A funny thing happened last night, it seems the School Committee's annual public budget hearing will need to be rescheduled from January 26 because the Chair chose not to advertise it as required by law.
The clock is running out.
The Town Charter requires the budget be delivered to the BOS by February 1 and Mass General Law (Chapter 71, Section 38N) says the public needs seven days notice -- or more specifically:
The school committee of each city, town or regional school district shall hold a public hearing on its proposed annual budget not less than seven days after publication of a notice thereof in a newspaper having general circulation in such city, town or district. Prior to such public hearing said committee shall make available to the public at least one copy of said proposed budget for a time period of not less than forty-eight hours either at the office of the superintendent of schools or at a place so designated by said committee. At the time and place so advertised or at any time or place to which such hearing may from time to time be adjourned all interested persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard for or against the whole or any part of the proposed budget.
So, assuming somebody makes a call today, and gets a notice in tomorrow, ain't no way there's going to be a (legal) budget hearing on January 26.
It seems that the Committee that was so concerned about improved Public input and proper notice blew it yet again!
So, if there is a public hearing on the 31st (or maybe the 1st), how will they be responding to the concerns their constituents may raise at the public hearing -- if they plan to deliver an approved budget on February 1 as required?
The sad reality is they won't respond. The only "little voices" they will hear come from the small minority of the Town that showed up to elect them -- the people who have their own person interests to protect -- their contract, their job, their pool, etc.
At least we got that copier toner under control!
11 comments:
How exactly did that "non" posting happen? Did someone give someone specific instruction not to post the meeting? The SC secretary posts everything else in a timely fashion. Who told her NOT TO this time? Someone must know.
It appears that the Supt told her to advertise the meeting, The Chair told her not to.
maybe she thought the BOS would extend the deadline? (not likely if anyone ever read the Charter)
Why is the Chair giving orders to the staff -- especially ones that contradict the Superintendent?
Who does the secretary report to? If she reports to the Superintendant directly, she should be fired immediately. Who's on first anyway -- since when does the SC Chair trump the Super? Remember the downfall of Alexander Haig was his famous quote about being in charge. Perhaps, someone should read that paragraph from a political history book to Ms. Marshall. She's a nurse not an educator or a Superintendant.
From the Town Charter:
Section 4.3.2 BUDGET HEARING
The School Committee shall hold a public hearing on its proposed annual budget pursuant to,
Section 38N of Chapter 71 of General Laws by March 1.
The town charter requires a line item budget from the School Committee to the BOS by Feb 1, but sets a date of March 1 for the public budget hearing. In fact, if you review the SC minutes, you'll see that the SC voted on the FY10 budget on January 21, but did not hold a public hearing until February 4th.
From SC Meeting Minutes Jan 21, 2009:
"Mr. Simmons moved to submit the FY2010 proposed budget to the Finance Committee and
Board of Selectmen, to post February 4th as the Public Hearing on the budget, and to
recommend the budget as submitted to the School Committee, seconded by Mrs. Barton."
2:34 is absolutely correct. The Charter does not require that the hearing be held BEFORE the budget is approved and forwarded to the BOS.
But --- if the purpose of the hearing is to gain public input for the budget doesn't it make sense that the hearing happens BEFORE the Committee approves it?
Note the minutes for January, 2010 while I was Chairman:
"Mr. Simmons added that the Public Budget Hearing will be held on January 20th, after
which the Business Meeting will be held. During the January 27th meeting further budget
discussions will be held and the School Committee will vote to send the budget to the
Board of Selectmen."
Overlooking the idea of public input --- if the public hearing was scheduled why wasn't the ad placed.
I vaguely recall some other issue involving a misposted meeting ....
Bob,
I love this blog, but this is too serious not to be more publicized. If the secretary is being told to be insubordinate to the Super, then I wonder why the taxpayers cannot remove Sherry Marshall.
She put Joan's job at risk and it is coming together. This is how it all started, isn't it?If the times or our local rag won't pick up the story, would someone please contact the Boston Globe. 30 million folks...30 million dollars of our money being mismanaged. This is too serious to hope that "it will all work out"
Does SC realize all of the tapes of the meetings will be admissible in the lawsuit? Every week the fabulous four are costing us (an I hope themselves) more money. Anyone...any juror or judge watching these meetings will have no choice to side with Dr. Johnson. It isn't even a question.
I received some comments equating the latest posting/advertising screw-up to the situation last Spring when the Supt Contract was extended and attributing it to an ongoing conspiracy between the SC Chair and School Committee staff.
Last Spring, I proposed the meeting continuance and I believed that a well-publicized 48 hour meeting continuance would not require a separate meeting notice -- and all SC members present agreed with me. (Unlike some other states, Mass. law does not address meeting continuances.)
Whether the courts will eventually support that belief remains to be seen -- but that situation was not part of a "conspiracy" involving any school staff.
10:53, Taxpayers could remove Marshall -- if you could ever get enough people to get a recall petition started. Or, just wait a few months and don't re-elect her.
But ... since almost nobody pays attention, she will likely get re-elected and the nonsense will continue.
its funny -- you want people to remove marshall from office -- but you arent even willing to be the one to drop a dime to The Globe.
9:22 much easier at this point to find two strong candidates to unseat Marshall.
Hopefully they don't do any further damage until May, something says we will have two superintentdents on the payroll when the election take place in May!
Talk about the laughing stock of the whole state and what caliber and rational superintendent wants to wade into this snake pit. Our guess is there trying to figure out a way to pay off Dr. Johnson to go away. That's gonna be very expensive for us taxpayers, but Sherry always reminds us that it's not our own money it's the town side monies.
How many times will an insurance co. pay out for incompetent legal counsel's advice? Will an insurance company pay for retaliatory actions by individual board members, I've heard they won't if the retaliation is blatant which the last 8 months of video shows blatancy.
I don't understand how the SC Chair could state that teacher contract discussions have nothing to do with the budget.
80% of the budget IS PAYROLL!!
The contract ran out last year -- so they could be liable for an increase for this year AND next year. How will they fund a current year increase if they budgeted nothing AND pay out the Minkoff settlement, and likely the Johnson settlement?
The Truth Maker would add that our cost to cover this type of insurance will cost more after all of the claims are settled and guess who will be paying that bill in future years.?
Thank you School committee members
Post a Comment