You are on page 1of 3

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL


ONE ASHBURTON PLACE
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108
(617)727-2200
www.mass.gov/ago
July 7,2014
OML 2014-77
Fernand J. Dupere, Esq.
Dupere Law Offices
94 North Elm Street, Suite 307
Westfield, MA 01085
RE: Open Meeting Law Complaint
Dear Attorney Dupere;
This office received a complaint from Richard Cohen on May 30, 2014, alleging that
Superintendency Union 71 School Committee (the "Committee") violated the Open Meeting
Law, G.L. c. 30A, 18-25. The complaint alleges that Committee member Robert Barton
violated the Open Meeting Law by discussing charges and complaints against a public employee
during a meeting without providing that employee 48 hours' notice. Mr. Cohen originally filed
his complaint with the Committee on February 28, 2014 and the Committee's counsel responded
on its behalf by letter dated March 21, 2014.'
Following our review, we find that the Committee did not violate the Open Meeting Law.
In reaching this determination, we reviewed the February 28, 2014 complaint filed with the
Committee; the Committee's March 21, 2014 response to the complaint; and the May 30, 2014
complaint filed with our office. Additionally we reviewed the notice for, and the open and
executive session minutes of, the Committee's February 24, 2014 meeting; a transcript, provided
by the complainant, of the February 24, 2014 meeting; a video recording of the February 24,
2014 meeting, available on the Committee's website;
2
and the draft minutes of the Committee's
March 19, 2014 meeting. Additionally, we reviewed correspondence sent to our office by Mr.
Cohen on May 30, 2014 and June 13, 2014.
1
For purposes of clarity, we will refer to you in the third person.
2
http://wlschools.org/school-committees/school-union-71-school-committee
MARTHA COAKLEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
O
FACTS
The Committee is comprised of six members from the Lanesborough and Williamstown
Elementary School Committees, three from each town. According to the Committee's website,
the Committee was established 'in an effort to share resources and services between the two
schools."
On February 24, 2014, the Committee held a meeting in open session. During the
meeting. Committee member and Williamstown School Committee Chair, Valerie Hall,
questioned the amount of time the shared school staff was spending on certain issues. In
response. Committee member and Lanesborough School Committee Chair, Robert Barton,
specifically named Tri-District Office Assistant, Ginni Ranzoni, and started to discuss her work
for the towns. At that point, the Committee's counsel interjected and stated that the Open
Meeting Law requires an employee be notified at least 48 hours prior to any discussion about his
or her reputation, character, physical condition or mental health. Counsel cautioned Mr. Barton
that even if the Committee moved into executive session, the Committee's discussion about Ms.
Ranzoni could not continue because she had not been notified in advance. Counsel instructed the
Committee that limiting its discussion to the issues of time demands on administration, and how
staff allocated their time between the different districts, would be more appropriate. The minutes
summarize the Committee's discussion of the allocation of staff time between the districts and
the mention of Ms. Ranzoni as: "Shared cost agreement with MG discussion - The Committee
recommends that R. Barton and R. Ellis work with facilitator to create an[d] improve work
flow."
Committee member and Lanesborough School Committee member, Jim Moriarty, then
moved that the Committee enter into executive session for the purpose of discussing the Tri-
District's shared contracts and agreements. Following a vote, the Committee entered into
executive session under G.L. c. 30A, 21(a)(2), to discuss non-union personnel contracts. Once
in executive session, the Committee discussed non-union personnel contracts, and there was no
3
discussion regarding charges or complaints about public officials or employees.
DISCUSSION
The Open Meeting Law permits a public body to meet in executive session for any of ten
enumerated purposes. G.L. c. BOA, 21(a). Under Purpose 1, a public body may meet in
executive session "to discuss the discipline or dismissal of, or complaints or charges brought
against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual." G.L. c. 30A, 21(a)(1).
However, the individual that is to be discussed must be notified in writing by the public body at
least 48 hours prior to the proposed executive session. Id. Here, the Committee mentioned Ms.
Ranzoni's name during an open session discussion, but did not discuss her in executive session.
The Open Meeting Law does not require notice to an individual that a public body may discuss a
topic involving that individual unless the public body intends to enter executive session under
3
We remind the Committee that when entering into executive session to discuss non-union personnel contracts, the
Committee must identify the specific non-union personnel with whom the Committee is negotiating. See OML
2014-50; OML 2011-56.
Purpose 1. OML 2014-57; OML 2014-47. Therefore, we find that the Committee did not
violate the Open Meeting Taw.
Although not raised in the complaint, we note that the Committee's February 24, 2014
meeting minutes are deficient. The Open Meeting Law requires that a public body create
accurate minutes of all meetings, including executive sessions. G.L. c. 30A, 22(a). The
minutes must include "the date time and place, the members present or absent, a summary of the
discussions on each subject, a list of documents and other exhibits used at the meeting, the
decisions made and the actions taken at each meeting, including the record of all votes." Id.
(emphasis added). Meeting minutes do not have to contain every remark or statement made
during the meeting, but they must be detailed enough so that a member of the public who did not
attend the meeting could read the minutes and have a clear understanding of what occurred. See
OML 2013-8; OML 2012-29.
The Committee's February 24, 2014 meeting lasted almost three hours, however the
minutes contain only a few brief sentences. A member of the public who did not attend the
meeting would not have a clear understanding from these minutes of what occurred during the
meeting. The Committee should, therefore, amend its February 24, 2014 meeting minutes so that
they contain sufficient detail to allow a member of the public who did not attend the meeting to
understand what the Committee had discussed.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we find that the Committee did not violate the Open
Meeting Law. We now consider the complaint addressed by this determination to be resolved.
This determination does not address any other complaints that may be pending with the
Committee or with our office. Please feel free to contact our office at (617) 963-2540 if you
have any questions.
Sincerely,
Division of Open Government
cc: Superintendency Union 71 School Committee
Richard Cohen
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. BOA, 23(d). The complaint must be fded in
Superior Court within twenty-one days of receipt of this order.

You might also like