Massachusetts open meeting law
š Massachusetts Open Meeting Law (OML) ā Overview
The Massachusetts Open Meeting Law (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 30A, Ā§Ā§ 18ā25) is designed to ensure transparency and public access to meetings of public bodies at the state and local level. It requires that meetings where public business is discussed or decided be conducted openly, with limited exceptions.
Key Provisions:
Meetings must be open to the public unless an executive session is properly called for specific reasons (e.g., personnel matters, litigation, security).
Notice of meetings must be timely and reasonably detailed.
Minutes must be kept and made public.
Prohibits deliberation or decision-making in secret.
The law aims to promote accountability and prevent secretive government decision-making.
āļø Important Legal Questions in OML Cases:
What constitutes a "meeting"?
What procedures must be followed to properly call an executive session?
Are serial or informal communications among members violations of the OML?
What remedies exist for violations?
š Detailed Case Law Analysis
1. Massachusetts Broadcasters Association, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Correction, 433 Mass. 275 (2001)
Facts:
The Department of Correction denied access to recordings of internal meetings.
The plaintiff challenged this as a violation of the OML and the Public Records Law.
Issue:
Whether certain communications and meetings were subject to the OML's openness requirements.
Holding:
The Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) held that meetings involving a quorum of a public body where public business is discussed fall under the OML.
However, informal gatherings without quorum and social meetings are not covered.
Agencies must ensure transparency but are not required to open all internal discussions.
Significance:
Clarifies definition of a āmeetingāāa quorum is key.
Emphasizes balance between transparency and operational privacy.
2. O'Connor v. Board of Selectmen of the Town of Chelmsford, 456 Mass. 617 (2010)
Facts:
A board held an executive session to discuss personnel issues but allegedly did not follow proper notice and procedure.
Issue:
Whether the executive session was validly called under OML rules.
Holding:
The SJC ruled that the executive session was improper because the board failed to specify the statutory exemption clearly and timely.
Such failures violate OMLās procedural requirements, and decisions made in such sessions can be invalidated.
Significance:
Emphasizes strict adherence to notice and specificity requirements for executive sessions.
Procedural lapses can nullify decisions made.
3. Boston Globe v. Board of Selectmen of Hull, 434 Mass. 505 (2001)
Facts:
The Board of Selectmen was accused of conducting serial communications among members about public business without convening an open meeting.
Issue:
Whether serial emails and phone calls among board members constitute an OML violation.
Holding:
The SJC held that serial communications that collectively involve a quorum and deliberate public business can violate the OML.
However, mere individual communications without deliberation do not.
Significance:
Limits the ability of public bodies to conduct business in a piecemeal, secret fashion.
Sets boundaries on āserial meetingsā or āwalking quorumsā.
4. Coalition to Protect Nantucket Sound, Inc. v. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 453 Mass. 1012 (2009)
Facts:
Alleged that DEP held closed meetings improperly relating to environmental permitting decisions.
Issue:
Whether closed meetings were improperly conducted and violated OML.
Holding:
The court stressed the importance of public bodies adhering to the OMLās requirements for executive sessions, including proper announcement of reasons.
Public trust requires that any closed sessions are narrow and justified.
Significance:
Reinforces that environmental and regulatory agencies are subject to the OML, and transparency is critical for public confidence.
5. Clipper Ship Foundation v. Board of Selectmen of Barnstable, 461 Mass. 1011 (2012)
Facts:
A nonprofit challenged the boardās decision-making process, alleging it was conducted during a private session violating the OML.
Issue:
Was there a violation due to decision-making outside an open meeting?
Holding:
The SJC ruled the board violated the OML by making decisions in an improperly called executive session.
The decision was voided as a result.
Significance:
Demonstrates that OML violations can have real consequences, including nullification of decisions.
Upholds the principle that deliberations and decisions must be public unless exempted.
š Summary Table
| Case | Issue | Holding | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|---|
| Massachusetts Broadcasters (2001) | Definition of āmeetingā | Quorum and public business required | Quorum is critical for OML coverage |
| OāConnor (2010) | Executive session notice | Executive session invalid without specific notice | Strict procedural compliance needed |
| Boston Globe (2001) | Serial communications | Serial deliberations among quorum violate OML | Limits secret piecemeal deliberations |
| Coalition to Protect Nantucket Sound (2009) | Closed environmental meetings | Closed meetings must be narrow and justified | Transparency vital in environmental decisions |
| Clipper Ship Foundation (2012) | Decisions in executive session | Decisions in improper executive session void | Violations can nullify agency actions |
ā Practical Implications of the Massachusetts OML
Public bodies must plan meetings carefully, ensuring quorum and compliance with notice requirements.
Executive sessions require clear statutory justification and proper public announcement.
Serial discussions among members can create liability if they effectively constitute meetings without public access.
Violations can result in voided decisions and damage to public trust.
RELATED Blog
0 comments