An off-the-cuff rambling by former School Committee member Geoff Epstein on Village 14, may have exposed a violation of the state’s Open Meeting Law, Emily Costello of the Newton TAB reports.
Epstein divulged the meetings in a comment on Village 14 and was the subject of a separate thread here.
Costello took it from there, speaking to Jefferey Pile, a media law attorney who works with the New England Press Association.
Pile said the Open Meeting Law was “probably” broken because it gave elected officials the opportunity to ask questions in private. In particular, the violation may have occurred because of private meetings Newton Mayor Warren had with aldermen and not necessarily the School Committee. He also cited a recent case which found that Boston City councilors had violated Open Meeting Law by deliberating in private non-quorum sessions.
Pyle said Newton officials were asking the public to believe that no deliberations took place without the means of verifying that was in fact the case.
He also questioned the decision not to post the meetings, saying it denied members of the public its right to protest their exclusion.
“Why couldn’t these briefings have been held in public?” Pyle asked.
While none of this might have come to light if Epstein hadn’t made his off-hand remark — and if Costello hasn’t taken the lead and run with it — my understanding is that the practice of mayors holding non-quorum meetings with aldermen dates back at least to the Cohen Administration.
It sure sounds like a “tempest in a teapot” to me.
@Jerry: Unfortunately, we — and especially our elected leaders — don’t get to choose which laws to follow. And there’s no “we had good intentions” or “we’re all good people” exemptions in the law.
The Open Meeting Law can be extremely inconvenient. Heck, as I’ll recall from my days on the Highland’s Area Council, I saw first hand how inconvenient – and in many cases trivial — it seemed. But it’s still the law and we followed it.
Great job Emily!
Jerry – I disagree. It’s meaningless now in that so much time has passed, but for future reference the mayor knows he shouldn’t hold these small group meetings to get around Open Meeting Law. What’s going on the ballot should be discussed in committee meetings, not behind closed doors.
Respecting the open meeting laws is of paramount importance and it’s healthy to have open discussions on the issue.
There are interesting aspects and anecdotes.
In my first term on the SC there was one SC meeting in executive session which seemed to wandering onto a topic which was not an allowed one for executive session. David Cohen and I were uncomfortable with that and prevailed successfully on the chair to halt the discussion.
Further, there are retreats which are occasionally held by the SC with central admin staff in which discussions occur on how to work together.
The first such retreat I attended after being elected had one part devoted to how two SC members who were not getting along that well might find better ways to work together (I was not one of the two!)
Another retreat found me under attack for writing a TAB op ed critical of SC decisions. So that was pressure out of the public view designed to silence me. I was also roundly criticized for blogging!
So there could also be a legitimate and open discussion of SC retreats and what can and cannot be discussed there.
We also have moved on from the days when Jeff Young would give a budget preview in SC executive session on the pretext that collective bargaining was involved or where important executive session decisions were made by getting a consensus but not taking a vote so it would not appear on the record.
But we can still make improvements.
I think that the SC has been very careful since the open meeting law was revised in 2010 to conform to its requirements.
But I do agree that we should use open meetings to discuss important issues like the override package and it would have been much better if the SC had done that.
In particular, the initial packing of the override as one omnibus operating override may well have been prevented, as might the inclusion of capital projects in an operating override.
We should continue to get better and better at making sure all important issues are discussed in an open and forthright manner.
This discussion may have some uncomfortable elements but it is a good one to have and Emily Costello should be thanked for pursuing this.
Geoff Epstein — Is there a budget item for SC retreats? Is that from the City budget, or a budget the SC approves?
@Hoss: There has to be a budget, as places are on occasion rented, e.g. the rectory at Boston College. I would think that comes from the SC budget.
That’s interesting from two perspectives:
(1) That they would spend money on meeting space and not use any of the City’s inventory of space, including NNHS which they rent for such purposes;
(2) That the administration would care if elected members didn’t agree/get along.
Maybe I’m reading too much into this.
@Jerry and Greg. I, too, feel bound as an Area Councillor to uphold the provisions of the Open Meeting Law even those that are a bit “trivial” and “inconvenient”. Maybe it’s my age and because I’ve lived here on and off my entire life, but I think a lot of the things we do publicly in government and education have become far more complicated and hide bound than they have to be. Common sense, fairness and a spirit of give and take seem at a premium and I think this accounts for the reams and reams of rules and regulations we have to close any and every possible loophole.
