Click Below for Additional Meeting Resources:
Review of Previous Year’s Goals (Link: 00:00:00 – 00:26:00)
Williams initiated a review of the committee’s previous year’s goals, starting with goal one regarding policy review. Schaeffner expressed uncertainty about whether goal one should continue as a main priority for the upcoming year, noting that while the process for updating policies had been established, she questioned whether it warranted being a primary annual goal. She indicated the policy subcommittee had made progress but suggested there might be other more pressing priorities.
A committee member asked about rewriting goal one since it originally aimed to review all school committee policies. The consultant, Alicia, explained that reviewing previous goals helps establish a baseline for setting new objectives. She suggested that policy review might become a standing charge for the policy subcommittee rather than a full committee goal, focusing on developing protocols for policy updates, data storage, and accessibility.
Discussion turned to the practical aspects of policy maintenance. The consultant recommended that when policy bulletins are released, the committee should review all included updates. For comprehensive review, she suggested policy subcommittee members could take one or two sections at a time, conducting high-level reviews every one to two years. Schaeffner noted this represented significant work, and the consultant acknowledged the workload while clarifying this would be maintenance-level review rather than comprehensive manual overhaul.
A committee member reported that since March 2023, MASC had recommended changes to 137 policies, ranging from minor corrections to substantive changes. The consultant advised prioritizing policies that absolutely need updating due to MGL language or DESE guidance with specific deadlines, then moving to general maintenance once caught up on critical updates. Schaeffner noted they had completed the I and J sections, which contained the most substantial changes.
The consultant mentioned an upcoming policy bulletin expected by end of August containing multiple policy updates, including competency determination policies. She explained that for competency determination, districts would receive a framework but need to incorporate their existing graduation and course completion requirements into the policy format required by DESE. The deadline for competency determination policies is October.
Moving to goal two on communications, Williams reported the committee had created a subcommittee, developed a monthly newsletter template, and established a process for website updates through the superintendent. He noted improvement was still needed on meeting minutes timeliness, with the new secretary Henry Gwazda tasked with addressing this issue. The committee had been following their public comment policy more strictly, though they had not yet implemented a visible time clock that the previous chair had wanted to help speakers adhere to the three-minute limit.
Williams mentioned they had considered team-building components but modified plans for the retreat. He was uncertain about the status of surveys, noting the previous chair had been working on another survey. Regarding media relations, Williams reported being responsive to requests from local media. The consultant suggested reading the public comment policy at the beginning of each public comment period to help clarify timeframes and procedures for speakers.
Schaeffner raised the topic of social media, which had been discussed by the subcommittee but was not explicitly listed in the current goals. This was noted for consideration in next year’s objectives.
For goal three on budget process documentation and communication, Schaeffner reported this goal was largely met. The committee had developed a timeline, held clear subcommittee meetings, conducted a robust workshop, and followed through with public hearings. Robidoux noted they had completed all steps successfully, and for the first time, the school committee approved their budget before the finance committee, rather than forcing the finance committee to wait.
Discussion revealed the budget timeline had been documented in workshop slides and was available on the website. The consultant recommended ensuring this documentation remains as public-facing and accessible as possible. Robidoux mentioned having thoughts about potential improvements to the workshop format for future consideration, and it was suggested that any post-process review could be handled by the budget subcommittee rather than requiring a new full committee goal.
The consultant then provided a brief overview of goal-setting principles, emphasizing the importance of SMART goals (specific, strategic, measurable, action-oriented, rigorous, realistic, results-focused, timed and tracked). She noted the committee had done well with their previous year’s goal structure, including goals with action steps and checkpoints, and recommended continuing this approach for the upcoming year’s objectives.
Goal Setting Process and Framework (Link: 00:26:00 – 00:27:00)
The consultant resumed screen sharing and began discussing the transition of goals from the previous year. She recommended that goal number one regarding policy review should now be moved to the policy subcommittee, with the full school committee charging the subcommittee to develop protocols for updating the online manual and exploring options for creating a more searchable PDF format. She indicated that the full committee had largely completed its work on this goal and it was appropriate for the subcommittee to take over the remaining tasks.
The consultant asked if anyone had additional thoughts on transitioning goal number one to the subcommittee level. Receiving no objections, she moved to discuss goal number two from the previous year regarding enhancing and improving school committee communications. She began to ask whether the committee felt this goal should be carried over to the current year’s objectives.
Discussion of Next Year’s Goals (Link: 00:27:00 – 00:58:00)
The consultant confirmed that the committee wanted to carry over the communications goal and identified three initial components from the previous discussion: developing a public comment statement, creating a plan for public relations, and addressing social media. A committee member noted that work remained on the newsletter, mentioning they had a template but it needed review and more frequent use.
Williams asked whether many of these tasks should be moved to the communications subcommittee, similar to how policy work was being transferred to the policy subcommittee. The consultant explained that while some items could be handled by the subcommittee, others like the public comment statement should remain with the full committee, and since this wasn’t maintenance-level work like the policy goal, it should stay as a school committee goal with subcommittee support.
Regarding social media, Williams explained the subcommittee had debated whether to use it as a one-way information medium or allow interactive engagement. He expressed concern about maintaining information in multiple places and preferred that social media be additive to their website rather than duplicative. The subcommittee had been divided on whether to use social media as intended for two-way communication, which would require management and specific guidelines for school committee members.
The consultant strongly cautioned against using social media for conversations between the committee and public, warning about potential open meeting law violations. She recommended that any social media use by committee members be strictly one-way and informational, with the chair serving as spokesperson for the committee just as the superintendent speaks for the district. She advised consulting with district legal counsel before implementing any social media strategy and noted that the topic would be discussed further with their legal advisor later in the meeting.
The consultant acknowledged that repeating information across platforms wasn’t necessarily problematic, as different community members use different communication channels. She emphasized that information sharing must come from appropriate offices, with the superintendent speaking for the district and the chair speaking for the school committee.
A committee member suggested exploring mechanisms to build an email distribution list for community members without students in the district, allowing them to opt into school committee newsletters or superintendent updates. The consultant suggested potentially partnering with the town manager’s newsletter, noting that some communities include superintendent updates in town communications rather than creating separate subscription lists.
Discussion turned to compliance with opt-out laws for newsletters and using social media to help people subscribe to communication lists. Williams asked about managing multiple social media platforms, noting that Facebook was becoming outdated. The consultant explained that some platforms cross-post to each other and recommended having policies about public information sharing that address student and staff privacy. She noted that most districts use Facebook, Twitter, and increasingly Blue Sky, but emphasized consistency and privacy protection over being on every platform.
Williams mentioned the subcommittee had discussed coffee-type community meetings, noting they had held one successful meeting but hadn’t scheduled subsequent ones. A committee member suggested incorporating platform preference questions into community surveys to determine which social media platforms residents actually use.
The consultant summarized the communications goal as including a public comment statement from the full committee, with the communications subcommittee handling surveys, public relations planning, social media strategy, newsletter improvements, and coordination with town communications, while keeping it as a full committee goal due to the committee’s involvement.
A committee member proposed a goal around relationship repair or rebuilding with teachers and staff, suggesting it could be a joint goal with the administration. Another committee member mentioned developing a portrait of a graduate, referencing materials in their packet. The consultant asked if Marblehead currently had a portrait of a graduate, and learned it was part of the high school’s reaccreditation process but hadn’t been brought to the school committee level.
The consultant explained that portrait of a graduate development typically begins with administration through accreditation processes like NEASC, then comes to the committee for review. She suggested the committee’s role might be supporting the development rather than leading it, and recommended waiting until after the accreditation process to focus on aligning committee goals and processes with the portrait of a graduate.
Williams suggested evaluating whether ex officio membership would be helpful, noting that some districts have teacher representation on school committees and questioning whether their current student representation model could be improved. The consultant explained that non-elected individuals can participate as ex officio members without voting rights or executive session privileges, citing examples of districts with union representatives, CPAC representatives, or METCO representatives at the table.
A committee member suggested broadening this to exploring ex officio membership generally rather than limiting it to specific groups. The consultant agreed to provide examples of districts with various ex officio arrangements and noted that student government organizations might be a good resource for student representation models.
Williams raised concerns about whether their goals actually resulted in better student outcomes, questioning how the school committee should answer to the town about district quality. The consultant explained that while school committees develop policies that leadership teams implement, understanding community success metrics was important. She suggested waiting for results from the NEASC accreditation and strategic planning processes to better define what success means for Marblehead, as different communities prioritize different measures of student achievement and well-being.
Schaeffner noted that both the strategic plan and NEASC accreditation wouldn’t be completed until the 2026-27 timeframe, making this a future goal rather than an immediate one. The consultant agreed this would be appropriate for future consideration while keeping continuous improvement as part of ongoing conversations.
Schaeffner raised concerns about data availability for decision-making, specifically mentioning staff accountability reports and needs-based budgeting. She explained that comprehensive staffing data including classroom sizes, caseloads, and service hours was necessary for building needs-based budgets but had been difficult to obtain. The consultant clarified the separation between school committee supervision of the superintendent and superintendent supervision of all other staff, suggesting that staffing reports should come through the superintendent and that budget-related discussions should involve the budget subcommittee.
Discussion continued about various types of data the committee sought, including standardized test scores, MCAS results, and budget comparisons. Williams suggested this resembled a dashboard concept with detailed underlying data. The consultant noted that data requests should be directed to the superintendent as goals and that fiscal reporting requirements should be outlined in the committee’s policy manual. Schaeffner mentioned that a recent change in their financial system should make reporting easier going forward.
The consultant noted that different departments typically handle different types of data reporting, with business managers handling fiscal reports and curriculum administrators typically managing academic assessment data like MCAS scores. Williams requested a break, which the consultant agreed to take before continuing with discussion of operating protocols.
