School Committee goes for the Hail Mary Pass

The School Committee filed an application for "Further Appellate Review" of the MEJ case this week.

According to the SJC website:

After the Appeals Court has decided an appeal, a party may file (a) a petition for rehearing by the Appeals Court, and/or (b) an application to the SJC for Further Appellate Review (FAR). The affirmative vote of three SJC Justices is required in order for an FAR application to be allowed.

The Appeals Court decision seemed pretty clear, so I'm curious what legitimate issues could be raised.  (yes, I am fully expecting a response written entirely in caps saying "YOU DIDNT COOMPLAIN WHEN JOHNSON APEELED THE OTER COURT .  YOUR AN ASSWHOLE!").

It's still unknown whether three SJC Justices will be willing to actually hear the requested appeal-appeal -- so this may just be a stall tactic.

I see a few potential scenarios:

A.  School Counsel has discovered some issue of law that the three justices of the Appeals Court missed.  (OK, stop laughing ... )

B.  Insurance Counsel is engaging in some CYA tactics so they can say they did everything possible before the insurance company stops funding the Town's defense.

C. Counsel is using the filing as a negotiating tool -- encouraging a "low ball" settlement in exchange for dropping their appeal. 

D.  Counsel is just running the fee clock and nobody is willing to question the amount of public money (either direct taxes, or indirect town insurance premiums) are being flushed down the judicial toilet.

E.  All of the above (except A!)

(Since this issue has pretty much been beat to death -- Comments on this topic will be limited to those that actually add something new to the conversation -- not just constant repetition of the same old discussions.)

But, Seriously ...

The Superintendent and the School Committee did a good job holding the line on this contract. The resulting contract was pretty much exactly what was targeted three years ago when negotiations started.

It's ironic that we could have had this same contract three years ago without any of the theatrics, ill will, and legal fees -  but, hey, it is what it is!

Good job!

A Laugh a Minute ....

Amusing item in today's CCT; SEA President For Life Laura "Norma Rae" Carlyle complained that "It is very difficult when teaching is politicized."

She's right.

That was damn political of the School Committee to be out on the street holding picket signs, marching around town, crowding into meetings, making grossly inaccurate statements to the press, refusing to write student college recommendations, attend dances, graduations, etc.

What?

Oh, that was the union doing those things?

The Big Picture .....Cupcake Wars?

Interesting School Committee meeting.

I understand the lack of discussion about the pending legal issue hanging over the District's head.

 But ... The Teachers contract settled, with no public discussion of terms?

 There was a high-level discussion of Community School operations (and yet another laborious rehashing of its history)..... But STILL no public discussion of actual financial results.

On the other hand, if you wanted to know about the Classroom Cupcake Crisis, Baby, this was the meeting for you! The discussion of classroom food regulations was endless and mind-numbing!

 I wonder if the Great 4th of July Water Gun Crisis was discussed after I tuned out?

Who's Watching the Lawyers?

One of the few attorneys we didn't pay.

"On the advice of counsel ...." seems to have been the standard preface to many answers over the past few years.  But given recent history, you have to wonder exactly what advice we've been paying for.

During the recent Johnson vs. School Committee fiasco, I counted the following legal eagles on the public payroll:

• School Counsel
• Town Counsel
• Insurance Company counsel to litigate Johnson vs. School Committee
• Special Outside Counsel to investigate Caulkins - Johnson fiasco
• Special Outside Counsel to investigate Johnson - Caulkins fiasco
• Insurance Company counsel to litigate Minkoff vs. School Committee
• Counsel to the Superintendent
• The Assistant District Attorney for Barnstable County
• Associate Justice of the Superior Court
• Three Senior Justices of the Massachusetts Court of Appeals

(I have no idea if Marshall, Kangas, Linehan and Crossman hired personal counsel -- yet.)

OK, so now What? (Part I)

Former Bristol County Prosecutor of the Year Ray Veary was sworn in as a judge very shortly before hearing, and later dismissing, Dr. Mary Ellen Johnson's suit against the Sandwich School Committee and four members individually.  Johnson's counsel later filed for reconsideration and pointed out what he saw as legal errors in the Judge's rulings.  The same Judge again denied he made any errors.

Johnson's counsel then appealed to the State Appeals Court who had some very pointed questions for the lawyers for the Town's insurance company who are defending the Town, and the four individually-named members.   In fact, two members of the three judge panel made it quite clear during the hearing that the contract in question was clearly valid because nobody bothered to meet the requirements of the law which clearly state that somebody must file for judicial review in order to invalidate an otherwise valid contract.

This week, the Appeals Court issued a full written opinion which stated that Superior Court erred in dismissing the case, reversed the prior ruling, and raised the following key points:

Judgment Reversed.

 Excerpts:  

"The judge's findings were premature and limited the plaintiff's ability to argue both the propriety of the notices and, if they were in fact inadequate, whether the violations were de minimis."

" ... even if the April 30 actions violated the open meeting law, the violation did not operate automatically to invalidate the actions. Instead, the plaintiff contends, judicial intervention was necessary to invalidate her contract extension. We agree"

"... no such complaint to invalidate the April 30 meeting was filed within the twenty-one day window. The district attorney's office was put on notice of the violation and had the opportunity to file a complaint to invalidate the contract. Instead, it offered an opinion letter with no legal effect. The judgment therefore must be reversed "

"Deciding as we do, there is no need to discuss the correctness of the denial of the plaintiff's motion to amend, ... or to comment on the plaintiff's allegations relating to the tort of intentional interference with contractual relations."

Ruling: