link to full story:

Before you settle in with a scary movie, remember that we have plenty of frightful goings-on right here in our own city.

I hope you’ll find a little time to enjoy these latest offerings as the trick-or-treaters descend upon your neighborhood, or before you head off to whatever All Hallows’ Eve festivities await you.

The first thing I want to show you is an excellent interview that Senator Keenan gave Joe Catalano this past week.

Senator Keenan does a great job breaking down the sneaky business happening on Beacon Hill. As you may be aware by now, the lobbyist (the former chair of the House’s Ways and Means Comittee) that Quarry Hills hired to get their lease extension legislation passed managed to make an end-run around the Senate Committee reviewing it. Senator Keenan explains it all very well here.

This inspired me to write a little diddy about that. I had to dust off the songwriting chops and was surprised by what ensued. The lyrics poured out of me very quickly—an unusual occurrence for me. Normally, I’d like to collaborate with some other musicians to finish writing and producing a song like this but there is no time for that now. I availed myself to one of those online services to take the lyrics and make it a finished song. So I’m half-proud of the final result. (sorry if you end up with it stuck in your head…it’s definitely earwormy)

A pictorial representation of the journey the homerule petition took before it was bodysnatched and morphed into the Werebill it is now.

They Hid it in the Budget

Lyrics by Joe Murphy
Music is not. 🙁

[Verse 1]
Down at the State Senate
In a room with nameplates
They lined up the papers
And pondered our fates

A home-rule petition
Sat under the light
Each thought needs thought
And each wrong takes a bite

[Pre-Chorus]
They had plenty of time
To get the deal some sight
For eighty more years
It was worth a good fight
But instead...

[Chorus]
They hid it in the budget
(A needle in a needle stack!)
They snuck it in the budget
And brought it through the back

Senator John was shocked
(Beacon Hill went quiet!)
The homerule sent away
No matter how they deny it

[Verse 2]
The people wanted answers
They wanted things addressed
And John had asked for three things
Three reasonable requests

It mostly involved counting
Some middle school math
Green fees, drinks and burgers
Is Quincy taking a bath?

[Verse 3]
The clubhouse won't talk turkey
They find it incredibly gauche
"You'll just have to trust us"
"We're simply beyond reproach..."

So a lobbyist dropped in
With connections and a plan
A lawyer's magic trick
You don't see it? — Now you can!

[Pre-Chorus]
Not a headline move
Not a shout in the hall
Just a neat little trick
That could change it all

[Chorus]
They hid it in the budget
(An anonymous amendment!)
They snuck it in the budget
And hoped nobody would mention it

The people back in Quincy
Had questions by the score
But with one convenient shortcut
Who answers questions anymore?

[Bridge]
So here's how it works
When the process gets tight
A rider can appear
In the dead of the night

From committee to chamber
Through conference and draft
A deal can become law
Taxes exchanged for graft

[Chorus]
They hid it in the budget
(A sentence in a book!)
They snuck it in the budget
Where nobody thought to look

Senator John was shocked
(Beacon Hill went weak!)
A fifty-year extension
no one took a peek

{Final Chorus}

They hid it in the budget
(A needle in a needle stack!)
They snuck it in the budget
And brought it through the back

Senator John was shocked
(Beacon Hill went quiet!)
The homerule sent packin'
with no one to deny it

watch video version below

Watch the video version

What’s the Deal with Granite Links?

Part 1: What is Quincy being asked to commit to through 2106?

Granite Links already has nearly 30 years remaining on its lease of city-owned land. Quarry Hills Associates wants another 50.

Before Quincy makes a commitment stretching into the next century, it’s worth understanding exactly what the proposed deal does, why the company wants it, and what the City would receive in return.

At the center of the debate is approximately 242 acres of public land that Quincy leases to Quarry Hills Associates (QHA), the private company that operates Granite Links Golf Club.

How much land is that? About five Boston Commons, nine Eastern Nazarene College campuses, or more than 180 football fields.

The existing lease expires on April 30, 2056. The proposed extension would carry the arrangement through April 30, 2106.

That’s not a typo. 2106.

And while the discussion often centers on golf, the proposal involves much more than keeping the fairways open.

From a landfill to Granite Links

For decades, Quarry Hills was home to a municipal landfill. Transforming that property into something useful presented an enormous challenge.

The landfill needed to be closed and capped, environmental systems had to be installed and maintained, and the land needed to be made suitable for recreational use.

Quarry Hills Associates undertook the redevelopment, creating what eventually became Granite Links, a 27-hole golf course with restaurants, function facilities, and other amenities. The project also produced public playing fields and recreational opportunities for Quincy residents.

It’s an impressive transformation, and one that deserves recognition and credit.

But it’s important to understand how it was financed.

According to a May 2026 report prepared by LitmanGerson Associates (LGA), the original project cost approximately $147 million.

Of that amount, approximately $47 million was attributed to QHA’s investment. The remaining $100 million was associated with fees, commonly called tipping fees, for accepting material from Boston’s Central Artery/Tunnel Project, better known as the Big Dig.

More than $70 million of those fees went to a contractor responsible for hauling, inspecting, cleaning, and depositing the material.

In other words, the $147 million project cost should not be confused with $147 million invested directly by QHA.

The company nevertheless undertook substantial development and operational risks, along with continuing environmental responsibilities.

The City obtained a capped landfill, recreational facilities, and a revenue-producing golf operation without directly financing construction. In exchange, QHA received a long-term lease that allowed it to develop and operate the property.

That was the original bargain.

Why another 50 years?

QHA’s existing lease runs through April 2056. The company isn’t facing an imminent expiration date.

Supporters of the extension argue that additional time is necessary to encourage investment and provide the certainty required for major financing.

That’s a reasonable business consideration. Lenders generally want assurance that a borrower will have sufficient time to recover the cost of a substantial development.

But it raises an equally reasonable question:

Why does financing future improvements require extending the lease on 242 acres of public land for another 50 years?

Could a shorter extension accomplish the same objective? Could specific developments be addressed through separate agreements?

And has a prospective lender actually required an extension through 2106?

These are questions worth answering before the City commits the property for another half-century on top of the nearly 30 years already remaining.

What about a hotel?

One possibility discussed in connection with the extension is a hotel at Granite Links.

Supporters argue that a hotel could complement the existing golf, restaurant, wedding, and function businesses, potentially generating additional revenue for both QHA and the City.

But the hotel remains a possibility, not a certainty. And the lease extension would not, by itself, constitute approval to build one.

There is also a question about whether a hotel would be an allowable use of the property in the first place.

Critics argue that commercial hotel development may be inconsistent with the property’s zoning and its original recreational purpose. The administration has previously acknowledged that portions of the property have different zoning classifications, making the location of any proposed hotel important.

Opponents have also raised questions about whether the property is protected under Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution, which provides special protections for certain public lands held for conservation and recreational purposes.

Whether those protections apply, and what they would mean for a hotel, remains a separate legal question.

Even if a hotel ultimately proves permissible, that doesn’t establish that a 50-year extension of the entire lease is necessary to build it.

The 12-acre land sale that disappeared

The original 2024 extension proposal included an option allowing QHA to purchase approximately 12 acres of city-owned land for development.

That was a significant provision. Selling the land would have transferred ownership of a portion of the public property to a private entity.

