By DAN TOMASELLO
LYNNFIELD — A series of emails and a text message exchange included in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) report revealed what transpired behind the scenes leading up to the School Committee’s infamous Sept. 11 meeting and its aftermath.
School Committee member Kate DePrizio ignited a firestorm in town after she made a series of allegations against School Committee member Jamie Hayman during the Sept. 11 meeting. The former school board chair accused Hayman of violating the board’s “ethical standards” by trying to seek “preferential treatment” for his children. She did not present any evidence when making the accusations.
Additionally, DePrizio claimed that Hayman “threatened” her and her children, and called her an expletive during a phone conversation before the Sept. 11 meeting. Police Chief Nick Secatore recently stated in a police report that he “did not hear threats that are of a criminal nature or Jamie mention her family” while listening to an audio recording of Hayman’s side of the conversation.
In response to a question from a resident during an Oct. 16 meeting, DePrizio encouraged the large number of residents in attendance to “FOIA request the records” after she accused her colleagues of engaging in a cover-up. School Committee Chair Kristen Grieco Elworthy stated during an Oct. 22 meeting that DePrizio’s allegation “wasn’t true” and “egregious.”
After the Oct. 16 meeting, a number of residents submitted FOIA requests to the School Department about the correspondence DePrizio referenced. A few residents shared the report with the Villager. The FOIA report contains redacted information, but does mention the names of the staff members who were involved in the situation. The Villager redacted their names in this article in order to protect their confidentiality.
The FOIA report includes a text message exchange between DePrizio and now-School Committee Vice Chair Jenny Sheehan that occurred on Sept. 10. DePrizio wrote to Sheehan that the Sept. 11 meeting was “going to be rough” and she was “glad to have you on this committee, and beside me.” She included a heart emoji at the end of the sentence.
After Sheehan “loved” the comment, she wrote “this time tomorrow, everyone will know the truth about him. The wind is about to leave his sails.” Sheehan included a rowboat emoji at the end of the text.
“That’s hard to believe,” DePrizio wrote in response.
Sheehan added: “Ha I know. But a narcissist never sees it coming. Will be interesting.”
In response, DePrizio wrote: “I’m honestly a little nervous.”
“And know we are handling this in a thoughtful manner,” DePrizio wrote after a sentence was redacted. “As you can imagine, (two staff members) are very worried and backpedaling, as they are scared. Unfortunately the only way is through this, can’t go around.”
Sheehan wrote in response: “Yea agreed. And they are protected in plausible deniability from the public view. It’s specific enough of behavior but vague enough of personel (sic).”
After DePrizio “loved” Sheehan’s comment, Sheehan wrote: “But it needs to be called out. And him specifically. Accountability. Transparency. Trust. It’s the only way to have those pillars of what we stand for.”
DePrizio told Sheehan that she “so appreciated your friendship and support.”
“I truly mean it,” DePrizio added.
In response, Sheehan told DePrizio: “You’re doing the right thing and I’ll die on that hill.”
Sheehan emailed the Villager a statement about the text message exchange with DePrizio.
“These texts are irrelevant and out of context,” Sheehan wrote. “This conversation between Kate and me clearly supports the information I already provided repeatedly in public meetings on both 9/11 and 10/22, where I have been very open about speaking with Kate as my chair regarding concerns I had about Jamie undermining the committee. This text also reiterates the fact that Kate had told me we were under the lawyer’s instruction, as the redacted line of her text says ‘but know the lawyer is asking us to send this.’
“As the PRR (public records request) shows, there is truly nothing more to say on this topic that hasn’t already been said. At this point, this is nothing but a distraction to the work the committee has dedicated our personal time to achieve, and we will continue to focus on doing that work — and only that work — as we strive to serve the needs of the 2,200 students of our district.”
In a Sept. 9 email exchange titled “Positioning” between then-Vice Chair Elworthy and DePrizio, Elworthy offered suggestions that DePrizio could make to change the letter that was read on Sept. 11.
“Obviously feel free to scrap any of this since you’re the one who has to deliver the news,” Elworthy wrote.
The FOIA documents also confirmed that DePrizio blind copied Elworthy, Sheehan, School Committeeman Jim Dillon and Superintendent Tom Geary when she emailed Hayman the “Staff Communication Concerns” letter at 8:44 a.m. on Sept. 11.
DePrizio also told a Central Office administrative assistant in a Sept. 12 email that, “If the press or community asks for this letter, please instruct them to ask me.”
“It was not sent by nor involves the superintendent and should be left under the purview of the committee to address directly,” DePrizio wrote.
Elworthy also reached out to the Villager about the letter on Sept. 12 that included a statement from her that criticized Hayman.
“I hope you will consider including commentary from members as opposed to solely quoting from the meeting itself,” Elworthy stated.
The Villager did not include Elworthy’s statement in two separate articles about the Sept. 11 meeting that were published in the Sept. 18 issue.
Elworthy sent the Villager a follow-up email on Sept. 18 after Chief Secatore released the police report that revealed Hayman did not threaten DePrizio or her family.
“While I still stand by a good amount of what is stated below here, obviously additional information has arisen in the past several days,” Elworthy wrote.
The FOIA documents also included the name of the staff member who sent Hayman, Elworthy, Geary and attorney Colby Brunt an email that disputed DePrizio’s accusations made at 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 at 9:40 p.m. on Friday, Oct. 11. “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.”
Elworthy stated in an email sent to DePrizio, Sheehan and Dillon on Oct. 15 that Hayman requested that the letter from the staff member be read publicly during the Oct. 16 meeting.
“I am suggesting this be handled in executive session; I’ve confirmed it falls under exception 1, and then to bring it to the public meeting on 10/22 when we have had a chance to further discuss as a committee,” Elworthy wrote. “Tom is looped in, as is Colby (and Jamie obviously). Jamie is insisting on speaking by phone rather than via email, but does not want to speak with me without Colby on the line, so we are currently awaiting a time from her to speak tomorrow morning. After that, I’ll provide a further update on next steps.”
While Elworthy did not read the email from the staff member during the Oct. 16 meeting, she did read it during the Oct. 22 meeting after Hayman publicly released the letter in a statement posted on his School Committee Facebook page a few hours began the Oct. 22 meeting began.
The FOIA report also includes an email exchange between Elworthy and Hayman, where the two school board members sparred over the separate Oct. 22 statements.
Elworthy emailed the Villager a statement about the documents included in the FOIA report.
“This situation has been addressed in full across multiple meetings, and in particular, the School Committee meeting on Oct. 22, where I made extensive commentary,” said Elworthy. “My focus and the reason I ran for this position is because I want to make a positive contribution to the educational experience of the 2,000 students in our district. I am going to continue to concentrate on that work. Unfortunately, some people’s desire to focus on this has drawn attention away from work being done on school improvement plans, curriculum updates, policy updates and more. Since April, the committee, working closely with staff and the administration, has made many positive gains for students. The continued effort to focus on this topic has the effect of distracting from the important work of the School Committee, and I will not participate in that.”
Hayman also emailed the Villager about the FOIA report.
“After reviewing the 60-plus pages of the document released from the public records request, I was disappointed and disheartened to learn of the breadth of involvement within our community in this coordinated attack on my character and my family,” said Hayman. “This whole incident seems to stem from my disagreement with the committee about several issues, including the hiring of a superintendent without a formal search.”