Break and Operating Protocols Discussion (Link: 00:58:00 – 01:22:00)
The consultant noted that the committee’s operating protocols had been updated in June and asked if there were aspects of the protocols the committee wanted to discuss or other governance matters to address.
A committee member asked about best practices for holding members accountable to the operating protocols, noting that the document stated the committee would hold members accountable for abiding by them. The consultant explained that in most districts, this involves reviewing protocols similar to how goals are reviewed, with the chair typically having conversations with members who get off track since the chair serves as servant of the body. She noted that some districts go as far as censure for members significantly out of line, but only recommended this if there was a specific policy in place.
Schaeffner asked whether committee members with concerns should bring them to the chair. The consultant confirmed this approach, explaining that the chair is responsible for ensuring the committee functions and business gets done, so concerns about protocols, budget timing, document posting, or other issues should be brought to the chair first.
The consultant recommended that the committee add to their operating protocol process that everyone, including the superintendent, vote on and sign the protocols annually. She explained this creates more accountability and a level playing field for how members work together, giving more authority when the chair needs to address issues.
A committee member asked if the protocols should be voted on annually. The consultant confirmed this recommendation, suggesting it be done at the first full meeting in the fall after reviewing protocols and goals over the summer. She explained this serves as a good way to kick off the year by reminding everyone of the rules of engagement, reinforcing respect for process and roles, and informing the community about committee standards and accountability.
Williams asked about policies regarding the high school roof construction project, specifically when to use a subcommittee versus an advisory committee and whether subcommittees consist predominantly of school committee members. The consultant explained that if it belongs to the school committee, it’s a subcommittee bound by open meeting law, but for a school building committee, an advisory committee created by the superintendent would be more appropriate. She recommended the superintendent populate it with relevant leadership team members and public members, plus one or two school committee members staying under quorum.
Schaeffner noted that building committees under MSBA are typically subcommittees, and asked if having two school committee members on an advisory committee would make it a de facto subcommittee. The consultant clarified that if the superintendent originates it, it remains a superintendent’s advisory committee, but cautioned to check policy manual section B about advisory committees and always stay under quorum when assigning school committee members.
Schaeffner mentioned the school committee had voted last year to make the facility subcommittee the roof project subcommittee, questioning whether this needed to be undone. Williams noted their policy required annual revoting on membership and chairs. The consultant recommended checking the policy manual section B about subcommittee formation and noted that committee assignments are usually done annually.
Discussion continued about whether changing from a subcommittee to an advisory committee required a specific vote. The consultant clarified this would be changing the charge rather than reversing a decision, so it wouldn’t require a two-thirds reconsideration vote. Williams confirmed their policy stated advisory committees have one-year tenure unless otherwise specified.
Williams asked about team building workshops offered by MASC and the time commitment involved. The consultant confirmed MASC offers these services and recommended a maximum of two hours, noting that longer workshops become less effective. She suggested waiting until after their new member joins and recommended the new member attend charting courses, mentioning upcoming fall sessions and a potential December course.
The consultant concluded by providing her contact information and promising to send notes from the morning’s goals discussion. She indicated she would be available when they were ready to proceed with team building after their new member joined the committee.
Meeting Transition and Administrative Matters (Link: 01:22:00 – 01:35:00)
Williams announced that refreshments including fruit, muffins and coffee were available. A speaker explained that since the upcoming training session was not subject to open meeting law requirements, the committee could either adjourn their current meeting or finish any remaining business if it was brief enough. Williams confirmed they had no other agenda items.
The speaker clarified that the training component would not involve any deliberations about business matters and was generic in nature, so the committee could adjourn if they preferred. Williams expressed uncertainty about the first component of the training. The speaker confirmed the first component was appropriate and reiterated that since it was training without deliberation, the committee could adjourn their formal meeting.
There was discussion about needing materials for one member and confirmation that someone would be returning at 10 o’clock for a commitment. After some technical setup involving promoting someone’s connection and unmuting, Williams indicated they were ready to proceed.
Conflict of Interest Training (Link: 01:36:00 – 01:58:00)
The legal trainer began a conflict of interest training session, clarifying this was not subject to open meeting law and would not involve deliberations. She provided a disclaimer that this was training, not legal advice, and noted that while school committee members typically receive no compensation, violations of conflict of interest law can result in significant fines.
The trainer explained that conflict of interest law is found in Chapter 268A of Massachusetts General Laws and covers all public employees and officials, including school committee members. The law ensures that personal financial situations, interests, and relationships don’t conflict with official responsibilities. School committee members cannot use public resources like secretarial services, copy equipment, paper, or postage for personal or political purposes, nor can they use their position to obtain privileges unavailable to other members of the public.
School committee members are prohibited from taking official action that would affect their own financial interests or those of business partners, prospective employers, business associates, organizations where they serve as officers or employees, and immediate family members. The trainer defined immediate family as spouse, children, parents, and siblings, plus the spouse’s children, parents, and siblings. She noted that modern family structures might include life partners who commingle finances, requiring disclosure even without formal marriage.
