An Open Letter to the Watertown SEPAC Leadership

We are writing to express critical concerns regarding the operational governance, statutory compliance, and overall accountability of the Watertown Special Education Parent Advisory Council (SEPAC).

Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 71B, Section 3, the local school committee is legally required to establish a parent advisory council on special education, which must adopt and operate under bylaws governing its officers and procedures.

While we appreciate the individual volunteer efforts of current board members, effective community advocacy requires structural transparency and compliance to governing rules. At a minimum, families are asking the district to be in compliance. We are asking the same of its SEPAC.

At the first general meeting of the school year on September 16, SEPAC leadership confirmed that a special election would be held only for the four vacant board seats. This plan had been shared on the SEPAC’s Facebook page prior to the meeting. The decision to restrict the election was explicitly not allowed to be put to a vote of the membership during the meeting. It was also revealed that the board had unilaterally reorganized officer titles prior to this meeting.

When questioned about why elections have not been held yearly as required every May (the last election was held in January 2024), the only explanation offered was low meeting attendance, specifically claims that only five people regularly attend meetings. First, this statement is inaccurate: attendance ranged between 10 and 20 participants across the three meetings held during the 2025–2026 school year. Second, attendance figures are irrelevant under the organization's rules. Under Article VI, a quorum of just four (4) voting members is required to hold a meeting and conduct business. An election could have been conducted this past spring with the qualified voting members present, fulfilling Article VII's mandate for annual May elections.

Additionally, recent guidance provided by MassPAC (a program of the Federation for Children with Special Needs) confirmed that SEPACs are obligated to follow their own adopted operational bylaws and that elections should be held pursuant to those rules.

It was also stated that the board decided voting membership requirements would be waived for the upcoming vote so all caregivers can participate. However, Article IV defines general membership as open to any interested party. Waiving established bylaws without a clear, membership-approved process creates disarray and raises serious questions about who will actually be granted a vote. Bylaws exist to provide operational clarity and prevent this level of confusion.

To address the unanswered questions and restore legitimacy, we respectfully request formal clarification on the following matters:

Elections, Governance, and Bylaw Adherence

1. What is the rationale for opening elections only to vacant seats, given that Article V and Article VII mandate annual one-year terms and a yearly election for all officer positions?

2. What was the process for appointing new board members in recent years when elections were omitted in May 2024, May 2025, and May 2026?

3. Does this proposed election process adhere to current bylaws? If not, under what authority is the board able to establish a new, unratified process without a membership vote?

4. Will an independent third party, such as MassPAC, oversee or review the election process and results?

Communication, Support, and Community Outreach

5. Who is currently responsible for monitoring and responding to official SEPAC emails as required by Article V?

6. What concrete assurances can the board make regarding timely, reliable communication with families this school year?

Data Transparency and District Collaboration

7. Why has the SEPAC not presented to the School Committee since 2023, despite Article III and Article V requiring at least two annual presentations, and specifically why has no update been given over the past 6 months?

8. Did anyone on the board conduct outreach to solicit feedback from families regarding the selection of the new interim Director of Student Services this summer?

9. Why was the SEPAC survey not distributed to every family of a student with an IEP or 504 Plan, and why have the results not been formally presented to the community?

Rights Protection and Administrative Oversight

10. Did the SEPAC board formally address the former director’s statement at the November general meeting asserting that it is “hard to come back from” for families who file a Problem Resolution System (PRS) complaint with the state? (Full transcript of statement is below)

11. Is the board aware that the former director initiated BSEA hearings against families who filed PRS complaints as a loophole to deny parents their first line of a free, timely procedural safeguard? Does the board view these actions at retaliation against a parent exercising the protected activity of advocating for their child’s rights?

We can be grateful for past efforts while still requiring that the governing rules be followed. We submit these questions to insist on basic compliance from the organization representing our families. While the current officers are eligible to run for their seats again, elected officials cannot decline to relinquish their seats or deny membership votes when an election is due. This practice would be not be allowed in an any other government setting. There is genuine concern that the decision to allow officers with expired terms to maintain in their positions without being re-elected is to prevent a subset of vocal advocates from running as Chair. Such a rationale could constitute discrimination. An open election for all board seats would ensure a legal, equitable, and transparent process for all.

A copy of this letter has been sent to SEPAC’s official district email address. We look forward to your written response and a clear, compliant plan for the upcoming election.

Sincerely,

Watertown Special Education Alliance

Review the SEPAC bylaws by clicking here.

Transcript from November 2025 SEPAC General Meeting:

Dr. Desmarais: People are saying to go right to PRS, don’t try working with the district, just go right there. And in the past, and I’ve been in the field for a while, 30 years now, in the past that was usually seen as your last nuclear option when you couldn’t get anywhere going through your teacher, your building principal, special education administrator, superintendent. And even as an administrator, I might send a parent to PRS if they were saying listen, we weren’t compliant, and I did my own little internal investigation and I really think we were. I might say to them to go there to get that neutral opinion, but in general, it’s kind of when you’ve done everything because it can really, it can really hurt relationships and it can be hard to come back from. So that’s been kind of the buzz on the street fairly recently and again this goes back, this is two year-old data, but that has not slowed and I don’t anticipate that we will move into the yellow. I can be hopeful about that, but I don’t think so in the near future…

Parent question: Can you speak to what you meant by hurt relationships and hard to come back from and can you speak to these are parents who approach the state because they are having a hard time? Do they have to hire an advocate? Do they have to hire lawyers? What does that look like and is that in comparison to the rest of the state that it’s in the red?

Dr. Desmarais: So I would imagine and again, I don’t have access to this level of detail for any other district, but I do speak to directors across the state as well as I’m part of the directors group for the LABBB collaborative and we’re all feeling this. This is something we’re all discussing and feeling and experiencing and so Watertown is not an outlier in terms of the number of complaints coming in. The actual department itself is completely swamped and they’re not able to meet their own deadlines in terms of being able to respond to complaints because they’re coming in so fast and furious. And I think I lost part of your question. Oh, do you have to hire an advocate or a lawyer? Never, that is never necessary even if you’re going to the bureau of special education appeals, while the district would always have an attorney for that kind of thing, parents can represent themselves and be pro bono. A state complaint is very easy to make and most families who have filed a complaint who I have worked with in my prior district and here do that themselves. Occasionally an advocate will assist, but I would say the majority have been by parents themselves. And by relationship breaking, teachers are humans. With feelings. And I will tell you, the teachers, they pour their heart and soul into the job and so they can’t help but feel hurt when a parent is saying they’re not doing their job because that’s essentially usually what’s happening with a complaint, so that’s just, that gets hard and it might be that that’s the case and that’s where you are and that is why the system exist so I’m not saying I have any issue with the system existing as it is. I just want people to understand that it might not be your first step if there’s an issue because so much of education is about relationships. I’m always hopeful we can figure things out without going to that kind of step. Lisa C, your hand is up.

Lisa Capoccia: I just wanted to make a quick addition to what you said. And I agree with you about the teachers and that, but I also want to, you know, it’s the system that supports the teachers, it sort of is what, that’s what demonstrates what the teachers can and can’t do. So the teachers can do things if they have a system that really supports them to do it and I’m not saying our system doesn’t support our teachers but clearly there’s more we can do with that and I think that’s where families advocating, there’s a lot of conversations that can happen around how we support the system for these services so that can really drive what teachers can and can’t do whether there’s complains about them or not. That’s just another slice of that.

Dr. Desmarais: Yeah, and I feel very good about in terms of the resources we have in place, and we’ll present this in December as well. In relation to this, I don’t think that it’s a resources issue.

