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."
Mary Ellen JOHNSON vs. SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF SANDWICH and others. [FN1]
No. 11-P-858.
January 10, 2012. - June 7, 2012
Open Meeting Law. School and School Committee, Open meetings, Superintendent of schools. Municipal Corporations, Open meetings.
CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department on November 1, 2010. A motion to dismiss was heard by Raymond P. Veary, Jr., J.
Paul L. Nevins for the plaintiff.
John J. Davis for the defendants.
Present: Green, Brown, & Agnes, JJ.
BROWN, J.
The plaintiff was formerly the superintendent of public schools in the town of Sandwich. On April 28, 2010, the school committee (defendants) held a live broadcast meeting in which the plaintiff's contract extension, among other matters, was to be discussed. Concerned about time, the defendants announced their intention to revisit the plaintiff's contract on April 30, 2010, at 6:00 P.M. In addition to the oral announcement, the school committee posted a notice on its bulletin board at the high school; the upcoming meeting was also acknowledged on the front page of a local newspaper. [FN2] On April 30, by a vote of four to two, the plaintiff's contract was extended and signed by all parties present, with the exception of the two dissenting school committee members.
On May 6, 2010, following a town election, a new school committee was formed. On May 18, 2010, an assistant district attorney for the Cape and Islands district issued a letter stating that the April 30 meeting violated the Commonwealth's open meeting law. The letter stated that all matters undertaken at the meeting were null and void. Several days later, the school committee's counsel "endorsed" the opinion expressed in the district attorney's letter. No complaint, however, was ever filed in court to invalidate any actions taken at the April 30 meeting. Rather, in an attempt to cure the deficiencies, the defendants held a subsequent meeting on June 16, 2010. At that meeting, the defendants elected not to renew the plaintiff's employment and specifically refused to acknowledge the previous extension of her contract.
The plaintiff commenced a civil action seeking specific performance of the employment contract, declaratory relief, relief in the nature of mandamus, and damages on theories of breach of contract and intentional interference with contractual relations. The defendants brought a motion to dismiss pursuant to Mass.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), 365 Mass. 754 (1974), which the judge granted. We conclude it was error to allow the defendants' motion, as the plaintiff made sufficient allegations within her verified complaint to overcome that motion.
[FN3] See Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623, 635-636 (2008).
General Laws c. 39, § 23B, requires that all meetings of governmental bodies be open to the public and that adequate notice be given unless an exception applies. If a violation occurs, the statute authorizes specific individuals to rectify noncompliance by filing a complaint with the Supreme Judicial Court or the Superior Court. [FN4]
The judge went beyond the pleadings to conclude that the public did not have sufficient knowledge of the April 30 meeting, and that in general, high school bulletin boards are of "uncertain accessibility," and notices thereon, as well as newspaper stories about upcoming public meetings, are inadequate. [FN5] As the case was decided on a rule 12(b)(6) motion, the judge could not look beyond the allegations set out in the complaint and the exhibits attached thereto. See Schaer v. Brandeis Univ., 432 Mass. 474, 477 (2000). 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. [FN6]
The plaintiff argues that 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.
Statutory text is the "principal source of insight into the legislative purpose." Hoffman v. Howmedica, Inc., 373 Mass. 32, 37 (1977). Courts must follow unambiguous statutory language "unless 'following the Legislature's literal command would lead to an absurd result, or one contrary to the Legislature's manifest intention.' " Providence & Worcester R.R. v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd., 453 Mass. 135, 142 (2009), quoting from White v. Boston, 428 Mass. 250, 253 (1998). The open meeting law states, in § 23B, tenth par., that the district attorney "shall enforce the provisions of this section" but then immediately acknowledges, in § 23B, eleventh and twelfth pars., the court's authority to invalidate actions taken in an unlawful meeting upon proof of a violation. [FN7]
The normal protocol to invalidate actions is to file a complaint. See and compare District Attorney for the N. Dist. v. School Comm. of Wayland, 455 Mass. 561, 562 (2009); Puglisi v. School Comm. of Whitman, 11 Mass.App.Ct. 142, 143 (1981); District Attorney for the N.W. Dist.v. Selectmen of Sunderland, 11 Mass.App.Ct. 663, 663 (1981). See also Bartell v. Wellesley Hous. Authy., 28 Mass.App.Ct. 306, 309-310 (1990) (statute authorizes courts to order actions taken in violation of the open meeting law to be invalidated; the particular remedy for a violation is a matter for the exercise of sound judicial discretion).
