Open meeting law complaint response from selectmen to Jeff Bennett and Attorney General.

Response of the board: The Board of Selectmen did have a discussion on the use of the rule of necessity at two of their meetings, including April 11, 2016 meeting. The Board did discuss the budget and specific items in the budget. Two members of the board left the table during most of the discussion as they have immediate family members that work for the Town. This is a five member board, however, one of the members has not been attending meetings since August of 2015. The Board of Selectmen did not vote on any budget items that were discussed at the meetings during which time Mr. Bennett claims the Rule of Necessity was invoked. Due to the fact that the Board did not vote, the Board maintains that the rule of necessity was not involved.

The members of the Board of selectmen were not quite clear as to the circumstances under which the rule of necessity could be invoked, however, they are planning to obtain information or training regarding the proper use of the rule of necessity. As the Board feels that the rule of necessity was not invoked, they feel there is not a need for an apology to residents or to publicly admit any error that Mr. Bennett perceives was made.

The Board of Selectmen respectfully requests that you dismiss the complaint of Mr. Bennett and further find that the Board of Selectmen acted in accordance with the Open meeting Law regulations per M.G.L. c.30A, section 20 (a).


Respectfully submitted,


Holly Young, for the Board of Selectmen
April 25, 2016.

posted by Jeff Bennett