Share This Article
The Sudbury School Committee (SPS) met for its regularly scheduled meeting Monday, February 10, but there was nothing regular about the meeting, which included the committee voting to file an Open Meeting Law complaint against itself.
The meeting opened with a public comment from school committee member Karyn Jones, who criticized the lack of a hybrid option for the meeting. She said she could not stay in person as she didn’t have a childcare option that night. The committee does not allow members to participate remotely by computer or telephone, even though Jones’ actions were the subject of an agenda item.
Jones then defended the work of the policy subcommittee on a Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students policy that has been under development in recent months.
“To help eliminate any confusion or misinformation that exists in the community and to ensure there are no barriers to reviewing this policy in March, I want to clarify that the subcommittee has acted in good faith to develop this policy for the full committee’s review. The work done is consistent with school committee policies, specifically KCB, KDB and BGB, and consistent with the requirements of Open Meeting Law. I met with many members of the community with different perspectives on gender identity policies at their request. I reviewed policies from other districts. I also did ask Safe Schools, a joint initiative between DESE and the Massachusetts Commission of LGBTQ Youth, if they had a sample gender identity policy they could share. This type of ask is consistent with how we committee members review MASC policies as part of our policy work. This is how good policy is developed.”
(0:25)
During her public comment, Jones cited a recent Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) memo titled “Supporting All Students, Including LGBTQ Students,” and sent by Acting Commissioner Russell Johnston, which encouraged districts to develop policies to protect vulnerable groups. Another public commenter also referenced the memo in support of SPS adopting a Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students policy.
That memo states:
“It is essential that schools should continue their support for marginalized students — including LGBTQ students — to reinforce that they belong in their school communities. Research consistently demonstrates that when schools take proactive steps to foster inclusivity — through strong policies, affirming practices, and supportive educators — students experience improved mental health, academic success, and overall well-being.”
Jones appeared to be preemptively defending a meeting with a representative of Safe Schools, in which Mary Stephens (the other member of the SPS policy subcommittee at the time) was present, against expected allegations from the Chair that it violated the Open Meeting Law.
Jury of Your Peers?
After Jones left the meeting, the committee went through a couple of agenda items, then began discussion of an agenda item titled “Policy Subcommittee Compliance.” It was moved up on the agenda at the request of Vice Chair Meredith Gerson.
Chair Nicole Burnard informed the committee that she heard comments about the policy subcommittee from a private citizen during a recent meeting of the Sudbury DEI Commission, and independently chose to launch an investigation of Jones’ meeting with Safe Schools and other activities. She read a chronological list of allegations and assertions, claimed an Open Meeting Law violation had occurred, and alleged improper contact with constituents. (30:00)
Burnard, reading from her computer, outlined the specific comments of the private citizen in the DEI Commission meeting and concluded an open meeting law violation had occurred: “The first one that a private citizen made stated that the policy subcommittee worked really hard with the director of Safe Schools on edits, so there is a newer version of this policy that has edits. This statement implies Mary and Karyn met together with the director of Safe Schools to discuss and edit the Transgender and Nonconforming policy. As school committee members we know this is an Open Meeting Law violation.”
Burnard went on to state that she spoke with Jones, and Jones told her that both she and Mary Stephens were present at the meeting with Safe Schools, but no policy discussion or edits took place during the meeting.
Burnard then said that she reached out to legal counsel and “requested the administration review emails on the SPS account between the private citizen, Mary, Karyn and the director of Safe Schools as it pertains to the meeting or the policy. I also requested to review both Karyn and Mary’s calendar for meetings with the director of Safe Schools and to pull a version history record of the transgender policy.” She claimed that the SPS IT department worked to pull the information.
With regard to the policy, Burnard informed the committee that the version history of the document shows that it was edited during the timeframe of the meeting Jones and Stephens had with Safe Schools. However none of the information she was referencing was included in the meeting packet. Burnard did not share the nature or scope of any edits that were made, only that the version history indicates edits were made.
Sudbury Weekly received a copy of the version history from Burnard, which is embedded below, and does not indicate the nature of any edits made other than to label when Jones changed the settings for who could access the document, or label time that any type of edits were made.
