Complaint is addresses look like handiwork of same person
The Board of Registrars will meet on Friday morning to decide whether to take up discussion of a complaint filed by Vince O'Connor and Mary Wentworth regarding signatures collected on the nomination papers for School Committee candidate Phoebe Hazzard.
Ms Hazzard took out her papers only an hour-and-a-half before filing deadline, and then returned them 15 minutes before the drop dead deadline with 65 signatures.
The Town Clerk did disallow 7 of the signatures because the name did not match up with the address or were illegible, but did certify 58 which is 8 more than required for placement on the ballot.
The Board of Registrars met within 48 hours (February 12th) of the February 10th nomination deadline to certify the results and choose the order of appearance for candidates on the official ballot.
Hand delivered to Board of Registrars 35 minutes past deadline
A challenge to any nomination irregularity is supposed to be filed within 48 hours. Mr. O'Connor and Ms. Wentworth missed that deadline by 35 minutes, so the Town Clerk originally denied taking up the appeal with the Board of Registrars.
Mr. O'Connor did not take too kindly to that, so now the Town Clerk has called another meeting of the Board of Registrars, but their only decision on Friday will be whether to hear an appeal or not.
If they decide the 48 hour deadline does not apply then they will set another date to discuss the merits of the appeal.
Should enough signatures (9) be disqualified, Ms. Hazzard's name will not appear on the ballot for School Committee and that open seat will be filled by write ins.
There are two open Amherst School Committee seats and originally three candidates filed their papers by deadline. Incumbent Lawrence O'Brien withdrew before the 48 hour time limit leaving Vira Douangmany as the only guaranteed winner at the moment.
61 comments:
Once could infer from the signatures that this is Maria's in-house candidate, including signatures from her employees.
I am hesitant to accuse anyone, but I do think that someone who lives on Gray St. would know that it's not spelled Grey St. That's a red flag for me. I don't live there but the misspelling still jumped out for me.
Ever have that pesky mosquito flying in your ear in the middle of the night?
For town employees, it's the middle of the day, and, that mosquito? It's Vince.
Looks like these nomination papers were The Last-Minute Scramble of the Geryk & Appy School Insiders. How many of these signatures were from college students going to institutions out of town? It must have been kind of a rush when one's own street name is misspelled. Wow.
Duh, I didn't see it until now.
You have "signatures" for different people printed in the exact same handwriting.
These folks can't be this stupid, can they?
Are the high lighted ones the ones that are being challenged? And if so what is the challenge?
Yes the highlighted ones are those being challenged.
The charge is that the same person wrote in the address (which is legal to do) for more than one signature, but the suggestion is they also forged the signature (which is not legal to do).
In other words even if your spouse gives permission to forge their name, that is still illegal.
Any idea why O'Conner and Wentworth even care about this? Do they want to serve on the SC instead of this parent of a kindergartner?
No idea. And since Vince doesn't have Internet access he probably will not jump in and tell us.
This Hazzard person; her submission seems to be such an after-thought, last minute thing. Why should anyone take her seriously? She's just another Berg.
And also, for VOC to call someone out like this on a technicality (I mean... an illegal technicality and plainly wrong), submitting the papers late is kind of ironic slash comedic.
For those of us not keeping up, O'Brian will not seek re-election?
Correct. Mr. O'Brien withdrew for personal reasons.
Not to defend Vince's motivations, whatever they are, but it's hardly a "technicality" that several signatures of people were simply scrawled on there by someone else.
This ham-handed collection of nomination "signatures" might be the brain-deadest thing that's happened here since Pat Church took it upon herself to pull the Puerto Rican flag down off the town flagpole and take it home, thinking it was the Texas flag.
Still a comic highlight.
No one at 19 Owen can sign legibly (and its not highlighted)
Anon 9:50PM "No one at 19 Owen can sign legibly (and its not highlighted)"
I don't know what this means, but it's funny, all the same. And (I'll take your word for it), true.
I just looked up the Gray St. address. Even if the person who lives there doesn't know how to spell the street name, she surely know how to spell her own first name, which appears to be misspelled in the nomination papers (assuming it's spelled correctly in the online property record). I admire and respect the desire to run for school committee, but it looks like this decision was rushed through too quickly this time,
Let me get this straight.
