Open Meeting Law Complaint Against Cambridge, MA Dismissed

Has the MA Attorney General or previously the District Attorney ever sustained a complaint against the Cambridge City Council for a violation of the OML? Laws are optional in Cambridge. And in any case the Obama-Holder doctrine applies, allowing officials to ignore inconvenient laws. How could they agree to form a slate if they did not discuss council business? "Oh, we all like each other and agree not to criticize each other, so let's do this?"

http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20160304/NEWS/160307629

AG clears Cambridge City Council of OML violation
Posted Mar. 4, 2016 at 10:20 AM
CAMBRIDGE Chronicle

Cambridge, MA Zoning Board Open Meetings Law Violation

Cambridge, MA City Hall

Here's an example of negligent training of a Cambridge, MA City official, chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals. It seems to be a clear violation of the MA Open Meetings Law, the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the MA Constitution. But also a felony under MA General Laws Chapter 265, Sec. 37, The Civil Rights Statute. It can be malfeasance, and abuse of power. Goes to show that freedom is not free and you must stand up for, and fight for your rights. Here's the video.
Thanks to Kim Courtney. 

https://youtu.be/ZfBfdRvDmEc

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleIII/Chapter30A/Section20

[Subsection (f) provides rule for video]
M.G.L. Chap. 30A, Sec. 18-25
Massachusetts Open Meeting Law

* * *

Mass Civil Rights Statute
MGL Ch. 265, Sec. 37

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter265/Section37


* * *

http://www.cambridgema.gov/boardsandcommissionsdirectory/boardsandcommissionsdirectory/boardofzoningappeal

Board of Zoning Appeal
Authority: Article 10, Section 10.10 of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance, by authority of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A

Purpose:To hear and decide appeals, applications for special permits, and appeals and petitions for variances from the terms of the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance.

Membership: 5 Members, 7 Associates
Term: 5 years

Members: Constantine Alexander, Chair
Timothy Hughes, Vice Chairman
Brendan Sullivan
Janet O. Green
Thomas Scott

Associate Members:
Douglas Myers
Slater W. Anderson
Andrea A. Hickey
Alison Hammer
Jim Monteverde
George S. Best
Laura Wernick

Updated: Massachusetts Gaming Commission Meets In Secret. PR Flack Assures Voters It Is Legal. Wynn Threatens To Sue Mayor Walsh

Posted July 6, 2015 9:00 PM ET; Last updated July 7, 2015 7:42 PM ET

[From article]
In its lawsuit against the Gaming Commission, the city issued subpoenas to eight current and former state police, alleging that troopers assigned to an investigation of Charles Lightbody gave former staties now working as private detectives for Wynn information about the
investigation in the “wire-tap room” at the attorney general’s office.
The Walsh administration yesterday stood by the claims in its motions seeking subpoenas. “We dispute the assertions in the letter and we firmly stand
behind the allegations in the amended complaint,” said Laura Oggeri, the mayor’s spokeswoman.
Lightbody, a convicted felon with mob ties, had an interest in the land Wynn Resorts is planning to use for a casino in Everett. The city sued the Gaming Commission seeking host city status, which could force a renewed license process.
Wynn has denied hiring the former troopers. The judge handling the case agreed to delay the subpoenas until after a hearing on a Gaming Commission motion to dismiss the case.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/07/wynn_to_mayor_walsh_i_ll_sue_you

Wynn to Mayor Walsh: I’ll sue you!
Threatens defamation fight in casino fight
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
By: Jack Encarnacao
Boston Herald

* * *

[From article]
“Commissioners discuss social matters, organizational structure and morale,” Driscoll said. “The commissioners do not discuss any matter that constitutes public business within the jurisdiction of the commission.”
But former Inspector General Greg Sullivan of the Pioneer Institute said he found that hard to believe.
“You can only talk about Tom Brady and ‘Deflategate’ for so long,” Sullivan told the Herald. “Eventually, the conversation probably drifts around to the subject of Massachusetts gaming.”
At least one commissioners’ lunch even featured a special guest — Frank Fahrenkopf, who had stepped down as president of the American Gaming Association one year before he met for 90 minutes with the MGC on Oct. 22, 2014.
[. . .]



Sullivan told the Herald the Gaming Commission’s structure — where the commissioners all work out of the same office — is a problem.
“It’s vulnerable to violations of the Open Meeting Law because of the design of the agency and the decisions the Legislature made,” said Sullivan. “It’s an inherently problematic situation because of the extremely unusual arrangement whereby the commissioners are full-time employees that work in the same building.”
Some of the datebook information the Herald requested could not be produced.
Stebbins’ calendar from March 2012 through the end of 2013 was “unavailable due to technical issues caused by his BlackBerry,” the MGC told the Herald.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/07/gaming_commission_racks_up_100_hours_in_secret_meetings

Gaming Commission racks up 100 hours in secret meetings
Panel playing games with open meetings law
Monday, July 6, 2015
By: Chris Cassidy
Boston Herald

(Open?) Meeting About Cambridge Middle School Teacher Charged With Possession of Child Pornography

Posted April 24, 2014 3:37 PM ET; Last updated April 28, 2014 5:05 PM ET

[Please note that this report was written from memory. None of the few notes I took before leaving the auditorium were used in this report. That is in case the unusual order of the School Superintendent, Dr. Jeffery Young was a valid constitutional order.]



Graham and Parks School

For those who enjoy spread sheets and statistics, here is a link to the Massachusetts Department of Education report card for the Graham and Parks School for 2013. 

http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/reportcard/rc.aspx?linkid=37&orgcode=00490080&fycode=2013&orgtypecode=6&

In Massachusetts the state government is dominated by Harvard University which boasts a $32 billion endowment. Cambridge City officials ignore city ordinances and state laws in order to better serve the wealthiest university in the nation. Enter into this milieu a young middle school teacher who enjoys viewing child pornography. He's arrested with no help from local police or state police, whose mission lately is providing protection to marathon runners.

Each day hundreds of illegal immigrants from Mexico and China swarm across open borders in violation of U.S. laws, which are intentionally not enforced. Drug laws are sporadically enforced. But in Cambridge, MA two days after the Boston marathon with saturation police troops protecting runners from terrorism, the Cambridge middle school held a meeting to sooth the anxieties of the parents and staff of the school. 



Dr. Jeffrey Young,
Cambridge School Superintendent

What was on the minds of city officials, voters and taxpayers? I arrived early and sat in front so I could see the faces of the speakers and hear what they said. It was Wednesday April 23, 2014 at the Graham and Parks Alternative School at 44 Linnaean Street. The meeting was chaired by the Cambridge School Superintendent. It is not known who ordered the meeting. Six school committee members, two city councilors, the Police Commissioner, the Assistant City Manager for Health and Human Services, and some employees of the U.S. Attorney's office were present. The City Manager arrived later. The meeting began at 6:02 PM. Before Dr. Jeffrey Young, Superintendent, went to the podium, a parent came to me and said, "I don't recognize you. Are you a parent?" I said "No." She said "This is not a public meeting. It is only for parents and staff." 

The conformity of Cambridge residents is appalling. It is very apparent at MIT, Harvard University, and among city officials and voters. The desire to conform and obedience to authority is extremely strong among youth, students, faculty and administrators, at the universities and among public officials.


This was evident at the public/not a public meeting at the Graham and Parks School to discuss the arrest of the teacher for possession of child pornography. There I was under attack by the superintendent of schools, the principal of the school (who has a PhD. from Harvard University), and a parent trying to get me to leave the meeting. And there was silence from the 100 or so people in the auditorium. Not one person said "We want to have this issue discussed by as many people as we can. It is a shameful fact and it needs the attention of everyone whether they are parents, staff, residents of the city or not." But not one person, none of the highly taxpayer funded, who take a sworn oath to uphold the constitution and laws of the state and the United States, spoke out. Job security kicked in to over ride their oaths. Even for parents who took no oath.

The concerned censor parent was making it up. The police commissioner is not school staff. Nor are City Councilors, School Committee members, the City Manager, Assistant City Managers, or the U.S. Attorney's employees. I said "I think it is a public meeting." She urged me to leave. I declined. Then Dr. Young came over to me and repeated her request to leave saying "This is not a public meeting." He promoted his standard for a public meeting saying, "There is no notice posted at city hall that makes it a public meeting."

I told him, "I disagree with you. That is not the definition of an open meeting." I again declined his invitation to leave. I told Dr. Young, "If the Police commissioner asks me to leave I will leave. Otherwise you will have to carry me out." I was not going to fight with the police, even if he was wrong. But especially if I was wrong. 

Citizen's Guide To Public Comment
[From the Cambridge School Committee web site on public comment]

The School Committee meetings operate under rules which were adopted to improve information to the public, make it easier for parents, guardians and the public to both follow and comment on issues before the Committee, and make meetings more accessible to the public.

[source]

http://www3.cpsd.us/SchoolCommittee/Guide_Public_Comment/

No one questions why it took the U.S. Attorney to bring charges of pornography possession, or illegal videotaping. Police arrest citizens who exercise First Amendment rights to videotape the police acting in their official capacity. That is an abuse of power contrary to law. Why wasn't Massachusetts state police and local police watching this teacher? Are public school teachers immune from surveillance? If the teacher was being watched he would have been caught earlier, maybe before he was hired by the Cambridge schools.

The FBI blames the Russians for not telling them everything the Russians knew about the terrorist brothers from Dagestan and Cambridge, who placed two bombs at the Boston marathon. A government task force determined it was the Russian's fault for not telling the FBI everything they knew. Hello? After Russian security forces told the FBI of their concern about the brothers, the FBI found they were no threat. But the FBI and police keep me under surveillance, harassing me, ridiculing, humiliating, threatening and insulting me. They tamper with my home computer, disturb my sleep and my communications. Public safety priorities in Massachusetts.


