August 21, 2010

Mr. Jonathan Sclarsic
Assistant Attorney General
Division of Open Government
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108

Dear Mr. Sclarsic:

Thank you for your work on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and for the decision on OML 2011-28.

As stated in an open letter from Mr. Bruce Gardner (Attachment 1), Chairman of the Foxborough School Committee, the Committee has scheduled for August 29, 2011 a training session on the Open Meeting Law (Attachment 2). This training was ordered as part of the remedy to the Open Meeting Law violation found in OML 2011-28.

The Foxborough School Committee’s notification for a special meeting of the Committee on August 29 stated that Mr. Glenn Koocher, Executive Director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC), would conduct this training workshop.

Mr. Koocher and the MASC have been consulted previously by the Foxborough School Committee in matters of Open Meeting Law, and they have come into prominence in at least two issues: the failure to disclose public information and the diminishing content of minutes. We are concerned that previous guidance offered by the MASC and Mr. Koocher has resulted in, or failed to prevent, Open Meeting Law violations. It is reasonable to expect that more of the same training would not yield an improvement in compliance with the law by essentially the same Committee members.

We would like to review some of the history of the Committee and Mr. Koocher on these issues that are central to the OML 2011-28 decision.

Failure to Release Public Information
In the spring of 2007, the Foxborough School Committee was searching for a new superintendent. Ms. Martha Slattery, then School Committee Chairman and Search Committee Co-Chair, informed the public of the progress in the search process:

"Ms. Slattery updated the Committee on the progress of the Superintendent search. A search committee was formed consisting of 13 people. There has been a minimal charge of approximately $1,700 from MASC for the brochure that was developed and mailed out. There is another meeting scheduled for March 22, 2007 at which time the Committee will go into executive session to review applications. After personal interviews are completed and the semi-finalists chosen, the names will become public. Ms. Adair reviewed the time line and let people know that there was an on-line survey available for input. Ms. Lord reminded everyone that the executive session was necessary to provide privacy, as the applicant materials are confidential at this point. Ms. Adair reiterated the need for privacy of the names of applicants." (Emphasis added.) Foxborough School Committee, Regular Meeting Minutes, March 19, 2007 (Attachment 3).

The Committee stated a commitment to make public the names of the semi-finalists in accordance with the Open Meeting Law in effect at the time. However, by April 4, Ms. Slattery refused to honor the commitment and to comply with the Open Meeting Law by refusing to identify the lone finalist.

"Foxboro School Committee members violated at least the spirit of the state’s open meeting law by refusing to identify the school superintendent finalist to a reporter earlier this week, a Boston media lawyer said Thursday.

A screening committee voted to recommend the board appoint Christopher Martes as superintendent, which school officials did Thursday night.

However, school board Chairwoman Martha Slattery, who co-chaired the screening committee, refused to release Martes’ name to a Sun Chronicle reporter on Wednesday." (Emphasis added.) Michael Gelbwasser, Lawyer: Board violated spirit of open meeting law, The Sun Chronicle, April 6, 2007 (Attachment 4).

At the first School Committee meeting after the published complaints, the Committee addressed the issue towards the end of the meeting in Other Matters:

"Ms. Slattery referenced an article in the Sun Chronicle in which the search committee was accused of violating the Open Meeting Law. Ms. Slattery stated that the search committee met with Mr. Glenn Koocher of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC) who walked them through the search process. Mr. Koocher advised the search committee to go into executive session to protect the privacy of each candidate. Ms. Slattery also stated that a reporter wanted to talk with a School Committee member "off the record." Ms. Slattery stated that nothing should be "off the record" and she hopes it won’t happen again. Ms. Adair stated that Mr. Koocher’s recommendation was followed, in which he made it clear that the search committee could not release any information." (Emphasis added.) Foxborough School Committee, Regular Meeting Minutes, April 9, 2007 (Attachment 5).

