sunshineboston

2009-03-09T15:09:00.002-04:00

Check out Project Sunlight... part of Freedom of Information Day at SIBL, March 18! http://www.nypl.org/research/calendar/eventdesc.cfm?id=5222

2009-01-16T20:47:00.000-05:00

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Reuben.Kantor at cityofboston.gov
Date: Jan 16, 2009 6:00 PM

Reuben Kantor

Chief of Staff
Boston City Council President Mike Ross, District 8
One City Hall Plaza
Boston, MA 02201
P: 617-635-4225
F: 617-635-4203
http://cityofboston.gov/government

Help make the earth a greener place. If at all possible resist printing this email and join us in saving paper.

Page 7
2009 City Council Rules Page 7
Rules of the Boston City Council
Municipal Year 2009

General Rules

Committees
Forty-Eight Hour Notice Required

Rule 34.

No meeting, working session, or hearing of any committee, except the committee on ways and means, in accord with the limitations of the state's open meeting law, shall be called upon less than fortyeight (48) hours notice (exclusive of legal holidays and Sundays), unless otherwise allowed by the president in accord with the limitations of the state's open meeting law, from the time the council staff shall have mailed or electronically transmitted the notices and invitation letters or dispatched them by special messenger; provided that meetings of the committee of the whole may be held for a specific purpose(s) at the call of the president, at the completion of council business and prior to final adjournment of any meeting of the council without such notice.

Only that specific item(s) for which a committee of the whole meeting, working session, or hearing has been called shall be in order at such meeting, working session, or hearing.

Only a committee chair may schedule a meeting, working session, or hearing or reserve time on the council's calendar for a hearing to be scheduled.

Notice of all scheduled meetings, hearings, working sessions shall be posted by the clerk indicating the date, time and place in accordance with the requirements of the open meeting law.

In addition, the notice shall include the item(s) or subject(s) to be discussed.

Written and electronic notice shall be delivered to each councilor and other interested parties by council staff.

The chair and members of any committee shall speak and question witnesses for not more than ten minutes at a time.

2009 City Council Rules Page 8
The conduct of members of the public at council meetings, and committee meetings, working sessions, and hearings, including those present to testify, shall be governed by Rules 41, 42 and 43 and shall be enforced by the council staff assigned to the meeting, working session, or hearing.

No committee unless authorized by an order of the council shall incur any expense, including, but not limited to, advertising and stenographic costs.

Committee chairs requesting interpreter services will work with the staff director, recognizing there are budgetary limitations, to arrange for such services at the time the meeting, working session, or hearing is scheduled.

No committee meeting, working session, or hearing, except the committee of the whole, the committee on rules and administration, and the committee on ways and means, shall be conducted on the day of any regular meeting of the council.

No committee, except the committee of the whole, committee on ways and means or committee on rules and administration shall be allowed to schedule or conduct a meeting, working session, or hearing on the same day and time as a previously scheduled meeting of another committee.

No committee will hold any hearing, working session, or meeting after the last regular council meeting of the municipal year.

2008-12-30T03:31:00.006-05:00

History is what you think of when you think of the city of Boston. Yet the history of city hall departments needs to be made more accessible to those of us with strong interests in municipal governmental history. Routinely public access is deflected or blocked for public meetings and to public records regardless of what officials claim about transparency. A Mayoral Directive and a Boston City Council Order are needed for the more routine transmittal of public city documents to our Government Documents Department http://bpl.org/research/govdocs/local.htm of Boston Public Library. In addition to the city http://www.cityofboston.gov/archivesandrecords/ archives http://www.orgsites.com/ma/boston-friends/index.html city departments keep their own archives but deflect interest when approached. City Hall needs to open up to the people with interests in governmental history. Even the City Council offices and the City Clerk enunciate principles of openness and transparency but don't put into practice the principles enunciated. For example, the City Council library http://www.cityofboston.gov/citycouncil/citycouncilpub.asp should be available, but you're deflected when asking about the Council's library. Maybe a panel, task force, committee or commission would get officials to recognize that in spite of their good intent openness and transparency isn't happening in practice.

2008-12-20T12:58:00.003-05:00

City Council Video Library

TITLE: Meeting minutes/ commissions info
COMMITTEE: Government Operations
DOCKET #: 1020, 1276
DATE: 12/16/2008
City Council Video Library

Title: Meeting minutes/ commissions info
Docket Number: 1020, 1276
Committee: Government Operations
Description:
Regulating Boston City COuncil Meeting Minutes/ Supporting having City Commission/ Board members publicly post minutes, agendas, agendas, and schedules on website
http://www.cityofboston.gov/citycouncil/cc_video_library.asp?id=646

2008-12-20T09:01:00.000-05:00

Ask the Boston City Clerks office for the Council Docket Number cross index and Docket Number index to be made available to the public on the web.

2008-12-11T21:03:00.003-05:00

Sent-From: Mary.Grissom at cityofboston.gov
Councilor Yoon asked me to reach out to invite you to weigh in at a City
Council next
Tuesday Dec 16th at
4:30pm.

The purpose of the hearing is to explore 2 proposals of Councilor Yoon's
1)
would require the online posting of members, length and origins of appointment, minutes and meeting schedules of all boards and commissions in Boston (ie liquor licensing, Zoning board of appeals, BRA, library etc...there are dozens) and

2)
a proposal that would require the City Council to improve its meeting minutes (ie, make them complete and understandable to the public) and post them online.

Both proposals are attached, we would welcome your testimony at Tuesday's hearing. Please let me know if you will be able to attend.

Best,
Mary Grissom, Chief of Staff

City Councilor At-Large Sam Yoon
Boston City Hall, 5th Floor
Boston MA 02201
Phone 617 635-4217 Fax 617 635-4203

Offered by COUNCILLOR SAM YOON

CITY OF BOSTON
EMBED Word.Picture.8
_______________

IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND EIGHT
_______________

AN ORDINANCE
REGULATING THE BOSTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

WHEREAS, The City of Boston currently provides, via the City Clerk, City Council meeting minutes and these records are available to the public on the internet; and,

WHEREAS, The Open Meeting Law and Public Records Law is meant to cultivate public dialogue on governmental action and ensures this by imposing minimal standards for meeting minute content; and,

WHEREAS, The City already meets these record standards; however, we should go beyond the minimum standards and make our City Council minutes not only publicly available, but more understandable; and,

WHEREAS, Increasing the readability of our Council meeting minutes will foster public understanding and involvement in local government; NOW, THEREFORE

Be it ordained by the City Council of Boston, as follows that the City of Boston Code be amended by adding the following:-

Section 1.
CBC Chapter II is hereby amended by appending the following to 2-10.1 after the first paragraph:-

(a) In addition to keeping records of City Council meetings pursuant to M.G.L. c. 39, s. 23B, M.G.L. c. 66, s. 5A, and 950 CMR 32.00, the City Clerk shall make comprehensible City Council minutes.

