The O’Zone has documented at great length the black
comedy of errors that has constituted efforts to amend the Southbridge Town
Charter.
First we witnessed the ineptitude of the town
council in dealing with the original charter amendment proposals by the Charter
Review Committee after a year’s work.
Then we saw the newly elected council dispense with
all that work in two subcommittee sessions and ram through the politically
driven result.
Next we witnessed the enabling legislation languish
in the Massachusetts House of Representatives where it was the responsibility
of Freshman Peter Durant. After numerous amendments and the deletion of one
proposal that was clearly unconstitutional, it was finally enacted by the House
as ten separate bills and sent on to the State Senate.
It was finally passed by the Senate three weeks ago
and signed by the Governor six days later.
This resulted in the town manager taking a victory
lap in the local press announcing that he would ask the council to schedule an
election to hold a referendum on the proposed amendments in the spring.
As we pointed out at the time, the town manager was
clearly not aware of what was in the legislation. The laws signed by the
Governor specifically required that the election be held in 2012.
In an effort to rectify this “oversight”, while not
admitting any error, or the failure of Durant to monitor developments in the State Senate and report them to Clark, the manager essentially requested that the council adopt a
motion requesting the legislature to amend the enacted legislation.
As I pointed out at length in “Another
Open Meeting Law Violation In Southbridge?”,
this appeared to me to be a clear violation of the
state’s open meeting law.
As a result, today I filed an Open Meeting Law
complaint with the Town Clerk’s Office.
A copy of the complaint follows:


@ Ken O'Brien
ReplyDeleteThank you for being “Southbridge’s Sentinel”!
Ken,
ReplyDeleteIs it an open meeting violation when Nikola, the Police chief, and another councilor admit in debate on Item # 16 that they had previous discussion of item # 16 before the gavel last night ? Their ollecive admission is that they engaged in discussion of the subject matter prior to the meeting. If it sounds like a duck………………….. then duck!
From what you have told me I don't think that the incident you describe constitutes a violation.
DeleteKen,
ReplyDeleteThanks for fighting the good fight, but at some point you will need a helmet. The wall hurts.