PEABODY — The Zoning Board of Appeals made its first public comments since being informed by the Office of the Attorney General (AG) on Nov. 18 that the board had violated the state’s Open Meeting Law on two occasions in 2021.
The AG determined that board member Barry Osborne’s actions in emailing the full board on May 11 and Oct. 7 regarding safe harbor status for the Endicott Street and Newbury Street 40B projects were violative of the Open Meeting Law.
Despite the finding that he violated the law, Osborne seemingly defended his actions at the board’s most recent meeting, saying “I don’t feel the need to apologize for my actions, for my beliefs, what I thought were right then and what I still believe were right.”
Osborne said he was only trying to “investigate the board’s options regarding concerns brought to our attention in a letter by two elected officials in the city.”
Osborne characterized the Open Meeting Law matter as a “political cesspool” and said he was “proud of this board for not dipping their toes in the political cesspool that this issue became.”
ZBA Vice Chair Stephen Zolotas conceded that Osborne’s actions were “technically” in violation of the Open Meeting Law, but he thinks it’s important for everyone to understand that there were no other communications that occurred improperly outside of ZBA meetings
“It strictly has to do with these two emails, which were simply a reply all by Mr. Osborne,” Zolotas said. “There was no additional communication by phone, text message, email or anything else.”
Osborne began his remarks by offering what appeared to be a conditional apology, saying he wanted to apologize “if” his actions “discredited this board or the city that I proudly volunteer to serve.
“Contrary to what some may believe, please be assured that my actions were in no way intended to discredit the board or the city, nor deny any citizen the right to speak on any issues, or underhandedly favor one side against the other” Osborne said. “Believe me, I do not desire any headlines in any newspaper or on social media (and) I only desire to serve the city to the best of my ability.”
According to the AG decision, City Councilor Anne Manning-Martin and School Committee member Jarrod Hochman sent a letter to the ZBA on May 11, 2021 asking the ZBA to assert safe harbor.
ZBA Clerk Carla McGrath forwarded the letter via email to the full board. Osborne responded to McGrath’s email, copying the full board, and stating that “I would be all for it.” The AG ruled that Osborne’s actions in responding to the email violated the Open Meeting Law.
The AG decision further stated that McGrath sent an email to the board on Oct. 7, explaining that a comprehensive permit has been submitted for the Newbury Street project. Osborne responded to the email, “copying the full board” and stating that the board “should inform the applicant that we will be requesting safe harbor or have them withdraw the application till we have everything else on our plate settled.”
ZBA Chair Frances Bisazza Gallugi began the meeting by reading excerpts from the AG’s decision, which the board voted unanimously to accept. She prefaced her reading by saying that “unfortunately, we had an open meeting violation (and that) we were told by the AG office that we had to make this public, which we were going to do anyway.”
The AG’s decision stated that “after reviewing all the evidence before us, we find that the board violated the Open Meeting Law on May 11 and Oct. 7 when Member Osborne emailed the full Board regarding asserting safe harbor for the Endicott Street Project and the Newbury Street Project.”
Other than the above issue, the investigation did not find that the board otherwise deliberated outside any posted meetings regarding safe harbor for the Endicott Street or Newbury Street projects.
“We order the Board’s immediate and future compliance with the Open Meeting Law, and caution that similar future violations could be considered evidence of intent to violate the Law,” the letter from the AG’s office said. “Additionally, we order the Board, if it has not yet done so, to release the May 11 and Oct. 7 emails to the public.”
Galluci did not say how the board would be releasing the emails or if the emails were to be posted publicly; instead, she said that the emails are available “if anybody wants them.”
Zolotas said the AG decision was “available to anyone who wants to read it.” He said it was important to rely on the full decision, “not snippets, not blurbs” that he said had “very quickly moved around the city.”
