Ethical Scorecard ?

There's been much criticism focussed on the prior School Committee Chairman's failure to properly post the meeting where the Superintendent's contract was voted. 

Despite the fact that the continued meeting was announced 46 hours in advance during a posted public meeting, was widely publicized on local cable, the local paper, and on a large sign in the High School lobby, it was not posted on the bulletin board in the Clerk's Office 48 hours in advance -- as apparently required by law.

While I am not aware of any huge multitude of citizens that trek to the Town Hall Annex on a daily basis to check for possible meetings to attend, the strict letter of the law was not met -- regardless of whether the spirit of the law was.  Although the Committee unanimously voted to continue the meeting, the Former Chairman deserves a kick in the ass for not double-checking the posting requirement for "Continued" meetings.

(Kicking self in ass now)

OK, so besides choosing to disregard the portion of Open Meeting Law requiring a judge's ruling to vacate a contract (thereby opening the Town up to potential litigation exposure),  how has the new Committee fared in their other ethical challenges since the election?

1) Kangas announced at her swearing in ceremony that they had already picked their new Chairman.  Maybe not a violation of the letter of the law because her discussion with her new colleagues took place before she was sworn in (BUT probably after she was elected).  This was, however, certainly a violation of the spirit of the law which requires open public discussion of all Committee business. 

2)   Crossman petitioned the Board of Selectmen for permission to retain her position as a paid pool employee at the Community School, despite being a member of the elected board charged with overseeing that operation.  The tough decisions she should be making as a School Committee member would have a direct impact on her Community School employment.

3)  Kangas sent an email to the entire Committee discussing several school issues and asking for responses from members.  Following a citizen complaint to the Attorney General's Office about illegal deliberations, the Committee acknowledged that she violated Open Meeting Law ... well, kinda sorta.  The wording of their response actually triggered another violation inquiry to the AG's Office.

4)  The Committee response to the Kangas email issue that indicated the incident DID occur (and wouldn't happen again) but that no "substantive violation" occurred because no member responded to the  email.  The law appears to specify, however, that the violation is triggered by sharing an opinion with a quorum of members --  EVEN IF NO RESPONSE IS REQUESTED, the Attorney General's Office is now following up on this complaint.  Details to follow ...

5)   At the August 4 meeting, Crossman took an active part in Committee discussions regarding  the allocation of pool costs.  She did not recuse herself from the meeting or even make a  public disclosure that she is a paid employee of the Community School, as required by law.  Her paid position with the Community Pool could be directly impacted by any Committee decision regarding the pool.  I suspect this issue will arise again unless Nancy leaves the table during every discussion of pool operations.

6)  The Board of Selectmen announced yesterday that the School Committee Chairman decided to forward the Superintendent's contract to the AG for review (perhaps she has begun to doubt the wisdom of prior legal advice?).  This decision was apparently made without any committee meetings or public discussion.  Discussion with other members of the Committee may have (again) highlighted the fact that the law specifies ONLY a judge can invalidate a contract -- and that continued stalling will likely result in higher legal costs (not to mention MORE wasted time.)

7)   There have also been School Committee meetings that were scheduled and subsequently cancelled at the last moment.  Maybe folks realized that they were not properly posted according to the new Open Meeting Laws?


Given the tremendous amount of attention they must be paying to the serious budget crisis the Town is facing, including the need to cut the current year school budget due to declines in State Aid, and the unsettled Teachers' Contract,  not to mention a potential capital override request in the Fall and an Operating Override in the Spring, I could see why they may have occasional ethical amnesia.

What?

Oh, they aren't talking about the budget, or the contracts, or working with the Board of Selectmen, or FinCom?

Well, never mind.  I gut nuthin'!