|
Page 4 of 4
Joseph A. Curro Jr.
He opposed the motion and responded Aug. 3:
"I apologize for my delayed response. I just returned from an extended family vacation.
"The School Committee's attorney, Mr. Miller, was present at our July 24 meeting to address another matter before the Committee. It is my understanding that our chair, Ms. Burns, placed a general legal update on the Committee agenda, so as to take advantage of Mr. Miller's presence before us. This update was scheduled to take place during executive session.
"My colleague Mr. Spangler moved to pull the legal update out of the executive session and to hold this discussion in the public portion of the meeting. I agree with Ron that we must conduct in public as much of such discussions as practicably possible, and I consider his impulse towards greater openness in this case laudable. Following the advice of Superintendent Levenson to the full Committee that little to othing concerning current legal actions could actually be discussed in public, though, I determined that a fuller briefing in executive session would be preferable to no briefing at all. Consistent with this view, I voted with the minority in favor of proceeding with the final agenda as presented.
"Following this vote, I did make tentative arrangements with Mr. Miller for an individual update, which I hope will bring my knowledge of this situation up to par with that of veteran School Committee members and help me to exercise more effectively my oversight responsibility.
"I am deeply saddened that honest disagreements between School Committee members over the best way to safeguard the interests of our schools and the public continue to be magnified in a way that distracts from our successes in areas such as the dramatic increases in elementary reading achievement; our ambitious new vision for better serving special education students and their families through money-saving investments in homegrown services and programs; and our deliberations over tackling the ongoing budget crisis. I look forward to working with my colleagues to further these and other initiatives."
Sue Sheffler
She voted yes on the motion and responded Aug 2:
"The question is -- why was it on the agenda? I have no information that there are any particular developments ... when I do, then it might be appropriate for Exec Session."
Leba Heigham
She voted yes on the motion and responded late on Aug. 6:
"I apologize for the delay in my response.
"I
voted for Mr. Spangler's motion on July 24th to comply with Open
Meeting Law. As a school committee, we are allowed to enter executive
session to discuss strategy with respect to litigation if an open
meeting may have a detrimental effect on our litigation position. The item was listed as a legal update. When asked for clarification
regarding the information being denied by the attorney, Ms. Burns
brought up legal fees, hours, and the number of attorneys present.
"I
did not believe that answering these questions in open meeting would
compromise our litigation position. I believe that the public has the
right to know our current legal expenses by category and, therefore,
the update was and still is appropriate for the open meeting."
Joseph Curran
He voted no on the motion and is the lone member not to have responded to the issue.
On Aug. 7, as he was going into the high school for the closed meeting of the committee, he told YourArlington that he had no comment on this issue -- or on any he might be asked by the Web site's reporter.
|
News 
Don't miss Mizero Children of Rwanda "Forgiveness Tour," set for Friday, Jan 9, at 7:30 p.m.
An inspiring c...
