Opinion: School Committee Seeks to Silence Citizens at Key Times

On Thursday, Jan. 12, it is anticipated that Medfield School Committee will vote on adopting new meeting guidelines that would limit public input to the first 15 minutes of its meetings, with three minutes allotted per person.

If the proposed policy changes are made, no longer would citizens be automatically allowed to provide input after discussions and before votes on such items as budget increases or cuts, changes to school start/end times, student fee increases, superintendent contract renewals/salary increases, reconfiguration of grades, and any other significant changes.

Instead of relying on a long-established and non-problematic public input policy that was developed to reflect the unique culture of the Medfield community, SC is instead proposing to adopt most of the cookie-cutter language developed by Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC).

School Committee Members Express Fear of Liability

At the Nov. 7 Medfield School Committee meeting -- the first where concrete Public Participation policy changes were first discussed (yet not apparent on the meeting notice), some members spent a great deal of time referencing court cases in which lawsuits were filed against a school committee (Natick) and select board (Southborough). Both cases are rooted in how public input was handled by town officials.

The Natick/Southborough controversies arose during the official public input period carved out on the meeting agenda -- not at the conclusion of committee/board discussions.

And while one Medfield SC member said he was personally motivated to change the policy to make it less confusing, after more than three years of serving on the committee, why is this opinion only being expressed now? He is the same member who had regularly advocated for increasing public participation at SC meetings.

More Answers Needed

1. Why did Medfield School Committee make reducing Public Participation a priority? At a time when the committee is engaged in an expensive, time-consuming, and overdue process to review and update hundreds of school policies, why was the Public Participation policy chosen above many others? Wouldn't it have made more sense to start with reviewing the district policy that dictates the process for how all policies are to be reviewed and updated? In fact, based on e-mails and meeting comments, even SC members were confused by the official review process they needed to follow.

2. Why do Medfield citizens risk being penalized by an unnecessary, proposed policy change that seems designed to protect inappropriate behavior by SC members, while reducing community engagement? (And especially on the heels of a failed school vote.)

3. Why aren't organizations like MASC offering Medfield School Committee members training on how to navigate public input and conflict? More than one local official has attested to the benefits of this kind of training.

4. What significant SC decisions and votes are planned for 2023 and beyond? The reduction of public input appears to be a dangerous, preemptive step to squelch future opposition or criticism regarding significant or unpopular school changes.

5. Why does School Committee seem compelled to minimize public input while virtually every other Medfield town board welcomes it? On Dec. 8, School Committee pushed its MASC Field Representative to provide comparisons to Board of Selectmen. Yet the comparison was irrelevant. He also shared examples of unruly behavior at SC meetings resulting in premature adjournment. In this author's nearly 10 years of attending SC meetings, not once have school officials had to take that kind of extreme action. The one or two meeting attendees who sit through an entire meeting and occasionally provide public input prior to votes are even less likely to be unruly. They do so diplomatically and in direct response to SC's own agenda items, just as Selectmen meeting attendees do. However, unlike SC meetings, Board of Selectmen meetings are highly engaging with comments and questions welcomed throughout, and as a result, trust in the board appears high.

Ultimately, Medfield School Committee is trying to solve a problem that does not exist.

Ways to act:

• Medfield citizens can provide feedback on the proposed policy changes by e-mailing Medfield School Committee via scchair@email.medfield.net.
• Appearing in person -- and speaking up -- at the 7 p.m., Jan. 12 School Committee meeting at Medfield High School Library/Media Center is also encouraged.
• If you'd like to join others advocating for a halt to the policy changes, please click on this e-mail.

Additional reference:

Medfield SC meeting, Dec. 8, 2022 (starts at 1:39:55 with this author's public input relying on nearly 10 years of regular Medfield SC meeting attendance);

Medfield SC meeting, Dec. 8, 2022 (comparison between SC and Selectmen starts at about 55:49 with the MASC Field Representative);

Medfield SC meeting, Nov. 7, 2022 (discussion starts at about 2:20:00; despite claims that other SCs don't allow comment throughout meetings, Brookline and Hingham are just two examples of other high-performing districts that have public input policies more aligned with Medfield vs. MASC version);

Existing Public Participation Policy BEHD (at the superintendent's recommendation, SC attempted to revise the policy in 2015, but despite what is stated on the document, the current policy is virtually the same as the one that previously existed);

Proposed Public Participation Policy BEDH and BEHD-E (without any mark-ups to indicate significant changes, as previously requested by Policy Subcommittee members);

Information about the settled Natick School Committee lawsuit can be found here; and

Information about the active Southborough case, including compelling court video, can be found here.