Complainant Alleges E-Mail Shows School Committee Violated Open Meeting Law

Maryan Hollis, who filed an Open Meeting Law complaint against the Melrose School Committee, alleges that an e-mail sent by committee Chairwoman Margaret Driscoll prior to the committee's Oct. 12 meeting shows a violation of the law by not including on the meeting agenda a vote on Patricia White-Lambright's appointment as Assistant Superintendent of Pupil Personnel Services.

Hollis originally filed two complaints on Nov. 2 with the School Committee alleging that when the committee changed White-Lambright's title from "Administrator of Pupil Personnel Services" to her new title it violated the law in two ways: First, by not deliberating over the change in public session, and second, by not posting notice to the public that the title change would be brought forth in public session within the Open Meeting Law's required time frame.

The law states that in part that "except in an emergency ... a public body shall post notice of every meeting at least 48 hours prior to such meeting ... and a listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting."

The Attorney General's Office, which now handles all Open Meeting Law complaints, is now investigating the complaint, . This week, Attorney General’s Office Spokesman Harry Pierre said that the state has received the e-mail Hollis pointed to this week, along with other materials submitted by the School Committee at the Attorney General's Office's request; that the complaint is still under review; and that there is no timetable for when a decision could be expected.

"The statue says a reasonable amount of time," Pierre said. "I couldn’t tell you if it would be in the next week or the next month. They're still reviewing the complaint and additional materials."

E-mail shows prepared remarks in advance of meeting

Hollis provided Melrose Patch with a copy of an e-mail (PDF attached) dated Friday, Oct. 8—four days before the Oct. 12 meeting—from Driscoll to Superintendent Joe Casey and committee member and Vice Chairwoman Kristin Thorp containing a “'script' for Tuesday’s Executive Session based on recommendations from Mary Jo (Hollender, Melrose school district counsel),” Driscoll wrote. Driscoll asked Casey and Thorp for any recommendations for changes to the script.

The e-mail outlines Driscoll’s planned remarks during executive session and public session, based on Hollender’s recommendation that the motion on the table to change Patricia White-Lambright’s title be withdrawn. Driscoll planned ahead to ask Thorp to withdraw her original motion, which was on the table, and committee member Don Constantine to withdraw his second of that motion.

Following that, Driscoll planned to entertain a motion to offer White-Lambright a new contract for three years, “with no change in salary or duties for the 2010-2011 school year.' Second? <Say who made the motions> Discussion? All in favor? Opposed? The motion carries ... <say the tally and members>."

Contingent upon that passing, Driscoll’s prepared remarks have her asking White-Lambright, “Would you consider accepting our offer? (Hopefully yes!) Ms. White-Lambright has accepted our offer and as such, we will take a public vote.”

Following a return to open session and contingent upon White-Lambright accepting the contract offer, the planned remarks have Driscoll saying, “We need to add an agenda item to the Announcements of the Superintendent entitled ‘Vote for appointment of nonunion Central Office Administrative personnel.’ Do I have a motion? Second? <Say who made motions> Discussion? All in favor? Opposed? The motion carries … <say the tally and members>.”

The agenda for the Oct. 12 meeting listed an executive session "to conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations and, if appropriate, to conduct contract negotiations with nonunion central office administrative personnel." It did not include an item during the public portion of the meeting regarding a vote on White-Lambright's appointment, which is why the committee had to vote during the meeting to add that item to the agenda.

Hollis says e-mail showed reasonable anticipation, superintendent's original response says chairwoman could not know if contract would be accepted

Hollis alleged this week that the e-mail shows that Driscoll could have reasonably anticipated a public vote on White-Lambright's appointment and because that was not included on the original agenda, the committee violated the Open Meeting Law.

"I knew—anyone with half a brain knew—nothing could happen (regarding deliberation) within six minutes of executive session," she said. "It probably took six minutes to read the script."

In his original response dated Nov. 10 to the Attorney General's Office, Superintendent Joe Casey wrote that Driscoll could not "reasonably have anticipated" whether the topic would come up for discussion because she could not know whether the committee would agree to the terms of the White-Lambright's contract offer or whether White-Lambright would accept the contract offer, both of which occurred in executive session.

"If the School Committee had been unable to reach consensus on the terms of an offer or Ms. White-Lambright had rejected the School Committee's offer, there would have been no need for the School Committee to consider her appointment at that meeting," he wrote.

Hollis contended, "These e-mails are written between 10 and 4 days before that totally script the business that’s going to happen in executive session. So it blows their argument out of their water."

Asked about Hollis' stance this week, Driscoll told Melrose Patch, "I can’t comment on communications regarding an ongoing complaint, except to say that we don’t believe we have violated the law and that we have responded to the complaint through the statutory procedure."

Asked specifically about her e-mail containing the prepared remarks, Driscoll said, "As a matter of course, I prepare notes for each and every School Committee meeting, both public and executive session, because they help me adhere carefully to appropriate procedure. If I have questions regarding legal aspects of the procedure, I may consult counsel for advice and collaborate with the committee’s vice chair (Thorp)."

Other e-mails show legal counsel input, committee member's concern about wording of reasons for executive session

In other e-mails provided by Hollis to Melrose Patch, committee member Carrie Kourkoumelis wrote to Driscoll and Mayor Rob Dolan, stating that she had spoken with Britta McBride of the Attorney General's Office regarding her concern that the committee's practice of listing an executive session on the agenda without specifying any particulars or adding "if needed" is not allowable under the Open Meeting Law.

"Since I was inquiring in order to help our committee be in compliance rather than filing a complaint, Ms. Bride also suggested that perhaps a further discussion between her office and our legal counsel could be helpful in case our counsel is unaware of these fine points," Kourkoumelis wrote. Driscoll forwarded that e-mail to Hollender, Casey, Thorp, Dolan and Melrose City Solicitor Rob Van Campen.

Hollender responded that she spoken with McBride, who suggested adding further details about the purpose of the executive session to meeting agendas, "in the spirit of providing the public with as much notice as possible about the purpose of the meeting. It was not my understanding, however, that, without those words, the meeting notice was legally flawed."

Hollender also addressed one of the points of Hollis' complaint against the School Committee: that the deliberation over White-Lambright's change in title should have been done in public session rather than executive session, alleging that the deliberation does not qualify for any of the exemptions for executive session detailed in the Open Meeting Law.

In her e-mail to Driscoll, Hollender wrote that, "Attorney McBride agreed that the vote should be taken in public session, but the negotiations over the terms of an employment contract could be conducted in executive session prior to the appointment vote."

The referenced e-mails are attached to this article as PDFs. For previous records regarding the complaint, .