Jackson Square residents ban media from neighborhood meetings

[czsz]

This sets a bad precedent, IMO. People need to be informed about what goes on in these meetings.

Jackson CAC votes to ban media

JPNC unanimous in its disapproval

After about 40 minutes of private deliberation and without further comment, the Jackson Square citizens advisory committee (CAC) at its April 23 meeting announced a decision to ban the media from that and all future meetings.

City and state elected officials, as well as the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council (JPNC), decried the CAC?s decision in the days following the meeting, which was held at New Academy Estates in Egleston Square.

At its April 28 meeting at the Nate Smith House, the JPNC, which has a representative on the CAC voted unanimously to call for all community planning meetings to be open to the press.

Mayor Thomas Menino has previously said that he opposes CACs adopting a policy of always barring people from their meetings.

?He is totally against that,? Mayor?s Office Spokesperson Dot Joyce previously told the Gazette.

The CAC, like similar groups throughout the city, was convened by the city to provide Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) staff members with community input about development issues. The Jackson Square CAC is playing that role for a $250 million, multi-site redevelopment project being undertaken on nine acres of public land in that neighborhood by a team of developers including the JP-based community development corporations Urban Edge and the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Development Corporation (JPNDC).

The question of whether the press would be allowed to cover meetings was the first item on the April 23 meeting agenda, the Gazette first learned at the meeting. When the meeting was convened, the public?including the press, aides from state Reps. Jeffery S?nchez and Liz Malia?s offices, and representatives from the development team?were asked to step outside. BRA deputy director for planning Muhammad Ali-Salaam also attended the meeting and stepped outside when the public was asked to leave for the CAC?s private deliberation.

Ali-Salaam did not respond to Gazette phone calls for this article.

When the public was invited back in, the CAC announced it had, after a series of votes, voted to not allow the press to cover future CAC meetings. Gazette editor and publisher Sandra Storey, who attended the meeting, asked to speak, but was told she could not. Despite that, she reiterated a previous offer to sit down with CAC members individually or as a group to discuss how media and community groups can work together constructively.

Storey and this reporter then voluntarily left the meeting, leaving the Gazette unable to report on its content.

The CAC?s recent efforts are just the latest iteration of a community process that, since the 1990s, has helped to define the scope of and provide guidance for the project.

Prior to the development team?Jackson Square Partners (JSP)?receiving designation as the developer for the sites in 2005, state Rep. S?nchez?at the time working for the Mayor?s Office of Neighborhood Services?and the BRA were involved in running broad ?visioning? processes for the sites. A BRA-run group called the Jackson Square Coordinating Group (JCG) conducted that process. The CAC was formed after the development team was designated. Its responsibility is the marathon task of reviewing the teams increasingly specific plan for the sites in real time, as planning, and eventually construction, move forward.

S?nchez recently told the Gazette he strongly disagrees with the CAC?s decision.

?I am definitely concerned and I would ask them to rethink their position. They should keep their doors open to everyone. That?s how it started out,? S?nchez said.

He also praised the Gazette for having played a key role in keeping the public informed about the process. ?Keeping the community informed about what?s going on translated this from a vision into a project with [over $10 million] in funding,? he said.

At the JPNC?s April 28 meeting, JPNC chair J?sus Gerena said, ?As somebody who?s been involved with Jackson Square [planning] for 10 years, I think its sad the CAC voted that way.?

The community fought for years to get public input, he said, and sought to bridge traditional neighborhood and cultural boundaries as it developed a community vision for the project.

The CAC decision ?is not about creating bridges. This is not about sharing information. It?s sad,? he said.

Gerena is on the staff of the Hyde Square Task force (HSTF), a community organization that is involved with Jackson Square Partners. He said he was not representing HSTF or JSP in his comments at the JPNC meeting.

In addition to the CDCs and HSTF, Jackson Square Partners includes for-profit developer Mitchell Properties. The developers are mostly working on individual projects under the JSP umbrella.

Some of those plans have hit roadblocks. But city and state funding, including allocations from the federal American Relief and Recovery Act, clear the way for the team to begin work this year despite the recession. With the funding, the team hopes to begin public infrastructure work and Mitchell Properties hopes to begin work on a 103-unit residential building with ground-floor retail at 225 Centre St. on of Columbus Avenue north of the Jackson Square T Station.

The Gazette has been attempting to attend CAC meetings regularly since January after Urban Edge told the Gazette its plans build a state Department Of Youth Services (DYS) facility on property it owns on the corner of Ritchie Street and Columbus Avenue had fallen through earlier in 2008.

The Gazette complied with CAC requests that it leave two of the four meetings it attended between prior to the April meeting.