Sarah Fiarman, Principal
Ad for Graham and Parks School Principal
Salary: $105,339 - $115,736
Work Year: 210 Days
Benefits:
Health Insurance (82% employer paid)
Dental Insurance (100% employer paid)
Life Insurance
Sick Leave
Personal leave
403(B) Annuity Plan Option
Dependent Care and Medical Care Flexible
Spending Accounts (FSA) MTRS Retirement Plan

The school principal, Sarah Fiarman, PhD. Harvard University Graduate School of Education, came over to me and asked me to leave. I just sat there. I was beginning to think maybe they are going to reveal where the missing Malaysian plane was hiding. I suggested to Sarah Fiarman that she speak with the police commissioner, repeating that "If he asks me to leave I will. Otherwise I am staying." There were four members of the Cambridge School Committee sitting next to one another. Pat Nolan, Alfred Fantini, Mervan Osborne, and Kathleen Kelly. The Mayor is the chairman of the School Committee. Mayor David Maher was in the auditorium. Also nearby was Richard Harding another school committee member. There were six members of the school committee that I could see. How could I know if they were or were not deliberating? If the meeting was only for staff and parents, why were the politicians there?

Pre-meeting negotiations ended and the actual meeting began. Dr. Young gave his summary of the previous meeting held on Saturday April 19, 2014. He said there are parents here today who were not present on Saturday. He added there are representatives from the U.S. Attorney's office present. He did not say if they were attorneys. More likely they were PR flacks. He gave out the web site for the U.S. Attorney for anyone who wanted more information. He said that the U.S. Attorney's office will not answer any questions. Usually they say, "It is an ongoing investigation."

So here was a meeting allegedly for the parents and staff of a public school attended by school committee members, city councilors, the police commissioner, assistant city manager, the City Manager, the U.S. Attorney's office and they are trying to keep it a secret private meeting. Was this part of the cover-up of the tragedy of Benghazi? Dr. Young said, "We are not trying to keep this a secret meeting." No? The underlying cause of the meeting was an arrest of a teacher at the school who is charged with possessing child pornography. He taught previously at a Somerville, MA school. Is this an issue of public importance? One parent excused the school because he had no CORI record. CORI records are accurate? One more misguided blind belief in computer files.

It is curious that Cambridge parents reportedly (in an article in the Cambridge Chronicle) excuse the schools for hiring this young man who allegedly loves child pornography. They say that he had no CORI record. This is problematic on two counts. One is that government computer data files are notoriously flawed. One estimate was that the NCIS federal data base has 40 percent wrong warrant entries. CORI is a state file.

The second problem is that CORI files are being relied on for making hiring decisions for teachers in a middle school. Hello? Anyone home? Do they no longer do formal face to face interviews? Are there no background checks besides looking for CORI records? Is that why so many high ranking academics have no degrees because the hiring institutions seldom check to see if they have a degree, or worked where they said they did at the job they claimed?

CORI should be a part of it, but with some skepticism. It is all too easy to alter files and to use them for purposes other than for what they were created. I've seen police enter a name that they made up in order to ensure that there was no record of an event. Hackers can enter Defense Department computers. They've been doing it for many years, even when the Cold War was still on. It is a simple matter to alter CORI files, without employing a person who maintains the files. I cannot believe that so many parents who live in Cambridge MA remain clueless about the security gaps in computer systems. It is the same group which believes what politicians say.

Too many people who live in Cambridge believe that if something does not appear in The New York Times it did not happen. It leads to situations like this event, where the government controls what information gets out to the public.

The Superintendent told me "The Cambridge Chronicle is not present." I said "I don't know that." I did not ask "Why not?" Then while speaking to the assembly he announced that a Boston Globe reporter agreed to leave on Saturday while the U.S. Attorney's office representatives discussed their investigation in private with the parents. He asked if there are any members of the media present. I did not raise my hand. U.S. Courts ruled that all citizens have the same First Amendment Rights as professional journalists. But I did not tell the Superintendent. Then he said, "We have an unofficial member of the media here, a blogger."

He called me a "blogger." How dare he? He showed no respect for me as a person. "A blogger?" What does that mean? That is when he told the audience about the spineless Boston Globe reporter at the Saturday meeting, who left when asked. It was getting more ridiculous by the second. He was joined by the school principal, Sarah Fiarman, talking about my presence, wasting time, trying to shame me into leaving. He repeated his personal opinion of what makes a meeting answerable to the open meetings law. I again said, "I disagree with you. That is not what state law says."

One way to end the standoff was to get elected officials out of the room. Then I had a weakened case. So, on behalf of the Superintendent, I said, "I'll make you a deal. If all of the elected officials leave the room I will leave."

School Committee Member Richard Harding yelled out ,"OK, Roy, lets go." They all got up and walked out of the auditorium. I joined them for some conversation at the auditorium entrance. One school committee member said "We were not deliberating." 

 I said, "That doesn't matter."


