"Taymore wrote that the district would begin gathering those documents if and when Kourkoumelis paid the district a fee of $7,638.75"
By Aaron Leibowitz
aleibowitz@wickedlocal.com
August 06. 2015 2:41PM
Superintendent Taymore clarifies why records are 'protected'
The Melrose Public Schools responded last Wednesday to an order by the Mass. Supervisor of Public Records to either release records requested by School Committee member Carrie Kourkoumelis or explain why a legal exemption applies to each record.
In a letter addressed to Kourkoumelis and copied to Supervisor of Public Records Shawn Williams, Superintendent of Schools Cyndy Taymore clarified in detail why the records in question – surrounding an Office of Civil Rights investigation into the district – could not be provided due to attorney-client privilege.
The letter does note, however, that the district would be willing to a conduct a search of all of its written communications with its attorneys that resulted in billable hours between January 2014 and March 16, 2015 (per Kourkoumelis’ request), “for any records to which the attorney-client privilege does not apply.”
Taymore wrote that the district would begin gathering those documents if and when Kourkoumelis paid the district a fee of $7,638.75 to cover the estimated labor costs “associated with searching, redacting, segregating, and refiling such written communications.”
In March, Kourkoumelis first submitted a citizen’s public records request to Taymore seeking a variety of communications between the district, its attorneys and the School Committee regarding an OCR investigation into the district that began Nov. 2014.
The district did provide Kourkoumelis the OCR Notice of Investigation, with the date redacted. In that letter, Civil Rights Attorney Allen Kropp explained that the OCR was opening an investigation into a complaint that the Melrose Public Schools are “discriminating on the basis of race.”
That investigation, which is ongoing, has to do specifically with an incident in the 2013-14 school year in which a middle school teacher allegedly made derogatory remarks to one of her assigned students, directed at the student’s race.
Kourkoumelis’ three other records requests were denied, with the district citing attorney-client privilege and the deliberative process exemption under Mass. General Law. Kourkoumelis appealed that decision to Williams, who ruled that the district had not sufficiently explained why the records could legally be withheld.
The district attempted to remedy that in its most recent letter.
“Upon notification of the investigation, the Superintendent and legal counsel subsequently engaged in confidential written communications regarding the District’s response to the OCR investigation for the purpose of seeking of seeking legal advice in responding to that investigation,” the letter reads. “Additionally, the District has not waived this privilege. Because the communications you seek between the Superintendent and legal counsel are covered by the attorney-client privilege those documents are exempted from public records law.”
Williams initially gave the district 10 days to reply to his ruling dated July 8, but the district did not become aware of the appeal decision until July 13. The Public Records Division granted the district an extension and the district submitted its response July 29.
The Public Records Division has not yet responded to the district’s letter. Kourkoumelis has the option to appeal the decision in writing within 90 days.
http://melrose.wickedlocal.com/article/20150806/NEWS/150808152
Is this dispectable and arrogant superintendent telling us that it costs over $7,660.00 to generate this information? I guess instead of having a clerk or secretary do this - she is taking it upon herself or our high-priced lawyers to do it!
Maasachusetts has been noted as one of the states where freedom of information requests are being stalled, obstructed with, delayed and overly priced and this is certainly a fine example of this.
Remember folks, your local school committee brought this woman into our school system - and now we are paying the price - certainly our students are paying a price!
Sounds like Taymore is trying to recoop some legal fees on Carrie's dime! LOL! Patience is a virtue and Ms. Kourkoumelis in her graceful respectful and methodical way will appeal Taymore's response and ultimately prevail.
You know you have them on the ropes when Van Campen plays the only age old card he has left by making the production of the request so costly the requestor has to give up.
Ms. Kourkoumelis is not asking for the district to reveal the substantive communications surrounding the investigation which IS protected by attorney client privilege, but just how much that legal representation is costing the taxpayers! That information IS PUBLIC. All they have to do is print off a copy of the checks they’ve paid to outside counsel relative to the investigation. That couldn’t take more than an hour. Which begs the question: What’s the big deal? The only answer can be that the enormity of the cost must be so great that its revelation would cause massive outrage and this is what Dolan and Taymore are desperately trying to keep under wraps.
The smoking gun for all to see will be when the public eventually gets to see how much this administration is willing to pay to defend itself by allegedly protecting a teacher who allegedly made racial epithets against a Melrose middleschooler. Thank you Carrie for doing the people’s business and taking your oath of office seriously. And thank you to the Free Press for finally covering this.
