Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meeting Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Townsend Planning Board finds no open‑meeting violation in May complaint, votes to submit response
Summary
At its June 1 meeting the Town of Townsend Planning Board reviewed a complaint from Heidi Ash alleging an off‑meeting conversation on May 11. The board concluded no open‑meeting law violation occurred because no quorum deliberated, and voted (3‑yes, 1‑no, 1‑abstain) to submit the drafted response to the attorney general’s office.
The Town of Townsend Planning Board voted on June 1 to submit a written response to an open‑meeting‑law complaint filed by Heidi Ash, concluding the board did not violate the law because no quorum participated in the post‑meeting conversation cited in the complaint.
The board’s written response, read aloud by Clerk Cindy King, states: “Since a quorum of the planning board did not participate in a deliberation on matters within their jurisdiction, no violation of the open meeting law occurred.” The letter, signed by Chair Andrew Shepard, says the board determined no further action or remedies were needed.
The finding rests on the legal requirement that the open‑meeting law applies when a quorum deliberates on board business. During discussion, staff member Beth said staff reviewed the facts and advised that counsel was not required because the circumstances “clearly” lacked a quorum. Board members cited 940 CMR 29 as background guidance for determining when informal discussions constitute a meeting.
Cindy King moved that the board submit the draft response to the complaint; the motion was seconded (speaker not specified). In a roll‑call vote the board recorded three yes votes, one no and one abstention, approving the response and directing staff to send it to the attorney general’s office for their review.
Board member Brett recounted a previous anonymous complaint and urged the board to clarify internal practices; staff said it would prepare guidance on handling informal and anonymous complaints for a future meeting. The board confirmed upcoming meeting dates on June 8, June 22, July 13 and July 27 and adjourned.
The board’s decision records that the May 11 incident involved a conversation after the meeting had adjourned and that only one planning board member was involved; the response notes that if a quorum of members had been present the outcome could have been different. The attorney general’s office will receive the board’s response as the next procedural step.
