NP&EDC Denies It Violated Open Meeting Law In Closed-Door Meeting On Planning Director's New Contract

The Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission (NP&EDC) has formally denied that it broke the state’s open meeting law during an executive session discussion on Planning Director Leslie Snell’s new contract.

In a public response to an open meeting law complaint filed by former NP&EDC member Hillary Hedges Rayport, chair Abby De Molina echoed much of what she previously told the Current last week, claiming that the Commission was fully transparent and compliant with the law.

“The key takeaway was we wanted to be transparent,” De Molina said. “The commission met properly in executive session…all discussion in executive session related specifically and solely to the question of what to include in the contract, and therefore no violation of open meeting law occurred, and no remedial action is needed.”

The NP&EDC did not discuss the complaint further after De Molina’s comments, voting to instruct town counsel to send a letter to the state Attorney General denying Rayport’s allegations.

"Saying you want to be transparent is not the same as actually being transparent," Rayport told the Current. "They want us to believe they renewed a three year contract worth over $600,000 without discussing performance, revising the job specifics and setting goals for their employee? It doesn't make any sense."

Rayport also objected to the minutes of the meeting that included the approval of Snell's contract, saying they didn't summarize the executive session discussion. She called De Molina's explanation "revisionist" and said that "it's probably best for the attorney general to review their conduct."

Rayport’s complaint alleged that the NP&EDC violated open meeting law, the state law intended to ensure government meetings are open and accessible to the public, by engaging in a “wide-ranging discussion” during executive session.

“The Commonwealth of Massachusetts construes executive session discussions about non-union employment contracts narrowly. Discussion of a more wide-ranging agenda that reaches beyond the employment contract renewal is not appropriate for executive session,” Rayport wrote. “[Chair Abby] De Molina led the NP&EDC and Ms. Snell in exactly such a wide-ranging discussion.”

Rayport claimed that the executive session discussion had covered topics including Snell’s performance review, job description, and a memorandum of understanding, all of which she says would be outside the appropriate scope of such a discussion. De Molina replied that these items were only discussed, if at all, as they related directly to the contract.

“We discussed whether to include in the contract certain contract provisions related to compensation, performance, and management goals, and the signatories and the job description, but only as those matters related to the content of the contract,” De Molina said. “We didn’t conduct a performance evaluation in executive session, we didn’t write a job description in executive session, we did not discuss broad policy implications in executive session, we did not discuss the MOU.”

Rayport previously briefly served on the NP&EDC before a narrow loss in a race for her Planning Board seat cost her her position. She has long been a critic of the NP&EDC.

The entire episode may feel familiar. In 2023, when Snell’s first contract was approved, Meghan Perry, another prominent critic of Nantucket’s planning leadership, filed a complaint alleging that the NP&EDC had violated open meeting law when it approved Snell’s contract in executive session and did not list her name on the posted agenda. The state sided with Perry, reprimanding the Commission and requiring it to revote on Snell’s contract.

The meeting that sparked Rayport's complaint can be viewed in full here.