Chariho School Parents’ Forum

September 22, 2007

Recap

We are getting a lot of new visitors and I don’t want the info to get lost in the pile – here is a recap of relevant posts.

Here is the Sept 11 meeting where I was told I may not ask about the arrests without board approval.

Here is a Hopkinton Town Council member’s response to the claim made by Chariho that the HTC “endorsed” Campus 2010.

Here is some info put out by the NEA about the current state of affairs in the contract.

Here is an analysis of the current contract (correcting the NEA) – with links to the actual contracts.

September 21, 2007

“Sealed” versus “Closed”

Filed under: executive sessions,Sept 11 meeting — Editor @ 11:42 pm

The Chariho Times ran a very nice article and editorial.  Unfortunately, they reported that Mr. Ricci accused me of violating the Open Meeting Act.  He has done this when I disclosed the agenda for the March 27 executive session and he has done this by saying the minutes are “sealed.”   And it was also said here.

I have spoken with the AG’s Office and the OMA does not address the issue of internal agenda items.  There is no violation

And, I have already said that the meeting involved a few board members trying to stop me from writing in the paper.  I don’t care if the minutes were sealed or not – you can’t protect that information because it is not protected under OMA. 

That being said, the minutes are not “sealed.”  Below are the minutes that clearly show we “closed” the minutes.  That means they have been public information for nearly 5 months.

Don’t believe everything people tell you – no matter how many times they say it.  Ask yourself this – why would the the board and the Superintendent make false statements like this?  I don’t blame the press – they trust the Superintendent to tell them the truth.

September 14, 2007

The emails in question

Filed under: Sept 11 meeting — Editor @ 10:32 am

During the Sept 11 meeting, a chain of emails was used as evidence of my “inappropriate” requests for information.  The result was that Bill Day, chairman of the board, Andy McQuade, Andy Polouski, Terri Serra, Holly Eaves, Ron Pruehs and Deb Jennings sternly informed me that future inquiries must recieve board approval. 

Here is a link to the email chain in question

Here is the cliff note version – (paraphrased unless “”) J

uly 20
F – Please notify the board when an arrest occurs.  Forward me a list of the police interventions over the last year.

R – I notify the board of major incidents.  The board should make the decision if it wants to be notified.

F – I would like to be notified, put it on the agenda.

R – It is a committee decision, I prefer all members get the same info.

F – Don’t you think parents should know

R – Sure

F – Then send the info

(a few more emails – nothing special)

F – Send me the info

R – “The entire Committee will be notified when I am aware of an arrest of a Chariho student for a school-related offense.” 

F – Is this a refusal… I do not care if it is a student or, in your opinion, school-related.  I would like to be notified when an arrest takes place at Chariho. 

R – “No, Bill, it is not a refusal.” 

F – “Then please notify me when an arrest occurs at Chariho – no qualifiers of student status or incident “

R – I will provide the board with events I am aware of 

Aug 29
F – I would suggest that the Superintendent should be aware of all events.   

Note – there are 17 emails in this chain – and I still have not gotten the info from Ricci that I asked for.  But, now I’m not allowed to ask without board approval.

[UPDATE] The information was provided by the press.

[UPDATE] I asked the Superintendent about this new rule (or at least, new to me). 

Even though Ricci was sitting right next to Bill Day when Day said I must get board approval before asking questions like “how many police interventions occured last year,” Superintendent Barry J. Ricci said, “I have no such understanding (of that rule).”

Odd