James Maloney,
Cambridge Public Schools’ Chief Operating Officer

When Mr. James Maloney, Chief Operating Officer of the Cambridge Schools, gave out copies of the agenda, he did not give me one. I did not want to beg, and did not ask for one. While the elected officials and I waited for the U.S. Attorney's office to finish its presentation, Mr. Maloney took the elected officials aside to speak with them in private.The Open Meetings Law describes that as an illegal means to thwart the Open Meetings Law. Speaking to one elected official at a time is no different from talking to them all at once. What did Mr. Maloney reveal to the elected officials that he did not share with me? Was he deliberating with them one at a time?

Here is a pattern of the U.S. government imitated in Cambridge. Governments are run for the benefit of government employees, no longer for taxpayers and voters. The staff and political appointees wanted to explain to parents, who experienced trauma, what was happening and why government was not to blame. Barring independent minds with no interest in the proceeding makes it possible to control the dialogue, to ensure that discussion was limited to areas which showed the bona fides of the government and allowed the bureaucrats to escape accountability for negligence or misguided policies. I waited to hear Dr. Young blame George Bush for the trauma of the parents and staff.

Waiting for the end of the U.S. Attorney's private briefing, I discussed the issue of bullying noting it was only of concern when it was students doing the bullying. I asked one elected official, "What's the difference if it is a policeman, a teacher, or a psychiatrist, doing the bullying?" He added "Or a school committee member doing the bullying." He agreed with me. I do not know if he was patronizing me. Wait a minute. Wasn't what Dr. Young did to me an example of bullying? The Superintendent of schools demanded that a citizen, who he called a "blogger," leave a meeting in a public school, about the arrest of a teacher for possession of child pornography. And the school principal too. Wasn't that the kind of bullying which they say they abhor in their schools? And what about the parent who demanded I leave. Is she a bully too? Shame. 

A school committee member asked me "Where are you from?" Barnyism alive and well in Cambridge. If you are not a native you have no right to attend public meetings or to tell us how to run our meetings. I mean who do you think you are? Do you think your constitutional rights travel with you wherever you go? You need to ask permission from us. We do not know you. Why should we trust you to enjoy constitutional rights and freedom. You might do or think or say something that we or our highly paid psychiatrists do not like. If you were born in Cambridge even if you do not live in Cambridge, you get benefits from city taxpayers because you are from Cambridge.


School Committee Member salary is $32,000 per year, according to Pat Nolan.

After a short while someone announced the U.S. Attorney's office, whoever it was, finished their presentation. They said it was OK to return to the meeting. I said "This is a better story." 

In constitutional terms, the doctrine of prior restraint holds that the First Amendment forbids the Federal Government to impose any system of prior restraint, with certain limited exceptions, in any area of expression that is within the boundaries of that Amendment. By incorporating the First Amendment in the Fourteenth Amendment, the same limitations are applicable to the states.
[. . .]
Blackstone summarized the law in a famous passage:
The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every free man has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press;
[. . .]
But the doctrine that no previous restraint of publication could stand against the First Amendment was never challenged. Thus, the concept was elevated to the status of constitutional principle.

[Source]
1-1-1955
The Doctrine of Prior Restraint
Thomas I. Emerson
Yale Law School

In 2014, two days after a massive police presence was stationed along the Boston marathon route to protect free expression and association of marathon runners, the Cambridge public schools superintendent tried to eject me from a meeting about a matter of great public importance, the arrest of a middle school teacher for possession of child pornography. The superintendent, the principal, and a parent, tried to force me to leave. But Dr. Young also said that I must agree not to share my notes with anyone else. That is called prior restraint in the law courts. How delicious. Not even The New York Times respected the U.S. government demand not to publish the Pentagon Papers when Richard Nixon was President. But Dr. Superintendent wanted me to agree not to share my notes before even taking them, about a meeting about the arrest of a public school teacher charged with possession of child pornography.

More evidence of how abusive public officials are and how they express their contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the state. Selective enforcement of local, state and U.S. laws is accepted by these control freaks. This was an attempt to thwart gathering and distribution of information to citizens based on a misguided interpretation of the Open Meetings Law. Under the Obama-Holder doctrine laws may be ignored if they do not have a beneficial effect on friends of Holder-Obama. In Cambridge laws are optional. Harvard University and public officials have exemptions from all state, local and U.S. laws. I decided to make a stand. The police commissioner did not direct me to leave, indicating I was right. I was not going to argue with the police commissioner, even if he was wrong. One school committee member said "They will give you a standing ovation when you go back in." I said "This is a better story."

Here's what attracted my attention to this meeting. I wondered what the standards are for public safety priorities. At the pre-meeting negotiations, the school principal, Sarah Fiarman, and the Superintendent, Dr. Young, pleaded with me to respect the feelings of the parents and their trauma. Trauma? A teacher was arrested for possession of child porn. He took time from his busy schedule to place a camera in a school in Somerville, where he taught before coming to Cambridge. On his own initiative he made time to collect pornographic images from the internet. No child in Cambridge is alleged to have been impacted by the images he collected, or the video taping. If they were, the child would maybe have experienced a traumatic event. But the parents? The staff? Trauma? More like outrage.

