Source: http://masslegalresources.com/tag/0905417
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 12:43:19+00:00

Document:
entering executive session to discuss strategy with respect to these matters.
General seeks affirmation of her determination.
consistent with this decision. The Town’s motion for further declaratory relief is DENIED.
Id. at §5. “Such record ‘shall consist of … the entire proceedings.’” Id. at §2, quoting G. L. c.
The record in this case, and the relevant law, show the following.
General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
compromising the purpose for which the executive session was called.” G. L. c. 30A, §21(b)(3).
Attorney-Client Privilege and not be reconvening into open session.
wanted to discuss a claim where a resident is threatening to sue the Board.
AR 30. The Board thereupon moved into executive session.
would not necessarily be beneficial to the bargaining positions of the town.
steps to protect the town’s interest and minimize or eliminate potential liabilities.
the actions being taken by the Town to protect the public interest.
exchanges about the meeting at issue in Ovans’ complaint.
General found the Board violated G. L. c. 30A, § 21(b)(3).
involved in litigation before entering into the executive session.” AR 36.
its litigation strategy in response to threatened litigation” with its legal counsel. AR 39.
Board’s confidential discussion regarding its litigation strategy.
advice of the public body’s legal counsel”).
litigation matter involving property damage that it discussed in executive session.” AR 40.
and claimant is legally erroneous.
Commissioner of Revenue v. Lawrence, 379 Mass. 205, 208 (1979); Police Comm’r of Boston v.
Comm’r of Cambridge, 473 Mass. 716, 728 (2016); Forsyth School for Dental Hygienists v.
Board of Registration in Dentistry, 404 Mass. 211, 217 (1989); T.D.J. Development Corp. v.
the decision is legally erroneous or without factual support. FIC Homes of Blackstone, Inc. v.
Conservation Comm’n of Blackstone, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 681, 684-685 (1996).
ambiguous. See Providence & Worcester R.R. Co. v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd., 453 Mass.
opinions” under the statute, id., §25, and may issue written guidance to address common requests for interpretation.
940 Mass. Code Regs. §29.08.
a statute by an administrative agency is not entitled to deference.” Providence & Worcester R.R.
Granby, 444 Mass. 627, 632–633 (2005).
without compromising the purpose for which the executive session was called.” See G. L. c.
identify the unions and the litigant concerning which it sought an executive session.
satisfy the requirements of the statute.
Health Ins. Connector Auth., 456 Mass. 506, 516 (2010), quoting General Elec. Co. v.
should occur in a public meeting’”).
specific facts of a detrimental impact in cases like these where such evidence is available.
presented all of the facts on this point.
15, 2014 meeting. It is thus irrelevant here.
Board’s declination to identify the litigant it wanted to discuss in executive session.
deny public bodies the ability to engage in such strategic planning much like a private entity. Cf.
leaves this issue for the Attorney General’s consideration on remand.
to mediate at all – requires confidential discussions which are often necessary.
the Attorney General for review of the Board’s decision in light of this decision.
7 See Attorney General’s Open Meeting Law Guide (2011), at 8.
consistent with this decision. Plaintiffs’ motion for further declaratory relief is DENIED.

References: §5
 §2
 §21
 § 21
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 §25
 §29
 v.