The Attorney General cordially demands

So it comes as no b-i-g surprise that Amherst Regional School Committee Chair Rick Hood trampled yet another Open Government rule by failing to forward to the Attorney General an official response to my 11/23 Open Meeting Law complaint.

After all, in July of 2010--only four months into his school committee tenure--the local District Attorney cited him with an Open Meeting Law violation for deliberating with a quorum of committee members via email.

At least back then he could use the "I'm a newbie" excuse.

Now no longer a rookie, he will have to scramble to comply--no doubt enlisting the aid of $220/hour attorney Gini Tate who already advised ARPS Superintendent Maria Geryk and Human Resource Director Kathy Mazur to ignore a demand from the Division of Public Records to release documents concerning payouts totaling $200,000 to 13 former employees over the past five years.

What does it all mean?

Apparently the ARPS Good Ol' Girls network abhors sunshine. And Rick Hood needs to learn the difference between running a $20 million dollar private yacht company and a $50 million public school kept afloat via tax dollars--the lions share consumed in Amherst, the town built on education.

What price public documents?

Shawn Williams, Assistant Director
Public Records Division
McCormack Building, Room 1719
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108

8/22/2011

Dear Mr. Williams,

First off, my sincere condolences on the loss of Director Alan Cote. He was a true champion of keeping records open and available to the general public, a thankless and--unfortunately in Massachusetts--never ending job.

I'm aware your office seldom refers matters to the Attorney General for further action these days, but I'm requesting you do exactly that with the case of the Amherst Schools obstinately defying your order to produce 13 settlement agreements with public employees costing Amherst taxpayers $200,000 over the past five years.

As I understand it only two options now exist for overcoming this willful roadblock: referring the matter to the AG by your office for enforcement of your original order, or I can bring the matter to Superior Court such as the Boston Globe has done with an almost identical case.

Unfortunately option #2 will cost me $275 plus the additional cost as an Amherst taxpayer when the schools use attorney Regina Tate at $220/hour to defend their case.

It seems the Amherst Schools are using South Hadley as an example for doing the public's business: as secretly as possible. Please, do not allow them to be rewarded for this unethical pattern of behavior.

Sincerely Yours,

Larry Kelley
596 South Pleasant St
Amherst, Ma 01002
413 256-0491

Call in the Cavalry

Alan Cote, Supervisor of Records
Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth
McCormack Building, Room 1719
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
8/15/2011

Dear Mr. Cote,

I am requesting further assistance from the Public Records Division concerning my previous public documents request of the Amherst Schools for employee settlement agreements over the past five years with a value greater than $5,000.

In a 7/20/2011 letter to the Amherst schools your office, responding to my 4/7/11 appeal request, found in my favor saying, "The school has failed to show that the responsive separation agreements include personal information sufficient enough to withhold the agreements in their entirety under Exemption (C)."

On 8/2/2011 I met with Amherst School Superintendent Maria Geryk and Human Resources Director Kathy Mazur to pick up the documents. The Amherst officials, however, refused to provide any of the 13 settlement agreements, offering instead a "summary" with no names, job titles, dates or any other information besides the total amount of each individual settlement (document attached).

Could your office please issue another administrative order clarifying for the schools how to properly comply with your original order to provide the settlement agreements in question? As always, thank you for working to maintain transparency within our government.

Larry Kelley
596 South Pleasant St.
Amherst, Ma 01002

Settlement Agreement Summary

My Meet-and-Greet with Maria

So no, Attorney Regina Tate was not present for our mid-afternoon pow-wow yesterday in the Superintendent's office...well, at least not in a physical sense. But her spiritual presence was overpowering.

Under additional $220/hour advice from Attorney Tate, the schools defied the official ruling of the state Public Records Division by continuing to withhold the (13) employee settlement agreements.

What little they did give me indicates payouts of almost $200,000 over the past five years.

Settlement Agreement Summary Click link

Detention?

From: Kathy Mazur
To: amherstac@aol.com
Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 2:07 pm
Subject: Tuesday

Hi Larry - Can you please meet with Maria and me at 3 pm next Tuesday? I expect to have the settlement information ready at that time, and Maria and I would like to be able to answer any questions you might have, as well as have an opportunity for us to provide some context for the settlements. Thanks, Kathy
##############################################

I feel a bit like the petulant school child sent to the principal's office for discipline, or what the Chinese government refers to as "retraining." Stimulates not-so-fond memories from St. Michael's Catholic school in Northampton, where the first line of offense was a brief stay in the cramped cloakroom.

