one for the Open Meeting Law fans

 The Office of the Attorney General, Division of Open Government--aka, They Who Oversee The Open Meeting Law--filed their annual report with the OML Advisory Commission late late last week. State House News Service coverage is here. 
Of note: 

During 2025, 395 OML complaints were filed with the Division for review; 9 of those complaints were subsequently withdrawn by the complainant. Many more complaints were filed with public bodies in the Commonwealth but not filed with the Division for further review, likely because either the complainant was satisfied by the public body’s response and remedial action taken, or because the complainant understood from the public body’s response or from communications with our office that the issues raised did not fall within the scope of the OML. In total, the Division received notice of 703 complaints filed with public bodies in 2025.

And: 

The most frequent violations found were: 1) insufficiently specific meeting notice; 2) inaccurate or insufficiently detailed meeting minutes; 3) deliberation outside of a posted meeting; 4) convening in executive session for an improper purpose; and 5) meetings not accessible to the public. 

Only six were found to be intentional violations (good!), and yes, they are listed in the report by name.  

Attorney General's office finds the MA Board of Elementary and Secondary Education violated the Open Meeting Law at their January meeting

 In a finding issued yesterday, the Attorney General's office found that the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education violated the Open Meeting Law at their January meeting, when Chair Craven invited a panel of speakers to address them on antisemitism without any public notice. 

My notes from that portion are here; a comment from me is here.

Top six "wait, WHAT?" moments at Tuesday's Board of Ed

 The things that had me ranting on the way home, in chronological order:

1. Member Mary Ann Stewart AGAIN this month asking questions of a public commenter about an item not on the agenda, in this case on something on which a formal complaint has been filed against the Department, and persisting in doing so despite Chair Katherine Craven telling her not to.
   
   
2. Craven not ruling her out of order for doing so.
   
   
3. Our all learning together that MGL Ch. 15, sec. 1E does not specify "public secondary" schools for the Statewide Student Advisory Council, and so the voting student member of the Board of Ed next year is a student at a private school which is not subject to the Board's oversight.
   
   
4. Vice Chair Matt Hills asking if "from a policy perspective...not a moral perspective" if it didn't make more sense to concentrate the newcomer homeless students in districts that already serve such students, rather than districts that historically have not.
   h/t again to Chief Schools Officer Komal Bhasin for responding "with respect, our policies are influenced by our values" and to Acting Commissioner Russell Johnston for repeating and expanding on the sentiment when Hills persisted.
   
   
5. Member Marty West asking, yet again, if there isn't some way that the Board could direct districts in how they're spending their ESSER funding (yes, the funding that was directed by School Committee vote YEARS ago at this point).
   h/t to CFO Bill Bell patiently, again, explaining that the funding already had been directed and DESE had approved those plans.
   
   
6. Chair Craven responding that, if the Board couldn't do that, perhaps they could direct 3% of each district's Title I funding, as allowed under federal law?
   h/t to Acting Commissioner Johnston for observing that any such plan would have to be discussed with stakeholders, including superintendents who would now have only 97% of their expected Title I funding to direct.
   

Yesterday was haywire. Expect a coming post reviewing when everyone's terms are up!

The Board of Ed meets Tuesday, and that's the first of three state education meetings this week

 The Board of Elementary and Secondary Education meets Tuesday, February 27 at 9 am; you can find the agenda here. 

of cosponsorship and the Open Meeting Law

 Among the odd little items on this week's Worcester City Council agenda is this, coming back from the Law Department: 

Transmitting informational communication relative to a proposed Home Rule Petition to provide the city of Worcester an exception to the Open Meeting Law to authorize the city clerk to publish, prior to the start of a city council meeting, the names of city councilors who have signed onto items as co-sponsors

 It is accompanied by, no lie, the actual text of an actual home rule petition that the Council would file with the Legislature to grant the Worcester City Council an exception to the Open Meeting Law. 

It is hard to describe how silly this is.

The Open Meeting Law is a requirement, in brief, that public business be discussed in public session; that if a government body is going to make a decision about how things work or how money is spend, then the public has the right to hear about it.

This led, back in 2013, to a finding from the Attorney General, barring the City Council from posting an agenda in which the items already had a list of co-sponsors. The Council was reminded of this, in response to their inquiry, in February.

Let's be clear about something: the whole system of co-sponsorship is a weird Worcester thing. In many places, an elected official puts an item on the agenda, and the agenda is then worked through at the meeting as posted. Each item must then receive a second from a member, and the item, after discussion, is then either voted up or down by the body. Thus each member by virtue of the action of the body stands for or against each item.

In Worcester, someone submits an item to an agenda, and, historically, that list then goes out to all members, who let the clerk know if they wish to add their names as co-sponsors. 
If the agenda is posted prior to the meeting with that list of co-sponsors, however, an item can (and frequently does) have a quorum in support prior to any discussion, thus entirely circumventing the reason for having a meeting at all. 

The Worcester School Committee last week changed its rules: we now get the list of items, let the clerk know what we wish to co-sponsor, but the agenda comes out with only the initial sponsor. Co-sponsors are added to an agenda that is shared only as the meeting begins. 

Co-sponsorship being posted prior to the meeting adds literally nothing to public process. It serves only to get a little extra portion of credit from something accrued to an individual. 
And having it posted ahead certainly is a violation of the open meeting law. 

Worcester School Committee meets Thursday: BUDGET TIME!

The Worcester School Committee meets on Thursday this week: NOTE THAT THE BUDGET SECTION STARTS AT 4 PM!
And yes, there's a budget post coming next.

The executive session for a single grievance is scheduled for 6; the regular session is scheduled for 7.

Let me start by highlighting three things on here that I think are of general interest:

• the administration is recommending the hiring pro bono save expenses (which makes me a little nervous) Michael P. Angelini and others at Bowditch and Dewey for a lawsuit against the state on the Foundation budget.  

• the Chief Diversity Officer position was held from the prior meeting due, it seemed, to dissatisfaction with the job description, as I described here; note further that it also requires building administrator experience, which is not all that relevant. The position description posted for this week's meeting is the same. Further, the item is phrased "for informational purposes," which is something I would hope the School Committee rejects. It is a new position; it requires School Committee approval.

• Mayor Petty has the following item:  

Request that the Administration invite representatives from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Center for District Support to make a presentation on the district’s accountability and disciplinary data.

This is a natural reaction to the superintendent's ongoing claims about what "DESE says." Naturally, one wonders, what does DESE say? This would clear that up nicely.
Let's be clear: either Superintendent Binienda embraces this, as what she's been saying will be backed up, or she rejects it, leading...to the opposite conclusion.

I see this of a piece with the Mayor's item following this, in which he asks for all communication that the district has with DESE be sent also to the School Committee. While I hesitate to call anything impossible, do know that districts have ongoing daily communication with DESE, some of which is done automatically through data systems; this isn't about cc'ing the School Committee in on a few emails. Narrowing the scope of this to items of concern (which is too vague...let me think about that some more) such that the School Committee is getting things that are flagged would make this possible and perhaps even useful.
Of course, starting with the actual accountability data from the fall by itself would be a good start.

Okay, the rest of the agenda: along with the usual rounds of recognitions and thanks, there is no report of the Superintendent.

There are two subcommittees reporting out: Governance, which it appears was entirely about the procedure for homeschooling, and Finance and Operations, which included the annual audits and the third quarter report. Never take for granted a solid audit, which these are.

There are some resignations and appointments.

There is a report on the One City, One Library system which disappointingly opens by focusing on third grade reading scores as a goal, but has some good thinking on challenges and what might be good to work on.  

There is a response to a request for information on immunizations. 

The School Committee will get a presentation from Tobacco Free Massachusetts in the fall.

The overdue update on due process in the handbook is on the agenda.

Flagg Street parents want a pathway to the school from St. Paul Drive; one should note that there are many, many schools in the city that would benefit from such connections. 

There's the annual "we're going to need to close the fiscal year" item.

There is a request for reception of a summer learning grant ($43,620) for Worcester East Middle.
Mr. Monfredo wants to add broadcast journalism or video production (perhaps one could point to the media arts program at Burncoat?).
There is a request to consider the siting of a new Doherty (not suprising but also not entirely under school committee purview).
And City Solicitor David Moore has reviewed the Open Meeting Law complaint dealing with Mr. Monfredo's collecting of signatures for an advertisement supporting an extension of Superintendent Binienda's contract and does not believe the Committee to be in violation. 

