From The Cape Cod Times:
"...Two of the judges — Frederick Brown and Mark Green — peppered Davis with questions about the meeting and took the position that the school board put too much weight on Shack's opinion.
"It imbues the district attorney with power that he doesn't have under the statute," Green said. He went on to say that the newly constituted committee could not abrogate the authority of a previous school committee.
At one point during the town's oral argument, Brown indicated that Davis had already lost. "That's two votes," he said.
Brown and Green suggested the school board should have tried to invalidate Johnson's contract in court within 21 days of the original vote.
"You snooze and you lose," Brown said.
Davis argued that court action was only one remedy at the school committee's disposal and, instead, the board chose to correct the mistake on its own by reposting the meeting and retaking the vote as the district attorney's office suggested in its letter to the town.
But Brown suggested the school committee had another remedy if it didn't want to honor Johnson's new contract.
"Pay her salary and tell her to get out of town," he said. ..."
Details to follow ...
49 comments:
The Schools attorney Emerson has to go now. Have lost count on how many times he has given really bad legal advise. The screwups keep costing our town big settlements we can't afford. Att. Emerson's legal insurance needs to pick up this tab. Emerson's pockets get full by dragging out teacher negotiations as well. Current school board needs to start fixing the messes and 1st on the agenda should be to fire Att. Emerson.
It’s certainly fun and easy (and sometimes justified) to say: “I told you so” and just laugh when folks do dumb things even after having been warned and begged not to; but today’s news from Boston As reported in 1/11 Cape Cod Times about Dr. Johnson’s contract and what it says about our town government deserves a more careful and thoughtful analysis.
First observation: No town official and evidently none of the town’s attorneys could recognize that an official, correctly formed Open Meeting Law complaint had never been made.
First lesson: Additional training and legal resources should be identified and provided to town officials to preclude future misunderstandings and mis-interpretations of Open Meeting Law.
Second Observation: It seems clear from the judges’ comments (as reported) that either the legal advice the town received was incredibly awful OR that perhaps elected committee members ignored counsel’s advice (maybe in part) and instructed counsel to proceed with what now appears to be an incredibly dubious legal argument.
Second Lesson: Additional, independent reviews/controls should be identified and put in place to require the review of any Committee initiated legal actions (claims or defenses) by another governmental body to help ensure the soundness of the legal strategy and claims the Committee is seeking to pursue.
Third Observation: Committee members and town officials were repeatedly and publically warned by a multitude of persons and groups about the weak legal theory and lack of favorable facts of the case in question.
Third Lesson: Sometimes the public really does know better. Careful consideration should be given to formalizing processes for both receiving public comments and inputs and researching and validating public comments and inputs that are litigation related.
Fourth Observation: None of the Committee actions and undertakings currently subject to litigation were ever supported by the entire committee. The fractured nature of the Committee opinions and votes should have signaled some weakness or potential flaw in the chosen course of action and should have made all in government more circumspect.
Fourth Lesson: Consideration should be given to requiring a form of Committee super-majority approval for the initiation of legal actions (claims or defenses). This would help ensure a more consensus driven course of action.
Perhaps some of the above might help shape your ongoing considerations of Town Charter or By-law revisions or maybe the comments will inspire other procedural reviews and enhancements?
It is my fondest hope that town leaders will come together and identify and act on the many lesson that can and should be learned from the litigation saga outlined in today’s paper. It’s going to be an expensive lesson for sure so let’s make it a lesson learned from.
I wonder just how much revenge goes for these days? Let me think. MEJ still unemployed? Who could touch her after the tangled web was weaved by the Witches of ...oh nevermind. No one really cares about MEJ anymore. I hope she wins a large settlement that attempts to ease her pain. Hell of a town we live in eh?
sad but true. I hope she gets the last laugh.
If the case ends up getting "undismissed", could this mean that the four stooges would be also be back on the hook to be sued personally?
That would be a hoot!
There goes you-know-who's re-election campaign....
As the article says back to court for a hearing
It isn't over yet. This just means she has yet another day in court. She can't sue anybody indivdually either. That is what you get when people hire an incompetent person to head the school dept. You people are pathetic and this blog is nothing but rubbish. Bob your blog is a bigger embarrassment to the town than any one person could ever be.
