THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

ONE ASHBURTON PLACE
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108
MARTHA COAKLEY (617) 727-2200
ATTORNEY GENERAL www.mass.gov/ago
September 15, 2014
OML 2014-115
Mark A. Beauregard, Esq.
Resnic, Beauregard, Waite and Driscoll
330 Whitney Avenue, Suite 400
Holyoke, MA 01040
RE: Open Meeting Law Complaint
Dear Attorney Beauregard:
This office received a complaint from Geraldine Brockway, dated July 30, alleging that
the South Hadley Electric Light Department's Board of Commissioners (the "Board") violated
the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, 18-25.
1
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the
notice for the Board's June 25 meeting was not sufficiently specific in identifying a topic for
executive session. The complaint was originally filed with the Board on July 5. The Board's
Chair responded by letter dated July 23.
Following our review, we find that the Board violated the Open Meeting Law because the
notice for its June 25 meeting was not sufficiently specific in identifying the purpose for an
executive session. In reaching this determination, we reviewed the complaint filed with the
Board, the Board's response, and the complaint filed with our office. Additionally, we reviewed
the notice for the Board's June 25 meeting.
FACTS
The notice for the Board's June 25 meeting listed ten topics for discussion, including
"Executive Session to Discuss Personnel Issues." During the Board's June 25 meeting, the
Board entered into executive session to discuss the manner in which the Board could openly
discuss Department employees.
' All dates in this letter refer to 2014 unless otherwise specified.
Ci
DISCUSSION
The Open Meeting Law requires that meetings of a public body be conducted in an open
session, with some exceptions. G.L. c. 30A, 20-21. Public bodies may enter a closed,
executive session for any of ten purposes enumerated in the Open Meeting Law, provided that
the chair of the public body first announces in open session the purpose for the executive session,
"stating all subjects that may be revealed without compromising the purpose for which the
executive session was called." G.L. c. 30A, 21(b)(3). Additionally, the Open Meeting Law
requires that public bodies post notice 48 hours prior to a meeting and include a "listing of topics
that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting." G.L. c. 30A, 20(b).
Public bodies must list topics for discussion with "sufficient specificity to reasonably advise the
public of the issues to be discussed at the meeting." 940 CMR 29.03(l)(b). We generally
consider a topic sufficiently specific when a reasonable member of the public could read the
* 2
topic and understand the anticipated nature of the public body's discussion. OML 2011-44.
Executive session topics must include as much detail as possible without compromising the
purpose for which the executive session was called. Dist. Attorney for N. Dist. v. Sch. Comm. of
Wayland. 455 Mass. 561, 567 (2009) ("[a] precise statement of the reason for convening in
executive session is necessary under the open meeting law because that is the only notification
given to the public that the school committee would conduct business in private, and the only
way the public would know if the reason for doing so was proper or improper."); see G.L. c.
3OA, 20(b), 21(b)(3); 940 CMR 29.03(l)(b).
Here, the Board identified a topic for discussion only as "Executive Session to Discuss
Personnel Issues." We have stated in prior determinations that identifying an executive session
as a discussion of a "personnel" issue is not a sufficiently specific statement of the executive
session purpose. See OML-2014-42; OML 2011 -9. At a minimum, the Board should have
stated in its notice the statutory purpose that formed the basis for the anticipated executive
session. See id. Doing so would have provided the public with more information about the
Board's intended discussion without compromising the purpose for the executive session. See
OML 2013-141.
3
We therefore find that the Board's notice was insufficiently specific to comply
with the requirements of the Open Meeting Law.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we find that the Board violated the Open Meeting Law. We
order the Board's immediate and future compliance, and caution the Board that a future similar
violation may be considered evidence of an intentional violation of the Law.
2
Open Meeting Law determinations may be found at the Attorney General's website,
www.mass.gov/ago/openmeeting.
3
It is not clear which of the purposes enumerated in G.L. c. 30A, 21(a) the Board believed applied to its
discussion. Because the legitimacy of the executive session was not at issue in this complaint, we do not review it
here, however we remind the Board that executive session discussions must fit squarely within one or more of the
purposes enumerated in G.L. c. 30A, 21(a).
2
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 the
Board. Please feel free to contact the Division at (617) 963-2540 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Assistant Attorney General
Division of Open Government
cc: South Hadley Electric Light Department Board of Commissioners
Geraldine Brockway
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.
3