The Meeting That Says Everything

Tomorrow night’s special meeting of the City Council isn’t just rushed... it’s revealing.

The meeting was called after 9:00 p.m. on December 23, hours after the mayor announced his vetoes and after City Hall had already closed. That timing ensured minimal notice, limited public awareness, and no realistic opportunity for residents to weigh in before the council attempts to override the vetoes.

This isn’t transparency.

This is a self-serving rush job that shows open disregard for the public.

Council leadership has also confirmed that if you want to be heard, you need to show up either in the Great Hall or via Zoom (link below). Apparently, reading the submission is at the discretion of the Chair and the Chair(s) have decided it won't be happening as it has in the past. While technically allowed under their rules, choosing to silence residents during a veto override, one of the council’s most consequential acts, speaks volumes about priorities.

The lack of awareness is not consquential, it's by design. The Council knows that that this is Christmas/Winter break. They know poeple are traveling, with family, or doing a million other things. They want to be able to vote this through under the rader.

Much of the justification for this meeting hinges on a claim repeatedly made by Councilor Pesce on her show with Councilor DiZoglio: that reinstating health insurance for councilors has “no impact” and that concerns raised by residents amount to misinformation. That claim does not survive even a cursory review of the city’s own financial records. It shows either a lack of understanding or a purposeful intent to be deceitful.

According to the Chief Administrative & Financial Officer’s written analysis prepared specifically for this meeting, the facts are straightforward and nondisputable. Councilors receive a $10,000 annual stipend. That stipend was set two years ago when the council eliminated its own option to participate in city health insurance. The proposal before them now would restore that benefit without reducing compensation.

Using FY26 rates, the only rates currently available, the city’s annual employer cost per councilor ranges from $9,600.27 to $28,409.33 depending on the plan selected. Those figures come directly from the CAFO’s memo and do not include the projected 18 percent increase expected in FY27. More importantly, Methuen’s plan is self-funded, meaning taxpayers are not just subsidizing premiums; they are responsible for the underlying medical claims themselves. Calling that “no impact” is not a difference of opinion. It is factually incorrect.

Costing Chart from the CAFO Impact Statement

CAFO's Fiscal Impact Statement

https://www.methuen.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5115/CAFO-USE

This also is not how other municipalities typically handle elected officials’ benefits.

In many cities, officials who receive health insurance do so through the state’s Group Insurance Commission, which spreads risk across a much larger pool. Methuen’s approach does the opposite, placing that risk squarely on local taxpayers. Any comparison that ignores this distinction is incomplete at best and misleading at worst.

There is also an ethical element that cannot be brushed aside.

Massachusetts ethics law prohibits using one’s official position to obtain benefits one is not entitled to, or to cause others to do so, under M.G.L. c. 268A §§ 23(b)(2) and 26. Voting to reinstate a significant personal benefit, previously eliminated and never budgeted for, during a last-minute meeting called after City Hall closed, while limiting public comment, raises serious and reasonable questions.

Beyond the troubling optics, there is a credible legal question as to whether this meeting, and any veto override vote taken at it, is lawful at all.

Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 43, Section 55, when a mayor returns a vetoed measure to the city council, “such vote shall not be taken for seven days after its return to the city council.”  This is not discretionary language. It is a statutory waiting period imposed by state law. (M.G.L. c. 43, § 55)

The mayor announced the vetoes on December 23. Even counting calendar days rather than business days, December 30 is only the sixth day following that return. If that timeline is accurate, and no contrary public record has been produced, then a vote taken tomorrow would occur before the statutorily required seven-day waiting period has elapsed.

That matters because a vote taken without legal authority is not merely controversial... it is vulnerable to be overturned. Courts have repeatedly held that municipal bodies must strictly comply with statutory conditions placed on their powers. Acting early does not “cure” the defect, it creates one.

The manner in which this meeting was called only makes the whole thing worse.

Notice was posted after 9:00 p.m. on December 23, hours after City Hall had closed, on the eve of Christmas Eve and during school vacation week. While the Open Meeting Law allows special meetings to be posted with at least 48 hours’ notice, it also requires that meetings be posted in a manner that reasonably informs the public. (M.G.L. c. 30A, § 20)

Posting at a time when City Hall is closed and residents are least likely to see or respond, followed by a meeting where public participation is limited at the discretion of the Chair, undermines the spirit of the law, even if the council insists it has met the bare minimum technical requirements... which they did not.

The Open Meeting Law is explicit about its purpose: to ensure that public business is conducted openly and that citizens have meaningful access to the decision-making process. A last-minute meeting to override vetoes, combined with curtailed public comment, cuts directly against that purpose.

This is not about paperwork or process trivia. The seven-day rule in Chapter 43 exists for a reason: to provide deliberation time, public awareness, and a cooling-off period before a council exercises one of its most powerful authorities. Ignoring that safeguard, or rushing past it, defeats the legislative intent of the statute.

If the council proceeds anyway, which we all know it will, it risks more than public criticism. It risks having its actions challenged as ultra vires, beyond its lawful authority, and it invites questions about whether expediency has replaced compliance.

At a minimum, these questions deserved to be addressed publicly, on the record, before calling the meeting. Instead, they remain unanswered... either by design or by disregard.

Residents who wish to participate in future meetings must register in advance at

METHUENTV.ORG/GOVMEET.

The meeting can be watched live on Channel 8 (Comcast), Channel 32 (Verizon), or streamed at Methuen.gov/livestream.

The Agenda can be viewed here...

https://www.methuen.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_12302025-992?html=true

The numbers are documented.

The timing is intentional.

And the impact is very real, no matter how loudly some insist otherwise.