by Brian Keaney

Fifth in a seven part series.

The state Supervisor of Records has found that Superintendent June Doe has repeatedly violated the state’s public records law in recent months.  The violations have occurred both in the way she has handled documents and in the way she has responded to public records requests. 

The Massachusetts Public Records Law requires that all requests for public documents must be responded to within 10 days of receipt of the request.  In responding to a dozen requests by myDedhamNews, Doe has taken 13 days on average to reply. 

On two occasions Doe waited 20 days, double the amount of time allotted by the statute.  Of the 12 requests, she only responded in 10 days or less on four occasions, or one-third of the time. 

Doe took 12 and 13 days, respectively, to respond to the first two requests made by myDedhamNews.  After receiving the third request Doe requested few extra days beyond the deadline to respond.  Her request was granted, and she responded 14 days later.  That was the only request in which extra time was requested or granted.

After Doe’s reassignment of two special education teachers to tutor the child of then-School Committee member Joanne Flatley became public, a group of 28 Middle School teachers wrote to the School Committee. In their letter they said “faculty members are continuing to be approached by the community with questions about our school that we are not able to answer.”

Though the 28 teachers signed the letter as a group, Doe responded to each of them individually.  Citing her individual responses to the teachers, Doe tried to prevent her letter from being released under the personnel file exemption to the Public Records Law. 

Alan Cote, the state Supervisor of Records, ruled that the letter was “not consistent with the definition of a personnel record, in that it does not contain the type of information considered by either the legislature or the courts as information that is ‘useful in making employment decisions.’”

A request for copies of the service delivery grids of the individual education plans for the students left behind, redacted to remove the names of the students, was denied by Doe.  Cote upheld that decision under appeal.

Cote has also ruled that the School Department did not properly “safeguard records in its control.”  Flatley appeared at a meeting of the Special Education Subcommittee of the School Committee, demanding to know what the Committee planned to do about the teachers she say breached her child’s confidentiality. 

Flatley delivered a written complaint in April, but later in the day returned and withdrew it.  In May School Committee Chairman Dave Roberts told the Daily News Transcript that “The School Department has not received any (formal) complaints from any of the parents.”

The School Department did not retain a copy of the complaint after it was withdrawn, in violation of state regulations requiring them to keep one for at least three years.  Because of this violation Cote also sent a copy of his ruling to the state Records Management Unit for possible further action.

Terry French, the official at the Unit to whom a copy of the letter was sent, said an inquiry would be made into the matter “in the next week or two.”  He said he would likely attempt to educate Doe, possibly through a formal records management training course, or through more informal counseling.

In total, myDedhamNews has filed nine appeals to the state citing Doe’s refusal to provide public documents.  Only the first, which was filed on May 28, has yet been ruled on by Cote.  That ruling was handed down on September 8.  Several others were withdrawn after Doe responded to the requests, and four are still pending. 

State law allows a records custodian to charge a fee for the retrieval and reproduction of records, however state regulation encourages custodians to waive the fees in the interest of open government.  Doe has charged myDedhamNews hundreds of dollars for copies of records. 

When Doe first began charging for copies of records readers of myDedhamNews donated the funds to pay the bill.  When Doe still did not produce the documents after the bill was paid upfront, myDedhamNews appealed to the state.  Doe responded by writing a letter to Cote complaining that the requests were “extensive in nature” and came “during an extraordinarily busy time for my office and staff.” 

For a period of several months Doe stopped demanding payment upfront, and instead sent invoices for the documents she provided.  However, each of the invoices was for documents not produced within the 10 day deadline.  They were also often grossly inflated, and charged for documents that were never requested by myDedhamNews.

Doe has even refused to produce some documents she knows are both in existence and in the public realm.  myDedhamNews requested a list of substitute teachers who were approved to teach in special education classrooms, and payroll records showing whether they worked on days in which Joanne Surette, a retired foreign language teacher, substitute taught in the two special education classrooms.

In response Doe sent a list of every substitute in the district, including substitute nurses.  When informed that the list provided did not show who was approved for a special education classroom or when they worked, she responded that she was “not approving the time and expense for the detail you are looking for.”  Doe’s refusal is currently under appeal with the state.

State law also allows for records to be inspected during regular business hours and without unreasonable delay, and states that requests can be made either orally or in writing.  When a myDedhamNews reporter asked to inspect the visitor sign-in logs at the central administration office, at least several weeks worth of the logs were missing and the receptionist could not account for their whereabouts.

Doe’s secretary, Mary Gormley, then told the reporter that if he wanted to view the logs he must “put it in writing.”  However, state regulation mandates that a “custodian shall not require written requests merely to delay production.” 

On August 25 the sign-in logs at the front desk of at the central administration office went as far back as the middle of July.  On August 27, Doe said in a letter that “visitor sign-in logs are not retained from year to year. … We are not able to locate the ones from the administration offices and assume the receptionist [disposed of them] prior to the end of the fiscal year.”

The previous receptionist was laid off on June 30, leaving a two week gap of missing records that neither the new receptionist nor Gormley could explain.  After a written request Doe was able to produce records for one, but not both, of the inexplicably missing weeks.

Monday: Not the only time.

Part 1: Two sped teachers left classrooms to tutor Committee member's child

Part 2: Federal civil rights investigators probe reassignment of teachers

Part 3: The substitute who made more than the superintendent

Part 4: Flatley loses, moves to Westwood