A few days prior to the recent July 30 special city council meeting regarding a citizens' intitiative to place a nonbinding public opinion advisory question before the voters the Daily Hampshire Gazette's editors presented the public its own red herring by running an editorial suggesting the City Council transfer its authority for issuing a special permit for the proposed landfill expansion to the Planning Board. It is believed, though it is not a certainty, that the Board of Public Works is planning on seeking such a permit. Each of the two boards referenced are staffed via mayoral appointments that are approved by the city council. To my knowledge the council has approved every board candidate in the city as put forth by Northampton Mayor Mary Clare Higgins who is a proponent of expanding the regional landfill. Thus in my view the transfer of said authority to the Planning Board, should that occur, will all but ensure the landfill's expansion over the Barnes Aquifer.
David Narkewicz, Northampton's current Fourth Ward councilor, ran with the suggestion and submitted it as a formal ordinance change at the meeting. This was done in what is known as a, "late file," therefore residents were not aware of the activity prior to the meeting and could not prepare comments in favor of or against this important proposal.
If this change goes through councilors will no longer have to take responsibility for their positions regarding the expansion of the landfill over an aquifer. From a political standpoint this provides a benefit to council members. If this proposal is approved persons like Narkewicz, currently an at-large council candidate with presumed mayoral aspirations, will not have to take a vote on the controversial measure.
Interestingly it became clear during the public comment portion of the meeting that at least one resident was notified in advance of Narkewicz's proposed ordinance change. Long time Narkewicz supporter and former Ward 5 Councilor Alex Ghiselin spoke in favor of the authority change, referring to it as a, "practical solution." In making his comments Ghiselin indicated the proposal was to be presented in the form of an ordinance at the meeting which indicates that he and Narkewicz communicated on the proposal prior to the meeting. Though this is not illegal, it is surprising given that each of these men served on the Best Practices Committee whose primary purpose is advancing transparent government. The proposal was passed on to various committees with no one speaking in opposition. Hopefully the Gazette will inform its readers of when the issue is on the agenda at the respective committees so people will be aware of their opportunity to weigh in.
Ghiselin scattered more seeds of confusion by suggesting the council could stop the expansion at any time and that the special permit is, "irrelevant." Narkewicz is quoted in the Gazette similarly saying the council decides how to fund the landfill and that the council, "holds the purse strings." Neither provided much detail for these assertions. To my knowledge the landfill operates through a solid waste enterprise fund whose finances are controlled by the BPW and not the city council. If their assertions are true the council should clearly outline the mechanism(s) for the public. If they are not the Gazette should publish a clarification so as not to mislead its readers. As well in general the council has pretty much approved all proposals as brought forth by Higgins, fiscal or otherwise, rendering as dubious Narkewicz's facile assertion regarding the council's power of the purse strings.
I tend to agree with one of the public speakers at the meeting that until the BPW comes forth with a formal application for the special permit the council need not consider itself prohibited from speaking with constituents. In fact the Gazette seems to agree with this thinking too. From the July 28 editorial (emphasis added):
When the City Council approved a new water supply protection district ordinance, it kept for itself the authority to grant a special permit for any landfill expansion. This means the council will shift from its legislative role to a "quasi-judicial" one IF the BPW applies for a permit to expand the landfill.
Thus the Gazette is framing the situation as one where council members are gagging themselves. This after Higgins called in the city's solicitor Janet Sheppard and outside attorney Michael Pill respectively to advise them prior to the tendering of a special permit application. It is common knowledge however, that seldom if ever does the council ignore the advice of Sheppard. Therefore councilors should break from this pattern and speak with their constituents on the matter and not revert to the craven act of transferring their authority to an appointed board as there really is no reason to. The BPW has not tendered a special permit application therefore the council is not presently serving in the capacity as a quasi-judicial board so the suggestion by Narkewicz, Ghiselin and Gazette editors should be set aside.
Moreover, by voting 3-3 to not take the citizen's proposal off of the table (basically taking no action) the council reduced by three days the petitioners timeline for collecting signatures. As someone experienced in petition drives I can attest that three days can make a difference in the ability to collect the required number of signatures to place a measure on the ballot. Councilors Jim Dostal, Dave Murphy and Bob Reckman all voted to not take the measure off of the table rather than taking the measure off the table and then voting it down. As a result petitioners cannot begin collecting signatures until August 3 rather than July 31. Notably Dostal worked in public works for the city in its Water Department for 45 years and Reckman is a former member and Chair of the BPW and currently sits on the joint conference committee of the BPW-City council. I see both as proponents of expanding the landfill.
Since the city has expended millions of dollars preparing for landfill expansion any actions taken by residents to thwart that expansion are seen as a threat to the status quo. As Council meetings grow increasingly complex, with various council members and the mayor debating procedures and quoting verses from city and state laws, ordinary citizens might become disenfranchised and opt out of the public policy making process. In this case that might be exactly what the powers-that-be are hoping for.
Video courtesy North Street Neighborhood Association.
