Hey, there! Log in / Register
Kevin McCrea finds more open-meeting law violations, this time at Boston Public Schools
By adamg on Wed, 12/23/2009 - 9:04am
After his run for mayor, McCrea heard there were openings on the Boston School Committee. So he applied (note to non-Bostonians: Unlike pretty much every other place in the state, Boston has an appointed School Committee). And McCrea, who knows something about the state Open Meeting Law, promptly learns the appointment process in use for 10 years or so, may not be in compliance with the law (also, he didn't get one of the seats). Or at least, wasn't, until he complained to the Suffolk County District Attorney's office.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Even more interesting...
...is the conduct of the meeting, like many public meetings around here. If your mind is made up before you walk in the room, why the charade of public meetings? You can't even answer a simple question like are the 6 nominees the same 6 as they decided on in the illegal closed meeting?
You'd have thunk it was a BRA meeting.
My opinion: nominating committe not subject to OML
I posted a lengthy analysis of the nominating committee over at McCrea's blog.
Summary: in my opinion, the state's Open Meeting Law does not apply to this nominating committee because they are advisory to the mayor, the mayor has sole statutory authority to appoint school committee members, and the mayor himself is not subject to the OML. Case law of Connolly v. School Committee of Hanover applies very well -- it was a case of a nominating committee formed by the superintendent to assist him, and the superintendent himself had sole statutory to make the appointment.
And, yes, I too have been through the OML and its case law before -- regarding whether or not the Harvard Allston Task Force and BC Task Force were subject to the law. The DA ruled in that case that, yes, they are.
The OML applies to some government bodies, but not other ones. That's just the way it is.
subject to open meeting law
Hi Michael,
The state legislation that enacted the law specifically calls for a public meeting at which public comment will be heard and which the candidates will be discussed. That hasn't happened in anyone's memory, maybe never.
You could argue that the committee isn't subject to the open meeting law for various reasons, but you can't argue that they aren't violating the State Law which is pretty clearly laid out.
Violation of a state law, but not the state's OML?
Do I understand you correctly that you are saying that they are violating a particular state law (not the OML) that established this particular nominating committee? (What is the chapter/section for that law?)
If I understood that correctly, then it doesn't matter whether or not they were subject to the OML -- and we ought to focus on that law, rather than labeling this an OML case.
state law violated
Yes, the State Law which clearly lays out how the process is supposed to happen is here:
http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/actsResolves/1991/...
MIchael,
You are right that an interesting law school argument could be made about whether the OML applies here, but there is no question that the State Law was and has been violated.
Drop me an email, and thanks for your great blog about A/B.
best,
kevin
[email protected]