On Monday, April 14, the Northampton city council’s ordinance
committee met. The committee is beginning to develop
rules for itself in anticipation of an application by the
department of public works (DPW) and mayor Higgins for a heavy public use
special permit that would allow for the expansion of Northampton’s
landfill. The meeting was supposed to start at 6:00 pm,
but because city solicitor Janet Sheppard had a death in the
family, attorney Michael Pill attended instead, and the
meeting did not convene until 7:00 pm. On-lookers were
few. I had to leave at 7:30 pm and then came back
about 8:00 pm after my other meeting was over, and
the meeting was still grinding along. In the end,
nothing was decided because Sheppard and Pill had not
met together and issued an opinion. It was quite
clear, however, that a majority of the councilors
attending were chafing at the extremely restrictive
rules proposed by the city solicitor, who has ruled
that the council, rather than the planning board, must
issue the permit. To do so, the city is going to
consider some generic rules that will cover any time
that a special permit will come before the council.
Pill said that he knew there were some problems with
communication: he took the two different public forum resolutions
that councilors are proposing and took them under advisement.
He said he and Sheppard were "Trying to weave a blanket as
we go. Janet and I have the obligation to advise you on process,
on which procedure gives the city the best protection from lawsuits."
The City Solicitor has already ruled out forums
sponsored by the Paradise City Forum; she has also
ruled out city councilors attending any forum not
meeting the guidelines for a public hearing.
Mike Bardsley raised a central issue: does this new
role for the council mean that councilors can no
longer represent constituents? Were they to operate
in a vacuum, without the give and take inherent in
forums? Pill said words to the effect that councilors can take input
from a constituent, that button-holing is okay, but whoever
talks to them and what is said must be part of the
public record otherwise, he said, they would be acting ex-parte. As
judges it is improper for them to talk
to proponents and opponents in the back room, it is
improper for councilors to wheel and deal out of
sight. Councilor M. LaBarge said she had been told by
mayor Higgins and planning director Wayne Feiden that they were not to talk
to their constituents about this issue.
"Quite frankly" said Pill, "If I had my
way, I would sequester the council for the duration,
from the time the permit is requested until after the
public hearing is closed and the decision is made."
Maureen Carney was exasperated at the length of time
the issue would tie the council up. "Do you, Attorney Pill,
see any injustice in the entire population of the council
being tied up this way?"
The attorney seemed to feel that this new way of doing
things was going to be necessary, and thought ( I
think) that it doesn’t taint things that two members of
the council have already been extensively involved in
discussions on the issue in relation to their roles on the
Board of Public Works (Dostal and Reckman). He also said
that the council had the right, just as judges do, to
move quickly, refuse to take more public testimony
that repeats prior arguments, and make their
decisions.
Your reporter had a hard time keeping his feelings to
himself. When he did finally raise his hand at the
close of the meeting, the chairman had the good
judgment not to recognize him.
(Read more from Mike Kirby at Kirby on the Loose at:
http://kirbyontheloose.blogspot.com/
Kelsey Flynn of Masslive.com fame, also speaks with
Easthampton mayor Michael Tautznik on his views
regarding Northampton’s landfill expansion. Listen here.)
