The Marblehead Select Board voted unanimously Wednesday night to authorize town counsel to respond to an Open Meeting Law complaint filed by resident John DiPiano over a private gathering of town and school officials to review financial information related to the town’s $15 million override.
The complaint, filed Oct. 26, concerns an Oct. 19 meeting attended by Town Administrator Thatcher Kezer, Select Board Chair Dan Fox, School Committee Chair Kate Schmeckpeper, Assistant Superintendent Mike Pfifferling and Finance Committee Chair Molly Teets.
During that meeting, Kezer presented financial data related to override spending. Fox subsequently compiled the information into a 17-page report that he presented publicly at the Select Board’s Oct. 28 meeting.
DiPiano’s complaint raises questions about whether the earlier gathering constituted a public body meeting subject to the state’s Open Meeting Law, which generally requires meetings of public bodies to be publicly posted and accessible.
Wednesday’s discussion revealed differing views among Select Board members about how the gathering should be classified — and whether similar meetings should be open to the public in the future.
Member Jim Zisson said he had expected the financial review to be a public meeting and questioned whether the gathering qualified as a working group.
Fox defended the meeting, saying it was intended to organize financial information into a presentation the public could understand.
“It is not a subcommittee. There is no quorum there,” Fox said, noting that he was the only Select Board member in attendance.
He said the information discussed was already publicly available through the town’s Open Finance system and that nothing was withheld from the public presentation.
“It was a discussion on how to put together a presentation,” Fox said.
Fox compared the gathering to preparations for Town Meeting presentations and his regular meetings with Kezer.
The town’s memorandum of understanding, developed in connection with the three-year, $15 million override approved by voters in May, calls for periodic financial reviews and reporting by town and school officials.
Fox said the gathering fulfilled those requirements.
“They (Kezer and Pfifferling) verbally gave us a report,” he said. “And then we compiled that and worked on something that was presentable to give tonight to the public.”
Pfifferling attended in place of Superintendent John Robidoux, who was out of town, according to the discussion.
The discussion also touched on whether the town should establish a clearer process for future financial review meetings.
“This is a definition question,” Kezer said. “Let’s have legal counsel give us what the definition is.”
Board members acknowledged that seeking a formal legal response would cost the town money.
The board ultimately voted unanimously to authorize town counsel to evaluate the complaint and prepare a formal response to DiPiano and the appropriate state authorities.
The vote does not constitute a finding that the Open Meeting Law was violated.
The controversy comes as town officials begin implementing the financial oversight provisions of the override agreement, which was intended to strengthen accountability and transparency around how the additional taxpayer money is spent.
The question now is whether the process used to prepare that public financial report complied with the state’s requirements for open government.
