CONNELL SUBMITS PETITION FOR MAYOR TO RESCIND ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER ON DPW, SO WHY ISN’T IT ON TUESDAY’s COUNCIL AGENDA?
By DAN VALENTI
PLANET VALENTI News and Commentary
———- 000 ———-
ED NOTE: Ward 1 city councilor Lisa Tully and Ward 2’s Kevin Morandi will hold a joint meeting for constituents at 7 p.m. Monday, Jan. 26, at Union Hall, 789 Tyler St. State Rep. Paul Mark will join them. Discussion will include the proposed new Taconic High School project. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to vote on the project on April 14. Tully and Morandi say they welcome input on this project. For more information, contact Tully at 413-329-0074 or ltully@pittsfieldch.com or Morandi at 413-499-0108 or kmorandi@pittsfieldch.com.
———- 000 ———-
(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, MONDAY, JAN. 26, 2015) — Last week, THE PLANET wrote that Ward 4 city councilor and council VP Chris Connell would file a petition for the next council meeting (Jan. 27) asking his colleagues to send to the mayor a petition to rescind his Administrative Order restructuring the public works department. This wasn’t a prediction. This was a statement of fact, confirmed by Connell himself.
In his Jan. 8 appearance with councilor-at-large Barry Clairmont on PLANET VALENTI TELEVISION, Connell mentioned such a petition could be enacted to get the mayor to rescind the order. On the following week’s PV-TV, THE PLANET challenged Connell, Clairmont, or any other councilor to compose such a petition and submit it to his colleagues. Connell rose to the occasion, stepping to the plate on behalf of constituents. He drafted the petition and submitted it to city clerk Linda Tyer early last week. On Thursday, Connell and council president Melissa Mazzeo put together the agenda for the council meeting on Jan. 27.
If you examine the agenda for the 27th, however, you won’t find the petition. Take a look:
http://www.cityofpittsfield.org/government/city_council/docs/cc_packet_1_27_15.pdf
CHRIS CONNELL
What gives? Did THE PLANET present a story as fact when it wasn’t, just to “stir things up?” That was one feverish speculation that got back to us, a tired one we can laugh away. Answer: No. We reported accurately. Was Connell having second thoughts or get cold feet? Again, nein.
What happened? We talked to Connell to get the answer.
Connell: ‘I Need to Reach Out to Some Councilors’
“I filed the petition with the city clerk, and I asked her to hold on to it until the [council] meeting on the 10th [Feb. 10],” Connell said. When asked why he felt he had to hold off for a week, he said he wanted “to reach out to some councilors about this. I want to see how they feel about this and feel them out. Even though this [petition] is and will be on the agenda, I want their views since this involves all of them.”
Apparently, he was referring to the Feb. 10 agenda.
Connell said he doesn’t have a preference whether the petition is submitted to an up-down vote or if it gets referred directly to the mayor under the controversial (infamous?) Rule 27, because “either way, it’s going to be an active issue.”
THE PLANET recommends a council vote as opposed to a perfunctory referral. A vote will allow citizens and taxpayers to see who among the council recommends sending this to the mayor for reconsideration and who doesn’t. A mere referral does not do that, nor can it send the message a vote would send if it went the the corner office in that manner. That being said, even if the petition is sent to the mayor via referral, it’s still a good move. It forces him to act or not. EIther will reveal much.
Is a Prior Polling Allowed Under the OML? Yes, Connell Says
The city council, if all are to be believed, innocently let Bianchi’s order to pass without acting upon it within the 60-day time frame. It therefore went into effect. That’s not the way to make policy. You want citizens and taxpayers to be at the table, either directly or via their representatives. If the council submits this petition to the mayor, it gives Bianchi another chance to do the right thing. Though he has been reluctant in the past to do right by citizens and taxpayers, another chance is warranted.
THE PLANET asked Connell how he would be polling other councilors before hand to get a sense of their thinking on the rescind measure. He said he would communicate with them either in person or phone, which he prefers to writing by e-mail or text. Was he concerned that doing so would violate the state’s Open Meeting Law, which states that all deliberation must be done in public?
“I don’t feel I would be violating the Open Meeting Law [to contact other councilors before hand, outside public session],” Connell said. THE PLANET isn’t sure and will leave it to others to determine.
We commend Connell for his actions on behalf of constituents.
MELISSA MAZZEO
Finally, THE PLANET would be remiss if we didn’t share another piece of information we received from a well-placed city hall source, who claims “Chris and Melissa were arguing rather loud in the council office on Thursday. That’s where and when they set the agenda.” The source “guessed” that “Melissa was ‘deep-sixing’ the petition against Chris’ will. She has ultimate say over Chris.'”
