State Says SU71 Did Not Violate Open Meeting Law
 Barton, on the left, did not violate open meeting law when he discussed the work of Ginni Ranzoni during a February meeting without notifying her 24-hours in advance. |
Resident Richard Cohen filed a complaint against Barton because he had attempted speak to the personnel matter during a meeting on Feb. 24.
Barton, who sits on the committee, specifically named TriDistrict Office Assistant Ginni Ranzoni in a discussion about how much workload his requests for information was having on the district office.
Cohen said the discussion about Ranzoni should have been held in executive session and the employee should have been notified in advance.
Under Open Meeting Law, the committee is required to notify the affected employee 48 hours in advance if the board was to discuss the "reputation, character, physical condition or mental health" of the employee. This, however, only refers to when the board enters executive session for personnel reasons.
In a written decision posted Tuesday, the state attorney general's office said Barton didn't violate the Open Meeting Law because the board hadn't discussed the employee in executive session.
"Here, the Committee mentioned Ms. Ranzoni's name during an open session discussion, but did not discuss her in executive session. The Open Meeting Law does not require notice to an individual that a public body may discuss a topic involving that individual unless the public body intends to enter executive session under Purpose 1. OML 201457; OML 201447," reads the opinion from state Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Sclarsic.
"Therefore, we find that the committee did not violate the Open Meeting Law."
Sclarisic said the committee did call an executive session but did not discuss Ranzoni.
The Open Meeting Law complaint is one of two Cohen filed against Barton. Cohen is also accusing Barton of sending an email to a quorum of the Lanesborough Board of Selectmen regarding his opinions and actions of Superintendent Rose Ellis. Cohen has also filed two other complaints against the Lanesborough School Committee, specifically regarding Barton and his work on that committee.
While the attorney general's office said Barton hadn't violated the law, Sclarsic writes that the committee didn't take sufficient meeting minutes of the more than three-hour meeting.
"The Committee's February 24, 2014, meeting lasted almost three hours, however the minutes contain only a few brief sentences. A member of the public who did not attend the meeting would not have a clear understanding from these minutes of what occurred during the meeting," Sclarsic's decision reads.
"The Committee should, therefore, amend its February 24, 2014 meeting minutes so that they contain sufficient detail to allow a member of the public who did not attend the meeting to understand what the committee had discussed."
Superintendency Union 71 School Committee Open Meeting Law Decision
Tags: attorney general, open meeting complaint,