The trainer provided an example where a committee member with a brother working as a custodian could not vote on collective bargaining agreements affecting custodians, or any district-wide changes affecting all employee units. Committee members are also prohibited from hiring, promoting, supervising, or participating in employment decisions involving immediate family members.
The law prohibits requesting or accepting anything of value in exchange for performing or not performing official duties, including a $50 threshold for gifts of substantial value. Exceptions include ceremonial gifts with no resale value, and gifts exchanged in pre-existing friendships, provided they’re not given to influence official actions. The trainer emphasized strict confidentiality requirements for non-public information including executive session content, student records, collective bargaining strategy, personnel records, and bid documents.
For actual conflicts of interest, members must file written disclosure with the town clerk and may not participate in related official business, including leaving the meeting during deliberations and voting. For appearance of conflicts, members may file disclosure and continue participating. The trainer warned that fines can reach $10,000 and emphasized always seeking guidance before acting, not after, since post-action inquiries could constitute admissions of violations.
The trainer explained the “rule of necessity” exception, where if too many members are disqualified due to conflicts, preventing committee action, members may disclose and vote as a last resort. She provided an example of raising athletic fees when all members have student athletes. This rule requires consultation with the ethics commission and cannot be used for tie-breaking or member unavailability.
Williams asked about curriculum decisions when members have students in affected grades. The trainer clarified this wouldn’t create financial conflicts unless the member had connections to curriculum companies, distinguishing between personal interest and financial impact.
The trainer divided the committee into teams for practical exercises, with Williams and Schmeckpeper working on odd-numbered scenarios and Gwazda and Schaeffner on even-numbered ones. The exercises included scenarios about collective bargaining negotiations, property purchases involving relatives, and construction bids from spouses’ businesses, with discussions about proper disclosure procedures, recusal requirements, and executive session confidentiality violations.
Ethics and Conflict of Interest Training (Link: 01:58:00 – 02:05:00)
Schaeffner noted that there have been instances where people recused themselves without filing disclosure. The trainer emphasized that filing disclosure protects committee members and should always be done.
The trainer presented a scenario about a high school carnival that creates noise, smell, and traffic issues for a committee member living behind the park. She explained that while the member could complain as a citizen like any neighbor, they cannot use their position as a school committee member to influence or require changes to the event location.
In a scenario about school start time changes, the trainer discussed a committee member receiving theater tickets valued at $45 each from a parent advocating for the change. She explained that even though individual tickets were under $50, they must be aggregated, making the total $90 and therefore unacceptable. The trainer also noted that ticket value is determined by actual market value, not face value, citing expensive World Series tickets as an example.
Williams asked whether a single ticket under $50 would be appropriate. The trainer explained it would still be inappropriate because the giver was asking the member to take specific action, noting that gifts of any value are prohibited when given in exchange for official acts.
The trainer presented a scenario involving a teacher discharged for consuming alcohol at work, with potential criminal charges for distributing alcohol to a minor. When asked by a parent about the real reason for discharge, the trainer explained that committee members cannot answer such questions and should refer inquiries to the superintendent. She clarified that the committee would take no action unless litigation was threatened, and noted that anyone discussed in executive session has the right to be present.
In a scenario about salary negotiations, the trainer discussed a committee member’s sister-in-law asking about likely wage increases during ongoing contract negotiations. A committee member correctly identified this as both an executive session confidentiality violation and a conflict of interest, since the sister-in-law falls under the immediate family definition.
The final scenario involved a committee member having regular breakfast meetings with a union bargaining team member who was also a longtime neighbor. The trainer explained that continuing the friendship was acceptable since it predated their official roles, but sharing executive session information about potential contract offers was inappropriate unless specifically authorized by the full committee, which hadn’t occurred in this case since the offer hadn’t been fully analyzed.
The trainer concluded the conflict of interest section by emphasizing the key principles: always ask before acting, and always disclose conflicts when they arise.
Open Meeting Law Overview and Requirements (Link: 02:05:00 – 02:24:00)
Schaeffner asked about the responsibility of committee members when they perceive another member has a conflict of interest. The trainer explained there is no absolute obligation, but since the committee acts as a whole, it makes sense to remind colleagues to contact the state ethics commission for guidance, emphasizing the importance of providing complete facts when seeking opinions since violations can result in $10,000 fines.
The trainer began covering Open Meeting Law, explaining it applies to all school committee members and subcommittee members regarding deliberations through any medium including email, texting, and social media on public business within their jurisdiction. She defined deliberation as occurring between or among a quorum, noting that for a two-member subcommittee, the quorum is two, so private conversations about policies are prohibited. One-way communications to a quorum can constitute deliberation even without responses.
Williams asked about potential conflicts between Robert’s Rules and Commonwealth open meeting laws. The trainer clarified that open meeting law governs posting requirements, notices, and agendas, while Robert’s Rules addresses meeting operations after proper posting. She noted that committees are not legally obligated to follow Robert’s Rules unless required by policy, but it provides a useful framework most communities use.