For purposes of this subsection only "comprehensible City Council minutes" means a record of a City Council meeting translated from parliamentary procedure wording into plain language, including a brief summary of each topic discussed and/or all votes or formal decisions made during the meeting.

Under no circumstances shall the comprehensible City Council minutes include the substance of debates by and among the members of the City Council pursuant to chapter 447 of the Acts of 1947.

The City Clerk shall make the comprehensible City Council minutes electronically accessible on the City's website no later than two weeks after the meeting in question.

Section 2.
The provisions of these sections will become effective sixty (60) days after passage.

Offered by COUNCILLOR SAM YOON

CITY OF BOSTON
IN CITY COUNCIL

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF PUBLICLY POSTING CITY COMMISSION/BOARD MEMBERS, AGENDAS, MINUTES AND SCHEDULES ON THE CITY WEBSITE

WHEREAS, In an effort to inform the citizens of Boston and the public at-large of the purpose, function and operation of each City Commission and Board, it is necessary to regularly update information made available on the Boston City Website. Openness in the democratic process and a clear understanding of the issues affecting the city and its residents is not simply a priority, but rather a right and an expectation of the residents of Boston; and,

WHEREAS, With over thirty (30) Commissions and Boards representing critical issues across the city, citizens must have access to accurate information regarding these meetings and subsequent action taken. Knowledge of who the appointed Commission and Board Members are, who appointed them and the limits of their terms promotes accountability in the governance process.

WHEREAS, Furthermore, as the Open Meeting Law applies to all governing bodies, including Commissions and Boards (M.G.L. c. 39, s. 23A), the difficulty in accessing clear and convenient meeting information over the Internet remains particularly troubling. Posting agendas, minutes and schedules of meetings will allow members of the public to attend meetings, make public comment and track the progress of the committee; THEREFORE BE IT

RESOLVED, That an on-line repository of information pertaining to all City Commissions and Boards include membership (including term limits and who made the appointment), meeting schedule, agenda, minutes, and committee structure be created immediately in an unobtrusive, clear, concise format found on the City of Boston Website.

Filed on: December 9, 2008

EMBED Word.Picture.8

SICUT PATRIBUS SIT DEUS NOBIS.
God Be with Us as He Was with Our Fathers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boston_city_seal.png

CIVITATIS REGIMINE DONATA A.D. 1822
City Status Granted by the Authority of the State
in the Year of Our Lord 1822

BOSTONIA. CONDITA A.D. 1630
Boston, Founded in the Year of Our Lord 1630

2008-12-10T18:44:00.003-05:00

Boston City Clerk and Assistant City Clerks offices have been lacking in compiling Minutes for proceedings and transactions of the Boston City Council. The Minutes are in too brief a format to be understood by most people. It's not enough to only meet the requirements of keeping minutes. More information about the items in the Minutes need to be more readily available. A cross index is needed for Docket Numbers.

Council stenographic machine records should be more readily available that people may quote the Councilors' debate. Budgeted for Boston City Council are the stenographic scopist services of E. Fritch Stenographic Associates. The City Stenographer keeps the scopist stenographic machine records at home instead of archiving these public records at city archives.

2008-10-02T12:47:00.000-04:00

Our Boston City Council charges for the appendices Tabs 1-14 to the Walkowski Report on sunshine open public meetings! Again our Council Flaunts FOI freedom of information public records principles of open government.

Boston City Council pleading guilty to open meeting charges

2008-09-30T23:42:00.002-04:00

Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Post about Council Pleading Guilty to Open Meeting Charges
http://electkevin.blogspot.com/
2008/09/post-about-council-pleading-guilty-to.html

2008-09-18T10:57:00.001-04:00

2008-09-13T22:31:00.003-04:00

Sicut Patribus Sit Deus Nobis.
God Be with Us as He Was with Our Fathers
http://www.universalhub.com/node/6743
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Boston_city_seal.jpg

Civitatis Regimine Donata A.D.1822.
City Status Granted by the Authority of the State
in the Year of Our Lord 1822

Bostonia. Condita A.D. 1630.
Boston, Founded in the Year of Our Lord 1630

Boston City Council
http://cityofboston.gov/citycouncil
city.council at cityofboston.gov

One City Hall Square 5th Floor
Boston MA 02201
phone 617 635-3040
fax 617 635-4203

Maureen Feeney, President
Boston City Council
Members of the Committee on Rules & Administration
Boston City Hall
Boston, Massachusetts 02201
USA
maureen.feeney at cityofboston.gov

August, 2008

Re: The Report

Dear Madame President and Members of the Committee,

It is with pride and a deep sense of responsibility to the
history, future and integrity of this body -- and city
councilors who will follow -- that I present you and members of
the committee with this completed 80-page Report to the
President and Committee on Rules and Administration Addressing
the Effect of Judicial Decisions on the the Boston city
Council's Operation and Statutory Independence.

A little over a year ago I was asked to take a look at the
case law that has impacted the city council over the last four
decades.

After thirteen months of intensive and detailed investigation,
as well as drawing on my 23-years of service as legislative
coordinator for former city councilor and seven-term President
of this body, James M. Kelly, and after detailed discussions
with attorneys thoroughly familiar in the areas of First
Amendment and Agency Law, I am confident that the conclusions
of this Report are viable and its recommendations are worth
serious consideration.

The Report contains an excellent history of the charter law
as it relates to the city council, the first time this has ever
been done; it provides a detailed examination of the erosion of
the city council's statutory powers brought about by adverse
judicial rulings, and it offers a constitutionally-driven look
at the effect the state's Open Meeting Law has had on
legislative assemblies.

The Report will likely generate considerable interest
and debate.

Hopefully, it will also generate thoughtful discussion.

For historians, it should prove immensely helpful in
understanding not only this period of our city's history, but
in understanding the city council's true legislative powers.

In analyzing the case law and the decisions that flowed
from them, the Report divides the cases into two categories:

THE FIRST LINE OF DECISIONS concerns the relationship between
the executive and legislative branch of government as it is
explained in the city charter and interpreted by the courts,

i

THE SECOND LINE OF DECISIONS evolves around the state's Open
Meeting Law, and how that law has affected the operations of
the Boston City Council and, as it turns out, all legislative
bodies across the state.^1

The Report focuses mostly on the above two areas.

A. Legislative and Executive Powers.

In the first area, the relationship between the
executive and legislative branch of government is at the heart
of almost every legal decision over the past 30 years, and is
outlines in pages 24-42 of the Report.

In the above regard, I have examined the charter in
great detail and tracked the various changes (as outlined in
the Report) backward to 1821 when Boston became incorporated as
a city.

While the city council has been divested of various powers over
the years, the powers it gave up were executive powers, not
legislative.

Based on an exhaustive review of the charter revisions of
1885, 1909, 1948 and 1951, it can be stated with authority that
the legislative powers of the city council as well as its
control over decisions affecting its central staff and the
contracting of services that it needs for its own operation is
absolute and outside the authority of the executive to either
approve or disapprove.

These conclusions are contrary to what the courts have said,
but are consistent with what the charter allows.

Having said that, this Report emphasizes that the
notion that the city operates under a "strong mayor/weak
council" form of government is not founded in either statute or
constitution; it is a creation of the courts.

The Report recommends that the practice of referring to the
city council as "weak" be discontinued.

Ours is loose Plan A form of government with two separate
branches, each with substantial, different and unique powers
and responsibilities.

This Report also notes that internal Rules changes may be used
to address this issue.

B. The state's Open Meeting Law.

With regard to the second area, the First Amendment's
protection of speech and association as well as the state's
constitutional protection afforded "deliberation, speech and
debate" are at the heart of every Open Meeting Law challenge
and are outlines in pages 43 -75 of the Report.

Some have argued that speech is not an issue in the
Open Meeting Law debate, but I must reject that argument, as
the findings of this Report leave little doubt that speech is
very much the only issue.

It is an area that has not been placed before a court before in
the manner proposed in the Report.

This Report raises substantive federal and state
constitutional issues regarding the "constitutionality" of the
state's Open Meeting Law.

It does not recommend that the law be abandoned.

It does, however, go beyond what the courts have said on the
subject and what the legislature has written.

____________________________________________________________
^1 The committee asked if it was necessary examine the issue of
speech with regard to the state's Open Meeting Law; it was also
asked if it was necessary to discuss the charter and statutory
history regarding the conflict between the executive and
legislative branch of government.

As noted in the text, both are areas that have had the greatest
and most adverse impact on the city council, and as a result
are necessary components of this Report.

ii

It looks at the reach of the law into constitutionally
protected areas of a legislator's speech and law-making duties.

In that respect this Report calls for a far more serious
constitutionally-driven approach to the law than has been given
and recommends that the law be quickly amended to take these
concerns into account.

The short version of what this Report does say in the
above regard is this: in addition to a bundle of First
Amendment protections that have been lightly regarded by the
state legislature in the drafting of the Open Meeting Law, and
in light of the sweeping and expansionist interpretation of
what that law by the courts, a closer examination of both
federal and state constitutional issues involving the
deliberation, speech and debate clauses of both constitutions
be undertaken and read to comport with, not defeat, what the
First Amendment guarantees.

Because the state's Open Meeting Law impacts on a
legislator's speech, particularly when he or she is engaged in
the process of advancing a legislative agenda with colleagues,
this Report would be incomplete if it did not ask certain
questions about how much intrusion into that constitutionally
protected activity is too much.

Case law from the Supreme Court of the United States
down through the federal courts, outlines in this Report, has
consistently emphasized the importance of speech and political
associations.

To the extent the state's Open Meeting Law trespasses onto
these protected areas, the law may be, and this Report believes
is, facially unconstitutional and unquestionably overbroad
since it aims at the extreme of discouraging all private speech
on public issues in gatherings of elected officials.

This Report covers the subject of the in law great
detail in pages 43-71 and, accordingly, to avoid a
constitutional challenge to the law as it is presently written,
it offers three possible ways to amend the state law so that
the constitutional conflict never arises, and the law is
preserved.

C. Methodology

Lastly, with regard to the language of the Report:
the Committee on Rules and Administration has asked that the
tone of the document be moderate and contain as little inflammatory
language as possible.

I have spent weeks going over the document and wringing from it
every excess, unnecessary adjective that may exist, while
acknowledging that some do and must remain.

Still, this Report contains no unwarranted,
exceptional, noteworthy or even philosophical biases that I know of.

Accuracy has been my goal throughout.

In the above regard, though, it might be useful to
look at other reports, like "The Report of the Boston Police
Department Management Review Committee", popularly known as the
"St. Clair Commission Report", authored in 1992.

That Report was far more controversial when its authors called
for the replacement of the police commissioner in the
Introduction and claimed the department has "drifted from
crisis to crisis".

Pejorative terms, terms such as "shoddy", "halfhearted",
"inadequate", and "disturbing" were used to describe police
procedures, and the Commission criticized what it believed were
personal managerial errors in both the administration and the
police department.

This Report, while critical of the decisions of the
courts, contains no pejoratives, does not call for the removal
of judges or other officials, is more moderate in its use of
"opinion", and is far less focused on any one individual,
judge, or executive.

The focus here has been first on the historical
evolution of the city council through the various charter
changes; and secondly, on raising the issue of whether the
state's Open Meeting Law has trespassed on federal guarantees
contained in the First Amendment and Art. I s6 (Speech or
Debate Clause) of the United States Constitution, as well as
our state's constitutional protections grounded in Art. XXI of
the Declaration of Rights.

Theses are serious issues that cannot be put aside or dismissed.

Accordingly, as requested, I offer up a finished
version of the Report for the committee and full council to
consider, mindful of all the things that have been said leading
up to it.

The report, aptly titled, a Report to the President and
Committee on Rules and Administration, is nothing more and
nothing less than what I have found in my research, what I have
to offer as a results of it, and what can be done if the
recommendations contained therein, are adopted.

