Share This Article
The office found nothing to review and clarified the limits of the Open Meeting Law when it comes to public participation.
The Massachusetts attorney general’s office has issued another declination in a series of Open Meeting Law (OML) complaints filed against the Sudbury Public Schools (SPS) School Committee, this one involving the committee’s handling of a public comment period. This marks the third straight declination favorable to the committee. A declination is a formal decision by the attorney general’s office refusing to review a complaint, which occurred in this case because the Division of Open Government solely reviews compliance with the Open Meeting Law, not allegations of First Amendment violations.
The original complaint was filed with the committee on November 3, 2025, by Katherine Hayes. The committee’s legal counsel, Attorney Jenifer King, responded on November 17, and the attorney general’s office received the complaint on December 28. The determination from Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Cantrell is dated October 27, 2026 and was made available on the attorney general’s website.
Hayes alleged that during the committee’s October 6 meeting, it indicated it would only take one more comment during a public comment period, despite being told that more than one person wanted to speak. The complaint further alleged that the meeting ended with five minutes of public comment time remaining, claiming this denied community members the opportunity to address the committee and exercise their constitutional right to free speech.
The attorney general’s office declined to review the complaint.
The bulk of the letter deals with the boundaries of the Open Meeting Law as it relates to public participation. The office stated that the Open Meeting Law does not actually require a public body to allow public participation. Instead, the chair of the public body has the discretion to decide whether to permit public comment, conduct the meeting, and regulate who may speak to the body. If public participation is permitted, the chair can also determine the method for receiving comment and set limitations on that participation.
The office was direct in stating that an abrupt ending to a public comment period does not violate the Open Meeting Law. “Even assuming the allegations raised in your complaint were true, they would not constitute a violation of the Open Meeting Law,” Cantrell wrote.
Then comes a footnote where the office added a point of encouragement. While noting that the Open Meeting Law does not require public bodies to allow public comment, the office wrote that they “encourage public bodies to allow for as much public participation as time and circumstances permit.”
The office now considers the matter closed. According to their website, there are four additional complaints against the SPS School Committee still pending review by the attorney general’s office.
The full declination is below.