In a phone interview after the recent meeting, Urban Edge President Mossik Hacobian said, ?We would prefer the CAC work to be completely visible and transparent to the community?I would like to think if they are fulfilling their responsibility on behalf of the community then [press coverage] shouldn?t be an issue.?

But he said, ?As an empowered community group, they have strong views about how they would like to conduct their business.?

And, from the developer?s perspective, the CAC itself is in the driver?s seat, Hacobian said. ?They set the guidelines about how we interact. We present the information they ask us for when they ask us for it. We try to be as transparent as we can be to the CAC and the community.?

In an e-mail, BRA spokesperson Jessica Shumaker reiterated the city?s position, previously reported by the Gazette, that the city also has no control over the CAC.

The membership of the CAC has apparently changed drastically and experienced a fall-off since its inception three years ago and it is unclear if all of the members are aware of how it has run itself in the past. At a previous meeting, BRA project manager Sinclair noted that the CAC had originally declared its meetings open to the public including the press.

At recent meetings the Gazette has attended, there have regularly not been more than eight CAC members present. Sinclair had also previously brought up that on paper the group has 23 members. Under its original rules, 11 members have to be present to constitute a voting quorum.

At the April 23 meeting, Sinclair said the CAC could change its quorum rules.

The BRA did not respond to a Gazette request for a copy of the original CAC rules.

In response to a Gazette question about that decision, Shumaker said, ?Sinclair?did not advise the CAC that they could suspend the quorum rules?Since the CAC can decide on its own rules, Mr. Sinclair simply stated that should they wish to, they could update how they define a quorum.?

Whether CAC?s are subject to other rules, namely the state Open Meeting Law is a disputed point. In 2007, Suffolk County District Attorney District attorney?s office issued a legal opinion stating that two other BRA advisory groups are subject to the open meeting law. The BRA subsequently issued a response disputing that opinion. No one has mounted a legal challenge to the BRA?s opinion, and the issue remains unresolved.

But many side with the DA.

?I think [CAC meetings] are subject to open meeting laws,? S?nchez said.

?I?m not sure what they are thinking, I?m not sure this is legal,? Malia said when asked for a response from the Gazette.

Referring to a suit filed against City Council for violating open meeting laws, City Councilor John Tobin said, ?That?s the thing that got our body into trouble with the open meeting laws, was the BRA. If I was the BRA, I wouldn?t be excluding [anyone]. I wouldn?t be shutting people out.?

Shumaker said the BRA does encourage CAC openness. ?Even though these groups are advisory to the BRA and they have no official voting power, we believe in an open and transparent process where everyone can observe the work that these volunteer groups are assisting us with,? she said.

Hacobian said the lack of clarity from public officials makes it hard for the CAC or the developers to know what to do.

?Even folks in the public sector charged with interpretation of what the rules mean are not in agreement,? he said. ?You certainly can?t fault the CAC or us for not having reconciled our different views.?

Mayoral candidate Kevin McCrea suggested that, in prohibiting press coverage, the CAC is not fulfilling its responsibility.

?It?s appointed by the mayor, supposedly representing the citizens, yet they want to exclude themselves from the citizens. It just doesn?t make any logical sense,? he said.

CAC members have previously said that their rationale for not wanting press coverage of their meetings is they have ?work to do? and some members generally distrust for the media. At the JPNC meeting, Red Burrows, who represents the JPNC on the CAC, said that at the closed session of the CAC on April 23, ?There were some people who felt the coverage from the Jamaica Plain Gazette was biased and unfair, and some who thought they were quoted wrong?They were the loudest voice in the room.?

Many observers said barring press coverage creates the appearance of impropriety.

Tobin described it as ?suspect. We are not talking about top secrets here. We are talking about a development we have been talking about for years?It?s a public issue. It?s supposed to be a public process.?

The JPNC?s motion in support of open meetings was offered by Burrows. It states that, ?It is the policy of the Jamaica Plain Neighborhood Council to make all meetings of community planning open to the public, including the press.?

Burrows will still participate in the CAC on behalf of the JPNC.

The JPNC discussed the Open Meeting Law, but it was considered by some to be a peripheral issue. The meeting s should be open in any case, said JPNC member David Baron. ?I don?t really care if the Open Meeting Law applies.?

In the discussion, JPNC member Kathy Holland spoke in support of an imperfect press, saying she has been misquoted in newspapers before, but does not see that as a reason to ban the press from public meetings.

At the meeting, Colleen Keller from the Mayor?s Office of Neighborhood Services expressed support for the motion.

Speaking to the Gazette, and voicing a personal opinion, Mike Frank said the CAC decision makes no sense to him, personally.

