LYNNFIELD — The School Committee has received a complaint from resident Claire Barden regarding the open meeting law.
Barden’s primary allegation is that the School Committee engaged in serial deliberations through Superintendent of Schools Kristen Vogel, regarding the end to the school-mask mandate. She said these serial deliberations were intentional and were meant to go around the open meeting law.
School Committee Chair Rich Sjoberg said this allegation is meritless, as the committee did not engage in impermissible serial deliberations through the superintendent or otherwise.
“By way of background, on Feb. 8, 2022, Superintendent Vogel learned that 80 percent of the students and staff at Lynnfield High School were vaccinated, thus meeting the threshold to apply for the school to become mask optional, per a DESE mandate,” Sjoberg said.
“The next day, Gov. Baker announced that the mask mandate for schools will be lifted, as of Feb. 28. Having received that information, Superintendent Vogel called each of the School Committee members to share that information and to let us know that she intended to exercise discretion. The committee granted her to apply for a DESE waiver for the high school and to go to mask optional for all schools, as of Feb. 28.”
The open meeting law regarding deliberation says no opinion of a member of a quorum from a big public body jurisdiction should be expressed privately through any medium, including electronic mail.
But, the superintendent’s future plans are excluded from the definition of this deliberation.
Sjoberg said the superintendent informed him that she did not solicit or share opinions among the committee members. He also said he did not share opinions and, to his knowledge, no other School Committee members did.
Vogel’s plan to request a mask waiver from the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) for the high school if it reached the 80-percent vaccination rate was also discussed in a public meeting, Sjoberg said.
“Waiver and mask obligations were a frequent topic of conversation at the public, open meetings this year,” Sjoberg said. “During these meetings, committee members’ opinions and positions have been established, and the public has had ample opportunity to make its opinion known and have done so.”
During an open public meeting, the School Committee adopted a policy to empower the superintendent to make decisions to address the ever-changing challenges that the COVID-19 pandemic has presented; Sjoberg said this policy was aimed at combating the pandemic, and was not an attempt to shield decisions from the public.
“There is nothing improper about the committee’s decision to delegate that authority to the superintendent,” Sjoberg said. “Superintendent Vogel acted within authority in applying for the DESE mask waiver and notified the district that masks would no longer be mandatory for the governor’s order… There is no violation of open meeting law here and no measures are necessary.”
In her complaint, Barden requested a number of remedial measures, including discontinuing deliberations by a quorum of the public body outside of properly posted public meetings; complying with open meeting law; publicly disclosing the dates, disclosing methods of communications and contents of communications by the superintendent; and describing the steps the committee will take to ensure future compliance with the law.
But Sjoberg said the School Committee has not violated the open meeting law, so no remedial measures are necessary.
“There is no reason to further discuss those requested remedies,” Sjoberg said.
When an open meeting law complaint is received, the School Committee has 14 business days from the date of receipt of the complaint to review the allegations, take remedial action if appropriate, notify the complainant of the remedial action, and send a copy of the complaint and description of the remedial action to the attorney general.
This complaint was received during February vacation week, so the School Committee requested a one-week extension to discuss and respond to the complaint; this was approved, so a response is due by Friday.
The School Committee voted for Sjoberg, working with the legal counsel, to respond to this legal complaint and file the response he read during Tuesday night’s meeting with the attorney general’s office by Friday.
