From today's Daily News:
Newburyport notebook: Council to again discuss landfill, possible lawsuit
By Stephen Tait
Staff Writer
(edited down to remove all the historical references)
The City Council scheduled another special meeting this week to continue its strategy for dealing with the embattled Crow Lane Landfill.
Mayor John Moak and James Shanley, the council president, said the meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. Wednesday at City Hall. Much of the meeting, the men said, will be in executive session for councilors to meet with city solicitor Mark Rich about a potential lawsuit stemming from the landfill, which is owned by New Ventures.
"We plan to discuss our strategy as regards to litigation," Shanley said.
It is unclear when the City Council, which must accept the proposal, will vote on the matter.
Wednesday's meeting will also include a public hearing aspect in which residents will get the opportunity to speak against or in favor of the proposal. Shanley said the meeting is designed to allow the council to move closer to a vote.
Me:
OK, first, Ron K. sent a notice around this morning that members of the public who wish to speak DO need to sign up first.
Second, I like Shanley's comment about strategy as regards to litigation.
Again, the rule on executive sessions:
Discussions concerning strategy with respect to ongoing litigation obviously fits within this purpose, but again only if an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the governmental body. Discussions relating to proposed litigation are not covered by this excemption unless that litigation is clearly and imminently threatened.21 That a person is represented by counsel and supports a position adverse to the governmental body's does not mean litigation is imminently threatened. Nor does the fact that a newspaper reports a party has threatened to sue mean imminent litigation.
Note: A governmental body's discussions with town counsel do not automatically fall under this or any other exception.
I guess you could say that litigation has been clearly and imminently threatened ... I'm not sure any has been threatened, except by the city (to fight the demand for cost-sharing from New Ventures) ... but what strategy? Either there is a document someone signed on behalf of the city accepting responsibility for cleaning up the sludge dumped at the site, or there is not.
If there is, isn't litigation kind of a waste of time and money? Again, if this contract does exist and it is valid, what strategy is there to talk about? This new deal New Ventures is proposing isn't going to let the city off the hook for the sludge in any case.
So again, I'm not clear on the need for an executive session, unless it's to discuss potential litigation from landfill-area residents. Now THAT makes sense to me.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Gillian,
I think there are lots of unsettled issues. Is the city's acceptance of responsibility transferrable ? A contract concering illegal activities (illegal dumping) is not enforceable. That's why lawyers and executive sessions exist.
Bubba,
None of those things you mention relate to "imminent" threat of litigation. I've looked back, and nowhere is there any threat of litigation, only an implied threat about a contract accepting responsibility that they are not releasing the city from anyway, and which you are saying is not enforceable.
I do not recall ever seeing in writing from the New Ventures people that they were going to sue the city about this. That's what the mayor said, and the Daily News said, and Jim Stiles called the DN on overstating the case, in his recent letter to the editor.
New Ventures has been demanding the city share in, or rather, bear almost the entire cost of, cleaning up the site based on the contract. And whatever the city decides about the host city agreement, they are not releasing the city from that liability.
So again - Where's the imminent litigation over the amended HCA they are discussing strategy for?
If I correctly understand Robert's Rules of Orders, the City Council was supposed to take up the landfill issues which were "continued" from the prior session.
Yet, at the last council meeting, when someone rose during the public comment period allegedly to speak on the landfill, James Shanley told the man he couldn't speak of any issue not on the agenda.
Looks that way to me, too, Ari. Under Roberts Rules, they should have taken the matter up at their next meeting, which would have been last Monday's regular meeting.
Why not threaten New Ventures with a class action suit from all the residents with health issues and then ask them to prove it is NOT them?
Post a Comment