On Dec. 31, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Wayland School Committee’s decision to enter into executive session to evaluate the performance of the school superintendent was in violation of the open meeting law.

The court, however, reiterated its holding that written performance evaluations are exempt from public disclosure under the public records law.

In a brief filed with the court, the MMA argued that the case illustrates a long-standing conflict between the public records law and the open meeting law. While the public records law protects written evaluations from disclosure, many district attorneys – including the Middlesex district attorney in this case – have interpreted the open meeting law as requiring evaluations of any official appointed by a municipal board to be conducted in open session. The SJC decision did little to eliminate this tension.

The MMA also argued that the district attorney’s reading of the open meeting law in this case was overly narrow. The MMA asserted that there are methods of conducting superintendent evaluations that would comply with the open meeting law while also allowing a degree of privacy that the statutes provide for all other public employees.

Based on the SJC ruling [455 Mass. 561 (2009)], a written evaluation is not required to be released if the local board first convenes in open session to discuss professional competence and then enters executive session “once a written evaluation becomes imminent.” In such a case, a board could use the open meeting law exemption for “comply[ing] with the provisions of any general or special law,” which in this case is the public records law.

The Legislature last year enacted changes to the open meeting law, which take effect on July 1 of this year. The SJC ruling does not address the application of these changes.

+
+