12/06/2021 BOARD OF SELECTMEN Minutes

Home Browse Search

an open meeting, we do encourage public bodies to allow for as much public participation as time and circumstances permit.3 Additionally, although we certainly discourage uncivil and unprofessional behavior, an allegation of unprofessional conduct or incivility does not constitute a violation of the Open Meeting Law. See OML 2020-36, n. 5; OML 2019-166; OML Declination 6-28-16 (Kingston Board of Selectmen). Because the July 21 complaint raises allegations that, even if true, would not constitute a violation of the Open Meeting Law, we decline to review this complaint. The September 24 Complaint We decline to review the September 24 complaint as it was not timely filed with the Board. To be considered timely, an Open Meeting Law complaint must be filed with the public body within 30 days of the alleged violation, or, if the alleged violation could not reasonably have been known at the time it occurred, then within 30 days of the date it should reasonably have been discovered. G.L. c. 30A, § 23(b); 940 CMR 29.05(4). The Open Meeting Law and the Attorney General's Open Meeting Law Regulations require that, within 14 business days after receiving a complaint, a public body must meet to review the complaint's allegations; take remedial action, if appropriate; and send to the complainant a response and a description of any remedial action taken. G.L. c. 30A, § 23; 940 CMR 29.05(5). The public body shall simultaneously provide the Attorney General with a copy of the complaint, the response, and a description of any remedial action taken. 940 CMR 29.05(5). The July 21 complaint was filed with the Board on July 21, and the Board's response was due on August 10. The Board's failure to timely respond to the July 21 complaint was therefore discoverable on August 10 and a complaint alleging that the Board failed to respond to the July 21 complaint should have been filed with the Board on or before September 9. Where the complaint alleging that the Board failed to respond to the July 21 complaint was not filed with the Board until September 24, the complaint is untimely and we therefore decline to review it. Although we decline to formally review the September 24 complaint, we take this opportunity to remind the Board of its obligation to comply with all requirements of the Open Meeting Law including the requirement to review and respond to Open Meeting Law complaints within 14 business days. For the above reasons, we decline to review your complaints. We now consider the complaints addressed by this determination to be resolved. This determination does not address any other complaints that may be pending with the Board or with our office. Please feel free to contact our office at (617) 963-2540 if you have any questions regarding this letter. 3 The Division of Open Government's review concerns compliance with the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, §§ 18- 25. We express no opinion about whether the Board or its chair may have violated any other law or policy. 2