Malden City Council accepts president’s written response to open‑meeting complaint over 90‑minute delay

The Malden City Council voted unanimously to accept and transmit Council President Ryan O’Malley’s written response and apology for the late start of the Jan. 28 council meeting, a delay that Councilor Spadafore described in a filed open‑meeting law complaint as roughly 90 minutes.

The response, read into the record by O’Malley, acknowledged the short turnaround on implementing an accessory dwelling unit zoning ordinance and apologized “for the delayed start time of the city council meeting on 01/28/2025.” The letter says the delay was not deliberate and attributes it to the Rules and Ordinance Committee finishing its committee report and amendments. The council voted to send the response to Councilor Spadafore and to the office of the attorney general as required by law.

The complaint submitted by Councilor Spadafore, read aloud at the meeting, said the council meeting was scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. but did not start until about 8:30 p.m., leaving some residents uninformed and preventing in‑person participation. The complaint asked for a public apology and adherence to open‑meeting requirements.

O’Malley’s letter includes several remedial commitments: require public notices to state that a meeting may begin "at 7 p.m. or after the ordinance committee adjourns," encourage members to call a delayed meeting to order and publicly announce the delay, and improve internal procedures to reduce future disruption. The letter also commits to ensuring the council will not be given less than three weeks’ notice to draft, enroll, and ordain zoning ordinances when practicable.

Councilor Linehan said the letter was “heartfelt” and proposed practical fixes for in‑person and remote audiences, including a graphic or on‑screen notice so viewers streaming via Teams or cable know when a meeting will start. Linehan also suggested allowing written statements from residents who arrived to speak but could not because the meeting began late. Councilor Spadafore said he believed the delay amounted to an open‑meeting law violation and that accountability rests with the body as a whole. Several other councilors, including Colon Hayes, Winslow and McDonald, praised the proposed remedies and urged better in‑meeting communication when delays occur.

A formal motion to accept the response and send it to Councilor Spadafore and the attorney general was made and seconded; the president called for a voice vote and the motion passed unanimously.

The council’s action does not itself resolve the legal question raised in Spadafore’s complaint; the complaint will be forwarded to the attorney general’s office and to Spadafore per council procedure.