If the authors of the citizens’ petition calling for a vote of censure of the school board wanted to have a full airing of the issues surrounding the board’s support of School Superintendent Tom Jefferson, they got their wish at the October 10 Town Meeting.
Before finally approving the motion of censure by a counted ballot vote of 215 to 117, the meeting spent an hour and a half hearing from 21 speakers, who spoke in favor of calling the school board to task by a similar two-to-one margin.
The first speaker was Ron Ricci, one of the authors of the petition. He explained that his group, who gathered 248 signatures to put the warrant article before Town Meeting, felt an obligation to speak out because the School Committee had failed to provide good leadership. The petition charged that the committee had given an excellent performance review to the superintendent and extended his contract, despite a state Ethics Commission inquiry into allegations that Jefferson improperly authorized $30,000 in payments from special education accounts to a former school board member. The money, a partial reimbursement of tuition for the ex-board member’s child to attend a private school, does not appear to have been approved through proper channels, the petitioners argue.
Ricci complained that the School Committee had disparagingly dismissed the findings of the town’s independent audit, which questioned the propriety of the payments. In addition, he said, new allegations have come up recently, that Jefferson intimidated and wrongly transferred a school employee, and that he violated the confidentiality demanded by the CORI [Criminal Offenders’ Records Information] law by casually discussing a parent’s criminal background.
“They [the School Committee] are responsible for managing the school superintendent,” said Ricci. “There has been a pattern of denial that anything is going on.”
Ricci added that he is personally committed to “having a functioning School Committee,” and that he will help foster that goal any way he can.
School Committee Has Its Say
For its part, the School Committee went into great detail at Town Meeting about why it gave Jefferson a favorable annual review last June. In a prepared statement read by Vice Chairman Will Verbits, the board listed a number of serious challenges that faced the schools when Jefferson joined the district in June of 2005. He detailed six of the challenges that Jefferson successfully dealt with. First, he said, the special education program had major problems, as outlined in a state audit. Secondly, the Board of Health was threatening to shut down the elementary kindergarten wing, due to air quality concerns. Third, both the principal and assistant principal at Bromfield were resigning. Fourth, the Bromfield building project was not quite completed. Fifth, the school budgets were extremely tight, and budget controls were lacking. And finally, he said, the school department faced a very challenging teachers’ union contract negotiation.
Besides dealing with all these difficulties, said Verbits, Jefferson “built on the academic excellence he inherited” by getting new federal grants and introducing programs such as the Virtual High School at Bromfield. In addition, he noted, Jefferson helped bring in new revenues of $250,000 for educating 12 to 15 Devens students by negotiating a contract with MassDevelopment. He added that his board had not meant to seem dismissive of the independent auditor’s report. The board is very concerned about special education spending in general, he said, and “looks forward” to hearing the recommendations about such spending that the special education task force comes up with.
Town Auditor Resigns
The author of the independent audit, Town Auditor and finance board member George McKenna, then spoke in defense of his findings of problems with school spending—not just the special education payments, but also reports of thefts of school property, which were not being dealt with properly, he alleged. McKenna provided the biggest surprise of the evening when he announced to the meeting that he had resigned as auditor at 3 p.m. that day. McKenna said that he has always conducted his audits in a fair and unbiased way, but wanted no appearance of bias to taint the audit process. He then called upon Jefferson to resign. “We need new leadership,” he said.
Resident Chris Ashley made a motion to conduct the vote by secret ballot, with several speakers supporting the idea, saying that some residents, particularly school employees, would feel intimidated to come out against the school board in public. That motion carried by 194 to 135.
Residents then weighed in for another hour, with arguments for and against censuring the school board. Even those in favor of the censure motion often prefaced their remarks by saying they understand that town volunteers often put in long hours doing difficult tasks, with little thanks.
As former school board member Linda Moore said, “I know the hours, and the slings and arrows directed at one,” when serving on the board. She went on to say that if such allegations had occurred when she was board chairwoman, she would have done an investigation of the issue, “for the credibility of the superintendent.” She also wondered why the current board had not done a “360-degree” evaluation of the superintendent, soliciting input from parents and school employees, as has been done in the past. She added that, when complaints came from school employees regarding their treatment on the job when she was on the School Committee, the board had investigated and settled the matter.
“Harvard doesn’t exist in an alternative universe, where labor laws don’t apply,” she said.
Pros and Cons of the Censure
The speakers who came out against the motion to censure the board argued that censure would not help the current situation, and that it would undoubtedly discourage future volunteers, who would not be willing to run for election to the School Committee.
“In a democracy, if you don’t like the actions of a committee,” you don’t vote for those members in the next election, argued Stow Road resident David Ives. “When was the last public flogging in the town of Harvard?” he asked.
Billy Salter, of Elm Street, reminded the meeting that some of the school board members “are not full-time School Committee members—they have jobs, spouses, kids, etc.” He complained that the petitioners have fostered a divisive process.
“Some of you yearn for the golden [former school superintendent] Keosian days. I don’t. There were problems,” Salter said. He argued that the censure will not help Harvard. “I worry about what it will do to the town.”
However, more speakers said they wanted to send a message to the school board that they expect more oversight from the board.
“I ask you to vote for the censure, to send the most effective message,” to the board, petitioner Keith Cheveralls said. “We need a paradigm of openness, candor, integrity.”
After a lengthy voting process, where voters had to leave the auditorium, receive ballots, and file back in, placing ballots in a box, the results were announced at 10:50 p.m.
Asked for a reaction to the successful censure vote after the meeting, Verbits replied, “The people have spoken.”
New board member Virginia Justicz, who joined this fall, said, “I think it’s indicative of the desire of the people—they want to be heard. Hopefully, as a board, we’ll provide more opportunities for give and take . . . we can do better.”
