Attorney general: Nashoba School Committee violated Open Meeting Law; no penalty issued

BOLTON – The Nashoba Regional School Committee violated the state’s Open Meeting Law, the Attorney General’s office ruled in a recent determination.

The ruling concerned a complaint filed regarding two of the board’s meetings – on Dec. 16 and Dec. 21, 2020 – in which the members discussed items not listed on the board’s agendas, specifically remote learning and winter sports. The state law requires topics be listed in order to ensure the public knows in advance what topics committees will be discussing.

Training on the Open Meeting Law occurred just before the Dec 16 meeting; the AG determination stated the violations were not intentional.

“We find that the Committee violated the Open Meeting Law when it discussed topics during its December 16 meeting that were reasonably anticipated, but not included on the meeting notice. We order the Committee’s immediate and future compliance with the Open Meeting Law, and caution that similar future violations could be considered evidence of intent to violate the Law,” according to the determination by Elizabeth Carnes Flynn, assistant attorney general in the Division of Open Government, issued on Oct. 15.

Two separate violations were addressed. But the committee denied having violated the state law.

“I couldn’t see any other determination than what they provided,” Stan Wysocki said after the determination. Wysocki, a Bolton resident and longtime selectman, had filed the complaints with the committee, which denied the violations. Wysocki then appealed to the attorney general’s office.

“What was disappointing was they slapped the School Committee’s wrists,” Wysocki said, referring to the ruling it was not an intentional violation and carried no penalties.

Wysocki said he could “string together a whole bunch of these” violations by the committee.

But he said maybe the board would act a little better because of the ruling that highlighted the committee’s violations.

The chairman at the time, Kathy Codianne of Lancaster, and the vice chairman, Elaine Sanfillipo of Stow, who chaired the Dec. 16 meting, did not run for re-election in their towns’ spring elections.

The Attorney General’s office stated, “the Committee did more than simply discuss whether to hold a meeting and what topics to discuss during that meeting, and instead engaged in a half-hour substantive discussion about a remote learning model.

“Additionally, with respect to the Committee’s assertion that it remedied the violations stemming from its discussions of the fully remote learning model and the winter sports schedule, we find that it did not. Violations of the Open Meeting Law may be cured by independent, deliberative action that is not merely a ceremonial acceptance and perfunctory ratification of action taken in violation of the law.”

But the committee’s violations did not trigger a penalty.

“We have not previously warned the Committee against the violation found here, nor do we find other evidence that would support a finding of an intentional violation. Instead, it is clear from the evidence presented that the Committee simply misunderstood the Open Meeting Law’s requirement regarding the topics that must be included on a meeting notice. We decline to find that the violation was intentional,” the determination stated.

The committee had Open Meeting Law training starting at 4:50 p.m., before the 6 p.m. start of the Dec. 16 meeting.