Greenfield council accepts investigator's report and schedules April 21 hearing on council member's social‑media posts

The Greenfield City Council on March 24 received an investigative report into social‑media posts by Council Member McShihi, accepted the report, and set an administrative hearing for April 21 at 7 p.m. with any supplemental documents due April 7.

The council opened the special meeting with roll call and then took up the investigator’s findings, which were prepared by Joan M. Wade (investigator). City counsel explained the council’s role is to decide whether a code‑of‑conduct hearing is necessary and, if so, to set parameters for that administrative proceeding. Counsel noted the report is advisory and the council is not required to adopt its findings but that the report can help guide the council’s decision.

The investigator’s summary — read to the council by the mayor — listed six allegations about McShihi’s social‑media conduct. The report found two allegations substantiated: that McShihi posted a resident’s arrest record in a manner the investigator deemed disrespectful, and that McShihi publicly stated he had reported a resident to law enforcement in a way the investigator characterized as retaliatory. Four other allegations, including a post referencing a murder and comments about a resident’s daughter’s complexion, were found not substantiated. The investigator warned that blurring personal and official accounts could risk state‑action claims under the Lindki line of cases and recommended trainings and policy adjustments to reduce liability.

Council Member McShihi challenged the two adverse findings. “I disagree strongly with the report’s two adverse findings because they rest on inference, minimized context, and assumption about motive,” McShihi said, and said he would present a fuller response at a properly noticed hearing.

After discussion about scope, evidence and procedure, the council voted to: receive the investigative report; set a hearing for April 21 at 7 p.m. during the regular council meeting; require any additional documents from complainants to be submitted to staff by April 7; and direct staff to post a redacted copy of the report and to send notice to complainants and the subject. The council’s roll‑call outcome on both motions was reported as four in favor with one abstention.

Council members and counsel also discussed practical steps for the hearing: limiting testimony to the incidents described in the report unless a party offers non‑redundant supplemental evidence, allowing complainants an opportunity to be heard, and redacting third‑party names that are not relevant to the complaints before posting documents publicly. Counsel advised the council that the hearing is an administrative proceeding with due‑process elements that the council should define in advance, and noted censure as a commonly discussed remedy if violations are found.

Next steps: staff will issue notices to the four complainants, post a redacted version of the investigative report on the city website, accept supplemental documents from parties by April 7, and include materials in the packet for the April 21 meeting when the hearing will take place.