Great Barrington — At its meeting on Monday, June 27, the selectboard rebutted a pair of open meeting law complaints by approving an official response from Town Administrator Mark Pruhenski.
Pruhenski read the response to the board, which subsequently approved it by a vote of 3-1, with board member Edward Abrahams voting against it, and member Eric Gabriel recusing himself from the vote.
In early June, a short-term rental bylaw was passed by residents at the annual town meeting by a vote of 207-111. The bylaw has been endorsed 3-1 by the selectboard and, when the bylaw goes into effect on January 1, it will allow short-term rentals (STRs) in primary or secondary units.
See Edge video below of last night’s Great Barrington selectboard meeting. The discussion on the open meeting law complaints begins at 1:53:55:
The open meeting law complaints were filed with the state attorney general’s office on June 17 by residents Daniel Seitz and Antonio Segalla who previously fought the passage of the bylaw.
The complaints, which are both similar, were endorsed by eight residents.
Both Seitz and Segalla allege that throughout meetings on March 7 and May 23, the selectboard requested two members to revise the draft bylaw proposal on short-term rentals and return the draft for a revision at a later meeting.
Seitz and Segalla allege that, during the two meetings, board members violated the state’s open meeting law by convening to discuss the STR draft bylaw without properly noticing the meeting to the public. The complaints specifically name board chair Stephen Bannon and vice-chair Leigh Davis as the alleged violators.
In their complaint, Seitz and Segalla wrote that to remedy the alleged violation, they want the board to nullify the vote at the town meeting to adopt the bylaw.
At the June 27 meeting, in the letter he read to the board, Pruhenski denied that any open meeting violations took place.
“I have reviewed portions of the video recordings of the board’s meetings of March 7 and May 23, which are referenced in the complaints,” Pruhenski said. “I have also consulted with town counsel. The open meeting law applies to public bodies, including multiple member boards, commissions, committees, or subcommittees.
“[State general law], states that a subcommittee shall include any multiple-member body created to advise or make recommendations to a public body. In considering issues related to the creation of a subcommittee, the Attorney General’s Office has stated that the law defines a subcommittee as a multiple-member body created to advise or make recommendations to a public body.”
Pruhenski said that the state Attorney General’s Office, which handles open meeting law complaints, established a “three-part test” to determine whether or not a group of individuals is a public body that is subject to any open meeting laws.
“Whether the entity is within the government and not excluded from the definition of a public body,” he said. “Whether the entity is ‘empowered’ or is ‘empowered to act collectively’. And whether the entity serves a public purpose. In this instance, after a fairly lengthy discussion on March 7, it was Assistant Town Manager Chris Rembold, who suggested that he could work with two members of the board to make revisions to the draft short-term rental bylaw, in an attempt to come up with a document that could be endorsed by at least three members of the board. Selectman Davis volunteered to work with Chris, and Chairman Bannon stated that he could be available for this task. There was no vote of the board. There was no statement regarding the creation of a subcommittee, and there was [no] delegation or granting of any authority to [Bannon and Davis]. The chairman simply stated ‘Let’s move ahead. Leigh and I will work with Chris on this and let’s move ahead on this.’”
Pruhenski emphasized that there was no vote during the board’s meeting on March 7 to appoint Bannon and Davis to the panel.
“They essentially volunteered to assist in the drafting process for the short-term rental bylaw, which was being led by the assistant town manager,” he said. “Based on these facts, I would recommend that the board vote to find that it did not make [Bannon and Davis] a subcommittee at the meeting of March 7, and there was no violation of the open meeting law. Therefore, no remedial action is required.”
A motion to accept Pruhenski’s letter and have it sent to town counsel for review was made by Davis. The motion was
seconded by Abrahams, who argued against the board approving the letter and had strongly opposed the aforementioned short-term rental bylaw that passed at town meeting.
“Four of us discussed this and said it was a good idea, and three people volunteered to do it,” Abrahams said. “[Board member Garfield Reed] volunteered, but [Bannon] said that would be too many. So I think it is a little disingenuous to say, you know, it was entirely out of the blue. We definitely did not vote, and I think we should say that. But four members of the [board] who were involved in the discussion all agreed that two members should meet and report back. Chris did say, when he reported back, that the selectboard had charged him with meeting with the two members. So clearly in his mind, it was a decision. If there was no formal vote, I think we should stipulate the facts and not tell half-truths.”
“I don’t think there are any half-truths [in the letter], and I really don’t like that comment,” Bannon told Abrahams.
As the conversation went on, Davis asked Abrahams, “Did you know about this complaint or did you have any hand in this complaint?”
At first, Abrahams would not directly answer Davis’ question. “We’re not in court, and you don’t get to say how I can answer,” Abrahams said. “I was repeatedly attacked, personally, about my motives when this was being discussed. Let’s not argue about motives.”
He went on to say “the motivation of the people who brought this forward is not relevant. How it was done is not relevant. Who was involved is not relevant. So no, I didn’t put this forward. I wasn’t part of this, but that’s not relevant.”
When Davis asked Abrahams again if he had seen the complaint before the board received it, Abrahams said “I saw it when [Bannon] sent it to me.”
Before the board voted to approve Pruhenski’s letter, Davis proceeded to read the names of Seitz and Segalla into the record, along with the names of the residents who endorsed the complaint: Tracy Thornton; Michael Fernbacher; Ron Blumenthal; Naomi Blumenthal; Krista Martins; Claudia Lasley; Sarah Dixon; and Larissa Yaple, a former member of the town’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund Board.
“I hope that we can recognize the votes of the citizens at the town meeting and that we can move on,” Davis said. “I’m hoping that this will be the last of the attempted roadblocks that certain members of the Great Barrington citizens have brought before us. I think it’s time to recognize that there has been a vote and that we need to move forward.”
