State alleges conflict of interest in $30K reimbursement
Harvard Schools Superintendent Thomas Jefferson and former School Committee member Paul Wormser told the state Ethics Commission at a hearing on Nov. 12 and 13 that they did nothing wrong when Wormser sought, and Jefferson provided, special education funds for Wormser’s daughter’s tuition for an out-of-district placement.
The complaint to the commission alleges that Wormser and Jefferson knowingly misused their positions in 2006 to obtain $30,000 in reimbursements while Wormser was a member of the School Committee. While not part of the complaint, the fact that the funds were used to help pay tuition at a school that was not approved for special education also surfaced during the hearing.
The state cites in its complaint nine points of law and 25 facts to support the allegation. In addition to alleging conflict of interest, it “alleges that Jefferson and Wormser further violated the conflict of interest law by knowingly, or with reason to know, acting in a manner that would cause a reasonable person, knowing all the facts, to conclude that they could unduly enjoy each other’s favor in the performance of their official duties.”
Among the parade of witnesses at the hearing were a former Harvard superintendent, the former and current directors of special education, four former School Committee members, and several representatives of various state offices and organizations. With testimony complete at the end of the second day, Commissioner Jeanne Kempthorne tabled closing arguments and stated that the case next would be deliberated in executive session. There is no date for a judgment.
Over the objections of attorney Michael J. Long, who represented Jefferson, Kempthorne ruled that nearly all of the hearing’s proceedings should be open to the public. She did, however, briefly clear the hearing room of spectators to hear testimony about confidential student records. She also ruled that a number of documents pertaining to those records be withheld from the public exhibits and that the Wormser’s daughter’s name be blacked out in all documents.
Attorney Mark Walter of the Ethics Commission’s Enforcement Division, acting in effect as the prosecutor, charged in his opening statement that the question of tuition reimbursement for Wormser’s daughter was mishandled from the parents’ first notification that their daughter was withdrawing from the school, to the final agreement on the amount to be paid. Long countered that Jefferson had not violated standard procedures because, he said, “there is no standard procedure.” The regulations on special education school placements and mediation of disputes, according to Long, are “nebulous. They are incomprehensible.” Jefferson’s actions, he argued, were well within normal procedural bounds.
Wormser, who acted as his own attorney, made a very personal opening statement in which he denied receiving any unfair or undue privilege. “There was no intent to hide or to deceive or to obfuscate,” he asserted, “only an attempt to protect the confidentiality” of his child. As he began to describe the issues related to his daughter, Wormser was briefly overcome with emotion. After a short silence, he resumed, noting that—after two years at Cushing Academy—his daughter had graduated from a public school in California and was now attending college.
The remainder of the first day was devoted to testimony from former Harvard Schools Superintendent Mirhan Keoseian and former Special Education Director Charles Horn.
From left: Superintendent of Schools Thomas Jefferson and school committee members Mark Hardy and Paul Wormser discuss the school budget at a tri-boards meeting in January 2007. (File photo)
Keoseian recalled that Wormser had repeatedly expressed frustration with his daughter’s progress under the established individual education plan (IEP). Keoseian stated that by late 2005, Wormser raised the issue of out-of-district placement. According to Keoseian, Wormser had said that he did not think he should have to absorb the cost of an out-of-district placement. On those occasions, Keoseian said, he had told Wormser that he had to take the question back to the IEP team. Wormser, during his own sworn testimony, did not recall ever discussing the issue of reimbursement with Keoseian. As superintendent, Keoseian testified, he was less involved personally with special education issues than he had been as principal of the Bromfield School. He became directly involved only with “high-impact cases,” which he defined as ones that might become very costly for the district or involved serious disciplinary issues. He also stated that he did not think a superintendent could overrule the decisions of an IEP team.
Keoseian was followed on the witness stand by Horn. He testified that parents who disagree with their child’s IEP have a range of options. They can accept mediation, file for a hearing with the Board of Special Education Appeals (BSEA), or hire an attorney to bring suit against the school. Parents may also withdraw a student from the school. Horn noted that he was aware of two cases in 2005, in both of which parents had withdrawn students, enrolled the students in private schools, and later applied for reimbursement. One is the case of Wormser’s daughter that led to the ethics hearing. In the other case, the parents had hired an attorney and appealed to the BSEA. That case was settled at a pre-mediation meeting, with Harvard required to pay tuition and legal fees.
Horn testified that Helen Wormser notified him by e-mail on June 2, 2005, that her daughter would not return to Harvard in the fall, but would attend Cushing Academy. According to Horn, Cushing is a private school that offered special education services but was not approved by the Department of Education for placement of special education students. It wasn’t until April 26, 2006, according to Horn, that he received an e-mail message indicating that the Wormsers intended to seek partial reimbursement for their daughter’s tuition and supplemental services at Cushing. Asked if he had supported the request, Horn said he had not. “I was opposed to it because the team had developed an IEP, and if we had recommended an out-of-district placement, it would have been to an approved school,” he said.
By late May 2006, documents show that Thomas Nuttall, an attorney who regularly represents the Harvard schools, was asked to draft a letter offering partial reimbursement to the parents. Horn testified that he had voiced concern to Jefferson “that we were going to reimburse a member of the School Committee and that it would be hard to explain” especially because special education “is under the microscope” in Harvard. Although a draft of the letter was signed by Jefferson, Horn signed the official letter. Asked why he did so, Horn stated, “My direct superior told me to sign it. In retrospect, I might have had a different response. I felt it was a ‘done deal.’” Thereafter, Horn said, he had signed later versions of the agreement “because we were operating outside of procedures already.” After several rounds of communication, the agreement proposed to reimburse the Wormsers $15,000 per year for ninth grade through eleventh grade, with an option for twelfth grade. (As it turned out, the Wormers were only reimbursed for two years because their daughter later attended public school.) In exchange, the school received a release from all future claims.
The second day of the hearing opened with testimony from Terry Williams Valentine, an education specialist from the legal office of the associate general counsel. Asked why her expertise was relevant, Long explained that all parties acknowledged the action of reimbursement; the question was about their motives and understanding of their obligation to protect student privacy. The charges against Jefferson and Wormser, Long said, suggest that they should have disclosed more information to avoid the charge of conflict of interest. Commissioner Kempthorne accepted this interpretation. Valentine stated that no information on a student can be released without parental consent, except under subpoena or to other educators who are working with the student. The rules do not allow for providing confidential information to a public official such as a town clerk, she stated. Richard Connolly, director of the BSEA, noted that no law prohibits the superintendent from negotiating a settlement or being involved in student placements. Nor do the rules bar parties from coming to an agreement outside the BSEA mediation process. Connolly also emphasized the importance of preserving student confidentiality.
Jefferson took the stand and explained that he had met regularly with Wormser during the 2005-06 school year while Wormser was chairman of the School Committee. After discussing school business, Jefferson said, Wormser sometimes said he wanted to talk as a parent rather than as a School Committee member. In the fall of 2005, Jefferson recalled, Wormser had brought up the issue of his daughter’s placement, as well as the idea of asking Harvard to share some of the costs. Jefferson said he had advised Wormser to contact Glen Koocher of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees for advice, which Koocher later testified Wormser had done. However, Koocher did not recall the substance of the conversation.
Jefferson again described the process by which the agreement for reimbursement had been reached. He noted that he had asked Horn to sign letters to the Wormsers because it was appropriate for the director of special education to do so. He stated he had not been concerned with any appearance of impropriety in signing it himself, contrary to testimony by Horn.
When asked about his contract and performance reviews, Jefferson explained that he was evaluated by the School Committee each year, with the chairman of the committee compiling comments submitted by all members. Wormser was a committee member, but no longer the chairman, when Jefferson received his evaluations.
The hearing concluded with testimony from former School Committee members Sharon McCarthy, Jeffrey Shaw, Will Verbits, and Willie Wickman. All had served on the committee with Wormser, and all testified that they had perceived no impropriety in his actions, nor had he ever tried to influence their votes for or against any person in the school district.
Because Wormser was acting as his own counsel, he took the stand and presented his story in his own words, rather than in response to questions. He noted that he understood from his conversation with Koocher that “being on the School Committee did not cause me to relinquish any rights as a parent.” (Previously, Koocher had confirmed this as standard advice to committee members.) Wormser’s account of the negotiations was basically similar to Jefferson’s and Horn’s. He concluded, “My request was made in good faith … The settlement was warranted. I did not receive any undue privilege.”
Given that the time allotted for the hearing had been filled, Kempthorne asked all parties if they were willing to reserve their closing arguments until a later time and let her begin deliberations, rather than delay the process until an extension for the hearing could be scheduled. Both Long, Jefferson’s attorney, and Walter, for the enforcement division, agreed. Because Wormser would have to return from California if there was another meeting, he gave a short closing argument.
Within 30 days, the full Ethics Commission—with exception of commission chairman Charles B. Swartwood III, who has recused himself—will take up the case in executive session. The commission has no time limit on its deliberations.
Note: This is an updated version of an article titled “Ethics Commission hears testimony on special ed tuition payments” which was posted as Breaking News on Saturday, Nov. 14.
