Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City solicitor briefs new council on open-meeting, public-records and conflict-of-interest rules
Summary
Alan Sewald, the temporary city solicitor, told Northampton City Council members that the open meeting law requires public deliberations by a quorum, public records include emails and texts, and the ethics rules require recusal when a financial interest exists; he warned against serial communications and explained social-media limits for official accounts.
Alan Sewald, Northampton’s temporary city solicitor, gave a detailed briefing on open-government obligations during the council’s Jan. 5 organizational meeting.
Sewald framed open government as three pillars: the open meeting law, the public records law and the conflict-of-interest law. He said a quorum of the full council is five members and cautioned that deliberations by a quorum must occur in public. “There are a lot of other requirements of the open meeting law,” he said, and warned that serial communications among a quorum or 'reply all' email chains that express opinions about pending matters can create violations.
On public records, Sewald said councilors’ texts, emails and phone messages are presumptively public records and recommended using an official northamptonma.gov address for council business to ease records searches. He advised that if the state believes public records are being withheld, it may seek them in private accounts.
On conflicts of interest, Sewald urged councilors to seek advice from him or the State Ethics Commission before taking action when an immediate family member, employer or prospective employer has a financial interest. He said mere abstaining is insufficient: a councilor should not participate in the matter and often should step down from the dais. He also cited the state guidance that $50 is the threshold for acceptable gifts to a councilor.
Sewald addressed social media and official accounts, noting that official council accounts that allow public comment are public forums and that content-based moderation is restricted by the First Amendment. He suggested either allowing all comments or disabling comments on official pages.
Councilors asked questions about practical scenarios — Mailchimp and listservs, committee quorums, and how sponsorship and referral interact with committee membership — and Sewald offered specific guidance, including that replies-all to whole-council emails about substantive matters should be avoided and that committee quorums may differ from full-council quorums.
