The Board of Selectmen violated the Open Meeting Law at their April 14 meeting, according to ruling made by the Attorney General’s Office on Wednesday, June 24.

The decision states that Selectmen failed to provide notice that they would meet in open session prior to executive session and that the executive session public notice was not “sufficiently specific.”

The executive session public notice only included one line, explaining they would be entering into executive session and why, and failed to list “open session” on the agenda.

“Without such notice, members of the public are essentially denied the opportunity to attend and learn the reasons for the executive session,” wrote Assistant Attorney General John Sclarsic in a letter to Town Attorney Richard Bowen.

The letter also stated that Selectmen violated the Open Meeting Law by not disclosing the collective bargaining unit with which Selectmen were negotiating. The letter stated that boards can withhold such details if it would compromise the purpose of confidentiality, but that in this case the Selectmen provided no reason not to name the collective bargaining unit.

Selectman Alan Slavin, who was chairman at the beginning of the April 14 meeting, said the board opened in public session and then went into executive session and that the violation was just “a technical issue.” He also said that the session was held for ratification of the police union contract.

Additionally, when the board reopened its public session at 7 p.m., (for which there was a separate meeting notice and agenda) Slavin stated that the meeting had opened at 6:30 p.m., went into executive session and came back out.

The initial complaint about the meeting notice was filed with Selectmen by West Barnstable resident Ronald Beaty on April 20. After the Board replied on May 6, Beaty filed a complaint with the Attorney General’s Office Division on Open Government on May 8.

Beaty said he will “periodically scrutinize the readily available and recent public records of various local, regional, and state level governmental bodies to try to ascertain their compliance with the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law.”

He added, “If I see something that “‘does not look right” then I will file an official complaint regarding it.”

The Attorney General’s Office ordered the board’s “immediate and future compliance, and caution the Board that a similar future violation may be considered evidence of an intentional violation of the law.”