Philip B. Christe PO Box 649

Mt. Kisco, NY 10549

August 6, 1999

Rev. Paul Alcorn

President, Bedford Board of Education Rt. 172

Mt. Kisco, NY 10549

 

 

Re:        8/1/99 Board Meeting Dear Rev. Alcorn,

 

I wish to register my disapproval of the Board's meeting in private with the Superintendent Dennis and a taxpayer funded consultant to have a "development workshop."

 

It is my lay opinion such a meeting was a violation of New York's Open Meetings Law (OML). The purpose of the OML is for citizens to "be fully aware of and able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy" (Sec. 100).

 

If I have my facts correct: seven board members met specifically as Bedford Central School Board members with the superintendent and ex-superintendent/consultant, Richard Lehrer, at the Mt. Kisco Holiday Inn. No public notice was provided to the press or public seven days prior to the meeting. No public board discussion nor vote was held to hold this private meeting. The District paid an unknown sum of money for the services of the consultant. The public was not invited, nor given permission to observe.

 

As to the matters discussed, I have gathered from my telephone discussion with board member Dorothy Fallon, no specific board action was taken. However, discussions were held as to your roles and responsibilities as board members. "Role-playing" was performed acting out different scenarios that might face a board member. You might say different "case studies" were presented wherein board members were expressed how they might act and were coached accordingly, Mr. Lehrer provided discussion material to the trustees,

 

While you may offer that no specific board action was taken, I submit that simply discussing your roles as board members, examining the protocol of handling parent/taxpayer concerns, understanding the chain of command, etc. are all matters of public policy the discussions of which subject to New York State Law.

 

Is their a reasonable explanation from the board to suggest the public interest would be not served by observation? What is it, if anything, that was said or done that warranted excluding the public?

 

It is my opinion that these types of deliberations clearly are in violation of the OML and I