The trainer detailed posting requirements for all meetings, including subcommittees, requiring 48-hour advance notice excluding weekends and holidays. Postings must include committee name, date, time, location with street address, room number, virtual meeting links if applicable, and the agenda. She explained that gatherings without deliberation, such as site inspections or social events, are not subject to open meeting law, and training programs like their current session are exempt.
Schmeckpeper asked about amending agendas within the 48-hour period. The trainer explained that items the chair could not have reasonably anticipated, such as contract ratifications or emergency repairs, can be added if they cannot wait until the next meeting. Williams asked about emergency procedures, and the trainer clarified that true emergencies like building floods or security threats are rare, and member resignations do not constitute emergencies since there is a 30-day notification period.
The trainer covered public comment requirements, noting committees are not required to have public comment unless their policy mandates it. She recommended limiting overall time periods, requiring speaker sign-in for orderly recognition, encouraging respectful remarks without controlling content, enforcing consistent time limits typically of three minutes, and limiting topics to items within the committee’s authority. She emphasized that chairs can only terminate speech that is not constitutionally protected, which covers very little beyond legitimate threats.
The trainer advised that committees should not engage with speakers during public comment to avoid deliberating on unagendized items, recommending a simple “next speaker” approach. She noted that speakers may share private information about personnel matters or student records, but committees should not intervene. For controversial topics, she suggested holding separate dedicated meetings rather than trying to address complex issues within limited public comment periods.
The trainer warned about serial communications, where members communicate in sequence without forming a quorum but collectively violating open meeting law, such as one member calling another who calls a third. She emphasized this applies to all electronic communications and cannot be circumvented through intermediaries. The trainer then assigned exercises to committee members, with Schaeffner and Gwazda taking exercises nine and ten, while Williams and Schmeckpeper would handle eleven and twelve, with exercise thirteen to be completed together.
Open Meeting Law Scenarios and Violations (Link: 02:24:00 – 02:36:00)
The trainer presented several scenarios to illustrate open meeting law violations. In the first scenario, a chair sent meeting materials to all committee members three days before a meeting with appropriate disclaimers about not replying to all or communicating about the matters until the meeting. The trainer confirmed this was not a violation, comparing it to traditional paper packets sent by mail.
The second scenario involved a committee member posting on social media about plans to make a motion regarding recess time, with other committee members responding with emojis including thumbs up, thumbs down, and hearts. The trainer confirmed this constituted an open meeting law violation, noting that emoji symbols count as communications and that having committee members as social media followers creates a quorum deliberating on future agenda topics.
In the third scenario, a committee member wanted to add a recess topic to the next meeting agenda and made a motion during new business. When the chair asked for discussion on adding the item, members expressed their opinions about the merits of increased recess time versus academic impact. The trainer identified this as a violation because the committee was deliberating on the substance of an unposted agenda item rather than just the scheduling.
The fourth scenario was similar but involved only procedural discussion about timing and scheduling the item for a future meeting, with no substantive opinions expressed. The trainer confirmed this was not a violation since it involved only scheduling matters, not deliberation on the topic’s merits.
The final scenario involved a committee member making a motion during a liaison report to provide paid release time for educators to attend meetings during work hours. Williams asked what the chair should do, and the trainer explained the chair should refuse to take the motion since it wasn’t on the agenda and involved collective bargaining matters requiring administrative input.
The trainer then moved to executive session requirements, explaining that committees must convene in open session first, vote by roll call to enter executive session stating the purpose, and announce whether they will reconvene in open session. She detailed Purpose 1 for discussing individuals’ reputation, character, or health, noting that individuals have rights to 48-hour written notice, to be present, to have counsel, and to create an independent record.
She explained Purposes 2 and 3 for negotiation strategy sessions with non-union personnel and collective bargaining or litigation strategy, emphasizing that chairs must state in open session that executive session is necessary because open discussion would have a detrimental effect on the committee’s position. Purpose 7 was noted for reviewing and potentially releasing executive session minutes.
The trainer covered meeting minutes requirements, specifying that both open and executive session minutes must include date, time, place, attendance, documents used, and summaries of all topics discussed. She emphasized that all motions, whether passed or failed, must be recorded in minutes, and recommended noting agenda items that weren’t discussed to avoid confusion about completeness.
Executive Session Procedures and Minutes (Link: 02:36:00 – 02:44:00)
Schmeckpeper asked for confirmation about meetings that are entirely executive session, noting there would be two sets of minutes – one for the open session vote to enter executive session that would be publicly available, and executive session minutes that remain protected. The trainer confirmed this was correct, explaining that the open session minutes would include the roll call vote, the motion to enter executive session, the chair’s statement about why open discussion would be detrimental, and whether the committee would reconvene in open session.
The trainer presented a scenario where a committee went into executive session to discuss litigation with a neighbor about a fence and flagpole on school grounds, and collective bargaining with teachers. The litigation was resolved with a settlement where the neighbor moved the fence and flagpole and paid the town’s costs, while teacher negotiations remained ongoing. A committee member correctly identified that the portion about the neighbor could be released since that matter was concluded, but the collective bargaining portion should remain confidential.
