A BRIEF BACKSTORY
This morning, I sent a request for information to the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office regarding the right of the public to participate in town “open meetings”, specifically with regard to the School Committee based upon information I received from another blog. Well, I got my answer.
The answer I received was the following:
Dear Mr. MacDonald,
Thank you for your email. However, recent changes to the law has transferred jurisdiction of the open meeting law from our office to the Attorney General’s Office. Here is the link to their website where you will find more information and contact information.
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagosubtopic&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Government&L2=The+Open+Meeting+Law&sid=Cago
So, I went to the website above and found my way to a section entitled: “Quick Glance at Open Meeting Law”, posted by Martha Coakley’s office at this location on the web for those of you interested in checking it out:
Just below the midway point of the article one will find the following:
Public Participation
- Public may attend open session of meeting
- Public may not address public body without permission of chair or otherwise disrupt meeting
- Public may make audio or video recording of open session upon notification to chair and subject to reasonable requirements
- Chair must inform other attendees of recording at beginning of meeting
- If a person continues to disrupt a meeting after clear warning from the chair, the chair may order the person to leave the meeting. If the person does not leave, the chair may authorize a constable or other officer to remove that person
For those uncomfortable with Ms. Coakley’s authorized synopsis of the law, the full Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A §§ 18-25 (Effective July 1, 2010) can be found at this web location:
If I read this law correctly, Maryann Harring-Laurendeau, as the chair, had the authority to allow general comments and questions at the time of the meeting. Therefore, she either didn’t know the extent of her authority, or she hid behind the guise of ignorance while “pursuing a change in that policy, [of not allowing public discussion], to allow for public comment and discussion.”
You are certainly free to draw your own conclusions, but mine is that the people aren’t allowed a voice because those running this committee choose to discourage public participation and have no interest in what the public at large has to say. That leaves the ballot box and other political methods of attention getting as your only means of sending messages to a group that appears to be somewhat out of control and deliberately out of touch.
Now that you have the information from the horse’s mouth (as opposed to mine), what are you going to do with it?
Get the Facts said:
If you would take the time to actually research these topics BEFORE you post hearsay emails, you would have found that Section 7-10(b) of Billerica’s Charter states in relevant part, “…that each multiple member body shall provide some period of time at each of its meetings for members of the public who are present to ask questions, state opinions and otherwise interchange information with the members…”. The Billerica School Committee (as well as Board of Selectman) fulfills this requirement by holding an open mic session at each of their meetings. At this open mic session, residents of the town are allowed to sign up and address the committee on any topic they would like to discuss.
Furthermore, as you stated from the Open Meeting Law, “Public may not address public body without permission of chair or otherwise disrupt meeting.” It is well within the rights of the chair NOT to entertain questions or comments from non-members (residents) in attendance. There is a salient difference between a public HEARING and a public MEETING. At a public HEARING, anyone present is allowed to speak on the topic. However, at a public MEETING, like those of the School Committee or Board of Selectman, it is the discretion of the chair whether or not to allow comment from the public, though the public may be in attendance. In the case of the hearsay email, the chair of the School Committee was well within her rights NOT allow the public to speak on the topic during the meeting.
There was no discouragement, no collusion and no conspiracy as you obviously think there was. The chair was following proper procedure and did NOTHING wrong.
--Rick MacDonald said:
The arrogance of your statements and presumptions are indicative of what is wrong with our political system. It doesn’t really matter what our town charter states if it is not being adhered to, does it?
--Rick MacDonald said:
I understand what the Town Charter states as well as what the open meeting law requires. However, if that were happening, then the person who wanted a chance to speak while attending the school committee meeting would have been able to do so. It would seem obvious that if this person were not allowed to speak, that the school committee did not provide for the “open mic” time you cite.
I made no mention of a public hearing. I was discussing the ability to speak during a public meeting as prescribed by the state’s open meeting law because the incident took place during a public meeting; not a public hearing. This was the gentleman’s 3rd attempt to speak and 3rd time of being denied the opportunity. So, where’s the open mic accessibility during school committee hearings?
