Just confirmed rumors that there is a claim filed to the City Clerk, the President of the City Council and the AG’s Office of an alleged Open Meeting Law Violation by some City Council members. Read here
According to the Attorney General’s website, a complaint must first be filed with the public body alleged to have violated the law within 30 days of the violation using the AG’s Complaint Form and a copy of the complaint must be filed with the municipal clerk. The Chair of the Public Body must distribute the Complaint to members of the public body and the public body has 14 business days from the date of receipt of the complaint to take remedial action if appropriate; notify the complainant of the remedial action; and forward a copy of the complaint and its response, including a description of any remedial action taken, to the Attorney General’s Office. The public body must also send a copy of its response to the complainant….”A complaint is ripe for review is ripe for review by the Attorney General’s Office 30 days after the complaint is filed with the public body. This 30-day period provides an opportunity for the complainant and the public body to resolve the initial complaint. It is important to note that complaints are not automatically filed with the Attorney General’s Office upon filing with the public body. A complainant seeking further review of the complaint by the Division of Open Government must file the complaint with the Attorney General. When filing the complaint with the Attorney General, the complainant must include a copy of the original complaint and may include any other relevant materials, including an explanation of why the complainant is not satisfied with the public body’s response…The Attorney General’s Office will seek to resolve complaints in a reasonable period of time, generally within 90 days of the complaint becoming ripe for review.”
What happens if the council members did violate the law? How does this affect the vote of 12-10?
Amy, did you file the complaint? I’m a little confused. The letter from the AG is addressed to you, but the complaint says it is anonymous due to “fear of retribution”
Was the purpose of the meeting to address city council behavior?
I’m also not sure I understand why the participants would be banned from voting, but I admit I know little about these rules…
So many questions…
Fig I think Amy submitted a request through the open records law (this might not be the correct term but hopefully you get my gist) to receive a copy of the complaint which is why the request includes that letter but that she was not the person who filed the actual complaint.
Do new City Councilors get any sort of briefing or training on the open meeting law and any other laws relevant to their job (like state ethics laws, etc.) That said, among the 10 women CCs who met, the veterans should have known better.
NHM:
I figured that was the case. I’m curious as to how Amy found out about it though. I’m not alleging a conspiracy or anything, I’m just more curious as to how this process works. Please don’t anyone read into these questions, I applaud Amy for publicizing!
Also, open meeting laws should be taken seriously. If the CCs messed up, shame on them.
@Fig: I heard a rumor and followed up with the AG’s office. I figured if this was a serious complaint, the AG’s office would have known about it. Sure enough, I made an inquiry this morning and got a response within a few hours. Contacted the TAB as well and they had heard a similar rumor last week but didn’t have enough info to report on it.
Fascinating. Thanks for sharing Amy. It will be interesting to see how the AG responds.
I’m especially curious about this sentence:
That raises all sort of questions. Why would our women councilors feel the need to discuss “lack of decorum”? Is there an issue with the way they feel they are being treated?
@Greg – the bat sure showed a lack of decorum. 🙂
I know for the Area Council members we must announce publicly 2 full days ahead of a planned meeting. The council members can not meet secretly. The public must be notified so anyone can attend the meeting.
@Greg: I don’t think the AG will weigh in anytime soon. As I am sure you read in my post about the process, the City Council is supposed to respond prior to it becoming “ripe for review” by the AG.
Also – since you are an avid reader of my newsletter and fan of my website, I’m sure you remember the post about a Leadership meeting last week where “Draft Guidelines” (go here: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/90139) were distributed for discussion.
@Amy: I try my darnedest to memorize each and every one of your emails but a refresher is always good, so thanks. Are you referring to this?
If so, are you saying councilors should not have met to discuss concerns about “a perceived lack of decorum” without talking to Marc Laredo, David Kalis or Lisle Baker first? If so, do you know that they did not do this?
Two points:
1. The only specific matter the complaint lists as having been discussed at the meeting is the lack of decorum at city-council meetings. I don’t think that counts as a discussion of council business that is subject to open-records laws. Maybe more was discussed.
2. The underlying issue here appears to be the ever-lasting tribal warfare between NIMBY and pro-development councilors. If wine was served, should we expect additional ad hominem accusations of alcoholism on these pages?
@John White: Agree. In addition the “NIMBY/pro-development” divide does not break along gender lines.
@Greg: I’m so relieved you do read my newsletters. It’s okay if you don’t remember them verbatim. I don’t either.
I wasn’t referring to anything specific but this is the first time in my 20 years of service, that I have seen anything like this from Leadership – outlining process, how to address issues, how to address Department Heads and staff and each other and how to dress.
Amy, do you know if the Tab filed a public records request? Were they waiting for the response before they did a story? Or did they not bother to file a public records request? I miss Jonathan Dame!
@Julia, Not exactly sure I understood clearly what the reporter was saying. She suggested she knew about this last week and tried to get more info.
