This is Transparency? Nope, Your BOE...
Transparency- The full, accurate, and timely disclosure of information.
Source: Dictionary.com
The facts around the events described here are quite simple, until of course, the lawyers start talking.
On 2/6/08 an FOI request was filed with the Woodstock Board of Education for email by and between board members regarding board business. It is important to note that until earlier this year, admittedly, the Superintendent had failed to create email accounts within the school system for board members as required in order to have archives and be able to respond to such requests properly, therefore, personal email regarding board business became fair game. See the original request -HERE- It would seem clear to the average observer what was asked for in the request. After being told that they required clarification, another letter was faxed to the Board on 2/27/08. See it -HERE- Was that clear enough? Nope.
At the 2/28/08 Woodstock Board of Education meeting a discussion of this request ensued that sounded to me like a group of teenagers who got into their parent’s liquor cabinet, with Mr. Loftus leading the wordsmithing. (Hear clip below).
Rather than supply the emails sought, what was ultimately provided were 128 pages of seemingly random attachments. The emails were never provided.
Here’s where it goes to complete stupidity. After gross manipulation of the events, the BOE in its’ infinite wisdom decides to discuss an issue in executive session on 3/27/08 (which was not noted on the agenda); the fact that the seeker of information refused to pay $64.00 for the clearly non-responsive documents provided to the request and clarification. Out of the improper executive session comes Kevin Ford with a motion to try to force collection of the $64.00. He also discussed this on his blog. Oops.
When it was pointed out that this discussion and the resulting motion were not properly noted for an executive session, the BOE sought the advice of Tom Hennick of the FOI commission. His advice was to have a do-over in open session- so here we go again- another motion and more discussion was held on the issue in open session on 8/28/08 to try to force the payment for the non-responsive documents. Although none of the substance of the discussion or the motion appears in the minutes, the audio recording reveals that the motion (190227) was stricken from the minutes at the 9/25/08 meeting- revisionist history.
The seeker of information, backed into a corner by this manipulation, had no recourse other than to file a complaint with FOIC regarding the improper executive session and resulting motion. An ombudsman was assigned to the case to pursue a potential settlement which was offered by the complainant; admission of the improper executive session, compliance with the original request, and rescinding of the $64.00 erroneous bill. The Board was silent.
A hearing was conducted on 11/13/08 in Hartford which required not one, but TWO lawyers from Shipman & Goodwin to attempt to justify the improper executive session followed by a 13 page brief (Read: thousands of dollars). After reading said brief, it is clear that Anne Littlefield should be applying for a job with George W. to write his revisionist history, typical.
The simple question here is: if the first motion that came out of the executive session was proper, why after consultation with Mr. Hennick of the FOIC, was further action on 8/28/08 in open session necessary and then stricken 9/25? Hmmm. Seems to me that it was a strategy to tie up the complainant and prevent him from asking for anything else in the meantime and a great billing opportunity for Shipman.
Here’s the icing on the cake- In the BOE meeting of 10/23/08, the colossal hypocrite Frank Corden demands that the Superintendent gather the costs incurred by the Board for the FOI request and report back…he was there, perhaps he should take a look at the legal bills-I’m going to.
A comment made to me recently by the complainant was right on the mark- “Just another case of Shipman and the BOE using a hammer to fit and paint to match strategy”.
This Board and its’ legal counsel are an ongoing joke at the expense of our children and an embarrassment to the Town and themselves. The seats occupied by Loftus and Corden are up in the next election. They can’t go soon enough.
BOE Discussion of FOI Requires Media Player 22 minutes
Source: Dictionary.com
The facts around the events described here are quite simple, until of course, the lawyers start talking.
On 2/6/08 an FOI request was filed with the Woodstock Board of Education for email by and between board members regarding board business. It is important to note that until earlier this year, admittedly, the Superintendent had failed to create email accounts within the school system for board members as required in order to have archives and be able to respond to such requests properly, therefore, personal email regarding board business became fair game. See the original request -HERE- It would seem clear to the average observer what was asked for in the request. After being told that they required clarification, another letter was faxed to the Board on 2/27/08. See it -HERE- Was that clear enough? Nope.
At the 2/28/08 Woodstock Board of Education meeting a discussion of this request ensued that sounded to me like a group of teenagers who got into their parent’s liquor cabinet, with Mr. Loftus leading the wordsmithing. (Hear clip below).
Rather than supply the emails sought, what was ultimately provided were 128 pages of seemingly random attachments. The emails were never provided.
Here’s where it goes to complete stupidity. After gross manipulation of the events, the BOE in its’ infinite wisdom decides to discuss an issue in executive session on 3/27/08 (which was not noted on the agenda); the fact that the seeker of information refused to pay $64.00 for the clearly non-responsive documents provided to the request and clarification. Out of the improper executive session comes Kevin Ford with a motion to try to force collection of the $64.00. He also discussed this on his blog. Oops.
When it was pointed out that this discussion and the resulting motion were not properly noted for an executive session, the BOE sought the advice of Tom Hennick of the FOI commission. His advice was to have a do-over in open session- so here we go again- another motion and more discussion was held on the issue in open session on 8/28/08 to try to force the payment for the non-responsive documents. Although none of the substance of the discussion or the motion appears in the minutes, the audio recording reveals that the motion (190227) was stricken from the minutes at the 9/25/08 meeting- revisionist history.
The seeker of information, backed into a corner by this manipulation, had no recourse other than to file a complaint with FOIC regarding the improper executive session and resulting motion. An ombudsman was assigned to the case to pursue a potential settlement which was offered by the complainant; admission of the improper executive session, compliance with the original request, and rescinding of the $64.00 erroneous bill. The Board was silent.
A hearing was conducted on 11/13/08 in Hartford which required not one, but TWO lawyers from Shipman & Goodwin to attempt to justify the improper executive session followed by a 13 page brief (Read: thousands of dollars). After reading said brief, it is clear that Anne Littlefield should be applying for a job with George W. to write his revisionist history, typical.
The simple question here is: if the first motion that came out of the executive session was proper, why after consultation with Mr. Hennick of the FOIC, was further action on 8/28/08 in open session necessary and then stricken 9/25? Hmmm. Seems to me that it was a strategy to tie up the complainant and prevent him from asking for anything else in the meantime and a great billing opportunity for Shipman.
Here’s the icing on the cake- In the BOE meeting of 10/23/08, the colossal hypocrite Frank Corden demands that the Superintendent gather the costs incurred by the Board for the FOI request and report back…he was there, perhaps he should take a look at the legal bills-I’m going to.
A comment made to me recently by the complainant was right on the mark- “Just another case of Shipman and the BOE using a hammer to fit and paint to match strategy”.
This Board and its’ legal counsel are an ongoing joke at the expense of our children and an embarrassment to the Town and themselves. The seats occupied by Loftus and Corden are up in the next election. They can’t go soon enough.
BOE Discussion of FOI Requires Media Player 22 minutes
Dear Truth,
You cannot be clearer in your description of the continual stonewalling of the WBOE. It is too bad that Shipman & Goodwin are playing this game and not giving the Board good advice, which would be stop it and get on with education. Often the trouble with lawyers is that they will give you back what you want them to as long as you are able and willing to pay. The tragedy is this does nothing for education or children. However egos are massaged, and as I have said often in the past, for many a seat on the WBOE is the greatest public honor they will probably ever experience in their lives. And I include myself in this category.
From France,
J. Livernois