Fall River School Committee votes to enter executive session to discuss ransomware; censure motion against mayor fails

The Fall River School Committee on April 17 voted to enter executive session to discuss alleged criminal misconduct tied to a cybersecurity (ransomware) incident after a contentious public exchange over whether the mayor improperly disclosed details to the media. A separate motion to formally censure Mayor Paul Coogan for disclosing what a member called "classified information" failed on a 3-4 vote.

The vote to go into executive session was taken during a special meeting called by the chair and described on the agenda as "to investigate charges of criminal misconduct or to consider the filing of criminal complaints" related to a cyberattack. Committee members expressed sharply different views about what — if anything — the public should be told and whether the meeting should proceed without the committee's attorney present.

Mister Dias, a school committee member, said he would not vote to go into executive session and accused the mayor of leaking information about the incident. "I will not be voting to go into executive session tonight," Dias said, and argued the agenda description was too vague and that the committee risked violating the open meeting law. Dias also moved that the committee formally censure Mayor Coogan for allegedly disclosing sensitive information, saying the alleged disclosure had placed "the sensitive information of students, staff, and others in jeopardy." The censure motion was the subject of a roll-call vote and failed when a majority voted no.

Mayor Paul Coogan defended his media statements, saying he did not divulge confidential material and that he had not been instructed not to speak after an initial internal email was released 10 days earlier. "I didn't say anything confidential or off the rails that wasn't already out in the public airways," Coogan said, adding he was told the interim period after the initial email did not prohibit him from speaking.

Several committee members pressed that an executive session on possible criminal misconduct normally requires legal advice and noted the committee's attorney, identified in meeting discussion as Attorney Assad, was not present. One member said they learned at 5:10 p.m. that Attorney Assad would not attend and described the attorney's absence as a concern; others replied the item was time-sensitive and could not wait. "It's important enough that we get the executive set," one member said in arguing for the meeting to proceed despite the counsel's absence.

After debate, the committee approved the motion to enter executive session. During the roll call on that motion the transcript records Mr. Dias voting no and multiple members voting yes; the committee subsequently returned to open session and took no public action at that time. When asked at adjournment whether any public statement could be made, the committee chair said, "Not at this time." The special meeting then adjourned.

The meeting transcript shows members repeatedly raising two procedural questions: whether the agenda description was sufficiently specific under the open meeting law and whether the absence of the committee's attorney made proceeding with an executive session legally risky. Members also noted public interest in knowing whether personal data had been exposed and how taxpayer funds might be affected, but the committee supplied no public details at the meeting.

The April 17 special meeting combined a procedural dispute over the scope of a planned executive session with an unsuccessful effort to formally censure the mayor for his public comments about the cyber incident. The committee did not publish further information about the investigation or any related decisions when it returned to open session and adjourned.