Old Guard Framingham City Councilors Oppose Smarter Government Again

SUMMARY:

The old guard knows that the city has a rapidly expanding infrastructure maintenance deficit. However, in the new City Council, it:

1. Tried to block any change to City Council rules designed to shed light on the problem.
2. Was outmaneuvered by City Councilors Bryant, Long and Steiner, who got a discussion of rule changes onto the City Council meeting agenda.
3. Argued against the creation of a Capital Projects and Facilities Subcommittee to shed light on the infrastructure problems.
4. Recruited the City Solicitor to argue that formation of such a committee would violate the charter, putting the City Solicitor in a classic conflict of interest situation where, as a member of the executive branch of government, she was ‘advising’ the legislative branch of government on what it could and could not do. She was also completely wrong.
5. Conceded, after seeing it would lose any vote, but insisted that the subcommittee be called an Ad Hoc subcommittee, with the hope that it would be temporary.
6. Delayed activating the subcommittee - although the subcommittee was created by a City Council vote on February 6, 2024, Chair Phil Ottaviani still has not appointed any members a month later.

It's time for another update on the power struggle going on in the Framingham City Council.

As explained in a prior article, with John Stefanini's defeat in the District 8 City Council race last November, the 6-5 balance of power shifted from the old guard {Ottaviani, King, Leombruno, Cannon, Stefanini, Alexander} to a possible new guard {Steiner, Mallach, Long, White Harvey, Bryant, Ward}, but despite this, Phil Ottaviani adroitly captured the Chair.

For details, see: Framingham City Council Chair Neglects Key Business and Suns in Aruba

Using his power as City Council Chair, Phil Ottaviani then stacked the Finance Subcommittee and the Temporary Rules Subcommittee with 3-2 old guard majorities to ensure that the old guard approach to city finances would prevail, and that no rules would be changed to upset the old guard way of doing business in the City Council.

That almost worked. See: Framingham City Council Artfully Dodges Changing Its Rules

The first and only meeting of the Temporary Rules Subcommittee on Thursday, January 25, 2024, was cut short by Phil Ottaviani heading off to another event, after 45 minutes of Ottaviani/Cannon/Leombruno successfully blocking any changes. Phil thought that would deal with any new guard insurgency.

However, two City Councilors serving on that Temporary Rules Subcommittee, Tracey Bryant and Christine Long, conducted a successful rear guard action by the two of them getting together a few days later and producing a new 'Rules of the Framingham City Council' draft document, with help from City Councilor Adam Steiner.

That draft document contained a complete set of possible rules changes, which had not been discussed in Ottaviani's attempt to rush through a 'no changes' agenda. Although created outside the Temporary Rules Subcommittee process, production of such a document was legitimate, respected the Open Meeting laws, and afforded a means to counter the truncated process orchestrated by the City Council Chair.

The draft rules document was placed on the agenda of the City Council February 6, 2024, meeting.

Finally, through the actions of City Councilors who want to improve government in Framingham, much needed change got onto the floor of a City Council meeting for discussion!

The central innovation of the draft rules document was creation of a Capital Projects and Facilities Subcommittee to ensure the City Council would be well informed on the state of facilities and capital projects in the city, so it could make sound decisions.

It would play much the same role for the City Council as the Buildings & Grounds Subcommittee currently plays for the School Committee, but is actually much more important for the City Council, as not only does the City Council have in its purview all of the city buildings, but it also has the roads and water & sewer system, which are in constant need of maintenance and upgrades and each year need major capital investments.

The City Council and School Committee each have Finance Subcommittees which deal with budget and other financial recommendations for both bodies, but both bodies need sound information and recommendations on infrastructure maintenance and upgrades, which come from these facilities/capital improvements subcommittees.

This new City Council subcommittee would fill a yawning gap which has existed for 6 years on the City Council. That huge void in management intelligence has caused the city infrastructure maintenance backlog to rise every year, for 6 years, now reaching $400 million.

It is commonplace across the Commonwealth for other cities to have City Council subcommittees dedicated to informing their City Councils on infrastructure matters. That was well explained by City Councilor Adam Steiner, as he argued in the February 6, 2024, City Council meeting, to support creation of the new subcommittee:

Framingham Councilor Steiner Argues for Creation of a Capital Projects & Facilities Subcommittee

Cities with City Council subcommittees focused on facilities and capital improvements include Newton, Lowell, Gardner, Springfield, Cambridge, and Taunton, amongst many others. The need for such subcommittees is obvious and they are widely employed by City Councils.

That makes it all the more astounding that City Council Chair Phil Ottaviani attempted to recruit the City Solicitor to argue, in a document submitted to the meeting, that the creation of the Capital Projects and Facilities Subcommittee was a violation of the City Charter as it would ‘conflict with the Finance Subcommittee’. This really was extreme!

It was remarkable to see the City Solicitor, who is a member of the executive branch of government, arguing to curtail the powers of the legislative branch of government. That attempt by the executive branch of government to interfere with the legislative branch of government is the clear City Charter violation, not the creation of a City Council Subcommittee.

Councilor Adam Steiner noted, correctly, in the video above, that the scope of the Finance Subcommittee is finance, and that does not conflict with the intended scope of the Capital Projects and Facilities Subcommittee.

When the dust settled from all of the debate, Councilors Ottaviani, King, Cannon, and Leombruno opposed formation of the new subcommittee. Councilor Alexander offered an option to label the subcommittee as ‘Ad Hoc’ to provide its opponents with some hope that it might be temporary. That suggestion lead to an 11-0 approval of the creation of the Capital Projects and Facilities Ad Hoc Subcommittee.

This was a tour de force of City Council contention over such a simple, commonsense need for it to be well informed in its decision making.

The opposition to formation of this subcommittee was reminiscent of the King/Cannon opposition to the city joining the Massachusetts Municipal Association, described in:

Framingham City Councilors King & Cannon Oppose Smarter Government

However, the story does not end with the City Council now on an improved decision making trajectory, which will finally address the major infrastructure maintenance problem in the city.

Although the Capital Project and Facilities Ad Hoc Committee was approved and created on February 6, 2024, a full month has passed by, and the City Council Chair has not appointed any members to that subcommittee.

Phil Ottaviani has a fundamental problem.

He tried every trick in the book to ensure that the old guard had control of the City Council, even though it formed a minority of 5 out of 11 City Councilors, but he could not prevent formation of this new subcommittee.

He could appoint the new subcommittee members, but then the subcommittee could proceed and shed light on the city infrastructure problem. which would put the old guard and the Mayor in a bad light.

The only way to prevent that is to stack the new subcommittee with a majority of old guard members, just as he did for the Finance Subcommittee and the Temporary Rules Subcommittee. That would guarantee an old guard majority on the subcommittee, which opposed its creation, and would disable its function.

That must be causing him headaches.

It seems that the time is right for the Chair of the City Council to embrace much needed change and appoint members to the new subcommittee, with a majority drawn form the group who supported its creation: {Bryant, Long, Steiner, Mallach, Ward, White Harvey}.

If Phil did that, it would surely set the City Council on the right trajectory, and would be remembered as one of the best decisions he ever made,

NOTES:

The incorrect opinion of the City Solicitor:

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/2425111/2-5-24_Memo_from_K_Fallon_re_Creation_of_CC_Subcommittee_on_Capital_Improvements.pdf