A few notes on Worcester School Committee and the superintendent's contract

As we now have a posted meeting for Wednesday night--UPDATE: this has now been moved to Thursday at 7 pm--(posted on Friday, as we can now see, thanks to the Worcester Sunshine Group) with a single-item agenda, I thought a few notes might be in order.

• The meeting is posted as an executive (closed) session, as it is contract negotiation with the superintendent. In Worcester, executive sessions commonly are held in the Mayor's office, as this one is scheduled to. However, all executive sessions must open in public session. Thus even as the meeting is held in the Mayor's office, the beginning of the meeting--the call to order, the roll call, the vote to go into executive session--is a public, open session.
• At the announcement of the reason for the executive session, the chair must also announce if the committee will return to public session. The committee can recess (end the meeting) straight from executive session, however--
• Votes of contracts--including that of the superintendent--must be made in public session. Thus the contract negotiations can and will be updated in executive session, but no contract vote is effective until it has been made in public session.

While superintendent contracts are public documents, to my knowledge, no one has made a records request for Superintendent Binienda's current contract. Thus the options open to the Committee at this point (bewilderingly) haven't gotten covered. A few points on that:

• the superintendent's contract has a renewal clause: the Committee had to inform her by December if they did not intend to renew. As such, simply not renewing is not an option they have at this point.
• The Committee can--and by all public indications has to chosen to--negotiate to renew her contract on whatever terms both parties agree to. However--
• there is also a clause in the contract allowing the Committee to renew for a single year. If they opt to do so, she can refuse, which would end her employment as of June 30.
• And committees do sometimes buy superintendent contracts out. See, most recently, Salem.

OML complaint denied

Well, this is disappointing. Essentially, their determination is because the strategic planning committee wasn't appointed by the superintendent or the school committee, it isn't a public body.
That isn't how public bodies have been previously defined.
It's also a terrible precedent.

Thus, we'll find out what they've decided for our school system when they deign to tell us.

Oh, and also there's a session next Wednesday at 6:30 at Doherty where we're invited to "join the discussion."

Article on OML complaint on the strategic planning process

Scott O'Connell writes about the Open Meeting Law complaint around the strategic planning committee. The only comment I'll make is this:

People are generally free to attend the committee meetings as well if they ask to, Mr. McGourthy added. “We’ve never said no to anyone who wants to participate.”

...is a pointless offer if nobody knows when or where the meetings are!

I did speak to the AG's office before Thanksgiving, so they're working on this, still.

Update on the OML Worcester strategic plan complaint

My appeal to the Attorney General's office was mailed yesterday.

OH! And on Tuesday, the Worcester Public Schools twitter feed sent out this:

Join us for a Community Forum "Setting the Course: Creating a Strategic Plan for K-12 Education in our City" #WPSlearns pic.twitter.com/72jVHVQKWu

— Worcester Schools (@worcesterpublic) October 23, 2017

Note that Worcester East Middle is actually 420 Grafton, should you be heading there.
As it was the first notice, and I have a meeting tonight, I won't be there. But they suddenly appear to have decided that parents should come, as in the past half hour I have also received:

1. a computer-voice Connect-Ed urging attendance
2. a blank email: 

This...email is blank... pic.twitter.com/9IFbg2xd3i

— Tracy Novick (@TracyNovick) October 26, 2017

Too late to make it up to us on transparency... If you go, take notes!

TWO UPDATES:
Scott O'Connell went to the forum.
And Bill Shaner wrote a bit about the lack of public notice and input.

Update on the Strategic Planning Committee OML Complaint

I'm beginning to think I should have labelled these as episodes.
When I last posted, I was waiting to see if I would get a response to my complaint by close of the allotted 14 day window, Tuesday, October 3.
Note, incidentally, that complaints are filed first with the body against whom the complaint is being made; it's right there in the first line of the FAQ on the Attorney General's page:

Individuals who allege a violation of the Open Meeting Law must first file a complaint with the public body alleged to have violated the OML.

emphasis is NOT added
Tuesday came and went.
I did not.
Wednesday and Thursday also came and went.
I did not.

