Open Meeting Law Briefs
The state Attorney General's Office issued the following opinions on three Open Meeting Law complaints against Berkshire County boards. The opinions can be found here.
Dalton Board Fails to Release Executive Session Minutes
DALTON, Mass.— The state attorney general's office has determined the Fire District Board of Water Commissioners violated Open Meeting Law by failing to announce and record the results of any periodic review of its executive session minutes.
Evaluations of 17 sets of open session minutes from July 30, 2024, to May 13, 2025, showed no announcements regarding executive-session minute reviews, Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Carnes Flynn stated in an opinion dated Aug. 20.
Christian Tobin, the former fire chief, filed two complaints against the board, alleging that it failed to list or maintain many documents, handouts, and exhibits used during public meetings.
Tobin was terminated in January and has since filed a lawsuit against the district alleging a breach of contract and wrongful termination.
Additionally, he claimed that the notice for the June 23 meeting did not include a sufficiently specific topic for the executive session, and that the board did not conduct or disclose periodic reviews of the executive session minutes.
The board's failure to announce and record executive session minutes was the only violation determined by the state.
The attorney general's office declined to review the allegation that the board did not list or maintain documents used during public meetings because the complaint did not identify any particular documents, handouts, or exhibits the board is alleged to have failed to list and retain.
"Open Meeting Law complaints must allege violations with a degree of specificity as our office will not conduct broad audits of public bodies based on generalized allegations," Flynn said in an email to the Board of Water Commissioners.
The determination acknowledges that OML requires that meeting minutes list the documents and other exhibits used at a meeting. However, such documents are governed by the Municipal Records Retention Schedule.
Complaints involving municipal records retention may be resolved by the supervisor of records within the Secretary of the Commonwealth's Office.
The state found the the district was not in violation of OML for not including a specific topic for the June 23 executive session because the meeting was canceled.
"When a public body does not actually deliberate on a noticed topic, the public body cannot violate the Open Meeting Law with respect to the sufficiency of that topic, even if it would have been insufficiently specific had the public body proceeded with its deliberation," Flynn wrote.
Adams Selectmen Cleared of OML Violation
ADAMS, Mass. — The Board of Selectmen was found not to have violated Open Meeting Law regarding its response to a prior complaint.
Resident Catherine Foster's complaint was based on a prior complaint she made on Dec. 20, 2024. Town counsel had requested an extension of the 14 business days to respond, which was approved to Jan. 21. The board met on Jan. 15 and the response to Foster was sent to her and the Attorney General's Office on Jan. 22.
Foster's complaint was that the board had not reviewed the response before "delegating the responsibility of responding to the
complaint." Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Carnes Flynn said, upon watching the Jan. 15 meeting, that "it does not violate the Open Meeting Law for legal counsel to review an Open Meeting Law complaint and propose a response prior to the public body reviewing the complaint and authorizing the response."
Great Barrington Select Board Failed to Review & Release Executive Session Minutes
GREAT BARRINGTON, Mass. — The Select Board was found to have violated Open Meeting Law by failing to respond to a request for years-old executive session minutes.
The complaint was filed with the Attorney General's Office by Bill Shein on Jan. 27 after the board responded to his Dec. 2 complaint in February.
Shein had asked for the minutes from June 25, 2018, Sept. 17, 2018, Oct. 28, 2019, and Dec. 16, 2019, with the request they be reviewed at the board's Nov. 4, 2024, meeting. The board only reviewed the December 2019 minutes at that meeting and then-Town Manager Mark Pruhenski told Shein the other three sets would require a legal review.
The board did not review these until February and released them with redactions by legal counsel.
Assistant Attorney General Carrie Benedon, in an opinion dated Aug. 6, found the board failed to respond in a timely manner and did not review them at reasonable intervals to determine if they should be disclosed.
"The board did not respond in any way until the town manager responded to the complainant on December 11, 2024, by which time the board had held five meetings; furthermore, it is not clear if the board or anyone acting on its behalf reviewed the minutes until Feb. 10, 2025. Therefore, we find that the board violated the Open Meeting Law," she wrote.
The AG's Office declined to "opine on the appropriateness of the redactions" as the complaint was specific to the release of the minutes.
"The Open Meeting Law authorizes the attorney general to investigate a complaint alleging a violation of the Open Meeting Law but does not give the division the authority to determine whether the assertion of the attorney-client privilege is justified or whether an exemption to the Public Records Law applies to allow a public body to redact portions of executive session minutes," Benedon wrote.
Flynn said it is only required that the public body review the complaint and authorize the response prior to the response being sent to the complainant and the AG's Office.
Tags: open meeting complaint,
