Wayland Seeking Advisory Opinion from Attorney General

Town Administrator Fred Turkington has followed through with his charge to write a letter to the Massachusetts attorney general’s office seeking an advisory opinion related to whether a public body is required to post a meeting when attending an adjudicatory hearing.

Turkington’s June 14 letter (attached in full to this article) was prompted by a May 27, 2011, Open Meeting Law regarding its alleged failure to post an April 28, 2011, meeting with the Historic District Commission. Segal alleges that, while the PSBAC attended that meeting as an applicant seeking approval, it ultimately engaged in deliberation during the meeting in order to complete an otherwise incomplete application. Because of the deliberation, Segal writes in her complaint (also attached to this article), the meeting should have been posted by the PSBAC.

At a June 13 meeting of the PSBAC during which board members discussed Segal's complaint, they authorized Turkington to draft a response to the complaint and seek the advisory opinion related to attending adjudicatory hearings.

In his letter seeking an opinion, Turkington points out that a meeting, according to the law, shall not be include “attendance by a quorum of a public body at a meeting of another public body that has complied with the notice requirements of the open meeting law, so long as the visiting members communicate only by open participation in the meeting on those matters under discussion by the host body and do not deliberate.”

He goes on to note the legal definition of “deliberation” to be “an oral or written communication through any medium, including electronic mail, between or among a quorum of a public body on any public business within its jurisdiction.”

In seeking an advisory opinion, Turkington notes, “The dual requirement that deliberation occur between or among a quorum of a public body and that communication concern subjects within the jurisdiction of the public body appears subject to interpretation in the situation when visiting bodies appear before adjudicatory boards.”

In her complaint, Segal alleges that the PSBAC did not at that public hearing “communicate from the audience in ‘open participation,’” which would have allowed an exception to Open Meeting Law, but rather deliberated at that meeting. Specifically, according to the complaint, the PSBAC agreed upon a fence design during the hearing in order to complete an incomplete application.

“Must visiting public bodies post notice of meeting and an agenda when a quorum appears before an adjudicatory body to present an application for action within the jurisdiction of that adjudicatory body?” Turkington’s letters asks.

Turkington notes that “to date [June 28], Ms. Segal has not provided a reply to our request to wait for the advisory opinion rather than pursuing the complaint.”

Segal could not be reached for comment by deadline.