Council fined for breaking meeting law

The Boston City Council violated the state Open Meeting Law 11 times over a period of almost two years, a superior court judge ruled yesterday, imposing $11,000 in fines and ordering the body to obey the law or face further action by the district attorney.

In a scathing 20-page ruling, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Nancy Staffier Holtz said the City Council had intentionally violated the law, which is designed to let the public view and participate in governmental decision-making. She said the council also had concocted flimsy excuses for the violations.

''Despite clear case law mandating that the public be provided access to all meetings, with limited statutorily defined exceptions not applicable here, the council has responded to the plaintiffs' complaint with little more than a foot-dragging refusal to comply with its legal obligations," the judge wrote.

''The actions of the council were not the result of mistaken reliance on one of the statutory exceptions or inadvertence," she went on. ''Rather, the meetings were conducted in a manner which was calculated to thwart the presumptive rights of the public, and . . . this practice has been and no doubt remains ongoing."

According to the lawsuit, the City Council held 10 closed-door meetings -- from June 3, 2003, to March 24, 2005 -- to discuss a request by the Boston Redevelopment Authority to renew its urban renewal program.

The suit also alleges that the City Council held a secret meeting on Jan. 20, 2005, to discuss the exposure of three Boston University lab workers to bacteria from tularemia, an illness caused by exposure to rabbits.

The judge ruled in favor of three citizens who had brought suit against the City Council involving the alleged violations and ordered a hearing in which the plaintiffs could win money damages, in addition to the fines. The fines would come from a city account for legal settlements.

Lawyers who defended the City Council against the lawsuit -- brought by activist Shirley Kressel, former city council candidate Kevin McCrea, and Kathleen Devine -- never offered a ''single reason" why the meetings had been closed to the public, the judge wrote.

''Instead, the council defends this 'it's none of your business' position by attempting to parse the language in the statute in such a way as to relieve it of its presumptive obligations to always act in the open," the judge wrote.

The state Open Meeting Law prohibits a majority of the City Council's 13 members from meeting to deliberate or discuss its business unless the meeting is open to the public and its occurrence is posted 48 hours in advance. Certain matters, including personnel issues and security, are exempted.

City Council President Michael Flaherty, in whose office one of the closed-door meetings was held, said he was disappointed by the ruling, ''given that the Boston City Council stands for good government and transparency." A spokesman for Flaherty had charged that the suit was politically motivated, filed to help McCrea, who was running for an at-large council seat.

''In the interest of moving forward, I will recommend we adhere to the court's decision, and we will redouble our efforts with respect to the open meeting law," Flaherty said.

The City Council may meet with city lawyers about a possible appeal, he said. ''Keeping in mind that judges, juries, and law clerks are human and make mistakes, the Council will meet with corporation counsel to see whether any appellate issues exist."

In their defense, the judge wrote, the councilors had argued that most of the meetings were not subject to the Open Meeting Law, because they had been called by the Boston Redevelopment Authority, not the council itself. The judge rejected the argument.

In addition, the judge found, the council set up a shuttle system so that members could deliberate in secret about the proposed urban renewal plans. A BRA staff member counted the number of councilors in the room at any one time so there were never more than six present. Without a quorum, they reasoned, the open meeting law did not apply.

The judge dismissed that argument, as well. ''A governmental body cannot evade the requirements of the Open Meeting Law simply by meeting in smaller groups," she wrote. ''The council's attempt to head count its way around the Open Meeting Law is without merit."

Kressel said the judge clearly supported the plaintiffs' view that the City Council has systematically broken the law. ''None of the denials that the city councilors and particularly Michael Flaherty kept issuing in public are valid," said Kressel, who brought suit with the other plaintiffs without a lawyer.

''It undercuts the credibility of the president, who led the council in these meetings and who is, by the way, a lawyer," she said.

Kressel added: ''He is busy making himself a legal career, as well as a political career, while he's concealing the public business from the citizenry."

She also said she is concerned that even with the legal victory, the council may continue to violate the law. ''At the end of this, we have to be sure they don't say OK, brush off their hands, and go back to business as usual.

It is not the first time the City Council has been found to have violated the law. Attorney General James Shannon sued the council in the 1980s.

Last year, Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley warned the council that the discussions on tularemia of Jan. 20, 2005, cited in yesterday's ruling, violated the Open Meeting Law.

Councilor Felix Arroyo, one of a handful of councilors who opposed the closed-door meetings, said he was sorry that citizens had to bring suit to force the council to obey the law.

''I really believe it's important we keep the public part of the decision-making process," he said. ''It is important the council not only comply with, but defend the open meeting law."

City lawyers declined to comment on the judge's decision.