An investigation by the Massachusetts attorney general’s office revealed “sufficient evidence” that the Wayland Board of Selectmen intentionally violated the state’s Open Meeting Law (OML) on July 8, 2010.

Yesterday, a letter from Assistant District Attorney Jonathan Sclarsic to Board of Selectmen Chair Tom Fay informed the board of the investigation’s findings and the attorney general’s recommendation that Wayland’s Board of Selectmen pay a $1,000 fine, because “we believe this violation was intentional.” The recommended fine is pending an administrative hearing.

That letter explains that an “intentional violation” is defined as an “act or omission by a public body, or a member of a public body, that knowingly violates” the Open Meeting Law. A press release from the AG’s office notes that this investigation, which resulted in recommended fines for both the Wayland and Otis boards of selectmen, is the first to lead to “allegations of intentional conduct to avoid the state’s Open Meeting Law” since jurisdiction over the OML moved to the attorney general’s office in July 2010.

The ruling stems from a complaint filed by Linda Segal on Aug. 5, 2010, that alleged the Wayland Board of Selectmen violated Open Meeting Law when “a quorum of the Wayland Board of Selectmen gathered in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room at 6:53 p.m. on Thursday, July 8, 2010 and engaged in substantive communication on public business within the Board’s jurisdiction but outside of a posted meeting.”

The agenda for the regular 7 p.m. meeting on July 8 included discussing and appointing candidates to the Conservation Commission and the Historic District Commission.

According to the AG’s letter to Fay, a live broadcast by Waycam prior to the meeting’s official beginning showed “they [selectmen] came to an agreement on the slate of candidates they would approve – in hushed voices and in an empty room – outside of public view. This is not a mere technical violation, but a violation of a bedrock principle of government transparency.”

Selectmen responded to Segal’s complaint on Aug. 16, 2010, and acknowledged, “it is clear that the four BOS members were mistaken in referring to some of the candidates who were being considered for appointment that evening.”

According to the AG’s ruling, the Board of Selectmen viewed the situation as a “technical transgression,” though the AG’s office disagreed, writing in the letter to Fay that “this type of violation strikes at the heart of the Open Meeting Law.”

The AG’s investigation included interviews with Board of Selectmen members and other elements. It was “particularly” the videotape of the pre-meeting gathering of Fay, Sue Pope, John Bladon and Steve Correia, however, that “amply supports the conclusion that the Board members’ violation was intentional.”

At Monday night’s Board of Selectmen meeting, Fay read a prepared statement acknowledging receipt of the AG’s ruling and affirming the Wayland Board of Selectmen’s commitment to abiding by the OML.

“The Open Meeting Law establishes a very high bar for all committee and Board members to do the public’s work in public,” Fay’s statement reads. “We are committed to the Open Meeting Law and we are committed to make certain that this type of conduct will not occur again.”

The board also approved asking Town Counsel Mark Lanza to contact the AG’s office to discuss the administrative hearing process. No date for the hearing has yet been determined.

In addition to future remedial action as determined by the hearing, the letter to Fay orders the Board of Selectmen to engage in “immediate and future compliance” and also requires all members to attend training on the Open Meeting Law and provide certification of attendance to the attorney general’s office.
 
On July 1, 2010, Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office assumed jurisdiction of the OML, including the authority to investigate complaints, enforce the law, and issue advisory opinions and regulations.

Between July 1, 2010, and Feb. 25, 2011, there were 75 Open Meeting Law complaints filed from throughout the state with the AG’s office. Six complaints during that period cited public bodies or officials in Wayland, two complaints cited Sudbury and none cited Weston.