Who is a Public Figure II

Remember in November er I mean JC asked the question : How was this a personal matter?

Glad you asked Jim, I mean JC… It might help you to know that personnel working in school districts are protected by Chapter 150 E of Mass General laws governing school districts. So again my lawyer friend was able to provide us some insight on how that may effect this secretary.

1. M.G.L. c. 150E is the collective bargaining statute that provides public employees the right of self-organization and the right to form, join, or assist any employee organization. As a result, it wouldn’t seem to relate directly to the issue at hand.

2. Wakefield Teachers Association v. School Committee of Wakefield, 431 Mass. 792, 731 N.E.2d 63 (2000), does provide some guidance on what documents are exempt from the definition of “public documents” for the purposes of requests under the Freedom of Information Act and are therefore protected from disclosure. In Wakefield, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) considered whether a disciplinary decision and report (“the Report”) of the superintendent of the Wakefield public schools regarding the performance of a Wakefield public school teacher was exempt from disclosure under the public records law, M.G.L. c. 66, § 10, pursuant to another statute, M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty-sixth (c ), which defines what is considered a public record.

In the Wakefield case, the superintendent had learned that a male teacher at Wakefield Junior High School had written potentially inappropriate notes on the homework assignments of two female students in his class. The superintendent conducted an investigation into the allegations, including an interview with the teacher and two union representatives, and wrote the Report. As he later described in a public letter (which was not the subject of the lawsuit), the superintendent concluded that the teacher’s conduct “crossed over the line of responsibility a teacher has to a student.” The superintendent’s Report described his decision to impose on the teacher a suspension without pay for four weeks. The teacher served the four-week suspension before returning to work.

A resident of Wakefield wrote to the superintendent requesting “any information… regarding the suspension of a teacher at the Junior High School.” The resident noted that he was “not interested in either the teacher’s or the student’s name, but rather the nature of the offense for which he was suspended.” The superintendent responded in writing denying the request, and stating he would ask the supervisor of public records (acting supervisor) for further direction regarding the issue. The superintendent added:

“I am further willing to share with you that a male teacher was investigated and disciplined because of notes he wrote on the homework papers of two seventh grade female students. The teacher claimed that the notes were only a joke and intended to provide positive reinforcement. I judged that the notes were more serious and clearly crossed over the line of responsibility a teacher has to a student. I have every confidence that this teacher is no danger to these children or any other children and should, upon completion of his suspension, return to his teaching position in the district without further sanction.”

The superintendent also received requests from several news reporters. The Wakefield Teachers Association filed a complaint on behalf of the teacher for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking to prevent the superintendent from publicly disclosing the Report, and the issue was ultimately taken up on appeal to the SJC.

The SJC held that the Report, which resulted in the teacher’s four-week suspension, constituted part of the teacher’s “personnel … file[ ] or information,” and was exempt from disclosure. The SJC reasoned that the Report constituted “personnel” information as it is defined in the exemption to the definition of public record found at M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty-sixth (c). M.G.L. c. 4, § 7, Twenty-sixth provides, in pertinent part:

“‘Public Records’ shall mean all books, papers… made or received by any officer or employee of any agency, executive office, department, board, commission, bureau, division or authority of the commonwealth, or of any political subdivision thereof, or of any authority established by the general court to serve a public purpose, unless such materials or data fall within the following exceptions in that they are:… (c ) personnel and medical files or information; also any other materials or data relating to a specifically named individual, the disclosure of which may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy….”

Sun shows true Agenda, Ignores Facts in Asbetos story

Doubts persist on work at LHA
Ex-official: Tests for lead paint, asbestos may have been lax

That’s a front page story in the Lowell Sun by cub reporter Lyle Moran. It is based on the words of the former Building Commissioner who we know was incompetent and allowed an Inspector to sleep on the job and file inspection reports that were never done.

However missing from the story is facts that lay these concerns to rest and facts that Dr. Gary Wallace provided early in the day to me and I’m told also to the Sun who certainly had them before the story was written.

Yet Moran and Campanini chose to ignore them and NOT PRINT FACTS THAT REFUTE THE STORY MAKING THE STORY MISLEADING AND KNOWINGLY SLANTED TO CAST LHA IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT.

Example: Story says: Because the LHA started the rehab work in 2008 with­out notifying city officials and pulling building permits, the city was unable to con­firm if the agency conducted the proper asbestos or lead testing before the demolition of walls, former City Build­ing Commissioner Robert Camacho has told The Sun.

Facts Supplied by Dr. Wallace and the LHA: The LHA had all led abated by a professional licensed company as per a contract in the years between 1990-1992 and received a certificate of Full Compliance.

Also, there was an extensive asbestos abatement project performed at NCV in the late 1980′s, again, in full compliance

Try finding those facts anywhere in the story..the SUN and reporter chose NOT to share them. The story talks about the age of the building and again shows how incompetent Camacho was. In 2008 he NEVER ASK and yet in 2012 he goes on a local radio show and talks to the SUN and NOW HAS CONCERNS.

IT took me 20 minutes tops to get an answer and the SUN had the same answer and FACTS AND CHOSE PURPOSELY NOT TO PRINT THEM AND CAMPY HAS THE NERVE TO ACCUSE BLOGGERS OF BEING IRRESPONSIBLE?

Also the SUN or WCAP apparently didn’t ask Camacho if he EVER ASKED THE LHA QUESTIONS ABOUT ASBESTOS in 2008! I’m told Email records indicate he did not but he did send other emails concerned about FEES ! Again facts the SUN ignored.

Instead MIDWAY THROUGH THE STORY they quote Dr. Wallace CHERRY PICKING CERTAIN PARTS OF HIS EMAILED RESPONSE

The firm, EMSL Analytical Inc., of Woburn, did not find any asbestos in the unit, Wallace said.”

The story has this item EVEN BEFORE THEY HAVE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S STATEMENT – City Councilor Rodney Elliott said he filed two motions yesterday seeking to have the proper government agencies examine how the LHAhandled possible asbestos and lead paint in the units.

Now if Rodney doesn’t read my blog someone should read it to him because it appears he AGAIN IS IGNORING FACTS FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL AGENDA AND MISSION or is BLINDING FILING MOTIONS THAT HE DOESN’T HAVE THE FACTS TO MAKE A COMPOTENT MOTION ON.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SAFETY AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE COUNCILOR AND SUN GOING AFTER WALLACE AND LYNCH.

No wonder why the SUN’s revenue dropped over 30% and the finance moved to Denver. Campy and O’Neill are waging a personal war and NOT REPORTING FACTS.