Former Select Board member Michael MacAskill filed a formal Open Meeting Law (OML) complaint with the Massachusetts Attorney General against the Harwich Select Board. He claims the board secretly discussed and acted on public business in private (executive session or via email) when they legally shouldn’t have. If the AG agrees, the board could face orders to redo votes in public, revise minutes, or undergo mandatory OML training.
1. Background
- Massachusetts’ Open Meeting Law (MGL c.30A §§18–25) requires that government boards discuss public business in public, with proper notice and transparency.
- Executive sessions (closed meetings) are allowed only for specific reasons—like discussing union negotiations, lawsuits, or personnel discipline—and must be listed accurately on the meeting notice.
2. Main Allegations
(a) Improper Executive Session Topic
- The board allegedly went into executive session to discuss the DPW Director’s salary.
- MacAskill argues that since the DPW Director is not under a union or contract, salary decisions should have been discussed in open session.
- He also says the meeting notice didn’t list specific details (like which employee or union), which violates OML requirements.
(b) Serial Deliberation (Backdoor Discussions)
- MacAskill claims board members discussed town business via email, effectively deliberating without a public meeting.
- Example: Chair Donald Howell allegedly referenced another member’s opinion (“Pete’s expressed desire…”) in an email chain, creating what legally counts as a quorum discussion outside a meeting.
- Other examples include:
- Discussion of an acting town administrator’s appointment and pay via private correspondence.
- A salary decision that appears to have been pre-agreed upon without public debate.
(c) Inadequate Public Notice
- Meeting notices allegedly lacked the required level of detail—for example, failing to specify the employee names or contract types under discussion.
3. Requested Remedies
MacAskill’s complaint asks that:
- The board publicly apologize.
- Chair Howell resign as chair.
- Executive session minutes be revised to include missing contract details.
- The DPW discussion be redone in open session.
- The board undergo state OML training.
4. Context and Implications
- This is the second OML complaint in one month (another by Ron Beaty), suggesting a pattern of possible transparency issues.
- The Attorney General’s Office (Division of Open Government) investigates OML complaints and can:
- Order corrective action (redo votes, release minutes, issue training).
- Publicly reprimand the board.
- In repeat or serious cases, refer matters for legal enforcement.
- The board’s attorney, Michele Randazzo (KP Law), will respond on their behalf.
5. Bottom Line
MacAskill is alleging that the Harwich Select Board conducted public business behind closed doors and failed to properly notify the public, both of which undermine transparency.
If upheld, this could force new public discussions, require formal apologies or retraining, and damage the board’s credibility heading into future decisions.