Acton Committee Cleared of Open Meeting Law Complaint

Acton’s Morrison Farm Committee did not violate Open Meeting Law earlier this year, despite complaints alleging the contrary, according to findings published last week by the Attorney General’s Office.

The findings came in response to an April 23 complaint filed by Isabella Choate, who alleged the Morrison Farm Committee, its various subcommittees and Chairman William Mullin violated the state’s Open Meeting Law. 

In her claim Choate alleged that, on Jan. 24, a quorum of the committee attended a meeting of another public body and deliberated, and also that a 501(c)(3) charitable organization is improperly comprised of a quorum of the committee, according to the finding.

The issues of concern appear to have been a Jan. 24 meeting of Acton’s Community Preservation Committee, and the composition of the Friends of Morrison Farm, a fairly new charitable corporation whose directors and officers include six members of the Morrison Farm Committee.

According to the complaint, Choate believed a quorum of the committee attended the CPC meeting and deliberated during and afterwards. She also alleged the Friends of Morrison Farm is improperly comprised of a quorum from the Morrison Farm Committee.

However, after reviewing the allegations and conducting discussions and fact-finding around said allegations, the AG’s office has determined that, while a quorum of Morrison Farm Committee members were present during the CPC meeting in question, there were no deliberations and therefore no OML violation.

From the public findings:

While a quorum of the Committee was present during the CPC meeting on January 24, 2013, there was no deliberation for purposes of the Open Meeting Law. See G.L. c. 30A, § 18; OML 2012­49.3 Mr. Mullin, in his role as Chair of the Committee, conducted the presentation to the CPC, with assistance from one other Committee member in responding to a question. Because their communication was only by open participation in the meeting on those matters under discussion by the host body, and they did not deliberate, we find that the Committee did not violate the Open Meeting Law during this meeting.

Similarly, the AG’s review found that there was no evidence that the committee improperly deliberated following the meeting.

And lastly, the review determined the following about the Friends of Morrison Farm:

We note that a meeting of the Officers and Directors of the Friends of Morrison Farm, as presently constituted, must comply with the Open Meeting Law because a quorum of the Committee would attend and likely deliberate on matters within its jurisdiction. The Committee and the Friends of Morrison Farm appear to have similar and often parallel goals, thus a meeting of the Friends of Morrison Farm would likely constitute a meeting of the Committee. Because the Friends of Morrison Farm has not yet convened a meeting, however, we do not find a violation of the Open Meeting Law, and we commend the Committee for pledging to comply with the Law going forward.