SCHOOL DISTRICTS

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

SCHOOL DISTRICTS



I

n 1998, a former member of the North Kingstown School

Committee filed an Open Meetings Law complaint

against the committee, claiming that the committee had

given no public notice that a discussion possibly leading to

the superintendent's dismissal would be held in two closed

meetings. Although the Attorney General's office declined

to file suit against the committee, Special Assistant Attorney

General Lisa Dinerman issued a warning, concluding that

the committee had indeed violated the Open Meetings

Law on several counts, by "failing to properly and fully

identify the subject matters to be discussed in closed

session, by failing to properly convene in executive session

by making an open call, and by failing to record such an

open call and the nature of the business to be discussed in

the minutes of its meetings" (Chris Poon, "School Board

Violated Open Meetings Law, State Finds," Providence

Journal, April 14, 1998, p. C-1; Attorney General Unofficial

Finding OM98-17).

The North Kingstown School Committee is not

alone. Each year the Attorney General's office receives

multiple complaints about school committee’s violating the

Open Meetings Law. These violations may be the result of

deliberate attempts to keep information from the public,

ignorance of the law, or simple carelessness. Often

violations result from inappropriate interpretations of

ambiguous passages in the law.

Inappropriate interpretations are possible because

neither the Open Meetings Law nor the Open Records Law

gives specific instructions concerning the openness of every

procedure and document related to school committees or

districts. It would be impossible for any law to address

every issue, particularly with organizations as complex as

schools. However, the language of the law clearly describes

its spirit and intent along with some distinct guidelines

specifying procedures that would foster openness in the

public school system.

The Open Records Law exempts from disclosure "all

records which are identifiable to a...student, or employee;

including, but not limited to, personnel...pupil

records...student performance" (R.I.G.L. 38-2-2(4)(A)).

Once we move beyond personnel and student records,

however, countless documents and pieces of information

related to school policies and procedures, such as school

committee minutes or teacher contracts, are open to the

public. How open are school districts with such records,

especially those that are less commonly requested than

meeting minutes and teacher contracts? In terms of open





OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION 51

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

meetings, do school committees in Rhode Island keep the

Calling Ahead public aware of what issues are discussed behind closed

doors, as North Kingstown failed to do in 1998?





L

ast year's study generated a These questions are the basis upon which this year's

response from several study rests. This study is a two-part analysis of the

districts that individuals openness of thirty-three school districts in Rhode Island.

seeking public information, (Block Island was not included in the study.) Specifically,

particularly meeting minutes, we measured compliance with the Open Records Law by

should first telephone the requesting teacher evaluation forms and written

administration office with the information on professional development from high

request. An initial phone call schools in Rhode Island. We determined school

was not a barrier to access; it committees' compliance with and interpretation of the

was an added convenience for Open Meetings Law through examining school committee

the secretaries because they meeting minutes and interviewing school committee

could gather the information in chairpersons about procedures related to closed meetings.

advance, and for ourselves

because, having established a

pick-up date on the phone, we

seldom had to return for a

Open Records Law

follow-up visit. What We Requested





W

e decided to request teacher evaluation forms and

professional development information from

schools for three main reasons. First, we wanted

to request documents in which parents or concerned

citizens would be likely to take an interest. Because of the

“Specifically, we recent attention given to teaching standards around the

measured compliance nation and in the state, these documents fit this criterion.

with the Open Records Second, we wanted to request documents that every

school system should have. In order to determine if teacher

Law by requesting

evaluation forms and professional development policies fit

teacher evaluation forms this criterion, we looked at teacher contracts and policy

and written information manuals to see if either document addressed the topics1.

on professional Since this information appeared in contracts and manuals

development from high in virtually every district, we decided that it would be

schools in Rhode Island.” appropriate to request this information in our study.

Our final and most important criterion was that the

documents we requested should be considered public

under the Open Records Law. An evaluation of a specific

teacher would clearly not be a public record, as documents

including "information in personnel files maintained to hire,

evaluate, promote, or discipline any employee of a public

body" are exempt from the law (R.I.G.L. 38-2-2(4)(A)).

Blank teacher evaluation forms and policies on professional

1 Researchers in last year's study were able to obtain 94.1% of their requests for teacher contracts, policy manuals, and regular

committee meeting minutes. During our preliminary research this year, we were granted access to these three public documents in

100% of the districts in which we requested them. In addition, all of the districts that charged us for copies were within the $0.15

per page copying fee limit this year.









52 OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

development, however, do not have the characteristics of

documents exempt under this or any other section of the

law. These documents simply state the policies and

procedures of schools and do not contain information that

can be traced to a particular teacher or that would be

maintained in a personnel file.



How We Requested Information





W

e decided to study secondary schools whenever

possible because many districts in Rhode Island

have only one high school. In the cases of

combined districts, the shared high school was studied:

Mount Hope (Bristol-Warren), Chariho (Charleston,

Richmond, and Hopkinton), Exeter-West Greenwich, and

Ponagansett (Foster and Glocester). When a district did

not have its own high school, as was the case in Jamestown

and Little Compton, we studied the elementary school that

was within its jurisdiction. When a district had more than

one high school, the one with the greatest student

population was chosen, as was the case with Central High

School in Providence.

In order to simulate the experience of an average

citizen attempting to obtain information from these

schools, volunteers from the Rhode Island chapter of

Common Cause requested the documents. Since they

were residents of the town in which they made the request,

or of a relatively adjacent town, they represented local

citizens interested in school policy. The volunteers were

given a detailed protocol for a telephone call to their

respective high schools. (See Appendix for complete

protocol.) They requested a teacher evaluation form, any

additional information on teacher evaluations, and a

written policy on professional development. We were

careful to specify that we were not looking for information

on a particular teacher so that there would be no question

that these items were public records under the law. The

volunteers were made aware that the authorization of the

principal or superintendent might be required to fulfill their

request.









OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION 53

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Measuring Compliance





A

school district was considered in full compliance with

the Open Records Law if we received the information

requested. We counted the district as compliant

regardless of the quality or depth of the details provided.

Since the law does not specify requirements for the form or

content of teacher evaluation forms or professional

development documents, we could not consider districts in

violation of the law if they did not have these records and

could only give us vocal information. In these cases, we

were unable to evaluate a district’s compliance with the

law. However, we considered districts which provided us

“Statewide, we received with vocal information on their policies to be adhering to a

spirit of openness. We accepted vocal explanations while

52 of the 61 requests

recognizing that written records are a preferable form of

(85%) ultimately counted communicating information. While a written statement of

in this study.” policy ensures that the same information is communicated

to all, the amount of detail and accuracy in a vocal

response could vary depending on the personality and

knowledge of the secretary, principal, or superintendent

who honored the request.

Chart 3.1

Teacher Evaluation Responses Results





S

No Information tatewide, we received information in response to 52 of

Received 18% the 61 requests (85%) ultimately counted in this study.

Although this percentage represents a significant

Received Vocal majority of the districts, a number of the requested

Information 6% documents were not provided and several districts were

Received Form therefore in violation of the Open Records Law.

76% Just over three-fourths of the schools surveyed

(76%) provided a teacher evaluation form, and many of

those gave us additional information to accompany it. The

quality and usefulness of the written documentation on

teacher evaluations ranged from multi-paged plans for

evaluation in Bristol-Warren, East Greenwich, Johnston,

Newport, and North Kingstown, to a one-page evaluation

form with five check boxes in Lincoln.

