The council approved a nearly $4.5 million construction bid from S.D. Ireland and a total project cost of $5.8 million on Monday. The city cut approximately $500,000 from the park plan leading up to Monday’s meeting, and posted updated documents explaining the changes at 6:44 pm.
Wayne Senville, who has been fighting the park plan, wrote to the assistant city attorney Justin St. James Tuesday, saying he believed the city council violated the state open meeting law at Monday’s meeting by not providing a reasonable opportunity for the public to examine the plan.
“It was clearly insufficient to provide any reasonable opportunity for review of these documents before the 7:30 pm Public Forum when public comments on any Agenda items needed to be made,” Senville wrote.
Senville alleged that the city violated the section of the law stating that “At an open meeting, the public shall be given a reasonable opportunity to express its opinion on matters considered by the public body during the meeting, as long as order is maintained.”
St. James contested Senville’s claims.
“Our office unequivocally believes there is no open meeting law violation,” he said.
St. James said that the city goes above and beyond the open meeting law in providing supporting documentation.
“I think to say that the public was not given an opportunity to express its opinion on the reconstruction of City Hall Park, I don’t believe that’s a valid legal claim,” St. James said.
Councilor Max Tracy was the sole vote against the council’s decision that it hadn’t violated open meeting laws. He said that he did not believe the public had adequate time with the information to digest it and form thoughtful comments about it.
“I think that, to me, is incredibly unfortunate because I think it opened the door to more questions about a process which has already been incredibly controversial and divisive,” he said.
Councilor Jane Knodell said that there was a thorough review of the cuts at the Board of Finance meeting before the meeting, and that the council heard comments on some of those cuts during the public forum.
“I fail to understand why we have a violation, we all know in the workings of the council, and in a representative democracy, all citizens are important, but not everyone’s roles are the same,” she said. “Elected officials have different roles in a representative democracy, and unless that is observed, we are going to have a paralysis in government.”
Councilor Joan Shannon said the cuts were an effort to be responsive to the public’s needs and concerns, and that the council had to have the right to make amendments during its meetings.
“We cannot both be responsive to the public and not allow ourselves to make amendments on the floor that have not been publicly warned,” she said.
The park renovation has been an ongoing controversy in the city, with a citizen group, Keep the Park Green, vigorously fighting it. The group opposed the plan on the grounds that it includes cutting fully-grown trees and increases the amount of pavement in the park.
Mayor Miro Weinberger and other supporters of the plan believe it will breathe new life into the park by planting new trees, shrubs and grasses while making the park more accessible.
Keep the Park Green collected more than 3,000 signatures on a petition asking the council to put an advisory question about the park on the March Town Meeting Day ballot, but the council decided not to put the issue on the ballot in a 6-6 vote.
Senville could file a lawsuit appealing the decision, but said he did not know whether or not he would do so. He said he was disappointed in the council’s decision.
“I think the public comments would have been a lot different and a lot more useful to the city council if people knew what was going on,” he said.
