Boelter v. Board of Selectmen of Wayland, 93 N.E.3d 1163

Background

In 2012 Wayland's five-member board of selectmen agreed publicly to collect individual written evaluations of the town administrator, have the chair compile a composite evaluation, and discuss the evaluations at a scheduled open meeting.
Three members submitted written evaluations to the chair (two by email, one hand-delivered); the chair compiled a composite that included those opinions and his own, then emailed the composite plus the individual evaluations to all board members before the open meeting.
At the open meeting the board discussed and approved the composite; the documents were later released to the public.
A registered voter filed an administrative complaint with the Attorney General, who found no Open Meeting Law violation; the voter did not appeal that administrative determination.
Five registered voters then sued the board in Superior Court alleging the pre-meeting circulation of individual and composite evaluations (containing members’ opinions) among a quorum violated the Open Meeting Law (G. L. c. 30A, §§ 18, 20(a)).
The Superior Court granted plaintiffs summary judgment, permanently enjoined the board from privately exchanging opinions before open meetings, and (improperly) declared the Attorney General’s prior determination "stricken." The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed liability but vacated the striking of the Attorney General’s decision and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the case is moot	Boelter: Matter capable of repetition yet evading review; substantial public importance	Board: Evaluation completed and documents released, so claim moot	Not moot — capable of repetition, evading review, and of public importance; merits reached
Whether circulating written evaluations containing members' opinions to a quorum before an open meeting constitutes a "deliberation" under G. L. c. 30A § 18	Plaintiffs: Attachments containing appraisals are opinions; circulation to a quorum before the meeting is a deliberation requiring public access	Board: Exemption allows distribution of reports/documents if opinions aren’t expressed in the cover email; chair’s administrative compilation is permissible	Held for plaintiffs: the distributed individual and composite evaluations expressed members’ opinions and thus were deliberations in violation of the Open Meeting Law
Proper scope of the § 18 exemption for pre-meeting distribution of reports/documents	Plaintiffs: Exemption limited to procedural materials or documents that do not express member opinions; cannot be used to transmit opinions to a quorum	Board/AG: Exemption permits necessary administrative distribution and the chair’s compilation was an administrative task exempt from deliberation	Court: Exemption intended to promote efficiency but not at expense of transparency; documents that express member opinions are not exempt
Whether the Superior Court could "strike" the Attorney General's administrative determination	Plaintiffs: (did not dispute striking was improper)	Board: Judge lacked authority to overturn the Attorney General’s administrative determination in this action	Held: Judge erred; he had no authority to strike the Attorney General’s determination; that portion vacated

Key Cases Cited

Seney v. Morhy, 467 Mass. 58 (discussing "capable of repetition, yet evading review" and public-interest exceptions to mootness)
School Committee of Wayland v. District Attorney for the Northern District, 455 Mass. 561 (holding private email deliberations about a public official’s competence violated the Open Meeting Law)
Revere v. Massachusetts Gaming Commission, 476 Mass. 591 (confirming transparency is the Open Meeting Law’s overarching purpose)
Deerskin Trading Post, Inc. v. Spencer Press, Inc., 398 Mass. 118 (rules of grammar/last antecedent principle in statutory construction)
ENGIE Gas & LNG LLC v. Department of Public Utilities, 475 Mass. 191 (statutory interpretation must consider text, structure, and purpose)