Williamstown school working to release public records after request about puported $50K settlement

UPDATED STORY: Union threatens court action to block records' release

WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. -- The chairman of the Williamstown elementary school committee has responded to a Massachusetts Open Records Act request for public documents and says the school administration is working to comply.  The request, filed by local resident (and GreylockNews.com blogger) Bill Densmore, seeks information about whether the school board entered into an agreement in 2009 with a former school employee that ended a complaint the employee had brought.

Town resident Fred Leber, who is running for Town Moderator in Tuesday's annual town election against Mark Gold, said he had raised the issue in discussions and emails with town officials. Leber says he is concerned that the cost of the alleged settlement agreement -- he says he has heard from school sources it was $50,000 -- might not have been reflected in budget or other financial documents seen by Williamstown Finance Committee. The FinCom is appointed by the town moderator.

For source email exchanges, and a link to the open-records act request submitted by this blogger, click on this link.

Comments

[Bill Densmore]

I have replied to Mr. Filson as follows:

Thanks for your prompt reply to:
http://www.newshare.com/openrecords.pdf
http://www.greylocknews.com

There is nothing in my request that constitutes personnel information. I have asked only for records related to a decision to make a payment to a person
who, at the time of the payment, on information and belief, was not an employee of the school, thus no personnel records would be involved.

Also, the jist of the request is for records of a payment of taxpayer funds pursuant to an agreement. Other than the "black budget" of the Pentagon (and
I wonder about that, too), I think it would be unprecedented and gravely contrary to public policy to suggest that there is any basis to shield **any**
use of state or municipal taxpayer funds from public view and scrutiny.

To infer that the payment of public money to a person somehow raises privacy issues, and to suggest that might override the public's interest in knowing
how its money is spent, could open the door to all kinds of misuse of funds. Indeed, openness and transparency is what is most likely to guard against
misuse of funds, and that is what is called for here.

In order to avoid an appeal to the district attorney or the state Supervisor of Public Documents, please advise what records you propose to redact, if
any.

-- bill densmore