Kourkoumelis, School Committee at Odds Over Open Meeting Law Complaint

Melrose School Commmitee member Carrie Kourkoumelis has filed a second complaint with the Attorney General's office alleging that the committee violated the state's open meeting law in its handling of another complaint she had filed.

Kourkoumelis filed her first complaint on Jan. 7, alleging that the committee violated the open meeting law when three members shared their slates of names for the Superintendent Search Committee outside of a public meeting, a point she raised in December .

As resident Ted Kenney had filed a complaint with the Attorney General's Office along the same lines, according to School Committee's legally required response approved on Tuesday night (PDF attached), on advice from the school district's legal counsel Mary Jo Hollender the committee drafted a single resonse to both Kenney's and Kourkoumelis' complaints.

Also based on Hollender's advice, a draft of that response was not sent to Kourkoumelis, so that the committee could decide whether to include her in deliberations over the committee's response to her own complaint.

When Kourkoumelis objected to not receiving the draft response, Hollender spoke with representatives from the Attorney General's Office and State Ethics Commission, who said they did not believe either the open meeting law or state ethics law addressed whether Kourkoumelis had a right to participate in deliberations concerning her complaint, although they noted that their offices do not provide legal opinions over the phone.

Based on those conversation, Hollender recommended that if committee decided to exclude Kourkoumelis from executive session deliberations regarding her and Kenney's complaints, they should cite as their reason the state law that they had acted in a manner that "would cause a reasonable person, having knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to conclude that any person can improperly influence or unduly enjoy his [or her] favor in the performance of his official duties, or that he [or she] is likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, position or undue influence of any party or person.”

Kourkoumelis Asked to Recuse Herself From Deliberations

At the committee's Jan. 24 meeting, after Kourkoumelis left her seat and read a statement about her initial complaint from the public participation table, the committee voted to enter executive session to discuss complaints filed by Kourkoumelis, Kenney and Maryan Hollis.

After discussing Hollis' complaint, the committee discussed with Hollender present whether Kourkoumelis should be asked to recuse herself from deliberations over her own complaint, with the committee ultimately voting 6-1, with Kourkoumelis opposed, in asking her to recuse herself, which she did under "extreme protest" according to the committee's response.

The committee returned to public session, read the disclosure statement drafted by Hollender on a State Ethics Commision form that cited the state law as their reason for excluding Kourkoumelis from deliberations about her complaint, and returned to executive session to discuss her and Kenney's complaints.

Files Second Complaint

Those events led Kourkoumelis to file her second complaint (PDF attached) alleging the committee violated the open meeting law by:

1. Failing to inform her so she could prepare for discussions about her character and reputation during the executive session, in reference to one of the exceptions in the open meeting law for executive session.
2. Secret discussions prior to the meeting to arrive at a strategy to have her removed from the deliberations.
3. Failure to inform the public that the need for secrecy included discussing the character of one of their members and requesting her recusal from the deliberations.
4. Deliberate efforts to exclude me from participating in the full committee response to Kenney's complaint, including background information made available to other committee members in advance.

In her complaint, Kourkoumelis asked for a "sincere apology" from Committee Chairwoman Kristin Thorp and acknowledge in public session that the committee "broke the law and behaved in a fashion that is unbecoming of a public body." If not, she asked for "strongest enforcement measures allowable by law," arguing that "egregious and willful violations are a chronic issue with the Melrose School Committee."

In their response, the committee argued it had not violated the open meeting law insofar that:

1. It did not convene to discuss Kourkoumelis' character or reputation, only to discuss whether she should be asked to recuse herself from deliberations over her and Kenney's complaints (relating to Kourkoumelis' first and third points above).
2. It did not conduct secret discussions prior to the meeting and that the only discussions regarding the amtter took place between Thorp, Superintendent Joe Casey, Hollender and City Solicitor Rob Van Campen.
3. Because Kourkoumelis' complaint Kenney's complaint are "virtually identical," according to the committee response, "as a matter of logic, it would make no sense for the School Committee to ask Ms. Kourkoumelis to remove herself from discussions concerning her own complaint, and then allow her to participate in a strategy session relating to a virtually identical complaint, simply because it was filed by another individual."

Reactions This Week

In a prepared statement Kourkoumelis read at Tuesday night's meeting and provided to Melrose Patch (PDF of full statement attached), she said that the public was never informed that there would be deliberation about whether to ask her to recuse herself, not the adoption of the conflict of interest disclosure statement.

"This is just one of many violations of the law that I perceived in the committee’s actions on January 24, and this one alone is so blatant that I am dumb-founded that we are here discussing seven pages of creative narrative in response to a seven-line complaint, rather than just admitting we goofed, apologizing to the public we serve, and availing ourselves of the training the Division of Open Government offers to local bodies," she said.

Kourkoumelis also argued that instead of discussing her complaint with her, the committee instead tapped its legal counsel, but not provide her counsel, and that Hollender should've prepared another draft response that "states we goofed and we're sorry," alongside the draft that disagrees that there had been any violation of the law. She also reiterated her proposed remedy of a sincere and public apology and agree to open meeting law training for the committee.

Thorp told Melrose Patch this week that "I think the letter (committee's response) speaks for itself," in arguing again that the committee did not discuss Kourkoumelis' character or reputation, nor did it have secret discussions about asking her to recuse herself before the meeting on Jan. 24.

"This committee really is honest and honorable and trying our very hardest to do what’s right for the kids, and in a manner that upholds the law in letter and spirit," she said. "We’re relying on our council, both city and school district council, to help guide us through that and we will respond to any complaints. People can file complaints about virtually anything, there’s no control over that aspect. We’ll continue to answer whatever they choose to file one at a time and try to get better at what we do."

In her remarks from Tuesday, Kourkoumelis reiterated her solution of a public apology and acknowledgment that the committee had violated the open meeting law.

"If this Committee wishes to accept my proposed remedy of a sincere and public apology and agree to training in Open Meeting Laws, then I will consider this matter closed," she said. "This is the only option on the table tonight as far as I am concerned."