Transcripts of recent public comments made at School Committee meetings between July-September 2026:

Speech #1 (July 2026):

I am here to speak tonight as a Watertown resident and parent. The district frequently boasts about SEPAC’s involvement in decision-making. Leadership points to SEPAC representation as proof that families have a voice. This includes granting automatic seats to SEPAC on the strategy development team and the hiring committee for the new interim director, and presumably, for the permanent director search as well. Under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 71b, the school committee is legally responsible for establishing and overseeing a legitimate SEPAC. But there is growing community concerns about whether Watertown maintains a legally compliant and truly representative SEPAC. State law requires the district to host an annual basic rights training in conjunction with SEPAC. During the entire 2025-2026 school year, no such training was held. SEPAC’s own bylaws mandate two annual presentations to the school committee. That hasn't happened since 2023 school year. An annual SEPAC officer election is required to be held every May, yet no election been held since May 2024, May 2025, or May 2026. SEPAC representation participated in the listening sessions this spring, but nobody has seen their feedback or notes. There has been no outreach for priorities or input for in the interim director search. So, who exactly is SEPAC representing when its officers' terms are long expired and only three general meetings are held in a school year? Who are they representing when families copy SEPAC on emails detailing severe compliance issues and receive zero response? Yet, when the district hired Athena to evaluate student services, the two SEPAC chairs were the only parents interviewed. They speak on behalf of all families without interfacing with the majority of families. The district cannot continue to use an unelected SEPAC as a rubber stamp to claim parent buy-in. You cannot fix a broken special education system by partnering with a phantom board while ignoring the actual experiences of families. Tonight, I am issuing a formal call for SEPAC reform. The district must fulfill its statutory oversight duties under state law. It is time to enforce compliance, to restore legitimacy, and give Watertown families their voice back. Thank you.

Speech #2 (August 2026):

I'm here tonight to formally place a request on the record for a school committee agenda item addressing the governance and bylaw compliance within the Watertown Special Ed Parent Advisory Council or SEPAC. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 71b Section 3 requires the school committee to establish a parent advisory council on special education and provides that the council shall establish bylaws governing its officers and operational procedures. Watertown SEPAC's own adopted bylaws are equally clear. Article 4 provides that SEPAC officers are elected by the voting membership and hold office for one year. Article 7 states that election shall be the first order of business at the main meeting, and article 8 specifically states SEPAC, quote, shall hold an annual meeting of the voting members each year for the purpose of electing officers. These provisions do not contemplate officers serving indefinitely without an election. The community deserves public clarity as to why the required annual officer elections have been omitted for three consecutive years and under what authority the officers continue to serve. I therefore respectfully request two specific actions. First, that the SEPAC leadership reconsider its current plans to hold an election only for vacant officer seats and conduct a full open election for all officer positions this fall for the first time since January 2024. Second, that the school committee place SEPAC practices and bylaw compliance on an official meeting agenda. SEPAC is intended to provide parents of children with special needs a meaningful voice in the district's special education process. Its governance should therefore be transparent, accountable, and consistent with the rules established for the organization. Thank you.

Speech #3 (September 2026):

I want to begin by reminding our community that the first SEPAC meeting of the school year is this Wednesday, from 6:30 to 8:00 p.m., right here in the Lowell Learning Commons. I encourage all parents and caregivers to attend. Whether your child receives special education services, you’re new to the process, or you simply have questions about your child’s learning or development, SEPAC is a resource for you. And that is why I’m here tonight. I believe Watertown’s SEPAC is an important resource, but right now, it needs stronger structure, participation, and support. Our SEPAC has eight board positions, but only four are currently active. We are beginning this school year at 50% capacity, with four seats vacant. The SEPAC bylaws call for annual elections. The last election was held in January 2024, and there have been no elections during the past two school years. A parent advisory council cannot remain effective without opportunities for new parents to step into leadership. So I am asking the School Committee and administration to hold the current SEPAC leadership accountable to its own bylaws and ensure that a full board election is held as soon as possible. An election is an opportunity to welcome new parents to step forward, bring their experiences to the table, and help shape the future of SEPAC. But an election is only part of the solution. Parents have to know SEPAC exists. Average attendance at SEPAC meetings last year was only about 15 people. I believe that is because parents don’t know what SEPAC is and how it can help them. At 5:15 p.m. today, the Superintendent sent the first district communication informing the community about Wednesday night’s meeting. And tonight’s School Committee agenda contains a single bullet point stating only the time and location of the meeting. Before these items, the only communication from SEPAC was presented via Facebook. Our community was not formally informed until 5:00 p.m. today. 48 hours before the meeting. That is not enough to reach the families who need this resource. Facebook is not a district-wide communication system, nor is it an equitable way to reach our entire school community. We have established communication channels that are routinely used to make families aware of school and district events. SEPAC deserves that same level of visibility. When does the district stop doing the bare minimum for the special education community and start going above and beyond? The district communicates regularly about School Councils, FTO events, conferences, back-to-school nights, classroom representatives, and School Committee meetings. SEPAC deserves that same visibility. There is also an accessibility concern. 48 hours is not enough time for parents to plan accordingly. I am asking the School Committee to work with the SEPAC chairs to re-establish the virtual option for Wednesday’s meeting. If we want more parents participating, we should be making it easier, not harder, for families to attend. Going forward, I am asking the district to consistently promote SEPAC through ParentSquare, school newsletters, Superintendent and principal communications, FTO communications, and other district-wide channels. Because this isn’t simply about getting more people into a meeting. It’s about making sure that when a parent has a question about special education, they know where to turn for information, resources, community, and support. We have the people. What we need is the structure, the opportunity, and the support. So tonight, I am asking for four things: Follow the bylaws. Hold a full SEPAC election as soon as possible. Provide a hybrid option for SEPAC meetings. And make SEPAC a regular part of the district’s communication network. If we do those things, we have an opportunity to build a strong, active, and effective SEPAC for Watertown’s special education community. Thank you.

Transcripts for all Watertown public meetings can be found online here: https://watertown.munitrac.ai/

The Watertown School Committee meets tonight, Monday, September 14, at 7:00 PM (Executive Session begins at 6:30 PM).

Several major district updates, policy votes, and reports are on the docket for discussion:

• Superintendent’s Goals (including Special Education – Family Trust, Systems, and Community Repair). Read the draft goals here.

• Screen Time Use Report: Presentation on digital learning tools and screen management across WPS grade levels. View the presentation here.

• Policy Vote: Second reading and vote on revised district policies regarding Time Out, Seclusion, and Physical Restraint of Students. Review the updated language here.

• Superintendent Search Update

How to Join & Participate:

In-Person: Lowell Elementary School (123 Lowell Ave)

Zoom (Public Participation): https://watertown-k12-ma-us.zoom.us/j/85280723068

Broadcast: Comcast Channel 8 | RCN Channel 15 | WCATV Webcast at http://vodwcatv.org/internetchannel/watch-now?site=2

Stay informed on district decisions and make your voice heard during public comment!

Here’s to a year of respecting the expertise that everyone brings to the table.

Educators hold valuable data, training, and understanding of methodologies, while caregivers hold a lifetime of lived experience, daily observations, and unmatched insight. 

When both are valued, IEP teams thrive and students win.

Happy Labor Day 2026

Labor Day is a time to honor the work of those who sustain our community. Today, as parents and advocates, we want to extend our deepest gratitude to all of our teachers, special educators, service providers, and instructional assistants across the district as they prepare to welcome our children to a new school year tomorrow. 

The history of Labor Day is rooted in the belief that workers deserve dignity, fair treatment, and a voice in the conditions under which they work. For educators, that fight has always been about more than wages and working conditions. It has also been about the conditions in which children learn.

Here in Massachusetts, educators have a long history of using their collective voice to advocate for both their profession and their students. From the growth of collective bargaining to advocacy for stronger public schools, Massachusetts educators have fought for professional voice, reasonable class sizes, adequate resources, and the supports students need to learn and thrive.

This history is especially significant in special education. In 1972, Massachusetts enacted Chapter 766, landmark special education legislation that established important protections and educational opportunities for children with disabilities—three years before the federal Education for All Handicapped Children Act, the law that would later become IDEA. Chapter 766 was groundbreaking, and Massachusetts’ experience helped inform and serve as a model for federal special education policy that followed.

Families, disability-rights advocates, educators, legislators, and community organizations all played important roles in building the movement for educational access and equity. And that history matters today. Teachers and other school employees are often the people closest to students. They see what is working, what is missing, and what children need long before those needs become visible in a report or a budget. When educators have a meaningful voice in the systems that shape schools, students benefit too. 

That is part of the legacy we honor this Labor Day: the understanding that working conditions are learning conditions, and that advocating for educators and advocating for children are deeply connected.

Today, we honor the educators, education support professionals, families, advocates, and workers who continue that work. The ongoing labor effort for dignity and support directly defines how our children experience school. Because laws alone do not make inclusion happen. IEPs alone do not make a child feel safe. Policies alone do not ensure that a struggling student is able to make progress.

People do.

The teacher who notices the child quietly falling apart.

The special educator who refuses to give up when a strategy isn’t working.

The paraprofessional who understands that behavior is communication.

The school counselor who becomes a safe person.

The educator who sees past a diagnosis, a behavior chart, a test score, or an IEP and sees a whole human being. 

And we also want to acknowledge a difficult truth: too often, educators are asked to carry the weight of systems that are inadequately structured and overwhelmed. 

Teachers cannot single-handedly fix broken systems. Special educators cannot meet every need without adequate staffing and resources. Paraprofessionals cannot be expected to provide highly skilled support without fair compensation and training.

Supporting educators and advocating for students are not competing priorities. They are inseparable. When schools invest in educators, our children benefit.

When special education staff are appropriately supported, students receive better services. When teachers have manageable caseloads, planning time, training, and a genuine voice in decision-making, they have more capacity to do what brought so many of them into this profession in the first place: to change lives for the better. 

To every educator who has stayed late rewriting a lesson or prepping specialized materials. 

To every special education teacher managing an impossible caseload.

To every paraprofessional providing patience, comfort, and consistency.

To every teacher who has advocated for services a student needed.

To every educator who has spoken up when something wasn’t right.

To every person in a school who has made a child feel safe, understood, capable, and worthy of belonging: Thank you. We see you and we appreciate you. And we will continue advocating alongside you for schools where every child and every educator has what they need to succeed.

Because advocacy for children must include advocacy for the people who teach, support, and believe in them every single day.

This Labor Day, we honor not only the work educators do. We honor the heart they bring to it. We stand in deep appreciation of your work and remain committed to advocating for the resources, clarity, and structural support you deserve.

Stay connected and informed this month! Here are the key upcoming meetings for our Watertown special education community being held this month:

School Committee Meeting

Date & Time: Monday, September 14 @ 7:00 PM

Location: Lowell School or virtually via Zoom

SEPAC Meeting

Date: Wednesday, September 16 @ 6:30 PM

Location: Lowell School

(Interim Director of Student Services, Kristen Beaupre, will be in attendance)

See all FY27 meeting dates for the full School Committee here.

To maintain a secure and supportive environment for all families, announcements and details for upcoming Alliance meetings and gatherings will be posted exclusively in our private member group. 

Become a member today by clicking here.  

Back-to-school season is filled with introductions, but nobody knows a student better than the student themselves! 

While parents often send helpful context to new special education teams, involving your child in the process is a powerful way to build self-advocacy skills from day one.

We created a simple, student-centered printable template to help students share their strengths, interests, trusted contacts, and preferred learning styles directly with their educators.

Download the free printable PDF here.

Tone Policing Won’t Fix Systemic Failure

Plus a counterpoint: It’s also completely acceptable if you feel angry about what a substantial number of Watertown children with disabilities and their families have experienced over the past decade. 

Anger serves as an internal alarm system, alerting us when our dignity, safety, or rights have been violated. Families who have experienced harm, and their community allies, should not be marginalized for experiencing a basic human emotion, particularly when expressed thoughtfully and respectfully in pursuit of accountability, healing, and repair.

When systems run out of substantive defenses for systemic failures, shifting the focus to the tone or emotion of the messenger is an easy way to evade accountability. Labeling passionate, evidence-based advocacy in response to years of institutional failure as merely "anger" is a rhetorical escape hatch. It shifts the dialogue away from the core issue of whether children’s rights are being met to how that message is being delivered. But anger in response to documented harm is not a flaw; it's a rational human reaction.

Rebuilding trust will require more than listening. Familles with a full range of experiences must have meaningful roles in the discussions that shape the system moving forward – including those speaking from frustration, grief, or fear. Because the voices that are hardest to hear are often the ones most essential to understanding what must change. 

The new guidance document issued by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), titled Guidance on Time-Out Practices and Implementation of Amendments to 603 CMR 46.00 and 603 CMR 18.00, outlines the state's standards, regulatory expectations, and practical directives regarding the use of time-out in public and special education school settings.

The guidance clarifies regulatory amendments adopted by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, which focus on student safety, equity, and reducing improper physical or psychological isolation.

1. Purpose & Key Regulatory Definitions

• Time-Out Defined: Defined as a behavioral support strategy where a student temporarily separates from a learning activity or classroom (either by choice or by staff direction) for the purpose of calming or regulatory self-soothing. 

• Unlocked Setting: Crucially, the updated regulations specify that time-out must take place in an unlocked setting from which the student is permitted to leave. If a student is physically prevented from leaving, locked in, or placed in an isolated room without the ability to leave, it constitutes seclusion, which is prohibited under standard procedures. 

• Distinction from Restraint and Seclusion: Time-out is meant to be a non-punitive, supportive measure. It is explicitly differentiated from physical restraint or involuntary isolation/seclusion. 

2. Physical Environment Requirements for Time-Out Space

Any designated room or space used for time-out must meet explicit environmental standards: 

• Appropriate Dimensions: Must be of adequate size based on the age, physical size, and individual needs of the student. 

• Safety: Must be entirely free of objects, fixtures, or sharp edges that could pose an inherent danger to the student. 

• Facility Conditions: Must be properly lighted, ventilated, and heated/cooled in a manner consistent with the rest of the school building. 

• Code Compliance: Must comply with all applicable local fire and building code standards. 

3. Supervision and Operational Safeguards

• Continuous Observation: A staff member must continuously observe the student during the entire duration of a time-out. Staff must be physically present in the room or immediately available at all times. 

• Duration: Time-out must end as soon as the student has calmed down or regained self-control enough to re-engage in learning activities.

• Individual Student Needs: Time-outs should be implemented in accordance with any specific strategies outlined in a student's Individualized Education Program (IEP) or 504 plan where applicable.
  
  

4. Emergency Interventions, Data Review & Oversight

• Strict Rules on Isolation: Under narrow, emergency-only conditions where an intervention resembles seclusion, an adult must be physically present and actively monitoring the student as a measure of last resort. 

• Reporting & Parental Notification: Uses of emergency interventions or extended time-out practices require documentation, notification to parents/guardians, and reporting to DESE. 

• Data-Driven Oversight: Schools and districts are expected to conduct regular weekly and monthly reviews of time-out/behavioral intervention data to identify patterns, evaluate equity, and proactively work toward reducing reliance on time-out rooms or isolated environments.
  
  

Summary of Implementation Goals: DESE’s guidance directs school districts, charter schools, collaboratives, and special education programs to review their behavioral support policies, train staff on proper calming strategies, update facility uses, and transition toward preventive, positive behavioral practices that keep students safely learning alongside their peers.

DESE’s Reduce and Eliminate the Use of Seclusion: Guidance on the Implementation of Regulatory Amendments to 603 CMR 46.00 and 603 CMR 18.00 (August 2026): click here

School Committee Policy JKAA (Time Out, Seclusion, and Physical Restraint of Students): click here

*A second reading of the proposed changes to the School Committee’s official policy linked above needs to take place in a public meeting before a vote to approve. Therefore, families or community members with questions or concerns on this topic should reach out to the School Committee in the coming weeks.

At this time, we are aware that a virtual information session regarding the new guidance and behavior management practices is set for Lowell School families on the evening of September 1st. To ensure consistent understanding and transparency across the district, families across all elementary and secondary schools would benefit from corresponding outreach or Q&A sessions scheduled for their respective school communities ahead of the new school year.

LETTER: Former WEA President Weighs in on Special Education Survey

Click here to read the article on Watertown News.

Our commentary: In the fall of 2019, in response to three years of reported concerns, an internal survey conducted by the Watertown Educators Association (in conjunction with the Massachusetts Teachers Association) revealed alarming workplace conditions within the WPS Student Services department. The quantitative and qualitative data painted a disturbing picture.

Culture of Retaliation: Over 77% of surveyed educators reported that they could not respectfully disagree with administration without fear of retaliation (Q7).

Suppression of Services: Staff detailed routine pressure to cut budgets, reverse team decisions, reduce service time, and deny legally mandated IEP supports under the guise of cost-saving.

Systemic Hostility: Qualitative comments documented an environment defined by public humiliation, condescension toward staff and parents, and absent leadership.

Rather than launching an immediate, independent investigation into these compliance risks, internal emails from the public record request revealed district leadership labeled the assessment strictly "confidential" and operational. They continue to blame former union leadership for not making it public to present day.