Mr. Koocher’s qualifications not withstanding, the record shows that the close and prolonged guidance that Mr. Koocher and the MASC have provided to the Foxborough School Committee has failed to result in the Committee’s compliance with the Open Meeting Law. This is not to imply either character flaw or lack of professional competence on Mr. Koocher.

We see a drawback in the way this system is set up. The public has placed its trust in the faithful integrity of the school committee. As a result, the school committee has gained superiority and influence over the public. A similar fiduciary relationship exists between the school committees and the MASC. Mr. Koocher, as an officer of the MASC, has an obligation to the school committees and to act in the best interests of the committees. However, Mr. Koocher is not a public official and his obligation is not to look after the best interests of the public.

Lack of Content of School Committee Meeting Minutes
During the November 27, 2006, School Committee meeting,

"Ms. Slattery discussed sample minutes obtained at the recent MASC/MASS Joint Conference. The sample minutes were reviewed, noting what was to be included or not in minutes according to Robert’s Rules of Order. Ms. Slattery announced that Cable will be re-broadcasting School Committee minutes (sic) several times during the week for people to review." (Emphasis added.) Foxborough School Committee, Regular Meeting Minutes, November 27, 2006 (Attachment 6).

Using their interpretation of the MASC’s provided sample minutes (Attachment 7), the Committee promoted a culture of producing minutes with progressively less information and detail.

There is additional evidence that the School Committee intended to minimize minutes despite explicit guidance. During years 2007 and 2008, there were several complaints of Open Meeting Law violations in the town of Foxborough. The Norfolk County District Attorney validated some of the complaints. The level of discussion in Town grew and the Town Clerk invited the District Attorney to lead a workshop on the Open Meeting Law. This workshop took place on November 18, 2008 and it was attended by a majority of the School Committee.

The response of the School Committee was stated during their first meeting following the workshop. The minutes of the December 1, 2008, School Committee meeting stated:

"The Committee discussed the release of executive session minutes as presented during a meeting scheduled by the Town Clerk and presented by the District Attorney’s office on the Open Meeting Law. Executive session minutes need a vote of approval and a vote to release the minutes. Dr. Martes referred to the FPS policy BEDG and information from the Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC), noting that most minutes are a brief summary of the meeting and all official actions. The Committee discussed how the minutes will be done in a more abbreviated form." (Emphasis added.) Foxborough School Committee, Regular Meeting Minutes, December 1, 2008 (Attachment 8).

This emphasis on producing minutes with minimal information has also been a point of discussion for the Board of Selectmen.

"Selectman Larry Harrington has suggested the board cut back the volume of detail retained in the minutes, just as the School Committee did when he served on that board.

When reviewing draft minutes for final approval in recent years, school board members at times spent considerable meeting time going over debate details recorded in the draft.

Harrington on May 26 argued that with copies of the meetings available on Foxboro Cable Access video, and given the many other duties selectmen have, it’s unnecessary to produce a blow-by-blow written summary of the board’s debate on issues.

The Massachusetts Public Records law requires recording when and where a public meeting was held, which board members were present, and the votes taken.

Harrington said some detail on board debate is still appropriate at times, but the board should not be burdened with fact-checking pages of minutes taken at every meeting." (Emphasis added.) Frank Mortimer, Change in minutes opposed, The Foxboro Reporter, June 18, 2009 (Attachment 9).

The minutes of the June 21, 2010 executive session, which you have ordered the Committee to create and release and "which should include a summary of the discussion," are just one example of the result of this culture of producing token minutes.

The Concerns
The secrecy of the Foxborough School Committee, during the hiring of Superintendent Martes and during the renewal of his contract in June 2010, have prevented the public’s vetting, participation, and becoming informed of the rationale of their elected officials. It is of particular relevance in our situation given that Dr. Martes is a Foxborough native, a graduate of Foxborough High School, and a former employee of the Foxborough Public Schools. In Foxborough, Dr. Martes progressed from teacher to interim principal before departing.