Schaeffner asked about the redaction process for releasing partial executive session minutes. The trainer confirmed that redacted minutes should be physically or digitally redacted in a way that cannot be unredacted, and suggested starting new topics on separate pages to make redaction easier.
The trainer explained requirements for responding to requests for minutes, noting that open session minutes must be provided within 10 calendar days whether approved or not, which differs from the 10 business days required for other public records. For executive session minutes requests, committees must plan to review them at the next meeting using Purpose 7, notify the requester within 10 days that review is needed, and notify them of the outcome after review.
Williams noted that their policies direct such requests through the superintendent, but the trainer clarified they should go through the records access officer. The trainer emphasized that most people incorrectly assume the 10 business day standard applies to minutes requests.
The trainer strongly advised against texting or emailing during meetings, noting that committee members are visible on camera and the public often requests copies of such communications. She recommended stepping out of the meeting for necessary personal communications to avoid the appearance of conducting private deliberations during public meetings.
The trainer covered information distribution protocols, explaining that materials can be emailed to committee members before meetings with appropriate disclaimers against reply-all responses. She noted that anyone can record open meetings as long as it’s not disruptive, and chairs must inform attendees of any recordings being made, including by cable television or other entities.
The trainer concluded by reiterating that social media posts and comments among committee members may constitute deliberations and are subject to retention and disclosure under public records law. She then assigned exercises 14 and 15 to different committee member pairs for completion.
Electronic Communications and Social Media Guidelines (Link: 02:44:00 – 02:51:00)
The trainer presented exercise 14, involving committee members texting each other during an open session meeting about how they planned to vote on an upcoming agenda item, with one member also texting the local parent group president asking how the group wanted them to vote. Schmeckpeper correctly identified the first scenario as a violation involving private deliberation during open session. The trainer confirmed both situations violated open meeting law as secret communications during meetings, emphasizing that even innocent texting about personal matters appears problematic to audiences who cannot see the content.
Exercise 15 involved a committee member discovering on social media that their superintendent was a finalist for another position and texting other committee members asking if they should counter the other district’s offer. Schaeffner noted that the first problem was the superintendent not informing the committee before the information became public. The trainer confirmed this was an open meeting law violation and clarified that this situation did not constitute an emergency, noting that true emergencies involve situations like building floods that prevent holding school, not personnel matters that can wait for proper 48-hour meeting notice.
The trainer then moved to public records law, emphasizing that committee members should not respond to public records requests as this is not their responsibility. She explained that Massachusetts public records law covers all government documents including photographs, videos, emails, and text messages created by district employees or committee members as part of their work, unless specific exemptions apply.
The trainer noted that public records law applies only to existing records and districts are not required to create new records or convert formats for requesters. Everything is presumed to be a public record unless one of 21 specific exemptions applies. She identified Lisa as the district’s records access officer responsible for handling all requests and maintaining proper documentation of when requests are received, what was requested, and when responses were provided.
The trainer explained that while committee members could provide publicly available information like student handbooks, they should direct all requests to the records access officer to maintain proper tracking. She distinguished this from chairs providing information to reporters about open meetings. Individual committee members wanting district information must submit formal public records requests, while the committee as a whole can request information through normal channels.
The trainer outlined that districts have 10 business days to respond to requests, which may involve notifying requesters of fees rather than immediately providing documents. She noted that when denying requests based on exemptions, districts must specify which exemption applies and how it relates to the particular record or portion thereof.
For best practices, the trainer advised committee members to be aware that all written communications may become public records, recommending they only write information they would not mind being disclosed. She strongly cautioned against using school committee email addresses for personal business, emphasizing there is no expectation of privacy in district emails and that records access officers may need to search all district emails to respond to requests without asking committee members to conduct searches themselves.
Public Records Law and Requests (Link: 02:51:00 – 02:58:00)
Schaeffner described her practice of forwarding emails received at her personal address to her school committee email and responding from the official account to maintain a proper trail and avoid having to search personal accounts. The trainer confirmed this was the correct approach to prevent personal email accounts from being subject to public records searches.
The trainer presented a scenario where a reporter requested text messages and emails from committee members during a specific meeting timeframe after observing them using devices during the session. Williams asked whether to send the request to the records access officer or handle it directly. The trainer confirmed all public records requests should go to the records access officer, providing the requester with the officer’s contact information rather than doing the work themselves.
The trainer explained that the records access officer would need to search for and review all emails and text messages during the specified time period, emphasizing why committee members should avoid personal communications during meetings since records officers might have to read private messages between spouses or other personal content sent during meeting times.
Schaeffner asked about broader requests for communications between committee members outside of meetings. The trainer confirmed that requests for communications between all school committee members could be made and would be subject to disclosure if they related to school business. She emphasized that anything committee members wouldn’t want to see in newspapers or on social media should not be written down, recommending phone calls instead since they leave no record.
