Mystery Surrounds Jones Library Litigation

The Jones Library Board of Trustees voted unanimously on Thursday, October 22, to go into a closed-door session to discuss litigation strategy without saying what the dispute is about, who is involved, or whether the library is suing or being sued. Board President Austin Sarat made the announcement during a Zoom meeting that lasted only about two minutes in public. It came a week after trustees held another closed session on litigation, and as the library wrestles with a serious financial shortfall.

The meeting was recorded.

No Public Business Discussed
All six trustees answered the roll call: Eugene Goffredo, Tamson Ely, Farah Ameen, Lee Edwards, Nat Larson and Sarat. No library staff, guests or members of the public were identified in the recording. Sarat invited anyone wishing to speak during public comment to raise a virtual hand and saw none. No topics not anticipated by the chair were raised.

A Scanty Announcement
Under agenda item four, Sarat read the motion: to discuss strategy with respect to litigation, because an open meeting “may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position” of the board. He added that trustees would not return to open session for the regular agenda afterward. No one spoke on the motion, a roll call followed, and Sarat asked attendees to leave the Zoom.

What the public did not hear was the name of the case, the court, or the other party; whether the library is the plaintiff or the defendant; whether a lawsuit has actually been filed or is only threatened; or what the dispute concerns. The wording matched the executive session item on the agenda for the board’s October 15 meeting, which also ended in a closed session on litigation that the board did not leave. A reader commenting on the Indy’s coverage of that meeting questioned whether the lack of specificity of purpose for meeting out of the public eye may have violated Massachusetts Open Meeting Law.

What the Open Meeting Law Requires
The Massachusetts Open Meeting Law (G.L. c. 30A, § 21) requires the chair, before the vote to enter executive session, to state the purpose and to name all subjects that can be revealed without compromising that purpose. The Attorney General’s Open Meeting Law Guide says a body relying on the litigation exemption generally must identify the litigation matter. It may withhold that detail only if disclosure would compromise the purpose, and if challenged it must show a reasonable basis for doing so. The Attorney General’s executive session checklist lists “the litigation to be discussed” among the subjects a chair should disclose.

Sarat met several basic requirements. He cited the litigation exemption, declared that an open meeting could harm the board’s litigating position, said the board would not reconvene in open session, and held a roll call vote. What he did not do is identify the litigation. A bare reference to “litigation” leaves open whether any case exists at all. The Guide says potential litigation qualifies only if it is “clearly and imminently threatened or otherwise demonstrably likely.”

The Attorney General’s office has found violations in comparable circumstances, according to its annual reports to the Open Meeting Law Advisory Commission. In OML 2018-139, it concluded that the Hull Board of Selectmen violated the law by not publicly identifying the party it was litigating against, or the bargaining unit it would negotiate with, before going into executive session, and by failing to show that disclosure would have harmed its position. Hull challenged the ruling in Plymouth Superior Court (Board of Selectmen of Hull v. Healey, No. 1883CV01227), and the report describes the case as still pending.

Whether the trustees’ announcement complies is a question for the Attorney General, and the board could argue that naming the case would damage its position. It has not said so, and it is not obvious how revealing whether the library is plaintiff or defendant would do that.

The Public Has a Stake
The library’s finances make the missing detail more than a technicality. At a September 30 Budget Coordinating Group meeting, Library Director Sharon Sharry cited a $5.5 million fundraising gap, and Finance Director Sean Mangano had earlier told the Finance Committee that the library owes the town $8.4 million. Sharry said the library’s endowment of about $9.6 million supports a draw of roughly $400,000 a year, which would fall to about $200,000 if the endowment were cut in half. She said conditions turn “icky” in FY28, which begins July 1, 2027, the same month the renovated building is expected to reopen.

Sarat has acknowledged that construction is “a little behind schedule.” Depending on the dispute, legal fees, a settlement, a judgment, or further delay could add to costs the library and the town are already struggling to cover. Residents have a right to know whether the library is exposed and by how much, even if the details of legal strategy stay private.

How the Town Council Has Handled It
The Amherst Town Council took a more forthcoming approach in a comparable situation. When it went into executive session to discuss how to respond to a 40-citizen lawsuit contesting the disqualification of signatures on the 2021 voter veto petition seeking a referendum on borrowing for the library’s renovation and expansion, its announcement identified the matter being discussed.  The Council’s August 2, 2021 meeting agenda read,

“[MGL c.30A §21(a) 3] To discuss strategy with respect to litigation: Superior Court Civil Action No. 2180CV00081 Terry Y. Allen et al. vs. Board of Registrars of the Town of Amherst; as an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the body.”

Naming the lawsuit did not keep the council from discussing strategy in private, and it let residents understand what was at stake for the town. The Jones trustees can do the same.

See related Town’s Legal Fees Mount As Amherst Fails To Set Date For Referendum On Library Project