Two districts, Foster-Glocester and West Warwick,

provided information on teacher evaluations verbally. They

indicated that they do not use a standard document for

observing teachers, but instead visit a classroom and

prepare a narrative about the teacher's performance. Six

districts did not provide a written teacher evaluation form

or any verbal information addressing our request:

Cranston, Cumberland, Little Compton, Middletown,

Pawtucket, and Scituate. Middletown explicitly denied the

request while the others did not provide the information in





54 OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

response to repeated requests.

The request for information on professional

development was more complicated, and five districts were “Fifteen districts provided

ultimately removed from the analysis.2 Fifteen (53%) of the written information on

remaining districts provided written information on professional

professional development. Because this request was for development.”

information rather than for a particular document, we

expected, and found, variation in the quality of information

received on this issue. Some districts provided packets of

information outlining detailed professional development Chart 3.2

requirements or ways to improve teaching skills while Professional Development Responses

others provided only a few explanatory statements of No Information

policy. Received 11%

Vocal information on professional development was

received from ten (36%) of the districts. The vocal Received

explanation included information on opportunities and/or Document

requirements for teaching development and any policy the 53%

school had for encouraging teachers to participate in these Received Vocal

activities. Three school districts did not provide this Information 36%

information in either a written or vocal format: Cranston,

Pawtucket, and Scituate. In all three cases, the information

was promised to us at the time we requested it, but never

sent to us, or we received no response after multiple phone

calls.

“Three school districts did

The discrepancy in the availability of written

information for the two components can be partially

not provide this

explained by the fact that while a teacher evaluation form information in either a

is a specific document, information on professional written or vocal format:

development policy is not necessarily contained in a single, Cranston, Pawtucket, and

standard document. This information may therefore have Scituate. In all three

been more difficult to locate. In addition, unlike cases, the information

evaluations, professional development is often not formally was promised to us at the

required of a teacher, so some districts indicated that they time we requested it, but

had little or no written information on this topic. never sent to us, or we

From our preliminary research we knew that policy received no response

manuals often contain information such as the procedures after multiple phone

for requesting professional days off or a few statements calls.”

about the number of days a teacher is limited to, required

to, or encouraged to use for outside conferences or

workshops. We expected that at least as much information

on professional development as we found during our

preliminary survey of teacher contracts and policy manuals

would be made available to us after our formal request.

Although this study was not designed to compare contracts



2 The volunteer who requested documents in Middletown was met with such rude treatment when he asked for a teacher evaluation

form that he declined to make the second request for professional development information. North Providence requires a written

request for any public record, and that ultimately deterred the volunteer from pursuing this information. Three districts reported

that they had no information on professional development: Burrillville, Central Falls, and Chariho.









OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION 55

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

or manuals with the information received during our

request, we were able to make comparisons in a number of

districts. In some cases, such as North Smithfield, we were

told in response to our request that no written information

was available, but from our preliminary research we had

found that some details did exist in either the teacher

contract or the policy manual or both. Some districts

provided photocopied sections of these documents as part

of the fulfillment of the request. However, surprisingly few

of our volunteers were referred to these public documents,

even though the request they made was for information on

policies.

Public Bodies Can Discuss Open Meetings Law

These Issues in Closed

Session: What Should We Test?

1. Job performance, character, or



I

n the portion of our study described above, we tested a

physical or mental health of citizen's ability to gain access to records describing school

personnel policies. Equally important, however, is a citizen's right to

2. Collective bargaining or observe the public body which approves such policies. The

litigation Open Meetings Law states that "it is essential...that the

3. Security personnel or devices citizens be advised of and aware of the performance of

4. Investigative proceedings public officials and the deliberations and decisions that go

regarding allegations of into the making of public policy" (R.I.G.L. 42-46-1).

misconduct, civil or criminal Although public bodies such as school committees

5. Acquisition or lease of real normally conduct their business in sessions open to the

property for public purposes public, some issues are discussed out of the public view, in

6. Prospective business or executive, or closed, session. The eight exemptions under

industry locating in the area which a committee can recess into executive session are

7. Investment of public funds listed in the table to the left.

8. Student disciplinary hearings The law also includes clauses that ensure that the

or matters which relate to the public is informed of the deliberations and decisions that

privacy of students and their take place in executive session. We studied school

records committees' procedures related to three such clauses in

order to check each district's compliance with the law.

First, school committees must give a statement of the

nature of the business to be discussed in the closed session

and cite the exemption of the Open Meetings Law that

applies to those issues. Second, according to the law, the

committee must take a vote if they choose to seal the

executive session minutes. Third, as of July, 1998,

committees must disclose in an open meeting the votes

that are taken in closed session. In this portion of the

study, we examined school committees' compliance with

these three requirements along with differences in their









56 OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

interpretations of the Open Meetings Law, attempting to

answer the question: Do school committees fulfill their

obligation to make information available about the topics

discussed in closed session and the decisions that are made

there?



How We Conducted the Study





I

n order to determine if school committees were

complying with the Open Meetings Law, we examined

four to six months of school committee minutes, and we

conducted an interview with each school committee “In order to determine if

chairperson in Rhode Island. From the minutes, we were school committees were

able to note whether committees complied with the complying with the Open

requirements of citing the law and the reasons for recessing Meetings Law, we

into executive session, voting to seal minutes, and revealing examined four to six

votes from executive session. The interviews allowed us to months of school

confirm these procedures regarding executive session since committee minutes, and

we could not directly observe closed meetings. The we conducted an

interviews also gave us insight into the types of issues most interview with each school

commonly discussed in closed session, as well as the committee chairperson in

chairpersons' views of the purpose of executive session. Rhode Island.”

(Interview questions are listed in the Appendix.)

The four combined school districts were studied as

such because each group of towns shares one committee.

Central Falls has not had a formal school committee since

1991. The former chairman of that committee was

interviewed, as he continues to play an important role in

the governance of the school department in the city, but

Central Falls could not be included in much of the

numerical analysis of the districts. West Warwick never used

executive session in the period we examined and therefore

also could only be used in part of our analysis. Percentages

in the following section were calculated using a number of

districts that varies depending on the presence of these

special cases, and on the nature of some of the questions

we raised and the circumstances we encountered.









OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION 57

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

“Although the majority of Results

districts were compliant



I

in citing the law, most n our attempt to determine what occurs in executive

districts were session, we asked committee chairpersons to list specific

inadequately specific in issues that fall under each exemption of the Open

stating the nature of the Meetings Law that they have cited. The issues most

business to be discussed commonly discussed in closed session are those that deal

with personnel matters, job performance, litigation or

in closed session.”

collective bargaining, and student hearings.

Although student disciplinary hearings were

frequently reported to be the topic of a closed meetings,

some chairpersons did not seem to be aware that a

separate exemption has been recently added for that

specific purpose. Most districts cited exemptions one (job

performance) and two (collective bargaining) as the reason

for going into closed session, though a student disciplinary

hearing would not be justified by these exemptions.



Citing the Law and Reasons for Executive Session







F

Chart 3.3

rom the four to six months of minutes examined, we

were able to determine that most committees were

Cite Laws Correctly

compliant in citing the law correctly. Twenty-three

Always Cite districts (74%) always cited the law correctly. Cranston,

Law Correctly Cumberland, East Providence, Narragansett, and

74% Providence did not always cite the law. Foster-Glocester,

Pawtucket, and South Kingstown cited the law improperly

Always Cite or incorrectly.