I’m formulating a proposal that I’d like to present to my area council members. that I think would help us become a more effective voice for serving and communicating with the residents and homeowners we represent. It’s really tying together ideas that others have already articulated in public, but I’d really like to discuss these in a less formal matter before putting anything on paper. It’s always been unclear to me just what I can do and not do informally to see if what I have in mind would be feasible and acceptable.
Steve S. blogs on behalf of the SC agenda. I bet no one sanctions him for blogging. Power corrupts and our Mayor and school leaders seem to moving closer to veiled corruptive behavior and way too much absolute authority.
I strongly recommend that the denizens of Village 14 read the Massachusetts Appeals Court decision in McCrea v. Flaherty, which is cited in Emily Costello’s story in the TAB online.
An agreed judgment against the Boston City Council was entered in September 2011, in which the Council admitted the facts alleged in the complaint.
BTW, the “budget discussions” with the Mayor are, indeed, posted on the aldermanic website in the weekly calendar.
@Bob, my understanding is that administrative issues such as how the Area Council functions may be OK to discuss outside of a “deliberative ” public meeting. This is how the four AC were able to meet prior to our swearing in. This may also cover SC retreats discussing issues of how different groups (SC and Admins) can improve communications.
@Geoff, do you know if the minutes of the executive sessions were made public? There is a provision that the records become available once the information shared in the session will not cause harm.
I think that to minimize the obligation for open meetings is to misconstrue the entire basis of the founding of our country. Sadly, the practice (which I have heard about from others in Newton) shows the kind of disregard for taxpayers interest that has been endemic to City Hall for some time. Newton’s fiscal direction, spending and prioritizing does not reflect regard for taxpayers and has resulted in huge waste and fiscal mismanagement. Newton is over $1 billion in debt, with on-going obligations to City workers that are unrealistic, and so immoral. Our direction needs to change, and open meetings and discourse enable wisdom for such changes.
@David: You had me agreeing with the beginning of your comment but not the end. For the purposes of this conversation, I’m agnostic as whether or not these meetings were pro-override or anti-override. All that matters here is following the law.
It appears that city government is doing a great job in making arguments against the next override, which according to Maureen Lemieux’s remarks, will take place on or around 2018.
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/newton/2013/03/03/wenewton/iMCGb5XQGCDIJBevZj2Q0M/singlepage.html
Whatever happened to the idea that cities and towns should adhere to restraint each year when raising taxes. Why did so many people force new laws to protect tax payers? So that unscrupulous gov’t officials couldn’t spen recklessly and incur debt which might never be repaid easily.
@Groot:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleIII/Chapter30A/Section22
(f) The minutes of any executive session, the notes, recordings or other materials used in the preparation of such minutes and all documents and exhibits used at the session, may be withheld from disclosure to the public in their entirety under subclause (a) of clause Twenty-sixth of section 7 of chapter 4, as long as publication may defeat the lawful purposes of the executive session, but no longer; provided, however, that the executive session was held in compliance with section 21.
When the purpose for which a valid executive session was held has been served, the minutes, preparatory materials and documents and exhibits of the session shall be disclosed unless the attorney-client privilege or 1 or more of the exemptions under said clause Twenty-sixth of said section 7 of said chapter 4 apply to withhold these records, or any portion thereof, from disclosure.
…
You can look for minutes for open and executive sessions on the SC website.
Words like “disregard for public interest” and “endemic of City Hall” are way over the top for this discussion. Newton admin will say these were info-sessions, nothing more, and what City Hall is saying about busy officials not able to meet is why they were done this way. (Not sure how the Boston College team building retreat was possible though… They less busy when wine is served?) But be real, Newton’s City Hall isn’t quite the same as many Massachusetts cities where corruption is the standard of business. More rookie mistakes built off past practices.
