For some reason, the state’s Open Meeting Law may qualify as the least understood among the state’s statutes, even for the elected municipal and other local boards bound by its language.

Designed to ensure government transparency and accountability, the law requires that most meetings of public bodies be conducted openly, so that residents may have access to deliberations.

But annually, either through ignorance or arrogance, the Attorney General’s Office receives hundreds of perceived violations from individuals and organizations.

That trend continued in 2025.

AG Andrea Campbell’s office received 395 Open Meeting Law complaints, up from the 364 complaints filed in 2024, according to a report the office’s Division of Open Government. Of the 395 complaints the division received, 306 were resolved through determinations or declinations.

As it has done since 2010, the Division works to ensure that public bodies conduct business in a transparent manner.

The report notes the Division was notified of 703 complaints filed with public bodies that were not formally filed with the AG’s office. That’s probably because the complainant was satisfied with the public body’s response to their complaint, or they understood that the issues raised did not fall under the OML, according to the report.

State law requires public bodies to notify the AG’s office when they receive OML complaints. A complaint isn’t considered filed with the open government division until the complainant requests that the AG’s office review their complaint further.

The Division found violations in about 56% of the complaints filed in 2025, up from 54% reported in 2024. While many complaints alleged multiple separate violations of the OML, when considering each violation separately, the violation rate drops to 46%, according to the report.

The most frequently occurring violations in 2025 were:

Insufficiently specific meeting notice.

Inaccurate/insufficiently detailed meeting minutes.

Deliberation outside of a posted meeting.

Convening in executive session for improper purpose.

Meetings not accessible to the public.

The remedial actions most frequently ordered by the Division were:

Immediate and future compliance with the OML.

Create, approve or amend meeting minutes.

Review and release executive session minutes.

The Division did collect a total of $1,350 in fines from the six public bodies it found had intentionally violated the law in 2025, according to the report.

The Division’s primary goal is to ensure that all public bodies understand and comply with the OML. To help meet this goal, in 2025, the Division trained more than 1,220 people on the law’s requirements and hosted 19 public webinars. Additionally, the Division received and responded to approximately 1,482 inquiries to its helpline.

Individuals who believe a public body has violated the OML can access a complaint form on the AGO website. Additional questions may be directed to the Division by calling 617-963-2540, or by emailing openmeeting@mass.gov.

It’s highly likely many more OML violations flew under the radar. That’s because it falls on a conscientious local government follower who’s also familiar with that statute to initiate a complaint.

That’s why it primarily rests with public officials to police themselves.

Sentinel and Enterprise

Editorial cartoon by Gary Varvel (Creators Syndicate)