< Back to front page
Text size
–
+
Melrose School Committee member alleges open meeting violation
A member of the Melrose School Committee filed an open meeting law complaint this month, alleging that potentially illegal deliberations were conducted over e-mail.
While tasked with naming the superintendent search committee, School Committee members apparently e-mailed slates of candidate suggestions to one another, said Carrie Kourkoumelis, in a phone interview.
While state law allows for officials to share some documents and information, they are barred from sharing opinions and deliberating in an official capacity away from the public eye.
Three School Committee members distributed the suggested lists of candidates, Kourkamelis said.
Kourkemelis said she raised the issue of the suggested violation, but said she was rebuffed in December, when she requested a public apology and a more fair and open process.
Soon after, the School Committee finalized its roster for the superintendent search committee.
And last night at a School Committee meeting, Kourkemelis sat out a discussion held in executive session to form the committee's response to the complaint.
Mayor Robert Dolan, a school committee member, said in a phone interview Wednesday that Kourkemelis was excluded from the meeting because the city's attorney advised him that it would be a conflict for her to influence the body's response to her own complaint.
He also disputes the claim that slates of candidates were emailed to committee members in advance of public meetings.
Dolan, who rebuffed the accusations, was quick to point out that Kourkemelis was appointed unanimously to the search committee by her peers, the same committee over which she brought the complaint.
The following was submitted by Carrie Kourkoumelis, a member of the Melrose School Committee:
Statement in Public Comment portion of Melrose School Committee Meeting, 1/24/12
Members of the Public and School Committee:
I am concerned about the serious troubles confronting our Melrose Public Schools.
Our High School remains on Warning Status with NEASC, and yet this committee is not engaging to address this.
We continue to see a revolving door of principals and superintendents, and yet we do nothing to change it.
There is an increasing exodus of Melrose students to the private and charter schools because we are not doing our job. The response is a public relations campaign instead of a plan to improve the very deficiencies of the schools which have caused children to flee.
Student achievement is not what it should be for a city that cares so much about its children.
Several weeks ago, I perceived that this committee was about to do something that (in my opinion) violated the law. The Open Meeting Law allows us to share certain documents and information outside a public meeting, "provided that no opinion of a member is expressed," as specified explicitly in the law. I felt that the solicitation of proposed slates of names for the Superintendent Search Committee by e-mail outside the public meeting put forth by the chair of the Screening Panel led to a violation of the Open Meeting Law. I expressed my concerns to Ms. Thorp in a timely fashion and also sought the advice of the Division of Open Government. Jonathan Sclarsic, who heads that division, suggested that I should file a formal complaint if the committee was unwilling to address my concern and immediately do the right thing.
At the public meeting where the selection of the Superintendent Search Committee took place, I voiced my concerns again publicly and recommended we take appropriate action right then, rather than push forward with a flawed process and perhaps illegal search for a new superintendent. My concerns were dismissed. Hence, on January 7, I filed a formal complaint with this committee and urged that we correct these deficiencies immediately so the process could proceed in an appropriate fashion. The corrective measures I asked for were an apology to the public and the appointment of a search committee following a proper and legal process. Instead, this committee has already decided outside a public meeting that they wish apparently to expend more of your tax dollars denying any wrongdoing.
I feel it is critically important that this committee demonstrate to the entire district (especially the children) that we do not consider ourselves "above the law." We should demonstrate respect for the law and strive to uphold its tenets in every action we take. Sadly my colleagues do not agree with me and have developed a culture that focuses energy more on how to sidestep laws such as the Open Meeting Law, since they view these laws solely as pesky encumbrances to their governance.
My request was simply that the committee apologize to the public for not taking better care and follow proper procedures. Had this committee addressed this matter in December, we wouldn't be discussing this now. That they have chosen to ignore my request and drag things on rather than resolving the issues promptly and painlessly when they are raised is a sad disservice to the children of Melrose.
By contrast, in yet another recent Open Meeting Law complaint brought recently by a citizen, the Melrose Veterans Memorial Middle School Site Council admitted instantly that it had erred and violated the law when they voted in a secret ballot. They did not waste a moment or a dollar defending their mistake, and worked quickly to re-do their vote so that the superintendent search process could continue lawfully.
