PITTSFIELD, Mass. — A failed motion to continue Tuesday's City Council meeting past 10 p.m. meant the controversial "Camping on Public Property" ordinance was pushed to another date. 

But the body determined that they were not in violation of the Open Meeting Law during a "Homes not Handcuffs" advocacy meeting in July. 

People spilled out of the council chambers and into the hallway while they waited for hours for a turn to speak during open microphone. The proposed ban on camping in public places has sparked a large turnout to several meetings, with some comparing it to actions taken by President Donald Trump. 

Veteran Yolanda Hoffman, who was formerly unhoused, called attention to proposed fines ranging from $25 for the second offense to $300 for the fourth and subsequent offenses and asserted, "if it's wrong to jail someone for being unhoused, then it's wrong to fine them. A citation or a cell, punishment is punishment." 

"You may not wear the red hat, but if you pass this ordinance, you carry its torch. You say it can be revised later, but laws like this tend to stick and grow teeth," Hoffman said. 

Mayor Peter Marchetti has been open to amendments since proposing the ordinance months ago and views the current version as a good compromise, following the removal of criminalization language, a new fine structure, and the addition of exceptions for individuals sleeping in cars or escaping danger.  

Resident Aaron Angelman recognized the mayor's flexibility, adding, "you could cross out every line in this ordinance and fill in something better. He just wants it to pass. That's politics, I guess." 

Shortly after 10 p.m., a required vote to continue the meeting for another hour failed to reach a 2/3 approval, and reports from committees, unfinished and new business, and matters referred under Rule 27 will be pushed to the next meeting on Sept. 9. Councilors at Large Alisa Costa and Earl Persip III, Ward 2 Councilor Brittany Noto, Ward 4 Councilor James Conant, and Ward 6 Councilor Dina Lampiasi voted in opposition. 

While the camping ordinance was continued, the City Council did discuss two Open Meeting Law complaints received from a former councilor and a local podcaster. Both were accepted and placed on file, councilors agreeing that there didn't appear to be a violation. 

"The city solicitor suggested, as a demonstration of our commitment to transparency and based on the recommendation of him, that all members of the City Council O&R meeting be required to attend a mandatory Open Meeting Law retraining webinar hosted by the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office," Council President Peter White said. 

"I don't believe that anything was violated as far as the Open Meeting Law goes, so I will not recommend anyone taking a required training." 

Karen Kalinowsky and Michael Daly allege that six councilors discussed the proposed "Camping on Public Property" ordinance during a "Homes not Handcuffs" public meeting on July 31.  

Kalinowsky, a candidate for City Council, was at the meeting and said the discussion happened at another table. Daly was not present. She wrote that she saw the six councilors at the meeting and, "at one table, the conversation came up about the ordinance, though no councilors were at this table when I was." 

"The thing is, is words were spoken, things were said. No, I'm not on the council. I know some of the people here asked me about different things with the ordinance. Why would they ask me and not you? I'm not just out in the public like they are, but it's something to think about," Kalinowsky said during open microphone. 

White, Costa, Ward 1 Councilor Kenneth Warren, Noto, Lampiasi, and Ward 7 Councilor Rhonda Serre were named in the complaints. 

Both complainants indicated that they believed the alleged violation was an accident, and asked that councilors admit the mistake and review OML guidelines. Fifteen minutes before the council meeting, the Ordinances and Rules subcommittee held a brief session to discuss the complaints. 

Residents who were at the meeting, alongside councilors present, asserted that there was not an OML violation because councilors weren't at the same table and the conversation was about general solutions for the unhoused population. 

"I think it's very obvious where this is coming from: Officer Kalinowsky who's running to unseat at least one of you in the upcoming election. That this was pretty obviously politically motivated and I think it also speaks to who she's expecting to vote for her, that she thinks this would be impressive to to be using these rules against people in this way,"  Angelman said. 

Michael Hitchcock, co-director of Roots & Dreams and Mustard Seeds, said the meeting was "educational, informative, and contained no deliberation of this upcoming ordinance, which is the center of the Open Meeting violation accusation."

He said he is prepared to write a statement to the AG's office, if needed. 

"I'm making a public comment to say that the type of accusation that's being made is the kind of accusation that creates a chilling effect, is what lawyers call it, because it makes people less likely to interact with the public in these kinds of educational events," 

"… It is absolutely necessary for a functioning Ordinances and Rules committee that you not be fearful of accepting invitations to educational events and I encourage these two who are making a frivolous complaint against you to make that complaint to the Attorney General so that they could be informed how dumb their complaint was, but I did not want their complaint to make you all less likely to hear from us." 

Kalinowsky said she didn't think much of the situation, "And then I get a phone call from an active counselor who rants at me about how I should not bring this up at this meeting tonight. I didn't say much of anything to them." 

Warren chimed in, "That's me." 

She continued, "But it made me think, Why? Why are they telling me? Now, somebody in the public thought it was I came forward because I was running for office. I'm thinking maybe he told me this because two of the people that I'm running against are there. I don't know, but that's why I filed it." 

"I did not call her when I knew that there was a complaint. I did not call her about anything. I had seen some stuff on social media," Warren said. 

"I worked with former councilor Kalinowsky for two years. I grew to have some respect for her. I may be re-evaluating that. The fact of the matter is, as we're all really parsing this out, if there was an open meeting issue, I can't call my colleagues to see what they think, so I called a former colleague. A colleague I worked with, and I felt comfortable with. Once again, may have to re-evaluate that." 

Looking at the complaint, he pointed out that "Nowhere does she say any city councilor spoke. Nowhere does she say any person came up to her and said any city councilor spoke. She makes it very clear that she didn't hear anything, she didn't see anything. One table, which no councilors were at, the people amongst themselves were talking. That's not enough. That's not enough." 

Lampiasi said the former councilor should be familiar with the Open Meeting Law, and emphasized that the Attorney General's Office offers free training for members of official bodies and the public if people would like to educate themselves and learn how to accurately spot violations. 

"It really is important that we keep our public officials accountable," she said. "There are cases where there have been egregious abuses of deliberation, I guess I'll say, where communities got some bad outcomes. That's not this." 

White said they were there to listen to the community, and that's what they did. 

"Yes, there was one-on-one conversations between councilors and members of the community. Some of those conversations I had were with people here tonight," he said. 

"We've been asked to listen to solutions. If we're being penalized for going out and listening to solutions in this, that is not what the Open Meeting Law is against. The Open Meeting Law is against us deliberating amongst ourselves, which did not happen." 

The president cited a time when he inadvertently "replied all" to an email and included it in the council packet to avoid an OML violation. 

"If there was a violation, I would be happy to point it out," he said. 

A letter will be sent to the AG's office with the council's determination. 

• Most Read

• Most Comments

• All News

• Blogroll

• Photos