{shortcode-9331441874a6bdefe8264e59f5b4da4cd87935f5}
The Cambridge School Committee has been discussing how to discuss at committee meetings.
In recent weeks, the conversation has centered around how much time union leaders have to speak at meetings — and how to formalize rules around public comment time allocation.
At the Oct. 1 School Committee meeting, committee members David J. Weinstein and José Luis Rojas Villarreal proposed a motion that would extend the speaking time of union leaders with business with CPS — including Dan Monahan, president of Cambridge Education Association, the union for Cambridge Public Schools’ educators — from three to six minutes.
During the meeting, 13 parents and teachers also delivered public comments in support of the motion, which is slated for discussion at the committee’s Oct. 15 meeting, according to the Cambridge Public Schools website.
The extension courtesy was first informally offered during Vice Mayor Marc C. McGovern’s mayoral tenure from 2018 to 2020, he said, to “improve the relationship between the School Committee and the union.”
“We were trying to make an effort to work more collaboratively with the union,” McGovern said, adding that the union felt they “couldn’t get to everything that they wanted to say.”
But at recent meetings, such extensions have not been offered.
At the Sept. 17 School Committee meeting, committee members voted against extending Monahan’s speaking time. The vote, as well as Mayor E. Denise Simmons’ reference to Monahan as “the gentleman that usually speaks,” drove 17 parents to express frustration on a parent email listserv.
Monahan also spoke at the Oct. 1 meeting but was cut off at the three-minute mark before touching on the motion.
In the cut off portion of his remarks — which Monahan sent in an email to The Crimson — he planned to tell the committee that approving the motion would be “a symbolic recognition that you, the school committee, value the input of educators and the CEA.”
In an interview with The Crimson, Monahan said the shift away from the courtesy extension came without warning or a discussion, which he felt was “disrespectful.”
“Any time that there’s a slight from one organization to another organization, it’s going to have an impact,” Monahan said of the CEA and School Committee’s relationship. “I am hopeful that we will be able to resolve it. If that’s the case, then we’ll be in a better place.”
At the Oct. 1 meeting, Duncan MacLaury, a teacher at CRLS, emphasized the importance of extending the CEA president’s time as a means of “outreach to the public,” who may be able to offer support for the union.
In July, the School Committee approved new contracts for paraprofessionals and family liaisons, ending months-long and protest-filled processes. In December, the committee ratified new teachers contracts.
In recent years, lengthy contract negotiations have resulted in educators walking out from School Committee meetings and dozens of charged public comments. Parents have expressed support for educators through both public comment and emails to a parents’ listserv.
Simmons wrote in a statement to The Crimson that she valued “fairness and equity for all voices wishing to be heard.”
“Granting extended time for public comment to one group, even if that group represents an educators’ union, raises questions about why this courtesy should not be extended to all unions,” she wrote, “or to other constituencies who may also feel they have significant perspectives to share.”
During the Oct. 1 meeting, CPS legal counsel Maureen A. MacFarlane also advised against the motion.
“The School Committee should not be treating public comment speakers differently from each other based on their views or to which organization they belong to or to which organization they represent,” MacFarlane said, citing a “recent Massachusetts Supreme Court” decision.
Instead, MacFarlane recommended the committee invite union representatives to present during the meeting itself, drawing parallels to presentations given by two school principals at the Oct. 1 meeting, who were asked to speak about recent awards they received. Their remarks were listed under “Presentations” on the meeting’s agenda.
Though Monahan said he would be open to an agenda item as a CEA speaking apparatus, he proposed revisiting another old practice: giving the CEA a physical seat at the table.
“This actually used to be the case many years ago, to actually have a CEA seat at the School Committee table — just like there’s a student seat at the School Committee,” Monahan said. “It’s a non-voting member, but they can participate in discussions or ask questions.”
“That would be much preferable, to either public comment or even an item on the agenda,” he added.
According to Monahan, a seat at the table was custom under former Mayor Kenneth E. Reeves ’72. City Councilor Patricia M. “Patty” Nolan ’80 — who served on the School Committee during Reeves’ second tenure as mayor — wrote in a text message that she could not recall if such a seat existed.
Despite advocating for more union representation at School Committee meetings, Monahan said he is not hopeful that such customs will be implemented.
“I’m not super optimistic — given our current population of the School Committee — but I also wouldn’t rule it out,” Monahan said.
Correction: October 12, 2024
A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Cambridge School Committee member Rachel B. Weinstein proposed a motion to extend the speaking time of union leaders. In fact, Cambridge School Committee member David J. Weinstein proposed the motion.
—Staff writer Darcy G Lin can be reached at darcy.lin@thecrimson.com.
—Staff writer Emily T. Schwartz can be reached at emily.schwartz@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @EmilySchwartz37