This person is being accused of doing wrong.
This person is not admitting it.
And someone claiming they are NOT qualified to work for the govt?
someone who lives on Gray St. would know that it's not spelled Grey St.
No, I'd likely get it wrong, a lot of people would. A lot more wouldn't have even noticed -- you would be amazed at what people don;'t notice. Some time back, a police department (I forget where) was quite embarrassed when someone pointed out the 7-foot-tall pot plant growing right next to the front door of their police station.
The officers weren't looking for it there, and hence never saw it.
The Boston Globe once ran graphic full-frontal nudity, a still from a porn video -- on Page B-3-- and didn't know it until Howie Carr told them.
I'll admit that this appears to be the most sloppy forged nomination sheet since the one that Brad DeFlumeri attempted to use in a UM Student government thing -- and as this is a "real" election, there are criminal penalties, aren't there?
..."signatures" for different people printed in the exact same handwriting. These folks can't be this stupid, can they?
If it is a "they", it is clear evidence that Team Maria is imploding.
It's a combination of arrogance and delusion -- the belief that no one will notice anything, and that no on will dare say anything.
What does the "n" or "s" mean (column before signature)
and why doesn't the form require a printed name and a signature (like Doug Slaughter did)
It would be great if these papers were thrown out. Just image Vince winning a write in campaign, which he really could pull off. You would have Vera and Vince on the same committee.
Start popping the corn, we could be in for a great 3 year show. Maria could become the most uncomfortable public employee ever.
I would love to see Vince on the school committee. It will keep him out of trouble, and he'll fit right in.
Why is the Town Clerk not doing her job? If she was, then there would be no reason for Vince to dispute these signatures. There are enough violations of the law on those sheets to make them unacceptable.
Maria Geryk does not even know this person who is running. She has nothing to do with this.
Vince is the watch dog for everyone playing by the rules. Except him. His complaint was filed after the deadline. But he is such an exceptional person he thinks the deadline should be waived for him.
NO. A rule is a rule and a deadline is a deadline. I hope his complaint is thrown out because it was not timely filed.
the first three valley view signatures look like the same handwriting, not just the first two
Regardless of Vince's and Mary's complaint, now that it has been brought to light, if this is fraud, then this person can not be on the ballot. Can you imagine an election where everyone knew the person on the ballot lied to get on it. What a disgrace that would be.
As for the 59 signatures in 75 minutes that is pretty impressive. Maybe to impressive as a lot of the handwriting looks the same.
"As for the 59 signatures in 75 minutes that is pretty impressive."
One stop at the school's central office where employees have spouses and sons to add to the list and you are well on your way to filling the sheets.
(You would think HR would know better)
Pretty sure that #17 is at Brandeis U.
And his handwriting looks a lot his mom's @ #16
Pretty sure that #17 is at Brandeis U.
And his handwriting looks a lot his mom's @ #16
and #18 writes just like them too!
Pass me the highlighter as there are many that have been missed!
Board of Registrars meeting is tomorrow. It's a public meeting.
Some of the signatures are for school employees and their children.
This is why Maria does not have plausible deniability here.
At the very least, Ms. Hazzard made a mistake here.
This is very suspicious. #12 Rachel "Coblyn" goes by the last name Bowen and she works in the HR Dept. for ARPS. I smell a rat.
Ray #24 and Sara #25 have the "same writing style"
and the (3) folks living at 50 McClure and 99 Crossbrook all sign in the same way
Kinda does a number on the whole notion of a School Committee doing independent oversight, doesn't it?
Whatever happens tomorrow, the damage has been done. We have a school administration exploiting the inside knowledge it had about an incumbent who was abruptly bowing out and then nominating its own candidate at the 11th hour, who will now run unopposed.
Sure, they can do it, but it stinks to high heaven.
I was just reading an article about a school board in another place where they have 16 people running for 4 seats, and then another place where 8 people are running for 2 seats. I wondered why in Amherst no one seems very interested in running for school committee. I wondered why only one person in a town of 35,000 residents seems very eager at all to be on the board, while two incumbents are booking as fast as they can off the board.
Does anyone have any ideas? What incentive do mature, intelligent and experienced residents have to want to run?
