Special to the Patriot-Bridge
On April 2, 2026, the Attorney General’s office issued a determination that the Monument Square Landmark District Study Committee violated the Open Meeting Law at its July 16, 2025 hybrid meeting, following a complaint filed by Charlestown resident and CNC at-large councilor, Johanna Hynes.
Hynes’ complaint, originally filed with the Committee on August 12, 2025 and later appealed to the Attorney General’s Office, alleged that remote participants faced inaudible audio for extended periods, were denied the level of access enjoyed by in‑person attendees, had microphones muted arbitrarily, and were denied reasonable accommodation and effective access. The AG’s office reviewed the complaint, the Committee’s response, Hynes’s request for further review, a recording of the July 16 meeting, the meeting notice, minutes, and email communications between Hynes and members of the BLC and study committee.
The determination finds that the Committee’s notice offered the public a choice to attend the July 16 meeting either in person at the Bunker Hill Museum or remotely via Zoom, and that this created an expectation of meaningful remote access. After reviewing the recording “at full volume,” the Division concluded that, for most of the meeting, the audio was faint, muffled, and choppy, such that the discussion and deliberations could not be followed by remote attendees in real time. The determination notes that the Committee had experienced similar audio problems at a June 18 meeting and was therefore aware and on notice of potential issues.
The Attorney General held that while public bodies are not required to offer remote access if they provide an in‑person, ADA‑compliant location, once a body chooses to hold a hybrid meeting, the remote option must be genuine and workable for the public. Because the Committee failed to ensure viable remote access after explicitly offering it as a way to attend, the Division found a violation of the Open Meeting Law and ordered immediate and future compliance, cautioning that future violations may be treated as evidence of intent to violate the law.