CHRISTOPHER KEEFE
Lots of legal headlines in the paper nowadays.
Cities always face legal action of one sort or another; it’s why we have a dedicated Solicitor’s Office: to retain an individual and team to deal with legal issues with a strict focus on the best interest of the city of Westfield.
You may not see a lot of comments from city councilors when news breaks about a criminal charge, or a lawsuit, or when someone levels a charge against a city official or organization. There’s a reason for that: city councilors are public officials representing a corporation – the City of Westfield – and most councilors understand and have historically understood that when it comes to legal affairs, the city is always better off speaking with one carefully measured uniform voice. It may be a trifle-bit clichéd to say “no comment” or “I won’t comment on pending litigation”, but in the long run, it allows our City Solicitor to do the best possible job in court and maximize any awards in our favor or limit to the greatest possible extent any damages paid by the city, which of course are always ultimately paid by you and me.
Of course, after the legal process has played out, we can expound on the issue with a little more latitude, but then the second rule of public commentary for city councilors kicks in: most people really don’t care all that much what we might have to say on any given issue, as much as we would like to fervently believe to the contrary….
Still, we heard plenty of commentary on the settled civil case Thursday night. Much of the focus was on absolving the taxpayers from the responsibility for the legal fees. While sparing you from the back-and-forth on blame, the cold hard legal fact of the matter is that when it came to defending the Mayor, the Council and the city were obligated under city ordinance 2-64:
The city shall indemnify and save harmless members of the city council, members of elected or appointed boards and commissions, the mayor, all department heads including but not limited to superintendents, directors, auditor, treasurer/collector, city solicitor, managers, and their respective assistants, and the superintendent of schools, from personal financial loss and expenses, including legal fees and costs, if any, in an amount not to exceed $1,000,000.00 arising out of any claim, action, award, compromise, settlement or judgment by reason of an intentional tort or by reason of any act or omission which constitutes a violation of the civil rights of any person under federal or state law; if such aforementioned official or employee at the time of such intentional tort or act or omission was acting within the scope of his official duties or employment
So why do we have such an ordinance in the first place? Basically, without it, any city official could be unduly influenced by the constant threat of legal action. Instead of acting in the best interest of the city, elected officials and department heads instead would base every decision on “what won’t get me sued?” knowing that the burden of defending themselves legally and financially would fall personally on their shoulders. In two of my toughest decisions on the Zoning Board of Appeals, I voted against variances for two different multimillion dollar gravel pits, full well knowing that the indemnification level for legal damages against me professionally and personally was only up to $1 million. It honestly gave me pause while considering my vote, knowing that while most jurists would respect the decision of the ZBA and its individual members, there was always that chance a good attorney would prevail in court, and the judgment could bankrupt me if I had been found to act recklessly or arbitrarily – which of course I hadn’t, but nonetheless… it cost a few good night’s sleep before and after.
So without the indemnification ordinance, essentially the city would be run by lawyers both inside and outside of City Hall, not the professionals we hire to run our city, although after serving two years as council president, there were many times it felt as if that line of demarcation had already been breached (Open Meeting Law complaints, the Ward Two vacancy battle, committee assignments – yes, committee assignments. Ended up needing lawyers for that, too).
As councilors, we are handcuffed by the laws that constrain the power and function of local government. All of the powers of the mayor and the city council are derived from state law, as the city of Westfield is a creation of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The laws of the Commonwealth tell us when to have elections, how we conduct meetings, when we have to have a budget in place, how to raise revenue, and how we can spend it. For example, there are state laws that prohibit cities and towns from paving and maintaining private roads, and even if the city decided it wanted to pave a private street – say, Papermill Road for example – state law would prohibit such expenditure. That’s why the Council has petitioned the Massachusetts Legislature for permission to take the entire street by special legislation in order to allow the city to repave this frequently traveled road which has fallen into such a state of disrepair. Without owning it, the city is limited – again by state law – to emergency repairs only. And it shows. The same laws specify that once the Council appropriates the money, a department head can spend it on any item within the purview of that budgeted line item, and while we would love to have veto authority over any individual expenditure by a department or the Mayor, the reality of the law is that it’s out of our hands, whether it’s the DPW buying asphalt, or the Law Department paying a judgment.
As the Chairman of the Finance Committee, I’m expecting the budget for Fiscal Year 2015 to arrive anytime now. Under Chapter 44, mayors propose and initiate all spending, and the Council’s role is limited to approving, rejecting, or amending the appropriations down – we cannot appropriate more than the mayor proposes. I expect the Council will have looking for some way to keep tax increases to a minimum while ensuring that the maximum possible funding is allocated for road and bridge work this summer, but the city budget has many non-negotiable obligations, such as snow & ice removal, debt service, and health insurance, which constantly strain our ability to find a solution that will satisfy both desires. If the budget arrives on time, I expect hearing to occur in late May or early June.
Christopher Keefe
Westfield City Council
Ward One
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not the staff, editor, or publisher of this publication.
