Community Preservation Committee - Regular Meeting

It's the uh there's a complaint of of meeting law violation. Um and I [clears throat] will read that description of the violation. On Friday, October 17, 2025, as a member of the graft and finance committee, I was copied on an email from Ken Hullberger, the treasurer of the committee preservation committee to town administrator Evan Brousard. Copy attached, expressing his opinion and recommendations on a parcel located at 324 Providence Road. Potential purchase of this property is on the warrant for the Craft and Town meeting scheduled to be held on Monday, October 20th, 2025. In this email, Mr. Hullberger expressed his opinion of what would be considered a definitive decision by the conservation administrator along with other opinions and recommendations concerning this parcel. Mr. Hullberger also copied members of the committee preservation with this email. This is clearly a violation of the open meeting law as he expressed his opinion outside a duly posted meeting um of the I think he corrected it graft and committee preservation committee. Um, [clears throat] and the request that the body take is the committee preservation committee should post a meeting as soon as possible and disclose the violation of the open meeting law and incorporate this email into the minutes of the duly posted meeting. In addition, Mr. Hullberger should be required to take additional open meeting law training as soon as possible to ensure that he does not violate the open meeting law again in the future. and it was signed by Mr. Hadid who's a member of the finance committee. So Ken um responded and that was in our packet if you want to.

Okay. Well, I guess I'll read it into the record.

Okay. So, the content of the October 17th, 2025 email reply message in question was commentary on reports distributed by the town administrator that day to the select board, the finance committee, and the community preservation committee. Those reports concerned due diligence the TA had done after the October 16th, 2025 CPC vote on the Providence Road Property Grant application. The recipients were all of the the recipients of the ply were all the recipients of the original message as the vote on the grant application had previously been taken by the CPC and the CPC had no further decision-making role. The grant was no longer public business within the jurisdiction of the community preservation committee. The topic of the email thread was at that time within the jurisdiction of the select board and the finance committee. Thus, the email reply message does not meet the definition of deliberation by the CPC. And I'll make an aside here. This is the same issue that came up the first time there was a violation filed against the CPC. the Department of Revenue determined that the uh though there were certainly a quorum of members at that select board meeting that the that the topic being discussed was a matter for the select board, not a matter for the CPC and thus it was not a violation. This is the same thing. So even if a violation could be construed, it was unintentional. The email reply was intended to be comments on the sender's capacity as a private citizen. It was written in that voice and it did not reference any past or future action of the CPC or any member. The inclusion of a sender CPC position

after his name was inadvertent and was a mistake freely admitted and apologized for. This issue does not rise to the letter or the intent of the open meeting law. And I apologize again to the committee for that mistake and becoming the target of this filing. And I pledge to be particularly attentive to the strictures of the open meeting law in the future. Respectfully submitted. Thank you. So does that count as the disclosure that's being asked? Excuse me. Is that is that just is that us just disclosing it that it that it took response,

right? Does that does that check the box of it being disclosed? Like was that that checks the box of me responding? But so can we consider that disclosing it? Don't know what you mean by that. So when an open meeting law violation occurs, if you just disclose it and apologize, you can move on. So is that what you're doing? Disclosing it and apologizing so we can move on. I ad admitted to what I wrote and I apologize for becoming the target but the position is that it was not a violation. Okay. So that's not quite the same as what you said

and what I was reading what I read uh it says that could be considered at a meeting. This was considered at a meeting and so that's the distinction or a fine line of we'd already dealt with this

so it's we are no longer considered we had voted it was done and so it's depending on I I don't know if the do or whoever it is has to review that and say yes this clearly is a violation or because this was no longer actionable by your committee even though it did say an email sent could be considered or would be considered considered a violation if if it had those other properties. If it could be that's the problem. So

So maybe I maybe I just need to brush up. It was my understanding that if if one of these happens and you just disclose and apologize, which you're very much apologetic for, it puts it to bed. But if you're not disclosing it, which it sounds like you're saying, then it goes further and then then ethics weighs in. Is that what you're asking for them to do or are you asking to just put it to bed? I'm unclear. The the way that this the whole thing it's it's all even though you submit this stuff to the clerk and to the state, it's handled internally within this committee.

And so what the request is is that can be required to take initial open meeting law training which is you know whatever that little video is as soon as possible. um and that you know pledge not to violate the openly meeting law in the future which he has pledged to do. So to me we have two options. one do we pursue saying we really don't feel like this was a violation or do you say just to because we don't want to waste we have got other things that we need to do more important things and I don't want to get sidetracked on something that if we can just deal with it and say okay we're done we'll be more careful in the future and just to say yes for the the sake of argument I'll um say I I will admit to the violation and then we submit this to Mr. Haded and then we're done.

And the Can I just in I don't think you're necessarily done. It's up to him to decide whether our explanation or Ken's explanation addresses his concern sufficiently. I don't think that it doesn't say that at all. Yeah. All he did is says he's required to take additional open meaning law. He didn't say I want an explanation. No, we have to address it. It then goes back to him. He can say, "All right, I'm fine with it." And it doesn't he doesn't pursue it any further. Or he can say he wants to pursue it further. In which case, then they will get involved. Yeah, I believe you're right. Yeah.

So, what are your thoughts, Ken? Well, I don't think there was a violation. Can I I was unable to open that document that that um you have any issues or anything? That's okay. I'll find something. Sure. Unless you have something right now. I'm just looking. I don't think I do. Yeah, it's contained. I'll grab a thing for the bathroom after we're done. wanted to see this. Nope.

