Given that Emily Costello was all over this issue, I do not understand why she didn’t release this document in September when she received it. It contains Matt Hills’ explanation as to what happened regarding the posted meeting times, the lack of detail in the minutes, and the agenda for the meetings.
Regarding meeting agendas: It’s interesting to note that only the first one listed collective bargaining as its reason for meeting. In the following two meetings, Hills realized his mistake and listed personnel matter. Remember, among other things, Costello accused the School Committee of meeting secretly three times.
Poor Matt Hills. He wanted to do the right thing. He just didn’t understand the rules. He thought the 48 hour posting requirement was flexible. He thought it would be okay to describe the agenda for a meeting about plagiarism, as “strategy related to collective bargaining.” And when poor Matt Hills couldn’t get the room where the School Committee usually meets [because we all know how busy the Ed Center is in the summer time], he decided they’d have to meet in an out of the way place where they’ve never met before.
Now seriously, I can forgive the Superintendent’s indiscretion. But when an elected official in a position of power behaves the way Matt Hills did, he should be removed from public office.
I’d have to second Mike Striar’s comment. My wife and I only moved to town last year so we don’t know any of the players involved. But based on this letter, the actions of Chairman Hills certainly come across as slimy, to say the least.
Actually, Gail, I was somewhat astonished the law department sent this letter in response to the TAB’s open meeting law complaint in the first place, because it fails to acknowledge the patent inadequacy of the meeting minutes. A week before this letter went out, the issue of the adequacy of meeting minutes came up during a Programs & Services Committee meeting discussion concerning a policy adopted by the Licensing Commission. I was stunned to learn that the relevant meeting minutes did not include a summary of the discussion that took place regarding the policy. The next day, I emailed the law department and the administration and sent them examples of the Attorney General’s OML determinations regarding meeting minutes. In part, these determinations consistently state that:
The Open Meeting Law requires, at a minimum, that “[a] public body shall create and maintain accurate minutes of all meetings, including executive sessions, setting forth the date, time and place, the members present or absent, a summary of the discussions on each subject, a list of documents and other exhibits used at the meeting, the decisions made and the actions taken at each meeting, including the record of all votes.” While meeting minutes need not provide a transcript of the comments made, they “should include enough detail so that a member of the public who was not present during the meeting could read the minutes and understand what occurred.” Indeed, one of the OML determinations specifically says that a one sentence summary of a lengthy meeting which says only that a particular topic was discussed (e.g., a “personnel matter”) is inadequate under the Open Meeting Law.
I docketed a discussion item and the law department and the clerk’s office came to Programs & Services to explain how they train all of the boards, commissions and committees about the Open Meeting Law. They also produced a handbook and a manual that are comprehensive guides to the law. If anyone is interested in the discussion that took place, you can check out the agenda and report of the Programs & Services Committee. Please note they contain accurate and complete summaries of the discussion which tool place.
Ted, do you know how the AG’s office responded to the complaints? It seems obvious that they required Hills to revise the minutes, but I haven’t seen anything that suggests the AG had problems with any of the other issues on the TAB complaint. Have you?
I still have a problem with Executive Session minutes going into a lot of detail because I don’t see how it’s possible to conduct Exec Sessions about collective bargaining without showing your cards. I understand the law might say that. I just don’t don’t believe that School Committee operate this way, and I’m surprise no one has challenged the law.
@Gail: If I’m not mistaken, the law requires the details be released after the matter is closed. So I don’t think showing your cards after the card game would impact the process.
http://village14.com/newton-ma/2013/10/state-reviewed-complaints-about-history-curriculum-found-no-problems/#axzz3JMPdS0G9
What do you guys expect from Matt Hills – he did not have an issue violating a NPS child’s privacy. See attached link. Nothing happened to him then and nothing will happen to him now.
Just chalk it up to This is Newton we can get away with anything.
Joanne, I’m not sure how your post is relevant to this discussion, but after reading the stories about that topic, Chairman Hills comes across as a reasonable person. As a Newton newbie, I wasn’t aware that there were a bunch of narrowminded nutcases trying to influence the curriculum. Thanks for alerting me to that, and kudos to Chairman Hills for standing up to them.
