Can I attend a public meeting in Massachusetts if I have a no-trespass order from the building?

Not automatically barred. The Massachusetts Attorney General has held that a no-trespass order does not by itself override the right to attend an open meeting of a public body. A public body may exclude someone only to protect safety and good order, based on specific evidence of violent, threatening, or abusive behavior, and any such exclusion must be drawn as narrowly as possible and reassessed regularly. See OML 2019-87 and OML 2025-125.

Does offering a Zoom or remote link satisfy the Open Meeting Law if I am barred in person?

For meetings held in person, not as a permanent substitute. The Attorney General has stated that remote access is contrary to the law's guarantee of being physically present, absent special circumstances, and that once a good-order risk passes the person must be allowed to attend in person (OML 2025-125, citing OML 2019-87). Separately, temporary Massachusetts provisions running through June 30, 2027 allow a public body to meet fully remotely while providing adequate, alternative access.

Does the Open Meeting Law apply to Town Meeting?

No. Massachusetts Town Meeting is governed by G.L. c. 39, not the Open Meeting Law, and the Attorney General will not investigate Open Meeting Law complaints about Town Meeting. The Open Meeting Law covers multiple-member boards, commissions, committees and subcommittees, such as a select board, city council, school committee, planning board, or housing authority.

What if I stayed away from the meeting because of the no-trespass order?

In OML 2019-14 the Attorney General found no violation, stating that its investigation did not show the complainant sought to attend the meeting or requested permission and was denied, and that it therefore could not conclude he was actually excluded. Across these decisions, violations were found where the complainant had attended or asked to attend and been turned away.

Open Meeting Law / No-trespass orders

Banned from town hall. Can you still go to the meeting?

You were handed a no-trespass letter, a stay-away order, or were simply told you are not welcome in the building. Now the select board, city council, school committee, or housing authority is meeting there. This page collects what the Massachusetts Attorney General has actually decided about that situation, and links the full decisions so you can read them yourself.

The short answer

A no-trespass order does not automatically strip your right to attend an open meeting. The Attorney General has found violations where a public body used one to keep someone out.

But it is not absolute. A body may restrict attendance to protect safety and good order — and that takes specific evidence of violent, threatening, or abusive behavior, not just a piece of paper. Even then, the restriction has to be drawn as narrowly as possible, reassessed regularly, and lifted once the risk has passed.

First — is it actually a "public body" meeting?

This matters more than people expect, because the answer changes which law applies.

The Open Meeting Law covers multiple-member boards, commissions, committees and subcommittees — a select board or board of selectmen, city council, school committee, planning board, zoning board, board of health, conservation commission, library trustees, a housing authority board, and their subcommittees.

Town Meeting is different If you mean the annual or special Town Meeting — the one where registered voters vote on warrant articles — the Open Meeting Law does not apply. The Attorney General's own guide is explicit: "Town Meetings, which are subject to other legal requirements, are not governed by the Open Meeting Law," and the Attorney General "will not investigate complaints alleging violations in these situations." Town Meeting runs under G.L. c. 39, §§ 9 and 10. Everything below is about board and committee meetings, not Town Meeting.

What the Attorney General has decided

A no-trespass order does not override the right to be there. In OML 2019-87, a commission handed a member of the public a Notice of No Trespass and excluded him from its meetings. The Attorney General found a violation. The decision states that access to a meeting

"must include the opportunity to be physically present, as well as to see and hear what is being discussed…" OML 2019-87 (Beverly Regional Airport Commission, July 25, 2019)

Safety and good order is a real limit — but a narrow one. The same decision recognizes that a body "may take reasonable steps to ensure the safety and good order" of its meetings. In practice the Attorney General has required specific, current evidence of violent, threatening, or abusive conduct. A stale order, a paperwork dispute, or a general sense that someone is difficult has not been enough.

Barring someone in person without any alternative is a violation. In OML 2025-125 — the most recent decision on this — a housing authority board barred a complainant from attending in person. The Attorney General found the board violated the law "by barring the complainant from attending open meetings in person without providing an alternative means of attendance."

