The council says it was an honest mistake and traced the problem to a typo on the written version of its agenda. The correct information was provided online, the city says.

In a complaint filed Thursday with the Boston city clerk’s office, the Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance said the council placed the proposed rule on the agenda the same day it voted, denying the group and other members of the public a chance to speak on the issue.

A medical marijuana patient group alleges the Boston City Council violated the state’s open meeting law by failing to provide 48 hours’ public notice before voting Wednesday on buffer zones for marijuana dispensaries.


The filing of the complaint by the alliance demonstrates ongoing concerns among patients that their voices are not being heard.

The buffer zone rule requires dispensaries to be at least half a mile apart. The measure is intended to protect neighborhoods from being overrun with shops, in the event voters approve a probable November ballot initiative to legalize recreational use of marijuana, said Councilor-at-large Michael Flaherty, sponsor of the rule.

Nichole Snow, executive director of the patient alliance, said she attended a “working session” a council committee held Tuesday to discuss the issue, but members of the public were not invited to speak. She said there was no indication at that meeting the council would vote on the issue the next day.

“This is about giving the public enough time before something is voted on so they can prepare and talk to City Council members,” Snow said.

The City Council held a public hearing on the buffer zone proposal in October, but Snow said her group was unaware of that meeting.

The alliance is asking that the council be ordered to take another vote on the measure, after holding another meeting for the public to comment.


City Council President Michelle Wu said she will include the complaint about the possible open meeting law violation on the agenda for next week’s council meeting.

“Our goal is to make sure everyone has a voice in the legislative process and that everyone has a chance to participate,” Wu said. “This was a part of an almost yearlong effort of hearing from advocates, patients, and other stakeholders.”

The proposed buffer zone was first filed March 25, 2015. The City Council held a nearly 40-minute hearing Oct. 6, 2015, inviting the public to testify. The council also held two public working sessions — on Dec. 7 and Tuesday — at which councilors discussed the proposal. The council posted notices of the October hearing and working sessions 48 hours in advance, Wu said.

Wu acknowledged the council planned to include the buffer zone on the agenda for Wednesday’s meeting, but there was a typo. Hard copies of the agenda printed Monday morning mistakenly included a docket number related to another measure in the spot where the buffer zone proposal should have appeared.

“It was just a mistake,” Wu said. “For some relatively short length of time, there was an incorrect agenda online. When it was discovered, it was immediately corrected. By Monday afternoon, the correct version of the agenda was back up online.”