Brady

PROVIDENCE — The attorney general’s office has found that the School Board violated the Open Meetings Law when it appointed Tom Brady as superintendent in March and ordered the board to appoint Brady for a third time.

The attorney general’s office issued the order after reviewing a complaint filed by Judith Reilly of Providence. Yesterday, Reilly said that she is pleased with the order and looks forward to learning more about what transpired during those closed sessions.

The finding also sheds light on the last-minute decision-making that led to Brady’s appointment on March 24 during a closed-door meeting of the School Board — a week after then-Supt. Donnie Evans announced that he would not seek to have his contract renewed.

Around March 17, Mayor David N. Cicilline met with members of the School Board and told them about his efforts to find a replacement for Evans. Cicilline explained that he had asked both the Broad Foundation and the Council on Great City Schools to recommend possible candidates for superintendent and both groups recommended Brady.

At that meeting, Cicilline encouraged board members to meet with Brady and consider him a serious candidate, according to an affidavit by Adrienne Southgate, a deputy city solicitor.

“Over the next week, in pairs, members of the [School Board] interviewed Brady,” Southgate wrote. “No more than two [board members] participated in any interview. At various times, the mayor’s chief of staff and his liaison to the Providence School Department were present.”

On March 24, the School Board held a regular public meeting that included a closed session for personnel matters. After the open portion of the meeting was over, the board went back into closed-door session.

The board, during this session, voted 9-0 to appoint Brady as the next superintendent, according to Southgate’s affidavit. School Board member Maila Touray moved to appoint Brady as superintendent and the motion was seconded by Ronnie Young.

The minutes of the closed session “shed almost no light on what transpired during the course of either closed session,” Southgate writes. School Board President Mary McClure’s notes simply state, “Brady contract — approved 3/24/08.”

“I think the people will be interested to know how brief the discussion was,” Reilly said, “and that it seems like it was done in less than 30 minutes.”

The board never indicated that it was going into a closed session to discuss the possible appointment of a superintendent, nor did it publicly announce its vote afterward in public session, according to Special Assistant Attorney General Adam J. Sholes.

It wasn’t until four months later — July 28 — that the board voted to appoint Brady in open session. And Reilly said that that vote may have been prompted by a ruling that found that the Cumberland School Committee violated the Open Meetings Law by voting in closed session to give a raise to its superintendent.

In Providence, the attorney general’s office found that the School Board violated the Open Meetings Law in three areas:

•The agenda of the March 24 meeting failed to disclose that a new superintendent might be appointed.

In a 2005 case involving the town of East Greenwich, the state Supreme Court found that a meeting notice “reasonably must describe the purpose of the meeting or the action proposed to be taken.”

•The School Board voted to appoint Brady in executive session.

Rhode Island law allows discussions of job performance to be held in closed session, but the actual vote must be taken in open session.

•The board violated the law when it voted in closed session to invoke the “exceptional circumstances” clause, which allows the board to appoint a superintendent without first conducting a search. This clause was used to appoint Melody Johnson as superintendent several years ago.

Despite these violations of the Open Meetings Law, the attorney general’s office decided not to impose a fine:

“We have been provided no facts that suggest that the board willfully or knowingly violated the Open Meetings Act,” the office wrote. “However, this finding serves as notice to the School Board that its actions violated the Open Meetings Act and may serve as evidence of a willful or knowing violation in any future similar case.”

Because the Brady vote occurred in closed session and was never publicly disclosed in open session, the attorney general’s office ordered the board to take a new vote on Brady. If the School Board does not comply with this order, the state may take legal action.

Meanwhile, Reilly said she has written a letter to Brady explaining that her complaint is not directed at him, nor is she calling for the appointment of a new superintendent.

“This is about the process,” she said. “It’s not personal.”

Several School Board members, including Philip Gould, Touray and Katherine McKenzie, declined to comment on the ruling because they hadn’t had the opportunity to read it yesterday.

McClure, in a prepared statement, said it was never the board’s intent to circumvent the Open Meetings Law.

“Our focus was on trying to conduct business in the most open and transparent manner,” she wrote. “We will accept the attorney general’s findings and will immediately take the appropriate steps to remedy the situation.”

Mayor David N. Cicilline did not return phone calls.

lborg@projo.com