Additionally, the proposed August 29 workshop is scheduled in a manner that reduces the public’s access to information in matters of public concern.

The workshop is scheduled for a room adjacent to the usual School Committee meeting room. This proposed room is not equipped with built in video cameras for local cablecast. There are other spaces in Town that are appropriately equipped to facilitate recording and cablecasting.

Moreover, the School Committee meetings are usually convened on Mondays at 7:00 p.m. The 6:00 p.m. start on a normal meeting night can be confusing.

Possible Solutions
The Town Clerks of Wrentham, Plainville, and Norfolk set an example that could prove more productive for Foxborough. On March 15, 2007, they sponsored a public forum where then Assistant Attorney General Robert Ritchie guided the attendees in an in-depth discussion of the Open Meeting Law.

If the Media Center is not available due to the ongoing High School Renovation Project, the meeting could be held at a different location in Town, including the Public Safety Building, where the 2008 Open Meeting Law Workshop was held. Foxboro Cable Access video recorded the 2008 workshop and made it available to the public subsequently. Perhaps the Open Meeting Law workshop could be held later in the year and still within the 90-day requirement stated in the OML 2011-28 decision.

Conclusion
The Open Meeting Law has figured prominently in our community in recent years. All of the current members of the School Committee have been in office for more than a year and therefore subject to the 2002 Massachusetts General Law (Chapter 71, Section 36A) requiring at least eight hours of orientation concerning their responsibilities, including the Open Meeting Law.

One of our School Committee members was the state’s first committee member to achieve advanced status in school leadership training by the MASC, including matters of Open Meeting Law (Attachment 10). However, this did not help guide the Committee to comply with the Open Meeting Law.

Mr. Glenn Koocher, Executive Director of the MASC, has facilitated and guided various Foxborough School Committee activities in the past. Yet his guidance has not prevented the School Committee from violating the Open Meeting Law.

The public’s interest would be better served if another person, whose primary duty was to the public’s interest, conducted the workshop discussion.

We would further suggest that the workshop be held in a location where video recording and transmission is practical and that the content be broadly available to other elected officials and the public in general.

It would be reasonable to expect that elected officials may find it easier to comply with the Open Meeting Law when they know that the vigilant public is knowledgeable about the law.

The Committee could use this opportunity to begin the journey towards a more open and transparent service to the community.

Very respectfully,

Andres Navedo

CC: Mr. Bruce Gardner, Chair, Foxborough School Committee (via email)

Attachments:
1. Gardner, B. (August 4, 2011) Guest Column: School chairman writes open letter to community. The Foxboro Reporter.
2. Foxborough School Committee. Special Meeting Notification for August 29, 2011: School Committee Workshop - Open Meeting Law.
3. Foxborough School Committee. (March 19, 2007) Regular Meeting Minutes.
4. Gelbwasser, M. (April 6, 2007) Lawyer: Board violated spirit of open meeting law. The Sun Chronicle.
5. Foxborough School Committee. (April 9, 2007) Regular Meeting Minutes.
6. Foxborough School Committee. (November 27, 2006) Regular Meeting Minutes.
7. Massachusetts Association of School Committees sample minutes discussed at the November 27, 2006, Foxborough School Committee meeting.
8. Foxborough School Committee. (December 1, 2008) Regular Meeting Minutes.
9. Mortimer, F. (June 18, 2009) Change in minutes opposed. The Foxboro Reporter.
10. No Byline. (May 5, 2005) Lord completes advanced school leadership training. The Foxboro Reporter.

The agenda for tomorrow’s meeting has a single item listed:

Respectfully,

Andres Navedo

Deborah Navedo

Foxboro Education Organization

The agenda for tomorrow’s meeting was published and is detailed here:

Respectfully,

Postmaster

Foxboro Education Organization

Budget

The Foxborough Public Schools have improved the public’s access to the budget process in the past decade. From a budget subcommittee chaired by Mr. Frank Spillaine with Ms. Kate Kominsky a single set of minutes is available for the meeting of July 31, 2003. Members of the Committee have expressed concern regarding Open Meeting Law violations by the way meetings have been held in the past. Other members have defended themselves by questioning the compliance of those that raised the concern.

