Playing games that aren't very fun

by: Brian

Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:31:58 PM EDT

I've also said that the Superintendent has been breaking every PR rule there is.  I don't know who is giving her media advice, but it's terrible.  I'd now like to retract that statement.  There's one she seems to be following: If there is going to be bad news, get it out there at a time when no one is paying attention.  You may remember that last year then-Chairman Tracy Driscoll called for a special meeting of the School Committee on a date when the rest of the town would be reorganizing for Town Meeting.  This happened because she wanted an unprecedented second term as chair, and the vote wasn't going to be unanimous.  Better for that embarrassment to happen with as few eyeballs on you as possible.

To get back to the current situation, I think it is pretty clear June is attempting to drag this out until after school is out.  Consider the following.  On June 4th I made another public records request regarding more information about the tutors.  On June 8th I sent a second letter requesting information about Tim Ruggere at the Middle School.  She replied to both on June 11th.  However, only the letter about Tim got mailed on the 11th.  The first letter, despite the lack of almost any information in it whatsoever, was postmarked on the 15th.  That means it was mailed 11 days after I made the request, even though the law says they must respond within 10.  It also means they sat on the letter on Thursday and Friday, waited the weekend, and then mailed it on Monday.

In my letter of the 4th I asked for clarifications on a number of things I found to be either confusing, vague, or just downright inaccurate.  For example, she told me people were at one school when they were actually at another, she gave me numbers that did not add up to what she said they did, and she in some cases she just plain did not give me all the information I requested.

I want to share with you all a portion of the letter I delivered today to show you just how difficult it has been for me to get an answer to just one (of the many that are still unanswered) question: Who sent the teachers to the student's home?  

Allow me a moment to review a bit of the history of the 11 letters that have come before this one.  On March 11, 2009 I asked you: "During the current school year, has your office assigned a teacher to provide in home services during the work day?  If yes, when?  If this is not normal procedure, why did you do so?"  On March 24, 2009 you replied by saying that you would consider that letter to be a public records request only, and that since you were "not in possession of any documents that are responsive to [my] questions" that you would not answer me.

On March 29, 2009 I asked you to "Please provide the job description of any person, besides the person referenced in question 9, who placed a teacher in a home tutoring situation during the months of December 2008 or January 2009."  You replied to that letter on April 13, 2009, yet you did not answer that question, despite the fact that it was a valid public document request.  I might also add that you requested, and I granted, a few additional days beyond the deadline set in the statute to answer that letter.  

Again, on May 4, 2009, I said in a letter to you that "I do not believe you answered question 10 in my letter of March 29th.  If you did, I missed it and please accept my apology.  Please provide the job description and name of any person who placed a teacher in a home tutoring situation during the school day in the months of December 2008 or January 2009."  You charged me over $300 for answers to this and other questions.  You finally did respond to the question on June 2, 2009, but only after I filed an appeal with the Supervisor of Records.  However, instead of answering the question directly, you gave me a list of people "involved in the process."

I attempted to clarify this on June 4, 2009 by saying "In question 3 in my letter of May 4th, which was a restatement of question 10 in my letter of March 29th, I may not have been specific enough in what I was asking.  I apologize for any confusion.  What I am looking for is the name of the person who picked up a telephone, wrote an email, signed a letter, or otherwise directly communicated to [name redacted for the blog] that they were to appear at the home of a student and provide tutoring services."

You replied in your letter of June 11, 2009 (the one that was not mailed until June 15, 2009) that since I did not phrase it as a request for a public document that you would not be providing me with any additional information.  You repeated this for several other of the clarifications I attempted to seek in that letter.

From my reporting and speaking to other sources, I already know the answer to the question.  However, it's pretty clear what I am looking for and she is doing everything she possibly can to avoid answering the question.  I'm also hoping to establish a paper trail.  I'll also fully admit that I can be like a dog with a bone.  Especially if you start to play games with me, I am not going to give up.  Ask anyone who knows me and they will tell you the same thing.

To wrap up this already too long post, I'll add that after delivering my letter this morning I was escorted out of the building.  Apparently I am too big of a threat to be unattended at any time.  In happier news, the School Department has told me they have absolutely no records whatsoever that pertain to myself and any sign-in procedures, much less any documents that show me violating them.  I also checked with the Police Department, and they don't have any records relating to myself and the School Department or any of their employees.  

You will remember that it was because of these same sign-in procedures that I was threatened with a no trespass order.    I guess I don't have to worry about that order coming down after all.  Phew!  That's a relief.  I was really losing a lot of sleep over that one.

All content © 2010
The Contentment Company