Such complaints must be filed timely. In Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, Lodge No. 65 v. City Council of Lawrence, 403 Mass. 563, 565-566 (1988), the Supreme Judicial Court opined that the city council's actions in violation of the open meeting law would not be invalidated because the complaint was untimely and beyond the twenty-one day time frame. See id. at 565 ("Section 23B provides a strict statute of limitations for complaints seeking to invalidate actions taken at meetings which violate its provisions. The statute allows a court to invalidate any action taken at any meeting at which any provision of [§ 23B] has been violated, provided that such complaint is filed within twenty-one days of the date when such action is made public" (quotation omitted). See also McCrea v. Flaherty, 71 Mass.App.Ct. 637, 638 n. 3 (2008) (Superior Court judge refused to invalidate a city council vote because the plaintiffs did not file their action within twenty-one days).
To collaterally attack a defect for the purpose of invalidating actions, only three parties can bring an action. See note 4, supra. As previously noted, 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, see Vakil v. Vakil, 450 Mass. 411, 417 (2008), or to comment on the plaintiff's allegations relating to the tort of intentional interference with contractual relations. SeeHarrison v. NetCentric Corp., 433 Mass. 465, 476 (2001).
Judgment reversed.
FN1. Sherry Marshall, Jessica Linehan, Marie Kangas, and Nancy Crossman.
FN2. The plaintiff does not allege that, as required by the open meeting law, notice of the critical meeting was "publicly posted in the office of [the town] clerk or on the principal official bulletin board of such ... town" "at least forty-eight hours" before the meeting. See G.L. c. 39, § 23B, sixth par., inserted by St.1975, c. 303, § 3. We note that G.L. c. 39, §§ 23A-23C (statute), has since been repealed. See St.2009, c. 28, § 20, effective July 1, 2010. The present matter is governed by the statute as in effect before July 1, 2010.
FN3. When the opportunity arises, rather than moving to dismiss, parties ought to include affidavits or depositions to elevate the case to the summary judgment stage. See Kirkland Constr. Co. v. James, 39 Mass.App.Ct. 559, 564-565 (1995) (Brown, J., concurring). Here, the plaintiff's verified complaint could have been treated as a step toward that result.
FN4. A complaint may be brought by "three or more registered voters, by the attorney general, or by the district attorney of the county in which the city or town is located." G.L. c. 39, § 23B, eleventh par., as amended by St.1976, c. 397, § 6.
FN5. These findings were made without any information on the record describing the normal protocol the defendants engaged in when publishing notices about future meetings. See Freedman v. Freedman, 49 Mass.App.Ct. 519, 521 (2000).
FN6. The defendants do not suggest that the notice of the April 28, 2010, meeting was inadequate. As to the April 30 meeting, the judge observed that because the meeting recessed on April 28, 2010, at 9:42 P.M. and reconvened on April 30, 2010, at 6:00 P.M., any public notice posted after 6:00 P.M. on April
28 failed to give the forty-eight hours' notice required by the statute. See G.L. c. 39, § 23B, sixth par. But see Tebo v. Board of Appeals of Shrewsbury, 22 Mass.App.Ct. 618, 623 (1986), S.C. sub nom. Worcester Sand & Gravel Co. v. Board of Fire Prevention Regulations, 400 Mass. 464 (1987).
FN7. The statute provides that, "[u]pon proof of failure by any governmental body or by any member or officer thereof" to comply with the provisions of the open meeting law, the courts "shall issue an appropriate order requiring such governmental body or member or officer thereof to carry out such provisions at future meetings...." G.L. c. 39, § 23B, eleventh par. Section 23B continues, "Such order may invalidate any action taken at any meeting at which any provision of this section has been violated, provided that such complaint is filed within twenty-one days of the date when such action is made public." G.L. c. 39, § 23B, twelfth par., as amended by St.1978, c. 372.
See Related Posts:
39 comments:
The ruling sounds like it was written by NotThePTA -- all the same points raised previously!
It's too bad that the Town and Dr. Johnson had to waste so much time and money in order to correct the situation.
This could be a VERY expensive loss for the School Department.
