In the My Two Cents column of Nov. 2, Bill Marinelli repeats myths that have led to months of confusion about the legal role and limitations of the School Committee regarding disputed special education spending and school personnel issues. By the time this column is published, the community and its governing boards will have had the chance to hear a presentation by Glenn Koocher, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, explaining in depth the responsibilities and legal strictures that constrain all elected school committees in the state of Massachusetts.
The case which has engendered such public outcry—including the censure of the School Committee and letters to the state Ethics Commission and District Attorney’s office—is legally out of the School Committee’s hands. Because the case surrounds the private education records of a child, School Committee members are legally prohibited from public comment. We are bound by strict confidentiality laws and have assiduously adhered to our oath of office by upholding those laws. Would that all public officials in Harvard had resisted the temptation to shoot from the lip. The loose manner with which private information, including a child’s surname, has been brandished about in public meetings and the newspapers may end up being the most damaging of all to our town, both legally and financially.
The School Committee has been accused of unnecessary reticence and refusal to respond in kind to the seriousness of this situation. Nothing could be further from the truth. When an irregularity in special education spending was brought to our attention, I immediately arranged a meeting with the superintendent and consulted our legal counsel for special education. I was satisfied with the results of both discussions and confident that the appropriate adjudicating bodies would be satisfied as well. One of those bodies is the Massachusetts Department of Education, which conducts a thorough audit of special education spending every three years and was due to audit Harvard’s schools in the fall of 2007. (That audit was postponed to January, in anticipation of the independent special education audit authorized at last spring’s Town Meeting.) Another adjudicating body that looked at the case is the Attorney General’s office, which recently completed its investigation and found no basis to pursue a criminal case. The final adjudicator is the state Ethics Commission, whose process and progress on the case remain—and here’s that vital legal concept again—confidential. In fact, they will “neither confirm nor deny” the existence of any case.
Regarding Mr. Marinelli’s statement that I did not respond to his liking when approached by “two senior town government members,” how could he know? He was not present. The fact is, when I was approached last December by the former chair of the Board of Selectmen and the chair of the Finance Committee with a letter of complaint they planned to send to the state Ethics Commission, I requested a few days to inquire into the matter. It was they who declined. To this day I remain concerned about the legality of the manner in which they conducted themselves. By signing their complaints as chairs of their committees, they implied the consent of those committees. But in fact, neither committee was informed of their actions, a potentially damaging violation of protocol in and of itself.
But perhaps their disregard of protocol wasn’t a deliberate violation, only an unintentional lapse—much like the School Committee’s unintentional lapse in retiring to another room, at the request of Mr. Marinelli’s board, during the meeting held this summer to choose an interim member of the School Committee. Perhaps the two signers of the ethics complaints did not intentionally withhold from their boards information about the complaints any more than the School Committee intentionally closed a door.
However, to give one’s colleagues such benefit of the doubt is apparently beyond us as a community at present. These days, rhetoric rules. A School Committee member’s surprise at learning the independent town auditor was also a town Finance Committee member and spouse of a school employee is dubbed “slander;” the legal practice of reimbursing families for special education costs—recently upheld by no less an arbiter than the U.S. Supreme Court—is, in the current public parlance, labeled “theft.” The hard work and reputations of longtime town volunteers and employees on both sides of the current divide have been subject to attack.
So where do we go from here?
I would like to reiterate that the School Committee understands and takes extremely seriously its charge to “preserve the integrity and financial health of the schools.” We have remained steadfast in our refusal to engage in gossip and hearsay regarding matters of student and personnel records precisely because the law prohibits this kind of loose talk.
That said, I accept fully the charge that the School Committee has done a rotten job of communicating effectively over the past months. In the coming weeks we hope to correct this by holding public information sessions, sending regular updates to the community, and opening the public comment segment of our meetings to real dialogue. The community needs a greater understanding of:
- School Committee responsibilities and legal limitations
- Special education spending rules, exceptions, and appeals
- Confidentiality laws regarding student and personnel records
- Responsibilities and legal limitations of the superintendent
- Means of recourse for personnel grievances
I have lived in the town of Harvard for 18 years and have volunteered thousands of hours, serving on town committees with dedication and integrity. I look forward to improved dialogue with my colleagues and the community as we face the challenges of our town and schools together.
Willie Wickman is chairman of the School Committee.