Adequate

Reason 23%

Although the majority of districts were compliant in

citing the law, most districts were inadequately specific in

stating the nature of the business to be discussed in closed

session. The law requires that such a statement accompany

the vote to recess into executive session. In 1996, the

Attorney General issued a decision that stated "Simply

identifying 'collective bargaining' or 'personnel' as the

subject of a closed meeting does not sufficiently specify the

nature of the business to be discussed and violates R.I.G.L.

“Only seven districts 42-46-4 (b)" (OM96-28). Using this criterion, only seven

studied (Barrington, East districts studied (Barrington, East Greenwich, Jamestown,

Greenwich, Jamestown, North Smithfield, Pawtucket, Scituate, and Tiverton) were

North Smithfield, always sufficiently specific in their reasons.

For example, minutes from one meeting of the

Pawtucket, Scituate, and

Jamestown School Committee recorded that the

Tiverton) were always committee went into executive session for the discussion of

sufficiently specific in a "grievance regarding the length of the school day" and a

their reasons..” "grievance regarding a teacher reassignment." Minutes

from a meeting of the Pawtucket School Committee

recorded that the committee conducted "personnel







58 OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

interviews" in executive session. North Smithfield cited a

“parental hearing request,” and Scituate cited a “job

performance discussion” as part of the subject of a

meeting. Most Compliant and Least

Compliant

Eight districts (Cumberland, East Providence,

Middletown, Narragansett, Providence, Smithfield,



W

e could not accurately

Warwick, and Westerly) did not always give a reason. The and fairly rank each

remaining 16 districts cited a reason, but sometimes used school district based

simply “personnel” or “collective bargaining” or both. All

on its compliance with the

of these committees insufficiently fulfilled their obligation

Open Records and Open

to justify their use of executive session as set forth by the

Meetings Laws because not

Open Meetings Law.

every school district could be

Sealing Executive Minutes evaluated on all measures of

compliance examined in this

study. (For example, school



W

hen an issue is sensitive enough to warrant a

closed discussion, it is likely that the minutes from committees which do not vote

the meeting will be kept closed as well. in executive session could not

According to our interviews with school committee be evaluated on whether or not

chairpersons, 23 (72%) of the committees always seal their they reveal votes.) There were,

executive session minutes, while eight (25%) sometimes however, districts which stood

do, and one district (Burrillville) never does. Most districts out as exceptionally compliant

that seal their minutes consistently seal them in their and districts which had an

entirety. However, the law can be interpreted in such a way exceptional number of

that it is legal only to seal those sections that are pending violations of the law:

or should otherwise remain outside of the public view.

Committees could adopt the practice of leaving sections of Most Compliant:

executive minutes that do not fall under this category • Barrington

unsealed. Some chairpersons indicated that certain sections • Burrillville

of these minutes have been unsealed in the past for legal • Jamestown

purposes but rarely for the general public. • Tiverton

Although it is legal to seal executive session minutes

either partially or in their entirety, a committee must take a Least Compliant:

vote to seal them. According to our interviews, only one • Cranston

district, Scituate, assumed that their minutes were sealed • Cumberland

without taking a vote. We asked the other chairpersons • Scituate

whose committees seal the minutes whether this vote is

taken in open or closed session. The Cumberland, East

Greenwich, and Lincoln chairpersons each reported that

executive session minutes are sealed in open session, but

we did not always find that vote recorded in the minutes.

It is possible that the discrepancies we noted were the

result of errors by the clerk responsible for the open session

minutes. (An example of a clerical error leading to non-

compliance occurred in Foster-Glocester, where the

committee’s error in inappropriately citing sections four

and five of the law seems to be the result of an inaccurate

template used to produce the minutes; the section is

printed in the same manner from month to month, but the





OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION 59

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

wrong section numbers are routinely recorded.)

Additionally, we could not check the accuracy of the

chairpersons who reported that the vote was an executive

session procedure because we did not have access to the

meetings or the minutes of the meetings.

In several districts, the vote to enter executive

session and to seal the minutes took place simultaneously.

“According to school In effect, minutes are being sealed that do not yet exist

and, more importantly, that may prove to be a harmless

committee chairpersons,

but informative account of the deliberation. Committees

15 (47%) of the should seal minutes after the session, at which point they

committees do not vote can determine which sections, if any, could remain open to

in executive session. Of the public.

the 17 (53%) that do In two districts, Middletown and North Kingstown,

vote, ten (59%) districts we received minutes from executive session when we

indicate that the votes are initially requested minutes from the committees' regular

disclosed or reconfirmed meetings. The Middletown executive session minutes were

in open session.” vague, offering little information beyond that which was

available from the meeting's agenda. The North

Kingstown minutes, on the other hand, presented a more

detailed account of the discussion in executive session and

Chart 3.4 represent a good example of openness.

Vote in Executive Session?

Disclosing Votes

Do not Vote in





A

Executive Session ccording to school committee chairpersons, 15

47% (47%) of the committees do not vote in executive

session. Of the 17 (53%) that do vote, ten (59%)

districts indicate that the votes are disclosed or reconfirmed

in open session.

Vote in The law requires that committees disclose in open

Executive session any votes taken in executive session, but it does not

Session 53% specify the manner in which the votes should be disclosed.

A good practice would be to define “to disclose” as “to

make a decision from executive session evident during the

Chart 3.5 regular meeting, and in the regular session minutes, clearly

Disclosure Executive Session Votes?

labeled as ‘executive session votes’ and with the roll call

votes included.” We did not see a procedure that

resembled this one in any of the minutes we examined.

Do Not In virtually all cases, it was impossible to ascertain

Disclose All from the four to six months of regular minutes we

Votes 41% examined that votes from executive session were disclosed.

Many chairpersons explained that the committee discloses

votes by retaking them as the issues come up on the open

meeting agenda. In effect, these votes get subsumed into

the regular meeting in such a way that it is impossible to

Disclose

Votes in note from the minutes whether committees complied with

Open Session the Open Meetings Law by disclosing votes or whether any

59% votes were taken at all.

It is conceivable that in some districts no votes were



60 OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

taken in executive session during

the five months of meetings Are School Committees Treated Differently?

whose minutes we analyzed.





D

This may have been the case uring the course of our interviews, some committee

because many of the districts that chairpersons commented that the Open Meetings Law

sometimes vote in executive is too restrictive, and that discussions flow more freely

session sometimes use it simply and are more productive in closed session. The chairman of

for discussion purposes. the Foster-Glocester School Committee believes that

However, an indication that some members are less likely to give all of the input that they would

committees neglect to reveal like to give because certain discussions must take place in

votes is the non-disclosure of open session. The Smithfield chairwoman also explained that

votes to seal executive session the rigidity of law has sometimes caused uncomfortable

minutes in the cases where the debates in public such as ones concerning the

committee chairperson reported superintendent; it appears to the public that the committee is

that the vote took place in struggling during open session.

executive session. That vote The chairman of the Scituate school committee

should be revealed in the regular commented that although the Open Meetings Law is

minutes after the committee commendable in that it causes a committee to identify what

reconvenes in open session, but will be discussed in closed versus open session, problems that

in the relevant districts the vote arise during the period between the posting of an agenda

was not mentioned. and the date of the meeting cannot be added to the agenda.