This seems to be a rather elementary purpose of all reports.

So, with a deep sense of history, responsibility and
respect for this body, and with a sure knowledge that the
research contained herein is fair an accurate, I offer the
President and Committee on Rules and Administration and,
ultimately, the full Boston City Council my final Report.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Joseph Walkowski
Special Project Assistant to the President and
Committee on Rules and Administration

iv

About the Author

It is logical to ask whether the person writing a Report of this
nature is qualified to venture into the complex areas this
Report enters.

To answer that question, the following is offered.

Paul Joseph Walkowski was the legislative coordinator for
Boston City Councilor James M. Kelly for over 23-years and is
thoroughly familiar with the historical, legislative and
legal issues discussed in the Report.

He is an internationally published author listed in
Bowker's Books and Authors in Print and, as of the writing of
this Report, is employed as Special Projects Assistant to the
President and Committee on Rules and Administration of the
Boston City Council.

His work in the area of analyzing and explaining constitutional
issues is extensive and nationally acclaimed.

He participated as a principal writer of numerous legal
memoranda at every level of the state and federal court system,
including three Petitions for Certiorari to the Supreme Court
of the United States.

His writings on First Amendment issues have been published in
Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, and he is the author of two books
on major court decisions affecting constitutional rights:
From Trial Court to the United States Supreme Court and
Affirmative Action. Affirmative Discrimination.

His book, From Trial Court to the United States Supreme Court,
co-authored with William M. Connolly, Esq. (Brandoen Books, 1996)
was the subject of at least two complimentary law review articles:
(Suffolk University Law Review, Winter 1995, Vol. 39, No. 4;
and New England Law Review, Vol. 30, No. 3) and is carried in a
number of law libraries across the country.

From Trial Court to the United States Supreme Court was described
as:
"Riveting", National Law Journal --
"Masterful", Massachusetts Lawyer's Weekly --
"Informative", Journal of the Indiana Bar Association --
"Compelling", Bimonthly Review of Law Books --
"Engaging", AOB News --
"Superb", Prof. William F. Harvey, Carl M. Gray Professor of Law Indiana University School of Law --
"Spell-binding, a must read for lawyers and law student" Professor Charles E. Rounds, Suffolk University Law School --
"A remarkable story in American law", Professor Michael Mazzone, Adj. Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center --
"A small classic in its own right", Attorney Chester Darling --
"Fascinating", David Brudnoy, former WBZ talk radio host.

In writing this Report the Author, in addition to drawing on
his own experience and knowledge, consulted with attorneys
experienced in the areas of constitutional and agency law.

[ v ]

Report to the President
&
Committee on Rules & Administration

Table of Contents

Letter to the President
About the Author
Executive Summary ........................... Page 2
Overview & History .......................... Page 4
Form of government & methodology ............ Page 6
Case Summaries .............................. Page 8
Effect of Decisions ......................... Page 24
The importance of the city council's
internal exemption ...................... Page 26
A. Generally ............................ Page 27
B. The Historic basis for exemption...... Page 30
Remedial Responses .......................... Page 40
Proposed G.L. Affecting the
relationship between the executive and
legislative branches of government ...... Page 41
Political options ....................... Page 41
Addressing the Open Meeting Law ......... Page 43
Open Meeting Law changes necessary ...... Page 64
Proposed G.L. on Open Meeting Law
Option 1 ................................ Page 69
Option 2 ................................ Page 70
Option 3 ................................ Page 71
Open Meeting Law ........................ Page 72
Conclusions ................................. Page 76
A note about the salary ordinance ....... Page 78
Case Law .................................... Tabs 1-5
1821 Charter ................................ Tabs 6
1854 Charter Revisited ...................... Tab 7
1885 Charter, Shift of Executive Powers ..... Tab 8
1909 Charter, Consolidation of Power ........ Tab 9
1948 Plan A Charter Offered ................. Tab 10
1951 Charter Revisions, Council Exemption ... Tab 11
1910 Finance Commission Report .............. Tab 12
1909-1910 List of Incidental Expenses ....... Tab 13
Presentation of Charter History ............. Tab 14

[ vi ]

Report

...

4. Conclusions:

A review of the above legislative/executive cases unearths
a number of unwarranted restrictions on charter powers brought
about by a misreading of statutes and mislabeling of the city
of Boston charter as a "strong mayor/weak council" form of
government.

This Report points to a lack of understanding by the courts of
the history of how the city council and its central staff came
into being, as well a misunderstanding of how and why the
changes that occurred over the years actually strengthened the
city council's legislative had.

The 1885 charter^73, investing in the mayor the executive
powers of the city was a logical and sound administrative move,
as was the consolidation of executive powers found in the 1909
charter^74.

Neither of these charter revisions, however, invested in the
executive branch control, either directly or indirectly, over
the city council, its staff or the expenditure of its budget in
pursuance of its operational or legislative goals.

The language for such an audacious reading is made possible
only because the courts and to a lesser extent the city council
has allowed it.

Secondly, as noted previously, the city council has been
harmed by the judiciary's broad sweep of a legislator's right
to associate and advance his or here legislative agenda into
language that mandates that all meetings of governmental
bodies, such as boards, commissions, agencies and city council
meetings, be open to the public.

This Report has raised the issue and encourages further
examination into the law's impact, particularly as that law
grates against First Amendment speech protections and this
state's Art. XXI protections as well as federal guarantees
contained in both the First Amendment and
Art. s6 of the United States Constitution.

^73 Tab 8. 1885 Charter, Shift of Executive Powers

^74 Tab 9. 1909 Charter, Consolidation of Power

76

While this Report has focused almost exclusively on the
loss of legislative powers at the hands of both the judiciary
and the executive branch, it is ultimately in the hands of the
legislative branch to balance the scales, including Rules
changes that invest in committee chairs far greater control
over spending than they currently enjoy.

This Report, hopefully, has shown the way.

77

A note about the salary ordinance and the affect[sp?] it has had on
the City Council's internal functioning.

Salary levels for department and agencies, as well as staffing
levels, are not set by charter or city ordinance.

Salary levels are a function of the annual appropriation.

Curiously, the only municipal entity that lists its salary levels for
staff outside the annual appropriation is the Boston city Council --
a listing not called for by the charter, since once the central staff
was created as an internal operation, its staffing was ostensibly
exempted form mayoral influence or vote.

