Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Inspector General Investigating Grant of Gloucester Charter

By

In response to questioning, Sullivan recommended that the Board not make any decisions regarding the charter at this time.  Board member Kaplan moved to table discussion for a month pending completion of the investigation.  She and board member Chernow were the only two who voted to suspened the BESE discussion.

Chair Banta and other Board members cited “Gloucester’s need for closure”, in stark contrast to the testimony delivered by several Gloucester community members who indicated their willingness to continue the challenges to the manner in which this charter was granted.  The Board then voted 8-2 not to revoke the charter.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. http://www.boston.com/news/loc…

    <

    p>Hats off to boardmembers Harneen Chernow and Ruth Kaplan for really cutting to the core issue which was whether the Board circumvented due process in granting this charter and for calling for the BESE to hold off their vote on revocation until after the IG issued a ruling. Unfortunately their efforts were rebuffed.

    <

    p>When members acknowledge flaws and errors in due process and then continue to push forward knowing that there’s an ongoing investigation, it does cause one to pause. There really was no harm to either side in waiting a ruling by the IG which is expected before the next meeting on Dec. 16th. It seemed that the overarching reason for not waiting was because the board felt that gosh, they’d already spent too much time on this issue and it really was time to move on… process be darned….

    <

    p>JG

    • One board member actually said that the process didn’t matter if this was a good application.  What about laws?  Furthermore, he seemed to ignore that the CSO said “Do Not Recommend.”

  2. Approved for political reasons, but don’t see evidence therein that it actually was approved for political reasons.  Is there other evidence?

    • Commissioner Chester overturned the recommendation of the Charter School Office’s independent evaluators.  The thinking behind that decision is, at best, thinly documented.

      <

      p>Chester then neglects to inform the Board members that he had overturned the CSO evaluators’ recommendation – his action only came to light as part of a public records request.  (This must be slightly embarrassing to Board member Fortmann, who voted to grant the charter, and who publicly praised the work of the CSO evaluators – this may not have been during the meeting to vote on the charter.)

      <

      p>That pattern was repeated this week when Chair Banta and Secretary Reville, who were informed of the Inspector General’s investigation last week, neglected to inform the other Board members prior to Monday night’s special meeting to discuss the Gloucester charter.

      <

      p>At the Board’s February 2009 meeting, Reville and the Patrick administration’s other two team members (Chair Maura Banta and top education advisor Dana Mohler-Faria) cast the deciding votes after Chair Banta cuts off Board member Howard who wants to discuss claims made in the application and then brings the matter to a vote so Board member Chertavian (another vote in favor or the charter) can leave to catch a plane.  This is after she rearranged the agenda to accommodate Chertavian’s schedule (though she give different reasons for the reordering of the agenda during the meeting: to accommodate Chertaivian as the meeting is starting, because so many people are there from Gloucester later).

      <

      p>I could go on…

      <

      p>Of course it’s always hard to discuss this without mentioning the Board citing an irrelevant regulation to retroactively waive the requirement for a member to attend a public hearing.

      • We know only that they were made and that some (who opposed the charter) felt there were problems with the process.

        <

        p>This doesn’t appear to show that those in favor, apart from Reveille, did not genuinely support this charter – that they were in favor for political reasons only.  

        <

        p>  

  3. I was at the meeting.

    <

    p>It was a sad day for democracy.

    <

    p>I wanted to ask what Welch asked of McCarthy 50 years ago, “Have you no decency?”

    <

    p>I am an ardent Democrat. Have been for more than 35 year and am switching over to support whoever runs against Patrick next time. Patrick’s Administration is a huge disappointment.

    <

    p>Ed Shoucair

  5. The Patrick Administration and Legislature has demonstrated it could care less what the Inspector General has to say.

    <

    p>We already have one issue that the IG has called the state’s biggest financial scandal of the past 20 years and the Patrick Administration and Legislature has done absolutely nothing about it.

    <

    p>(Don’t know what I’m referring to? Exactly.)

Archives