BELLOWS FALLS — The Vermont Attorney General's office says Rockingham Free Public Library Trustees Chair Jan Mitchell-Love had violated the Open Meeting Law several times this year, but said that there is no proof that she “knowingly and intentionally” did so.
That was the conclusion of Assistant Attorney General Bill Reynolds, who responded on Monday to complaints of violations of the law in a letter to Mitchell-Love.
The investigation stemmed from allegations filed in April, May, and June by Trustees Elayne Clift and Carolyn Frisa, and Adam and Debbie Wetzel.
“The authority of the attorney general's office to intervene in municipal matters is very limited, and it's limited in this context solely to violations of open meeting law,” Reynolds said. “In other words, the open meeting law is designed to provide the public with an opportunity to observe and participate in the meetings of public agencies.”
Reynolds told The Commons that “there were a number of complaints alleged about the RFPL board that did not directly relate to open meeting law, and we do not have the authority to address those as issues.”
Two ways to address violations
Reynolds explained, “There are two potential avenues to address violations of the open meeting law,” available to the public.
Vermont state law provides those options. A finding of a violation is a criminal offense, but there must be evidence that supports “beyond a reasonable doubt that a member of a public body knowingly and intentionally violates the provisions of the subchapter,” Reynolds explained.
“Because it's a criminal offense, the state would have to prove the knowing and intentional violation by the highest standard of proof, which is beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Reynolds did not find that Mitchell-Love had intentionally violated this law under that standard.
If that had been the state's finding, Mitchell-Love could have faced a penalty for violation: a misdemeanor charge and a $500 fine.
Reynolds said that at any time, any person could have filed a lawsuit in Vermont Superior Court to get a declaratory judgment and possible injunctive relief.
In that scenario, “declaratory judgment would be issued by the court, and the court would declare a violation of open meeting law had occurred [...] after review of evidence.”
In that instance, the court could issue an injunction or an order to enjoin, “or it could stop the board and/or the chair from committing further violations of the open meeting law,” Reynolds said.
Court's findings
In response to the complaint by Adam and Deb Wetzel that Mitchell-Love had not allowed Steve Geller to speak at a May 22 meeting because he was not a resident of Rockingham, the assistant attorney general found Mitchell-Love had violated the open meeting law.
Clift alleged that a special meeting held on May 1 improperly passed a motion to close the library, when the chair had instructed that minutes only record votes taken. Clift also alleged that Mitchell-Love had “instructed the personnel board to limit attendance to a maximum of four trustees so as to remain below the board's quorum of five.”
The attorney general cited evidence supporting these allegations, and found Mitchell-Love in violation of Vermont's open meeting law. No minutes were posted on the RFPL website for the personnel committee meetings.
Reynolds also found that when “a quorum of the members of one of these committees gathers to discuss its business or take action, the meeting must be warned, [the] minutes [must be] taken, the public must have an opportunity to express its opinions, and the standards for entering into executive session must be met.”
Reynolds cautioned that limiting committees to fewer than the five trustees did not avoid a violation of the open meeting law. He also cautioned Mitchell-Love that “the need to warn personnel committee meetings was not obviated by the fact that personnel matters may have been discussed.”
“Thus, any RFPL committee meetings, including personnel committee meetings, that were not publicly warned were held in violation of the open meeting law,” Reynolds concluded.
In response to a complaint by Frisa that the RFPL Trustee Chair had violated open meeting law on May 6 by notifying members of the board three hours before a meeting, without giving the required notice of 24 hours, warning the meeting “on or near the clerk's office, and two other public places” and by not notifying the trustees orally or in writing 24 hours in advance, the AAG found the Trustee Chair had violated open meeting law.
In a complaint also filed by Frisa, the AAG found another violation of open meeting law when the chair allowed some, but not all, of the public who wished speak in the public comment period of the May 13 meeting.
Reynolds concluded by encouraging the chair to “seek additional training and advice on the requirements of Vermont's Open Meeting Law,” to take advantage of resources available on the website's of the Vermont Secretary of State's Office, and to “commit to improving compliance,” with the open meeting law.