March 25, 2007

Public Open Meeting Laws

Let me try end this discussion on the "packages", that I do not even have yet nor do I know if are the subject of any current negotiations.. The Airport Commission as a "government body" falls under the auspices of the Public Open Meeting Laws. To that end they need to keep minutes of meetings etc so the public can be kept abreast of the Airport business.

There are times when the Airport Board, however, needs to do things outside the public view and that is when they are suppose to call an Executive Session---for example, negotiations with an airline or MassPort would fall under (in my opinion) #3 of the 9 given in the law. Executive Sessions must occur during Open Meetings, a roll call vote must be taken then entered into the minutes along with the reason for the Executive Session and records must be kept just like any other meeting but "may remain secret as long as publication may defeat the lawful purposes of the executive session, but no longer".

Here is my point, why do we not see an Executive Sessions being called during any of the monthly Airport Commission Meetings for negotiations with MassPort or airlines? If these issues are not mentioned during the monthly Airport Board Minutes and there are no Executive Sessions, when are these very important matters discussed? These are the questions that we should be asking.

A couple weeks back after I requested the airlines packages, I realized that the Airport would have to release these to me, even if negotiations were pending since Executive Sessions can not be cited. If we are in fact in negotiations, why would I post this information and somehow take the chance of damaging discussions with the prospective airline?

In summary the purpose of the Open Meeting Laws is to promote transparency in government, which is good thing. At the same time the law realizes that some things need to be done in private for the betterment of the public. That does not mean that certain rules as stipulated in the laws do not need to be followed.

Lastly I am not a government body and not subject to the Mass Public Open Meeting Laws. I do try to run a blog on the airport that is informative, civil and useful that somehow helps promote the airport and turn it into an asset for the community . If I feel some comments are none of the above, I reserve the right to delete them. There is no "double standard" here.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think we all saw the City Manager basically tell the City Council to stay out of the negotiations with Massport. Why would it be any different for the airlines?

Bill Randell said...

I can understand how the City Council would not necessarily be involved in the negotiations with MassPort of prospective airlines. On the other hand I do not see how the airport commission would not be involved in the status of the MassPort or prospective airline negotiations.

The topic of this post was regarding the Airport Commission and how the Public Open Meeting Laws are suppose to be applied. This post had nothing to do with the City Council.

In fact I agree that the City Council would stay out of these negotiations. Although they would see the final contract or agreement with MassPort or an airline. To that end I hope the City Council has plenty of time to review the final product from the MassPort negotiations.

Thanks

Bill

Anonymous said...

I see this as a problem with the commission itself not staying abreast of important ORH matters. I ask again, what exactly is the purpose of a board or commission or a task force that is appointed by the Manager?

Know what the Zoning board does and the planning board, but what exactly is the purpose of the airport commission...advisory?

Sometimes I wonder to myself, why would anyone who hopes to make a difference want to be appointed? Notoriety? Unknown Self interests?
Have picture taken w/Mr Nemeth and splashed on page B 1?

Let's take a look at the Worc Municipal Research Bureau. It's probably not a perfect apples to apples comparison, but they continually pass suggestions along to City Hall only the have their reports and opinions gather dust.

Why bother with boards and commissions appointments? No one in power seems to take their ideas to heart and we often hear of unfilled positions b/c of citizen apathy? No, it's b/c their advice seems to never be heeded.

Question: Do we have too many boards and commissions to begin with? Witness the PIP/Homeless debacle? Is this the 3rd task force that was just assembled? Maybe there are some problems that the City cannot solve short of placing group homes on Westwood Hills or Whisper Drive?

Bill Randell said...

Jahn:

You make a good point... We know exactly what the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning, who by the way to a great job posting agenda and results.

What exactly is the role of the Airport Commission? According to the City of Worcester website:

The Commission is responsible for providing commercial and general aviation airport services and facilities at the municipally owned airport. The Commission sets airport policy, establishes the rules and regulations of the department, supervises the Airport Manager, and performs all duties prescribed for municipal airport commissions by Chapter 90 of the Massachusetts General Laws, with the approval of the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission.

