Critics of Northampton Mayor Mary Clare Higgins have long charged---both anonymously, on the MassLive Northampton Forum, and openly, on the listserv maintained by the Paradise City Forum, that the mayor is in the habit of making decisions "behind closed doors."
The burden of proof in these allegations has, until now, lain with the accusers. It now, I believe, lies with the Mayor of Northampton. Why destroy public records? And what's with City Solicitor Janet Sheppard--who, or what. is she protecting?
Here's a snip from Crowley's most recent article on the records purge, which appeared on July 14: (subscription required at gazettenet)
NORTHAMPTON - Recent closed-session meeting notes taken by a clerk were destroyed and deleted from computer files before they reached the City Council in the form of minutes for approval, the Gazette has learned.
That action is an apparent violation of the state's Public Records Law, according to the office of the secretary of state. Mayor Clare Higgins says she may seek an opinion from the attorney general's office on how the city is handing its executive-session minutes.
At-large City Councilor Michael R. Bardsley said he learned of the destruction of the notes in a phone conversation with the council's executive secretary, Mary L. Midura, who told him she was instructed by City Attorney Janet M. Sheppard to shred and delete them, according to Bardsley's account of that conversation.
Here's a snip from an editorial that appeared in the Gazette on July 13:
"Among the most recent minutes released are those of a nearly hour-long closed-door session in which the council ultimately voted to borrow $1.2 million to buy properties around the regional dump off Glendale Road. The move was reportedly made to end costly litigation that was continuing to spiral upward, but there is no record in the minutes of the council's May 21 deliberations, nor any record of the information presented to city leaders by attorneys on hand. In our opinion, this is wrong because, apart from a mayoral press release after the Gazette broke a story on the issue, the public will never fully know what transpired before the council that night.
The lack of these details not only stifles the public's right to know, but it flies in the face of the state attorney general's Open Meeting Law guidelines."
Those are strong words from the Gazette, a newspaper that has traditionally been reluctant to criticize Northampton's 5-term mayor.
Of course, since this is an election year, the mayor's supporters are out trying to deflect attention from this embarrassing and possibly damning topic, and trying to make the mud stick her political opponent in the upcoming race, Councilor Michael Bardsley.
Here's a letter to the editor penned by Valle Dwight, a mayoral cheerleader of long standing:
"As a former reporter who has dealt extensively with towns that did not follow either the letter or the spirit of the open meeting law, I was pleased to see this story about minutes of executive sessions of city council meetings. Northampton needs to give its citizens insight into how decisions are made.
However, the quote from Michael Bardsley: "I was surprised that the minutes were so devoid of content." is disingenuous at best. The city council votes to approve all minutes, including executive session minutes. I assume that he reads the minutes before he votes to approve them, so I don't know how this could possibly come as a surprise to him.
If he is a big proponent of transparency, why has he never spoken out about this in 16 years on the council, or why did he approve the minutes? I also wonder why Bardsley was the only councilor quoted for the story, especially without mentioning that he is running for mayor."
Here's Councilor Michael Bardsley's response, widely circulated on the web:
"In the recent Weekend Gazette (July 11-12) there appeared a letter to the editor by Ms Valle Dwight questioning my surprise over recent Northampton City Council executive session minutes which contained little or no information about the matters discussed in those meetings. For whatever reason, Ms Dwight's criticism of my response omitted some significant facts.
When the minutes of the executive sessions were presented to the council for approval, I questioned Mayor Higgins as to why there was virtually no content to those minutes. My memory was that minutes of previous executive sessions were more informative than the ones we were being asked to approve. Higgins' response was that the minutes being presented to the council were consistent with how the city handles executive minutes. Rightly or wrongly, I accepted the Mayor's explanation as being accurate and voted to approve.
Next morning I found myself still curious about those sparse minutes. I contacted Assistant City Clerk Lyn Simmons, the previous clerk to the city council, and asked about the executive session minutes she had taken. She stated that her minutes did indeed contain more information than those that the council had approved the night before. Apparently the Mayor had been incorrect.
I then contacted the current clerk to the council, Executive Secretary Mary Midura, and asked her if the minutes she had submitted were indeed the same set of minutes which appeared before the council. She stated that they were not. She further explained that she had submitted minutes containing information comparable to previous executive session minutes but City Solicitor Janet Sheppard had expunged all the content. When I asked Ms Midura if she still had those draft minutes, she stated that the City Solicitor had not only confiscated her draft minutes but had also instructed her to shred all her notes of those executive sessions and to delete the draft copy of those minutes from her computer.
I then questioned why Ms. Midura would follow the directives of the City Solicitor when her direct supervisor was the City Council President, James Dostal. She explained that Mr. Dostal had instructed her to do whatever the City Solicitor wanted her to do.
When Dan Crowley contacted me about my questioning of the executive session minutes the evening before, I shared with him the information I had learned from Ms Simmons and Ms Midura. When he asked if I was surprised that the minutes were void of content, I thought my positive response was quite understated. I have not said any more publicly on this issue because I first wanted to speak directly with the City Solicitor, whose has been out of town on vacation. However, Ms Dwight's partially informative letter could not go without a response.
Ms Dwight, let me be clear. In my sixteen years as a member of the Northampton City Council nothing comparable to this has ever happened. That is the only reason why I have spoken out at this time.
However, the truth be known, I am not surprised; but I am shocked."
Yeah, I just love it when the paid, professional media does their freakin job.
ReplyDeleteBardsley did approve the minutes, and then they were later edited and the originals destroyed, no?
ReplyDeleteMy understanding was that Bardsley approved the edited minutes. At least that's what his letter seems to suggest.
ReplyDeleteWeighing in late here because I just stumbled upon this post...
