G.L. c. 30A, 22(a); OML 2018-116.4 The Attorney General's Office considers a document to be used at a meeting when it is, at a minimum, physically present, verbally identified, and its contents are discussed by members of the public body during an open session. See OML 2018-116; OML 2012-42; OML 2011-18. Here, Chair Sullivan verbally identified a letter that was included as part of the Committees packet for the meeting that evening.

He also was not aware that an individual could bring a charge at the DLR until he was advised by the Attorney General's office that he could do so. However, this is not good cause to extend the period of limitations. See, Miller v. Labor Relations Commission, 33 Mass. App. Ct. 404 (2007) (lack of knowledge of a potential remedy does not excuse a procedural misstep). Based on the above, | dismiss Thompsons remaining allegations.

Instead, this is the fourth request in a string of separate requests from Concerned Parents submitted in a serial manner for e-mails from state Attorney Generals Offices sent to the Massachusetts AGO on the same date of March 1, 2021. Further, in the June 20 Response, the AGO did not charge Concerned Parents for the time spent on their 3 prior requests, nor is the AGO calculating any time spent on requests from other requesters.

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 concerning the Open Meeting Law issues.

Mitchell, with a copy to the Attorney Generals Office, on March 30, before the Board had reviewed the complaint during a meeting. The Board ultimately reviewed the complaint during a meeting on April 17, well past the 14-business day deadline for doing so. We commend the Board for taking the subsequent corrective action of substantively discussing the complaint during the April 17 meeting and including Mr. Mitchell in the discussion.

Please be advised that in a recent decision from the Attorney Generals Office (AGO) David Olson Page 5 September 24, 2020 SPR20/1636 regarding a similar matter, the AGO found that . . . a resume submitted as part of an employment application falls within a core category of personnel information useful in making employment decisions, and is therefore absolutely exempt from disclosure under the first clause of Exemption (c).

The Departments July 21st response In its July 21, 2020 response, the Department indicates the number of investigations ongoing from the Governors independent investigation, which it notes has concluded, the federal Department of Justice (DOJ), Massachusetts Attorney Generals Office (AGO), and Office of the Inspector General (OIG).

The Environmental Protection Division of the Attorney Generals Office is aware of the settlement agreement and the outcome reached in the agreement but did not participate in the mediation between GE, the EPA and the Committee. 3 2 A public body may enter an executive, or closed, session for any of the ten purposes enumerated in the Open Meeting Law provided that it has first convened in an open session, that a majority of members of the body have

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 any executive session minutes.