Anonymous said...

Good research. It does not say they are involved in negotiations though.They set policy.

Bill Randell said...

If the Airport Commission does in fact set policy, they should be doing it during an Open Public Meeting or during an Executive Session that happens at a schedule Open Public Meeting.

Anonymous said...

They set policy. Thus, like the City Council, they do are not part of the negotiations of an agreement, they vote it up or down when the CM send it to them. The commission must be the same as a policy setter.

Bill Randell said...

Anonymous:

Your premise then is that the Airport Commission has no idea what is going on with any negotiations concerning MassPort and any airlines. Interesting.


Bill

Anonymous said...

I picked that up from you when you have said there were no exec. sessions and no mention of it in the their minutes. Boards that are Policy setters don't get involved in the day-to-day operations of a business, or in this case, a public body.

Bill Randell said...

Anonymous:

I would consider negotiations with MassPort to take-over the airport via a long-term or negotiations with an airline as policy setting issues. These are not considered, in my opinion, day to day issues.

I would, however, consider voting on whether Bose Corporation can conduct a photoshoot as getting involved in day to day. We see these votes continually.

Bottom line is that you are saying that the Airport Commission is not involved and has no knowledge of any negotiations with MassPort or prospective airlines. I am not saying this is not the case, but I really hope that is not the case. These are policy setting issues that the Airport Commission should be involved in and not whetehr or not Bose will have a photoshoot at ORH or not.

Bill



Bill

Bill Randell said...

Anonymous:

Perhaps one of the biggest policy setting issues that the airport will have in its history may occur over the next 96 days. That being a long-term lease of ORH to MassPort.

That being said how can you not consider this a policy setting issue. Out of curiousity what would you consider a policy setting issue?

Bill

Anonymous said...

I thought I was clear. They (counciland/or Commission) are policy setting. They are not involved with negotiating a contract or agreement. They get involved when it is forwarded to them by an administration and it then has to be voted upon after they debate it and vote it up or down. At least that is how I understand policy-setting boards.The CM is negotiating with Massport and the Airport management is talking to Airlines.

Anonymous said...

IN my brief time here I cannot recall the commission:

1. Setting policy

2. Make rules & regs.


Maybe I have missed a few posts and blogs?



How does the commission supervise the airport manager when in reality he is beholden to Massport b/c that's where his paycheck comes from? I think we have to foloow the money trail to see who really rules the roost here. He he owns the gold makes the rules, right?

Anonymous said...

I think the city council sticks it's nose into all kinds of negotiations even though they arent supposed to. When city employee unions are clamoring for more money, I truly believe they stick their colective noses in where they shouldnt. Oftern it's is done behind closed doors. This is esp. true when their are raises to hand out. When there are cuts and littel or no raises, then they dont get involved b/c it does not make them look good. They will blame the CM for the cuts.


Afterall, theses councillors dont court the city employeee votes for their health. Try getting elected to an at large seat w/o a solid block of city union employees behind you. Darn near impossible. LIkewise for school committtee

Anonymous said...

I think Jan makes a good point regarding who the Director responds to. I have no idea about votes on policy, but that was what was quoted as to their role. It is possible with Massport running the place, their role is significantly reduced. I have really not read their minutes.

Bill Randell said...

Anonymous and Jahn:

Good points both of you. Let me ask one last question. If we are saying that not only does not the City Council, but also the Airport Board is not involved in any negotiations with say, for example, an airline of MassPort. Fine.

Assuming this is true then there would be no mention in the Monthly meetings or would any Executive Sessions be called. Here is my question.

In January, 2005 through the summer of of 2005 when nobody was reading the minutes these matters were routinely discussed (read June 2005 old business). Once the board minutes began to be posted then these matters were no longer seen.

Anonymous said...

Have not seen the minutes. But why were they discussing Massport's agreement in 2005?

Bill Randell said...

Anonymous:

In the June,2005, they were not discussing MassPort negotiations. They were talking about airline negotiations..

