Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-08-03 School Committee MinutesREADING PUBLIC SCHOOLS Reading, Massachusetts SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES Call to Order 251 AUGUST 3, 1987 Chairman George Shannon called the meeting of the Reading School Committee to order at 7:37 p.m. on August 3, 1987 in the Superintendent's Conference Room at 34 Gould Street. All members of the School Committee were present. Also present were the Acting Superintendent, Robert J. Munnelly, Town Counsel Ted Cohen, parents, and a reporter from the Chronicle. Citizens' Input There was no citizens' input. Review of Open Meeting Law with Town Counsel Dr. Munnelly stated that Ted Cohen was present that evening to review the Open Meeting Law with the School Committee. He noted that Mr. Cohen had reviewed correspondence from the D.A.'s office and the Central Office in regard to violations which allegedly occurred at the School Committee's meeting of June 10, 1987, and would share his observations. Mr. Cohen - thanked the School Committee for scheduling this extra meeting and stated that he had reviewed the materials and the proposed agreement sent by the D.A.'s office in regard to the alleged violations of the Open Meeting Law. He stated this situation was not a unique one, that many area city and town boards had recently been in the same situation. Mr. Cohen stated , it was a good practice to review the Open Meeting Law periodically in order that violations could be avoided. Mr. Cohen stated that the Open Meeting Law required that every meeting of a Governmental Body must be open to the public. He noted that most every board in Town Hall was considered a Governmental Body. He stated the only exception would be perhaps a chance meeting of two members, but only if they were not deliberating or coming to conclusions on an issue.. Mr. Cohen also stated that this regulation also applied to most sub - committees, unless they could be proven to be only factfinding bodies. He noted that a quorum was necessary for any committee to make a decision and a majority of members voting was needed to go into Executive Session. Mr. Cohen noted it was necessary when going into Executive Session that the reason be stated for doing so and whether the committee would be returning to Open Session. 252 READING SCHOOL COMMITTEE MINUTES 2 AUGUST 3..1987 Mr. Cohen stated all meetings must be posted at least 48 hours before the meeting, including Saturdays but not Sundays. He noted that if meetings were regularly held, i.e. twice a month on the same day, one notice would suffice if the School Committee wished to do that. He stated any extra meetings must be posted individually and the only exception was in case of an emergency situation, the reasons for which were clearly stated in the Attorney General's handbook. Mr. Cohen stated the District Attorney's office has been one of the main enforcing agents of the Open Meeting Law. He stated that office has put out a handbook on the positions they have taken on specific cases where violations occurred and attitudes they would be inclined to take on various violations. He stated the D.A.'s office does not condone, for example, telephone polling of members in order to establish their position on issues, and the only polling that is acceptable is for the purpose of scheduling a meeting and availability of members to attend. He noted in regard to establishing grounds for an emergency or extra meeting, this has to be determined by the Chairman. Mr. Cohen then reviewed with the School Committee the exceptions to the Open Meeting Law and reasons for going into Executive Session, which included the need to discuss the reputation, character, physical or mental condition of a person. He also noted, if that were determined, the School Committee was also bound to inform the.person being discussed of the date and time of the meeting 24 hours in advance so that they could attend the meeting in order to speak on their own behalf. Mr. Cohen noted that the D.A.'s office basically takes the position that unless a committee can clearly show that these are the reasons for going into Executive Session, they will rule that the discussion is in'` regard to Professional Competency and therefore, should be in Open Session, or unless there is a General Law which takes precedence and supercedes this requirement. He stated in these cases, the burden of proof is on the School Committee. Mr. Cohen stated Executive Session may be called in order to discipline, dismiss, or for handling of complaints against a person but again, the individual has the right to speak in their own behalf and be represented by Counsel at the meeting. Executive Session may also be called for discussing strategy in regard to Collective Bargaining if Open Session discussion will have a detrimental effect on the committee's bargaining position, and this also includes grievance procedures. Mr. Cohen stated Litigation is being hotly discussed as a proper reason to enter into Executive Session. He noted, currently, it is allowed if there is imminent litigation, and to discuss stragegy for ongoing litigation, but the possibility of litigation is not considered a proper reason for entering into Executive 253 READING SCHOOL COMMITTEE MINUTES 3 AUGUST 3, 1987 Session. He noted that a recent amendment, which went into effect in 1985, was added stating that Executive Session could be held in regard to Collective Bargaining with non -union personnel, which included negotiations with an individual rather than a group of individuals, i.e. Superintendent, Asst. Superintendents. Mr. Cohen