The School Committee information session brought out many citizens. B.J. Pessia was among the many residents to speak at the packed forum held at town hall on Monday night. (Photos by Lisa Aciukewicz)
The Town Hall meeting room was standing room only at Monday night’s school forum, as roughly 70 residents, including many of those behind the petition to censure the School Committee at the Special Town Meeting, gathered to grill the board about its support for School Superintendent Thomas Jefferson. The petition authors, many of the speakers at the forum, accused the board of failing in its duties when it gave a positive review of the superintendent and extended his contract in June, at the same time Jefferson is being investigated for allegedly improperly authorizing payments of $30,000 in special education funds last year for a former school board member’s child to attend a prestigious private school.
Nearly 20 audience members spoke at the televised meeting, while another seven residents asked questions or addressed the School Committee by e-mail, with board member Stuart Sklar reading them aloud from his laptop. The discussion, often heated, ended up ranging over a number of topics: special education, and the process for placing students in out-of-district schools; the powers and responsibilities of the School Committee; how the committee sets goals for and evaluates the superintendent; school funding shortfalls and efforts to increase state aid; school morale and who is responsible for it; as well as specific questions about Jefferson’s actions and the board’s reactions to them.
From left: School Committee members Virginia Justicz, Stu Sklar, Willie Wickman, and Will Verbits.
For its part, the school board members took turns answering questions and addressing speakers’ concerns, with some members agreeing with a few of the speakers’ criticisms and complaints. Both board members Stu Sklar and Jeff Shaw told the meeting they now regret extending Jefferson’s contract before the allegations were cleared up.
When resident B.J. Pessia asked if the board would have the “testicular fortitude to fire the guy” if wrongdoing is found, Sklar, who joined the board in April, said that he would.
“Hindsight is always 20/20. In hindsight, I wish I hadn’t given him a good evaluation and extended his contract in June,” Sklar said.
Jefferson was halfway through a four-year contract at that point, and according to the board, its lawyer told them that it is customary to extend the contract another year at that point, if the board approves of the superintendent, to make it a three-year contract. However, the board had until June 30, 2008 to make a decision on the extension, so there was no need to make that decision last June, board Chairwoman Willie Wickman admitted.
Board member Will Verbits said that his “whole decision-making process” in voting to extend the contract had been based on the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty. He also wanted to provide continuity of leadership for the schools.
“We want stability in administration. We’ve had significant administrative turnover in this system in the last five years—that’s not good,” he said.
A look at special education placements
Early in the meeting Verbits had explained in detail how special education placements work, though he noted confidentiality laws did not allow him to go into detail about the specific out-of-district placement under investigation. Verbits held up a complex flow chart that outlined how eligibility for special education services is determined, saying that by law all children are entitled to a “free and appropriate” education.
“Sometimes there is a disagreement between the schools and parents” over where this education should take place, he noted. If the disagreement leads to a full hearing, with lawyers on both sides, it can be extremely expensive, he said, adding that it is not uncommon for the parties to come to an agreement outside of that process, “to keep costs to a minimum.”
Resident Alcon Chadwick complained that in the case in question, the parents were reimbursed for tuition after putting the child in a different school unilaterally. “Is this the way to do it?” he asked.
“This happens in every town,” said committee member Virginia Justicz. “If parents don’t agree with the school’s placement, the parents have the right to put the child where they wish, pay for it, and then try to recoup the tuition from the school district,” she explained.
Having school money paid out in this fashion did not go over well with resident Robert Hughes.
“I had five kids; there was one who had some needs. In his junior year, I had him taken out of Bromfield, and put him in a private school. He was my responsibility, and I didn’t ask the schools for some money!” Hughes said, pounding the podium. “We [Harvard] hired a C.P.A. to audit our books. He saw two payments of $15,000. Every one of you [board members] signed the warrant for [paying] the $30,000.”
Shaw agreed with Hughes that the board had signed warrants authorizing the payments, without catching that the checks were going to the former board member. He did note that the board signs off on many, many payments at a time, but said he now looks carefully at each one.
Superintendent’s evaluation
Several speakers asked the board about when it knew the superintendent and former board member were being investigated for possible ethics violation, and whether the board could have conducted its own inquiry into the matter.
Finance Committee member and town auditor George McKenna speaks.
