SAXTONS RIVER — I think that the good people of Rockingham deserve to know the facts about the assertions made by Jan-Mitchell Love, chair of the Rockingham Free Public Library Board of Trustees.
Mitchell-Love asserts that a current trustee (I assume she is referring to Ray Massucco) violated open-meeting law by “sending out a newsy email to all the trustees.” She also asserts that Elayne Clift stated in an email to trustees that “she knew she was breaking open-meeting law.” In fact, she said that “she knew she was breaking the rule” - the board's agreement not to send long attachments by email.
Any such emails were not in violation of Vermont open-meeting law. Nowhere in this law is there any reference to the distribution of any kind of document or material to public boards. The whole law is completely silent on the matter. This allegation is typical of the “make up the law as you go along” attitude of some of the trustees.
Interestingly enough, the Vermont Legislature has currently under consideration a bill to amplify existing open-meeting law and specifically clarify that materials circulated in advance to other members of a public agency, including trustees, for consideration at a subsequent meeting of the agency is not a violation.
Mitchell-Love admits that under her chairmanship the trustees did have an “illegal vote in May to close the Library.” She asserts, “We were following our [board's] bylaws, which turned out to be illegal when compared to Vermont law.” False. Vermont law simply states: ”When joint authority is given to three or more, the concurrence of a majority of such number shall be sufficient and shall be required in its exercise.” The trustees' bylaws are virtually identical: “For any motion to pass it must be seconded and receive a simple majority.”
The chair chose to interpret this article to mean “simple majority” of those present instead of ”simple majority” of all trustees, present and absent. There was no conflict with Vermont law. But since only six out of the nine trustees were present at the May 1, 2013 meeting, it was very convenient for the chair to interpret the law in order to get the outcome she desired. Some might be willing to give the chairperson the benefit of the doubt on this. Given her serial violations of open-meeting law, I am not.
* * *
Mitchell-Love then correctly says that at a later meeting the board retook the vote, which passed with a quorum of all trustees present.
However, she neglects to mention that at the board meeting on May 6, which some 35 members of the public attended, many members of the public spoke strongly against the board's decision to close the library building. Three trustees wanted to reopen the issue but were ruled out of order by Mitchell-Love.
Mitchell-Love goes on to say that the attorney general (more accurately, the assistant attorney general [AAG], William Reynolds) “complimented me for taking care of the matter so quickly.” The AAG's four-page letter of Dec. 16, 2013 to Mitchell-Love listing her serial violations of open-meeting law includes nothing even remotely resembling a compliment to her on her handling of this matter.
Mitchell-Love tries to justify the fact that, in violation of open-meeting law, she denied the right of Steve Geller, a non-resident of Rockingham, to speak at a trustees' meeting.
However, she carefully omits the fact that the AAG states in his letter to her, “You indicated in your letter that Mr. Geller has exhibited disruptive behavior at previous meetings; however, there has been no evidence presented to suggest that the decision to silence Mr. Geller was based upon a need to maintain order. Thus it was a violation of open-meeting law to deny Mr. Geller the right to speak.”
Mitchell-Love then asserts that it was an “inadvertent error” that she omitted to include the words “executive session” when she told the former library director that personnel committee meetings were not public meetings.
But here follow the actual words in an exchange of emails dated Feb. 4, 2013 between Mitchell-Love and former Library Director Célina Houlné:
-Houlné: “My understanding has always been that as part of the basic board operating procedures, board meetings, which include special and committee meetings […] are publicly warned....”
-Mitchell-Love: “Personnel Committee meetings are not public meetings.... ever...so they should not be posted...nor are other committee meetings public meetings unless Committee member want them to be.” And again, “To repeat, personnel committee meetings do not have a choice. They can never be public meetings.” (Mitchell-Love's emphasis!)
Ms. Mitchell-Love's response to the former library director is breathtaking in its ignorance and arrogance. This is the chairperson of the board of trustees talking to a professional library director with years of experience.
Given the chair's repeated and categorical statements to the library director, there can be no shred of credibility in the chair's claim that it was an “inadvertent error” on her part to omit the words “executive session.”
* * *
Mitchell-Love states: ”[Open-meeting law] does, however, say that minutes should not include a blow-by-blow accounting of the meeting's discussions and that every public official is responsible for taking his or her own notes to augment what the minutes have to say.”
Again, this is a completely false assertion. Vermont open-meeting law says nothing even remotely similar to this assertion. This is yet another example of the chairperson making up the law as she goes along.
The statute sets out the “minimal” requirements as to the information that must be contained in the minutes of a public meeting:
“Minutes shall be taken of all meetings of public bodies. The minutes shall cover all topics and motions that arise at the meeting and give a true indication of the business of the meeting. Minutes shall include at least the following minimal information:
“(A) All members of the public body present;
“(B) All other active participants in the meeting;
“(C) All motions, proposals and resolutions made, offered and considered, and what disposition is made of same; and
“(D) The results of any votes, with a record of the individual vote of each member if a roll call is taken.”
It also states that the minutes shall “give a true indication of the business of the meeting.”
Secretary of State Jim Condos visited Rockingham and gave a very informative public talk on the open-meeting law and the public-records law on Nov. 20, 2013, where he indicated that just complying with the minimum requirements of the law is really not good enough.
Mitchell-Love asserts that it is difficult to comply with open-meeting law. I do not accept that the law, which comprises only five pages, is difficult to understand or comply with. Unlike much law, it is not written in “legalese” but in plain English that anyone can comprehend.
If the chair was having any difficulty understanding or complying with the law, she should have left to the (regrettably now-former) library director the responsibility of warning meetings (which the chair took away from her) and have heeded her sound advice. Had she done so, we would not have had these continuing violations.
In the final paragraph of her apologia without an apology, Mitchell-Love says she “appreciates the fact that [Assistant Attorney General Reynolds] saw and stated that neither I nor my board have ever intentionally violated open-meeting law.”
This is, of course, only a half truth. The actual letter reads: “There does not appear to be sufficient evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that you or the RFPL Board of Trustees intentionally sought to violate the open meeting law.”
This is hardly a comment that the chair should be self-congratulatory about.
Unfortunately, I regret to say that these violations of open- meeting law have continued. And there can be no doubt that Mitchell-Love's most recent violation was intentional.
The board, at the chair's initiative and over the objections of several trustees, set up a search committee for hiring the new library director, comprised of eight members but including only three trustees, to identify and interview candidates.
The chair decided that these search committee meetings should be held without public announcement and initially denied the right of attendance by both the public and other trustees.
It was only after complaints to and advice from the deputy secretary of state and the state librarian's office that Mitchell-Love “changed her mind” and made the subsequent meetings open to the public.
* * *
In normal circumstances, most members of the public would probably not get unduly concerned about a few violations of open-meeting and public-records law (e.g. not getting minutes done on time). It all depends on whether the public trusts that the trustees are really working in the public interest and honestly trying to conduct themselves in a responsible, transparent, and trustworthy manner.
I think it can safely be said that a large segment of the good people of Rockingham feel that a slim majority (five of nine) trustees have fallen far short of their responsibilities in this respect.
Voters have an important opportunity to show how they feel about the conduct of at least some of these trustees when they go to the polls on Tuesday, March 4 to vote for four new trustees they can trust.