Saturday, June 4, 2005

Lawsuits over charter press on.
Newburyport News, James J. Allen

AMESBURY ó Issues connected to the lawsuits sparked by the library expansion continue to roll on in the courts more than a month after voters defeated the renovation project.

A group of residents who brought two lawsuits against town officials wants the court to force the mayor and municipal council to adhere to parts of the town charter. The group says officials are ignoring certain charter rules, including annually hiring town lawyers, submitting financial planning documents on time and reviewing town ordinances.

"This wasn't a lawsuit just about the library," said Tom Iacobucci, a former councilor and one of the 14 plaintiffs who filed the suits. The lawsuit would be "an opportunity to have the court step in" and force town officials to obey the charter, Iacobucci said.

Mayor David Hildt said town lawyers, meanwhile, are continuing to appeal the initial ruling that forced a townwide vote on the project last month.

"We believe this is a threat to the charter," said Mark Reich, a lawyer for the town from Boston-based Kopelman & Paige. "And we strongly disagree with the Superior Court's ruling."

Ten months ago, the council approved spending $3.6 million in taxpayer money to expand the library. In an effort to save the rear wing, which project architects said needed to come down to move forward, a group of residents, led by Iacobucci's father John, petitioned the council to retract their decision. But town lawyers said the council should ignore the petition.

In response, the group sued the council. In February, a Superior Court judge ordered a ballot vote for residents to decide whether to appropriate the money. On May 2, the appropriation was defeated by a two-to-one margin.

Although the project has been defeated, both sides say there are still outstanding questions.

Iacobucci said his group recently filed notice with Lawrence Superior Court Judge Diane Kottmyer that it plans to dismiss part of one case while it awaits a ruling on the other. The portion the group is seeking to dismiss was rendered moot by the vote.

The group has asked the court to order Hildt and subsequent mayors to directly follow the charter by appointing legal counsel annually, appointing temporary board members for only eight months at a time, filing annual capital improvement plans by the date required, appointing a charter review committee, and revising and recodifying the town's ordinances.

"These issues need to be discussed," said Iacobucci.

Also outstanding is Kottmyer's ruling on the second lawsuit. It charges the council broke the Open Meeting Law by illegally exchanging e-mails about the library out of the public's view. The group wants the judge to order the e-mails to halt, to have the council draft rules on using e-mail and make e-mails involving the library open to the public.

Reich, the town's lawyer, said, "Our opinion is that they did not submit substantial evidence on the (Open Meeting Law) claim."

"We certainly don't think they have a case and frankly we don't think they understand the Open Meeting Law," said Reich.

At the February hearing on the referendum case, Kottmyer said she "had not had time to look at the issues raised" in the second suit. But she seemed to favor the town's position.

"I think that there are many times in public meetings when public officials come in and they know how they stand on an issue," she said. "That doesn't mean they violate the Open Meeting Law."

The town, meanwhile, is still seeking an appeal to the Superior Court judge's ruling, a ruling that stymies the town from making financial decisions, said Reich. The outcome of the appeal will not have an effect on last month's vote, Hildt has said.

However, state Appeals Court records show no appeal is pending and Iacobucci said the plaintiffs have received no appeals notice. Still, Reich said, "At this point, we have not dropped the appeal."