THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

OFFICE OF THEATTORNEY GENERAL

ONEASHBURTONPLACE
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS02108
TEL:(617)7272200

MAURAHEALEY
ATTORNEYGENERAL

www.mass.gov/ago

January29,2015
OML201516
MarkA.Beauregard,Esq.
Resnic,Beauregard,WaiteandDriscoll
330Whitney Avenue,Suite400
Holyoke,MA 01040

RE:

Open Meeting Law Complaint

DearAttorneyBeauregard:
Thisofficereceivedacomplaintfrom GeraldineBrockway,datedNovember10,2014,
allegingthattheSouthHadleyElectricLightDepartment'sBoardofCommissioners(the
"Board")violatedtheOpenMeetingLaw,G.L.c.30A,1825. Specifically,thecomplaint
allegesthattheBoardfailedtoprovideMs.Brockway withexecutivesessionminutesanda
meetingtranscriptinresponsetoherrequest.1 ThecomplaintwasoriginallyfiledwiththeBoard
onOctober20,2014. TheBoard'sChairresponded byletterdatedNovember4,2014.
Followingourreview,wefind thattheBoardviolatedtheOpenMeetingLawby not
respondingtoarequestforexecutivesessionminuteswithin10days. Additionally,wefind that
itwasimproperforthe BoardtorelyupontheOpenMeeting Lawasabasisforwithholding
portionsoftheseminutesonceproduced,becausetheBoarddidnotfollowtheproperprocedures
forenteringintoexecutivesessiononJune25,2014. Inreachingthisdetermination,we
reviewedthecomplaintfiled withtheBoard,theBoard'sresponse,andthecomplaintfiled with
ouroffice. Additionally,wereviewed,in camera, theminutesoftheBoard'sJune25,2014
executivesession. Finally,wespokewithcounselfortheBoardbytelephoneonDecember10,
2014regardingthenatureoftheexecutivesessiondiscussion.

1 TheOpenMeeting Lawgovernsrequestsformeetingminutesandfordocuments usedatameetingofapublic

body. G.L.c.30A,22. Requestsforotherdocuments,such asameetingtranscript,aregoverned bythePublic

RecordsLaw,G.L.c.66, 10. Ourreviewconcernsonlycompliancewith theOpenMeetingLaw, thuswedecline
toreviewthe allegationconcerningthetranscriptandrefer thecomplainanttotheSupervisorof Recordswithinthe
SecretaryoftheCommonwealth'sofficeifshewishestoappealthedenial ofherrequest.
2 Forthepurposeofclarity,we refertoyouin thethirdperson.

FACTS
Wefind thefactsasfollows. OnJune25,2014,theBoardenteredinto executivesession,
followingarollcallvote,"forthepurposeofdiscussingpersonnelissuesandnottoreconvene
theRegularSessionaftertheadjournmentfromtheExecutiveSession." TheChairdidnot
identifyanylitigationissuefordiscussion,nordid theChairstatethatholdingadiscussionin
opensessionwouldhaveadetrimentaleffectontheBoard'slitigatingposition. TheBoardalso
didnotprovide 48hourswritten noticetotheindividualdiscussed duringthemeeting.
OnSeptember15,2014,ouroffice issuedOMT2014115,adeterminationfindingthat
theBoardviolatedtheOpenMeeting Lawbypostinganinsufficientlydetailednoticeforthe
June25,2014executivesessionmeeting. Ourofficedidnotreviewtheexecutivesessionitself
forcompliancewiththeOpenMeetingLawbecausethevalidityoftheexecutivesessionwasnot
atissueinthatcomplaint.
OnSeptember30,2014, Ms.BrockwayrequestedacopyoftheBoard'sJune25,2014
executivesessionminutes. Ms.BrockwaydidnotreceivearesponsefromtheBoard,thusshe
filed thepresentcomplaintonOctober 20,2014. IntheBoard'sNovember 4,2014responseto
thecomplaint,theBoardwritesthatthe"'[mjinutesaddressedavarietyofsubjectssomeofwhich
arestill'open'andsubjecttofuture discussion,resolutionand/ordisciplinebythe Board.
Therefore,thepurposeofthoseparticularsubjectsasreflectedintheExecutiveMinuteshasnot
expired." Aredactedversionoftheminutesaccompaniedtheletter,whichwassentto the
complainant.
Becausetheredactedportionsoftheexecutivesessionminuteshavenotyetbeenpublicly
released,wedonotrecounttheircontent indetailhere. However,wenotethatduringtheJune
25,2014executivesession,theBoarddiscussedtwocomplaintsmadeby aBoardmember
regardinganemployeeanditdiscussedanongoinglitigationmatter.
DISCUSSION
1. TheBoardFailedtoRespondto Ms.Brockway'sRequestforMinuteswithintheTime
PeriodRequiredbyLaw.
Uponrequestbyanypersontoinspectorcopytheminutesofanexecutivesessionorany
portionthereof,thepublicbodymustrespondtotherequestwithin10daysfollowingreceiptand
mustreleaseanysuchminutesnotcovered byanexemption;provided,however,thatifthe body
hasnotperformedareview,the publicbodyshallperformthereviewandreleasethenonexempt
minutes,oranyportionthereof,not laterthanthepublicbody'snextmeetingor30days,
whicheverfirst occurs. G.L.c.30A,22(g)(2).
OnSeptember30,2014,Ms.Brockway requestedacopyofthe Board'sJune25,2014
executivesessionminutes. TheBoarddidnot respondtoMs.Brockway'srequest until
November4,201435daysafterit wasmade. Thus,itisclearthattheBoard failedtorespond
toMs.Brockway'srequest within10daysandfailedtoperformtherequiredreviewofthe

