Shedding Some Light...on Open Meeting Law Violations
You never know what you will find in your email, like today...
-------- Original message --------
From: J Driscoll <jdriscoll@templetonlight.com>
Date:03/11/2015 3:38 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Steve Doucette (steve@dandllaw.com)"
Cc: townadministrator@templeton1.org
Subject: Templeton Select Board Meeting of March 9, 2015
Steve,
The Templeton Select Board, in the Open Session of their last Monday night meeting on March 9, 2015, had on their agenda (see first attachment) as an item:
“Discuss Letter to Attorney General”
On its face this was an ambiguous item and could have involved any board, committee, department, employee, individual or official, past or present, in the Town of Templeton. However, the discussion involved the Light Department to the extent that this department was involved in the Special Acts of 2000, specifically Chapter 93 which involved the abolishment of the Town’s existing Water Department and its re-creation under the Light Department Board of Commissioners and General Manager (see link below). The discussion quickly tuned toward a re-visit of the Special Town Meeting Warrant Article #8 from November 15, 2012 (see second attachment) which had passed as special legislation for the state’s Attorney General’s Office to launch an investigation on behalf of Templeton’s voters.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2000/Chapter93
Because of the ambiguous nature of the posting of this particular agenda item, neither the General Manager nor the Light Commissioners nor the Light Employees were in attendance at this meeting, because they collectively saw no need to be as they were apparently not to be discussed as a department in part or in whole. This looks to be an Open Meeting Law violation under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 30A Section 20 since the public as a whole were not made aware in advance that this particular town department, light, was to be discussed. Having only the language “Discuss Letter to Attorney General” listed on the agenda looks to be deliberately misleading to the public as a whole.
From: J Driscoll <jdriscoll@templetonlight.com>
Date:03/11/2015 3:38 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Steve Doucette (steve@dandllaw.com)"
Cc: townadministrator@templeton1.org
Subject: Templeton Select Board Meeting of March 9, 2015
Steve,
The Templeton Select Board, in the Open Session of their last Monday night meeting on March 9, 2015, had on their agenda (see first attachment) as an item:
“Discuss Letter to Attorney General”
On its face this was an ambiguous item and could have involved any board, committee, department, employee, individual or official, past or present, in the Town of Templeton. However, the discussion involved the Light Department to the extent that this department was involved in the Special Acts of 2000, specifically Chapter 93 which involved the abolishment of the Town’s existing Water Department and its re-creation under the Light Department Board of Commissioners and General Manager (see link below). The discussion quickly tuned toward a re-visit of the Special Town Meeting Warrant Article #8 from November 15, 2012 (see second attachment) which had passed as special legislation for the state’s Attorney General’s Office to launch an investigation on behalf of Templeton’s voters.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2000/Chapter93
Because of the ambiguous nature of the posting of this particular agenda item, neither the General Manager nor the Light Commissioners nor the Light Employees were in attendance at this meeting, because they collectively saw no need to be as they were apparently not to be discussed as a department in part or in whole. This looks to be an Open Meeting Law violation under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 30A Section 20 since the public as a whole were not made aware in advance that this particular town department, light, was to be discussed. Having only the language “Discuss Letter to Attorney General” listed on the agenda looks to be deliberately misleading to the public as a whole.
Please look into this matter on behalf of the Light Department and report back to me directly your findings, especially as to whether or not your recommendation would be for the Light Department file an Open Meeting Law complaint against the Templeton Select Board. Thank you.
John M. Driscoll
General Manager
Templeton Municipal Light & Water Plant
86 Bridge Street, P.O. Box 20
Baldwinville, MA 01436
Phone (978) 939-5323
Fax (978) 939-4309
****************************************
When is it ok to use ratepayer money to pay for an attorney to file an Open Meeting Law complaint?
The Ligt and Water Department will do and spend whatever they have to protecting what "they" have. "Quoted DANA chairman L+W commission."
ReplyDeleteThe thing is Templeton what they have is all yours and has always been that way.
The department who violates the laws the most has the nerve to send this letter.
This is just one more way to show you why we wanted to abolish the commission.
This is what should never happen and doesn't anywhere else but Templeton.
It is Charter time for Templeton.
The municipality is no more control by the town then to regulated it all that is left is donation determent not by right it seems but by grant , the statue which Govern this municipality water and elliptic electric mission statement is not to shear the wealth or socially lower the bills nor govern the personal , like the school its a monster ruling the very citizen and property owner , The prudent act would be to reform for the interest of the people , That easy plan to follow unless people continue to ignore there interest and vote in incumbents the only nest which should be feather is the peoples NOT anyone
DeleteIt would seem in the time it took Mr. Driscoll to write this email to his attorney an open meeting law violation complaint could have been filed by Mr. Driscoll, they are not a difficult form to master. I did an open law meeting complaint myself on an illegal meeting held at the Baldwinville Legion by then BOS and it did not cost the town anything. Here is my earlier comment on this particular subject:
ReplyDeleteFrom what I can gather Mr. Robinson made the statement “what is the end game” concerning the investigation voted on at previous town meeting. Here are my thoughts as to why this investigation needs to be pursued.
I have run across this paragraph from Chapter 10 of the book Creating the Perfect Mind Control Slave. “ What is often attacked in individuals and nations in order to control them? It is their sense of identity as a spiritual moral being. The individual and the nation must be brought to think of themselves as animals. Another primary tactic or tool is to traumatize the victim who is to be controlled, and then provide relief when a demonic lie is accepted. Rejection is an important trauma, because it creates a desire for performance and retaliation, and gets people trapped in a bondage loop. Lies put people into bondage. Images are a type of lie, that lead to bondage.
Bear with me now as I try to explain how it is my belief, Kopelman and Paige need to be exposed for their lies, for as above “Lies put people into bondage.”
All lawyers belong to the bar. The bar has been around for a long time. Big corporations have been around for a long time. Big corporations employ lots of lawyers. Lawyers don’t have to tell the truth in the court room’s of Massachusetts. Templeton employed K&P for legal services. It is my opinion K&P told lots of lies. Lies put people into bondage.
Big corporations seem to run the world and it appears that the bar works for these big corporations or corporation. Woodrow Wilson had this to say, Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
Trying to expose a lie appears to be a step in the right direction for the many reasons expressed in paragraph two. It is hoped anyone who values their freedom will agree and have the courage to continue to pursue the truth in this matter and back this investigation should it come before us as a citizen’s petition, at annual town meeting.
what power would that be sir ... answer where be . is The term Statue's at large / CMR along with adhesion contracts with Nexis to personal jurisdiction
DeleteWhat information must meeting notices contain?
ReplyDeleteMeeting notices must be posted in a legible, easily understandable format; contain the date, time and place of the meeting; and list all topics that the chair reasonably anticipates, 48 hours in advance, will be discussed at the meeting. The list of topics must be sufficiently specific to reasonably inform the public of the issues to be discussed at the meeting. Where there are no anticipated topics for discussion in open session other than the procedural requirements for convening an executive session, the public body should list “open session” as a topic, in addition to the executive session, so the public is aware that it has the opportunity to attend and learn the basis for the executive session.
While not required under the Open Meeting Law, public bodies are encouraged to make a revised list of topics to be discussed available to the public in advance of the meeting if the body intends to discuss topics that come up after posting, but before the meeting convenes
looks to me to issue of " failure to disclose " anyone may bring this legal issue and establish by claim
DeleteThe above material was taken from the Open Meeting Law guide from the website of the MA Attorney General. It would seem that if there is any fault, it lies with the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen for not ensuring the posting requirements of the agenda have not met the meaning or intent of the law. I guess it is easy to get lax and just rely on others to do work and just walk into a meeting and have a quick session and be home in under two hours. Me suspects there is more going on here than a meeting notice and the possible complaint to follow, it is more likely politics, as in get rid of Julie Farrell. That is of course my opinion and of course I fully support anyone's right to file any open meeting law complaint they wish.
ReplyDeleteRole of the Chair
ReplyDeleteBeing chair of the board does not mean forfeiting the right to vote or express an opinion. The chair,
however, must be careful not to dominate the meeting. The powers of the chair—to prepare the
agenda (see below), to call the items, and to recognize others to speak—give him or her enormous
control over the way the meeting is conducted. From the most current handbook for selectmen
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CHAIRMAN:
ReplyDeleteThe Chairman of the Board shall:
1. Preside at all meetings of the Board. In doing so, he/she shall maintain order in the meeting room, recognize speakers, call for votes and preside over the discussion of agenda items.
2. Sign official documents that require the signature of the Chairman. A vote may be taken for the Chairman to sign when needed.
3. Call special meetings in accordance with the Open Meeting Law.
4. Prepare agenda with the Town Administrator.
5. Arrange orientation for new members.
6. Represent the Board at meetings, conferences and other gatherings unless otherwise determined by the Board or delegated by the Chairman.
This is from the Policies and Procedures for the BOS. I originally drafted this and brought it before the Board of Selectmen as I felt it right to have a guide for the board and residents, in writing, so everyone could have access to the old 'who, what, where, when, how and why" in consideration of the Templeton Board of Selectmen. This is one more item that shows it is lonely at the top and there is more to the chair than just reading the topics of discussion and allowing others to speak, it is the responsibility of it all, as in sometimes you have to take the heat for everyone.
So my observation is that unless it is pure politics against Julie Farrell, it would seem really unimportant as to whom requested the particular agenda item, rather it is more important for every member of any board or committee in Templeton to obtain a copy of the most current Open Meeting Law guide and read it, to include the Light & Water Commissioners! I seem to recall there is a requirement of some kind to do that anyway, but I am just a simple, slow guy from little old Templeton. The selectman may want to read the Handbook for Selectmen, which according to the Massachusetts Municipal Association, a copy was sent to every selectmen in the Commonwealth.
ReplyDeleteSo I would guess that if the Light and Water was the subject of the said investigation than it must be assumed that they should have been there. Sounds like legal miss mash to me.
ReplyDeleteAnyone can file an OML complaint. Don't need a lawyer. Don't need to use ratepayer money on a lawyer.
ReplyDeletejust another agency , no threat court order is way to go ,
DeleteIt would seem that if there was a problem with the agenda in the way it was listed, the Chairman of the BOS and/or the Administrator would have caught the error before it was presented to the whole board. The discussion was not if the Acts of 2000. Chapter 93, were right or wrong, but if this BOS was willing to support the Town's people who asked for this investigation. Simple as that, To support the vote of the people who asked for a investigation, but did not get what they asked for. I do not think it was the Chairman's business to debate the end game. That is what a Judge should have done. If there was not anything to fear, it would seem this request would have taken place, many times over, at least it seems so to me. We need people on the Select. Board who will watch out for the town's interest, not spending time trying to cover someone else's butt. The War that the Chairman spoke of has not been resolved, and asking again for resolution, would have not caused more harm. The refusal to act on this question may have added to the frustration of the people who just want the truth. This is my opinion. Bev.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete