Share This Article
The October 21 meeting of the Sudbury Public Schools (SPS) School Committee featured a peculiar discussion about future agenda item requests. Where they netted out was equal parts farcical and ominous.
A future agenda item is a request from a member of a committee to put a topic on an upcoming meeting agenda for the committee to discuss, deliberate, and sometimes take formal action.
Chair Nicole Burnard stated that the new process would be to motion to add an item to a future agenda, it would need to be seconded, and then they would take a vote. Vice-Chair Gerson then added that the only discussion allowed would be regarding scheduling, and not the validity of the proposed agenda item.
Members were divided over whether they could express why they think a proposed future agenda item was important to discuss at a future meeting. (1:32:30)
Member Mary Stephens argued that expressing why it was important to put a topic on the agenda was not the same as deliberation on the item itself. She added that the Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC) agreed with her interpretation.
Vice-Chair Meredith Gerson took a hard line on severely limiting discussion about future agenda items, citing her interpretation of the Open Meeting Law and her recollection of advice that was provided to the committee in an unrecorded workshop with an attorney during the October 10 school committee meeting.
Gerson responded that she would rather take the advice of an attorney and dismissed MASC as guidance by people who have experience as school committee members and questioned the legal veracity of their guidance in general. (1:33:50)
The advice the attorney provided to SPS cannot be reviewed because the school committee voted to adjourn from their open session on October 10 in order to begin a “workshop” covering the Open Meeting Law with an attorney. The workshop was listed as an agenda item for the open session.
It’s unclear why the committee felt the motion and vote to adjourn was necessary, as they were continuing an open session and discussing an agenda item. The only change was that they stopped the video recording. (6:00)
While it’s not uncommon for the school committee to opt not to record workshops, the combination with an open session that they recorded themselves without the assistance of SudburyTV was unusual given their prior disagreements about hybrid meetings.
Opening meeting law aside, the vote to adjourn just to stop video recording raised questions about transparency. While the Attorney General’s Open Meeting Law Guide states that the purpose of the law is to ensure transparency, the school committee majority’s interpretation of the Open Meeting Law seems to muzzle committee members rather than increasing transparency.
“The purpose of the Open Meeting Law is to ensure transparency in the deliberations on which public policy is based. Because the democratic process depends on the public having knowledge about the considerations underlying governmental action, the Open Meeting Law requires, with some exceptions, that meetings of public bodies be open to the public.”
Attorney General’s Open Meeting Law Guide
Much of this is happening at a time when the committee has received repeated public comments about their choice to alternate between remote and in-person only meetings rather than using hybrid meeting technology that is readily available. Those decisions were divided along the same lines, with the committee appearing to be split three to two.
Over the course of the at-times absurd discussion on October 21, other members added their own take on the issue or asked clarifying questions. The discussion grew tense at times, and hypothetical scenarios added confusion to a a discussion that was bizarre from the the get-go.
Other committees and boards in Sudbury also have “future agenda items” as routine agenda items for their meetings. Member Karyn Jones referenced the practices of other committees she has served on in Sudbury. But the will of the majority was to implement a practice in which a member could motion to add a topic to a future agenda, but say nothing more about it.
The interpretation of the Open Meeting Law being applied by the majority of the school committee appears to be inconsistent with how other committees operate in Sudbury. For example, the Sudbury Select Board has “Future Agenda Items” on most of their agendas, and members discuss the broad reasons why they are requesting the item, or what timing they think is appropriate for it, without necessarily taking a position on the matter.
Sudbury Weekly was unable to find any guidance from the Attorney General or other official body that supports the legal counsel the committee allegedly received. Sudbury Weekly also could not verify the legal counsel that was referenced by some of the committee members, because, as stated above, that portion of their meeting was not recorded.
Towards the end of the discussion, the committee began to field motions for future agenda items. The voting procedure was a sloppy mess difficult to follow, some of the items will be discussed in the future anyway, and most of the motions, including one merely to discuss school district goals as required by committee policy, failed by clearly divided 2-3 votes.
The discussion was the latest in a recurring series of exchanges in which Vice-Chair Gerson’s interpretations of the Open Meeting Law have stymied deliberation among the committee members on any number of topics. In combination with the limitations on discussion of future agenda items, the result is a school committee that appears preoccupied with what they can’t talk about, or perhaps don’t want to talk about in open session.
During the July 22 meeting, the Chair claimed that an Open Meeting Law violation had occurred because of an email thread among committee members discussing scheduling, hybrid meetings and public participation. The email allegedly cited the exception in the Open Meeting Law for discussion about administrative matters, like scheduling, among a quorum of the committee. (1:24:38)
While reviewing minutes from that meeting a month later, the committee agreed to change the language in the minutes to “potential Open Meeting Law violation,” because Member Mary Stephens had called the Office of the Attorney General to verify that it couldn’t be a violation unless the Attorney General’s office makes a determination that there was a violation. (1:33:45)
On Friday, November 1, SPS posted the agenda for their Monday, November 4 meeting. The committee will be discussing MCAS results, the FY26 budget, a pre-K tuition increase, school improvement plans, and if the pattern holds… the Open Meeting Law?