And it cannot go on indefinitely. The same decision:

"the complainant may not be deprived indefinitely of the opportunity to attend Board meetings in person. The Board must reassess circumstances regularly and decide whether ongoing prohibition from meetings is warranted. A no trespass order must be 'drawn as narrowly as possible to avoid unnecessarily excluding individuals from posted meetings of public bodies.'" OML 2025-125 (Mashpee Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, August 18, 2025)

They offered me a Zoom link instead. Is that enough?

Not as a permanent answer. This is the question people ask most, and the Attorney General has addressed it directly. Immediately after the passage above, OML 2025-125 continues:

"Once good order is no longer at risk, the complainant must be allowed to attend meetings in person. See OML 2019-87 (noting that remote access is contrary to the Law's guaranty to be 'physically present' absent special circumstances)." OML 2025-125, citing OML 2019-87

So where a body is meeting in person, remote access works as a temporary accommodation while a genuine good-order risk exists. It is not a substitute for the right to be in the room, and it does not let a body keep someone out indefinitely by pointing at a livestream.

One important caveat — the temporary remote-meeting rules Separately from any no-trespass question, Massachusetts has temporary provisions, extended by legislation signed March 28, 2025 and now running through June 30, 2027, that let a public body hold its meeting remotely without a quorum physically present, so long as it provides "adequate, alternative" access to the remote meeting. If a body is lawfully meeting fully remotely, there is no meeting room to be excluded from, and the question becomes whether that alternative access is adequate. The decisions on this page concern exclusion from meetings held in person.

The practical trap: you have to actually try to attend

This is the most common way a complaint fails, and it is entirely avoidable.

In OML 2019-14, a no-trespass order barred someone from City Hall. The Attorney General found no violation, and said why:

"our investigation did not show that Mr. Branco sought to attend the June 14 meeting or request permission to attend and was denied. We cannot, therefore, conclude that he was actually excluded…" OML 2019-14 (Fall River, February 22, 2019)

The pattern across these decisions is consistent: in the cases where the Attorney General found a violation, the complainant had attended or asked to attend and been turned away. Where no such attempt appears in the record, the office has found no violation to review.

What a body has to do before it keeps you out

Pulling the decisions together, a public body relying on a no-trespass order to exclude someone from an open meeting is expected to be able to show:

A safety or good-order basis — specific, current evidence of violent, threatening, or abusive behavior. Not merely that an order exists.
That the restriction is drawn as narrowly as possible, so it does not sweep in meetings it does not need to.
That it reassesses regularly rather than leaving the exclusion in place indefinitely.
That it restores in-person attendance once the risk has passed.

Separately, if the issue is being removed during a meeting for being disruptive, a different sequence applies under G.L. c. 30A, § 20(g): the chair must give a clear warning directed at that specific person, the disruption must continue, and only then may the chair order removal. Recording an open meeting is a protected right under § 20(f) and is not by itself a basis for removal.

The decisions, in full

Each of these is posted here with its original PDF.

OML 2025-125 Mashpee Housing Authority Board of Commissioners · Aug 18, 2025 · Violation
Barred in person with no alternative means of attendance. Sets the narrow-tailoring and reassessment requirements.
OML 2019-87 Beverly Regional Airport Commission · Jul 25, 2019 · Violation
Notice of No Trespass used to exclude someone from meetings. Applies the physical-presence rule to a no-trespass exclusion.
OML 2022-41 Tewksbury School Committee · Mar 4, 2022 · No violation
Collects the earlier no-trespass decisions.
OML 2019-14 Fall River Licensing Board and others · Feb 22, 2019 · No violation
No attempt to attend, so no denial of access. Also the source of the "as narrowly as possible" standard.
OML 2017-77 Scituate Board of Selectmen · May 15, 2017 · No violation
OML 2018-77 South Essex Sewerage Board · Jun 5, 2018 · Violation
Boundaries of the safety exception.
OML 2014-8 Egremont Board of Selectmen · Feb 6, 2014 · Violation
Removal for recording an open meeting is unlawful.

If you think a body got this wrong

Open Meeting Law complaints go first to the public body itself, on the Attorney General's complaint form, and generally must be filed within 30 days of the violation. The body has 14 business days to respond. If you are not satisfied, you may then bring the complaint to the Attorney General's Division of Open Government. The deadlines are strict, and missing them is the most common reason a complaint goes nowhere.

The Attorney General publishes the Open Meeting Law Guide and the complaint form, and the full run of determinations.