Share This Article
The office found nothing to review — and then dropped a footnote noting the meeting agenda said what the complaint claimed it didn’t
The Massachusetts attorney general’s office has issued another declination in the run of Open Meeting Law (OML) complaints filed against the Sudbury Public Schools (SPS) School Committee, this one involving the committee’s vote to establish an LGBTQ+ Parent Advisory Council (PAC).
The complaint was filed with the committee on October 16, 2025 by resident Ryan Sax. The committee responded by letter on November 4, and the attorney general’s office received the complaint on December 2. The determination is dated July 23, 2026 and was made available on the attorney general’s website here.
Sax raised three issues: that the committee posted insufficient notice of its October 6, 2025 meeting, that it failed to allow legal counsel to review a proposal before it, and that it violated G.L. c. 71, the state’s public education statute. The attorney general’s office declined to review all three.
The bulk of the letter deals with the notice question. Notice of the October 6 meeting listed the establishment of the LGBTQ+ PAC as a topic. At the meeting, the committee discussed the proposal and voted to create the council. The complaint’s theory was that the notice was insufficiently specific because it did not say a vote would be taken.
The office stated that flagging an anticipated vote is good practice, but not a requirement. “Although it is good practice for a notice to specify that a vote will be taken when a vote is anticipated in advance, the Open Meeting Law does not require that the notice separately indicate the possibility of a vote,” the letter states, before adding that “it is reasonably foreseeable that a public body may take action and hold a vote following discussion of a topic listed on a meeting notice, even when such meeting notice indicates only a ‘discussion.'”
Then comes the footnote. Attached to that first sentence, at the bottom of the page, the office observes that the October 6 notice did in fact list a “Possible Vote For Liaison Assignment” and “Discussion/Action” within the LGBTQ+ PAC topic. The agenda explicitly alerted the public to possible action on the item after all. (Agenda below)
The remaining two allegations were dispatched more briskly. The office noted that the Division of Open Government reviews compliance with the Open Meeting Law and nothing else, and that it has previously declined to review claims that a public body violated c. 71. “Even if true, these allegations would not constitute a violation of the Open Meeting Law,” the letter states. On the question of legal counsel’s review of the PAC proposal, the office was equally direct, writing that the OML “does not govern counsel’s role in a public body’s actions.”
The office considers the matter closed, though the letter notes the declination “does not address any other complaints that may be pending with the Committee or with our office.” Other complaints against the committee remain in the queue at the Division of Open Government, which maintains a list of pending complaints here.
The full declination is below.