ROYALSTON — The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office has fined the Royalston Building Committee $500 after determining the committee knowingly violated the Open Meeting Law by holding a meeting at a time different from what was publicly posted.
In a June 12 letter obtained by The Athol Daily News, Assistant Attorney General Kerry Anne Kilcoyne wrote that the committee held a meeting on January 9, 2025, at 10 a.m. despite a public notice listing the start time as 7 p.m.
The discrepancy was first flagged by resident Gary Winitzer, who filed a complaint with the committee on January 11. The committee responded on February 6. A second complaint was submitted to the AG’s office on April 18, prompting a full review of both complaints, the committee’s responses, and the January 9 meeting minutes.
Kilcoyne’s letter states that the committee typically meets at 10 a.m. on the first and third Thursdays of each month. A meeting originally scheduled for January 2 at 10 a.m. was posted on December 6, then canceled on December 19. A new meeting was scheduled for January 9 at 7 p.m.
The agenda for the January 9 meeting included approving previous meeting minutes, discussing the potential demolition of Raymond School, a generator for the Community School, a building permit for Raymond School, and a grant for door openers at Town Hall, according to The Athol Daily News.
Despite the notice listing a 7 p.m. start, the committee held its January 9 meeting at 10 a.m., according to Kilcoyne. The Attorney General’s Office said the committee was aware of the error but continued with the hour-long meeting. Ten minutes after it ended, the committee posted an updated notice reflecting the actual start time.
“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,” Kilcoyne wrote. “This retroactive amendment is problematic and suggests an effort to conceal the original improper notice.”
Building Committee Chair Jim Barclay attributed the mistake to human error and noted that Winitzer frequently raises potential Open Meeting Law concerns. He said the incorrect time was brought to the committee’s attention after the meeting had started, but it didn’t occur to them to adjourn at that point.
Barclay explained that the January 2 meeting was canceled because it was scheduled too close to the holidays. He said the scheduling system defaults to 7 p.m., and if the original notice had simply been updated, the 10 a.m. time would have remained. However, because a new notice was created, it defaulted to the incorrect 7 p.m. time.
“We didn’t pay close attention to the time and published it,” Barclay said. “We will be more careful.”
The Massachusetts Open Meeting Law (OML) requires that public bodies post notice of meetings at least 48 hours in advance—excluding weekends and legal holidays—with the correct date, time, location, and a list of topics to be discussed. The law ensures transparency by giving the public advance notice and the opportunity to attend and observe government decision-making.
In her letter, Kilcoyne expressed concern that the committee continued with the January 9 meeting even after being alerted during the meeting that the posted start time was inaccurate. “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,” she wrote. “This retroactive amendment is problematic and suggests an effort to conceal the original improper notice.”
Kilcoyne stated that instead of revising the notice after the fact, the committee should have adjourned and rescheduled the meeting once it became aware of the error. The Attorney General’s Office concluded that the committee not only violated the Open Meeting Law but did so intentionally—defined by state law as an act or omission carried out with knowledge of the law.
The AG’s office also cited a previous violation from 2021, when the committee failed to post an accurate start time. At the time, the committee was warned that similar conduct in the future would be viewed as intentional. Because the committee knowingly proceeded with the January 9 meeting despite the inaccurate posting, “we find that this violation is intentional,” the letter states.
The matter has been referred for a hearing, and the committee has been issued a $500 fine. Depending on the outcome, a civil penalty of up to $1,000 may be imposed for each intentional violation.
Moving forward, Barclay said meeting schedules will be verified by two individuals to avoid future violations.
