Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.

Open Meeting Law violated in Longmeadow

By Natasha Clark

Reminder Assistant Editor



LONGMEADOW After investigating inquiries regarding possible violations of the Open Meeting Law by members of both the Longmeadow School and Finance Committee, Assistant District Attorney of Hampden County Jane D. Montori released her findings.

In the case of School Committee member Jerold Duquette emailing his fellow committee members to notify them of his interest in being a member of the contract negotiating team, Montori said the Open Meeting Law was not violated.

In a letter addressed to Longmeadow resident Diane B. Nadeau, Montori wrote, "Because the e-mail at issue only disseminated information an interest in being on a negotiating team which is similar to submitting an agenda item, and not "deliberation." For purposes of the Law, this message did not violate the Open Meeting Law ... However, by copy of this letter, the School Committee will be reminded not to hold 'meetings' or engage in any 'deliberation' using e-mail messages. All public business should be discussed only in properly posted public sessions."

Duquette discussed last week's decision with Reminder Publications.

"I was pleased with the process," Duquette said of Montori's findings. "It has value to question these kind of things."

Duquette said he is also interested in figuring out ways to make email communications more public.

As Reminder Publications reported in September, Nadeau provided copies of e-mails exchanged between members of the Finance Committee, Town Manager Robin Crosbie, Superintendent of Longmeadow Public Schools Dr. Scott AndersEn, Department of Public Works Director Michael Wrabel and Town Account Paul Pasterczyk to the District Attorney's Office, media outlets and town officials, that may have been in violation of the Open Meeting Law.

Of the cases of Crosbie, AndersEn, Wrabel and Pasterczyk, the Open Meeting Law does not apply.

"The Law only applies to 'governmental bodies' which is defined as 'every board, commission, committee or subcommittee of any district, city region or town, however elected, appointed or otherwise constituted, and the governing board of a local housing, redevelopment or similar authority;' provided, however, that this definition shall not include a town meeting," Montori wrote in her explanation.

However, e-mail messages exchanged between some members of the Finance Committee were in violation, particularly the ones that dealt with the discussion of $236,000.

"The above messages discuss and give opinions regarding certain funds in the amount of $236,000 that were appropriated to the School Department. It is the District Attorney's opinion that these communications constitute a 'meeting,' as that term is defined by the Open Meeting Law," Montori's letter continued. "The Finance Committee is currently comprised of seven members. The Law defines 'quorum' as 'a simple majority of a governmental body unless otherwise defined.' Therefore, a quorum of the Finance Committee is four members."

In the seven-page letter, Montori directed the Finance Committee to stop the "active exchange of information and opinions by means of e-mail messages, or similar means of communication."

Other recent Longmeadow stories can be read online at www.reminderpublications.com.