Skip to main content

Full text of "Final report of investigation into the administration, operation and finances of the school committee of the city of Boston"

See other formats


BOSTON 
PUBLIC 
LIBRARY 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Boston  Public  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/finalreportofinvOObost 


lb 


-rr* 


ytLpt 


sovi  :-ns\ 

DEI    .r5i 
rO^  PUBLIC  LIBRARY 


THE  FINANCE  COMMISSION  OF  THE  CITY  OF  BOSTON 


FINAL  REPORT 

OF 

INVESTIGATION  INTO  THE 

ADMINISTRATION,  OPERATIONS  AND  FINANCES 

OF  THE 
SCHOOL  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  CITY  OF  BOSTON 


February  1975 


Finance  Commission  of  the  City  of  Boston 
Ralph  I.  Fine,  Chairman 
William  A.  Davis,  Jr. 
Percy  Wilson 

Frederick  R.  H.  Witherby 
Henry  B.  Wynn 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

SUMMARY  OF  INVESTIGATION  ...  .....  1 

SUMMARY  OF  FINDINGS  .  .  .........  5 

OUTLINE  OF  THE  ORGANIZATION,  DUTIES  AND 

CONDUCT  OF  THE  BOSTON.  SCHOOL  COMMITTEE  ..........  11 

MECHANICS  OF  TESTIMONIALS 19 

EFFECT  OF  TESTIMONIALS  ON  INDIVIDUAL  PERSONNEL 

I.  Administrative  Employees  .............  31 

II.  Teachers  and  Non-Academic  Employees  ...............  40 

EFFECT  OF  TESTIMONIALS  ON  EDUCATIONAL,  PERSONNEL 

AND  ADMINISTRATIVE  POLICIES  ........  44 

EFFECT  OF  TESTIMONIALS  ON  COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING 

UNITS  AND  OTHER  SCHOOL  EMPLOYEE  ASSOCIATIONS  ........  48 

EFFECT  OF  TESTIMONIALS  ON  CONTRACTING 

PROCEDURES  OF  THE  SCHOOL  COMMITTEE  ..................  54 

TESTIMONIALS  AND  VIOLATIONS  OF  MASSACHUSETTS 

GENERAL  LAWS,  CHAPTERS  55  AND  268A 59 

RECOMMENDATIONS  .....  .....  69 


APPENDIX  A  -  LIST  OF  WITNESSES 

APPENDIX  B  -  SAMPLE  LETTER 

SOLICITING  TESTIMONIAL  CONTRIBUTIONS 

APPENDIX  C  -  CONTRIBUTIONS  TO  TESTIMONIALS  FROM 

EMPLOYEE  UNIONS  AND  PROFESSIONAL  ORGANIZATIONS 

APPENDIX  D  -  CONTRACTORS'  CONTRIBUTIONS  TO  TWO  OR  MORE  TESTIMONIALS 


The  Finance  Commission  is  indebted  to  its  Special  Counsel,  Allan  van 
Gestel ,  without  whose  help,  provided  on  a  pro  bono  basis,  the  investigation 
of  School  Committee  testimonials  could  not  have  been  conducted.  In  addition, 
the  Finance  Commission  wishes  to  express  its  gratitude  to  those  numerous 
School  Committee  employees  who  cooperated  with  its  investigation,  and  who 
have  maintained  their  dedication  to  the  education  of  Boston's  children 
despite  the  conditions  described  in  this  report. 


SUMMARY  OF  INVESTIGATION 
On  May  24,  1973  the  Finance  Commission  of  the  City  of  Boston 
("Finance  Commission")  voted  to  conduct  an  investigation  into  the 
operations,  administration,  and  finances  of  the  Boston  School  Committee 
("School  Committee").  The  investigation  was  designed  (1)  to  ascertain 
the  extent  to  which  political  dealings  influence  the  cost,  quality,  and 
methods  of  administration  of  public  education  in  the  City  of  Boston; 
(2)  to  determine  methods  of  improving  School  Committee  administrative 
practices,  (3)  to  suggest  ways  of  stabilizing  School  Committee  expendi- 
tures, and  (4)  to  outline  alternative  structures  for  the  provision  of 
educational  services  in  order  to  minimize  political  influence  in  School 
Committee  operations  and  to  maximize  the  quality  of  education  at  minimum 
cost. 

The  Finance  Commission  and  its  staff  actively  pursued  the  investi- 
gation from  May  1973  through  August  1 974 . 

