What the heck?
I'm referring of course to the private meeting between the City Council and Steve Karp prior to the public gathering. Read about it here. (BTW, why does the headline in the paper say "meet privately" and the web article says "in secret?" It's not a secret. It's in the paper, after all.)
The meeting has been arranged by the Mayor, according to the article.
First off, I'd say this absolutely constitutes a violation of the open meeting law. This isn't a social gathering. Karp isn't coming to town to make friends. He's here to talk business. Even if the dialogue at this point is an informal, it's still a business call.
So just post the damn meeting. What's the big deal? Oh right, then the public would be allowed in.
And that's the point! I'm sure the councilors will abide by the bizarre suggestion that they "adhere strictly to the rules that this is a social gathering to personally meet members of New England Development without deliberation and specific questions regarding business." But I'm a fairly reasonable person when baseball isn't involved. Others might not be so kind. Why raise questions?
Also, if they can't talk business what will they discuss? The weather? Whether Josh Beckett really hurt his back or is he just ducking out of a trip to Japan? The traffic on Route 1 in Saugus at 5:30 p.m.? But what is the point of meeting Karp and the team if they can't talk about the waterfront, even indirectly
I'm not suggesting there's anything dishonest going on. I'm sure those councilors attending, and not all are, have the best intentions. I'm not worried about a secret deal getting done or anything of the sort. But is this kind of meeting really necessary? As a voter, I don't need our councilors to privately meet Steve Karp. Quite the contrary, I'd rather they keep an arm's length so any proposal can be viewed in a dispassionate way. Or, if there is a bias, make sure it's tilted toward the voters.
Plus, I suspect city councilors would have been rushed to the front of the receiving line once the actual meet and greet starts. And I would have been fine with that. Shove the planning board up there too. I get it.
But I dispute the notion that strict adherence to the open meeting law would confine a councilor to their home in fear of bumping into five or six others in a social setting. It's one thing to bump into each other at a chamber breakfast, where members of the public, if they're chamber members, are free to come and go. It's quite another to intentionally collect in a small room with the most powerful man in town. No matter how short a visit.
One councilor suggests as a major land owner Karp is a constituent and the council should be allowed to meet with constituents. Karp isn't a constituent by my definition or any one else's.
Citizen residing within the district of a legislator.
A resident of a legislator's district.
One that authorizes another to act as a representative on his/her behalf.
A constituent is someone who can or does appoint or elect (and often by implication can also remove or recall) another as their agent or representative.
In short, Karp and his team don't vote in this town.
I'm still going into the meeting with good feelings and high hopes. But this one is a bit of a head scratcher. It might be wise to post it or pull the plug.
4 comments:
Hi,
I was talking earlier today with someone about this very subject.
I really can't see the problem (although I certainly do understand why one might) and I think its a good idea.
Having people who will be part of the process in the future get together up front is a great way to make relationships not just titles.
I personally trust my councilor (Earls) to have a meet and greet and not a city business discussion.
And I would also trust him to bring this up if it did happen.
If anything questionable would happen I would hope they all were smart enough to drive to some random location to talk.
Also Karp is only the personality. The important people are the ones around him. this fascination with Karp is so interesting. Lets be realistic here, he probably spends less time a week talking or thinking about Newburyport than any one of us spends in one day reading the Daily News. The people he will be with are the ones that are really important to get to know.
Maybe a way to reduce some concern would be to include other members of the community. AJH pres, Chamber, Industrial Park, other key citizens. Not many just non-elected but still influential persons.
I do see though that I (a large org manager) have a different viewpoint than you (a reporter/writer). I find this an interesting topic since its so much about the accessibility of the political process.
So as always, just my opinion.
thanks,
sds
Hi SDS,
Thanks for the thoughtful comments.
I've got some broader thoughts on your points that I might share later. But I'd like to reiterate one important point.
I'm not suggesting the meeting is being held to do something dishonest. I trust the councilors as you do. But trust and personal connections shouldn't come into play when it comes to abiding by open meeting laws.
In my opinion, if you ask the city council--and only the council--to show up at a specific place at a certain time that legally constitutes an open meeting.
Just post it, have the meeting and make sure the door is open for any stragglers. Problem solved.
Seems to me this is the kind of stuff that could serve as ammunition for any future lawsuit to appeal a decision on a Karp project.
To recap, if it's posted and the door is open, then I think this is a great idea.
-Tom
Moreover, sds, under this non-posted "meeting," if any councilor says anything about any property under New England Development's management in Newburyport or beyond, even if specific discussion is not centered around Waterside West, there's a problem.
I don't know how long these folks plan on chit-chatting, but just to say, "Hi, Mr. Karp, I'm Tom," and for Mr. Karp to say, "Hi Tom, what do you think of those Red Sox?"
I don't get it.
I've been to a number of paid political fundraisers where the mayor and a majority of the council members were in attendance (including McCavitt) and have overhead political discussions as well as general chit-chat. Why is no one outraged by that practice rather than an informal meet and greet where no money is exchanged ?
Post a Comment