Today in Suffolk Superior Court, room 304, Judge Connolly presiding, the Open Meeting Law case started.
Because the burden of proof is on the defendants to prove their innocence, they present their evidence first. This is different from typical law because the framers of the statute understood that the public is at a disadvantage about knowing what goes on if people are not meeting in the prescribed manner of Open Meetings.
Councilor Feeney was the first witness called. She explained how she changed the pay categories and the pay scales for a large number of municipal employees on her own without speaking to the Mayor or any other councilor or anyone else. According to her, no councilors asked her any questions or requested information and no questions were asked of her at the Boston City Council meeting on May 3, 2006 when the pay raises for the council, the mayor and a large number of city workers were approved in 6 minutes.
Councilor Turner was the second witness. His testimony was short.
Tomorrow, defense counsel has informed the court that Councilors Murphy, Ross and Flaherty will take the stand.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
_ _ Boston City Clerk R. Salerno said... _ _
> The Mayor signed off on the amended
> categories thereby giving his
> approval! If he had disapproved he
> would have returned it with his
> veto. It came back with his
> signature. The vote on the matter was
> then taken in the Council's
> public meeting.
If the ONLY thing that was necessary for a committee report to come before the entire council was the Mayor's consent, then why does the Boston City Council even exist? Honestly, why even have Rules if they make no difference at all. Rule 24 and Rule 35 of the Boston City Council describes how a bill comes before the entire city council and no matter how many times I read these rules, I can find nothing that makes the Mayor a participant in the process until AFTER the vote is taken and the bill is sent to him for approval or veto.
Post a Comment