The fact that the results remained hidden is not the issue; it’s that no action was taken by the Superintendent or School Committee to remedy the operational failures that continued to persist through 2026.

The School Committee is the ultimate governing body responsible for setting policy, approving the budget, and evaluating the Superintendent's management of the district. Ignoring explicit warnings of retaliatory culture and budgetary suppression of legally mandated special education services represents a failure of institutional oversight.

Dismissing widespread feedback as an "operational matter" allowed conditions to persist for nearly a decade until external family complaints forced the issue into the open, confirming the exact patterns staff documented seven years prior.

School Committee leadership claiming that the former WEA President should have made the survey public ignores standard labor dynamics. The union brought critical operational data directly to district leadership and the School Committee to prompt intervention; taking action on district management sits entirely with the School Committee and Superintendent, not the union.

A school committee facing data of this nature (combining significant quantitative disapproval with severe qualitative allegations) has a clear governance responsibility to investigate and intervene. While school committees generally delegate daily personnel oversight to superintendents, results indicating widespread fear, legal risk, and operational dysfunction necessitate direct school committee oversight, policy evaluation, and administrative accountability.

What could have been done in response — and still should be?

1. Initiate an Independent Workplace Audit for Staff and Trust Climate Audit for Families: Commission an objective, third-party review into the Special Education department's climate, management practices, and administrative leadership. Internal listening sessions only reach those not afraid to come forward with their concerns and experiences.

2.  Audit IEP & Service Delivery Compliance: Request a legal and instructional third party audit of IEP process integrity, ensuring service modifications are driven by student evaluation data rather than budgetary pressures.

3. Establish Anonymous Reporting Channels: Ensure clear, protected avenues for staff and families to voice concerns regarding retaliation or contractual/procedural violations without fear of professional or personal repercussions.

When systems prioritize institutional self-preservation over administrative accountability, our most vulnerable students pay the ultimate price.

Read the survey results and internal emails obtained through a public records request below.

Survey Results (open responses): click here

Survey Results (quantitative): click here 

Internal emails: click here 

Institutional Betrayal and Actual Trust Repair

When special education systems fail children or repeatedly breach parent trust, families experience what trauma researchers call institutional betrayal.

The systemic breakdowns (unimplemented services or accommodations, procedural non-compliance, defensive or limited communication, discrediting outside evaluations or parent participation, forced adversarial legal battles…) mirror individual trauma dynamics. 

Applying psychiatric and researcher Judith Herman’s theory on the three stages of trauma recovery provides a framework for understanding how a crisis of trust develops between families and a school district, and what is required to mend it.

Stage 1: Establishing Safety and Stabilization

In clinical recovery, healing cannot begin while an individual remains in an unpredictable or hostile environment. In special education, families cannot engage constructively with a district if they feel their child or family is physically, emotionally, or academically unsafe.

Distrust spikes when families experience hypervigilance. For a special education family, “safety” isn’t just physical safety. It can also look like the following questions:

• Can I raise concerns without being characterized as difficult?

• Will the district listen when I disagree?

• Will my child’s needs be taken seriously?

• Will my procedural rights be respected?

• Can I trust what I’m told in a Team meeting?

• Will disagreements result in retaliation, exclusion, or damaged relationships?

• Will the district actually follow through?

When those expectations have repeatedly been violated, parents become hypervigilant. They may begin documenting everything, saving every email, bringing advocates to meetings, recording timelines, questioning seemingly innocuous statements, and assuming that they need to protect themselves.

From the district’s perspective, that behavior can look adversarial. From the family’s perspective, it can be a rational response to having learned that they cannot rely on the system without independently verifying it. That distinction is enormously important.

To restore trust, the district must shift from risk management to stabilizing the environment. This means:

• Prioritizing absolute transparency over institutional self-protection.

• Guaranteeing that basic IEP accommodations and safety plans are consistently executed without requiring relentless parental vigilance.

• Creating ground rules for collaborative, non-adversarial communication.

In the stabilization stage, the fundamental question is: Is this environment safe enough for me to let my guard down? If administrative practices stay the same, parents will will have their guards up, and the district will be stuck in a perpetual loop of crisis management. 

Stage 2: Remembrance, Acknowledgment, and Mourning

In individual trauma, Stage 2 requires naming what happened and processing the grief of what was lost. Systemically, districts in crisis often try to bypass this stage by urging families to "move forward.” 

When a school district encourages families to “start fresh” or “put the past behind them” without first acknowledging the experiences that produced the loss of trust, families may reasonably experience that as avoidance rather than repair. Trust cannot be restored simply by declaring that the relationship has entered a new chapter. It requires recognition of what happened, accountability for failures where appropriate, and credible evidence that the conditions that produced the harm are being addressed.

This is precisely where many families currently engaged in special education advocacy believe the majority of leadership is struggling to understand. There is a perception among families that the administration, along with a subset of the School Committee, is attempting to move the community toward reconciliation or a “fresh start” without adequately addressing the underlying experiences that created the current crisis of trust in the first place. 

The issue, therefore, is not whether families are willing to move forward. Many are. The issue is whether the district is willing to do the work that makes moving forward possible.

True reconciliation requires the institution to participate in Stage 2 processing. While a public hearing will allow families to share their experiences, district leadership must do more than listen. 

They must then explicitly acknowledge past systemic failures rather than minimizing or rationalizing them and work to repair them. 

Some examples of tangible repair to address past losses could include utilizing a third party to conduct a trust audit, proactively granting compensatory services, updating evaluations, revisiting external evaluations, and revising staffing structures and programming to appropriately meet student needs. 

Stage 3: Integration, Reconnection, and Meaning-Making

Stage 3 is about rebuilding identity and relationships on a foundation of shared authority and future purpose. For a school district and its community, this stage moves the relationship from continuous conflict to genuine partnership.

Distrust persists when changes are merely cosmetic or transactional. Long-term trust relies on embedding systemic accountability. Rebuilding parent advisory councils or working groups where parents have a genuine, structural voice in policy and oversight rather than a purely advisory title. 

An open election of all SEPAC officer positions will help demonstrate good faith toward this goal. Only opening an election for vacant seats gives the perception of administrative gatekeeping that even AthenaK12 identified as a legitimate concern for the district. The district and SEPAC cannot expect families to blindly trust moving forward when using the prior administration’s same playbook and remaining indifferent to noncompliance.

As one School Committee member advocated for this summer, there also needs to be a culture shift to trauma-informed systems. Training administrators, special educators, and general education staff to view family advocacy through a trauma-informed lens is essential to repair. District leaders need to recognize that parent pushback is often a natural reaction to systemic breakdown rather than unreasonable hostility.

Additionally, predictable accountability systems must be established. Reliable mechanisms for tracking compliance and resolving grievances early will help ensure parents never have to revert to Stage 1 hypervigilance to safeguard their child. Eventually, the goal should be for families not to have to remain in perpetual defensive mode. 

The objective isn’t necessarily for all parents to become enthusiastic supporters of the district or for everyone to agree at all times. A much more realistic definition of repaired trust is: “We can disagree about my child’s education without either side believing the other is acting in bad faith.” 

In special education practice, this may look like: 

Safety

→ “You can disagree with us without being punished or marginalized.”

Transparency

→ “You will know what we’re considering and why.”

Voice

→ “Your observations and outside evaluations will genuinely be considered.”

Predictability

→ “What we say we will do is what we actually do.”

Accountability

→ “When we make a mistake, we’ll acknowledge and correct it.”

Repair

→ “We aren’t asking you to forget what happened and will work together to process the harm with you.”

Reconnection

→ “We can now work together even when we disagree.”

These are not unreasonable aspirations; they are the baseline for any functional, trauma-informed system. And they are much more substantive than simply asking families to “move forward.”

Moving on is an administrative convenience; moving forward is a shared, restorative process. Many families are ready to work toward the heavy lifting of Stage 3 reconnection. We now need a district willing to step out of risk management, earn back our trust, and build a safe, honest partnership with an unyielding commitment to our children.

Recent Public Forums and Responses to District Leadership

Below are responses to a few statements made by the Chair and Superintendent at recent School Committee meetings (as reported by Watertown News) and transcripts of three speeches from the last two public forums.