Not only was he not allowed to speak, but if, as alleged, Ms. Landreau called him the next day to sympathize about his not being able to speak, that speaks strongly that she either didn’t understand her own power or responsibility in this matter, or did and deliberately set about to discourage this member from speaking.
Of course if all it takes is the chairs permission to speak, then there is no need for collusion or conspiracy. You are quite the master of stating the obvious.
You are perhaps right that the chair did nothing wrong; but if a citizen did try to speak and she denied him that opportunity, followed that denial up with an apologetic telephone call about her lack of power to grant him that opportunity, she certainly acted wrongly whether it was intentional or not.
In any case, all members of all committees that are elected ought to understand that they serve at the pleasure of the voters and that whenever they deny voters the right to voice their opinion, they are begging that voter to choose someone else next time around. It is my belief that government is here to serve the citizens; not to prevent them from voicing how they would like to be served. If a public servant wishes to ignore the will of the people, I will remind the people that when the polls open, it is they who have the final say as to who stays and who goes.
As to your heresay argument, you could always log on to the Billerica Watchers Group website by clicking on the link I provided and read the gentleman’s statement and plea for assistance. You could then ask the gentleman who posted the request for help to amplify his statement if you believe him to be untruthful. I’ll be happy to post amplifying comments here on your behalf should you find the incident as described by him did not happen.
Get the Facts said:
So, if is arrogant for me to tell you that the Chair of the School Committee did nothing wrong in not allowing questions DURING the meeting and outside of the designated open mic time? I fail to see the logic in that. The Town Charter was and is being adhered to with the designated open mic session at the beginning of the meeting and in the Chair’s denial of a member of the public to speak on a topic during the general business meeting. Just because you don’t like what someone is doing does not mean that it is wrong.
According to the writer of the email they were at the meeting and it was DURING the meeting that the person wanted to speak. The chair does not have to allow anyone to speak DURING the meeting. The writer can be upset, but the fact remains that nothing wrong was done.
On the open mic point, the School Committee DOES offer the open mic session at the beginning of every meeting, before general business is conducted. It is outside of this designated open mic time that the Chair can choose to allow or not allow the general public to speak on certain matters. All a resident has to do is make themselves known that they wish to speak at open mic. The Selectman have a sign up sheet on a desk in the meeting room. I do not know what method the School Committee employs, but all it would take is a simple question to a member of the Committee, before the meeting commences, to ascertain how to sign up or be recognized to speak. A little effort is all that is needed. Saying you want to be involved does not come with an engraved invitation. You have to involve yourself!
I mentioned the public hearing vs. public meeting point because to most there is a common confusion as to the distinction it comes to municipal government
I can’t speak to the phone call or what the chair of any committee knows or does not know about the authority they have.
The lesson that should be taken from all this is that if one want to be involved in or to participate in their own government, one must follow the processes set in place to be able to do so.
--Rick MacDonald said:
My understanding is that the school committee has not offered open mic time or any other opportunity to speak since the new body was constituted during the previous election. Your comment regarding speaking “during the meeting” is akin to dancing on the head of a pin (or pinhead). When you go to the Board of Selectmen meeting – when do they offer “open mic” time; before, after or during a meeting?
The town charter does not require open mic time and none was given. Open mic time is optional both in the town and under the rules of the most recent open meeting laws. It seems that the school committee prefers to remain both autonomous and somewhat anonymous. The school committee website is separate from the corporate town site. Minutes are much harder to find on line as are other documents and items that the public may have an interest in. And now, it appears that they prefer to remain in the dark about what those they are supposed to be serving actually think of the service they are getting from the schools and school leadership.
The writer of the letter is a senior Town Meeting member, one of the longest serving members, in fact, and he frequently attends school committee meetings. I think it is safe to assume that he knows the rules. This was his third attempt to be heard.
