the commonwealth of massachusetts office of the attorney general o

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ONE ASHBURTON PLACE
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108
(617)727-2200
www.mass.gov/ago
MARTHA COAKLEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
June 16, 2014
OML 2014 - 67
Carole Bernstein
Chair
Medway School Committee
45 Holliston Street
Medway, MA 02053
RE:
Open Meeting Law Complaint
Dear Ms. Bernstein:
This office received a complaint from Charles Myers, dated April 7, 2014, alleging that
the Medway School Committee (the "Committee") violated the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A,
§§ 18-25. The complaint specifically alleges that the Committee failed to properly notice a topic
for its January 16, 2014 meeting, and that the minutes of that meeting are not sufficiently
detailed. The complaint was filed with the Committee on or about February 14, 2014. The
Committee responded by letter dated April 10, 2014.'
Following our review, we find that the notice for the Committee's January 16, 2014
meeting was sufficiently specific. However, we find that the minutes of the Committee's
January 16, 2014 meeting are not sufficiently detailed and thus do not comply with the
requirements of the Open Meeting Law. In reaching this determination, we reviewed the
February 14, 2014 complaint filed with the Committee; the April 7, 2014 complaint filed with
our office; and the Committee's April 10, 2014 response. We also reviewed the notice and
minutes for the Committee's January 16, 2014 meeting. Finally, we spoke via telephone with
Committee Chair Carole Bernstein on May 22, 2014.
1 We remind the Committee that the Open Meeting Law requires that within fourteen business days after receiving a
complaint, the public body shall review the complaint's allegations; take remedial action, if appropriate; and send to
the Attorney General a copy of the complaint and a description of any remedial action taken. G.L. c. 30A, § 23(b);
940 CMR 29,05(5).
2 For purposes of clarity, we will refer to you in the third person.
O
FACTS
On January 10, 2014, the Committee posted notice for a January 16, 2014 meeting. The
notice listed only one topic: "Mid-year discussion with members of the leadership team." Chair
Bernstein anticipated the discussion would involve a mid-year check-in with the school district
administration and a discussion of how the district was progressing in meeting its goals. She did
not anticipate any specific sub-topics within that discussion.
During the meeting, Superintendent Judith Evans delivered a PowerPoint presentation
and led a discussion on the School Climate Survey. The Committee did not take any votes
during the one hour and 50 minute discussion. The minutes of the meeting, approved on
February 6, 2014, read in their entirety: "Committee members and members of the leadership
team discussed updates on school improvement plans, new initiatives and budget priorities."
According to Chair Bernstein, during this meeting the Committee engaged in a general
conversation about which policies were working for the school district and which were not.
Additionally, the Committee discussed the results of a School Climate Survey and discussed the
administration's future plans for the school system.
DISCUSSION
1. The Notice for the Committee's January 16, 2014 Meeting was Sufficiently Specific.
Except 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). A notice "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." IcL; OML 2013-39/ The
list of topics shall have "sufficient specificity to reasonably advise the public of the issues to be
discussed at the meeting." 940 CMR 29.03(1 )(b).
The Committee listed only one topic in the notice for its January 16, 2014 meeting: "Midyear discussion with members of the leadership team." The complainant argues this was not
sufficiently specific because the notice did not inform the public that the Committee would be
discussing the School Climate Survey. We find that the topic was sufficiently specific to
reasonably advise members of the public that the Committee would be holding a broad
discussion on school policy with the school district administration, which could include
presentations from the administration on a wide variety of matters. See 940 CMR 29.03(l)(b);
OML 2013-152 (notice topic was sufficiently specific even though additional detail may have
been helpful to the public). It does not appear that Chair Bernstein anticipated the specific topics
that were discussed with the administration. Accordingly, we find no violation of the Open
Meeting Law. See OML 2013-145 (no violation to omit reasonably inferable information from
notice); OML 2012-75 (same). While we find no violation of the Open Meeting Law, we
encourage the Committee to include additional detail about notice topics whenever possible. See
3
Open Meeting Law determinations may be found at the Attorney General's website,
wvvw.inass.gov/ago/openmeeting.
2
OML 2012-19.
2. The Minutes of the Committee's January 16. 2014 Meeting are not Sufficiently
Detailed.
A public body must create and maintain accurate minutes of all meetings, "setting forth
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." G.L. c. 30A, § 22(a). A
summary does not need to be a transcript of eyery word spoken at a meeting, but must contain
enough detail so that a member of the public who did not attend the meeting could review the
minutes and understand what the Committee discussed. See OML 2013-105; OML 2012-41.
The minutes of the Committee's January 16, 2014 meeting consist of a mere sentence to
describe a one hour and 50 minute discussion: "Committee members and members of the
leadership team discussed updates on school improvement plans, new initiatives and budget
priorities." The minutes contain no detail about the updates that the leadership team discussed.
The minutes did not identify or explain the new initiatives. The minutes provided no detail of
the budget priorities. Thus, the Committee failed to include in its minutes a sufficient summary
of the discussion on each subject.
The minutes also failed to include "a list of documents and other exhibits used at the
meeting." G.L. c. 30A, § 22(a). The Superintendent delivered a PowerPoint presentation during
the meeting. Because the Committee discussed that presentation, any other documents or
exhibits used by the Committee, should have been listed in the minutes.
As a final matter, Mr. Meyers states in his complaint filed with our office that the minutes
also failed to list everyone in attendance at the meeting. The Open Meeting Law does not
require that a public body list everyone in attendance at a meeting, only those who are members
of the public body. G.L. c. 30A, § 22(a).
CONCLUSION
We find that the notice for the Committee's January 16, 2014 meeting did not violate the
Open Meeting Law, however the minutes of the Committee's January 16, 2014 meeting are not
sufficiently detailed and thus do not comply with the requirements of the Open Meeting Law.
We order the Board's immediate and future compliance with the Open Meeting Law, and caution
the Board that future similar violations may be considered evidence of an intentional violation.
Additionally, we order the Committee to amend the minutes of its January 16, 2014 meeting to
include the level of detail required by the Law. See G.L. c. 30A, § 22(a). The Committee shall
certify to our office within thirty (30) days of this decision, using the attached form, that it has
complied with this order.
o
J
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 our office or with
the Committee. Please contact our office at (617) 963-2540 if you have any questions or believe
any facts in this letter to be inaccurate.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Sclarsic
Assistant Attorney General
Division of Open Government
cc:
Charles Myers
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.
4
Certification of Compliance with Order
I,
, hereby certify that I have read the Attorney General's
(print name)
determination number OML 2014-67 and, pursuant to the order therein, the Medway School
Committee has amended the minutes of its January 16, 2014 meeting to include the level of
detail required by the Open Meeting Law.
Board Chair Signature
Date
5

Download Report