ROYALSTON — The town’s Building Committee was found to have violated Open Meeting Law when it held a meeting with an incorrect time posted, according to the Attorney General’s Office.

In a June 12 letter signed by Assistant Attorney General Kerry Anne Kilcoyne, it was stated that a complaint had been filed with the committee by Gary Winitzer on Jan. 11, in regards to a meeting held on Jan. 9, to which the committee responded on Feb. 6.

A second complaint was then filed with the AG’s office on April 18, requesting further review. The office reviewed both complaints, the committee’s responses and the minutes from the Jan. 9 meeting.

According to the letter from Kilcoyne, the committee usually meets on the first and third Thursday of every month at 10 a.m. On Dec. 6, the committee posted a notice of a meeting for Thursday, Jan. 2, at 10 a.m. This meeting was then canceled on Dec. 19, and another was scheduled for Jan. 9 at 7 p.m.

Topics for the Jan. 9 meeting included approval of meeting minutes, updates on the possible demolition of the Raymond School, a generator for the Community School, a building permit for Raymond School, and discussion on a grant for door openers at Town Hall.

However, the committee met at 10 a.m., not 7 p.m., on Jan. 9, according to Kilcoyne. The committee was apparently aware of the incorrect time that had been posted, but proceeded with the meeting, which lasted an hour.

Ten minutes after the meeting was over, the committee posted a revised notice with the correct meeting time, according to the AG’s office.

Building Committee Chair Jim Barclay said what happened was human error, and that Winitzer often brings up possible OML violations. In this instance, it was mentioned to the committee that the time was incorrect after the meeting had begun. Barclay said it did not occur to the committee to stop the meeting once this information was presented.

“It simply never occurred to me until right now when you asked,” he said on Monday.

Barclay added that the Jan. 2 meeting had been canceled due to it being so close to the holidays. He said the scheduling system has a default time of 7 p.m. and had the original meeting notice been updated, the time of 10 a.m. would have remained the same. But in this instance, a new meeting notice was made, with the default time of 7 p.m.

“We didn’t pay close attention to the time and published it,” Barclay said. “We will be more careful.”

Barclay noted that in the future, meeting dates and times will be verified by two people.

OML requires that notices of each meeting be posted at least 48 hours ahead of time, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, with the correct time, location and list of topics to be discussed.

“We express our concern that, despite having received clear warning during the meeting that the notice included an inaccurate start time, the committee proceeded with holding the meeting,” the letter states. “Even more troubling is the committee’s effort to update the notice of the January 9, 2025, meeting to reflect the start time of the meeting as 10:00 A.M. after the meeting had already concluded. This retroactive amendment is problematic and suggests an effort to conceal the original improper notice. Instead of amending the notice after the fact, the committee should have adjourned and rescheduled the January 9, 2025, meeting for a future date when it became aware that the meeting notice included an incorrect start time.”

The AG’s office has determined that not only does this violate Open Meeting Law, but that it was done so intentionally. Mass General Law defines such a violation as an “act or omission by a public body or a member thereof, in knowing violation of [the Open Meeting Law].”

In 2021, the AG’s office found that the committee violated OML by failing to post a notice with an accurate start time, and advised the committee that similar future violations would be considered evidence of intent to violate the law. Because of this and the fact that the committee proceeded with the Jan. 9 meeting knowing the time posted was incorrect, “we find that this violation is intentional,” the AG’s office wrote.

The matter has been referred for a hearing and the committee has been assigned a fine of $500. Upon the finding from the hearing, a civil penalty of no more than $1,000 may be imposed for each intentional violation.

Max Bowen can be reached at 413-930-4074 or at mbowen@atholdailynews.com.