Last week’s disclosure in a local newspaper of a grievance letter sent to School Committee Chairman Keith Cheveralls by a group of teachers at Harvard Elementary School sparked a brouhaha at this week’s School Committee meeting that was uncomfortable even by School Committee standards.

When he received the letter, which was signed by his wife and three other teachers, Cheveralls placed a copy in a conflict-of-interest file he is maintaining at Town Hall. In response to questions from a local reporter after the June 22 School Committee meeting, he disclosed the existence of this file, leading to the disclosure of what should have been confidential information.

We think the public disclosure of the grievance letter raises a question that has been an elephant in the room since the 2008 town election: Can someone with a spouse who is a teacher be effective in carrying out the responsibilities of a School Committee member?

A point of contention in Cheveralls’ campaign for a seat on the School Committee in the spring of 2008 was the fact that his wife is employed as a teacher at Harvard Elementary School. During the campaign, Cheveralls assured voters that he had discussed his inherent conflict of interest with the state Ethics Commission and felt confident that he could be effective on the committee despite having to recuse himself from discussions of issues that could directly relate to his wife’s employment.

According to Massachusetts General Laws, the School Committee has three primary responsibilities: to manage the superintendent, to set and approve budgets for the school district, and to set educational goals and policies for the schools. Besides having to recuse himself from teacher contract negotiations, we wonder if Cheveralls should also be recusing himself from discussions relating to the superintendent’s performance, since his wife is under the superintendent’s chain of command. We have to ask: Is it fair to the other four committee members to be burdened with work that should be shared among the five people on the committee?

We believe that Cheveralls has been earnest and sincere—to a fault—in striving for openness regarding any potential conflicts of interest he may have. His release of the grievance letter appears to be a direct breach of the School Committee’s own policies, one of which states that members are obliged “to respect the privileged communication that exists in executive sessions by maintaining strict confidentiality on matters discussed in these sessions … ”

Further, the letter itself breached the communications protocol laid out in the school district’s policies, which state, “All communications or reports to the [School] Committee or any of its subcommittees from principals, supervisors, teachers, or other staff members will be submitted through the superintendent.” Although the superintendent received a copy of the letter, it was addressed and sent directly to Cheveralls. It seems to us that Cheveralls could have avoided much of the controversy in the first place by refusing acceptance of the letter and redirecting the authors to submit it to the superintendent, in keeping with policy.

Now his integrity is being called into question, with committee member Stu Sklar accusing Cheveralls of “gaming the ethics law.” Perhaps that’s a low blow, and Cheveralls really is trying to take the high road, but the inherent conflict of interest lends credence to the question.

Cheveralls is challenged with finding a balance while recusing himself from areas of potential conflicts, disclosing such conflicts, maintaining confidentiality of committee business, and pulling his weight as a member of the committee. The challenge appears insurmountable.