Following public scrutiny and City Council deliberations, the purchase option was removed before the December 2024 Council vote.

The distinction is important because the original proposal contemplated revenue from selling the land, as well as property taxes generated by privately owned development.

With the sale option removed, those financial assumptions deserve another look.

We’ll examine that in Part 2.

What does Quincy already receive?

Under the existing arrangement, QHA makes payments to Quincy based on specified business revenues.

The lease generally provides for payments based on 10% of certain gross golf revenues and 10% of net receipts from restaurants, function facilities, and other covered operations.

Now, forgive me for Joe-splaining, but there’s an important distinction between gross and net revenue.

Gross revenue is money collected before expenses. Net receipts, as defined in the lease, allow certain operating expenses to be deducted before calculating the City’s share.

Consequently, a growing business doesn’t necessarily translate into proportionately growing lease payments.

Quincy also receives nonfinancial benefits.

QHA is responsible for maintaining the landfill closure system and providing certain recreational facilities. Residents receive discounted golf opportunities, Quincy public school golf teams can use the course without charge, and the property hosts the Mayor’s annual golf tournament.

The public playing fields are another significant component of the arrangement.

The Koch administration argued in December 2024 that the revenue-sharing agreement is more advantageous to Quincy than a conventional lease or property-tax arrangement.

That’s another claim we’ll examine in Part 2.

But there’s a distinction worth making now.

These are benefits Quincy already receives under the existing lease. They aren’t necessarily new benefits being offered in exchange for extending it.

So what, specifically, would Quincy receive that it isn’t already entitled to receive?

How much of that additional benefit would be guaranteed? And how much would depend on future development that may or may not occur?

What is Quincy giving up?

The most obvious answer is time.

An extension through 2106 would commit the property to this arrangement for approximately 80 more years.

Over that period, the value of the land, the surrounding community, recreational needs, development opportunities, and the City’s financial circumstances could change dramatically.

A lease negotiated in the early 2000s cannot necessarily anticipate the conditions that will exist in 2075, 2090, or 2106.

Economists have a term for what Quincy would surrender: opportunity cost.

By committing the property to one arrangement for generations, the City limits its ability to pursue alternatives.

That doesn’t mean an alternative use would necessarily be preferable. It means the City should understand the value of the flexibility it is giving up.

Critics have questioned why the City hasn’t subjected the proposed extension to a competitive process or obtained an independent assessment of the property’s value before committing to such a lengthy arrangement.

The administration’s position is that QHA already holds substantial rights under the existing lease, and the proposal is an extension of that relationship rather than a new lease of vacant public land.

That’s an important distinction. But it doesn’t eliminate the need to determine whether the proposed terms represent fair value for the City.

A good deal then isn’t necessarily a good deal now

The original agreement helped transform a former landfill into a valuable recreational and commercial property.

QHA assumed substantial risks, invested in the property, and built a successful operation. Those contributions deserve recognition.

But the circumstances that justified the original arrangement have changed.

The landfill has been capped. The golf course is established. The restaurant and function operations have developed into a substantial business.

QHA continues to have environmental, maintenance, and operational responsibilities. But the risks of maintaining an established business are not identical to those of creating it in the first place.

The original lease was negotiated with those initial investments and risks in mind.

So the question isn’t whether QHA deserved compensation for its original investment.

It’s whether the original compensation should be extended for another half-century.

Before Quincy grants those additional rights, the City should be able to demonstrate what they’re worth.

Not simply what QHA has invested in the past.

Not simply what Granite Links contributes today.

But what Quincy would receive in exchange for committing a valuable public asset through the year 2106.

That’s the deal we need to understand.

Next in Part 2: The Money. We’ll examine what Granite Links pays Quincy, how the revenue-sharing formula works, what the financial reports actually establish, and whether the proposed extension represents fair value for the City.

But that’s not all on the municipal docket.

Flock Safety: The Koch administration is moving away from Flock, but license plate surveillance isn’t going away. We discuss the City Council’s concerns, the proposed replacement technology, and the questions about privacy, transparency, and oversight that remain unanswered.
Affordable Housing: We examine the proposed acquisition involving the Quincy Housing Authority’s nonprofit affiliate and the questions surrounding its financing and governance.
Follow the Money: Councillor Deb Riley asks for a closer look at the finances of the city’s Festival Committee.

Remembering Michael Berry: We close with a tribute to a familiar and valued voice in Quincy’s civic life.

As always, we try to separate what we know, what we’ve been told, and what still deserves an answer.

Like and subscribe for more conversations about Quincy government, public spending, accountability, and the people who make this city tick, tick, tick, tick.

What’s the rush to extend a golf course lease that doesn’t expire until 2056—all the way to 2106? In this video, A Just Quincy previews an upcoming series examining the Granite Links deal, including what Quincy taxpayers are getting for their publicly owned land, questions about lease revenue and oversight, promised public benefits, potential constitutional protections, and some curious legislative maneuvering on Beacon Hill. With nearly 30 years left on the current lease, why is the Koch administration pushing to lock in another 50? Before Quincy commits public land to the next century, residents deserve to know what’s at stake—and who stands to benefit.

It involves hundreds of acres of public land, millions of dollars in potential revenue, and a deal that could affect this city for the next 80 years.

I’m talking about Quarry Hills, home of the Granite Links Golf Club.

Now, I know what some of you are thinking. Granite Links? Beautiful golf course. Great views, nice restaurant, weddings, events. What’s the problem?

Fair question. That’s what we intend to suss out over the coming weeks.

I’ve been talking with residents who’ve spent years studying the lease, the finances, and the history of the property. And some of them think Quincy taxpayers are taking a five-iron to the face.

And we’re not just talking about today’s taxpayers. We’re talking science-fiction future. Stardates and honeymoons on Mars.

Here’s why.

You’ve probably heard this described as a 50-year lease extension.

Technically true.

But the current lease doesn’t expire until 2056. Mayor Koch and Quarry Hills Associates want another 50 years beyond that, all the way to 2106.

[Jetsons theme / flying golf cart graphic]

By then, your grandchildren might be navigating Granite Links in flying golf carts.

The operators say they need a longer lease to finance improvements and expansion. That may make sense for their business. But with nearly 30 years left on the current lease, what’s the rush for Quincy?

And what exactly are we getting in return?

Well, that’s where the money comes in.

Quincy gets a percentage of golf revenue and a percentage of the net revenue from food and beverage operations.

That word “net” is doing a lot of work.

Expenses get deducted before the city’s share is calculated. And in some quarters, the city’s share of the food and beverage business is zero.

Zero. At a place that hosts weddings, banquets, and corporate functions.

We’re going to examine those numbers and compare Quincy’s arrangement with what other Massachusetts communities receive from their public golf courses.

Because a business can follow every provision of its lease, and the lease can still be a lousy deal for taxpayers.

Then there’s oversight.

The original agreement included an advisory committee and obligations involving public recreation and maintenance. But somewhere along the way, that committee stopped functioning.

The city has commissioned financial examinations, but we’re going to look at how the broader agreement has been monitored and whether the public has received everything it was promised.

Because an agreement this big shouldn’t run on autopilot.

Now, there’s another issue that could turn out to be especially important.

Massachusetts has constitutional protections for certain public recreational lands under Article 97.

And there’s a dispute about whether those protections apply to Quarry Hills.

