The “public comment time” during open meetings held by the School Committee and other town boards is time the boards have chosen to set aside to hear citizen comments on issues before those boards. In concept, this is a wonderful idea—an opportunity to spark open and productive dialogue about things going on in town. But during the past several months this time has been used by some to cast innuendo into the public arena, sometimes with little, if any, basis in fact.
At the Sept. 22 School Committee meeting, where an extension of the superintendent’s contract was to be considered, one resident demanded that a board member withdraw from the vote because of what she said was the appearance of a conflict of interest. Her remarks led to a discussion that compromised confidential student information and were a serious abuse of the privilege of speaking at a public meeting.
Privilege? Isn’t that a citizen’s right?
Although Mass. General Laws Chapter 39, Section 23B (the Open Meeting Law) requires town boards to hold open meetings, it does not give the public a right to participate or comment during those meetings. According to MGL Chapter 39, Section 23C, Regulation of Participation by Public in Open Meetings:
“No person shall address a public meeting of a governmental body without permission of the presiding officer at such meeting, and all persons shall, at the request of such presiding officer, be silent.”
Regarding the superintendent’s contract, the School Committee is under no legal obligation to bring discussion of the contract to an open meeting. Subsection 3 of Section 23B provides that boards may meet in executive session “…to conduct collective bargaining sessions or contract negotiations with nonunion personnel.”
In a decision dated July 2, 2008, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Leila Kern backed the Wayland School Committee in an open meeting law case challenging the discussion of the school superintendent in executive session. Kern’s ruling said that committee members were authorized to discuss the superintendent’s evaluation behind closed doors because the discussion was directly tied to the superintendent’s contract and salary.
A town board would be well within its rights to limit public comments at an open meeting to those submitted in writing ahead of time, or even to suspend public comments altogether. But it would be a shame to see this happen here in reaction to public commentary that has become increasingly divisive, inflammatory, and sometimes personal.
We hope that, going forward, people will carefully consider their words during the time for public comments at open meetings, and make sure they contribute to productive, healthy debate.