enlarge John Patriquin/Staff Photographer

Superintendent Mary Jo O'Connor testifies during Friday's hearing. She said that during the executive session in question, she and the Portland School Committee discussed what steps she should take in handling the budget situation.

enlarge John Patriquin/Staff Photographer

Justice Roland A. Cole said it appears that some notes taken at the meeting do indeed deal with the budget and should be made public.

Justice Roland A. Cole said Friday that his initial impression is that some of the notes taken at the July 25 meeting deal with the budget and should be available to the public. He also indicated that he favors a requirement that recordings or transcripts of such sessions be made, because a record would make it clearer whether secret discussions are within the bounds of Maine's Freedom of Access Law.

The judge's comments came at the conclusion of a two-hour hearing into Blethen Maine Newspapers' effort to obtain notes from the session. The company, owner of the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram, contends that School Committee members and staff discussed the department's recently discovered $2.5 million budget deficit, and that any budget discussions should be held in open session.

"I think it's pretty clear, one way or another, they were talking about the budget," said Jonathan Piper, an attorney representing the newspaper, after testimony by the School Committee lawyer, the superintendent and a committee member.

The newspaper also argued that personnel discussions and records that are not damaging to a person's reputation should be made available.

The newspaper is seeking all records of the meeting, which apparently consist of notes taken by the committee's attorney and two committee members, and a two-page document outlining Superintendent Mary Jo O'Connor's management philosophy.

Because there is no taped record, as is required in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, the court must rely on notes and sworn testimony to determine what was discussed.

Melissa Hewey, representing the committee in the case, said all of the witnesses were emphatic that the budget was not discussed.

Hewey called the committee's attorney, Harry Pringle. He recalled telling committee leadership that an executive session to discuss how the senior staff manages department finances would be acceptable.

"I said I thought that an executive session for that precise purpose would be legal, but folks should understand very clearly this was not a session to discuss the budget," he said.

Pringle said he explained to committee members what was allowed to be discussed. He interrupted committee members' questions at least once to keep the discussion within the bounds of the law, he said.

"All of the discussion was framed around the issue of whose job was it to manage the budget and what had not gone correctly in terms of that management," Pringle said.

That required a discussion of personnel performance, which is done legally in executive session, he said.

The newspaper first called O'Connor, questioning the content of the meeting and the two-page document she submitted.

She and the committee discussed what steps she should take in handling the budget, and she sought to reassure members that she had the issue under control, she said. Her document outlining her management style could have provoked a reaction from the committee that would be damaging to her reputation, though the document itself did not, she said.

The newspaper also called committee member Benjamin Meiklejohn, who was asked about commentary he had posted on the newspaper's Web site. The entry stated that he supported going into executive session initially, because of the possibility of damaging someone's reputation, but later did not believe such a possibility existed, and therefore would not support going into executive session again on this topic.

Meiklejohn said the personnel matters would not need to be discussed again.

Staff Writer David Hench can be contacted at 791-6327 or at:

dhench@pressherald.com