Of course the ironic thing about the Amherst Schools trying to keep these settlement agreements with public employees secret is that by taking flawed legal advice from Attorney Tate and resisting my initial public documents request they have only attracted additional attention to the matter.

Furthermore, had I not published the formal finding from the Public Documents Division spelling out the Schools' mistake, a reader would not have seen the opportunity to forward me documentation regarding the other recent incident where the Schools, acting on bad legal advice, withheld the resume of the "interim" Director of Special Education, thereby earning yet another reprimand from state officials.

Rather than spend taxpayer money on bad legal advice, perhaps the Schools--a $50 million enterprise--should hire an entry level Public Relations advisor to spin positive stories and prevent recurrence of these embarrassing faux pas.

Just say NO

I'm not the only one Attorney Regina Tate advises her client--the Amherst Schools--to deny access to public documents.

Back in March parents with a vested interest in Special Education requested the credentials and certifications of the "interim" (going on two years now) Director of Special Education JoAnn Smith, a $99,612 salaried public employee very much in the "public eye".

Under advice of Nancy Reagan--I mean-- Attorney Regina Tate, the Amherst schools refused to comply by invoking "exception C", the privacy exemption.The petitioner appealed to the Public Records Division and received a telling response earlier this month from staff attorney Lori Sullivan:

I have received your inquiry on the status of your public records appeal. A review of the matter reveals that the Amherst Pelham School District (School District) is withholding teacher and staff credentials/certifications. Our office will have to send an administrative order to the School District to try to get them to comply with the request. Once it is drafted and reviewed by the Assistant Director, it will be mailed to both the School District and to you.

According to easily accessed public records information available online: "Specifically, any relevant degrees and certifications listed on an employee’s resume may be subject to disclosure upon request. Public employees have a diminished expectation of privacy in matters relating to their public employment and the public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether public employees possess the qualifications necessary to perform their jobs."

Seems pretty simply to me. But then, I'm not an expensive Big City lawyer.

"A paramount and prevailing right to know"

Click photos to enlarge/read

Let's hope Amherst Schools' attorney Regina Tate is embarrassed enough by the Public Records Division's official ruling to perhaps feel guilty about billing the client--'We the People'--for such bad advice.

After all, town attorney Joel Bard, a principal with Boston law firm Kopelman and Paige, perused my duplicate request to Town Hall a few months before the Schools and correctly advised Town Manager John Musante to turn over all the requested documents.

I especially like the Public Documents pros addressing the issue of municipal employees outside the "public eye". Attorney Tate seems to think that anything happening beyond the "public eye"--i.e. under cover of darkness--should stay forever buried.

All of those secret deals are now in the realm of the undead.

They have secrets (and want to keep them)

Supervisor of Records
Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth
McCormack Building, Room 1719
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
5/9/2011

Dear Mr. Cote,
I wish to appeal the recent decision by the Amherst public Schools denying my documents request for separation agreements with (now former) employees that cost local taxpayers tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of dollars.

Months earlier I made the same request of the Town Manager and Amherst Select Board (town employees are legally separate from school employees) which town officials initially balked at providing, but town attorney Joel Bard ruled the request fell within the parameters of public documents law and I was reluctantly provided the material--some of it potentially embarrassing.

I also find it odd that the schools would turn over the settlement agreement of former Superintendent Alberto Rodriguez but none of the others (and at this point I have no idea how many others exist.) It only takes one white crow to disprove the theory all crows are black.

And if all of the other settlements agreements are the result of internal discipline regarding the performance of a school teacher and as such is "personnel . . . information" within the meaning of G. L. c. 4, s. 7, Twenty-sixth (c) [797-799], therefor exempt from disclosure under the public records law, G. L. c. 66, s. 10 [799-800] then why did the those employees receive hefty settlements paid for with tax dollars?

Larry Kelley


To: Gerykm@arps.org, mazurk@arps.org
Sent: Thu, Apr 7, 2011 12:15 pm
Subject: Public Documents Request

Could I please get any and all separation, severance, transition, or settlement agreements made since January 1, 2005 between the Schools (both Amherst elementary and Regional HS) employees that include compensation, benefits, or other payments worth more than $5,000.

