Yesterday morning, the Springfield City Council saw its newest member sworn in: James Ferrera, 25, of East Forest Park. Ferrera was the next-highest vote-getter in the council’s 2005 election, and replaces outgoing Councilor Angelo Puppolo, who is now a state representative for the 12th Hampden District. Apparently Puppolo could have opted to remain a city councilor even while serving as a state rep., but chose to devote his time to the legislature.
Covering the transition in the print media, G. Michael Dobbs published a brief article in the Reminder profiling Ferrera and his objectives. Reporter Azell Murphy Cavaan has a similar article in today’s Republican. Also appearing in the Republican yesterday was a letter to the editor co-written by Ferrera, which addressed South End walkability and a suggested time bars ought to close.
Blogger Matt S. of WMassP&I appears to have shown up at the swearing-in ceremony and got some face time with Ferrera, as well as City Council President Kateri Walsh and State Rep. Puppolo. In his post last night about their comments, he is unguardedly optimistic about the status of the City Council.
I want to believe that the City Council has turned a corner, but I’m concerned about how well the body represents the city’s interests and population, the possible impartiality of its membership, and councilors’ insight into various matters. Such matters might include economic development, miscellaneous concerns of urban density versus sprawl, immigration, mass transit, management best practices, public relations and transparency, budgeting skills, fact-based needs assessment processes, and means to instill overall city pride.
In my view Springfield needs a decidedly positive role model for its diverse people ably coming together to work out our challenges, paving the way for new types of discussions and endeavors, and leaving behind old habits and resentments. Call it my private little vision, but isn’t vision something we need collectively, as well?
But there are also practical steps the city’s bureaucrats can take to streamline functioning and increase transparency. Above all, and perhaps closest within reach—and this point cannot be overstressed—the City Council might consider showing signs of making steps toward taking the crystal clear advice contained in a December 2005 report (PDF) of a study of the Springfield City Clerk‘s office. From page 63 of that document:
Currently the City of Springfield provides no minutes of Council Meetings and/or Council Subcommittee Meetings. The City Clerk’s Office does record the Action taken on all items and the information is available by contacting the Office. The City Council Office is responsible for staffing and recording action of all City Council Subcommittee meetings. While notes are taken regarding what transpires at these meetings, again, no document is prepared (unless requested by an interested party) of the actions taken by the City Council.
While the existing practice appears to comply with a narrow interpretation of the General Laws of Massachusetts regarding the maintenance of records of meetings of boards and commissions, these practices do not serve well either the City Council or the public. Best practices dictate that, at a minimum, action minutes should be prepared and distributed that detail the disposition and vote taken on each item of business that goes before the City Council. …
Action minutes should be prepared within two business days following a meeting by the City Council Clerk based upon the notes currently taken by the City Clerk (or his designee) during the meeting. …The action minutes should be distributed to all departments within one week of the meeting for their information.
The content of the meetings of the City Council is necessarily public information, and speaks to residents’ ability to track how well the public’s interest is being looked after, how well they are being represented, and what all is actually happening in the city at the public level.
By simply adhering to a "narrow interpretation" of state law that does "not serve well either the City Council or the public," the City Council is perpetuating a very bad example that desperately needs to be addressed and fixed. Every single meeting that goes by where minutes are not taken is, I believe, just another slap in the face for city residents, and I feel the elected body should be held accountable, and should make the change. Until then, how can its membership so brazenly claim to have a right to govern, and presume the public’s trust?
