A complaint was filed on June 18 by City Council candidate Stephen C. Dondley who charged that Councilor David Flaherty deliberately violated the state’s open meeting laws.
WESTFIELD – The office of the state attorney general has ruled that a city councilor violated Massachusetts' open meeting law in June when he sent correspondence to his council colleagues through their personal email accounts regarding an ongoing budget issue.
David A. Flaherty The council acknowledged the lapse by Councilor David Flaherty during its regular meeting last week when the violation was made public.
A complaint was filed on June 18 by City Council candidate Stephen C. Dondley, who charged that Flaherty deliberately violated the state’s open meeting laws.
In his complaint to the state, Dondley wrote, “Councilor Flaherty sent a deliberative email with a subject of ‘Re: Finance Committee Recommended Budget Cuts’ to nine Westfield city councilors’ private email addresses and one city councilor’s public email.”
In the email, Dondley said, Flaherty expressed his opinion on Mayor Daniel M. Knapik’s proposed fiscal year 2014 budget, as well as that of the council.
“I believe this was an intentional violation of the law,” Dondley said. “With the exception of Brian Winters, who is new to the body, it appears that Councilor Flaherty was careful to send this email using private email addresses instead of the councilors’ public email addresses.”
Assistant City Solicitor Shanna R. Reed notified City Council President Brian Sullivan in a letter dated Aug. 23 that Jonathan Sclarsic, a lawyer with the state Attorney General’s office, supported Dondley’s complaint.
“The Attorney General’s office has concluded that there was in fact a violation of the Open Meeting Law as the document distributed by Councilor Flaherty and the corresponding email is considered deliberation within the meaning of the statute,” Reed wrote.
In rendering his decision, Sclarsic also said the attorney general’s office recognized Flaherty’s attempt to rectify the situation when he made the document public soon after Dondley raised the issue.
“The Attorney General’s office does recognize the effort of the City Council and Councilor Flaherty as to making the document public as soon as the possible violation was brought to their attention, but does request that the Council acknowledge that all such communications are considered deliberations and in the future will take care not to discuss such communications outside of a properly posted, open meeting,” Reed stated.
In his June 18 complaint, Dondley asked that Flaherty be publicly chastised for the violation, saying “Councilor Flaherty should be publicly reprimanded at the next council meeting and the contents of his email published on the city’s website.”
Instead, the violation was recognized and read into the record during the council’s Sept. 5 meeting as required by the state attorney general.