We’ve been looking into the property’s legal history and correspondence with state officials. Because if Article 97 applies, it could significantly affect what can legally be done with this land.

Especially when the plans include expanded commercial development and potentially a hotel.

We’re also going to revisit the public benefits.

Quarry Hills Associates deserves credit for helping transform a former landfill into a successful golf and recreational complex.

But there were promises made to Quincy residents, too. Walking trails, athletic fields, recreational access, maintenance.

We’ll be looking at what the lease requires and what residents have actually received.

And then there’s the political side of this whole thing.

The Quincy City Council approved the extension in December 2024.

Remember those heady days when the stamps were rubber and asking questions was considered bad form?

Well, that vote wasn’t enough.

The city still needs special legislation from Beacon Hill because the deal seeks exceptions to Massachusetts laws governing municipal leases and competitive bidding.

Laws that are supposed to protect public assets.

But rather than follow the ordinary process, the administration wants the Legislature to carve out an exception.

And this is where things start to feel a little like administrative stealth.

While most Quincy residents probably think this was settled at City Hall, the proposal has been moving through the legislative process.

We’re going to look at how that’s happening, who’s involved, and why there’s such urgency to get it done.

Because when you’re asking lawmakers to set aside the usual safeguards, a little extra scrutiny seems reasonable.

And that’s why we’re doing this now.

Granite Links isn’t going anywhere tomorrow. Nobody’s talking about closing the golf course.

But once this deal is authorized and signed, the opportunity to negotiate something better could be gone.

Over the coming weeks, we’ll share the documents, follow the money, examine the legal questions, and hear from residents who’ve been trying to get answers.

This is public land. It belongs to the people of Quincy.

And before we commit it to the year 2106, we ought to know exactly what we’re getting in return.

Stay tuned.

It’s Saturday, October 17, and there are a few opportunities to get involved in local politics today.

10 a.m. — Eastern Nazarene College community meeting

Mayor Koch has invited residents to the former Eastern Nazarene College campus for a meeting about its future.

The City Council voted 6–3 in June against borrowing $22.5 million to purchase the property, but the mayor apparently isn’t ready to move on.

In a letter to neighbors, he wrote, “While I remain deeply disappointed in the Council’s decision, I have not given up.”

Given the city’s financial challenges and the questions that surrounded the original proposal, residents may be interested in hearing what the administration has in mind this time.

The meeting is scheduled for 10 a.m. on the ENC campus lawn.

Read Peter Blandino’s reporting in The Patriot Ledger and AJQ’s coverage here.

10:30 a.m.–noon — Djuna Perkins campaign sign-holding

Supporters of Djuna Perkins, the Democratic nominee for Norfolk County District Attorney, are gathering at 141 Sea Street in Quincy for a campaign sign-holding event.

Perkins faces independent candidate Joseph Michael Pagliarulo in the November 3 election.

That race is the subject of today’s AJQ article, which takes a closer look at both candidates and what changes they propose for the Norfolk District Attorney’s Office.

Candidate Perkins is the subject of today’s newsletter main piece.

1–4 p.m. — No Kings demonstration

March Forward Quincy and local organizers are hosting a No Kings event at the Thomas Crane Public Library.

Organizers describe the gathering as part of a broader effort focused on civic participation and the upcoming midterm elections.

The event runs from 1 to 4

Today’s AJQ Feature: Norfolk County Needs More Than a New District Attorney

For the first time in 16 years, Norfolk County voters will elect a new district attorney. But changing who’s in charge is only part of the challenge.

District Attorney Michael Morrissey isn’t seeking reelection, and his successor will inherit an office facing serious questions about prosecutorial judgment, police accountability, and public trust.

And not a moment too soon, some residents might say.

Norfolk County DA Michael Morrissey won’t run for reelection – NBC Boston

The Sandra Birchmore and Karen Read cases have placed the Norfolk District Attorney’s Office under an extraordinary public microscope. The two cases involve very different circumstances, but both have raised questions about prosecutorial judgment, police accountability, and the relationship between law enforcement and the communities it serves.

Those questions aren’t going away simply because Morrissey is leaving.

The district attorney wields considerable power. The office decides which cases to pursue, which charges to bring, when to negotiate, and when to walk away. Those decisions can change lives, and much of the decision-making takes place outside public view.

That makes the office’s judgment—and its willingness to explain that judgment—particularly important.

On November 3, voters will choose between Democratic nominee Djuna Perkins and independent candidate Joseph Michael Pagliarulo. Both have prosecutorial experience. Both promise to restore confidence in the office.

But replacing the person at the top is the easy part.

What, exactly, is going to change?

A Different Kind of Prosecutorial Experience

Djuna Perkins won the September Democratic primary after campaigning on a promise to reform the office.

Perkins has practiced law for more than 30 years, including approximately a decade as a Massachusetts assistant attorney general and assistant district attorney. Her prosecutorial work included narcotics, neighborhood crime initiatives, appeals, and domestic violence cases.

As chief of the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Domestic Violence Unit, she supervised prosecutions, established protocols, and handled serious domestic violence cases. She also supervised Dorchester District Court and served on a homicide response team.

In 2003, Perkins moved into private practice, where much of her work has involved representing victims of abuse and harassment and investigating allegations of misconduct within organizations.

She says she has conducted approximately 150 investigations involving sexual harassment, discrimination, and other institutional wrongdoing.

That gives Perkins an interesting combination of experience.

She knows what it’s like to make decisions from inside a prosecutor’s office. She’s also spent two decades examining what happens when organizations fail to address misconduct—or fail the people who depend on them.

Given the questions surrounding the Norfolk DA’s Office, both perspectives are relevant.

A Blueprint, Not Just a Promise

Campaign promises are cheap. Transparency, accountability, integrity—we’ve heard them all before.

What matters is what candidates intend to do about them.

Perkins has published a document she calls her Blueprint for Justice, laying out specific changes she says she would make upon taking office.

Among them:

• Requiring employees to reapply for their positions. Perkins proposes interviewing existing staff to evaluate qualifications, professional standards, and their commitment to the office’s mission.

Employees will be interviewed to assess skills, professionalism, commitment to public service, and professional goals. They will also be invited to provide feedback on the office’s strengths and weaknesses and suggest improvements. djunaperkins.com

• Reviewing State Police assignments. She wants to assess the troopers assigned to the DA’s office and seek personnel who meet her standards for professionalism and integrity.

• Documenting decisions not to prosecute. Her plan calls for written explanations and supervisory review when cases are declined.

• Making more information public. Perkins proposes publishing data on case outcomes and reports concerning officer-involved shooting investigations.

• Establishing clearer conflict-of-interest rules. Her blueprint calls for policies governing potential conflicts and the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

• Restricting campaign contributions. Perkins pledges not to accept donations from employees of the DA’s office or police unions.

That’s a more useful starting point than simply promising to restore trust.

It also gives voters plenty to question.

Requiring an entire workforce to reapply sounds like a dramatic reset, but how would it work? What happens to institutional knowledge? How would employees be evaluated fairly? And how much control can a district attorney actually exercise over State Police assignments?

Those aren’t reasons to dismiss the proposals. They’re reasons to examine them.

The important thing is that Perkins has put specific ideas on the table.

If elected, there would be a public record of what she promised—and a basis for asking whether she delivered.