It's a sinking ship. Jim Oldham has outlined the most recent problems at the Middle School in his column in the Bulletin. The changes there appear to be a done deal, without a peep from residents.
You are seeing college faculty in town looking at these schools, and increasingly deciding to send their children elsewhere. When that happens, Amherst begins to forfeit the advantage it has over other towns. The administration knows how to manipulate the politics in town to get the people they want on the committee, all in the name of "civility".
The whole controversy over race has turned into a major distraction, and, in the meantime, the curriculum including music and foreign language is being eroded, all in an effort to chase test scores.
There seems to be no one to channel these concerns within the current School Committee. Remember when we had that? Not that long ago, but those members weren't nice. One of them even (gasp) had her own blog to allow people to speak up.
But we fixed that.
Just read Anon 1028's comment and there is your answer. That person has no clue about what they are talking about but people will read it here and believe it. There is NO truth to their comment. The Amherst Regional SC is as dysfunctional a body as you will ever find. Throw Vira in the mix and it will get much worse. We should all be thanking Ms Hazzard for being willing to step up. She is making a huge sacrifice. And what does she get for her trouble? Read this blog for a taste. No wonder no one wants to run. Thank you Ms. Hazzard for stepping up. I look forward to meeting you one day. And let me add that I understand you have never met Ms Appy and have just met Ms Geryk in the last couple of days. So much for Anon 1028's comment.
Anon 11:15 pm fails to address the problem presented here. Who are the people signing the form? They include administration personnel, people with livelihood and daily routines directly affected by SC decision-making.
Is there a problem with that?
Anon 11:15 pm is correct to this extent: it's not about Ms. Hazzard's character.
Anon 11:15pm
It does look like many of the signatures on Ms. Hazzard's nomination papers are from the ARPS central office & their family members (who may or may not have actually signed themselves... including someone who is currently in college in Eastern Mass). That is not hyperbole but fact.
Do they have these kinds of issues at private schools? They typically have great reputations and spend less to educate the children. The coolest part is as a parent, you are the client/customer. A customer is always right, all a parent gets in the public school is all this crap. This is the tradeoff for only paying a fraction of the cost of your kid's education and forcing you childless neighbors and local businesses to pay for it. When you pay for something this debate goes away...it the difference between being 100% in charge and 1/35000 % in charge.
If those "signatures" turn out to be as dubious as they appear to be, Ms. Hazzard and her co-conspirators should be prosecuted for election fraud.
Mr. Kelley has tilted at windmills before, but this one seems to a real knight in putrid armor (with apologies to Cervantes).
Will he join Mr. O'Connor and Ms. Wentworth and push for what's right (even if he finds himself on the same side as people he may not like)?
We believe that we've eliminated the corrosive power of money in our municipal politics. But there is one place where residents have enormous distrust about how money is being spent on salaries: our school administration office. To have members of that office, who draw those salaries, signing nomination papers in the last hour of the process, for a candidate who will be unopposed on the ballot, is at the very least worthy of public discussion.
What I find interesting is that the folks from the old "Center of Amherst" column either could not find candidates to run or chose not to convince someone to run.
Either way it speaks volumes to massive growing dysfunction of the Amherst school system and the Amherst and Regional School Committees. To think some outsiders still think Amherst is second to none in terms of education.
Interesting that the town clerk thought that all was in order with these forms...
Wonder what previous submissions have looked like!
Why doesn't Jim Oldham run for School Committee? He appears to have more free time than Mary Wentworth, and more ideas about what's wrong than Vince OConnor.
Ditto for Janet McGowan
anon@1208: why would anyone run for SC? Their ONLY role is to say "Yes" to everything the sup presents. She has made their role ABUNDANTLY clear. Some want/like to blame the Amherst community for the lack of interest in running for SC. I believe that the way the sup runs the show has caused the problem.
what was the outcome of today's meeting of the Board of Registars?
The superintendent does not "run the show" when it comes to school committee, they are her boss, if they haven't figured out how to be effective elected school officials and effective bosses, that ain't the sups fault, it's their own.