The Truth Master is very gratified to see that perhaps, some vintication will be forth coming to recitify all of the conflictions surrounding what transpired in regards to how Dr. Johnson was demonized.
When the three judge panal make a ruling and it means that damages will be litigated against the School Department and associated members, it would be benificial for the town to work out a reasonable solution of Three years salary, plus lawyer fees. I would be afriad if the town decides to not settle and it goes before a jury that number may well be three or four times that number, given she has been denied making a living , because of what we the town put her through.
This is far from over, but finally steps have been made for justice and the truth.
sue all the bastard!!!!!!!!
The town has been embarrassing itself long before this blog.
It seems to me that yesterday's article pointed to the dysfunction on the Cape as a whole where justice and rational thinking is concerned. It was clear to many that beginning with the June 2010 vote of the School Committee this situation was rather insane. Thank goodness someone off Cape has had a chance to weigh in. I thought the article made a lot of sense. Of course there were things going on in the background no one knew about that effected SC members attitudes toward the former Superintendent. Add to that folks just not sure how to handle the situation and it looks like this. What is sad is the schools are still in crisis and our kids are still loosing. So our community is still loosing. The blog serves a purpose. It tells one view of the truth. One day perhaps the truth will actually lead somewhere constructive for our kids and our town.
Stupid and Mean are a dangerous combination.
The Anonymous posts (above) are from somebody who’s both.
Back to court? Keep litigating? How stupid. What possible good or what benefit would that bring to our town, our schools and our community? Settle and move on. Stupid people usually like to fight, especially when they’re wrong.
Suggesting the former super was Incompetent? That’s just mean. Virtually everyone in Town knows and acknowledges that the supers’ work was outstanding and the changes she implemented were much needed and very impactful. Saying otherwise is a lie. Mean people usually lie and they love to name call.
Stupid and mean people are usually cowards. Is it any wonder the post was anonymous? Sign your name or shut up.
2:05,
Yes, it will mean another day in court. But, the difference is this time the Appeals Court appears to be saying the contract is valid. There won't be much left to talk about(except where to mail the check!)
You are right this blog does embarrass the Town -- because it points out how a very small group of unprofessional and inexperienced people have managed to trash the reputation of an experienced educator, and will likely cost the Town a boatload of money -- just to protect their own petty self-interests.
Shouldn't you have been getting ready for your school committee meeting yesterday instead of writing on blogs?
Many of us tried to warn the biased, anti- Dr. Johnson members of the SSC that a reversal of her contract was an invitation to lengthy litigation and a large monetary settlement. We argued that no formal OML complaint had been filed within 21 days of the meeting, ergo – “you snooze, you lose” as the judges said. We argued that the opinion of an assistant district attorney wasn’t the same as a judge’s interpretation and ruling of the law. We repeatedly asked them to seek a ruling from a judge. We warned them of these facts at every available opportunity. The four women were determined to set a “full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes” course regardless of the facts.
After the judges’ review yesterday, it would appear all of our arguments were on target. Two years worth of superintendent’s salary and the potential of treble monetary damages being awarded because of the damage to her professional reputation and being unjustly dismissed put a possible monetary award just shy of one million dollars. That's one hell of a "told you so" and it doesn't feel good.
I can’t wait to hear their explanations and justification for causing a one million settlement if they decide to run for reelection.
And if Dr. Johnson wins this case, does this mean she can reopen her civil suit against the four members of the committee who created this mess?
Settlement from the Town of Sandwich = One million dollars
Reopening suit against Marshall, Crossman, Linehan and Kangas = priceless
The Appeals Court hasn't issued the actual ruling yet -- BUT, I would think the Town's insurance company (that has been paying the legal costs) isn't going to be interested in paying any more lawyers if Appeals Court says contract is valid!
Dr. Johnson should continue the lawsuit against Marshall, Crossman, Linehan, Kangas and Joan Calkins too.
Remember the retatliaton and the bogus harrassment charge and banning from the schools.