?What I want to know is, how do you ban the media and not the public? The media are there representing the public. What?s to prevent anyone in the public from reporting? What are they talking about that is so hot? If you don?t want what you say in the paper, then you don?t want to be on the CAC.?

Frank is a member of Friends of Kelly Rink, which has been working with Urban Edge on a controversial plan to build a new permanent home for Kelly Rink in Jackson Square, but said he was not speaking for that group.

Steve Glickel, another member of Friends of Kelly, who was also speaking personally, said, conversations about ?the disposition of public land for the public good should be covered [by the media].?

Referring to potential complaints about media coverage, he said that sometimes ?people have a right to be upset. You write a letter to the editor.?

Glickel attended the April 23 meeting as a member of the public.

Hacobian applauded CAC members for continuing to volunteer their time for the development project. ?The six or eight people putting in time deserve a lot of credit for their effort,? he said. ?But another reason I think transparency is helpful is everyone can?t be at the meeting. More press coverage helps keep people informed.?

Other members of JSP did not respond to Gazette requests for comment. JPNDC referred the Gazette to a press statement previously offered by JPNDC director Richard Thal on behalf of JSP. ?The JSP LLC supports inclusive and transparent planning processes for any development project in which we?re involved. We appreciate the work of community representatives and hope and expect that the press will fairly handle the complexities of the issues involved in any major development project,? the statement said.

The Gazette reported last month that City Councilor and mayoral candidate Sam Yoon said he thinks the City and the BRA do not provide enough infrastructure and support for CACs.

At that time, City Hall spokesperson Dot Joyce told the Gazette Mayor Thomas Menino had called for ?constant monitoring? of the openness of CACs. Joyce did not return Gazette phone calls for this article.

John Ruch and Sandra Storey contributed to this article.

http://jamaicaplaingazette.com/node/3398

 

[vanshnookenraggen]

WTF. This is what people are talking about when they say community boards have too much power. Does anyone know how the CAC is set up, by which I mean are their members voted in or appointed or what?

 

[Lurker]

If the meeting is to be open to the 'public' why can't the minutes be a matter of public record? This reeks of backroom dealing and public funds slipping into very personal pockets.

 

[pelhamhall]

I know somebody at the Savin Hill/Columbia board meeting I was told that taking notes was an invasion of privacy. They actually deliberate in secrecy, after the developer has left the room.

Apparently, the mayor's daughter-in-law is involved. When a Republican-connected developer proposed improving and investing in a vacant, trash-strewn lot, guess what the board decided? They like the trash-strewn lot.

(this is all heresay, I have no direct knowledge and am not accusing anybody of anything - this is simply the 'word on the dorchester streets')

That said, trust me on this.

 

[tobyjug]

This is interesting. The Open Meeting Law, which applies to "government bodies", be they elected or appointed, requires that all board or committee meetings be publically posted at least 48 hours in advance, be open to the public, that minutes be kept, and that recording be allowed (as long as it isn't intrusive). See G.L. c.39, s. 23B There are 10 narrow exceptions that allow so called "executive sessions"; these are narrow in scope and highly unlikely to apply to the activities of any CAC.

I am not familiar with this group, or the manner of its appointment. Assuming that it falls within the definition of "government body", the members are breaking the law, and should be reported to the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office, the enforcing authority for the Open Meeting Law. Or you can bring a private action. Ask Shirley. She kicked Flats' ass for similar non-sense.

 

[BarbaricManchurian]

Where is Ms. Kressel when we need her?!?!

 

[briv]

From the JP Gazette:

No Rules, Few Records for CACs

By JOHN RUCH July 10, 2009




BRA/mayor?s groups form, run with little info

The city-appointed citizens advisory committees (CAC) that review major Boston real estate developments?and that are notorious citywide for secrecy?are formed by the Mayor?s Office and the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA) with no standard rules, structures or operating procedures, a Gazette investigation has found.

There is no standard documentation about who is appointed to CACs and how, and the members receive no training, a BRA assistant secretary told the Gazette.



That was after she offered the Gazette thin BRA files on two area CACs that showed varying nomination processes?including members nominated by the BRA itself?and, in one case, no list of who was actually ap-pointed. The files were the BRA?s only response to a Gazette Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that sought complete records about the CACs? formation and training.


Mayor Thomas Menino typically meets with the CAC members?often joined by the real estate developers?in City Hall for an ?orientation? session. But Menino spokesperson Dot Joyce was unable to say exactly what is discussed in those meetings, and the Mayor?s Office ignored a Gazette FOIA request for any CAC-related re-cords.


CACs, composed of unpaid volunteers, are free to run by their own self-devised rules. But it appears that CAC members receive no standard training in running a meeting, community organizing, real estate terminology and processes and other basic aspects of their work.


