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.

Can't you read the sign...

UPDATE: April 2 (Somebody must have read the sign).

Power of the Web in Amherst Override election

Stephanie O'Keeffe Select Board Chair (center), John Coull,her dad, Amherst Redevelopment Authority Chair (ducking), Jada Kelley (cute kid).

(Note to readers: This was just submitted as part of my Umass online Journalism course as my mid-term project, so it is written for folks--unlike yourselves--who may not be insiders.)

Ballot questions are decided for a multitude of reasons, with numerous hard to measure independent variables playing a role--from weather to marketing.

The Amherst property tax Override of 2010--which passed 58% to 42% had almost exactly the same voter turnout--31.5%--as did the Amherst Override election of 2007 which failed 47% to 53%.

So why the dramatic difference?

The price point of course is number one: $2.5 million Override losing vs. $1.68 million winning. And at the 11th hour an orchestrated $350,000 "teacher giveback" and higher state aid than anticipated made it seem the most recent Override was even lower as town officials promised not to tax to the full extent of the new higher levy if such "unforeseen revenues" magically appeared after the Select Board set the $1.68 million figure in early February.

Because after the 2004 $2 million Override passed (although voters turned down a $2.5 million Override on that same ballot), $650,000 in extra state aid did materialize and the town negated that amount in 2005, but took the full amount plus 2.5% every year since.

On a more mundane level this time Override proponents (two separate ballot Committees) used lawn signs, and the main Vote Yes For Amherst group raised $5,000 to the No More Overrides group $4,000 as of March 8th filing. 'Save of Schools' spent money on lawn signs (using the maroon/white colors of Amherst Regional High School) but reported zero spending.

Both groups had a web page, but the Yes group was far more extensive, interactive and updated frequently. The local political blogosphere is dominated by two blogs--Larry Kelley's 'Only in Amherst' and Catherine Sanderson's 'My School Committee blog'.

And while Sanderson never took a formal position on the Override, her lack of cheer-leading which she provided in 2007, spoke volumes. In fact, Override supporters cast her as a villain for not providing that lock step support commonly demanded for anything pertaining to the Schools.

'Only in Amherst' launched about a month before the 2007 Override and was a constant source of irritation to pro-Override forces. Even more so this time around, peaking with nine uploads on election day and over 800 viewers.Click to enlarge/read

On the Web front, Override proponents first salvo was an online (blank check) petition started the first week of January with a inauspicious goal of 1,000 signatures targeting Amherst's five member Select Board the gatekeepers of all things Override. A blog counterstrike.

Rules allowed for anyone of any age to sign and obviously an Internet signature collection is far and away easier than acquiring ink-and-paper signatures. Today, even after getting 3,058 yes votes on paper ballots the Internet petition stands at only 658 signatures (many from "name not displayed," or out-of-state, or High School aged non voters.)

Localocracy, a website founded by two Umass/Amherst students dedicated to getting local voters involved with local elections launched in early February using Amherst as a beta test market. Rules were you had to be a town registered voter to post comments or vote on issues and you were given 10 rating points to vote up or down comments that supported your views thus driving them higher up on the page. But anyone could come "view" the results.

By election day Localocracy garnered 816 views (after almost two months) for the Override issue with 53 votes cast giving the Override a whopping 4-1 margin of victory rather then the actual 3/2 victory. Conversely on election day alone 'Only in Amherst' received 827 views and 'My School Committee Blog' 673 views.

But 'Only In Amherst' strongly advocated against the Override while 'My School Committee Blog' tried to remain neutral. So who had a bigger impact?

Since the Web loves to be free, wild and woolly anytime you place restrictions--having to register, or using a real name for posting comments--you greatly restrict participation. And both local Amherst blogs receive a majority of hits from viewers outside Amherst.

Recently Sanderson enabled "Comment Moderation" which suspends comments until "Blog owner approval" thus slowing down the freewheeling give-and-take. As a result, her daily visits have decreased by 20% or so, but still well above Localocracy.
Neither Sanderson or Localocracy use photos or video while 'Only in Amherst' almost always does. The Comments on Localocracy are limited to a Twitter-like 500 characters although you can post comments more than once (not obvious to neophytes.) On some posts Sanderson receives over 100 comments and even now with moderation enabled she still gets dozens and dozens of comments per post.

Sanderson's power emanates from her public role as elected School Committee member just telling her thoughts (and sometimes feelings) in a strait forward manner that blogging so easily encourages. Localocracy provides a somewhat stilted platform for engaged voters to do the same. But in Amherst, the average voter is not overly engaged.

While local spring elections for town offices average a 15% turnout (Override and changing the form of government Charter questions get twice that) the Presidential election every four years garners over a 75% turnout.

