Since late June, School Committee member Denise Burns has declined to attend when a school meeting is called that must be closed to the public and press. YourArlington asked her why she has done so -- and for how long she expects to continue.

Her answers are published in full as she wrote them, including the bold emphasis.

Others involved in her explanation, committee Chairman Joseph Curran and member Ron Spangler, were asked to comment. Spangler declined; Curran has not responded.

June 28: Accounts review turns up no wrongdoing, as committee differences resurface

I owe the community an explanation for my boycott of Executive Sessions of the School Committee [meetings closed for reasons provided under state law].

At our June 23 meeting, one member requested an update about ongoing arbitration. Our Chairman brought in the attorney and introduced the agenda item. A member of the committee took the floor and accused another colleague of leaking information out of Executive Sessions. He offered no proof and stated that he had no proof.

The committee declined to go into Executive Session based on an accusation from someone who admittedly had no proof.

Our attorney for the arbitration [involving fired teacher Chuck Coughlin] was there to meet with us for the first time. We have never met with our attorney for this case. We have only met with a partner in the same firm who has become a witness in the case.

Both parties would already be aware of anything provided in an update. History -- not strategy. What’s to leak in discussions that have already happened with both parties present? The majority of the committee previously denied requests to see the transcripts of the arbitration which would provide the examination and more importantly, the cross-examination. Again, history – not strategy.

The only strategy in this case I’ve heard came from another member after a meeting two years ago. It continues to be disturbing but not surprising, that some committee members have more information than others. This strategy was never communicated to me as part of the committee but is consistent with what has transpired.

The committee acted without proof, yet refused to acknowledge proof or act on it when presented.

Later in the same meeting, the committee went into a different Executive Session about teacher contracts with the person accused of leaking information to a teacher. This is inconsistent with their earlier behavior. If they truly believed he leaks information to teachers, why would they agree to Executive Session with him to discuss teacher contracts? I talk to teachers all the time. Would I open myself up to unfounded accusations?

The contrast in behavior of the Committee for these two sessions was not consistent with an interest in preventing leaks. Are they aware of a strategy I am not aware of and as such wish to block us from what would be our first meeting with our actual attorney in the case?

At the same meeting, we met with the auditors regarding the altered audit letter presented to Town Meeting.

The same member who made earlier accusations repeatedly stated that the audit found nothing. The auditor corrected him and said that the audit found a deficiency in internal controls. The member repeated that the audit found nothing, and then accused other town officials of concocting this audit as a "witch hunt" claiming that the audit was not warranted.

The auditor corrected him again. The auditor said that the audit was justified for the reasons concerns were brought, because there was a deficiency in internal controls. Other committee members tried unsuccessfully to frame questions to justify the altered document. Each time the auditor was clear. While the auditors found no evidence of misappropriation of funds based on the limited procedures they applied, they found a deficiency in internal control. The auditor would n ot have signed the report presented to town meeting as it was a misrepresentation of findings.

The committee had proof from the auditor that 1. Altering the audit report was wrong and 2. The audit found a deficiency in internal controls. The Committee ignored proof. They tried to shift blame to the Chairman for not having put the budget package presented to Town Meeting together himself. This is preposterous coming from a Committee that has repeatedly stated that the Chair cannot act alone. The Chair met the responsibility of ensuring the budget was voted on for Town Meeting and was present at Town Meeting to introduce the budget and field questions.

Repeating fiction and ignoring fact does not make fiction fact or fact fiction.

I will not subject myself to misrepresentation. That goes for implied as was attempted to do in accusations made that evening, or implicit as in minutes of meetings. If I go into Executive Session with no recording of procedings, I rely on being represented accurately by the good faith of a majority who that evening stood together to condemn without proof, and in another situation that evening ignored proof when presented. Can I trust that anything I say or don't say in Executive Sessions will be accur ately reflected in minutes voted by this same majority?

I operate from a position of trust until a repeated pattern of behavior shakes my trust. The June 23rd meeting was the culmination of a long pattern of behavior that eroded my trust.

My decision was not made lightly. I want to participate in all of the decisions of the Committee and represent constituents fully.

I have tremendous faith in the integrity of several of my colleagues to display courage and act in the best interest of the children. Condoning unethical behaviors on the part of administration or colleagues is not modeling good behavior for students, and is not assuring to taxpayers, parents or employees that the committee is leading in an ethical manner based in good faith.

When I trust a majority of the committee will show good faith with those they may not agree with, I will return to Executive Session. Two of my colleagues have contacted me privately and recognized that they could have handled things differently. Now I need to watch them handle things differently and regain my trust.

I am very thankful to those that support my decision and those who have discussed the need for me to go back to Executive Sessions. I am particularly thankful to the former School Committee members who have taken their time to educate new committee members about our role and the importance of good faith and transparency in everything that we do.

Respectfully,

Denise Burns

NOTE: Should the committee chairman wish his response to this story to be published, the editor welcomes it at any time.

This story was published at 6 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 16, after YourArlington made the initial request for comment.