ASHLAND – Local boards have started the new year with three new Open Meeting Law violations.
The state attorney general’s office ruled this week on Open Meeting Law complaints filed Oct. 20, 2017 by resident Stephen Morgan, against three boards. No penalties were imposed.
In 2017, the office took on about 20 Open Meeting Law complaints filed against Ashland committees. About half were found to be valid, and Morgan filed the vast majority of the complaints.
Board of Health decision
The accusation: The board deliberated by email outside a posted meeting.
What happened: At least three members sent emails in August and September to the entire board expressing opinions and an update on a topic the board was discussing publicly. That is considered a deliberation among a quorum of the board, and illegal. On Oct. 3, 2017 the board made those emails public.
The ruling: The deliberation is a violation of Open Meeting Law. The attorney general’s office conceded there is a fine line between the types of email allowed among members and the types that are not. The office cautioned public bodies against using email to communicate, to avoid confusion.
Sustainability Committee decision
The accusation: The committee discussed topics not listed on the agenda at its Aug. 30, 2017 meeting, and failed to list a document used at that meeting in the minutes.
What happened: The committee discussed a presentation on a proposed plastic bag ban, listed on the agenda under the heading “plastic bag ban,” with seven subheads. Later, the committee voted to recommend a new member. Responding to the original complaint, the committee put the recommendation on its Sept. 20, 2017 meeting agenda and revoted.
The ruling: One topic – recommending the new member – should have been posted on the agenda and was not, which constitutes a violation. The state did not consider the plastic bag ban discussion a violation, saying the agenda was sufficiently detailed, and concluded no documents were used during that discussion that could have been included in minutes.
Conservation Commission decision
The accusation: The commission failed to include a list of documents used during its July 24, 2017 meeting in the meeting minutes.
What happened: The commission conceded the documents were missing at its Oct. 16, 2017 meeting, and amended the minutes to include them.
The ruling: The failure is a violation of Open Meeting Law, and the state warned the commission that continuing to omit the documents would be considered intentional. Intentional violations can lead to penalties.
What is the Open Meeting Law?
The law governs public meetings, and ensures residents have access to the democratic process. That often translates into being able to hear elected officials debate decisions that affect the public and see the documents behind those decisions.
Alison Bosma can be reached at 508-626-3957 or abosma@wickedlocal.com. Find her on Twitter at @AlisonBosma.