ReplyDeleteA few things -- I wonder why my concerns about Bardsley's role in this can just speak for themselves? Why do you have to call me a "mayoral cheerleader of long standing"? No where in that letter did i defend the mayor or the city council on this issue. As a matter of fact, I oppose all city boards not recording minutes that follow the spirit of the Open Meeting Law. I thought I made that clear in my letter.
What I objected to was Bardsley's "surprise" when in fact he had approved ALL of the exec. minutes that the article referred to (going back 5 years). I also questioned the paper's decision to not mention that Bardsley was running for mayor, because I think it's certainly pertinent to the issue.
The minutes are the city council's responsibility. It is up to them to amend the draft minutes if there are errors or omissions. Boards do that all the time; it is not unusual.
So, to me, there are two issues here. The one about the minutes of exec. session -- I believe the ones that the city keeps are too bare-bones (as a reporter myself I also know that most cities' exec session minutes are similarly skimpy on detail).
The other issue was Bardsley's attempt to make it seem like a nefarious move on the mayor's part. That was disingenuous, in my opinion, as he never attempted to amend the minutes, nor vote to not approve them.
I'm not sure why my opinion is somehow suspect here, but I hope that I have made my position clear.
Point well taken re the role of the city council in approving executive session minutes. But Bardsley's motivation is not what is important here. What's important is the public's right to know.
ReplyDeleteEven if the letter of the open meeting law is not being violated (and I'm not sure that that's true), the spirit most certainly is.
This administration has been criticized by many for its tendency toward secrecy and closed-door decision-making. If indeed Janet Sheppard did order the purging of all meaningful content from executive session minutes, that viewpoint is given support.
Whether Bardsely is being "disingenuous" is not the point. He brought an important issue to the attention of the public. How the Gazette chooses to cover this disclosure is out of his hands.
I also feel that the spirit of the law is not being followed -- I said that in my letter and I said it in my response to your post. I guess where we disagree is who is responsible for that..It is the city council. They vote to approve/amend, etc the minutes. The city atty can't "order" the purging of content, and even if she did, councilors do not have to go along. They simply have to vote "no".
ReplyDeleteThe Bardsley thing is not nothing. He used the issue for political advancement, when in fact he is as much a part of the problem as every other councilor. And this has been happening for 5 years (if not more), according to the Gazette.
My issue about the paper not mentioning that Bardsley was running for mayor was directed at the Gazette, not at Bardsley. And the editor responded that in fact that was an omission and it would be mentioned going forward. Also, the story would have been better if more than one councilor was interviewed.
Well, good point. When presented with the minutes of the executive session meeting about the landfill property acquisition, any of the councilors could have cried foul, and asked for a more detailed account. And the story would have been stronger if more than one councilor had been interviewed. I'd be interested, now that you mention it, in hearing from each and every one of them.
ReplyDeleteAs for the ability of the city solicitor to "order" staffers to take certain actions, well, I suppose employees have free will, but if I valued my job, was working for the city, and the solicitor told me to do x y or z, I can imagine that the pressure to comply might feel pretty strong.
Is Bardsely using the issue for political advancement? Probably. But this is an election season. Anything he says or does will be viewed within the context of his candidacy. Higgins is running for office, too. Every time she issues a glowing press release--which are indeed ploys for "political advancement"--should the Gazette mention that she is up for re-election?
The councilors don't work for the city, they work for us --I know that sounds kind of idealistic, but it's true -- they are like a board of directors of a non-profit (and god knows, this city is a non-profit). I can understand how many would take the advice of the attorney, and many may agree w/the attorney. But if they *don't* agree with her, they are obligated to say so! Not 16 years later, or 5 years later, or when they are running for mayor (call my a cynic).
ReplyDeleteYou say: "Anything he says or does will be viewed within the context of his candidacy" -- Yes, but only if people know that he is running, which is why it is the job's paper to mention it (which they agree was an oversight on their part).
Not everyone in town is tuned into the political scene, or as aware of every nuance as those who follow it closely. The paper can not assume that people know who's running, what responsibility they have for an issue they're complaining about, etc. That is the newspaper's job when reporting the story.
If the mayor were to release a "glowing press release" that claimed credit for something she didn't do, the paper should A) not print it as written; B) follow up and report the actual story; C) if quoting the mayor on the story, point out that she is running for re-election (if the issue is related to the campaign -- because she is the CEO right now and it would be ridiculous (and prejudicial) to mention it for every little item: "The mayor, who is running for re-election, said that the storm knocked down some trees"-- you see what i mean.) Ok, this paragraph has way to many parenthesis, so it must be time to end it :-)
The mayor's most recent press release--where she touted the city's being given favorable mention in a glossy magazine--was definitely a piece of campaign literature. I agree, not every piece of info (storm knocked down some trees) need be qualified with a statement about the upcoming election.
ReplyDeleteRe being told to get rid of content, I was referring to Mary Midura, clerk, who claims, according to Bardsley, that she was told by Sheppard to destroy her notes, etc.
I agree with you, the paper should have mentioned that Bardsley is running for mayor, esp within this story, where B. is clearly seeking to differentiate himself from the mayor. You're right, not everybody follows politics in Northampton; the paper shouldn't assume that "everyone knows" that Bardsley and Higgins will be squaring off this fall.
The Gazette--I have often wished that the Gaz would 1. not print city hall press releases as written and 2. ask for more accountability from our city councilors, who do, indeed, work for the public. I, personally, wish the Gaz would devote more resources to news reporting, and a little less to the human interest angle.
I think we actually agree on most of this..thanks for the conversation!
ReplyDeleteThank you too, Valle. A pleasure.
ReplyDelete