All over the state last summer, town committees and boards scrambled to come up to speed on the revised Open Meeting Law that went into effect on July 1. Even in Harvard there were some fits and starts, at first in the logistics of keeping the town website current with meeting agendas and minutes.

Then, in September we began to see some questionable meetings of "informal working groups," such as the one assembled to develop recommendations for a process and schedule for creating the 2011 omnibus budget. One resident called this group into question at a September meeting of the Board of Selectmen. (See Harvard Press, Sept. 24, 2010.) Town officials responded that the meeting wasn't a "constituted board" established by the Board of Selectmen. The Press took issue with that in an editorial, citing Section 18 of the new law—Chapter 30A of Mass General Laws—which defines a "public body" as:

"a multiple-member board, commission, committee or subcommittee within…any county, district, city, region or town, however created, elected, appointed or otherwise constituted, established to serve a public purpose…provided further, that a subcommittee shall include any multiple-member body created to advise or make recommendations to a public body." (emphasis ours.)

As the budget process got under way, we saw little progress happening in public meetings, but in January we overheard references to "other" meetings that were taking place (unposted), and heard one town official say "That's how things get done." (See Harvard Press, Jan. 21. 2011.)

This week we experienced an incident that blatantly crossed the Open Meeting Law line: Two of our reporters were asked to leave a posted, open meeting, while negotiations took place regarding warrant articles 17 and 18. We chose not to file an Open Meeting Law complaint, but instead reached out to those involved to make sure they understood the seriousness of what took place. One official we spoke to took us to task and suggested that press coverage of the negotiations could cause the whole process to fall apart.

We question why any town official feels the need to meet behind closed doors to "get things done" in Harvard, and why some officials seem to believe the Open Meeting Law needs to be followed only as it suits them.

We are well past the "learning curve" period of the new Open Meeting Law. As a newspaper, we have a responsibility to report the news, and going forward will avail ourselves of the Open Meeting Law provisions to exercise our right to do so.