Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meeting Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges Brookfield Select Board to take Attorney General’s open‑meeting training after repeated complaints
Summary
Christopher Keller pressed the board to commit to completing the Massachusetts Attorney General’s open‑meeting law course, citing multiple verified violations; the board’s written response acknowledged technical and procedural errors but members declined to accept an immediate training deadline.
Resident Christopher Keller used public comment at the Jan. 6 Brookfield Select Board meeting to demand that the board commit to completing the Massachusetts Attorney General’s open‑meeting‑law training after what he described as a pattern of verified violations.
Keller told the board the complaint he filed (dated Dec. 12, 2025) alleged four violations: failures to ensure meetings were audible and observable in real time, failure to pause or correct technical failures affecting public access, and entering executive session without a recorded roll‑call vote. “I’m going to ask the attorney general to force the board to take opening law class because there’s repetitive violations that are confirmed by the attorney general,” Keller said, pressing the board for a 30‑ to 60‑day commitment to complete the free course.
The board’s written response, read aloud by Karen, acknowledged the technical challenges — noting poor internet connectivity at Town Hall and distorted cable‑access audio caused by microphone gain settings — and said microphone settings have been corrected and that an audible timer would be used for public comment going forward. The response also acknowledged that a November vote to enter executive session was not recorded by roll call as required, described observed vote statements, and pledged diligence to assure roll‑call votes in the future.
Board members debated Keller’s request during public comment. The chair said board members serve as volunteers and would not accept being pressured to commit to a timeline by a resident. One select board member (Beth) said she would refresh training and expected to complete it soon. Another said she took an ethics class recently and declined to agree to a timeline based on resident pressure.
No formal vote to require board training was taken. The exchange left the procedural corrections and equipment changes (microphone gain and a public‑comment audible timer) as the board’s immediate remedies, while the request for board members to enroll in the AG’s training remained a resident demand rather than formal direction from the board.