1. The Chair addressed WEA’s 2019 survey and cited that any questions about why the results were not shared publicly should be addressed to the former union president. This is a masterclass in evading accountability. The main concern around the 2019 survey is not that the results remained hidden from the public. It’s that any response, including listening sessions, did not correct the operational failures that were identified. Direct experiences from families confirm the same administrative tactics identified by staff in 2019 have continued being used through 2026. The results are posted here: www.watertownalliance.com/links (obtained through a public record request).

2. On July 27, the the Chair chose to address a threat that was posted on social media, specifically citing it was posted on our page. The Chair declared it was a threat, not a “possible” or “perceived” threat. This characterization was accompanied by urging families to address their concerns through private channels, rather than engaging on social media. Please see the first speech below for more about why this is concerning for current special education advocacy efforts. 

3. The Superintendent cited that only a handful of parents show up to SEPAC meetings, possibly implying that low participation is why a proper election of SEPAC officers hasn’t been held in years. In the three SEPAC meeting opportunities during the 2025-2026 school year, there were between 12 to 20 attendees at each one. This is more than many Watertown Parent Teacher Organizations see in terms of regular involvement. A former Cunniff School PTO President for 3 terms shared that a small group of volunteers helped raise over $20k per school year to pay field trip expenses in full for every student in the school, reimburse teachers for classroom expenses, and hosted multiple events. A functional SEPAC is mandated by state statute, and the district is required to hold a basic rights training in conjunction with SEPAC each school year. No such training occurred during the 2025-2026 school year. The level of parent participation should not be blamed for district noncompliance. It’s time for district leadership, elected and appointed, to take true accountability starting with ensuring the basic rights of students and families are never compromised. 

8/17/26

My name is Ryan Nicholson. I’m speaking as a Watertown parent and resident. 

I want to address the Chair’s recent comment regarding a reported social-media threat—not to minimize any legitimate concern, but to ask the Committee to consider how these incidents are characterized and what criteria elevate them to an official public forum.

At the July 27 meeting, Chair Foley stated:

“About ten days ago, I got a phone call from the Watertown police. They were checking in because someone had posted a threat to me on the Watertown Special Education Alliance Facebook page.”

She did not specify it was a reported, possible, or perceived threat, nor that the comment was not made or endorsed by the advocacy page. She also failed to specify that the comment did not cite her (or anyone) by name. 

The Watertown Police Department was later contacted for more information regarding their investigation of this matter. On August 3, a detective confirmed that a police report had not yet been completed.

I want to be clear that this admission does not establish that there was no police contact, no investigation, or no possible concern. But it raises the question of using a public forum without clearly distinguishing between a questionable comment and an official determination that a particular comment constitutes a credible threat. 

A simple online search for the comment in question defines the statement made as “a harsh political ultimatum.” And political speech, as the Watertown Strong Schools Facebook page demonstrated a decade ago, is clearly protected speech. 

A School Committee member later stated on the same social media page that verbal and psychical threats have been made by different sources to other School Committee members and district staff that have involved the police, and generally these situations are not formally discussed by the Committee.

While it’s possible for anyone in the public to request the exact number of times this has happened, I am only asking for consistent governance.

Publicly linking an advocacy page to police involvement can have consequences beyond the individual incident. Parents who participate in that forum may wonder if their legitimate advocacy is being associated with threatening conduct.

The Chair’s official statement went on to encourage using emails, phone calls, and private meetings with her instead of engaging on social media.

I ask the Committee to recognize the potential chilling effect when an advocacy forum is publicly connected with law enforcement, while families are simultaneously being urged by the Chair of a public body to move their concerns to private channels.

Advocacy is not hostility. 

Criticism is not a threat. 

And disagreement with public leadership should not be conflated with either.

I respectfully ask the Committee to establish a consistent approach to publicly discussing potential threats that distinguishes carefully between verified facts and interpretations, and to preserve all public avenues for families to raise systemic concerns without being pushed to address them behind closed doors.

Good evening. I’m Jen Nicholson, Watertown resident and parent.

I previously sent an email regarding this matter, but I’m here tonight to formally place a request on the record for a School Committee agenda item addressing governance and bylaw compliance within the Watertown Special Education Parent Advisory Council, or SEPAC.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 71B, Section 3 requires the School Committee to establish a parent advisory council on special education and provides that the council shall establish bylaws governing its officers and operational procedures.

Watertown SEPAC’s own adopted bylaws are equally clear.

Article V provides that SEPAC officers are elected by the voting membership and hold office for one year. Article VII states that elections shall be the first order of business at the May meeting. And Article VIII specifically states that SEPAC “shall hold an Annual Meeting of the voting members each year for the purpose of electing officers.”

These provisions do not contemplate officers serving indefinitely without an election.

The community deserves public clarity as to why the required annual officer elections have been omitted for three consecutive years and under what authority the officers continue to serve.

I therefore respectfully request two specific actions:

First, that SEPAC leadership reconsider its current plans to hold an election only for vacant officer seats and conduct a full, open election for all officer positions this fall for the first time since January 2024. 

Second, that the School Committee place SEPAC’s election practices and bylaw compliance on an official meeting agenda in September.

SEPAC is intended to provide parents of children with special needs a meaningful voice in the district’s special education process. Its governance should therefore be transparent, accountable, and consistent with the rules established for the organization.

Thank you.

“The school committee of any city, town, or school district shall establish a parent advisory council on special education. Membership shall be offered to all parents of children with disabilities and other interested parties.” And the statute continues, “The parent advisory council shall establish by-laws regarding officers and operational procedures.”

7/27/26

The district frequently boasts about SEPAC’s involvement. Leadership points to SEPAC representation as proof that families have a voice in making major decisions. This includes granting SEPAC automatic seats on the strategy development team and the hiring committee for the new interim director.

But there is growing community concern about whether Watertown maintains a legally compliant and representative SEPAC. 

Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 71B, the School Committee is legally responsible for establishing and overseeing a legitimate SEPAC.

State law requires the district to host an annual Basic Rights Training in conjunction with SEPAC. During the entire 2025–2026 school year, no such training was held.

SEPAC’s own bylaws mandate two annual presentations to the School Committee. That hasn’t happened since early 2023 from what I was able to find. 

An annual election is required to be held every May. Yet there was no election in May 2024, May 2025, or May 2026.

So who exactly is SEPAC representing when its officer terms are long expired? Who are they representing when families copy them on emails detailing severe compliance failures and receive zero response?

Yet, when the district hired Athena to evaluate student services, the SEPAC chairs were the only parents interviewed. They speak on behalf of all families without interfacing with a majority of those families. 

The district cannot continue to use an un-elected SEPAC as a rubber stamp to claim parent buy-in. Because you cannot fix a broken special education system by partnering with a phantom board while ignoring the actual experiences of hundreds of families. 

Tonight, I am issuing a formal Call for an Election.

The district must fulfill its statutory oversight duty under state law: publish a formal notice to ALL special education families across Watertown, hold an open meeting under Open Meeting Law as mandated by Article VIII, and conduct democratic elections for all executive board positions.

It is time to enforce compliance, restore legitimacy, and give Watertown families their voice back.

Thank you.

Thank you to the Watertown Human Rights Commission for their support of the School Committee holding a public hearing for special education in the interest of repair and accountability. This letter was sent to the full School Committee on August 11, 2026 prior to this evening’s vote.

Families are encouraged to share their experiences with the WHRC. While anonymous submissions are accepted, filling out the complaint form with your contact information gives you the opportunity to schedule time for an initial meeting with a Commissioner and the City’s Director of Human Services (who serves as the HRC liaison). They are phenomenal resources, and the act of meeting to openly discuss issues and concerns can begin to provide a level of validation and healing that many families are seeking. The more that the Commission hears from families, the more they can do in terms of outreach, dialogue, and education to support the rights of our children as students in Watertown Public Schools.

Community Needs Assessment: link

HRC Complaint Process and Form: https://www.watertown-ma.gov/complaints

Superintendent Evaluation Results

The Watertown School Committee has released the Superintendent’s 2025–2026 evaluation results.

What’s included in the link below:

• A reformatted version of all evaluator comments, with no changes to the content — only formatting adjustments to make the comments easier to read alongside each evaluator’s rating.

• Links to the original spreadsheet containing all evaluator comments and the School Committee’s final report, including graphs of the evaluation results, are hyperlinked in the document.

Click here to review the evaluation results (or see the embedded version of the document below).

We encourage families, educators, staff, and community members to take the time to read through the results and draw their own conclusions.

