In each instance, the council or committee went into executive session without fully explaining the purpose of the executive session, according to the attorney general’s office.
NORTHAMPTON – The Massachusetts Attorney General’s office has found that both the City Council and the School Committee violated the open meeting law last year by failing to adequately state the purpose for going into executive session.
The violations pertain to May 5, May 19 and June 2, 2011, City Council meetings and a May 26, 2011 School Committee meeting. In each instance, the council or committee went into executive session without fully explaining the purpose of the executive session, according to the attorney general’s office. The ruling came in response to a formal complaint by the Daily Hampshire Gazette.
In the case of the City Council violations, then-Council President David J. Narkewicz put the executive session on the agenda at the request of then-Mayor Mary Clare Higgins, writing only that the purpose was to discuss strategy relative to collective bargaining. Because Higgins did not specify to Narkewicz which unions would be discussed, he did not include any further information.
The state ruled that it should have been stated that the sessions were being held to “receive the mayor’s update on progress of negotiations with all bargaining units.” In such cases, Assistant Attorney General Amy L. Nable wrote, it must also be stated that discussing the negotiations in open session “would have a detrimental effect” on the city’s bargaining position. The council did not do that.
In two of those cases when the council adjourned for executive session, Higgins had no update to present and no executive session was actually held.
The School Committee did announce that it was going into executive session to discuss collective bargaining and that to do so in public would be detrimental to its position, but failed to specific that it was going to talk about negotiations with the Northampton Association of School Employees, thus violating the open meeting law.
Narkewicz, who is now mayor, said the violations had taken place shortly after the state passed new legislation that included more specific language about the Open Meeting law. The city has since gotten more clarification about the changes and has been in compliance, he said.
“I support the changes and the spirit of it,” Narkewicz said.
The attorney general’s office took no punitive action, but directed the city to comply in full with the open meeting law in the future. Nable also wrote that future such violations may be considered evidence of the city’s intent to violate the law.