Millbury Planning Board Faces Attorney General Review Over Claims Of Silencing Public Debate
The Millbury Planning Board is facing a request for further review to the Attorney General's Office (AGO) alleging it violated the state's Open Meeting Law (OML) by arbitrarily and improperly cutting short public comment at a contentious meeting (i.e., OML Complaint #2).
The formal request for further review, which is prepared and ready to be submitted to the AGO's Open Government Division, argues that the Planning Board's initial defense is legally flawed and ignores key evidence, undermining the public's right to transparent local governance.
The Alleged Violation
The complaint stems from the August 25, 2025, Planning Board meeting. According to the OML complaint, Board Chair Bruce Devault suddenly terminated the public comment portion of the meeting, an action the request claims was "arbitrary and viewpoint-based."
The appeal cites the Chairman's own words, which are part of the meeting's public record, as conclusive proof:
“That’s good. I’m done. This meeting is going to end right now. I want to comment to you, but I can’t because I’ll probably be out of line.”
The complaint argues this statement shows the Chairman stopped the discussion not because of a procedural issue or a disruption, but simply because he was finished and did not want to hear or respond to any more of the speaker's views.
At a special September 29, 2025, meeting called to review three OML complaints, former Planning Board Chair and current Planning Board member Richard F. Gosselin, Jr. was blunt, telling his fellow members that "the problem is the board, not the complainant." He called on the board to accept responsibility and stop wasting town funds, urging them to put the core issues of the OML complaints on the next agenda to prevent escalating legal costs.
Rich Gosselin and member Fran DeSimone further advocated for equal transparency, insisting that residents should receive all meeting materials, documents and information at the same time as the board. Their shared message to their colleagues was direct: if the goal is good governance, "Why won’t you want people to know?"
Planning Board Chair Bruce Devault, along with members Paul Piktelis and Tony Ngo, effectively "rubber-stamped" the three Open Meeting Law (OML) complaint responses—all of which were pre-written by Town Counsel—with no real discussion, meaningful deliberation, or changes. In opposition, Fran DeSimone voted no on all three, while Rich Gosselin abstained from the votes. The complainant and public were not permitted to speak, which many question as a due process violation.
The Board’s Response: “Legally Misapplied”
The formal draft request for further review criticizes the Board’s official response, which was pre-prepared by Town Counsel, for several reasons:
Ignoring the Evidence: The response failed to mention the Chairman's quote, instead reframing the issue as a minor disagreement over the "exercise of discretion."
Misusing the Law: The Board's lawyer incorrectly suggested that a section of the OML grants the Chair "unchecked discretion" to silence speakers. The draft request for further review argues this view ignores established legal precedent that requires a chair's discretion to be exercised in a content-neutral and reasonable manner.
Ignoring Supreme Court Precedent: The draft request for further review states the Board's defense failed to properly acknowledge a critical 2023 Supreme Judicial Court case, Barron v. Kolenda, which explicitly ruled that once a public comment period is opened, comments cannot be restricted based on the speaker's viewpoint.
Call for Corrective Action
The request for further review further alleges that the Planning Board failed its duty to seriously review the complaint, suggesting it merely "rubber-stamped" the attorney's pre-written response without a "substantive review or genuine deliberation."
The formal request asks the Attorney General to intervene and order the following corrective actions for the Millbury Planning Board:
Find an OML Violation: Formally rule that the Planning Board Chair violated the Open Meeting Law.
Order Training: Mandate remedial training for the Chair, Vice-Chair, and Clerk on how to apply public comment rules fairly and neutrally.
Require Policy Reform: Force the Board to adopt and publish clear, written, and viewpoint-neutral rules for public comment to prevent participants from being arbitrarily silenced in the future.
This is just one of four Open Meeting Law (OML) complaints filed so far, and more are expected. Given this trend, all town officials and staff are strongly advised to thoroughly study the OML, the Attorney General’s Guidance (June 2025), the Public Records Law, and relevant case law.
It's crucial for the public to understand that the legal opinion provided by Town Counsel is not a ruling. The attorney's primary job is to represent and defend the town and its boards or committees against residents and in other legal matters. Therefore, when Town Counsel asserts no Open Meeting Law (OML) violation occurred—and Chair Bruce Devault immediately parrots that claim—it’s effectively like asking a criminal defendant to decide the outcome of their own trial. Chair Bruce Devault’s claim demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of the review process and the action taken.
Millbury Residents: Shut Out and Suspicious
Millbury residents feel they've reached a breaking point. They say town officials and staff often complain about low public turnout, yet when people do show up, they are treated poorly and silenced.
Worse, key public records are being withheld or are only accessible after residents jump through hoops. This makes it virtually impossible for citizens to follow town business, observe decisions, or prepare to participate effectively.
The complainant in this specific case didn't just point out problems—they prepared and presented clear solutions to town officials and staff. To date, these solutions have been consistently ignored.
This pattern of obstruction has fueled speculation across the community, raising the pointed question: "What are they trying to hide, and why?"