Facts are facts, amigo. Check the school committee minutes and link any instance you find where the public was allowed to speak. If there is no such mention in the minutes, time was not provided – or the entire committee is in violation of open meeting laws by not including open mic notations in the minutes as required. Adios.
Get the Facts said:
The Board of Selectman hold their Open Mic session as the first order of business at every meeting! Their is a sign up sheet in the Conway Hearing Room (where their meetings are held) at which ANY RESIDENT of the town may sign up to speak to the Board about ANY TOPIC they wish. The last posted approved minutes on the Town’s website is here – http://town.billerica.ma.us/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=811&Itemid=9. You will note the OPEN MICROPHONE session is after the CALL TO ORDER of the meeting. At this particular meeting, no one signed up to speak.
You state that your “understanding” is that the School Committee does not hold an open mic sessions a their meetings. You also state that it is hard to find their meeting minutes. Well, I must inform you that you are flat out wrong! First, your “understanding” is wrong because as you will see from the approved minutes of the September 13, 2010 meeting – http://news.billerica.k12.ma.us/2010/09/28/school-committee-minutes-%E2%80%93-september-13-2010/ – after the meeting is called to order their is time for an OPEN DISCUSSION at which time no resident chose to speak. Now, before you go saying that this OPEN DISCUSSION isn’t the same as an OPEN MIC, I would refer you to the approved minutes for the June 14, 2010 meeting (the previous school committee meeting) where a STUDENT spoke to the committee during the OPEN DISCUSSION session to have her thoughts, opinions and views heard on the raising of the student parking fees – http://news.billerica.k12.ma.us/2010/09/20/school-committee-minutes-june-14-2010/. So THERE is your proof. The public IS allowed to speak, at every meeting. Your “senior member of Town Meeting” needs to do his homework. If he attends these meetings frequently, then I think he may need to pay more attention because it IS happening. I would refer him and you to my previous comments: go to the meeting and ask BEFORE the call to order how to be recognized to address the Committee during Open Discussion.
You are also wrong about the minutes being hard to find. A simple Google search of Billerica School Committee Minutes yielded a first result hit on the link to the page of the School’s website where the meeting minutes are posted. Very easy to find! Heck, I’ll make it even easier for you: just go to the School Department website – http://news.billerica.k12.ma.us/ – and scroll about one-quarter of the way down the page and there you will find the September 13, 2010 minutes posted. Couldn’t be simpler.
You are right, the charter does not require an open mic session. It requires, “…that each multiple member body shall provide some period of time at each of its meetings for members of the public who are present to ask questions, state opinions and otherwise interchange information with the members…” Had you actually read my previous post you would have seen “The Billerica School Committee (as well as Board of Selectman) fulfills this requirement by holding an open mic session at each of their meetings.” So, an “open mic session” is how the School Committee and Board of Selectman in Billerica choose to adhere to the law. As long as they provide some period of time for members of the public to speak they are following the law. And the School Committee and Board of Selectman ARE following the law.
The School Committee is NOT in violation and I would ask you to get the facts before posting inaccuracies AS facts!
--Rick MacDonald said:
First, the discussion is not about the Board of Selectmen or their procedures. I grant you that they have an open mic and the school committee has an open discussion – they are the same thing. Both are held prior to the actually meeting and prior to the subsequent discussion of agenda items. The original question was how does a citizen get to question and discuss items as they are brought up via the committee agenda if only those persons who are presenting the item are allowed to speak and immediately after speaking a vote is held without discussion.
Some of these issues are not only important, but some carry with them costly increases in spending; for instance, the hiring of new employees such as the recent hiring of a Director of Facilities who reports to the Superintendent of School. This position comes with a salary, benefits (including pension and health care funding considerations) as well as other perks.
