https://vimeo.com/139418547
School Committee meeting September 15, starting around 2:15 with Mr. Kenney, then Mr. Kaynor and Mr. Mroz.

This is the meeting where Thorp bullies TK and tries to tell him where his eyes can go when he's speaking, since apparently Margaret's Angels have commanded that there be a new policy about this, too. These people truly have no shame!


From an earlier string:

This is the brilliant thing Mr. Kaynor said and then sent to SC:

From GCK:
FYI: I am attaching the draft that I read from at public comment on 9/15/2015. It addresses:

1) the mischaracterization of a press interview with a "school committee member" - since the topic was an action she was required to take as a "member of the public" due to your Norms,
2) the purpose of the Norms (to hinder rather than facilitate),
3) the application of the Norms in discriminatory fashion that targets a certain individual,
4) the proper definition of libel,
5) a call for suspension and revision of the Norms, an apology for discriminatory behaviors, and a plea for literacy if you wish to intimidate one of your members so they don't ask uncomfortable questions.

I am not hopeful that we will see an apology for these actions since I have failed even to get you to ask your exemplary employee to apologize for swearing at someone in a public meeting, but I can try. I assure you that a degree of contrition, when your behavior seems abusive, would go a long way towards improving public relations and perceptions, and restoring any sense of dignity to the important work you do.
Campbell Kaynor

Dear Members of the Melrose School Committee,
I noticed that the committee was concerned, last week, that one member was interviewed by the press, and you cited the norms that say that only the chair may speak for the School Committee. Aside from the obvious issues of whether individuals have rights of free speech and whether this one member would ever presume to speak FOR the school committee (I’m sure she is aware that her opinions are not those of the majority), and aside from the fact the OCR is being openly discussed on another School Committee member's blog, I think the real irony is that you can look to your own norms for the reason this happened. The press called this individual because she had filed a public records request; a CITIZEN'S Public Records request for documentation on district matters. Why were they talking to a “citizen” rather than a “school committee member?” Because you tried to prevent the member from accessing information she felt she needed to properly evaluate budget issues, by insisting via Norms, that her only recourse would be to file a CITIZEN's Public Records. If you wish to prevent a member from acting like a citizen I suggest you start treating her like a School Committee member, and not restrict her ability to access documents within her purview. Contrary to the legal counsel you employed for the meeting last week, the MA public records office has on numerous occasions stated that public officials, bound by laws regarding privacy and confidentiality, are entitled to documents far beyond the scope of documents available to public citizens, but your norms apparently do not recognize the authority of the Attorney General and Secretary of State’s Office in this matter.

Norms are a good thing when they are used to facilitate the meeting process and clarify the roles of the School Committee. They are punitive and often discriminatory when they are designed to encumber the activities of a particular member or members who are trying to do their job with a thoroughness the others lack. This is especially true when the norms are applied in a discriminatory fashion to one individual and not equally to all individuals. One stark example presented itself last week, where a member of this committee went on a tangent stating that he viewed "implications of impropriety" as a libelous, and was allowed full reign to expound upon that topic with what sounded to me like threats and insinuations. This was not a topic that was not on the agenda nor is it pertinent to the concerns of taxpayers and educational outcomes for students. The next comment was made by an individual who properly asked “as a point of personal privilege” what were the fees being charged to the taxpayers by the experts brought in for the first hour. Although this is a topic of direct concern to taxpayers and much more relevance to the education of students, she was shut down with an admonition by the subcommittee chair, not to stray from the agenda as this is “one of our Norms that we voted on and the majority approved” so she MUST abide by them. This use of the Norms to persecute one individual and show leniency to the others is discriminatory and not constructive to the process of district management. It harms rather than facilitates communication, it is humiliating and embarrassing to witness, and it reveals the true manipulative rather than constructive purpose behind those Norms.

This School Committee has a lengthy history of ignoring its policies, bylaws, procedures and Norms when it suited the individuals in charge. I have spoken to you about it before and although I complained about it, actually I am fine with the notion that Norms be used as guidelines and not rules. They need to be flexible in instances where they are impractical, contradictory to statute, or undermine the objectives of the body. No matter how carefully they are crafted, you will need to make exceptions on occasion just as it is necessary sometimes to suspend Robert’s Rules of Order. However, when you play favorites in your leniency or strictness or regulate the discussion based on how much you like or dislike the question, that is bullying and treading close to violation of the rights of individuals. I feel this committee owes the public and Ms Kourkoumelis a public apology for its abusive behavior and until there is any demonstration that you can use Norms responsibly rather than punitively, I suggest you suspend them and revise them to be constructive rather than obstructive and while you are at it, make them compatible with Federal and state laws and regulations.