Of the committees that The Open Meetings Law states that, "Nothing contained

vote in executive session, seven herein shall prevent a public body, other than a school

(41%) do not disclose all of the committee, from adding additional items to the agenda by a

votes they take. These majority vote of the members" (R.I.G.L. 42-46-6 (b)).

committees, East Greenwich, Committee chairs, such as those representing Johnston,

Foster-Glocester, Lincoln, Newport, North Providence, and South Kingstown raised a

Newport, North Kingstown, concern that the Open Meetings Law is stricter with school

Scituate, and Warwick, are failing committees than it is with other public bodies because there

to fully comply with the law. are some clauses of the law, such as this one, that put

Perhaps the committees are restrictions specifically on school committees. The North

unaware of the 1998 Smithfield chairman made this observation as well, but felt

amendment, but when votes are that all municipal bodies should be held to this stricter

not disclosed and minutes of standard.

executive session are either The Open Meetings Law also states that "In the case

sealed or uninformative, the of school committees, the required public notice shall be

public is denied its right to know published in a newspaper of general circulation in the district"

what decisions were made (R.I.G.L. 42-46-6 (c)). This clause translates into costly

during the closed meeting. advertising fees for school committees, but not for other

Making decisions in public bodies. Not only does this requirement use funds from

closed session includes taking an already tight education budget, it uses tax dollars to post

formal votes, but it also includes meetings that are also advertised in town halls, public

coming to a consensus, or an libraries, and administrative buildings for a much lower cost.

agreement during the session. Why is the law stricter with school committees than

This issue is not addressed in the with other public bodies? Since schools account for a large

law, but according to an percentage of a municipality's general funds, one possible

unofficial opinion issued by the explanation is that extra caution is taken to monitor how the

Attorney General in 1995, "[I]t is committee spends it. Also, because the decisions they make

the opinion of this department affect the communities’ children, school committees are held

that 'arriving at a consensus' to to a higher standard of accountability.



OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION 61

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

do a certain action is in most circumstances tantamount to

Public Comment voting. Regardless of what the process is called, the public

body implements it to reach a decision, or to authorize





F

rom the minutes and the action. Thus, to call the process 'reaching a consensus' as

interviews, we found that all opposed to 'voting' is mere semantics" (Unofficial Opinion

of the committees allow #OM95-20). The idea of consensus is important because

members of the public to speak without taking a vote, committees can by-pass the

at regular meetings. Many have requirement to disclose votes and can, in effect, make

formal procedures, like a sign- decisions relating to public policy without making the

up sheet or designated times to public immediately aware of the decision and how each

speak, such as an "open forum" member voted. Any decision, whether taken by a roll call

or an "audience of citizens," at vote or through the reconciliation of opinions of those on

the beginning and/or end of the the committee, should be available to the public so that

meeting. citizens can be "aware of...the deliberations and the

If an issue that is not on decisions that go into the making of public policy" (R.I.G.L.

the agenda is raised during 42-46-1).

public discussion there are some

differences in the way the

committees handle the question District Summaries

or concern. Some districts take

caution that discussion does not What follows are summaries highlighting the ways in

stray from that meeting's which school districts comply with, and fail to comply

agenda by restricting with, the Open Records and Open Meetings Laws. The

comments to issues on the results of our requests for written information on

agenda. Others allow the professional development and teacher evaluations, both

person to speak on any issue, public records, are noted along with any unusual

but give little response on non- experiences surrounding the requests. Also noted is

agenda items. Others may offer whether each school committee complies with the Open

some advice or suggestions Meetings Law. Points examined include: citing the Open

even on non-agenda items that Meeting Law in the minutes when recessing into executive

would lead to a more rapid session; recording a statement specifying the nature of the

correction of the situation. In discussion in the minutes when recessing into executive

most cases, committees opt to session; and revealing in open session minutes any votes

defer non-agenda items to the taken in executive session. Failure to do any of these three

next meeting. things is in violation of the law. Finally, each district

summary includes information about the committee's

practices regarding sealing executive session minutes,

comments from school committee chairpersons about the

purpose of executive session, as well as any other notable

points from our research. Information derived from the

five to six months of school committee minutes that we

examined (July 1998-January 1999) is marked with a (M).

Information derived from the interviews we conducted

with school committee chairpersons in February 1999 is

marked with an (I).









62 OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

BARRINGTON obstruction of this law (Pine teachers, and students."

vs. Barrington School Building

Committee, No. 96-5909 April Other Notable Points

Open Records Law 1997). • The chairman was

• We obtained both written

• Barrington now rarely goes exceptionally helpful during

professional development

into executive session and the interview, offering a good

information and teacher

always explicitly states the deal of written information

evaluation forms.

reason. from the school district and

• When asked how the the Rhode Island Association

Open Meetings Law committee was kept apprised of School Committees.

• The Barrington School

of the law, the chairperson

Committee both cites the law

provided documents and

and gives a reason correctly

when going into closed

binders of information, BURRILLVILLE

including the most recently

session. (M)

• Executive session is used

amended copy of the law. Open Records Law

mainly for discussion, but • We received a teacher

votes are taken. (I) evaluation form. We were told

• According to the BRISTOL-WARREN that there was no information

chairperson, the school available on professional

committee immediately Open Records Law development policy.

reports out the executive • We were given the

session votes when they go "Professional Assessment and

back into open session. (I) Development System," a 56- Open Meetings Law

However, an example of this page document that outlines • The committee cites the law

was not evident during the teacher evaluation and and a reason when entering

five months of minutes professional development executive session, but

analyzed. information. sometimes "personnel" is

• The school committee seals given as a reason for executive

executive session minutes in Open Meetings Law session. (M)

executive session. (I) • The committee always cites • Votes that are taken in

• The school committee the law and a reason before executive session are disclosed

chairperson reports, "I think entering into closed session, upon resuming open session.

that the main purpose of but sometimes "personnel" is (I)

executive session is to conduct given as a reason for executive • Minutes are never sealed,

issues that, if held in open session. (M) and anyone should be able to

session, might be detrimental • Votes are not taken in get copies of the executive

to either the school district, executive session. However, minutes. These minutes are

individual, or group that is the school committee general explanations of the

entitled to have the matter members reach a consensus discussion, not verbatim

remain confidential." during the closed period. (I) accounts. (I)

• The committee seals • The chairman reported that

Other Notable Points executive session minutes in the goal of executive session is

• In 1997, the Barrington open session. (M,I) "to discuss sensitive issues in

School Committee was held in • The former school private that might impact

violation of the Open committee chair reports on students and staff members,

Meetings Law, the first school the purpose of executive and to discuss negotiations

board to be fined for session: "It is to protect the and keep them confidential."

rights of the individuals,



OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION CITY AND TOWN SUMMARIES 63

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Other Notable Points professional development, he • The chairman has only been

• In 1996, the committee was was told, "It's in the hands of on the committee since

found to be in violation of the the [teachers’] union," and November 1998 and was

Open Meetings Law by voting that he would have to ask the immediately elected

on a non-agenda item teachers’ union for the chairman.

(OM96-02). information. • Chariho charges $0.10 per

page for copies, which is

Open Meetings Law within the legal amount.

CENTRAL FALLS • The law is always cited and a

reason is always given when

Chariho was one of six towns

to charge for copies.