As  part  of  the  investigation,  on  June  11,  1973  the  Finance  Commission 
conducted  the  first  of  a  series  of  public  hearings  to  determine  the  veracity 
of  numerous  complaints  received  by  its  Chairman  concerning  the  effect  of 
"testimonials"  on  the  cost  and  quality  of  education  in  Boston.  The  Finance 
Commission  received  sworn  testimony  regarding  the  frequency  of  testimonials, 
the  cost  of  tickets,  the  methods  used  to  sell  tickets,  the  extent  to  which 
School  Committee  property  and  personnel  were  involved  in  the  sale  of  tickets, 
the  reasons  for  the  purchase  and  sale  of  tickets  by  School  Committee  employees 
and  others,  and  the  attitude  of  these  employees  toward  testimonials. 


-  1  - 


On  June  22,  1973,  four  members  of  the  School  Committee  brought 

suit  challenging  the  statutory  authority  of  the  Finance  Commission  to 

investigate  testimonials.  A  full  hearing  on  the  merits  of  the  case 

took  place  before  Judge  Samuel  Adams  in  the  Suffolk  County  Superior 

Court.  On  August  10,  1973,  Judge  Adams  entered  a  final  decree  holding 

that: 

"the  Finance  Commission  of  the  City  of 
Boston  has  the  right  and  authority  to 
publicly  investigate  by  all  appropriate 
means  the  effect  of  testimonials  and 
other  fund  raising  activities  held  by 
or  for  members  of  the  School  Committee 
of  the  City  of  Boston  on  the  administra- 
tive, operational  and  financial  practices 
and  methods  of  the  School  Committee  of 
Boston  and  the  School  Department  of  the 
City  of  Boston." 

Public  hearings  resumed  on  September  5,  1973.  The  Finance  Commission 

voluntarily  suspended  its  hearings  on  September  19,  1973  in  order  to 

avoid  influencing  the  preliminary  municipal  election  held  six  days  later 

and  subsequently  because  of  the  School  Committee's  unsuccessful  appeal 

of  Judge  Adams'  decision  to  the  Massachusetts  Supreme  Judicial  Court. 

At  private  hearings  held  on  November  8  and  29,  1973,  the  Finance  Commission 

received  subpoenaed  bank  records  for  the  following  accounts: 

Friendship  Reception  Committee  for  Paul  R.  Tierney 

Reception  Committee  for  Paul  J.  Ellison 

James  T   ennigan  for  Congress  Committee 

Kerrigan  Friendship  Dinner 

John  McDonough  Friendship  Reception  Committee 

Committee  to  Re-elect  Paul  J.  Ellison 


The  Finance  Commission  conducted  additional  private  hearings  during 
November  1973,  and  February  and  March  1974.  At  these  hearings  twenty- 
one  witnesses  testified  under  oath  regarding  the  effect  of  testimonials 
on  the  operations  and  financial  practices  of  the  School  Committee. 

In  total,  the  Finance  Commission  received  sworn  testimony,  comprising 
over  2,600  pages,  from  58  witnessess.  In  addition,  the  Finance  Commission 
interviewed  on  an  informal  basis  countless  other  persons  in  connection  with 
its  investigation  of  the  School  Committee,  and,  in  particular,  testimonials. 
Appendix  A  to  this  report  contains  a  list  of  all  witnesses  subpoenaed  to 
appear  before  the  Finance  Commission. 

Between  March  1973  and  May  1974  the  Finance  Commission  publicly  released 
the  following  reports  in  connection  with  its  investigation  of  the  School 
Committee: 

Utilization  of  School  Swimming  Pools  (3/8/73) 

Transportation  of  Handicapped  Children  to  and  from  School  (3/20/73) 

Paul  J.  Ellison  -  Automobile  Repairs  at  Brighton  High  School  (6/1/73) 

Paul  J.  Ellison  -  Purchase  of  Stationery,  Stamps  and  other  Supplies 
(6/22/73) 

Resource  Distribution  in  Elementary  Schools  (6/26/73) 

School  Committee  Contracts  Awarded  without  Public  Advertising  (9/5/73) 

Legal  Considerations  in  the  Award  of  School  Committee  Contracts  (9/12/73) 

School  Health  Services  (9/2/73) 

Resource  Distribution  in  Elementary  Schools  (12/4/73) 

Testimonial  for  Paul  R.  Tierney  (1/30/74) 

School  Committee  Meetings  (2/7/74) 

Testimonial  for  John  J.  McDonough  (2/25/74) 


-3- 


Contributions  of  Businesses  to  Testimonials  (3/28/74) 

Resource  Distribution  in  High  Schools  (3/25/74) 

Testimonial  for  Paul  J.  Ellison  (3/29/74) 

