Session called in question
Published on September 21st, 2005
Selectman Cosmo Ciccarello challenged both the purpose and legality of an executive session called at a tri-board meeting with the School Committee and Finance Board this Tuesday night.
According to the seven-term Selectman, he had reportedly received several complaints from the town's union representatives about the Finance Board's involvement in any collective bargaining discussions held in executive session.
"I've got a lot of concerns. And I've gotten a lot of phone calls," said Ciccarello. "The municipal side is [questioning] why the Finance Board should be involved with negotiations. [Town Counsel] Bill Solomon is not here. But I don't know whether this is legal or not."
Specifically, several unions have reportedly challenged the Finance Board's ability to participate in the closed door discussions on the basis that they are not legally part of the collective bargaining process - which is conducted and planned by the Town Administrator and Selectmen on the municipal side and the School Committee and School Superintendent on the other.
While several representatives from Stoneham's municipal unions could not be reached for comment on the matter as of presstime, Michelle Maher, the Vice-President of the Town Hall Clerk's Union - the only group not currently under contract with the town - did take issue with the Finance Board's role.
"They're not even an elected board; they're strictly an advisory board. And they shouldn't be involved in any collective bargaining," Maher opined.
"If it can't be aired in public, it shouldn't be heard at all. But if it's aired publicly, that's fine because then they have the same information we do," the Assessor's office employee added.
Arguing against the Finance Board's participation on other grounds, Chairman Richard Gregorio worried that the secret discussions might be leaked to outside sources by fellow members.
However, the Finance Board Chairman did feel that the group should be involved in the talks so they could "advise" the Selectmen on the financial impacts of any proposed raises.
"I would say our role here is to advise the Selectmen on the financial impacts. We're not here to be part of the collective bargaining process," Gregorio said. "My objection is the last time this board went into executive session, they did not find themselves bound to the rules. The next day, everybody knew."
Disagreeing with the veteran official, rookie Finance Board member Matt Whooley insisted that the group's participation in any aspect of the collective bargaining process would taint their primary role as an advisory board for Stoneham citizens.
"Why are we here? No offense to the board, but we're not elected by the people and I just don't get what our role is here. My main concern is that from this point on, the public and the unions will look at this as if we were part of it," Whooley reasoned.
"We'll run into Town Meeting when somebody says, 'well you say you disagree with this, but you were part of it.' If we go into executive session, we're put on either side of this and our voices [for citizens] are silenced," he added, voting against entering the private discussions along with Gregorio and Ciccarello.
Raising yet another objection to entering executive session, Ciccarello further asserted that the town's anticipated hard-line stance against doling out significant raises this year was sabotaged by recent comments made by Connelly.
Claiming the Superintendent jeopardized the town's financial future in admitting that Stoneham's teachers were underpaid compared to surrounding communities, the Selectmen's challenge drew a somewhat angry response from Connelly.
"Dr. Connelly has already stated publicly that their teachers are underpaid to the tune of something like $500,000. How can we go into executive session when we've already told them they're underpaid? Why bother?" Ciccarello questioned, directing his comments directly at the Superintendent.
According to Connelly, whose sharp and raised-voice answer was somewhat uncharacteristic for the polished and collected school official, his recent statements were made in direct response to another attack upon the school system when 20 teaching and staff positions were advertised this summer in The Boston Globe.
In order to refute some popular rumors spreading throughout the town that the advertisement was for newly created positions, the Superintendent explained that many unanticipated vacancies arose - some of which were from teachers who went to nearby municipalities for higher paying jobs.
"We felt compelled because of those misstatements to explain the 30 or so vacancies we had. Contrary to what was being said around town, they were not new positions," Connelly shot back.
"That's a known fact," the Superintendent added, referring to his remarks that Stoneham teachers are underpaid compared to adjacent municipalities. "We know it. The teachers know it. And it in no way affects negotiations."
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!