OPEN MEETING LAW COMPLAINT FORM
Office of the Attorney General
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
Organization or Media Affiliation: Community Media Medford,
Medford Information Central Dot Com
Are you filing the complaint in your capacity as an
individual, representative of an organization, or media?
Individual
and Media
Public Body that is the subject of this complaint:
City/Town
The
City Council of Medford, Massachusetts
Date of alleged violation:
Tuesday October 3, 2017
Specific person(s), if any, you allege committed the
violation: City Councilor Adam Knight (in
concert with Fred Dello Russo, Jr. and Richard F. Caraviello)
Name of Public Body (including city/town, county or region,
if applicable): Medford City Council
________________________________________________________________________________
Description of alleged violation:
Describe the alleged violation that this complaint is about.
If you believe the alleged violation was intentional, please say so and include
the reasons supporting your belief
Prior to the October 3, 2017 meeting I warned City Clerk
Edward P. Finn about censoring my petitions (this time he obeyed the law and
published the proper petition,) and warned City Council President Richard
Caraviello, Councilor Frederick N. Dello Russo, Jr. and Councilor Adam Knight via
a complaint notarized and filed with the office of Diversity and Inclusion Sep
28 at 7:42 PM.
The demand by this petitioner was for Knight, Dello Russo and Caraviello to
not engage in behavior which, I believe, violates Robert’s Rules of Order and
the Open Meeting Law. The complaint
noted:
1)Mr. Caraviello calling the police or filing false charges
in criminal court on an over-60 citizen who merely wants to speak and tape with
Facebook live at the city council (censoring a resident from speaking about him
by filing a malicious abuse of process criminal case which, of course, Mr.
Caraviello lost.)
2)Mr. Dello Russo banging doors,
getting up and leaving while a citizen is speaking, tearing up paper, falling
asleep in his chair (or looking like he is falling asleep in his chair) and
fraudulent use of "Point of Information" to throw a speaker off, not
adding anything of substance to the conversation, acting like a high school
sophomore seeking attention.
3)Adam Knight getting up and
leaving, talking too fast for people to understand him, abuse of the
"point of information" procedure, MAKING A MOTION TO PUSH OTHER ITEMS
ON THE AGENDA IN FRONT OF ITEMS / PETITIONS FILED BY SENIOR CITIZENS, INTENTIONALLY,
MALICIOUSLY, AND FREQUENTLY
On October 3, 2017, despite being warned in advance by the
complaint to the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, Mr. Knight filled the
agenda with multiple items which was completely out of character while this
resident had the only petition. Then, as
usual, Knight suspended the rules to take two other items to push my petition
back as far as he possibly could.
Knight does this in hopes that the meeting will go from 7 pm to past 10
pm, ostensibly so that fewer TV viewers will see matters of great public
interest. Knight even attempted to limit free speech with changing of the city
council rules, an effort that failed but which outraged members of the public.
In addition to the “suspension of the rules” abuse on October
3, 2017 and abuse of “point of information” which Knight uses as a point of
interruption of speakers, Knight – after being warned by the complaint to the
Office of Diversity, again targeted this petitioner, Joe Viglione.
At 23 minutes and 37 seconds into the meeting, the council
presented my petition on Tuesday, October 3, 2017. With little space to breathe, at 33:17 into
the meeting, right after my ten allotted minutes to speak, Mr. Knight - not
caring about the other residents – multiple – who wanted to speak on a subject
of great public interest, willfully and maliciously jumps in “Mr. President,
motion to receive and place on file.” Knight’s partner in this disruptive
activity, Councilor Frederick N. Dello Russo Jr., immediately seconds it, (which
means Dello Russo should also be included in this complaint, another city
councilor who serves himself and not the public, that’s their game and it
violates the very purpose of the open meeting law: continuous harassment of residents,
senior citizens, an ex member of the city council, all for the enjoyment of
Knight, Dello Russo (and Council President Caraviello) and for censorship
purposes.
The city solicitor, who often brags about the city not
censoring people, allowed it to happen right before his very eyes on October 3,
2017. At 33 minutes and 30 seconds in on
the subject a woman wanted to speak on the matter, but Knight’s swift assault
on free speech DENIED a citizen to speak on a matter of GREAT public
interest. So the rules had to be
suspended by Councilor Breanna Lungo Koehn so that the resident could speak. The Attorney General’s office should study
the tape of the 10/3/17 council meeting and see if Mr. Knight was annoying
Councilor Lungo-Koehn by making noises or shredding paper while another
councilor or citizen is speaking. It is another tactic that is vulgar, does not
serve the public, and is sophomoric behavior not fit for a civil society which
has a First Amendment, a right for the public to speak freely without
interruption.
