Results 1 to 15 of 37

Thread: Middlesex Superior Court rules in favor of School Committee (Superintendent Eval.)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default Middlesex Superior Court rules in favor of School Committee (Superintendent Eval.)

    On the off chance that people may wish to comment on the Superior Court's ruling ...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Great! Just we need on the SC, more privacy

    By the way, how much did Wayland have to pay in legal fees to achieve this "victory" for the taxpayers? I fear the answer...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    I agree.

    I would like to know how much this lack of transparency is costing us.

    Jeff D, can you help us with that?
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Jeff and John -

    Can you really see no legitimate privacy principle in this matter? Personal privacy is the principle behind this exception to the Open Meeting Law. Would you feel the same way if it were your performance evaluation under discussion? If so, that would be a first in my 37 years in labor/employment law.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Steve,

    Thanks for posting. It's nice to have some new people on here.

    I understand your point.
    Frankly, I would not have noticed and would not have cared about the Superintendent's review prior to about 6 months ago.

    At that point, I just assumed that the SC and the Administration were doing a great job and everything was hunky-dory.

    However, after seeing what happened during the Loker debacle - how it was presented, how it was defended, how so many questions were ignored or answered with non-answers, how totally botched the entire process seemed to be, how defensive the members became and how non-transparent it was in so many ways- many people have become interested in just what is going on with our SC.

    Yes, I understand, and I do sympathize with anyone not wanting to their evaluation made public. But when the SC has to fight to keep something private that otherwise would be made public, I have to wonder why. Why is it so important to them?

    Since our Town Administrator's evaluation was discussed on camera in public hearings, I don't understand why it should be any different with Dr. Burton.

    And I have to wonder what it cost us, the taxpayers in whatever legal fees were incurred in order to keep this private.

    As taxpayers, we have a right to know this.
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    96

    Default

    John,

    Even if I were to agree with your characterization of the Loker matter -- which I don't -- it doesn't justify a breach of the fundamental privacy principle (or, for that matter, of the desirability of unfettered candor on the parts of those who are evaluating the performance).

    I also disagree with your characterization of the School Committee "fight[ing] to keep something private that otherwise would be made public". The School Committee did not "fight" to go into Executive Session in 2004 (long before the Loker matter) to discuss the Superintendent's evaluation. This was its lawful prerogative and was its routine practice, followed during each of my 15 years (1982-1997) on the School Committee. The "fight" was thrust upon it when a reporter complained of an Open Meeting Law violation. If the reporter and the state agency personnel had understood the statute better, there would have been no litigation. The School Committee was merely defending its lawful prerogative and the privacy/candor principles that are important for a meaningful performance evaluation. I'm proud of the School Committee for not abandoning these principles in the name of expediency.
    Last edited by Kim Reichelt; 07-11-2008 at 07:28 AM. Reason: to fix typo

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    275

    Default

    I am quite surprised we don't yet have a response from Jeff on the issue of legal fees related to this matter. Well?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Jeff, I suppose it's possible that Jeff D doesn't have the answer yet. I think as much as you may disagree with him generally, you certainly have to credit him with being responsive in handling the very many questions sent his way. I bet a small amount of patience here will prove virtuous.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    Jeff, I suppose it's possible that Jeff D doesn't have the answer yet. I think as much as you may disagree with him generally, you certainly have to credit him with being responsive in handling the very many questions sent his way. I bet a small amount of patience here will prove virtuous.
    I WILL give him credit for often being responsive. This is true.

    However, there are certain questions that are sometimes ignored and seem to quietly fade away.

    I will resurrect them.
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    However, there are certain questions that are sometimes ignored and seem to quietly fade away.

    I will resurrect them.
    I've no more obligation to answer questions in this forum than you do, and you too leave many unanswered, most recently (in the spirit of "resurrection") here, repeated here, and reprinted below for your convenience:

    Do you mean to say that our advocacy would be okay if it were available on the publicly-funded Wayland Public Schools web site as allowed by the OCPF [IB-92-02, I.G.]? Or, are you saying that the School Committee shouldn't be advocating for overrides at all?

    For the record, there are all sorts of reasons that I don't answer questions:
    • I ignore them
    • I can't find them
    • I already answered
    • I forgot about them
    • I don't have the time
    • I am looking into them
    • I don't have an answer
    • I don't have the energy
    • I don't find them honest
    • I don't find them respectful

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •