HomeMy WebLinkAboutComplaint Joint Meeting March 21- 23 fi" t F
TO: Members of the Select Board 20 ' - � ( ( ;
Members of the Conservation Commission
FROM: MARY WAWRO
RE: Town Counsel's Draft Response to OML complaint filed on Joint Meeting of March 21.
Thank you for your attention to my Open Meeting Law complaint. I regret that you all are now required
to assemble for yet another meeting to approve Town Counsel's draft response. Be assured —as I stated
in my complaint, I have no criticism of you individually.
Town Counsel did not initiate contact with me to try to resolve this matter as suggested by the Attorney
General when she granted an extension of time for Town Counsel to respond.
Here are my comments on the draft response:
With respect to the sufficiency of the notice, I believe the facts square firmly with the Wellesley case
which hopefully you have read.This March 21 meeting was not a generalized discussion of the issues
concerning the geotubes.The joint meeting was intended to address 3 "scenarios"that were well known
in advance. Indeed it had taken weeks or months to develop and articulate these 3 scenarios.They easily
could and should have been included in the posted notice of the Open Joint meeting.
Second, and more important is the conduct of the March 21 meeting. Neither those physically present
nor those attending virtually could possibly hear the all of the simultaneous multiple discussions of the
"groups"assigned by the"facilitator."The purpose of the Open Meeting Law is to assure that
governmental bodies conduct their business in a way that members of the public can hear what is being
said and can know what position on an issue is being taken by each elected and appointed official.That
did not happen on March 21.
Interestingly,at the follow on meeting conducted after my complaint was filed,these flaws in the
conduct of the meeting were mostly absent.This leads me to conclude that there is a recognition that
the March 21 meeting was improperly conducted by the facilitator.
An iterative process aimed at arriving at consensus is a valuable one. It can be accommodated to comply
with the Open Meeting Law.
Regardless of how you choose to respond to this complaint, I urge you to direct Town Counsel to develop
for your approval,a simple,clear policy statement to guide Nantucket's OML bodies in conducting so
called workshop,scenario or other planning exercises in a manner that complies with the Open Meeting
Law of the Commonwealth and that you expressly require any third party conducting such a process to
read and abide by the policy.