City Council violated open meeting law, Appeals Court rules
At least 1 session did not follow statute, judges say
The state Appeals Court ruled yesterday that the Boston City Council violated the open meeting law on at least one occasion when several councilors met without giving notice to the public.
But the court said a trial judge must allow more evidence to be presented before a determination can be made about a series of other meetings.
The ruling is the latest in a lawsuit alleging that the 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 and that it held a secret meeting on Jan. 20, 2005, to discuss the exposure of three Boston University lab workers to the bacteria that causes tularemia, an illness caused by exposure to rabbits.
In 2006, a Superior Court judge ruled against the council in the suit, saying that the body had made a calculated effort to keep the public out of talks over the city's urban renewal program and the 2005 briefing by Boston University on exposure of lab workers. The council was fined $1,000 for each of the 11 violations and ordered to obey the open meeting law in the future.
In yesterday's ruling, the three-judge appeals panel rejected the city's argument that no public notice was necessary for the Jan. 20, 2005, meeting because only five councilors, less than a quorum, were present.
The court said notice was essential, because "it is manifestly pointless to conduct a meeting to which the law requires public access if no member of the public is aware that the meeting is taking place."
"The fact that, by chance, less than a quorum of councillors actually attended did not excuse the failure of notice," the court said.
The judges also wrote that the city could not close a meeting to the public by rotating councilors through a room to allow deliberation while ensuring that a majority of councilors were never present at the same time.
The panel additionally rejected the city's contention that any violations of open meeting law during meetings held from June 3, 2003, through Nov. 18, 2004, were cured, because a public vote was taken on the urban renewal issue on Dec. 15, 2004.
Though the panel called the city's arguments strained, it ruled that Superior Court Judge Nancy Staffier-Holtz did not allow enough evidence to be presented to establish whether those earlier meetings were illegal.
The court ordered Staffier-Holtz to allow more evidence to be presented.
Council president Maureen Feeney said the panel has worked to make its operations more transparent and has changed its practices on public notice of meetings since the case was filed by three city residents.
"We continue to struggle with the appropriate implementation of divergent requirements of open meeting law, case law, and public records law, but remain fully committed to transparency and good government," Feeney said in a statement.
Boston's corporation counsel, William F. Sinnott, said: "While disappointed by its finding as to a violation during a Jan. 20, 2005, meeting, we are pleased that the Court of Appeals agreed with our contention that the trial court did not have grounds to find that the City Council violated the open meeting laws on 10 other occasions. Corporation counsel and the City Council will meet to discuss what actions to take in light of the court's decision.
Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause of Massachusetts, said that even though the case is continuing, the ruling is a victory.
"It's not the best news that we could have, in the sense that more energy has to be expended fighting this," she said.
"But the court clearly stood with open government advocates and their interpretation of the law, and that's a good thing."
John C. Drake can be reached at jdrake@globe.com.
rising
falling 