Become a member of our private Facebook group to discuss this post: https://www.facebook.com/share/g/189StgYxc8/

The History of Fear of Retaliation in Watertown Public Schools

Back on May 15, 2023, the Watertown Special Education Parent Advisory Council (SEPAC) sent a formal letter to the School Committee and district leadership regarding Special Education services.

In that letter, SEPAC noted:

"Given the volume of feedback we have received during the 2022–2023 school year, the variety of sources of said feedback, and the sensitive nature of the issues — we encourage the School Committee to utilize a third-party service to collect anonymous but verified feedback from Cunniff stakeholders including caregivers, teachers, support staff, and when appropriate students. The majority of parents and staff who have reached out to us have expressed a fear of retaliation if they publicly speak of their concerns."

TIMELINE:

2019: Fear of retaliation shared multiple times in qualitative feedback from WEA/MTA Unit A Student Services survey 

2025: Despite SEPAC’s recommendation, the AthenaK12 independent review of Student Services did NOT collect feedback from families (with the exception of two SEPAC Officers). The report did reveal communication and leadership disconnects, perceptions of administrative gatekeeping, staff coverage issues, inconsistent implementation of support and data collection practices — almost all of which were addressed by staff and families in Curriculum Subcommittee meetings in the summer and fall of 2023.

2026: The district’s Caregiver Survey was NOT collected or reviewed by an independent third party, and raw data was NOT shared with the public. Additionally, WEA reported its latest WEA Special Education Task Force to the Curriculum Subcommittee, citing during the presentation that members sought confirmation about their feedback being shared anonymously due to fear of retaliation. 

MOVING AHEAD:

If the School Committee moves forward to hold a public hearing for Special Education (the vote is scheduled for the meeting being held on August 17), what measures will be taken to ensure families feel safe and have alternate ways to share their feedback if they fear retaliation for speaking?

LINK TO THE FULL 2023 LETTER

More links referenced in this post are available here: www.watertownalliance.com/links 

Understanding the Superintendent's Evaluation Process

Ever wonder how your local school committee evaluates the district superintendent? 

In Massachusetts, the process is continuous, public, and governed by state regulations set by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE): https://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/model/evaluating-superintendents.pdf

Step 1 of the process assesses the progress made by the Superintendent toward her individually set goals (each goal scored as did not meet, some progress, significant progress, met or exceeded). 

Step 2 uses four professional standards for administrators addressing Instructional Leadership, Management and Operations, Family and Community Engagement, and Professional Culture and given a score of unsatisfactory, needs improvement, proficient or exemplary.  

EXAMPLES OF KEY INDICATORS FROM EACH OF THE FOUR PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS:

• Standard I-E Data-Informed Decision Making: Uses multiple sources of evidence to inform school and district goals and improve organizational performance

• Standard II-D Law, Ethics, and Policies: Understands and complies with state and federal laws and mandates, school committee policies, collective bargaining agreements, and ethical guidelines

• Standard III-D Family Concerns: Addresses family and community concerns in an equitable, effective, and efficient manner

• Standard IV-F Manages Conflict: Employs strategies for responding to disagreement and dissent, constructively resolving conflict and building consensus throughout a district or school community

Step 3 takes into account the first two steps and provides a final rating for overall summative performance (also scored as unsatisfactory, needs improvement, proficient or exemplary).

The 2025-2026 Superintendent's evaluation results will be reviewed at the upcoming School Committee meeting this Monday, August 17.

Google Drive link to 2019-2020 Superintendent’s Evaluation results: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IW3QQR0jnIBLbw0FhGDQ-iJm4FfvnZQP/view?usp=sharing

Watertown families, has this happened to you?

If you have filed a complaint with the state’s Problem Resolution System regarding noncompliance concerns, did WPS respond by escalating the same matter to the Bureau of Special Education Appeals?

If so, you are not alone.

PRS provides an independent, free compliance investigation through the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), completed within 60 days.

BSEA is a court process that supersedes PRS. While legal representation isn't required for families, the district utilizes specialized legal counsel.

When a matter is escalated to the BSEA, it can force families into a significantly lengthier, highly costly, and stressful litigation process, often leaving caregivers with no realistic choice but to withdraw their initial compliance complaint to avoid legal battles.

We are gathering input from impacted local families to seek an independent investigation on the use of this procedural tactic and demand district accountability.

Send us a direct message to learn how families are coming together to share your experience or find out how to get involved.

New Leadership & Important Questions for Watertown Special Education

Watertown Public Schools recently announced Kristen Beaupre as the Interim Director of Student Services. Ms. Beaupre previously served as a Team Chair and Out-of-District Coordinator for Brookline Public Schools from 2014 to 2025.

During that window of time, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) conducted investigations and entered into resolution agreements regarding disability-based retaliation and parent engagement within Brookline Public Schools and its SEPAC. 

In one case, it was found that parents in active dispute with Brookline were intentionally prevented from serving on the SEPAC board. Another investigation centered on Brookline Public Schools and its SEPAC actively discouraging families from participating in an independent (non-district) special education advocacy group within the community.

As Watertown welcomes new leadership, families and community members may have similar questions regarding family engagement and civil rights protections as we do, including:

• Corrective Actions: Was Ms. Beaupre involved in developing or implementing any OCR-required corrective actions or trust repair measures during her tenure in Brookline?

• Family Protections: How will she ensure Watertown families who raise concerns or file formal grievances are fully protected from retaliation and feel safe advocating for their children?

• SEPAC Involvement: What are the specific plans to foster an active, fully representative, and compliant SEPAC in Watertown?
  
  

Summary of Relevant OCR Findings & Resolution Agreements (Brookline Public Schools):

1. SEPAC Bylaw Exclusion & Retaliation Finding

• Background: The OCR investigated allegations that Brookline’s SEPAC amended its bylaws to prevent parents in active disputes with the district from serving as SEPAC Chair or other elected positions.

• Finding: OCR determined that barring these parents from leadership roles constituted illegal disability-based retaliation under Section 504 and Title II of the ADA.

• Resolution: The district/SEPAC revised its bylaws to remove retaliatory exclusion provisions and ensure equal access for all parents.
  
  

Document (OCR Letter & Agreement):

https://ocrcas.ed.gov/.../ocr-letters-and.../01211573-a.pdf

2. Voluntary Resolution Regarding Independent Special Education Advocacy Groups

• Background: A complaint alleged that district and SEPAC practices discouraged local families from participating in an independent, non-district special education advocacy group.

• Resolution: The district voluntarily entered into a Resolution Agreement requiring:

1. Official communication to all families defining retaliation under Section 504 and outlining clear complaint procedures.

2. Direct communication clarifying that while SEPAC is the officially recognized advisory group under M.G.L. c. 71B, the district does not oppose or discourage the formation of independent parent advocacy groups.

Document (OCR Resolution Agreement):

https://ocrcas.ed.gov/.../ocr-letters-and.../01201281-b.pdf

For additional OCR complaints, findings, and resolution agreements involving Brookline Public Schools between 2020–2022, see the U.S. Department of Education OCR Search Portal:

https://ocrcas.ed.gov/ocr-search?sort_order=ASC...

We look forward to open dialogue and working together to ensure the civil rights of all students and families in Watertown are protected.

September 2019 Survey Results Reveal Years of Institutional Harm

At last night’s School Committee meeting, documents obtained through an official public records request were submitted into the record: the original email sent in September 2019 by the former WEA President to district leadership—including the current Superintendent and current School Committee Chair—along with the results of a survey conducted in conjunction with the Massachusetts Teachers Association, which contained nearly 30 pages of direct, qualitative feedback from Watertown special educators. Public records show the results were forwarded to every member of the 2019 School Committee.

They prove the issues families face today are not isolated or new. Seven years ago, Watertown special educators warned leadership about the crisis that was ensuing. The carousel of images in this post are direct quotes from the survey results.

Fast forward to today: families are experiencing this exact same treatment.

Accelerating a resignation is not accountability. It does not instantly erase a decade of institutional harm. Accountability requires acknowledging what happened and accepting responsibility for the decisions that allowed it to continue.

The burden is no longer on parents to prove this harm exists—it’s on leadership to prove if they have the courage to repair it.

