On Tuesday, December 3, 2024, Worcester Telegram & Gazette reported that Rosemary Connolly, an associate justice for the Norfolk County Superior Court in Massachusetts, recused herself from the ongoing case involving former Cannabis Control Commission Chair Shannon O’Brien. This decision came approximately 45 minutes into a hearing regarding the potential impounding of documents related to O’Brien’s ouster.
During the hearing, Judge Connolly stated she remembered an incident from 23 years ago that prompted her to step down from the case. She announced that the matter would be rescheduled in a different court early in the new year.
The hearing was focused on whether to keep a 1,700-page appendix filed by O’Brien sealed from public access. Assistant Attorney General John Hitt argued that the documents contained personal identifying information of various individuals and that the state treasurer, Deborah Goldberg, had a duty to protect this information under the Fair Information Protection Act. Hitt explained that the volume of the documents had delayed their review and redaction, as they contained sensitive information pertaining to state employees.
O’Brien is advocating for the public release of all information concerning her termination. Her attorney, Max Stern of Todd & Weld, emphasized the need for transparency, stating that the situation had severely damaged O’Brien’s reputation and hindered her ability to secure similar employment. Stern argued that a public hearing was vital for O’Brien to clear her name.
The appendix in question was initially submitted by O’Brien for a hearing intended to address her removal, which had been presided over by former Massachusetts Bar Association President Thomas Maffei. Court documents indicated that during four closed-door meetings, Treasurer Goldberg had agreed to hold a hearing but took on multiple roles, including that of the presenter of charges and the ultimate decision-maker regarding evidence.
Goldberg suspended O’Brien with pay in September 2023 and subsequently terminated her employment one year later. The treasurer has only disclosed that O’Brien’s firing was due to “gross misconduct” and alleged that she made remarks that were “racially, ethnically, and culturally insensitive.”
Throughout the hearing, Judge Connolly raised questions about the necessity of impounding the documents, particularly whether the identifying information sought to be protected was present across all 1,700 pages. She remarked, “sunshine is the best antiseptic,” highlighting the public’s right to access information.
Hitt countered that the documents could not be released until all individuals whose information might be disclosed were contacted and given the opportunity to respond. He noted that, since the individuals in question were employees of the Cannabis Control Commission and not directly associated with the treasurer’s office, it would be challenging to reach them.
Judge Connolly further questioned the rationale behind invoking the Fair Information Protection Act in this case. She pointed out that if the matter proceeded to trial, there would be mechanisms to protect witness identities, emphasizing that all parties involved were public employees using public resources.
The judge’s inquiry into the protections in place for whistleblowers in Massachusetts underscored the complexities surrounding the case. As the situation develops, the next steps for the hearing will be determined in the coming months, with the potential for further public scrutiny of the documents involved.
Source: Worcester Telegram & Gazette
