When the Boston City Council interviewed Maureen E. Feeney yesterday as a finalist to be the next city clerk, it may have done more than rile good-government advocates calling for a transparent job search. The interview itself may have violated the state ethics law because it was scheduled fewer than 30 days after Feeney resigned her longtime seat on the council.
The law requires a 30-day cooling-off period to prevent elected officials from using their position to secure another job from their colleagues. Feeney resigned her post Nov. 10. In her case, the new position would come with a significant pay increase.
Advertisement
But a 2003 opinion from the Ethics Commission clarified that law, warning those seeking public appointments that their former colleagues “may not take any action regarding your application such as selecting you for an interview, until 30 days have elapsed after you have terminated your service as a member.’’
Last night City Council President Stephen J. Murphy defended the council’s actions, saying he was confident that the body was on solid ground. The city’s legal department advised the council, Murphy said, that as long as no final vote was held within the 30 days, it would be in compliance with the law.
The council has not yet scheduled a vote.
“We did not need to go through this process of advertising and interviews,’’ Murphy said, pointing out that the city charter does not require a transparent job search. “The City Council has gone above and beyond what is required.’’
The current clerk has said that she plans to retire in January, so Feeney would not start working until the new year.
The city’s corporation counsel, William F. Sinnott, said that prohibition on interviews applied more to boards and commissions than the City Council. Even if the council had run afoul of the law, Sinnott said, it would have been a minimal violation because Feeney was selected for an interview just two days short of the 30-day minimum.
Advertisement
Feeney was named one of two finalists to be interviewed for the clerk’s job on Dec. 8, according to notice posted by Murphy. The other finalist was Natalie Carithers, who also interviewed yesterday but acknowledged beforehand that her chances, “might not be that good.’’
Feeney served 18 years on the City Council and has long wanted the clerk’s job, which has been held since 1995 by Rosaria Salerno. The position pays roughly $102,000 a year and includes the potential for another $60,000 for performing weddings. As a city councilor, Feeney took home $87,500.
Feeney seemed to be making a move for the job when she resigned abruptly last month without a word to her constituents and most of her colleagues.
An uproar followed Feeney’s resignation, with critics accusing councilors of handing a lucrative job to one of their own. To appease skeptics and the media, the council went to great efforts to create a public process, Murphy said yesterday.
Salerno and her predecessors were elected without any attempt at an open process, several former councilors said. Three out of the last four clerks were former council members.
Feeney has secured more than the seven votes required to win the job, several former councilors said.
But this time, the council posted an advertisement for the job for seven days and listed several specific requirements, Murphy said. The city received applications from 26 candidates, but the staff winnowed the list quickly. Thirteen applicants were immediately disqualified because they did not have bachelor’s degrees. Others fell far short of the basic requirements, Murphy said.
Advertisement
Ultimately three were selected as finalists, but one dropped out because they did not want to endure a public job interview. That left Feeney and Carithers.
Waiting outside a City Hall conference room yesterday before her interview, Feeney acknowledged that she resigned partially to make herself eligible for the city clerk job.
“That would be a piece of it, but just a piece,’’ Feeney said, declining to describe the other factors and adding with a shrug, “What do you want me to say?’’
The interviews took place in a crammed room, with councilors addressing their former colleague as “Ms. Feeney,’’ even though some had worked side-by-side with her for more than a decade. Feeney followed the same formal decorum.
But she often slipped, referring to “some of my colleagues,’’ before correcting herself and saying, “past colleagues.’’ She answered with extraordinary detail, responding to a question about the city’s budget process with a lengthy civics lesson on the inner workings of municipal government.
“Very good, Ms. Feeney,’’ Murphy said at the end of the interview. “Thank you for enduring the process. You will be hearing from us.’’
Feeney then moved to stay in the room for Carithers’s interview, but Murphy suggested otherwise. “Maureen, I don’t think it would be appropriate.’’
Carithers faced the same questions but clearly did not have Feeney’s knowledge of municipal government. Carithers worked for two years as a legislative aide to former state representative Willie Mae Allen, but she has been looking for work since leaving that job in about May 2010.
Advertisement
The interview committee did not make a decision, Murphy said, but will vote at a later date.
Andrew Ryan can be reached at acryan@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @GlobeAndrewRyan.