SAUGUS — The School Committee, responding to an Open Meeting Law complaint filed by an attorney representing Superintendent of Schools Erin McMahon, argued that it did not violate the law when members met in executive session on May 30 and voted to place McMahon on leave.
Michael Long, McMahon’s attorney and the longtime general counsel to the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, has already appealed the alleged violation to the attorney general’s office, which will have the final say on the matter. Long filed the complaint on June 2, three days after the committee voted to place McMahon on leave. The committee’s vote came six days after Long indicated McMahon intended to return to work after voluntarily taking leave on Jan. 19.
In the complaint, Long alleged the committee failed to notify McMahon she would be the subject of the executive session on May 30. Long cited Massachusetts General Law Chapter 30A Section 21, which dictates that should a public body meet in executive session to “discuss the discipline or dismissal of, or complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual,” it must notify the individual being discussed in writing at least 48 hours prior to the executive session.
The individual also has the right to be present at the executive session with counsel, which allegedly was not given to McMahon.
Long, in the complaint, alleged that the committee posted an intentionally misleading meeting agenda, which constituted “sham and subterfuge to prevent Erin McMahon and counsel from attending and defending against the allegations.”
“The illegal meeting was deliberately designed to provide an improper opportunity to discuss the charges against Erin McMahon,” Long wrote. “It is obvious the committee met to discuss the merits of the charges, not the development of a strategy or a position to be presented at the pending arbitration.”
The committee’s response is written by Attorney Howard Greenspan, who represents the committee but has recused himself from the arbitration case brought by McMahon. In it, Greenspan noted that the committee’s posted agenda for that date says the executive session will be held to discuss “potential litigation and arbitration strategy” with regards to the arbitration case brought by McMahon, and lists the specific arbitration-case number.
By doing so, Greenspan said, the committee was “sufficiently specific to advise the public of the committee’s actions.” Citing the very same section of the general law as Long, Greenspan said the committee met “within the confines of the executive session to discuss strategy with respect to litigation that is pending.”
“The School Committee did not withhold the identity of the litigation matter and did identify the specific litigation the (committee) would be discussing,” Greenspan wrote.
In the complaint, Long sought to invalidate the vote taken by the committee to place McMahon on leave on the basis of the alleged Open Meeting Law violation.
But, Greenspan countered that the vote to place McMahon on leave was permissible given that it was taken as part of the committee’s strategy with regard to litigation — in this case, the arbitration brought by McMahon under her contract — and as part of the ongoing investigation into McMahon’s conduct.
“Here the committee did have a litigation position to protect and was party to a pending arbitration,” Greenspan wrote.
The response also countered Long’s allegation that McMahon’s decision to take leave on Jan. 19 was coerced, with Greenspan writing that McMahon was represented by counsel and provided notice of the executive session and an opportunity to be present. McMahon did join the committee during the executive session on that date, and her leave was announced shortly after members returned to open session that day.
But, Long said the committee “clearly told” McMahon if she did not voluntarily take leave it would take a vote to impose that status — as it did when she indicated she intended to return to work.
“Faced in January with vague and unspecified concerns, and no choice but to attempt to preserve her reputation, the superintendent was coerced to agree,” he wrote.
The committee’s response to the Open Meeting Law complaint also contains a copy of the demand for arbitration Long filed with the American Arbitration Association, which lays out the apparent violations of McMahon’s contract by the committee and details the events leading up to her leave.
Section 8.8 of McMahon’s contract, a copy of which was obtained by The Daily Item, states “any criticisms, complaints, and suggestions called to the attention of the committee shall be promptly and discreetly referred to the superintendent in writing for study, disposition, or recommendation as appropriate to facilitate the orderly administration of the district and to ensure responsiveness to the public and fairness to the superintendent.”
“Any such matter not promptly raised may not be considered in the summative evaluation as the superintendent may not be aware of same or may not have sufficient time to take remedial action,” it continued. Long has alleged the committee violated that portion of McMahon’s contract.
The demand for arbitration is dated Feb. 15. In it, Long wrote that School Committee Chair Vincent Serino approached McMahon with a “broad and vague assertion that there were ‘concerns,’” on Jan. 17, apparently telling her at the time that the concerns came from “the community.” Long added that the committee failed to identify where the “concerns” originated, first indicating Serino received them from “the community” and later saying they originated with Saugus Public Schools employees.
Demanding arbitration came only after McMahon “exhausted the normal, routine steps commonly utilized to establish communication with her employer about concerns in the workplace,” Long wrote. “McMahon is anxious to resume the duties she is being paid to perform and preserve her professional reputation.”
The arbitration case is set to go before an arbitrator for the first time later this month, according to Long.
In the months since McMahon’s leave, former Saugus High School Principal Michael Hashem has served as acting superintendent. In the first weeks of McMahon’s leave, which came just one week after she proposed a $32.8 million fiscal year 2024 budget, the committee slashed the budget by $1.2 million after Serino met behind closed doors with Town Manager Scott Crabtree.
Long has alleged the committee turned the investigation into McMahon over to Crabtree, who in turn employed a private law firm, Arrowood LLP. The results of that investigation, which Crabtree described as independent and said was conducted on behalf of the School Committee, are unclear. Crabtree said he did not have a copy of an investigation report, if one exists.
Serino did not respond when asked if a report exists and whether The Item could obtain a copy.
A public records request filed this week to obtain records of payments made by the town to the firm has gone unanswered.