Medford School Committee
member: It's same old, same old
The following is board member Bill O'Keefe's account on the latest School Committee meeting:
The Medford School Committee appeared before the taxpayers on May 3, 2010 via local access TV.
The School Committee was asked again to vote and approve close to 4 million dollars in taxpayer school funds. As per past practice, there was no documentation and the receipts presented totaled less than twenty-three thousand dollars. When reviewing the receipts, it was discovered again that the process was flawed where duplicate receipts were signed and approved by the Secretary who is the lone authorized agent for the School Committee.
It was clear from the beginning that the taxpayers request for an open government and an open financial process was being blocked and ridiculed by our two senior School Committee members. Their slogan for change within this community was again stated publically “this is how we’ve always done things”. Do you think this adequate allocation of our taxpayer resources? This is still taxpayer money isn’t it?
Close to 4 million dollars in taxpayer expenses, payroll, and stipends that were not supported with any real documentation or receipts with duplicate invoices, errors, and no financial transparency was again approved. (I abstained again) As stated numerous times by the Superintendent as referenced in his April 2010 memo to the School Committee:
“The Massachusetts Code of Ethics advises School Committee members that individual actions do not bind the School Committee and the function of a School Committee is policy making not administrative”.
Yet, when the School Committee met on January 20, 2010 as documented in the Official School Committee Meeting minutes, (see Medford Public School web page under School Committee meeting minutes) a policy was established by a unanimous vote to begin to streamline this process so that each elected member could participate and be financially educated about our tax dollars. Yet, the School Committee Secretary refuses to honor or implement this new policy which continues to be violated weekly regarding open government and goal towards financial transparency.
Why make policy when certain elected officials believe they are above discretion and cannot be held accountable by their voting membership?
In November of 2009 the position for the Director of Pupil Services was appointed by the Superintendent. It was presented to the past School Committee that the position would be posted in the very near future. The lone dissent against this appointment was that of Thirty (30) year School Committee member and long time community leader and policy advocate Lena Digiantommaso. Digiantommaso firmly believed that this position would exclude important community participation and violate policy which was established to eliminate nepotism or the appearance of any conflict.
As the documentation reads and was motioned before the floor of the City Hall Chambers and voted on in good faith last November 2009 by the past School Committee cites:
It would be the Superintendent’s “Intent to assess how this year progresses and then around March 2010 begin a formal process for the selection of a permanent Director. This will allow sufficient time for parent and other stakeholder participation and would ensure that we can obtain a qualified pool of candidates.”
The Superintendent re-affirmed the importance of soliciting for major school positions (this job currently pays over One hundred Thousand annually) in his memo dated April 1, 2010 to the School Committee where the Superintendent clearly states:
“Advertising for an open position is required by policy, contractual obligations, and good practice. It is also part of our efforts to allow equal employment opportunity. Financial constraints are always with us, but we must adhere to equal employment opportunities regardless of constraints.”
Yet, on May 3, 2010 a motion for posting this 100k+ position was blocked and “tabled” which means “to temporarily suspend further consideration on the pending question” because certain senior School Committee members believed this to be a “technical issue” and referred it to legal counsel? However, common sense and anyone who ever applied for a private job states otherwise!!!!!
Finally, the McGlynn Elementary Selection Process for Principal began where thirty-three (33) candidates applied. Sixteen (16) candidates were interviewed by the Superintendent, the Assistant Superintendent, and the Director of Elementary Education. There are eight (8) candidates left which will be screened by a community advisory committee May 6th and May 11th. Will the theme be nepotism? Will the position be appointed? Will the Central School Administration lead by example and defer their raises? Some administrators are scheduled for raises close to 10K next year and we have clerical, security, and carpenters deferring their livelihood for the sake of their jobs? Teachers, firefighters, police? Who knows but time will tell. Welcome to Medford where it is all relative!!!!!
Waiting for Twitter to feed in the latest...