I just filed an Open Meetings Act complaint against the Middletown School Committee

"I note two major issues regarding the Rhode Island Open Meetings Act. There may be more."

This is an Open Meetings Act complaint against the Middletown School Committee about a meeting at 4:30 pm on December 12.

With William Nash’s election in November, the balance of power in the committee shifted. Former Committee Chair Theresa Silveira Spengler and Committee Clerk Tami Holden were now in the minority. The three-member majority quickly elected Gregory Huet as Chair, Wendy Heaney as Vice-Chair, and William Nash as Clerk.

As I wrote in my coverage of the committee meeting here, the committee quickly went off the rails.

I note two major issues regarding the Rhode Island Open Meetings Act. There may be more.

1. The Committee took up a series of votes on items not included on the agenda or in any materials offered to the public before the meeting. For instance, item five, “New Business,” says “Sub Committee Selection.”

Unfortunately, “Subcommittee Selection” was far from the only “New Business” the committee discussed and acted upon. They also motioned and voted on “a two-hour orientation refresher training on current issues and responsibilities related to school committee members at a time to be determined” and a motion to approve the dates for all future school committee meetings in 2025. The public may have been interested to know that all future meetings will now be held at 5:30 pm, not 4:30 pm. Because this item was not on the agenda, no member of the public could comment about the change of time, either in favor or against it.

When minority members pointed out that the committee was taking up items not on the agenda, Committee Chair Gregory Huet said, “I discussed this with the attorney, and he said it was fine to do it this way.” To my knowledge, the Committee’s Attorney, who was not present, is Benjamin Scungio.

2. The discussion among the five committee members made it clear that the three-member majority planned much of the meeting outside the public’s view and without the knowledge of the two-member minority. An audible conversation on an open mic between committee members Theresa Silveira Spengler and Tami Holden went like this:

“Did you get a script?” asked Silveira Spengler.

“No,” said Holden.

“We didn’t get a script with all the planned elections,” said Silveira Spengler.

A “script with all the planned elections” sounds like a secret, not-public agenda.

There was more evidence that the three-member majority planned much of the meeting without the public and the two-member minority’s knowledge. Consider this exchange:

Theresa Silveira Spengler: We should have copies of what you’re reading.

Tami Holden: Why don’t we have a copy of that?

Theresa Silveira Spengler: I thought you were going to be transparent. Why are we not looking at the same copies as [newly elected Vice Chair] Wendy [Heaney]?

In response, Chair Huet essentially told the pair they could only access the information if they requested a month’s delay on the item. In seeming frustration, Silveira Spengler agreed to make the motion, but Holden held her ground.

Tami Holden: Can we get a copy of this?

Theresa Silveira Spengler: This is inappropriate. And talk about not being transparent. Why do we not have copies of this [so] we’re not having to write it down?

Gregory Huet: [To the Superintendent] Will you please make a copy of this?

The Superintendent handed off the page to Administrative Assistant Leah Caron to be copied. In fact, Administrative Assistant Caron had to leave the meeting twice to make copies for the minority members because they did not have access to the documents the majority of committee members had access to.

Then there’s the following back and forth:

Tami Holden: …Why is it not in front of us? That’s all I’m asking. I understand it has to be done.

Gregory Huet: It wasn’t on the agenda, but we talked to the school attorney, and he said we could do it this way because it has to be done at the first meeting

Theresa Silveira Spengler: But you could have had a copy before us, Greg.

Tami Holden: We cannot have copies in front of us?

Theresa Silveira Spengler: Transparency?

Gregory Huet: Listen. We’re doing it this way. You’re not happy you don’t have copies? You’ll get copies. The dates are going to be there.

Theresa Silveira Spengler: ...The three of you knew exactly what was going on. You had this whole script planned. That’s not appropriate... This meeting wouldn’t have happened if we had had this information in front of us and had had some dialogue in advance. I'm just putting that on the table, Greg, because if you talked to us beforehand and didn’t surprise two of us while the other three knew, that’s not transparency, and it’s not communication.

Gregory Huet: And to do that is against the public meeting laws of Rhode Island.

Theresa Silveira Spengler: Giving us a piece of paper in our packet is not against the law; it’s part of our packet. But for the three of you to know what’s going on and the two of us don’t, that’s against the law because that’s a quorum. That is against the law. To give us information, even if it comes to us sitting at the table at the last minute to add to our packet, is the law. For you to be talking behind the back, making phone calls, and having this all planned is not legal. So, if you want to pull out the law book, bring it on.

Gregory Huet: Listen...

About 30 minutes later, at the end of the meeting:

Tami Holden: Could I make a request that we get all of the documents that you were reading from that some members had? Can I request all those documents?

Gregory Huet: Alright. A motion to adjourn?

The tenor of the meeting was rife with high-handed disrespect for the minority members of the School Committee from the newly elected Chair, Gregory Huet, and the newly elected Clerk, William Nash.

Both committee members attempted to shut down the two minority members inappropriately. Chair Huet did so through bullying and arrogance, and Clerk Nash did so through an inappropriate use of Robert’s Rules of Order. Since these abuses are probably not under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General, I bring them up only to demonstrate demeanor, not as actionable offenses under the Open Meetings Act.