Planning Board Open Meeting Law Complaints Stack Up
The three Open Meeting Law complaints together reveal a troubling pattern: the Millbury Planning Board and staff repeatedly silenced public voices, withheld public records, and conducted meetings in ways that undermined both transparency and lawful participation. These aren’t isolated errors but systemic practices that chill dissent, conceal critical information, and exclude residents from decisions that directly affect their community.
On August 25, the Board chair cut off lawful commentary not for disruption or time limits but because he disagreed with the viewpoint expressed—a textbook case of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. That same night, the public was also denied access to the text of an Open Meeting Law complaint and its handling, stripping residents of the ability to follow or engage with the proceedings. Just two weeks later, on September 8, the Board again circulated full document packets internally while withholding them from the public, blocking informed discussion on zoning amendments.
Taken together, these complaints expose a culture of secrecy and control: board members operate with full information and unfettered speech, while the public receives selective access and silencing—a reversal of the Open Meeting Law’s purpose. The result is more than procedural defect; it is an erosion of public trust, democratic accountability, and the community’s right to participate in its own governance.
Open Meeting Law Complaint — September 12, 2025
Complaint Description:
This complaint concerns a violation of the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law (M.G.L. c. 30A, §§18-25) by the Planning Board chair, Bruce Devault, who improperly silenced me during the public comment period on 8/25/2025. The action was not based on any neutral rule, such as a time limit or prevention of disruption, but instead reflected viewpoint discrimination, which is prohibited under the Open Meeting Law, the First Amendment, and Article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
The Attorney General's Office has stated that while public comment is not required, when allowed, restrictions must be reasonable, content-neutral, and applied equally. Here, no such rule was enforced. Instead, the chair ended my participation after expressing frustration: "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." This demonstrates that the decision was personal and retaliatory, not lawful or procedural.
By silencing lawful comment, the chair abused his authority, chilled public participation, and undermined transparency. Once a board opens the floor for comment, it creates a public forum where viewpoint-based restrictions are unconstitutional. This conduct discouraged dissent and eroded public trust, striking at the core purpose of the Open Meeting Law.
Video Evidence: https://youtu.be/QEKunq6IeBI?si=Y1vi_EYZKZdG6GkB
Remedies Requested:
Formal finding of violation.
Board acknowledgment in meeting minutes and findings read into recorded meeting video.
Mandatory AGO Open Meeting Law training emphasizing equal, viewpoint-neutral application of public comment rules for Board chair, vice-chair, and clerk.
Adoption of reasonable written, viewpoint-neutral rules and publicly published them on each meeting agenda.
Certification of compliance to AGO within 60 days.
Open Meeting Law Complaint — September 23, 2025
Complaint Description:
This complaint respectfully alleges that on August 25, 2025, the Millbury Planning Board violated the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, §§18–25, by depriving the public of the ability to know the substance of, or to participate meaningfully in, consideration of the Open Meeting Law complaint filed August 12, 2025. Rather than allowing disclosure, discussion, and participation as required, the Board withheld both the complaint and proposed response from the official record and the public, excluding the complainant and attendees from understanding, commenting on, or engaging with the matter. This conduct undermines the statutory purpose of transparency, openness, and accountability.
The Attorney General’s Open Meeting Law Guide (June 2025) directs that §20(g) must be applied in a way that maximizes public participation consistent with orderly proceedings. Here, the chair refused to disclose the documents, barred public comment, and attempted to adjourn before addressing the agenda item. By claiming, contrary to both the agenda and the meeting’s substance, that the session was not an “open meeting,” the chair unlawfully nullified public participation and violated §20 as well as procedural due process, which guarantees notice and a fair opportunity to be heard.
The chair and town planner further asserted that the complaint was not a public record until the close of the meeting, which was legally incorrect. Under the Open Meeting Law and Public Records Law, G.L. c. 66, §10, such complaints and proposed responses are public records upon receipt and must be disclosed. Withholding these documents deprived attendees of critical information needed to follow the proceedings. When a request was made to read the documents into the record, the chair’s refusal again denied the complainant and public a meaningful chance to review, comment, or participate.
What little deliberation occurred was cursory and perfunctory, with no genuine exchange or evaluation of the complaint, demonstrating a failure to discharge the Board’s duties transparently. While inadequate deliberation itself violates the law, the broader violation was the denial of the public’s right to know and to be heard.
Town counsel’s presence throughout further undercuts any claim that these actions were inadvertent. Counsel’s attendance highlights the knowing and deliberate nature of the violations, which together constitute serious breaches of the Open Meeting Law, the Public Records Law, and fundamental due process principles.
Video Evidence: https://youtu.be/QEKunq6leBI?si=aQ2jwvjVlkGmsWwv
Remedies Requested:
Immediate disclosure of complaint and response as public records.
Reconsideration of complaint in a duly noticed open meeting; invalidate prior votes and actions.
Mandatory Open Meeting Law training for all board members and staff.
Adoption of written policies governing complaint handling and disclosure.
Submission of agendas, all meeting materials, minutes, video, and complaint records to the AG’s Division of Open Government for six months’ compliance monitoring.
Open Meeting Law Complaint — September 23, 2025
Complaint Description:
The complaint concerns the Planning Board’s handling of its September 8, 2025 meeting. In advance of that meeting, the Board circulated documents to its members covering multiple posted agenda items, yet withheld those same materials from the public. Only partial records were attached to the public agenda. This constitutes a violation of the Open Meeting Law, M.G.L. c. 30A, §§18–25, and an unlawful denial of access under the Public Records Law, M.G.L. c. 66, §10.
Attorney General guidance under the OML makes clear that transparency requires meeting materials provided to board members also be made available to the public, where feasible. Here, feasibility is beyond dispute: the Board had already compiled and distributed the packet for members. By withholding portions, the Board denied residents access to the very documents that informed deliberations on proposed zoning amendments. Such selective disclosure impaired the public’s ability to understand the issues and meaningfully participate in the meeting. The Attorney General has previously ruled that withholding board packets undermines the OML’s core objectives.
The records withheld are also presumptively public under M.G.L. c. 4, §7, cl. 26. They were neither exempt nor confidential once circulated internally and relied upon in open session. No exemption was cited or applicable. By not providing them, the Board failed to meet its statutory obligation to facilitate public access.
The harm to the community was substantial. Residents could not adequately prepare questions or comments about zoning changes that affect housing, development, and neighborhood character. By limiting information to its members, the Board deprived the public of the ability to engage in a constructive, informed, and legally protected manner.
This was not an isolated lapse but part of an established practice. The Board routinely withholds documents given to members from the public, despite statutory requirements and AG guidance. This systemic conduct erodes transparency, obstructs public oversight, and undermines confidence in local government.
Remedies Requested:
Compel immediate and future compliance with the Open Meeting Law.
Invalidate votes or actions taken at the meeting held in violation.
Impose civil penalties of up to $1,000 per intentional violation.
Order the release of minutes, records, and withheld materials.
Require that a new, compliant meeting be convened.
Submission of agendas, all meeting materials, minutes, video, and complaint records to the AG’s Division of Open Government for six months’ compliance monitoring.
What these violations make clear is that Millbury residents cannot take transparency or accountability for granted. When a board silences lawful voices, hides public documents, or treats community participation as an inconvenience, it strikes at the core of open government. The Open Meeting Law and Public Records Law exist to ensure that decisions shaping our neighborhoods are made in the light of day, not behind closed doors or with selective disclosure.
It is time for the Town of Millbury to change course. The community must demand written, viewpoint-neutral rules for public comment, full and timely disclosure of every document board members use, and a commitment to deliberate openly and honestly on complaints brought forward. Residents should insist on mandatory Open Meeting Law training and ongoing compliance monitoring so that these obligations are not ignored.
The choice is simple: either continue a pattern of secrecy and exclusion, or honor the law and rebuild public trust. Millbury deserves boards and committees that respects the people it serves by conducting its business with fairness, openness, and accountability. The community’s voice is not a disruption—it is the heart of democracy.
Why are town employees intentionally hiding public records from the very people they are sworn to serve? Many residents have begun asking this question, and speculation abounds. The pattern suggests more than mere oversight—it reflects an entrenched attitude that public input is a nuisance rather than a right. Time and again, the majority of the Planning Board and the Board of Appeals have shown little regard for what residents think or want. And it isn’t confined to those boards alone; across town, too many elected and appointed officials act as if the community they represent is an obstacle rather than their constituency. The message is clear: they don’t care about us and what we’d like for our town. Change is necessary, and we the people have to make that happen.
The Planning Board will meet on Monday, September 29, 2025, at 7:00 PM via Zoom (Meeting ID: 821 1982 1671) to review, discuss, and address the pending Open Meeting Law complaints. Based on the last complaint hearing, many expect Chairperson Bruce DeVault may once again refuse to allow the complainant or the public to speak—a practice widely viewed as a violation of due process rights.