executivesessionminuteswithin30days. SeeOML201399. ThisviolatedtheOpenMeeting

Law.
2. BecausetheBoardFailedtoFollowCertainRequiredProcedures,itwasImproperforthe
BoardtoAsserttheOpenMeetingLawasaBasisforWithholdingaPortionofthe
MinutesProvidedtoComplainant.
Althoughnotraisedbythecomplainant,wefind thatareviewofthesubstanceand
proceduresfollowedduringtheexecutivesessionatissueisanecessaryprecursortodetermining
whethertheminutesshouldhave beenreleasedinresponsetoherrequest. Apublicbodymay
enterexecutive,orclosed,sessionforanyoftenenumeratedpurposes. G.L.c.30A,21(a).
Amongthetenpurposesforexecutivesessionisapurposethatallowsapublicbodytoenter
executivesessiontodiscussthe"disciplineordismissalof,orcomplaintsorchargesbrought
against,apublicofficer,employee,staffmemberorindividual." G.L.c.30A,21(a)(1)
("Purpose1"). Anotherexecutivesessionpurposeallowsapublic bodytoenterintoexecutive
sessionto"discussstrategywithrespecttocollectivebargainingorlitigationifanopenmeeting
mayhaveadetrimentaleffectonthebargainingorlitigatingpositionofthepublicbodyandthe
chairsodeclares." G.L.c.30A,21(a)(3)("Purpose3"). DuringtheitsJune25,2014
executivesession,theBoarddiscussedtwocomplaintsmadeby aBoardmemberregardingan
employeeanddiscussedanongoinglitigation matter. Bothdiscussionswerepermissibletopics
forcloseddoordiscussionundertheOpenMeetingLaw. SeeG.L.c.30A,21(a)(1),(3).
Whilewefind thatthetopicsdiscussedbytheBoardon June25,2014wereappropriate
forexecutivesession,theBoardfailed tocomplywithcertainrequiredproceduresforholdingan
executivesessiononthatdate. Beforeenteringexecutivesession,thechairofapublic body
muststatethepurposefortheexecutivesession,statingallsubjectsthatmayberevealed without
compromisingthepurposeforwhichtheexecutivesessionwascalled. G.L.c.30A,21(b)(3).
AswestatedinourSeptember15,2014decisiontotheBoard,thetopic"personnelissues,"
whichwascitedbytheBoardasthebasisfortheexecutivesessionatissue,isnotasufficiently
specificstatementofthepurposeforanexecutivesession. OML2014115;seeOML 201442;
OML20119. Ataminimum,theBoardshouldhavestatedthestatutorypurposethatformedthe
basisfortheexecutivesession. SeeG.L.c.30A,21(b)(3);OML201442. Doingsowould
haveprovidedthepublicwithmoreinformationabouttheBoard'sintendeddiscussionwithout
compromisingthepurposefortheexecutivesession. SeeOML2013141. Here,theChair
shouldhaveidentifiedPurposes1 and3. TheChairalsofailedtomaketherequiredstatement
thatholdingadiscussioninopensessionwouldhaveadetrimentaleffectontheBoard's
litigatingposition. G.L.c.30A,21(a)(3). TheBoardshouldhavealsoprovided 48hours
writtennoticetotheindividualwhowasthesubjectofthecomplaintsitdiscussed. G.L.c.30A,
21(a)(1).
Becausewefind thattheBoardfailedtofollowcertainrequiredprocedureswhenit
enteredintoexecutivesessiononJune25,2014,wefindthattheBoardmaynotcontinueto
withholdredactedportionsofthoseminutesundertheOpenMeeting Law. SeeG.Lc.30A,
3 OpenMeeting Lawdeterminationsmay befoundattheAttorneyGeneral's website,

www.mass.gov/ago/openmeeting.

22(f)("Theminutesofanyexecutivesession...maybewithheldfromdisclosuretothepublic
intheirentirety...aslongaspublicationmaydefeatthelawfulpurposesoftheexecutive
session,butnolonger;provided, however, that the executive session was held in compliance with
section 21" (emphasisadded));OML201442;OML201430;OML201417. TheBoardmay,
however,continuetowithholdtheseminutesinwholeorinpartifan exemptiontothePublic
RecordsLawortheattorney/clientprivilegeapplies. G.L.c.30A,22(f).
CONCLUSION
Forthereasonsstatedabove,wefindthattheBoardviolated theOpenMeetingLawby
notrespondingtoarequestforexecutivesessionminuteswithinthetimeframerequiredbylaw.
WeordertheBoard'simmediateandfuturecompliancewiththeOpenMeetingLaw,andcaution
theBoardthatasimilarfutureviolationmay beconsideredevidenceofanintentionalviolation
oftheLaw. Additionally,becausewefindthattheBoard failedtofollowcertainrequired
proceduresforholdinganexecutivesessionJune25,2014,weorderthattheBoardreleasetothe
publictheredacted portionsofthoseminutesunlessanexemptiontothePublicRecordsLawor
theattorney/clientprivilegeapplies. Thisshouldoccurwithin30daysof receiptofthisletter.
Wenowconsiderthecomplaintaddressedbythisdeterminationtoberesolved. This
determinationdoesnotaddressanyothercomplaintsthatmaybependingwithourofficeorthe
Board. PleasefeelfreetocontacttheDivisionat(617)9632540ifyou haveanyquestions.
Sincerely,

JonathanSclarsic
AssistantAttorneyGeneral
DivisionofOpenGovernment

cc:

SouthHadleyElectricLightDepartmentBoardofCommissioners
GeraldineBrockway

This determination was issued pursuant to G.L. c. 30A, 23(c). A public body or any
member of a body aggrieved by this order 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 this order.