The discussion turned to what types of communications would be releasable, with the trainer explaining that comments about presenters or meeting content could be subject to disclosure, while purely personal observations unrelated to school business might not be. However, she noted that anything written during a posted meeting could potentially be requested since the meeting itself is public business.
Schmeckpeper asked about text messages sent outside of meetings between committee members. The trainer clarified that personal messages unrelated to school business, such as coordinating carpools for children’s activities, would not be subject to disclosure, but communications about school-related matters could be requested regardless of when they occurred.
A participant asked about handwritten notes passed during meetings, and the trainer confirmed these would be treated the same as electronic communications, noting that audience members would want to see the content of any notes passed during public meetings, comparing it to students passing notes in school.
The trainer then moved to school committee roles and responsibilities, explaining that committees hire, evaluate, and terminate superintendents, adopt curriculum, establish policies, set goals, review budgets, engage in collective bargaining, and accept gifts and grants. She noted that policies exist in various documents beyond policy manuals, including handbooks, collective bargaining agreements, budgets, strategic plans, and meeting minutes.
The trainer emphasized that school committee actions can only occur at properly posted meetings, and individual members cannot speak on behalf of the committee without authorization. She explained that designated spokespersons, typically the chair, must present the committee’s official position even when it differs from their personal views, such as when a chair who voted against a measure must still represent the majority decision when speaking publicly.
School Committee Roles and Responsibilities (Link: 02:58:00 – 03:20:00)
Schaeffner clarified that committee members can speak for themselves, and the trainer confirmed this, noting they should make it clear when doing so. The trainer then assigned individual exercises to committee members, with Williams handling exercise 17 alone, while other exercises were distributed among pairs.
In exercise 17, Williams addressed a scenario where a committee member who lost a vote on adding a second recess wanted to reconsider the issue at the next meeting. Williams initially thought he would accommodate such requests but concluded the chair has discretion and should decline, especially so soon after the original vote. The trainer confirmed this approach, explaining that under Robert’s Rules, only a member who voted with the prevailing side can request reconsideration, and constantly revisiting defeated motions would prevent the committee from conducting business effectively.
Williams asked about situations with significant committee turnover, and the trainer acknowledged that would be different but emphasized the importance of stability for the school community. She noted that frequent changes in curriculum or other initiatives prevent teachers and staff from investing in new programs and create harmful disruption for the district.
The trainer presented a scenario where a finance committee chair was directly contacting the school business administrator to give budget reduction directions. Committee members correctly identified that the superintendent should be informed of these conversations and that the business administrator has no obligation to follow directions from someone outside the school committee chain of command. The trainer emphasized the importance of staying in appropriate lanes and noted that budget decisions belong to the school committee, not other municipal bodies.
Another scenario involved a committee member approaching the town manager about consolidating HR, IT, and facilities functions with the town, resulting in an unwanted proposal at a school committee meeting. The trainer explained that while Chapter 71, Section 37 allows such consolidations, these decisions must be made by the full committee through proper agenda processes, not by individual members acting independently.
The trainer covered personnel appointment responsibilities, explaining that committees directly appoint superintendents, school business administrators, and special education administrators. For the special education position, the superintendent’s recommendation is not legally required but is considered best practice. Committees also appoint legal counsel, school physicians, registered nurses, supervisors of attendance, and assistant superintendents upon the superintendent’s recommendation.
The trainer clarified that while committees appoint these key positions and determine their compensation through executive session deliberations, principals and other administrators are appointed by the superintendent with compensation consistent with committee policies. She emphasized the importance of having clear policies to guide the superintendent’s negotiations with administrators.
In exercise 20, a scenario involved a committee chair wanting to take action against an assistant principal charged with drunk driving. The trainer confirmed that the chair should inform the superintendent but cannot take direct disciplinary action, as personnel discipline is the superintendent’s responsibility. The superintendent would typically consult with counsel and might place the employee on paid administrative leave pending investigation.
Exercise 21 addressed a select board policy requiring school committee budget approval before town meeting. Schaeffner correctly noted that the school committee has no legal obligation to comply, and the trainer confirmed that while the select board can make recommendations, they cannot require line-item budget approval since the school committee operates independently within its bottom-line appropriation.
Exercise 22 involved a committee member demanding to speak with a principal about playground injuries. Schmeckpeper correctly identified that the principal should involve the superintendent, and the trainer explained that committee members have no individual authority outside of meetings. The member should have requested the topic be placed on an agenda rather than making unscheduled demands on school administrators.
In the final exercise, Williams addressed a scenario about scheduling conflicts between advanced academic classes and arts courses. He correctly identified this as outside the committee’s purview, suggesting the parent contact the high school principal directly. The trainer confirmed that while committees select curriculum, they do not determine class scheduling, which is an administrative function requiring complex coordination.
The trainer concluded by explaining communication protocols, emphasizing that committee positions are determined only by votes at properly posted meetings. She clarified that spokespersons must communicate official committee positions even when they personally disagree, while other members should specify when speaking as individuals rather than on behalf of the committee. The trainer stressed that administrators receive direction from the committee as a whole, not from individual members.
