By SANDY McGEE

CUMBERLAND — The Office of the Attorney General has ruled once again that the Cumberland School Committee violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA). The board could face fines for this latest violation.

According to a 12-page decision issued on July 9 by Special Assistant Attorney General Michael W. Field, the School Committee was in violation of the OMA when it voted in a closed-door session on Feb. 14. The School Committee apparently voted at the time to increase the superintendent’s salary and extend her contract.
“Given the School Committee’s recent OMA history and the allegation that the School Committee once again violated the OMA by voting in an executive session … we believe it is in the ‘public interest’ to pursue this matter,” according to the report.
The ruling responded to three complaints received by the AG’s Office, including one from Brian Kelly, who is currently running for School Committee; one from Karen L. MacBeth, current School Committee member and candidate for state representative of District 52; and Carol A. Vela.
These complaints are just the latest of more than a half dozen OMA complaints against the School Committee submitted to Field’s office in the past year.
The report’s first section addresses Kelly’s complaint, which was dated March 13.
Kelly alleges that the School Committee violated the OMA when, on Feb. 14, the board convened into executive session and voted to extend the superintendent’s contract while behind closed-doors.
In a response to the complaint, Joseph Rotella, the School Committee’s legal counsel, acknowledge that the board had convened into the executive session and, after the session’s completion, came out to report the vote.
The AG’s Office ruled in Kelly’s favor. 
“We must conclude that the School Committee violated the OMA when it convened into executive session pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws 42-46-5(a)(1) and subsequently voted in executive session,” according to the report. “… As we have previously indicated, when a public body convenes into executive session pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws 42-46-5(a)(1), the public body may not vote in executive session.”
The School Committee now has until next week to “supplement its response and address this issue.”
To remedy the issue, the AG’s Office is asking the School Committee to bring forth actions taken at the Feb. 14 executive session and vote upon them again in open session. After the expiration of 10 business days, the AG’s Office will “issue our findings concerning whether or not this violation is willful or knowing, as well as whether injunctive relief is appropriate.”
If the School Committee’s violation is found to be willful or knowing, the AG could initiate suit in Superior Court. The court could then impose injunctive relief or impose a civil fine not exceeding $5,000 against the board or its members.
“If we have to vote on it again, we will,” said School Committee Chairman Frederic C. Crowley. “If we have to do the same things all over again, we will.”
The re-vote on the superintendent’s contract was listed on the agenda for the next School Committee meeting to be held Thursday, July 24, at 7:30 p.m. at Cumberland High School.
The second part of the report addresses MacBeth and Vela’s complaints. 
MacBeth, a School Committee member, alleged that the board failed to report out votes taken during executive sessions on various dates.
As an example, according to MacBeth, a vote taken in October 2006 was only recently disclosed. “There was no reason that this vote should have been withheld from being publicly reported out for 14 months,” she said in the complaint.
She also claimed that minutes were missing from the following executive sessions: Feb. 8, 2007; Nov. 29, 2007; and from Sept. 28 to Nov. 30, 2006.
In Vela’s complaint, dated May 20, she alleges that the School Committee, during a meeting on Nov. 29, 2007, “failed to report out the executive session meeting minutes within the appropriate time frame, and (failed to disclose) the votes taken during this executive session.”
In his response, Rotella said that the statute of limitations had expired for many of the meetings in question.
The AG’s Office agreed with Rotella, ruling that the statue of limitations had expired for executive sessions held between Sept. 14, 2006, and July 30, 2007. However, the statue of limitations for meetings held on Sept. 27, 2007, Nov. 8, 2007, Dec. 13, 2007, and Jan. 10, had not expired.
Rotella further claimed that minutes from those meetings should be exempt because they involved discussions about personnel matters and bargaining agreements. The AG’s Office disagreed.
“The record provides no evidence, explanation or argument as to why the executive session votes were not disclosed ‘once the session (was) reopened,’” according to the report. “The School Committee’s failure to explain what ‘strategy negotiation or investigation’ would have been jeopardized had each vote been disclosed once the open session was reconvened leads us to the inescapable conclusion that it violated the OMA.”
In response to the allegation that several executive session minutes were missing, Rotella provided copies of those minutes, except minutes from an executive session held on Nov. 29, 2007. Those minutes have reportedly since been discovered and submitted to the AG’s Office.