Live broadcasts, verbal announcements, posting in areas other then those outlined in MGL and newspaper articles DO NOT CONSTITUITE adequate posting or notice. The argument that public notice was giving through the normal accepted method is flawed. Under the logic of Attorney Nevins, why should there be any uniform standard of public notice when a committee can just announce a future meeting verbally. It makes zero sense. It’s sad to see Dr. Johnson continuing to grasp at straws and costing the town time and resources in dealing with this nonsense. Be it a technically or not, the meeting was nullified properly under MGL, deal with it and move on. The town needs to rid itself of the stain that is this entire debacle.
I am not going to waste any more time on stupid arguments.
To clarify for the previous confused and very incorrect post -- the State Appeals Court very specifically said that the meeting was NOT nullified.
The Court also very clearly said that IF there was an OML violation (which was never proven) -- nobody met the specific legal requirements to invalidate the legal actions of the prior committee.
You are correct, the Truth Hurts ... and it's going to hurt like hell when the schools have to write a big settlement check as a result of the actions of a very small group of petty, vindictive, uninformed folks. (Yes, I cleaned that up considerably!)
Are you serious?
Who says the "meeting was nullified properly under MGL"? You obviously don't know what you're talking about! By my read, the Court says exactly the opposite -- there was no attempt to follow the legal requirements to overturn the contract. The ruling seemed pretty clear on that point.
I think voters eliminated part of the "stain" at the last election, and hopefully will eliminate the rest of it next year!
1. Is this the end of it? Does the current School Committee have any appeal, should they choose to go that route?
2. If this IS the end of it, who writes that check, now... the Town's insurance carrier? The Town? The School Department?
3. What chance do you figure Crossman & Kangas have of re-election?
1.. The Appeals court says the contract is valid. What's left to talk about?
2. The Insurance carrier will probably cover most of the cost of the litigation -- But they won't pay any settlements. They are also are unlikely to be willing to continue funding a losing court case. (Again, the judges said she has a valid contract -- what's to talk about?)
The Marshall Committee was warned by the BOS that they were putting the Town at risk -- but they did it anyway. I can't imagine how the Schools can come up with this kind of money. I suspect we will be seeing a joint BOS/SC Executive session on the calendar shortly.
No worries. No problem.
Of course, school committees and administrations since have been budgeting for and segregating enough moneys to pay the piper. Right?
The two Bobs, and many others, have been telling them to do so for years.
This is why only Ostriches should stick their heads in the sand.
Nobody is blameless here. The meeting when Dr. Johnson's contract was extended should have been properly posted. The new committee should have sought a judge's opinion about the validity of Dr. Johnson's contract extension. The big losers are the students. What a poor example the adults involved are setting for them!
The Truth Maker would like to add his congradultions to Dr Johnson for finaly being vinticated in her appeal.
It is also noted that the local court system also should be held accountable for allowing this sham of the facts from being judicated the way it was.
This means she can go forwrd with her case. It does not mean she wins. This blog is nothing but a spin zone of vitriolic crap.
It means she could go forward with her case .... BUT .... it also means that the State Appeals Court ruled she DOES have a valid employment contract -- because nobody ever followed the legal process to have it voided. (I know I heard 3 members of the Marshall School Committee request a judicial review several times.)
Even if the law was followed, the Appeals Court also stated that the lower court judge didn't even listen to arguments over proper notice and whether the violations were "de minimis".
You should read the opinion, seems clear to me.
But .... do you think the Town's insurance company will continue to pay defend a case where the State Appeals Court has ruled the terminated employee still has a valid contract? I agree with earlier post, Ins Co. will likely demand that the Town/School make a settlement and end the case.
The Truth Maker would add that the ruling provides that Dr Johnson had a valid contract that can not be denied.
One could say that at aprox, $150,000 a year for each year the contract was valid, plus retirement benifits and other benifits and considering the unjust manner it was handled by the four ladies. I would say she has won the suit and the only question will be for how much?
If she can prove that the four ladies in question also have a responsibity in the process of her case that may also add a few more dollars to the payout.On the other hand if the schools insurance company concludes that they acted in a malisious way they may be all looking at personal law suits that may well be another whole ball of wax.