Although Massachusetts General Laws require that "at least one copy" of the proposed budget be available at least 48 hours "either at the office of the superintendent of schools or at a place so designated by said committee," several school districts have taken the lead and have made budget documents available to their communities over the web .

• Arlington - Budget Timeline | Public Hearing February 15
• Bedford - Budget Proposal | Extracurricular Reductions
• Belmont - Budget Statement | FY12 Budget | Public Hearing March 15
• Cohasset - Budget Overview | Budget in Detail
• Framingham - Budget Presentation
• Pentucket Regional - FY12 Budget | Public Hearing February 1
• Wayland - Budget Presentation | Budget Proposed

The Foxborough FY12 budget documents could not be found in the "Public Documents" section of the School Committee’s web page, the Committee’s main web page, or the Administration’s web page. A notification of the "Budget Hearing" is available at the District’s home page.

General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Title XII (Education),


Intent of the title
Section 1. It is hereby declared to be a paramount goal of the commonwealth to provide a public education system of sufficient quality to extend to all children including a limited English proficient student as defined in section 1 of chapter 71A, and also, including a school age child with a disability as defined in section 1 of chapter 71B the opportunity to reach their full potential and to lead lives as participants in the political and social life of the commonwealth and as contributors to its economy. It is therefore the intent of this title to ensure: (1) that each public school classroom provides the conditions for all pupils to engage fully in learning as an inherently meaningful and enjoyable activity without threats to their sense of security or self-esteem, (2) a consistent commitment of resources sufficient to provide a high quality public education to every child, (3) a deliberate process for establishing and achieving specific educational performance goals for every child, and (4) an effective mechanism for monitoring progress toward those goals and for holding educators accountable for their achievement.

Chapter 71 (Public Schools),
Section 38N (Proposed annual budgets; public hearings required; quorum)


"Section 38N. The school committee of each city, town or regional school district shall hold a public hearing on its proposed annual budget not less than seven days after publication of a notice thereof in a newspaper having general circulation in such city, town or district. Prior to such public hearing said committee shall make available to the public at least one copy of said proposed budget for a time period of not less than forty-eight hours either at the office of the superintendent of schools or at a place so designated by said committee. At the time and place so advertised or at any time or place to which such hearing may from time to time be adjourned all interested persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard for or against the whole or any part of the proposed budget. Such hearing shall be conducted by a quorum of the school committee. For the purposes of this section a quorum shall consist of a majority of the members of said school committee."

Respectfully,

Andres Navedo

Deborah Navedo

Foxboro Education Organization

The agenda for the School Committee meeting scheduled for tonight has been published:

Respectfully,

Postmaster

Foxboro Education Organization

Happy New Year!

Please note the change in start time to 6:30 p.m.

Agenda

The agenda for this back-to-school meeting would seem to be one for heavy lifting. Consistent with the Committee’s expressed need to "market ourselves," the agenda is front-loaded with the YMCA Leadership & Wellness Center and donations. This will occupy 30% of the time allocated for the agenda items. Discussion of next year’s budget, FY12, has been allocated 35 minutes (19%) of meeting time. During these 35 minutes the Special Education program and all the five school buildings are scheduled to discuss their budgets.

While Dr. Kathleen Tyrell was occupying the position of superintendent of schools (1998-2006), Ms. Martha Slattery asked several times for the agenda to be published in The Foxboro Reporter before the meeting. The agenda for this meeting was summarized in the December 30 issue of The Reporter, Wellness center to open at FHS. We hope this represents a step towards greater transparency and a desire to inform the public and not an example of "image-control" attributed to the Foxboro Public Schools and defended by Committee members.