But that certainly doesn’t excuse his behavior with respect to the plagiarism issue.
The Problem is not the nutcases – the problem is an elected official sending a letter from the DOE to your friend who runs the blog to post on line with the STUDENTS name and Address on it. Children in all school systems have Privacy rights – those rights were violated .
He broke the rules then and he broke them now. And got away with it both times.
What Greg said. Government is supposed to be open and transparent. Whether you have a problem with it or not, the AG’s office clearly requires the same standard of detail for executive sessions as for public meetings, and eventually the minutes be disclosed unless some exemption applies. That is why open meeting laws are called “Sunshine Laws.”
From the AG’s website (emphasis added):
Approving highly sanitized meeting minutes would thwart the purpose of the law.
There are examples of discussions which should probably remain secret, such as security measures taken to protect schools or the water supply. But outside of that, once the matter involved has been resolved one way or the other, the meeting minutes from the executive session should be disclosed. Of course, that is not what the law department’s letter argued. Rather, the letter argued that the chairman of the school committee thought the meeting minutes were adequate, not that they should remain secret.
Before Mike Striar jumps all over me, I did not mean to suggest that the existence of security measure at schools should be kept secret. But certainly, no one would reasonably want the details of how to defeat safety measures should be disclosed publicly.
@Gail, sorry for the multiple postings, but in response to your other question, the letter contains a “mea culpa” and a promise not to do it again on the meeting notice issues. The AG’s office in its final determination usually takes remorse and remediation into account when meting out punishment.
Ted, my question is: Do you know if there was a determination from the AG?
Gail, perhaps you should direct your question to the School Committee members who sometimes post. Final determinations are posted on the AG’s website, and as of this morning there is nothing there. Based on what I read in the TAB, it appears there has been communication with the Division of Open Government about the complaint. That is not unusual. Often, where the public body takes steps to remedy the violations, the DOG will issue an informal letter and forego a fine or other punishment, particularly if it is a first offense. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure openness and transparency in government, not to punish elected officials.
It still would have been better for everyone concerned if the School Committee had not been so obstreperous about releasing meeting minutes that were sufficiently detailed to allow the public to understand what was discussed during the executive sessions, as the Open Meeting Law requires. In this case, inexplicably, the School Committee continued for months to take a position that was simply unsupportable. Speaking only for myself, as a citizen and parent of a recent NPS graduate, it will take some time for them to regain my trust and confidence.
Ding, ding, ding – Word of the Week goes to Ted Hess Mahan for “obstreperous” – good one.
@Ted Hess Mahan – I agree. I can personally get past the initial plagiarism issue much more easily than the secret, weasley manipulation of the public records after the fact.
Jerry, in the words of Lina Lamont, “If we bring a little joy into your humdrum lives, it makes us feel as though our hard work ain’t been in vain for nothin’.”
@Ted: An aside…Lina’s more memorable quote as she attempts to transition from Silent to Talking Movies in “Singin’ in the Rain” is her failed mimicry of her elocution teacher’s most “proper” pronunciation of “I cahn’t stahn dit!” Lina’s shrill rendition betrays her silent screen’s uncontested beauty as her delivery defines her lack of finesse when she utters: “Aye cannt (rhymes with pant if you’re from New Jersey) stannit!” Her words, however pronounced, still express well my own personal disdain for plagiarism, with or without apology, and the arrogance of elected leadership who would undermine the importance of a leader’s integrity as a fundamental role model for our society.
Sallee, I have to admit I was tickled by the plagiarism parallel. In this clip from Singin’ in the Rain, Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen) is standing in front of the curtain mouthing the words that Kathy Selden (Debbie Reynolds) is singing in back of the curtain, until the fraud is revealed by the movie mogul RF Simpson (Millard Mitchell), composer Cosmo Brown (Donald O’Connor) and the movie star Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) as they raise the curtain. Hilarity ensues. Except plagiarism isn’t funny. Not funny at all, in fact.
Amen!
Made me think of this recent story:
http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/Entire-Park-District-Board-Placed-Under-Citizens-Arrest-264660331.html