Two Open Meeting Law complaints were filed with the Attorney General’s Office this month regarding government business in western Franklin County communities.

One complaint was filed by Buckland resident Janet Sinclair against her town’s Conservation Commission, while the other was submitted by Heath resident Jesse Weigand regarding his town’s Selectboard.

Heath

Weigand argued in his complaint that the Selectboard should not have entered into executive session on Nov. 2, 2022 to discuss the $44,443 the Mohawk Trail Regional School District states the town owes following a student undercount in the 2020-2021 school year. According to Sheryl Stanton, superintendent of the Mohawk Trail and Hawlemont regional school districts, Heath had been assessed for only 10 students who were enrolled in Mohawk Trail’s elementary schools and not for the 33 Heath students who were attending Hawlemont Regional School under an unusual Mohawk Trail district agreement with Heath.

In his complaint, which is the second one Weigand has filed regarding Selectboard executive sessions, Weigand states that because the matter with the school district does not involve collective bargaining or litigation, the Selectboard should not have entered into executive session.

The Selectboard authorized town counsel to provide a response to Weigand’s complaint. Matthew Sirigu of KP Law wrote in response, “The board submits it did not violate the Open Meeting Law as alleged in the complaint because it had received multiple threats of litigation from MTRSD representatives prior to the board’s Nov. 2, 2022 executive session. Therefore, the board had a legitimate basis to enter into executive session” under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 30A, Section 21.

Also in Weigand’s complaint he wrote, “The Selectboard of Heath needs to stop abusing the executive session exemptions. They deliberately maximize the use of the exemptions for the purpose of excluding the people of Heath from participation in their government.”

In response, Sirigu wrote, “The remaining claims in the complaint are vague and baseless allegations concerning the board’s past executive session practices.”

Although Weigand didn’t request for the Selectboard to take any action in his complaint, he had asked for board members’ resignations in an earlier complaint.

In his earlier complaint from Dec. 12, 2021, Weigand wrote that the board unlawfully entered into an executive session where members claimed to discuss the town’s ongoing litigation case with AT&T regarding a cell tower. Weigand, who was an intervener in the case, claimed that a recording of the executive session was released and the nature of the members’ discussion instead revolved around a conflict-of-interest letter from the town’s lawyer.

Assistant Attorney General Sarah Monahan wrote in a letter dated June 29, 2022 that the Selectboard did not violate Open Meeting Law and the complaint was determined to be resolved.

Buckland

Sinclair brought her complaint to the Attorney General’s Office on Jan. 4 regarding a Conservation Commission meeting that took place Nov. 7, 2022. She claims that a wetlands-related decision the commission made during the meeting was not posted in any agenda and that members deliberated on the topic outside of a posted public meeting.

Sinclair wrote in her complaint that she notified the Conservation Commission about a potential wetlands violation on her Charlemont Road property after vegetation was removed from the side of the roadway. She said the commission responded via email saying a site visit had been conducted and the commission was satisfied with the erosion-control methods in place on the property.

When Sinclair asked when the decision was made that the erosion-control methods were sufficient, she was allegedly told to consider an email from October as the commission’s final decision.

Mark Reich of KP Law responded on behalf of the town, arguing that the Conservation Commission did not violate Open Meeting Law. Reich stated that the site visit was announced on previous public meeting agendas, and there is no proof that there was further deliberation outside of a posted meeting.

“The commission investigated the matter and voted to issue a ‘friendly’ enforcement order at a properly posted meeting; two members of the commission conducted a site visit, inspected the remedial action taken and reported back to the commission at a properly posted meeting; and the commission closed the matter through vote taken at a properly posted public meeting,” Reich wrote in his response.

Sinclair told the Greenfield Recorder she is less concerned about the Open Meeting Law violation she filed the complaint about and more concerned about the damage to her property that resulted from the vegetation being removed — something she had hoped to be protected from under wetlands restrictions.

“This was all avoidable,” Sinclair wrote in an email, adding that she feels the town is failing to mitigate the damage. “I would not be opposed to an apology by any of the parties involved, but have not heard one.”

Bella Levavi can be reached at 413-930-4579 or blevavi@recorder.com.

]]>