If I was to add one paragraph to this morning's Cape Cod Times article, it would be:
Simmons laughed heartily when told of Linehan's comment. "It's obvious she still has absolutely no grasp of the issues at hand. Not only were members of the committee and their attorney warned they were making a serious mistake by not seeking a judge's ruling, as an elected official, Linehan should have actually read the regulations before taking reckless action that will cost the town well in excess of $300,000. I would also point out that the lawsuit was over her vote to illegally void a contract -- not a questionable meeting posting.The Times article also pointed out that at least Marshall, Kangas & Crossman were smart enough to shut up. How's that saying go? "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt"?
Speaking of quotes, I hope Selectmen Pierce was mis-quoted when he said he was "disappointed" by the ruling. Maybe he meant he was "disappointed" that somebody's professional career was destroyed by four vindictive idiots? Or, maybe he was "disappointed" that hundreds of thousands of taxpayers dollars were wasted for absolutely no reason? Yesterday really would have been a good day for Jim not to have answered his phone.
It's interesting to note that this case has now been heard by six Judges in three courts. The only one that ruled in the Town's favor was the first one -- a former Bristol County prosecutor who had been a judge for less than a month. That judge's actions were then effectively stomped on by the State Appeals Court, and then kicked to the curb by the State's Supreme Judicial Court before being returned to the Superior Court for disposition.
Here's a few highlights from the Justice Muse's very detailed ruling:
-- Even if notice of the April 30th meeting was not filed with the Town Clerk forty-eight hours in advance, there was sufficient public notice of the meeting's continuation and that any violation of the letter of the law was strictly "de minimis" and had no impact on the intent of the law.
-- The Town waived any statutory right of appeal because no interested party brought an appeal within the twenty-one day period. (Where have I Heard THAT before?)
--The court recognized that the behavior of Marshall, Crossman, Kangas and Linehan was "petty and demeaning" but not to the level tortious interference. (Not surprising, since being elected does not bestow any knowledge, professionalism, or magical power -- frequently it just means the winner stood in the rain longer at the dump, ran a damn fine bake sale, or had absolutely no competition for the seat!!)
--The court recognized that the behavior of Marshall, Crossman, Kangas and Linehan was "petty and demeaning" but not to the level tortious interference. (Not surprising, since being elected does not bestow any knowledge, professionalism, or magical power -- frequently it just means the winner stood in the rain longer at the dump, ran a damn fine bake sale, or had absolutely no competition for the seat!!)
13 comments:
Recently, I overheard an attorney, who was asked for a legal opinion, tell their client to talk to their rabbi or priest instead. “Your question”, she said to the client, “is as much a moral issue as a legal one.”
This sad school-related saga says as much about certain individual’s integrity, values and morals as is does contract and open meeting law. It’s hard for me to imagine how some of the folks involved in this sad story sleep at night.
The results in this mornings paper in regards to Dr. Johnson law suit is one that should forever settle where the lack of leadership and responsibilty by elected and appointed officials will be forever ingrained into the community of Sandwich as an injustice caused by four bitter and uncaring citizens of Sandwich who decided to take the illegal steps they chose to travel. To further compound the injustice the town did not provide the legal representative to defend her, but rather chose to defend the illegal desicion made by the four self serving, bitter citizens. This with out a doubt has placed more of a strain on our insuficient town wide budget and now who gets to pay this bill?
We the taxpayers of Sandwich will ultimilty pay the bills in some form or another. Do you think that is right? I do not. How does one account for all the time and effort put in place by the illegal actions of the four by the board of Selectmen, Town Manager, countless other town payed employees, that ferrit this process through the court system.
How much tax payers money was spent and is now unrecovarable?
Why did the town not defend Dr. Johnson in her case of illegal dismisal?
One could say that the lawyers representing our town also need to share the responsiability in this who process as well.
One comment made in the paper was that MS> Linahan stated it the chairman at that time did not inform them. Now that is a bold face untruth. She is attempting to make facts into lies. I sat at severel school committee meetings and even made a presentation to that 21 rule as did Mr. Simmons, before the actuall dead line as did others. The Chair [MS> Marshal] insisted that it was not needed. One can pull up the recorded vidios of those meeting and with out question determine who is speaking with a forked tongue It sure would have saved a hell of a lot of grief that now will placed on every tax payer in Sandwich to deal with.
This ruling overshadows a very serious problem…..lack of open government and the fundamental trashing of the Open Meeting Law. Judge Muse’s statement that the mentioning of the meeting on TV and an article published in the newspaper was sufficient notice is a dramatic slap in the face to the public’s ability to receive uniform and consistent notification of government operations. The meeting was either posted under the rule of law or it wasn’t. In this case it wasn’t posted and the DA ruled ALL actions taken were nullified. ALL means ALL folks, you can’t cherry pick. Under this logic I guess the Board of Selectmen, Finance Committee or School Committee doesn’t need to post their meetings anymore. Just have one of the members post a comment on Facebook, or have the local newspaper reporter mention something briefly in an article. No need to post anything under the Open Meeting Law folks, just pass the word along while you’re in Stop and Shop and all is good.
