Former City Councilor Corey Belanger was appointed to replace John Leahy Tuesday night, as a back and forth process over how to replace the departing District 3 City Councilor played out in public after numerous behind the scenes stops and starts regarding a Home Rule Petition that would change the way council vacancies are filled from an appointment to a special election.
After a few ceremonial items to open the meeting, the board opted to take a couple of items out of order, including Leahy’s final motion as a councilor. That motion, fittingly enough, called for a removal of double poles on Andrews Street. The removal of double poles had become a sort of trademark during Leahy’s tenure on the council.
After brief tributes from his fellow councilors and other administration officials, Leahy posed for a photograph and surprisingly walked out of the room, leaving behind the seat he’s held for over twelve years and the controversial process to replace him.
At that point, Councilor Wayne Jenness’ motion to reconsider the vote from July 9th to appoint a replacement to fill the vacancy created by Leahy’s departure from the body was discussed.
As part of the ensuing discussion, a status update on the Home Rule Petition was provided, including more changes that are required by the Secretary of State’s Office in order to eliminate the provision calling for a preliminary election should there be more than two candidates seeking an open seat.
State Representative Rodney Elliott and City Solicitor Corey Williams presented the steps necessary to complete the process through the State Legislature in the speediest manner, which seemed reasonably doable until the mechanics of actually conducting that special election were brought up.
Elections Director Greg Pappas was called to the podium by Councilor Johnny Descoteaux. Pappas expressed concern that a special election could be properly administered while also conducting a State Primary on September 3rd and a General Election that includes a Presidential Election and multiple ballot questions on November 5th.
The outgoing Elections Director highlighted the requirements for gathering signatures, printing ballots and allowing early and mail in voting for a special election, and the challenges they present when added to the state and federal election timelines. Pappas stated it would take four months complete the process without a preliminary election, five months with.
Pappas, known for his blunt style, stated it was “freakin’ impossible” to do it in the timeline required to meet the 120-day maximum timeline the Home Rule Petition calls for to replace outgoing councilors or school committee members.
That touched off back and forth discussion among a few of the councilors, which was often fiery, but the motion to reconsider ultimately failed to pass by a 6-4 vote.
At that point, a number of the applicants to fill the District 3 seat were called to address the council. When the vote was finally taken, Belanger garnered the support of councilors Sokhary Chau, Descoteaux, Rita Mercier, Mayor Danny Rourke, Kim Scott and Paul Ratha Yem. Councilors Erik Gitschier, Jenness, Vesna Nuon and Corey Robinson voted “present.”
5 responses to “Contentious Meeting Ends With Belanger Appointment”
Disgraceful! My voting rights were taken away from me!
I don’t live in the Belvedere district, but I also find it disgraceful that our elected officials should seemingly violate the open meeting law (in slipping this into the previous City Council meeting during the meeting of July 9, 2024). The Agenda for 7/9/2024 had no item listed about this. I thank the residents and four city councilors who spoke in support of waiting to see whether the city’s home rule petition to hold a special election would be approved, The other six city councilors are a disgrace for using this backroom style appointment.
Paul, if you understood the “law” that was in place at the time of Councilor Leahy’s resignation, the same law that is still in place until Governor Healy signs the Home Rule petition bill, you would know that the council vote taken two weeks ago was uneccesary and they had every right to appoint someone. No motion was necessary. Sounds like you are the typical sore loser who wants to change the rules in the middle of the game. Can I ask how you felt about the democratic elites “appointing” Kamala Harris, whose name was not on a ballot anywhere, to replace Joe Biden? Were your voting rigjts taken away then? What is more #disgraceful
You’re rights weren’t taken away, per the charter the council appoints the replacement. Nothing was taken away or added.
Tony, the issue I raised is not about the charter, but about the state’s open meeting laws.
GMP, while I am not crazy about the situation, Kamala Harris was not made president by the maneuvers and the national Democratic Party is not governed by Massachusetts’ open meeting laws. Your whataboutism is not a fair comparison here.
The issue here is that the councils actions appear to be in violation of the state’s open meeting laws. I am not saying that appointing a city councilor to District 3 by a vote of our city council is illegal, but it should have not been done in a manner that appears to violate the open meeting law. In other words, the issue is not that they voted as they did, but they appeared to be making a backroom deal without the public being notified appropriately.