DALTON, Mass. — The Board of Water Commissioners has been flagged for violating the Open Meeting Law during a summer meeting.

The state Attorney General's Office found that the board, which oversees the Fire District, improperly deliberated before its July 30 meeting and held said meeting upstairs at an inaccessible location. On Jan. 27, the AG reached a determination after the board was reported in September for several actions.

"The complaint alleges that prior to its July 30 meeting, the Board met with Treasurer/Clerk Melanie Roucoulet to 'coordinate before the public meeting . . . .' The complaint further alleges that such discussions are a regular occurrence. In its response, the Board does not deny that it met prior to the July 30 meeting. Instead, the Board acknowledges that it has a practice of gathering in Ms. Roucoulet's office prior to its formal meetings 'to discuss . . . New Correspondence . . . and also to sign . . . Treasury and Payroll Warrants,'" the determination reads.

"Finally, the Board commits to ceasing such gatherings going forward. Based on this information, we find that the Board violated the Open Meeting Law by improperly deliberating prior to its July 30 meeting."

It was also alleged that the notice for the meeting included an insufficiently specific topic and that the audio recording was destroyed but the AG's office did not find these as violations.

Former fire chief Christian Tobin filed the complaint on or around Aug. 1, and the board's response was emailed on Aug. 25. Tobin was terminated earlier this year after a short tenure with the town.

The decision came after an investigation by Kerry Gilpin of Comprehensive Investigations and Consulting, which began when the board announced Tobin's paid suspension in August over allegations of sexual harassment, grant overspending, and employee concerns. The suspension was originally for a month but was indefinitely extended in September until the investigation into Tobin's conduct was complete. 

The office received the complaint on Sept. 7; below is its findings :

With respect to a July 30 board meeting that the board improperly deliberated prior to the meeting, that the notice for the meeting included an insufficiently specific topic, and that the meeting was held at an inaccessible location. The complaint additionally alleges that Melanie Roucoulet, Treasurer/Clerk, destroys audio recordings of Board meetings.

The Open Meeting Law requires that all deliberations of a public body occur during a properly noticed meeting that is open to the public unless lawfully held in executive session. 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."

In the law, a quorum of a public body "is a simple majority of the members of the public body."

The OML also states that "all meetings of a public body shall be open to the public" and access must include the opportunity to be physically present to see and hear what is being discussed.  For a meeting to be truly open to the public, it must be held at a location that is accessible to those with disabilities and in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The determination states "We have explained that meetings of public bodies that are held in person must be held in ADA-compliant locations, even in the absence of any particular request or known accessibility need."

"We understand the complaint to allege that the Board's July 30 meeting was held in a location that was inaccessible to individuals with disabilities. The Board does not dispute this allegation, instead explaining that its "[p]ublic Meetings are held upstairs but if a resident with disabilities shows up the meeting would be moved down to the bay where our Annual meetings are held,"" it reads.

"Therefore, we find that the Board violated the Open Meeting Law by holding its July 30 meeting in a location that was inaccessible to members of the public with disabilities."

The complaint alleges that an agenda item, "Water Department Report, Report at Meeting," lacked sufficient specificity but this was not found to be a violation.  

In the past, when a meeting notices that included items such as "Superintendent's Report," "Administrator's Report," or "Report from Department Heads," the office has declined to find a violation of the Open Meeting Law for lack of specificity where the chair did not anticipate the specific nature of the deliberations.

Chairs are encouraged to solicit details from presenters so they can be included in the meeting notice.

"The Board has explained that the water department report was presented by the Water Superintendent, Robert Benlien. Additionally, the Board explained that Ms. Roucoulet was responsible for creating the notice for the July 30 meeting and that neither Ms. Roucoulet nor the chair of the Board, James Driscoll, knew what Mr. Benlien would discuss during the report," the determination reads.

"Because neither Chair Driscoll nor Ms. Roucoulet anticipated the nature of the topics that would be discussed under the Water Department report, we find that the notice for the July 30 meeting did not violate the Open Meeting Law. We commend the Board for its commitment going forward to inquire of Mr. Benlien what he anticipates discussing during his reports so that additional detail can be included on future meeting notices."

The OML does not require that public bodies audio or video record their meetings or address retention of audio or video recordings of meetings, so the allegation of Roucoulet destroying audio recordings was not found to be a violation.

"For the reasons stated above, we find that the Board violated the Open Meeting Law by improperly deliberating prior to its July 30 meeting and by holding its July 30 meeting at a location that was inaccessible to members of the public with disabilities," the determination concluded.

"We order the Board's immediate and future compliance with the Law and caution that similar future violations could be considered evidence of an intent to violate the Law. We now consider the complaint addressed by this determination to be resolved."

• Most Read

• Most Comments

• All News

• Blogroll

• Photos