It was announced at the Selectmen's meeting tonight that, based upon the advice of their counsel, the School Committee has now decided to refer the Superintendent's contract fiasco to the Attorney General's Office for review.
When was this decided?
This wasn't discussed at the last public meeting. Was there a special meeting called? Was a vote taken or did the Chairman just act unilaterally? (I would have acted unilaterally -- but I probably would have been criticized for not consulting the entire Committee!)
That's not my biggest concern.
I am concerned because the law clearly states that, despite a potential OML violation, only a judge can invalidate an otherwise valid contract AND that any action to invalidate a contract must be brought within 21 days. So, why keep wasting time with another non-judicial review?
But, it was also noted at tonight's meeting that the Superintendent's own counsel was now involved and Town Counsel had been updated on the situation. THAT should be setting off some alarm bells in SOMEBODY'S head!
13 comments:
I wish we did know more about what was announced at last night's BOS meeting in regard to the School Committee going to the Attorney Generals office. When was it decided is a good question. Why are the citizens of Sandwich being kept in the dark about all this. I guess meeting once a month during the summer gives the committee license to conduct public business in private.
Time for the board to consider firing the School attorney, talk about continuation of screw ups.
The S.C. board failed to file for a ruling on the validity of the contract within 21 days of the D.A. ruling. (why didn't school attorney advise them to file?)
Also, did Shari and gang violate OML, when, where and who decided to ask the A.G. office?
FYI Shari and Gang, YOUR STILL IN THE WRONG VENUE, FILE IN SUPERIOR COURT FOR $275. FOR A JUDGES RULING! This situation and they are pitiful! Our poor kids!
It looks like Brennan finally tuned in to this issue during the CCT mid-day update.
Maybe he finally read the rest of the OML as you have been suggesting?
Let's see what he does with it tomorrow.
The 21 days are up so what good would it do to send it to a judge
just me thinking out loud.....so at the bos meeting last night Dana said that chairperson marshall said that the school committee decided to go to the State AG office for a ruling on this whole fiasco.....Ive been at every school committee meeting since this mess began(not that there have been many) When did the committee decide this?????? By email again perhaps?????
The 21 day rule refers to the amount of time allowed to file a civil case in order to request that a judge review the severity of a potential OML violation to determine if it justifies voiding an otherwise executed contract. The judge would hold a hearing and he would have the option of voiding a contract if he felt it was warranted.
Nobody filed for a hearing so any opportunity to claim an OML violation that might justify voiding a contract has passed. The current School Committee blew it.
The purpose of going to a judge now is so that he can confirm or deny the existence of a contract -- before the Superintendent files for Breach of Contract, Defamation, and legal fees.
The law specifically says this a judge's job --- not a District Attorney or the Attorney General. Waiting for an AG's ruling is just wasting time -- and running up the legal fees.
If the Committee had actually called a meeting to discuss this issue, somebody might have pointed that out to the four mouseketeers and saved a few bucks on legal fees.
Wouldn't it would be ironic if they faced a second OML investigation for their handling of the initial OML violation allegation!
There have also been a few people from Sandwich call and write to the AG's office asking for them to look again at the April 30th meeting and the implications of our local DA's letter to the SC. In addition, questions have been raised as to the actual complaint to our local AG coming from Town Clerk based on more announimous citizen action and if that was a valit complaint since it was third party.
The Town Clerk filed an "inquiry" with the DA's office (on behalf of anonymous people who didn't have the guts to publically raise the question.)
No "complaint" indicating a request for a judicial hearing, or the instigation of a civil lawsuit has EVER been filed with the courts. (Or at least nothing had been filed as of last Thursday afternoon).
Deep throat quite right. It was highly unusual for our Town Clerk to inquir in writing on behalf of anonymous people Open meeting law is to protect the people from political shenanigans and back door deals. In this case the shenanigans are front and center beginning with the "inquiry" from the newly elected Sandwich Town Clerk on behalf of annonymous citizens. I wonder if they are the same annonymous citizens driving some of the SC menmbers agenda. How do we get a hold of Town Clerks records through freedom of information act?
Once again our main local paper, the Sandwich Enterprise and their chief reporter has done a number on the people of Sandwich.
#1 The subject of their front page article clearly designed to make Dr. Johnson look bad (and it would seem in defense of a political bias,) is not even public knowledge yet. It has not been before the school committee. Can we quess a carefully placed phone call from a non-professional school, town employee or an official to the reporter began this tale so carefully woven, it appears, for both the reporter's and the Enterprize's increasingly non-transparent agenda.
#2 How do you follow an article written not to provide clarity but to confuss and stir things up. No amount of words disguised as information will cover the obvious motivation for this article.
#3 At least the town has something more to gossip about now. The smear campaign can continue. The self-righteous can continue to feel that being self-righteous is accomplishment alone and the real challenges of the schools can be ignored. Oh yes and the witch hunt can continue.
#4 Breaking a story of this nature, which involves a technical function of school administration, before the School Committee even gets it to their table is not real news. It is small town tabloid journalism pretending to be real news.
We just don't need any more of this. How about all the deep throats being paid by our tax dollars every day to do the work of the town and schools take a long break from thinking it is part of their job stirring up a story out of context, before officials can give a full public explanation? How about a break from stories designed to smear Dr. Johnson.
#5 What a waste of time and energy. How anyone can think something productive can come out of such a measure is amazing to me.
#6 The School Department needs a pr person to deal with local press given the obvious lack of professionalism our small town frameworks subjects us to in terms of how we get information.
It always seems to come back to some employee who was forced to change "the way we always did things" and gets pissed off enough to call the local rag. It' easy to spot a "delivered" story --- there's plenty of detail! Otherwise, nobody bothers to do ANY work!
THERE IS SOMETHING ROTTEN IN DENMARK!!!!!!!!!
It simple the union employees, nepotisum, community school financial mismanagement are the priorities over our childrens' educations.
How does the President Laura Carlise, Sherry Marshall, Jess Linehan, Kangas and Crossman and CCT George Brennan, Emptyprise Mary Stanly, Dennis Fonseca freaking sleep at night. How do they continue to twist facts, deceive the public and know full well it ultimately destroys our childrens educations? Karma can be a wonderful thing, lets hope what goes around comes around sooner than later for these conflicted group. They can't be thinking the bigger picture, otherwise they wouldn't be hurting our children for their gains and stories.
Post a Comment