Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Connelly v. School Committee of Hanover
This Ballotpedia article needs to be updated.
This Ballotpedia article is currently under review by Ballotpedia staff as it may contain out-of-date information. Please email us if you would like to suggest an update.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Sunshine Laws |
| How to Make Records Requests |
| Sunshine Litigation |
| Sorted by State, Year and Topic |
| Sunshine Nuances |
| Deliberative Process Exemption |
Connelly v. School Committee of Hanover was a case before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 1991 concerning open meetings law with regard to employee selection committees.
Important precedents
This case established that committees and boards established individuals who serve governing bodies are not subject to the Massachusetts Open Meetings Act.
Background
- In March, 1988, the Hanover High School principle was slated to retire. The superintendent appointed seven individuals to a committee to assist him with the selection of the new principle.
- The committee met in private, interviewed seven individuals and on June 9, 1988 selected Thomas Nee to recommend to the superintendent, who then forwarded the selection on to the school committee.
- On June 13, 1988 the school committee named Thomas Nee to the position of principle in an open meeting.
- Per the suggestion of the local newspaper, the Quincy Patriot Ledger, four registered voters, including Connelly, filed a lawsuit alleging that the committee had violated the open meetings law. The individuals sought to compel the committee to prepare material on the candidates and any minutes taken from the meeting in order to comply with the open meetings law.
- The trial court ruled against the committee and ordered any information they were in possession of released.[1]
Criticisms of the FOIA request
The Quincy Patriot Ledger, prior to asking citizens to file suit, asked the district attorney for the Plymouth district to file the lawsuit. The district attorney rejected the request, claiming that the committee did not fall under the definition of governing body.
Ruling of the court
The trial court ruled in favor of Connelly et al., declaring that the committee did fall under the definition of governmental body. It further concluded that the exemption within the Massachusetts Open Meetings Act for "preliminary screening" committees did not apply to the committee[1]. Based on these facts, the court ordered information about the meetings disclosed.
The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the lower court and ruled in favor of the committee.
The Supreme Court ruled that the committee in question was not a committee of the city of Hanover, arguing that the committee was established by the superintendent, separate from the school committee. It further determined that, if the superintendent had chosen too, he could have conducted the search alone and would not have been subject to the open meetings law. For these two reasons, the court sided with the committee ordered the meeting information closed as the Massachusetts Open Meetings Act did not apply.[1]