Retaliation and ruination of her reputation and career is gonna costs lost of money. We figure at a minimum $500,000. If 3 appeals judges say the contract is valid the superior court judge has no option but to admit he ignored the 21 day rule. Superior court judge has no out on these findings.
Emerson's insurance along with all the witch hunters personal insurance or assets will have to be put up to pay off this injustice. Everyone willl have to put in their piece of the pie.
Use these women as examples of how not to behave in an elected seat.
I know this blog is very pro Johnson. However many, many folks were not. That being said how are we going to get parents to want their children to attend the Sandwich Schools.
Beginning later this month and next, 8th graders and their parents will have an opportunity to discuss 9th grade class schedules for SHS. Don't you think this would be the prefect opportunity for the School Committee, Superintendent etc. to check to see if the student really intends to attend SHS or are just covering their bases while waiting to hear if they will get into their first choice of H.S.
I for one feverently hope my child will get their first choice, not SHS, but will attend the course discussion to cover my bases.
Watched the school committe meeting last night, more Foreign Language FTE's give me a break. A principal so excited about a class that kids write thier own play and then perform it for a grade. Sad commentary.
Would someone clarify something. If Dr. Johnson's contract says she can't sue,how is she able to do so. Is that not a breech of her contract.
I think you raise 2 separate issues -- it's not as much a question of whether he's pro/anti Johnson as it is about the fact that the school administration and school committee has been so focused on either defending themselves and/or attacking others that there has been no effort to look at The Big Picture.
People haven't been worried about kids -- they were obsessed with retaliating against a Superintendent who tried to change the status quo and force her employees to be accountable.
The Superintendent was worried about saving her job and reputation.
While all this was going on, it seems the High School ran amok without supervision and the inmates (teachers union & student body) seem to have taken over the asylum.
Regardless of what you think about Dr. Johnson, it is now appearing that she may have had a valid contract -- and that the school attorneys should have known that.
This error will cost the district money that would otherwise have been spent on educational programs.
Hopefully, we can elect some school committee members who actually care about education -- not just self-interest and axe grinding.
Oh how I hate to stir up more bad memories. Did anyone else read the Cape Cod Times editorial that actually said 'Mary Ellen Johnson' was correct in closing the pool during school hours? OMG...why does it take so long for the facts to come forward. What we have done is replaced a talented educator with a very bright politician. Land mines surround him, the pool, the audit, the union contract and amazingly he survives. Dodging bullets isn't great for anyones future. We lost a fighter.....and now, it will be at a tremendous cost to everyone.
1/11 5:05 Are you living in 1972 still? People sue individuals over far less. Mcdonalds lady who spilled her coffee on herself got millions.
You need to go back and read the CCT article the appeals court will send their findings to the Superior court citing the law that the superior court judge failed to see and now it's trial time, reputation damage awards, retaliation damages. Emerson failed to file within 21 days for a judges ruling. It was a black and white decision but these women couldn't see straight with their irrational hatred of
Dr. Johnson. They need to be punished for destroying her career, punishment in the courts equals $$$$$.
Noone is incompetant that has a PHD from Columbia.
The Truth Maker would ask that we all do not get our hopes up to high, until the final results from Boston are factually made public.
I can see the eyes of the two school committee members, as they came out of the Court house the other day. Some serious facial expressions, without any smiles. Some deep thinking is going on. Now that is the truth folks.
Re: the question about her right to sue --- the copy of the contract that was floating around the schools did show she had an arbitration clause.
BUT the issue seems to be that the Committee says there is NO contract. If there is no contract, than there is no arbitration clause.
From what I am reading, it also seems the new Committee had the option of accepting the prior committee's contract and then attempting to terminate her "for cause" (which would likely trigger arbitration), Or, file a complaint with the Court within 21 days to attempt to have the prior Committee's contract voided.
They chose to do nothing -- which put the Schools in a precarious position.
It's interesting to note that the original judge in Barnstable court had only been a judge for three weeks. Maybe a more experienced jurist would have caught this error sooner -- or been a little more cautious about dismissing a case so quickly.
I think you could probably say the same about School's counsel.
