Left In Lowell

Tuesday’s City Council meeting was uneventful for the most part. That is until the end when CC Mike Lenzi asked for “suspension of the rules” so that he can introduce a motion, asking the City Manager to let the CC know when the Stoklosa School “report” be made public. This parliamentary procedure should be used only in those situations where the action cannot wait a week or so until the next meeting. But this CC, as previous CCs, is undisciplined and allows this violation to continue.

The public has the right to know what will be discussed at CC meetings that is why the agenda is posted on Friday afternoon. It is unfair to residents as well as the Administration and other CC members when a Councilor is allowed to skirt the rules. It is one thing to ask for suspension so that a parking sign can be put up, but to bring a motion on a complicated matter like the Stoklosa School legal issue, that is not acceptable. This could have waited until next week.

You may ask what prompted this motion. My guess is last Friday’s Sun editorial where once again, the paper cried the blues because mean Bernie won’t release the “report.” But this time, the state’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled that yes, a municipality has the right to keep some information private if it is deemed to fall under “client-attorney privilege.”

We all know that there is at least one individual on the paper’s staff that has heard an interpretation of what the report states. As we recall, last fall the Sun published information that was obtained when an unidentified CC member violated the rules of Executive Session.

Once the motion was introduced, a discussion ensued and City Solicitor Christine O’Connor explained what is happening and why the “report” will remain private until our legal options are determined. You can read CM Lynch’s response to the Sun editorial in today’s letter-to-the-editor. The CM gives the background history on the “report” and states:

To date the city and the architectural firm, DRA Inc., have met once in mediation to try to resolve this matter, but further discussion was put off until the completion of all construction items, which occurred in the fall of 2007. Both parties have served written demands upon each other; and in November the city served DRA with a draft multicount complaint. It should be noted that neither party has yet filed suit, in the hopes that this matter may be fully and finally resolved without the expense of litigation.

I am all in favor of a mediated settlement as opposed to a long drawn out trial with suits and countersuits.

And as for CC Lenzi’s motion, the Councilors will meet again in Executive Session so that the Solicitor and the City Manager can update everyone. I certainly hope this time, the discussion remains private.