By DONNA KENNY KIRWAN

PAWTUCKET — One of two Open Meetings Act complaints filed against the Pawtucket School Committee by school board candidate Joseph C. Knight was rejected by the state attorney general’s office earlier this month, while a decision on the other is pending.

In one complaint, Knight alleged that the School Committee violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA) by voting on a resolution in an executive session to seek a refund in surplus funds from the Northern Rhode Island Collaborative (NRIC).
Records show that at a meeting at the NRIC on March 25, Schools Supt. Hans Dellith did in fact present a resolution on behalf of the Pawtucket School Committee demanding the school department’s share of the Collaborative’s reported $3.4 million surplus. Pawtucket received an initial payment of approximately $740,000 and is slated to receive another $88,000.
In his complaint, Knight said that in a review of the School Committee’s agenda prior to that meeting, he could find no reference to such a resolution being passed. He also maintained that he had spoken to School Committee Chairman Gordon M. Gould on the matter, who had said there had been no vote, but that there had been a “consensus” among members in executive session.
Knight maintained in his complaint that since this “alleged consensus” resulted in the introduction of a resolution on behalf of the Pawtucket School Department, he believed that in point of fact a vote was taken and not reported out of executive session after the School Committee reconvened, as is required under the OMA.
However, attorney Vicki J. Bejma, representing the School Department, said that, based on sworn affidavits from Dellith and Gould, “the Pawtucket School Department can unequivocally state that there was no vote on said resolution.”
Instead, she responded, the resolution was brought by Dellith in his capacity as superintendent and as a member of the NRIC’s board of directors. Because the resolution was brought solely by Dellith and was not a School Committee resolution, the reference in the collaborative’s meeting minutes to a “Resolution of the Pawtucket School Committee” was therefore a “misnomer,” according to Bejma.
In his affidavit, Gould further stated that “At no time did I inform Mr. Knight that the School Committee had not voted upon the resolution because of a ‘consensus’ of the Committee.”
In summing up the decision from the attorney general’s office, Laura Ann Marasco, special assistant attorney general, wrote that. “based upon the evidence presented, we conclude that there is simply no evidence to support the conclusion that the School Committee violated the OMA with respect to this allegation.”
She continued, “Specifically, this department has been presented no evidence that prior to March 25, 2008, the School Committee ever voted on this specific resolution.”
However, this statement has a footnote that reads: “This Department does note that the minutes of the June 27, 2008, meeting reflect that the School Committee did discuss a different version of this resolution. We find that the School Committee’s response, while technically accurate, was less than forthcoming.”
Michael J. Healey, spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said, “There was no evidence to suggest or support the conclusion that the School Committee violated the Open Meetings Act with respect to this complaint. He added, “We’re still looking into the second complaint and haven’t reached any conclusions.”
While saying that he abides by the attorney general’s decision, Knight is still angry at what he categorizes as another example of Dellith taking an independent action without properly informing and/or receiving permission from the School Committee. Noting that Dellith answers to the School Committee,  Knight said, “He has an obligation as fiduciary with the School Department to talk over an action such as this with his superiors.”
Knight maintains the School Department could have received at least $500,000 more from the collaborative’s pay-out — money he says could have been put toward capital and infrastructure needs.
Knight also faults Gould for playing what he said is “a game of semantics” in his testimony regarding what amounted to a “consensus.” “In no way, shape, or form did Mr. Gould fail to tell me there was a consensus of the School Committee,” he said.
Of the attorney general’s decision, Dellith responded that “I don’t know how they could have come up with a different conclusion.”  He also said that Knight’s accusation that an additional $500,000 could have been added to Pawtucket’s payout is “absolutely untrue.”
Dellith feels Knight is making inferences about his communication with the School Committee that he hasn’t been party to first-hand, and that Knight’s criticism of his actions amounts to a desire to “micro-manage” the superintendent’s job.
Gould stands by his testimony. He also disputes Knight’s assertion that there is a lack of communication between the administration and the School Committee, or a lack of concern for the taxpayer. “We have a good School Committee, and everyone on it worries about the taxpayer. We’re all taxpayers, Mr. Knight included,” he said.
Gould also said Pawtucket and the other municipal school departments in the collaborative each agreed on a surplus amount that left the collaborative the funds necessary to keep operating. “We didn’t want them to have to shut their doors,” Gould said. “We still send our students there.”
The other complaint Knight filed last March concerns his allegations that the School Committee did not properly post agendas and neglected to disclose votes taken in executive sessions in November and December 2007 and in February and March 2008.