I have read that they violated the Third reason for calling an executive session. Here it is:


The law defines ten specific Purposes for which an executive session may be held, and emphasizes that these are the only purposes for which a public body may enter executive session.

3. To discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining or litigation if an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining or litigating position of the public body and the chair so declares;

Collective Bargaining Strategy: Discussions with respect to collective bargaining strategy include discussions of proposals for wage and benefit packages or working conditions for union employees. The public body, if challenged, carries the burden of proving that an open meeting might have a detrimental effect on its bargaining position to justify an executive session on the basis of this Purpose. The showing that must be made is that the open discussion may have a detrimental impact on the collective bargaining process; the body is not required to demonstrate or specify a definite harm that would have arisen. At the time that the executive session is proposed and voted on, the chair must state on the record that having the discussion in an open session may be detrimental to the public body’s bargaining or litigating position.

Litigation Strategy: Discussions concerning strategy with respect to ongoing litigation obviously fit within this Purpose, but only if an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the public body. Discussions relating to potential litigation are not covered by this exemption unless that litigation is clearly and imminently threatened or otherwise demonstrably likely. That a person is represented by counsel and supports a position adverse to the public body’s does not by itself mean that litigation is imminently threatened or likely. Nor does the fact that a newspaper reports a party has threatened to sue necessarily mean imminent litigation.

Note: A public body’s discussions with its counsel do not automatically fall under this or any other Purpose for holding an executive session.

**********************************************************************************************
The last sentence is certainly interesting in Wareham.

As one who is currently involved in helping someone in another town pursue a clear open meeting violation, it is worth noting that the new rules require considerable time & effort on the part of the complainant. In that case, the board in question has openly admitted its violation; but getting from there to a satisfactory remedy is not easy. Damn difficult, in fact. To the point where the person who was subject to the Board's violation of Purpose One is close to saying "screw it, it ain't worth it".

Progess? More like advancing to the rear.....