Tonight you are witnessing this School Committee going even beyond their previous measures to isolate this individual member from performing my duties as an elected official. They have had communication and circulated documents but deliberately withheld them from me. Not only have they denied me documents related to my request, but they have withheld documents from me regarding a separate action which must be addressed. They have brought their attorney in to bully me not to pursue my rights as a member of this School Committee, claiming in specious fashion I have something "substantial" to gain from my participation when there is clearly not a shred of validity to this. Once again, instead of acting squarely within both the spirit and letter of the law, I believe this committee is treading on the thinnest edge of the law, abusing its power, and hurting our district in the process.
I ask the Melrose School Committee most sincerely to cease this wasteful and contemptuous treatment of me and remember we are here to serve the children and the public, which is our partner and not the enemy to be skirted at any cost. We need to work together, even if we disagree, for the sake of the kids.
Actual Wording of Open Meeting Law Complaint:
Specific person(s), if any, you allege committed the violation: Margaret Driscoll, Chair; Kristin Thorp, Chair of Selection Panel; Mayor Dolan; Christine Casatelli; Donald Constantine; Donald Lehman
Description of alleged violation:
Describe the alleged violation that this complaint is about. If you believe the alleged violation was intentional, please say so and include the reasons supporting your belief.
I allege that members of the School Committee have violated the Massachusetts Open Meeting Laws by deliberating in private rather than in open session when three members of the committee provided the entire committee "slates" of names that they recommended for the Superintendent Search Committee. The definition of deliberation in M.G.L. c. 30A section 18 is "an oral or written communication through any medium, including electronic mail, between or among a quorum of a public body on any public business within its jurisdiction;" [except for matters of agenda, scheduling, reports and supporting documents] that may be discussed at a meeting, provided that no opinion of a member is expressed."
I contend that each slate of names from each of three School Committee members (including a quorum of the "Screening Panel"), distributed to a quorum of the School Committee outside the confines of the open meeting, constitutes the opinion of that member and hence is a deliberation not permitted under the Open Meeting Law (MGL chapter 30a, sections 18-25).
28 Cargill Street, Melrose, MA 021767
January 8, 2012
Melrose School Committee
360 Lynn Fells Parkway
Melrose, MA 02176
To the Melrose School Committee:
From the very first presentation of the Chair's outline of the Search Process in October to the present, I have implored this Committee to comply with both the spirit and letter of the Open Meeting Laws. I have tried everything within my powers to convey respectfully my concerns, which this Committee refuses to acknowledge as legitimate. I was told by Mr. Jonathan Sclarsic to file a complaint if I felt that the Committee had not abided by the law. It is with greatest reluctance and dismay that I hereby file this formal complaint.
I allege that members of the School Committee have violated the Massachusetts Open Meeting Laws by deliberating in private rather than in open session when three members of the committee provided the entire committee "slates" of names that they recommended for the Superintendent Search Committee. The definition of deliberation in M.G.L. c. 30A section 18 is "an oral or written communication through any medium, including electronic mail, between or among a quorum of a public body on any public business within its jurisdiction; " [except for matters of agenda, scheduling, reports and supporting documents] "that may be discussed at a meeting, provided that no opinion of a member is expressed."
I contend that each slate of names from each of three School Committee members (including a quorum of the "Screening Panel"), distributed to a quorum of the School Committee outside the confines of the open meeting, constitutes the opinion of that member and hence is a deliberation not permitted under the Open Meeting Law (MGL chapter 30a, sections 18-25).
I believe that members of this committee have conspired to circumvent the Open Meeting Law on this matter from the start and that this violation was intentional. Efforts made to share opinions in secret include attempts not to have open meetings of the screening panel at all. When told we must meet openly, the next attempt was adjournment to executive session. When informed that the screening panel could not select a slate in executive session, they resorted to email in order to avoid an open and public process where we would discuss the pros and cons of the people who would best represent the interests of the community on the superintendent search committee. In my opinion this amounts to a secret ballet or "straw poll" which would not even be allowed in Executive Session. In the end the intended goal of avoiding open discussion to determine which individuals to seat on the search committee was achieved when the School Committee by a vote of 6 to 1 proposed and voted to accept, without any public discussion of individual search committee members, one of the slates (that of the Selection Panel Chair, Kristin Thorp) that had been shared illegally with the whole committee prior to the meeting.
