By MARK SARDELLA
WAKEFIELD — The Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General has declined to review an Open Meeting Law complaint related to Town Meeting filed earlier this year by Scot McCauley of Walden Road.
Assistant Attorney General Carrie Benedon responded to McCauley’s complaint in a Dec. 17, 2024 letter.
In his complaint dated April 24, 2024, McCauley alleges that the town violated the Open Meeting Law as well as legal posting requirements related to the Annual Town Meeting of April 29, 2024.
McCauley’s complaint claims that the published Town Meeting warrant failed to provide sufficient information for voters to make an informed decision on several Town Meeting zoning articles, including those related to the MBTA Communities Multifamily Zoning. Specifically, McCauley notes that the warrant “does not include all subject matter, specifically the omission of maps and images and image descriptors in the articles for someone to make an informed decision as to participate in discussion.”
McCauley also claims that the town violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide information related to the Town Meeting Warrant in a manner accessible to disabled persons, including those with visual impairments.
“The Town of Wakefield disenfranchised all of its voters by leaving out pertinent information as to make an informed decision on whether or not the proposed zoning bylaw articles affected them enough as voters and residents to take notice and participate in its discussion at the upcoming town meeting,” McCauley wrote.
“The totality of these complaints, as I have outlined above in Wakefield’s April 29,2024 Town Meeting Articles 16,17,18 and 19 as well as Violations to the Open Meeting Laws – Official Posting Laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act, are all interrelated and show a gross negligence on the part of the Town of Wake field in disseminating information to the voting population of the town,” McCauley concluded in his complaint.
In its Dec. 17, 2024 response letter, the attorney General’s office acknowledges receiving both McCauley’s April 24 complaint and Town Counsel Thomas Mullen’s response on behalf of the town, dated May 14, 2024.
The Attorney General declined to review McCauley’s complaint based on the fact that it relates to Town Meeting, which is not covered by the Open Meeting Law.
“The Division of Open Government’s review concerns compliance with the Open Meeting Law,” the AG’s response states. “The Open Meeting Law does not govern procedures for Town Meeting. The Open Meeting Law’s definition of “meeting” specifically excludes ‘a session of a town meeting convened under Section 9 of Chapter 39 which would include the attendance by a quorum of a public body at any such session.’ The Attorney General has interpreted the exemption in the definition of ‘meeting’ to mean that the Open Meeting Law does not reach any aspect of Town Meeting.
“Town Meetings, as well as the preparation and issuance of the Warrant, are subject to other legal requirements,” The AG’s letter continues. “Because the matters raised in your complaint, even if true, would not constitute a violation of the Open Meeting Law, we decline to review your complaint.”
