NORTHAMPTON - This July, the state's Open Meeting Law grows new teeth.

Changes in the law, part of the state's ethics and lobbying reform, more clearly detail the requirements for government bodies that hold executive sessions.

The law will place enforcement of the Open Meeting Law within a newly created division in the state attorney general's office. Enforcement of the law has long been the purview of local district attorneys.

Like the minutes of open sessions, which must be approved in a timely manner, government bodies must now review minutes of their executive sessions at "reasonable intervals" to determine whether they warrant continued non-disclosure, according to the law. In addition, those decisions must be announced at board meetings.

Open Meeting Law experts say the new language reflects what has always been the intent of the law. While it is stressed in the attorney general's Open Meeting Law guidelines, the timely release of closed-session minutes is rarely practiced.

"I think it's probably more an issue of out of sight, out of mind," said Robert J. Ambrogi, executive director of the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association and a media law practitioner. "Some of these boards just don't have policies in place. They kind of operate in the moment."

In addition to a more timely review of closed-door minutes, public boards, councils and committees must include in the official record of executive session minutes all documents, materials and exhibits used at the session, another feature that is missing from records today.

"Certainly, a folder of minutes is going to be quite a bit bulkier in a lot of cases," said Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Pepyne, who has been enforcing the Open Meeting Law in Hampshire and Franklin counties for the past 14 years.

The new law says government bodies must respond to requests for executive session minutes within 10 days and promptly release those records as long as their disclosure does not defeat the lawful purpose for holding those sessions. They cannot assess a fee for the time spent reviewing the records.

Supporters of changes to the Open Meeting Law say moving oversight to the AG's office makes sense. Enforcement and interpretation of the law is likely to become more consistent.

"They always were the experts on the Open Meeting Law," said Pepyne, who investigates about a dozen alleged violations each year. "They write the guidelines."

Other changes

The complaint procedure for Open Meeting Law violations also will change. Beginning July 1, complaints must be filed within 30 days of the alleged violation with the government board or committee that is the target of that complaint. The board, in turn, must then send a copy of the complaint to the AG's office and inform the office of any remedial action taken within 14 days.

"They're going to have to be quite serious about pursuing (complaints) as a first step," said Pepyne, of those lodging complaints. "It does put more of a burden on the public."

Complaints can also be taken to the courts as an alternative, but the new law does not cover legal costs for those filing the complaints, even if they are successful.

"Most individual citizens don't have the money to hire a lawyer to enforce the Open Meeting Law," Ambrogi said, noting that 42 states allow citizens to recoup attorneys' fees if they win in court.

Ambrogi is expected to be one of five appointees serving on a new state advisory commission to review issues relative to the Open Meeting Law and to make recommendations to the attorney general regarding changes to the law, trainings and educational initiatives.

Others serving on that panel will include a member of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, two state lawmakers and a representative from the AG's office. That office, which can pursue its own Open Meeting Law investigations, must also file an annual report detailing its enforcement activities with the commission.

Ambrogi sees one significant weakness in the new law - its penalties for violations. The law now calls for a $1,000 fine for each violation of the Open Meeting Law, though most local government bodies are rarely subject to those fines.

The new law maintains the $1,000 fine, though complainants must now prove that violations are "intentional," which presents an additional hurdle. In addition, individuals cannot be fined, only government boards, panels or committees. When fines are assessed, it's taxpayers who may foot the bill.

"Massachusetts is in the minority of states in the country in that an individual who violates the law has no consequences whatsoever," Ambrogi said. "It's almost impossible to prove that a board or commission acted with intention because a board is not a human who can act with intent."

*****

The changes to the Open Meeting Law can be found online.

The attorney general's Open Meeting Law guidelines are also online here.

Dan Crowley can be reached at dcrowley@gazettenet.com.