adopted a significant amendment to its rules, establishing a new “two-meeting” requirement for items before standing committees. This measure is intended to prevent rushed decisions, ensure materials are complete and accurate before reaching the full council, and allow for greater public and councilor review.
Mayoral Appointment Scrutiny: The Mayor’s appointment of a City Solicitor for a three-year term drew criticism from councilors who argued the term should be limited to one year to align with mayoral terms. A motion to amend the city ordinance to this effect is planned for a future meeting.
Preservation of City Assets: The Council followed the Finance Committee’s recommendation to take no action on declaring a municipal parking lot on West Lynde Street as surplus property. The committee cited the lot’s strategic value for downtown development as a primary reason for its preservation.
Community Development Funding: The Council unanimously passed a resolution to accept a $252,000 state grant from the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. These funds are designated for the reconstruction of playground equipment at Ovila Case Playground.
Administrative Deadline Changes: A change to Rule 14 was approved, requiring that all committee reports be submitted to the City Clerk by noon on the Wednesday preceding a regular meeting. This is intended to provide the clerk’s office with an adequate “buffer” to prepare agendas.
Adoption of the “Two-Meeting” Rule Amendment: The most significant change was an amendment proposed by Councilor Heglin to add a new rule (designated as Rule X), which states: “no standing committee or subcommittee of a standing committee or the committee of the council as a whole shall vote to refer any item to the council which has not already appeared on the agenda of that committee at a previous meeting.”
Councilor Heglin’s Arguments: The councilor provided three primary reasons for the amendment:
1. Completeness and Accuracy: To combat a trend of “far too many items that were incomplete, had errors, or had missing information,” establishing a best practice for diligence.
2. Increased Review Time: To provide councilors and the public more time to review materials, given that council positions are not full-time roles, and to encourage city departments to submit items with more lead time.
3. Enhanced Contemplation: To create a “standard stop gap” allowing for more thoughtful deliberation and preventing situations where items are referred back from a full council meeting for further review.
Supporting Councilors: Councilor Kazinskus supported the rule, noting it reinforces the principle that items should be fully vetted in subcommittee first and prevents items from being rushed through in a single committee meeting. He stated, “this makes it known that if you’re going to submit something to a subcommittee it’s going to be on there for at least one agenda before that item is considered.” ◦ Councilor Mack agreed it was a necessary “stop gap measure,” observing that “in the last year there has been an increasing amount of items brought before standing committee meetings and the council that are incomplete, have multiple errors, and have been rushed through.” ◦ Councilor Tassone called the amendment a “common sense best practice” and a “no-brainer.” • Councilor Brooks noted the irony of being asked to vote on the amendment just ten minutes after receiving it. Councilor Kazinskas countered that this is standard procedure for amendments and that the item’s scope—an internal rule—was fundamentally different from a complex city ordinance.
The appointment of Vincent Pusateri to the position of City Solicitor was for a term expiring January 5, 2029. This represents a change from what was described as a historical one-year appointment to a three-year term. Councilor Brooks raised a strong objection to the three-year term, arguing it is “not good in that it will overlap terms of mayors.” Brooks stressed the importance of allowing each new mayor to select their own City Solicitor, citing historical precedents. Councilor Brooks announced his intention to “put forth an amendment to the ordinances to put it back to a one-year appointment” at the next meeting. Councilor Tassone echoed these concerns, stating, “I do agree that the mayor should have the ability to appoint the city solicitor for the term that the mayor is in office.” Tassone found it “odd that we’re you know we’re going a year past the elected term for the mayor.” Mayor Nicholson was called upon to explain the reasoning for the three-year term. He cited Section 3-2 of the ordinance code, which states, “unless otherwise stated the appointment term shall be 3 years.” The Mayor explained that an interpretation of this rule led to the three-year term, as the ordinance for the City Solicitor does not specify a different term length. Mayor Nicholson contrasted this with the Assistant City Solicitor position, for which the ordinance explicitly states the appointment shall be “for no more than one year.”