LYNN — Resident Joanne Lindner has filed an open meeting law complaint with the state against the Lynn City Council, which alleges proper notice was not given for the panel’s Dec. 3 meeting.
The complaint was filed with the Attorney General’s office on Jan. 8, and was discussed at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting, where the city’s assistant city solicitor James Lamanna refuted the claims.
“There was no violation to the open meeting law,” said Lamanna.
The council voted 10-0 (Ward 1 Councilor Wayne Lozzi was absent) to refer the matter to the city’s legal department, which will send a written response to the Attorney General’s office.
In her complaint, Lindner argues that not only was the meeting itself not properly advertised, but proper notice was not given for certain agenda items.
“I feel this meeting should be null and void because it was not properly advertised and the importance of the decisions made without the residents’ knowledge,” Lindner wrote. “I would like more transparency regarding city business.”
Topics that evening included waterfront zoning changes, authorization to hire two city planners and a request for the council to approve a $2.5 million bond, the complaint read.
According to the complaint, the City Council agenda for the Dec. 3 meeting was not posted on the city’s website on Friday, Nov. 29.
State law requires public bodies to give proper notice to the public about its meetings. A public body must provide at least 48 hours in advance (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays).
In addition, the resident’s complaint questions whether it was legal for City Council President Darren Cyr to limit residents’ speaking time to five minutes during a public hearing held that evening.
The complaint also alleges that the city ignored recommended requirements for the zoning changes and the public was left in the dark about certain proposed changes for the city’s waterfront.
Lindner also questioned why a public hearing was not held before a vote on the $2.5 million bond. She asked if financial transfers are legally required to be listed on the council agenda, which is never the case, according to the complaint.
But City Solicitor George Markopoulos said the city is in compliance with all of the allegations included in the complaint.
While it’s true that the Dec. 3 council agenda was not posted on the city’s website 48 hours in advance, Lamanna said it was posted in the city clerk’s office and on Johnson Street, the only two places that are legally required for the notice.
In addition, he said City Council rules allow for a five-minute speaking limit and the waterfront zoning changes were advertised twice before the public hearing, as required by state law. He said the bond was properly advertised before the meeting as well.
“We didn’t do anything illegally,” said Cyr. “We covered all our bases and what that comes down to is someone’s opinion and that’s wrong.”
A spokeswoman for the Attorney General’s office said the complaint is under review and a determination will be made at a later date.
