The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rejected the School Committee's appeal of the ruling by the State Appeals Court in the Mary Ellen Johnson case.
Bottom line: As expected, she has a valid contract. Even IF there was an Open Meeting Law violation (which has not been proven), the School Committee did not follow statute in their efforts to invalidate the contract.
I smell a very expensive settlement coming down the road.....
It's too bad the District just spent all of their "left over" budget money on iPads, Bleachers, Bus fees, etc. !!
19 comments:
Not saving for a rainy day is an absolutely brilliant strategy right up until it begins to rain.
Comedian Ron White is one of my favorites. He is perhaps at his very best when he tells stories that all end with his most famous tag line: “You Can’t Fix Stupid.”
It’s not hard to imagine that Mr. White could find a lot of new material by watching some re-runs of our School Committee in action on the cable access channels. It’s truer now than ever: You Can’t Fix Stupid.
Is that Frank Pannorfi's picture?
The Truth Maker would respond to the decision by the court. Prayers answered and now finaly, justice will be served. Those whom generated this travisty should be made to bear the finacial burdan and now perhaps politics will take on new meaning with in the school system. It should have never occured, but except for people whom decided they were not going to allow good changes to occur within our school district, because of conflictions of politics.
Mr. Simmons
Please tell me what is the posting time for any meetings. If the meeting was posted correctly than the Da would not have ruled that meeting illeagal. That is a fact and has already been proven. As far as the contract the only thing that has happened is it goes to trial. No where have I read that the judges has said it is a legal contract. They have simple said it goes back to Barnstable
Now, really, where is a good 'CAPS LOCK ON' when ya need one. Just sayin...
3:53, right on schedule! Glad to see you finally figured out how to turn off the CAPS LOCK!
Not surprisingly, it doesn't appear you read the Appeals Court opinion which says:
"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."
In other words -- There was never any hearing to determine if there was a material violation and EVEN IF there was a violation, the law clearly requires that somebody file with the court to invalidate the contract. Since that didn't happen -- the Contract is not invalidated.
(see http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120608/NEWS/120609799/0/NEWS01)
The Truth Maker would add that MGL is very specific in regards to the matter that the school lawyer did not have a good grasp on. As has been outlined above and addressed countless times at public school committee meetings, those in power decided to look the other way and rely on union politics to unconflict those whom have placed our fair town in harms way.
Now we all get to pay the piper for those individuals who still to this day have not expressed a reason for what they put in motion, that has any merit.
pay up
meanwhile......"Nevins said he will file a motion to amend the complaint to include wages not paid to Johnson when her contract expired in June 2011".....with all the lawsuits being pursued in the town of Sandwich no wonder why they don't want children enjoying themselves. In the last six months Sandwich has banned cupcakes, riding fire trucks, sirens in parades, water guns and now the potential banning of jumping off the Boardwalk/Scorton Creek to prevent MORE lawsuits. Nice goin' !
What is more dangerous, jumping off the boardwalk bridge at high tide or signing a contract with Sandwich Public Schools???????????? Just something to ponder over!!!!
If there is a pay-out on this lawsuit it is the result of 4 people voting to invalidate a legal contract, not the result of 6 people voting to continue a meeting.
The entire situation could have been avoided if they had followed the law and gone to court -- then a judge would have decided if there was an OML violation AND if it was serious enough to void an otherwise legal contract.
I read the law and it seems pretty clear to me. It looks like somebody relied on bad counsel. (It also seemed pretty clear to the judges on both the Appeals & State Supreme court.)
The only person (besides the school lawyer) who thinks a DA can void a contract is the Judge in Barnstable -- who had been a DA himself a few weeks earlier.
The Truth Maker would respond to poster 8:50 you forgot to include an impending law suit by town workers for being made to work in MOLD infested buildings at some point in the future, As every one knows, any one exposed to mold can result in life long breathing issues, some even life threatening. Several of our town buildings contain these life threatening conditions and the longer one is exposed to it the more likely those made to work under these conditions will be exposed to life long problems. How would you like to work under those conditions to put food on your table???
cudos to you just askin......very good. LOL
This town needs to stop the lawyers running up the bills with stalling the inevitable outcome, stop the padding of all the lawyers and cut Dr. Johnson's check so this town can move forward. As long as the clock keeps going their bank accounts get fatter.
This case isn't gray, it's black and white, they didn't file within 21 days for judges ruling. The damage award thru the court will be substantial, settle out of court now.
Let the 4 women who created the slander,retaliation and banning suit hire their own lawyers to defend their actions.
The Town's lawyer was funny when he claimed the Appeals Court ruling impacted the Public's "Right to Know" -- the meeting sounds like it was the most publicized meeting in the history of the School Department.
BUT -- even if the law was violated by not posting a notice on the Clerk's Bulletin Board (How many members of "The Public" stop in to read that?) --- the law clearly states what must be done to reverse a contract -- and nobody did that.
Not that it matters anymore, but I still haven't heard why they wanted to void the contract anyway. Johnson had just gotten a good performance evaluation -- what reasons did they have to terminate her?
Sounds like some folks had axes to grind!
The last post raises a salient and troubling point about the relationship between senior level municipal employees and elected committees. In the very few instances where a Board actually has the ability to terminate an employee’s contract (like the Superintendent’s or the Town Mangers’) there is a lot of room for abuse and for the politicization of hirings (and firings).
The very fact that our Town’s litigation related insurance expenses now cost a staggering $600,000 a year demonstrates that the town has a very serious and growing problem with managing its personnel and this case shows that our elected boards are actually compounding the problem.
No! No! Anon at 1:39 they had cherries to feed Dr Johnson! Wouldn't it be fun to 'stir' it all up again? The brew I mean? The Witches of Eastwick...er Sandwich. So many want it all to go away... but at what price are they willing to pay for MEJ's personal degredation? I would rather have my local roads paved that haven't seen anything but tar emulsion for over 28 years. Nope, no axes to grind in Sandwich..well, unless you are a lawyer. Just sayin...
The Truth Maker would ask Greg the original. If money for the roads come out of our taxes, why do we need state funding money to do the paving. Is that money a suppliment or is it all we get get for such projects??
For me at least, I can agree with your position in the above matter, but I also feel that our system here in Sandwich perpertrated an injustice to some one that should at least be able to recover her loss of financial gain as a result of a still unexplained reason as to why it was done to her.
Post a Comment