Even if the central staff was created pursuant to
c. 376 of the Acts of 1951, as amended, s17B
(The creation of offices to serve the city council);
and/or created pursuant to c. 452 of the Acts of 1948, s5
(The creation of departments), the filling of "positions"
on the city council's central staff, as noted elsewhere in this
Report, is not governed by "the making of employment contracts
on behalf of the city or county of Suffolk" as the courts
have interpreted they are under c.452 of the Acts of 1948, s17G,
and as further codified by c.376 of the Acts of 1951
(concerning making contracts or employment of labor on behalf
of the city of Suffolk County).

The central staff of the city council, as this Report has shown,
is governed rather by c.452 of the Acts of 1948, s8, as further
codified by c.376 of the Acts of 1951 s17G governing incidental
services that serve the city council.^75

In either case, once a budget is approved, the executive
and judicial branches' interest in its internal functioning
should stop as to who performs what functions.^76

^75 As noted earlier, the central staff of the city council is an
"incidental expense" of the city council. (See Tab 13
1909-1910 List of Incidental Expenses)

^76 Short of abandoning the practice of publishing its salaries
by ordinance, the city council could rewrite the ordinance,
and change the word "officer", replacing it with the word
"position", since the various positions on the central
staff are not in charge of departments to divisions of the city.

This would certainly clarify matters for future courts.

78

Once created, staffing is an internal matter and the annual
budget appropriation is the mayor's way (just as the courts
have said it was the city council's prerogative in reverse) to
control size.

One last word on salaries, the charter DOES speak to the
publishing of two salaries:
the mayor's and city councilors' salaries are fixed by ordinance:
c.376 of the Acts of 1951 s13A and 16 respectively, says that
these salaries shall be fixed by ordinance, and they are:
CBC, Ordinances 2-7.11; and GL c39 s6A says the city councilors'
salaries shall be set by ordinance, and they are:
CBD, Ordinances 2-8.1.

Staffing of positions is supposed to be part of an annual
appropriation process.

It is an internal decision of the city council, and is not
required to be in an ordinance, subjecting such positions to
mayoral veto, suggesting the executive even has a word on the
matter.

This Report recommends that the ordinance be abolished.

As noted in the Report, the courts have interpreted the
city council's willingness to submit its internal staffing
decisions to the mayor for his approval as proof of its
statutory dependence on the executive branch, and have read the
charter as requiring it, in part, because of the city council's
past practices.

The proposed General Law should effectively end that practice
and neutralize case law that made the practice a judicial
mandate.

Once the annual budget for the city council is passed, the
executive's interest in staffing, expenditures and job titles
should end.

The proposed use of the budget to bring greater balance to the
executive/legislative branches, while a less desirable route,
would likely result in the same "hands off" outcome.

In other words, opposition by the executive to the reasonable
changes sought in a new general law could be offset by the city
council tightening the budgetary strings it places on the
executive's authority to spend freely.

In closing, the legislative solutions offered in this
Report are merely attempts to demonstrate that the status quo
is not fixed in stone and all judicial decisions can be
addressed and fixed either by the state legislature, or
internally through a tightening of the Rules of the Council,
and greater budgetary control, should the city council feel
sufficiently aggrieved to do so.

An analysis of the city council Rules and recommended
changes, can be provided, as can a more detailed look at ways
to systemize the city charter and move the city away from a
"patchwork" of local, unconnected measures.
Respectfully submitted,
[ signature ]
Paul Joseph Walkowski
Special Project Assistant to the President and
Cammittee on Rules and Administration

80

A brief history of the charter and the city council's powers.

1821
After Boston incorporated as a city in 1821, the affairs of
the city were consolidated in the hands of the mayor, the
aldermen and city council.

"All ...powers now vested in the Town of Boston, shall be ...
vested in the Mayor and Aldermen, and Common Council."

An 8-member Board of Aldermen and Mayor functioned as the
executive of the city and a 48-member Common Council, with
separate powers, maintained care, custody and control over all
property.

The mayor administered the affairs of the city as a CEO.

1854
In 1854 the charter was amended, and the size of the
council was further extended.

The city had a mayor, a 12-member Board of Aldermen that
was responsible for the executive power of the city and
a 48-member Common Council.

"All executive powers ... are hereby vested in the Board of
Aldermen."

The legislative branch still held the powers of appointment and
making of contracts as well as the care, custody and management
of all public buildings.

The council levied taxes, appropriated and disbursed all monies
and was responsible for the sale and purchase of property.

Spending was subject to mayoral veto, but could be
overridden by 2/3rds vote of both chambers.

1885
In 1885 the charter was revised and all the executive
powers of the city were transferred to the mayor.

The Board of Aldermen retained confirmation power
and full control over its own affairs.

The one exception to the mayoral power of appointment was the
city council "exception" contained in Section 2, which said
that all the existing internal "departments" answerable to the
city council, as well as the employment of staff to fill those
departments, was retained by the city council.

The making of contracts and the employment of labor, powers
formerly residing with the council, were removed from the city
council and transferred to the mayor.

In 1885 the Clerk of Committees, City Messenger etc. were
all called "departments", and had their own staffs.

For example the Clerk of Committees had four employees and the
City Messenger had six.

All were part of the legislative branch of government.

1909
In the 1909 charter revisions, all the departments that
served the city council were abolished and more executive power
was consolidated under the mayor.

The employees working for the city council were listed as
incidental expenses and retained.

The city clerk's position was not among the changes, since it
existed by virtue of the charter itself.

The city council was reduced to 36 members, 9 of which were
elected at-large, serving 27 districts.

The charter reserved two very important exemptions from mayoral
control:
1. a provision exempting votes relating to the internal
operations of the city council and expenditures for its own
contingent and incidental expenses; and

2. a provision that clarified that the city council could not
expend money on behalf of the city or Suffolk County.

The addition of the words "on behalf of the city or
county of Suffolk" modified earlier language that prohibited
city council spending in the employment of labor.

The new language limited the power of the mayor to either
approve or disapprove spending by the city council for its
own contingent and incidental expenses.

1948
The 1948 was the charter that asked voters to adopt what
form of government they wanted.

The city council was reduced from 36 members to 9, with a 5
member school committee.