Looking at the copy of the agenda available at Town Hall’s web site, it is impossible to tell when the agenda was received at the Town Clerk’s office. The Reporter would have received it before December 30, when the newspaper was published. The notification to the Outbox subscribers was marked sent on December 30 at 09:57.

The Committee and the School Administration can foster greater public awareness and participation if the practice of publishing the agenda as a prominent article continues even if there are no tours of new facilities or significant donations.

Superintendent of Schools Search Update

Towards the end of the agenda, after discussion of budget, the Wellness policy, and the draft of the bullying survey, the Committee has scheduled discussion of the matter that has raised the concern of many in the community: the search for a new superintendent.

The process of searching for a new superintendent has been placed in the hands of Ms. Slattery.

As our readers may remember, it was Ms. Slattery who guided the superintendent search in 2007. From a pool of 14 candidates, the search process resulted in a single candidate, Dr. Martes, being presented to the Committee for approval without public interview or disclosure of any other candidates. By contrast, in 1998 four candidates were identified in the press and three were interviewed in open meeting.

The 2007 search for a superintendent resulted in published concerns of Open Meeting Law violation. Ms. Slattery defended the process she co-chaired under the guidance of Mr. Glenn Koocher:

School superintendent search committee Co-Chairwoman Martha Slattery is defending her group’s decision to withhold the finalist’s name until the school committee interviewed him in public.

Slattery said the search committee acted on the advice of Glenn Koocher, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees.

In a news report last week, a media attorney suggested that school committee members violated the state’s Open Meeting Law, at least in spirit, by refusing to identify the finalist to a reporter.

Framingham Superintendent Christopher Martes later confirmed his candidacy. The school committee appointed Martes after a public interview last Thursday night.
(Gelbwasser, M. Foxboro school official defends search. The Sun Chronicle. April 13, 2007.)

It is notable that Dr. Martes was willing to confirm his status as candidate while Ms. Slattery and the Search Committee withheld the information from the public. The matter of Dr. Martes’ retirement was handled in similar fashion this fall when he confirmed his retirement while the Committee was denying it.

Appropriately or inappropriately, this Committee has chosen to withhold information from the public. Is our community better for this or worse? Does the community agree with the Committee’s claim that when people don’t attend meetings to complaint, it is because things are going well? Or, like the Superintendent’s retirement, are there other significant issues that are being kept from the public’s view?

It is our hope that this School Committee will self-correct, and not wait for public outcry (or law enforcement intervention) to be more open in its discharge of the public’s business.

Respectfully,

Andres Navedo

Deborah Navedo

Foxboro Education Organization

The School Committee will hold a regular meeting on December 6. The agenda has been published and follows:

Bullying Prevention and Intervention Plan

The complexities that bullying presents in today’s world are continually being reviewed in the press.

• The community’s Task Force to Address Bullying and Harassment focused its bucket filling campaign on the holiday season.
• The Boston Globe recently published an article under the title "Specialists say bullies also need attention."
• A case from Essex County, Massachusetts, served to frame an article in The New York Times, "As Bullies Go Digital, Parents Play Catch-Up." The article presented some of the technology implications on the bullying issue.

Reading of Policies

First Reading - Policy ADF Wellness

The current Wellness Policy (ADF) is being revised, and a First Reading has been included in the agenda. The existing policy was adopted on June 19, 2006, and revised on March 24, 2008. Given the Committee is proposing to change the policy now in effect, the First Reading would represent the first time that this revision is being presented to the public.

Third Reading - IJNDB Educational Technologies-Employees

The current Policy Manual includes the following policies:

• IJNDB Internet Acceptable Use Policy (Aup) (Students)
• IJNDB-R Acceptable Use Policy - Technology
• IJNDBA Computer Usage - Employees

The agenda of the October 18 meeting listed IJNDD - Facebook and Social Networking Websites under the section First Reading of Policies. However, the policy that was handed out for discussion was IJNDBA - Computer Usage - Employees.

