By MARK SARDELLA
WAKEFIELD – Another town board has violated the Open Meeting Law. This time, it was the Permanent Building Committee (PBC) that ran afoul of the law when its three-member subcommittee or “Working Group,” designated to keep tabs on the new high school construction project, failed to post notices or create minutes of its meetings.
That was one of the findings of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office in response to an Open Meeting Law complaint filed last spring by Walden Road resident Scot McCauley. The AG’s Office enforces the Open Meeting Law.
In his 18-page complaint, McCauley asserts that both the Wakefield Conservation Commission and the Wakefield Permanent Building Committee violated provision of the Open Meeting Law.
McCauley’s complaint alleges the following:
1. Notice of the Conservation Commission’s March 4 meeting was not sufficiently specific;
2. A subcommittee of the Permanent Building Committee (PBC), comprised of three members of the Committee and called the “Working Group,” has been communicating and meeting without posting notice or creating minutes;
3. The PBC has delegated the creation of meeting notices and meeting minutes to an outside contractor;
4. Minutes posted online do not reflect when they were received and posted;
5. The chair of the PBC prematurely ended the complainant’s (McCauley’s) public comment at the Committee’s March 13 meeting;
6. A roll call was not taken at the beginning of the PBC’s March 13 meeting; and
7. Minutes were not approved by roll call at the PBC’s March 13 meeting.
The AG’s Office agreed that the Permanent Building Committee’s Working Group subcommittee did in fact violate the Open Meeting Law when it failed to post its visits to inspect the high school construction site and failed to create minutes of such on-site meetings.
Even if the Working Group “carefully avoid[ed] deliberating and never [took] votes,” as the PBC contended in defense of its Working Group, the AG’s office determined that, “It likely would be in violation of the Open Meeting Law if members asked questions at the site inspection, as stated in the Committee’s response. In any event, aside from the site inspections, minutes of the [full Permanent Building] Committee’s meetings make it clear that the Working Group does have discussions outside of Committee meetings, when it reviews documents and prepares recommendations to the full Committee.”
The AG’s Office ordered the PBC’s Working Group to take specific actions as a result of its violation of the Open Meeting Law.
“We order the Working Group, within 60 days of the date of this letter, to create minutes for its meetings and that it certify to our office that it has done so,” the AG’s decision states. “The Working Group must create the meeting minutes through whatever means are available, including documents, communications between members, and the memories and notes of the attendees. … If members of the Working Group communicated between or among a quorum via email regarding matters within the Working Group’s jurisdiction, we order the Working Group, within 60 days of the date of this letter, to publicly release all such emails, either by reading them aloud at an open meeting, or by attaching the emails to the minutes of an open meeting. Finally, we order immediate and future compliance with the Law’s requirements.”
McCauley’s complaint also alleged that Conservation Commission’s posted agenda for its March 4, 2025 meeting was insufficient because it misidentified Blatz Field as “Burnett Field” and listed the address incorrectly as 60 Farm St. instead of the correct 30 Farm St. The posted ConCom hearing was related to the installation of lights at the field within 100 feet of a wetland.
But the AG’s Office found that the ConCom’s meeting notice was sufficient and did not violate the Open Meeting Law because on April 26, 2021, the Town Council voted to rename the softball field at Wakefield Memorial High School “Blatz Park, Meghan Burnett Field.”
The AG’s office found that, “In light of the formal vote to rename the field several years prior to the subject meeting, we find that “Burnett Field” adequately identified the athletic field. Moreover, 60 Farm Street is the address of the Wakefield Memorial High School, according to the High School’s website. As Burnett Field services the High School, a reasonable member of the public could read the topic on the notice and understand the anticipated nature of the public body’s discussion.”
Regarding McCauley’s allegations that the Permanent Building Committee failed to call the roll or take roll call votes at its March 13, 2025 meeting, the AG’s Office determined that in those instances, the PBC did not violate the Open Meeting Law. The law requires committees to vote by roll call if any member is participating in the meeting remotely.
“Where no Committee members participated in the meeting remotely,” the AG’s Office found, “the Committee was not obligated to announce the names of members in attendance or vote by roll call. Therefore, the Committee did not violate the Open Meeting Law.
Regarding the other allegations in McCauley’s complaint aimed at the PBC, the Attorney General’s Office declined to review them, maintaining that they fall outside of the scope of the Open Meeting Law.
“We decline to review allegations that the Committee delegated the creation of meeting notices and meeting minutes to an outside contractor and that minutes posted online do not reflect when they were received and posted,” the AG’s Office stated. “The Open Meeting Law does not dictate who must create notices or minutes; nor must minutes reflect the date of receipt or posting. Indeed, the Law does not require that minutes be posted at all. Therefore, even if true, none of these alleges a violation of the Open Meeting Law. To the extent that the complaint alleges that meeting notices are “very [g]eneric and boilerplate,” we have not been directed to any specific notice or topic that is alleged to be insufficient. Our office will not conduct broad audits of public bodies based on generalized allegations.”
The Attorney General’s decision also addressed McCauley’s allegation that PBC chair Joseph Bertrand prematurely cut off McCauley’s public comment at the Committee’s March 13 meeting.
The AG’s Office agreed that the McCauley’s questions during public comment at the March 13 meeting were not well received and that he was addressed in a condescending manner by Chairman Bertrand.
“Nonetheless, for the following reason, we decline to review the complainant’s allegation that he was denied the opportunity to express himself during public comment at the Committee’s March 13 meeting,” the AG explained. “At the core of the Open Meeting Law is the requirement that meetings of public bodies be open and accessible to the public. … Generally, access to a meeting must include the opportunity to be physically present as well as to see and hear what is being discussed by the members of the public body. … The Open Meeting Law does not require that a public body allow public participation during its meetings but rather provides that ‘[n]o person shall address a meeting of a public body without permission of the chair, and all persons shall, at the request of the chair, be silent.’ … The Division of Open Government’s review concerns compliance with the Open Meeting Law. Because the allegation that his public comment was cut short, even if true, would not constitute a violation of the Open Meeting Law in any event, we decline to review this allegation.”