Thursday, June 26, 2014

Either/Or. Which is it?

 Rookie Regional Chair Lawrence O'Brien

Yes last night's Amherst-Pelham Regional School Committee meeting was a tad discombobulated due to the firefight at public comment period, but that's still no excuse for using deception when invoking something as sacred as Executive Session.

According to the published agenda the Executive Session was "To discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining."  But when the committee actually went into Executive Session, Chair Lawrence O'Brien gave the reasons(s) as "Collective bargaining OR litigation."

Kind of a BIG difference.

Sort of like a spouse going out for a gallon of milk and returning home with a 65" High Definition TV.  Both are household purchases, but ...



Anonymous said...

Since both are legitimate reasons for Executive Session, I don't think you have a case. It was your choice to stick around and glean what you could after they came out of Executive Session ... or not.

Anonymous said...

Both are appropriate for executive session, so no big deal.

Larry Kelley said...

What is a REALLY BIG DEAL is when a member of a committee discloses what transpired during an Executive Session.

But you wouldn't know anything about that, now would you?

Anonymous said...

I'm still wondering why the School Committee chose to go into Executive Session near the beginning of the meeting instead of at the end, and kept the public and staff waiting (and waiting..... ) in the meantime.

Larry Kelley said...

Select Board doesn't do it that way.

Anonymous said...

Why is this important? You are such a rigid stickler. Why can't they have some flexibility in what is happening in exec session? Maybe when they drafted the precious agenda, they were undecided...?

Larry Kelley said...

It's important because they were being deceptive.

And no, you do not get "flexibility" when it comes to Executive Session.

Just as you don't allow flexibility with people handling nuclear weapons.

Anonymous said...

That's like comparing Hilter to Obama. Or Kendrick Place to the Keystone pipeline.

Larry Kelley said...

Or Anons to, well, Anons.

Blame the weed said...

"It's important because they were being deceptive."

Maybe they're just keeping up appearances?

You know

bizzy bizzy bizzy.

And Geryk,

always with the friggan prop glasses she doesn't even need!


Jesus Christ Amherst.

The WHOLE WORLD is laughing.

It really is!!!

-Squeaky Squeaks

Dr. Ed said...

Larry is right -- and my guess is that they'll have to re-do the meeting like the Sunderland Selectmen had to.

Anonymous said...

"What is a REALLY BIG DEAL is when a member of a committee discloses what transpired during an Executive Session.

But you wouldn't know anything about that, now would you?"

Gee Kelley, a "tad" sensitive aren't we? Dish it out but when somebody hits your whiny, call mama.


Larry Kelley said...

So who talked to you?

Anonymous said...

"So who talked to you?"

Brilliant comeback. Obviously you've been
Eavesdropping on your young children's arguments. Good strategy. Go juvenile, especially in this town.


Larry Kelley said...

I'll take the truth wherever I can find it.

Anonymous said...

On a related School Committee topic, I thought it surprising to see that Tara Luce, an Amherst elementary school employee, is now serving on the regional school committee. Have school district employees served as School Committee members for Amherst or the region previously? I realize she doesn't work for the MS or HS, which is the regional School Committee's jurisdiction, but since many of the administrators are the same for the region (MS/HS) and the elementary schools, it seems like there could potentially be some conflicts of interest there.

Anonymous said... Summary of the Conflict of Interest Law for Municipal Employees (including school employees):

Anonymous said...

Tara Luce is not on the Regional committee. She is on the Pelham SC so there is no conflict.

Anonymous said...

The Pelham Elementary School (under the jurisdiction of the Pelham School Committee) has same central office administrators as the Amherst elementary schools, MS, and HS.

Might there at least be the appearance of a conflict of interest? For example, as a member of the Pelham SC doesn't wouldn't Ms. Luce weigh in on the annual evaluation of the superintendent (since the Pelham elementary school has the same one as the Amherst schools do).

I don't have anything personally against Ms. Luce.

Dr. Ed said...

Is she supervising her own boss? Yes -- Maria G *is* her boss.

QED -- Conflict of Interest.

Will work for food said...

"Is she supervising her own boss? Yes -- Maria G *is* her boss."

Screw the IRS emails.

How abouts the Detweiler emails?

Oh wait, Ponziville's sanctified knuckle draggers are ~way~ too Prozacified to worry about those.

Besides, what's a few tens of thousands between "locals", right?




Anonymous said...

Luce is an Amherst Public School district employee sure enough. Counselor-and not a good one-at Crocker Farm. Can be quoted about an issue by saying "They don't pay me enough..." to tackle the racism that exists there. She will have to abstain, when the conflict of interest laws apply, in her vote. Perhaps this means when evaluating her boss. Either way-it is a bit fishy, and simply another white vote for 'proficiency and exemplary' in Maria's performance
if allowed. And if the district was performing in a manner they profess then our children--all of our children, would be succeeding and not the chosen few--who sadly enough, overwhelmingly represent the white, upper class population of the happy, happy valley. And the beat goes on...

Anonymous said...

As was pointed out earlier, Tara Luce is a member of the Pelham School Committee. The Pelham population is almost 95% white, and the Pelham elementary school population is 74% white. Luce's race should not a big issue as the Pelham School Committee is already more diverse than the town of Pelham.

That said, potential conflicts of interest with Luce, a Amherst school employee, serving as a Pelham School Committee member when Amherst and Pelham have the same superintendent and central office are not only present for matters in which Luce may be asked to evaluate her boss (the superintendent), but for any matters related to the superintendent's and the central administration's programs, initiatives, and proposed courses of action. Will Luce need to abstain from votes on these matters as well?

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:18 here again,
"Will Luce need to abstain from votes on these matters as well?"

to clarify, I meant unless she is planning to vote as her boss and the central administration hopes she will...