Today, I received the following in the mail:

After Bowditch and Dewey letterhead and address, it says: 

Dear Ms. Novick: I'm enclosing a copy of our response to the Open Meeting Law Complaint Form which you prepared and which is dated September 19, 2017. Apparently, you have not yet filed this Complaint with the Attorney General's office.
As you will note, the so-called "Worcester Public Schools Strategic Planning Committee" is not subject to the Open Meeting Law.
Very truly yours,
Michael P. Angelini

Thus, before we get to the enclosure, we have at least two issues: the time is overdue, and the responding attorney does not know the process of how open meeting law complaints are handled in Massachusetts (it goes to the body before the AG). 

Here is the page and a half enclosure; I'll type up the text below. 

Re: Complaint of Tracy Novick regarding alleged violation of Open Meeting Law
Dear Attorney General Healey:
We represent the Worcester Educational Collaborative ("WEC") and the Worcester Regional Research Bureau ("WRRB"), which are the organizers of the so-called "Worcester Public Schools Strategic Planning Committee," the subject of an Open Meeting Law Complaint filed by Tracy Novick.
WEC is an operating division of the United Way of Central Massachusetts, an independent and qualified 501(c)(3) organization. Its mission is "to engage the community in fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that excellence is education is available to all public school students and that they are prepared for success in college, career and life." WRRB is a 501(c)(3) organization which "conducts independent, non-partisan research and analysis of public policy issues to promote good governance and informed public debate and decision making."
Neither WEC nor WRRB are controlled, managed or affiliated with any political or governmental body.
WEC and WRRB have organized a strategic planning exercise, which includes various members of the Worcester community, to review public education in Worcester and to formulate a plan for excellence. This "Strategic Planning Committee is not a public body, is not advisory to a public body and has no power to implement any plan or action. It is not subject to the Open Meeting Law. It receives no financial support from the City of Worcester or any other governmental organization. The Committee's work has been funded by contributions from local individuals and organizations and by a grant from the Barr Foundation. It operates with complete independence.
The Committee's findings and recommendations will ultimately be presented to the Worcester community, including the Worcester School Committee, the Worcester City Counsel [sic], the Superintendent of Schools and the City Manager. These findings and recommendations will be advisory only.
Please contact me with any questions regarding the Complaint or this response.

(signature and so forth)

Public bodies are what are required to abide by the Open Meeting Law. Here--in full--is how Mass General Law Chapter 30A, Section 18 (the actual Open Meeting Law) defines a "public body" (emphasis mine):

''Public body'', a multiple-member board, commission, committee or subcommittee within the executive or legislative branch or within any county, district, city, region or town, however created, elected, appointed or otherwise constituted, established to serve a public purpose; provided, however, that the governing board of a local housing, redevelopment or other similar authority shall be deemed a local public body; provided, further, that the governing board or body of any other authority established by the general court to serve a public purpose in the commonwealth or any part thereof shall be deemed a state public body; provided, further, that ''public body'' shall not include the general court or the committees or recess commissions thereof, bodies of the judicial branch or bodies appointed by a constitutional officer solely for the purpose of advising a constitutional officer and shall not include the board of bank incorporation or the policyholders protective board; and provided further, that a subcommittee shall include any multiple-member body created to advise or make recommendations to a public body.

Both the Worcester City Council and the Worcester School Committee are public bodies.
And here's, again the last line of the final full paragraph:
These findings and recommendations will be advisory only.
A body created to advise a public body on something under its purview is itself a public body, subject to the Open Meeting Law.

It will take me a few days to write up the history here, but I'll be appealing to the Attorney General. 