The Independent Candidate

Perkins is not running unopposed.

Joseph Michael Pagliarulo, an independent candidate, has built his campaign around the message “Take Politics Out of Prosecution.”

Pagliarulo brings considerable courtroom and management experience of his own.

According to his campaign profile, he served more than 18 years as an assistant district attorney in Boston, personally prosecuting more than 5,000 cases. He also supervised attorneys handling thousands of additional cases and oversaw operations in West Roxbury District Court for more than a decade.

His experience includes criminal defense work.

Pagliarulo emphasizes public safety, accountability for violent and repeat offenders, fair treatment of defendants, and prosecutorial decisions based on evidence rather than politics.

Fair enough. Those are responsibilities any district attorney should take seriously.

But voters looking for specifics will find a noticeable difference between the candidates’ websites.

Pagliarulo’s issues page promises consistent charging standards, evidence-based decisions, and greater transparency and accountability.

What it offers less of is detail about how those commitments would work in practice.

Perkins’ Blueprint for Justice, by comparison, addresses 11 areas, including transparency, hate crimes, domestic violence, police accountability, mental health, substance use disorders, juvenile justice, and protections for seniors.

Her proposals get into staffing, supervision, investigative practices, public reporting, and the treatment of vulnerable populations.

To be fair, a campaign website isn’t the only place to learn what a candidate believes. Nor does a longer policy document guarantee better results.

But if a candidate is asking voters to entrust them with the considerable power of a district attorney, it’s reasonable to ask for more than assurances.

What procedures would Pagliarulo change? How would he handle complaints about investigators or prosecutors? What information would his office make public? What would happen when the office itself got something wrong?

These are fair questions for both candidates.

Promises matter. So do the details of how they would be kept.

The Problem With Asking for Trust

There’s a familiar routine when public institutions find themselves in trouble.

Leadership changes. Officials promise a fresh start. Everyone assures the public that lessons have been learned.

And then the public is expected to move on.

Sometimes things really do change.

Other times, the names on the office doors change while the practices behind those doors remain remarkably familiar.

That’s why accountability can’t depend entirely on the good intentions of whoever happens to be in charge.

It has to be built into the way an office operates.

Consider a prosecutor’s decision not to pursue a case.

There may be perfectly sound reasons for that decision. Not every allegation warrants criminal charges, and prosecutors must be able to exercise discretion.

But particularly when a case is controversial or involves powerful people, the public should have some assurance that the decision was made consistently, reviewed appropriately, and free from improper influence.

The same goes for allegations involving police officers.

A district attorney needs a working relationship with law enforcement. But that relationship cannot become an obstacle to investigating misconduct or bringing charges when the evidence supports them.

And there’s another wrinkle that may surprise some readers.

Despite its name, the Norfolk District Attorney’s Office is not a department of Norfolk County government.

It is a state-funded office whose leader is elected directly by voters. The Norfolk County Commissioners don’t supervise the district attorney, and the county’s advisory board doesn’t control the office’s budget.

The DA remains subject to state law and other forms of oversight, but the familiar mechanisms of local government accountability don’t operate in quite the same way.

That independence serves an important purpose. Prosecutors shouldn’t be taking orders from local politicians.

But independence also puts a great deal of responsibility on the district attorney to establish internal safeguards, welcome appropriate scrutiny, and explain how decisions are made.

Transparency has legitimate limits. Ongoing investigations, privacy, and fair-trial rights all matter.

Still, those limitations shouldn’t become an all-purpose excuse for secrecy.

Independence from political interference is essential. Independence from accountability is something else entirely.

Why This Matters in Quincy

Quincy residents don’t have to look very far to understand why judgment and accountability matter in government.

We’ve had our own front-row seat to contentious legal decisions, prolonged disputes, and the use of public resources to defend City Hall’s positions.

Which brings us to something Perkins said in a CBS Boston interview.

Asked about the Karen Read prosecution, Perkins criticized District Attorney Morrissey’s decision to announce another trial shortly after the first ended with a hung jury.

She argued that prosecutors should have taken time to review the evidence, consult with experts, and reconsider their options before committing to another prosecution.

Perkins described the immediate decision as “really cruel” and suggested that Morrissey appeared more concerned with being right than with serving justice.

That’s a serious criticism from someone who has worked as a prosecutor.

And the underlying issue should sound familiar to anyone who has followed Quincy’s prolonged litigation over the citizens’ petition challenging elected officials’ pay raises.

The City defended its interpretation of the law through an extended court battle, even as residents questioned the legal position, the costs, and the public interest being served.

But the comparison raises a question worth asking of anyone entrusted with public authority:

At what point does defending an earlier decision become more important than reconsidering whether it still serves the public interest?

There’s a difference between having the legal authority to continue a fight and exercising good judgment about whether to do so.

Perkins made another point in the interview: prosecutors must remain open to new evidence and willing to revisit their conclusions.

That shouldn’t be a controversial idea.

Yet anyone who follows local government knows how difficult it can be for an institution to acknowledge that an earlier decision deserves another look.

Changing course isn’t necessarily an admission of failure. Sometimes it’s evidence that the people making decisions are still paying attention.

The public should expect that kind of judgment from its district attorney.

And, for that matter, from its city solicitor, mayor, and every other official acting on its behalf.

A Test for the Next District Attorney

Perkins’ Blueprint for Justice offers one way to evaluate what a new administration might do.

Which proposals can be implemented immediately? Which depend on cooperation from other agencies? What will the public be able to see? How will anyone know whether the changes are working?

Pagliarulo’s emphasis on independence and public safety raises questions of its own.

What safeguards would he establish against improper influence? How would he review the office’s existing policies? What would he do differently from the administration he’s seeking to replace?

Both candidates should be prepared to answer those questions.

And voters shouldn’t stop asking them on November 3.

The next district attorney will inherit an office whose decisions have become the subject of extraordinary public scrutiny.

A new name on the door won’t settle the questions that scrutiny has raised.

Nor should it.

Norfolk County will have a new district attorney.

The question is whether it will have a different kind of district attorney’s office.

next…

A Nightmare on Elm Str…err...Avenue: Back From the Dead?

You didn’t think the ENC proposal was dead, did you? Mayor Koch announces a sequel. What reanimation spell is this?

It’s Halloween, and Mayor Koch appears to be dressing up as the second scariest character in Jaws, the mayor who’s absolutely convinced he knows best.

Like any horror movie franchise worth its salt, the nightmare on Elm Street—errr, Avenue—continues.

And just when you thought the proposed purchase of Eastern Nazarene College had been laid to rest, along comes the sequel.

This latest installment opens with a letter in the mail from Quincy’s very own version of Mayor Larry Vaughn from Jaws.

You remember Mayor Vaughn. He’s the fellow who insisted on keeping Amity Island’s beaches open despite some rather compelling reasons to reconsider.

In the movies, that’s usually when the audience starts yelling at the screen.

In Quincy, we go to the internet.

Previously, on A Nightmare on Elm Avenue...

The mayor wanted to purchase ENC.

The City Council said no. But they didn’t reject the proposed ENC purchase on a whim. Councilors devoted two meetings and approximately five hours to examining the proposal before voting it down.

And now, four months later, the mayor is back with a letter announcing that he hasn’t given up.

Apparently, this Quincy drama has been renewed for another season.