Open Records Law the committee enters

• Our volunteer was sent executive session, although

"collective bargaining" is used

written information about

as a reason to recess to

COVENTRY

teacher evaluations after

meeting with the principal of executive session. (M)

• The chairman said the

Open Records Law

the high school. He told her • The Coventry School

that the school did not have a committee does vote in

Department has a Teacher

written policy on professional executive session and that

Evaluation Handbook that is

development. Our volunteer votes are revealed by being

open to the public and that

found the principal helpful recorded into the minutes of

discusses in detail both the

and eager to answer any the open meeting. However,

evaluation process as well as

questions she had. we did not find any votes from

professional development.

executive session recorded in

Open Meetings Law the five months of minutes we

examined. (I, M)

Open Meetings Law

• As Central Falls has a school • The committee always cites

district advisory board instead • The motion to seal the

the law and a reason for

of a school committee, the minutes of the executive

entering executive session,

privilege of executive session is session is included in the

though they often cite

never exercised. The motion to go into executive

"personnel matters" as a

superintendent listens to the session. Thus, the school

reason. (M)

opinions of the board committee simultaneously

• The committee does not

members, but ultimately, she votes to go into executive

vote in executive session. (I)

has the final say on all policy session and keep the minutes

• The committee votes to seal

decisions for the school sealed. (M)

executive session minutes in

district. (I) • The chairman responded

open session prior to the

that the main purpose of

session, and then again at the

executive session is "to be able

following regular meeting. (I,

to speak freely without

C H A R I H O influencing parties."

M)

(CHARLESTOWN, HOP- • The chairman stated that the

KINTON, RICHMOND) main purpose of executive

Other Notable Points session is to discuss issues

• The superintendent's

Open Records Law relating to personnel,

secretary was helpful when

• The vice-principal of the litigation, and contracts.

we sought minutes from

high school provided a blank school committee meetings

teacher evaluation form. and information from the

• When our volunteer asked district policy manual during

for information on our preliminary research.



64 CITY AND TOWN SUMMARIES OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

CRANSTON • The chairwoman was helpful secrecy and to protect against

and informative during the damaging one's character,

Open Records Law interview. however, “the law only makes

• Our volunteer was unable to • Cranston charges $0.15 per executive session apply when

obtain information about page for copies, which is the it is necessary.”

teacher evaluations or maximum legal amount.

professional development. She Cranston was one of six towns Other Notable Points

was directed to the to charge for copies. • The secretary at the

superintendent's office, which superintendent's office was

she called several times, accommodating when we

requested the policy manual

leaving messages each time, CUMBERLAND and teachers’ contract.

before she was called back.

She was asked by both the Open Records Law

principal's office and • The principal was difficult to

superintendent's office why reach. Eventually, he provided EAST GREENWICH

she wanted the information if vocal information on

she was not a parent or professional development. Open Records Law

teacher. She was then told to The principal told us that he • We were provided with a

send in a written request, believed teacher evaluation particularly comprehensive

which she did, but she never forms were public, but that he teacher evaluation plan in

received a response. would consult with the response to our volunteer's

Superintendent before request. This plan also

Open Meetings Law sending the information. This included information on

• The committee never cites information was never professional development.

the law when recessing into received.

executive session. In the five Open Meetings Law

months of minutes we Open Meetings Law • The committee always cites

examined, the only reasons • The committee does not cite the law and a reason when

given for entering executive the law and a reason for recessing into executive

session were "personnel" and recessing into executive session. (M)

"litigation." (M) session in the minutes. (M) • The committee sometimes

• The Cranston School • Votes are sometimes taken in votes in executive session on

Committee never votes in executive session, but they are matters such as contract

executive session. (I) never disclosed in the open proposals and discipline. Such

• Minutes from executive meeting. The chairman votes are not directly revealed

session are sealed at the next believes that the executive in open session. (I)

open session, after they are votes are recorded in the open • The committee seals the

approved. They are usually minutes, but upon inspection executive session minutes

never unsealed unless of these minutes, we did not immediately after the session

subpoenaed. (I) see any record of votes. as a matter of course,

(I, M) according to the chairman,

Other Notable Points • According to the chairman, although this is not recorded

• The chairwoman of the the committee always seals

school committee executive minutes in open

commented, "The more session, but this is not always

information you give to the noted in the minutes. (I, M)

public, the better off we all •The chairman reported that

are." the goal of executive session is



OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION CITY AND TOWN SUMMARIES 65

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

in the open session minutes never stating the Open EXETER-WEST

we examined. (I, M) Meetings Law nor a reason for

• The chairman commented entering executive session. GREENWICH

that executive session serves (M)

two important purposes: 1) • The committee takes votes in Open Records Law

closed sessions allow for a executive session. The vote is • Our volunteer was given a

freer flow of discussion on either directly reported out or, large amount of information in

matters such as contract if it relates to a later section on response to her request for

negotiations, and 2) closed the agenda, disclosed at that information about professional

sessions protect the privacy of point. This information, given development. A blank teacher

teachers and students under to the public during the evaluation form was also

discussion. Chairman's Report to the open provided.

session, is noted in the

Other Notable Points minutes. (I, M) Open Meetings Law

• The East Greenwich • The school committee seals • The law and a reason were

Superintendent's Office was executive session minutes at always cited when recessing

helpful in providing copies of the beginning of the public into executive session,

school committee meeting meeting. (M) although "personnel" and

minutes as well as a teachers' • The chairwoman reported "collective bargaining" were

contract during our that, "Executive session exists used as reasons to go into the

preliminary research. primarily for reasons of privacy closed session. (M)

and protection of individuals • Although votes are not

and the protection of always taken in executive

individual rights." session, the committee

EAST PROVIDENCE sometimes comes to a

Other Notable Points consensus. (I)

Open Records Law • The new school committee • The motion to recess into

• We received a teacher executive session includes a

chairwoman strives for

evaluation form and vocal motion to keep the executive

openness. In 1996, she

information on professional minutes sealed, so the minutes

complained to the press about

development. of executive sessions are

East Providence's violations of

• The assistant superintendent always sealed. (M)

the Open Meetings Law. She

took an hour out of his • The committee usually only

charged that the

schedule in order to explain goes into executive session for

superintendent and fellow

professional development and student disciplinary hearings

school committee members

the teacher evaluation process or collective bargaining. (I)

come to consensus on the

to the volunteer, even though

budget behind closed doors.

the volunteer did not have an Other Notable Points

• The board recently

appointment. • Exeter-West Greenwich was

reorganized the form of public

participation, allowing the only district in which we

Open Meetings Law had some difficulty obtaining

comments before each vote.

• The majority of the five minutes from the regular

In the past the public was only

months of minutes analyzed school committee meetings.

allowed to speak at the end of

begin with the school The secretary called us back

a meeting.

committee adjourning from twice to ask why we were

executive session. It appears requesting minutes from

that they do not start the school committee meetings.

meeting in open session, thus The first time, we told her we



66 CITY AND TOWN SUMMARIES OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

were doing research. She proceedings regarding JAMESTOWN

called back again to ask what allegations of misconduct

kind of research we were either civil or criminal) and 5 Open Records Law

doing, and we explained that (acquisition or lease of real • The superintendent supplied

we were doing a project on property) of the exemptions in a teacher evaluation form and

education. This, apparently, the Open Meetings Law for information on professional

was an acceptable answer, as issues such as "administrative development from the

we finally received the contracts." These sections of teachers' contract upon

minutes. (The secretary kindly the law do not correspond to request.

mailed them to us.) these reasons for entering

•As of February 1999, the executive session; the law is Open Meetings Law

committee had not gone into cited incorrectly. They often • The committee always cites

executive session in five cite "personnel matters" as a the law and a reason when

months. reason for executive session. going into executive session.

