By DAN TOMASELLO
LYNNFIELD — The allegation that School Committeeman Jamie Hayman was seeking “preferential treatment” for his children was unfounded.
That was the message a staff member relayed to school officials that was shared in separate statements given by Hayman and School Committee Chair Kristen Grieco Elworthy on Oct. 22. Hayman posted his statement on his School Committee Facebook page while Elworthy read her statement during a meeting.
School Committee member Kate DePrizio ignited a firestorm in town after the former chair accused Hayman of violating the board’s “ethical standards” by trying to seek “preferential treatment” for his children during a Sept. 11 meeting. She did not present any evidence when making the accusations. She also claimed that Hayman threatened her and her family, which Police Chief Nick Secatore confirmed in a police report did not occur after listening to an audio recording of Hayman’s side of the conversation.
Elworthy wrote in her statement that Superintendent Tom Geary informed DePrizio this past summer that Hayman reached out to a staff member via text message instead of email. She also stated that he “had a conversation with a staff member about the needs of one of his learners and discussions about how the learning needs of that student might be best addressed.”
“The staff member wasn’t formally reporting this, but it came up in the course of conversation,” Elworthy stated.
Hayman clarified in his statement that the staff member works at Lynnfield High School, which is where his daughters attend.
“I texted instead of emailed,” wrote Hayman. “And I had a conversation with a staff member about one of my children. That’s it. Never at any point did I seek preferential treatment.”
Hayman also wrote in his statement that, “Given that I have a child who will be at this school for four more years and that I see this person quite regularly, I asked for a meeting.” He stated that the meeting took place on Friday, Oct. 11.
“When I sat down with this person, they were surprised their conversation was at the heart of the allegation,” stated Hayman. “Immediately after that meeting, I phoned the School Committee’s attorney to make sure she was aware of the conversation and shared the person’s genuine surprise.”
The staff member who met with Hayman sent him, Elworthy, Geary and attorney Colby Brunt an email on the night of Oct. 11 to summarize what transpired leading up to the Sept. 11 meeting.
“The purpose of this email is to provide information pertaining to the letter sent by Ms. DePrizio to Mr. Hayman on Sept. 11th,” the staff member wrote. “On Tuesday, Sept. 10, I received a call from Ms. DePrizo notifying me of a letter she intended to read into the record at the Sept.
11th School Committee meeting. The letter insinuated that Mr. Hayman had inappropriate communications with members of the high school staff, including myself. After reading the letter, I and another staff member requested to meet with Ms. DePrizo and Mr. Geary. During that meeting, we stated that we disagreed with her characterization of the events. At no time had either of us brought forward a concern or complaint to Ms. DePrizo about interactions with Mr. Hayman. To be very clear, Mr. Hayman never made me feel uncomfortable or as though he was requesting preferential treatment. I never made a complaint or voiced a concern to anyone about my interactions with Mr. Hayman.”
After reading the email, Hayman wrote in his statement that he was “appalled that we are even in this situation.”
“The two ‘conversations’ that Mr. Geary supposedly had and then reported to Mrs. DePrizio were not concerns or complaints,” stated Hayman.
Elworthy accused Hayman of violating the School Committee/Superintendent Operating Protocols because he did not notify her and Geary about the meeting beforehand.
“School Committee members should not be directly contacting staff for matters other than their own children,” Elworthy stated. “If School Committee business comes up in a meeting unexpectedly, members should notify the superintendent and/or chair in order to ensure everyone has equal access to information. Mr. Hayman felt the need to notify our attorney after the meeting – again breaking protocol, as attorney communication goes through the chair and superintendent – clearly indicating that School Committee business had occurred in that meeting. He has acknowledged that he brought up the Sept. 11 letter and staff concerns in the meeting with the staff member.”
Hayman disagreed with Elworthy’s accusation that he violated the Operating Protocols.
“I disagree, as the conversation was to mend a relationship, if necessary, with someone who plays a role in my child’s education,” Hayman wrote. “No mending was needed. This individual was not concerned about any interactions we had.”