On October 13, Ward 5 residents received a letter from Mayor Thomas Koch inviting them to a community meeting on Saturday, October 17, at 10 a.m. on the ENC campus lawn.

The letter, dated October 9, addresses what the mayor describes as rumors and questions following the City Council’s decision last spring to reject his proposal to purchase the campus as a community asset.

Then comes the line that belongs in the movie trailer:

“While I remain deeply disappointed in the Council’s decision, I have not given up.”

Haven’t given up on what, exactly?

It appears the City Council wasn’t informed in advance about the mayor’s neighborhood meeting. Councilors learned about the meeting the same way residents did—through a letter in the mail.

What Has Changed?

Does anyone seriously expect the mayor to assemble a neighborhood meeting just to announce that nothing has changed and there’s nothing new to discuss?

Seems unlikely.

It is also unlikely that everyone’s collective calculators had the same malfunction and it turns out that we aren’t ~$2 billion in debt.

A more plausible explanation is that the administration found—or is exploring—another path towards owning the property. A path that bypasses the city council?

Perhaps a different purchase arrangement. Perhaps a different financing structure. Perhaps something else entirely.

We don’t know. And that distinction matters.

The mayor’s letter doesn’t announce a new acquisition plan. But it certainly raises the question of whether the Council’s rejection was the end of the proposal or merely the end of its first installment.

You’re Gonna Need a Bigger Budget

Since we’ve already cast Mayor Koch in the role of Mayor Vaughn, let’s pound the JAWS metaphor a bit more.

“Mr. Mayor, what we’re dealing with here is a perfect debt engine. A spending machine. It’s really a miracle of municipal finance. All this machine does is borrow and spend and make little debts. And that’s all.”

Of course, we don’t know whether the administration has developed another purchase proposal, much less how it would be financed.

But if there’s a new plan involving public money, the questions are familiar: Who would own the property? Who would pay for it? What approvals would be necessary? And what obligations, if any, would fall on Quincy taxpayers?

We’ll be paying close attention on Saturday.

Because the mayor has made one thing clear.

He hasn’t given up.

Now we’d like to know what that means.

And until we do, perhaps it’s best to stay out of the water.

Chief of Staff Walker left the discussion. Solicitor Timmins left reality.

The mayor’s unmerry men did not have a good night at what could have been a sad but hopeful hearing.

The oversight committee met to examine the Tom Clasby scandal and show the public what mistakes were made, what lessons were learned, and what changed after a disgraceful chapter in Quincy’s administrative history.

Councilors Mahoney and Riley explained why this discussion was happening now: earlier questions had been deferred while the criminal case was pending. With sentencing complete and Mr. Clasby in prison, the Council could finally have the discussion it had been waiting to have.

Some in the administration might prefer to move on. The public still has a right to answers.

The hearing was not about determining guilt or innocence. That had been settled. Its purpose was to establish whether city leadership and the relevant departments understood how the theft happened and had made corrections to prevent it from happening again.

Anne Mahoney explaining why we need to ask these questions and why they are appropriate.

In other words, had the holes Mr. Clasby snaked through been filled?

The administration should have arrived prepared to acknowledge what went wrong and explain what had been fixed. Humility would have helped. So would a little appreciation for the Council’s responsibility to ask.

Instead, Walker and Timmins offered withdrawal, defensiveness and resentment.

Mr. Walker left the dais and waited somewhere else (does the grand hall have green rooms? antechamber? perhaps a vestibule?…anyway, a lair of some sort…) Actually, I’m not sure Mr. Walker returned…he may have just dipped at that point. But the hand of the King, Solicitor Timmins, brought his main character energy so we will focus there.

Timmins, found his opening to interject when he was invited to answer a specific question about whistleblower protections. He launched into an extended attack on the premise and conduct of the hearing.

Listening to him, you might have thought the real offense was the audacity of the Council’s questions—not years of sustained theft from a department entrusted with serving Quincy’s seniors.

A Question About Speaking Up

Councilor Yuan asked whether Quincy had a policy to protect whistleblowers. With no other employee available to address that question, Councilor Ash invited Solicitor Timmins to respond.

Timmins began with conspicuous gratitude—and an immediate complaint.

“Thank you very much, councilor,” he said. “It’s been very difficult to sit here and listen to this.”

Before answering, he also asked the chair to warn him before turning off his microphone so he could seek a councilor’s support in challenging that decision.

Quite an opening for someone invited up to answer a policy question.

The city’s solicitor began by defending his own right to be heard. The question about protecting employees who needed to speak up would have to wait. Timmins then turned to Councilor McKee’s earlier remarks, condemning what he described as an implication that an employee believed Clasby could get away with misconduct because of his relationship with Mayor Koch.

“Totally untrue, totally wrong, totally false,” he said.

But moments later, Timmins offered this explanation:

“What happened was particular employees were intimidated both by Clasby’s relationship with the mayor and by the fact Clasby was their direct supervisor.”

That does not seem to support the prior statement about the question being untrue, wrong, or false. That sounds like a reason to ask about whistleblower protections.

If employees were intimidated by their supervisor’s authority and his relationship with the mayor, what safe reporting channels were available to them? What has the city done to make those channels more effective?

Those were the questions. His acknowledgment made them more relevant, not less.

Mr. Timmins was asked to sit down and to stop offering unsolicited statements.

Changing the Question

Councilor Yuan referred to reports that employees hid money to keep Clasby from taking it. Her “common sense” question was how could misconduct apparently recognized within the department continue without being stopped.

She raised Clasby’s closeness to Mayor Koch as a possible reason employees might hesitate to come forward.

That is a question about perceived influence and workplace intimidation. It does not require an allegation that the mayor knew about the theft.

Timmins nevertheless pressed her to explain what she was saying “about the mayor and about Clasby,” asking why she was mentioning Clasby’s personal relationship with the mayor alongside his theft of cash*.

He shifted the argument. A question about whether employees felt safe reporting a politically connected supervisor became an insinuation against the mayor. Timmins then condemned that insinuation instead of addressing the intimidation he had already acknowledged.

He also objected to an implication that employees were complicit or had failed to perform their duties. The irony is that Timmins introduced that characterization himself.

Asking what prevented employees from coming forward is not accusing them of participating in the theft. It is asking whether they had a safe way to report misconduct without fearing for their jobs.

The city’s solicitor should understand that distinction. Instead, he constructed a strawman and beat it up, leaving the Council’s straightforward question unanswered: what protections were available to employees, and what has changed?

Acting Quickly Is Only Part of the Answer

Timmins described immediate action once an employee brought an allegation to Mayor Koch.

According to his account, the mayor convened an evening meeting with the police chief, Timmins and Mr. Walker. Police arrived the next day, took Clasby’s keys, locked him out of the building and began investigating. The FBI subsequently became involved.

That response matters, and Timmins gave it considerable attention.

But acting quickly once someone reports a problem does not explain why the misconduct escaped detection beforehand. Nor does it establish that employees had a safe, reliable way to raise concerns.

Timmins treated the response as though it settled the oversight question.

“And that’s the best corrective measure,” he said, before asserting that preventive measures against fraud could not be taken, particularly in an understaffed municipal government.

By that logic, once the house burns down, questions about exposed wiring and the missing smoke detectors are just nitpicking. Why dwell on those things when we did such a fine job calling 911?