Thanks.
LK


Sent: Thu, Apr 28, 2011 2:36 pm
Subject: Re: Public Documents Request
Dear Larry,

Based on advice by our school attorney and the districts' contact with the Massachusetts Office of Public Records, we are enclosing a copy of the Settlement Agreement of Alberto Rodriguez. However, as to the other documents you are seeking, it is the position of the districts that these documents are not public record per the Wakefield decision and the districts do not feel they can be released.

Sincerely,

Kath

Kathryn Mazur
Director of Human Resources
Amherst-Pelham Regional
School District

They HAD a secret #2

Two years ago the assistant I.T. Director was let go for sending an email complaint about his boss to town manager Larry Shaffer, also copied to the entire Select Board.

I filed a public documents request for said dispatch; the town manger turned me down citing Exemption C, the most often used excuse: "Personnel and medical files or information; also any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

But in late February I requested any and all "separation, severance, transition, or settlement agreements made since January 1, 2005 between the town of Amherst and their employee's that include compensation, benefits, or other payments worth more than $5,000."

So here it is: Just another case of an employee who suddenly disappears (with $25-K in hand)
####################################
A Gazette reporter called yesterday to interview me about the original post concerning the town manager's sudden retirement with a $62-K going away present and his, errr, administrative assistant also disappearing that same day with a $22-K payday after only 3-and-a-half years employment with the town.

He wanted to know "why the people should care?" Good question. Not sure I answered well enough for him and even if so it may never see the light of print anyway, so I will answer it again here.

Of the 13 individuals covered under these agreement more than half of them are simply routine retirements or early retirements. But because they are all kept secret, it casts a shadow on those that are routine, as though they did something wrong.

When the town attorney informed the town manager he had to give up the documents, Mr. Musante requested another week to contact the former employees via snail mail to inform them that someone had been given their legal agreements.

And I'm sure some of them--even those who should not be--started to get nervous.

The highest payout ($44,000) was actually the most normal in that it was a very-high ranking employee with over thirty years of distinguished service. That settlement included unused vacation pay, sick time, personal days, longevity pay, etc.

Another woman who had left the same position Ms. "Jane Doe" occupied (administrative assistant to the town manager--and I'm told by multiple sources did a much better job) was not on the settlement list, because she received no money. Since she voluntarily resigned her town position for a better job at Amherst College, you would expect no such settlement.

So then why did "Jane Doe" get paid $22-K when she "voluntarily" resigned ten months later?

If the former town manager Larry Shaffer had used $22-K out of his $25-K going away present, then I would have not pursued this case so vigorously. But since it was all funded with tax dollars, I honestly believe the people have a right to know.

Just another WikiLeaks document dump...

So once again I have set my blogger controls to automatically publish at 2:30 this afternoon another chapter from my recent acquisition of 82 pages of legal documents via Public Documents Law concerning secret settlement agreements with 13 town employees over the past five years.

No, I'm not afraid town officials will have me terminated with extreme prejudice between now and then or anything, it's just that even though I now live a cyber-life I still have ink in my veins. And nothing is more motivating than a drop-dead deadline.

They HAD a Secret

Larry Shaffer, Stephanie O'Keeffe, Aaron Hayden

I call her Jane Doe

While public documents czar Alan Cote denied my appeal for full disclosure of the 8/30/10 Select Board executive session minutes where town officials huddled in secret for over an hour to discuss the strikingly sudden "retirement" of town manager Laurence Shaffer (the very night the Board was scheduled to publicly discuss his annual "performance evaluation"), the town grudgingly complied with my request for Shaffer's "Employment Settlement and release of claims" agreement and that of his office administrative assistant who also, coincidentally enough, simultaneously disappeared.

So here's the executive summary, but I invite you to click on the hotlinks below to read the documents in full: Shaffer's platinum parachute, after only four years of "service" to the town, a whopping $62,129.

And Jane Doe, serving only three-and-a-half years (earning $43,900 last year) sauntered off with $23,012. In the private sector you would be lucky to get a couple weeks to a month pay as severance (and even then only after a ten year minimum service), or in her case about $3,000 and Shaffer's case maybe $10,000.

