I regret to inform the public that I believe the Board of Selectmen committed a serious, but inadvertent, violation of the Open Meeting Law on Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2010. It was at that open meeting that the selectmen heard the continuation of the public hearings for two wine and beer licenses.
In the newspapers following the opening of the hearing on Dec. 15, 2009, it was reported erroneously that no more public comment could be received beyond a deadline of the end of December.
At the lawful continuation of the public hearing on Jan. 19, the BOS discussed at length the admissibility of e-mails received from members of the public between Dec. 15 and Jan. 19. Under advice from town counsel no action was taken by the board to admit the e-mails. In contrast, it was deemed acceptable to the board that written testimony from the police chief and superintendent of schools was acceptable, including one e-mail received on the afternoon of Dec. 15, and that oral testimony from the Board of Health was admissible. BOS members went on to present additional testimony related to the applications. The board then unanimously voted to close the public hearing.
I could not find any statute that supports the prohibition of written testimony received by the board prior to the closure of a public hearing on Jan. 19, 2010.
The closure of public hearing has memorialized an irreparable defect in the licensing process for both applications and has served to “invalidate any action taken at any meeting at which a provision to this section (Ch39 Sec23B) has been violated.” State law provides remedy for our mistake—it’s called a “do-over.”
I hope the selectmen will recognize this defect and remedy the problem as soon as is practical and take the time to develop very clear rules about how we should process and conduct these kinds of licensing requests before we begin the process all over again.
Tim Clark, Harvard selectman
Bolton Road