K. Ross, your post was profound. Thank you.
Anon 1/12/12 1:42pm,
I have a child who graduated in 2010 from SHS, one who is a senior this year and an 8th grader. My college sophomore was accepted everywhere that he applied and feels that SHS prepared him very well for college. My senior has had similar success with college acceptances. Overall, both have had a very positive experience at SHS and have taken advantage of the many sport and club options in addition to the academic opportunities.
There is no question that other schools are doing a better job at marketing themselves. All I can say is that the given six years of experiencing the high school with my older children, I am extremely comfortable sending my 8th grader to SHS and feel that it offers a rigorous academic curriculum and plenty of opportunities to explore interests through clubs and sports. So, I hope that you get your first choice, but if you don't I hope that you will be pleasantly surprised by SHS!
Transcript of School Committee Meeting where it all started……
Bob Simmons: "Somebody like to make a motion?"
Shawn Cahill: "I would like to make a motion we go into recess until 6pm Friday night."
Unknown: "Second."
Bob Simmons: "We have a motion we have a second, all in favor say I."
Board: "I"
Bob Simmons: "Anyone oppose that? Excellent, we'll be back here on Friday at 6, either here or downstairs, we'll post it.....Its a continuation of this meeting so we don't have to post it separately."
This is the most cut and dry open meeting law violation I’ve ever seen. No where in law does it allow a public body to continue a meeting to a date certain without the prescribed 48 hour notice. Imagine if other public bodies decided to hold open meetings and then “continue” them a few days later without giving additional notice? The law is very clear in this area and furthermore very specific on what recourse is taken when a violation occurs…the actions at said meeting are nullified. Black and white, case closed.
Well, anon 10:31 it appears it is not CASE CLOSED after all! 3 Superior judges disagree with you and the Witches of Eastwick! Now it's time to pay up and shut up.
But - you cant have a violation of Open Meeting law unless someone files a complaint.
And - nobody filed a complaint.
That's the point Anon.
That's what is so very very "open and shut."
The last post sounds like a school committee member with her head still stuck in the sand. The school committee members begged and warned Marshall Crossman, Kangas and Linehan to file in court for the judges opinion on the validity of the contract and violation of oml within 21 days. Unfortunately their hatred of Dr. Johnson and their revote on the contract wasn't done legally (Att. Emerson's great advice again) Then they threw the bogus harrassment and banning in the mix with the Caulkins
(remember she signed Dr. J's signature on pay raises.)
These five women created this mess We think it's time to take your heads and checkbooks out of the sand. Retaliation is very costly nevermind the destruction of PHD careers. Plus the 2 yrs left on the contract $300,000. The town needs to find out what Emersons insurance limits are, he is responsible for both the Minkoff and Johnson debacles. But Sherry loves him because he does whatever the old status quo groupies want, regardless of the costs to the schools and town.
10:31,
Nobody has ever debated the facts -- that's exactly how the discussion went.
The intent of the open meeting law is to give the public notice of meetings --- while we certainly gave considerable notice, the only thing that wasn't done is to hang a notice on the bulletin board in the Clerk's Office.
I acknowledge that error.
But -- you are wrong about what the law allows.
Nowhere does it say the DA can nullify a contract. It says a complaint must be filed with the court within 21 days -- and a judge MAY (not "shall", "will" or "must") invalidate a contract.
Although a notice wasn't put on the Board, the public was given considerable notice (far more than a regular meeting), and a majority of the elected Committee signed the contract.
While, its obvious the new Committee didn't like the situation, they made no attempt to void the contract as allowed by law -- even though members and their counsel had all been warned about the proper procedure.
Whether you like it or not --- it appears that two State Appellate Court judges may see it the same way. (As did a Superior Court Judge in Hampden County last May)
Nobody tried to "pull a fast one". There were already sufficient votes to pass the contract. The Committee voted to continue the meeting only as a courtesy to a long-time member who was unable to reach counsel with a question.
I agree with Bob. And since legal council for the school districts essentially works for the school committee, why wouldn't the school's lawyer side with the majority SC view that the DA's letter was a "ruling" (minus a real complaint) instead of just an answer to Town Clerks letter of inquiry to the DA. From the majority shift after the May 2010 election of two new SC members, the intent of the new majority of the SC seems to have been to get rid of Dr Johnson. they thought they had an opening with the Town Clerks letter to the DA and the DA response. The majority SC may have thought they could save the cost of a buy out.
