Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram
Justices side with Portland School Committee on meeting, notes
Printer-friendly version Reader Comments
story tools
sponsored by
Records from the private session on job performances are shielded from release, the court rules in a newspaper lawsuit.
By TREVOR MAXWELL and KELLEY BOUCHARD, Staff Writers April 25, 2008

TIMELINE

JULY 10, 2007: Portland School Department announces that it overspent its annual budget by an estimated $1.7 million. After an audit, that figure grows to $2.5 million.

JULY 25: Portland School Committee holds a private meeting with Superintendent Mary Jo O'Connor, Finance Director Richard Paulson and Human Resources Director Jolene Hart.

JULY 30: Richard Paulson resigns.

JULY 31: The Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram files a lawsuit in Superior Court, seeking release of records from the closed-door meeting.

AUG. 21: Superior Court Justice Roland Cole says part of the meeting was illegal, orders committee to release some notes. The notes are withheld pending a possible appeal.

AUG. 29: Mary Jo O'Connor resigns.

SEPT. 5: School Committee appeals the Superior Court decision.

NOV. 28: Lawyers for the newspaper and the School Committee make arguments to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

APRIL 24, 2008: Court rules in favor of School Committee.

The Portland School Committee will not be forced to release notes from a private meeting last summer, thanks to a unanimous ruling Thursday by Maine's highest court in favor of the committee and against the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram.

In a case that tested Maine's right-to-know statute, the state Supreme Judicial Court found that the School Committee was within the law to hold the private meeting with school officials.

Committee members at the July 25 meeting grilled Superintendent Mary Jo O'Connor and Finance Director Richard Paulson about their job performance, relative to an unexpected $2.5 million budget deficit. Both officials later resigned.

Members said the meeting was private because they limited the discussion to job performance. Under state law, such talks are allowed to be held privately if they have the potential of damaging an employee's professional reputation.

The newspaper sued the School Committee, claiming that the meeting went beyond a simple review of job performance by getting into budget issues and thus should have been conducted in public.

In an earlier ruling, Superior Court Justice Roland Cole agreed in part and ordered some notes taken during the meeting to be released to the newspaper. The School Committee appealed the ruling, and the notes were not released pending the higher court's decision.

The high court's seven justices sided unanimously with the School Committee.

Melissa Hewey, a lawyer with Drummond Woodsum in Portland, represented the School Committee and argued the case before the justices last November. She was concerned that a ruling against the committee would effectively strip the right to privacy from any public official who deals with budget matters.

On Thursday, Hewey said the court decision reaffirms that right to privacy when it comes to job performance. The decision also makes clear that notes taken during executive session are not public documents.

"This decision gives that guidance, and gives it in a way that makes sense," Hewey said. "It strikes an appropriate balance between the public's right to know and public employees' right to confidentiality."

John Coyne, the School Committee's chairman, said the ruling vindicated the board's actions. "It makes it apparent that what we did that night was appropriate, and the business that was done was done under the letter of the law," Coyne said.

He said the committee needed to focus on the job performance of school officials, and the intention never was to hide anything from the public.

"It is imperative of me and the people on the board to be as open as possible," Coyne said. "There are times that we need to meet behind closed doors. I would never use loopholes to try to sidestep the public."

On the losing end, the lawyer for the newspaper described the ruling as "a frightening interpretation of the right-to-know law."

Jonathan Piper of Preti Flaherty in Portland said that public bodies could use the decision to keep financial discussions behind closed doors, by framing budget discussions as personnel reviews.

"The greatest power the government has is to tax and spend the people's money," Piper said. When public scrutiny on such matters can be bypassed, he said, "that's a sad day."

Piper was frustrated with the court, which is usually reluctant to overturn the decisions of judges from the lower courts.

"They went out of their way to overturn every finding of fact that the judge had found to get the result they reached," Piper said. "This ruling means that avoiding embarrassment of public employees is more important than the public's right to know."

Jeannine Guttman, editor and vice president of the Press Herald/Telegram, was disappointed.

"The reason we took the action was to preserve the concept of the public's right to know," Guttman said.

Judy Meyer, managing editor at the Sun...


Reader comments
Click here to view or add comments on this story

Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form