Minimum Compliance, Maximum Distrust: The Cost Of Closed Government
The August 21, 2025 Millbury-Sutton Chronicle article, “Millbury citizen files Open Meeting Law complaint,” reveals how the responses by Town Manager Karyn E. Clark and Town Planner Conor McCormack fail to hold up under scrutiny when examined in light of the complaint’s specific allegations.
Today, nearly all documents submitted to municipal boards and committees—including planning applications, site plans, legal notices, and staff reports—are received electronically as PDF files. For those few documents that are not initially digital, it is already standard practice for municipal staff to scan and upload them to internal platforms for storage, collaboration, and distribution to relevant officials. In Millbury's case, these files are stored on Microsoft SharePoint, which functions as the town’s internal digital filing system.
Importantly, there is no technical barrier to public access. SharePoint supports public sharing through direct hyperlinks, which the Town can—and already does—embed into its CivicPlus website. This means there is no duplication of file storage and no additional burden on staff to post documents online. It is a matter of permissions and policy, not capability or cost.
In fact, it is less labor-intensive to share documents proactively via a web link than to handle individual public records requests under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Each such request requires tracking, review, redaction (if applicable), and a formal response—tasks that consume more time and resources than simply posting files in the first place.
The suggestion that residents should file a FOIA request after public meetings is misleading and undermines transparency. In Massachusetts, public records requests can take days or weeks to fulfill, often involve delays, and may even come with fees. By then, decisions are already made—too late for public input.
Transparency matters before meetings, not after. Residents need timely access to documents like site plans and staff reports so they can participate meaningfully and hold officials accountable. Releasing information only after the fact violates the spirit of both the Public Records Law and the Open Meeting Law.
The Town’s current approach not only contradicts the spirit of these transparency laws, but also ignores the efficiencies offered by modern technology. Posting documents in advance is not a burden; it is a baseline expectation in 2025.
The statements made by Town Manager Karyn E. Clark and Town Planner Conor McCormack reflect a troubling stance: that residents have no right to know—in advance of public meetings—what town officials and staff are doing on their behalf and in their names. Instead, the public is expected to accept decisions after they’ve already been shaped behind closed doors and effectively finalized by insiders.
Numerous residents have reported being told by the Planning and Development Department that certain projects are “done deals” and that there is nothing they can do to influence the outcome. These assertions have been made prior to any public hearings, before relevant information has been made available, and before any deliberation by the Planning Board has occurred. Such statements—often justified by claiming that Massachusetts is a “pro-development state”—appear to be aimed at discouraging public input and suppressing dissenting voices.
This approach not only violates the spirit of the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law but also erodes public trust. Town officials should be welcoming resident engagement, not preemptively dismissing it. The previous Town Planner reportedly told the spokesperson for the Rice Pond Village project, in no uncertain terms, “If you don’t like it, you should move.” Many have recounted that there is a bias for developers in this town, who matter more than exisiting residents on the Rice Pond VIllage project, 55 Sycamore Street, Alstead Path, and more.
You can’t have it both ways—on one hand, town officials and staff expressing concern over low public participation in meetings, and on the other, withholding or delaying access to the very information residents need to engage meaningfully. If the Town truly values public input, then transparency must come first. Otherwise, such concerns start to sound less like genuine sentiments and more like hollow rhetoric meant to deflect accountability rather than foster real civic engagement.
Many residents believe that Town Manager Karyn E. Clark and Town Planner Conor McCormack favor a closed, top-down style of government rather than one that is open and inclusive. In one notable example, Karyn E. Clark and Conor McCormack reportedly met with then–Planning Board Chair Richard F. Gosselin, Jr. to push for a change in the Planning Board’s meeting format—proposing it be made more like the Board of Selectmen’s, which limits public participation. To their credit, both the Planning Board and the public firmly rejected that proposal, standing in defense of transparency and civic engagement.
The Planning Board remains one of the most accessible and responsive boards in town, regularly allowing meaningful resident input and listening to community concerns. This stands in contrast to efforts by town leadership to reduce public influence. As some may recall, there was a previous attempt to amend the Town Charter to convert the Planning Board from an elected body to an appointed one—giving the Board of Selectmen and the Town Manager control over its membership. That proposal was decisively rejected.
Residents in Millbury have made it clear: they want—and deserve—a voice in the decisions being made on their behalf.
If Town Manager Karyn E. Clark and Town Planner Conor McCormack truly support transparency, then all public records past and present should be proactively shared with both board or committee members and the public at the same time—through the Town’s website. This ensures residents have equal access to information and can come to meetings fully informed, just like the officials making the decisions.
There is no technological barrier to doing this. In fact, it was already being done for the Planning Board until those records were recently removed by staff from public view. The Town Manager has the authority and the tools to implement this standard immediately across all boards and committees. What’s lacking isn’t capability—it’s the will to prioritize open government.
The idea that merely meeting the minimum requirements of the Massachusetts Public Records Law and Open Meeting Law is sufficient falls far short of serving the public interest. These laws were designed to establish baseline standards—not to define the ceiling of government transparency and accountability. When public officials aim only to comply with the bare minimum, they ignore the broader purpose of these laws: to foster trust, encourage civic participation, and ensure that government operates in the open, not behind closed doors.
Informed public engagement requires more than legal compliance—it requires proactive sharing of information, timely access to records, and genuine opportunities for residents to participate in decision-making before outcomes are predetermined. A culture of transparency demands leadership that embraces openness not as an obligation, but as a core public service value.
Residents who ask questions or express concerns are not adversaries—they are engaged members of the community who deserve respect and inclusion. Their involvement should not be seen as a nuisance or an obstacle, but as a vital part of a healthy, functioning democracy. When residents take the time to scrutinize decisions, seek clarity, or advocate for transparency, they are exercising their civic responsibility—not creating conflict. In fact, it is this very engagement that helps build trust, strengthen accountability, and lead to better outcomes for everyone. Treating the public as a problem to be managed rather than a partner in governance only deepens divisions and erodes confidence in local government.
Communities like Millbury deserve more than technical compliance—they deserve a government that prioritizes accessibility, inclusion, and the public's right to know. Anything less erodes public trust and undermines democracy at the local level.
You're invited to attend the Millbury Planning Board meeting on Monday, August 25, 2025, at 7:00 PM—either in person at Millbury Town Hall or via Zoom (ID: 823 3057 2492, https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82330572492). Let’s show that residents expect transparency and equal access to public records before meetings take place. Town officials and staff need to hear that timely disclosure matters.