 |
I sent this email to the members of the School Committee tonight.
To the Sandwich School Committee:
I received a copy of the below email (which is clearly labelled as a Public Document - as is most School Committee correspondence) which appears to have been forwarded by Committee member Marie Kangas to all members of the School Committee.
This email would appear to be a deliberation which would be in clear violation of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 39: Section 23B regarding the open meetings of governmental bodies.
According to the Attorney General's Open Meeting Law Guide, a deliberation is defined "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."
As this is a formal complaint, I would respectfully request that the Committee address this Open Meeting Law violation in Public Session , as now required by law.
I have additional concerns which go beyond the illegal comunications.
I am not going to specifically address my serious concerns about the atrocious spelling, grammer and punctuation of a member of the body charged with overseeing a school district whose primary mission includes the teaching of spelling, grammer and punctuation.
I am, however, going to express concern that a school committee member believes her role is "to oversee all operations in the district ... and we approve on everything." The role of the school committee is to establish policy, it is the role of the superintendent to implement that policy.
In simple terms, the Committee decides what they want done -- and then they hire a trained professional to do it. It's fairly obvious that most members of this committee certainly do not have the experience, education, or independence to opine on the validity of educational programs, or any of the related financial aspects.
If the Superintendent does NOT meet the Committee's established goals or implement the Committee's policies, then that would be noted on his/her review, and corrective acions would be established -- up to and including termination.
Or ... I guess you could also give her a good evaluation and THEN terminate her if she ruffles feathers and holds people accountable for NOT doing their jobs. But, then the Committee would run the risk of looking petty and vindictive. And, would likely end up paying the Superintendent to NOT come to work.
I believe that ship is preparing to leave the dock.
And when the dust settles ... Can anybody explain to me how this will help our kids, our property values, or the reputation of all those involved?
Best of luck in the coming Budget Season,
Bob
------Original Message------
From: mkangas@sandwich.k12.ma.us
To: schoolcommittee@sandwich.k12.ma.us
Subject:
Sent: Jul 22, 2010 9:49 AM
i'm a little confused about a few things from last night and didn't want to address them until i understood all the facets of how things work. First - when reviewing the curriculum - Mary Ellen mentioned Sensory Intergration which will need 3 classrooms, i will assume supplies and equipment and personnel - she stated various forms of funding for this "project" - when was this introduced to the committee and when was it approved by the committee??? According to the MASC roles and responsibilities - the super is supposed to recommend procedures/policies/programs to the committee and WE approve it - Same goes for the contract for Mr. Bridges - are we to approve that or can she just put in it whatever she wants and it's okay? i also was to understand that we were suppose to appoint postitions upon the recommendation of the super?! please verify for me - i know that Mary Ellen has been given a rubber stamp on everything she wants and does in the past - but that's not how i understand this committee is suppose work - i understand it to be that we are to oversee all operations in the district. The super is supposed to recommend and we approve on everything - especially spending and appointing of positions. Thanks, Marie
---------------------------------------------
Please be advised that the Attorney General has ruled that communication via electronic mail in the public domain is not confidential and is considered a matter of public record.
16 comments:
Bobby it would be easy to show Ms. Kangus as one whom is confused as to what she swore to uphold. It is called not having a clue, or swaying in the wind waiting for the system to completly fall apart. It is evident that she needs someone to write all her questions and answers as was done for her in attempting to explain away her reason for firing DR.Johnson.
Is that called a Ghost writer from the Union leader? This union leader must be getting a little bonus from all her writings as of late, It must be a good gig
The Truth Maker
I can't imagine this is the first time this has happened in town.
It is amusing that somebody who has represented herself as such a know-it-all seems to know very little, including how to communicate without breaking the law.
But, this is just a tempest in a teapot .... I am sure it will happen again.
stop pickin on marie!!! She got elected --- you didnt!!!
I heard the Selectmen are going to start managing house fires for the Fire Dept, and start going on police calls so they can oversee the cops, and then run down to the DPW and help guard the scrap metal.
Why waste money on professional managers like the police chef or fire chief?
This is just the beginning. I have no children in the school system, but like most, appreciate the value of a good education. The innovative programs instituted by Dr. Johnson, especially in the formative early years, are the envy of most school systems. The action taken against one of the ablest, most qualified, charismatic Superintendents we have had in Sandwich is unbelieveable.The lack of specificity in explaining the rationale for their actions by those voting against Dr. Johnson is preplexing,and the lack of any strategy or plan to proceed is outrageous. The Open Meeting Law violation gives one some insight into the mess we have gotten into. Putting aside the increased costs to the taxpayers,lost momentum, and teacher and staff morale issues, the biggest losers in this "shoot yourselves in the foot" action will be to the children of Sandwich. What administrator of the caliber of Dr. Johnson would want to come to Sandwich and deal with such a dysfunctional School Committee?
This is so interesting. Today town employees, members of town boards and committees, were invited to a mandatory training on the new open meeting law now that the enforcing authority is the State Attorney General. Mr. Simmons is exactly correct. Complaints of violation now go, not through the local DA but to the public board being accussed of a violation. Simultaniously, the Attorney General's office should be notified of the complaint. If the local public board's response to the complaint is not satisfactory the person who complains can request review from the Attorney General. If the AG believe it is warranted an investigation can be initiated. Civil penalties are not brought against individuals, as I understand it, but against the municipality.
