The recent revelation that School Superintendent, Dr. Christopher Martes, had retired while the community had been kept in the dark, has raised public interest and awareness of school matters. Different stakeholders have risen to comment on the matter in various fora. We will take a close look at their statements as those statements are revealing and enlightening to those interested in the issues and the governance of our schools.

The School Committee’s discussion of the status of the Superintendent of Schools during the October 18 meeting can serve as focal point. In a departure from the typical bland dialogue, the exchange was full of emotion that helps to build a more detailed picture of the system.

The video of the discussion is available, in its entirety, at the Foxboro Cable Access web site. The part of the video corresponding to the Committee’s discussion is available at our web site.

Let’s examine the expressions of members of:

 

The School Committee

As we listened to the Committee on October 18, their efforts seemed to be allocated with different priorities. Ms. Adair focused on the actions of the Committee. Mr. Gardner, Ms. Kominsky, and Ms. Lord directed most of their comments in defense of the Superintendent. Ms. Slattery questioned the way the deal came to the public’s attention while being critical of the press.

Various comments during this discussion would lead a reasonable person to believe that those sitting at the table dissaproved of the public disclosure of Dr. Martes’ retirement and change in status, and the way in which it was disclosed:

“And I am very saddened that when requested The Foxboro Reporter did not extend to us the courtesy of presenting his retirement and his consulting position in a positive manner."
— Ms. Beverley Lord

"Shame. Shame on The Reporter."
— Ms. Kate Kominsky

"I did not want the staff to hear this so… or read this… excuse me, somewhere else and not hear it from me."
— Dr. Christopher Martes

The close examination of the comments made by Committee members can serve to open windows of understanding into the work of this board and of municipal governance in general.

 

Ms. Katie Adair (School Committee Chair)
Ms. Adair read her prepared remarks during the meeting. She stated:

“Due to the open meeting law, executive session minutes cannot be discussed until they are approved and released by the School Committee.

In accordance with this law, the School Committee is not able to discuss the executive session minutes of June 21, 2010. The minutes of the June 21 meeting have not yet been approved or released. Since the School Committee meeting on June 21, there has not been an executive session. Tonight, the School Committee is entering into executive session for the purpose of union contract negotiations.

Umm… and before I conclude, I also want to comment on the fact that at no time did Ms. Slattery and I ever go into deliberations regarding Dr. Martes’ contract outside the executive session.“

Reflection and Questions

Where is the documentation for Ms. Adair’s claim? Was this claimed reason for secrecy permitted or appropriate?

The test of whether it is appropriate to release executive session minutes has multiple stages.

From the Attorney General’s web site:

“(f) The minutes of any executive session, the notes, recordings or other materials used in the preparation of such minutes and all documents and exhibits used at the session, may be withheld from disclosure to the public in their entirety under subclause (a) of clause Twenty-sixth of section 7 of chapter 4, as long as publication may defeat the lawful purposes of the executive session, but no longer; provided, however, that the executive session was held in compliance with section 21.” (Emphasis added.)

Applied to Foxborough’s situation, Dr. Martes’ signature on the negotiated agreement would have reasonably ended the need for secrecy. Once the purpose to keep secrecy ceased to exist, the Committee needed to invoke other permissible reasons, if those existed. Was there any other purpose, permitted under the laws of the Commonwealth, that the Committee had discretion to invoke while keeping the issue secret?

Ms. Adair sought to justify the secrecy by stating that the Committee has not held a subsequent executive session. However, the lack of scheduled executive session to review the minutes and release them is not consistent with the requirements of the Open Meeting Law.

The text available at the Attorney General’s web site gives further guidance:

“Upon request by any person to inspect or copy the minutes of an executive session or any portion thereof, the body shall respond to the request within 10 days following receipt and shall release any such minutes not covered by an exemption under subsection (f); provided, however, that if the body has not performed a review pursuant to paragraph (1), the public body shall perform the review and release the non-exempt minutes, or any portion thereof, not later than the body’s next meeting or 30 days, whichever first occurs.” (Emphasis added.)
(Open Meeting Law, M.G.L. c. 30A, § 22 (g)(2), Retrieved November 6, 2010, from Massachusetts Attorney General’s website)

As a member of the Advisory Committee since 2004, and the School Committee since 2006, Ms. Adair has had ample opportunity to familiarize herself with the Open Meeting Law. Why did she claim the executive session could not be discussed, which was inconsistent with the Open Meeting Law?

Mr. Bruce Gardner
Mr. Gardner’s statements during the discussion included the following:

  • While the “details” of the executive meeting had not been approved, “the content of the meeting has been shared openly by Dr. Martes.”
  • The new compensation for Dr. Martes "would result in a $40,000 savings to the Town."
  • Mr. Glenn Koocher, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, according to Mr. Gardner, is of the opinion that “the law recognizes Dr. Martes as an active, full time Superintendent.”
  • "[I]t’s a shame that all of this caused this accomplished educator to have to force a quick retirement announcement to his staff."
Reflection and Questions

Did Dr. Martes violate the Open Meeting Law by discussing "openly" the content of the meeting before the approval of the meeting minutes, or did Dr. Martes disclose the information because the need for secrecy no longer existed? We believe it was the latter. Was the Committee’s insistence of secrecy the result of their ignorance about the Open Meeting Law or were there other reasons to keep the secret that the Committee has not disclosed?

Did the Committee notify the Town of the $40,000 surplus funds that would not be needed to compensate Dr. Martes?

