184 (1988). The fact that a new version of the Open Meeting Law took effect on July 1, 2010—see St. 2009, c. 28, §20—does not affect the mootness calculation in this case. The statutory exception allowing public bodies to meet privately to discuss litigation strategy has not substantively changed. Compare G.L.c. 30A, §21{a)(3) (effective July 1, 2010) with G.L.c. 39, §23B(3) (in effect prior to July 1, 2010). Since this case raises an issue of ongoing public importance that is “capable of repetition in a manner that might again evade review,” Plaintiffs are entitled to have the Court resolve their claims even though the parties’ dispute over the Board’s discussions of the prior HDC litigation is now moot. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Commissioner of Education, 439 Mass. 124, 127 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Although a declaratory judgment may only be
recognizing that intent of public records act is to provide all citizens with access to the records of all public governmental bodies holding that municipal court records were admissible under  official records or public documents  exception holding that to the extent medical records may be properly categorized as business records such records are properly categorized as nontestimonial holding that records relating to a student court were not education records holding that superior court judge prudently permitted controversy regarding scope of public records statute to proceed and properly decided matter on cross motions for summary judgment even though lawsuit became moot when defendant released all records sought by plaintiff