My experiences during public comment at Greenfield School Committee meetings:
The first time I spoke I was cut off in mid-sentence by School Committee Chair Amy Prioetti. I thought that she was rude, but also that there clearly was something wrong with the way the School Committee was organizing its meetings. I thought that since Chair Prioetti was new to her job perhaps she misunderstood the rules or was just impatient about getting on with the meeting.
The second time, I was cut off in mid-sentence by School Committee Member Susan Eckstrom (standing in for the chair). I thought she was being rude but again assumed that she was following rules that made no sense and should be changed.
The third time, I actually finished my sentences but was chastised by Chair Prioetti for using a format in my presentation which she decided was not appropriate. It was my presentation, not hers, and I did not go over the time limit. She implied that I had somehow gone beyond the bounds of acceptability but did not elaborate. I thought she was being arbitrary, but again gave her the benefit of the doubt that such decisions were based upon a misguided approach to public comment.
The School Committee rule is that the committee will not entertain any public comments that do not relate to items on the agenda. It is not a law. It is a rule that allows the School Committee to avoid issues that they do not want to consider. It is a rule that all School Committees in the commonwealth use (I have been told), but it limits the involvement of the public and should be replaced.
Regardless of the rule itself, in none of those incidents did I assume that both Chair Prioetti and member Eckstrom were simply disdainful of the comments made by anyone not in their inner circle. But apparently that is the case, as can be seen from excerpts from a freedom of information act release that was posted on a social media site. It would appear from the actual emails that these public officials take shots at others to demonstrate an attitude of superiority. The people they criticize include members of the general public like me (though I know of no specific mention of me in the emails), and School Committee member Glenn Johnson-Mussad, Mayor Wedegartner and former School Committee Chair Tim Farrell.
I have no problem with verbal sparring about an issue or a policy. I am fine with considering when and where such a discussion should take place. I do take issue with condescending and snide comments made at the expense of others who have made a good faith statement. Couple these remarks by Chair Prioetti and member Eckstrom with the experiences of rudeness and verbal dismissal that I and others have experienced and there is reason for discontent with present School Committee leadership. Such attitudes demonstrate why the teachers union does not believe that the School Committee is dealing with them in good faith and why people with concerns that are not on the chair’s agenda do not believe that they will be heard.
On that social media site, there are concerns about communications that are not done according to state law. They should be seriously considered and certainly corrected. In the identified cases, it is the use of personal email for official business. Wasn’t Hillary Clinton pilloried for that?
These are our public officials. Why do they make it difficult for the public to present information that might be useful to the running of the schools? If they do not respect the public that elected them and the laws of the commonwealth, why are they in office?
Susan Worgaftik is a resident ofGreenfield.