The editors of the Valley Patriot were quite interested in the dust-up about cell phone usage during Lowell City Council meetings, so my July article for the VP analyzed that issue. Rereading it now, the controversy seems dated. As happens so often with this council, an issue arrives with Lowell Sun-assisted heat and fury and then disappears without a trace. (For instance, when I bought a carton of milk last week, it had a “missing” notice for the proposed residency ordinance). Anyway, here’s more on text-gate:
A week before the Celtics seventeenth world champion cast a pleasant glow on the region, basketball fans spent more time debating whether the games were fixed than who would win the series. This diversion was prompted by a letter sent by disgraced former referee Tim Donaghy to the judge about to sentence him on charges that he conspired with gamblers to fix NBA games. Donaghy alleged that NBA executives routinely directed referees to manipulate games in order to boost ticket sales and TV ratings, a charge the NBA vigorously denies.
One of the more interesting reactions to this controversy came from William Rhoden, a sports columnist with the New York Times. Rhoden asked former Lakers’ great Magic Johnson if the players could get by without officials. While stressing that the NBA needed on-court officials, Johnson acknowledged that every player grew up playing pickup games on the playground where there were no referees and the players policed themselves. According to Johnson, these games were “as pure as it is when you have referees” although “the game may be a little longer, some of the calls may be disputed, and then there’s going to be more trash-talking.”
Sounds like the Lowell City Council. Like most legislative bodies, the council polices itself, a process that usually works quite well, relegating the procedural rules to the background and letting substance dominate the debate. But this summer, for some reason, the council has started fighting about the rules and, like the occasional pickup game between two long-time opponents who dislike each other and carry much baggage from prior matches, the meetings have been longer, more rulings are being disputed and there’s been more – I don’t want to say “trash-talking” – but the rhetoric has grown more heated and personal.
A motion by Rita Mercier at the June 10th meeting to “prohibit the use of cell phones and/or any communications device during regular, special or any other city council meeting” ignited the most recent controversy. In explaining the motion, Mercier said the use of cell phones during meetings “created a negative appearance and cast a dark shadow over the city council.” She said it was apparent that some councilors were sending text messages to other councilors during meetings, adding “I’m all for socializing, but during the city council meeting is not the place for such behavior.” Mercier also commented that such communications possibly violated the state’s Open Meeting Law. Mercier went on: “How many times do we take our cell phone out of our pocket and go to the cloak room as if we can’t make a decision on our own without being directed by someone else who called to offer a new question to be asked? It’s unprofessional.”
Councilor Mike Lenzi seconded the motion, commenting that it was an issue of professional courtesy. Using cell phones during meetings “sets a bad precedent. There are important things being said and everyone should be paying attention.” Councilor Alan Kazanjian also supported the motion, saying that in the 15 years he served on the Board of Appeals before becoming a councilor last January, he never once saw anyone use a cell phone during a meeting. He said he was “taken aback” by city councilors using cell phones during meetings and that they should not be used out of “professional courtesy.” Councilor Armand Mercier also spoke in favor of the ban, saying that he always turned off his phone at the start of the meeting and that talk of using cell phones to access information during meetings was a “red herring.”
While Mayor Bud Caulfield did not expressly state his position, he strongly implied that he supported the motion when he responded to a suggestion by Councilor Kevin Broderick that they should obtain guidance from the District Attorney’s Office regarding cell phones and compliance with the Open Meeting Law by saying “It doesn’t matter what the DA says, councilor. If five councilors say there will be no cell phones, there will be no cell phones.” But that’s not necessarily true, since a rules change (as I understand it, at least) would require six votes and the four remaining councilors all expressed reservations about an outright ban on the use of electronic devices.
Councilor Kevin Broderick, who many suspect was the primary target of Mercier’s motion, acknowledged that he did occasionally use the text message capability of his phone during council meetings, suggested this was a case of some councilors being more comfortable than others with advances in communications technology. He acknowledged the need to update council rules to address the use of email and text messaging but said that many of his constituents contacted him via those methods and they expected a rapid response. Broderick also said he should be able to use the internet access provided by his cell phone to go online to retrieve information relevant to the matter being discussed at the meeting.
Councilor Jim Milinazzo was critical of Mercier’s motion, saying that he, Mercier and Broderick had all discussed the matter in a collegial and light-hearted way just days earlier. As far as he was concerned, the matter had been appropriately addressed in that informal manner and that raising it again as a formal motion was “disappointing.”
No Comments »