Review the publicly available survey results and the internal messages related to the survey using the Google Drive links below:

Survey Open Responses: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TIyUPjLLmoM5ACFEgIn4wdaFxEEiv3y8/view?usp=drivesdk

Survey Graphs:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nNqIIOYHxHwxVRAtqK2mYOsdg15mxsOf/view?usp=drivesdk

Original Emails: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hk26nL_nSxCEaKUlAnhkgz5_0Y1Pprxb/viewusp=drivesdk

Governance by Silence: How Procedural Manipulation Shielded the Watertown School Committee from Public Accountability

When over 300 Watertown residents signed a petition demanding accountability in our special education system, they expected their elected officials to engage in a transparent, public deliberation. Instead, we received a masterclass in institutional evasion.

What unfolded across the June 22 and July 15 School Committee meetings wasn't just a technical disagreement over parliamentary procedure. It was a textbook demonstration of systemic board dysfunction—the majority of a deliberative body actively utilizing procedural ambiguity to evade discussion, shield the administration from scrutiny, and completely erase the documented concerns of the community.

To understand how five non-votes were converted into a political shield, we must examine the full picture: from the parliamentary math invented on June 22, to the transcript of the July 15 special meeting, to the explicit mandates of the School Committee’s Policy Manual and Watertown’s City Charter.

Shielding the System: Erasing 300+ Signatures From the Record

One primary, non-negotiable duty of an elected School Committee is to serve as a public forum for community concerns. When more than 300 residents step forward detailing structural breakdowns in student services, a functioning board would deliberate the concerns out in the open.

Instead, the community received no public discussion because the board chose to divert the issue entirely to an executive session—an executive session that was subsequently canceled.

Because the executive session was canceled and the motion for a public forum was blocked, the petition was buried as if it never actually happened.

In fact, the only official communication WPS families received regarding the entire situation was an email from Superintendent Dede Galdston:

"Dear WPS families with students who have IEPs or 504s,

I am writing to share an update regarding Dr. Kathleen Desmarais, our Director of Student Services. Dr. Desmarais will be moving up the timeline for her departure from the district. I have asked her to remain through the summer before the start of school to ensure continuity of services, and she has agreed. Shortly, I will be posting for an interim director, with the goal of having that person in place for the start of school.

Hiring an interim director will provide steady leadership while we conduct a full search for a permanent successor, a process that will begin later in the fall.

For the past ten years, Kathy has dedicated herself to Watertown's students, bringing expertise and commitment to her work every day. We thank her for her years of service, and I will keep families and staff updated as the search process moves forward.

Warm regards,
Dr. Dede Galdston,
Superintendent of Schools"

This correspondence does nothing to address, or even acknowledge, community concerns. Announcing a timeline move-up for a departure while thanking an administrator for decade-long service completely sidesteps the systemic concerns brought forward by hundreds of community members.

Holding zero formal discussion—public or private—to address documented community concerns while relying on polite administrative update emails is an alarming way to govern. By deploying procedural maneuvers to kill the petition's motion before it could even reach the floor, the board didn't just bypass a vote; they actively shielded the school system from public oversight. Bypassing public debate sends a clear, damaging message to families: your lived experiences are not worth an open conversation, and the status quo will be protected at all costs.

The Parliamentary Mechanics of 2–0–5

During the June 22 meeting, a motion was brought forward to move the petition forward for a public discussion and action. The roll call yielded:

2 YES votes
0 NO votes
5 ABSTENTIONS (members responding "present," which by parliamentary definition is NOT a vote)

Chair Kendra Foley declared that the motion failed.

This ruling directly violates standard parliamentary procedure and established state law:

• Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR): Members who abstain voluntarily choose not to vote. Abstentions are non-votes that drop out of the denominator entirely. The outcome is decided solely by votes actually cast ("YES" versus "NO").

• Massachusetts Common Law (Clark v. City Council of Waltham, 1951): As affirmed by the MA Supreme Judicial Court, when a quorum is present, a majority of votes actually cast determines the outcome. Abstentions do not function as negative votes. In Clark, an 11-member council voted 4 YES, 1 NO, and 5 ABSTAIN. The SJC ruled that because 4 was a majority of the 5 votes cast (even though it was not a majority of the 10 members present), the motion legally passed.

The Math: Under common law and Robert’s Rules, 2–0 is a unanimous vote. With 2 affirmative votes out of 2 votes cast, the motion legally passed 2–0 with 100% support among the members present AND voting.

Dissecting the Chair’s Rationale & The Supermajority Fallacy

During the July 15 Special Meeting called to address an Open Meeting Law (OML) complaint, Chair Foley laid out her defense for ruling that the motion failed:

Chair Kendra Foley: "The vote, as I called it at the June 22nd meeting, was in line with our school committee policy. Policy BEDF reads, 'All actions will require a majority vote of all members present and voting.' There were 7 members present and voting on June 22nd. 2 members voted in favor, 5 members voted present. 2 is not a majority of the present and voting members, therefore the motion failed."

Inventing a "Zoning" Standard: By requiring 4 affirmative votes out of 7 regardless of abstentions, the Chair treated a standard committee motion as if it were governed by a specialized supermajority or full-committee statutory threshold—such as Zoning Boards of Appeal under M.G.L. c. 40A § 9, where state law explicitly requires a fixed numerical majority of the entire body. General School Committee motions carry no such statutory requirement.

The wording of BEDF points toward counting only those who actually voted yes or no, which is the crux of the issue at hand. The point was made that the chair’s ruling stands unless challenged by the body.  This solely addresses procedural authority, not necessarily whether the underlying interpretation of BEDF is correct.

Why Claiming the Policy is "Unclear" Misses the Mark

Several members attempted to soften the breakdown by suggesting Policy BEDF is simply "unclear" or vague. But claiming the policy is unclear implies that the Watertown City Charter itself is unclear—when both are explicitly defined using standard parliamentary language:

The Watertown City Charter (Section 1-7-n): Explicitly defines "Majority Vote" across all municipal bodies: "Majority Vote - The words 'majority vote' shall mean a majority of those present and voting, unless another provision is made by ordinance, by law, or by its own rules."

School Committee Policy BEDF mirrors the Charter verbatim: "All actions will require a majority vote of all members present and voting except as state law, Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, or policies of this Committee require a larger majority."

(Note: While specific School Committee policies may require a higher threshold, such as a 2/3 majority to overrule the Chair, the default is a standard majority vote.)

Policy BEDF was never vague. Claiming it is "unclear" is a convenient retroactive defense. The Chair simply applied a rigid "full-committee" standard that neither Policy BEDF nor the City Charter contains.

The "Intent" Fallacy: Mind-Reading as a Political Shield

Chair Foley offered an even more dangerous justification for redefining standard voting rules, claiming that the Chair can interpret what members "intended" to do:

Chair Kendra Foley: "I'm happy to address whether the five members who voted present should have used a different term to show their non-support for the motion according to Robert's Rules. But it was clear from comments made prior to the vote that the members who voted present did so with the intent of not supporting the motion. And that intent matters."

Is "Intent" Ever Considered in Parliamentary Law?

No. In formal parliamentary procedure, an elected official's intent is expressed exclusively through the vote they cast on the record. If an official intended to vote NO, they could have—and should have—actually voted NO. Stating present, or abstaining, is choosing not to vote (meaning those five were present BUT NOT voting — not present AND voting as the policy states).

Claiming "intent matters" serves a purely political function: it shields board members from public accountability. It allowed five members to avoid taking an official public stand against a petition signed by 300+ constituents, while relying on the Chair to convert their non-votes into negative votes to kill the measure.

Member Lisa Capoccia dismantled this illusion during the July 15 meeting:

Lisa Capoccia: "My read of present and voting in the policy is that it means people are voting... when a roll call vote is being taken, my understanding, based on Robert's Rules, is that that means they are abstaining from voting. They're actually not voting. Like, there's no such thing as a present vote. If you say present, you're not voting... And I think that... if the intent was a no vote, then members should clarify that for the community."

Capoccia then highlighted the gravity of what the board was casually sweeping aside, delivering the defining quote of the night: "This is not a decision about a $200 grant that we're getting, a donation from a family. This is a pretty big topic that was brought to us by many community members repeatedly that relates to student well-being. And so I think for me it merits additional discussion and conversation."

More False Shields: "Beating a Dead Horse" & The Resignation Illusion

Rather than confronting the breakdown in transparency, committee leadership attempted to shut down debate entirely by claiming the issue was already resolved.

