Wayland Selectmen Acknowledge Open Meeting Law Violations

Wayland Selectmen Monday night agreed to comply with George Harris’ recommendations laid out in his most recent Open Meeting Law complaint.
 
According to Harris’ allegations, selectmen violated the Open Meeting Law twice at an Aug. 1, 2012, meeting. One violation occurred when they voted on a consent calendar that was not publically posted and the second occurred when they voted to allow Town Administrator Fred Turkington to speak at an upcoming Audit Committee meeting, an issue and vote that was not listed on the selectmen’s published agenda.

“I think we did it,” Selectmen Ed Collins said. “As far as I can tell, there are a couple of ways we can respond to it. We discussed a matter that wasn’t essentially on the agenda.”

Harris’ complaint focused on the traditional section of published agendas that allows selectmen to discuss “Items not reasonably anticipated by the chair 48 hours in advance.” According to Harris, the chair should have “reasonably anticipated” the discussion and vote regarding Turkington’s participation in the Audit Committee meeting. With that in mind, the discussion and vote should have been listed as a separate item on the agenda.

“I think what happened on that one is we voted on it,” said Selectmen Steve Correia, who was acting as chair during the discussion as regular chair John Bladon excused himself to attend a separate meeting. “This makes a big difference in how we deal with reports and concerns and how we discuss it at these meetings.”

Collins said the discussion of selectmen’s concerns did not necessarily mean deliberating and voting on items. “The only real question is whether the item should have appeared on the agenda. The fact is, it was not on the agenda. We did it. We had a discussion on an issue that wasn’t on the agenda. However, you cut it, we shouldn’t have done it. Now what do we do.”

Collins went on to ask, “Where is the willingness to abide by the spirit of the Open Meeting Law,” a question that Correia said he found offensive.

“I really resent you claiming that we don’t abide by the spirit of the Open Meeting Law,” Correia said. “Don’t lecture to us about the Open Meeting Law.”

A second element of Harris’ complaint addressed the need for selectmen to display the consent calendar on which they vote along with meeting’s agenda.

“He has brought up a legitimate issue of concern that could make our meeting more open,” Correia said. “From now on, the board has agreed that we should be providing the detail of the consent calendar on the agenda.”

Turkington pointed out that the consent calendar and correspondence are handled similarly and, while Harris’ complaint didn’t address the correspondence, he believed it should be handled in the same manner as the consent calendar.

“I think they’re analogous,” Turkington said. “What I’m suggesting is, if we are going to claim something is a violation, we need to be consistent across the board. My advice to the board, to the extent that we want to discuss the correspondence, we should also post the blue correspondence sheet. The public has to read the agenda and have a general idea of what will be discussed.”

Harris opted to not appear before the board to discuss his complaints.

The board voted 4-0 to acknowledge Harris’ complaint and abide by the corrective measures he proposed.