By Adam Swift
The town council narrowly defeated a proposed rules change that would have changed how items can be added to the council agenda.
The council voted 5-4 last week against a proposed council rule that would allow an item that is not on the agenda to be discussed if a majority of councilors voted to do so. Currently, the council requires a unanimous vote to place an item on the agenda during a meeting, typically for an emergency measure.
Prior to the vote, town attorney James Cipoletta said that not only would the proposed rule change violate the state’s open meeting law, but the rule as currently constituted violates the law, as well.
“It says currently that during the course of a meeting, other than amendments to existing motions, no business shall be considered by the town council unless there is a unanimous vote of the council to waive this rule,” said Cipoletta. “There was a proposal to change that to read, other than amendments to existing motions, no business shall be considered by the town council unless there is a majority vote of the council to waive this rule.”
In doing his research, Cipoletta said the main issue came down to one of notice of meetings under the open meeting law.
“The open meeting law requires that the agenda must list all topics that the chair of the public body reasonably anticipates will be discussed in the meeting,” he said.
After a further consultation with the state attorney general’s office, Cipoletta said his legal opinion that both the current and revised rule violate the notice provision of the open meeting law, and that the council revise the rule to strike out the words “unless there was a unanimous vote,” and not add additional language.
“Basically, you would be striking an unlawful rule that is in effect now,” Cipoletta said.
Precinct 3 Councilor Joseph Romano argued that there was nothing he heard from Cipoletta’s legal opinion or the law that specifically blocked the passage of the rule change.
“With all due respect to Attorney Cipoletta, I feel a lot of the stuff you said isn’t particularly relevant to this motion,” said Romano. “All the stuff you read is pertaining to the chair, and if the chair reasonably expects something. This has nothing to do with the chair, it is about what the council would decide once the meeting gets started.
“I haven’t read anything that would disbar our motion, it was already approved by the rules and ordinance committee, it does not need a second and I say we should still vote on it.”
Romano also noted that there would not be an issue of a motion being proposed and passed at a single meeting, since all councilors have council privilege to push any action off to a future meeting. In addition, he said the council would not be allowed to vote on a motion the first time it was added to the agenda, giving the public time to have input into any motion or issue.
Several councilors noted that the council would be putting itself at risk if it willfully violated the open meeting law.
“I want to recognize Attorney Cipoletta’s time and effort that he put into this research and communication to the council,” said Precinct 2 Councilor Kim Dimes. “It is very clear; I just want to urge the council that we are here to serve our constituents, the residents of Winthrop. Why would we ever consider passing something that is in violation of the Massachusetts state open meeting law; end of story.
“We are here to be transparent, that is what we all want, why would we ever defer from that?”
Councilor-at-Large Max Tassinari said that the danger wasn’t necessarily that something would be pushed through in a single meeting, but that the town could face legal ramifications from the state or an individual if it violates the open meeting law.
In addition to Romano, Councilors Pat Costigan, Paul Reardon, and Martin Finn voted in favor of the council rule change.