Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
School committee debate over subcommittee attendance, open-meeting law and 'gotcha' accusation delays policy action
Summary
Committee members sharply debated a housekeeping motion to refer policy BDE to the policy subcommittee after a subcommittee vice chair raised an Open Meeting Law concern at a prior meeting. Members disagreed about whether attendance and participation by non-subcommittee school committee members at subcommittee meetings should be limited.
A motion to refer policy BDE to the policy subcommittee sparked an extended debate on March 18 about whether school committee members who are not on a subcommittee should be allowed to attend and participate in subcommittee meetings.
At issue was a change proposed after a facilities and operations subcommittee meeting. Committee member Mimi Larabee presented the referral of policy BDE for further vetting. During discussion several committee members said the prior subcommittee had raised an Open Meeting Law concern; others said the division of open government had issued a determination that the issue was resolved and that restricting members’ attendance would be inappropriate.
Motions and objections - A motion to refer policy BDE was made; a committee member then raised a formal objection to immediate consideration under the committee’s rules (citing Robert’s Rules procedures), and the objection was carried to the next meeting. The transcript records repeated statements that the Open Meeting Law had been discussed with legal counsel and that several attorneys (named by members as Attorney Assad and Attorney Macy) said participation by non-subcommittee members was permissible.
Positions expressed in the meeting - Mister Dias said he had obtained a determination by the Division of Open Government that settled the Open Meeting Law concern and argued the item was an emergency that should be addressed promptly; he said he would vote no on any motion that limited members’ ability to attend and ask questions at subcommittees. - Mister Agui and other members said they believed it was legal for members to attend and participate and that doing so could improve the quality of subcommittee deliberations. - Mister Corey and other members argued for more focused subcommittee meetings and expressed concern that broad participation could lead to unwieldy meetings; he said subcommittee discussion should be concentrated and that questions could still be asked at the full committee when items were referred.
Outcome - The objection under committee rules prevented the immediate final action on the referral; the matter was carried to the next meeting for further review. Several members asked that counsel or a written opinion be circulated before the next meeting.
Why this matters - The debate turned on the practical balance between encouraging member engagement at the subcommittee level and avoiding quorum or procedural concerns under the Open Meeting Law. The committee asked for clear counsel and for the policy subcommittee to vet the matter further before a full vote.