THE PLANET has requested comment from Mazzeo. Connell said, “In regards to a conversation I had with councilor Mazzeo, it was just that, a conversation. In my opinion, we work pretty well together, but we don’t always agree on everything. I will tell you one thing, councilor Mazzeo and myself try to do what’s best for the city, and we both try to work on issues that hopefully improve the quality of life for the residents of Pittsfield.”
Perhaps. All we know is that Connell initially pressed for the petition going on the Jan. 27 agenda. After meeting with Mazzeo, the plan changed. If she’s trying to scuttle the effort, it’s a mistake. The best way for the council president to remove all doubt is to bring the matter forward for tomorrow night’s meeting.
————————————————————————————————-
“The king sits in Dumferling town / Drinking the blood-red wine: / ‘O where will I get a sailor / To sail this ship of mine?'” — Sir Patrick Spens, “Up Spoke the Elder Knight,” (1556).
“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.”
LOVE TO ALL.
The whole council needs to vote on this on TV in front of the people they portend to represent. They ran for office supposedly for the purpose of doing the peoples work and that does not mean doing it in the shadows. If Mazzeo is indeed trying to bandsag the petition then she is making a joke of city government. And she would need to explain in detail why she would be denying the government ability to work in democratic fashion as designed.
Perhaps some of these people are spending too much time in the cellar with the mold affecting their brains. Will someone check the new city charter and see if the council president has the power to stop legitimate petitions? It would not surprise me to find it is in there.
And thanks to Mr Connell for trying. Outside of Barry I am not sure there is another councilor who is man enough to stand on his or her own feet.
Dusty,
The council president has always had the power to set the agenda. They can put petitions on the agenda or leave them off, at their will. Nothing new in this charter concerning that power.
Barry
Thanks Barry,
I was being felicitous about the charter.
But does that seem right though that one power person can keep what many others may think is a very good petition from seeing discussion? I mean if a council president was in a mayors pocket that could really hamper the government process. Am I right that the council is supposed to be part of some check and balance? Working for the people and not snuggling up to the mayor? Seems like another “set up to fail” cog in the Pittsfield government.
Sheesh, it sems awfully cavalier to dismiss the Open Meeting Law like that. Seems the only justification is, it doesn’t apply to me! From what I’ve been trained in, the OML proscribes members of public boards from deliberating or, god forbid actually voting out of public scrutiny. This is exactly the type of thing the law is set up to prevent; taking pre-vote polls so that when a measure IS voted on it’s already a done deal. For him to admit that on the record takes a lot of hubris, or demonstrates a complete (perhaps intentional? Misunderstanding of the law.
Good comment MG.
I agree. Its a blatant violation of the open meeting laws. Just the same as closed door backroom deals. Isn’t the whole reason to submit the petition to discuss it openly in public?
Its a bit unbelievable how a councilor can get elected and not understand simple basic democratic principles. Step back and look at what he is openly admitting to. How about letting the people in on those phone conversations, letters and emails? Each coucilor should stand on their own two feet and not engage in collusion and then present a scripted version to the public at large.
Vote Yes Vote No Vote!
Its interesting how a councilor is willing to put forth effort on how others feel over this issue.
Yet this same coucilor and all others are not willing to put forth any effort to get the new High school build on an election to find out how the people feel.
Once you get elected in Pittsfield you become part of the good old boys club and do what you want and not what the people want.
I an grateful for Councilor Connell and his efforts here.
I hope that this is sent to the mayor with a vote and not by referrel.
A vote will be helpful for citizens in this election year!
The Jan 27 meeting has been cancelled, making this moot, at least for now.
Regarding the OML, Councilor Connell can discuss the issue with five or fewer Councilors, or he can put his views forth to all, perhaps in an email, if responses are prohibited. That is difficult at best, so if I were him, I’d keep the number down.
I know with the Conservation Commission, I go to our agent’s office before the meeting to discuss it. Other members wander in and we are EXTREMELY careful to avoid any discussion with a quorum, four in our case. To be sure, one of us leaves if four arrive. We also studiously avoid a serial meeting, which can be harder and requires some thought, but mostly requires keeping our mouths shut. I grant you that most of our agenda is not Earth-shaking.
I’m hoping Chris is also avoiding serial meetings while he speaks with other Councilors.
Tom, if you read the case rulings and OML, any individual on any committee cannot deliberate any items (except administrative and logistical activities related to items on the agenda, present or future.)
I will follow up in a few minutes.
