State: School Committee's Insufficient Agenda Detail Violated Open Meeting Law, Contract Negotations Did Not

Editor's note: This article was updated on Friday, May 6 at 3:50 p.m. with comments from Superintendent Joe Casey and School Committee Chairwoman Margaret Driscoll.

The Melrose School Committee violated the state's Open Meeting Law by not providing sufficient detail on its Oct. 12, 2010 meeting agenda about why it would enter executive session, but did not violate the law by negotiating a contract with special education head Patricia White-Lambright to change her title, the state ruled this week.

In response to the violation, the Attorney General's Office ordered the committee to comply with the Open Meeting Law and release its executive session minutes from Sept. 20, 2010 and Oct. 12, 2010, if it hasn't already done so.

However, the state declined to take the remedial action requested by the Maryan Hollis, who . Hollis requested that all actions, votes and contract pertaining to the assistant superintendent position should be nullified, and that the position should then be revisited in "full accordance with all laws."

Hollis' complaint focused on how the committee ultimately offered White-Lambright a three-year contract that changed her title from "Administrator of Pupil Personnel Services" to "Assistant Superintendent of Pupil Personnel Services."

At the start of the Melrose School Committee meeting on Oct. 12, 2010, the committee held an executive session "to conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations and, if appropriate, to conduct contract negotiations with non-union central office administrative personnel," the agenda read.

After the executive session ended and the regular meeting began, the committee voted to add to its agenda that evening a vote to offer White-Lambright the new contract negotiated in executive session, which contained no change in her salaries or duties for the 2010-2011 school year. The vote carried unanimously in favor, with two committee members absent from the meeting.

Original notice of executive session should have included White-Lambright's name

In her original complaint, Hollis contended that by adding the vote on the new contract during the meeting, the committee violated the law by failing to post 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."

In a letter (PDF attached) dated May 4 from Jonathan Sclarsic, assistant Attorney General in the Division of Open Government, to committee Chairwoman Margaret Driscoll, the state said that the committee violated the law—not because it added the public session vote during the meeting, as Hollis asserted, but because the original notice of executive session wasn't detailed enough.

"Although not specifically raised in the complaint, we find that the Committee's October 12, 2010 meeting notice was not sufficiently specific to advise the public of the issues the Committee planned to discuss in executive session," the letter reads. "The meeting notice should have specifically stated that the Committee would be meeting in executive session to conduct a strategy session in preparation for negotiations with Patricia White-Lambright (letter's emphasis), and if appropriate to conduct contract negotiations with Patricia White-Lambright."

Including White-Lambright's name in the notice of executive session would not have been detrimental to the committee's negotiation position, the state said, while adequately informing any interested members of the public. Because the committee didn't provide enough detail in the notice, the committee should've held off on bringing White-Lambright's new contract to the floor that evening. Instead, the committee should have waited to vote on the contract in an open session where the topic could be listed appropriately in a meeting notice 48 hours ahead of the meeting.

"The Committee violated the Open Meeting Law by failing to provide sufficient detail about the purpose for its executive session, both in its meeting notice and when it convened in executive session during the October 12, 2010 meeting," the letter's conclusion states.

showed that committee member Carrie Kourkoumelis had a similar concern about the specificity of the committee's executive session notices. Mary Jo Hollender, Melrose school district counsel, responded to those concerns in an email about adding more 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," Hollender wrote. "It was not my understanding, however, that, without those words, the meeting notice was legally flawed."

Reasonable anticipation?

In the committee's original explanation of why it had to add the public vote session during the meeting, Superintendent Joe Casey wrote that Chairwoman Driscoll could not "reasonably have anticipated" whether the topic would come up for discussion, because she could not know whether White-Lambright would agree to the contract offer deliberated in executive session.

Hollis alleged in March than an email sent by Driscoll prior to the committee's Oct. 12 meeting the contract coming up for a vote.

The state sided with Casey, saying that the Open Meeting Law "does not require the chair of a public body to anticipated whether a contract negotation will come to fruition during an executive session. If a public body properly notices the executive session, then the public is on notice that there may be a contract ratification or approval following the executive session."

Hollis also contended in her complaint that the deliberation over White-Lambright's change in title from "Administrator of Pupil Personnel Services" to "Assistant Superintendent of Pupil Personnel Services" 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.

The state said that according to Driscoll, as part of the contract negotations with White-Lambright the committee discussed "changing her title and responsibilities to entice Ms. White-Lambright to accept a new contract.

"We find that these types of discussions are an appropriate component of executive session deliberations for the purpose of 'conducting contract negotations with nonunion personnel,'" the state's letter reads.

Casey reiterated on Friday that White-Lambright's contract changed her title, but does not change any of her duties or responsibilities.

The state's letter reads, "We find that the Committee did enter executive session for a lawful purpose. The Committee further acted appropriately by ratifying a contract offer, which was the subject of the executive session, immediately upon returning to open session."

Hollis emailed Melrose Patch the following statement on the state's ruling:

"Last November, having tried to engage the committee in conversation on the OML violations, I finally realized that the leadership would not listen to reason since they do not believe in the basic tenets so I filed a complaint hoping that they would at least try to abide by the letter of the law. To my dismay, they chose to expend tax-payer dollars defending their illegal actions rather than rectifying the situation.  If you want to ask questions I think the first is 'how many tax-payer dollars were spent defending their illegal actions?' and the second is 'what is the quality of the legal counsel this district employs, that they were not advised to apologize and comply?'"

In a prepared statement, Driscoll said that the ruling "affirms the School Committee's position with respect to both of Hollis' complaints," saying that Attorney General's Office rejected the basis of Hollis' complaints, but in the course of the review found another violation due to the lack of detail in the executive session notice. Driscoll's statement is as follows:

"The Attorney General has issued her ruling with respect to two Open Meeting Law complaints filed by Maryan Hollis against the Melrose School Committee. The Attorney General has denied both complaints. More specifically, it has been determined that the School Committee entered executive session for a lawful purpose and acted appropriately by ratifying a contract offer to Patricia White-Lambright, which was the subject of the executive session immediately upon returning to open session on Oct. 12, 2010. The Attorney General did, however, find that the posting of the executive session was not sufficiently detailed to satisfy the requirements of the Open Meeting Law and has directed the School Committee to provide greater specificity in its meeting notices and motions to convene executive session immediately and in the future. The ruling affirms the School Committee’s position with respect to both of Ms. Hollis’ complaints."