From public statements over the years and previous actions taken when confronted with OML mandates, I believe that rather than respect, honor, and uphold this law, the majority of this school committee views it as an encumbrance to be avoided if at all possible. Consequently I ask that this committee apologize to the public we serve and re-initiate the process of seeking individuals to serve on a Superintendent search committee following an open and legal process.
Sincerely,
Carrie Kourkoumelis
Member, Melrose School Committee
Statement in Public Comment portion of Melrose School Committee Meeting, 1/24/12
Members of the Public and School Committee:
I am concerned about the serious troubles confronting our Melrose Public Schools.
Our High School remains on Warning Status with NEASC, and yet this committee is not engaging to address this.
We continue to see a revolving door of principals and superintendents, and yet we do nothing to change it.
There is an increasing exodus of Melrose students to the private and charter schools because we are not doing our job. The response is a public relations campaign instead of a plan to improve the very deficiencies of the schools which have caused children to flee.
Student achievement is not what it should be for a city that cares so much about its children.
Several weeks ago, I perceived that this committee was about to do something that (in my opinion) violated the law. The Open Meeting Law allows us to share certain documents and information outside a public meeting, "provided that no opinion of a member is expressed," as specified explicitly in the law. I felt that the solicitation of proposed slates of names for the Superintendent Search Committee by e-mail outside the public meeting put forth by the chair of the Screening Panel led to a violation of the Open Meeting Law. I expressed my concerns to Ms. Thorp in a timely fashion and also sought the advice of the Division of Open Government. Jonathan Sclarsic, who heads that division, suggested that I should file a formal complaint if the committee was unwilling to address my concern and immediately do the right thing.
At the public meeting where the selection of the Superintendent Search Committee took place, I voiced my concerns again publicly and recommended we take appropriate action right then, rather than push forward with a flawed process and perhaps illegal search for a new superintendent. My concerns were dismissed. Hence, on January 7, I filed a formal complaint with this committee and urged that we correct these deficiencies immediately so the process could proceed in an appropriate fashion. The corrective measures I asked for were an apology to the public and the appointment of a search committee following a proper and legal process. Instead, this committee has already decided outside a public meeting that they wish apparently to expend more of your tax dollars denying any wrongdoing.
I feel it is critically important that this committee demonstrate to the entire district (especially the children) that we do not consider ourselves "above the law." We should demonstrate respect for the law and strive to uphold its tenets in every action we take. Sadly my colleagues do not agree with me and have developed a culture that focuses energy more on how to sidestep laws such as the Open Meeting Law, since they view these laws solely as pesky encumbrances to their governance.
My request was simply that the committee apologize to the public for not taking better care and follow proper procedures. Had this committee addressed this matter in December, we wouldn't be discussing this now. That they have chosen to ignore my request and drag things on rather than resolving the issues promptly and painlessly when they are raised is a sad disservice to the children of Melrose.
By contrast, in yet another recent Open Meeting Law complaint brought recently by a citizen, the Melrose Veterans Memorial Middle School Site Council admitted instantly that it had erred and violated the law when they voted in a secret ballot. They did not waste a moment or a dollar defending their mistake, and worked quickly to re-do their vote so that the superintendent search process could continue lawfully.
Tonight you are witnessing this School Committee going even beyond their previous measures to isolate this individual member from performing my duties as an elected official. They have had communication and circulated documents but deliberately withheld them from me. Not only have they denied me documents related to my request, but they have withheld documents from me regarding a separate action which must be addressed. They have brought their attorney in to bully me not to pursue my rights as a member of this School Committee, claiming in specious fashion I have something "substantial" to gain from my participation when there is clearly not a shred of validity to this. Once again, instead of acting squarely within both the spirit and letter of the law, I believe this committee is treading on the thinnest edge of the law, abusing its power, and hurting our district in the process.
