Revised meeting law may take toll

They want legislators to reconsider the revised regulations, which could take effect as early as July 1.

Among the revisions, municipalities would be required to keep copies of all documents and exhibits submitted and used at board and committee meetings, in addition to the customary minutes.

“This is one more thing the towns don’t need dumped on them right now, in our current financial situations,’’ said Michael Sullivan, town administrator in Medfield.

The new rules are taking effect as Open Meeting Law oversight and enforcement is reassigned from district attorneys to the state attorney general’s office. Sullivan has written a letter to the Legislature asking for a fresh look at parts of the new rules, joining state Senator James Timilty, a Democrat from Walpole, and the town of Walpole in the most recent round of objections. Officials in Lexington and Wayland have also expressed concerns.

A recent request by the state Senate for more time to consider the changes and objections to the revised law could push its effective date to November. The state House of Representatives must now decide on the proposed delay, with a vote expected this month.

Sullivan said that for Medfield to preserve all the additional documents called for under the new regulations, “you’d have to build some sort of storage facility. And how would you find anything? We’d need somebody to help with searches and filing.’’

Linda Crew Vine, deputy town manager in Lexington, said her community would have to carve out new space in the town office building, which is already crowded and slated for renovations.

“We’re overrun with paper and records at this point,’’ said Vine, who added that documents are also kept in a vault at the town’s Cary Memorial Building.

Wayland’s town administrator, Frederic Turkington Jr., said it is still unclear to him exactly what records need to be kept.

“Sometimes there are drafts handed around, or a resident brings in a letter or document,’’ he said. “If they take that away with them, how do we get that, and is that something we have to keep in perpetuity?’’

Geoffrey Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, which advocates for cities and towns, said that kind of ambiguity could expose local governments to legal consequences under the revised law.

The parameters should be better defined, he said, to avoid “claims or liability if they implement a document-destruction policy, even after a number of years.’’

It is also not clear whether towns can meet the law’s requirements by keeping electronic versions of meeting records, rather than the hard-copy paper files, said Beckwith.

Last month, the Massachusetts secretary of state’s office issued a new, consolidated schedule of document-retention times and formats.

It specifies that meeting records must be kept in a durable, written format, with the length of time varying — from one year to decades to forever — depending on the document and the municipal department in question.

“There shouldn’t be any confusion,’’ said Alan Cote, the state’s supervisor of public records, regarding the revised Open Meeting Law’s requirements. “The retention of those documents is addressed in the new consolidated municipal schedule.’’

The other change that concerns officials, according to Beckwith, is that local governments must make meeting announcements available in a public space, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Lexington and Wayland are likely to use their police station for postings, officials said. In Medfield, Sullivan said the town is considering adding exterior bulletin boards to Town Hall.

Medfield Selectman Osler Peterson, who serves as the board’s clerk, said the requirements seem to disregard the way the public uses the Internet for such information.

“My feeling is that the Town Hall bulletin board is sufficient, as long as they’re also on the town website,’’ Peterson said.

Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, a government watchdog organization, agreed that the Internet should help satisfy the requirement.

“We submitted comments to the attorney general to that effect,’’ said Wilmot. “The argument is that people don’t always have access to the Internet. Well, people don’t always have access to a car to go down to Town Hall, either.’’

Officials in Newton say they do not oppose the changes. The city clerk is “comfortable with the archiving of these documents as requested,’’ said Andrew Warner, the city’s community outreach coordinator, and an electronic meeting-announcement board will be outside City Hall by July 1.

“These guidelines are about making more information available to more people,’’ Warner said. “It’s consistent with our administration’s and city’s desire to be as open and transparent as possible.’’

Officials in Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office said they’re listening to the reactions.

“We are hearing their comments and suggestions,’’ said spokesman Grant Woodman. “And we’re going to try to use them in our proposals’’ regarding enforcement.

If the delay until Nov. 1 is approved, Turkington said, he is hopeful the law’s wording will be further defined during informal summer legislative sessions.

Meanwhile, Lexington town officials have scheduled two training sessions this month to deal with the changes.

Sullivan, in Medfield, said he thinks the tradition of residents participating in local government could be at stake.

The changes could “discourage people from volunteering on boards,’’ he said.

Wilmot, however, said the new law’s changes are critical to providing information to citizens about what their local government is doing.

“Maybe some tweaks in the language would be appropriate,’’ she said, but “these big bills are never perfect, you could always improve upon it.’’