Town admits the Charter Revision Advisory Committee violated the Open Meetings Act

But claims the violation was “unintentional”

By Will Collette

For the second time this week, Charlestown town government had an “oops” event over its compliance with the state Open Meetings Act.

The first time was Thursday. That’s when the judge in Donoghue v. Charlestown ruled that the Town Council did indeed violate the Open Meetings Act when they failed to properly inform the public that they intended to vote on February 13 to pay to the Charlestown Land Trust in the Y-Gate Scandal.

The second time was Friday when Town Solicitor Peter Ruggiero admitted the Charter Revision Advisory Committee (CRAC) violated the law by failing to file the meeting minutes of its final and decisive meeting on April 30.

On Sunday, June 10, I filed a complaint with the Attorney General’s Office charging Charlestown’s Charter Revision Advisory Committee had long passed the deadline for filing those minutes. I noted the Council was scheduled to hold a public hearing and vote on the CRAC’s final recommendations on June 11 even though the public had not been given a chance to see those minutes of their final deliberations. That, I charged, violated the state Open Meetings Act.

State law allows a generous 35 days to file minutes. By my count, there were 43 days between April 30 and June 11 – Peter calls it 42, but by any measure, the minutes were late. But more importantly, the Town Council was going to hold a public hearing and a vote on the evening of June 11 – without that record – and that made the violation more than just a quibble over counting the days. 

I felt then as I do now that the public had the right to know that the CRAC members ended their deliberations bitterly divided and at war with each other. 

Ms. Areglado produces the missing minutes on the
day the public hearing was scheduled

I sent a copy of my e-mailed complaint to Town Clerk Amy Rose Weinreich and Acting Town Administrator Pat Anderson. Magically, on June 11, just hours before the Town Council meeting was to take place, a draft of the missing minutes appeared from CRAC Secretary Maureen Areglado. More details here. 

Ms. Areglado’s husband Ron has frequently stood before the Town Council to demand open and transparent government – by others – and has filed his Declaration of Candidacy for the Town Council. Click here for a sample of Mr. Areglado’s oratory on openness and transparency.

Fortunately for the Town, the over-loaded June 11 Town Council schedule caused the hearing on the CRAC charter changes to be bumped until June 25. If the Council had conducted the public hearing and vote on CRAC’s recommendations on June 11, their decision would probably have been invalidated due to the Open Meetings Act violation.

In a filing with the Attorney General on Friday, June 29 [click here to read], Town Solicitor Peter Ruggiero confirms the late filing, but offers the excuse that CRAC Secretary Maureen Areglado “was unavailable after the last meeting due to prior international travel obligations and contracting an unexpected illness upon her return to the country.”

Solicitor Ruggiero does not explain how Ms. Areglado was able to instantly rally around to produce the missing minutes as soon as Town Clerk Amy Weinreich told her about my complaint.

Look, I understand about scheduled vacations and unexpected illness. But Ms. Areglado knew exactly when she was going on vacation but chose not to carry out her duty before she left. And she wasn’t so sick that she couldn’t whip those missing minutes out once she was called out on her negligence. Or find them in her “To Do” pile.

Further, she and her husband are well-versed in the requirements of the Open Meeting Act. They battled with Charlestown for months over a complaint they, along with Mike and Donna Chambers, filed against Council members Marge Frank and Gregg Avedisian, and former Councilor Forrester Safford. Click here for more details. 

Though the Areglados and the Chambers lost on their complaint, [click here for details] it’s fair to say that in the process, they learned a bit about how the Open Meeting Act works. By the way, in dismissing the Areglado's Open Meeting complaint, the Attorney General Office ruled it came down to "a question of credibility" and ruled that the complainants, Ron and Maureen Areglado and Mike and Donna Chambers, were less credible than the Council members they charged with the violation. Read the details. I didn't make this up.

Maureen Areglado attacking Bill DiLibero for lack of
openness and transparency at April 9 Council meeting

I don’t know what was in Maureen Areglado’s mind when she chose to put off preparing those minutes until after her extended European trip. 

I do know that the CRAC’s last meeting was filled with controversy as the feud between Donna Chambers and her fellow CRACer Robert Yarnall boiled over. Click here for more details. 

Maybe Ms. Areglado just wasn’t in the mood to try to recount the details of that very nasty fight.

Nobody's perfect and we all make mistakes. I have certainly made more than my share. But if you're going to raise an issue in criticism of someone else, expect that it might come right back at you. I can testify from personal experience that this is how the Golden Rule works.

Maureen Areglado stood at the Town Council podium on April 9 and castigated former Town Administrator Bill DiLibero, charging him with breaching that obligation. [Click here for the recording of her remarks]. 

Now, the Charlestown Town Solicitor admits that Ms. Areglado herself stands in violation of the same principle she cited in her attack on DiLibero.

If the Areglados wish to be seen as champions of openness and transparency in government, they would be a lot more credible if they practice what they preach.