Box 246 Leominster, MA 01453 RE: Open Meeting law Complaint Dear Attorney Angelini: This office received a complaint on June 23, 2014 from Peter and Jill Mann, alleging that the Narragansett Regional School Committee (the "Committee") violated the Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A, 1 8-25. The complaint alleges that the Committee failed to discuss the Manns' May 8, 2014 retaliation complaint in detail during its May 21, 2014 meeting.

WITTNER CHAIR veer mowennes December 21, 2011 ELIZABETH NEUMEIER BOARD MEMBER Robert Roy 80 Winter Street Leominster, MA 01453 HARRIS FREEMAN 7 BOARD MEMBER William Swenson. 94 Sawmill Pond Road Fitchburg, MA 01420 Martha Lipchitz-OConnor, Esq. Human Resources Division One Ashburton Place, Room 207 Boston, MA 02108 RE: SUP-10-5598, Commonwealth of Massachusetts / Commissioner SUP-10-5599 of Administration and Finance Dear Mr. Roy, Mr.

WITTNER CHAIR veer mowennes December 21, 2011 ELIZABETH NEUMEIER BOARD MEMBER Robert Roy 80 Winter Street Leominster, MA 01453 HARRIS FREEMAN 7 BOARD MEMBER William Swenson. 94 Sawmill Pond Road Fitchburg, MA 01420 Martha Lipchitz-OConnor, Esq. Human Resources Division One Ashburton Place, Room 207 Boston, MA 02108 RE: SUP-10-5598, Commonwealth of Massachusetts / Commissioner SUP-10-5599 of Administration and Finance Dear Mr. Roy, Mr.

Cambridge at 304, See also City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass.App. Ct. 726, 728, rev. den., 440 Mass. 1108 (2003); Police Dept. of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass. App.Ct. 411, rev. den., 726 N.E.2d 417 (2000); McIsaac v. Civil Service Commn., 38 Mass. App.Ct. 473, 477 (1995); Town of Watertown v. Arria, 16 Mass.App.Ct. 331, rev. den., 390 Mass. 1102 (1983).

See also City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass.App.Ct. 726, 728, rev.den., 440 Mass. 1108 (2003); Police Dept of Boston v. Collins, 48 Mass.App.Ct. 411, rev.den., 726 N.E.2d 417 (2000); McIsaac v. Civil Service Commn, 38 Mass.App.Ct. 473, 477 (1995); Town of Watertown v. Arria, 16 Mass.App.Ct. 331, rev.den., 390 Mass. 1102 (1983).

Ct. 411 (2000), City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 728 (2003). The removal of a tenured civil service employee for a lack of funds is an action that the appointing authority may only make with requisite just cause, and that finding of just cause is subject to the Commissions review. LePage v. Department of Mental Retardation, Civil Service Commission Case No. D-03-416 (2005).

Ct. 411 (2000), City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 728 (2003). The removal of a tenured civil service employee for a lack of funds is an action that the Appointing Authority may only make with requisite just cause, and that finding of just cause is subject to the Commissions review. LePage v. Department of Mental Retardation, Civil Service Commission Case No. D-03-416 (June 2005).

Id. at 187 (quoting City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass.App.Ct. 726, 728, rev. den., 440 Mass. 1108 (2003)). The commissions task, however, is not to be accomplished on a wholly blank slate. Falmouth v. Civil Serv. Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006).

City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass. App. Ct. 726, 728 (2003) (citations omitted). If an appointing authority presents purported justifications for the bypass, an applicant must demonstrate that the reasons offered for the bypass were untrue, apply equally to the selected candidate and the bypassed candidate, are incapable of substantiation, or are a pretext for other impermissible reasons. Borelli v. MBTA, 1 MCSR 6 (1988).

Id. at 187 (quoting City of Leominster v. Stratton, 58 Mass.App.Ct. 726, 728, rev. den., 440 Mass. 1108 (2003)). The commissions task, however, is not to be accomplished on a wholly blank slate. Falmouth v. Civil Serv. Commn, 447 Mass. 814, 823 (2006).