City Council Smackdown

In a story that deserved much more coverage, the Boston City Council's practice of closed meetings was found to be in gross violation of the open-meetings law. Kevin McCrea, Shirley Kressel, and Kathleen Devine brought the lawsuit that resulted in the City Council being fined $11,000. A rare victory for common sense. Council President Michael Flaherty, of course, showed no contrition or shame.

As McCrea wrote in his DFA Boston City Council candidate questionnaire last year:

I am a party to a lawsuit alleging that the city council has engaged in a number of meetings that violate the Open Meeting Law. People from around the city have e-mailed, called or talked to me about it. I believe that any meeting which all city councilors are invited to should be open to the public; the District Attorney confirmed that in a letter to Council President Michael Flaherty. Councilors Arroyo, Hennigan, Yancey and Turner currently boycott these meetings which they believe are in violation of the law. This means that 4 of the 13 councilors are being disenfranchised. Certainly, the Open Meeting Law was never meant to keep elected officials from being informed about government business. I would like to see you ask the candidates if they would abide by the Open Meeting Law, and if all councilors are invited to a meeting, that the meeting should be open to the public.

From the Globe:

In a scathing 20-page ruling, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Nancy Staffier Holtz said the City Council had intentionally violated the law, which is designed to let the public view and participate in governmental decision-making. She said the council also had concocted flimsy excuses for the violations.
''Despite clear case law mandating that the public be provided access to all meetings, with limited statutorily defined exceptions not applicable here, the council has responded to the plaintiffs' complaint with little more than a foot-dragging refusal to comply with its legal obligations," the judge wrote.
''The actions of the council were not the result of mistaken reliance on one of the statutory exceptions or inadvertence," she went on. ''Rather, the meetings were conducted in a manner which was calculated to thwart the presumptive rights of the public, and . . . this practice has been and no doubt remains ongoing."