In letter and spirit, the law calls for transparency, the ability of the public to see how government officials are conducting the public’s business.
The Greenfield School Committee seemed to violate at least the spirit of the law in approving a teachers’ contract outside of public view during a lame-duck session late last year. The lack of transparency prompted Mayor William Martin to file an Open Meeting Law complaint against his own School Committee.
“Transparency, open public hearings and forum for discussion seems to be a lost art in some committees,” said Martin, who filed a complaint with the attorney general’s office in January, and a follow-up complaint this month. As mayor, Martin holds one of seven seats on the committee with jurisdiction over Greenfield’s public schools.
The School Committee held a special meeting on Dec. 30, 2015, that included a closed-door session to discuss strategies for collective bargaining. During that session, the committee approved a three-year teachers pact by a 3-1 vote, with two members abstaining and one absent. Martin, who was in attendance, cast the lone “no” vote.
This was the last act by this committee as three of its members, including then-Chairwoman Maryelen Calderwood, were leaving the board the next day, following the November election. The current seven-member board retains only two members from last year.
Martin has lodged several objections to the vote with the state attorney general’s office, including the timing of the special meeting’s public notice and whether the executive session met the letter of the law by voting on a contract rather than limiting itself to the stated (and permissible) purpose of discussing negotiating strategy.
Calderwood said she checked with the School Committee attorney, who told her that a vote can take place during an executive session. Peter Smith, the committee’s lawyer, said in speaking with the attorney general’s office, it was clear was clear that such a vote may take place in executive session.
Maybe. But does it have to?
The School Committee may have met the letter of the law, but failed to honor the spirit by voting on an agreement behind closed doors, allowing the public to wonder what the board may have been trying to hide.
Did committee members want to avoid any questions from the public about the contract or their support of it? Explaining and justifying your position is part of the job of an elected official.
We do know that the committee is supposed to come out of executive session and report on any votes, and the record shows that didn’t happen. Thus, residents mostly remained in the dark about the contract until months later, after Martin lodged his complaint.
And the mayor isn’t exactly in the clear here, either. He, too, seems to have kept this under wraps for some time. Why wasn’t he publicly squawking about the handling of the contract vote the evening it took place? Instead, the public is the last to know.
Even if the attorney general’s office declares there was nothing wrong here, the impression remains that the committee wanted the public excluded here, something that casts a pall on the contract, regardless of whether it’s justified or not.