O’Malley ousted as Malden City Council President

City history is made as Council members make first-ever removal of seated President; Ward 3’s Linehan elected to lead Council for rest of year

By Noah-Simon Contreras

The Malden City Council made municipal history Tuesday night with a near-unanimous vote to oust first-time Council President Ryan O’Malley from his leadership role. The unprecedented move — believed by all to be a first-ever in city history — came after over two weeks of acrimony and in the midst of a marathon, five-hour meeting Tuesday night, where the issue of Councillor O’Malley’s fate took center stage. Nearly three hours of discussion, debate and remarks by nearly all of the 11 Council members dominated the evening, centered on Council Order number 313-25, which read: “Order: That the City Council will vote whether to remove Council President O’Malley from his seat as President for the remainder of his term that was to last until the end of the 2025 calendar year.”
The Council order, sponsored by Ward 8 Councillor Jadeane Sica and Councillor-at-Large Craig Spadafora, came after two weeks of controversy surrounding the actions of now former Council President O’Malley, who represents Ward 4, involving a lawsuit he ordered to filed by Malden City Solicitor Alicia McNeil’s office against the Malden Library Board of Trustees and Head Librarian Dora St. Martin. O’Malley was ordered removed as Council President, in a historic, first time ever vote, 7-3. Voting in favor to remove O’Malley were Councillors Peg Crowe (Ward 1), Paul Condon (Ward 2), Amanda Linehan (Ward 3), Ari Taylor (Ward 5), Chris Simonelli (Ward 7), Sica and Spadafora. Ward 6 Councillor Stephen Winslow and Councillors-at-Large Karen Colón Hayes and Carey McDonald voted against the order to remove O’Malley as Council President. O’Malley voted “Present,” so the vote stood at 7-3.
Immediately following that vote, and O’Malley’s removal, another vote was made to suspend Council docket rules. That vote passed, 8-3, with Councillor-at-Large Colón Hayes, O’Malley and Winslow voting against it. A vote to open nominations passed by a 9-2 vote; voting “no”: O’Malley and Winslow.
Councillor Spadafora nominated Councillor Linehan, with that nomination seconded by Councillor Taylor. There were no other nominations. Linehan was elected for the rest of this year’s term by a unanimous, 10-0 vote.
O’Malley made it clear with a brief statement from his podium before the vote that he believed the Council move “was out of order” and that he would be challenging it “as is my right.”
Like Tuesday’s meeting, an earlier, three-hour-plus Council meeting was held on Tuesday, June 3, and was also dominated by the O’Malley lawsuit issue. At that meeting, much discussion, some harsh words and other statements filled the evening. Several Councillors condemned both the fact that O’Malley has sued another city entity and city employee, as well as the manner in which he went about it.
Several Councillors, including Spadafora, Sica, Ward 1 Councillor Peg Crowe, Ward 2’s Paul Condon and Ward 3’s Amanda Linehan, openly declared O’Malley — even as Councillor President — had no given right to order the City Solicitor to file a lawsuit as solely the Council President, all stating the city’s top legal officer worked on behalf of the Council as a whole, not just for its President.
The lawsuit filed by the City Solicitor on behalf of the plaintiff, then Council President Ryan O’Malley, asked for “declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction” against the Board of Trustees and Director St. Martin, seeking access to records as well as action regarding his ex officio status and the denial by the Board as allowing him to vote as a Board member.
The Board of Trustees is a private entity elected and appointed from within, while St. Martin is a municipal employee, appointed by the Mayor, with the appointment acknowledged by the Council. St. Martin has been in her position since May 2013.
At the June 3 Council meeting, Councillors Sica, Condon and Crowe, Ward 7’s Chris Simonelli and Spadafora sponsored Council Order 280-25: “That the President of the Malden City Council will dismiss the case filed in Superior Court on May 22, 2025 against the Trustees of the Malden Public Library, case number 2581CV01275, and further be prohibited from using his position as President and/or Ward Councillor to use City resources for personal claims.”
After discussion that City Solicitor McNeil, not O’Malley, was the filing party, the order was amended to have the City Solicitor dismiss the case. That order passed by a 10-0, unanimous vote, with Councillors Crowe, Condon, Linehan, Ward 5’s Ari Taylor, Ward 6’s Winslow, Simonelli, Sica, Spadafora and Councillors-at-Large Karen Colón Hayes and Carey McDonald voting in favor. O’Malley recused himself from the vote and left the Chamber while it was taken.
City Solicitor McNeil, who was present at the June 3 meeting, confirmed she would notify the court of the city’s intention to dismiss the lawsuit against the Malden Public Library Board of Trustees and Director St. Martin. Reportedly, she did attempt to do that immediately that week after the June 3 meeting. At Tuesday’s Council meeting, City Solicitor McNeil confirmed that she did file a motion to dismiss the case in court on June 6. Councillor Condon asked if Councillor O’Malley abided by that motion. She said that O’Malley continued to move forward with the lawsuit, despite the unanimous Council vote calling for the lawsuit’s dismissal. Councillor Spadafora said that O’Malley moved forward, seeking an injunction from the judge.
“He [O’Malley] ignored the Council’s vote. He tried to go forward with the lawsuit,” Condon said Tuesday night. “[O’Malley] shouldn’t have done it.”
Assistant City Solicitor Zaheer Samee at Tuesday’s meeting confirmed that his office formally withdrew from the lawsuit in court on June 6 and confirmed that O’Malley, in court, did not seek to end the lawsuit, but continue it.
O’Malley’s actions after the June 6 court appearance apparently fueled Tuesday night’s actions seeking and ultimately voted in favor of the Ward 4 Councillor’s removal as Council President.
The lawsuit was filed on May 22, two days before Memorial Day weekend. It was filed by the Malden City Solicitor’s office, which is led by first-year City Solicitor Alicia McNeil. The legal action was filed under the name “Ryan O’Malley, as President of the Malden City Council.”
The lawsuit was not filed on behalf of the Malden City Council, the full, 11-member body, only as O’Malley being the plaintiff is his sole role as Council President. Also, neither then Council President O’Malley nor the City Solicitor’s office notified the other 10 members of the City Council of the lawsuit and that it had been filed. As details of the lawsuit and the manner it came about and subsequently was acted upon by the City Solicitor, at the behest of O’Malley, became known, the several Councillors noted above sought and saw passed an order to dismiss the lawsuit.
In the midst of Tuesday’s marathon session, Councillor Linehan, who had assumed the new-this-year President Pro Tempore chair due to the fact O’Malley was the subject of the Council’s discussion, ruled that the orders on the docket were, indeed, “in order.” Linehan said she made this decision after listening to the question and answer exchange with City Solicitor McNeil and the Council’s parliamentarian — City Clerk Carol Ann Desiderio — whether the Council orders were “in order.”

Robert’s Rules of Order: Removal of a Seated City Council President

The procedures for removing a seated City Council President under Robert’s Rules of Order depend on the specific circumstances and the City Council’s bylaws. Here’s a general overview of the potential methods, paraphrased, from Robert’s Rules of Order:
1. Formal Disciplinary Procedures: This process is used if the bylaws specify a fixed term for the President and involves an investigation, formal trial, and a majority vote on the penalty, which can include removal.
2. Removal by the Body: If the bylaws allow for removal before the term ends, the President can be removed without formal disciplinary procedures. This requires a two-thirds vote, a majority vote with previous notice, or a vote of the majority of the entire membership. A successor can then be elected.
3. Censure: This is an official reprimand to express disapproval. It requires a majority vote but does not legally remove the President, serving as a warning.