On November 1, the meeting agenda included Second Reading of Policies, including IJNDBA - Educational Technologies - Employees that was tabled so that "Ms. Kominsky [could] check with Mr. Jim Hardy of MASC on several points."

“Warned that overly restricting electronic communication between coaches and students could interfere with successful sports, arts or music programs, the school committee Monday decided to take a third look at its proposed policy for social networking websites and cell phone usage.

‘We have a music program that is built on the principle of great leadership,’ said superintendent Chris Martes, referring not only to adult leadership, but student peer training.

Martes agree with parent Deborah Navedo that school officials should take a closer look at part of the proposed policy, which was up for ’second reading’ approval by the committee.”
(Mortimer, F. Facebook policy to get a closer look. The Foxboro Reporter. November 4, 2010.)

The December 6 agenda includes the topic for discussion as Third Reading - IJNDB Educational Technologies-Employees. However policy IJNDB has not been discussed at least during this academic year. Also, rather than this being the third reading of the proposed policy in question, it is likely to be the first reading of the significantly changed policy that may have been presented in the past.

Moreover, policy IJNDB is currently listed as the policy covering students, not employees — IJNDB Internet Acceptable Use Policy (Aup) (Students).

Executive Session Purposes

We note with interest that the executive session purpose, as stated in the agenda, reads as follows:

“To conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations with non-union personnel and to discuss strategies with respect to collective bargaining if an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining position of the public body.” [Emphasis added.]

According to the Attorney General’s Open Meeting Law Guide an executive session may be convened for ten purposes. Purposes number two and three are quoted below:

“2. To conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations with nonunion personnel or to conduct collective bargaining sessions or contract negotiations with nonunion personnel;”

…
3. To discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining or litigation if an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining or litigating position of the public body and the chair so declares;…” [Emphasis added.]

The text in the agenda stated some of the conditions in which the Committee could invoke a purpose to enter into executive session. However, the Committee has not declared that an open meeting would have a detrimental effect on the bargaining position.

The Attorney General’s Open Meeting Law Guide states what the chair of the public body must do:

• First convene in open session.
• State the reason for the executive session, stating all subjects that may be revealed without compromising the purpose for which the executive session was called.
• State whether the public body will reconvene at the end of the executive session.
• Take a roll call vote of the body to enter executive session.

The Committee and the community witnessed an exemplar of this requirement during the May 21, 2007, meeting. In the descriptive minutes of that meeting, we found:

“Mr. Harrington stated that executive session tonight is to discuss non-union negotiations. He explained his reasoning of merit vs. COLA raises and the need to talk with Dr. Martes about setting goals and objectives with administrators. He asked members of the Committee if they were comfortable discussing this issue in open session, because they will not be discussing any particular raise. Members felt that this was historically done in executive session, they would like to strategize in executive session, and would like to have a history of percentages received in the past, and when goals and objectives are ready, they could be discussed in open session.

Lord moved; Adair seconded:
Go into executive session to discuss strategies for non-union negotiations.
Vote: Lord-aye; Kominsky-aye; Slattery-aye; Adair-aye; Harrington-aye.”

A member of the community was moved to write a letter to the editor:

“After a very spirited discussion a vote was taken to proceed to executive session to discuss “strategy.” We, the public that were present, were more than pleased to see that our right to know was being respected. Kudos to Mr. Harrington.”
(Ballon, H. What a difference a year makes for School Committee. The Foxboro Reporter. May 24, 2007.)

It would benefit the community as a whole if the Committee would choose to follow some of the examples that Mr. Harrington left during his service in the School Committee.

Discussion:

What has changed in the Committee, in the Administration? What has changed that their processes have become more secretive?

We would prefer not to see these actions of the Committee as a pattern of carelessness. However, we must confront the record of the Committee’s actions.