OML complaint on the Worcester Strategic Planning Committee

You might remember that I pointed out in August that the Worcester Strategic Planning Committee had an Open Meeting Law problem, a concern that subsequently was picked up by Worcester Magazine.
And then nothing else happened.
But every person in Massachusetts has the right to call such committees to account on such things, so I filed an Open Meeting Law complaint with the committee. I said the following:

Last June, the Worcester Public Schools announced that they would be forming a strategic planning committee. The strategic plan was subsequently announced as forthcoming in the district budget and is referenced in the district Compact. Any such committee, as it is advisory itself to a public body (the School Committee) is itself subject to the Open Meeting Law. Save a single public input session in July, there has been no public notification of any action. Nonetheless, it is my understanding that the committee has repeatedly been meeting both as a full committee and as subcommittees. There has been no public posting of any session; there have been no minutes shared; even the make up of the committee has never been announced. Given the publicity with which the strategic plan was announced, the references made to it in district documentation, the public purpose it clearly serves, it certainly appears an intentional violation.

The filer is then asked what action the committee should take to rectify the situation; I said the following:

1. The committee should immediately comply with the OML for all future sessions in terms of posting, of keeping minutes, of ensuring public access. 

2. The committee should release all agenda, minutes that fully comply with OML requirements, reports, backups, and presentations of both full committee and subcommittee meetings. 

3. The committee should release all communication among and between any quorum of a full or subcommittee that would be considered deliberation under the OML.

I sent the complaint to both co-chairs via certified mail. Both received them before noon on September 20. Under the Open Meeting Law, the committee then has fourteen (business) days to respond.
That expires tomorrow, October 3.
I have heard nothing.
The next step, should nothing occur, is to escalate the complaint to the Attorney General.

Worcester, we have an open meeting law problem

No, it's not with the City Council's weekly items "under suspension" that aren't time sensitive and should be put on an agenda, 'though that is absolutely a problem.

It's with this strategic plan that was announced with little information at the end of last school year. Other than the single public input session in July, there has been not a peep, not a posting, about it. The scuttlebutt is, however, that they've been meeting.

And that's not only procedurally a problem: it's legally a problem.

The Open Meeting Law requires posted public meetings not only of public bodies (like the school committee) but also of committees appointed to advise those public bodies. Thus the strategic planning committee should be meeting in public, posted sessions, and, as evidenced by the clerk's postings, they are not.

"But there's an exception!" someone will object: a individual officer may have an advisory committee that does not meet in public session, so long as the body is advising on something under that officer's purview; the AG's FAQ gives as an example a superintendent's advisory committee on the appointment of a principal. Appointing a principal falls entirely under the purview of the superintendent; a committee can meet privately to advise a superintendent on that.

The strategic plan is quite explicitly not under the purview of the superintendent, however. School committees in Massachusetts:

... shall establish educational goals and policies for the schools in the district

That setting of direction is what the strategic plan does.
This is an advisory committee to the school committee. They have no business meeting privately.

August Board of Ed: Commissioner Search

There's no backup on this one.
Sagan: "maybe the most important work the Board does"
Chief state officer turnover "at crisis level"
"covered almost half of the reform effort in the state"
"so much of that work is left to be done"
"challenge to find somebody equally great"
"really energized by this task before us"
entire process is subject to Open Meeting Law
final candidates will be interviewed in public
has heard that there are two main problems to confront: ability to apply anonymously, which they will provide for; question of current acting
Wulfson has no intent to apply, so clears second

Getting some third part help from a search firm
"that's pretty much an administration function, so I'll handle that with staff"
discussions on what Board sees as position qualification
sharing former description with Board

Subcommittee of Board to cull down to finalists; keeping confidentially in preliminary round
Commissioner recommendation requires 8 of 11 votes
Sagan hopes will be unanimously choice
candidate recommended to Secretary, who makes actual appointment
hopes that if Peyser votes yes to recommendation will also approve candidate
"getting decision made by end of (school) year seems reasonable"

McKenna: think choice of search firm is quite important
candidate you choose is not someone who presented themselves but someone the search firm sought out
concerned about firms that only go to Roledex; ability to go beyond that; bringing forth diverse candidates
"there are a lot of firms that cannot answer in the affirmative"
"there are firms that do superintendent searches where you're only going to get someone who was a superintendent"
Sagan: "we don't know where this person will come from; I'm very open to in state, out of state; I just want a good person."
Morton: "would go back to something Russell said earlier: 'quality versus speed.'"
Sagan: have a competent person in the role, hope we're making another ten year selection
Trimarchi: how input from community at large will be gathered?
Sagan: can have informal advisors, could put into advisory board, ten years ago there was a 25 person advisory board
think if there are areas where we want ongoing input
possible public comment in the fall
"small advisory board"
are some examples, and can pick and choose from recent history

From here and September, posting of RFP with hiring of search firm
hope is to have person in place for start of new (2018) year

Social Media for Board Members: presentation by the Maryland Association of Boards of Education at NSBA

Maryland Association of Boards of Education is here on Twitter, BTW.