“I’ve never heard of anybody, public sector or private sector, getting severance pay when they voluntarily leave employment,” said John Tillman, CEO of the Illinois Policy Institute. Interestingly the legal agreements dubbed Jane Doe a "resignation," Mr. Shaffer a "retirement."

"In a week's time I'll be 62 years old and indeed I have been thinking about retirement," Shaffer told the Select Board back then (with two years still left on his contract). That final spring in Amherst Mr Shaffer retired a few things: divorcing his wife and selling his home on Amity Street.

But merely a month after his October 1 "retirement" he was seeking a city manager job in Michigan. According to the 12/10/10 Birmingham Patch: "Because Shaffer's significant other teaches at Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant, commissioners asked him about whether he plans to commute. Shaffer assured them that he's fully open to making Birmingham his permanent home if he is offered the position and that he's here to stay."

That "significant other" is former UMass psychology professor Jane Ashby who, five years ago, sat on the original Amherst "citizen search committee" that chose Shaffer over two other highly qualified candidates; she too divorced her spouse in Amherst last spring and headed off to Central Michigan University, a state school that made CBS Money Watch list of "25 Colleges With the Worst Professors."

The whereabouts of Shaffer's former administrative assistant is currently unknown.

Jane Doe's agreement
Click links above and below to read
Larry Shaffer's agreement

official minutes of 80 minute 8 /30 executive session (all two sentences, where one of them was redacted)

Not so Public, Records

So according to today's venerable Daily Hampshire Gazette my Public Documents appeal for the redacted sentence (one of only two sentences covering the entire meeting) from the 8/30 Executive Session of the Amherst Select Board granting Town Manager Larry Shaffer a sudden retirement with four months pay as a going away present will be denied due to the "personal" nature of the discussion, which lasted a full hour and twenty minutes.

Oddly enough a state attorney updated me via email last week saying they were waiting to talk with the town attorney before making their decision; and I of course responded with a request for that final decision to also be sent to me via email. Apparently that request too was denied.

Since today is a federal holiday, safe bet I'll get the official letter (dated 2/15) tomorrow via good old fashioned snail mail. I guess the Post Office could use the business.

Sorry about that Chief

Click to enlarge/read
UPDATE 11: AM : Already heard back from the State (gotta love email):

-----Original Message-----
From: Shallow, Joanne (SEC)
To: amherstac@aol.com
Sent: Wed, Apr 7, 2010 9:44 am
Subject: RE: Public Documents Appeal

Where is your copy of your written request for the documents?

Did the custodian respond by e-mail? Is the attachment you sent to this office the original response from the custodian, or did you copy it?

From: amherstac@aol.com
To: Joanne.Shallow@state.ma.us
Sent: Wed, Apr 7, 2010 11:17 am
Subject: Re: Public Documents Appeal

My original written request (via email) is at the bottom of this string dated 3/15/10 9:21 AM
The custodian's response (via email) is above that dated 3/25/10 4:57 PM (which I believe is a day late)
Yes, this was all done via the Web.

I probably should have just sent you my blog upload that time date stamps everything (and is rather public):

http://onlyintherepublicofamherst.blogspot.com/2010/03/best-disinfectant.html

Larry


From: Shallow, Joanne (SEC)
To: amherstac@aol.com
Sent: Wed, Apr 7, 2010 1:20 pm
Subject: RE: Public Documents Appeal

I will open an appeal for you. What is the mailing address for Mr. Hajir for hard copy?

From: amherstac@aol.com
To: Joanne.Shallow@state.ma.us
Sent: Wed, Apr 7, 2010 1:38 pm
Subject: Re: Public Documents Appeal

Hey Joanne,

Hmm...that's a good question. Since he is an elected volunteer who lives outside Amherst, I'm not sure about his home address. Probably should just mail to: Amherst Regional High Schoo,l 21 Mattoon Street, Amherst, Ma. 01002
c/o Amherst Regional School Committee

Larry

#############################################
ORIGINAL POST 8:00 AM
So I guess in addition to a copy editor I could also use a secretary. I did just now go back to the Secretary of State's webpage and found an email address for the Supervisor of Records and resent my original complaint, and the Regional Committee Chair Farshid Hajir response/denial (which was a day late) all nicely time/date stamped.

Ah, the convenience of the Web.

