Friday, October 31, 2008
Councilor Feeney puts out statement about Open Meeting Law
Statement from the Office of Council President Feeney
http://electkevin.blogspot.com/2008/10/councilor-feeney-puts-out-statement.html
http://electkevin.blogspot.com

Boston--The office of Council President Maureen E. Feeney
released the following statement today on behalf of the Boston
City Council.

"In an attempt to bring resolution to the Open Meeting Law
 case, the Council has submitted a motion to the plaintiffs
 accepting the findings of the Appeals Court.

 The plaintiffs will have an opportunity to respond to the
 Council's motion and all will be filed with the Superior
 Court.

 Resolution is in the best interest of the Council, its
 constituents and the plaintiffs, but it is ultimately the
 Court that will rule on the motion and decide the outcome.

 The Council understands its obligations under the Open Meeting
 Law.

 It remains committed to transparency as a practice of good
 government and will continue to conduct its business
 accordingly."


Let's break this down sentence by sentence:

1) The office of Council President Maureen E. Feeney released
   the following statement today on behalf of the Boston City
   Council.

   Did she confer with the other members of the Boston City
   Council before putting this out?

   It certainly wasn't a posted meeting, perhaps another
   violation of the Open Meeting Law, in some sort of serial
   fashion?

   However, I give her the benefit of the doubt that as Council
   President she may speak on behalf of the council.

2) "In an attempt to bring resolution to the Open Meeting Law
    case, the Council has submitted a motion to the plaintiffs
    accepting the findings of the Appeals Court.

   This isn't true, the City Council went to the Appeals court
   saying they didn't get a chance to present evidence despite
   being the moving party.

   The City Council didn't present any further evidence to us.

   In fact, the City Council in the 11th hour
   has brought up 4 additional meetings that neither the
   Appeals Court nor the Superior Court addressed in their
   decisions.

   This statement by Feeney is thus patently false.

3) The plaintiffs will have an opportunity to respond to the
   Council's motion and all will be filed with the Superior
   Court.

   Correct

4) Resolution is in the best interest of the Council, its
   constituents and the plaintiffs, but it is ultimately the
   Court that will rule on the motion and decide the
   outcome.

   The court WILL rule on the motion and decide its outcome.

   I don't like her speaking for me about what is best for the
   plaintiffs, and it is odd for the Council to be speaking of
   resolution after spending around $200,000 of taxpayer money
   on O.M.L. issues when they could have sat down with we three
   plaintiffs years ago to resolve these issues as we have
   offered many times.

   Or, they could have saved money by just paying the $11,000
   fine which they will probably still have to pay.

5) The Council understands its obligations under the Open
   Meeting Law.

   If the Council understands its obligations why did they just
   send letters off to the DA the AG and others asking for
   clarification of the Law?

   Why did they pay Paul Walkowski tens of thousands of dollars
   to write up a report about the Open Meeting Law?

   And indeed, if they understand their obligations, why did
   they just admit guilt to 10 more violations of the Open
   Meeting Law?

6) It remains committed to transparency as a practice of good
   government and will continue to conduct its business
   accordingly."

   If they are committed to transparency why is their a notice
   at City Hall saying the Rules Committee will meet in
   confidence, whenever and wherever they want without dates,
   times or places to discuss the Open Meeting Law? I have
   asked them to take it down or explain its purpose but no one
   has an answer.

   Why did they just send the Walkowski Report off for comment
   to the DA and AG which recommends that the council seek to
   exclude itself from the Open Meeting Law?

The fact is that the Council still does not seem to want to do
all of their business in public.

I have been super busy this week, or I would have filed yet
another motion of more transgressions of the Open Meeting Law
by the City Council as I told Justin Holmes from Councilor
Feeney's office.

The public this week was treated to the FBI indictment of
Senator Wilkerson which shows how liquor licenses and land
deals are done in Boston, in back room deals by "smoke and
mirrors" as Dianne described it.

That happens in Room 809 at Boston City Hall.



I have asked the City Council to make a firm commitment to
Transparency by adopting a Sunshine Commission similar to the
one that San Francisco has, but they refuse to even entertain
the notion.

It is actions like these which make the public wonder how much
they are getting the shaft in these back room deals.



Postscript:
    The Boston Herald called me twice this afternoon trying to
get a copy of the Council's Motion for Summary Judgment.

I told the reporter I would have to confer with my
co-plaintiffs first as a courtesy.

The reporter called back and said that Maureen Feeney's office
said my blog was incorrect, and accused me of not being
transparent for not releasing the motion! I told her that she
should ask the council for the motion, it is their motion, but
she explained that she was refered to counsel for the council
and just got an answering machine.

I called Councilor Feeney's office to ask what was transcribed
wrong on my blog, but they wouldn't answer the question and
also referred me to their counsel and I also got an answering
machine.


    It was quite odd having the Herald be almost belligerent
with me, at one point saying "I gave you an hour to confer with
your co-plaintiffs, I have a deadline" as if I owed her
anything?????

Then accusing me of not being transparent?

Not a great way to ask for information I'd say.

I told her I'm running a business, and I'm just a citizen, I
have people to pay on Friday at pay time, and they are my
priority not some unknown reporter.

I'm not the one getting paid to do the public's business, and
my co-plaintiffs have work as well.

I have nothing but respect for the fourth estate, and the
Herald, but if you want to get a story, get the whole story and
do research don't badger people into sensationalist stuff.



PPS. If anyone can tell me how to post a PDF on this blog I
     would appreciate it!
http://electkevin.blogspot.com/2008/10/councilor-feeney-puts-out-statement.html
http://electkevin.blogspot.com

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]