I’ve written here and elsewhere about the need for government transparency, and this week is Sunshine Week, which according to the Gazette is “sponsored by the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the American Library Association and other citizen groups to focus attention on the need for the public’s business to be conducted out in the open.” The Springfield Republican describes it as, “a nationwide effort against unwarranted secrecy and promoting open government.” Read their article published today, Web serves as great resource for activists by Fred Contrada. Thus the media across America is this week promoting the idea of transparency in government, so let’s give it a try shall we, apply sun block now if you wish.
Consider these excerpts from an article published yesterday in the Springfield Republican Citizen groups rise up as public watchdogs by Jeanette DeForge and Suzanne McLaughlin. My thoughts in italics:
“Northampton Mayor Mary Clare Higgins said she receives many e-mails and letters from residents who don’t attend meetings but have concerns or want to voice opinions.”
I’ve attended municipal meetings, plenty of them. One thing I’ve noticed is that they generally don’t let members of the public speak, and certainly not for more than a few minutes. When they do let the public comment, officials often don’t acknowledge the content of the remarks but rather choose a posture of,’ the people have now been heard, but not agreed with.’ Northampton officials have floated around this buzz-phrase frequently lately as justification for acting in a fashion they please. If I were going to spend time at a municipal meeting however, it would be nice to be able to participate in a two-way conversation. For example, during public comment sessions at Northampton City Council meetings, when Councilors allow members of the public to speak for up to three whole minutes, Councilors never respond to the speaker directly and seldom if ever address issues raised by the public, unless of course the comments are of a flattering variety or they’ve prepared a response prior in anticipation of a rancorous discourse. Councilors always reserving the final word for them-selves, generally allow no spontaneous conversation off-script. Therefore, why would I or other members of the public continue to futilely waste time talking to people who don’t want to talk? This has given rise to discussion groups like the Paradise City Forum, that conduct public meetings which include open, unscripted, and moderated conversation in a safe environment.
Some of the benefits exploited by political incumbents include the ability to appoint members to commissions, control the flow of public debate, and then regularly characterize that discourse to the media, whose working members then disseminate this information to the public. It all works very nicely and constitutes a tried and true method of leading we the people. In any event, I’ve raised issues that the council has chosen not to address, ever.
For instance Northampton’s City Solicitor Janet A. Sheppard, who is appointed by Mayor Higgins, invoked Attorney General Tom Reilly falsely last fall during the Educational Use Overlay District petition effort waged by Citizens Opposed to the EU. To my knowledge, the city council did nothing about this even though the Solicitor clearly invoked the Attorney General without warrant and I raised this issue repeatedly to no avail. If the Attorney General did indeed approve the methods of the de-certification of the petition, let him or members of his staff document that approval in writing for the public record. The excerpt below is from my affidavit regarding the city’s de-certification process of a petition submitted in order to require a three-quarters vote of the city council to enact a zoning change. Citizens Opposed submitted signatures to the City Clerk representing approximately 44% of the abutters to the district and more than 20% of the area of land adjacent to the district prior to final council action. In our opinion the city violated Massachusetts General Law Chapter 40A, Section 5 which states:
“No zoning ordinance or by-law or amendment thereto shall be adopted or changed except by a two-thirds vote of all the members of the town council, or of the city council where there is a commission form of government or a single branch, or of each branch where there are two branches, or by a two-thirds vote of a town meeting; provided, however, that if in a city or town with a council of fewer than twenty-five members there is filed with the clerk prior to final action by the council a written protest against such change, stating the reasons duly signed by owners of twenty per cent or more of the area of the land proposed to be included in such change or of the area of the land immediately adjacent extending three hundred feet therefrom, no such change of any such ordinance shall be adopted except by a three-fourths vote of all members.”