Receipt  and  Expenditure  of  School  Funds  at  Boston  Latin  School 
(5/1/74) 

Testimonial  for  John  J.  Kerrigan  (5/21/74) 

1973  Re-election  Campaign  of  John  J.  Kerrigan  (5/21/74) 

In  addition  to  the  reports  described  above,  the  Finance  Commission 
studied  various  other  aspects  of  the  School  Committee's  administrative 
and  financial  practices.  In  particular,  the  Finance  Commission  conducted 
a  thorough  investigation  of  the  duties  of  custodians  and  attendance 
officers  and  the  costs  relating  to  their  functions.  Since  these  have 
been  studied  in  the  past  not  only  by  the  Finance  Commission  but  also 
by  the  Boston  Municipal  Research  Bureau,  the  Finance  Commission  did 
not  prepare  or  release  formal  reports  on  them.  However,  the  information 
so  gathered  shaped  certain  of  the  conclusions  set  forth  in  this  report. 

The  Finance  Commission  turned  over  pertinent  material  to  various  law 
enforcement  agencies,  including  the  Internal  Revenue  Service,  United  States 
Attorney,  and  the  Suffolk  County  District  Attorney.  This  report  will 
refrain  from  comment  on  all  matters  submitted  to  these  bodies  for  further 
investigation. 


•4- 


SUMMARY  OF  FINDINGS 

The  education  of  90,000  school  children  in  the  City  of  Boston  rests 
in  the  hands  of  a  School  Committee  composed  of  five  unpaid  officials 
elected  at  large  biennially.  The  School  Committee  controls  a  system 
comprising  nearly  200  schools.  It  spends  over  $110,000,000  per  year,  an 
amount  approximating  one-third  of  the  total  city  budget,  and  it  employs 
more  than  5,500  teachers  and  over  3,000  non-academic  employees.  Because 
school  committees  in  Massachusetts  are  not  legally  constituted  as  city 
departments  answerable  to  the  Mayor  or  City  Council,  controls  over  their 
activities  are  few  and  the  scope  of  their  discretion  is  broad. 

Unfortunately,  the  School  Committee  has  not  set  its  priorities  and 
used  its  powers  with  the  interests  of  public  education  in  mind.  It  has 
failed  to  fulfill  its  primary  responsibilities:  establishing  policy 
and  .dealing  w>ith  tiie  significant  issues  of  allocating  resources  and 
formulating  educational  objectives.  Unlike  other  school  committees  in 
the  Commonwealth,  the  Boston  School  Committee  has  not  restrained  its  im- 
pulse to  turn  public  office  to  private  gain.  The  School  Committee  has 
responded  to  the  pressing  need  for  curriculum  modernization,  equality  of 
services,  and  efficiency  of  operation  with  foot-dragging  and  disinterest. 
It  has  usurped  the  function  of  professional  educators  by  dominating  even 
routine  personnel  decisions.  It  has  not  conducted  its  business  in  an  open, 
public  manner  but  rather  favors  secret  deliberations  resulting  in  little  or 
no  accountability  to  the  public.  The  School  Committee  has  stressed  loyalty 
rather  than  competence  among  its  employees  and  has  created  an  atmosphere 
which  discourages  creative  dissent  and  experimentation. 


All  too  often  members  of  the  School  Committee  have  not  sought  the 
office  for  the  sake  of  contributing  to  the  quality  of  education  in  Boston. 
Rather,  they  have  shown  themselves  preoccupied  by  personal  ambition,  a 
desire  to  exercise  control  over  the  employment  of  large  numbers  of  people, 
and  by  the  presumption  that  a  School  Committee  seat  can  serve  as  a  spring- 
board to  higher  elective  office.  While  the  Finance  Commission  has  no 
quarrel  with  the  ambitions  of  School  Committee  members  for  higher  office, 
definite  grounds  for  criticism  exist  when  School  Committee  members  use 
their  positions  primarily  to  enhance  their  own  political  status,  to  collect 
campaign  war  chests,  and  to  win  political  allies  by  their  acts  in  office. 
Their  attempts  to  justify  such  behavior  by  pointing  to  their  unpaid  status 
are  unconscionable. 

An  analysis  of  the  way  in  which  the  School  Committee  conducts  its 
official  business  confirms  these  conclusions.  In  1972,  only  .189  of  the 
1,341  official  votes  taken  by  the  School  Committee  concerned  educational 
policy,*  and  nearly  one-half  of  these  189  votes  involved  routine  non-policy 
matters  such  as  the  use  of  buildings  for  summer  schedules,  the  naming  of  new 
schools,  or  the  granting  of  permission  to  collect  funds  for  charity  within 
Boston  public  schools.  The  official  votes  demonstrate  that  the  School 
Committee's  interest  focuses  almost  exclusively  on  the  hiring,  firing, 
promotion,  demotion,  and  assignment  of  individual  school  employees. 