Does the Open Meetings Law say anything about feelings, respect or trauma? Those are terms of the human services industrial complex (MA State Rep. Marie Parente's term). This is how the psychiatric industry tries to implement the therapeutic state. Everything becomes a mental illness in need of treatment by, alas, psychiatrists who are omniscient, and morally superior to ordinary humans. Always thinking about increasing the client base. Are these psychiatrists also MBAs from business schools? Unlike Nazi doctors, and Stalin's psychiatrists, American psychiatrists (are believed to) have had their genes cleansed of mendacity, greed and sadism. They are 100 percent altruistic. Except they do get paid with taxpayer funds in this case. Many of them work for non profit corporations or the government. They are paid good taxpayer funded salaries.

The fact that city officials repeatedly showed disrespect to me over the past 20 years remained out of the discussion. I did not explain that police keep me under 24/7 surveillance and harassment for 43 years. Why wasn't anyone watching this teacher while he was collecting child pornography on his computer? He admitted placing a camera in the Somerville public schools capturing images of the children. Why wasn't anyone watching him? Why am I being watched and harassed for 43 years?

Cambridge City Council Exhibits Cognitive Dissonance

Cambridge, MA City Council 2011-13

[From article]
The letter to the Attorney General argues the complaint should be dismissed chiefly because it came to council approximately six months after the alleged violation occurred. State law requires complaints to be filed within 30 days of the alleged violation or 30 days from when the alleged violation “could reasonably have been discovered.”
[. . .]
Reeves said there was an “omnibus” provision in the council rules that state, “We can do whatever we want when we want to do it, too.”
[. . .]
Reeves said. “I hope [the complaint] goes to the Attorney General, to the U.S. Attorney and to the president of the world to clear my name because I care about what is being said about me. If I’m doing some nefarious thing, I usually tell you it’s a nefarious thing.”

What is perplexing is how the City Solicitor and the City Council asserts a legal defense to a complaint about an open meetings law violation. It is only one of many city and state and U.S. laws regularly and for many years violated by the city council. The council defiantly violated its own rules for many years making all of what they do questionable. In Cambridge, in the state of Massachusetts bureaucracies, and taking a leadership role in the current White House the politicians flagrantly exhibit contempt for the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States. Contrary to their oaths of offices, these officials show a relaxed attitude toward laws. Perhaps it is the way that Harvard University is granted the option to disobey inconvenient laws, that makes the local, state and US government follow their lead. It is laughable that Reeves cites a council rule which he says allows them to do whatever they want to do. That explains Reeves' conduct when running council meetings. The main rule that the councilors know is to suspend the rules. That makes rules unnecessary. What is so difficult for adults to learn Robert's Rules of Order? I learned them when I was 13 years old, to run high school fraternity meetings. Reeves has a Harvard College degree and one from the University of Michigan Law School. He certainly has the intellectual ability to learn those rules. More worrisome is Reeves' comment about "the president of the world" and that he "admits" his nefarious acts. Hahaha.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1565410242/Cambridge-City-Council-responds-to-Open-Meeting-Law-complaint

Cambridge City Council responds to Open Meeting Law complaint
By Erin Baldassari/ebaldassari@wickedlocal.com
Wicked Local Cambridge
Posted Nov 14, 2013 @ 11:59 AM

Cambridge Resident Files Open Meetings Law Complaint

"Charles D. Teague ’74 [. . .] In the complaint, filed on Oct. 17, Teague alleges that [Councillors] violated the state Open Meeting Law [while discussing] a rezoning petition by MIT." Nadeem Mazen: “For politicians, there is a higher bar and the appearance of impropriety is impropriety." This sounds nice, except in Massachusetts especially in Cambridge, voters and taxpayers share relaxed rectitude of the City Councilors and city officials. Elected officials in the United States are weak, with relaxed rectitude, the preferred kind of person to give power, by business interests who's focus is stealing taxpayer money using government mechanisms and laws passed by the weak officials. It is Roger Morris' observation in Partners in Power, about the Clintons.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/11/5/council-election-eve-meeting/

Trust Issues Raised on Eve of City Council Election
By ANJA C. NILSSON,
Harvard CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
November 5, 2013

Cambridge City Council Passes Orders Contrary to Law. Are They Valid?

Published September 23, 2013 11:16 AM ET; Last updated September 30, 2013 7:57 PM ET

[This letter was published in the Cambridge Chronicle Thursday, September 26, 2013 print edition at page A11, and online at 
http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x511629963/LETTER-How-far-back-do-City-Council-violations-go

See my comments on Council order to have City Council learn Robert's Rule's of Order and their own rules in this video clip






In "Highlights from the City Council meeting," September 12, 2013, Erin Baldassari reported "the Attorney General [of Massachusetts], ruled in June [2013] that [the Council was] violating open meeting laws by co-sponsoring policy orders before voting on them." Not reported is how far back do these violations go? If the orders going back some months, years are illegal are they valid?

