Earlier this year, at a public information session on the Belmont Center Overlay, Select Board Chair Elizabeth Dionne spoke in her capacity as a Select Board member to address an audience at the Beech Street Center on the ongoing work to improve the town’s economic viability.
“During my campaign for the Select Board, I heard a lot of anxiety about Belmont Center’s economic viability,” Dionne said at the Feb. 12 meeting. “Those concerns have not abated in the intervening two years. If anything, what was once a dull roar has become a loud and incessant drumbeat that the Select Board must address vacant storefronts and a need for more foot traffic if Belmont’s businesses are going to succeed.”
About 90 minutes later, Select Board Vice Chair Matt Taylor stood up, joining others in offering public comment. Before offering comments, he disclosed that while he is a member of the Select Board, his role that evening was that of an interested resident. He emphasized the need for Belmont to improve its reputation for not being business-friendly.
Both Dionne and Taylor were talking about plans for the Belmont Center Overlay, which was initially expected to be a subject of the spring Town Meeting. Instead, the process has been delayed to allow more time for information gathering.
“I want the public process to play out,” Taylor said at the meeting. “This is where we shape the vision of what we will take to Town Meeting.”
Allegations that Taylor’s comments violated the Open Meeting Law first surfaced on social media. Months later, those allegations became the subject of a formal complaint filed by Belmont resident Rena Fonseca with the Attorney General’s Office. According to the state’s database, the complaint was filed on May 13. The complaint itself is dated March 13, but in an email to the AG’s office on May 14, Dionne wrote she had not received the complaint from Fonseca; therefore, the board could not yet respond.
Fonseca declined to comment. A copy of the complaint was obtained from Dionne.
In a three-member board, two members constitute a quorum, a fact at the center of the dispute over whether the Select Board violated Open Meeting Law at the public information session posted by the Planning Board. The state’s Open Meeting Law not only guarantees access to public meetings but also seeks to eliminate any secrecy around deliberations and votes on matters of public concern.
Other allegations in the complaint, particularly those against the Planning Board, fell under the purview of Robert’s Rule of Order, which serves as a guide to parliamentary procedure, according to Attorney Paul Kominers, speaking on behalf of the town. Some of those complaints included the Planning Board not calling the meeting to order or recognizing which Planning Board members were in attendance.
At a recent Select Board meeting, Kominers explained that typically, complaints are first filed with the local body in question. Then, once the public body has had a chance to review the complaint, a response is sent both to the complainant and the AG’s office. If the complainant isn’t satisfied with the response, that person may request the Attorney General to review the complaint.
Town Clerk Ellen Cushman O’Brien confirmed she had not received any complaint filed by Fonseca against the Select Board.
“As far as the allegations against the Select Board go, I would say that it’s an area to be careful about,” said Kominers. “It is harder to take off your Select Board hats than you would like it to be from the perspective of the public and also the perspective of the AG’s office.”
Whether there was a violation of Open Meeting Law would depend on whether Taylor’s comments fell within the jurisdiction of a Select Board matter, according to Kominers.
“If you were talking about strictly personal issues, such as how you expected to be affected … that would be easier to see as being purely private and non-deliberative, than comments about the process in general,” Kominers said, noting he hadn’t reviewed Taylor’s comments specifically. “On the process in general, while the Select Board does not approve zoning, the Select Board does take a position on zoning in advance of Town Meeting, signs off on zoning amendments that are eventually included in the Town Meeting warrant. All of these things on their own would have to be done at a properly posted meeting.”
That said, the complaint was not filed within the requisite 30-day window, according to Kominers.
“As far as anyone on the town side can figure out, it was not sent to the Select Board or the Planning Board or the town clerk, as required,” he said.
As a result, Kominers said he does not expect the Attorney General’s Office to take up the complaint.
“Should the Attorney General find a violation, I would expect them to not find an intentional violation because there’s no pattern of similar violations that have taken place in the past,” he said.
In a statement to The Voice following the Feb. 12 meeting, Dionne wrote that while she identified herself as a member of the Select Board, Taylor identified himself as a private citizen. As a result, “we didn’t constitute a quorum.”
She said not only did she not know Taylor would be in attendance, but she chose not to call a joint meeting because the Planning Board is the body driving outreach on rezoning efforts.
“The Select Board provided the initiative and funding for the Belmont Center planning,” she wrote. “But the Planning Board is statutorily obliged to conduct the formal hearing process, which is why they have taken primary responsibility for community outreach.”
On May 19, Dionne said that going forward, the Select Board will post meetings whether or not a quorum is expected.
The board also voted to delegate Dionne as the person to review Kominers’ response to the AG’s office, which would simply state the complaint was untimely and the Select Board did not plan to respond further.