Council Adds Another Route to Getting Name on Agenda

City Councilor William J. Macek

City councilors have approved a new way for residents to request an appearance in front of the board. It was the second time in two weeks that councilors engaged in emotional debate over the rules they use to govern how members of the public can address the council during public meetings.

Councilors ultimately approved a suggestion by Councilor William J. Macek to allow residents to fill out a form, available from the city clerk, giving their name, address, and an explanation of the topic they wish to discuss. The council’s presiding officer, usually the council president, would make the final determination of whether the issue falls under the council’s purview and could be put on the agenda.

Macek described his proposal as an attempt to put to rest the debate over public participation during council meetings that was raised last year, and again last week, by Councilor Joseph J. Bevilacqua.

Bevilacqua asked his colleagues last week to relax council rules and allow residents to speak at council meetings without approaching a councilor to get their names on the agenda.

Without explanation, Bevilacqua’s colleagues unanimously rejected the motion.

Later, Councilor Andy X. Vargas told WHAV that he believed allowing residents to speak on unknown topics would violate the state’s Open Meeting Law because it prevented the council from giving proper notification of the issues to be discussed.

In making his proposal, Macek also cited the Open Meeting Law, saying the requirement that a resident describe the issue to be discussed is crucial to the council’s adherence to the law.

Bevilacqua criticized Macek’s proposal, saying that instead of opening access to the council, it further separated residents from the council by setting up an official gatekeeper.

Councilor Michael S. McGonagle pointed out that, if approved, filling out the form would become just one of four routes for residents to have their names placed on the City Council agenda.

As he did last week, Councilor Thomas J. Sullivan questioned why the council was discussing the issue when the board’s Administration and Finance subcommittee had a discussion of the rules planned for its Jan. 11 meeting.

“This is nonsense,” Sullivan said. “If this was an important issue to people, the (council) chambers would be overflowing right now,” he said, waving a hand at a nearly empty gallery.

Macek’s motion passed, 7-2, with Bevilacqua and Sullivan opposed.

Here is the complete text of the new rule:

Any Haverhill resident, organization or taxpayer may request, in writing, to be speak to the City Council at the next regularly scheduled meeting by filing a completed request form with the City Clerk’s Office. Request forms may be obtained at the City Clerk’s Office or downloaded from the City of Haverhill Official web site. Requests to speak must be about a matter or concern that is related to issues that are within the Council’s jurisdiction, and the written request to speak must contain details of the intended topic of discussion, and be specific enough to comply, in the opinion of the Council’s presiding officer, with the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law.

Any request form filed with the City Clerk’s Office that appears to be complete will then be forwarded to the City Council’s presiding officer in order to seek approval to place the request item on the next regular meeting agenda. In the event that a request to speak form is incomplete, vague or lacking, in the opinion of the Council’s presiding officer, and requires additional time to obtain enough detail so that the item when placed on an agenda will adequately inform the general public as to the specific topic to be discussed and thereby complying with the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law, such delay may cause the request to be held until such time that sufficient additional information is added to the request. The responsibility to provide sufficient detail on the request forms and thereby prevent any delay in filing shall be the sole responsibility of the requesting party. The person making the request shall be allowed up to three (3) minutes to speak, which time may be expanded or limited at the discretion of the presiding officer.

 

 

3 thoughts on “Council Adds Another Route to Getting Name on Agenda

  1. This is the second time in recent years that the council has gotten miffed at a colleague and has decided that trampling rights was the wasy to get even. The first was several years ago when a councilor objected to a second reading of a late submitted item and the council changed its rules to eliminate that provision (even though a councilor’s right to do that still exists in state law)

    Vargas complaint that it violates the Open Meeting Law if flat out stupid; the law was never intended to limit public debate, in any fashion whatsoever.

    One assumes council members have a right to get an item on the agenda. Here you go, Joe: Add an item to the agenda, every meeting. “To hear the comments of the public on any item not on the agenda, with remarks not to exceed two minutes in length.”

    Duh. Haverhill is the petty politics capital of the world.

  2. This is the second time in recent years that the council has gotten miffed at a colleague and has decided that trampling rights was the wasy to get even. The first was several years ago when a councilor objected to a second reading of a late submitted item and the council changed its rules to eliminate that provision (even though a councilor’s right to do that still exists in state law)

    Vargas complaint that it violates the Open Meeting Law is flat out stupid; the law was never intended to limit public debate, in any fashion whatsoever.

    One assumes council members have a right to get an item on the agenda. Here you go, Joe: Add an item to the agenda, every meeting. “To hear the comments of the public on any item not on the agenda, with remarks not to exceed two minutes in length.”

    Duh. Haverhill is the petty politics capital of the world.

  3. This is the second time in recent years that the council has gotten miffed at a colleague and has decided that trampling rights was the wasy to get even. The first was several years ago when a councilor objected to a second reading of a late submitted item and the council changed its rules to eliminate that provision (even though a councilor’s right to do that still exists in state law)

    Vargas complaint that it violates the Open Meeting Law if flat out stupid; the law was never intended to limit public debate, in any fashion whatsoever.

    One assumes council members have a right to get an item on the agenda. Here you go, Joe: Add an item to the agenda, every meeting. “To hear the comments of the public on any item not on the agenda, with remarks not to exceed two minutes in length.”

    Duh. Haverhill is the petty politics capital of the world.