A related matter is the failure of the City Council to run its meetings according to its own rules, e.g., according to Robert's Rules of Order. About 7 years ago I reminded the Council repeatedly that they were not obeying their own rules. The response was to tell me I was violating a rule that they 
never enforced. 

 

Does the Council's weekly work have any legal worth? Why is the City Council permitted to violate Due Process requirements and the Open Meeting Law? Does the Council operate under direction of the President and Fellows of Harvard College, with permission to ignore inconvenient laws as long as they do not anger their master?

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1837083976/60-SECONDS-Highlights-from-the-Cambridge-City-Council-meeting-Sept-9

60 SECONDS: Highlights from the Cambridge City Council meeting Sept. 9
By Erin Baldassari ebaldassari (at) wickedlocal.com
Cambridge Chronicle

Posted Sep 13, 2013 @ 11:08 AM

Equality Rules In Cambridge

You may have heard about low information voters and taxpayers. In Cambridge there are low information political activists. The letter writer celebrates the remarkable filing of a complaint with the state Attorney General about an alleged violation of the Open Meetings Law by The Cambridge City Council. What? These late comers are unaware of the reply of the Council when challenged that they were violating that law about 20 times in 2003 when Harvard was getting city permissions to build the new graduate dorms on Hingham and Akron Streets at Banks Street in Cambridge. The response was, "Open Meetings Law? What Open Meetings Law? We don't got to obey no stinkin' Open Meetings Law." And the Attorney General agreed with the council's lawlessness. The state government is run by the same political interests as the City Council. They do not want to offend one another and so ignore law violations. It is how Massachusetts and Cambridge do business. One party rules best!

Then it was not emails passed among the Councilors to avoid Open Meetings Law requirements. They tried to have only four Councilors in a meeting room at City Hall at one time in order not to have a quorum, requiring an open meeting. They stopped me twice when I tried to enter telling me it was a private meeting. They tried to thwart the requirements of the Open Meetings Law then as they did this year. They are so used to ignoring inconvenient laws, that they show no remorse. They are being imitated by the President and his Attorney General in Washington DC.  

The usual response by Councilors when confronted by concerned citizens about state law and city ordinance violations is "Will you shut up." It is surprising that the editors of the local paper published the letter revealing these council misadventures. They refused to publish my letters and allowed officials to libel me when I complained about corruption. The notion of equality is understood by city officials and the editors as some people are more equal than others in Cambridge.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x1926909099/LETTER-Another-look-at-City-Council-policy-order-0-6#axzz2I4Mqm0N1

LETTER: Another look at City Council policy order 0-6
GateHouse News Service
Posted Jan 15, 2013 @ 11:14 AM
Rick Snedeker
Clifton Street
Cambridge MA

Cambridge MA City Council Refuses to Televise Public Meeting

Once again Cambridge City Councilors show there is a disconnect between what they say in public and what they say in private. If there was no separation they would agree to being on camera at all official meetings. Councilor Kelley's and Councilor vanBeuzekom's comments are accurate. One wonders why there are no concerned citizens who are willing to video tape the meetings and broadcast them on local cable TV? I used to do it but got tired of the abuse for my volunteer efforts, which I posted on YouTube.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/4/10/city-council-televise-roundtable/

City Council Votes Against Televising Roundtable
By MAYA JONAS-SILVER,
Harvard CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
Published: Tuesday, April 10, 2012

World Class Lawless City

World Class Lawless City

[This letter was published in the Cambridge Chronicle on August 14, 2008.]

Big difference between Boston and Cambridge. (Raymond P. Ausrotas, "It isn’t easy being a green room," Cambridge Chronicle, Aug 04, 2008) The Attorney General former DA for Middlesex is married to a Deputy Superintendent of the Cambridge Police Department. The Court Clerk is/was a Sullivan City Councilor for 40 years. Open Meetings law violations are enforced by the DA and the courts. Besides the City Councilors, their aides often block doors to meetings saying they are private. This happens especially when Harvard seeks special exemptions from city and state laws. The councilors have private discussions with selected citizens who are Harvard affiliates or grads. They did that with the sale of city land on Hingham Street and the grad dorms there. There are so many law violations with the running of the city it deserves the title a World Class lawless city. Each week they run council meetings in violation of their own rules, Robert's Rules of Order, and state laws. Much of what the council does may not be legal. But there is no one to challenge their lawlessness. After 10 years of making them aware it is clear that this city has no regard for law except to use it to silence their critics. Cambridge has few deep pocketed activists. Most of the city supports a lawless government. Trust Fund babies are not supporters of the rule of law.

