Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 4/11/2023
CHICOPEE — In November 2022, the City Council voted to approve raises for the council and School Committee starting in 2024. That vote is now being nullified due to a decision from Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell regarding an Open Meeting Law violation.
Campbell’s office concluded that the vote “violated the open meeting law by posting insufficient notice that they would discuss salary increases for city councilors and other city officials. We order the councils immediate and future compliance with the open meeting law and caution that future similar violations may be considered evidence of intent to violate the law,” according to the attorney general office’s statement.
The statement continued, “Because the public was denied notice of the planned discussions and decisions that have not taken effect, we order nullification or the council’s Nov. 15 vote regarding salary increases.”
The Open Meeting Law complaint was filed by resident Lisa Bienvenue. The complaint filed was not the first she has submitted.
Bienvenue said she began actively attending meetings last year to “see what kind of message was going out to the city,” after her experiences attending a neighborhood meeting in her ward.
During an Aug. 10, 2022, License Committee meeting regarding the Pilot Travel Center, Bienvenue noticed that a silent vote took place regarding the committee’s decision.
“They did a vote, and it was a silent vote of that subcommittee … I was flabbergasted, in my opinion, that was a secret ballot, which negates open government totally,” said Bienvenue.
Bienvenue noticed other Open Meeting Law violations, such as not taking roll call votes when some members of the body were participating remotely.
It was ultimately determined by Associate City Solicitor Dan Garvey that the vote was not a secret ballot as the information was available to the public after the meeting. Bienvenue credited City Council President Frank Laflamme for enacting positive change following the decision, with subcommittees now undergoing a more formal voting process.
In regard to pay increase vote, Bienvenue believed the language on the agenda was not clear enough as to what would be discussed.
“It is not transparent. It has nothing to do with whether I think they should get pay increases or not get pay increases, but I think people deserve to know what is on the agenda,” said Bienvenue.
Bienvenue expected the discussion to be considered an open meeting law complaint, but noted her surprise with the attorney general’s decision to nullify the vote.
“I was really surprised by that determination. All I was looking for was that our elected officials understand that open meeting laws are not just a nuisance,” said Bienvenue.
The raises would have included an increase of annual salary for councilors — from $12,000 to $14,000 annually – and School Committee members – from $6,000 to $7,500. The ordinance also showcased pay increases for the City Council president and School Committee vice chair. The City Council president would have made $15,000 as opposed to the current $13,000 annual salary, while the School Committee vice chair would have received $8,000 instead of $6,500.
The postponement of the vote means that the City Council cannot approve pay raises for the council or School Committee until 2026.
Ward 9 City Councilor Mary-Elizabeth Pniak-Costello, the lone councilor who voted against the raises in November 2022, shared that the determination by the attorney general’s office was made on March 1. She expressed her understanding of the decision.
“It was not specific enough … We have to repost the issue and make it clear to the public what is being voted on,” said Pniak-Costello
The City Council reintroduced the item with new language during their March 21 meeting. The council ultimately opted to send the discussion to its Ordinance subcommittee.
Bienvenue also filed an Open Meeting Law complaint for the Jan. 31 School Committee meeting focused on the superintendent vote process. Her complaint highlighted an inaccuracy with the attendance of Ward 7 School Committee member Donald Lamothe, who was present at the meeting but was acknowledged as absent. Lamothe did not participate in discussions centered on the superintendent selection due to a conflict of interest with his son, Andrew Lamothe, working as the Chicopee Comprehensive High School’s principal, but he did attend the meetings to observe the discussions.
Following these open meeting law complaints, the City Council and School Committee underwent volunteer training in February to develop a greater understanding of the laws. Bienvenue considered the training sessions to be a positive step forward.
Going forward, Bienvenue hopes the determination serves as a learning lesson.
“I think the ruling from the state made it perfectly clear what the expectations are as a governing body … I am hopeful moving forward,” said Bienvenue.