I ask the Melrose School Committee most sincerely to cease this wasteful and contemptuous treatment of me and remember we are here to serve the children and the public, which is our partner and not the enemy to be skirted at any cost. We need to work together, even if we disagree, for the sake of the kids.
Actual Wording of Open Meeting Law Complaint:
Specific person(s), if any, you allege committed the violation: Margaret Driscoll, Chair; Kristin Thorp, Chair of Selection Panel; Mayor Dolan; Christine Casatelli; Donald Constantine; Donald Lehman
Description of alleged violation:
Describe the alleged violation that this complaint is about. If you believe the alleged violation was intentional, please say so and include the reasons supporting your belief.
I allege that members of the School Committee have violated the Massachusetts Open Meeting Laws by deliberating in private rather than in open session when three members of the committee provided the entire committee "slates" of names that they recommended for the Superintendent Search Committee. The definition of deliberation in M.G.L. c. 30A section 18 is "an oral or written communication through any medium, including electronic mail, between or among a quorum of a public body on any public business within its jurisdiction;" [except for matters of agenda, scheduling, reports and supporting documents] that may be discussed at a meeting, provided that no opinion of a member is expressed."
I contend that each slate of names from each of three School Committee members (including a quorum of the "Screening Panel"), distributed to a quorum of the School Committee outside the confines of the open meeting, constitutes the opinion of that member and hence is a deliberation not permitted under the Open Meeting Law (MGL chapter 30a, sections 18-25).
28 Cargill Street, Melrose, MA 021767
January 8, 2012
Melrose School Committee
360 Lynn Fells Parkway
Melrose, MA 02176
To the Melrose School Committee:
From the very first presentation of the Chair's outline of the Search Process in October to the present, I have implored this Committee to comply with both the spirit and letter of the Open Meeting Laws. I have tried everything within my powers to convey respectfully my concerns, which this Committee refuses to acknowledge as legitimate. I was told by Mr. Jonathan Sclarsic to file a complaint if I felt that the Committee had not abided by the law. It is with greatest reluctance and dismay that I hereby file this formal complaint.
I allege that members of the School Committee have violated the Massachusetts Open Meeting Laws by deliberating in private rather than in open session when three members of the committee provided the entire committee "slates" of names that they recommended for the Superintendent Search Committee. The definition of deliberation in M.G.L. c. 30A section 18 is "an oral or written communication through any medium, including electronic mail, between or among a quorum of a public body on any public business within its jurisdiction; " [except for matters of agenda, scheduling, reports and supporting documents] "that may be discussed at a meeting, provided that no opinion of a member is expressed."
I contend that each slate of names from each of three School Committee members (including a quorum of the "Screening Panel"), distributed to a quorum of the School Committee outside the confines of the open meeting, constitutes the opinion of that member and hence is a deliberation not permitted under the Open Meeting Law (MGL chapter 30a, sections 18-25).
I believe that members of this committee have conspired to circumvent the Open Meeting Law on this matter from the start and that this violation was intentional. Efforts made to share opinions in secret include attempts not to have open meetings of the screening panel at all. When told we must meet openly, the next attempt was adjournment to executive session. When informed that the screening panel could not select a slate in executive session, they resorted to email in order to avoid an open and public process where we would discuss the pros and cons of the people who would best represent the interests of the community on the superintendent search committee. In my opinion this amounts to a secret ballet or "straw poll" which would not even be allowed in Executive Session. In the end the intended goal of avoiding open discussion to determine which individuals to seat on the search committee was achieved when the School Committee by a vote of 6 to 1 proposed and voted to accept, without any public discussion of individual search committee members, one of the slates (that of the Selection Panel Chair, Kristin Thorp) that had been shared illegally with the whole committee prior to the meeting.
From public statements over the years and previous actions taken when confronted with OML mandates, I believe that rather than respect, honor, and uphold this law, the majority of this school committee views it as an encumbrance to be avoided if at all possible. Consequently I ask that this committee apologize to the public we serve and re-initiate the process of seeking individuals to serve on a Superintendent search committee following an open and legal process.
Sincerely,
Carrie Kourkoumelis
Member, Melrose School Committee
Advertisement
Advertisement
Waiting for Twitter to feed in the latest...