Great job CT! Keep fighting the good fight! Give them nothing more than you are legally compelled to provide and in the event of grey area, make them go through all necessary judicial processes (and incur the associated costs) to get their hands on whatever they are trying to get. Folks out here that care about the students in the MELROSE SCHOOL DISTRICT can clearly see what is going on here. We know you did not hire the teacher in question here and we understand that it is important to keep these documents private in order to (1) maintain attorney-client privilege and (2) maintain and respect the privacy of those involved in the underlying dispute. We recognize that a minor is involved in this dispute but that fact seems to be lost or unimportant for trying to obtain these records for their own agenda. Expectedly, the folks that are forever trying to damage the MELROSE SCHOOL DISTRICT on this site are trying to hijack this issue and make it their own. Keep up the fight. The silent majority is clearly in your corner.
o.k...tafka VuVu...you can go back home now to your spouse who is on the school committe and tell her you did your job!
Can't wait until Charlie Baker and Maura Healey implement the requirement that government entities in the state must provide electronic copies of FOIA requested documents. They have both said this is in the pipeline and coming very soon. It will drastically reduce the cost and time of acquiring such information for the public. This will have the administration here shaking in its boots! No more hiding behind excessive charges! Sorry folks!
As usual Tvv is a malicious fool.
CKK IS the "client" in case everyone's forgotten that fact. "Attorney-client" privilege does not apply (unless of course CT wants to pay for the legal representation she is using at the taxpayer expense). CKK is CT's boss by virtue of the electorate of our city. CKK should have the right to see absolutely anything in the administrative offices, as would the be case for any of the other SC members. Period. That this citizen's public record request was even necessary is the even bigger outrage. And whether CT "hired" the particular teacher in question (and just how exactly do you know this, Vuvu???) is completely irrelevant.
How CT managed (or violated) the civil rights of a student and the district is entirely her domain, for which she must be held responsible. The Federal Office of Civil Rights would not undertake an investigation unless that office had determined (via a lengthy process) that there was cause, which apparently was and is the case. That is something that should concern all of Melrose. Who is accessing costly legal services and why is at the heart of the matter here, and all taxpayers have a vested interest in understanding how the chief administrator is managing the district.
The SC members (each of them, not just Thorp) have a right to the information, and they have a responsibility to be fully informed when they do their job of overseeing their sole employee and the budget over which they are fully responsible. That this SC put a bunch of bogus "Norms" in place in March as further barricades (empowering the SC chair to decide entirely on her own whether something is of an "educational" relevance to the committee as a whole, and therefore whether or not a matter is allowed to be researched or discussed publicly) is also an outrage, since no single member of either governing board should have that kind of power to control the flow of information. Even the state and federal governments know that this kind of thing would never stand up to a legal challenge because it's frankly ridiculous and outrageous, flying in the face of every principle of representational governance.
Student or employee confidentiality does not apply when it comes to what SC members are allowed to see or not, since those members are bound by law to maintain confidentiality, which is already routine whenever they vote in executive session on all kinds of matters involving students and teachers.
The Secretary of State's Office stated unequivocally that the district was required to provide 2 of the 4 elements that were listed in the appeal (according to what is posted online in the state website, not 1 of 4 as the reporter mistakenly listed). Just because Taymore laid out her "rationale" does not mean that this will be the last word. It is shameful that she is pushing this and accruing more legal bills along the way as the state was very clear that the superintendent improperly and illegally managed the original request.
The attorney-client privilege issue is not as straightforward as “typical” outlines above. I am not sure if there is precedent as to whether a SC member would be considered a “client” with respect to an OCR investigation into a teacher's actions. Unless there is attorney-client case law specifically on point with respect to this issue; then the most prudent action for CT to take is to deny the request unless/until told otherwise by the courts.
While I am not sure of what the appellate process would be for a SC member to pursue receiving privileged documents; I am sure that the district providing privileged documents in response to a citizen’s FOIA request would certainly waive any privilege attached to those documents.
So full of crap
TVV "sure" of this or that is ludicrous.
One thing that is "certainly" "sure" is that this poster makes statements that have no grounding in anything resembling reason or truth but that 100% of the time satisfies her bizarre agenda that is all and only about supporting the administration regardless of whether laws are broken or taxpayers' trust has been squandered.
I was maliciously called malicious by one poster then told I had no “grounding in anything resembling reason” by another poster that did not directly dispute anything in my posts. This place hasn’t changed a bit. Read the string for yourselves and determine who has been malicious and who has reasonably provided support for their posts.
Poor Tafka....go cry on Robbie's shoulder.
Yes RVC, go cry on Robbie's shoulder, please.
It's really hard to take anything you say seriously when your obvious agenda is so biased. CKK did NOT ask for any information that might in any way be protected or restricted. She did not ask for the identity of the student involved. She did not ask for the identity of the teacher, even though that's been public knowledge for months. She asked for an accurate accounting of the funds expended by the district in defending itself against the allegations. That's expenditure of tax dollars, and that's supposed to be public record. Anyone who says or even hints otherwise is either in dire need of a civics lesson or is an out and out liar. Your position is totally untenable. Please stop.
This is really all about Superintendent Taymore, Robert Van Campen and Kristen Thorpe trying to figure out ways to evade giving public documents to The Federal Department of Education and the school committee. Unfortunately, the DOE has power to subpoena these records if they deem it necessary. Whether these three are stupid enough to attempt to destroy these documents is unknown based on their previous unpredictable and flagrant misbehavior. But the longer they continue to defy the law,the DOE, and the Mass Secretary of State's office, the higher the legal costs go, on our dime of course.
Honestly: Where else, other than Melrose, would the superintendent, School Committee chair and the city's lawyer be permitted to defy the law and taxpayers, while they simultaneously pick our pockets to defend themselves for their misdeeds? Apparently, the Mayor is quite comfortable with this type of behavior going on right under his nose and appears to even condone it. Like I said, only in Melrose.
I wish CKK would spend more time on policy and less time on suing the Melrose School System. This whole process is doing nothing to improve our schools.
Yes. That the superintendent would even have the gall to try and charge one of her employers (and $7,638.75 at that!) for information that should have been easily accessible should end the matter for the Secretary of State's office, as will likely happen. That the mayor has in his employ a city solicitor who advises that this kind of thing is legit is an outrage that should be addressed publicly. As recalled from earlier escapades with this same crack legal team, the former superintendent tried to charge the same Mrs. K over $40,000 to access HER OWN MAIL that he and the chair (Margeret with her sidekick vice chair Kristin) had been censoring and keeping from her (as a member of the public uncovered when she presented some of the letters from the Attorney General that had been written to each member of the committee but kept from Mrs. K!). This is the same bunch that had been advised that they could keep the Warning Status of NEASC of MHS secret from the public, until Mrs. K fought to have the information released. This is the same bunch who passed around their slates of candidates for the superintendent search committee by email at Margaret's behest and even determined the votes ahead of time, all being advised by the same nefarious attorneys. (Legal Malpractice?) This contemptuous bunch of officials didn't get away with those stunts and ultimately it has to be hoped they won't get away (anymore) with their current ones either. Thanks by the way to the poster who shined a light into some of the past public record of this bunch of miscreants and their gross abuse of the public trust. It has been quite informative looking into the past of this tawdry bunch of little Napoleon wannabe's and Mean Girls.
It really is unfathomable that an elected representative has been told to cough up nearly $8,000 in order to see documents that should be completely available to her and all the members as a matter of basic operations, especially since the committee members are supposed to authorize payment of the school district bills! It just cannot be legal for anything to be withheld from those members, even if they involve attorneys, since the school committee members are the client! Taymore doesn't get her own personal attorney according to the way districts are set up, last anyone knew, unless of course she wants to pay for that herself! Calling this SPED and using Sped attorneys (as the documents online indicated) is ridiculous. That's just the cover they think they can get away with using. She/they were nailed for lots of things, including actions deemed by the federal investigators to be worthy of what apparently is a prolonged investigation. It's no surprise they don't want to be held accountable. But that doesn't mean they have a legally protected right on taxpayer's dime, no less, to keep any of this secret! We're paying for this, and CKK is our elected representative, along with the rest of the SC, and as such no one has a right to conceal from the taxpayers or our representatives why or how many taxdollars are being used!
Robert Van Campen's "Guest Post" on the City website from 2 years ago is below. Perhaps the school committee chair Kristen Thorpe, Superintendent Cyndy Taymore, and the City Solicitor himself should re-review these words of wisdom:
Guest Post: The Open Meeting Law: Transparency in Action
Posted on October 24, 2012
This post was originally published in 2012
The article and any details explained may be outdated.
By Robert J. Van Campen, Melrose City Solicitor
The Massachusetts Open Meeting Law (“Law”) codified at G.L. c.30A, §§18-25 is intended to ensure the highest level of transparency in meetings of all public bodies in Massachusetts. Any multiple member board or commission within a municipality is considered a “public body” – and is thus subject to the Law – if such body is established to serve a public purpose. ...
See the rest of this "Guest Post" on the City's website here:
http://www.cityofmelrose.org/2012/10/24/guest-post-the-open-meeting-law-transparency-in-action/