Att. Joe Emerson is suppose to explain the laws and what they can and cannot do. Im sure he knew about the 21day law.to file for the judges opinion theyr failed to file because they probably didn't want to risk judge telling them it was a valid contract. They bullied Dr Johnson and thought she would just dissapear. The added Caulkins b.s..harassment was done to give her back her.power in that office. Emerson's advice on minkoff.contract cost us over 100000. Now Dr j will cost minimum of 300000. Emerson isny suppose to just tell s.c
wha they want to hear solid legal advice only. No politics!!!
And the most costly lesson will be the purposeful undoing of anything MEJ...just for spite. The tens of thousands of dollars, the hours and hours of training...the almost full implementation of a literacy collaborative school. Let's hope the good looking politician can continue to hold teachers accountable to high standards. He sure has his work cut out for him.
First, I am not a school committee member nor I am a witch...not sure where that came from?
However, you need to do a quick Google search on the legal term "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine." You'll see that anything (the fruit = contract) resulting from a meeting held outside the law (poisonous tree = the April 30th Meeting) can in fact be nullified. While the DA is not directly nullifying the contract in essence the contact itself doesn’t exist due to the fact the meeting was held in violation of the Open Meeting Law.
I know Bob and the rest of the school committee had no ill intention or tried to hide anything but the fact remains, they screwed up and the meeting was invalid. Regardless of their personal feelings about Mary Ellen they need to let go and accept the fact that they screwed up and the meeting was invalid and anything resulting from the meeting was invalid.
9:36, you are ignoring the fact that the law specifically addresses this situation by requiring somebody to file a complaint within 21 days so a Judge has the opportunity to review the case and possibly void the contract.
Your "poison fruit" doctrine might be logical -- EXCEPT the statute already addresses this specific issue (and it is supported by legal precedent in similar cases.)
It seems to me two mistakes were made. The meeting wasn't properly posted and the new committee didn't take the proper steps to void the contract.
Regardless of what the Armchair quarterbacks are spewing, at least two of the three Justices of the State Appellate Court have reviewed the case and consider the 21 day rule a significant issue.
The Truth Maker would wish that once all the decisions have been and the courts uphold Dr Johnsons appeal, that those whom brought us to this point find a way to reconcile our school district into the future, for all of the benifits, we have lost, as a results of there actions to the educational system here on Sandwich.
No matter how it comes about , the lawyer whom represents our town for school issues needs to be replaced, as being incompentant as a legal represenative of the laws in place. That is unless, he can show that he did provide legal advise, that was not followed by the then four members of the school committee. Now that would be a revolation, if such a document was in existance
HERE WE GO AGAIN. NO LEGAL MEETING, THEREFORE NO BUSINESS COMPLETED OR APPROVED. WHY WOULD A 21 DAY BE AN ISSUE. NO LEGAL MEETING. NO LEGAL CONTRACT SIGNED
OK, OK, Colonel Mustard killed the butler in the library with the candlestick....! Bob Simmons you are amazing. No longer the goat according to todays CC Times because YOU sent the links on the South Hadley case and this lawyer says NO COMMENT! This stuff just can't be made up. This is reality television right here in little old Sandwich. The CC Times smells a big stink brewing that will result in a large cash payout folks. I wonder if I can scrape the transfer sticker off of my window so people will stop asking me whats wrong with YOU people in Sandwich? So, was it really Colonel Mustard in the library? Where are all those ugly blogsters now Bob...all those nasty words they typed to you about that meeting.....interesting, very interesting.
I hope some people leave their armchairs and attend the SC meeting tonight. There are going to be big giant cuts. Too bad, because what he is trying to do is exactly the direction the district was headed. Starting from scratch with an unmotivated, divided staff is not good planning.
Attorney Emerson citing.hindsight is.20/20 confirms its time for school.counsel.change. wtf r we paying him for? We.pay him to give all legal options regardless of politics. Emerson has years in system he knew about 21the day rule failed to advise committee to file for.decision.from judge. Because he knew they didn't want.a.judges ruling.saying.contract was.valid. what r Emerson's.liability.limits on his insurance.policy???????