Coming up as part of the presentation

• brief what it is "not a lot of slides now"
• your activity on social media
• other board members
• your school system on social media

statistics on social media are larger every year

a lot of which one matters to you depends on who your audience is : choose your venue by audience

"is there a problem with board members on social media? I think there is"
"how to tell your story on social media and not become your story on social media"

School committee superintendent search meeting today (?)

There's a meeting posted for the superintendent search for 5:30 today, but there's no agenda posted that I can find...

UPDATE: It was cancelled.

Search Committee for the Selection of the Next Superintendent of Schools meeting tonight has been postponed

— Worcester Schools (@worcesterpublic) February 22, 2016

Regarding superintendent searches

I've been watching these across the state, and, as Worcester takes this up tonight*, thought it timely.

Fall River:

Of how the process should unfold, Costa said, “I think it needs to be transparent, inclusive, done very carefully. This is a very huge endeavor, and it’s certainly critical to the very success of this school district.”

Fellow committee member Martins agreed. “I move that this be a highly transparent and open issue,” he said, adding that he felt the potential search committee should consist of representatives from the Fall River Educators Assocation, the Fall River Administrators Association, students, parents, community members, and School Committee members.

“This would certainly give sufficient openness to the process,” Martins said, adding that time is of the essence.

“If we don’t move along we’ll find that June will be here before we know it, and we have a long way to go,” he said.

Mayor Jasiel Correia II, who serves as chair of the School Committee, appeared to agree with Martins’ suggestion for subcommittee members, saying he thinks it’s important “to begin the process with a community based, multi-faceted group of people that can help the school committee through this process.”

North Adams:

"This is the most important hire we are ever going to do," said Alcombright. "This is the most important job in the city of North Adams, this is the investment ... We need to do everything we can to get the best qualified candidate."

Barnstable:

 The appointment of a superintendent is one of the most important responsibilities of any school committee. Here in Barnstable, we had the benefit of the work of a stellar search committee as well as input from the entire community...The search process itself provided an opportunity to step back and assess where the district is, where we would like it to go, and what we should look for in a leader. We sought and heard the community’s voice in this process. The superintendent search committee included community members, parents, teachers, administrators, town councilors and school committee members. 

*I should perhaps note here that while MASC, for which I now work, does superintendent searches, they did not bid on Worcester's.

Why you should go vote tomorrow (education edition)

Hey, Massachusetts! We have an election tomorrow!
Tomorrow is the Massachusetts state primary. If you are a REPUBLICAN, you can go vote for Republican candidate for governor (and candidates standing for nomination uncontested). If you are a DEMOCRAT, you can go vote for a Democratic candidate for Governor, for Lieutenant Governor, for Attorney General, for Treasurer, and (depending on your district) possibly a Senator and a Representative. If you are UNENROLLED, you can pick which primary to vote in (and it doesn't change your political registration).
For those in Worcester, you can find the list of who is running here. And you can find where you vote here.
I am a huge fan of voting and urge you to do it whenever you are given a chance; in my own case, that's because women have only been voting in the U.S. for the lifetime of my grandfather (he turned 95 in March, and he would tell you to vote, too!). BUT here are why many of the above offices matter specifically in terms of education:

For Governor: the Governor appoints the members of the Board of Ed. They, in term, set policy for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (deciding things like what tests we give and what standards we follow), plus they appoint the Commissioner of Education, who manages education in the state. I think for many years, many of us just sort of ignored the Board, as there wasn't much that happened there that had much of an impact. If nothing else, Race to the Top changed that. These decisions matter, big time, to what's happening in classrooms across the state.

Likewise on Lieutenant Governor.

For Attorney General: among the responsibilities of the AG is enforsement of the Open Meeting Law. If you want decisions made in public--and you want public officials held responsible when they aren't--pay attention to this position.

