NORWICH — In recent weeks, the Selectboard has acknowledged open meeting law violations brought forward last month by a resident and agreed to several cures, including releasing emails from January and altering its communication habits moving forward.
At an April 22 regular meeting, the Selectboard acknowledged in a unanimous vote that resident Christopher Katucki’s five complaints regarding its actions toward the end of January violated open meeting law.
At the subsequent Selectboard meeting on May 13, the board discussed cures for the violations based on requests by Katucki in his original complaint, filed April 9.
After discussion, the board voted 4-1 to attach unredacted emails to the meeting minutes, with Selectboard member Mary Layton voting no. The unredacted January email exchange is now attached to the May 13 draft minutes on the Town of Norwich website.
The Selectboard also adopted new policies to avoid vague language in future warnings and executive session motions.
Katucki, a former attorney, runs a local blog called the Norwich Observer, where he reports on public information surrounding town governance.
“It’s important to push back when the Town is being secretive,” Katucki wrote in an email to the Valley News following the Selectboard meeting on May 13.
This is not the first time Katucki has pushed back on the town’s approach to open meeting law. In 2023, Katucki sued Norwich over subcommittee meetings.
After spending $100,000 and three years fighting the lawsuit, the town agreed that municipal groups will open their meetings to the public, notice them properly and record the minutes. The town also compensated Katucki for his out-of-pocket legal expenses, approximately $700.
Katucki filed a similar complaint on April 9 of this year after Town Manager Brennan Duffy declined to remove redactions in a public records request for a Jan. 23 and Jan. 26 email chain between Selectboard members debating whether to have an executive session for allegations against the treasurer at the upcoming meeting, or to communicate first with the town manager.
“Filing the notice felt necessary,” said Katucki in an email regarding his complaint to the Selectboard.
A Jan. 28 agenda item labeled “Fire District Tax Exemption Agreement” noted a possible motion and executive session in the meeting warning. At the meeting, the board cited “potential litigation,” to enter the session, which was not included on the agenda.
“It is likely that I would have attended the meeting had notice been proper,” Katucki wrote in his complaint to the Selectboard and Duffy last month.
Katucki learned months later that the issue was about development rights over fire district lands — particularly whether they reverted from the town back to the fire district. He noted that a citizen reading it would have no idea that there was a property rights dispute or that it had legal connotations.
A second item on the agenda labeled “Draft Audit Process Question” also noted a possible executive session, but without detail as to the nature of what the Selectboard planned to discuss.
Recently released emails between Selectboard members revealed that the true nature of the discussion was “concerning alleged actions by our Town Treasurer in reference to the confidentiality of information about the draft audit,” Layton, Selectboard chairwoman at the time, wrote in an email to all members on Jan. 23.
In the same email, Layton stated that the board had a right to enter executive session under the disciplinary/dismissal subsection, but it was not mentioned at the meeting. She stated that there was a question about confidentiality in the draft audit review process at the meeting and the board voted to enter executive session.
Neither the agenda nor the discussion ahead of the executive session indicated it was a disciplinary matter, Katucki said.
“If you were a concerned citizen deciding whether to show up that night, you would have had no idea that someone might get fired,” Katucki wrote in a follow-up email to the board regarding his complaint.
At the Jan. 28 meeting, the Selectboard took no action following the executive session, but Layton “shared that the Selectboard listened to concerns that the Town Manager had
with the process of releasing the draft audit to officials,” according to meeting minutes.
Beyond the two executive sessions on Jan. 28, Katucki also expressed concern over the email exchanges themselves, which involved more than three Selectboard members, making it a quorum. Quorums must be properly warned and inclusive of the public, under 1 V.S.A. § 312.
While a Selectboard may virtually communicate as an entity to schedule a meeting. organize an agenda or distribute materials, it may not engage in discussions about the content of the meeting.
The first part of the board’s discussion of cures on May 13 involved deciding whether or not to make an unredacted version of the emails publicly available, and how.
“I’m going to push back on the unredacted part of this. I don’t support that,” said Layton.
Layton did not elaborate on her opposition to releasing the redacted version, but said she was conflicted about it.
The Selectboard discussed whether to release the redacted or unredaction versions, and whether to make them available in Tracy Hall or attached to meeting minutes.
Priscilla Vincent, a board member at the time of the violation, said in a public comment that she firmly believes the emails violated open meeting law.
“The unredacted stuff should be in the minutes available for anybody who wants to read them, and not make people trot into Tracy Hall to have to read them,” said Vincent.
Brendan Classon, elected to the board in March, said that in reading the redacted emails, he felt that the board was organizing damage control in good faith at the time.
“I see no sign of obfuscation, nefarious intent” said Classon. “…So I see no blame attached to you individuals whatsoever.”
In a public comment, resident John Carroll praised Chairman Kimo Griggs for his draft of the new procedure, but noted that regardless of intent, the board drifted away from simply scheduling a meeting or coordinating an agenda item.
“Just to be very clear, you broke the law,” said Carroll, a former state senator and former chairman of the Vermont State Board of Education.
The Selectboard voted unanimously on May 13 on a policy designating a single person, the Board chair, to collect agenda item proposals as a preferred practice. “Replying all” to full-Board emails aside from scheduling is no longer permitted except to say they agree to including the agenda item or oppose it. No further explanation is allowed, but the chair may communicate with members individually.
Another policy requires the Selectboard to provide substantial detail when warning an agenda item. As an example in the policy language, instead of warning “clean energy plan,” as an agenda item, it may state “Consider adopting [or amending] a clean energy plan” for specificity. The motion to adopt the policy passed unanimously.
In a similar vein, to enter executive session, the Selectboard must first make a motion explaining why premature public knowledge would create a disadvantage, with a second motion stating the nature of the executive session. This final policy also passed unanimously.
