This is a meeting of the Gardener Board of Health on Thursday, January 8th, 2026. It is 4:29 p.m. and we are in the Harvard conference room >> 4:30 p.m. Now any person may make a video or audio recording of an open
session of a meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium subject to reasonable requirements of the chair as to the number placement and operation of equipment used as so as not to interfere with the conduct of the meeting. Any person intending to make such recording
shall notify the chair report with all documents referenced or used during the meeting must be submitted in duplicate to the clerk of the board committee. All documents shall become part of the official record of the meeting. This meeting is being video recorded by the board of health. The minutes of the
meeting will be recorded and made available to the public. Is there anyone present making audio or video recordings of these proceedings? No. All right, we'll call the meeting to order. All three members are present. Um, so we
do have a quorum. Um, and moving on to public comment. Please limit your comments to two minutes. And just before we begin, I'm just noting that the topic of the meeting is specifically to address an open meeting law complaint from December
19th, 2025. And then we'll have another normal meeting later this month on January 26th. Susan Abalone, resident of Gardener. Um I am uh before you you have an advisory from the city solicitor in response to
the open meeting law violation and um it outlines constructive um items that need to be done, corrective items to um resolve the issue. and file
um certain materials with attorney general's office. The complaint was filed against um November 12th and November 19th executive meetings that were held for interviews where I was also on the board at that point. Um
certainly did not know as we've discussed repeatedly. Um it's was very confusing and I in all good faith I think um that interviews were held under executive session in good thinking that
that we're doing the right thing. Um the advisory uh there is a motion that the board is um I am supporting that the board make and adopt so that the advisory is adopted and then the rest of
the corrective actions um I will continue to work with the board on um completing them. Um, again, you know, the interviews were held and second interviews. I'm not sure what the issue, how to
resolve it going forward. Um, the city solicitor when I went back to try to talk to him after he sent this, he was on vacation. So, I do plan to try to have some conversation with him when he gets back, which you know shared with um
the board because I have some concerns about how the process is going to um evolve with the interviews going forward and you certainly all need to have that information because you have more interviews to process. I know for a fact
that several of the applicants from the last round, I was at a conference where several of them were at when I was in my hotel room calling them to see if they were still interested and making their scheduled um you know, interview times.
And two of them were very very concerned that I not reveal anything about them, you know, looking and applying for a position because thinking I might know someone there and stuff. I mean, I
personally think interviews should be private and confidential and I don't I don't know what the right process is to conduct the interviews going forward. Um but that should be resolved before you guys
address it. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> All right. So from what Sue um explained, we did receive a complaint um which was dated December 19th, 2025, which was referring to the two executive
sessions on November 12th and 19th um for health director interviews. Um so as she mentioned the complaint was reviewed with the city solicitor and they responded with this advisory which you all have. Um and then this advisory
in the motion that I will go through shortly is what our basically written response will be should we vote on that today um and accept it. That advisory along with um the vote from today
um as well as the complaint itself would be then emailed to the attorney general alongside um the complaintant. The minutes of the meeting are actually of those two meetings are separate. Um so we do need to review them at the next
meeting when they're ready to be um signed off on and then those will just get posted like normal meeting minutes. Um so has everyone had a chance to review what the solicitor advised? So I do have one [cough] question the
top that caught my attention. Um in the second paragraph it does say um paraphrasing in contrast the next level of interviews where finalists are asked substantive questions and the board evaluates their suitability for
appointment must be conducted public. Um it's always been my understanding that other offices have appointments but we are actually hired. I don't know if there's a discrepancy with that wording or if it's a discrepancy that was not caught by other people who re re reviewed this.
>> Could you say that again? >> So, so typically like the building commissioner is appointed, you guys are appointed, >> right? >> The director and the assistant director are hired, right? >> So, I don't know if there's a difference or if it's just a board choice of board. >> Yeah, I think that's a valid point. You
know, I I think we should determine whether there is a distinction. >> Yeah. So, the what they clarified in the letter though is that we can do pre-screening, meaning looking things over and determining if they have adequate qualifications, and then if we
do an official interview, that has to be public. And to your concern Sue about what he says in the next paragraph is that most people think that the privacy is significant. You know like if you um
the public records law exempts from disclosure any documents contained in a personnel file relate relate to hiring, firing, promotion or demotion of an employee. So it's it's often overlooked by a volunteer board given the apparent inconsistency between the
confidentiality rules and then the uh records and transparency requirements for the meetings which you then put in parenthesis which are legally required. So I would say if we're pre-screening someone and then we decide to interview them, we tell them it has to be a public interview and they just decide if they
have to take that. >> Well, I I sort of more interpret that. I mean is the the interview at the public meeting where I I mean is that
determining suitability for appointment? I I would think the screening would involve most resumeé items um things that would have confidentially confidentiality concerns should probably all be done in the pre-screening process I would think. Right. And then so
um I I you know again I'm going by what was said in the letter but um the next level of interviews where finalists are asked substantive questions and the board evaluates their suitability. So what is the the reference to
substantive questions versus the pre-screening process? I I I'm not sure. Am I missing something on the Because I I feel like, you know, personal information, I would guess should be most of the personal information should
