By SANDY McGEE

CUMBERLAND — The attorney general’s office has ruled for the second time this year that the Cumberland School Committee unintentionally violated the state’s Open Meetings Act (OMA).

Special Assistant Attorney General Michael W. Field recently released a seven page ruling in response to a formal complaint, which was filed by Cumberland resident Paul DiModica on Jan. 11.
DiModica, a member of the town’s Building Committee for the past seven years, filed a complaint stating that on Oct. 26, 2006, the School Committee voted in executive session to extend the contract of Superintendent of Schools Donna A. Morelle.
DiModica questioned whether the vote was properly listed on the School Committee’s agenda in accordance with the state’s OMA. He also questioned whether those votes were properly reported to the public.
“The Cumberland School Committee took a vote in executive session to extend the contract of the school superintendent and that vote was not disclosed to the public nor reflected in the minutes that the vote had taken place,” according to DiModica’s formal complaint.
The state’s OMA requires that all public bodies give supplemental notice of meetings at least 48 hours in advance. “This notice shall include the date the notice was posted, the date, time and place of the meeting, and a statement specifying the nature of the business to be discussed,” according to R.I. General Law 42-46-6.
Donald J. Costa, vice chairman of the School Committee, said on Wednesday that he had not been made aware of the ruling and, therefore, could not comment on the decision. School Committee Chairman Frederic Crowley also said he did not receive a copy of the ruling and could not comment on the report.
In response to the complaint, the attorney general’s (AG) office received a response from the school department’s legal counsel, Joseph Rotella.
Rotella argued in his response that the agenda for the October 2006 meeting clearly stated the School Committee “was going into executive session in Item VIII for the purpose of personnel matters - exception Superintendent’s Annual Evaluation/Objectives. Those minutes further identify that the School Committee would be taking up the ‘Central Administrators’ contracts.”
However, the AG’s report said that the agenda item was improperly announced based on an examination of evidence and past OMA cases.
“We believe that the October 26, 2006 notice was insufficient,” according to the report from Field. “Based upon the totality of circumstances, we do not believe that the October 26, 2006 agenda provided sufficient notice to the public that the School Committee would consider or vote to extend the superintendent’s contract.”
On the second issue raised by DiModica, the reporting out of the vote taken in the executive session, Rotella argued that “since the final negotiation for the extension of the contract between the superintendent and the committee did not take place until Feb. 14, 2008, the requirement of disclosure, under the statue, would not take place until that time.” He noted in the response to the AG that the School Committee disclosed its vote following the final negotiation with the superintendent on Feb. 14.
According to the AG’s office, the OMA provides that “all votes taken in closed session shall be disclosed once the session is reopened” unless that vote would “jeopardize any strategy, negotiation or investigation undertaken pursuant to discussions conducted.”
“With respect to the second matter, we conclude that having voted in executive session to extend the superintendent’s contract, the School Committee violated the OMA by failing to announce its vote in open session in accordance with R.I. Gen. Laws 42-46-4,” according to the AG’s ruling.
The School Committee, according to the report from Field, also contradicted itself after an investigation of past meeting minutes. The October 2006 vote was disclosed during a meeting on Jan. 24, well before the final negotiation in February, according to the ruling.
The ruling also stated that “it is nonetheless unclear to us how disclosing the Oct. 26, 2006 vote - that the School Committee would extend the superintendent’s contract - would ‘jeopardize any strategy negotiation or investigation.’”
However, the AG’s office found that there was “no evidence the School Committee committed a willful or knowing violation.”
Upon the finding of a complaint, the attorney general may initiate a suit in Superior Court, which could result in a monetary fine of up to $5,000 or declare that any actions found in violation of the OMA null and void. In other words, the vote to extend the superintendent’s contract could be receded.
However, the AG has ruled to not initiate a suit against the School Committee, but warned the committee that this information may be used in the future. “The School Committee is advised that the actions discussed herein violated the OMA and may serve as evidence in a future similar situation of a willful and knowing violation,” according to the AG ruling.
DiModica, who owns a weekly group of newspapers that serves Boston and surrounding areas, said he is working to hire an attorney and file an appeal against the ruling in Superior Court. He said he is appealing the ruling in order to have the October 2006 vote rescinded.
The AG’s office also ruled this past January that the School Committee unintentionally violated the OMA after holding a meeting in August with members of the teachers’ union.
Brian Kelly of Cumberland filed the complaint with the AG’s office, stating the School Committee violated the OMA when it failed to post notice of a meeting with the teacher’s union held on Aug. 15.
In response to the complaint, the School Committee’s legal counsel for the case, Jeffrey W. Kasle, said the session was not “a meeting” as defined in state law, but merely an informational type session or presentation in which there were no votes taken or decisions made.
The AG’s office ruled that the Aug. 15 session was a “meeting” pursuant to the OMA and the School Committee’s failure to post notice for the meeting was a violation of that act.
The School Committee was not penalized in this ruling since there was no evidence demonstrating the committee violated the OMA intentionally.