Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission discusses alleged open-meeting violation; counsel advised denial by default
Summary
A resident said they were locked out of a recent meeting and alleged an open-meeting violation. Planning staff consulted the city attorney and the commission was advised that because the complainant did not pursue the 10‑day meeting option, the allegation is denied by default; staff said door timers have been adjusted.
MONTPELIER — The Montpelier City Planning Commission discussed a public complaint that a member of the public was denied access to a previous meeting after doors were locked.
Steve Whitaker, a resident who said he tried to rejoin the meeting, said he was “denied access to hear what was going on” after leaving and attempting to return. Whitaker said staff did not encourage meeting within the 10‑day cure period and criticized the commission’s response.
Planning staff said they had consulted the city attorney. “So the fact that it wasn’t responded to within 10 days, by definition, by default, makes it a denied allegation,” planning staff member Mike said, summarizing counsel’s advice. He and other commissioners said the relevant legal sections give the commission the option to deny a violation when the procedural steps were not followed.
Commissioners also discussed operational changes to prevent reoccurrence. Mike said door timers have been reset so doors will remain unlocked until the scheduled end time of meetings. “The cure for that violation going forward … is to ensure that the doors stay unlocked throughout the duration of the meeting,” he said.
Commissioners and Whitaker disagreed about whether the denial properly addressed the complainant’s access concerns. Whitaker said he had attempted to rejoin and that the denial did not acknowledge the denial of access; other commissioners said they were “personally sorry” he could not re-enter but that they were following counsel’s interpretation of the statute.
The commission did not take further remedial action at the meeting. Mike said counsel advised there was nothing additional required at that time. Commissioners agreed to handle any further questions about the matter with the city attorney as needed.