(M) In all of the meeting minutes

• The committee does not examined, the committee

usually take votes in executive

FOSTER-GLOCESTER session. When they do vote,

cited exceptionally specific

reasons for going into

all votes except for those on executive session (for

Open Records Law grievance decisions are

• The high school principal's example, "grievance: length of

reconfirmed in open session. school day; grievance: teacher

responses to requests for

(I) reassignment" (August 6,

teacher evaluation and

• The chairman reported that 1998)).

professional development

executive minutes are not • The committee never votes

policy information were

sealed unless an issue is in executive session. (I)

contradictory. On the phone,

pending. In the five months • The committee seals the

we were told that the

of minutes examined, the executive session minutes in

evaluation form was not a

minutes of all of the executive open session. (I, M)

public document, but during a

sessions were sealed. (I, M) • The chairwoman

meeting with the same

• The chairman stated that the commented that executive

principal we were told there

purpose of executive session is sessions serve the purpose of

was no written form. We

to protect the privacy of allowing the committee to

received a vocal explanation of

employees, but that most discuss sensitive issues which

the teacher evaluation

issues are ultimately discussed must be dealt with but contain

process. We were also given

in open session since votes are names or incidents which

written information on the

reconfirmed there. should not be made public.

teacher mentoring plan along

• The chairman feels that the

with a document listing topics

committee's procedure on Other Notable Points

that could be discussed at

sealing executive minutes in • The Jamestown School

professional development

their entirety can prohibit Office was particularly helpful

events.

members of the public from in providing access to school

viewing the parts of the committee minutes, a policy

Open Meetings Law minutes that are not pending

• The committee always cites manual, and teacher contracts

or sensitive. He believes that during our preliminary

the law and reasons for going

the public should be able to research.

into executive session.

access these sections and to • In 1997, the Attorney

However, they routinely cite

be aware of the issues. General's office issued a

sections 4 (investigative





OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION CITY AND TOWN SUMMARIES 67

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

warning to the Jamestown ongoing issues before the cited in the minutes, but

School Committee's regular meeting. Since the sometimes "personnel" is

Administrative Search five members may have very given as a reason for executive

Committee for violating the different ideas, a specific session. (M)

Open Meetings Law by "failing strategy is planned in order to • Votes that are taken in

to take an open call to go into have a unified presentation to executive session are not

executive session and setting bring to the public. If they do disclosed. The chairwoman

forth at such open call the not know where the other commented that, "[Members

nature of the business to be members stand on an issue, of the public] never know,

discussed" (OM97-01). the public can perceive the unless they are told by a

disunity as a weakness. school committee member or

they guess." (I)

JOHNSTON Other Notable Points • The chairwoman reported

• During a meeting within the that minutes from executive

Open Records Law five months of minutes session are always sealed at

• Each section of the written examined (October 14, 1998) the next regular meeting

evaluation form we received the chairwoman prevented when the regular minutes of

was detailed and the committee from voting on the preceding meeting are

comprehensive. The principal a non-agenda item by approved. However, upon

told us that professional explaining that it is an Open inspection of the open

development is not required Meetings Law violation to do minutes, there was no record

of teachers, but it is so. of this.(I, M)

encouraged and that • In 1996, the committee was • The chairwoman reported

opportunities for development cautioned for holding an that the goal of executive

are provided. informal meeting between the session is "to protect people

superintendent and two and to preserve the secrecy of

Open Meetings Law committee members who had the identification of students,

• The committee always cites a conversation about school employees, and personnel

the law and a reason for committee business outside of matters." Furthermore "it is

executive session, but they a noticed meeting (OM96- important that municipal

cite "personnel" as a reason. 34). bodies are allowed to continue

(M) to have executive session

• The committee rarely takes because as open as the public

may want the committee to

votes in closed session. In the

instances when they do, votes

LINCOLN be, there are pieces of

are reconfirmed in open information that would be

Open Records Law

session. The committee may dangerous if handled in an

• The teacher evaluation

reach a consensus in executive open fashion. Executive

instrument was received, but

session. (I) session should not be curtailed

it was simply a single page

• Minutes from executive more than it is. You have to

with check boxes and a few

session are always sealed and trust the elected officials to

lines for additional comments.

the vote occurs in open stick to the agendas and not

Some written information on

session when the regular take advantage of the

professional development was

meeting reconvenes. (I, M) situation. That is what people

also received.

• The chairwoman reported are uncomfortable with. We

that the main purpose of try to be extremely open and

Open Meetings Law

executive session is to update extremely accessible to the

• The law and reasons for

the committee members on public."

entering executive session are

68 CITY AND TOWN SUMMARIES OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

(When asked about deciding school committee meetings

Other Notable Points which matters to discuss in from a specified period of

• We had no problem closed session, the chairperson time, the Middletown

acquiring information during replied, "We basically follow Superintendent's Office

our preliminary research, and the guidelines [of the Open provided copies of unsealed

assistants at both the Meetings Law] and stay within executive session minutes as

superintendent's and the them." well as regular session

principal's offices were friendly minutes. Middletown was

and polite. one of only two school

districts which supplied

MIDDLETOWN executive session minutes

during our preliminary

LITTLE COMPTON Open Records Law research.

• The superintendent refused

• The chairwoman

Open Records Law to provide the requested

commented that executive

• We did not obtain a teacher information on teacher

sessions are an important

evaluation form. The school evaluation policy because the

means of allowing the

principal told us, "We can try individual requesting the

committee to discuss student

to dig it up for you," and information was not from

discipline, personnel matters,

suggested coming in the Middletown and could not

and contract negotiations in

following week. When we provide a "good reason" for

private.

called back and visited the wanting the information.

office, the principal still did After being refused the

not have a copy. The principal teacher evaluation form, we

promised to send a teacher did not continue the NARRAGANSETT

evaluation form soon, but we conversation to ask for

never received a copy in the professional development Open Records Law

mail. During the initial phone information. • The superintendent's office

call the principal provided supplied teacher evaluation

vocal information on Open Meetings Law forms and supplemental

professional development. • The committee cites the written information on teacher

Open Meetings Law when evaluation policy from the

Open Meetings Law entering executive session, but teachers' contract upon

• The committee cites the law does not give a reason for the request. In addition, the

when going into executive session. (M) superintendent explained to

session, but sometimes gives • The committee never votes our volunteer the

"collective bargaining" as a in executive session. (I) opportunities for teachers to

reason for the session. (M) • In the open session minutes engage in professional

• Executive session is used for examined, the committee development.

discussion only. The board never voted to seal executive

may reach a consensus on an session minutes. The Open Meetings Law

issue, but it is then put on the chairwoman commented that • Although the meeting

agenda for the next meeting. the committee does not agendas indicate when an

(I) usually seal executive session executive session is to be held

• The school committee minutes since the minutes are and cite both the Open

regularly seals closed session not specific enough to name Meetings Law and the reasons

minutes in executive session. any individuals. (M, I) for going into executive

(I,M) • When asked for minutes of session, the committee cites





OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION CITY AND TOWN SUMMARIES 69

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

neither the Open Meetings to the public interest" to do the Open Meetings Law and a

Law nor a reason for entering so. (I) reason for entering executive

executive session in their open • The committee sometimes session, although sometimes

session minutes. (M) votes to seal executive session "personnel matters" or

• The committee never votes minutes. Such votes are taken "personnel issues" is given as

in executive session. (I) in executive session. (I) the reason for the session. (M)

• The committee routinely • The chairwoman • The committee uses

seals the minutes of executive commented that executive executive session mainly for

sessions. (M) sessions serve the purpose of discussion, but sometimes

• The chairwoman allowing discussion of sensitive votes are taken. Votes are not

commented that executive personal or legal issues to take revealed in open session, but

sessions serve the purpose of place privately; they help to they are recorded in unsealed

allowing the school protect individuals' privacy executive session minutes. (I,

committee to maintain and to ensure that M)

confidentiality. negotiations will not be placed • The committee seals

in jeopardy. executive session minutes only

when the session involves a

Other Notable Points performance evaluation or a

NEWPORT • In 1998, the Attorney child's name. The committee

General issued a warning to seals these executive session

Open Records Law the Newport School minutes by a vote during the

• The high school principal

Committee for "using a series executive session. (I)

provided particularly extensive

of one-to-one conversations to • When asked for minutes of

written information on both

arrive at a decision to deny a school committee meetings

teacher evaluation policy and

request by the members-elect. from a specified period of

professional development

Such a series of one-to-one time, the superintendent's

policy.