be discussed in the pre-screening process and then it would just be a matter of I I don't know. I I I sort of just feel like there are certain things that maybe it's not going to be appropriate to discuss at a public meeting with with applicants that are
being you know so if that that would all be done during the pre-screening phase and then it's just basically the formality of um or is this saying that because I I I would the pre-screening pre-screening questions all bear on the
suitability for appointment you know so I I'm not sure I'm getting the nuances of the the distinction between the two um as far as what the content of these meetings should be
because I think that you know if you're doing it as a comprehensive pre-screening and you're interviewing several candidates and then you have it narrowed down to a couple, you're necessarily in this in the follow-up interviews going to be discussing some personal information I
would think you know. >> Yeah. Um so with that I I agree and I think where the gray area is is what can HR do versus what can we do and then is there a level of
involvement we can have with HR as a single member of the board or two members of the board through that process prior and then they come forward in front of the whole board. So I agree that's still unclear with the vacation
unfortunately of the solicitors. If I can speak again, Susan Abalone in gardener. Um, Angela made a great point and there is that whole gray area about um the way the statue reads I believe is
that the health board hires the health director who hires the assistant health director. Um there's it's not appointment but it's always I mean I was on the board for 17 years. Jeff and I were with
many I would say four or five different um interview processes and it was always kind of geared and navigated led by HR with one or two of us present which
I'm not sure if that's the right way to go either because even two members present on a three member board means it's a quorum and you Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, for us to appoint a committee as the board is currently
constituted, it's a oneperson committee at this point, >> right? >> Mhm. >> And even with the um pre-screening, my understanding with the pre-screening was okay, you have the resumeumés, you have
um the job description, you have what's on the resumes, the criteria. um do they meet the basic qualifications, education, inspections, whatever. And then you go on to
interviews. So again, I always I wanted to have, you know, conversation with the city solicitor to kind of clarify that because I think it's unique with the health board with um it's always been kind of
a gray area. I think when we had health directors to hire. >> May I make another comment? >> Um I recently applied for a state position with the Department of Public Health and they had a very substantial pre-screening application and phone
interview with one person prior to you being invited for an inerson interview. So, that is another way to maybe get to the candidates, the heart of what you need before having to um have an open meeting. And then, as Jeff had, I believe, said, it could be more of a
formality to maybe list the qualifications and then do the appointment or hiring in a public meeting. >> Right. >> Those are just a couple ideas that I've had. >> Great. >> Okay. Um, so knowing that we still have
to differentiate and what pre-screening what can be done in pre-screening versus what can be done here. >> I think this still leaves room for that to be sorted out after. >> Sure. >> Um does everyone agree with with that that we can kind of continue to work
with the solicitor and HR and sort the logistics out for going forward? Um I know it does say appointment in this case it would be hiring. Do we feel like that's a hard stop on reviewing the motion further? I I feel like there
maybe we could ask that that be corrected in in >> Well, so so I think my question being is is the statute that requires us to do this in an open form say appointment for physicians for appointment. >> Yeah.
>> Or was this just a four words? >> Yeah. I I mean I I'm guessing it's probably the latter. I'm not sure though because it didn't If it did specifically refer to an appointment, then that would be
something different. >> Okay. >> I just want to make sure that that is clarified before. >> If it was an appointed role, right, it would go through the appointments committee with city council. So, I don't I do think it's probably a word.
>> I think it's right because I mean, he understood the situation when he when he >> issued the letter. So I think if there was a distinction he would have pro probably [snorts] but it's worth following up on but again I don't think it it bears necessarily on
what we have to do at this meeting. >> Okay. Yeah. So I will definitely follow up on that and then like I said we'll continue conversations about how we proceed with the next round of interviews for future candidates. Um, other than that piece, are there any
other points of discussion about the advisory? So, there won't be any of the other responses that were transmitting the materials to the complainant and to the attorney general. You have to resolve that later or follow through.
>> Yeah. So we have to basically today make the motion to accept the advisory if we agree with it and vote on that today. A copy of a sheet that we'll sign off on with our our decisions on that today. So that along with the complaint and the
advisory itself will go to the AG and to the complaint in but the minutes of those meetings can be says finalized and then basically as soon as possible. So, where we still have questions about how to properly maintain confidentiality of
the candidates, we're waiting for the solicitor to get back to us um when they return. And so, we'll finalize those and and certify them at the next meeting and they'll just be posted as per usual. Okay. So, should we make the motion that
was advised and then is that where we're at now? >> Yeah, pretty much. So, I can go over what the advisory explicitly says and then I'll ask that we do that. So, um I'm looking to move that the board adopt the city solicitor's advisory letter
dated December 30th, 2025 as its official written response to the open meeting law complaint dated December 19th, 2025. That the board acknowledges receipt of the complaint and confirms review of applicable open meeting law guidance. And the board directs preparation and release of minutes from
November 12th and November 19th executive sessions at the earliest practicable time and with redactions only as permitted by law and that a copy of this vote, the complaint and the advisory letter be transmitted to the attorney general's division of open
government and copy to the complaint. >> So I second that. All in favor? [cough] I. All goes. Um so unanimous vote to accept um the advisory from the city solicitor
regarding this complaint. Um and we will sign off on that in writing to submit to the attorney general's office. Um and I think otherwise that would be it for today. So I will take a motion to adjourn today's
meeting. >> Motion to adjourn. >> I'll second that. Thank you.