After the petition was officially presented to the Committee, the group was legally required either to revoke the appointments or to give the document to the City Council "immediately." The majority, however, claimed that "immediately" could mean 30 days, and it was voted by the usual 5-2 majority to lay the matter on the table.

Legal Maneuvers

Then last Tuesday, the Committee executed a sharp legal maneuver which some observers feel may have weakened the effect of the pending law suit and the proposed referendum. The majority ordered the Superintendent to present the qualifications and recommendations of the 17 appointments, an order with which the Superintendent complied by stating the appointees' educational history and dates of appointment to the school system. He claimed that he had no recommendations, and Shaplin denied that the facts given could be considered real qualifications. The majority viewed the matter differently, and, in the opinion of some, may have complied with the technicalities of the law.

$3,000 for Janitors

Another member of the majority, Anthony Galluccio, mourned the fact that "the reputation of the School Committee has been hurt pretty bad--more than if we had sat down here and made 1,700 political appointments." The Committee did more than mourn, however; it served notice to the PTA's that it would no longer support the organization as it had in the past. In late November, for example, the Committee had apropriated $3,000 for janitorial expenses incurred by PTA meetings after school hours. Shaplin challenged the legality of this, and the Committee finally agreed to ask the opinion of the City Solicitor, who ruled that the appropriation was illegal. It is felt that the majority was prepared to oppose the solicitor before the parents opened fire on the Committee. Now the attitude of the majority is, "We wouldn't want to do anything illegal."

The Committee also refused at its January 17 meeting to grant a request from the Cambridge Council of PTA's to use the M.E. Fitzgerald School for its regular meeting. Instead, Sullivan referred the request to the Committee of Buildings and Grounds, whose chairman is pro-appointments committeeman James F. Fitzgerald. Shaplin, realizing that Fitzgerald would never call a meeting before the PTA's scheduled event, moved that any available school be used if the preferred one was inconvenient. Fitzgerald complained that this move was a "subterfuge," to which the more experienced Mayor calmly replied, "We'll vote it down." After the majority had done so, Fitzgerald turned with a triumphant smile to Shaplin and Mrs. Ogden and sneered, "You fakers."

The greatest vocal adversary of the PTA and the other opposition groups is the voluble Fitzgerald. The Committee-man alternately adopts a tone of righteous innocence or angry impoliteness, with the latter being more frequent. He at one meeting called Shaplin a "big bum," and has persistently complained that the Dean has "impugned all our motives." On another occasion, Fitzgerald had CRIMSON photographers ejected from a committee meeting. He insists that, examinations or not, Cambridge residents should be given preference for teaching positions. With just as much rigor, he opposes the merit system, claiming that it is the "greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the people of Cambridge."

Weak Laws

The present situation is, however, not so much the result of the actions of committee members, as the result of weak sections in the General Laws of Massachusetts which give school committees almost autonomous control over their systems. State law asserts that the school committee "shall make all reasonable rules and regulations consistent with the law for the management of the public schools of the city;.... it shall have general charge of all public schools; ... the committee may supervise and control all athletic... organizations of public school pupils... and may determine under what conditions the same may compete with similar organizations in other schools." As a member of the White House Committee on Education has said, the Massachusetts school system comes "as close to home rule as any place." A committee-man expressed the same idea, when he asserted that"The School Committee has been given by the state full authority to run the school system."

In Massachusetts, the committee may set its own requirements for the certification of teachers, for example, while in New York certification requirements. as well as curriculum and athletic regulations, are clearly defined and regulated by the state.

There are two statutes in the General Laws of Massachusetts, however, which do somewhat confine the School Committee statutes upon which Shaplin is relying to obtain a permanent injunction against the appointments. Chapter 71, Section 38, of the General Laws reads: "it (the committee) shall elect and contract with the teachers of the public schools, shall require full and satisfactory evidence of their moral character, and shall ascertain their qualifications for teaching and their capacity for the government of schools." Section 59 of the same chapter also reads in part: A superintendent... shall be the executive officer of the committee... and shall recommend to the committee teachers, text books, and courses of study." While the Cambridge School Committee may suspend its own rules, it cannot suspend those of the state, and, it would seem, that by not considering qualifications or consulting the superintendent, it has violated state law.

Attitude of Courts

Even so, state courts are hesitant to take actions which might tend to weaken the power of local school committees, or to set themselves up as "super school committees." Shaplin is by no means certain that his group will win its case, but he has a strong conviction that the school committees have too much power. At present the Dean has begun a survey of school legislation in other states as the basis for making proposals to the General Court urging the strengthening of state control over the public school system. In any case, the present controversy will have served some useful function if it impresses upon Massachusetts the need for reform in the virtual autonomy of local school committees.

It is, however, especially unfortunate for the already weak Cambridge school system that the Committee has taken such actions. Even Mayor Sullivan, who admits that "I don't take a back seat to anyone as far as political moves," once declared his opposition to "using school children for political purposes." it is doubly misfortunate that the Committee has succeeded in doing just this