Member Mark Sideris disagreed with Capoccia on the record by stating: "I'm going to respectfully disagree here a little bit, because I do think that we're beating a dead horse. What the community is looking for is already begun. We've already begun the process of the student services director resigned... I'm very uncomfortable continuing this conversation, knowing that we have some potential outcomes, and the outcome of what was requested is basically been done."

Sideris further claimed that members abstained on June 22 because they were waiting for an Executive Session: "I clearly stated, as others did, that we were going to have a discussion later that week in executive session, and we wanted to see what the outcome of that discussion was... We wanted to know what was going to happen in executive session."

The REALITY Behind the Rhetoric:

• The Executive Session Was Cancelled: Members claimed on June 22 that it was vital for them to wait for an Executive Session scheduled for June 25 to address community concerns raised in the petition. That session was cancelled entirely. Because it was cancelled and the public motion was blocked, no discussion—public or private—was ever conducted by the School Committee.

• The Resignation Illusion: While district leadership announced that the Director of Student Services would step down, the Superintendent requested that the Director stay on through the end of the summer.

• Systemic Issues Remain Unaddressed: Telling the public that criticizing board procedure is "beating a dead horse" because a staff member is resigning at the end of the stunner ignores the entire premise of the petition. The petition brought forward systemic compliance and structural concerns. Retaining personnel through the summer while refusing to hold a single public board discussion to address the underlying framework is crisis management, not governance.

The True Stature of Dysfunction: Governance by Silence

When an elected body functions correctly, disagreement is met with debate, complex issues are met with public inquiry, and votes are cast with explicit clarity. Part of the job is sometimes needing to have discussions, even if they may officials feel uncomfortable.

What Watertown witnessed instead was an alarming breakdown of institutional integrity:

• Selective Parliamentary Logic: By converting 5 abstentions into 5 "NO" votes, the Chair set a precedent where non-participation carries the exact same weight as a negative vote—allowing officials to defeat public measures silently.

• Paralysis as Strategy: When 71% of a board abstains simultaneously, it indicates severe institutional paralysis. The majority used silence as a deliberate political buffer to dodge accountability.

• Systemic Shielding: By hiding behind cancelled executive sessions, uncast votes, generic staff transition emails, and claims of "unclear" policies, the committee successfully insulated itself and the administration from having to answer a single concern posed by over 300 residents.

Democracy requires leadership that shows up, engages in open dialogue, and stands publicly behind its votes. If members intended to vote NO, they should have actually voted NO.

The community would have no leg to stand on if the motion had legitimately failed 2–5 on the floor. Instead, a failed vote was manufactured to prevent any Committee member from having to outright vote against a motion to publicly acknowledge the documented experiences of students with disabilities and their families over the last decade.

Committee leadership wants to point to a single personnel departure and claim they have basically addressed the concerns in the petition, but an administrative shuffle negotiated behind closed doors is not accountability. The petition was never just about a single employee; it was a demand for institutional reckoning and systemic repair.

Quietly removing a director while asking them to stay through the summer does not fix a broken compliance framework. It does not change the culture of special education in the district. Most importantly, it does not validate the years of struggle, legal battles, and trauma endured by these families.

Truly addressing the spirit of the petition requires elected officials to look their constituents in the eye, debate the systemic failures on the open record, and take ownership of the solutions. By manufacturing a procedural failure to avoid a public vote, the School Committee didn't just silence a motion—they silenced families. True governance requires accountability, not avoidance. Watertown’s most vulnerable students, and the community that rallied behind them, deserve more than the parliamentary cowardice they were shown.

Review the full July 15, 2026 School Committee Meeting Transcript by clicking here.

The Case for 2 Year School Committee Terms in Watertown

Watertown’s City Council operates on 2 year terms, ensuring tight alignment between municipal policy and voter intent. However, the Watertown School Committee operates on 4 year terms, creating a structural disconnect where the board managing nearly half of the city’s annual budget operates on twice the election cycle of the legislative body that funds it.

Transitioning the School Committee to concurrent 2 year terms would modernize local governance, removes barriers for more candidates to run for public service, align Watertown with the state standard, and ensure public education remains directly accountable to the voters.

1. Four Years is Nearly a Quarter of a Child’s Public Education:

In K–12 education, a student can transition through most of elementary school or their entire middle or high school career in the time it takes a single School Committee member to complete one elected term.

When families navigate pressing district challenges, such as special education service delivery, curriculum overhauls, or equity initiatives, we believe they should not have to wait nearly half a decade to express their view at the ballot box. A 2 year cycle establishes a regular feedback loop between elected policy-makers and the residents directly impacted by their decisions.

2. Parity with the City Council & Fiscal Realities:

The City Council and School Committee are co-stewards of Watertown’s public resources:

• Under the current system, City Councilors face voters every 24 months to defend their fiscal and oversight choices, while individual School Committee members only face voters every 48 months.

• Aligning both elected bodies to concurrent 2 year municipal cycles creates a unified ballot, unifies long-term fiscal planning, and invites voters to evaluate municipal and educational priorities as a cohesive vision every two years.

3. Opening the Door for a Larger Candidate Pool:

A 4 year commitment can be considered a significant structural barrier to public service. This lengthier term may discourage parents and community members with caregiving responsibilities and/or full-time employment from stepping forward to serve.

Alternatively, 2 year terms would lower the threshold for entry and encourage broader candidate participation, foster healthier electoral competition, and ensure the committee reflects the modern, dynamic demographics of Watertown's public school families.

4. Aligning with the Commonwealth Standard:

Watertown’s 4 year term length is an outlier among many Massachusetts comparable cities. State law allows municipalities to establish School Committee term lengths through their charters. Many have chosen two year terms, while Watertown continues to use four year terms. As Watertown prepares for Charter Review, the community may wish to consider whether shorter terms would improve accountability and voter engagement.

Peer communities (including Newton, Somerville, Cambridge and Waltham) demonstrate every day that two year terms do not compromise long-term strategic plans or superintendent stability; rather, they ensure professional administrators execute multi-year plans with the backing of an agile and responsive board of elected officials.

Let’s address some potential concerns up front:

"Won’t shorter terms lead to board instability or constant political turnover?"

In practice across Massachusetts cities, incumbent school committee members who engage effectively with their communities routinely win reelection. Two-year terms do not force turnover; they simply guarantee that continuity is earned directly from voters on a regular schedule.

“But strategic educational planning takes years to roll out."

Multi-year strategic visions, building renovations, and district goal-setting are institutional processes led by superintendents and district administrators. Just as the City Council manages decades long infrastructure plans under 2 year election cycles, a School Committee can also maintain long-range educational vision while remaining accountable every two years.

“Doesn’t a four year term allow School Committee members more time to learn the role?”

Experience and institutional knowledge are important, but accountability is equally important. A two year term does not eliminate experienced leadership; it simply requires elected officials to periodically earn voter confidence. Members who are effective and trusted can continue serving through reelection.

“Won’t this create more unnecessary campaign activity in the community?”

Elections are a core part of democratic accountability. A longer term does not eliminate disagreement or politics; it only reduces the frequency with which voters can provide feedback. A two year cycle ensures that School Committee members remain connected to the concerns and priorities of the community they represent.

“Why change something that has worked for decades?”

Charter review exists precisely because communities should periodically evaluate whether their governing structures still reflect current needs. As Watertown’s population, school system, and community expectations have evolved, it is reasonable to examine whether the existing four year term structure provides the right balance between continuity and accountability.

Possible Charter Amendment language to achieve increased voter accountability and municipal alignment, Article 4, Section 4-1(b)of the Watertown Home Rule Charter could be amended to read: “Terms of Office — At each regular municipal election, school committee members shall be elected at large and shall serve for a two (2) year term. The terms of school committee members shall begin on the first business day of January following their election, and shall continue until their successors are qualified.

In closing, we believe the question is not whether School Committee members need more time to govern effectively, but whether voters should have more meaningful and regular opportunities to evaluate elected leadership. This is especially vital given the overall discretion granted to the Chair to interpret and rule on votes made by the full Committee as made evident at the July 15, 2026 meeting. It appears that the only check on the Chair’s decision-making power belongs to the voters at the ballot box. Charter structures are where changes can be made to balance effective governance with democratic accountability. As Watertown considers the future of its municipal government, evaluating whether four year School Committee terms continue to best serve the community should be an important part of that conversation.