Results 1 to 15 of 41

Thread: Ooops, they did it again!

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default Ooops, they did it again!

    School Committee breaks Open Meeting Law again
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/index.php

    Name:  David-Byrne.jpg
Views: 113
Size:  11.6 KB
    Same As It Ever Was
    Same As It Ever Was
    Same As It Ever Was
    Same As It Ever Was
    John Flaherty

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    School Committee breaks Open Meeting Law again
    Same As It Ever Was
    Same As It Ever Was
    Same As It Ever Was
    Same As It Ever Was
    John, the only thing "Same As It Ever Was" is your childish taunt devoid of any substance and linking generically to your Drudgesque hobby site.

    I read through the April 28, 2014 Attorney General Office's opinion. With the caveat that I'm not a lawyer and that I may not fully be understanding the nuances of the Open Meeting Law, I'll share my substantive thoughts here.

    Let's take the three alleged violations in the order that they occurred rather than in the curious order in which the Attorney General's Office addressed them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Office of the Attorney General
    3. The Topic "Personnel Matter" in the [School] Committee's Posted Notice was Insufficiently Specific.
    I don't disagree with this opinion, but do disagree that the lack of specificity was intentional and worthy of a $1,000 fine. The lack of specificity might have been an inadvertent inattention to detail or more likely an attempt not to divulge damaging information about a school employee. Should the Committee have done better? Perhaps. Was it guilty of an intentional deceit? The Attorney General offers no evidence to support this claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Office of the Attorney General
    2. The Committee Improperly Entered Executive Session When a Member Other Than the Chair Stated the Purpose for the Executive Session.
    I don't know the history of why only the chair is allowed to state the purpose, nor can I imagine why that would matter. This "violation" strikes me as being of a highly technical nature and in no way contrary to the spirit of the Open Meeting Law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Office of the Attorney General
    1. The Board improperly entered executive session under Purpose 7 because the issue discussed was not protected by the statutory right to privacy.
    The Attorney General Office's writing and footnotes on this point border on the convoluted to the point if being impenetrable, but my read of their literary thicket boils down to this phrase: "the discussion was of the sort that may be held behind closed-doors [sic]."

    What the Attorney General's Office appears to be trying to say is that the Committee would have been on solid ground for its executive session had it sited Purpose 1 instead of Purpose 7.

    Quote Originally Posted by Open Meeting Law
    Purpose 1: "allowing discussion of 'reputation, character ... discipline or dismissal of, or complaints or charges brought against, a public employee, staff member [sic] or individual.'"

    Purpose 7: "to comply with another law ... which relates to a person's right to privacy."
    In sum, to the Attorney General Office's finding of "violation" on three counts:
    1. Technicality
    2. Technicality
    3. Technicality

    John, the mature way to engage in public conversation on a matter is to cite the issue and support your opinion on that issue. You did neither. A reasonable reader (unlike the Office of the Attorney General) might be forgiven for finding your behavior intentional.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    However one chooses to interpret it, defend it or spin it, one irrefutable fact remains:
    The Attorney Generalís office has found Wayland to be in violation of the law 12 times - twice as much as all of our peer towns combined.
    John Flaherty

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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    John, your failing is that you don't choose to interpret it, defend it, OR spin it. Instead, you sling mud without comment. That's immature, petty behavior.

    Has it occurred to you that Wayland's OML history that you cite is a stronger function of the frequency with which residents complain rather than the frequency with which it commits violations?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Reporting facts ≠ slinging mud.
    "Immature, petty behavior" = personal attacks as a way to deflect attention from irrefutable facts. Plus, it's mean-spirited as hell.
    John Flaherty

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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    John, you didn't report facts, you posted a link to your site with the childish "Same as it ever was" repeated over and over. You then linked to a long, dry document knowing that without context, people would take it as a slight against our School Committee. I took the time to read the lengthy document and explain why it's a bit of smoke with no fire. You steadfastly refuse to explain why you see fire.

    I did NOTHING to deflect attention from "irrefutable facts." Rather, I went out of my way to address why said "facts" are in fact refutable. Perhaps you failed to notice my post #2 on this thread?

    "Mean-spirited as hell" IS an accurate description, though ... of your original post. And your behavior IS immature (attack without justification) and petty (the "transgressions" being technicalities, as I took the time to point out)--any reasonable reader can see that.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    John, of course, this isn't the first time you've lobbed a grenade and then tucked tail and fled.

    Most recently, you took the School Committee to task for its statement on the METCO Director (post #3 here). But you didn't explain WHY you objected to their statement.

    No, your modus operandi is too often to post attacks that some might on the surface interpret as reflecting poorly on the attacked, then fail to back your attack up.

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
  •