01:00 AM EDT on Tuesday, March 13, 2007

By Maria Armental

Journal Staff Writer

CHARLESTOWN — Three Town Council members violated the Open Meetings Law when they met last November — five days after winning the election — to discuss the hiring of a new town administrator, the state attorney general’s office has concluded.

But the office decided not to pursue the matter in court, noting that the three council members — James M. Mageau, John O. Craig Jr. and Bruce W. Picard — had indicated they relied on legal advice regarding the legality of the Nov. 12 meeting.

“Future violations consistent with those described in this finding may be considered willful or knowing and this Department may seek civil penalties in Superior Court,” Michael W. Field, a special assistant attorney general, wrote in his March 8 decision.

Thomas C. DePatie, the Charlestown resident who filed the complaint on Nov. 15, could still pursue the matter in Washington County Superior Court.

Charlestown’s town solicitor, Robert E. Craven, who had advised the three councilmen on the matter, said yesterday that he had drafted a letter to be mailed to the attorney general’s office asking for clarification.

“It appears the attorney general intended to extend the Open Meetings [Law] to the day you get elected,” Craven said. “That was not the case the time these three . . . got elected.”

“The three individuals are being [punished] for violating a law that did not exist,” Craven said.

Mageau said that the finding seemed to have constitutional repercussions, namely under the First and 14th amendments.

Political caucuses, he said, are exempted under the Open Meetings Law. “Yet council members are free to attend those meetings. And they discuss town issues,” Mageau said.

“What I do object to is the attorney general’s office trying to extend [its] power over elected officials to control where, when and how they talk to each other,” Mageau said.

“We don’t give up our freedom of speech just because we get elected,” he said.

In affidavits submitted to the attorney general’s office, the three acknowledged that they had met with Edward M. Barrett, the prospective town administrator, at Casey’s Grill in Wakefield at 11 a.m. on Nov. 12 to discuss “Mr. Barrett’s annual salary requirements.”

“Mr. Craig, Mr. Picard and I then reached a consensus that we would hire Mr. Barrett as acting town administrator as soon as the election results were certified,” Mageau wrote.

Barrett was appointed town administrator on Dec. 11, on a 3-to-2 vote.

Council President Katharine H. Waterman and Vice President Harriet A. Allen voted against the appointment, citing concerns over the process. They both said that they had not been informed Barrett’s name would be presented for a vote.

He succeeds Richard Sartor, whose resignation became effective Dec. 28.

“We don’t give up our freedom of speech just because we get elected.”
James M. Mageau
Town Council member

marmenta@projo.com