Last Friday, Town Clerk Janet Vellante certified that there were 248 valid signatures on a citizens’ petition calling for a motion of censure of the Harvard School Committee, far more than the 100 signatures needed to place the matter before voters at the fall special town meeting next month. The petition originated with a group of residents who are upset that the School Committee last June gave an excellent review to School Superintendent Thomas Jefferson, and extended his contract unnecessarily, even as questions were being raised about his approval of an out-of-district special education placement of a former school board member’s child. Also, the petition accuses the school board of “summarily dismissing” the allegations of irregularities in the handling of this SPED expenditure highlighted in the most recent town audit. (For the exact wording of the petition, see sidebar.)
In an interview this week, one of the petition’s authors, Ron Ricci, said that about one dozen residents put together the motion for censure, to protest the actions of the school board. “Our intent is to send the loudest, clearest message to the board that the present way is not acceptable, and they need to be more accountable to the town.” His group is encouraging all voters to attend the October 10 Special Town Meeting, and to have “a frank and open discussion,” of the board’s recent actions. “The way it’s going, it’s not doing our kids, our schools, or our town any good,” he said.
According to Ricci, collecting voters’ signatures was quite easy, with “people falling all over each other to sign it.” He noted that the petition garnered signatures from a wide variety of residents, older and newer residents, parents and non-parents alike. Ricci estimated that only two or three dozen people who were asked to sign the petition refused to do so.
In the interview, Ricci paused for a moment when asked what specific actions the school board could take to show more accountability to the voters. “I have my own ideas, but they need to figure that out amongst themselves, how to take it seriously. They have to figure out how to win back the confidence of the town,” he replied.
Ricci admitted that the members of his group have not discussed their concerns with the school board directly. It was the group’s conscious decision not to do so, because “it’s like they’ve erected a wall,” he said, with the board’s policy of not directly responding to public comments during the open meeting portion of the school board meetings. “We didn’t think it would help,” he added.
For her part, board Chairwoman Willie Wickman read a statement at Monday night’s School Committee meeting, stating that the board welcomes feedback from the community, and pointing out several ways people can engage with it. “If you have a question or concern, please attend our meeting, and voice your opinion …feel free to phone or e-mail any member. Or run for public office,” she said. Wickman also asked that people “consider the negative impact of rumors, half-truths, and spreading inaccurate information. These vehicles are not healthy mechanisms for addressing concerns.”
In an interview this week, Wickman was clearly frustrated by the level of anger shown by some members of the public towards the school board. She also defended the board’s reluctance to directly tackle the question of the special education spending allegations, saying, “We won’t be involved in addressing innuendo,” without any explicit findings from the state ethics board or other investigators. The board itself cannot conduct a detailed inquiry, because of state confidentiality rules regarding special education students. “We have never been contacted by anyone official [regarding the allegations]… there is nothing for us to act on. We will address the issue when we have something to respond to,” Wickman said.
In regard to specific complaints voiced in the petition, Wickman said her board gave Jefferson a positive evaluation because it believes he has done many good things for the schools. The board members went through an extensive evaluation process, where they compared Jefferson’s achievements with stated goals that both parties had agreed upon a year earlier. In the review, “we cited Tom’s accomplishments, and asked him to work on a few things,” to improve them, Wickman said, adding that the evaluation is available at the schools’ central office for any citizen to see.
Wickman also believes that the petitioners’ complaint about her board’s response to the financial audit is not germane. She pointed out that the financial audit is not something her board is supposed to take action on. “The audit is given to the Board of Selectmen. It is for them to deal with it,” she noted.