The invitation being restricted to the female members is key. Sounds to me like several of them feel that some men on the council are not being respectful. If that is the case, and a quorum of the full council was present while they deliberated what to about the situation, it would technically be an OML violation. But a quorum was not present. As for the quorum of committees, that is where the situation is less clear. Members could have slipped into an unintentional violation of OML by casually discussing relevant matters that could be considered deliberation.
That being said, I am most concerned about the reason for the meeting being called in the first place.
The Tab has something up now: http://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/20180611/complaint-alleges-female-councilors-voted-as-block-to-nix-newtons-crescent-street-project
The article notes:
I can assure every reader that this member of the Newton Highlands Area Council has gone through several training sessions on Open Meeting Requirements and Conflict of Interest requirements during my 6 years on the Council. I’m almost certain that every City Councilor has suffered through these sessions as well. During this time, nobody has ever sought to bribe me or corral me into anything illegal or unethical. I’m thankful for this, but also more than a bit humbled since it’s pretty obvious I’m into nothing that would warrant a bribe or kickback. My Uncle Neil was a precinct captain with one of the most powerful of Boston’s political machines in the 20a and30’s. He’d be shocked if he knew I took a government position without at least some modest kickbacks or other forms of payment under the table. But that was Boston and this is Newton.
Hmmm…after fulling reading the complaint, a few more thoughts:
1) Seems clear that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss lack of decorum at Council meetings. Considering that only female city councilors were invited, that’s a strong hint as to an ongoing issue. Seems pretty important.
2) No quorum of the council.
3) Boy does this complaint seem to have an agenda. It lays out the meeting, then states no proof of any public facilities business discussed at the meeting, but states that a quorum of that committee was there, so therefore all votes on the Capital Improvement plan from folks at the meeting has to be nullified. And since the complaint specifically mentioned the affordable housing project at Crescent Street multiple times, including that 10 out of 12 female councilors voted to remove it from the CIP, that seems the likely issue for the complaintant.
Whelp, lots to discuss here.
1) Can the women at the meeting lose their vote on the CIP plan in a revote?
2) What is going on regarding lack of decorum, especially considering the request for a women-only meeting?
3) The person complaining is afraid of retribution?
4) Was there a male city councilor who was outspoken regarding the Crescent Street project staying in the CIP?
Pls. correct me if I’m wrong, but did the complaint originate from someone in city hall? The envelope is postmarked 1000 Commonwealth Avenue.
In case others are interested, the Patch article answers my question about training: “Each year city councilors are trained specifically in how Open Meeting Law works and must take tests to keep up to speed with the law that has the aim of ensuring government action and the decision making process transparent to citizens. City Councilors are not permitted to meet in private to discuss official business except for a couple very specific reasons, and even still they have to announce the planned meeting ahead of time.”
This gathering is only important because the women on the city council felt the need to hold it. There would be no minutes and no reason to share their issues with the public. Councilor Sangiolo said in the previous post that this year directives were given “outlining process, how to address issues, how to address Department Heads and staff and each other and how to dress.” Even some of these sound questionable.
The anonymous complainant had no reason to suspect that business before the council was discussed or the vote on Crescent Street was related to the gathering, did not follow proper procedure and will not receive an answer from the attorney general.
I’m confused by this statement in the complaint:
Doesn’t that imply that one of the councilors present at the meeting filed the complaint? How would the anonymous complainant know what was discussed at the meeting unless she was an attendee?
Regardless, if the female councilors feel the need to meet to discuss decorum in the council, that’s a concern.
This complaint is a nothing burger. It is clear that female councilors only were invited to discuss the way they were treated at meetings–not an item before the Council. Based on my 14 years of experience, I can attest that there is a good deal of freshman hazing that goes on in the City Council, and there is more than a little misogyny that some (male) councilors do not even bother to try to hide.
Either an attending councilor would have to have filed the complaint or informed the person who did.
Either way, we have an anonymous person who fears “retribution” from a group discussing a ‘lack of decorum.” Investigation or not, the public deserves more information.
Or, Greg, it could be someone who did not attend but knew about the meeting.
Open meeting law aside, I’m very concerned about women feeling disrespected at the city council. Newton, 2018. What’s going on? The male councilors I know personally are great, decent people, and I would be astonished if they are the ones who are allegedly being respectful. Is this related to a single individual?
… and most curiously had a Newton City Hall return address
Ah, this has all the elements of a good small town politics story – an anonymous complaint, spurned counselors that weren’t invited, men (possibly) behaving badly, a mysterious postmark, ex-counselor bringing it to the public, a demand for a new vote.
I am also wondering if it’s things like being ignored, interrupting, mansplaining or if it’s things like sexually inappropriate remarks. It sounds like it would be a toxic environment for women either way but I’m curious about the nature and severity of what’s been going on because it’s pretty alarming if this is how the Council is functioning.
