Charlestown resident Johanna Hynes has asked the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Division of Open Government to take a closer look at her second Open Meeting Law complaint submitted on May 6, 2026 concerning the Monument Square study committee.
The request for further consideration was sent to the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) on Sept 21, 2026 and is separate from an earlier complaint filed in 2025, which resulted in a finding by the AGO that the committee had violated the Open Meeting Law. The current complaint, filed in May 2026, alleges that the City’s public-facing records did not clearly identify which public body was conducting meetings in regards to the pending district in Monument Square.
Hynes’ letter of request points to language used by the AG Division of Open Government in their July 22, 2026 response, that encouraged the committee to use consistent terminology so that “a reasonable member of the public could understand exactly which public body is meeting.”
Hynes argues that this was (and still is) the central allegation of her May 2026 complaint stating that the use of multiple names across public notices and records made it unreasonably difficult for members of the public to determine which public body was conducting business – and that residents should not have to compare multiple records or rely on later explanations from Boston Landmarks Commission staff to identify the body holding a public meeting.
The concern is tied to the committee’s appointment history. The underlying petition submitted in 2022 sought designation as a Landmark District. However, on December 11, 2024, the Boston City Council approved appointments using an Architectural Conservation District designation. Emails in the public record show that on December 13, 2024 the Boston Landmarks Commission was alerted to the misnomer and acknowledged the error on December 16, 2024. And yet, on January 22, 2025, the appointees were sworn in under oath as the Monument Square Architectural Conservation District committee – the wrong designation. Several months later, the City Council confirmed the same individuals this time using the Landmark District designation and on April 1, 2025 the appointed committee members were sworn in for a second time.
An Architectural Conservation District and a Landmark District are not the same thing. They relate to different forms of local designation, and wield different levels of authority and oversight. According to Hynes’ May 6 complaint, the public should be able to tell which body has been appointed, what authority it is exercising, and which process is actually underway.
Hynes’ complaint argues that the public-facing record does not clearly explain the relationship between those actions or what happened to the Architectural Conservation District study committee after its members were appointed and sworn in? Was it dissolved, replaced, renamed, or does it remain a separate public body?
The September 21 request also cites a prior Division of Open Government decision, OML 2023-128, in which the Division examined whether public notice adequately informed residents which public bodies were participating in a meeting. Hynes asks the AG Division of Open Government to apply the same practical question here rather than decline to review the merits of her complaint.
The Open Meeting Law requires meeting notices to be posted in a “legible, easily understandable format.” Hynes’ May 6, 2026 complaint alleged that the use of multiple public-facing names made it difficult for residents to determine which public body was meeting without comparing records or seeking additional explanation. In its July 22 response, the Division urged the committee to use consistent terminology so that “a reasonable member of the public could understand exactly which public body is meeting.” Hynes’ September 21 request for a closer look asks the Division to consider whether those two concerns are, in substance, the same public-access issue.