With additional reporting by Jeff Potter.
Originally published in The Commons issue #182 (Wednesday, December 12, 2012).
BRATTLEBORO—A private discussion that was to take place between two Selectboard members and state legislators representing the town was canceled on Monday after a backlash from press and public.
But according to the Secretary of State’s office, which implements the state’s public records and open meeting laws, the gathering did not need to be warned, despite planning by board members to limit attendance by board members to keep a quorum from being reached.
Under state law, if three of the five board members are present at one time, that constitutes an official meeting of the Selectboard, which must be warned legally and open to the public.
According to Vermont statute, “all meetings of a public body are declared to be open to the public at all times,” except in the case of executive sessions.
The definition of a “public body” includes subdivisions of the state (boards, councils, or commissions, for example) or political subdivisions (like a town).
But Deputy Secretary of State Brian Leven said the interpretation is a simple by-the-numbers matter.
“A meeting is a gathering of a quorum of members,” Leven said. “If there are only two [out of five], technically it’s not a meeting.”
Nor, Leven said, would the presence of multiple legislators compel an open meeting, unless the majority of the state House of Representatives and the state Senate were to come to Brattleboro to meet with DeGray and Gartenstein.
The Commons learned of the information through legislators on the invite list.
According to vague descriptions from the text of that email and from several of the legislators, two Selectboard members were planning to discuss the town’s financial issues with the Windham County state legislative delegation and ask the lawmakers to for additional state funding.
On Dec. 7, the newspaper also learned from Selectboard member Ken Schneck that the chair, Dick DeGray, and vice-chair, David Gartenstein, would attend but that other board members could not.
Schneck, the board member who had originally advocated reaching out to the legislators and who had begun the communications efforts several months ago, said he was told that if more than two board members attended, then the town would have to warn it as a public meeting.
Consequently, he said, he was ordered not to attend the same discussion that he helped to organize.
Newspaper staff believed that even if the designation fell within legal boundaries, the planned gathering illustrated a deliberate attempt to circumvent the law by limiting the board’s attendance, said Editor Jeff Potter [Editorial, page D1].
Editors also believe that an argument could be made that the two Selectboard members would have acted as a subcommittee of the board, even if not by that name, essentially taking information from the private conversation back to the full board for later action.
In two conversations over the weekend, DeGray took a decidedly opposite stance, telling two Commons employees that a reporter need not attend the meeting.
Editor’s note: Our terms of service require you to use your real names. We will remove anonymous or pseudonymous comments that come to our attention. We rely on our readers’ personal integrity to stand behind what they say; please do not write anything to someone that you wouldn’t say to his or her face without your needing to wear a ski mask while saying it. Thanks for doing your part to make your responses forceful, thoughtful, provocative, and civil. We also consider your comments for the letters column in the print newspaper.