Attorney General's office finds the MA Board of Elementary and Secondary Education violated the Open Meeting Law at their January meeting

 In a finding issued yesterday, the Attorney General's office found that the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education violated the Open Meeting Law at their January meeting, when Chair Craven invited a panel of speakers to address them on antisemitism without any public notice. 

My notes from that portion are here; a comment from me is here.

It's worth reading the full finding, but to excerpt: 

As explained by the Board in its response to the complaint, Chair Craven decided to exercise “her discretion to extend the public comment period when she invited five individuals to speak on issues relating to antisemitism in schools.” In exchange, she would cede some of the meeting time devoted to the chair’s report.
On Sunday, January 21, Chair Craven telephoned the five speakers and advised that they would be allowed to speak at the January 23 meeting. Chair Craven telephoned the five speakers as a courtesy due to the long drive some would make to the meeting.

The AG finds: 

Based on our investigation, we find that Chair Craven knew on or before Thursday, January 18 (more than 48 hours prior to the meeting), that the five speakers that expressed an interest in addressing the Board on January 23 would speak about antisemitism and/or antisemitic bullying. Chair Craven acknowledged to our office that she knew that the five Panel members would speak to the subjects of antisemitism or antisemitic bullying, although she did not have advance notice of the particulars

Of the fact that this was public comment, the AG says this: 

A public body may not shield a topic from inclusion on the notice by incorporating it into a public comment period. We emphasize that we have not previously required a public body chair to ascertain the intended subject matter of public comment from various speakers, nor to routinely list on a meeting notice the names of individuals who have indicated a desire to speak during public comment, especially where the chair does not expect the public body to discuss the topic raised. Cf. OML 2015-4 (possibility that topic of renaming winter vacation might be raised during public comment did not require that chair list topic on meeting notice). Therefore, we acknowledge the Board’s confusion or uncertainty as to whether the speakers and subject matter of the Panel needed to be separately included on the meting notice. However, based on the totality of the information and circumstances, we find that the Panel’s speakers did not address the Board merely as participants in public comment independent of the Board’s agenda, but rather as a coordinated group who spoke to a topic that was anticipated and deliberately introduced by the Chair, suggesting an imprimatur not typically accorded public comment participants

(emphasis added)

And thus:

Therefore, the Board violated the Open Meeting Law by failing to include an anticipated topic on the notice for its January 23 meeting.

The finding commends the Board's already received training, but warns: 

we caution that similar future violations may be considered evidence of intent to violate the law.