An excerpt from my affidavit (click to view):
“On behalf of Citizens Opposed to the EU (Citizens Opposed), on Friday September 8, 2006, the morning after the Council approved the EU by a vote of 6-1, I contacted the Municipal Law Department of the State Attorney General’s Office in Springfield, Massachusetts. Municipal Attorney Robert Ritchie, who along with the Attorney General (AG) was referred to by Northampton City Solicitor, Janet A. Sheppard (Solicitor), during the Council meeting the night before, informed me that the AG did not advise the Solicitor with regards to the certification process of said petition. Further he requested that I direct the Solicitor to contact him, which I did via email September 8, 2006 at 11:14 AM. During the September 7, 2006 Council meeting, the Solicitor referred to the AG numerous times as approving both the methodology of the petition certification process as well as counting the Mill River as land area. Though Mayor Mary Clare Higgins indicated the AG provided “general guidance” only, these repeated references to the AG and Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Tom Reilly influenced Council members as well as the public at large and the media.
The following is my transcription in part from a video recording of the September 7, 2006 Council meeting:
Janet A. Sheppard, Northampton City Solicitor:
“Standard zoning procedure to, um, count water in a zoning district, the river and that area counted. We reviewed this with the Attorney General and he agrees that this was the correct way to, to map that. Wayne (Feiden-Director of Northampton City Planning) will explain to you. I don’t understand all of the intricacies of the map but he did count the water and this is under state law.”
With regards to the certification process of said petition, a process Citizens Opposed was excluded from, the Solicitor stated:
“The state law gives the authority to the City Clerk to set up a reasonable procedure.”
Maureen Carney, Ward 1 City Councilor addressing the Solicitor:
“In your consultation with the Attorney General’s office, were there, um, any other examples of other cities and towns that had been dealing with this, ah, 3/4s?”
The Solicitor in response:
“No, it’s a very seldom used part of the law and we looked for case law but the only one I found was something on the condominium and how many people have to sign. But there was nothing on this petition in terms of a process which is why we went to 30A (blogger’s note: try to find it), the state law that says if there isn’t a process, then the person in charge of administrating the statute, the City Clerk, has authority to set up a reasonable procedure and that’s what we tried to do, set up a reasonable procedure. We also did talk to the Attorney General about the procedure that we did set up and, um, Bob Ritchie in the Attorney General’s office thought it was a very reasonable process.”
The Ward 1 Councilor in response:
“So all of this was done in consultation with the Attorney General’s Office in terms of the, um, reverting to the City Clerk’s decision?”
Wendy Mazza, City Clerk, in response:
“It just allowed me to have a schedule, you know, for my staff and the other staff people that had to deal with this in order to get the necessary information, in order for Wayne to do the mapping.””
Back to DeForge and McLaughlin’s Sunshine Week article:
“"I think in order to have citizen involvement you have to have a responsible and diligent press," so people can be informed, she (Higgins) said.”
I think in order to have citizen involvement you have to have responsible and diligent ELECTED OFFICIALS, so people can be informed. Blaming the media when the public isn’t informed is very convenient but from what I’ve read, the local mainstream media in Northampton parrots the news as Higgins sees fit to print or broadcast pretty well (no offense folks, I know you’ve got bills to pay).
DeForge and McLaughlin continue:
“While input is welcome and many concerns are addressed, there are times when Higgins said she has referred residents to state or federal government. When people tell her they disagree with her positions, she explains her reasoning.
"There are some people who I’ve had to say to them we have to agree to disagree," she said. "If you feel so strongly I didn’t make the right decision, you shouldn’t vote for me."”
Can you imagine how the valley’s war protestors would react if President Bush made such a statement regarding Iraq? Well wait, he has hasn’t he, and they’ve protested haven’t they? How I read this type of statement: when a politician of any party at any level becomes accustomed to winning elections they feel as though they enjoy a mandate for every decision they make, that they have political capital to spend, and if you don’t like it you should be happy to simply not vote for them the next time around and go about your business and leave them to theirs.
But here’s something to think about on this rainy day during Sunshine Week: Academy of Music Trustees, a board Clare has seniority on, decided to break their own bylaws by not appointing a Community Advisory Committee as they drove the Academy’s movie programming to a halt to much public outcry. Before that debacle and as I’ve opined here recently, it was widely reported that Higgins decided not to appoint members to the city’s Energy Commission as required by city ordinance. I guess we have to agree to disagree Clare, I think you should uphold the oath of office that you took and abide by the rules of the city and appoint members to these two committees thereby inviting the public into the formal conversation. I wonder how many other committees Higgins has disbanded because she sees for them “no clear charge?” I suppose we all have our own perceptions of what transparency connotes.