discussions cannot be used to office provided copies of

circumvent the requirements unsealed executive session

Open Meetings Law of the Law. . ." (OM98-11) minutes in addition to open

• The committee always cites

session minutes. North

the Open Meetings Law and a

Kingstown was one of only

reason for entering executive

two school districts to provide

session. However, the NORTH executive session minutes

committee gives "personnel

matters" (or "personal

KINGSTOWN during our preliminary

research.

matters") and "collective Open Records Law • The chairwoman

bargaining and litigation" as • The administrative office commented that executive

the reason for each executive supplied teacher evaluation sessions serve the purpose of

session. (M) forms and supplemental allowing people who feel

• The committee votes in written information on teacher wronged to present their

executive session on matters evaluation policy upon our grievances without sacrificing

relating to collective request. In addition, we their privacy.

bargaining, disciplinary received vocal information on

actions, and lawsuits. Since professional development

the 1998 addition to the Open

Other Notable Points

policy. • In 1998, the Attorney

Meetings Law, the committee

General's office found that the

repeats such votes in open Open Meetings Law committee violated the Open

session "unless it is detrimental • The committee always cites Meetings Law by "failing to



70 CITY AND TOWN SUMMARIES OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

properly and fully identify the • The chairman reported that executive session; however, a

subject matters to be the main purpose of executive consensus is often reached in

discussed in closed session, by session is to protect the rights executive session via head

failing to properly convene in of the individual and nods. The consensus, which

executive session by making confidentiality. functions like taking a vote, is

an open call and by failing to not disclosed.

record such open call and the Other Notable Points • Minutes are always sealed in

nature of business to be • The chairman remarked that open session immediately

discussed in the minutes of its there seems to be a double after the executive session. If

meetings" (OM98-17). standard in terms of the Open someone has a reason to

Meetings Law and pubic believe a portion of the

bodies. For example, both minutes should not be sealed

school committees and the then this can be discussed and

NORTH general assembly are elected amended. (I, M)

PROVIDENCE bodies, but the latter can vote • The chairman reported that

to go into caucus without the goal of executive session is

Open Records Law posting notice 48 hours in “to discuss personnel matters.

• Several phone calls were advance in a newspaper. Names are used, and we want

required for the records • The school department does to avoid slander, ensure

request, and the school not charge for the first five confidentiality, and protect

department would not give us pages of photocopied reputations. Certain issues are

any information until we materials, but charges $0.15 not the business of the public

submitted a name and our per page thereafter, which is and only the individual in

request in writing. The within the legal limit. question can make a case

evaluation form and • A written request is required public business by requesting

supplementary information in order to obtain public that it be discussed in open

were eventually received. information. session.”

•The request for information

on professional development Other Notable Points

could not be included in the • North Smithfield was one of

study. NORTH six towns to charge for copies

SMITHFIELD of minutes. The cost was

Open Meetings Law $0.15 per page which is

• The committee always cites Open Records Law within the limit of the law.

the law and a reason for • Both a teacher evaluation • The chairman has written a

executive session, but they form and vocal information on letter of inquiry to the

cite "personnel" as a reason. professional development Attorney General concerning

(M) were received. town councils and the fact

• The committee does not they are not bound to the

vote in executive session. The Open Meetings Law same stringent agenda laws as

superintendent often makes a • This committee always cites school committees. He feels

recommendation as a result of the law and provides reasons that they should be more

a hearing in executive session for recessing into executive open.

and the vote is made in open session. The reasons are clear

session. (I) and detailed, and all relevant

• Executive minutes are sealed subsections of the law are

at the following meeting listed. (M)

during open session. (I, M) • No votes are taken in



OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION CITY AND TOWN SUMMARIES 71

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

PAWTUCKET Other Notable Points individuals between staff or

• There has been no new students -- information that if

Open Records Law policy manual since 1965, came out too early would be

• When we requested and there is none to view at detrimental to what you are

information from the high the superintendent's office. trying to accomplish, such as

school principal's office, we • A written request was in litigation."

were referred to the necessary to obtain copies of

superintendent. Three phone committee minutes, but all Other Notable Points

calls to the superintendent's requested copies were • The Superintendent's office

office were not returned. As a received. requires a written request

result, information was never form for information and

received. charges $0.15 a page to

photocopy. It was one of the

Open Meetings Law

PORTSMOUTH only towns to do so.

• The law is not always cited • The clerk at the

Open Records Law superintendent's office was

when the committee recesses • We received a copy of the

into executive session. A incredibly helpful, remaining

school's "Professional after the department's closing

reason is always given, and Enhancement Plan," which

the detail exceeds that of time to copy school

outlines methods for committee minutes for us

most towns. (M) educators to pursue

• The chairman reported that during our preliminary

professional growth in research.

votes taken in executive between their teacher

session, including the vote to evaluations. Included in this

seal the minutes, are retaken document is Portsmouth's

in open session. However, teacher evaluation form. PROVIDENCE

nowhere in the open minutes

does it explicitly state Open Meetings Law Open Records Law

"disclosure of executive • The committee always cites • We had to call three times

votes," and it is therefore the law when going into before receiving the

difficult to determine whether executive session, but they telephone number of a school

the votes from executive use "personnel" as a reason. department employee who

session are actually recast. (I, (M) could service our requests,

M) • The committee very seldom but in the end, we received a

• The committee always seals take votes in closed session. (I) teacher evaluation form and

the executive session minutes • Votes and topics of written information on

and the chairman is under the discussion are disclosed from professional development.

impression that the law executive session at the time

requires them to do so. (I) of the approval of the Open Meetings Law

• The chairman reported that minutes. (M,I) • Although the school

purpose of executive session is • The school committee votes committee chair stated that

to "protect people and to seal their executive session the board meets in closed

people's rights. You can't minutes in executive session. session, typically before

negotiate in public and can't (I)

discuss buying and leasing • The chairman reported that,

property in public." "Executive session is a method

to really protect the

confidentiality of the



72 CITY AND TOWN SUMMARIES OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

meeting on a regular basis, Open Meetings Law SMITHFIELD

there is no mention in the • In the minutes, the

minutes of going into committee cites the law and Open Records Law

executive session. (I, M) reasons for executive session, • We received a teacher

• Executive session is used for and those reasons are often evaluation form and vocal

purposes of discussion only; descriptive. (M) information about the

no votes are taken. (I) • The committee sometimes professional development

• The committee seals executive takes votes in closed session, policy in the policy manual. In

session minutes in executive which are recorded in the addition, we were told that

session. (I) sealed executive minutes. this plan will soon be on the

• The chairwoman commented Votes are not disclosed to the internet.