It would’ve been nice to find out how the position was funded (by town money or by some temporary supplemental out of Washington). In the case of a supplemental, it would seem that the job will last much longer than the funding will. Will the position disappear with the funding or will the town taxpayer be stuck paying increased taxes to maintain a position that may or may not be needed.
However, these issues cannot be discussed during “open discussion” except at some future meeting, after a vote has already taken place and there is absolutely nothing that can be done to reverse that vote. And as discussion is not a guarantee – the “open discussion” terminology is a misnomer in that it is only an opportunity provided to make a statement – the point of Mr. Johnson’s complaint.
In Mr. Johnson’s case, he has attended school committee meetings three times, and if he keeps his work, a fourth time on the 4th of October to “petition the board members to consider contract provisions that would define the roles and responsibilities of teachers and administrators to help ensure a safe, disruption free, and positive learning environment in all classrooms. Now, I have no idea as to what he is referring, but the fact that he mentions contract implies he is speaking about getting information on specific union contract issues – a major part of the Fall Town Meeting agenda.
Asking the school committee to reduce parking fees does not constitute an “open discussion”. It constitutes asking a question. There is no discussion should the committee choose not to respond in any meaningful way. I didn’t see where they recorded that a discussion took place; only that the young woman was allowed to ask a question.
As to the school committee minutes, I agree that they are findable. My statement was that they are more difficult to find. For the BOS, one goes to the town website, clicks on Department, Board of Selectmen, Documents, Minutes and presto…they are all there where one would expect them to be. The school committee, on the other hand, is not listed as part of the town government, although it is a governmental agency of the town. Yet, one has to go to the “Billerica Public Schools” website (which I have linked on my site), Administration, Billerica News, Minutes of the most recent meetings, and the most recent agenda to find out what is to be discussed or what has been discussed. If you look at the agenda for September 27, 2010, you will see that “open discussion” is not listed as a part of the meeting or as available (http://news.billerica.k12.ma.us/2010/09/24/school-committee-agenda-september-27-2010/.
The alternative method of finding minutes is to go to “News for Billerica Public Schools” or BPS News and clicking on “Archives”. There, you will find “Archives by Months” and Archives by Subject”.
Furthermore, if you are persistent enough to look for information in this manner, and you click on “Archive for September, 2010” The agenda section is for the meeting and has only one item listed: “School choice”. Again, no mention of “open discussion” is provided on the agenda document. The minutes shown on this archive are for the September 13, 2010 meeting. Open Discussion is listed – no comments.
The following is of note and in support of my contention that the school committee minutes/agendas and other documents are much more difficult to find than the same documents on the cororate website. If one stops scrolling through the school committee minutes for September at the “signature portion” where one would normally stop, one would not notice that the agendas and minutes of previous meetings are all bundled within the “September” archive.
If one goes to the archives for August, July, June, May, etc. one will not find minutes for those months in those locations. Again, the structure for providing information for the public is so poorly and haphazardly done that one has to wonder if it is not deliberate. With all of the brain power that one finds within a school building, one would think someone would be able to organize archive categories with better accuracy and structure. But, I guess it’s possible that this difficulty in finding items of interest is purely accidental.
Perhaps, if the school committee chooses to better organize its website, it might also choose to put up a statement on the protocol for the public to be heard in an actually discussion, or how it may be able to appear before the board and present it with items such as this to address beginning on page 4. I’d be interested in their answers and their opinions on the need for a full, detailed forensic audit.
So, I suppose wrong is in the eye of the beholder. To my eye, the school committee is a much more closed, loosely organized and evasive deliberative body than is the board of selectmen. This is evidenced by the poorly organized, poorly archived and indeed, much more difficult to find administrative documents that are the key to analyzing patterns of conduct and decision making on the part of representative boards, individual voting records and accountability.
It seems to make more sense to keep governement records in a single repository in a single format with a single and simple retrieval method.
In any case, this discussion is taking up way too much time and energy and as I gave up beating dead horses a long time ago, this discussion, in this vein, is now closed.