Proposed changes for the School Committee

Proposed changes for the School Committee

Mayor Brian DePeña sent a proposal to the City Council for a Home Rule Petition that would make radical changes to the composition of the School Committee which may be contrary to the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights regarding governance by an “elected board”.

Something that must be considered is the fact that the proposed reorganization of an elected body (the school committee) is drafted and advanced by the Office of the Mayor, which is the Executive Branch, without lawful authority. Supervision over the School Committee rests with the Legislative Branch (City Council) and NOT the Executive Branch.  In that light, there does not appear to be any information or vote of the Lawrence School Committee to conduct public proceedings regarding a proposal to reorganize the City School Committee.  Moreover, the author of the proposed reorganization was Carlos Matos who is employed by the Executive Branch and without a lawful grant of authority to draft, submit, or recommend the proposed legislation being advanced.

I haven’t seen anything that allows for a mixed “appointed and elected” school committee and there is no Massachusetts Constitutional provision that provides for it – which means it is contrary to the Massachusetts Constitution and cannot be accomplished by Home Rule Petition (it is required that Home Rule Petitions meet Constitutional standards).

When creating a public board that represents “the public” (like a school committee) it requires that all members be “elected”.  An elected board like the school committee or the City Council can “hire” advisors that are from the various backgrounds that the Mayor would like to draw recommendations – an advisory board can be created and draw from the parents council, the educational coalition, special needs advisory council, a teacher, a school administrator, a Workforce Investment Board member, a Lawrence Public School faculty member, a city councilor, and four others to be appointed by the Mayor to serve as the recommending panel.

It is “critical” to the Administration to have the “appointed members” seated and voting on the school committee to maintain “direct control” which the proposed measure presented by the mayor does.  Only one problem – a school committee that is composed of 7 members appointed by the mayor with 3 elected “at large” members is likely “unconstitutional” in violation of Article IX of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and G.L. c. 43.  

Keep in mind that any meetings of any multiple-member public body MUST be in public with an agenda and notice posted 48 hours before all such meetings – such meetings should take place either at the City Council or at a City Council Subcommittee.

Tuesday night, the City Council met with the School Committee members to discuss their version of the Home Rule Petition, the Mayor’s original proposal, and another one provided by Councilor at-Large Ana Levy.  After a brief discussion, the council voted unanimously to reject the mayor’s version.

It was decided that Councilor Levy’s proposal was much better than the proposal submitted by the mayor. 

I noticed that Councilor Levy’s amendment #1 proposes to retain six (6) elected school committee members (one from each political district – the same as currently provided by the City Charter section 5.1(a).  However, retaining the provision for three (3) appointed members of the new “school committee” may still violate Article IX of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.  

The three (3) elected members who are elected to a four-year term under Proposed Section 4 may be subjected to a “recall petition” under Section 9.7 of the City Charter.  According to the City Charter, elected officials elected to serve a four-year term with “more than twelve months remaining of the term of office may, may be recalled from the office.”  by the voters This “aspect” of the proposed reorganization of the school committee composition appears NOT to have been considered by the proposed legislative reorganization. Certainly, increasing the number of elected officers who may be “recalled” according to the City Charter increases the “possibility” of administrative action by the City Election Division and the Board of Registrars.  Presently, and for some time now, the City Election Division lacks sufficient personnel to administer the Charter duties and responsibilities to which it is assigned.  Provision of additional duties by this or any other legislation will only serve to decrease the ability of the Election Division to accurately and competently perform all its duties required of it by the City Charter.  

Currently, the Office of the Mayor is the only other elective position that may be subject to a “recall”.  If the City adopts provisions that affect an increased administrative responsibility of the Election Division there must be an increase of Election Division professional staff to assure the City of Lawrence can competently provide administrative services directed by the City Charter.  Certainly, the proposed legislation could provide a provision that removes the three (3) elected school committees elected officials from being subject to a “petition to recall”.  It does not appear that the resulting proposed reorganization of the Lawrence School Committee either considers or provides for “election recall” of its members.  

Statistically, the current six-member school committee provides “proportional representation” of the approximate 89,143 residents [per the 2020 US Census] by providing one (1) elected representative for every 14, 857 residents of the City of Lawerence.  The “proposed appointed/elected school committee” provides one (1) elected representative for approximately 29,714 residents – which cuts democratically elected representation in half.  

The proposed “new school committee” eliminates the ability of voters and residents of any district to provide access and representation concerning issues that may be particular to the district.  Although it may be argued that any of the 11 members may provide access and representation to concerned Lawrence residents, the practical outcome of any matter presented by a resident or a voter may not be seriously considered or addressed by a school committee member whose membership on the school committee is dependent and reliant upon allegiance to the “appointing authority” (the “nominating panel or the Mayor) and NOT the voters.  For this reason alone, the essence of a “Democratic Republic” form of governance is defeated if the “proposed legislation” is approved and implemented.  

In short, voters will no longer have a “viable” or “direct” voice on the “new school committee” where eight (8) of the eleven (11) members answer to an “authority” that is “appointed” and not directly “elected” to the school committee.  Providing mayoral appointments for members of the “proposed school committee” is of little or no value in comparison to a school committee that is directly answerable to the voters.  

The proposed legislation creates an impermeable “buffer” between the constituents and the mayor that can easily be engaged when contested or adversarial positions are to be considered by the board.  A “fertile” ground for political gamesmanship and maneuvering will be exacerbated and employed on the most controversial issues presented to the “new board” where less of the same would be available when the school committee answers to the electorate.

My point is that a PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED for all municipal legislative acts including Home Rule Petitions – unless there is State or Local Legislation that eliminates the requirement as stated in Charter Section 3.8(d).  As Council President Jeovanny Rodríguez told me, “We have to publish a notice for a public hearing even for a STOP sign.”

If you remember, in late 2020 the Council Members, Mayor, and State Legislators were discussing the elimination of the publication, notice, and public hearing requirements for municipal legislative measures including Home Rule Petitions stating that the “EMERGENCY” provisions of governance during COVID allows it.  At that time the notice by publication and public hearing requirements of the City Charter and State Law for all legislative acts of the City Council had nothing to do with the pandemic since publication and notice provisions were “administrative actions” resulting in a public hearing before the City Council – which was holding its meetings by Zoom only and the published notices were still being advertised timely in compliance with the “Open Meeting Law”.   

I am not sure if the Council has eliminated the “Publication and Public Hearing” requirements that must be followed for all proposed Ordinances, Charter provisions, Legislative Amendments and Home Rule Petitions.  If the Council approves municipal legislative acts without a public hearing it is a violation of the City Charter and State Law unless there is a measure that effectively removes this requirement.

It must be noted that Councilor Levy was the only councilor who came up with her version of the proposal and it was obvious that most councilors didn’t bother to read any of them.

I hope that our representatives come to understand what a “Democratic Republic” entails.  The government doesn’t exist to rule over the people; the government only exists BECAUSE of the people and must ALWAYS be questioned and contained.