Roy Bercaw - Editor ENOUGH ROOM

http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/x2043522362/Guest-commentary-It-isn-t-easy-being-a-green-room

It isn’t easy being a green room
By Raymond P. Ausrotas
Cambridge Chronicle
Mon Aug 04, 2008, 11:40 AM EDT

Cambridge School Super Violates Open Meetings Law

Cambridge School Super Violates Open Meetings Law

Cambridge Public Schools spokesman Justin Martin said, "It's a candid,
private, intimate setting." [referring to] "a closed-door meeting with school
representatives and parents." (Dawn Witlin, "Super conducting secret school
summits," Cambridge Chronicle, April 12, 2007)
The definition of a governmental body, stated in the Open Meetings Law
Chapter 39, Section 23C is, "'Governmental body,' every board, commission,
committee or subcommittee of any district, city, region or town, however
elected, appointed or otherwise constituted, [...]"
It appears that the Superintendent joins the City Council trying to keep
public business secret contrary to law. It is a pervasive problem in Cambridge
which shows it is a lawless city more each day.

Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM

Super conducting secret school summits
By Dawn Witlin/Chronicle Staff
Cambridge Chronicle
Thu Apr 12, 2007, 01:36 PM EDT
Cambridge -

Superintendent Thomas Fowler-Finn fled from a Chronicle reporter Wednesday
evening to avoid answering questions about a closed-door meeting with school
representatives and parents.

"Justin has already talked to you," Fowler-Finn said tensely outside the doors
of Wednesday�s meeting, referring to Cambridge Public Schools spokesman Justin
Martin. "I meet with lots of people all the time, OK?"

With that, Fowler-Finn scurried into the key communicators meeting, which was
set to start five minutes later. Key communicators, who are parents appointed by
the principal of each school, meet to air rumors, discuss concerns and school
business.
[...]
-dwitlin@cnc.com

Open Meetings

Open Meetings

Letter to Editor
Paul McMorrow says a state court found that the Boston City Council violated the Open Meetings law. ("Judge smacks City Hall on secrecy," Weekly Dig, 4.5.06 - 4.12.06, page 7) The judge "confirmed what the non-coma-suffering public had known all along--that the city council was guilty of systematically breaking state law, not to mention pissing in Lady Democracy's face."
These same words describe the Cambridge City Council. But there are not "three neighborhood activists" who would sue to stop the same abuses in Cambridge. Not enough "non-coma-sufferers" on that side of the River!
--
Roy Bercaw, Editor ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA

City Council Abuses Vulnerable Persons, Free Speech

The Cambridge City Council imitates art -- Animal Farm. A mayor who knows discrimination, became an oppressor and censor of vulnerable persons. The Mayor suspends the rules and stops public comment at three minutes. Other council rules are ignored. It is selective enforcement of laws, a pattern of one party political systems.
A doctor bloviated on September 25 how beloved and charismatic he was, and how much he loved his influential wife. The Mayor allowed this though it was not on the agenda. The mayor feigns stupidity about allowable public comment.
At the September 11th meeting this mayor interrupted James Williamson who spoke about students placing a fire truck on the MIT Dome honoring firemen who died in New York City. This mayor said “9/11” was not on the agenda. But it was. The Mayor’s resolution acknowledged “9/11.”
The mayor censors persons who he does not like. This shows contempt for free speech, the First Amendment and democracy. On October 30 Kathy Podgers was the first speaker. The Mayor said she was not speaking on an agenda item. But she was. Podgers said, “This is about community policing.”
The Mayor interrupted again. “You’re repeating a conversation with the Manager about your mental state.
Podgers, “Correct.”
The Mayor, “That is not on . . . “ Podgers, “No, about how the police discriminate, how the police do not operate according to [...] the law of the land. [...] This is discrimination against people with disabilities.”
I spoke. The Mayor interrupted me saying I needed to speak about an agenda item. I spoke on the Public Safety Committee meeting on October 3rd. Reeves said, “Mr. Bercaw I find it difficult to, to . . . Mr. Bercaw you, you have to speak about the order that you said you were speaking on. If you can’t keep your commentary to that then you won’t be allowed to continue.”
One city goal encourages public participation. The Council acts against their goals. Elie Yarden spoke. The Mayor said it was not to an agenda item. Yarden objected. The Mayor banged the gavel. Yarden objected. The Mayor called a recess and the police. Yarden is 83 years old.
The Mayor continued abusing and provoking vulnerable citizens. Councilor Decker asked Podgers to leave with her service dog. Podgers rightfully refused. The Mayor said “Miss Podgers, [...]If we hear you again this night you’re gone too.”
Podgers answered the Mayor. He said, “OK. Uh, officer we have another person disrupting the public meeting.” After a recess of 19 minutes and 46 seconds the Mayor reconvened the meeting.
Decker said, “There seems to be a discrepancy, Mr. Mayor. I’m having um a bit of an allergic reaction to an animal here in the room. [...] I’m going to actually just uh leave. So uh we can figure this out over the next week.”
The mayor stated, “For some reason there has developed in the air that there is an entitlement not only to be at this particular meeting but to also do whatever you like. And uh the complications tonight seem to suggest that we’re gonna have to review with ourselves and the public what can and cannot go on here. Uh when there is uh an animal introduced into the chamber and the member has allergies uh there is reasonable accommodation that can and must occur because the Councilor can only do the business of the council here in the chamber, so. That is pretty clear to me. [...] The chair does not believe that, believes that reasonable accommodations has been offered.”
Councilor Decker interrupted the Mayor saying, “I think we tried to offer reasonable accommodations at this time.” The Mayor suspended the rules for the 7th time that meeting and read one section of the Open Meetings Law. The Mayor, the Council, and the City Clerk do not enforce the rest of the Open Meeting Law. They do not enforce other council rules. It would not be selective enforcement of the laws if they did.
Outrageously the Mayor and the Councilor think that citizens need to make reasonable accommodations for the government, that they do not have to make reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. That is a discrepancy.
[Quotes are transcribed from a video-tape of the meetings.]