For Treasurer: in addition to overseeing the finances of the Commonwealth, the Treasurer serves as chair of the Board of the Massachusetts School Building Authority. Those new windows, boilers, roofs? A new Nelson Place? New high schools? That all comes from MSBA. We've been well-served lately, Worcester: who is in this position has something to do with what happens next.
And here's the only endorsement, or rather lack thereof, that I'm going to make: please note that Barry Feingold, running for this position, was the originator of the Senate version of the charter cap lift bill. He attempted to amend the bill that came from the House to not have the state pay for current charter schools before creating new ones. This is not a fiscally responsible position. Choose otherwise.

For Senator and Representative: That charter cap bill above? It was stopped in the Senate, and instrumental in that were Worcester's two senators, Chandler and Moore. The only 'no' vote in the House from Worcester was from Represenative Keefe. Our chapter 70 aid, circuit breaker reimbursement for special education, kindergarten grants, and, frankly, funding for just about every other corner of education in Worcester (and, to varying degrees, across the state)? It comes through the Legislature. Laws on everything from the school safety plans we have in place to the number of charter schools we have to how we decide who graduates? Again, that all comes through the Legislature. We need good people in these seats who are well-informed on education policy (or are willing to learn!).

Polls open at 7 am tomorrow and they stay open until 8 pm (or until the last person in line at 8 votes). GO VOTE!

Central Mass Special Ed Collaborative report

Note that Vice Chair Monfredo is chairing
We've got the quarterly report as well as a renewal of contract with the Collaborative.
Novick: note that the collaborative is seeing increased numbers of children with autism and trauma history (as are WPS generally)
O'Connell: FY14 operativing budget projecting a use of surplus of slightly over $1 million. Allen notes that it is being used to freeze our tuition; "it's a benefit to the sending districts"
Biancheria: PBIS, positive effect on their behavior, children talking about it, would like to receive more information about how that is working for them.

On contract: Boone: have been collaborative agreements in the past, first agreement established 1975
one of the agreements of the new collaborative law
state department provides "what they call technical assistance, what we call 'okay, we have to do this'"
Webster looking at this next week
contract here for School Committee approval
O'Connell notes that most collaboratives have many members, unlike ours, which has just Worcester and Webster. Most of the action comes from Worcester. Should we have a weighted board, "this is bascially a Worcester organization with a touch of Webster"
Boone: understanding that the law provides for a one-for-one representation
"we've never found an issue where either Worcester or Webster felt under or overrepresented"
apply overall fiscal and leadership hats over the program
O'Connell: tuition rate is a factor; "annual per pupil rate less 15%" for districts with fewer than ten students; are we giving Webster a discount?
Boone: Webster has more than ten students; tuition rates are driven by services needed by students
non-member districts "buy seats" for students that are in need of services
O'Connell: why do we have the 15% discount then?
Boone: it's in the law; different calculation for districts that fall below ten students; much of the concern about fiscal concerns and organizational concerns
O'Connell: support adoption, but contact state around weighted composition; would like notice of the board meetings
Boone: meet open meeting law requirements, meetings posted, agenda posted

Mary Baker, Executive Director of collaborative
getting contract through state, "arduous at best"
"spirit of chapter 43 is that every member would have an equal say"

Novick: could we see the fee structure?
Sure
Ramirez: similarly, why is the fee structure not laid out in the contract?
Boone: fees are set as part of their budget
Treasurer has to certify that we have set a fee structure and that it has been provided in the budget

contract approved

legal opinion

O'Connell: substantial discussions
concern in areas around the open meeting law in various areas
"at least get a legal opinion"
"worth at least an inquiry...series of one to one meetings"
imprimatur of meetings
"full meeting of the public to ask questions"
Boone: "I have already sought that legal opinion from the city solitctor"
having briefings with school committee members individual is appropriate
citing the open meeting law:
"There are three separate public conversations already scheduled for this session"
City Council : May 27, 4 pm
School Committee: June 5 and June 19, 4 pm
"the document has been presented...to highlight what aspects are there...the document is the document"
item filed, with a request that legal opinion be forwarded
Petty: "I know we're not in violation of that part!"