You also mention that you think the airport admin is in discussion with airlines. Who exactly would the airport admin be?

Lastly how can you be making all of these comments without reviewing the minutes?

Bill

Anonymous said...

Bill Randell said...
Lastly how can you be making all of these comments without reviewing the minutes?

How can you make all of these accusations about what is not being recorded in the minutes, having never attended an Airport Commission PUBLIC MEETING

Anonymous said...

you are the one that tells us that they are talking to airlines and they are keeping it secret. I have no idea. i just read what you print.

The "airport administration" is the people who work there or for Massport in Boston.

Make what "comments" without reading the minutes. I have simply stated that Policy-setting boards do not get involved in daily operations.

What is your concern here?

Bill Randell said...

anonymous:

We all know about two airlines packages prepared by IMG..

Why don't you simply tell us who you are?

Bill Randell
508-414-8305 cell

Bill Randell said...

Anonymous:

I have had alot of fun with this blog and truly believe that this blog has helped advance ORH. One of the most frustrating things about this blog is that you can not bring people like the Airport Director, Airport Liaison, Airport Commission, City Councilors, tenants of the airport or anyone to really identify themselves and have an open discussion. What is their to fear with this blog??

At the same time I can get the Airport Director of Rockford Airport in one day to agree to an interview, receive the questions, and answer them while handling over 18,000 passengers in one month.. Maybe he is on to something? MAybe the airport should be more transparent and selling their benefits every day like Mr O'Brien at RFD then hiding behind false pretenses.

Lastly I have seen enough of these "anonymous" comments over the past couple of years, 130K hits, to realize that this is not some "anonymous" commentator. This is someone who has a stake, who pretends to be "anonymous".

Tom, who I have disagreed with many times the past weeks, was right about the "anonymous" postings and I will need to rethink that.

Thanks

Bill

Anonymous said...

Who's Jahn?

ThrM said...

Nature of the beast, Bill. You can't have a productive conversation with people who won't come out of the shadows, and a blog provides perfect cover. Valuable ideas go uncredited, useful suggestions go unheeded, and you invite harsh critics.

Anonymous said...

Thomas:

I find it confusing that you criticize people for not listing their names,yet when I click on "Thomas" it tells me you do not want to identify yourself.

Jahn does something similar by not identifying her(him)self. What is your issue?

Anonymous said...

I am Jahn Dough. I have a first & last name. {g}

Productive conversations cannot be had with those who will not come out of the shadows? Please tell that to Airport Commission. Some deductive reasoning on here clearly points to this commission operating under the cover of darkness and this blog, anonymous or otherwise, may have even driven them to seek out the darkness.

Productivity and anonymity are mutually exclusive? Please explain your logic. Charley Farley added immensely to this blog. Maybe I even a couple of items!

Anonymous posts equate to valuable ideas going uncredtited? If I have had a valuable idea on here, I do not want any credit for it. Some will always seek out the limelight for the purpose of self promotion or to justify their cause even though they are often the most flatulent, boisterous, and overrated.

Useful suggestions from anonymous sources go unheeded? Maybe the anonymous amongst us can go public with our suggestions and be heeded. Witness the ideas and recommendations of the Worc. Municipal Research Bureau, only to be continually dissed and brushed aside as a bunch malcontents by those who have their own self serving agenda and sense of entitlement.

Anonymity invites harsh critics? I do not think I have ever been harshly criticized here, unless I missed some blogs? Disagreement, yes, harshly criticized, no. Please lay it on me if I have missed it.

Bill Randell said...

Jahn:

Whoever you are, at least we have a point of reference and can have discussions with you. The frustrating thing about "anonymous" is that there seem to be so many of them or they change their names.

In other words I appreciate the fact someone may not want to mention there name, for whatever reason, but at least adopt a consistent pen name like "Jahn" . It frustrates me to get comments that I know are from the same person but are supposedly from "Doug", "Sam" or "anonymous".

After thinking about it that is the devil in the blog and I need to deal with it. What am I suppose to do, ask people to fax me their ID before they can comment??

In other words, although it bothers me I can not stop it..