The problem is that we get a continuous stream of ego-driven individuals who are motivated to run for SC for personal reasons, not by a desire to serve the kids and taxpayers. We have not had an SC that has figured out how to work together and collaboratively with the administration for many, many years now.
anon@2:33, I wish I remembered the date, but if I could I would refer you to the meeting where Ms Geryk told the SC their opportunity for input is during her review process (ie yearly), and basically said anything else was not acceptable. It was a shocking and revealing view into her understanding of what she feels is the role of the SC. Yep, who in their right mind would want that job...(unless, of course, you were 100% behind everything put before you)?
Anon 2:33. That's a load. We had lots of good committee's working with Hochman, the interim couple, A-Rod, and even Maria in the beginning. It only got ugly after the sham of a process to permanently give Maria Geryk the job as superintendent. It has gone down hill quickly from here. Want to blame someone, blame Maria's supporters, Maria's staff, attitude, and so forth.
No one in the school system does anything for any of the problems anymore. They listen and fail to respond or react. It is clear from the decline in students choosing to go to ARPS. For everyone that leaves there are many more who want to.
We have not had an SC that has figured out how to work together and collaboratively with the administration for many, many years now.
Very true, the SC was dysfunctional under Sayers last years, under Hochmann, under Rodriguez, and now under Geryk. Hard to say it's the superintendent's fault.
Take a look back at the boards over the last 10-12 years and try to determine the last time we had an effective and functional committee of school officials.
"but if I could I would refer you to the meeting where Ms Geryk told the SC their opportunity for input is during her review process (ie yearly), and basically said anything else was not acceptable"
I think you are referring to the times Ms. Geryk needed to remind Shabazz that a critical performance evaluation is to take place only during her review process, per contract, not continuously and certainly not during public meetings where her evaluation is not on the agenda, otherwise it is a breach of the contract which could result in litigation against the school district.
I imagine "input" from the SC comes in the form of reports to the superintendent from the many working sub-committees.
If Amherst school employees and their spouses decided not to get involved publicly with the election process for School Committee members, other than to vote, this would help matters a lot. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't see Town Hall and other municipal employees electioneering for Select Board.
anoan@4:37 PM:
what I refer to happened before that stuff, probably a year and half to 2 years ago...It wasn't an issue of her but rather some policy or issue...really it was a discussion and she shut it down!
... it was a discussion and she shut it down!
Again, if the school board (the sup's boss) allowed their subordinate (the sup) to "shut down" their discussion during a public meeting, that's no one's fault but their own! You are bolstering the case that the board is dysfunctional and ineffective.
But when you come up with any specifics, like when the meeting took place and what the discussion was, and how the sup "shut it down", let me know and we can go from there.
'kay?
Anon 2/20, 11:34 pm:
You need examples of the superintendent trying to restrict discussion & input by the School Committee (SC)? I can think of a number of examples of this.
One that sticks out in my mind & that perhaps is the one the earlier commenter is referring to is the joint SC meeting of Oct 22, 2013, when the superintendent & district staff presented the 2013-2014 District Improvement Plan.
After the administration's presentation, the SC members asked a number of questions about the plan, and were told, in no uncertain terms that their questions should be restricted to clarifying questions about the presentation, not about other items that the SC would like to see in the plan, but weren't there.
As noted in the minutes, a number of the SC members said that they had thought they would be able to have discussion on the plan, rather than just hear the administration's presentation.
When SC members respectfully asked questions and made comments, they were told by the superintendent that the District Improvement Plan is the superintendent's roadmap for the district, not the SC's, and that the superintendent is not seeking the SC's approval or the plan or "statements of a negative tone." The regional SC chair commented about other SC members' remarks, accusing people of "cannibalizing their allies."
Minutes from that meeting are on the ARPS web site: http://arps.ss3.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_926729/File/JointSCMinutes/October%2022,%202013.pdf
and Amherst Media has a recording of that meeting: http://www.amherstmedia.org/content/joint-school-committee-10-22-13-october-22-2013
The staff's presentation ends @ 1:30, and the comments start thereafter. The comments about "cannibalizing allies" start @ 1:50.
Good for her, exactly what she should have said and done.
If the SC's comments were acceptable and appropriate then they should have/would have continued, but they either weren't or they didn't know whether they were acting within their official capacity so they stopped. Either way, ineffective and dysfunctional.
Post a Comment