Chariho School Parents’ Forum

January 2, 2009

Conflict of interest

Filed under: 1 — Editor @ 5:19 pm

Chariho’s attorney, Jon Anderson, said something in the courtroom today that provides a great deal of insight into the mentality of those promoting the status quo.

We were talking about my “conflicts of interest” and I said that on the school committee I support the people who voted for me and on the town council I do the same. Luckily, they are the exact same people – ergo, no conflict.

JA said that I had a fiduciary duty to the corporation and by sitting on the Committee my allegiance is to the corporation, not the people of Hopkinton.

I couldn’t disagree more.

I believe my job on the SC is to provide the best education for the people of Hopkinton – regardless of whether or not it hurts Chariho financially.  By Anderson’s logic I couldn’t advocate for vouchers because it would take customers away from the ‘corporation.’

Maybe this explains why so many people on school ccommittees are sycophants. According to JA, its a prerequisite (or maybe its because over half of them have relatives employed at the school).

I look forward to watching him try to make that case.

Advertisements

11 Comments »

  1. No reality check needed for you BF, the only thing I would say different is I “know” instead of “believe” my job on the SC is…….

    Comment by RS — January 2, 2009 @ 5:38 pm | Reply

  2. The old chickens guarding the henhouse trick. Just because Chariho’s School Committee history is dominated by members who have self interest in expanding Chariho’s power and increasing payrolls, this is not a requirement. Hopefully the court will see the folly of Mr. Anderson’s assertion and recognize that having the chickens in charge of the henhouse results in inferior education outcomes for our children.

    As I’ve said beofre, Chariho’s recent past has been to enrich adults at the expense of children. Mr. Anderson’s rhetoric proves that case once again.

    Comment by Curious Resident — January 2, 2009 @ 5:46 pm | Reply

  3. What was the court process today? Was there testimony? Will this same court be ruling on the appropriateness of Mr. Felkner serving Hopkinton on the Town Council and the School Committee? Sounds like Gene was there so maybe he can provide details of what was said and by whom?

    Comment by Curious Resident — January 2, 2009 @ 5:50 pm | Reply

  4. If Mr. Anderson was a ‘real’ attorney he wouldn’t be ‘dappling’ in chariho. He would just be a real attorney. Last I know Rhode Island had the most lawyers per capita (dispute it if you want) than anywhere in the US of A. Another first among our unemployment, etc, ect. Yes a real prize, Mr. J.A.

    Comment by Connie Y — January 2, 2009 @ 5:54 pm | Reply

  5. Rhode Island does have the most lawyers per capita.

    I can only wonder if Mr. Anderson is so incompetent he really didn’t realize voting to oust Mr. Felkner was a violation of the Open Meeting Act?

    Since he claims he won’t be billing Chariho beyond his retainer, he either received a huge retainer or he has so little to do he has lots of time to spend on this case. Does anyone know how much this guy is paid? Whatever amount it is, it is way too much.

    Comment by Curious Resident — January 2, 2009 @ 6:16 pm | Reply

  6. I guess Buffalo Bob and Hoody Doody are to high a retainer.

    Comment by Connie Y — January 2, 2009 @ 6:43 pm | Reply

  7. It’s all ready understood that the fool committee is ‘the peanut gallery.’ At least we have a starting point.

    Comment by Connie Y — January 2, 2009 @ 6:45 pm | Reply

  8. AND, we even have an excellent Princess SummerFallWinterSpring, too in the current chairperson. Perhaps at the next meeting we could all sing “It’s Howdy Doody time”

    Comment by Dorothy — January 2, 2009 @ 7:15 pm | Reply

  9. All court matters were handled in chambers. Only judge and lawyers present.

    It does appear Judge Thompson will be ajudicating the matter, she, appropriately so, wants the AG to weigh in on the issue.

    Today ended up as a decision solely on the merits of lack of notice per OMA.If they had put the disqualification on the agenda, then BF would not have prevailed today.

    I’ll still struck at how hard JA was arguing the “conflicting fiduciary responsibility” of serving the dual offices. Considering the likelihood of actual conflict for others vs BF, it’s hard for me to believe JA can say it with a strait face.

    Comment by Gene Daniell — January 2, 2009 @ 8:23 pm | Reply

  10. The incompatibility argument shows just how weak Mr. Anderson believes his case to be. Incompatibility is a non-factor in Massachusetts where some state legislators currently sit on Town/City Councils. If the argument were valid, certainly this would not be allowed in our neighboring state.

    The Hopkinton Charter explicitly allows elected Town Government officials to also serve the regional school district. Mr. Anderson refers to the situation as a charade and farce, but it is his illogical legal arguments which fit the descriptors.

    Comment by Curious Resident — January 2, 2009 @ 8:36 pm | Reply

  11. I wonder why Anderson didn’t use the Charters(or equivalent) of Richmond and Charlestown showing where they both prohibit dual office holcing for a town position and a school district position ??

    Answer:
    (a) There is no reference in the documents to dual office holding involving a regional school district.
    (b) He’s a hack!
    (c) Both (a) and (b).

    Comment by RS — January 2, 2009 @ 8:58 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: