Marblehead’s town counsel is pushing back against a resident’s Open Meeting Law complaint, arguing that a private gathering of town and school leaders to review municipal finances did not violate state law because the group was never established as a formal public committee.
In a Nov. 9 response to resident John DiPiano, attorney Alexander M. Castro argued that the town’s memorandum of understanding, signed before voters approved a three-year, $15 million operating override in May, requires officials to share financial information but does not create a public body subject to the state’s open meeting requirements.
DiPiano filed his complaint Oct. 20, alleging that an Oct. 19 financial review involving town and school leaders should have been publicly posted and open to residents.
At issue is a provision of the agreement requiring the town administrator and school superintendent to report at least quarterly to the chairs of the Select Board, School Committee and Finance Committee on the town’s financial condition.
Castro argues that the provision does not establish a committee with decision-making authority, voting powers or the ability to make formal recommendations.
The attorney also maintains that government officials do not automatically constitute a public body simply because they gather to exchange information.
The response does not dispute that the financial review took place. Instead, it challenges DiPiano’s interpretation of the group’s legal status.
The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Division of Open Government, which enforces the Open Meeting Law, has been copied on the response. The letter represents the town’s position, not a ruling by the state.
The Current has reached out to DiPiano for comment.