that the purpose of executive public. (I)

session is to discuss "upcoming • The chairman reported that Open Meetings Law

personnel matters and minutes are not sealed with a • A reason is not always given

contractual issues." vote, but they are closed to when the committee recesses

the public. into executive session. When

Other Notable Points • The chairman reported that a reason is cited, the

• Appointed by the mayor, the purpose of executive committee sometimes cites

Providence school committee session is to protect the rights “collective bargaining.” (M)

members make up the only and integrity of the individuals • The chairwoman reported

non-elected school board in involved and to protect the that votes are almost never

the state. bargaining process and taken in executive session, and

• During the meeting, only strategies. when they are, they are

resolutions are voted upon. disclosed in open session as

Resolutions will be considered Other Notable Points soon as the issue is closed. In

by the school committee if • The chairman was extremely minutes examined, there was

backed by two members or helpful and he freely gave us no record of disclosed votes;

the superintendent. information about the school, however, this may be due to

such as a copy of the strategic the infrequent voting in

plan and letters and speeches executive session. (I, M)

SCITUATE presented by himself and the • Minutes of the executive

superintendent. session are sealed every time

Open Records Law • The chairman reported that out of procedure. This is done

• The principal asked if the the Open Meetings Law is when the committee comes

volunteer making the request good in that it causes the back to open session. (I, M)

was a Scituate resident and committee to identify what • The chairwoman reported

when she replied that she was will be discussed in closed that the goals of executive

not, he asked her to put the versus open session and session would be better met if

request in writing. Although curtails a "back-room style" of the committee were not so

the principal told her that he local government. limited by the strict law. She

would fulfill the request if she noted that it is frustrating to

sent it to him in writing, not be allowed to reach a

nothing was ever received. consensus because sometimes

The volunteer found the the committee appears to be

principal unhelpful and indecisive and unsure on an

condescending. issue in public.







OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION CITY AND TOWN SUMMARIES 73

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

Other Notable Points TIVERTON WARWICK

• As long as we called ahead,

there was no problem Open Records Law Open Records Law

obtaining copies of the • We obtained a teacher • The high school provided a

minutes. evaluation form and minimal teacher evaluation form upon

written information on request. In addition, the head

professional development. of the English Department at

SOUTH We were questioned by the the high school explained the

KINGSTOWN three employees

encountered about why we

we school's informal professional

development policy to us over

Open Records Law wanted this information. the telephone.

• We obtained written

information about both Open Meetings Law Open Meetings Law

teacher evaluation and • The Tiverton School • The Open Meetings Law is

professional development Committee both cites the law cited when the committee

from the superintendent's and gives a reason correctly enters executive session, but

office, as well as a blank when entering into closed the reason for holding the

teacher evaluation form. session. (M) executive session is not

• All votes are taken in open recorded in the minutes. (M)

Open Meetings Law session; executive session is • The committee votes on

• In the minutes we used only for discussion. (I) matters such as grievances

examined, the committee • The motion to seal executive and disciplinary hearings in

failed to cite the subsection of session minutes occurs during closed session. Such votes are

the law under which they open session. In some cases not revealed in open

were recessing into executive the minutes are approved and session. (I)

session. (M) sealed, but in others they are • The committee seals

• The committee frequently left open to the public. (M,I) executive session minutes by a

listed "personnel" as a reason • The chairwoman reported vote during executive

to recess into executive that, "Executive session session. (I)

session. (M) usually has to do with • The vice-chairman

• The school committee personal problems with both commented that executive

sometimes comes to employees and children." sessions serve the purpose of

consensus in executive allowing the committee to

session, but votes are always Other Notable Points hold discussions in private

taken in open session. (I) • The chairwoman named when these discussions might

• Executive sessions are collective bargaining as the adversely affect the schools if

usually held after all the items most frequently cited reason they were held in public.

on the agenda for the public for going into executive They also allow the

meeting are discussed. The session, commenting that committee to protect the

committee members come "the union will not sit, in most privacy rights of students and

back into open session after cases, for a discussion held in teachers. (I)

the executive session to close open session. The school

the meeting and seal the board would rather have the Other Notable Points

minutes of the closed session. discussion in public." • The school committee

They started doing so on •The school department minutes we examined were

recommendation from a charges $0.15 a page to particularly clear in recording

representative of the Attorney photocopy. It was one of only individual members' votes on

General. (I) six towns to do so.



74 CITY AND TOWN SUMMARIES OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION

each motion, a notable Other Notable Points WESTERLY

improvement from the • Twice in 1996, the

minutes analyzed in last year's committee violated the Open Open Records Law

study. Meetings Law by convening • We received a copy of the

into executive session to 20-page Pilot Evaluation

WEST WARWICK discuss agenda items that Program when we asked for a

were not appropriate for blank teacher evaluation

Open Records Law closed session. In the second form. This extensive packet

• We received a vocal case, the Attorney General also included information

explanation of the evaluation also found that the about professional

process and professional committee did not sufficiently development.

development from a high specify the nature of the

school secretary. We were business to be discussed in Open Meetings Law

also referred to the teachers' closed session, using • In the minutes we

contract, to get more "personnel" and "collective examined, a reason is never

information. bargaining" as the subject of listed when the committee

the meeting. In 1997, an recesses into executive

Open Meetings Law advisory committee also session, although the law is

• The committee did not violated the Law in part by cited. (M)

enter executive session during providing an inadequate • The school committee never

the five month period statement in a meeting notice votes in executive session. (I)

examined. Therefore, specifying the nature of the • Minutes from executive

compliance with citing the closed discussion (OM96-17, sessions are always sealed

law and a reason for executive OM96-28, OM97-16). right after the committee

session could not be checked. • The chairman remarked comes out of the closed

According to the chairman, that, as a result of the time session. (M)

the committee sometimes and energy spent dealing

holds executive session on a with Open Meetings Law Other Notable Points

night other than that of the violations in the past, • The general phone number

regular meeting. (I, M) particularly in 1995-1997, the for the Westerly

• No votes are taken in committee now has a desire superintendent's office always

executive session. Decisions to be open. To this end, the leads to an answering

may be made, largely by the committee attended all-day machine unless a specific

superintendent as the result of seminars on the Open extension is dialed. The

a hearing, and then the vote Meetings Law. outgoing message on the

is taken in open session. (I) • During our preliminary answering machine explicitly

• Executive session minutes research, the secretary was promises that the phone call

are sealed at the next regular helpful and courteous, despite will be returned, but we were

meeting. (I) the fact that she appeared never called back after we left

• The chairman reported that very busy, and that we came a message requesting

executive session was only to request information at the minutes. The superintendent's

used twice this past year by end of the work day. office provided copies of

the committee because there • The school department minutes without any problem

is almost no reason to have charged $0.15 per page for when visited in person,

them. He said that he photocopies of the minutes. though.

thought almost all business • When we requested

done by public officials should information about teacher

be done in public.



75

SCHOOL DISTRICTS

evaluation and professional

development, the superintendent

asked our volunteer if he was

doing a state-wide study on

teacher standards.







WOONSOCKET

Open Records Law

• Written information on both

teacher evaluation and

professional development was

received.



Open Meetings Law

• The law and reason are cited

in the minutes, but sometimes

"personnel" is given as a

reason for executive session.

(M)

• Executive session is primarily

used for discussion, but votes

are sometimes taken there.

Legal counsel is often

consulted because "there are

varied opinions of what types

of votes can be taken," the

chairman pointed out. (I)

• Minutes from executive

session are rarely sealed, but

when they are, it is done in

executive session and this vote

is not disclosed. Therefore,1 a

citizen has no way of

determining whether

executive minutes are sealed

or not. (I)

• The chairman reported that

the purpose of executive

session is to discuss students

and personnel, and he makes

an effort to limit the number

of executive sessions. They are

held about twice per month,

while the committee meets

about once weekly.





76 CITY AND TOWN SUMMARIES OPEN OR SHUT? ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION