Not to beat a dead horse but ...
The Sandwich Enterprise reported today that School Counsel claimed that the recent School Committee email incident was not an illegal deliberation because no other committee member is known to have responded to it.
However, according to the Attorney General's Guide to Open Meeting Law, (page 2) "deliberation" is defined as:
“an oral or written communication through any medium, including electronic mail, between or among a quorum of a public body on any public business within its jurisdiction.” Distributing a meeting agenda, scheduling or procedural information, or reports or documents that may be discussed at the meeting will not constitute deliberation, so long as the material does not express the opinion of a member of the public body. E-mail exchanges between or among a quorum of members of a public body discussing matters within the body’s jurisdiction may constitute deliberation, even where the sender of the email does not ask for a response from the recipients."
The fact that an opinion was expressed and circulated to a quorum of the membership outside of a public meeting is the issue -- not if another member responded to it.
7 comments:
I read the article in the paper and was suprised that school council so quickly dismissed this. But this is the same School Council that advised the SC to go along with the Assistant DA's suggestion that the April 30th SC meeting was a violation of open meeting law and therefore the contract awarded Dr. Johnson was not valid. Also I was surprized at Ms. Kangas claim she did not know it would be a violaton of open meeting law. If memory serves, Ms. Kangas had a problem with open meeting law right off the bat after her election. I would think she would have been schooled by her chair or the other three members she is close too. I must admit her claim sounded quite hollow.
So next move, since the response from SC may not be satisfactor to you, would then be to go to the AG and see what that office thinks and if they will suggest an investigation.
Is this also the same person who said that firing the Assistant Supt was OK -- even though she had a contract?
Does he also do the teachers contract negotiations?
Why doesn't the school department use the same lawyer as the Town?
if you recall, the "problem " was a non-issue for ms. kangas because she was not an elected official at the time of the discussion - it was unfortunate that the school comm. members continued their personal attact on her even after she verified that there was no violation - very sophmoric if you ask me
She didn't "verify" anything. She claimed the comments were made before she was sworn in -- but do you seriously believe they were made BEFORE she was elected?
There's no way to prove it -- but do you NOT think the Brain Trust met after the election to pick a new Big Cheese?
I'm sure every new committee has done it that way -- but she was stupid enough to say it very publically.
She's embarrassingly clueless -- and seems proud of it.
I've been following along on this blog and on Randy Hunt's -- and just quietly watching the Town go to Hell.
It appears that the four members of the SC's new Majority Brain Trust are:
Someone who is also a current Community School Employee, a former Community School Board member, and a member of the Selection Committee That Couldn't Select a Supt.
A former(very briefly) Sandwich school employee who is married to a current school union leader whose tactics and mannerisms seem to be very unpopular with many non-union teachers -- and who also seems to have her own axe to grind.
Another former Community School Board Member and the Chairman of the Selection Committee That Couldn't Select a Supt.
And, finally, somebody who claims she has "gut nuthin'" (Except appartently experience committing open meeting law violations)
This cast of characters is backed up by frustrated and bitter former school committee members, out of touch parents, apathetic voters, and a union leadership that wouldn't recognize "compromise and reason" if it was served on a cracker.
We're in trouble.
I agree we are in big trouble and I imagine your cast of characters are right. Now we have the Cape Cod Times included in that cast of characters, if you look at today's (Aug. 7) editorial that asserts "the majority of people invested in the schools" want Dr. Johnson gone. It only quotes Jessica L. saying the local election (7% of registered voters) provided a mandate for the town that the town wants change in the schools. So I am guessing Jessica is thinking the schools going down the tubes is the change most people want, given the absolute chaos that has taken place on the SC since the May election.
Unreasonable thinking, irrational actions, no vision, no resolution skills are part of this big time. A gang is tearing down our schools right now and seriously risking the economic well being or our town.
Beware everything said verbally and in writing will be used as evidence in the defamation lawsuit. Including all articles from the CCtimes and the Enterprise the past 3 years. If the gang of fab four had a clue they should have ducked taped their mouths a while ago........whoever has the biggest paper pile wins. Fab four just keeps on growing that pile. Recall needs to happen yesterday if we hope to make this town right again. What young family would want to move here pay such high taxes and have dysfunctional school board? This is gonna ruin our town if the teachers and parents don't start working on a recall. The four are up to their eyeballs with the mud from digging thier heels in, if nothing changes they will be drowning in it soon enough.
Post a Comment