The City Council voted Thursday night to approve a $40,000 appropriation to the Law Department to hire outside legal counsel to represent Mayor Daniel M. Knapik in a civil suit in federal court.
Knapik is being sued in federal court for allegedly violating the civil rights of At-large City Councilor David Flaherty, Municipal Light Board member Jane C. Wensley and David Costa, a resident of Russell who is the owner of property at 38 East Silver St. The suit, brought by the western Massachusetts chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), contends that Knapik violated the civil rights of the litigants by ordering the removal of campaign signs of Flaherty and Wensley from Costa’s property.
Flaherty released the court documents on March 21, but Knapik was not officially served until April 5, through his private attorney, Michael Powers. Knapik has 60 days to respond to the suit.
Knapik who is trained in and performed risk assessment in his civilian career, said this morning that he determined that the campaign signs in the city’s tree belt posed “a hazard to pedestrians and motorists” and ordered the Department of Public Works to remove the signs from the city’s right of way.
Knapik said that the law department investigated the incident before determining that he, acting in his official capacity, issued a lawful order.
The Law Department initiated the appropriation request in a communication to Council President Christopher Keefe, through the office of the City Clerk, to indemnify Knapik for acting in his official capacity.
Last night the council members voted 8-2-2 to approve an appropriation of $40,000 to hire legal counsel to represent Knapik in the civil litigation.
Voting yes were Councilors: James R. Adams, Brent B. Bean II, James E. Brown Jr., Christopher Crean, Christopher Keefe, Peter J. Miller Jr., Richard E. Onofrey Jr., and Brian Sullivan.
Councilors Mary O’Connell and Agma Sweeney voted no, while councilors David A. Flaherty, a party to the litigation, and John J. Beltrandi III, a potential witness, abstained. Councilor Patti Andras was not present.
Onofrey, the Ward 5 councilor and chairman of the Finance Committee, which presented a positive recommendation for the appropriation, said the litigation would be decided in federal court, “not in the City Council or by the court of public opinion.”
“Our ordinance requires indemnification for city officials being sued, but not for officials bringing a law suit,” he said. “I strongly urge the council members to vote yes on this appropriation.”
At-large Councilor Bean said the appropriation was sent to the Finance Committee for discussion and to allow councilors to get more information and “for making sure the facts are straight.”
Sweeney, who attended the Finance Committee and participated in the 40-minute discussion Tuesday night, agreed that the issue would be decided in federal court.
“I do have more information, new information,” Sweeney said. “(City Solicitor Susan) Phillips explained (the indemnification issue). I found that the city’s ordinance is based on Massachusetts General Law almost verbatim.”
“The court will decide the aspect of the case,” she said. “None of this if for us to decide, it’s outside the scope of our duties.”
“Our job is to decide if the mayor was acting in the scope of his official duties to remove those signs from private property,” Sweeney went on. “The answer is ‘no’.”
O’Connell said that she anticipated the appropriation would be approved.
“We all know how this will go tonight,” she said.
“If the signs were in the public domain and if they were a danger to children, I would have ordered them removed, too, if that were the case,” O’Connell said. “The only consultation that I take tonight is that our city will be eventually protected. If the mayor is found to have acted willfully (to deny the plaintiffs civil rights), we will be able to go after those funds. We can all agree that this will be decided in the courts.”
Brown, the Ward 2 Councilor, said Sweeney “was going down the right road, then made a sharp turn. The ordinance says the city ‘shall” (provide indemnification to officials). That’s how the system works, why we have checks and balances.”
Onofrey said he asked Phillips Tuesday night what recourse Knapik would have if the council voted to deny the indemnification appropriation.
“She gave a very clear answer that the mayor could sue the city. The ordinance is very clear. We have to appropriate these funds, we must follow our ordinance, we must follow the law,” he said.
