Agenda Text
title
City Solicitor conveying an opinion of a proposed fossil fuel divestment resolution.
body
Official Text
Dear Honorable Members of the Board of Aldermen:
By separate emails of this date, Alderman Rossetti, Alderman Connolly and Alderman Ballantyne have asked whether members of the Board of Aldermen may lawfully consider the attached resolution urging governments, institutions and individuals to divest of fossil fuel investments.
In my opinion, the resolution does not violate the applicable legal requirements set forth in G. L. c. 268A.
As previously advised, in the opinion dated May 22, 2014, General Laws Chapter 268A, s. 19 generally prohibits municipal employees, including elected officials, from participating in a “particular matter” in which they have a financial interest.
According to educational materials published by the State Ethics Commission, “[a] particular matter is defined by statute to include almost any proceeding, application, request for determination, contract, claim, finding, decision or controversy which might come before you. The definition refers to specific matters and proceedings rather than general issues.” City Councilor Summary, State Ethics Commission Educational Materials.
As the revised resolution addresses fossil fuel divestment generally, rather than a resolution specifically directed to the Somerville Retirement Board, in my opinion, the newly revised resolution does not do so and so does not constitute a “particular matter” under G. L. c. 268A.
You will note that the last paragraph of the resolution urges the state legislation to pass a bill. Although a specific issue, the statutory definition of “particular matter” excludes the enactment of general legislation by the general court. G. L. c. 268A, s. 1(k). As a result, in my opinion, this does not constitute a “particular matter” under G. L. c. 268A, s. 19.
Therefore, in my opinion, given that by supporting this resolution the Board members would not be participating in a “particular matter” as so defined, the proposed resolution is not prohibited by G. L. c. 268A, s. 19.
The above is my opinion, if one or more aldermen would like this office to inquire of the State Ethics Commission counsel for a determination of whether they concur with this opinion, upon the request of one or more aldermen I will accordingly request an opinion therefrom.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thank you.
Francis X. Wright, Jr.
City Solicitor