A couple of comments about recent Letters to the Editor, Pulselines, and articles about the water supply and bond.
First, EVERYONE wants and expects clean safe water. The Mayor, and Water Department, and City Council have been concerned about this for quite a while. The Mayor, and Water Department, and DEP, and expert consultants have been working on this diligently for almost two years.
Second, Mr. Hoose’s statement was incorrect. Westfield already has a Plan B Charter – which is a “weak mayor” form of government. He has the best intentions, but he is also no longer a City Councilor, so his perception of what’s going on, does not always jive with what is actually going on. He is seeing things as an outsider or relying on news coverage which cannot always cover every detail or view of events or discussions.
Third, the Mayor implied information about this bond could have been gathered during his briefings prior to City Council meetings. He did not present the water bond to us in a briefing. And, the briefings, in my opinion, did not comply with the Massachusetts Open Meeting law because there was no firm agenda (he had an “ask me anything” philosophy), and there was no official record kept of the meeting. I believe the Mayor had the best intentions, and was attempting to be as open and approachable as possible. However, discussions and deliberations of matters is supposed to be done in public, after advance notice, and accurate detailed meeting minutes are supposed to be kept. Discussions during this “briefing” would many times lead to no discussions or limited discussions during the full city council or committee meetings. That’s not the intent of the Open Meeting Law. In this particular bond case, the mayor did not make a presentation to the Finance Committee, and the Water Department made a very short non-detailed presentation (near the end of a very long two hour meeting about lots of other matters).
Fourth, Councilor Bean implied that the Finance Committee screwed up by bringing a negative recommendation before they were ready, and that somehow this caused the bond to be rushed or voted on early. Though they probably wish they held the item in committee, it really wouldn’t have affected the schedule or the outcome because the Legislative and Ordinance Committee decided to bring it out for a vote on the same night. Prior to the vote, I told them they didn’t have the nine votes needed (it needed nine affirmative votes). Immediately before the vote I tried to get the proponents to table the vote until the next meeting (if you watch the tape you’ll probably see me giving the President the table and “this isn’t going to pass” slice across the throat hand signals). After the vote failed, I offered the suggestion that someone on the non-prevailing side make a motion for reconsideration at the next meeting (the correct procedure to give a vote another chance). Again, if you watch the tape, you’ll see President Beltrandi ask Councilor Bean to make this motion, and Councilor Bean refuses.
Dave Flaherty, City Councilor
