Monday, September 24, 2012

Another Open Meeting Law Violation In Southbridge?

Maybe nobody cares anymore that town councilors have become the most blatant scofflaws while they direct their attention to trash disposal violators.

During tonight’s town council meeting the town manager finally addressed the issue of the legislation relating to the Charter amendments for the town of Southbridge. 

During town manager's announcements he basically called for a motion to request the state legislature to amend the law to say that the election could be held in 2013 rather than 2012 as is currently required. That motion was made and unanimously adopted.

Given that I pointed out this matter on September12 and that the Governor signed the legislation on that day, I have to ask why the need to make such a request was “an unforeseeable event” for a meeting, the agenda for which was finalized on September 20th, over a week later. 

If this was not such an event, then it should have been on the agenda.

Since it was not on the agenda, and since it was not an “unforeseeable event”, then it is clearly a violation of the state’s Open Meeting Law. Citizens who might have wished to oppose this action were clearly deprived of the opportunity to voice their opposition. Further, I am decidedly disappointed by the action of Councilor McDonald, who chaired the Charter Review Committee, who not only failed to voice an objection, but who voted for the motion.


  1. They just voted on a motion to consider the bylaw proposal as an "emergency".
    Who made the motion? Clark? Can he do that?

  2. Ken, as two others who served on the CRC, you and I both know what happened with our recommendations...they were sat on by Butch for political reasons, and now, he's basically thrown in the towel.

    He wasted your time, mine, Debbie's and Gary's, all so he could focus on his own "Master Plan" to get his "people" elected.

    Since that failed, he can't make a stand on anything. For anyone reading this blog, do me a favor:

    Whenever this makes it to the ballot, even though there are issues I want passed, vote NO ON EVERYTHING.

    It's worth it if it keeps Clark from being thrown out of town. The bum must go.

    1. Natch, should read: It's worth it if it keeps Clark from NOT being thrown out of town.

  3. Which "people" are being referred to?

    1. The "people" who don't know how to read!


All comments subject to moderation. All commenters must use their own name or a screen name. No comments labelled as "Anonymous" will be published. To use your name or a screen name select "Name/URL" from the drop down menu. Insert you name in the "Name" space and leave the "URL" space blank.