Open Meetings Law Violation Avoided, Cambridge, MA

Open Meetings Law Violation Avoided, Cambridge, MA

At the Cambridge City Council meeting on February 12, 2007 Mayor Ken Reeves said that the Neighborhood Safety Committee, is a non governmental body, and its meetings do not need to be open to the public. This is a recurring problem in Cambridge. The policy order from August 2, 2007, for the creation of the Neighborhood Safety Committee is below.
At the February 5, 2007 meeting Reeves said that the Council asked him and the Manager to appoint people and that is what they did. Councilor Simmons wants more appointees. Reeves talks of the committee as if it can be kept private.
Councilor Galluccio said on Feb. 12, 2007 "We have all taken an active role in creating this." He also said, "The mayor initiated this committee."
Reeves said, "We put 4 members of the Council but not a majority so that we can have the kinds of meetings we want to have. [...] I'm not sure that everybody understands how sensitive this is in terms of us really getting to the bottom of things. Because as it has evolved a lot of the problems that we have in the city are related to various circles of people [...] But there's some sensitive actualities in our midst [...] sometimes things are done away because there's a rationale that will not necessarily benefit from being publicized."
Reeves is pleading privacy without any reference to legal exceptions provided in the Open Meetings law. We are expected to trust his discretion because he knows better than the legislature. Ahem!
Controlling Massachusetts case law is General Electric vs. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 711 NE2d 589 (1999) where it is stated, "exceptions are not to be implied." Under Massachusetts case law on the Open Meetings law, if a committee is appointed under direction of a governmental body it is a governmental body and must be open to the public. The controlling case is Connelly vs. School Committee of Hanover, 565 NE2d 449 (1991). In that case the School committee created a screening committee. Both the School Committee and the Screening Committee are governmental bodies within the meaning of the Open Meetings law.
At the Feb. 12, 2007 Council meeting Councilor Simmons announced the meeting is for Wednesday Feb. 14, 2007. But no meeting is listed on the City calendar. Reliable sources say that the meeting will be held on Thursday February 15, 2007 at noon at the Mayor's office. [The meeting was cancelled.]
Reeves said, "We do have a first meeting scheduled. It is not a public meeting." Simmons said, "Which is problematic, but go ahead [meaning keep talking about it]."
Reeves continued: "And the reason it is not a public meeting is we have some very confidential statistics that have to be a part of this meeting." (On camera showed a frown by Simmons while he said that.)
Reeves: "There will be many public opportunities I'm sure from time to time, but every meeting of the committee will not be a public meeting." Decker asked for a recess but it was not called.
Simmons said, "This is not the City Manager's Committee. It is not the Mayor's Committee. It is the City Council's committee." There was more discussion about it being the people's committee. This committee is clearly a committee created by the Council. The meeting scheduled for Wednesday Feb. 14, 2007 will violate the Open Meetings law unless it is open to the public and a notice is posted outside of the clerk's office.
During the meeting the Clerk cringed when Reeves said it was not a public meeting. There were several emergency mini-meetings of the Journalism Committee by Decker and Reeves to bash the Cambridge Chronicle some more, but that is to be expected.

-- Roy Bercaw, Editor
ENOUGH ROOM
Cambridge MA USA

Policy Order Resolution O-1
IN CITY COUNCIL
August 2, 2006
COUNCILLOR SIMMONS
COUNCILLOR SULLIVAN
COUNCILLOR DAVIS

ORDERED: That the City Manager and Mayor be requested to convene a special task force on neighborhood safety;

and be it further ORDERED: That the task force include members from, but not limited to: Police and Crime Prevention Organizations; Business Community; Churches and community-based organizations; Cambridge Health Alliance; School Department; Youth; Court Representatives; and Educational Institutions.

and be it further ORDERED: That the goals for the task force include: Analysis of causes and effects of violent crimes in Cambridge; Plan for peaceful summers including proposing park and youth center activities and police coverage for next summer; Address issues of jobless young people in their twenties; Analyze the impact of CORI law and regulations; Improve police and community relations and communications; Analysis of impact of older young people in our community on young teens.