|
6 of 7 members explain vote on legal update; Curran declines |
|
|
|
|
Written by Bob Sprague
|
|
Wednesday, 06 August 2008 |
|
Page 1 of 4 Did a majority of the School Committee on July 24 try to restrict information about the arbitration costs involving a fired Ottoson teacher, as The Advocate has reported? Or was there "no compelling reason" for excluding the public from the update and a fear of leaked information, as committee member Ron Spangler says? In an attempt to provide answers to these questions, YourArlington asked committee members to explain their votes on Spangler's motion to remove a closed-session agenda item. Here is what those who responded wrote or, in one case, how one responded in another forum.
Five of the seven committee members responded to YourArlington's
request for comment. A sixth, Denise Burns, commented to the Arlington e-mail list,
but did not respond to a request to comment. (On Aug. 6, she said the reporter had failed to contact her at her official e-mails address that she had not seen the three requests.)
The one remaining member, Joseph Curran, responded after he was questioned in person (see at end).
Alan Miller of the law firm representing the School Committee in the arbitration involving Chuck Coughlin, the teacher fired a year ago for his role in allegedly forging e-mails involving then-Principal Stavroula Bouris, was present to discuss the arbitration in closed session. Committee Chair Denise Burns added to the agenda for the closed session a "legal update." Spangler moved to strike the item. After debate, the committee voted 4-3 to support Spangler's motion.
Here are the available committee members' statements:
June 14: Coughlin arbitration in 6th month
Jeff ThielmanHe voted yes on the motion and said his comments to the Arlington list Aug. 1 represented his views. He wrote:
"There has been commentary on the Arlington List about the July 24th School Committee meeting.
"The more important story from that meeting was the first public presentation by the new Special Education Director, who spoke about his vision for the district. He oversees programs that impact 750 children and young adults in Arlington.
"Regarding the issue that made the first page of the newspaper and is the subject of discussion on the Arlington List, Ron Spangler's motion was to limit the scope of discussion during Executive Session, which was scheduled from 8:30 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. Mr. Spangler's motion was that the Executive Session only be about a grievance and that we not talk about the arbitration. He indicated that we have received ample information about the arbitration in prior Executive Sessions. I concurred with his reasoning and therefore voted for his motion.
"Thank you for your time. Have a great weekend! Let's root for Arlington's Little League Champs!"
Denise Burns.
The School Committee chairwoman voted no on the motion and responded to Thielman Aug. 1 (she has not responded to requests for comment from YourArlington):
"While I do not like this forum to discuss School Committee business, I feel compelled to respond. I will not likely reply to further posts. But I want to clarify something that Mr. Thielman said and respond to Arlington resident] Martha Scott's request [on the e-mail list] asking why we voted as we did.
"As chair of the committee I can say that I was thrilled to have Mark Ryder, our new Special Education director with us last week. Because I manage the agenda I know that the Superintendent on behalf of the new Special Education director had only requested 15 minutes. So while Mr. Thielman saw that as the main focus of the meeting, that was not the main focus of the July 24th agenda but merely an opportunity for the new director to be introduced and give his initial insights based on ery limited time on the job. We look forward to spending more time with Mr. Ryder over the upcoming school year.
"I put the legal update on the agenda.
|
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 08 August 2008 )
|