Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Executive Session Longevity Payments topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Everett City Council votes 9-0 to enter executive session on anticipated litigation over mayor longevity payments

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Everett City Council voted unanimously to go into executive session to discuss anticipated litigation and privileged legal advice related to longevity payments to the mayor and will adjourn from that session without returning to open meeting.

The Everett City Council voted 9-0 on Monday to enter an executive session under General Laws, chapter 30A, §21(a)(3) and §21(a)(7) to discuss strategy regarding anticipated litigation and to receive privileged legal advice about longevity payments to the mayor.

City Clerk Sergio Canelio read the single agenda item presented by Council President Stephanie Martins: "Executive session, pursuant to general laws, chapter 30 a, subsection 21 a 3, to discuss strategy with respect to anticipated litigation, and 21 a 7, to act in accordance with the provisions of the public records law, discuss litigation strategy, and privilege written legal advice regarding longevity payments to the mayor." The clerk noted the council would adjourn from the executive session and would not reconvene in open session.

A motion to enter executive session and to invite Special Counsel Christopher Petrini, Legislative Assistant Mike Mangan and City Clerk Sergio Canelio was made and seconded; the roll call vote was recorded as nine yeas and zero nays. Councilors recorded as voting yes were: Councilor Elsie DeBouin; Councilor Garcia; Councilor Hamlin; Councilor Marchese; Councilor Pietr Antonio; Councilor Rogers; Councilor Smith; Councilor VanCampen; and Council President Stephanie Martins.

The motion did not list a mover or seconder by name in the public transcript. The council—s action was limited to entering executive session; no substantive discussion or decision on the merits of the longevity payments was disclosed in open session.