*In  this  report,  issues  of  "educational  policy"  refer  principally  to  non- 
personnel  matters.  These  include  allocating  financial  resources,  building 
or  closing  schools,  establishing  district  lines,  awarding  contracts,  dealing 
with  bargaining  groups,  setting  up  guidelines  for  hiring  and  promoting 
employees,  and  establishing  special  education  programs.  Another  category 
included  in  issues  of  "educational  policy"  is  desegregation. 


Nine  hundred  and  ninety-four,  or  74%  of  School  Committee  votes  in  1972 
concerned  personnel  matters  better  left,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Finance 
Commission,  to  professional  administrators.  Preoccupation  with  individual 
personnel  decisions  instead  of  educational  policy  is  the  hallmark  of  a 
patronage  system. 

The  Finance  Commission  investigation  reveals  that  while  the  School 
Committee  has  lavished  time  and  attention  on  personnel  decisions,  it 
has  neglected  pressing  policy  questions.  It  has  done  nothing  to  remedy 
waste  and  inefficiency  in  the  school  health  program,  which  in  1972  paid 
most  of  its  $1,633,602  budget  to  doctors  and  nurses  who  do  little  more 
than  refer  students  to  existing  health  services  outside  the  schools. 
Furthermore,  it  allows  abuses  in  the  receipt  and  expenditure  of  school 
funds  to  continue. 

The  School  Committee  has  wasted  hundreds  of  thousands  of  tax  dollars 
by  failing  to  consolidate  student  bodies  as  population  shifts  leave  schools 
under  or  overpopulated.  It  has  sat  idly  by  while  serious  inequities  in  per 
pupil  expenditures  and  student/teacher  ratios  have  developed.  In  several 
of  these  areas  it  has  refused  to  act  because  to  eliminate  unnecessary  jobs, 
close  underpopulated  schools  or  reassign  pupils  from  overcrowded  schools 
would  prove  politically  damaging,  however  educationally  sound. 

The  School  Committee  has  also  failed  to  take  any  action  to  curtail  the 
enormous  waste  of  taxpayer  dollars  stemming  from  inefficient  maintenance  of 
school  buildings  and  the  non-productivity  of  attendance  officers. 

And,  of  course,  Judge  Arthur  Garrity  has  found  that  the  School  Committee 
"took  many  actions  in  their  official  capacities  with  the  purpose  and  intent 
to  segregate  the  Boston  public  schools." 


Furthermore,  the  School  Committee  has  performed  its  functions  in 
a  manner  designed  to  stifle  educational  debate  and  community  concerns. 
It  meets  during  hours  when  interested  members  of  the  public  are  least 
able  to  attend.  Over  the  years  it  has  dramatically  decreased  the  number 
of  its  public  meetings:  in  the  first  half  of  1973  the  School  Committee 
spent  42%  less  time  in  meetings  than  it  did  in  the  comparable  period 
for  1971. 

Increasingly,,  the  School  Committee  conducts  its  business  and  makes 
its  decisions  in  secret.  During  the  period  from  January  1971  through 
June  1973  the  School  Committee  held  executive  sessions  in  96  of  its  117 
meetings,  often  for  discussion  of  matters  for  which  secrecy  was  neither 
legal  nor  appropriate.  Even  in  public  sessions,  formal  votes  often 
merely  echo  decisions  made  in  private:  twelve  hundred  fifty-four,  .or 
94%,  of  the  thirteen  hundred  forty-one  votes  taken  in  1972  meetings 
were  unanimous.  This  clearly  suggests  that  differences  of  opinion  are 
ironed  out  behind  the  scenes. 

The  politicization  of  the  School  Committee  cripples  any  possibility 
of  coordinating  programs  with  other  City  departments.  A  body  intent  on 
maintaining  maximum  political  power  resists  sharing  functions  with  other 
agencies  or  working  to  eliminate  duplication.  An  examination  of  the 
relationship  between  the  School  Committee  and  City  Departments  such  as 
Parks  and  Recreation,  Health  and  Hospitals,  and  Library,  and  between  the 
School  Committee  and  other  educational  resources  in  Boston,  demonstrates 
that  the  public  schools  have  been  sealed  off  from  valuable  sources  of 
outside  assistance. 

