Former Ward 5 city council candidate Kathy Silva has filed a complaint with the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission regarding the formation of the pro-override city committee in Northampton. The text of that complaint is included below:
Massachusetts Enforcement Division
State Ethics Commission
21 April 2009
To Whom It May Concern,
I am requesting a(n) official ruling regarding a violation of Chapter 268A, The Conflict of Interest Law for the Public Officials and Public Employees. In the general section the Laws that govern public official conduct states ”Unless you make a proper, public disclosure—including all the relevant facts—you may not take any action that could create an appearance of impropriety, or could cause an impartial observer to believe your official actions are tainted with bias or favoritism.” With this said here are the facts:
1. On 2 April 2009 Pamela S(ch)wartz who is a member of the Northampton Education Action Team filed paperwork with the Northampton City Clerk’s office of her intent to run for Ward 4 City Councilor in Northampton. (verified by City Clerk’s office)
2. On 15 April 2009 at 9:47 A.M., Pamela S(ch)wartz sent an e-mail to various residents in Northampton inviting them to join the already organized committee that is working to pass an override in the city of Northampton, (see attached e-mail). In this e-mail Council President Jim Dostal, Ward 4 Councilor David Narkewicz, and Ward 3 Councilor Robert Reckman were all named as having already joined the Northampton Committee to support the override.
3. On the morning of 16 April 2009 the paperwork for the establishment of the Committee to Override Campaign was filed in the Northampton City Clerk’s office, (verified by City Clerk’s office).
4. In the evening hours of 16 April 2009, during the City Council meeting, the Mayor officially brought forward an Order for City Council consideration, to place an override of property tax as a ballot question on June 16, 2009, (see attached paperwork).
Operating in the sense that a government is entrusted with the “right of making laws for the public good”, that is, in the interest and for the benefit of those the government represents, an interesting point arises. How can Northampton’s government fairly represent public good in the city if in fact the voting members of the city's government have joined a registered committee before the actual vote comes before them? How can Northampton’s government fairly represent all residents in the city when it is clear where their alliance lies? Clearly under the Conflict of Interest Law, Government officials cannot take any action that would cause an observer to believe their official actions are tainted with bias or favoritism. How do residents of Northampton have fair representation of all parties when three voting members have positioned themselves in a biased and tainted position before the official vote was even taken?
Thank you for your time.
Kathleen E. Silva
P.S. In another note I have included an e-mail showing that this override in Northampton is being combined with the Mayoral race that is shaping up to be. As you can see in bold, the e-mail that was sent to the Mayoral candidate who is currently a councilor at-large, is being threatened with a loss of support in the Mayoral election if he does not support put(ting) this override on the ballot. The fact that three votes of the nine council votes were already tainted, and one voting party threatened with loss of support in the election shows this process to be bias(ed) and tainted and should be thrown out until the new Council is elected in November, as some current council members have failed to represent all people without prejudice.