At this point, Burnard informed the committee that she had also spoken to Jason Wheeler of Safe Schools, who told her that the policy was not discussed during the meeting, and that Jones gave him access to the document after the meeting. That was consistent with the version history according to Burnard, but no further details were provided about the edits. Any change to a document, including formatting changes, will register as edits in the version history. It remains unclear if any substantive edits were made to the policy during the Safe Schools meeting, and the people present in the meeting all reported that the policy wasn’t discussed anyway.
Wheeler reportedly told Burnard that the formation of an LGBTQ+ Parent Advisory Committee (PAC) was discussed during the meeting, and Burnard stated that it was discussion of policy subcommittee business because she felt a policy would need to be developed for such a PAC to be created.
UPDATE: The committee already has a policy governing the appointment and functioning of advisory committees. (Policy BDF – Page 66) It is unclear what policy subcommittee work, if any, would be required relative to a new PAC given this policy already exists, does not reference a policy subcommittee, and puts the authority over PACs with the full school committee.
Vice Chair Gerson suggested that all policy development should happen in public meetings, and that giving edit rights to a policy draft to outside parties was inappropriate. She did not cite any specific policies or protocols for such a requirement. Member Mandy Sim indicated that meeting with outside parties for research on a policy is appropriate, but asserted that committee protocols had been violated, and that an Open Meeting Law violation had occurred. No specific protocols were cited, and none of the committee operating protocols appear relevant to the situation. (42:05)
All three members present agreed that Jones’ actions were proof of an inappropriate bias in favor of one perspective on the issue, and voiced frustration that members of the public had seen a draft before the full committee saw it. Again, they did not cite any policy or protocol that requires the full committee to see a draft before the public, and any such documents are public records; available to the public upon request.
Toward the end of their discussion, the committee majority opted to file an Open Meeting Law “violation” regarding its own policy subcommittee. Though the motion from Vice Chair Meredith Gerson called for authorizing the Chair to file a “violation,” the committee may only file a complaint with the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office. The AG’s office makes final determinations if a violation occurred. (1:08:00)
Chair Burnard also indicated that legal counsel advised her to delay further work on a Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students policy until two new members are elected and sworn into office in May, and that they should start over from scratch on the policy. It’s unclear what legal reasoning is behind that recommendation. Burnard claimed that a new policy subcommittee could not be formed at this time, but did not explain why she felt that was the case. The committee also discussed doing all policy work with the full committee moving forward. A subcommittee is not required for policy work.
Once the committee agreed to the delay, a member of the public stood up and said:
“What about the kids? I mean this is such bullshit. It’s such bullshit. What about the kids? You said you’re here for the kids. You’re not here for the kids.”
(1:10:30)
Irregularities
During the discussion, Chair Burnard claimed that filing an Open Meeting Law complaint would cost the district a $1,000 fine. That is not accurate. If the AG were to determine an OML violation occurred, the AG would still have to decide whether or not to fine anyone involved.
Recent OML determinations from the AG’s office show no fines against school districts when it is determined that an OML violation occurred. Member Mandy Sim voted against the motion to file a “violation” as she voiced a preference for the money to be used for students. After the vote, Superintendent Brad Crozier told the committee members that the AG may choose not to impose a fine “because you cured it.” (1:08:50)
Several of the allegations, and the investigation conducted by Chair Burnard, may conflict existing school committee policies.
Policy “BDG – School Attorney” requires committee authorization for the chair to engage legal counsel on anything other than routine business.
“A decision to seek legal advice or assistance on behalf of the school system will be made by the Committee. The Superintendent or Chair may also take such action at the direction of the Committee.”
“Many types of legal assistance are routine and do not require specific Committee approval or prior notice. However, when the Superintendent concludes that unusual types or amounts of professional legal service may be required, they will advise the Committee and seek either initial or continuing authorization for such service.”
(Page 73)
School committee policy does outline, in detail, the role of the Chair. That policy does not give the Chair the authority to investigate members of the committee at the Chair’s discretion. (Page 62)
Sudbury Weekly asked Burnard if she submitted a public records request to access emails, documents and calendar data of another committee member. She did not answer the question in her response. Sudbury Weekly also requested a copy of the document Burnard said she was reading on her computer screen when she walked through the timeline of events, and she did not provide a copy in her response.