I would expect the suit to be substantional enough that others may well think twice before they engage in such enterprises again
You could see this coming a mile away. I only hope that someday we will get to know who called the Town Clerk instead of making an official complaint about open meeting law. Politics got us into this but only money will get us out. All too familiar. Why is it so many good Americans want to be judge and jury?
Attorney Joseph Emerson has liablity insurance. Now its time to hold him accountable for bad legal advise not once but twice now, remember the 180000. they paid for Minkoff that was because Emerson told committee it was OK. First order of business is to have town go after his insurance and once check is written for his share them marshall, crossman, kangas and linehand be held personally liable for their slanderous ways. then the schools will have to pay out. 300000. for 2 yr contract. slander damages for destroying her career $$$$, EMOTIONAL DAMAGES MORE $$$. GOOD FOR.DR. JOHNSON FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING AND NOT FADING AWAY LIKE THE WITCHES OF SANDWICH THOUGHT SHE WOULD. town wont go to court they will just round up money from the parties and try and negotiate w att. nevins go to courrt and double those damages and fees
4:28 This means she has won. Now it's up to the town to figure out if they cut a big check before trial, or cut an even bigger check after trial. They won't risk the possibility of a million dollars in damages for the destruction of Dr. J career. Banned from the school $$ for trumped up harrassment charges $$$$. All the retaliation the witches and Joan Caulkins did to her $$$$.
No brainer they will cut a check prior to trial. The appeals court decision is a WIN people.
We hope they use those woman as an example of how not to behave, hit them financially so it sets an example their actions will be held accountable.
CCT times statement from Former Chair Bob Simmons: Well Said!
But you forgot to add a PHD from Columbia University. No small task. Whole lifetime of devotion in education.
Simmons said the boards actions against Johnson have tarnised her reputation. (i.e.destroyed & Slandered her reputation = $$$)
"Im not concerned with my own vindication. Im more concerned that they tarred and feathered someone and severely hurt her chances to get another job" "The way she was treated-a professional with 30 plus years of experience in education-was absolutely obscene.
If I was a fly on the wall at the Supt's office this AM --
"Good Morning, Bud. It's Richard -- I have a little problem over here."
"It seems the last School Committee went off the reservation and is about to cost us some serious money."
"Yeah, I know, there is obviously no IQ requirement for elected officials! But, what are you gonna do -- it's a Democracy!"
"Anyway ... so, were the Selectmen serious when they said last year that the School would be on their
own to pay any settlement in the Johnson case?"
"Yeah, I know they were urged by the Selectmen & others to seek a court ruling before risking a huge potential settlement. --- I wasn't here, but I've seen the video."
"Bud, are you laughing ?"
No comment from the coven of four? Imagine that! Justice really is a beautiful thing.
This just in on the Cape Wide Network ...... (please imagine the sound of an old teletype machine clacking in the background)..Sandwich MA, a key blogger in the town of Sandwich was rescued from her computer keyboard this morning. Firefighters found Ms 'CAP LOCKS ON' with her first digit apparently fuzed to the Caps Lock button on her keyboard. Paramedics were advised that she had just read the front page story of CapeCodOnline that found Mary Ellen Johnson to have a valid contract. Emergency personnel had to use the jaws of life to remove the key from her keyboard. This is a common occurence according to the paramedics who responded. Sometimes a dose of reality can be shocking to the individual. Video at eleven......
Greg,
I actually deleted her comments this morning. She completely missed the significance of the fact that three Senior Justices of the State Appeals Court ruled that the Superintendent had a valid contract.
There's just nothing left to talk about!
The Truth Maker would ask the original Greg when is a good time for a coffee meet????
I would also add that apparently one of the four ladies does not know how to unstick her key board from using all capitol letters???
Mrs Beasley, Justice come in various forms and for some of us that have supported DR Johnson over these very long months it has been a wait worth waiting for.
The two remaining ladies, should think about removing themselves from the present School Committee as they may well be facing some serious revolations as a result of what they have put the town of Sandwich, the school department and Dr> Johnson through,
Now the evidence is clear for a recall effort should any one so choose to bring one forward.
Now smile
Did you ever see Jurassic Park, in which Jeff Goldblum plays the mathematician who keeps saying that something is absolutely going to go horribly wrong with the whole live-dinosaurs-as-tourist-attraction concept, and everyone pooh-poohs him? And then they're stuck out in the park in the dark, without power to tour cars or electric fences, and a T-Rex stomps through the now-harmless fence and starts looking for dinner?
