Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Attorney Generals Office (AGO) and not this office, I am unable to address those issues in this determination. See G. L. c. 30A, 23. Consequently, I encourage the parties to contact the AGO for a determination on the status of the executive session minutes. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed. Sincerely, Rebecca S.

Driscoll 76 Shawomet Avenue, Suite 102 Post Office Box 112 Somerset, MA 02726 RE: Open Meeting Law Complaint Medford Housing Authority Dear Attorney Driscoll: The Attorney General's Office received a complaint from Bonnie Curran dated March 12, 2012, alleging that the Medford Housing Authority Board of Commissioners (the "Board") violated the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, 18-25.

Nason: The Attorney General's Office reviewed a complaint filed by Monica Ryan, dated February 2, 2012, alleging that the Lee Energy Efficiency Committee (the "Committee") violated the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, 18-25. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Committee is a public body subject to the Open Meeting Law and that it failed to create and approve meeting minutes for at least two years.

On November 21, 2018, Attorney Matthew Viana requested records related to the "investigation of the United States Attorney General's Office of the building permit denial of the Stanley Street Treatment and Resources Inc.'s proposed facility on Weaver Street."

The School further asserted, [s]ome of the materials you seek are the subject of a pending Open Meeting Law complaint that is still pending before the Attorney Generals Office (AGO). Based upon a conversation between a Public Records Division staff attorney and a School representative, it is my understanding that the complaint before the AGO is still pending.

Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General General Counsel's Office One Ashburton Place, 20th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Dear Attorney Tarrow: I have received the petition of Craig Shibley seeking reconsideration of my previous written determination regarding the Office of the Attorney General's (AGO) response to a request for public records. See SPR16/056 Determination ofthe Supervisor of Records (February 24, 2016).

This letter addresses complaint 75. 2 One member of the Committee is an employee of the Attorney Generals Office.

We remind the Board that within 14 business-days of receiving an Open Meeting Law complaint, a public body must review the complaint, and send a response to the complaint to both the complainant and the Attorney General's Office. 940 CMR 29.05(4), (5). 3 Open Meeting Law determinations may be found at the Attorney General's website, www.mass.gov/ago/openmeeting.

Given that an interpretation of the Open Meeting Law falls within the authority of the Attorney Generals Office (AGO) and not this office, I am unable to address those issues in this determination. See G. L. c. 30A, 23. I encourage the parties to contact the AGO for a determination on the status of the executive session minutes. Conclusion Accordingly, I will consider this administrative appeal closed.