New Bedford City Council Found in Violation of Open Meeting Law

NEW BEDFORD (WBSM) — The New Bedford City Council has been found to have violated Massachusetts Open Meeting Law with a text message and email sent out by Councilor at Large Linda Morad earlier this year to all 10 of the other council members.

“Following our review, we find that the council, and specifically Councilor Linda Morad, violated the Open Meeting Law by improperly deliberating via text message and email,” read the ruling from Assistant Massachusetts Attorney General Elizabeth Carnes Flynn.

The ruling came after Open Meeting Law watchdog Patrick Higgins filed a complaint with the AG’s Division of Open Government. An Open Meeting Law violation occurs when a quorum – in the case of the 11-person New Bedford City Council, that means six councilors – are involved in deliberations on a matter within its jurisdiction without proper notice in advance, or without being held in executive session.

Get our free mobile app

How the Alleged Violation Happened

The email in question was sent on December 26, 2024 “to various City employees with language for a proposed motion and accompanying ordinance related to longevity pay,” according to Flynn’s ruling. “The email was copied to all councilors via the council’s email address.”

A portion of the email read:

The text message was in regards to a then-unnamed source informing WBSM’s Chris McCarthy that Morad and Ward 2 Councilor Maria Giesta were planning to file the motion to get longevity pay reinstated for members of the council.

New Bedford's Longevity Pay Controversy

Longevity pay had previously been paid going back decades to any councilor who had 10 or more years of service on the council. It came in the form of a one-time stipend paid on the second regular payday of December.

However, it had been eliminated in December of 2024, when Mayor Jon Mitchell’s administration determined the ordinance that provided for longevity pay for city employees did not specifically apply to elected officials.

When McCarthy brought to the airwaves that Morad and Giesta sought to have it reinstated, Morad sent out her text message to the other 10 councilors:

“Which one of you is sharing City Council emails and/or information that is distributed among the 11 of us and not public knowledge??? Which one of you is truly not a member of the Council family and not able to be trusted???? I think most of us know which 3 Councilors are not to be trusted and are on the Council only for their own benefit and self importance. I'm challenging you man up here and admit it was you and be sure to respond to all of [us] in this text so we can all hear directly from the horse's mouth what a sleaze you really are. And for the rest of us it's time to be cautious and to admit that we have ‘colleagues’ smiling at us in the face but stabbing us in the back and are not to be trusted. It truly is a shame. By the way anyone want to take a bet as to how long it will take for McCarthy to have a copy of this text message.”[/pullquotes]

Ward 1 Councilor Leo Choquette later identified himself on WBSM as the person who sent the information to McCarthy.

“At the end of the day, it’s got to be on the up and up,” he said, stating then his concern that there had been a violation of the Open Meeting Law.

READ MORE: New Bedford City Council Source Dubbed "Sleaze" Comes Clean

At the time, Morad told WBSM that “it’s really disappointing that a councilor would mislead the public to thinking that the city council was hiding something from them and attempting to violate the Open Meeting Law.”

Morad, who is the second-longest tenured member of the council, announced back in July that she is not seeking re-election.

READ MORE: New Bedford City Councilor Linda Morad Won't Seek Re-Election

In response to the allegation of the Open Meeting Law violation, the city council, through its attorney David Gerwatowski, did not dispute the content of the text message or that it was sent to what would constitute a quorum; instead, the council argued that no deliberations were taking place and therefore there was no violation “because it did not pertain to a matter within the Council's jurisdiction.”

What the Attorney General’s Ruling Says

“We disagree with the council's characterization of the text message and find that the text message concerned the council's operation and administration,” Flynn wrote. “As such, we find that Councilor Morad's text message constituted improper deliberation in violation of the Open Meeting Law.”

The council argued that Morad's email was not for deliberation but rather procedural, to “assist members of the city council in their preparation for the meeting and procedurally let them know that they could sponsor it if they so choose by contacting…the staff directly,” the ruling reads.

“Although it may be the case that Councilor Morad intended to assist her fellow councilors, we find Councilor Morad's explanation of what the motion and ordinance would accomplish went beyond merely distributing a document to be discussed at an upcoming meeting and that the explanation expressed Councilor Morad's opinions regarding matters within the Council's jurisdiction.”

READ MORE: The Complete Ruling From the AG's Office

The ruling cited OML 2016-7: "[W]hile it is permissible for a public body member to suggest to the chair a topic for an upcoming meeting agenda, it is not permissible for the public body member to follow up that suggestion with a statement about why it is important that the topic be addressed by the public body or to advocate support for a certain position with respect to that topic."

“Therefore, we find that Councilor Morad's December 26 email constituted improper deliberation in violation of the Open Meeting Law,” the ruling read. “Additionally, we note that at the end of Councilor Morad's email she invited her fellow councilors to ‘[a]dvise with questions,’ thus potentially inviting others to improperly deliberate via email as well.”

What Happens Next for New Bedford City Council

The AG’s Office ordered that the city council and Morad have “immediate and future compliance with the Open Meeting Law” and cautioned that “similar future violations may be considered evidence of an intent to violate the law.”

“Additionally, we order the council to publicly release the text message and the December 26, 2024, email within 30 days of receipt of this determination,” the ruling read. “The council may publicly release the text message and email by reading their content during a meeting and listing the text message and email in the meeting minutes, or by referencing the text message and email during a meeting and posting them, along with the meeting minutes, on the municipal website.”

When asked by WBSM how the council planned on publicly releasing the text message and email, City Council President Shane Burgo issued the following statement:

“While I have not yet had the opportunity to fully discuss the decision with legal counsel, I remain committed to transparency. At this point, the email and text referenced in the determination have already been widely circulated in the media and on social platforms, so their substance is no longer new to the public.”

“It’s also important to note that since this incident occurred, our City Clerk has already implemented new procedures to ensure that similar issues do not arise in the future. Both our council staff and the city council as a whole are committed to keeping the public informed and engaged in their local government, and we will continue working to strengthen that trust.”