It did something else:
New language was included that said "None of the legislative
powers" enjoyed by the city council were affected by the
adoption of the new charter.

The charter of 1948 was referring to preexisting
legislative powers, since it conferred no new powers on the
city council.

Those powers:
to appoint and employ its own staff, and retain legal counsel
when it deemed it necessary for its own "contingent and
incidental" operation, as delineated in 1910 remained --
outside the power of the mayor to approve or disapprove.

1951
In 1951, the charter commission noticed that the language
exempting the internal affairs of the city council from mayoral
influence was omitted.

A reading of the charter commission report of that year shows
that there was some question whether the language was even
necessary; since it was assumed that the city council was a
separate branch of government.

Wisely, the charter commission decided to assume nothing, and
the prohibition of mayoral influence was included again.

Under the existing charter all the executive powers of the
city are invested in the mayor and the legislative powers of
the city are invested in the city council, which has the duty
to review the annual budget and the power to reduce or reject
any item in that budget as it deems appropriate.

Tab 14
Presentation of Charter History

by Edward Mason

2008-09-10T05:40:00.003-04:00

Secret society: City Council mulls end to open meetings
http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view/
2008_09_10_Secret_society:_City_Council_mulls_end_to_open_meetings

by Paul Walkowski

2008-09-09T01:18:00.007-04:00

email
paul.walkowski at cityofboston.gov
http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=paul+walkowski

Third remedy: constitutional

4. Remedial response to adverse judicial decisions interpreting
the state's Open Meeting Law.

Addressing Open Meeting Law:

With regard to the state's Open Meeting Law
GL c39 s23A and 23B the following is offered.^39

This Report examines in detail the operation of the state's
Open Meeting Law [copy of law on Pp 72--75 of this report]
and the impact this law has had on the city council and, as it
turns out, all legislative assemblies across the state.

An opinion is offered about the impact of the statute on
political speech and association and recommendations are
offered that suggest ways the law may be amended to address
these constitutional concerns.

The intent is to accurately explain the case law
surrounding the Speech or Debate Clause of the state and
federal constitutions, as well as the controlling issues
inherent in the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution.

The research is presented fairly, accurately and in context,
and with the goal of giving the city council a better
understanding of the degree of encroachment on protected
activities believed to have occurred.^40

____________________________________
^39 While the initial Open Meeting Law
c626 of the Acts of 1958 was of a general nature, referring to
boards, commissions and committees, a later revision to the law
c303 of the Acts of 1975 broadened the language of the Act to
include the various levels of government "however created or
constituted within the executive or legislative branch of the
commonwealth..."

The question of whether legislative committee meetings are open
to the public is not at issue.

Whether discussion between legislators outside the committee
setting most certainly is.

Nonetheless, this is the same language that is codified in
GL c39 Section 23A & B.

In all revisions of the law, the legislature stipulated that
the law "shall not include the general court or the committees
or recess commissions thereof, or bodies of the judicial
branch."

^40 While this Report has focused only on the state's
Open Meeting Law, a cursory review of the state's
Public Records Law suggests the same infirmity exists in its
drafting and application.
43

This Report concludes that there is sufficient cause to
reexamine the state's Open Meeting Law, both as written and as
applied, as the statute prohibits meetings, deliberations and
discussions from occurring between elected officials wishing to
exchange their views, concerns, strategies and/or suggestions
in private with one another, whether meeting as a committee
informally or individually in groups.

The constitutional issues raised by such a broad prohibition on
speech and political associations, imposed by the Open Meeting
Law, warrants that examination, for it is well-settled in law
that a statute should not be read in such a manner as to defeat
a constitutional privilege, but rather it must be read to avoid
that conflict.

It is the constitution, not the statute that
sets the parameters of its own limitations.

In this regard, it should be understood that what this
Report offers is an informed opinion "about" the law, not an
opinion "of law."

If, however, the conclusions of this Report are fairly
accurate, as this author believes they are, and the law is to
serve its intended purpose, the recommendations contained
herein, that the law be revisited, are worth considering.

Leaving it alone is not the answer, given the constitutional
frictions inherent in its drafting and across-the-board,
sweeping application.

The notion that there are no constitutional issues involved in
a statute that limits speech and prohibits political
associations to such an extent, is patently absurd.

As for methodology, a large part of this Report focuses on
the impact the state's Open Meeting Law has had on protected
First Amendment activities.

It also focuses on the impact of the statute on the
Deliberation, Speech and Debate Clause of Art. XXI of the
Declaration of Rights of our state and Art. I s6 of the
federal constitutions.

Because so few citizens know about or understand the reason for
Art. XXI, it might well be worth citing it at the outset.

The council will note that this Report weaves both First
Amendment and state constitutional and federal issues together,
since they are so closely intertwined.

Neither Art. XXI, nor the state's Open Meeting Law, should be
read to defeat or
44

overly burden the free speech clause of the First Amendment or
the numerous ancillary rights protected by that Amendment.

Indeed, the "deliberations," "speech" and "debate" clause
should be read in harmony with the speech guarantees of the
First Amendment.

As for our state constitution, Art. XXI reads as follows:

The freedom of deliberation, speech and debate,
in either house of the legislature, is so
essential to the rights of the people, that it
cannot be the foundation of any accusation or
prosecution, action or complaint in any other
court or place whatsoever.

With these 43 words the constitutional Famers[sp.] sought
to ensure that legislators would not face either civil or
criminal prosecution for the lawful exercise of their
constitutional duties as elected representatives.

We pay particular attention to the words of the Article:
NOTHING in a legislator's "deliberations," "speech," or
"debate," can be "the foundation for ANY accusation or
prosecution, action or complaint.^41

What do these words mean?

In the first case to reach the Supreme Court of the
United States regarding the federal Speech or Debate Clause,
Kilbourn v. Thompson 103 US 168 (1880) the nation's highest
court pointed to a decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts interpreting the reach of the Deliberation,
Speech and Debate

____________________________________
^41 It should be noted that the federal guarantees included in
Art. 1 s6 of the United States Constitution applies to states
and local governing bodies as well.

Hence, the rights described in this Report are both federal and
state rights.

The Supreme Court of the United States has defined the clause
this way:

"The Speech or Debate Clause was designed to assure a co-equal
branch of government wide freedom of speech, debate, and
deliberation without intimidation or threats from the
Executive Branch.