Calling for help matters. So does figuring out why the house burned down.

No system can guarantee that fraud will never occur. Councilors were asking how to reduce the risk. They asked about ordinary safeguards: verifying that services were delivered, separating responsibilities, reviewing payments and reconciling cash receipts. A department head’s ability to evade those safeguards is precisely why they need examining.

Timmins also questioned why the Council was examining the case at all.

“There’s not much of a reason for this council,” he said, “which could be moving forward with the administration, to be looking in the rearview mirror at Tom Clasby.”

Councilors Mahoney and Riley had already explained the timing. Earlier discussion had been deferred while the criminal proceedings were pending. With sentencing complete, they could finally ask the questions that had been put off.

Apparently, before sentencing was too soon. After sentencing was looking backward.

When, exactly, would have been a good time?

So, Was There a Policy?

After the extended defense of the administration, the original question remained: did the city have a whistleblower protection policy?

Yes, we are still waiting for an answer, if you think that’s strange several pages after it had come up in this article…you now have a sense of what it was like waiting for an answer in council chambers.

Timmins had already declared that the whistleblower “didn’t need any protection at all” because people knew they could come forward. He also said the employee had been protected, believed and heard.

When asked directly about the policy, however, he answered:

“Oh, I don’t know about that.”

He referred the question to human resources, expressed confidence that a policy existed, and acknowledged that he did not know.

Councilor Mahoney then cited a February 10, 2025, Patriot Ledger article in which then-finance director Eric Mason reportedly described a proposed “speak up” policy, including an independent hotline for employees.

Had that proposal actually been implemented?

That was a specific question about a publicly reported initiative. It should have been possible to answer it—or commit to finding the answer.

Instead, Timmins criticized the newspaper and the councilors’ use of its reporting.

“Quoting from the Ledger is part of the game plan up here,” he said.

The status of the proposed policy remained unresolved in this exchange.

Who Had the Floor?

As the exchange escalated, Councilor Jacobs, chair of the oversight committee, told Timmins to stop.

“No, we’re not done,” Timmins replied.

The chair asked him to sit down. Timmins challenged that instruction, saying he was answering a question and clarifying a mistake. The chair explained that no question was pending for him and that he was providing unsolicited information.

By then, a discussion about employees’ ability to raise concerns had become a confrontation over the solicitor’s insistence on continuing to speak.

Later, Timmins challenged what he believed was a claim that vendor checks had been sent to a PO box. Councilor Mahoney had referred to an apartment address in the Bronx.

“I said it was an apartment number,” she corrected him.

Timmins said he had heard “PO box.”

The distinction did not resolve the underlying oversight questions: who confirmed that the city received the services it paid for, and what review occurred before those payments were approved?

*The transcript supports Mahoney. His correction addressed his own mishearing, leaving her actual question—whether the residential address prompted additional review—unanswered.

Answers, Not Indignation

Councilor Riley brought the discussion back to what the Council was trying to accomplish. The treasurer-collector and current elder services director had described improvements in their practices. On purchasing, she said, councilors had heard little beyond the position that nothing could have been done differently.

She called that “very discouraging.”

It was.

The Council was entitled to ask what happened, where safeguards failed and what changes followed. Residents were entitled to hear the answers. Employees were entitled to know whether they could report misconduct without putting their livelihoods at risk.

Solicitor Timmins’s indignation answered none of those questions.

Clasby’s imprisonment established consequences for Clasby. It did not complete the city’s work. That work requires a clear account of the safeguards now in place, the reporting channels available to employees, and the changes still needed.

If the administration wants to restore public confidence, it should welcome the opportunity to explain those things. Attacking the people asking is a poor substitute.

In conclusion

If the administration truly wants a better working relationship with the Council and to accomplish the people’s business, it could start with some humility—and acknowledge why voters elected councilors willing to ask these questions. Instead, its approach seems to be to wear this Council down: derail oversight hearings, attack unflattering press coverage, and treat requests for answers as personal affronts.

As the younger generations would say, it is choosing violence. (Politically speaking, of course.)

^{*A prior version of this article contained this sentence “Timmins nevertheless pressed her to explain what she was saying “about the mayor and about Clasby,” asking why she was mentioning Clasby’s role in the mayor’s wedding alongside his theft of cash.”}

^{My mentioning of this sentence was while discussing the conversation they were having but since the mayor has subsequently said that Councilor Yuan was mistaken in her assertion that Clasby was “the best man at his wedding” we are removing that from the story to avoid carrying on further confusion.}

Members of the administration could have chosen cooperation. But last night, as on several nights before it, they chose defensiveness and hostility.

*The choosing violence meme actually originates with Game of Thrones. That’s the 2nd Game of Thrones reference appearing here in the past month.

On Friday, September 25, Judge Connolly issued her final judgment in the ballot petition signature lawsuit that grew out of a citizen effort to challenge the substantial salary increases approved for Mayor Koch and the Quincy City Council in 2024. Quincy Citizens for Fair Raises is very pleased with and grateful for the Court’s ruling. The judgment reaffirms the Court’s finding that the City violated Massachusetts law and regulations in its handling of petition signatures and makes clear that the signature-certification issue we brought before the Court has now been decided.

This case was always about more than the members of Quincy Citizens for Fair Raises. Thousands of Quincy residents signed this petition, dozens of volunteers gave their time collecting those signatures, and hundreds of people contributed financially so that we could efficiently pursue this matter in court. We are enormously grateful to everyone who worked alongside us. Their efforts mattered and helped bring about real change.

This lawsuit accomplished an important purpose of its own. Quincy voters whose signatures had been improperly disregarded were ultimately recognized. We believe Judge Connolly’s decision can also serve as persuasive authority and valuable guidance for future petitioners and election officials across the Commonwealth.

At the most recent hearing, we told the Court that we had received the relief we sought and were not asking it to expand this litigation into issues unnecessary to resolve our claims. The final judgment does exactly that: it resolves the issue we brought before the Court and brings these cases to a conclusion.

Our hope now is that this will be the end of the litigation. Quincy’s legal department has already spent heavily—more than $118,000—fighting its own citizens in this case, and we see no reason for taxpayers to bear additional legal costs. We hope the City will accept the Court’s final judgment and allow everyone to move forward.

The public response to these raises has already helped bring about change. We look forward to the City Council continuing its work with the public toward fair, common-sense salaries for Quincy’s elected officials and a process that residents can have confidence in.

~Quincy Citizens for Fair Raises

And there’s an AJQ video short in the article as well:

The Quincy City Council returned from its summer break on Sept. 8 to a packed chamber and a long (and overdue) discussion about the city’s use of Flock Safety automatic license plate readers.

More than 100 people attended, with 22 residents speaking during open-forum. According to the Patriot Ledger’s reporting following the meeting, all but one called for either banning automatic license plate reader technology or imposing stronger restrictions and oversight.

(see Kevin and me break this down in last week’s City Minutes episode)

The issue was already on the Council’s agenda. The meeting included an update on data privacy and compliance involving the Quincy Police Department’s ALPR system, followed by an order introduced by Councilor-at-Large Ziqiang Susan Yuan concerning the city’s use of Flock.

Police Chief Mark Kennedy told the Council that Quincy operates 50 Flock cameras. During one 30-day period, those cameras generated more than 704,000 license plate observations, while police searched for 134 distinct plates. Those numbers aren’t directly comparable — observations can include the same vehicle multiple times, and distinct plates searched isn’t necessarily the same thing as the number of searches conducted.