Another reason Localocracy may have failed to become a hot bed of comments and discussion like two the local blogs is Override opponents are typically older/retired and may not have fully embraced the Web. Also, Baer Tierkel, a leading architect of the 2007 and this 2010 Override is listed as one of only three members of their "advisory board," thus creating mistrust.

But if you viewed the module dedicated to the Override discussion at any point during the six or seven weeks it was up for discussion/voting clearly the outcome was predicted.

The Override victory was won, not in cyberspace, but simply by having more boots on the ground.

Over a hundred volunteers using traditional methods: displaying hundreds of lawn signs, making thousands of phone calls, huddling in town center and media advertising in the same newspapers that editorially supported the Override.

This time the Dinosaurs won. This time...


Sunday 3:45 PM. Peak day being Tuesday Election Day

30

Standing out

Regional School Committee pulls a rabbit...

8:10 AM

So freshly minted Amherst School Committee member Sir Richard Hood thinks the Teachers Union members were a tad confused when they voted to give up 3 paid "professional development" days worth $350-K in exchange for voters approving the $1.68 million Override; in that they thought the money would stay in the school budget on top of the extra $1.1 million generated by the Override.

Now in order to appease the confused Teachers Union, the Regional School Committee is going funnel $255-K from reserves out of Excess and Deficiency account to bolster the Regional budget on top of the extra $$739,195 created by the Override.

As a separate legal entity the Region has its own slush fund called Excess and Deficiency (currently with just over $1 million stashed away for a rainy day) and the Elementary Schools do not have such a fund as they are 100% town of Amherst. Although Amherst children make up a whopping 80% of the Region.

The Elementary Schools will simply have to make due with the lousy extra $400,000 created by generous taxpayers.

The Springfield Republican Reports:

...not even the beginning of the end

Don't you just love those legal disclaimers printed on motor oil, "Do not drink this product?" According to outgoing School Committee Chair Andy Churchill, the Amherst Vote Yes Overriders garnered stunning advice from their Northampton counterparts: Don't worry about the No voters concentrate on those likely to vote Yes.

Hmm...must be a bevy of brain surgeons and rocket scientists among their group.

Amherst Taxpayers for Responsible Change distributed a mailer to almost 4,000 voters over the age of 50. Between postage and printing about 50 cents per unit. So I went over all the mailing labels first, cross referencing for names posted on the Blank Check Override Internet Petition website and the signature ad from 3 years ago to cross them off the list, thus saving us about $300.

Ironic thing is if Mr Churchill learned at the start of his six year Amherst School Committee service how to educate children at Northampton's $4,000 per child lower cost, it would have saved Amherst taxpayers $12 million per year and then we would indeed realize the dream of "No More Overrides"

The Springfield Republican reports

The end of the begining

So I'm preparing a more detailed analysis of the election for my Umass online journalism course mid-term assignment but figured I would throw out some off-the-cuff analysis for now, as I think both sides were surprised by yesterday's margin of victory (and no, unlike Cherry Hill Golf Course I'm not going to blame it on the weather.)

1) The 31.5% voter turnout was almost exactly the same as the Override that failed in 2007 so it's hard to blame voter turnout (although we usually get almost 80% every four years for the Presidential election.) So why the different outcome this time?

Well first off, there's a big difference between $2.5 million (that failed in 07) and the current $1.68 million. And if you listened to Andy Churchill at the forum last week sponsored by the crusty Gazette/Amherst Bully he made it sound like the $350,000 teacher giveback was already factored into lowering the Override amount. Which of course it did not, although town officials claim they will not use that amount by not taxing to the full extent of the new higher levy (one year only of course.)

And this year the Vote Yes folks were smart enough to order lawn signs (in two different varieties no less.) The Amherst Bulletin ran a rather long rambling editorial supporting the Override but then the Gazette followed suit with a tighter one, probably more widely read than the bloated Bully version.

But either way, two bricks-and-mortar newspapers supporting the Override certainly ads a fair amount of value that would have to be made up with paid advertising.

The Yes folks also raised more than the No folks ($5,000 to $4,000) although I still have not figured out how they spent that last $3,000. And I did notice that their "Vote Yes" lawn signs do not appear as expenditures on the Campaign Finance Report.

Their carefully crafted message got out: The town cut $7 million over the past (I heard either "two years" or "three years" and you could not tell whether they were including this upcoming year's cuts into that figure or not.) But the fact remains, the 2007 $2.5 million Override would have generated almost $8 million by now and over $10 million if you throw in next year.

And if THAT Override passed safe bet there would not have been ANY cuts. Yet somehow the town seems to have survived...