Councilor Ashley Shade brought forward an amendment to city code that would explicitly outlaw anyone with an active contract with the airport from serving on the airport commission.
Shade framed the move as shielding the body from a potential conflict of interest.
“I believe that we need to align ourselves with what's written in state law," she said. "State law should always supersede local law, and our ordinance should reflect that.”
The commission has long been a subject of controversy in North Adams. Recently, two commissioners resigned after a hangar lease was rescinded due to procedural issues. In the cloud of acrimony surrounding the situation, Mayor Jennifer Mackey’s efforts to find replacements brought up whether or not she can unilaterally make appointments to the body.
“Number one, it's been very hard to get people to be on this commission," said Macksey. "Secondly, I've learned over the last three years that it's important to have someone with some day-to-day experience with the airport, and an active person in the airport. We all probably, if we were to drill down, have some conflict with something.”
Macksey told the council the city’s attorney backed her ability to make the move.
“While I applaud Councilor Shade very much for trying to get our ordinances in line, there's a clear opinion from the city solicitor that the charter trumps all of this," she continued. "I'm not trying to have a power play. I just want to get my job done and work with people who really want to serve and don't have to be put over the coals every time they come through here.”
Shade disagreed, noting that North Adams has received conflicting advice on the issue.
“The opinion we received tonight from the solicitor goes against an opinion that was received several years ago by the former mayor, Mayor [Tom] Bernard, in regards to appointments, as far as needing council approval," she said. "Also, the second opinion that was given is telling us that we don't have the ability to create ordinance changes to essentially say who has power to serve on the commission, to create other requirements. But we changed that last year when we allowed other people from other towns to serve, and so that opinion would then apply going backwards. Based on that opinion, what we did last year wouldn't be valid. So, which is- Is what we did last year valid? Or is this valid?”
Councilor Lisa Blackmer worried that Shade’s proposed amendment might cause more issues down the line.
“When you start adding in these conflicts, well, are we going to add that to the IDEA commission, the historical commission, the planning board?" she asked. "I mean, there's people on the planning board who basically recuse themselves because there's business before them they represent or they're in competition. So, I do worry that in smaller communities like ours, it is hard to find people that are willing to step up, particularly in this day and age where the SJC says that in a public meeting, you can say whatever you want to somebody, and I don't want to discourage that.”
Shade attempted to clarify her goals.
“I'm not looking to have a power struggle," she said. "I'm not looking for lawsuits. I'm looking to prevent lawsuits and making sure that the city is following the law as is required. If lawyers, if there's a case out there that goes to court and the judges rule that the charter supersedes [Massachusetts General Law], then the charter supersedes [Massachusetts General Law]. If it's the opposite, it's the opposite. But essentially, we need to save our taxpayers money by following the law and making sure that the law is consistent, that our ordinance are consistent with the law, which is why I brought this language forward as far as the conflict of interest.”
The council forwarded the motion to its general government committee for its first meeting in March.