I don't profess to know a whole lot about town government, I'm like most of you--I know enough to get by. One thing I do know about is open meeting laws, and "executive sessions".
There are nine exceptions for going into "executive session". Eight of the exceptions do not fit the recent scenario with the Board of Health, but one may.
Click on the quote below to be brought to The Massachusetts Open Meeting Law in .pdf format.--ed.
"9. Exception Nine - "To meet or confer with a mediator, as defined in section twenty-three C of chapter two hundred and thirty-three, with respect to any litigation or decision on any public business within its jurisdiction involving another party, group or body, provided that: (a) any decision to participate in mediation shall be made in open meeting session and the parties, issues involved and purpose of the mediation shall be disclosed; and (b) no action shall be taken by any governmental body with respect to those issues which are the subject of the mediation without deliberation and approval for such action at an open meeting after such notice as may be required in this section. "
"This exception, passed in December, 1994, exempts mediation sessions from the Open Meeting Law's requirements provided that the decision to enter into mediation is made in open session and that the governmental body does not take any action concerning the issue or issues submitted to mediation until it has deliberated and approved such action in an open meeting."
If the above was followed as the law is written, then it was done properly. Only those residents that were there that night can tell if there was a quorum, a proper vote to go into executive session, and a vote on anything decided upon in the executive session in an open meeting directly after the private session.
However, if the residents of the town are disappointed, concerned, and against the decisions made in "executive session" there are avenues to take in order to stop it. A vote a Special town Meeting is one way to address the issue.
$50,000.00 is a paltry sum. There is too much at stake here, and an issue this big, that affects the health and well being of all of us here in Sturbridge must be taken before the citizens of the town for a vote, not decided in a private session.
Here's an idea that can be brought up at Town Meeting, if an access road is to be built to the Southbridge Landfill from Sturbridge, how about installing a Toll Gate? Allow access, but charge a fee per ton of refuse trucked along the route. The income from a venture like this could more than make up for settling for a mere $50,000.00.
Just a thought.
ed note: I've been told (see comments) that the access road to the landfill will not be coming out of Sturbridge as I believed. Bummer. However, the law is clear regarding Open Meetings, and if things were done correctly the town should have no worries about the mechanics of what was decided. Were they done correctly according to the law?
Due to the volatility of this subject, the comment section will remain open.
What a valuable and interesting post. Thanks you!
ReplyDeleteThe correct citation is MGL Ch. 39, Section 23(b)(3) which reads, "(3) To discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining or litigation if an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining or litigating position of the governmental body, to conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations with nonunion personnel, to conduct collective bargaining sessions or contract negotiations with nonunion personnel."
ReplyDeleteYou may want to check with Southbridge to confirm, but the access road to the landfill and industrial park in Southbridge will come off Route 169 near the Charlton line and doesn't come close to Sturbridge, so a toll instituted by the Town of Sturbridge (even if this were legal) would not make sense.
In response to Anonymous:
ReplyDelete"9. Exception Nine - "To meet or confer with a mediator, as defined in section twenty-three C of chapter two hundred and thirty-three, with respect to any litigation or decision on any public business within its jurisdiction involving another party, group or body, provided that: (a) any decision to participate in mediation shall be made in open meeting session and the parties, issues involved and purpose of the mediation shall be disclosed; and (b) no action shall be taken by any governmental body with respect to those issues which are the subject of the mediation without deliberation and approval for such action at an open meeting after such notice as may be required in this section. "
This exception, passed in December, 1994, exempts mediation sessions from the Open Meeting Law's requirements provided that the decision to enter into mediation is made in open session and that the governmental body does not take any action concerning the issue or issues submitted to mediation until it has deliberated and approved such action in an open meeting."
I think this covers the Board of Health executive session very well.
The question is who authorized Jim Malloy to make such an agreement?
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering, too. And, how is the Board of Health authorized to make this kind of agreement without input from the residents of our town? the whole things smells a little off. But, complaining her will do s little good. Writing to the newspapers can have a bigger impact, and demanding a session with the BOS, and Malloy woud help, too. Then if don't get the answers we want, then bring it before the town in a meeting.
ReplyDeleteNo one has been able to answer the question who authorized Jim Malloy to settle for $50,000.00 ? Does anyone know the answer ?
ReplyDeleteDear Just Wondering,
ReplyDeleteWe won't get an answer to your question here, but maybe if letters are written to the Editors of the local newspapers asking the same question it will stir more of a reaction. We can also ask outright at the BOS meeting. But as Thinking pointed out, we also need to know if the letter of the law was followed for the executive session when the decision was made to settle. Did the decision come back to an open meeting for a vote, or discussion? If not, then the settlement is null, and will not hold up. This is the direction to take the fight first,and we need witnesses to that meeting to come forward, or as Warner Wolfe says, "Let's go to the videotape!!"