NA_CityCouncil_07262011

NORTH ADAMS, Mass. — This year's municipal election could see a significant turnover on the City Council with at least three veteran councilors not running for re-election

With a deadline to submit papers only three weeks away, only three current council members have so far taken out papers: Lisa Blackmer, Keith Bona and David Bond.

Council President Ronald A. Boucher has taken out papers for the corner office. Boucher has gone back and forth on whether to run for mayor, announcing just a couple weeks ago on his public-access show that he'd decided against a run.

Mayor Richard J. Alcombright announced his intention to run for a second term in April. The North Adams Transcript reported on Thursday that former Mayor John Barrett III may also throw his hat into the ring.

Councilor Marie Harpin said she has not yet decided whether to try for an eighth term but a number of constituents have asked her to run. Councilor David Lamarre, who was appointed to complete the term of Gailanne Cariddi after her election to the Legislature, said he has not ruled out another run. Longtime Councilor Alan Marden is said to be weighing a decision.

Another veteran councilor and several-times president, Michael Bloom, said he probably will not run and wants to spend more time with his family. Councilor Michael Boland informed us Thursday morning that he "will not be running for council again."

Two newcomers have already returned papers: Kellie A. Morrison and Robert Cardimino. Cardimino has been a frequent critic of the council and the mayor since the 2009 election.

Those who have taken out papers but have not returned them yet are: Catherine Chaput, a Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts student; James B. Gyurasz; former Councilor Diane M. Gallese-Parsons; and Roland G. Gardner.

Taking out papers for School Committee are Leonard Giroux Jr. and Tara J. Jacobs. George Canales has taken out papers for the McCann School Committee.

The deadline to return nomination papers with the signatures of 50 registered voters to the city clerk's office is Tuesday, Aug. 9, at 5 p.m.

This post will be regularly updated as more information becomes available.

Editor's Note: Mark Trottier of North Adams read this statement aloud as an agenda item at the North Adams City Council meeting on Tuesday, July 12, 2011. Mr. Trottier expressed concern over what he felt was the inappropriate silencing of a citizen's right to express himself at a council meeting last month. Because of the length of his statement and the number of inquiries we received about it, we asked him permission to post it in full as a guest column. We have added links to the court cases he cited.

I am not a expert on Constitution issues, nor an attorney, or even a speaker, just a average citizen who believes that "two wrongs don't make a right."

I am not here to defend anyone, nor chastise any councilor regarding there remarks or actions, I think you all can do this very well on your own. There is nothing that I'm going to say that's not already a part of the record, I just want a level playing field under the law, and for all of you to think outside of the box.

After watching the last few meetings on TV, I have come to the conclusion that some of the councilors are "Out of Order" and a pattern of actions are taking place again & again, This matter was put to bed earlier this year but the old boy network is back again.

The public must respect the council and the councilors must respect the public's opinion, and work with them.

The City Council operates under two types of public forums, one being a designated public forum where the government designates certain types of subject matters on there agenda, with vigorous debates back and forth on the subjects by councilors; the public must be silent, and doesn't have a right to disrupt the councilors, it is their arena. At the end of each subject, the council president looks to the gallery for any comments from the public and may recognize a citizen to speak; there again, it's still their arena and rules, the council may impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech as long as those restrictions are content-neutral and are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.

In other words, the government could impose a 15-minute time limit on all participants as long as it did not selectively apply the rule to certain speakers, or it would violate the First Amendment.

Now when it comes to the "Public Comment or Open Forum" time for citizen commentary on issues, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals explained in its 1990 decision White v. City of Norwalk: "Citizens have a enormous First Amendment interest in directing speech about public issues to those who govern their city."

These meetings, particularly the "Open Forum" period, are at the very least a limited public forum, during which free-speech rights receive heightened protection.

An Ohio Appeals court refused to dismiss the lawsuit of an individual who sued city officials after being thrown out of a city commission meeting for wearing a "ninja mask." In City of Dayton v. Esrati (1997)http://is.gd/XcTGe9, the Ohio Appeals court reasoned that the individual wore the mask to convey his dissatisfaction with the commission. "The government may not impose viewpoint-based restrictions on expression in a limited public forum."

In the 1964, U.S Supreme Court decision New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Justice Brennan wrote "the question before us is whether this rule of liability, as applied to an action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct, abridges the freedom of speech and of the press that is guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

"The general proposition that freedom of expression upon public questions is secured by the First Amendment has long been settled by our decisions. The constitutional safeguard, we have said, 'was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.'

"The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that change may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system, and this opportunity is to be afforded for 'vigorous advocacy' no less than 'abstract discussion' ...

"That erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that it must be protected if the freedom of expression are to have the 'Breathing Space' that they 'need ... to survive' ...

"The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with "Actual Malice" - that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not ...

"We conclude that such a privilege is required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments."

In Edwards v. South Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction of protesting students, "saying that the First Amendment does not permit a state to make criminal the peaceful expression of unpopular views.'"

The June 14 meeting was a travesty of justice. A citizen was granted the floor by council president during the designated public forum. He stated he believed that the council violated the state law regarding the vote and would "check it out with the state tomorrow"; after, a councilor criticized him by trying to use the "bully-pulpit" on him, by saying "Quiet," he hopes you would tell the state about your "Vote No on Prop 2 1/2 shirt and sign that was brought into the chambers against our wishes." Please councilor, you know that this is perfectly legal, as long as one doesn't "Disrupt or Disturb the council."