stated other reasons for going into Executive Session were to discuss the filing of criminal complaints or misconduct, the purchase, sale, exchange, or leasing of real property if discussion in Open Session would have a detrimental effect. Mr. Cohen stated in regard to the process which the School Committee just went through in screening for a new Superintendent, early preliminary screening can be done in closed session, but when the candidates get down below 15 or so, then interviews or discussions should be in Open Session, unless a candidate requests right of privacy for some reason. He noted that as the pool narrows down the public right to know increases and the right to privacy decreases, and the Supervisor of Records states that the finalists must be released to the public. Mr. Cohen stated presently there is no criminal or monetary penalty for violations of the Open Meeting Law, but there has been some pressure on the legislature to change that. He noted that Executive Session Minutes can remain secret only as long as the information retains its sensitivity, as in the case of contract negotiations, i.e., when a contract is signed, the information must then be released as the release of it would no longer have a detrimental effect. Mr. Nissen had a question on sub - committees during negotiations of a contract which usually included 2 members of the School Committee, and a person from the Central Office, and whether these meetings could be an Executive Session. Mr. Cohen stated that he recommended that the meetings be posted and begin in Open Session, even though there were only 2 or 3 members, it represented a quorum and was considered a meeting of a governmental body, although deliberations could then be done in Executive Session. Mr. Cohen read the section of the law on meetings of sub - committees, which included special purpose sub - committees. Mr. Allen stated that a Central Office person, two members of the School Committee and their Counsel are usually involved in these sub - committees, and his question was, would the School Committee and the Central Office person, exclusive of Counsel, represent a quorum? Mr. Cohen stated it would and perhaps it would be a good idea when appointing the sub - committee to make the Central Office person an official member of the sub - committee. 254 READING SC-1-300L COMMITTEE MINUTES 4 AUGUST 3, 1987 Dr. Munnel'_y noted that keeping minutes of negotiation sessions has not been a past practice, as it was difficult to keep minutes at that kind of a meeting. Mr. Cohen stated that minutes of every Executive Session must be kept indicating date, time, place, members present and action taken and recording of every vote. He stated these minutes do not need to be verbatim, but the vote must be verbatim. Mr. Allen asked if the minimum requirement for the volume of =he Open Session minutes was the same as the Executive Session. Nr. Cohen stated it was, and it was permissible to state only that . general discussion was held on the issue. He also noted that if the meeting was tape recorded, that tape becomes a public reccrd from the time discussion begins. Mr. Cohen stated that the E.A. also feels that typed Minutes, even though not final, are immediately public records, although they can be marked draft, or unapproved as the School Committee wishes. Mr. Allen asked if t::e minutes that came back to the School Committee need be an exact duplication or transcription of the tape? Mr. Cohen stated.as long as.the tape is maintained and available, there need not be a verbatim transcript. Mr. Allen also asked if a tape was required by Statute. Mr. Cohen stated it was not, but the public ; had a right to tape any session of the School Committee, as long as it does not create any disruption of the meeting. Mr. Nissen asked if the School Committee decided not to tape record the meetings, would the tapes of the Cable T. V. then be public record? Mr. Cohen stated he did not think so, because they were not a governmental body, and a citizen did not have a right to it. Mr. Shannon asked if the School Committee would go on to reviewing, the Agreement sent by the D.A.'s office in regard to the violations of the Open Meeting Law on June 10th, and they agreed. Mr. Cohen reviewed the Agreement with the committee and indicated that he did not feel that it was objectionable, and with a few changes in the wording and negotiating with the D.A.'s office on one or two items, the Committee could sign it. There was a discussion between Mr. Cohen and the School Committee on these points. A motion was made by Mr. Coco, seconded by Carol Lyons, to vote to authorize the Chairman to execute an Agreement with the D.A. on behalf of the School Committee in agreement substantially with the form discussed and modifications, leaving open the possibility that the Chairman need not sign it and discussion can then be reopened with the School Committee. The vote was unanimous. Mr. Shannon then informed the School Committee of an invitation from the Department of Social Services to attend a meeting on Child Abuse on August. 12th, and asked if any members were available to attend. There wasno one available to attend. 255 READING SCHOOL COMMITTEE MINUTES 5 AUGUST 3, 1987 At 9:15 p.m., a motion was made by Mr. Nissen, seconded by Mrs. Philbrick, to go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing negotiations with non -union personnel which could prove detrimental to their bargaining position if done in Open Session. The vote was unanimous. Mr. Shannon, the Chairman, indicated that the School Committee would not be returning to Open Session.