GREENFIELD — The School Committee’s Feb. 19 vote to hire a mediator to resolve inner-committee conflict in executive session is likely illegal, per an opinion from Assistant Attorney General for the Division of Open Government Matthew Lindberg.
Local attorney Isaac Mass, after hearing about the School Committee’s plan to hire a mediator for use in executive session, questioned the decision’s legality under Open Meeting Law and, in turn, wrote to Lindberg.
“Open Meeting Law has 10 very specific reasons why you can go and do executive session — one of the 10 is related to mediation, but that is for mediation with other parties or entities. It’s a direct correlation to the litigation provision where you can go into executive session to discover litigation,” Mass said. “It is not designed for mediation related to internal conflict or governance of a public body; it’s not permitted within the statute.”
Lindberg, in a written response to Mass’ inquiry, wrote that “[Executive Session] Purpose 9 does not allow a public body to meet with a mediator in executive session to discuss internal business.”
“Moreover, be aware that discussions among a quorum regarding procedural or administrative matters, such as organization and leadership of the public body or how a public body conducts its business, relate to public business within a body’s jurisdiction and therefore must be done in a properly noticed meeting,” Lindberg continued.
School Committee members voted on Feb. 19 — with abstentions from Mayor Ginny Desorgher, who serves on the committee, and School Committee member Melissa McKenzie Webb — in favor of hiring a mediator at an estimated rate of $150 per hour for in-session mediation and $100 per hour for out-of-session work.
Committee members previously explained that the mediator’s presence in executive session was expected to help the body work together more efficiently. Chair Stacey Sexton, who motioned to authorize the hiring of a mediator, said the idea “to increase productive collaboration and collegiality among members” was suggested both by themself and other committee members, opting not to publicly discuss what prompted this suggestion.
Lindberg, in his response to Mass’ inquiry into the legality of the School Committee’s plan, cited a previous AG’s office decision that the Cannabis Control Commission’s use of executive session in 2023 to discuss an internal dispute was “improper” under Open Meeting Law.
Although one party present during the CCC’s executive session was acting as a “facilitator,” the AG’s office declared that the discussions did not involve mediation of a “dispute between two parties,” nor “mediation of a lawsuit,” as is required by Open Meeting Law to allow the exemption for executive session.
Mass, reflecting on Lindberg’s response, noted that he believes the School Committee meant well by its decision, but he suggested that it pursue a legal opinion before taking similar votes in the future.
“If they [bring the mediator] in an open session, it becomes legal. It perhaps becomes less effective; as Chair Sexton indicated, mediation is intended to be a confidential process, but it’s just not permitted in this way in government,” Mass said. “The way government is supposed to work, the way you deal with interpersonal conflicts in a representative elected body, is through issues that come before that body. You discuss those issues, you vote on those issues and if you win, great. If you lose, you try to elect people who agree with you at the next election. If there is someone whose behavior is beyond the pale of reasonableness, the body can vote to censure that person … but the public has a right to know.”
Sexton, in a phone interview on Monday, explained that the School Committee will discuss next steps on the mediator issue at its Wednesday, March 11, meeting. They said that while the CCC decision seems to be “slightly different” than the committee’s planned use of a mediator, it will ultimately be up to them to find a solution.