Town Counsel has determined the Select Board did not violate the state Open Meeting Law at a meeting on June 9.
Despite the opinion, the Select Board has clarified its posted meeting agendas to address concerns about transparency and compliance with Open Meeting Law.
“[The Board] therefore intends to hold future discussions on Center rezoning at future meetings, where the item will be specifically identified as a standing item for possible discussion,” attorney Mina S. Makarious wrote.
The complaint was filed June 13 by Deran Muckjian, owner of The Toy Shop of Belmont and head of the Belmont Center Business Association. In the complaint, Muckjian charged that Select Board Chair Elizabeth Dionne “extensively discussed’ the Belmont Center Overlay project, which was not specifically listed on the Select Board agenda.
In his opinion, Makarious writes that, although “Belmont Center Overlay” was not specifically mentioned, the topic was raised under a standing Committee Reports section of the agenda.
“While understandably frustrating for parties who disagree with a member’s opinion, it is not a violation of the Open Meeting Law for a member of the board to express an opinion, or for the Chair to ‘comment in response to that opinion,’” Makarious wrote.
When the complaint was discussed by the Select Board, Dionne said that in light of the board receiving “increasing Open Meeting Law violation (complaints),” agendas will include standing discussion items at the end of each agenda, including the Belmont Center Overlay, the Brighton Street Overlay, the Comprehensive Plan, and outdoor retail and dining.
This complaint was at least the second directed at the Select Board for discussion related to the Belmont Center Overlay. In May, the Select Board responded to a complaint against the board for a public meeting two members attended in February. Ultimately, the complaint—which was filed directly with the Attorney General’s Office rather than first with the Select Board—was not filed in the requisite 30-day window of the alleged violation, so town counsel did not expect the complaint to be taken up by the office.
As a precaution, the board has since posted agendas for meetings they anticipate more than one member of the board might attend as a member of the public.
According to the Attorney General’s Office, Muckjian now has the option of seeking further review by the Division of Open Government, which is designated to handle Open Meeting Law complaints. He can do so after the 30-day “local review” window, which is intended to provide time for the complainant and public body to resolve the complaint, and before 90 days have passed since the alleged violation.
On Thursday, Muckjian emailed to say he was considering his next steps.
