On Jan. 8, 2026, the Gardner City Board of Health voted to adopt a city solicitor's advisory as its official written response to an Open Meeting Law complaint dated Dec. 19, 2025, and agreed to transmit the advisory, the complaint and the board's signed vote to the Attorney General's Division of Open Government.

The meeting opened at about 4:30 p.m. in the board's conference room. Susan Abalone, a Gardner resident who addressed the board during public comment, said the November executive‑session interviews for the health director had caused confusion and urged the board to adopt the solicitor's corrective recommendations. "I personally think interviews should be private and confidential," Abalone said, and offered to work with the board on completing corrective actions.

Board members discussed a key passage in the solicitor's advisory that, as paraphrased at the meeting, says finalists' substantive interviews must be conducted in public while prescreening can be done privately. One board member questioned whether the advisory's use of the term "appointment" aligned with the board's actual role in hiring. Members and staff noted a distinction between prescreening (reviewing resumes and basic qualifications) and a public interview where finalists answer substantive questions. A staff speaker described that the public‑records law exempts personnel‑file documents from disclosure when they relate to hiring or firing, which the board said should inform how personal material is handled.

The chair said the solicitor is temporarily unavailable and the board will follow up with the city solicitor and human resources to clarify where prescreening ends and a public interview begins, and how minutes of prior executive sessions should be redacted. The chair asked the board to adopt the solicitor's advisory letter dated Dec. 30, 2025, as the board's formal written response to the complaint; the motion directed preparation and release of the November 12 and November 19 executive‑session minutes "with redactions only as permitted by law" and transmission of the advisory, the complaint and the signed vote to the Attorney General's Division of Open Government.

The motion was moved and seconded and the board indicated acceptance of the advisory. The board agreed to finalize and certify the executive‑session minutes at a subsequent regular meeting and to continue coordinating with the solicitor and HR on interview procedures. The special meeting was then adjourned.

Next steps: the board will sign the written response and submit it and supporting documents to the Attorney General's Division of Open Government, finalize minutes (with legally permitted redactions) at the next regular meeting, and pursue solicitor and HR guidance to define prescreening and public interview boundaries.