The Attorney General’s Office has found the Town of Marion in violation of the Open Meeting Law.

In a letter dated December 19 and forwarded to The Wanderer by the complainant, the AG’s Office stated that the Marion Board of Selectmen was found to be in violation of one of the two Open Meeting Law complaints filed by Ronald Beaty of Falmouth.

His first complaint was on October 17, pertaining to the use of acronyms in the Board of Selectmen’s October 3 meeting agenda. He alleged that they used acronyms that are not widely understood by the public. Two of the acronyms cited in the letter are CMWRRDD, which stands for Carver Marion Wareham Regional Refuse Disposal District, and MRC, which stands for Marine Resources Commission.

In his second complaint, Beaty alleged that the selectmen failed to meet to authorize a response to Beaty’s complaint before Town Administrator Paul Dawson drafted and sent a response on behalf of the selectmen.

Upon receiving the complaints on October 30 and November 21 respectively, the Attorney General’s Office reviewed the allegations, the board’s response, and the meeting minutes of the two meetings, and found the Town did not violate any Open Meeting Law when it came of the use of acronyms; however, it did find the board in violation of Beaty’s second complaint.

With regards to the acronyms, the letter signed by Assistant Attorney General Hannah Rush states, “The complainant alleges that the Board’s October 3 meeting notice lacked sufficient specificity because it contained three acronyms. However, the Board did not discuss those three topics during the meeting; instead, it decided to ‘table’ the discussion until the next meeting at which the chair would be present. When a public body does not actually deliberate on a noticed topic, the public body cannot violate the Open Meeting Law with respect to that topic.”

Rush continues in the letter, “We note, however, that our office discourages the use of acronyms that are not widely understood by … the public.”

As for the second complaint, the AG’s Office pointed out that the town administrator would have received the notice of Beaty’s complaint on October 17, the day the Board of Selectmen’s were scheduled to hold a meeting. The complaint, however, was not mentioned the night of the October 17, even though the next meeting wasn’t for another three weeks.

Rush’s letter states, “The Board contends that the complaint was received just hours before its meeting, so it postposed discussion until its regularly-scheduled meeting on November 7. Cognizant of the law’s requirement to respond to the complaint within 14 business days, the town administrator sent a response to our office … by the deadline…”

According to the law, when a complaint is filed, the chairman “shall disseminate copies of the complaint to members of the public body … to review the complaint’s allegations.”

By not meeting prior to responding to the complaint, the board was in violation of the Open Meeting Law.

During the November 7 meeting, Dawson told the selectmen that he and town counsel drafted a response to Beaty’s first complaint without official board approval, which resulted in a second complaint surrounding said response.

“I was pretty pleased about it,” Dawson said about his response to the first complaint of which he said “that I tried to deal with it in a timely fashion.”

“I thought that was a good response. I thought it made a lot of sense,” he said. “Well, let that be a lesson on how no good deed goes unpunished.”

The board that night authorized Dawson to respond to the second violation.

In conclusion, Rush wrote, “[We] find that the Board violated the Open Meeting Law by failing to meet prior to sending its response to an Open Meeting Law complaint. We order the Board’s immediate and future compliance with the law’s requirements, and we caution that similar future violations could be considered evidence of intent to violate the law.”

By Jean Perry

As hot as it was last July 20 when Verizon’s construction manager, John Dement, and architect, Dan Ollila of Jones Architecture, came seeking a Special Permit for equipment upgrades to property located at 32 Mechanic Street, on December 21 it was equally as cool. As winter’s grip began to take hold on the area, members of the Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals would again hear Verizon’s plans and whether or not abutters’ concerns had been taken into consideration.

Abutters during the July hearing had bitterly complained to the ZBA that Verizon was not a good neighbor and had for decades not only neglected the property’s landscape needs, but had also neglected the needs of the residents living in close proximity.

Neighbors said that exterior lighting shone into bedroom windows and that Verizon didn’t have a valid contact number when problems occurred at the site. Furthermore, air conditioning units assaulted the nighttime ambient atmosphere making restful sleep impossible.

The July plan to upgrade air conditioning units as outlined by Ollila failed to assuage the residents concerns that “obnoxious” nuisances created by motors would be abated by new equipment planned for the structure.

At that July hearing, long-time board member Paul Millott, who for many years had heard all manners of appeal requests, said, “We seem to be at an impasse.” He said one option for the applicant would be to withdraw the application without prejudice, go back to the drawing board, and return with options.

Dement, though clearly not pleased by the tone of the board, followed Millott’s suggestion.

As Ollila explained the plan modifications now being offered by Verizon – modifications that included the installation of buffering panels for noise mitigation, landscape maintenance, contact information for emergency situations, and exterior lighting changes – abutters were ready to remove the coal from Dement’s stocking.

When asked by the abutters if promises made now would be in writing, he responded quietly, “Yes.”

The Special Permit was granted with the stipulation that all concerns as noted would be addressed.

Also receiving a Special Permit was Dos Amigos, LLC for property located at 53 and 59 Dupont Drive for the construction of a single-family home on two adjoining lots. Represented by John Churchill, Jr. of J.C. Engineering, the developer plans to join the two lots and build the single structure; however, a Special Permit was still needed since the total square footage of the two lots combined did not meet current zoning bylaws.

The board unanimously approved the plan as proposed, noting that it fit in with the neighborhood with an approximate 10% lot coverage.

A third hearing for an ownership name change for 51 County Road, the 7-Eleven, was continued when the applicant failed to have a representative in attendance.

After closing the meeting, Chairman Sue Akin read a letter the board had received in October from Paul Millott who was regretfully resigning from the ZBA. She said that shortly after receiving the letter, Millott passed away unexpectedly. All in attendance paused for a moment of silence in remembrance of Millott and his many years of dedicated service to the community.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals is tentatively scheduled for January 18 at 6:00 pm in the town hall conference room.

Mattapoisett Zoning Board of Appeals

By Marilou Newell