11/18/25
The Massachusetts Attorney General has ruled in favor of The Valley Patriot newspaper’s complaint against the Lawrence City Council for violating the Open Meeting Law (Mass. General Law, chapter 30A, subsection 18-25) when a quorum of the council (five members out of nine) conducting an illegal, secret meeting outside of public view on June 27, 2025.
On that date City Council President Jeovanny Rodriguez released a letter to the public, singed by – and with quotes from – four other city councilors regarding the Mayor’s budget – which passed when the council failed to take action within 90 days.
The five council members named in the letter are; Council President Jeovanny Rodriguez, Wendy Luzon, Stephany Infante, Fidelina Santiago (who is now in prison), and Vivian Marmol.
After receiving Duggan’s official complaint, (story here) City Attorney Tim Houten told the Lawrence City Council at a public meeting (July 7, 2025) that The Valley Patriot’s complaint “had no merit” and that no violation of the open meeting law occurred. He reiterated several times that in no way does he agree that the council was in violation.
Houten erroneously added that, to comply with state law they only needed to publicly read the signed letter into the record (after the fact) and that the city council would be legally covered if they followed his recommendation. Taking the city attorneys legal advice, Council President Rodriguez read the letter into the public record after the fact and considered the matter closed.
But the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office rebuked Attorney Houten’s legal claims, ruling that the city council indeed violated the state’s open meeting law and that his legal advice to read the letter out loud at an open meeting – after the fact – did not comply with the law or satisfy the violation:
“This office received a complaint from Thomas Duggan on July 8, 2025, alleging that the Lawrence City Council (the “Council”) violated the Open Meeting Law…. Following our review, we find that the Council violated the Open Meeting Law in the way alleged.”
“[City Attorney Houten] contends that because the statement was read in its entirety during the July 7, 2025, open meeting, this “action effectively placed all such statements in an open meeting forum.” We disagree. Here, the Council’s reading of a previously released public statement during the July 7, 2025, open meeting did not sufficiently remedy the violation …”
The Attorney General also ordered the five councilors named in the c0mplaint must publicly turn over all emails, text messages, and other “deliberative” communications concerning the letter to their office as a possible way to remediate their violation of the law.
“This didn’t have to happen,” Valley Patriot publisher Tom Duggan said after reading the Attorney General’s ruling in his favor on Tuesday.
“After this occurred in June – and after I filed the initial complaint – I was furious that once again City Attorney Houten gave terrible legal advice to the council. I also felt bad because I knew his bad advice was going to cost them big time. So, I approached the council president and offered a solution. If they just admitted in writing that they violated the open meeting law, that this was not their intent when they wrote the letter, and then pledge that it would not happen again, I would withdraw my complaint and consider the matter closed.”
The Haverhill City Council was fined for this exact violation in 2023.
“Unfortunately for Council President Rodriguez and the rest of the council, they chose to take the advice of Attorney Houten instead of mine. All I wanted was to make sure the council knew this kind of activity is illegal to prevent future violations. But, now they have a violation on their record and they can thank their city attorney for that!”
“What’s more,” Duggan added, “The Attorney General’s Office stated in their ruling that if this happens again it would be an indication of intent to violate the law. That’s significant because there are at least three other complaints pending against the city council and heavy fines against the city could be in the pipeline because of the bad legal advice they continue get from Attorney Houten.”
The Attorney General’s violation letter concluded:
“…we find that the Council violated the Open Meeting Law when a quorum of members deliberated outside of a properly posted meeting. We order the Council’s immediate and future compliance with the law’s requirements, and we caution that similar future violations could be considered evidence of intent to violate the law. In addition, we order the Council to disclose, within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, any communications that occurred between and among a quorum of the Council concerning the statement about the budget and tax implications for fiscal year 2026…”