We tend to keep all conversation social and not about agenda items. But OML only kicks in with a quorum.
It is not restricted to a quorum. You are deliberating outside public view. If this is not correct, please show the reference. Thanks.
It isn’t just a standing quorum but also a “round robin” or “open door” quorum whereby you talk to a quorum of individuals but one at a time so as to thwart the OML.
So if you are talking about an item, then another person walks in but one walks out you’ve just described a “round robin” quorum.
You are ABSOLUTELY not allowed to send an email with an opinion to all members, even if you say no discussion. The mere sending of an opinion to all members or a quorum or a round robin quorum is DELIBERATION
McCrea v. Flaherty and the Boston City Council
Basically, after reading and discussing with lawyers at the AG’s office the law with its official interpretation, one cannot discuss with any other official that will deal with any agenda item. An example would be if a school committee person discussed an item with a city councilor on anything that would be on any future agenda, or related budget items.
I don’t agree with that interpretation, and I will get back tomorrow.
Now that I have reread and posted below, an email to all members would be a violation. But see below for more info.
Polling is a clear violation of the OML. Traditionally the president has set the agenda for Council meetings. However should an individual councilor object to the exclusion of an item, said objection would be stated to the entire council and if a majority of the council agrees with the objection the president would be instructed to include the item on the agenda for the next council meeting.
Applaud Councilor Connell. t least there seems to be someone at the defense of the needs of the taxpayer-voters. On another note, was watching the Drone scares overseas. This could be a serious problem as these little machines can do significant damage, hope the U S is already ahead of the technology to defense these gadgets.
Dan and Tom, thanks for waking Kinnas up. Maybe Connell is using Julia Sabourin as his OML reference.
I’m sure Prez has Connells back. But let K C L do anything stupid the A G will be on there necks.
Having served on a few public boards I can say Mr. Kinnas is correct. No one member can speak to another member, doesn’t have to be a quorum, if the item is a public issue. Mr. Sakshaug is in the clear if as he says they socialize.
The OML is clear, all deliberations must be done in public. This is the most violated law in Pittsfield as too often members either act in defiance or they just are ignoratn.
Ignorance is no excuse all public officials are given education on OML. All that beint said I would only urge caution to Mr Connell and also send his encouragement for trying to do something on rescinding the mayors Order.
Please see my post below. There is no prohibition of one member speaking to another.
Apologize for typos doing this from phone.
From http://www.mass.gov/ago/government-resources/open-meeting-law/attorney-generals-open-meeting-law-guide.html#Meetings-Deliberation
“What constitutes a deliberation?
The Open Meeting Law defines deliberation 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.” Distribution of a meeting agenda, scheduling or procedural information, or reports or documents that may be discussed at a meeting is often helpful to public body members when preparing for upcoming meetings and will generally not constitute deliberation, provided that when these materials are distributed no member of the public body expresses an opinion on matters within the body’s jurisdiction.
To be a deliberation, the communication must involve a quorum of the public body. A quorum is usually a simple majority of the members of a public body. Thus, a communication among fewer than a quorum of the members of a public body will not be a deliberation, unless there are multiple communications among the members of the public body that together constitute communication among a quorum of members. Courts have held that the Open Meeting Law applies when members of a public body communicate in a manner that seeks to evade the application of the law. Thus, in some circumstances, communications between two members of a public body, when taken together with other communications, may be a deliberation. Note also that the expression of an opinion on matters within the body’s jurisdiction to a quorum of a public body is a deliberation, even if no other public body member responds.”
Now it again seems to me that a number less than a quorum may discuss matter before the public body outside of a public meeting, unless there is a serial communication, i.e “when taken together with other communications”.
On the Animal Control Commission, I have been a steadfast defender of the OML. Sometimes members wish to discuss matters that are not on the agenda, and I point out potential violations. Councilor Morandi is also very keen on the OML and does the same.
What about friends talking to Councilors and amongst other Councilors and friends, you know like good ol Boyz and girls? ou can’t stop it if you know how to relay info? Lower my taxes, maybe Imll be interested in this bullshit.
No Council Meeting, but should be a real snow job Tommorow regardless.
I agree, speaking of snowstorms, I prefer 75.3 mph winds with a little swirl, also. The winds and whiteouts must be persistent, for facial pain. Over under is 20 on the snow accumulation, go under on that. visibility will be zero, over on that.
Just wondering if Bobby Crafty shovels his own snow?
local government should be banned and Marshall Law aka The Generlissimo’ take over
Martial Law, Nota? just sayin.
Tax and $pend.
Where’s the snow.