Kennedy said 47 of the department’s 237 sworn officers—about 20%—are authorized to use Flock. Those users are limited to detectives, specially trained traffic investigators and supervisors; patrol officers and dispatchers do not have general access. He said users must enter a reason and an associated case or incident number when conducting searches, and that search logs are audited and access periodically reviewed.

Kennedy told the Council that Quincy had opted out of Flock’s nationwide sharing system and had no one-to-one sharing agreements with outside local or federal law-enforcement agencies.

“We’re a closed system,” Kennedy said. “No outside agency has direct access to Quincy camera network or live feeds.”

But that describes the system as Kennedy said it operates now. Records concerning how Quincy’s Flock data was previously shared add some important context.

Records subsequently cited in Yuan’s “No Surprise Government” resolution say that from January through April 2026, Quincy’s Flock data was being searched 600,000 to 700,000 times per month by outside agencies across the country. The resolution also says most internal Quincy searches lacked case numbers and clear reasons until recently. Those are statements contained in Yuan’s resolution, which is before the Council tonight.

Not everyone at the Sept. 8 meeting opposed the technology.

Helen Shiner raised the abduction of a woman at Wollaston Station and questioned whether technology like this could have helped police locate the victim and attacker sooner. Shiner said Flock itself might not be the right company while making the case that technology capable of helping police locate victims or suspects quickly can have value.

Kennedy put the department’s position more succinctly:

“Public safety and civil liberties are not mutually exclusive. We have an obligation to do both.”

One thing is certain: Flock discussion didn’t end Sept. 8.

It’s back tonight.

Sept. 22: Raises, Public Art, and “No Surprise Government”

The City Council meets again tonight, with a shorter agenda but several substantial items.

There’s a public hearing at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Muni-Tech Informational Management Committee at 6:35 and the regular Council meeting at 7:30 at Historic City Hall.

One item brings elected-official compensation back before the Council.

Ward 5 Councilor Maggie McKee is introducing an order titled “Discussion of Fair, Data-Driven Pay Raises for Politicians.” The proposal follows the Council’s June decision to rescind the controversial raises approved by the previous Council in 2024.

The proposal does not itself establish new salaries. It begins another Council discussion about how elected-official compensation should be determined, including an opportunity for public input.

Public art is also back.

Ward 2 Councilor Richard Ash has reintroduced a proposal to establish a Public Art & Place Making Program. The Patriot Ledger reports that Ash introduced a similar proposal with former Councilor-at-Large Scott Campbell in 2025 following the controversy over the city’s $850,000 commission for statues of St. Michael and St. Florian. That proposal went to committee and expired without debate at the end of the Council term.

The Council will also consider Mayor Koch’s request for authority to enter agreements with Solect Energy Development for solar installations above the city’s two new General McConville Way parking garages.

The actual agreements are substantial.

The proposed power purchase agreements can run 25 years, with an additional five-year extension possible by mutual agreement. Solect would own the solar equipment, while Quincy would purchase the electricity generated by the systems.

Then there’s “No Surprise Government.”

Yuan’s resolution, cosponsored by Council President Anne Mahoney and Councilors David Jacobs, Deborah Riley and Virginia Ryan, says the administration has taken significant actions without advance notice to the Council and public.

The resolution cites the Flock system and other city spending decisions. Its Flock section goes considerably further than what was discussed publicly Sept. 8, including the outside-search numbers described above.

The Council will also consider whether Quincy should take a closer look at adopting the state’s Specialized Stretch Energy Code.

So what is that?

Quincy already follows Massachusetts’ Stretch Energy Code, which it adopted in 2010. The Specialized Code is an additional, optional set of requirements that cities and towns can adopt on top of the Stretch Code. It primarily affects new construction and is intended to make new buildings consistent with the state’s long-term greenhouse-gas reduction goals.

It doesn’t simply prohibit new buildings from using natural gas or other fossil fuels. But new construction using fossil-fuel equipment can face additional requirements, including on-site solar and wiring that would allow fossil-fuel equipment to be replaced with electric systems later. Larger multifamily buildings face additional requirements as well.

And tonight’s Council item does not adopt the code. The order calls for a review of its potential adoption.

If you want to go farther down the building-code rabbit hole than I can reasonably take you here, the state Department of Energy Resources has an FAQ explaining the Specialized Code.

Finally, City Clerk Nicole Crispo will present an update on the Sept. 1 state primary. City records show 15,359 of 68,983 registered voters participated — 22 percent turnout.

As usual with this band of City Councilors, there is plenty on the agenda.

It will be interesting to see what comes of some of these issues when the Council starts looking closely at them.

Sept. 18: QCFR Returns to Court — Maybe for the Last Time

Disclosure: I am a member of Quincy Citizens for Fair Raises and a plaintiff in the litigation discussed below.

The court fight over Quincy Citizens for Fair Raises may be approaching its end.

But first, the parties have to agree on what “the end” actually means.

I did my best to explain all this with an analogy from a classic Monty Python movie.

Judge Rosemary Connolly held what may be the final hearing in Norfolk Superior Court on Friday, Sept. 18, following her earlier ruling in the litigation over signatures rejected from QCFR’s 2025 initiative petition.

The central signature question has already been decided.

Connolly ruled that City Clerk Nicole Crispo improperly failed to consider legible printed names when determining whether signatures could be matched to registered voters. After the printed names were reviewed, 5,820 signatures were accepted, exceeding the 5,373 required to certify the petition.

Friday’s argument was about what Connolly should put in the final judgment.

Attorney Gerry McDonough, representing the petition organizers, argued that the court should memorialize its ruling on the signatures and stop there.

“The court has already found that the disputed printed names should have been considered,” McDonough told Connolly.

The plaintiffs’ position is that the complaints challenged the rejection of signatures, Connolly has decided that question, and Massachusetts law — not a new Superior Court order — governs whatever happens next.

An attorney with the Harvard Election Law Clinic, which has been representing the group of voters whose signatures were rejected, was even more concise:

“This case is over.”

The City disagrees about how much Connolly should leave unresolved.

Attorney Michael D’Ortenzio Jr., representing Crispo, argued that once the petition has enough signatures, the city charter requires the clerk to transmit it “forthwith” to the City Council.

The City asked Connolly to establish Dec. 1 as the certification date. Its attorneys said setting a specific date would create a clear starting point for the 48-hour period during which registered Quincy voters can object to the petition, while allowing the clerk to complete work associated with the Nov. 3 state election.

Connolly repeatedly questioned why the court should take that additional step when neither original complaint asked her to direct the subsequent petition process.

The hearing also addressed what has changed since the litigation began.

In June, the new City Council rescinded the 2024 salary increases. McDonough argued that those actions largely resolved the practical dispute that produced the petition, even though the Council’s ordinances weren’t identical to what QCFR proposed.

Connolly asked whether that left the case moot.

McDonough said that, considering the importance of the guidance provided by the judge’s ruling on the printed names, he would hesitate to call the case moot.

Taking his point, Connolly supplied her own description: “moot lite.”

