Kissing the Third Rail -- A Blast From the Past (July 27, 2010)

If discussing the Community Pool is similar to swimming with Alligators, dealing with the Community School itself is not unlike kissing the third rail. (for those NOT from Dorchester – google “MBTA and electrocution”)

I need to stress that the Community School is a great concept – it encourages full utilization of some of the Town’s biggest assets (its school buildings) which would otherwise sit empty after 4 PM most days. It also provides lifelong learning opportunities for residents of Sandwich and surrounding towns to take courses in whatever subject may interest them. It is a terrific program and I have yet to meet anybody who did not want to see it succeed and prosper well into the future.

NOBODY wants to shut down the Community School!

One More time -- NOBODY wants to shut down the Community School!

This program has the potential for being a very cost-effective method of providing the service – the facilities are already there – the only issue should be how much EXTRA does it cost the School District to allow the public to use the building for the additional time?

Specifically:

• Cleaning costs - janitorial labor & cleaning supplies

• Utility costs - heating and lighting the building in the evening

• Other costs - off-hours snow & ice removal, additional security

• Administrative costs – additional labor to operate programs

• Program-specific costs – The Pool, computers, Drivers Ed sub-contractor, etc.

Stating the obvious ...... Finally!

I have no doubt that Dr. Canfield realized the depth of the pool problem (no pun intended) long ago.

BUT, the shrewd politician that he is, I also have no doubt that he saw what happened to his predecessor who was practically drawn and quartered for supporting a prior School Committee's efforts to bring financial accountability to the Community School.

As we have seen over and over, if you cut reading, writing, or arithmetic, people might quietly bitch among themselves, but generally the only public outcry is a stifled yawn.

But, if you propose any changes which may impact Pool Users, The Community School, Sandwich Youth Soccer, or any other private group which benefits from the use of publicly-maintained facilities -- God help you, you mean-spirited SOB!

Meeting rooms would immediately fill with uninformed elderly swimmers and equally uninformed angry sports parents. Nobody cared that Sandwich tax dollars were being diverted from the K-12 education budget to support the entertainment of a small group of people (many of whom did not even live in Sandwich).

The Angry Crowd would just storm in, have their tantrum, and then storm out. Nobody bothered to stay for the part of the meeting where the budget cuts were discussed -- they only heard that they might be asked to pay for the extra services that other taxpayers had been providing to them for free.

Unfortunately, nobody ever speaks out against the Angry Crowd. The few School Committee members that have spoken out either got fed up and left, or were targeted to be replaced by inexperienced, unprofessional, drones whose sole purpose was to represent the special interests of their supporters, and seek vengeance for any perceived effort to change the status quo.

Canfield is no fool.

He installed new management at the Community School, and waited until folks got comfortable, --- and then he raised the issue that has been obvious to the (maybe) 6 people who have paid any attention.

He has even been framing it nicely --- the pool is a wonderful asset to the entire community. But, if the Town's taxpayers want to continue to provide this benefit, than they will have to vote the funds to pay for it. The School Department will no longer redirect dollars from the K-12 education budget to subsidize pool operations.

And, by the way, no more Community School people wandering around the building during the day

The last time this public access issue was raised, there was a public outcry against the former Superintendent and some School Committee members. We could spend thousands on Building security -- but for $50 you could buy a pool pass and wander around the locker room naked with the high school kids. "The Hell with security --- "SHE" won't let people in the building!"

This time, the silence is deafening. Maybe because the Emptyprize "forgot" to put these items in their story last week? Where's the bitchy editorials, the interviews with the usual suspects, and the one-sided, half-assed stories which seem to have been written before meetings even happen?

It seems allowing strangers to wander around the school (even with their clothes on) is frowned upon by the group that handles high school accreditation. Gee, could they have the same concerns about school safety that the prior Superintendent and School Committee members had raised?

I like the Groundhogs Day analogy. We are right back to where we were three years ago. Except, we have wasted three years of effort, and tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees which could have have gone into improving the school system.

And, somebody's professional reputation was trashed.

Nice work.

Deja Vu All Over Again ... (by Bob Guerin)

"I got Nuthin! "  said the Groundhog ...

In the movie Groundhog Day, Actor Bill Murray portrays a weatherman who finds himself living the same day over and over again.

Here in Sandwich, it’s the School Committee that seems to be reliving their yesterdays.

About the only difference between life in Sandwich and life in the Murray movie is that here in town it’s all about the community school pool not Punxsutawney Phil.

Don’t believe me? Read this week’s Sandwich Broadsider.

This week’s paper reports that Superintendent C. Richard Canfield has broached the idea about the town picking up utility and chemical costs for Sandwich High School pool operations. “I think its discussion we should be having,” Canfield told the school committee. “The cost for utilities and chemicals is $60,000. This would preserve the pool. Otherwise, we’d have to work away from that and say we just cannot absorb the cost.”

Did Dr. Canfield really say this is a discussion we should be having?

Bob Simmons and I began this very “discussion” 6-, 8-, maybe 10-years ago!

Much like Bill Murray’s character in the movie, after reading this week’s paper, I am wondering if anybody else but me is experiencing a sickening sense of Déjà vu?

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: