Page 4 THE SAUGUS ADVOCATE – Friday, January 10, 2020 SESSION | FROM PAGE 1 vote to privatize the school custodians – Committee Chair Jeanette E. Meredith and Members Linda N. Gaieski and Marc Charles Magliozzi – were all defeated convincingly in their reelection bids. School Committee Members Lisa Morgante and Elizabeth Marchese did not seek reelection. The Division of Open Govern8 Norwood St. Everett (617) 387-9810 www.eight10barandgrille.com Kitchen Hours: Mon-Thurs: 12-10pm Fri-Sat: 12-11pm Sunday: 1pm-10pm $12 LUNCH Menu! Come in & Enjoy our Famous... Choose from 16 Items! Served Monday thru Thursday until 3:30 PM Grilled Rib Eye Steak! Only $22.00 includes Two Sides Every Friday FRESH HADDOCK DINNER Prepared Your Way! Includes two sides Catch the NFL on our 10 TV’s! AUTOTECH 1989 SINCE Get Your Vehicle Winter Ready! OIL CHANGE SPECIAL Up to 5 Quarts of Oil (Most Vehicles) Includes FREE Brake Inspection & Safety Check Only $24.95 DRIVE IT - PUSH IT - TOW IT! CASH FOR YOUR CAR, TRUCK OR SUV! 2011 FORD F-150 CREW CAB Platinum Package, 4X4, Loaded, Every Option, Clean Title, Only 99K Miles, Trades Welcome! PRICE REDUCED! $18,500 Easy Financing Available! 781-321-8841 '13 DODGE DURANGO SXT 1236 Eastern Ave • Malden EddiesAutotech.com For Your Vehicle! 4X4, Most Power; includes Moon Roof, Premium Sound System, Back-up Camera, 3rd Row Seating, Tow Pkg., Clean Title, Only 92K Miles! TRADES WELCOME! $14,500 We Pay Cash $2.45 GALLON ment issued the determination in response to seven complaints – two of them by The Saugus Advocate – fi led last June alleging that the Saugus School Committee violated the Open Meeting Law. One of the complaints was fi led by Eric McKenna on behalf of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 93. Four complaints were fi led by members of the Moore family (William Moore, Ryan Moore, Christian Moore and Donna Moore). Six of the seven complaints relate to the executive session the Committee held on May 8. The six complaints concerning the School Committee’s May 8 meeting collectively allege: 1) the committee entered into executive session without a proper purpose; 2) the Chair failed to state that holding the executive session discussion in open session would have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the committee; 3) the committee discussed matters in executive session that were not listed on the meeting notice; 4) the committee failed to create minutes of the May 8 executive session; and 5) the committee’s violations were intentional. No legal purpose for May 8 meeting In her determination letter, Assistant Attorney General Flynn explains in great detail why there wasn’t any basis for the May 8 executive session. “To begin, we fi nd that the Committee committed several procedural missteps when convening in executive session on May 8. First, the Chair did not make the required announcement in open session stating all subjects that may be revealed without compromising the purpose for which the executive session was called,” Flynn wrote. “In addition, the Chair failed to state whether the Committee would reconvene in open session.... Finally, the Committee did not vote to enter into executive session by roll call, with the vote of each member recorded and entered into the minutes. “Next, we must determine whether the Committee’s May 8 discussion fell within one of the enumerated executive session purposes. We fi nd that it did not. One permissible reason to convene in executive session is “[t] o conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations with nonunion personnel or to conduct collective bargaining sessions or contract negotiations with nonunion personnel.” The School Committee did not specify a statutory purpose for its executive session. But Flynn noted the language “Move into Executive Session for the purpose of Collective Bargaining with the Custodians and The Superintendent’s Contract” in the May 8 meeting notice suggests that the Committee intended to claim executive session Purpose 2. Purpose 2 allows a public body to meet in executive session “[t]o conduct strategy sessions in preparation for negotiations with nonunion personnel or to conduct collective bargaining sessions or contract negotiations with nonunion personnel.” Flynn determined that the School Committee did not conduct collective bargaining sessions during its May 8 executive session. Therefore, Purpose 2 did not apply as a reason for the executive session. Flynn said she also reviewed whether the executive session was proper under Purpose 3 – which allows a public body “to discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining or litigation if an open meeting may have a detrimental eff ect on the bargaining or litigating position of the public body and the chair so declares. This purpose didn’t apply either. “During the committee’s executive session, it discussed the process of outsourcing custodial services, potential cost savings, and a proposed plan for how to utilize those cost savings,” Flynn noted in her fi nding. “Although the Committee had limited discussion regarding the impact bargaining it was engaged in with the union representing custodial staff, the executive session discussion was predominantly focused on these other topics. Purpose 3 limits discussion to those topics that directly correlate to collective bargaining negotiations, rather than broader policy or budgetary matters,” she wrote. “We therefore find that the Committee violated the Open Meeting Law by discussing topics that were not authorized by executive session Purpose 3, or any other purpose. Additionally, we take this opportunity to remind the Committee that, even if an executive session is lawfully convened, each topic to be discussed must be individually identifi ed on the meeting notice as well as in the announcement in open session prior to entering executive session, and the Committee’s discussions must adhere to those identifi ed topics.” Violations were “not intentional” The McKenna complaint alleges that the “Committee acted intentionally in its violations... as evidenced by the … chair’s failure to acknowledge members’ requests to revoke votes already taken; and the [Committee’s] failure to vote in open session following the May 8, 2019 executive session meeting.” “Neither of these assertions relating to a failure to take corrective action after the fact, even if true, demonstrates that the Committee acted in intentional violation of the Open Meeting Law on May 8,” Flynn wrote. The Division of Open Government determined that the School Committee did not violate the Open Meeting Law in its June 26 executive session. “During the June 26 executive session, the Committee discussed the impact bargaining with the union representing custodial staff , a litigation matter, Open Meeting Law complaints, and executive session minutes,” Flynn wrote. “We fi nd that each of these discussions fell under a proper executive session purpose. The discussions of the impact bargaining and the litigation matter were proper under Purpose 3 which allows a public body to enter into executive session “[t]o discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining or litigation if an open meeting may have a detrimental eff ect on the bargaining or litigating position SESSION | SEE PAGE 5 Lawrence A. Simeone Jr. Attorney-at-Law ~ Since 1989 ~ * Corporate Litigation * Criminal/Civil * MCAD * Zoning/Land Court * Wetlands Litigation * Workmen’s Compensation * Landlord/Tenant Litigation * Real Estate Law * Construction Litigation * Tax Lein * Personal Injury * Bankruptcy * Wrongful Death * Zoning/Permitting Litigation 300 Broadway, Suite 1, Revere * 781-286-1560 Lsimeonejr@simeonelaw.net
5 Publizr Home