I only used this as an as example, it's a citizens' right to speak out on issues. And work with his elected officials for the betterment of the community.

Unfortunately, many situations arise in which citizens are silenced because of the content of their speech or because they have disagreed previously with government officials. This raises the specter of censorship. Government officials may not silence speech because it criticizes them. They may not open a "Public Comment" period up to other topics and then carefully pick and choose which topics they want to hear. They may not even silence someone because they consider him a gadfly or a troublemaker.

It is equally clear that council concerns and interests in proscribing public commentary cannot outweigh the public's fundamental right to engage in "Robust Public Discourse on these Issues." When the government decides to offer a "Public Comment" period at an open meeting, it provides that citizens may exercise their First Amendment rights. The government may not silence speakers on the basis of their viewpoint or the content of their speech. The government must live up to the values embodied in the First Amendment.

This is America, we live in a free country where one has a right to question and debate their public officials at any time.

The council might use Robert's Rules of Order, intended to be adopted as a parliamentary authority for use by a deliberative assembly, but also must apply some common sense.

My information came from, First Amendment Center, The Library of Congress, The Ohio Appeals Court, The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. And a little common sense.

I Thank You.

NORTH ADAMS, Mass. — Big Shirl's Kitchen was given the go-ahead to allow its customers to bring in their own beer and wine but the City Council will be looking at ways to regulate the practice.

The council on Tuesday referred a request to create an ordinance related to customers bringing their own beer or wine to dining establishments to the General Government Committee. The issue was brought to the council by Mayor Richard Alcombright on behalf of big Shirl's owners Renee and Mark Lapier.

The Lapiers have recently extended their hours to offer dinner and want to allow BYOB, or "bring your own bottle." The city solicitor said the practice is legal and the License Commission said it does not fall under its purview. The state Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission limits BYOB to eating establishments that do not have alcohol licenses.

NORTH ADAMS, Mass. — The City Council on Tuesday night authorized the transfer of $786,441.46 from a number of departments to close out the city's books for fiscal 2011.

The amounts ranged from $2,627 from the wire and alarm account to $225,000 from the School Department to balance the books in other accounts, including significant overruns in police ($264,000) and fire ($180,279) salaries because of overtime, disabilities and four officers away at academy.

"It is lengthy but no different than any other year," said Mayor Richard Alcombright of the number of transfers. "This is required to be done by July 15."

The mayor told the council that he had kept the Finance Committee informed of existing overruns, which included a significant deficit in the veterans service account that required a $164,000 transfer from free cash, emptying that account

"While we have overruns due to spending increases in school and city departments, we were able to hold back in many areas," he said. "We're fortunate that with exception of free cash transferred two weeks ago and a $50,000 order you will see coming next from reserves, we were able to cover all other expenses in this year's budget despite a $400,000 shortfall in local receipts."

Councilor Lisa Blackmer questioned the small amount — $4,198.36 — transferred from the tourism department considering the director had left in March. Alcombright, after confirming with Business Manager Nancy Ziter, said that account, like a number of others, had not been emptied.

All unexpended funds from each fiscal year are rolled over into free cash once the books are certified by the Department of Revenue.

Among the brighter spots was an excess of $105,000 that could be transferred from the Water Department because of savings in taking over the water filtration plant.

"The cost savings we projected were somewhere in the $30,000 to $40,000 range and after [Public Works Commissioner Timothy Lescarbeau] did some analysis, it was closer to $70,000 to $75,000 that we saved," said the mayor.

The council also approved a $50,000 transfer from the landfill reserve account to the Department of Public Safety's trash removal service account as a "buffer" in case unanticipated bills come in. If nothing comes in, the money will fall into free cash.

Resident Robert Cardimino asked how much was left in the city reserves. Alcombright said there was zero in the free cash account after the last transfer; about $310,000 in the stabilization and, after the transfer, $212,000 in the combined landfill and parking meter reserve accounts.

The mayor said he expected to dip into the reserves to help in balancing the fiscal 2012 budget. Last year, the city used some $1.2 million from what was left in the land sale account to balance the fiscal 2011 budget.

"There was not a lot in there but we just found out today that about $75,000 more is coming our way in state aid," he said, adding the passage of the state budget this week also holds up hope for more funds from some $65 million targeted to local aid.

Meanwhile, the deficit has been cut from more than $1 million to $404,000. The mayor expects to present the Plan B budget at the next meeting.

In other business:

• The council approved the rappointment of Pearl Mullett to the Housing Authority and the appointment of Ross Jacobs, an alternate on the Zoning Board, to complete the term of permanent member Ernest Gamache and for Gregory Roach to fill out Jacobs' term, both terms ending next year.

• Approved a request by Ernest Dix of Clarksburg to connect to the city's water system.

• Heard a statement in open forum by Mark Trottier addressing the importance of allowing residents to speak to the council.

• A request from Big Shirl's Kitchen owners Renee and Mark Lapier to allow their establishment to offer "bring your own bottle."

North Adams 2011 Budget Adjustments