Facts:
The plaintiff, Mary Ellen Johnson, was once the
superintendent of all of the public schools in Sandwich. During a meeting that
the defendants held, the issue of the continuance of the plaintiff’s contract
was considered. The matter was pushed a couple of days due to a time crunch in
the meeting, the later discussion lead to the extension of the plaintiff’s
contract. This continuance of the matter to a different meeting was orally
announced at the first meeting as well as physically posted on a bulletin
board. About two weeks later, after a new school committee was constructed, it
was argued in a letter by an assistant district attorney that the meeting where
the superintendent’s prolonged contract was considered, violate the open
meeting law of the Commonwealth and thus everything considered in said meeting
was considered void. The defendants then conducted a third meeting to ratify
the issue, at which the plaintiff’s contract was not extended and the previous
extension was ignored.
Procedural History:
The Superior Court Judge accepted the defendant’s 12 (b)(6)
motion to dismiss.
Issue:
Did the Judge error in accepting the defendant’s 12 (b)(6)
motion to dismiss?
Discussion:
Yes. The Plaintiff
showed reasoning within her complaint, which would have defeated the motion.
Using G.L. c. 39 §23B, which demands that all governmental body meetings are to
be open to the public pursuant to proper notice, the judge found that the
public did not have proper awareness of the second meeting the flier was only
posted on a high school bulletin board with limited audience as well as in the
newspaper merely indicated that meetings were in the future. Furthermore, the
fact that had a violation of the open meeting law taken place it did not void
the action and in order to remove the extension of the plaintiff’s contract,
judicial intervention was needed.
Considering the open meeting law, it allows the court to void an action that
occurs in an unlawful meeting based on proof of a breach of protocol.
Furthermore, the appropriate manner to effectively invalidate an action is
through a complaint, filed timely. However, in the instant case the complaint
was not timely filed and this invalidates the governing statute.
Judgment:
Reversed (DQ)
