Weekly Transcript Round-Up for 1/31/25: Councilors take public stands on Chrispin/Cox battle, Madison Park HS renovation, White Stadium, & Landmarks Commission
Wednesday's meeting lasted almost 9 hours
Wednesday’s regular Council meeting had a packed agenda with 97 different dockets and lasted almost 9 hours. There were four dockets where the speeches and votes provide a snap shot of the divides on the Council & across Boston:
Docket #0326, a hearing order focused on the Boston Landmarks Commission, which was the scene of a scandal in 2024, set off an extended fight between Council President Ruthzee Louijeune & Councilor-at-Large Julia Mejia over which committee it should be assigned to. The Council supported Louijeune 7-5.
Docket #0345, a resolution calling for Eddy Chrispin to be reinstated to the Boston Police Department’s Command Staff. The Council passed the resolution 9-2-1.
Docket #0353, a resolution about Madison Park High School’s renovation. Last week senior City Hall officials announced they had cancelled plans for a City-funded renovation, telling the Council that the City would now pursue state aid for the renovation. The Council rejected the resolution 4-8.
Docket #0354, a resolution calling for the release of more information about the City’s plan to renovate White Stadium before demolition starts. The City’s estimated contribution for this project has steadily risen since it was announced, growing from $30M in August 2023 to over $100M in January 2025. The Council rejected the resolution 6-6.
Check out the breakdown for how the 12 Councilors at Wednesday’s meeting voted on those four dockets, and keep reading for more on Councilors actions & speeches for each docket, breakouts of each docket’s vote:
Before getting into those four dockets, here is the other important action at this week’s Council meeting:
The Council chose not to vote on any of the three tax relief measures, including Mayor Wu’s refiled tax shift proposal, that were the focus of Monday’s rare joint hearing. District 1 Councilor Gabriella Coletta Zapata said that her office had sent a long list of follow-up questions to City Hall, and that means to expect more Council meetings on residential tax relief - she is Speaker 14 and starts at the 1:23:31 mark in the transcript.
Docket #0189, an order to amend Bulfinch Triangle’s zoning to make housing easier to build in that neighborhood, passed on a 10-2 vote. The discussion on that docket, which starts at the 59:00 mark in the transcript, is a great example of the intense opposition from some Councilors to any moves that making the process of building in Boston faster & more predictable.
Docket #0329, a hearing order on actions City Hall can take to combat “income discrimination” among the City’s landlords. A major lawsuit was filed last February 2024 by the New York-based organization Housing Rights Intiative (HRI) & Lawyers for Civil Rights (LCR), and at attorney from LCR testified on a similar hearing order in April 2024 - he is Speaker 13 and starts at the 49:17 mark in the transcript.
Docket #0349 & #0351, the first supporting the "Recover Boston" proposal, the second supporting the Nubian Square Task Force, were both resolutions responding to concerns about Mass & Cass. Both resolutions were passed 12-0. The Council’s unanimous support for the “Recover Boston” proposal 18 months after it was first proposed keeps public attention on the most complete alternative to Mayor Wu’s approach to addiction & homelessness.
PARLIAMENTARY FIGHT OVER BOSTON LANDMARKS COMMISSION
Docket #0236, a hearing order focus on the Boston Landmarks Commission (BLC), was offered by Councilor Mejia with the explicit expectation that the docket would be assigned to her own Transparency Committee. When Council President Louijeune decided to send the docket to District 8 Councilor Sharon Durkan’s Planning Committee instead, Councilor Mejia invoked Rule 4.
Council President Louijeune explained Rule 4 - she is Speaker 0 and starts at the 3:31:08 mark in the transcript:
Rule 4 requires a majority of 2/3 of the Council to agree to the contrary in order for it be placed in her [Councilor Mejia’s] committee. So basically, she's appealing the decision of the chair.
After some back and forth with other Councilors, the vote on Rule 4 was called. The Council voted 7-5, supporting Council President Louijeune’s decision to send the docket to Councilor Durkan’s committee.
