The City Council narrowly defeated a vote for immediate consideration of an appropriation submitted by Council President Christopher Keefe to fund Mayor Daniel M. Knapik’s legal fees.
Keefe, in his capacity as acting mayor, requested the council to approve a $40,000 appropriation to allow Knapik to hire legal counsel to represent him in a federal law suit.
The suit, brought by the western Massachusetts chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of At-large City Councilor David A. 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 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.
The court documents were released by Flaherty on March 21, but Knapik was not officially served until Thursday, through his private attorney, Michael Powers. Knapik has 60 days to respond to the suit.
Keefe scheduled a committee of the whole executive session, which includes all council members, to discuss pending or possible litigation issues. The committee as a whole session was held at 6:30 p.m., just prior to the regular council meeting.
Keefe’s $40,000 appropriation request was listed as Item D under the communication from the mayor segment of the agenda.
Ward 4 Councilor Mary O’Connell spoke during the Public Participation agenda item, which occurs before the council deals with communication from the mayor, speaking from a prepared text.
O’Connell expressed her outrage that the city is being asked to funds the legal expenses of “an official who did not act within the scope of his official duties.”
“This is a slippery slope. This $40,000 is just the tip of the iceberg. The cost of this could skyrocket,” O’Connell said. “Dan is being sued because he misused his position. The city has no potential liability. Should we provide equal amounts for the other city officials whose rights were violated by Knapik’s action? I hope you vote no.”
At-large Councilor Agma Sweeney, also speaking from a prepared text during public participation, said that in her opinion the law suit “is not city business. I don’t believe that taxpayer money should be used to resolve a campaign complaint.”
“I will vote ‘no’ in referring this to the Finance Committee,” Sweeney said. “It’s not the responsibility of taxpayers to foot this bill.”
At Large Councilor James R. Adams, also speaking during public participation, expressed his own outrage that the two prior speakers have already decided the merits of the case.
“I’m not going to let the mayor hang out there,” Adams said. “This is all alleged. What if the mayor had a reason to take signs down? I will be voting to approve.”
Ward 3 Councilor Peter J. Miller objected to the fact that an agenda item was being discussed during public participation.
“I don’t know why this discussion is occurring under public participation, which should be reserved for members of the public to communicate with the council,” Miller said.
The council moved forward with its agenda, reaching Item D, the Keefe appropriation communication.
Ward 5 Councilor Richard E. Onofrey Jr., chairman of the Finance Committee, had referred Items A through C to his committee for further review.
Onofrey, however, made the motion for immediate consideration of Item D.
O’Connell blasted Onofrey for that motion
“This is totally unfair,” she said. “I cannot believe that you would not consider this for two weeks (to the April 19 council session).”
Onofrey defended his motion, stating that the council had discussed the $40,000 appropriation in the executive session with Susan Phillips, the Law Department supervisor.
“The Law Department did say that the mayor is being sued as the mayor and that we have the duty to provide legal representation,” Onofrey said.
Ward 6 Councilor Christopher Crean supported Onofrey’s position.
“Let’s be clear here that these are alleged violations,” Crean said. “I can’t believe that we’re acting as the judge and jury.This is for the protection of the city, that’s our job.”
Sweeney countered that the suit is “for political activity, not legislative. It should be decided in the courts. We can act (on the appropriation) at such time based upon the outcome.”
O’Connell said that the appropriation was discussed for seven or eight minutes of the 30 minute executive session.
“I was looking forward to discussing this in the Finance Committee. I didn’t know this would be railroaded along,” she said.
Miller said that he was “at a loss philosophically. I don’t know what will be accomplished (by Onofrey’s motion for immediate consideration). I’m going to vote to not suspend the rules and to send this to committee. I don’t see the harm of sending it to committee.”
At-large Councilor Brent B. Bean II, said that the issue “isn’t about process, it’s about personalities. I have always felt that the mayor has served the city well and consider him to be an honorable man.”
At-large Councilor Patti Andras said that “if I were in this position, I’d want the city to represent me. But I’d like more than seven minutes to consider this motion.”
Ward 2 Councilor James E. Brown Jr., said that the “clock is ticking. The mayor has 60 days to respond. That means we have to hire a law firm (to prepare a response). The (City) Solicitor makes the decision if an official was acting within the scope of official duties.”
Adams said that his reading of city ordinance is “we have to do this, that we have to support the mayor.”
Sweeney responded that “we need to have discussion to consider this.”
Onofrey’s motion to suspend council rule #37 to allow immediate consideration of the appropriation failed by a 6-7 vote. Voting “yes” were Adams, Bean, Brown, Crean, Keefe and Onofrey. Voting “no” were Andras, At-large Councilor John J. Beltrandi III, Flaherty, Miller, O’Connell, Sullivan and Sweeney.
Onofrey then made the motion to send the appropriation to the Finance Committee which was approved by a 7-4 vote, with Flaherty and Beltrandi, a possible witness, recusing themselves.
Voting “yes” were Andras, Crean, Keefe, Miller, O’Connell, Sullivan and Sweeney. Voting “no” were Adams, Bean, Brown, and Onofrey.
