AMHERST — The Amherst Town Council denies that it violated the state’s Open Meeting Law when it met with police officers in closed-door meetings last month, though some councilors contend that giving the officers a private forum violated the council’s trust with the community.

The meetings were called to give officers the chance to provide feedback about working in town and to discuss the council’s response to a July 5 interaction between officers and youths.

After a lengthy discussion at its Monday meeting, councilors voted 9-0, with four abstentions, to have town attorney KP Law issue a response stating that no violation occurred.

The discussion was a response to a complaint from Allegra Clark, who co-chairs the Community Safety and Social Justice Committee, contending that Council President Lynn Griesemer violated the state law by setting up the sessions with the Police Department, and didn’t publicly post them or alert the media beforehand.

Councilors who participated in the sessions, though, said there was never a quorum of the 12 councilors present, nor was any deliberation done.

“We didn’t talk about policy, we didn’t talk about anything, we really were listening,” said District 1 Councilor Cathy Schoen, who added she appreciated hearing from officers about their experiences.

“In the same vein, I don’t think there was a violation,” At-Large Councilor Andy Steinberg said.

Steinberg said he understands the Open Meeting Law’s purpose is to make sure all discussions of matters to be deliberated take place in a publicly posted meeting.

“I saw nothing, heard nothing, knew of nothing, that came forward in the meeting that I attended about what would be a matter that would come before the council,” Steinberg said. “The supervision of the staff in all of our departments is a matter of the executive branch, not the legislative branch, and for that reason I firmly believe that there was no violation.”

For District 4 Councilor Anika Lopes, the chance to listen to police officers was a responsible choice.

“I’m glad that we offered our ear to our staff, ” Lopes said. “I think that this our job here as councilors.”

KP Law attorney Lauren Goldberg provided a four-page memo that will be used as foundation of the response.

“In my opinion… the members of the Town Council did not violate the Open Meeting Law by participating in listening sessions with members of the Police Department,” Goldberg’s synopsis states.

The response will be supplemented with the recording of the council’s discussion on Monday and proposed edits by councilors.

Goldberg writes that there was no quorum of the council at the listening sessions, the Open Meeting Law does not prohibit Griesemer from sending emails to all councilors for purposes of determining availability and scheduling, and that councilors can visit departments and listen informally to employees.

In the complaint, Clark demanded that Griesemer recuse herself from discussing or voting on matters related to town police, and that the Town Council elect a new president. Those demands, Goldberg writes, are “outside the scope of appropriate remedies under the Open Meeting Law.”

The four councilors who abstained from the vote were At-Large Councilor Ellisha Walker, District 1 Councilor Michele Miller, District 3 Councilor Dorothy Pam and District 4 Councilor Pamela Rooney.

Walker said whether a violation occurred or not, she is concerned about the community’s reaction to meetings held in secret.

“The reasons the situation doesn’t feel good is because we weren’t transparent and honest with the community,” Walker said.

Miller called her experience “brutally uncomfortable,” and that different people are being treated in different ways, observing that in co-leading the African Heritage Reparation Assembly, she has to post meetings, even when collecting feedback from people who might be uncomfortable sharing their experiences with racism in town.

Miller said she didn’t feel that the meetings with police officers had the integrity and transparency the public demands from councilors.

“Something occurred that made some people unhappy,” Pam said, adding that she agrees there was likely no quorum and no deliberation.

District 2 Councilor Pat DeAngelis said that she doesn’t expect to request permission from residents to meet with town staff at any time, including from those serving on the Community Safety and Social Justice panel.

“I’m getting really tired of distortion of facts and a real lack of transparency that has existed among members of the Community Safety and Social Justice Committee and this Town Council,” DeAngelis said.

“It is about time we come together and stop playing with the word trust,” DeAngelis said.

Lopes said the Town Council has offered a similar platform and space for families and youths involved in the July 5 incident, during which an officer was recorded telling the teens they had no rights, but they have not taken up the offer.

“I find it very unfortunate to be on a council knowing this information was knowingly presented to the public as it was suspicious, as if something wrong was done, as if this was something that excluded the public,” Lopes said.