Mr. Gardner chose to ask Mr. Koocher for legal opinion. Is Mr. Koocher a lawyer? Is Mr. Koocher’s opinion compatible with Dr. Martes’ statement: "By Martes’ own account, his accessing of his pension leaves him effectively unable to continue as Foxboro’s full-time superintendent after this school year."(School board defends its actions. The Foxboro Reporter. October 21, 2010.) Dr. Martes has yet to state whether he has been or he currently is a "full-time" superintendent. How does the Department of Education define a "full-time" superintendent?

The Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC) at their website states "MASC advocates on behalf of Massachusetts school committees in all legislative and regulatory arenas, including at the federal level." Mr. Gardner, rather than seek the opinion of an independent individual or entity, sought the opinion of someone whose salary depends on the dues paid by the Foxborough School Committee.

The person responsible for Dr. Martes need to write a quick announcement about his retirement was Dr. Martes himself. He has had multiple opportunities since August 13:

“During the regular board meeting Monday, all five members and Martes defended their handling of the renegotiated contract under which Martes retired for pension purposes as of Aug. 13 and will collect a combined pension and town wage [totaling] nearly $260,000, with a reduced work week, through next June.”
(School board defends its actions. The Foxboro Reporter. October 21, 2010.)

Were the reasons Dr. Martes chose not to inform his staff of his retirement valid and consistent with his obligation to follow the letter and spirit of the laws of the Commonwealth? Was Dr. Martes under pressure from the Committee to keep silent about his retirement?

Ms. Kate Kominsky
Ms. Kominsky stated "…our plan was to retain Dr. Martes for this year and the year beyond."

Is this no longer possible? Was the Committee planning on keeping Dr. Martes’ working as interim superintendent for two years? Was Dr. Martes expecting a similar compensation package for two years?

Ms. Martha Slattery
Ms. Slattery stated:

“I always said the best way to stop a rumor is not to spread it.

It is my understanding that a couple of selectmen have brought this to Frank’s attention. If this is true, then I am a little bit unnerved by that. I am unnerved by the way that they probably procured this information. “

Is this an example of Ms. Slattery spreading a rumor?

Ms. Slattery has her own ideas of how the information at Town Hall should be managed:

“Be it either through Town Hall or whatever. I think sometimes when things come across people’s desk, that’s where they should stay.”

How does Ms. Slattery’s opinion about information in Town Hall compare with the opinion of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?

"Every document, paper, record, map, photograph, etc., as defined by law, thatis made or received by a government entity or employee is presumed to be apublic record.

Specific statutory exemptions to this rule have been created by theLegislature. These exemptions, which are discretionary to the recordscustodian, allow the records custodian to withhold a record from the generalpublic.”
(Galvin, W. F. (2009). A Guide to the Massachusetts Public Records Law (p1)

 

Ms. Slattery continued:

“I take exception to the fact that unfortunately Frank, you asked me if I was… if I had negotiated this contract, and I told you “no.” And that I told you that Katie didn’t either. And instead you still chose to put it in the paper. You chose to put it in the Attleboro Sun. I would like a retraction and an apology because I did not sit with Kate, Katie and negotiate this contract.”

However, the published report stated:

“Martes’s new pay arrangement was negotiated by board member Martha Slattery and chairman Katie Adair, and signed by Adair and Martes on June 22.”
(Martes deal a secret. The Foxboro Reporter. October 14, 2010.)

How was the contract addendum written? Did Dr. Martes present a completed draft? Did the School Committee have an opportunity to discuss a draft without Dr. Martes in the room? Not according to the minutes. Dr. Martes’ change in compensation was the apparent cause of the inquiry into his contract.

Who was the source of the information regarding the "new pay arrangement"?

“What’s surprising is not one person has called me about this.
…
And in my heart of hearts, I really would like for people to pick up the phone and call us and question us.
…
You know; if you have a problem with me, pick up the phone.

You’ll get a straight answer.”

Why are people not calling Ms. Slattery? Has the public seen Ms. Slattery giving straight answers in public? What has happened since 2003-2004 when several people used to call Ms. Slattery to ask for her assistance in trying to improve the system? At that time calls to Ms. Slattery lead to her getting NEASC to take a closer look at our Schools. What has changed? Who has changed?

 

Ms. Slattery has a peculiar way to look at the issues before the Committee:

“I think in the future, whoever writes editorials for The Foxboro Reporter should have the guts to put their name to it, too. So that we don’t have to try to surmise or guess who’s writing editorials for the Foxboro Reporter. Because, you know what? If you are going to say something, put your name to it."

Ms. Slattery shared with the public how she is going to use the information about the author of the editorials:

” I want to know who’s writing the editorials so I know who to call up and who to… who to harangue or harass at that point. … And see how you like it."

Is this the model of behavior our students need? Is Ms. Slattery’s statement representative of the Foxborough community? Is it possible that educators looking for a superintendent position will decide not to apply for fear of having to work under someone like Ms. Slattery?

Ms. Slattery wanted to know who wrote the editorial, but refused to give the public the information she was obligated to give.

In 2007 Mr. Slattery kept from the public the names of the finalists of the superintendent search process:

“However, school board Chairwoman Martha Slattery, who co-chaired the screening committee, refused to release Martes’ name to a Sun Chronicle reporter on Wednesday.

The reporter later contacted Martes, who confirmed his candidacy."
(Lawyer: Board violated spirit of open meeting law. The Sun Chronicle. April 6, 2007.)

Seems that Ms. Slattery has a double standard for sharing information. Could this explain why the public does not call her?