Judge passes on injunction against City Council, closing book on Open Meeting lawsuit

A Superior Court judge has closed the books on a long-running lawsuit accusing the City Council of violating the state's Open Meeting Law. In 2008, the 13-member council acknowledged it was guilty of violating the law, illegally gathering several times between 2003 and 2005 over urban renewal plans handled by the Boston Redevelopment Authority and an outbreak at a Boston University bio-laboratory.

Local activists, including former mayoral candidate Kevin McCrea, brought the lawsuit, and argued at a Suffolk Superior Court hearing in June that the council continues to violate the law and should be punished with a court injunction or court oversight. (The activists are waiving the $11,000 fine a separate judge sought to impose on the council after the body pleaded guilty.)

Judge John Cratsley batted down McCrea's arguments and sided with the council, saying there is a “positive” change in the council's attention towards the Open Meeting law. An assistant corporation counsel has attended City Council meetings since 2009, and minutes have been taken for working sessions, executive sessions and hearings.

Cratsley also noted that the make-up of the council is “vastly different” today when compared to the City Council of 2003. The lawsuit was filed when former City Councillor At-Large Michael Flaherty, who is campaigning to return to the body, was council president.

“The Council has shown that it has changed its attitude toward the Open Meeting Law and has taken and continues to take steps to ensure its compliance with the Open Meeting Law,” he wrote in an opinion dated Sept. 8.

The judge also ordered the City Council to pay the plaintiffs $843.50 to cover the costs of filing the lawsuit.

Stephen Murphy, the current City Council president and a city councillor at-large, testified at the June hearing, as did past City Council presidents Maureen Feeney of District 3 and Michael Ross of District 8.

“The court's decision was gratifying because the judge validated the Council's efforts to comply with the letter and the spirit of the open meeting law,” Feeney, who represents Dorchester, said in a statement. “We are proud of our ongoing efforts to be accessible, accountable, and transparent in all of our activities.”

Ross said the judge recognized the council's efforts to become a “more transparent body.” “I think we've done a pretty good job of implementing that,” he said.

Murphy said if City Council should have pursued a stronger legal strategy at the beginning, and taken the lawsuit more seriously, “it never would've gone this far.”

“I'm happy to have it over,” Murphy said.

McCrea did not immediately return a request for comment left on his voicemail.

UPDATE: Story updated at 7:38 pm to include amount City Council must pay to cover cost of plaintiffs filing lawsuit.