UPDATE: Chair Burnard has disputed that Sudbury Weekly requested the document she announced she was reading from her screen during the meeting. Sudbury Weekly did not specify which documents – the request was for all materials: “I noticed the packet doesn’t include the materials that the committee had on-hand for the discussion about the policy subcommittee last night. Could you please share all the materials that were provided to the committee?” Burnard interpreted the request to mean the print materials that were handed out to the committee. The intent of the request was for all materials because all materials used or referenced during a public meeting are considered public record unless they are exempt. The Open Meeting Law and Public Records Law are clear on this. The State’s Open Meeting Law guide states: “The minutes of any open session, the notes, recordings or other materials used in the preparation of such minutes and all documents and exhibits used at the session, shall be public records in their entirety and not exempt from disclosure pursuant to any of the exemptions under clause Twenty-sixth of section 7 of chapter 4.” (Page 31) [Emphasis added]
Sudbury Weekly submitted a record request for copies of any record requests sent from Chair Burnard to Don Sawyer, the only Records Access Officer listed for SPS. Sawyer has not responded as of press time.
What’s Appropriate?
During her public comment, Jones referenced other policies that she felt demonstrated she was working within district rules. She pointed to policies KCB and KDB:
Policy KCB says: “Residents who are specially qualified because of interest, training, experience, or personal characteristics, will be encouraged to assume an active role in school affairs. From time to time, these people may be invited by the Committee to act as advisors, either individually or in groups.”
Policy KDB says: “The School Committee supports the right of the people to know about the programs and services of their schools and will make every effort to disseminate information. All requests for information will be acted on fairly, completely and expeditiously.”
Members of the committee voiced concern that meetings with outside groups or members of the community can create the perception of bias, and expressed their belief that all policy work should be conducted in open meetings. Vice Chair Gerson said the policy had been “tainted.” That’s an opinion of the majority, and is not codified in district policy or law.
While a subcommittee cannot meet privately and deliberate on issues that may come before that subcommittee, individual members can conduct research, engage experts, and meet with community members to inform their work. As Jones pointed out in her public comment, the committee has repeatedly relied upon an outside group, the Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC), to provide drafts of policies and updates to existing policies. MASC also offers legal review of draft policies.
Technicalities
If Chair Burnard follows through with an Open Meeting Law complaint, the committee will likely have to discuss their complaint against themselves at a future meeting. The AG’s office states:
“An Open Meeting Law complaint must first be filed with the public body that is alleged to have violated the law. G.L. c. 30A, § 23(b). The public body must review the complaint, take remedial action, if appropriate, and send a response to the complainant and to the Attorney General. G.L. c. 30A, § 23(b); 940 CMR 29.05(5). A complainant who is unsatisfied with the public body’s resolution of his or her Open Meeting Law complaint may file the complaint with the Attorney General and request review of the complaint. G.L. c. 30A, § 23(b); 940 CMR 29.05(6). The Attorney General will then review the complaint, investigate as needed, and determine whether there has been a violation of the Open Meeting Law. G.L. c. 30A, § 23(c).”
The discussion on Monday technically “cured” any violation, according to the Chair Burnard and Superintendent Brad Crozier, and the committee already agreed to do additional training. But they’re required to respond to themselves and the Attorney General regarding their complaint about themselves. Then they have to request that the Attorney General review their complaint about themselves if they would like an official determination.
The Attorney General’s office would then review, possibly conduct an investigation, and make a determination if the meeting with Safe Schools was indeed a violation. If the AG’s office determines there was a violation, it has the option to impose a fine up to $1,000, or may choose not to.
As for Chair Burnard’s investigation, it remains unclear exactly how the public records were accessed, and if they were accessed using the procedures outlined in the public records law, or by another method. The Secretary of the Commonwealth publishes a “Guide to the Public Records Law” which states: “A person seeking access to government records must request them directly from the municipality or agency that is the custodian of the requested records.” (Page 39) It goes on to say “To obtain a copy of a record, you must make a request to the RAO for the municipal or state agency that you believe has records you are seeking.”
The Bottom Line
All the rancor about protocols and the Open Meeting Law in the school committee meeting is but one part of the story. The precedent of a unilateral, chair-led investigation into other members of a committee is also significant. But the Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Student policy is ultimately the main issue for members of the SPS community, whether they are advocates or opponents of such a policy. The committee majority put it on ice until at least May, when they claim they intend to start the process over from scratch.
This story will be updated if Sudbury Weekly receives responses from the district with any of the public records requested.