The October 4, 2012 City Council meeting will go down in Council history as one of our most spirited meetings. We began the meeting with the matter of the Ward Two Councilor replacement. Prior to the vote City Council received two legal opinions from our law department advising us that we were required to vote to appoint the candidate receiving the second highest number of votes after Jim Brown. This individual was Brian Winters who received one vote. The two legal opinions were confirmed via a letter from Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin’s office. Despite this clear directive, the City Council did not vote to appoint Brian Winters to this Ward Two spot. The vote went this way:
|
O’CONNELL |
YES |
|
ONOFREY |
ABSTAINED |
|
SULLIVAN |
ABSTAINED |
|
SWEENEY |
ABSTAINED |
|
ADAMS |
NO |
|
BEAN |
ABSTAINED |
|
BELTRANDI |
ABSTAINED |
|
CALLAHAN |
YES |
|
CREAN |
ABSTAINED |
|
FLAHERTY |
ABSENT |
|
HARRAGHY |
ABSTAINED |
|
KEEFE |
ABSTAINED |
Councilor Sweeney expressed frustration with the fact that we were even arguing this point and she abstained because she felt that we were mandated to vote for Mr. Winters. Councilor Flaherty left the room for the same reasons. Jim Adams voted his conscience with a no vote and did not hide behind an abstention. The result of this evenings vote is that the Mayor now may make the choice for the Ward Two City Councilor. Our City Charter clearly states that the City Council “Shall” appoint the second highest vote getter in the event of a resignation of a City Councilor. We failed tlast night at this mandate.
Westfield City Council is back in full activity this fall and there are a variety of issues before us. We have completed two of the three phases of our Charter and Rules agenda. Our Rules of Council were updated and the City Charter was sent to Boston for an update (non policy issues) and modernization. This was done via through Home Rule Petition process. The most daunting and critical phase of deeper Charter Review is left.
Street acceptances are a very hot and timely topic within City Council. Currently there are over fifteen streets awaiting a vote for public acceptance. The process for requesting one’s street to be accepted as a Public Way is to have residents of the street sign a petition which then is presented to the City Council. Once this comes to Council, the matter is referred to a sub committee (currently L&O but hopefully in the future to City Properties) and to the Clerk for referral to the Public Works, Engineering, Assessors, and Law Department. It is alarming to review the City streets that have not yet been accepted a public ways and this is a housekeeping matter that the City Council must address.
Our City has seen some controversy this past month or two. The sign issue is progressing through the Courts. The incurred time and costs for the defense of our City Administration was not caused by the plaintiffs. The individuals who brought the complaint are to be commended for their bravery and willingness to undertake a legal complaint to protect their civil liberties. They feel that constitutional law issues are at stake and they decided to seek a solution in the court system. This is not their fault but their right. The court will decide whether their complaint has value.
A similar situation is found in the legal protest relating to the construction the proposed new elementary school. Hindsight is 20/20 and most likely if the City had followed the letter of the law and complied with all requirements (such as completing a MEPA review and following through on Article 97), (see below taken from the State’s web site) we would not have put the cart before the horse in this process. Again, the plaintiffs are not at fault for following through on their constitutional rights. It is disingenuous for folks to blame them for the incurred costs and delays.
In short, Article 97 seeks to prevent government from ill considered misuse or other disposition of public lands and interests held for conservation, development or utilization of natural resources. If land is misused a portion of the public’s natural resources may be forever lost, and no less so than by outright transfer. Article97 thus provides a new range of protection for public lands far beyond existing law and much to the benefit of our natural resources and to the credit of our citizens.
According to the September 17, 2012 decision buy Superior Court Judge Tina Page, “…the plaintiffs have successfully persuaded this court that they have a likelihood of success on the merits of this case. This is underscored both by the defendant’s concession that they have not complied with the requirements of article 97, as well as Westfield’s admission that it has not yet acquired replacement land to compensate for the loss of the Cross Street Playground, in violation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.”
I feel that it would be of interest to residents if the Westfield News would print the September 17, 2012 Superior Court decision in full.
Last weekend Westfield saw the return of the annual Colonial Harvest Day. Attending this event gives one such a great appreciation for all that this community has to offer. All varieties of organizations participated and attendees were treated to wonderful entertainment including the Blackstone Bluegrass Band, Pioneer Valley Fiddlers, Woodford Way (with the wonderfully talented Kyle Mangini, a Celebrity Town Crier Contest, won by Harry from Plymouth Rock AKA Harry Rock, horse drawn carriages, and American Revoluti0nary War re-enactors, great food, and the opportunity to purchase locally owned and made items. It truly makes one love Westfield.
“Good People don’t need laws to tell them to act responsibly and bad people will find a way around the laws”. Plato
Mary O’Connell
Ward Four City Councilor
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not the staff, editor, or publisher of the Westfield News.
To read Judge Page’s modified injunction, click here.