We recognize that growth and improvement requires attention to detail and a desire to do better. Avoidance of criticism, while concentrating efforts on image and reputation, is no different from hiding reality behind a smoke screen or under the rug. We hope the Committee can control the members that threatened, "to harangue or harass" those with whom they disagree. Rather than using their positions as elected officials to give inappropriate examples of abuse of power, the elected leaders of our community are called to promote dialogue and inclusiveness.

We agree with Dr. Martes’ words that the Committee, the Administration, and we the community are called to model the values that we proclaim to hold dear. If we want our students to value excellence, from the Committee on down, we should all strive for excellence, pay attention to details, and work harder than anyone else. If we expect students to be accurate and precise in their work and test answers, the Committee and Administration must set the example in its work.

Respectfully,

Andres Navedo

Deborah Navedo

Foxboro Education Organization

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 Public,
• The School Committee,
• The School Administration, and
• The Press, and
• Our View.

The Press

The Foxboro Reporter

The real concern over secrecy, as expressed by the editorial published, is that some government insiders (present or past) with access to information may secretly gain personally and that the public would be less the wiser while footing the bill.

“This comes at a time of intense public scrutiny, and widespread criticism, of the compensation package negotiated with incoming town manager Kevin Paicos. In fact, staff writer Frank Mortimer this week uncovered details of the school board’s clandestine arrangement only while reviewing compensation for other senior town officials in an effort at providing context for the Paicos’ contract. More broadly, it also comes amid the final weeks of a political campaign season which has channeled voter anger and resentment at the perception that government benefits political insiders who use knowledge and connections to game the system in their favor."
(Editorial. A shroud of secrecy. The Foxboro Reporter. October 14, 2010.)

The editorial response to the Committee’s October 18 discussion was exquisite and to the point:

”
At the conclusion of Monday night’s emotional school board session in response to recent stories detailing superintendent Christopher Martes transition into the state retirement system, school board member Bruce Gardner challenged listeners to move forward and make the controversy “a blip on the radar.” We concur with that sentiment, and with much of Gardner’s lengthy public statement (which is reprinted at right). However, we also believe that further explanation would be a good place to start.

Beyond simply venting their collective spleens - an understandable reaction under the circumstances - school board members did not challenge the fundamental accuracy of any information published in last week’s paper. Members did make a forceful, if superfluous, case for Martes’ integrity - superfluous only in that the superintendent’s integrity, to our knowledge, has never been at issue.

What was, and remains, at issue is process - more specifically, the committee’s continued resistance to disclosing information about critical discussions and decisions related to the superintendent’s job status and succession planning until members were good and ready. Not only was such an approach unnecessary and even counterproductive, it contradicts assertions that changes to Martes’ contract were a “routine” matter - unless one also believes that other routine matters should routinely be handled with similar evasiveness.

We don’t. Nor do we believe for a second that sharing this information with the public in last week’s newspaper has compromised the town’s ability to extend Martes’ contract beyond this year (though he seemed to think it unlikely), attract future candidates for the job or successfully mount a search for a replacement.

We do happen to agree with Martes’ observation that this story by rights should have been a positive one - how the school board saved $40,000 in compensation while retaining the services of a “favorite son.” But let’s be clear: until last week, the school committee and not the newspaper controlled this narrative and opted to keep matters under wraps. They could have shared details of this very positive story with townspeople at any point during June, July, August, September and into October, but chose not to. We still don’t understand why.

In fact, members waited until Monday night before formally releasing minutes of the June executive session - minutes that consist solely of the five separate votes taken that night: to open the session, to accept the minutes of a previous executive session, to release the minutes of that prior session, to approve the addendum to Martes’ contract “as presented,” and then to adjourn the meeting. Since these minutes were devoid of any detail whatsoever, it’s hard to understand the necessity, or desirability, of a four-month delay in releasing them.