Goldblum's character says, "Boy do I hate being right all the time."
This must feel like that for a lot of people!
Some posts are just mean't to be commented on, this is one. Thank you for an superb read, so difficult to discover nowadays.
Let’s not just blame the fab 4 for this mess. The truth is more complicated than that. Voters elected the 4 num-nuts that got this ball rolling. The teachers union leadership pushed hard for the course of action chosen and escalated the nonsense to a fever pitch. The Finance Committee and Board of Selectmen and Town Manager sat on their hands and chose to do nothing – remaining mute and even allowing the School Committee to choose not to set aside moneys for a potential settlement or adverse ruling.
Hilary Clinton says: “it takes a village” and that’s true. In this case a village of idiots is responsible for the mistakes made
pay up suckahs
William Jefferson, Your statement has the common sense that is so lacking in the world with so many issues. The school committee is not to be supervised by other town boards. We remember the BOS meeting where their fears of another lawsuit were expressed publically, if we remember correctly is was Dana Barrett who also reminded the BOS they had no authority over the School Committee. We blame the voters apathy for not paying attention until it was far too late. Many people who were paying attention at the time spoke out strongly against the 4 women actions. They chose to ignore all those people and even went further with their retaliation with the Caulkins B.S. harrassment charges and then with the ignorance or arrogance went even further and banned Dr. Johnson from the school property.
Google Dr. Johnson and all that trumped up B.S. comes up sadly because of such ignorance or arrogance Dr. Johnson will probably never be hired in education again and for all their actions We hope those 4 women and Caulkins pay a financial price for their arrogance and inhumane treatment of another person.
Hold Joe Emerson/Attorney (has given terrible legal advice) Tap his liability insurance carrier first, then the current board needs to fire him asap. Then the town needs to make the women file their personal financial statements, insurance, assets etc go after all that and then the school insurance carrier pays up. $300,000. minimum then retaliation and slander is where it's gonna cost those women. Retaliation and Slander damages needs to come out of their pockets not the towns.
I am not inclined to let the Board of Selectmen or Finance Committee off the hook on this mess. Saying “I had no legal authority to act” is a cop out and when these Committee members say that I cringe. These Committee members have a duty to ask hard questions, they have a duty to supervise the budget process; they have an ability to make speeches and raise a very public alarm. And, they did virtually nothing.
Do I blame the Fab 4 for this mess? Yes. Was Mrs Marshall as Board Chair particularly to blame? Yes. However, others let this happen, including especially the Board of Selectmen, Town Manager and Finance Committee. And, as usual, they’ll all have excuses as to why their hands were tied – they always do.
Who me, we feel exactly the same way. I don't remember this but I guess it was implied or stated that the S.C. shouldn't come looking for settlement monies.
It's all our tax dollars regardless of what account it comes out of.
They were told screamed at begged they ignored them all and they up the two (very expensive) nails in the b.s. harrassment allegation and the banning of the school. That should cost them personally.
Private industry hold people personally & financially responsible when they retaliate and slander, so they should have to pay personall assets for their actions.
I agree that the BOS strongly implied the Schools were on their own if they blew it --- which everyone suspected they would. But -- realistically, the Schools dont have any reserves; I bet they'd neeed to lay-off 10 teachers to fund this settlement.
too bad marshall didnt get in .... we coulf drop by the meeting and thank her for her good work
SM and the others have to live with what they did to Dr. J bad karma and many sleepless nights is a start for.payback for them. When they have to settle lets hope its a public settlement for dr j vindication and humiliation for them.
I would not spend too much time dissecting the current feelings of the coven members. Simply put, YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID!!!
The high court decided as all of us sane rational people with no agendas knew that they would.....The coven of four should be ashamed!!!! This is a huge black mark on the reputation of Sandwich....every other town in the area reads this story and laughs.....Well at least SM didnt get back in and Kangas and Crossman get their payback in less than a year!!!!!!! How many days till the election Bob??????
Frustrated: it is true, Kangas's and Crossman's terms expire next May.
However, I predict that:
1. Both Crossman and Kangas will run for re-election.
2. Crossman will be re-elected; Kangas will not...
3. ...unless there is no third candidate! which in our pathetic town is a distinct possibility. Though I suppose Dr. Merolla could give it another bid. Or (good heavens), Mrs. Grundman, who will be finished (and not re-electable, I trust) on the BOS next year, might imagine a place for herself on the SC.
In any event, I predict that, absent anyone more experienced,
4. Crossman will be SC Chairman next year.
Folks, it is not too soon to urge experienced people to run for school committee next year. Mr. Simmons? Mr. Guerin? Ms. Barton, Ms. Susko? You would be welcome. Mr. Cahill... once more into the breach?
Pass. Been there, done that ...
I absolutely agree we need to bring in some people with relevant professional experience.
But, regardless of their experience, I think the members of the SC Alumni Assoc. would just give the idiots another opportunity to re-live old & irrelevant battles.
(I heard from one person this week who wanted to argue about whether or not Dr. J violated the Fire Code with a teacher's meeting. -- as if that would have any impact on a projected legal settlement!)
Who cares?
People need to get their heads out of their asses, look at reality and plan accordingly. Stop talking about gazillion dollar Boardwalks to Nowhere, trillion dollar libraries with pizza rooms & video conferencing, and arguing over squirt guns at the 4th of July.
Talk about the fact we have little room for development, a power plant with a dwindling tax contribution, and a waterfront that is rapidly eroding towards Route 6! (THAT should piss off the Hysterical Commission!)
To the apparent surprise of many, the two most important industries in Town are not Pop Warner and Sandwich Youth Soccer.
We need some leaders with real managerial experience -- this ain't a $60 million bake sale!
I have a question for all you "fab 4" haters. besides the MEJ issue - what other things have these people done that is so deserving of your negativeness? I'm relatively new and haven't watched all the meetings. But to be fair, the ones I have seen - I feel like I'm not seeing the same things. I feel like I'm out of the loop. I have watched recent meetings and it seems like they are looking out for what's in the best interest of the students. Maybe I need specific votes on issues, etc. to understand your angst. thanks
The Truth Maker would respond to poster 11;13
I would think the best way to understand what has occurred over the past several years is to do a little research on the subject matter, This blog has covered this subject matter for some time as has Randy's where you have asked the same question. Again, it would be advisable to research the subject matter and you will get the answer you are looking for. Both blogs offer many insitefull answers into the why and wherefors and it is all posted for you to research, that is if you really are looking for an answer to the questions you have asked.
6/14/12 11:13 You've missed far too much to understand where all this negativity comes from.
You would have to start watching the past two years s.c. meetings to see how it began. It was crystal clear to all who Sherri Marshall, Crossman, Linehan an Kangas where advocating IT WAS NEVER ABOUT THE CHILDREN! It was about the keeping K-12 monies propping up the Comm. School and Pool, Doing what the SEA Union president wanted and that was no changes to their work or accountability. 97% of our teachers are the best, but there is a group in the High School that want to no accountability or even have to put in a full day of work.
Thats been allowed for years and they are never gonna let that change, thus the barage against Dr. J's attempts to make positive changes in our schools.
People say they feel bad for the teachers, We never have, they are adults and should have stood up and removed their president they sat back and let it all happen now they are back in the 1980's school system with probably the 1980 books too.
TAKE THE COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG AND TAKE THEM AS WRITTEN. NEGATIVE COMMENTS ARE PUBLISHED AND DESENTING COMMENTS ARE EDITED OR NOT PUBLISHED . MR SIMMONS LIKES TO SLANT COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUPPORTERS AND HIS WAY OF THINKING. ANY OPPOSING VIEWS ARE MADE FUN OF OR COMMENTORS ARE CALLED ALL KINDS OF NEGATIVE TERMS. I HAVE A LEARNING DISABILITY AND HAVE BEEN CALLED ALL KINDS OF NAMES.
The Truth Maker would respond to 4;18. Perhaps you should have paid attention to what Dr Johnson was attempting to do, was to help more lower grade children with learning disabilties so that they did not wind up growing up in a world they do not understand, nor comprehend.
Perhaps if your family was paying more attention to what was going on here in Sandwich, you just might have been given a better chance in life to succeed.
Name calling unfortunitly is a way of life that should not be condoned, but again life can be cruel and that is why you should seek further aid, outside of your family environment. It is never to late to learn how to correct some of the misgivings life has dealt you.
Post a Comment