State says Webster selectmen violated Open Meeting Law again
By
Brian Lee
Telegram & Gazette Staff
Posted Aug 9, 2017 at 5:31 PM
Updated at 6:07 AM
WEBSTER – The state attorney general’s office has determined selectmen violated the Open Meeting Law in February.
A repeat offender in recent years, the Board of Selectmen most recently failed to provide sufficient information in advance of a Feb. 27 meeting about topics discussed in executive session, and it discussed a topic that lacked a valid reason for being held in closed session, the attorney general’s office said.
Selectmen entered executive session that night for a legal update, which does not fit within the scope of the 10 purposes allowed by law for holding an executive session, the state said.
Further, one of the topics, a discussion about a review of the town charter, did not concern litigation and was not a valid reason for convening in executive session, the state said.
During the closed session, a town lawyer described one of the litigation matters as “dormant.” As a result, listing the matter on the agenda would not have compromised the purpose for the executive session, the state said.
Finally, the description of a “litigation update” did not indicate to the public that the board was planning to also discuss a previous Open Meeting Law complaint. This omission violated the Open Meeting Law, the state said.
As a consequence, the state ordered the board to comply with the law immediately and in the future, warned the board that future violations may be considered intentional, and ordered the town to release to the public within 30 days the portion of the minutes concerning the discussion about the town charter.
Town Administrator Douglas C. Willardson said minutes for that portion of the meeting have already been posted.
The state received the complaint from Patrick Higgins, an out-of-town watchdog of the Open Meeting Law, on April 5.
The town has a recent history of violating the Open Meeting Law.
On Feb. 8, the attorney general’s office determined the Board of Selectmen violated the law by holding an improper discussion in executive session about five finalists for town administrator during the Aug. 31, 2016, meeting.
In May 2016, the attorney general’s office said the board intentionally violated the Open Meeting Law during an Aug. 31, 2015, executive session that included a general discussion about police and sewer personnel that should have been conducted in open session. The board also discussed the physical health of a police employee, a violation because it did not provide the employee with notice of the discussion, nor notification of his or her right to be present, the state said.
In September 2015, the state said the board violated the Open Meeting Law in three ways during an executive session held March 9, 2015.
To whether violations were becoming chronic, the town administrator said the town held training on the Open Meeting Law in March for all chairs and vice chairs of boards and committees. In addition, a town lawyer and Mr. Willardson contacted the attorney general’s office, Mr. Willardson said.
“I think they are well aware of our intentions to comply with the Open Meeting Law,” the administrator said. “We have been clear for five months, and don’t anticipate having any issues in the future.”
A repeat offender in recent years, the Board of Selectmen most recently failed to provide sufficient information in advance of a Feb. 27 meeting about topics discussed in executive session, and it discussed a topic that lacked a valid reason for being held in closed session, the attorney general’s office said.
Selectmen entered executive session that night for a legal update, which does not fit within the scope of the 10 purposes allowed by law for holding an executive session, the state said.
Further, one of the topics, a discussion about a review of the town charter, did not concern litigation and was not a valid reason for convening in executive session, the state said.
During the closed session, a town lawyer described one of the litigation matters as “dormant.” As a result, listing the matter on the agenda would not have compromised the purpose for the executive session, the state said.
Finally, the description of a “litigation update” did not indicate to the public that the board was planning to also discuss a previous Open Meeting Law complaint. This omission violated the Open Meeting Law, the state said.
As a consequence, the state ordered the board to comply with the law immediately and in the future, warned the board that future violations may be considered intentional, and ordered the town to release to the public within 30 days the portion of the minutes concerning the discussion about the town charter.
Town Administrator Douglas C. Willardson said minutes for that portion of the meeting have already been posted.
The state received the complaint from Patrick Higgins, an out-of-town watchdog of the Open Meeting Law, on April 5.
On Feb. 8, the attorney general’s office determined the Board of Selectmen violated the law by holding an improper discussion in executive session about five finalists for town administrator during the Aug. 31, 2016, meeting.
In May 2016, the attorney general’s office said the board intentionally violated the Open Meeting Law during an Aug. 31, 2015, executive session that included a general discussion about police and sewer personnel that should have been conducted in open session. The board also discussed the physical health of a police employee, a violation because it did not provide the employee with notice of the discussion, nor notification of his or her right to be present, the state said.
In September 2015, the state said the board violated the Open Meeting Law in three ways during an executive session held March 9, 2015.
To whether violations were becoming chronic, the town administrator said the town held training on the Open Meeting Law in March for all chairs and vice chairs of boards and committees. In addition, a town lawyer and Mr. Willardson contacted the attorney general’s office, Mr. Willardson said.
“I think they are well aware of our intentions to comply with the Open Meeting Law,” the administrator said. “We have been clear for five months, and don’t anticipate having any issues in the future.”
The AGO may convene a hearing to determine whether the violation was intentional,whether the public body,one or more of it's members ,or both were responsible ,and whether to IMPOSE on the public body a civil penalty of up to 1,000.000 us for each violation.
ReplyDeleteSo i guess it will be quiet around here on the copy cat site want to be.
What the count up to these days 3or will it be 4 now?
For some education comes the hard way.
Don't do it!!!!
this and the above comment were posted by Dave Samrt
ReplyDelete