Here is how the vote broke down:
BLC has been a sensitive subject on the City Council since last April, when Mayor Wu fired BLC’s executive director after a letter became public that was written & singed by the all-volunteer Commission cited six specific examples of City Hall aides unlawfully interfering in the body’s work. That letter corroborated reporting from the Boston Globe published months earlier in August 2023 on the process of landmarking Hotel Buckminster:
The designation was set for a key vote at the Boston Landmarks Commission last month, with staff recommending approval, but city officials pulled it from the agenda just a day beforehand
To date, the Council has not held a hearing on the Boston Globe article, the list of accusations in the BLC letter, or Mayor Wu’s firing of BLC’s executive director. Councilor Durkan defended that lack of action - she is Speaker 7 and starts at the 3:14:29 mark in the transcript:
I respect everyone’s opinion, but I did host a working group session, or a lunch and learn, with the Landmarks Commission. Only a couple of our Council colleagues showed up. That’s totally fine, but I think as we’re thinking about where it’s best to have this conversation, I this it’s the committee that oversees the Landmarks Commission.
BLC is currently being led by Katherine Kottaridis, the Director of the Office of Historic Preservation, who is serving as interim ED. It is unclear if City Hall is going to find a permanent replacement: a job posting for the Deputy Director of Office of Historic Preservation says that whoever fills that position “may also serve as the Executive Director of the Boston Landmarks Commission.”
AFTER MONTHS OF SILENCE, CHRISPIN DEMOTION GETS RESOLUTION VOTE
Docket #0345, a resolution calling for Eddy Chrispin to reinstated to the BPD’s Command Staff, was offered by District 2 Councilor Ed Flynn. The Councilor described the conflict - he is Speaker 8 and starts at the 5:25:10 mark in the transcript:
The Boston Police has said that the decision for Sergeant Detective Chrispin removal from the Command Staff was due to a conflict of interest from his role on POST. We also heard from POST Commission and Massachusetts Attorney General Campbell who appointed Chrispin to the post, who questioned Chrispin’s removal.
This is the first time that the Eddy Chrispin case has been discussed at the Council, or in the public, in months. The last time the Dorchester Reporter wrote about Chrispin’s case was July, and for the Boston Globe it was August.
Eddy Chrispin became an issue in July 2024 after he was demoted by BPD Commissioner Michael Cox for accepting a seat on the Peace Officer Standards & Training (POST) Commission. The issue pitted Mayor Wu & her BPD Commissioner on one hand against the POST Commission’s Executive Director and MA Attorney General Andrea Campbell on the other. The issue earned an column sharply critical of the demotion from Adrian Walker and a Boston Globe editorial calling out “weak excuses” from the Wu administration. On August 28, 2024 Councilor Flynn offered a resolution similar to the one voted on this week. It was objected by District 3 Councilor John FitzGerald, who voted against the resolution on Wednesday, and sent to the Public Safety Committee.
At Wednesday’s meeting there was no objection, though Councilors Durkan and FitzGerald each expressed their opposition to interference in City Hall’s personnel decisions. A number of Councilors expressed their support for Chrispin and for the organization whose seat he holds on the POST Commission: MAMLEO, the Massachusetts Association of Minority Law Enforcement Officers. Councilor-at-Large Henry Santana told his colleagues that he would vote present, pleading ignorance about the issue - this starts the 5:37:39 mark:
I’m conflicted here because I personally haven’t been briefed on this or on the situation and I feel because I don’t know much of the information I can’t vote in support or against it.
Councilor Santana is the chair of the Public Safety Committee who did not schedule a hearing on the Chrispin resolution sent to his committee back in August 2024.
Here is how the vote broke down:
It is not clear if this resolution will restart the fight over Chrispin’s demotion after months of silence.
COUNCIL DISPLAYS IGNORANCE OF MSBA IN MADISON PARK RESOLUTION REMARKS
Docket #0353, a resolution about Madison Park High School’s (MPHS) renovation was offered by Councilor Mejia after senior City Hall officials made a surprise announcement at her hearing on MPHS last week: City Hall had decided to end the current building process, and instead seek state aid through the Massachusetts School Building Authority’s (MSBA) lengthy & uncertain process.
Just how lengthy and uncertain was described to the Council at the January 22 hearing about Madison Park by Matt Gulino from LeftField Project Management who was part of the Madison Park design team - Matt is Speaker 19 and starts at the 1:22:21 mark in the transcript:
There is a potential that Madison Park would not be accepted into the MSBA process its first time around. If it's not accepted this year, it pushes a year to 2026 and so on until it does get accepted. And then from there, there's roughly 3 years of design before we even get into construction. So it it would be a pretty substantial delay to the project just to get back to where we are at this time.
It was clear from several City Councilors’ speeches on Wednesday that they had not been paying attention to last week’s testimony. There were inaccurate statements about BPS’ building process, the MSBA process, and the relationship between the two from three Councilors:
Councilor Worrell - he is Speaker 5 and starts at the 6:26:39 mark in the transcript - suggested “we could push our colleagues on Beacon Hill to speed up the MSBA process,” before saying a few lines later, “I also acknowledge how lengthy the MSBA process is.” As Chair of the Ways & Means Committee, Councilor Worrell manages Council approval of Boston’s MSBA submissions.
Councilor Pepen - he is Speaker 13 and starts at the 6:28:16 mark in the transcript - mistakenly blamed the state for delays in MPHS’ building process that are entirely the fault of City Hall officials, saying: “I do believe that we should hold the state accountable to make sure that they don’t provide any more delays.”
Councilor Weber - he is Speaker 16 and starts at the 6:32:11 mark in the transcript - expressed the mistaken belief that “I don’t think it is fiscally responsible to leave potentially hundreds of millions of dollars on the table,” as if Boston was not submitting major construction projects to the MSBA. On the contrary, under the Wu administration the McCormack was invited to the MSBA’s “core program” at the end of 2024, and the Pauline Agassiz Shaw was invited in 2023.
The bottom line is that submitting MPHS to the MSBA is a major reversal that will have enormous impacts on Boston’s future plans, the extent of which have not been explained by City Hall, explored by the Council, or covered by the press.
The Council rejected the resolution 4-8. Here is how the vote broke down:
TIE ON WHITE STADIUM RESOLUTION SHOWS COLLAPSING SUPPORT FOR MAYOR WU’S PROPOSED RENOVATION
Docket #0354, a resolution calling for the release of more information about the City’s plan to renovate White Stadium before demolition starts, was also offered by Councilor Mejia - find the start at the 6:43:22 mark in the transcript.
Councilor Mejia highlighted two issues in her call to pause the project. The first was the lack of minority business participation in the project - here is what she said she is Speaker 10 and starts at the 6:56:11 mark in the transcript:
[Black and brown] Leaders have voiced trong concerns regarding the city's lack of formal commitment to ensuring meaningful inclusion of black and brown businesses in construction, contracts and retail opportunities associated with the project.
The second was the lack of clear costs - she is Speaker 10 and starts at the 7:12:48 mark in the transcript:
The budget comes out in April. I would like to, at the very least, see the numbers and what we're working with before we start putting aside $50,000,000 for a project . . . Given that the pending budget deliberations and the lack of finalized public funding plan, it's essential that all major financial decisions regarding White Stadium remain on hold until the Council has had an opportunity to review and vote on the 2026 budget.
On the other side, arguing against the resolution was District 6 Councilor Ben Weber - he is Speaker 16 and starts at the 7:22:25 mark in the transcript:
If we pause this project, that the team will go somewhere else, that we will not be able to go fund this project on our own, and we'll still have a stadium that is left to decay, and will not alternative plans.
Councilor Weber’s concerns were echoed in a letter Mayor Wu sent to the Council on Wednesday, where she wrote:
If fixing White Stadium were a simple or inexpensive endeavor, it would have happened decades ago. Instead, the facility has continued to decay over decades and our students continue to shoulder the burden of underinvestment. Further delay is unacceptable.
District 4 Councilor Brian Worrell, who also controls the Council’s FY26 budget process as the chair of the Ways & Means Committee, disputed the idea advanced by Weber and Wu that a private partner was necessary in order to renovate White Stadium - he is Speaker 5 and starts at the 8:04:44 mark in the transcript:
But the end of the day, if we're investing a $100,000,000 in this renovation, I believe we should have full access and full control. Well, I have some concerns over the whether $29,000,000 that alternative is feasible. I do think we could come up with a reasonable solution for the budgeted amount that the city has put forward, a design that is in line with the community's priorities.
After the discussion the final vote was 6-6, which meant the resolution failed, but the vote break down however should be a real concern to White Stadium proponents: Council President Louijeune and Council Vice President Worrell voted in favor of the resolution.
Here is how the vote broke down:
Boston Policy Institute, Inc is working to improve the public conversation - help us by following BPI on YouTube, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Twitter, and LinkedIn.
Multiple councilors would have flipped were there a need for votes on the Mayor's side vis a vis White Stadium.