Communications with Administrators and Community (Link: 03:20:00 – 03:32:00)
Williams noted it was interesting that while committees hire special education administrators, that role wasn’t discussed in detail. The trainer explained that while committees give direction to business administrators regarding budget matters, the superintendent can also direct that person, but for other positions, committees should hire the right superintendent and let them do their job rather than trying to micromanage.
The trainer emphasized the importance of channeling legal counsel requests through the chair to control costs, noting that individual members calling separately increases legal fees unnecessarily. She explained that the chair might already have prior legal opinions addressing similar questions, making the process more efficient. The trainer clarified that legal counsel represents the committee as a whole, not individual members, which is why she recommended the state ethics commission for individual member questions.
Regarding community communications, the trainer stressed that committees only take action by vote and that members should inform the superintendent when matters fall under administrative purview to avoid blindsiding leadership. Robidoux confirmed that committee members had been good about providing such heads-up communications. The trainer emphasized following chain of command protocols, noting that in small communities where everyone knows each other, people often try to bypass proper procedures.
In exercise 24, Williams addressed a scenario where a committee member demanded specific budget information formats and regular meetings with the business manager. Williams correctly identified that this should be brought to the full committee as an agenda item to determine if the request had value and if resources were available for new software and training. The trainer confirmed that individual members cannot direct administrators to change procedures without committee authorization.
Exercise 25 involved a committee member demanding a meeting with a principal about her child’s classroom assignment and threatening to have the superintendent fire the principal when refused. Gwazda correctly identified this as inappropriate behavior, noting the committee member was not the principal’s boss in this context. The trainer confirmed this violated state ethics law since the member was using her position for personal benefit, emphasizing that in this situation she was simply a parent who should follow normal procedures.
Schaeffner asked about conflicts when other elected officials try to influence school committee votes. The trainer clarified this was no different from any other person attempting to influence votes and did not constitute a conflict of interest.
In exercise 26, the trainer presented a scenario where a committee voted to change district lines and the chair was contacted by media for comment. Robidoux correctly identified that the chair should communicate exactly what the committee decided, explaining the vote and new district lines as the authorized spokesperson.
The trainer then covered communications with unionized employees, warning about unfair labor practice charges that can be costly to defend and take years to resolve. She explained that such charges can include retaliation for union activity, interference with union rights, failure to bargain in good faith, direct dealing with employees bypassing union leadership, and failure to provide relevant information to unions.
The trainer emphasized that when committee members speak to unionized employees, even as parents or community members, they are perceived as speaking as school committee members regardless of disclaimers or personal intentions. She warned that unions will file charges in such situations, advising members not to negotiate with individual employees, make promises, or take actions that might chill the exercise of union-protected rights.
The trainer concluded by assigning the final exercises, with Gwazda and Schmeckpeper handling exercise 27 and Schaeffner and Robidoux taking exercise 28, noting they were running slightly over the planned two-hour timeframe.
Union Relations and Unfair Labor Practices (Link: 03:32:00 – 03:37:00)
A committee member noted that the training scenarios seemed realistic rather than fictional. The trainer confirmed she simply changed names from actual cases, making the examples authentic situations that have occurred.
In exercise 27, the trainer presented a scenario where a committee member asked a teacher friend to encourage colleagues to ignore union directives about not volunteering for overnight field trips during work-to-rule actions. Schmeckpeper correctly identified this as prohibited behavior. The trainer confirmed this would be seen as direct dealing, circumventing union leadership to communicate directly with individual employees.
Exercise 28 involved a committee member sending an email to all school employees praising teachers who would take students on the field trip and stating “we have you on our list” for those who don’t participate. The trainer identified multiple problems with this communication, particularly the “chilling” effect of the threatening language. Even without the threatening sentence, she explained that praising some teachers for “putting students first” implies others are not, which would still be considered chilling behavior by the Department of Labor Relations, especially coming from a school committee member rather than a private citizen.
Williams asked a clarifying question about executive session Purpose 1, specifically whether individuals who bring litigation against the school committee must be present during executive session discussions about the case. The trainer clarified that Purpose 1 applies to personnel matters like discipline or extraordinary leave situations, while litigation strategy discussions do not require the opposing party’s presence.
The trainer reminded the committee that if the training was their final agenda item, they needed to vote to adjourn their meeting. Williams asked if there were any new business or correspondence items, and hearing none, entertained a motion to adjourn. Schmeckpeper moved to adjourn, with a second from another member.
During the vote, there was some confusion about the voting procedure, with Williams calling for votes and Schaeffner noting they needed to actually vote to adjourn. The trainer confirmed that adjournment votes are always required unless coming out of executive session. Williams declared the motion passed unanimously and stated they were adjourned, though there was some indication the meeting was still technically in session.
All About Town provides all information in a good faith effort to improve community engagement and awareness. However, text is generated by artificial intelligence, and we make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information provided herein. Use of the site and reliance on any information on the site is solely at each individual’s own risk.