A complaint filed with the Malden School Committee on June 25, 2026 alleges that Committee chair and Malden Mayor Gary Christenson violated the state's Open Meeting Law during executive sessions, including sessions where the required specificity as to subject matter was missing. The complainant says the alleged violations were not brought within the usual 30-day window because the relevant executive-session minutes remain redacted. This week, the Attorney General's Office told the Committee that its request for an extension came too late to be granted — placing the complaint on an expedited review track and narrowing the Committee's options going forward.
The Complaint
According to the complaint, filed June 25, 2026, the complainant became aware within the prior 21 days of alleged direct violations of M.G.L. c. 30A, §§ 21(a)–21(a)(iv) by the MPS School Committee chair and Mayor of Malden, Gary Christenson.
The complaint states that under 940 CMR 29.04, it was not brought within 30 days of the alleged violations because those violations are said to have occurred in executive sessions, and because records from those sessions remain fully redacted as to the individuals discussed.
The complaint points to executive sessions convened under the litigation exemption for "Malden v. Supervisor of Public Records, et al.," including a December 7, 2020 session, as sessions the complainant says lacked the specificity the law requires.
The core allegation: that Mr. Christenson, an attorney, discussed the reputation, character, and physical and mental health of individuals during multiple executive sessions.
-
View PDF →OML Complaint — Gary Christenson (6/25/26)The original complaint as filed with the School Committee.
-
View PDF →Complaint Transmittal EmailEmail transmitting the complaint to the Committee.
-
View PDF →Message Trace ResultDelivery/trace record for the complaint email.
-
View PDF →SchoolCommittee Counsel to Division of Open Government (7/22/26)Scanned correspondence with the Division of Open Government.
-
View PDF →Open Meeting Law Guide (2025 ed.)Full reference guide, cited throughout this series.
Chronology, By Email
The AGO's Response
The extension request came more than 14 business days after the complaint was filed — the cutoff under which the Attorney General's Office says it can no longer grant one. Because that deadline was missed, the complaint moves forward on an expedited track, and the Committee has been told to send its response to the complainant and to the AGO's office as soon as it is able.
From the Open Meeting Law Guide
The Attorney General's Open Meeting Law Guide begins by laying out why the law exists in the first place — the excerpt at left is the guide's own framing of that purpose.
The guide also sets out when and how a public body may go into executive session, and what limits apply even once it does — the provisions at the center of this complaint.