THe COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL One AsHBuRTON PLace Boston, Massacttuserrs 02108 Magia Coagtey (617) 727-2200 Armpancy Genta wove gogo December 1, 2014 OML 2014 ~ 139 GPx, 3 ®y Regina Tate, Esq, &y 7 Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP in Crown Colony Plaza 300 Crown Colony Drive ae Suite 410 Quincy, MA 02169 RE: Open Meeting Law Complaint Dear Attomey Tate: This office received a complaint from Mr. Thomas Fittie, dated October 14, alleging that the Amherst-Pelham Regional Schoo! Committee (the “Committee”) violated the Open Meeting Law, G.L. ¢. 30A, §§ 18-25.' The complaint was originally filed with the Committee on August 12, and the Committee responded to Mr. Flittie’s complaint by letter dated August 27. In his complaint, Mr. Flittic alleges that the Committee held a meeting without providing sufficient notice to the public. Following our review, we find that the Committee violated the Open Meeting Law. In reaching a determination, we reviewed the original complaint; the Committee's response: the request for further review filed with our office; and the meeting notice and minutes from a Committee meeting held on July 14. Finally, we reviewed a video recording of the July 14 meeting, FA We find the facts as follows. The Committee is a nine-member public body responsible for the operation of schools serving the residents of Amherst, Pelham, Shutesbury, and Leverett. On July 9, Committee member Trevor Baptiste sent to all four town clerks a notice for a special ‘Committee meeting to be held on July 14. The agenda listed only one item for discussion: “Statement on School Equity task force controversy (vote).” Just a few minutes later, Committee Chair Lawrence O"Brien e-mailed the four clerks, stating that the previous meeting notice was sent in error. This e-mail went on to state, “There will not be a meeting on that date and the " Unless otherwise specified, all dates in this letter refer tothe year 2014.posting should be removed.” Shortly after he sent this e-mail to the clerks, Chair O°Brien sent an ¢-mail to the other Committee members. In that second e-mail, Chair O’Brien stated that, pursuant to advice he had received from the Committee’s legal counsel, only the Committee Chair could call a special meeting. Shorily thereafter, Amherst’s Assistant Town Clerk e-mailed Chair O'Brien to say that she had “canceled the meeting,” In the other three towns, notice for the July 14 meeting was posted on July 9 and was not subsequently removed On July 10, Chair O’Brien again e-mailed the Committee stating that he stood by the cancellation of the meeting, and he forwarded a memo from the Committee's legal counsel stating that only the Chair may call a special meeting. Later that day, Mr. Baptiste e-mailed the group stating that any Committee member had a right to call a meeting, and that the meeting ‘Would still be held as scheduled. On July 11, the legal counsel for the Town of Amherst sent an opinion to the Committee stating that only the Chair has the avthority to call a special meeting. On July 12, Chair OBrien e-mailed the Committee stating that he continued to consider the meeting to be cancelled. On July 14, notwithstanding the e-mails from Chair O’Brien and others, Mr. Baptiste convened a special meeting of the Commitiee. Five of the nine Committee members, a quorum of the public body, were present. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Committee members present voted to disavow a letter of reprimand that had previously been sent to one of the Committee members, The Committee members present stated that the reprimand “should not be interpreted as representing the opinions of the Amherst-Pelhamn Regional School Committee.” DISCUSSION ‘The Open Meeting Law was enacted “to eliminate much of the secrecy surrounding deliberations and decisions on which publie policy is based.” Ghiglione v. School Committee of Southbridge, 376 Mass. 70, 72 (1978), ‘The law requires that meetings of a public body be properly noticed and open to the public, unless an executive session is convened. See G.L. ¢ 30A, §§ 20(a)-(b), 21. The Open Meeting Law defines a “meeting” as “a deliberation by a public body with respect to any matter within the body’s jurisdiction.” G.L. c. 30, § 18. A “deliberation” is defined as “an oral or written communication through any medium, including electronic mail, between or among a quorum of a public body on any public business within its jurisdiction.” 1d, Therefore, all communications between or among a quorum of the members of a public body must take place in a properly noticed open meeting. Regional school cominittees must post notice 48 hours in advance of meeting in each city and town within the district in the manner prescribed for local public bodies in that city or town, See G.L. ¢. 30A, § 20(c); 940 CMR 29.03(2). However, regional school committees may choose an alternative posting method, such as posting to the regional school district website. See 940 CMR. 29.03(4)(b). The Committee has not adopted its website as its official posting location. Therefore, we find that because a quorum of the Committee met without posting notice of the meeting in all four towns that compose the district, the requirements of the Open Meeting Law were not met. ‘Mr. Baptiste sent the meeting notice to the four town clerks around 2:15 p.m, on July 9, and the e-mail from Amherst’s Assistant Town Clerk stating that she was canceling the meeting came around 3:30 pm, The greatest amount of time for which it could conceivably have been posted in Amherst is therefore approximately 75 minutes. While it appears that the meeting notice 2remained posted in Pelham, Shutesbury, and Leverett, the citizens of Amherst did not reecive sufficient notice of the meeting. Because the citizens of Amherst lacked notice of the meeting, we find that the July 14 meeting violated the Open Meeting Law. See McCrea v. Flaherty, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 637, 650 (2008) (“the notice requirement contained in the statute is an essential attribute of the laws it is manifestly pointless to conduct a meeting to which the law requires public access if'no member of the public is aware that the meeting is taking place”). We recognize that a dispute existed as to who had authority to convene a meeting. The Open Meeting Law is silent on who has the authority to call meetings. We therefore take no position on whether Mr. Baptiste was authorized to convene the special meeting of July 14. However, regardless of who has the authority to convene a meeting, a quorum of a public body ‘may not meet unless the meeting is properly noticed. For the reasons stated above, we find that the Committee violated the Open Meeting Law. ‘We order immediate and future compliance with the Open Meeting Law and we caution that similar future violations may be considered evidence of intent to 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 our oftice or the Committee. Please fee! free to contact the Division at (617) 963 - 2540 if you have any questions, Sincerely, EZ 29 dL Kevin W/Mafiganaro Assistant Attorney General Division of Open Government ce: Mr. Thomas Flittie Amberst-Pelham Regional School District ‘This determination was issued pursuant to G.L. ¢. 30A, § 23(¢). 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(4). The complaint must be filed Superior Court within twenty one days of receipt of this order.