It's not a lot that spells. Here we go. We have a mom in the audience. No, it's usually a tissue. Usually I threw it in my bag. Come out. Eddie, you don't have to go. [laughter] I agree. I don't think there was a violation. If it if the timing of this is accurate,

my only thought is Mr. had a request was make it public and pretend to retake the open media law training. Is that's accurate? So if members committee feels no violation anyway, but we still just do what Mr. is asking for and Ken just takes the training one more time submits a record of the certificate or whatever to the town clerk and committee for our next posting us to have it on on our file that may be enough to satisfy him and that might be worth doing that be up to Ken to tell us if he's willing to

I wouldn't be willing to admit to something I didn't feel I had done either would I yeah I'm more saying the even without him saying that did take the meeting law training might be I I feel like

personally I feel like we've we've discussed it. It's been disclosed. Ken's apologized. The last step is to just take the open meeting law training which is not very um it's not a heavy lift. So I feel like if if that's the last thing to do, you've already done all of the other things. Um, but if that's really something that and and personally I think anytime you reply all and you share your opinions, that's a violation and we're not supposed to do that. We all know we're not supposed to do that. And it's not about whether or not you identified as a public citizen. You're you're just a private citizen. When when you have the whole committee on here, you're not a private citizen. It's just the way it is.

So, there's one thing you said that's not true. You can reply all as long as you're not discuss you're not del, you know, discussing something that's a deliberation of the No, but but what this could reply all and say hello. It says that sending an email is deliberation. No, but it depends on the content of the email. If it could be addressed at the committee and that's to me my hiccup with this is that it was it's passed. It's it's it's your point. You made that point, right? it was no longer a subject for the committee to discuss. That was your point and I agree with that.

It's even if no other no one from the public body public body member responds there's a definition of deliberation, right? I mean that's and it is I can read it if you like. And just a question, when you say disclose, is that just having this meeting and having meeting minutes? Yeah, we've just I in my opinion, I think it's been disclosed. Like this is disclosing right now. He's clearly apologized. So I don't know. I mean, what I don't know what we're splitting hairs about. You you've apologized. You've disclosed. I don't know. What are you apologizing for then? For attracting the attention. Sorry, what?

For attracting the attention. So, a deliberation. The deliberation is I got a definition and I'll read it to you and I'm going to leave out some words that don't matter. It's an oral well I'll say them all. An oral written communication through any medium including email between or among a quorum of a public body and it was an email among a quorum. And then it goes on to say on any on any public business within its jurisdiction that's it within a public business within its jurisdiction. And that's my point. It was it was not public business within his jurisdiction. So it was not a a it was not a communication on that subject.

Ken, it was it was very much about a subject that's within our jurisdiction. The jurisdiction ended when we voted. But did it still funding that project? We're still talking about that project that was going to get brought up at town meeting. I think you're if you want to go down this path, this is on you. But I think you're you're splitting hairs. I think I can see why somebody would reasonably believe that that's what this was from my perspective. Even though we may have had the committee had made a decision on it, it can always come back. And so it it it's come back now, huh? Well, just a little different, but

it can take up more of our time. Yes. Yeah. And it's just it's one of those things where there's kind of and again I t just tend to be very conservative when it comes to stuff like this. And to me I don't see the big deal of this or anything. However, you know, it's it's like something to me if it can come in front of this committee it can always come back. Okay. All right. So, uh, just to to, [clears throat] uh, put this to bed, I'll agree to, uh, take one of those courses. That's And we all should take it just to support you. I don't I don't see the harm in that. That's fine. Yeah. I mean, I hope you just did it a few months ago on another open meeting. I just I just did it for the summer

put out. So yeah, it seems like this um town is kind of open meeting law um happy with accusing committees. Committee seem to spend more time accusing each other of this than focused on like a weapon. Well, I I I would just say and I don't know all the history and stuff. I would just typically say if you've been burnt by something, all of a sudden that becomes a focus and and people are hyper sensitive to it. And I have no idea the history of open meeting laws. I know the thing that happened was it last year and so forth with attendance at this sluck board and stuff but it's been a couple years ago. Couple years ago. Yeah. Long time ago.

Okay. So, just to uh if if that this ends the matter, I'll I'll agree to take the uh the open the meeting law training thing and uh stand by the statement I made. So yeah, I think I think as Paul said, it's going to be up to Mr. Hadad on does that satisfy what he's looking for. I think it I think it will from what I've read in his complaint and I'm I think we can be No, if it satisfies him, that's what I will do.

Yeah. Okay. So, I'll draft a letter that states that Ken agrees that um to take the training that we are encouraging all members of our committee to take the training as well. We apologize for any if I hurt his feelings. No, [laughter] I would I actually wouldn't even be in the Yeah. Yeah. I wouldn't even say apologize. I would say Yeah. Me neither. I would simply say the uh the committee takes uh the open meeting law very seriously. Therefore, you know, we're encouraging everyone in the committee to uh retake it and and try to avoid any

I don't agree to retake it. I just literally took it a few months. That's fine. That's why I said I can't require Yeah. No, it's just recommended. Right. Okay. That's Well said. It's required in general. It's not required for the rest of us to take it again. Correct. But it's, you know, it's what however we Yeah. Just a very I know I have to look at it again because I have to do something about it. Yeah. Well, I just I just read it a couple of times, so I should be be should do it quickly. An expert on it. Yeah. Any other comments regarding this? Okay. Appreciate everybody. Sorry.

I move that we make the reply happen as you described just to make an official vote on it. Good idea. Yeah. Second. Second. Lots of seconds. I'm not quick enough on those seconds. You'll get there. Have a whole pattern con. It's like I have a motion and a second. A motion by Justin and a second by Sandy. Um, all those in favor? I. All those opposed. Motion carried unanimously. And with that, I will also motion to adjurnn. I have a motion to adjurnn. Motion a second. Your mom missed it. You missed it.

I was I was just It was in my head though. [laughter] All those in favor? I motion carries. Yeah. Just the one. Thank you.