Blame the blogosphere

So five local school committee chairs have officially requested in writing the District Attorney create guidelines about how and when a blog may or may not violate the Open Meeting Law--key word being "Open".

The irony simply abounds. The joint letter apparently was the idea of Shutesbury School Committee Chair Michael DeChiara, you know the guy who recently got the state legislature to pass a new law allowing towns to withdraw from school unions.

Shutesbury apparently had a beef with a shared Superintendent hiring a pricipal for only one year when most folks wanted them to get three. The issue caused Shutesbury to rethink Union 28 which shares the expenses of a Super between Leverett, Shutesbury, Erving, Wendell and New Salem.

So how is this any different than Amherst considering a withdrawal from Union 26 with Pelham where Amherst funds 94% of expenses and only has a 50% say in administration?

But back to the blogosphere. The issue of Amherst withdrawing from Union 26 has gone from obscure non-issue to raging controversy mainly because of the discussion on Catherine Sanderson's school committee blog.

The other School Committee chairs wonder if perhaps some Anons posting comments could be School Committee members thus potentially bringing together a quorum discussing something outside a posted public meeting.

Forgetting for a moment that a blog is public, these Chairs are not showing much faith in their fellow School Committee members if they honestly believe an elected public official would cowardly cower behind a cloak of anonymity.

The next question asks about the propriety of comment moderation where the blog owner could slant the discussion by nixing opposing comments. So it's the old "damned if she does, damned if she doesn't" routine?

What's a blogger to do? You can't allow Anon comments because it could be cowardly elected officials in disguise and you can't moderate comments because you could censor them. Hmm....

Gotta love the part about "Every committee has mechanisms and policies for making sure that its discourse is appropriate and civil," suggesting ways should be found to extend that control to a blog. Sounds like the South Hadley School Committee chair who was recently chastised by the ACLU for censoring public comments he did not find "appropriate and civil."

Another irony is that Irv Rhodes, Amherst School Committee Chair, currently in the center of the storm on the Union 26 issue and as a direct result of what he considered disrespectful behavior on the part of Regional Chair Farshid Hajir and Union 26 Chair Tracey Farnham, came up with a "Pledge" that he made to fellow Amherst committee members.

The opening one states:

"To be open, honest and transparent about any and all matters that come before the Amherst School Committee and keep you informed about any events that directly or indirectly involve the work of the Amherst School Committee."

Mr Rhodes, however, signed the letter sent to the District Attorney without giving Catherine Sanderson--the obvious target--a common courtesy heads up call.

And that official letter pretty much constitutes a (secret) joint meeting of five School Committees. Physician heal thyself!


Shutesbury's Internet chat room PDF of letter to DA is at bottom of "discussion". And notice the only two folks who chime in are also Shutesbury School Committee members thus, with DeChiara (if he was still online) makes for a quorum.

The Bully covers Shutesbury School Committee Chair Michael DeChiara's crusade

Say it isn't so

So this Amherst Bully web article falls into the "You gotta be kidding me category!" 105 faculty and staff of Amherst Regional High School sign a petition supporting their boss Mark Jackson, after he made an ass of himself bullying School Committee member Catherine Sanderson at the 3/9 SC meeting.

Goes to show what lousy institutional memory they have. After all, 8 years ago that many staff signed a petition penned by ARHS journalism teacher Bruce Penniman supporting pedophile principal Steven Myers, who almost days later disappeared in the middle of the night.

And in 1999 a 17-year-old Puerto Rican girl garnered 158 signatures in one day at the High School decrying the production of 'West Side Story' as the Senior class play; she managed to convince the spineless School Committee to cancel the production--the first time in history any entity has ever banned 'West Side Story.'



ARHS The Graphic 1/25/02 Click to enlarge/read

Outside the box

Patty Bode's chilling diatribe
So my friend Mr. Morse accused me of "obsessing about the Open Meeting Law"--even though as a (grumpy) prosecutor he should appreciate that the state has agreed with me more often than not on both Open Meeting Law and Public Documents appeals after initial stonewalling from town officials.

But even a zealot like me has to question a guest column in today's crusty Bulletin, one of many attacking School Committee black sheep Sanderson and Rivkin's overly dramatic Column two weeks ago comparing the abuse they get for speaking their minds and questioning authority to the Bush administration questioning the patriotism of critics at a time when patriotism was considered a good thing.

Patty Bode, a former Amherst teacher naturally, worries that Sanderson's blog could violate Open Meeting and Public Documents because it discusses "school committee business" outside the arena of a school committee publicly posted meeting, and that her blog attracts a high number of Anons who could very well be other school committee members thus creating a quorum.

And she also worries about certain postings that have been "disrespectful and slanderous to school personnel," but fails to give any examples. Kind of ironic considering her slanderous charge that some fellow School Committee members could be masquerading as Cowardly, Anon, Nitwits in order to circumvent the Open Meeting Law.

And would that really be a violation anyway?

The purpose of the Open Meeting Law is to ensure that business is transpired in public. So what the Hell does Bode think a blog is? A private little antiquated listserve? A smoke filled backroom? Sanderson teaches aerobics so it's a safe bet she doesn't smoke. A blog is the public arena.

Bode closes with the question, "Why would a public official want to establish a forum that tolerates disrespectful communication?"

Well how about that most basic, fundamental, bed rock American value: the First Amendment!
Don't stray from the flock!

And the children shall lead...

With a little help from the adults--both with vested interests.

Funny how this supposedly fair and balanced "news" article in (ARHS) The Graphic extensively quotes Nina Koch, a teacher, and Rick Hood, a pro status quo School Committee member wanna-be, slamming Catherine Sanderson's School Committee blog for being too negative, and then of course they pile on some more.

Yet each of them chime in rather regularly on Sanderson's blog. A blog is a perfect example of interactive free speech: if readers don't like what you publish then they can freely rebut. As the ACLU would say, "The way to counter bad speech is with good speech--not censorship."

In the Free Market of ideas and opinions, may the best one win.