A response to an Open Meeting Law Complaint filed by Hasson Rashid dated January 8, 2016

DATED JANUARY 8, 2016

Attached you will find the response to the Open Meeting Law complaint filed by Hasson Rashid dated January 8, 2016 which has been placed on the City Council Agenda for January 25, 2016 under Communications and Reports from City Officers. Upon the City Council's review and approval i will transmit this response to the Attorney General. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. -

OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK

CITY OF CAMBRIDGE

[phone removed] FAX: [phone removed] DONNA P. LOPEZ PAULA M. CRANE

CITY CLERK

DEPUTY CITY CLERK

Amy Nable, Assistant Attorney General

Director of Division of Open Government

Office of the Attorney General

One Ashburton Place

Boston, MA 02108

Re: Action taken by Cambridge City Council on Open Meeting Law complaint of

Hasson Rashid dated January 8, 2016

Dear Ms. Nable: On behalf of the Cambridge City Council, I am writing to advise you pursuant to 940 CMR 29.05(5) of the action taken by the City Council on the Open Meeting Law complaint of Hasson Rashid. A copy of Mr. Rashid's complaint dated January 8, 2016 (the "Complaint") is attached. Mr. Rashid alleges that former Cambridge Mayor David P.

Maher violated the Open Meeting Law at a public Cambridge City Council meeting on December 21, 2015 by asking at the public meeting for a written commitment from a developer to include 20% of its proposed housing development as units that could be purchased for homeownership, instead of only rented. Such a signed commitment letter was drafted, submitted to the City Council later at the same meeting, and publicly approved by City Council vote at the same public meeting.

The Mayor and City Council deny that these actions constitute an Open Meeting Law violation. FACTS The Cambridge City Council met at a duly noticed open meeting on December 21, 2015. At that meeting, the City Council considered an amendment to the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance that was supported by developer Boston Properties, which was proposing to build a number of housing units in the affected area.

Also before the City Council was an amendment to an existing urban renewal plan that concerned an area of the City in which the same developer was developing property. Because the area at issue was part of an urban renewal plan created pursuant to G.L.c. 121B, it was also a matter of concern to the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (hereafter "CRA"). Both the zoning proposal and urban renewal plan amendment

CITY HALL, 795 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139

2 before the City Council on December 21, 2015 had been through an extensive series of public hearings and meetings, and were properly before the Council for passage.

When this matter came up at the meeting on December 21, 2015, several City Councilors spoke about their desire that the developer provide homeownership opportunities in the proposed new development.' During this discussion, Mayor Maher stated that he wanted a guarantee of some kind from the developer that at least 20% of the housing units would be allocated for homeownership. The CRA Chair then publicly stated at the meeting that the developer had just told her that the developer would agree to the 20% figure.

The developer's representative stated immediately after the CRA Chair spoke that he could commit to the 20% figure. One Councilor stated that she would like the commitment in writing. The Mayor then stated that the Council would continue in session while the City Solicitor, the developer and the CRA staff worked on a commitment letter that would be submitted to the Council later in the meeting when it was ready.

Over an hour later into the meeting, the completed and signed commitment letter for the 20% homeownership was given to the City Clerk by the City Solicitor. The letter was distributed to the City Councilors at the meeting and copies were simultaneously made available to the public. The Mayor stated that the letter was completed and before the Council for adoption. Two City Councilors commented briefly on the letter, and then its adoption by the full Council was moved and voted on favorably. Mr.

Rashid alleges that Mayor Maher "during debate that evening, illegally asked Boston Properties for a homeownership pledge" and that "this should have been up for public comment and debate at a public hearing." He also alleges that, "Company representatives, city, and Cambridge Redevelopment Agency [sic] (CRA) staff worked, illegally outside the council chamber to produce the agreement." DISCUSSION There is no Open Meeting Law violation alleged. Mr.

Kashid does not allege that the City Council was not appropriately in session when it publicly discussed the zoning ordinance and the homeownership commitment at issue. During the debate, several Councilors discussed their desire for a homeownership commitment from the developer. Mr. Rashid apparently wishes that members of the public could have interjected themselves into the City Council's discussion on this issue.

However, the public does not have a right at every stage of a public meeting to speak to the body when a matter is raised by the ›ody's members during debate.' See, G.L.c.30A, §20(f): *No person shall address a meeting of a public body without permission of the chair...." There is no violation of the Open Meeting Law in the City Council deliberating and voting on a matter before it without simultaneous input from members of the public. ' Seven of the nine Cambridge City Councilors publicly mentioned this issue during the Council discussion on the matter at the December 21 meeting.

2 Earlier, at the December 21, 2015 meeting, the City Council had a public comment period that lasted nearly 2 hours before the Council turned to the business before it. 3 Mr. Rashid also alleges that the commitment letter's crafting outside of the meeting by "company representatives, city, and Cambridge Redevelopment Authority (CRA) staff" violated the Open Meeting Law.

The actions to which this allegation refer do not constitute a violation of the Open Meeting Law because it is not alleged that a quorum of any public body acted outside of a public meeting to create or deliberate on the document at issue. The combination of company representatives, City and CRA staff do not constitute a public body. Therefore, even accepting Mr. Rashid's allegations as true, there was no violation of the Open Meeting Law.

As required by 940 CMR 29.05(5), the City Council reviewed the allegations of this Open Meeting Law complaint within fourteen business days of its filing. At its meeting of January 25, 2016, the City Council voted to adopt this letter as its response and resolution. Mr. Rashid is being informed of the City Council's action by copy of this letter. Very truly yours, Donna P. Lopez.

City Clerk

cc. Hasson Rashid P.O. Box 382313

Cambridge, MA 02139