BOSTON – The Office of Attorney General Martha Coakley rendered several decisions on open meeting law violation complaints in Southwick in recent months.
The most recent opinion, dated Sept. 3, was in response to a complaint filed by resident Paul Cesan on Dec. 20, 2012 regarding minutes of a Southwick Board of Selectmen meeting.
The letter from Assistant Attorney General Hanne Rush was sent to Attorney D. M. Moschos, counsel hired to represent Chief Administrative Officer Karl Stinehart.
“We reviewed the November 19, 2013 complaint; your December 6, 2012 response to the complaint, on behalf of the Board; and the December 20, 2013 complaint filed with our office requesting further review. In addition, we reviewed Mr. Cesan’s written request for minutes, dated November 6, 2012, as well as the Town Clerk’s November 19, 2012 response.”
“Following our review, we find that the Board made meeting minutes available within a reasonable time, but violated the Open Meeting Law by failing to approve its meeting minutes in a timely manner,” states the letter.
Cesan filed three complaints Dec. 20 but the attorney general found that two of the complaints were not timely.
On Nov. 7, 2012, Cesan requested minutes from nine Board meetings from 2010 in the office of Town Clerk Michelle Hill. Hill had two of those minutes readily available and allowed Cesan to review them. Hill then followed up with the Board on the remaining minutes.
According to the facts of the letter from Rush, that same day, the Board generated a bill itemizing the estimated cost for providing the remaining minutes in the amount of $45.49.
“On November 19, 2012, Ms. Hill sent an email to the complainant to notify him that the requested materials were ready and available to view. On November 20, 2012, Mr. Cesan went to the Town Clerk’s Office and paid for and obtained copies of the requested minutes.”
“All of the minutes provided to Mr. Cesan on November 20, 2012 were in draft form. On November 22, 2010, the minutes from the November 8, 2010 and November 15, 2010 meetings were approved. On March 18, 2013, the remaining minutes from 2010 that Mr. Cesan requested were approved,” the letter states. The attorney general found that the Board responded to Cesan’s request in a timely manner given that the tenth day following the request was a Saturday and they responded the next Monday.
“With regard to the complainant’s allegation that the Board failed to approve the requested meeting minutes in a timely manner, we find that the Board violated the Open Meeting Law. See OML 2013-98; OML 2013-120.4 The Board provided draft minutes to the complainant for meetings held two years prior, despite the fact that the Board generally meets on a bi-weekly basis. The Board has expressed a commitment to improving the process of approving its meeting minutes,” stated Rush.
Rush wrote a letter to Cesan dated Aug. 19, 2013, with a finding of a complaint Cesan filed Dec. 12, 2012. That complaint was that the Board failed to timely respond to his request for any notes or recordings used to prepare the Board’s July 11, 2011 meeting minutes.
Rush said his office found no open meeting violations.
“Because the facts alleged in your complaint concern potential violations of the Public Records Law, rather than the Open Meeting Law, we decline to review your complaint and refer you to the Supervisor of Records in the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Public Records Division.
We now consider this matter closed,” the letter stated.
A letter from Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Sclarsie, dated July 15, was sent to Town Counsel Benjamin Coyle regarding a complaint filed by Cesan April 18, 2013, complaining the Board violated the open meeting law for failing to approve three November 2012 meeting minutes in a timely manner. The complaint was filed with the Board on or about January 18, 2013. The Board responded by letter dated February 8, 2013.
“In reaching a determination, we reviewed the January 18, 2013 complaint filed with the Board; the Board’s February 8. 2013 response; and the April 18, 2013 complaint filed with our office. Additionally, we reviewed the minutes of the Board’s November 5, 2012; November 19,
2012; and November 26, 2012 meetings; and the notice for the Board’s January 14, 2013 meeting. Following our review, we find that the Board violated the Open Meeting Law by failing to approve meeting minutes in a timely manner. However, we find that the Board took the appropriate remedial action in response to the complaint and order no further relief,” stated the letter.