This ruling truly erodes the purpose of the Open Meeting Law and frankly I believe will lead to more government action conducted outside the public view. I mean after all, if the Board of Selectmen decide to make a large financial decision that may be unpopular with the public, just hold a meeting without notice and after the fact say oops, sorry, we forgot to post but we did tell a few friends and slapped some flyers on cars at the library. This decision defies logical and I cannot believe Judge Muse would come to such a precedent making conclusion.
While Bob and others think this is a victory they need to look beyond their seeming school girl admiration for MEJ and understand that because of this ruling the Open Meeting Law is now drastically weakened. This is a very bad day for open government and I think it’s only going to get worse.
JUstice may work slow, but it works.
Justice was served today and all we need to wait for is the fallout
10:30, that is silly.
If you actually read the Judge's opinion he laid out why the notice of the meeting was sufficient.
And -- since you are concerned about "cherry picking" the law he also pointed out that the statute has a specific policy to overturn a meeting which anybody feels is questionable -- and nobody followed the legal process. Nowhere in the law does it say a DA is authorized to void a contract.
The Committee (and their lawyer) was told to see a judge many times within the 21 day period -- they chose not to. (Probably because counsel feared the "de minimus" ruling which they ultimtely got.)
Do you seriously think "public good" would be better served if a meeting was posted on a bulletin board in a town office than it would be by publishing it in local papers, and extensively discussing it on local cable in front of a large audience?
And, i also read the law --- the DA can call a meeting anything he wants --- but if somebody wants to un-do a contract, the law specifically says they need to see a judge.
Stand way back now, Bob! The monkeys got their final judgement and now all they have left is to throw their feces at anyone silly enough to stand still while they have a tantrum! It would be amusing if I didn't pay taxes in this town. By the way, I think 10:30 called you a girl. I guess desperate times call for desperate measures, Keep your chin up and remember to run when passing a monkey!
Mr. Simmons Ms., Koenig is referencing you by name, and not so nicely, in her column today.
Bob, just to be clear.... so you are agreeing that the mere mention of a meeting is sufficient and there is no reason to post them anymore? Do the ends really justify the means for you in this case? If actions in meetings that aren’t noticed to the public in accordance with law is ok with you, then as I stated in my previous post, do you have a problem with the BOS making decisions on your behalf behind closed doors? This is very black and white. Oh and I sure hope MEJ sends you a fruit basket for all your work in getting her big payday.
2:04 -- I'm not looking for a new Pen Pal -- but that's not what I said at all.
We are talking about continuing a legally posted meeting -- not having secret meetings. The public was notified that a meeting was being held, at the beginning of the meeting it was announced that the meeting would be continued in 46 hours after a question was resolved. The continued meeting was held as publicly discussed and the originally posted agenda item was resolved.
There were no hidden meetings or secret agendas.
School Committee Counsel knew the meeting was going to be continued but didn't raise any objection.
I don't need a fruit basket for doing my job representing the interests of the people who elected me -- I would hope you don't expect one for doing the same.
OK Bob, you have to hear it from me because I think the CapsLock On Queen is now operating as an anonymous anonymous on this blog...so here it goes:
"SEE I TOLD YOU IT WAS AN ILLEGAL MEETING"
No matter what the Judge said, no matter what was reported, no matter that the sky is blue )during daytime without clouds) Caps Lock Queen will never believe the judge said anything that made the meeting legal.
So, let me go back to the poor, uniformed Anon who was willing to Pony up some money for the upcoming override requests! How much are you willing to pony up now? The anon at 1030 is obviously in sync with the headless horsewomen who caused this all to happen.
If this town in any way, form or shape approves an override for this school system WITHOUT some public guarantee that there has to be an improvement in the management of their finances...we will become the laughing stock of every other community on Cape Cod...if not the world.
Who really cares what Koenig says anyway. She is the perfect example of why this town is where it is financially. I wonder if it is possible for wash-a-shores to impeach the old timers of Sandwich like Koenig. Theres a thought...then we could move on to impeaching Ellis and his bow tie too.
While I am at it....I know Lindy-hands could not possibly be the Caps Queen or the anon at 1030! She couldn't keep her hands from moving long enough to actually type something....but at least I know that now IT WAS ALL BOB'S FAULT. Ha ha...she is one funny fool, no? Another bowl of cherries please?
I wish the judge had not excluded the headless horsewomen...he left us with those asses..er...donkeys...
Now, I really think Mr Pierce was disappointed because he was just dealt another blow to the Public Safety Facility after bringing her in for a mere $20 mil! Bring on the override requests folks...my pen is leaking ink...
It's not a "black & white" law -- the same law that requires a 48 hour posting also gives judges the authority to interpret the law and endure that the public good is being met. And the law clearly states how such disputes should be resolved.
A bigger question in my mind is if the School's attorney knew this -- why did he choose not to go to court to resolve the issue?
And, if he knew about the "continued" meeting in advance -- why did he not advise his client to wait an additional day to eliminate any potential issues?
Sounds like somebody should be checking their malpractice coverage this week!
Another round of legal chess game will be played out this Wednesday at the Court.
The town is not playing the game correctly.
The Game was over and we still have the town determined to continue with another rematch.
Who gets the bills for all of this chess game being played out is a question I would like to get answered. Will it affect the two proposals where the schools are asking for more money at town meeting.?
Post a Comment