WESTFIELD – City Councilor David A. Flaherty has requested the state Inspector General to prevent the city from paying the legal bill and fees of Mayor Daniel Knapik following a decision Monday in U.S. District Court.
Flaherty, who is one of the litigants who successfully sued Knapik for violating their civil rights when he ordered political signs removed from the East Silver Street treebelt, contends that earlier findings of US District Court Judge Michael A. Ponsor strip Knapik of indemnification protection.
“I am hoping your office will take immediate action to enjoin the City of Westfield from spending public funds to pay the court-awarded legal fees in a case where Mayor Daniel Knapik acted outside his scope of duties when he ordered city employees to remove the campaign signs of candidates he opposed in the 2011 elections,” Flaherty said in the letter to the Inspector General which Flaherty released to the press Tuesday.
“Further, I hope that your office will help the taxpayers recover $40,000 that the City Council conditionally approved to defend the mayor (based on the recommendation of the City Solicitor),” Flaherty said.
Flaherty said he decided to seek intervention after reading comments by City Solicitor Susan Phillips in the Westfield News in which she said that under Ponsor’s final decision, released by the court late Monday afternoon, that Knapik is still entitled to indemnification as a public official.
Phillips said that Ponsor’s final decision stated that Knapik acted unintentionally when he violated the litigants’ civil right under federal law by ordering that the campaign signs be removed from the treebelt.
Ponsor’s decision states:
“The removal of political lawn signs on November 7, 2011 by order of the Defendant Daniel Knapik constituted content-based, but not intentional, discrimination in violation of the rights of the Plaintiffs as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article XVI of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.”
Flaherty said that Ponsor addressed the indemnification issues in his summary judgment dated Feb. 21, 2014 in which Ponsor stated:
“Under these circumstances, Defendant is not entitled to protection under the doctrine of qualified immunity.”
Flaherty is requesting that Inspector General Glenn A. Cunha enjoin Phillips from acting to pay the legal bill of $53,000 ordered by Ponsor to cover the legal expenses incurred by Flaherty, and the other two litigants, Municipal Light Board commissioner Jane Wensley and property owner David Costa.
“The taxpayers should not be paying one cent to defend these indefensible personal actions of the mayor,” Flaherty stated in his appeal to Cunha. “I am not a lawyer, and I do respect the legal expertise of Solicitor Phillips, but I believe in this case she is misquoting the Judge and misinterpreting the laws. Nowhere in the Summary Judgment or the Final Order of Judgment does Judge Ponsor state that the defendant acted unintentionally or that he qualified for indemnification.”
Flaherty also sent formal communication to inform City Council President Brent B. Bean II that he had petitioned Inspector General Cunha to intervene.
“Please be advised that I have requested that the State’s Inspector General enjoin the city from expending any taxpayer funds to pay the court-ordered legal fees of the Mayor related to the Federal District Court campaign sign removal case. I have also asked them to facilitate the recovery of the $40,000 that was conditionally approved to defend the mayor.
“As you may recall, in 2012 when the $40,000 was approved (as recommended by City Solicitor Phillips), several councilors, including you, used phrases such as ‘let’s let the court determine guilt or innocence’ and ‘if he’s guilty, we’ll take steps to recover the money’. The Court has spoken – he’s guilty and he acted outside his scope of duties. I believe the City Council now has the obligation to protect and recover taxpayer funds,” Flaherty stated in the communication to Bean.
“I am asking that the City Council take action to protect taxpayer funds pending completion of an investigation by the State’s Inspector General,” Flaherty concluded.