It thus protects Members against prosecutions that directly
impinge upon or threaten the legislative process."
United States v. Gravel 408 US 606, 616 (1972)

"Indeed, the Speech or Debate Clause was designed to preclude
prosecution of Members for legislative acts.

The Clause protects against inquiry into acts that occur in
the regular course of the legislative process and into the
motivation for those acts.

It precludes any showing of how a legislator acted, voted or
decided."
United States v. Helsioski 442 US 447, 489 (1979)

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has also enumerated
the state protections in the seminal case of
Coffin v. Coffin 4 Mass 1 (1808) and this Report will go into
greater detail about that decision throughout.
45

[ more...]

4. Conclusions:

A review of the above legislative/executive cases unearths
a number of unwarranted restrictions on charter powers brought
about by a misreading of statutes and mislabeling of the city
of Boston charter as a "strong mayor/weak council" form of
government.

This Report points to a lack of understanding by the courts of
the history of how the city council and its central staff came
into being, as well a misunderstanding of how and why the
changes that occurred over the years actually strengthened the
city council's legislative had.

The 1885 charter^73, investing in the mayor the executive
powers of the city was a logical and sound administrative move,
as was the consolidation of executive powers found in the 1909
charter^74.

Neither of these charter revisions, however, invested in the
executive branch control, either directly or indirectly, over
the city council, its staff or the expenditure of its budget in
pursuance of its operational or legislative goals.

The language for such an audacious reading is made possible
only because the courts and to a lesser extent the city council
has allowed it.

Secondly, as noted previously, the city council has been
harmed by the judiciary's broad sweep of a legislator's right
to associate and advance his or here legislative agenda into
language that mandates that all meetings of governmental
bodies, such as boards, commissions, agencies and city council
meetings, be open to the public.

This Report has raised the issue and encourages further
examination into the law's impact, particularly as that law
grates against First Amendment speech protections and this
state's Art. XXI protections as well as federal guarantees
contained in both the First Amendment and
Art. s6 of the United States Constitution.

____________________________________
^73 Tab 8.

^74 Tab 9.
76

While this Report has focused almost exclusively on the
loss of legislative powers at the hands of both the judiciary
and the executive branch, it is ultimately in the hands of the
legislative branch to balance the scales, including Rules
changes that invest in committee chairs far greater control
over spending than they currently enjoy.

This Report, hopefully, has shown the way.
77

Report presented by
Paul.Walkowski at cityofboston.gov
that includes
"Remedial response to adverse judicial decisions interpreting
the state's Open Meeting Law"...
is available by email
paul.walkowski at cityofboston.gov
or
maureen.feeney at cityofboston.gov
or from your favorite City Councilor
at
http://cityofboston.gov/citycouncil

Reference
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/
2008/09/03/in_shadow_of_mayor_city_council_rethinks_its_clout/

2008-08-19T05:59:00.000-04:00

by John C. Drake jdrake at globe.com
The Globe received payroll records for the City Council through a
public records request, and obtained copies of docket orders from the
city clerk showing regular and temporary salaries approved by the
council.

Those dockets, which are often introduced as late-filed
motions, are not included in the packet of weekly council meeting
documents regularly made available to the public and the press, nor do
the details of the payments appear on council agendas or minutes.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/
articles/2008/08/19/bonuses_boost_council_staff_pay/

2008-08-04T15:34:00.003-04:00

by Raymond P. Ausrotas
http://www.wickedlocal.com/cambridge/news/
x2043522362/Guest-commentary-It-isn-t-easy-being-a-green-room

2008-06-27T16:08:00.001-04:00

by John Ruch
Court blasts City Council secrecy
http://jamaicaplaingazette.com/node/2841

2008-06-26T07:00:00.003-04:00

colman herman called !
http://www.necn.com/
Boston/New-England/Bay-States-ticket-reselling-law/1213145811.html

Only one Councilor during proceedings. Boston City Council. Does it violate the spirit of Sunshine open public meetings principles?

2008-06-24T04:02:00.010-04:00

Does it violate the spirit of Sunshine open public meetings principles?

Proceedings and transactions of our Boston City Council
appear to be a sham.
For example, here's a Boston Finance Commission Budget Hearing so called before our Council's
Ways and Means Committee chair Councilor Stephen Murphy
http://www.cityofboston.gov/citycouncil/cc_video_library.asp?id=503

Only one Councilor !

References
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/39-23b.htm

Open Meeting Law and Public Records Law
Lorraine Tarrow, Assistant Attorney General
General Counsel’s Office
Office of Attorney General Martha Coakley
http://www.mma.org/
index.php?option=com_events&task=view_detail
&agid=203&year=2008&month=06&day=21&Itemid=47

2008-06-20T18:59:00.000-04:00

https://wikifoia.pbwiki.com/Massachusetts

2008-06-20T10:39:00.002-04:00

http://listserv.syr.edu/archives/foi-l.html

http://openrecords.wordpress.com/
http://wikifoia.pbwiki.com/
http://www.sunshinereviewblog.com/
http://thefhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifoiablog.typepad.com/
http://sunshineboston.blogspot.com

http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html

failure of the Boston Finance Commission to comply... Commission meeting minutes.

2008-06-18T15:11:00.001-04:00

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth
Public Records Division
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/arc/arcrmu/rmuidx.htm

Alan N. Cote
Supervisor of Records
email
pre at sec.state.ma.us

June 13, 2006
SPR08/026

The Honorable Martha Coakley
Attorney General of the Commonwealth
One Ashburton Place, 20th Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02108

Dear Attorney General Coakley:

I am hereby notifying you of the failure of the Boston Finance
Commission (Commission) to comply with my April 24, 2008 order to
provide Commission meeting minutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boston_Finance_Commission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Finance_Commission

This office has found that the requested records are public and
subject to mandatory disclosure. See Letter Determination of the
Supervisor of Public Records, SPR08/026 (April 24, 2008).

If the custodian refuses or fails to comply with any such order,
the Supervisor of Public Records may notify the Attorney General who
may take whatever measures she deems necessary to insure compliance.
See G. L. c. 66, s 10(b) (2006 ed.)
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagotopic&L=2&L0=Home&L1=Government&sid=Cago

Enclosed please find a copy of my order as well as relevant
materials from the case file. I respectfully request that you review
this matter and take whatever measures you deem necessary for its
resolution.

