METHUEN — An exhausted and anxious crowd listened Wednesday night as City Solicitor Ken Rossetti enumerated the legal reasons behind a second vote on the purchase of the Searles Estate.
City Councilor Neily Soto, however, called it “Kangaroo Court.”
Last month, the City Council shot down the purchase of the Searles Estate for $3.25 million, a move that seemed to quash the city’s hope of buying the historic estate built during the late 19th and early 20th century. But following the vote, Rossetti said the council could take up the purchase again without the sponsorship of those who had successfully opposed it.
Despite the initial opposition and criticism of council procedures, the Searles Estate purchase was approved unanimously by the council during its meeting this week.
Just before the second vote and two hours into the meeting, Rossetti detailed the legal mechanics some had questioned. In the vast majority of cases, Rossetti said, the prevailing side represents the majority of councilors as most measures don’t require a “supermajority.”
According to Robert’s Rules of Order, which is often used as guidelines for government bodies, a member of the prevailing side must sponsor a motion to reconsider. However, according to council rules, members of the majority, and not necessarily the winning side, can also make a motion to reconsider, said Rossetti. Since these two sides are often the same, Rossetti said the present situation arises rarely.
He said rules by the council and rules from Robert’s Rules work harmoniously, allowing both members of the prevailing side and members of the majority to bring motions to reconsider.
That happened this spring when councilors voted down an expansion to Greater Lawrence Technical School and the motion to reconsider, which was successful, was brought by the prevailing but not majority side.
Rossetti’s explanation was met by skepticism from Soto, who said her original no vote had been based on not receiving enough information from the city on the purchase. Soto said she had not been able to find an instance where the motion to reconsider had been brought by the failing side. The city’s procedures were questioned in public comments at the meeting, though the vast majority of the members of the public spoke solely in favor of the purchase.
Rossetti said the rules may not have been outlined well enough in the past and the Searles vote was dissimilar to 95% of cases.
“I may not have been as clear as I should have been,” he said, adding the Searles affair had afforded him an opportunity to take a “deep dive” into the city’s rules regarding motions to reconsider.
During the original vote, only six of nine members voted with two absences and one recusal. The purchase received four votes in the affirmative and two in the negative, not the two-thirds majority required. During this week reconsideration, eight members were available to vote on the measure.
The council also has a rule in place that bars failed ordinances or resolutions from being voted on again for a year, said Rossetti. However, with a two-thirds vote, the council can waive any of its rules.
“I hope I didn’t get too much into the weeds, but I think a segue into the weeds was necessary,” Rossetti said.
The city’s purchase of the Searles Estate, built by wealthy interior designer Edward F. Searles between 1880 and his death in 1920, includes a 74-room mansion, 19 of the estate’s 25 acres and $1 million in artwork and historical artifacts. The estate is valued by the city at $10 million. The city aim’s to use the purchase, through a 20-year bond, to preserve history and give the community access to a site that has historically been off limits to the public.
During his explanation, Rossetti said viewers could follow along with an online rulebook if they wished.
“The word transparency has been used more than once tonight and I welcome viewers to go to the city’s website,” said Rossetti.
Alongside Soto, councilor Patricia Valley also initial opposed the purchase but voted in the affirmative the second time. However, the Soto and Valley voted against waving the one-year rule.
To listen to the full 3 hour and 43 minute meeting visit: tinyurl.com/3hbkuyhp.