On Monday night, committee members were not entirely wrong in portraying the fallout over Martes’ contract as a bit of a tempest in a teapot (even if their language was considerably stronger). But before townspeople shut down their radar screens, they deserve a fuller image of what transpired here and why. A good place to start would be during a discussion of the search process tentatively scheduled for the board’s Nov. 1 meeting." (Emphasis added.)
(Editorial. Off the radar screen?. The Foxboro Reporter. October 21, 2010.)

We applaud the local press for boldly deviating from the usual stance of protecting the status quo (or even the gamed benefits) to leading in investigative reporting. This is the greatest contribution that a newspaper can offer its community, to promote an informed citizenry.

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 Public,
• The School Committee,
• The School Administration, and
• The Press, and
• Our View.

The School Administration

Dr. Christopher Martes
It is noteworthy that most of the attention has been focused on Superintendent Martes. Those who have been critical have pointed to his greater compensation after retirement. This compensation is, according to Dr. Martes, in compliance with the regulations of the Massachusetts Teachers’ Retirement System.

It is also of note that Committee members Gardner, Kominsky, and Lord used their comments to defend Dr. Martes’ new arrangement, which had been kept secret for months.

However, we would like to highlight Dr. Martes’ words.

Dr. Martes stated that it was "pretty easy to figure out" when he was going to be pension eligible. He also said he thought the story would be that he wanted to "reduce the town’s appropriation or the… or the school budget." He has said the Town’s contribution to his benefits has decreased by $40,000.

If the retirement date was easy to figure out and Dr. Martes wanted to reduce the Town’s appropriation accordingly, when did Dr. Martes mention this to the Town? Did Dr. Martes raise this matter before Town Meeting, so those $40,000 could pay for another salary or to restore the funding to municipal programs? Did Dr. Martes reduce the school budget by the $40,000, if this was his claimed intention?

Dr. Martes said he "was time bound by the newspaper coming out." It is possible that Dr. Martes had also felt bound by professionalism and honor to inform his fellow education professionals of his change in status. What compelling force would overcome his high degree of professionalism to inform others of his retirement, even if still functioning as superintendent? Was Dr. Martes pressured by current or previous members of the Committee to keep silent?

We are familiar with the example of Mr. Moretti, who’s retirement was published by The Sun Chronicle on August 30, 2006. His retirement in October 2006 saved the Mansfield School District $30,000. What was so different or special in Dr. Martes’ case that the Committee chose to keep secret and maintain silent?

Dr. Martes offered the following explanation for his silence:

“I chose not to make this public on the first day of school, as other superintendents have over the years announced that they were retiring at the end of the school year. It’s because I felt that we needed to get off to a terrific start.”

Why did Dr. Martes keep silent the second day of school? The third? The 30th…? When was Dr. Martes planning to announce his retirement and new pay agreement?

Dr. Martes has highlighted the book Good to Great on several ocasions. The book presents some characteristics for what the author, Mr. Jim Collins, called "Level 5 Leadership," the highest and most desirable type of leadership that would help a company become successful. One characteristic of a Level 5 Leader is that he or she will set up successors for success.

Why would the announcement of Dr. Martes’ retirement prevent the Schools from having "a terrific start"? Has Dr. Martes been unable to set in place an administrative team and a culture capable of guiding our Schools successfully in the near future? What has prevented Dr. Martes from creating a Foxborough school system capable of inspiring confidence? By his own admission, Dr. Martes (and the Committee) appeared to believe that the Schools would not prosper without his direct guidance. We have high regard for the administrative team in place, is our confidence misplaced?

Members of the Committee have repeatedly expressed confidence in the administrative team and satisfaction with their work. However, Dr. Martes was concerned that the Schools would not have "a terrific start" without him. Were the comments of the Committee members based on incomplete information or ignorance? Or were the comments designed to build a public image where there was no substance to support that image?

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 Public,
• The School Committee,
• The School Administration, and
• The Press, and
• Our View.

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?