Simple what is Emerson's insurance limits incompetent legal advice got us here. His policy needs to pay the 300000. The 5 witches pay for the harassment damages. Only way people learn is when it.costs them money out of.there pockets.
The Truth Maker It would seem the are posting on RH Blog in regards to comments about what the new super is doing with our school district??
It would appear that the posters do not have a grasp on the problems or situation, that the money for this district will be comming from.
What is the bottom line difference, as it stands right now? From what we have on hand and what this budget may set the town back on.
Can we expect a few layoffs or an override to have a balance budget going into the next fisical year???
I do recall when the Selectmen stated that they would only be getting a 1% increase the Super stated that he would be some $500,000 short. Has that changed?
One thing for sure,is, he has hired more staff and one would think that he must have found some free money to undertake this venture.
What are the numbers from last night, I was unable to watch, but after hearing, that he has produced his budget
It would be nice to see what the number are really like
To: Truth Maker
I believe that the current proposed school budget is overspent (in deficit) by roughly $1.3 to $1.9 million dollars.
Of course, it’s a little hard for us taxpayers to keep track because this very transparent and open school administration hasn’t actually posted any budget materials to their web page for public review.
Fair to say however that each school committee meeting for the past several meeting has been all about planning to spend, quite literally, more than a million dollars more than what they know they have.
What’s the point or purpose of this school budget planning circle jerk? Who knows? Maybe the Finance Committee or Selectmen were just kidding when the told the school committee what the school budget number was weeks ago?
The Truth Maker would add to Mr. Block,that it is interesting to see the recent diolog between The Co chair of the selectman and the present super.
I like the wording the super used in building trust between every one, because that is what is needed today.
The super has expectations that the comments made several weeks ago,were not set in stone. It was indicated to him that the schools would recieve 1% increase from last years budget, on one hand, but on the other hand they stated that figure was not set in stone and was flexable.
The super has put together a budget that has more of a gap in it, then when he first spoke, so that is why I had asked where did the money come from??
One would expect that if he had a $500,000 gap during that meeting, going back some several weeks ago, why does the budget now reflect twice that gap, if that is the case? Am I missing something that was discussed during that tri board meeting??
Men left 800000 surplus that was suppose to go back to the town? Did current super.give that money back? Hard to build.trust.when y talk out both sides of y mouth ans keep.money that the town should have had returned? Back to shell games w the budget. Sandwich is back to 1972.wonder if they still have 1982my science books. The pay increases r 1.2 million a year people. So add 1.2 every year to pay the greedy unions. Who have never cared about the town unions taking a zeros.
Not sure where you got the $800K number --- it happened at Town Meeting, I'm not sure how much, but it was lower and whatever was voted to go back went back --- the Supt has nothing to do with it once TM votes.
Two years ago, they were saying the payroll does go up every year by approx $500K to cover step/lane/longevity increases. An additional 3% cost of living would cost another $500K + --- so you're not far off.
But -- remember the other school unions (janitors, drivers, secretaries, cafeteria, etc.) did take 0% when the Town employees did --- the ONLY school union which hasn't yet is the Teachers.
How can that psycho running the union claim to be working "for the children" and then tell her members not to refuse to write college recommendations?
The teachers need to stand up for themselves and throw her out --- she's making a laughing stock of them -- and dragging the District down.
JUST A QUESTION. IF THE MINORITY SC WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THE MAJORITY. WHY DIDN'T THEY GO TO A JUDGE FOR AN ANSWER
And just how would the MINORITY have gotten the MAJORITY to authorize and pay for the legal services all caps?
All Caps – try playing checkers with some kiddies, and then maybe you can begin to develop the skills needed to think a move or two ahead of where you are today.
Caps Queen needs to get some reality pills. Committee members can't take legal action individually -- without Committee approval!
Its even worse if tghe Committee;s attorney advised them against it --- or if he didn't have the stones to tell a paying client they sounded like very nasty 7th grade girls and that their "plan" could easily cost Town Big Bucks.
Post a Comment