Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Did Pinto violate the law when he refused to allow the mayor to speak?

The Salem News published an article today about Councilor Furey pushing to amend the rule that allowed Councilor Pinto

Section 18 of the General Provisions of the Charter addresses the fact that City Council will set rules for the proceedings. Part two of section 18 reads:

2.   The city council shall, from time to time, establish rules for its proceedings. (emphasis added) Regular and special meetings of the council shall be held at a time and place fixed by ordinance. Except as otherwise authorized by section twenty-three A of chapter thirty-nine, all sessions of the council shall be open to the public and to the press, and every matter coming before the council for action shall be put to a vote, the result of which shall be duly recorded. A full and accurate journal of the proceedings of the council shall be kept, and shall be open to the inspection of any registered voter of the city.

Clearly this authorizes council to institute the rules for council meetings, including the one that allows a single councilor to object to a suspension of the rules to allow a non-councilor to speak. But does that apply to the mayor?

Section 19 of the General Provisions, is as follows:

19. Mayor to provide information to council; attendance at meetings of council; addressing the council.

The city council at any time may request from the mayor, or, under Plan D or E, from the city manager, specific information on any municipal matter within its jurisdiction, and may request him to be present to answer written questions relating thereto at a meeting to be held not earlier than one week from the date of the receipt by the mayor, or, under Plan D or E, by the city manager, of said questions. The mayor, or, under Plan D or E, the city manager, shall personally, or through the head of a department or a member of a board, attend such meeting and publicly answer all such questions. The person so attending shall not be obliged to answer questions relating to any other matter. The mayor, or, under Plan D or E, the city manager, may attend and address the city council in person or through the head of a department, or a member of a board, upon any subject. (emphasis added)

This provision of the charter doesn't permit council to prevent the mayor from addressing them. It expressly authorizes the mayor to address council regarding any subject. Therefore, Pinto (and council's rule) may have violated the city charter with his actions. So which takes precedence? The City Charter is basically the City of Salem's version of the constitution. A rule of council in their handbook that violates the Charter wouldn't be permissible, and would therefore be invalid. Don't believe me? Consider this example. The Charter lays out that there will be 11 City Councilors. If City Council decided to vote to increase that number to 13, without amending the Charter, do you think that would fly? Surely it wouldn't. So without amending section 19 of the charter wouldn't Pinto's action also be illegal.

I'm no lawyer, so if I'm missing something, someone please enlighten me.

One question: Why couldn't the Salem News provide this level of detail? Too much work?

One other question after reading the news piece. Does Mike Blatty have a better memory than anyone else? In the Salem News article, Usovic, who pointed out that the mayor has the right to address council, says he can't recall it ever happening. During the meeting, O'Keefe (Okay, sometimes he seems a little confused) stated that it never happened. But Mr. Blatty has stated in several places (including his comment on the article) that Mayor Driscoll has previously been banned from speaking at Council. Strangely, he never states what the subject matter was. Enlighten us, Mike!

13 comments:

  1. Stan wouldn't remember because he was no longer mayor and was not there. Mr. Pinto is correct in stating that Lenny O'Leary objected to Mayor Driscoll speaking yet again on a matter that she had previously spoken on in the city council chamber. I was there and saw it happen, but do not recall the date or year. If memory serves at all (and I think that it does) it had to do with the whole St. Joe's issue. If the mayor were asked about it I have no doubt that SHE would remember the details. I think we had best leave the rest of this question to lawyers, God bless them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. By the way, G, I am no lawyer (thank God) but can read and believe that you are misreading Section 19 above. It appears to me that it is talking specifically about a situation in which the City Council has itself requested that the mayor or his/her representative appear before the council to answer it's (the council's) questions. It does not discuss what rules apply when the mayor chooses to visit the council uninvited and wishes to address the council on any matter.
    Best that we both leave the lawyering to the lawyers, my friend. It is what they get paid the big bucks to sort out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think the section is 3 distinct, but related thoughts. As denoted by the semicolons in the title, they are independent thoughts. 1. The mayor must provide information to city council upon their request. 2. The mayor may attend city council meetings. 3. The mayor has a right to address council.

    I considered your suggestion when I read it, but if that were the case, the section could have been greatly simplified as follows.


    The city council at any time may request from the mayor specific information on any municipal matter within its jurisdiction, and may request him to be present to answer written questions relating thereto at a meeting to be held not earlier than one week from the date of the receipt by the mayor of said questions. The mayor shall personally, or through the head of a department or a member of a board, attend such meeting and publicly answer all such questions. The person so attending shall not be obliged to answer questions relating to any other matter, but may address any additional subject they wish during such a visit.

    The first part compels attendance. If the last part wasn't a separate thought, they wouldn't have to state that the mayor may attend council, and address them. They'd already be there, and addressing them.

    I read this section to address first duties of the mayor, then rights of the mayor, in regard to City Council.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That Saint Joe's issue did go on forever, didn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  5. PS - I forwarded a link to this post to herhonor, maybe some lawyers will look at it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Clever way to drum up readers, G! Hope she/they enjoy it!
    Again, I say we are both over our heads here. Let us leave it to the nit pickers!

    ReplyDelete
  7. The mayor may address the council without objection if she had submitted the request on the Agenda. She also could have spoken during the beginning of the meeting under Public Comment.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Read the charter.

    The mayor may attend and address city council on any subject. There is no restriction.

    ReplyDelete
  9. No, G. You read the charter and report back to the rest of us. It is not on my "To Read" list!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Already did, and already did. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Salem is a Plan B government, therefore section 19 has no standing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Section 19 absolutely applies to a plan B government.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The City Council has to suspend the rules to let anyone ( let alone the Mayor to speak). Any one of 11 Councillors can object. If the Mayor did not try to pull a fast one she could have submitted to the Council a request to speak with the agenda she brings to the City Clerk every 2nd and 4th Tuesday of the month. This Council is dealing with a regime not an administation. Remember she VOWED to veto it.

    ReplyDelete

Don't forget, keep it klassy!