Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Quincy Council finds no open‑meeting‑law violation after review of outside‑counsel emails
Summary
Following complaints that a councilor consulted outside counsel and circulated redlined ordinance drafts, the City Council reviewed evidence and the city solicitor's account and voted to conclude that no open‑meeting‑law violation occurred. The council authorized a response to the complainants and to share the determination with the Attorney General's office.
The Quincy City Council on June 15 voted that it found no violation of the state open‑meeting law after reviewing four complaints concerning whether a councilor’s use of outside counsel and related emails constituted deliberation by a quorum outside a public meeting.
City Solicitor Jim Timmons told the council he discovered redlined ordinance drafts in the file and an email (sent to the clerk and distributed to councilors) that referenced proposed revisions prepared by outside counsel. He said the presence of redlined material in the record and the fact the changes were not introduced publicly at the prior meeting prompted his remarks.
Councilor McKee replied that individual consultation with outside counsel is lawful and common practice and said she had reached out to the Attorney General’s Office for training and guidance. She emphasized that individual councilors routinely consult experts and constituents to inform their policymaking.
After solicitor testimony and council discussion about the contours of the law — which focuses on whether a quorum deliberated outside a properly noticed public meeting — the council acted on a motion from the chair to find no open‑meeting‑law violation. The motion passed on a roll‑call vote, and the council authorized sending the decision and supporting materials to the state Attorney General as required.
The council also discussed related governance questions — including whether communications released by the solicitor had been properly redacted and whether additional internal protocols on distribution of draft ordinance materials would be appropriate — but treated those as separate governance matters distinct from the legal question before the body.
Next steps: the council will send the official response to the complainants and the Attorney General’s office and may consider internal procedural clarifications to avoid similar disputes over redlined drafts and mass emails.