During the public participation portion of the meeting that was held after Elworthy made her statement, Christina Hayman clarified “one point” the chair made.
“I, in May, called my daughter’s guidance counselor,” said Christina. “I spoke about our child’s learning needs. I spoke about what I knew about the program. I expressed my concerns, we had a conversation and the next steps that the guidance counselor suggested to me was that we should address this with another staff member. Jamie and I work as a team, as you may or may not know. We do everything together. We go to soccer together, we go to parent-teacher conferences together and we show up together because that is how we work. I relayed the conversation to Jamie. He was in the building in May and mentioned to the person who I was suggested I reach out to that, ‘Oh hey, Christina had this conversation with the Guidance Department, and they suggested we talk to you about this.’ That is how the conversation started. We were not seeking preferential treatment. Any parent in this room could have the same conversation and would have followed the exact same protocols that we did. We do not regret that decision. It was an appropriate conversation. At no point did Jamie make a specific request. I felt it was very important that I clarify I had that conversation.
“Oftentimes, we don’t call the school about anything because of School Committee,” Christina continued. “But if we do, I am the one who makes that call because it is more appropriate. Jamie happened to see the person and he has a relationship with that person, and he mentioned it. That is how this came about. I am not quite sure what happened and why this has turned into this, but I just felt that I needed to clarify that because nobody else in this room knows what actually happened and I do because I made that call.”
Hayman also wrote in his statement that he “discovered that the letter that Mrs. DePrizio read out loud at the Sept. 11, 2024 meeting was not the letter that the attorney wrote and sent to Mrs. DePrizio on Sept. 9, 2024.”
“The attorney’s letter makes no mention of me seeking preferential treatment, nor does it mention my children at all,” Hayman wrote. “Its focus is on the fact that I texted a staff member and a reminder I should only be contacting staff in the same manner as other parents.”
Elworthy also ripped DePrizio’s behavior in her statement. She stated that she, School Committee Vice Chair Jenny Sheehan and School Committee member Jim Dillon “agree now that it was a mistake for Kate to read this letter in public.”
“There was hesitation and concern expressed to Kate about doing so in a public setting and/or about modifying the letter itself – not because we did not agree with having the discussion, but because we felt bringing children into the discussion was an issue,” Elworthy stated. “However, those objections were negated by the impression, from Kate, that the attorney required her to read the letter into the record in public. As chair, it is Kate’s decision how to manage breaches of protocol with members just like it is mine right now.”
Elworthy also wrote that DePrizio’s accusation during the Oct. 16 meeting that the rest of the School Committee was participating in a cover-up “was an egregious breach of any number of protocols.”
“And, more pointedly, it wasn’t true and it’s a tremendous violation of the good faith that should be honored on a professional committee,” Elworthy wrote.
Elworthy also stated that DePrizio violated the Operating Protocols by posting an almost 1,700 word statement on her School Committee Facebook page about the recall initiative against her as well as a timeline about the alleged events leading up to the Sept. 11 meeting. She also emailed the statement to the Villager.
“While Kate is certainly entitled to defend herself, speak to the media on her own behalf and exercise her First Amendment rights, doing so under her official School Committee page was problematic,” Elworthy stated.
Elworthy stated that DePrizio and Hayman are “currently operating with a lack of regard for protocol and respect for the rest of the committee and our superintendent.” She also noted that she, Sheehan and Dillon “have been asked many times to take a position” on residents’ calls for DePrizio to resign.
“Jenny, Jim’s and my position, and I hope now Jamie’s and Kate’s position, is that if any one of the five of us cannot follow our protocols and chain of command, or if you cannot operate with mutual trust and respect for your fellow committee members and their roles, then there is no place on this School Committee for you and you should reconsider your seat,” Elworthy wrote.
Moving forward, Elworthy stated that she is “in the process of scheduling a Massachusetts Association of School Committees training for our committee to help solidify and refresh the roles and responsibilities, likely in late November.”
“We are also planning a fall workshop to talk about important, bigger picture issues that I believe will help us gel and reach consensus as a committee,” Elworthy wrote. “Both of these meetings will be public for anyone who’d like to attend.”
