GloucesterTimes.com, Gloucester, MA

News

No move on charter

State panel's hearing offers little to charter school foes

By Patrick Anderson
Staff Writer
Published: November 8, 2009

The state Board of Education gave little indication to angry parents and educators at City Hall Saturday that it will revoke its approval of the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School.

Eschewing open debate on the issue — again — board members listened as their lawyer told them the standard for revoking the charter based on misrepresentations in the Gloucester group's application was very high, and not easy to prove.

But alternatives such as invalidating the approval vote because of flaws in the board's own process were not part of the legal discussion — they weren't on the agenda.

At the end of the meeting, no board members had given any indication of how they would act when they reconvene in two weeks back in the more familiar confines of the state offices in Malden.

For the dozens of charter opponents who remained though more than two hours of legal parsing on what has been an emotional issue here, there was little in the proceedings to cause excitement.

"I don't know what they are thinking; I can't tell if they are leaning one way or another," said Peter Dolan of Mount Pleasant Avenue, who had lobbied Gov. Deval Patrick to revoke the charter this summer. "I think there are some members who want to reopen and some who don't. I didn't get a sense they were telegraphing much."

City Councilor Jason Grow was even less optimistic.

"I was not encouraged that there will be the self reflection necessary that the board may have made an error in approving this charter school," said Grow, who has been an outspoken critic of the charter approval.

"By limiting themselves to only (misrepresentation on) the application, they are leaving themselves an out — and we are ultimately going to be left with this school," he added.

The City Hall meeting — which did not allow public comment — was framed around the testimony of lawyer David Kerrigan, who was commissioned by the board to describe the "procedural options" available and what the legal standard would be to "justify revocation of a charter, specifically for material misrepresentation."

Kerrigan said the board would have to prove that the founders of the charter school knowingly misstated a fact with the intent to deceive, and that the resulting falsehood would have to be significant enough to alter the outcome of the vote.

That opinion echoes Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester and Board Chairwoman Maura Banta's statement after the governor asked them to reopen the charter process. They said that such a move would not be legal.

But because Kerrigan had been asked to look at "material misrepresentation," he did not address whether the board could vacate the approval based on mistakes in its own process, which have been the basis for most of the controversy this past year.

"I wasn't asked to look at that," Kerrigan told the Times after the meeting about why the subject of a failed process wasn't addressed.

That brought consternation from Gloucester's Statehouse delegation, including state Sen. Bruce Tarr, who noted that somehow, the city had ended up the only stakeholder without a lawyer.

"Something that has not been considered is that something inappropriate was done by the board," Tarr said in his testimony on behalf of the city.

"My only criticism: it was very narrow what you were asked to do," state Rep. Ann-Margaret Ferrante told Kerrigan.

Two board members who voted against the charter school application last February — Ruth Kaplan of the Combined Jewish Philanthropies and Harneen Chernow of the Service Employees International Union — did ask Kerrigan about options outside "material misrepresentation."

The focus inside City Hall on legal issues contrasted with the concern of several dozen residents gathered outside before the meeting: the impression that Gloucester had been sacrificed in the charter process to advance larger political goals.

To illustrate the point, several parents outfitted their children with signs identifying them as "collateral damage."

Conceived as an arts-focused alternative to what its founders have described as a mediocre and innovation-resistant city school system, the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School will open next fall and build to an enrollment of 240 students in kindergarten through eighth grade.

The charter school was greeted almost instantly by fierce and at times emotional opposition from local political leaders, the school department and some parents. The primary concern has been about the estimated $2.4 million in state aid that will eventually be diverted from the district to pay for the charter school.

The board voted 6-5 in favor of the Gloucester charter in February (Chester said Saturday that officially it was 6-4, because one member was not present to cast their vote) touching off objections from locals that their concerns about the charter had not been heard.

Education Board member Jeff Howard of the The Efficacy Institute told the Times Saturday that he had voted against the application because the board had refused to address concerns raised by Gloucester officials.

The board had already angered local leaders last November by failing to have a single member show up for a public hearing on the charter at Fuller School, an apparent violation of a regulation that it retroactively waived.

Then a public records request from the Gloucester School system revealed that the state's charter school experts recommended that the charter not be approved shortly before Chester endorsed it.

Those issues drove calls for action that culminated in a Legislative oversight hearing at City Hall in June and talks between state Education Secretary Paul Reville and stakeholders about a "third way" solution, such as making the Gloucester charter school a Readiness School.

But those talks were blown up in September when the Times uncovered an e-mail from Reville to Chester calling for approval of the Gloucester charter merely to avoid alienating political allies, and to boost the education "agenda" of the governor's office.

Some of the protestors Saturday dressed as "bitter pills," in reference to Reville's comment in the e-mail that the charter school should be "swallowed" to advance that larger agenda.

In response to the outrage that followed, Banta called the meeting Saturday.

Reville Saturday apologized, again, for the e-mail, while maintaining his position had been taken out of context.

Chester, who has repeatedly said he supported the Gloucester charter all along and his decision was never bent by political influence, tried to engage the group of protesters before the meeting, although he was interrupted by chanting children.

"My mind was not changed," Chester said. "My mind was never set."

The Board of Education is scheduled to meet again, back in Malden, on Nov. 17, and Banta said the issue would be taken up again at that meeting.

Mayor Carolyn Kirk, who told the Board that she would "respect" their decision and "give them the benefit of the doubt" later said she would not pursue a legal action from the mayor's office. Any challenge would have to come from the School Committee, she said.

School Committee member Val Gilman said after the meeting that she would likely support authorizing the schools to have a lawyer represent the schools on the issue.

Superintendent Christopher Farmer, who has led the effort against the charter, implored the board to revoke its approval because "only fools don't change their minds."

The only government action that can truly never been reversed, he said, is an execution.

Patrick Anderson can be reached at panderson@gloucestertimes.com.

Photos