Board Violated Open Meeting Law, Attorney General’s Office Rules

HARWICH – The Division of Open Government in the state Attorney General’s Office has once again found that the select board violated the state Open Meeting Law by being insufficiently specific in posting an executive session notice.

Former select board member Michael MacAskill filed Open Meeting Law complaints with the division last November, charging the board with meeting in executive session on July 14, 2025 without posting notice of an executive session that was sufficiently specific and for deliberating outside a posted meeting.

The division found the notice of the July 14 meeting was not sufficiently specific. But the board did not violate the law when it convened in executive session in preparation for negotiations with the department of public works director, nor did it violate the law engaging in deliberation outside a meeting.

Another charge filed by MacAskill alleged that three board members violated the law by deliberating on town business outside of an open meeting. The Attorney General’s Office ruled that the communication did not violate the law.

This is the second time in a month the board has been cited for violations of the Open Meeting Law. In May, the Division of Open Government ruled that the board was not sufficiently specific in a notice for executive sessions last August, and the board violated the law when it posted notices that suggested that no open session would precede an executive session.

Without such notice, members of the public are essentially denied the opportunity to attend and learn the reasons for the executive session, according to the earlier decision. Those complaints were filed by West Barnstable resident Ron Beaty.

MacAskill’s complaint makes several allegations that collectively fall within the broader category of insufficiency of notice, according to the decision, and mirror those made in the Beaty complaint issued on May 14. For similar reasons, the division found that the notice of the board’s July 14 meeting was not sufficiently specific.

“As the notice of the July 14 meeting did not identify the DPW director as the subject of an executive session discussion, and where the notice instead referenced ‘all town unions and non-union personnel,’ we find that the board violated the Open Meeting Law by posting an insufficiently specific notice,” the decision reads.

Select Board Chair Donald Howell said Monday night that the board has already made adjustments to its notices to meet the specificity requirements.

MacAskill argued that because the board does not set the salary of the DPW director, it could not properly meet in executive session in preparation for negotiations with non-union personnel. But Assistant Attorney General Matthew Lindberg ruled that the board did not violate the law when it convened in executive session in preparation for negotiations with the DPW director

While there is a certain logic to MacAskill’s reasoning, according to the decision, the board can still play a role in the town administrator’s negotiations with the DPW director.

“The town administrator negotiates with nonunion personnel such as the DPW director but may seek the board’s input on those negotiations in executive session, which is exactly what she (Meggan Eldredge) did at the meeting on July 14. We find no violation as to this allegation,” the decision reads.

MacAskill also alleged that an exchange about the salaries of acting town administrator Eldredge and interim town administrator Tony Schiavi between select board members Jeffrey Handler, Donald Howell and Peter Piekarski constituted deliberation outside a notice meeting. 

In affidavits, the three members of the board confirmed that there was no discussion of Eldredge’s compensation outside of meetings, according to the decision. 

As for discussion about the hiring of Schiavi, communication between Handler and Howell did not constitute a quorum of the board, according to the decision. A reference by Piekarski, mentioned in an email between Howell and Handler, was to a statement made by Piekarski in an open meeting and thus no deliberation by a quorum of the board took place, the attorney general ruled.

“The complaint does not identify any specific communication that was exchanged among a quorum about the proposed salary for Mr. Schiaivi,” the decision reads. “As we have explained on many occasions, mere speculation or conjecture, without factual support, is insufficient to support an allegation that a public body deliberated outside of a posted meeting.” 

A footnote in the decision refers to the board’s use of “boilerplate" topics and placeholder topics, such as the “Public Comment” on the July 14 agenda, in which the police chief and fire chief provided detailed responses about July 4th crowds. That topic should have been a noticed item on the agenda, the decision said.

“Boilerplate topics and placeholder topics lack sufficient specificity to satisfy the Open Meeting Law,” the footnote reads.

The decision orders the board to comply immediately and in the future with the Open Meeting Law, and cautioned that similar violations in the future may be considered evidence of intent to violate the law.