by Lonnie Brennan
GEORGETOWN – In a nine-count indictment under the headline “facts,” Selectman Michael Donahue detailed what he documented as refusal on the part of SelectBoard Chair Robert Hoover to place on the agenda a voted agenda item, in total defiance to the state’s Open Meeting Law. Donahue’s filing was initially sent last week to nine recipients, including Hoover, the town administrator, and the state’s Open Meeting Law e-mail inboxes.
In his official complaint, Donahue seek to have to a “full, open public discussion with roll-call vote” with direct guidance from KP Law, the town’s decades-long-serving legal counsel.
Donahue had previously asked and received an affirmative vote of the board to agendize a discussion of the process used by the town administrator to unilaterally fire an employee (the Conservation Commission agent). He stated at the board’s March 26th meeting that he did not want to discuss the merits of the firing (job performance, etc.), but rather the process used, and its apparent conflict with the town bylaws.
In his 4-page filing, backed by more than 24 pages of exhibits, Donahue included citations of town bylaws, copies of board actions, a timeline of actions and inactions (including repeated follow-on requests on April 1, 16, 21, 23, and 24 for the chair to honor the March 26 vote of the board), and numerous e-mails between board members, including an exchange in an April 23-24 email chain in which Hoover “expressly refused” to review the issue, Donahue wrote.
Donahue recaps and details that the chair “systematically suppressed the Board’s own voted agenda item to review this process…” He went on to write that “These are not minor procedural lapses. They represent a dangerous erosion of Board oversight, legal opinion shopping, and a pattern of conduct that undermines the integrity of Town government,”
In a March 30th e-mail, Donahue wrote that “The longer this issue remains unresolved, the more potential liability the Town may be exposed to. Let’s try to mitigate, if not prevent, the potential of additional [legal] exposure.”
In his emergency compliant, Donahue noted: “The Town now faces imminent and avoidable risks of unnecessary litigation, additional OML [Open Meeting Law] complaints, other inquires, challenges to bylaw compliance, unnecessary legal defense costs – all stemming from the failure to follow our own governing documents.”
“Chair Hoover has repeatedly and deliberately refused to place this item on any agenda, including the April 21, 2026 executive session. His emails delegate the decision to the Town Administrator and invoke OML concerns as a shield rather than fulfilling the Board’s oversite duty. This is unacceptable obstruction of the Board’s will and further erodes public confidence, particularly as Chair Hoover seeks re-election.”
Interesting to some, while Donahue had sought a review of the firing process that was used to remove the agent (she was terminated on a Friday morning via e-mail and certified letter as previously reported), and while the Board did vote at its March 26th meeting to place the item on an upcoming available meeting, since that time, the individual Board members have not agreed to pursue a discussion of the firing process, and have not challenged the hiring by the town administrator of a new law firm specifically to advise him if he has the power to fire the agent. See story page 1 of this edition.
At press time, we were again advised, as previously reported, that the fired agent has engaged legal counsel in this matter… ♦