Since the complaint in May was never formal and the SC plus their council reacted to what the Assistant DA suggested in regards to the legality of the vote taken, regardless of the fact that only a judge could pronouce the contract legal or not legal, can we revisit that? Another interesting aspect of the new open meeting law enforcement through the AG is that the AG has the right to reinstate someone who has been fired as a result of open meeting law violation. I think I've got that right.
At least two SC members were not told about the training I'm told.
Since the complaint in May was never formal and the SC plus their council reacted to what the Assistant DA suggested in regards to the legality of the vote taken, regardless of the fact that only a judge could pronouce the contract legal or not legal, can we revisit that?
I'm sure a competant lawyer for Dr. Johnson will. With no formal complaint filed with any court, the new and improved School Committee essentially reneged on a valid contract. Ka-Ching.
Astonishingly enough, the present majority thinks they can stonewall this away. Along with our tax dollars. These girls are SO far in over their heads, I'm not sure there's a life preserver big enough to pull them back in. By the time you're talking paying off Dr. Johnson's valid contract, paying a new Super, and paying all the lawyers, you could be looking at ANOTHER million dollars.
At least two SC members were not told about the training I'm told.
Hello? Where was the 20 year veteran Chairman, asleep at the wheel? There is a variety of training opportunities that are SOP for every member at the beginning of every term.
You can elect anybody. And we're stuck, at least until November, with what we got, for better or worse. The two new members are not off to a good start, although I'm sure they're bolstered by listening only to the faction that put them in place. Nancy needs to "splain" herself vis-a-vis her campaign rhetoric to be fair and to communicate openly - the lack of communication from this committe as to their reasons for their actions and their plan for OUR future is hypocritical. Very, very disappointing. She snookered a lot of us.
Marie needs to get educated in facts, demeanor and protocals, and she needs to lose the attitude. People will forgive her lack of experience, forethought and intellectual heft if she cans the vitriol. (Um, maybe not.) It's up to her
Both of these women probably mean well, but it's "nuthin" unless they intend to do well. So far, not so much.
Its to bad people are people and they make mistakes.Its also to bad certain people have axes to grind.
Bobby the life rafts will need to be a little larger to hold this crew a little higher in the water. Will we have any survivors when it is over? We know the children in the school system had some one watching and protecting them with a good life line, but then the crew of four decided to dispatch the life line. Now the boat is floundering around with out a Captain at its helm.
A ship at sea floating with the winds of change and no place to find safe refuge, but wait the crew of four decide to scuttle the ship. Who cares about the safety of its passengers the adults of tomorrow. Not the Union leaders,nor the crew of four. One can say it is all about the children, but one can see that it is not.
Time to get into a larger lifeboat, after all they only care about themselves first, as one with any common sense will tell you, saying you care is one thing, showing you care is another whole matter. We just may need to bring the Queen Mary back, before it is to late. The Union leader and its crew of four have dealt a severe blow to the educational process here in Sandwich and I AM SURE THE EARLE WOULD BE rolling in grave with such news.
The Truth Maker
6:42 anonymous---
your right, but theres big difference betwen misteaks and no knowlege. seems there have been many axes grinding this year.
Under the new law, effective July 1, the relevent section would now be Chapter 30, Section 18.
Bob,
Has the complaint been filed formally and will you please keep us updated on it? I also heard that there is a new educational advisory group in town that has formed to become more aware of school related issues. Do have any details regrading how a concerned citizen could join the group?
UPDATE --- The complaint was formally filed with the Town Clerk and served on the School Department. I assume it will be discussed next Wednesday.
There is a new group in town which has been formed to advocate for the public schools. For more information, see the website at www.sandwichcitizensforqualityschools.org
It is my understanding that under the new open meeting law the SC has to address the complaint. If you are not satisfied with their response, as I understand it you can ask the AG to review and the AG could decide on an investigation. Is that correct.
That's an interesting question. The actual law says:
(b) At least 30 days prior to the filing of a complaint with the attorney general, the complainant shall file a written complaint with the public body, setting forth the circumstances which constitute the alleged violation and giving the body an opportunity to remedy the alleged violation; provided, however, that such complaint shall be filed within 30 days of the date of the alleged violation. The public body shall, within 14 business days of receipt of a complaint, send a copy of the complaint to the attorney general and notify the attorney general of any remedial action taken. Any remedial action taken by the public body in response to a complaint under this subsection shall not be admissible as evidence against the public body that a violation occurred in any later administrative or judicial proceeding relating to such alleged violation. The attorney general may authorize an extension of time to the public body for the purpose of taking remedial action upon the written request of the public body and a showing of good cause to grant the extension.
BUT the complaint form is inconsistent with the law because it does say that the complaint should only be forwarded if the complaintant is dissatisfied. That would certainly seem to be a more reasonable approach -- if the AG was involved in every case, the process would grind to a halt.
Post a Comment