BRA non-responses to requests for CAC information is typical, according to activists in Jamaica Plain and other neighborhoods who have questioned CAC secrecy and process.



?I asked for rules. I didn?t get anything,? said JP resident Bill Allan of his FOIA request to the BRA last year. Allan, a member of Friends of the Kelly Rink, was seeking documentation on how the local Jackson Square CAC is supposed to operate. Allan said the BRA did provide him with some e-mails between the BRA and the CAC.


Brighton resident Abigail Furey, a member of Brighton Neighbors United and now a Boston City Council can-didate, told the Gazette that her group?s FOIA request to the BRA about a secretive Boston College CAC was met with similarly scant information and no real answers.



It is unclear what the motivation for non-responsiveness is. Even if the information sought in a FOIA request does not exist, the government agency is required to say so.


CAC members usually are nominated by various methods and officially appointed by the mayor. The BRA then organizes and staffs the CAC meetings. Despite this city involvement, the Mayor?s Office and the BRA claim they have no control over CACs and allow them to operate however they wish. BRA project managers frequently offer informal, on-the-spot advice to CACs.


CACs are sometimes known as Impact Advisory Groups (IAGs) or Task Forces. Technically, IAGs are a special type of group and the only one required in the zoning code, formed to review specific community mitigations for large projects. In addition, the BRA sometimes forms CACs for its own redevelopment projects, such as the new CAC for the improvement of Centre and South streets in JP.


While technically described as merely advisory to the BRA, CACs sometimes have other powers, including directly negotiating project details with developers. Those powers do not appear to be written down any-where.
In recent years, some CACs in JP and other neighborhoods have caused repeated controversies by kicking out reporters or other members of the public, holding secret meetings or attempting to limit reporting about the meetings, sometimes with the vocal encouragement of BRA officials.



A BRA official tried to declare an entire meeting of a Mission Hill CAC ?off the record? last February. That CAC has a long history of unpublicized and early-morning meetings that cut off public access, though it has become more open following Gazette coverage.


Most recently, the Jackson Square CAC banned the media from its meetings. Gazette coverage of the contro-versy led the BRA to declare in a new policy that its staff will no longer attend any CAC meeting that is not completely open to the public, including reporters.


But that still leaves many questions unanswered about how CACs are organized and put in the position of reviewing multi-million-dollar developments that change the faces of entire neighborhoods.



The Gazette asked the BRA in March for information about the selection and training of CAC members, but got no response. In April, the Gazette filed the FOIA requests for all documentation?including staff e-mails and any standard official forms?about the selection and orientation of the Jackson Square and Mission Hill CACs.



Under federal and state open records laws, the city typically has a maximum of three weeks to provide records; or explain when and how they will be available; or state that the records do not exist. Three months later, the Mayor?s Office has not responded to the Gazette?s request.


The BRA?s response was providing access at the BRA?s City Hall offices to its incomplete public files?literally, two thin file folders?about the CACs? nominations.



When the Gazette noted to BRA Assistant Secretary Tammy Donovan that the files did not fulfill the FOIA request, she said that there are no standard documents about CACs, including no training documents. She also said that she believes the Mayor?s Office of Neighborhood Services (ONS) handles the notification of appointment to individual CAC members.


No other BRA official responded to the Gazette?s request.



The scant information in the Jackson Square and Mission Hill CAC folders indicated a varied approach to forming the groups.


The Jackson Square CAC nominations in 2006 came from such official sources as local elected officials?but also from ONS and the BRA itself. A nomination letter included formal language saying the CAC would be lim-ited to 15 members, a ?majority of whom must be residents, business owners or designees of community organi-zations in the affected area.?



The Mission Hill CAC nomination process in 2001 involved an apparently publicly distributed flyer seeking nominees. Unlike Jackson Square, the Mission Hill folder contained several e-mails and letters from resi-dents nominating themselves or fellow residents.



The Jackson Square CAC is technically an IAG, which might explain some differences in its process. How-ever, there was nothing in the records stating that. It is unclear whether the Mission Hill CAC is consid-ered an IAG.


The Jackson Square file did not include a list of actual appointees to the CAC. The BRA recently provided the Gazette with a list of members, which was out-of-date and did not appear in the file. The file?s list of nominees also was incomplete, as it did not reference some current CAC members at all. The Mission Hill file did have a membership list, though it is unclear how current it was.



Nothing in either file explained what appointees are told about their upcoming work and responsibilities. The only post-nomination document in either file was a Mission Hill resident?s personal e-mail to a BRA of-ficial, sent in 2001 as a ?quick thank you for taking the time with Marcia and I.? There was no explanation of what that meant.

LINK