Very truly yours,
Alan N. Cote
Supervisor of Records
email
pre at sec.state.ma.us

One Ashburton Place, 17th Floor, Room 1719
Boston Massachusetts 02108
617 727-2832
Fax 617 727-5914
http://mass.gov/sec/arc/arcrmu/rmuidx.htm

[ image. Arms of the Commonwealth. ]
ENSE PETIT PLACIDAM SVB LIBERTATE QVIETEM
http://www.netstate.com/states/mottoes/ma_motto.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Seal_of_the_State_of_Massachusetts.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_Massachusetts

2008-04-26T16:12:00.033-04:00

ENSE PETIT PLACIDAM SVB LIBERTATE QVIETEM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Massachusetts

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth
Public Records Division

Alan N. Cote
Supervisor of Records
pre at sec.state.ma.us

One Ashburton Place, 17th Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
617 727-2832
fax 617 727-5914
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/arc/arcrmu/rmuidx.htm

April 24, 2008
SPR08/026

Mr. Jeff Conley
Boston Finance Commission
152 North Street
Boston MA 02113
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Finance_Commission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boston_Finance_Commission
jeff.conley at cityofboston.gov

Dear Mr. Conley:

I have received a petition appealing the response of the Boston
Finance Commission (Commission) to a January 15, 2008 public records
request. G. L. c. 66, s 10(b) (2006 ed.) (Supervisor of Public
Records has authority to resolve public records appeals);
see also 950 C.M.R. 32.08(2) (appeal process).
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prepdf/pubreclaw.pdf
Specifically requested Commission meeting minutes.

"Public records" is broadly defined to include all documentary
materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics,
made or received by any officer or employee of any town of the
Commonwealth, unless falling within a statutory exemption.
G. L. c. 4, s 7(26) (2006 ed.)
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prepdf/pubreclaw.pdf

Governmental bodies are required to keep
accurate written minutes of all of their meetings. G. L. c. 66, s 5A.
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prepdf/pubreclaw.pdf

It is consistent with the underlying policy behind both the Open
Meeting Law and the Public Records Law that these minutes must be made
readily accessible to the public.
See G. L. c. 39, s 23B;
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/39-23b.htm
G. L. c. 66, s 10(a).
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/66-10.htm

While a records custodian may assess a fee for the provision of public
records, the fee charged should not serve as a deterrent for the
requestor to access public records. See Globe Newspaper Co.
v. Boston Retirement Bd., 388 Mass. 427, 436 (1983).
http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/388/388mass427.html

Minutes of meetings should be provided without delay at a
minimum cost, if any.

This office encourages records custodians to waive fees associated
with the provision of meeting minutes given that disclosure is
incontrovertibly in the public interest.

You are hereby ordered to release the responsive minutes in
accordance with this determination. Accordingly, I will consider this
matter closed.
Very truly yours,
Alan N. Cote
Supervisor of Records
pre at sec.state.ma.us
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/arc/arcrmu/rmuidx.htm

_______________________________________________________________
compiled by Peter Kurilecz
Jon Quandt
Doug Allen
Gary M. Link
Steven Whitaker
Stephen Cohen
Chris Browne
Tod Chernikoff
RAIN Records and Archives in the News
at
RECMGMT-L Archives - April 2008, week 4
http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
or at
Archives and Archivists List
http://forums.archivists.org/read/?forum=archives

Blueprints, Lost Land, Ephemera Archive,
Copperas cove, WEB 2.0 Liability (237 lines)
Peter Kurilecz
RAIN 20080420
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008

Rare Photos, Winning thousands, Tiger Lost,
Email archiving, LongTermStorage (288 lines)
Peter Kurilecz
RAIN 20080422
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008

Grateful Dead Archive, Email Challenge, Donation Helps,
Data Missing, Idled Computers (243 lines)
Peter Kurilecz
RAIN 20080424
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008

Clash Archivist, Reel Archives, Lost Silent Films,
Hannaford IT Security, Stasi (353 lines)
Peter Kurilecz
RAIN 20080426
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008
http://forums.archivists.org/read/?forum=archives
Archives and Archivists List

Texas Coverup Is Latest FAA Black Eye (35 lines)
RAINDrop:
Jon Quandt
Allen, Doug
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008

University Records "Trustworthy" (33 lines)
RAINDrop:
Link, Gary M.
Steven Whitaker
Stephen Cohen
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008

WAS YOUR LENDINGTREE FILE HACKED? (31 lines)
RAINDrop:
Chris Browne
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008

Washington Post - In the Loop -
Wacky Canadians Still Believe in Privacy (A bit OT) (29 lines)
RAINDrop:
Tod Chernikoff
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008
http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
RECMGMT-L Archives - April 2008, week 4

________________________________________________________________

2008-04-03T11:06:00.004-04:00

.

Please call back if you're the student in journalism that called...

.

http://SunshineWeek.org

2008-03-30T05:33:00.001-04:00

http://SunshineWeek.org

Report A Violation
http://www.maopengov.org/

2008-01-25T22:02:00.001-05:00

_ _ _ _ Sent-From: jeff.conley at cityofboston.gov _ _ _ _
> Don - You are a piece of work there Mr S -- they must love
> you at the Sec of State's Office. The minutes of the last
> meeting of the Commission are not yet approved - when they
> are approved they will be available to the public. It may
> take a day or two as we have two employees with no
> secretarial help. We won't charge you this time for the
> cost to the taxpayers - nor did we the last time - but in
> fairness to Boston taxpayers and in compliance with the
> law - we will the next time.

Sent-To: The Honorable William Francis Galvin pre at sec.state.ma.us
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008

The Honorable William Francis Galvin
Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/arc/arcrmu/rmuidx.htm

Dear Secretary Galvin,

Please arrange for me to read the minutes of the Boston Finance
Commission...

_ _ _ _ _ COPY _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Sent-To: jeff.conley at cityofboston.gov
Subject: Please send the minutes of the Boston Finance Commission's last public meeting...
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008

Jeffrey W. Conley, Boston Finance Commission
Massachusetts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boston_Finance_Commission
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Finance_Commission

Dear Jeffrey W. Conley,

By email please send the minutes of the
Boston Finance Commission's last public meeting...