Opponents Of Gaza Resolution Seek To Nullify Meeting Where Measure Was Approved
The Middle School auditorium at the state of the Town Council meeting where the Resolution for a Ceasefire in Gaza was to be considered. Photo: Art Keene
Special Town Council Meeting Wednesday, March 13 to Address Open Meeting Law Complaints
Mike Offner and Lonna Steinberg, residents of Amherst, filed Open Meeting Law (OML) complaints after the March 4 Town Council meeting at which a ceasefire resolution against the continuing violence in Gaza eventually passed by a 9-3-1 vote. According to Council President Lynn Griesemer, Massachusetts General law requires that the council address the complaints within 14 days. She has called a special Town Council meeting for Wednesday, March 13 at 6:30 p.m. over Zoom. No public comment will be allowed.
Offner’s complaint states:
On information and belief, Chair Griesemer banged the gavel at least once and perhaps multiple times, declaring the meeting adjourned.
The meeting then continued on, with Chair Griesemer and the Council intimidated by an angry mob that closed in on the Council.
The Council went through various iterations of unorganized and chaotic deliberation, and then ended up voting in the affirmative on a resolution.
I believe that this deliberation and vote, after Chair Griesemer declared the meeting adjourned, constituted a subsequent, independent meeting for which no public notice was provided, and therefore in violation of the Open Meeting Law.
Steinberg also maintained that, after Griesemer adjourned the meeting because of vocal unrest from the audience, the continuation of the meeting was actually a new meeting that had not been posted publicly. She states:
During the Town Council Meeting on Mar 4, 2024, the Chair adjourned the meeting. After adjournment, the Council voted on a resolution. Since this was a new meeting and the first meeting had been adjourned, Open Meeting Law requires 48-hour notice of the new meeting. There was not notice of this meeting. The Town Council is in violation of Open Meeting Law and anything that occurred after the adjournment should be nullifed. (Once adjourned, it is quite likely that some spectators left the meeting, and had no idea that something would happen afterwards since the meeting was adjourned).
Furthermore, the law says g) No person shall address a meeting of a public body without permission of the chair, and all persons shall, at the request of the chair, be silent. No person shall disrupt the proceedings of a meeting of a public body.
There were many occasions when persons addressed the meeting without permission. People disrupted the meeting. It is very clear that the law says that this is not allowed. The first meeting, before the adjournment, should be nullified based on the fact that spectators violated the Open Meeting Laws clear directive that no person shall address the Council without permission nor should they disrupt the proceedings.
Steinberg requested that the council “nullify the first meeting due to the disruptions which are a violation of the Open Meeting Law and nullify the second meeting due to no adequate notice of the meeting as well as disruptions.”
In her email to the councilors to announce the special meeting, Griesemer acknowledged the confusion that occurred at the March 4 meeting. She wrote, “The Town Manager, Clerk of the Town Council, and I, as President, have discussed and recognized the confusion created for both the Council and those in attendance on Monday, March 4, 2024, when I prematurely stated that “The meeting is adjourned” and then immediately continued the meeting.”
The Town Council must vote and pass a motion to adjourn. A motion to adjourn must be made, seconded, and then a majority (7 councilors) must vote to approve of the motion to adjourn for the meeting to be adjourned. As someone who both attended the meeting, and watched the proceedings afterwards to confirm, none of these steps occurred when Ms. Griesemer banged her gavel and incorrectly claimed that the meeting was adjourned. This means that the meeting was not adjourned, as the process to adjourn a meeting had not been followed, and rather one councilor mistakenly claimed that it was. If this mistake is justified given the situation can and should be debated, but the filing above is inaccurate in claiming that the meeting adjourned when it was in-fact not because the process to adjourn was not followed. This is my interpretation of the complaint after reading the charter, reading OML and re-watching the meeting. Please chime in if I am missing something.
I have no opinion on this, but am “chiming in” per your request, Julian, in case you wish to address this part of the complaint:
There were many occasions when persons addressed the meeting without permission. People disrupted the meeting. It is very clear that the law says that this is not allowed. The first meeting, before the adjournment, should be nullified based on the fact that spectators violated the Open Meeting Laws clear directive that no person shall address the Council without permission nor should they disrupt the proceedings.
Steinberg requested that the council “nullify the first meeting due to the disruptions which are a violation of the Open Meeting Law and nullify the second meeting due to no adequate notice of the meeting as well as disruptions.”
You are absolutely right, Julian. These two open meeting law complaints are completely bogus. Council President Lynn Griesemer never made a motion to adjourn; there was never a vote to adjourn; and right after she said she was adjourning the meeting, she recognized a point of order. I hope those on the council opposed to this resolution will not use the false claim that the meeting was adjourned to try to nullify the vote and I hope all council members who supported and voted for this resolution will ensure that such a subversion of the process does not happen and that the March 4 vote in favor of the ceasefire resolution is preserved.
Please see M.G.L. 30A §20(g) regarding public comment and the Massachusetts OML:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleIII/Chapter30A/Section20
At some future point can the Town Council evaluate its future role in spending Amherst tax dollars on international affairs and just focus on Amherst issues instead? How much AMHERST staff time, including police overtime at the last meeting, has been spent on this resolution?