Sincerely, Campbell Kaynor


P.S. Mayor Dolan,

For something to be “libelous” it must be a written statement that is deliberately false and intended to cause harm to the reputation of another individual. Your use of that term in relation to supposed “implications of impropriety” came across as an effort to bully and intimidate, and demonstrates a level of illiteracy that is embarrassing to the Melrose School community. Is this really what you are trying to model for our students?

As the author above states and which is proven at most meetings - Ms. Thorp is an obvious verbal bully. I think that the word is out about her and that is why she has decided to do the right thing, finally, and not run for SC - a true blessing to the school community - however the damage she has done while on the SC will have reverberations in the years ahead.

By the way, when is the Mass Association of School Committees MASC going to revoke Ms. Thorpe's all-star award?

Probably at the same time that the Nobel organization retract the Peace Prize they gave Obama!

Touché Myron. Brilliant!

Your vitriol is amusing, yet tiring Myron.

Come on, Willie, give me credit when credit is due! That was an excellent post I made earlier!

Off Myron's back, Willie Boy!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34277960

Some have said this isn't true, but I guess the BBC reporting it gives it some credibility. We'll see when the book comes out.

MFD, as you have often said when the comments refer to national politics, STICK TO THE POINT. Willie is right.

https://vimeo.com/139418547
School Committee meeting September 15, starting around 2:15 with Mr. Kenney, then Mr. Kaynor and Mr. Mroz.

This is the meeting where Thorp bullies TK and tries to tell him where his eyes can go when he's speaking, These people truly have no shame!This was about bullying.we all have an opinion. And they're all good opinions, good day to you all.

Hey Accountability: Pretty soon, K Thorpe will be requiring speakers to wear a hood over their face so they can't look eye to eye at certain school committee members. No doubt that will be coming out in her next revision of the McCarthyist Norms, which will pass.... 6 votes to 1.

Yes, this might seem like a ludicrous exaggeration, but this School Committee has made a mockery of itself with its openly regressive and hostile conduct and new rules ("Norms"). The mayor and his legal counsel are the foundation of this damaging state of affairs since they have given the green light and backing of their Machine to the contemptuous school administration and Committee.

Their arrogance is stunning. They are dead wrong. They are causing irrevocable harm to the whole community, and they have certainly shot themselves in the foot when it comes to the court of public opinion. Regardless of whether this mayor "wins" in November, his override is Dead on Arrival and his continued efforts using the same Iron Curtain tactics will just reinforce the opposition and add to its numbers. (Their trumped-up info session this Wednesday night with the precanned Q&A and faulty "facts" are a perfect example. Where is the opposition represented in this use of city facilities and staff for this political evening? Not even invited to participate, naturally!)

RD and his city solicitor (a wretchedly failed mayoral candidate and alderman from Everett) may have their Machine, and they may think they can roll their tanks over any who oppose them, but they have already failed. They have lost the trust and good will of the community. There are already compelling and successful legal challenges to the ugly stance of this mayor and School Committee, as evidenced by the recent press release of the superintendent in which she admits her administration was investigated by the Federal Office of Civil Rights and found to be in violation of Chapter VI, and in numerous other legal venues as well (though it will take state and federal agencies to force disclosure). At some point there will be even more costly legal challenges in which it is obvious that the city will lose because their positions are unsupportable and should have been shot down locally by the various checks and balances that no longer function here (such as the Board of Aldermen using their rightful authority to nix the many sketchy things that have come before them but which they instead just rubber-stamped). All of us are losing in the end, with enormous legal bills, a broken school system, unjust water/sewer bills, taxes masquerading as fees that should never have been allowed (and would be thrown out in a court of law), corrupt and broken local governance, and broken public trust.

The "Yes" camp mentality is the biggest reason for NO. They can put up their lawn signs and plant their flamingos, but they represent the most divisive campaign ever to harm our community. They don't even care that their data is cooked, their leaders are unethical, that their entire premise is based in contempt, as evidenced in any conversation with the proponents who simply don't care about the truth. This isn't just a case of a difference of opinion or philosophy. Just observe the body language of those putting this thing forward and it's clear as day who's telling the truth and who isn't.