Opinion ID: 2373499
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Freedom of Access

Text: Similarly, Palesky seeks reinstatement and back pay for the Town's alleged violation of the Freedom of Access Law. The court found her claim to be moot due to the Board's award of compensation to her through December 30. The Freedom of Access Law requires that public notice be given for all public meetings including those of any board ... of any ... municipality. 1 M.R.S.A. §§ 402(2)(C) & 403. The law also provides that deliberations on the dismissal of an individual may be conducted in executive session as long as any person charged or investigated shall be permitted to be present... if that person desires. 1 M.R.S.A. § 405(6)(A)(2). Here, it is undisputed that Palesky was present at the two public hearings on January 19 and February 21. The scheduled meeting of the Board on March 14 was adequately advertised as a meeting of the Topsham Personnel Board at which the Board may move into executive session to conduct deliberations on a personnel matter. There is no evidence in the record that Palesky requested and was denied access to that meeting, as she contends. [3] Palesky is not entitled to relief, not because her claim is moot but because no violation of the Freedom of Access Law is reflected in the record before us. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. All concurring.