Source: http://www.citizenjack.org/2011/08/oml-update/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:38:37+00:00

Document:
Though it takes no action beyond what the City Council has already done, it does verify that an OML violation did occur.
It also did not clarify any further the notion of “intentionality” which was the crux of my complaint.
I admit that I was hoping for a training program to be required for Councilors.
Read and make up you own mind.
This office received a complaint filed by Jack Burke, dated March 28, 2011, alleging that the Methuen City Council (the “Council”) violated the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, § 18- 25. The complaint alleges that Methuen City Council Chair John Cronin “sent around an e-mail to other city councilors asking them for their feedback” on whether they would support an item Councilor Cronin was considering adding to an upcoming Council meeting agenda. The complaint was first filed with the Council on January 18, 2011. We received the Council’s response to the original complaint on or about January 31, 2011.
We find that while the actions of Councilor Cronin violated the Open Meeting Law, the Council took appropriate measures to prevent a further violation and took remedial action to cure any effects of the violation. In reaching this determination we reviewed the January 18 and March 18, 2011 complaints; the Council’s January 31, 2011 response to the complaint; and the notice and minutes of the Council’s January 19, 2011 meeting. We also spoke with you by telephone on April 19, 2011. Finally, we reviewed a supplemental response from the Council, dated April 20, 2011.
The above requires a vote of the City Council to go to the state with a Home Rule Petition to have a Special Election. Please advise whether or not you support this concept via a phone call [phone number redacted] or email.
The Open Meeting Law was enacted “to eliminate much of the secrecy surrounding deliberations and decisions on which public policy is based.” Ghiglione v. School Conmittee of Southbridge, 376 Mass. 70, 72 (1978). A “deliberation” is defined as “an oral or written communication through any medium, including electronic mail, between or among a quorum of a public body on any public business within its jurisdiction.” G.L. c. 30A, § 18. The Open Meeting Law defines a “meeting” as “a deliberation by a public body with respect to any matter within the body’s jurisdiction.” Id. The law requires that meetings of a public body be properly noticed and open to members of the public, unless an executive session is convened. See G.L. c. 30A, § 20(a)—(b), 21.
Councilor Cronin’s January 14, 2011 email to a quorum of his fellow Council members, requesting that the members report whether or not they support a special election for a ballot question, was a deliberation in violation of the Open Meeting Law. The email was a “written communication” sent to a quorum of the Council on a matter of “public business within its jurisdiction.” G.L. c. 30A, § 18. Councilor Cronin’s solicitation could have resulted in the Council making policy decisions outside of a public meeting had Council members replied. The councilors showed commendable restraint in declining to respond to Councilor Cronin’s email.
The three councilors who spoke with Councilor Cronin over the telephone regarding the meeting agenda did not address the email’s specific request, according to the Council’s April 20, 2011 letter. The Council affirmed that “the content of those telephone conversations was general in nature and referenced simply the agenda for the forthcoming regularly scheduled City Council meeting. No dialogue specifically referenced the subject matter of the complaint.” More to the point, the phone conversations with Councilor Cronin did not involve a quorum of the Council. There are nine members of the Council, and five councilors constitute a quorum. As the phone conversations, even if serial in nature, were between or among at most four members of the Council—less than a quorum—there is no violation of the Open Meeting Law resulting from these phone calls.
The Open Meeting Law complaint that followed this violation was filed with the Council on January 18, 2011. At the January 19, 2011 Council meeting, Councilor Cronin acknowledged his error and took responsibility for the violation. Councilor Cronin withdrew the term limits topic from the meeting agenda as it had been tainted by the email deliberation, even though it had been added to the meeting notice more than 48 hours before the meeting, as required by the Open Meeting Law. See G.L. c. 30A, § 20(b). Additionally, you wrote a memo in your capacity as City Solicitor, dated January 24, 2011, to the members of the City Council describing the nature of the violation and requesting all members to review the Guide to the Open Meeting Law provided by the Solicitor’s office. These steps, combined with the release of the email in question, were the proper remedial actions given the nature of the violation.
We note that, despite the complainant’s contention, we do not believe Councilor Cronin acted to intentionally violate the Open Meeting Law. Councilor Cronin even told a reporter that he was going to poll the members of the Council before adding the topic to the agenda. Once he was made aware of the violation, he acted appropriately to remedy the situation.
Councilor Cronin’s January 14, 2011 email was an inappropriate solicitation that resulted in deliberation by the Council in violation of the Open Meeting Law. However, we find that the Council’s actions in response to the complaint filed on January 18, 2011 were appropriate. The Council 1) acknowledged the potential for a violation; 2) publicly released the email sent by Councilor Cronin; 3) removed the tainted topic from the agenda; and 4) requested that all Council members review the Open Meeting Law Guidebook. We have confidence that the Council will avoid such email communications in the future.
If you have any questions regarding this determination, please do not hesitate to contact me at the number below.

References: § 18
 v. 
 § 18
 § 20
 § 18
 § 20