Should have just sent them my original upload

The best disinfectant

Supervisor of Records
Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth
McCormack Building, Room 1719
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108

I wish to appeal the recent decision by Amherst Regional High School Committee Chair Farshid Hajir denying my Public Document request of March 14 for a copy of his "four notebooks" worth of "impressions" of the (former) Amherst School Superintendent Alberto Rodriguez.

Mr. Hajir boasted about those general impressions in a highly public Springfield Sunday Republican Newspaper article admitting they were garnered during meetings between Superintendent Rodriguez with staff and parents that he observed in his official capacity as Regional School Chair.

Under the recent decision of District Attorney for the Northern District v. School Committee of Wayland, 455 Mass. 561, 567--568 (12/31/2009), our Supreme Judicial Court held that evaluation of a school superintendent was not subject to an exemption under the open meeting law and must be discussed in public.

If any personal information about Mr. Hajir or his family appears in the notebooks, an independent third party can redact that sensitive information.

Since Alberto Rodriguez was the highest paid public employee in town and left suddenly after only 8 months into a 3-year contract, the taxpayers have a right to know what precipitated his demise--especially since he is receiving full compensation through 6/1/2010.

Sincerely,

Larry Kelley
460 West St.
Amherst, Ma 01002

###################################

To: amherstac@aol.com; Kathy Mazur; Debbie Westmoreland
Sent: Thu, Mar 25, 2010 4:57 pm
Subject: Re: Public Documents Request
Dear Mr. Kelley,

Thank you for your reminder (March 24th) of the request you made on March 15th
(attached) for a copy of my notebooks referenced in an article by Diane Lederman
in the Republican Newspaper. The notebooks mentioned in the article contain
some of my personal impressions and ideas from my work as a member of the
Regional School Committee. Some of these were jotted down during meetings but
most of the notes were written at home as I reflected over the day's events, in
the form of a diary. The notes written during meetings were not an official
record, transcript, or minutes of the meetings, and I did not communicate them
to anyone; they were the thoughts that occurred to me as the meetings took
place. I consider my notes my personal reflections for my personal use.
Inasmuch as they constitute a record merely of a public official in dialogue
with himself, in my judgment, they do not constitute a public record and I do
not have any obligation to reveal them. You may, of course, take a different
position, and take the appropriate steps to make a determination to the
contrary. If it is determined that my notes are a public record, it's my
understanding that it would still not be appropriate in that case for the
material to be made public because they would then constitute written documents
for the Superintendent's evaluation and therefore be exempt from public
disclosure in accordance with the Supreme Judicial Court Ruling of 2009 in the
Wayland case.


Thank you for your interest in the Amherst-Pelham Regional Public Schools.


Regards,
Farshid Hajir

###################################
Mass General Law Chapter 4, Section 7, Paragraph 26:

"Public records'' shall mean all books, papers, maps, photographs, recorded tapes, financial statements, statistical tabulations, or other documentary materials or data, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by any officer or employee of any agency, executive office, department, board, commission, bureau, division or authority of the commonwealth, or of any political subdivision thereof, or of any authority established by the general court to serve a public purpose, unless such materials or data fall within the following exemptions in that they are: (e) notebooks and other materials prepared by an employee of the commonwealth which are personal to him and not maintained as part of the files of the governmental unit."
###################################
Mr Hajir is not an employee of the commonwealth in his role as Amherst Regional School Committee Chair--although he is as a Umass Math Professor @ $85-K per year.

Open Government

So let's hear it for the state, finally, cracking down on those who would use their government positions--either paid or unpaid--for personal gain: The new Conflict of Interest regulations require online training for all municipal employees and provides real punishment for those found in violation.

• Criminal penalties for bribery have been increased: up to a $100,000 fine, or imprisonment in state prison for up to 10 years or in jail or a house of correction for up to 2½ years, or both.

• Civil penalties for bribery increase from $2,000 to $25,000. Civil penalties for all other ethics violations increase from $2,000 per violation to $10,000 per violation.

The Open Meeting Law will now be enforced by the Attorney General rather than local District Attorney and cities and towns will now have to publish on the web campaign contribution forms for any local office.

Unfortunately the state did not enact fines on individuals found guilty of violating of the Open Meeting Law--something watchdogs have long requested. And private citizens who challenge the actions of a governmental body and wins still cannot collect costs and attorneys' fees for bringing those actions.

But hey, half a loaf is better than none.