The committee’s responses, which were dated June 27 and were provided to the Globe by chairwoman Mary Ann Stewart, say the June 1 vote was to “offer to extend the superintendent’s contract’’ by two years. School officials argued in the letter that negotiations for the contract could be conducted to their conclusion during an executive session under state law.
Eid-Reiner’s complaint about the vote was filed June 10, days after a June 7 public meeting in which Stewart said the committee had already approved a “legally binding’’ contract extension for Ash.
According to a recording of the June 7 meeting by local access television station LexMedia, Stewart said the vote extending Ash’s contract had “already happened’’ in executive session.
Eid-Reiner said the panel’s vote on the contract did not qualify as one of the instances in which a meeting can be closed to the public.
In its response to Eid-Reiner’s complaint, the School Committee said Stewart’s comment that Ash’s contract had already been extended was a “post hoc characterization,’’ and the actual minutes of the executive session show the vote had actually been “to offer’’ Ash the extension.
Ash accepted the terms of the contract extension, which will increase his salary by 3 percent per year and his annual vacation days from 20 to 30.
The complaints about the renewal of Ash’s contract were filed amid concern among some parents over teacher morale in the school system.
Three well-liked teachers recently announced their retirements from the high school, and parents have since raised concerns that there is a culture of fear in the schools, and that under Ash’s leadership teachers are afraid of reprisals.
The School Committee had been meeting in a series of executive sessions to discuss extending Ash’s contract until June 30, 2015.
When the committee scheduled a discussion about Ash’s contract for the June 7 open meeting, about 75 people attended and the crowd was so large that some had to watch from a television monitor in a hallway.
McKenna’s complaint also said the School Committee violated the state’s open meeting law by not finding a larger venue to accommodate the crowd at the June 7 meeting.
The School Committee responded that everyone in the overflow audience space was given equal opportunity to speak during a comment period.
Eid-Reiner also complained that the School Committee did not properly notify the public that an extension for Ash’s contract was being discussed.
School officials said that notices were posted during the spring for executive sessions to discuss contract negotiations with nonunion personnel. But in its letter to the attorney general’s office, the School Committee proposed that in the future it will add names or job titles to executive session agenda notices, unless the chairman determines the disclosure would be detrimental.
Brock Parker can be reached at Brock.globe@gmail.com.