The City argued that the petition and the Council’s subsequent salary ordinances are materially different and that certification carries rights belonging to voters beyond the named plaintiffs. The City also preserved its ability to appeal Connolly’s signature ruling, while saying no decision about an appeal would be made until final judgment is entered.

Connolly took the matter under advisement.

She asked the parties to submit their proposed forms of judgment electronically and said she would issue a ruling shortly.

So, after nearly a year in court, the signature question has been answered.

What happens because of that answer is the question still sitting on Judge Connolly’s desk.

That’s all for now!

~joe

PS: And don’t forget—you can support AJQ by subscribing to our paid tier!

1. Open Meeting Law complaints

There are two OML complaints stemming from a meeting back in June. I provide a good amount of background, so in order to keep the meeting preview flowing, I moved the article down below.

2. ALPR/Flock Safety

The Quincy Police Department is giving an update/overview on data privacy and compliance of its Automatic License Plate Reader system, immediately followed by Order 2026-104 concerning the City’s use of Flock Safety technology.

If you haven’t done so yet, you can read AJQ’s article on this from a few days ago.

3. Solar at the McConville Way garages

Order 2026-105 is Mayor Koch’s request for approval of a location and lease for solar-energy implementation on the General McConville Way parking garages.

4. Public Works Enhancement Fund oversight

Order 2026-106 is sponsored by Riley, Jacobs, Mahoney, Ryan and Yuan and concerns oversight of the Public Works Enhancement Fund established under Chapter 92 of the Acts of 2004.

5. Municipal broadband: Now what?

Seven councilors—Hubley, Ash, Jacobs, Mahoney, Riley, Ryan and Yuan—are asking for a comprehensive update on the municipal broadband project and consideration of its path forward in light of emerging private competition.

6. Massachusetts Ballot Question 1

Five councilors are proposing a letter supporting enforcement of the 2024 Ballot Question 1, concerning the State Auditor’s authority to audit the Legislature.

7. Naming the Brill Field hockey rink

The Council will also consider a resolution to name the new sport-court hockey rink at Brill Field in honor of David A. DiBona, who passed away in July. The resolution is sponsored by Councilors Jacobs, Mahoney, Riley, Ryan and Yuan.

Dave was a beloved member of the community, a longtime leader of the Houghs Neck Community Council and, most importantly, a devoted dad and husband.

Brill Field is already one of the Neck’s most popular gathering places, and the new in-line hockey rink will be a neighborhood favorite for years to come.

8. Gifts

The final four items are acceptance of:

• $975 from various donors to D.A.R.E. Camp

• $3,000 from various donors to D.A.R.E.

• $10,000 from the Copeland Family Foundation to D.A.R.E.

• $7,500 from the Copeland Family Foundation to the Quincy Animal Shelter.

And now, without further ado…

You’ll never believe it, we have Open Meeting Law complaints already.

It seems impossible that we can have Open Meeting Law complaints to deal with already when the Council hasn’t met in two months.

But this is Quincy, where apparently you don’t even need the meeting to have an Open Meeting Law complaint.

Complaint One: How Long Does Getting Kicked Out Last?

The first complaint comes out of the June 22 Oversight Committee hearing, where a resident of Weymouth was ordered removed by Committee Chair David Jacobs.

The complainant alleges they were removed without first receiving a warning and that microphones were intentionally cut during the incident. They also challenge what happened about an hour later, when they say Jacobs had them removed from City Hall entirely. Those are allegations in the complaint, not findings that Jacobs or the Council violated the Open Meeting Law.

There is, however, a procedural wrinkle here.

At 7 p.m., Jacobs didn’t end the Oversight hearing. He announced that the committee was taking a recess so the Council could open several other scheduled meetings:

“we’re going to take a recess from this oversight committee hearing and we’re going to open the rules committee and the ordinance committee and the general city council meeting and then we’re going to come back and continue this conversation.”

And that’s what happened. The Council meeting was opened, and only a few minutes later the Council returned to the Oversight hearing.

That makes the situation a little less tidy than the complaint might initially suggest. The complainant argues that they were being excluded from a separately noticed City Council meeting they had not disrupted. But at the same time, the Oversight hearing from which they had just been removed wasn’t over—it was briefly in recess and about to resume.

So there may actually be two questions here.

First, was the original removal from the Oversight hearing handled properly? The Open Meeting Law provides that a person who disrupts a meeting may be removed after a warning from the chair. The complainant alleges they received no such warning and is asking for recordings and the police report they believe will support their account.

Second, when Jacobs ordered the Weymouth resident removed from the Oversight hearing, what exactly were they being removed from—the hearing, the Council Chambers, or City Hall altogether?

The complainant’s position is that being removed from the Oversight hearing did not give Jacobs authority to remove them from City Hall altogether or prevent them from observing the separate Council meeting taking place during the recess.

We’re not going to pretend to know how the Attorney General would sort that one out.

But we do know something we didn’t know from reading the complaint alone: Oversight wasn’t over. It was on recess.

And that seems like a fairly important detail for the Council to consider when it takes up the complaint Tuesday night.

Complaint Two: Open Meeting Law Déjà Vu

The second complaint concerns Councilor Walter Hubley, and this one comes with a rather substantial helping of déjà vu.

During discussion of pending Council business, Hubley mentioned that he had spoken with someone he knew who had years of experience navigating municipal bureaucracy and sought their advice.

Someone has now filed an Open Meeting Law complaint over that conversation.

Why does this sound familiar?

Because just a few months ago, Councilor Maggie McKee was criticized for essentially the same thing.

In fact, immediately after that meeting I appeared on the City Minutes podcast and pointed out what seemed like a pretty obvious double standard:

“Number one, Solicitor Timmins lambasted Councilor McKee for getting an outside opinion that no one knew about. And so, Councilor Hubley does the same thing. And no one’s concerned.”

McKee had sought guidance from a private attorney. During the ensuing Council discussion, City Solicitor Timmins offered this interpretation of the Open Meeting Law:

“if you’re consulting with someone outside the body and you don’t identify who that is, you don’t provide what their input is, that’s a violation of the open meeting law because you are accepting information that’s influencing how you’re acting.”

Pretty clear, right?

Well... hold that thought.

When the McKee matter returned to the Council a few weeks later, Timmins had this to say:

“What counsel McKee described was what’s called an ex parte contact. Those aren’t a violation of the open meeting law... Open meeting law governs when a quorum gets involved in a discussion... So, you know, the talking to outside lawyers or consulting with people, that’s not a problem.”

That is a considerably different explanation.

And now someone is concerned.

A resident has filed an OML complaint over Hubley’s outside consultation, bringing essentially the same issue back before the Council.

While we don’t know the complainant’s motivation, they have conjured an interesting juxtaposition. Whether intentional or not, the complaint puts the Council—and Solicitor Timmins—in an interesting position.

If the rule is the one originally articulated when McKee was under scrutiny, then presumably the Council has to consider whether Hubley’s outside consultation presents the same problem.

If the rule is Timmins’ later explanation—that individual councilors are free to consult attorneys and other outside people, and Open Meeting Law concerns arise when a quorum becomes involved in deliberation—then presumably that was also the rule when McKee did it.

Which gives us one question we’re particularly interested in hearing answered Tuesday night:

Which Timmins standard is the standard?

Because whichever one it is, it ought to work the same way no matter which councilor’s name happens to be attached to the complaint.

More to come, this week. Happy Fall ya’ll.