To the editor:
Recently, on the “Lynnfield Conversations” Facebook page, I posted about the lack of a transparent process or community input in last summer’s opaque appointment of the current superintendent. One worrisome resident comment stood out, directed to School Committee Chairperson Elworthy:
“I’m concerned about how those who have supported a superintendent search are being perceived in our community. Too often, we are being labeled as troublemakers or difficult residents, and that characterization is simply not true. The pressure, dismissive looks, and social snubbing have reached a deeply disheartening level.”
This motivated me to attend my first in-person Lynnfield School Committee meeting on June 10. Two topics dominated: the superintendent’s future and persistent racism in our schools.
During the superintendent discussion, three committee members supported extending Superintendent Geary’s contract. Chairperson Elworthy referred to exploring the open question of the superintendent — appointed without a full process or community input — as “burning a year” and preemptively countered concerns about his lack of teaching experience or training qualifications by pointing to administrative experience as a criterion in other districts. Ms. DePrizio lauded his “laser focus” and “steadfast, and unwavering” dedication. Mr. Dillon added, “Your performance this year speaks for itself, Tom.” All gave praise, but none provided empirical benchmarks or data, which the community and other committee members seek.
Two members offered different perspectives. Ms. Baker Donahue highlighted how divided the community is on this matter and called for transparent “policy, process, and procedure” to guide the body’s work, specifically “summative evaluation, other observation and experience, and stakeholder feedback” before the Oct. 1 deadline. She added, “I want to hear more, I want to hear data….We have enough information to know we don’t have enough information.” And challenged Elworthy’s suggestion with, “It’s not ‘killing time’ by addressing people’s concerns.”
When Elworthy spoke later, she implied that because Donahue was new to the committee, she either wasn’t fully informed or wasn’t caught up with the rest of the committee. Donohoe felt her opinion was “discredited,” responding, “I’ve been around just as long as everybody else… I am having conversations.”
Mr. Hayman also expressed a need for more data and “being in a position where we’re all comfortable moving forward.” He said he could support a superintendent with “no teaching or building experience” if that person showed reflection about their gaps — but added, “I haven’t seen that this year, and I …” at which point Elworthy cut him off mid-sentence.
Hayman later expressed uncertainty about moving forward, saying, “It’s a big incomplete right now.” Elworthy dismissed that with, “I look at that as all talk and no action.” Mr. Dillon chimed in, “You made it clear you wanted to do a search,” and “I’m not sure what discussion is going to solve.” These comments attempted to undermine Hayman’s standing and concerns — and dismissed the community’s desire for open dialogue.
During the public comments, a resident quoted Donahue’s earlier statement, “We have a superintendent search petition,” questioning her involvement in the petition because of her use of the inclusive pronoun, “we.” Donahoe clarified, she was not part of it. The resident pressed, “Do you know, on the record, who started the anonymous petition? And do you know who is funding the anonymous ads in the newspaper and on Facebook?” Donahue responded, “No” to both. Elworthy doubled down, “Does anyone up here [members] know?” Donahoe asked, ”Does it matter? “Elworthy responded, “It does actually… it just matters to me to know what the funding is.”
And there you have it — a parochial attempt at “gotcha-journalism” that’s wholly unconstitutional. Their one-two punch revealed their desire to publicly root out the “troublemakers.” The answer to their question is: “We, the People, are behind it.”
The First Amendment of the Constitution protects our political speech, including anonymous speech. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this right in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1955) — especially in matters of public concern.
Here’s what I witnessed that night: On Lynnfield’s current school committee, it’s not okay for two duly elected members to hold dissenting opinions. Their opinions and stature on the committee are thwarted, corrected, or minimized. Nor is it okay for residents to seek further community input or exercise constitutionally protected rights of free speech to organize a petition or run anonymous ads. Residents’ actions are questioned and met with an implied threat. Anonymity is not only protected — it is also understandable.
The resident who commented on my Facebook post was right about pressure, dismissiveness, and snubbing. But I think it’s even worse.
In my opinion, this majority-ruled school committee is undermining our rights as U.S. citizens, residents of Lynnfield, and taxpayers — and threatens the democratic principles that uphold our community and ultimately, our nation.
Anne Zeiser Petralia
Lynnfield Resident
