PITTSFIELD, Mass. — Berkshire Regional Planning Commission has received an Open Meeting Law complaint related to an April 6 meeting.  

Lee resident Joshua Bloom found issues with agenda items and the Executive Committee meeting's lack of public comment.

The committee reviewed the filing on Thursday and delegated its legal counsel and Executive Director Thomas Matuszko as respondents.

"The complaint alleges that the committee violated the Open Meeting Law for a few reasons," Matuszko  explained.

"First, the committee's meeting notice did not include topics concerning financial expenditures of the Housatonic Rest of River municipal committee. Second, the complaint questions two topics on the meeting notice and third, public comment was not received by the committee at the April 6 meeting. There were some other issues raised in the complaint that do not pertain to the April 6 meeting or are not within the committee's purview under the Open Meeting Law."

He said the meeting notice did not include topics concerning financial expenditures of the Housatonic Rest of River Municipal Committee because there were no expenditures related to it in the period covered by the financial reporting of the April 6 agenda.

"The bylaws of the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission (BRPC) identify several standing committees of the Commission, including those listed on the agenda. These are the committees that are regularly reported on at Executive Committee meetings. The Housatonic Rest of River Municipal Committee is not a committee identified in the BRPC bylaws. The Rest of River Municipal Committee is created pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40 sec. 4A through an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the BRPC and the municipalities of Great Barrington, Lee, Lenox, Sheffield, and Stockbridge," the response to the complaint states.

"As identified in the IGA, BRPC serves as the agent to the Committee. BRPC staff serve on numerous committees, such as the Housatonic Rest of River Municipal Committee and does not routinely report on any of those committees at the Committee's meetings. As advised by Counsel, the Committee is not required by the Open Meeting Law to include certain topics on its meeting notices or to discuss matters that are not included on its meeting notices."

Bloom wanted more detail on the agenda's "Other (For information only)", and "Delegate & Alternative
Issues" sections.

"I just reviewed the agenda for the 4/6/23 BRPC Executive Committee Meeting and I was disappointed that [you are not] reviewing any financial expenditures made by the Housatonic RoR Committee in Financial Reports section and not reporting out on the RoR Committee's decisions from their 3/27/23 meeting that you chaired during the Committee Reports," he wrote.

It was explained that the "Other (For information only)" section follows a practice of the Committee to accommodate topics that were not reasonably anticipated by the chair's designee when preparing and posting the meeting notice.

Topics can be addressed by the committee but cannot be voted on until a future meeting when the topic is detailed on the meeting notice.

"This recurring topic will be removed from meeting agendas," Matuszko reported. "If a topic comes up after posting the meeting notice, the meeting notice will be amended if possible, and the chair will identify the new topic at the meeting."

The "Delegate & Alternate Issues" section allows members to share items occurring in their municipality that may be of interest to other members but no actions occur through this agenda item.

Matuszko said it will be clarified to read "Comments from Berkshire Regional Planning Commission Delegates & Alternate Delegates."

Public comment was not on the committee's April 6 agenda.

"While the Committee sometimes has such a topic on its meeting notices or accepts public comment at meetings on a case-by-case basis, it opted not to do so at the meeting on April 6, 2023," the response reads.

"Future meetings may include a public comment period. As advised by counsel, the Open Meeting Law does not require public comment at meetings and therefore the Committee did not violate the Open Meeting Law by not receiving public comment at the April 6, 2023 meeting."

During the meeting, Bloom pointed to another part of his complaint.

"I emailed you twice before the meeting to ask about those agenda items and ask to have public comments," he said. "And the fact that you just now did not read that portion. of my complaint to the committee is problematic."

Bloom's complaint alleges that it was his fifth request in the last nine days for an explanation as to why he has not been responded to about the release of a video recording of the March 27 Rest of River meeting.

The committee feels it addressed the issues raised in the complaint and a copy was submitted to the Attorney General's Division of Open Government.

• Most Read

• Most Comments

• All News

• Blogroll

• Photos