Council President Caraviello did not ask the woman for her
name or address, but she was totally in agreement with the petitioner. Caraviello was in error not obtaining the
person’s name and address.
Adam Knight intentionally has jumped in on multiple other
matters this petitioner brings forward BEFORE the citizens have had an
opportunity to speak on my topics and declares “motion to receive and place on
file” which kills the topic.
Because a good councilor, Lungo-Koehn, suspended the rules a
number of other individuals go to speak on my topic – stretching it from my ten
minutes to an additional thirty minutes
concluding at 1:05:20 on the tape.
Knight’s malicious abuse of parliamentary procedure would have DENIED
the un-named woman, a former councilor – Robert M. Penta, City Solicitor
Rumley, School Superintendent Roy E. Belson, my responses to those city
officials and former council candidate Andy Castagnetti from speaking. Knight’s attempt was to keep the public from hearing
my topic vital to the cause of free speech: the Attorney General’s
determination that the public access TV “Chapter 74” board had been found in
violation of the Open Meeting Law on 9/19/17.
The City Council meeting is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUlBWgAp9_8
Current State Representative
Donato noting that “The most protected
right” is the discussion of political speech
Port Arthur City Council
violated Open Meetings act AND Robert Rules of Order by removing an item of
council without having a discussion on the topic. Citizens want to hear or
speak on the topic Mr. Willie Lewis brought to council but was negated the
opportunity by council
Mr. Knight violates the
very purpose of the law by his shenanigans, intentionally speaking at a high
rate of speed so that he can’t be understood, stifling conversation on
petitions which cost citizens time and effort, tearing up paper or repeatedly
walking out on citizens (sometimes with other councilors) to display objection
to what a citizen, the very people who pay Knight’s bloated salary, may want to
talk about.
Overview
The purpose of the Open Meeting Law
is to ensure transparency in the deliberations on which public policy is
based. Because the democratic process depends on the public having
knowledge about the considerations underlying governmental action, the Open
Meeting Law requires, with some exceptions, that meetings of public bodies be
open to the public. It also seeks to balance the public’s interest in
witnessing the deliberations of public officials with the government’s need to
manage its operations efficiently.
When is a violation of the law considered "intentional"?
Upon finding a violation of the Open Meeting Law, the Attorney General may impose a civil penalty upon a public body of not more than $1,000 for each intentional violation. G.L. c. 30A, § 23(c)(4). An “intentional violation” is an act or omission by a public body or public body member in knowing violation of the Open Meeting Law. G.L. c. 30A, § 18. In determining whether a violation was intentional, the Attorney General will consider, among other things, whether the public body or public body member 1) acted with specific intent to violate the law; 2) acted with deliberate ignorance of the law’s requirements; or 3) had been previously informed by a court decision or advised by the Attorney General that the conduct at issue violated the Open Meeting Law. 940 CMR 29.02. If a public body or public body member made a good faith attempt at compliance with the law but was reasonably mistaken about its requirements or, after full disclosure, acted in good faith compliance with the advice of counsel, its conduct will not be considered an intentional violation of the Law. G.L. c. 30A, § 23(g); 940 CMR 29.02.
What action do you want the public
body to take in response to your complaint?
Adam Knight must be sanctioned and
removed from the Medford City Council.
Mr. Dello Russo and Mr. Caraviello should be sanctioned for
participating in Knight’s flagrant censorship tactics.
Adam Knight’s ongoing abuse of the
public, his use of parliamentary procedure to stifle discussion of topics of
great public interest, voting on his own pay raise allegedly within three weeks
of taking office, using the city council to promote himself during elections
with excessive “congratulations” to people that are his friends (which takes up
precious city council time though those individuals appear noteworthy only to
Mr. Knight,) even having a campaign worker put his campaign signs against a bus
stop, allegations that he uses his government computer at work to campaign for
himself, allegations that he puts his campaign signs too close to polling
places indicate an individual who makes up his own rules, maliciously harasses
residents from the bully pulpit and is, clearly, by the evidence provided
above, not a servant of the public but an individual who takes public monies to
promote himself and the agenda of other politicians who have the same
self-serving mission. Mr. Knight is a
detriment to progress and must be publicly sanctioned and removed from the
Medford City Council.