@Greg – The law is intended to require elected officials to listen to the wishes of the voters. The problems we see result from the failure to listen, as the law intends. The result, clearly, is reckless and excessive spending. These are simple matters of fact. Choosing to be agnostic over uncontrolled spending and debt does not changes the facts. No one in Newton or the Commonwealth’s Special Commission has the slightest clue or suggestion as to how to address the $1 billion (and fast rising) debt that Newton (and almost all other cities and towns) face. As Mr. Gump taught me, reckless is as reckless does.
@David: I’m not “choosing to be agnostic over uncontrolled spending and debt,” I’m saying the positions taken are irrelevant to the law. If city leaders held a closed door meeting about rolling back taxes and slashing spending, it would still not be kosher.
@ Hoss. I absolutely agree that corruption is not a problem here in Newton. It is lack of responsibility, fiscal judgement and true problem solving that I feel is at question here. We have been on a spending trajectory for a long time that simply is not sustainable. I truly think the result of this is that we have, and continue to, negotiate labor contracts in bad faith. Of course the union leadership has the fiscal expertise to know better, but nevertheless we are selling a bill of goods. We are nowhere close to Detroit, however the fiscal drivers their apply in some key ways to our situation in Newton. The public pensioners in Detroit may bet 25¢ on the dollar. We might do better here, but we had better starting changing our spending trajectory, judgements and decision making. The billion dollar hole is getting deeper every day.
Greg, I think David Spier has made very good points about the lack of fiscal stewardship by Newton city government when it comes to managing and administering taxpayer funds. This has resulted in Newton government accumulating over $1 Billion in debt and interest bearing pension/post-retirement-benefit liabilities.
Colleen also made good points about how Proposition 2.5 was designed to force cities and towns to restrain themselves each year when raising taxes. That way, gov’t officials couldn’t spend recklessly and incur debt which might never be repaid easily, nor saddle the taxpayers with additional taxes in the form of overrides and debt exclusions. Proposition 2.5 also gave cities and towns tools to manage their spending, but many municipal government officials took the path of least resistance by pushing overrides and more borrowing instead.
Regarding Greg’s red herring remarks about “If city leaders held a closed door meeting about rolling back taxes and slashing spending, it would still not be kosher.” If city leaders held a closed door meeting about cutting taxes by reforming its buying and spending practices, I would probably respond to that by calling Ripley’s, because I don’t think he could believe it.
http://www.ripleys.com/weird/
Josh, your “red herring” comment regarding Greg’s last statement continues to convince me that you can not be the leader of any group in Newton that is large enough to affect change. I believe in many of the ideas you put forth; however your unwillingness to agree with Greg on any issue and/or comment turns me off. You had a chance to build a bridge, and you blew it.
I do not agree with Greg on many issues, yet I believe his concern for adhering to open meeting regulations, regardless of the politics, is an honest position. I suspect, based on your track record, you will call me naïve (or worse).
Patrick, when it comes to open meeting laws, rules and regs, you will get no argument from me about the need to comply with them. Process Matters. The Republicans are having a huge fiasco based on their convention last weekend because they forgot that important maxim.
I’m glad that this situation has piqued Greg’s concerns about the city complying with the Open Meeting Laws. Process Matters. I do wish that Greg would show a similar level of interest in promoting good fiscal stewardship.
As for my relationship with Greg, I’m not pleased that he accused me of making things up last year during the override campaign. I’m also displeased at numerous other negative remarks he has made towards me during the last year on this blog as well as on the Newton Tab Blog. So it will take a while for me to warm up to him, despite your concerns. It’s tough for me to rebuild a bridge to Greg Reibman since he napalmed it last year.
Josh, I agree with your comment. I would add one thing. Greg is typically in the majority with the people on this blog and the voters on election day. That does not make his position right; however it does rule. The onus falls on the minority position to make the initial and continuous effort to build the bridges to agreement and compromise no matter how much napalm heads your way. Drop the “red herring” rhetoric. Good luck.
@Patrick
Yeah, but at least on this thread I showed that I’m not the only one that is interested promoting fiscal stewardship in Newton government.
Josh, there are plenty of people in Newton that favor fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately we are not in a majority at the voting booth, and as Bill Brandel has pointed out, that is what matters. What is needed is someone who can better lead those with our beliefs and attract others to our position. An honest, positive, professional person is needed.
Patrick, I am that honest, positive, professional, data-driven, research-oriented person that you are seeking.
If you don’t see it, than I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.