THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

ONE ASHBURTON PLACE
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108
MAURA HEALEY

TEL: (617) 727-2200

ATTORNEY GENERAL

www.mass.gov/ago

May 27, 2016

OML 2016-69

Edward Coburn, Esq.

Assistant Commissioner
Inspectional Services Legal Division
1010 Massachusetts Avenue
4th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
RE:

Open Meeting Law Complaint

Dear Attorney Cobum:

This office received a complaint from Collique Williams and Tara Venkatraman, dated
December 15, 2015, alleging that the Boston Zoning Board of Appeals (the "Board") violated the
Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, 18-25. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Board
discussed a topic during its September 15, 2015 meeting that had not been listed on the meeting
notice. The complaint was originally filed with the Board on October 14, 2015, and the Board
responded by letter dated December 9, 2015.1
We appreciate the patience and cooperation of the parties while we reviewed this matter.
Following our review, we find that the Board intentionally violated the Open Meeting Law as
alleged. In reaching this determination, we reviewed the original complaint, the Board's
response, and the request for review filed with our office. Additionally, we spoke with you by
telephone on January 5, 2016 and with the complainants by telephone on January 13, 2016.
Finally, we spoke with Boston Assistant Corporation Counsel Allyson Holmes on January 13,
March 30, and April 6, 2016.

We remind the Board that, unless an extension of time has been requested, a public body must, within 14 business
days of receipt of an Open Meeting Law complaint, review the complaint, send a copy of the complaint to the
Attorney General's Office, and notify the Attorney General's Office of any remedial action taken. G.L. C.30A,
23(b); 940 CMR 29.05(5), (6).

FACTS
We find the facts as follows. The notice posting location for Boston public bodies is a
bulletin board on the first floor of Boston City Hall. Boston has not adopted an alternative notice
posting location, as it may choose to do pursuant 940 CMR 29.03(2)(b). During a July 21, 2015
hearing on a development at 3198-3204 Washington St. and 11 Iffley Road, the Board voted to
continue the hearing until September 15, 2015.
The Board posted notice for its September 15, 2015 meeting directly to the City of
Boston website. The date this notice was posted is not clear. The Board did not file the notice
with the City Clerk, and no notice was posted to the City Hall bulletin board. The online notice
for the meeting did not include a topic regarding requested zoning variances for 3198-3204
Washington St. and 11 Iffley Road. The Board updated the online notice on September 14,
2015, to include discussion of those two topics.
Immediately prior to the September 15, 2015 Board meeting, two representatives of a
group called Group Working for 100% Real Affordability in Egleston (the "Group"), delivered a
letter to each of the Board members and to the Board's executive director. The letter included a
cover sheet stating, "To Chairperson Christine Araujo and the Zoning Board of Appeals
IMPORTANT, PLEASE READ: Explanation why a vote on 3198-3204 Washington St and 11
Iffley Rd today would violate the Open Meeting Law." The letter included the following
relevant portions:

We are writing to respectfully request that you postpone the vote on 3198-3204
Washington Street and 11 Iffley Road to another date, which we believe would keep the
vote in compliance with the Open Meeting Law. Based on information from
conversations with the Division of Open Government in the Attorney General's Office,
we have determined that it would be a violation of the Open Meeting Law for the Zoning
Board of Appeals to vote today on the projects.
The original agenda posted online from Friday, September 12, 2015 to Monday
September 14, 2015 did not have [3198-3204 Washington Street and 11 Iffley Road] on
the agenda.... [Open Meeting LawJ requirements were not followed in posting public
notice about 3198-3204 Washington Street and 11 Iffley Road....notice of today's
meeting was not posted on the first floor of City Hall where notices ofpublic meetings
are posted.
Representatives of the Group attended the September 15, 2015 hearing. During public
comment at the hearing on 3198-3204 Washington Street and 11 Iffley Road, a representative
from the Group explained to the Board that it should not vote on the variance because the
meeting violated the Open Meeting Law. During a recess, a Group representative again provided
the Board Chair with a copy of the Group's letter. Despite the letter and the warning during
public comment, the Board decided to continue with the meeting and voted to approve variances
for projects at 3198-3204 Washington Street and 11 Iffley Road.

DISCUSSION
The Open Meeting Law requires that, "[ejxcept in an emergency.. .a public body shall
post notice of every meeting at least 48 hours prior to such meeting, excluding Saturdays,
Sundays and legal holidays." G.L. c. 30A, 20(b). The notice must be "printed in a legible,
easily understandable format and shall contain the date, time and place of such meeting and a
listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting." Id. For
meetings of a local public body, unless an alternative posting method has been adopted, the
notice must be filed with the municipal clerk and posted in a manner conspicuously visible to the
public at all hours in or on the municipal building in which the clerk's office is located. G.L.
c. 30A, 20(c); 940 CMR 29.03(2). As an alternative notice posting method, a municipality
may choose to post notices to its website. 940 CMR 29.03(2)(b)a. However, the City of Boston
has not adopted this alternative.
Here, the Board posted notice of its September 15, 2015 meeting on the City's website.
However, the Board violated the Open Meeting Law by failing to file a notice for its September
15, 2015 meeting with the City Clerk and by holding a meeting for which the legally required
notice had not been published. See G.L. c. 30A, 20(b); OML 2014-153; OML 2013-55; OML
2011-32. The Board did so despite having received clear warning immediately prior to and
during the meeting that the meeting had not been properly noticed.
Because the Board had been provided with written notice that the September 15, 2015
meeting had not been properly posted, we find that this violation of the Open Meeting Law was
intentional. An intentional violation is an "act of omission by a public body or a member
thereof, in knowing violation of the Open Meeting Law." 940 CMR 29.02. A violation is
intentional where the public body has "acted with specific intent to violate the law [or] acted
with deliberate indifference to the law's requirements." Id

CONCLUSION
We find that Board discussed a topic during its September 15, 2015 meeting that was not
included on the meeting notice. We find that this violation was intentional. We therefore refer
this matter to a hearing pursuant to 940 CMR 29.07(3). We recommend the following orders be
imposed:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)

A civil penalty of $1,000;

Mandatory attendance by all Board members at an Open Meeting Law training
conducted by the Division of Open Government; and
An order of immediate and future compliance with the Open Meeting Law, G.L.
c. 3OA, 18-25.

Please be advised that this letter does not resolve any other complaints that may be
pending with this office or with the Board. We invite the Board to contact our office at (617)
963-2540 to discuss the hearing process.
Sincerely,

Kevin W. Manganaro
Assistant Attorney General
Division of Open Government
cc:

Law Department, City of Boston

Collique Williams
Tara Venkatraman

This determination was issued pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, 23(c). A public body or any
member of a body aggrieved by a final order of the Attorney General may obtain judicial
review through an action filed in Superior Court pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, 23(d). The
complaint must be filed in Superior Court within twenty-one days of receipt of a final
order.