@Jerry: I hope you are not insinuating that my bringing it to the public is somehow underhanded. I was trying to let the public know that a complaint was lodged against the City Council. I wasn’t certain that the rumors about the filing of the complaint were true which is why I went to the AG’s office first.
For those keeping score at home, the two female councilors who voted “no” on the budget resolution item #9 (delete Crescent Street from the CIP) were Brousal-Glazer and Norton.
The ten women who voted yes were Albright, Crossley, Danberg, Downs, Greenburg, Grossman, Kelly, Lapin, Leary and Noel plus dudes Auchincloss and Lipof.
Krintzman abstained. Baker was absent.
And BTW, those dozen yes votes came from twelve individuals who probably wouldn’t need any secret meeting to come to the conclusion they came to regarding the Crescent Street project.
@Amy Sangiolo – Not at all. But the whole story does have a bit of a three ring circus feel to it.
@Jerry: Thanks but… “ex-counselor bringing it to the public” – I went to the Newton TAB first. TAB reporter had a deadline to meet and emailed that she wouldn’t have time to talk but then got back to me after I told her why I was contacting her.
There are several aspects to this “story” that I am interested in. I’m listing them in the order of importance IMHO.
1. Female Councilors feel “dissed” by fellow male Councilors and feel compelled to meet privately for support and happen to have a quorum of the Public Facilities Committee (6).
2. Council Leadership issues “Draft Guidelines for best practices for Committee Chairs and all Councilors” for discussion.
3. No “news” source in the City knew about this or reported about this – whether complaint has any basis or not – complaint was filed albeit anonymous.
@Amy Sangiolo – as the female ex-councillor who broke this story about an anonymous complaint, you cant help but be part of the story.
Amy,
I’m concerned about women councilors feeling the need to get guidance from more experienced women councilors about “lack of decorum” in the city council and about what the Draft Guidelines contained, particularly how to address other councilors and what to wear.
I have no reason to think that these councilors discussed Crescent Street, specifically because David Olson was spoken to first about what they could and could not discuss at the gathering. The anonymous bogus complaint provides nothing leading me to think that they discussed any business before the council especially because they knew not to, both the experienced and freshman councilors.
I’m concerned about why you would believe that the complaint might be true just because there was a quorum of the P&S Committee present. I don’t see how that’s relevant at all. Almost seems the anonymous complainant believes women can’t control what they talk about. I mean, after all they’re women.
I liked the Crescent Street plan but know others did not for several different reasons – one being the high price. I’m also not surprised by who voted to remove it from the budget, although I’m disappointed. I don’t think it’s the place for more dense housing.
I’m also interested in who filed the complaint and why? Doesnt an open meeting law complaint first go the body being discussed so they can shed light on their discussion and rectify whatever might need to be? And didn’t the complainant know that anonymous complaints do not require an answer? Certainly s/he did if a councilor themselves.
The complaint sounds much more like a devious way to get the Crescent Street Plan back into the budget and blame it’s being taken off on the women councilors who happened to vote the same way and happened to be together four days before the vote.
I’m also concerned about the lack of local news coverage but really don’t see why this gathering would be newsworthy unless the women attending wanted it to be. The complaint, yes.
@Marti: I think anytime there is a quorum of any committee – it raises the question of potential OML violation. Just the question. All I did was report that I confirmed a rumor with the AG’s Office that a complaint had been lodged. Actually, didn’t the League raise the issue of potential OML violation when 14 Councilors signed on to the docket item to reduce the size of the Council?
@Jerry: To be perfectly clear as soon as I confirmed, I contacted the TAB. The TAB reporter was at first, too busy for a phone call and it wasn’t until I began to post, that she called me back when she learned about my info. I then proceeded to send the info that I had received to the TAB, Patch and the Globe – so that the reporters could report on the story.
This “story” raises all sorts of questions. Did the female Councilors feel like they couldn’t go to Leadership with whatever issues they had or did they and the response from Leadership was the “Draft Guidelines” or something else? And what are the issues? Are the men on the Council not treating the female councilors with the same level of respect as they do with their male councilors? Is there really a need for “Draft Guidelines on Best Practices” ? What’s with “dress appropriately”?
I appreciate that Amy Sangiolo brought this to the attention of the TAB and Village 14. It has sparked an important conversation.
Ditto to appreciating Amy’s bringing this to the attention of the public.
Question for Amy: Did you feel like women were treated unfairly, inappropriately, etc. when you were on the council? Or when you were first elected?
Amy, I too am glad you followed up and then reported this complaint to news media and V14. I understand and agree with your concerns. The Draft Guidelines sound terribly misguided.
@Gail: I’ve never felt like women were treated unfairly, inappropriately, or differently than my male counterparts. I’ve had many run-ins and clashes with colleagues – both male and female over the years but never felt it was because I was a woman – more because of my very outspoken viewpoints and votes. If I ever had an issue with any particular individual colleague – I went directly to Board/Council Leadership.