Wickman said she first heard of the allegations in January, when approached by Selectman Randy Dean and Finance Committee member Debbie Ricci, who were about to file a complaint with the state Ethics Commission. Shaw told the audience that his board later discussed whether it could find out more information on its own, but that it “decided no,” given the rules on confidentiality and the limits of the board’s powers. Several members noted that an education reform law passed in the 1990s severely limits the board’s power to actually get involved in the day-to-day operations of the schools. Wickman said the board now only sets school policy, oversees the budget, negotiates teacher contracts, and hires and evaluates the superintendent.
Several speakers criticized the board’s process for evaluating the superintendent and argued that members should have solicited more input from parents, teachers, and school staff. Teacher and Harvard resident Chris Moeser urged the board to listen to many voices in the next evaluation.
“It is the teachers, the nurses, the secretaries that make the school work,” she said. “These people are the front line” and the board has to come up with a way to get their feedback on how Jefferson is treating them, Moeser stressed.
This year, the board had done the evaluation themselves, by measuring Jefferson’s work against a list of goals drawn up a year earlier.
“Clearly, before we do the next evaluation, we should be looking at how to do it differently,” gathering information from many people who deal with Jefferson, Wickman noted.
Board member Shaw also said the school board had not evaluated Jefferson on how he handles personnel, and “how he runs the operation” in a day-to-day way at the schools; but that the board should do so for the upcoming year.
The board will be setting Jefferson’s goals for the upcoming year in the next few weeks, Sklar later noted, so the board can think about shaping them to reflect these concerns.
Recourse for complainants
One accusation of Jefferson at Monday’s meeting came from resident and school employee Margaret Grogan and her husband, Mark Bierbower. Grogan told the meeting that she was the special education secretary for 11 years, until last December, when Jefferson intimidated her and then transferred her to a job as a preschool aide, with reduced hours and pay. According to Grogan, Jefferson accused her of being the source of the information about the special education payment and acted in retaliation for this whistle-blowing. She said she had written to the school board about his actions but has received no response.
Board members had earlier explained to Grogan’s husband Bierbower that their lawyer told them that they have no power to deal with her complaints, with Wickman saying her board has no say over personnel matters, and that the superintendent has free rein in the matter of non-union workers such as Grogan.
“It’s hard for us to comment in this case… we don’t know the details,” Verbits said.
“This is not the school board’s choice,” Sklar said. “This is the law. The state made the superintendent very strong.”
He and Wickman advised Bierbower and Grogan to take their complaint to the state authorities, if they can’t get matters resolved otherwise.
Is Harvard’s financial house in order?
Resident Chris Ashley told the board that he signed the petition, but that he did not do so because of “the particularities of who did what to whom.” He said he was concerned about the general lack of “affirmative leadership” from the board. “How as voters do we feel that our house is in order?” he asked. “What are our tools to make sure” scarce funds are being spent well, he asked.
Wickman assured the audience that the board scrutinizes spending carefully.
However, resident George McKenna, the independent auditor who prepared the town’s management report, said of the irregular special education payments, “In 30 years of auditing public and private clients, this situation is extremely rare.”
Sklar noted that the $30,000 represented by these payments is a small amount compared to the cuts the schools have faced due to a structural deficit resulting from cutbacks in state aid. He urged all residents to lobby state legislators to boost aid to towns like Harvard.
Resident Kara Noyes pointed out that Beacon Hill will not likely respond to the town’s pleas for more money if the town’s finances are not in order. She also urged the board to consider taxpayers “who work two or three jobs just to pay taxes.”
Justicz answered that the board does try hard to restrain spending, with Harvard’s school spending being 11 percent below its peers. She wants the board to try to find other sources of revenue. “That’s why I joined the board,” she said.
Sklar pointed out that it’s not just Harvard facing funding shortfalls. “It has to be fixed on Beacon Hill!”
What to do?
At one point Sklar faced the audience and said, “Tell me what you want me to do! I’m an open-minded guy!”
Resident Ron Ricci had an answer, telling the board, “Individually, I respect you, but as a board, you’re horrible!” He recommended the board meet with past school board members: “Get Jim DeZutter, Piali De, Molly Cutler, Dwight Harshbarger” and ask them for advice on how to proceed.
Not all the speakers over the long, contentious meeting felt the school board was in the wrong, however. Resident Holly Rothkopf told the meeting that she is uncomfortable with the censure process.
“I applaud dialogue, but we have on the board volunteers, and new volunteers. I am grateful to all of you,” she said. “We don’t want to club our volunteers,” she reminded the meeting.
