Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meeting Violation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident alleges repeated lockouts; commission says it will review open-meeting complaint
Summary
A resident told the Montpelier City Planning Commission they were locked out of recent meetings and filed an open-meeting complaint; commissioners said they had not been alerted earlier, will consult the city attorney and review the claim within applicable statutory timelines.
A member of the public told the Montpelier City Planning Commission on Thursday that they had been locked out of several recent meetings and had filed an open-meeting violation complaint, prompting the commission to say it would review the allegation and consult the city attorney.
The commenter said they attended a meeting on March 31 and were unable to re-enter after leaving, and that this was “the third meeting that happened where people were locked out.” The commenter said they had filed a records request and notified the commission chair but had not received a response.
The commission chair and staff said they had not been made aware of the complaint before the meeting. Maria, planning department staff, replied that she had not received notice and suggested the commenter forward the complaint again to staff so it could be processed. Planning staff told the commission they would consult the city attorney about next steps and the statutory timeline for addressing open-meeting complaints. "We will take a look and see what the city attorney wants or believes is the appropriate action to take at this point," a staff member said.
Why it matters: State open-meeting laws create procedural timelines for public bodies to address alleged violations. The commenter said the law requires the body to address a notice within 10 days; staff said they would verify statutory requirements and return with legal guidance.
Commissioners asked staff to gather details — including records of notifications and any communications with municipal staff or police — and said they would place the item on a future agenda if the statute requires formal action. A staff member also noted some lockouts were caused by building electric-lock timers and building access procedures, which would require facilities and building-maintenance review.
The commission did not take formal disciplinary action at the meeting; staff called for legal review and said they would notify commission members and the complainant of the outcome and any necessary steps.
Provenance: The complaint was raised during the meeting’s public comment period; the transcript records the initial allegation and subsequent back-and-forth about notification and review.
