EASTHAMPTON — A proposed resolution defending democracy and accusing the Trump administration of disregarding separation of powers drew tense discussions at Wednesday’s City Council meeting, after members of the public voiced their discontent with the resolution and how it was presented after the agenda had been set.
Council President James “JP” Kwiecinski put forth the “Resolution in Support of Democracy and A Call for the Return to the Constitutional Principles that are the Foundation of our Republic” for immediate consideration at the meeting.
His intention was to have the resolution approved in time for the 236th anniversary of the United States Constitution (Constitution Day) on Sept. 17. Constitution Day is a federal observance that celebrates and recognizes the signing of the Constitution.
Overall, the proposal condemns many recent actions by President Donald Trump, pushing state legislators to continue legislative action against his administration.
The first four sections of the resolution reinforce the integrity of democracy in the U.S., refencing the significance of the 1780 Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It refers to “key aspects” of that constitution, including the separation of powers, checks and balances, an independent judiciary, and provisions that protect individuals against state power and that are reflected by the U.S. Constitution.
After that, the fifth section begins by stating, “in just seven months, the current President and his appointees have shown disregard for the separation of powers by … ,” then listing 10 accused actions during Trump’s presidency. These actions include disobeying court rulings, attempting to overturn birthright citizenship and withholding Congressionally approved funds.
Continuing on, the proposal also states that Trump and his appointees have done and publicly stated multiple things, including targeting Massachusetts residents through aggressive immigration enforcement, withholding funds from public schools and attempting institution-wide censorship of educational, health care and scientific institutions.
The resolution urges the Massachusetts Congressional delegation to continue pushing their Congressional colleagues to exercise legislative authority to enforce the Constitution, and commends Gov. Maura Healey and Campbell for their work defending the Constitution, fellow citizens, the public and private institutions in the commonwealth.
Finally, it asks the Clerk of the City Council to submit the resolution to state legislators.
Sent to committee
Even though Kwiecinski wanted the council to take a vote on the resolution on Wednesday, members opted to send it to committee for consideration.
The original agenda was published more than 48 hours before the meeting, in accordance with Massachusetts General Law. However, the agenda was updated a day before the meeting to include the resolution item, stirring controversy amongst the public.
At least one audience member took exception to late timing, and to the merits of the resolution itself.
“That resolution is an embarrassment because you have no idea what you’re talking about,” said resident Darlene Orvieto. “There is constitutional study, constitutional law that you are totally ignoring, showing your ignorance, lack of education and I’m embarrassed for you. That resolution should not even be brought up.”
Orvieto felt the “first page” of the proposal was good but condemned the second part, which she said went “off the rails.”
“Do not bring it up today, you offered it to the public as of yesterday. That’s disgusting, that’s unfair, we deserve more time,” she said.
Another resident, Cathy Wauczinski, urged councilors to not review the resolution on Wednesday.
“Agendas are supposed to be set 48 hours in advance. That certainly wasn’t if it was posted yesterday,” she said. “I do not believe it actually meets the Open Meeting Law requirements. The majority of the resolution is personal opinion. The beginning was a great opportunity to bring this community together to celebrate our Constitution, the rest of it is just divisive and bitter. I think we should remove it completely or review it at the next city council meeting when additional input can be provided.”
Kwiecinski noted he submitted the proposal for immediate consideration since the next council meeting would take place on the night of Constitution Day, on Sept. 17. Therefore, the resolution would not be in place prior to Constitution Day, an important aspect of the resolution.
State law allows items to be added to an agenda if the chair did not reasonably anticipate the item 48 hours before the meeting.
According to the city charter, if any city councilor wants to have a measure passed through all stages at one meeting, the councilor must notify the clerk. Since items for immediate resolution, such as the resolution proposal, are typically sent to the appropriate committee, only one councilor needed to request a move to send the proposal to the Rules and Government Relations Committee.
Thus, Kwiecinski opened the space for any councilor to move to send the proposal to committee, which at-large member Jason “JT” Tirrell supported.
“I think out of process it should be brought to committee just as anything else would be brought to committee … ,” he said. “I just think because of the timing it would be best.”
Disruptions
In the midst of the discussion, police officers arrived to the meeting and there were multiple comments made outside of public speak time, from audience members in person and over the Google Meet that allows community members to attend virtually.
Outlined by state laws, each municipality and council can set their own protocols that typically permit members of the public to speak only during public speak time, with councilors not allowed to respond to comments. Public speak time is intended for members of the public to speak uninterrupted.
An audience member attending virtually said the council should be able to respond to questions from the public during that time.
Kwiecinski, along with City Councilor At-Large Pat Riley, informed the public that council protocol does not allow for councilors to respond during public speak, but they do take into account what is said.
“There are very clear rules about how city council meetings are being run. It is not the responsibility of the council to educate the public in the meetings that they’re happening. If we are not allowed to respond, we’re not allowed to respond … ” said Riley. “Believe me there are times where we wish we could engage with the public but we cannot because that’s what the federal government and the state government and our Constitution says that we are required to do. I understand that people do not appreciate that there are certain restrictions and rules within the federal government or that we can simply discard them when we don’t like them, but that’s not how we do things here. Easthampton is a city of rules and we follow them.”