In Board of Selectmen of the Town of Hull et al. v. Maura Healey, Attorney General, 2017 WL 6601467 (2017) Plymouth Superior Court Judge Michael D. Ricciuti held that the Town did not violate the Open Meeting Law (“OML”) by not revealing the identity of the unions it was engaged in collective bargaining disputes with and the name of a litigant. The decision is the result of the Town’s appeal of a decision by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s (“AG”) office that Hull violated the OML by failing to provide “specific information” regarding the detrimental effect that necessitated the Town’s withholding information.

The OML, M.G.L. c. 30A, ss. 18-25, allows public bodies to meet in executive session “to discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining or litigation if an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining or litigating position of the public body,” provided that “before entering executive session, the chair shall state the purpose for the executive session, stating all subjects that may be revealed without compromising the purpose for which the executive session was called.”

The Court disagreed with the AG’s determination, finding it imposed an “additional requirement” not found in the OML. The Court agreed with the Town that it had sufficiently explained its concerns for withholding the names of the union and litigant in the executive session notice. The Court remanded the matter back to the AG for further review consistent with its decision. Check with your NMP attorney to discuss any questions about drafting notices for executive session.