The censure of the School Committee by Special Town Meeting left few happy faces when the night ended. The most common sentiment I heard from the supporters of the censure motion was how easily this all could have been avoided. I agree.
In December 2006, well before the payments to the Wormser family became public knowledge, two senior town government members met with the School Committee chair to request an investigation of the matter. She declined. The subsequent reassignment of Margaret Grogan, upon the public disclosure of the payments, and her request for intervention by the School Committee again produced no response. The failure of the School Committee to act at that point led directly to the filing of several ethics and criminal complaints.
The town auditor’s “official” disclosure last spring of the payments to the Wormser family again provided an opportunity for the School Committee to address the issues in a serious way. Their subsequent attack on the character of the auditor and their choice to disregard the audit because it was funded by the Board of Selectmen was shameless. More so than the extension of the superintendent’s contract, the committee’s decision to slander a respected member of the community and treat the audit as a political document led to the filing of the censure petition.
It was clear right up to the time of the censure vote that the committee still didn’t get it. A committee dedicated to preserving the integrity and financial health of the schools they were elected to oversee would have taken a leadership role in ensuring that the allegations against the superintendent were investigated, if not by them, then by third parties such as the Departments of Education and Labor. They would have understood that the mounting claims of misconduct could place the town in serious legal and financial jeopardy. But instead they sought to discredit concerned citizens by labeling their concerns “rumor and innuendo,” while refusing to address them in public session. What a disaster.
People have asked several times, “What do the petitioners want?” and “What now?” I can’t speak for the petitioners. I’m not one of them. But what I want now is a school committee that understands that its number-one responsibility is to oversee the management of the schools, one that sees its job as more than just the elected arm of a fundraising booster organization. I’d like a committee whose members understood the Open Meeting Law before they illegally went behind a closed door to decide on their support for a candidate to fill a vacancy. And I’d like a committee that was just a little less enthralled with their superintendent, for his decisions in these matters have done neither them nor him much credit. He should never have put his committee in this position.
The events of the last year have demonstrated a failure of leadership at the top of the School Committee and in the superintendent’s office. It’s time for that leadership to find a graceful way out.
Bill Marinelli, of Stow Road, is a member of the Harvard Board of Selectmen.