-8- 


The  testimonial  process  used  by  School  Committee  members  to  collect 
thousands  of  dollars  from  those  whose  employment  they  control  constitutes 
the  most  blatant  illustration  of  the  politicization  which  has  pervaded 
Boston  public  schools.  The  School  Committee's  intimate  involvement  in 
personnel  decisions  creates  the  perception  that  political  support  of 
School  Committee  members  is  related  to  advancement  and  favorable  treat- 
ment in  the  school  system.  Hundreds  of  teachers  feel  that  their  positions 
depend  on  making  contributions  to  friendship  testimonials  for  School 
Committee  members  they  have  never  met  and  whose  achievements  in  office 
they  do  not  admire.  School  Committee  members  themselves  view  employees 
whose  jobs  they  control  as  a  ready  source  of  personal  and  political 
funds  and  have  actually  retaliated  against  those  who  oppose  the  testimonial 
process.  Large  numbers  of  administrators  and  teachers  have  been  made  to 
feel  that  they  must  make  financial  contributions  to  School  Committee 
members  in  order  to  preserve  their  rank,  enhance  their  chances  for  promotion, 
and  to  ensure  fair  treatment  for  themselves  and  for  their  programs. 
Teachers  have  voiced  complaints  to  union  officials  about  pressure  to  make 
such  contributions.  Highly  competent  administrators  and  teachers  have 
been  demoted  or  transferred,  and  at  least  two  educational  programs  have 
been  disrupted  as  part  of  the  School  Committee's  efforts  to  compel  support 
for  their  personal  or  political  ambitions.  Associations  of  teachers  and 
other  school  personnel  have  felt  it  necessary  to  make  identifiable  and 
sizable  contributions  to  testimonials  in  order  to  ensure  the  School 
Committee's  good  will  toward  their  schools  or  professional  groups. 

Politics  also  affects  the  School  Committee's  dealings  with  outside 
contractors  who  have  regularly  received  unrequested  testimonial  tickets 
from  an  employee  influential  in  the  awarding  of  unadvertised  contracts. 

-9- 


Many  contractors  have  paid  for  these  tickets  in  the  belief  that  contributions 
are  required  if  they  are  to  obtain  further  School  Committee  business. 

Some  of  the  practices  of  present  School  Committee  members  have  been 
in  clear  violationand  subversion  of  the  laws  of  the  Commonwealth,  and 
others  have  explored  the  outer  edges  of  the  law. 

Even  under  ideal  circumstances,  the  problems  of  public  education 
in  Boston  would  not  yield  easily  to  solution.  However,  when  political 
considerations,  private  aspirations,  and  patronage  preoccupy  the  schools' 
directing  body,  and  when  this  body  neglects  major  policy  questions, 
discounts  public  accountability,  shuts  out  sources  of  help,  and  hamstrings 
its  own  administrators,  it  is  almost  impossible  for  solutions  to  emerge. 
The  Finance  Commission  is  impressed  that  many  highly  competent,  independent 
administrators  and  teachers  have  managed  to  carry  on  the  proper  tasks  of 
education  despite  the  pervasive  discouraging  atmosphere  of  politics  and 
neglect  created  by  the. School  Committee.  The  Finance  Commission  feels 
strongly  that,  freed  from  inappropriate  pressure  and  distractions,  the 
quality  of  public  education  in  Boston  can  be  greatly  improved. 

Education  is  a  slow,  experimental,  complicated  process  in  which 
the  results  of  mismanagement  and  neglect  surface  slowly  and  work  their 
baleful  influence  only  over  a  long  period  of  time.  A  public  works  depart- 
ment or  a  fire  department  which  conducted  its  duties  in  as  political  and 
negligent  a  manner  as  has  the  School  Committee  would  meet  with  public 
uproar  over  the  physical  and  easily  identifiable  results  of  its  dereliction. 
The  officials  charged  with  public  education  must  be  equally  accountable 
to  the  public.  In  this  report,  the  Finance  Commission  recommends  approaches 
to  the  problems  it  has  identified.  It  trusts  that  the  public  and  elected 
officials  will  join  in  formulating  solutions. 

-10- 


OUTLINE  OF  THE  ORGANIZATION,  DUTIES  AND  CONDUCT  OF 
THE  BOSTON  SCHOOL  COMMITTEE 


The  five  members  of  the  School  Committee  are  elected  at  the  biennal 
municipal  elections.  Current  School  Committee  members,  elected  in  1973, 
are  John  J.  Kerrigan,  Paul  Ellison,  John  J.  McDonough,  Paul  R.  Tierney, 
and  Kathleen  Sullivan. 

The  School  Committee  elects  a  Secretary,  Business  Manager  and  Chief 
School  house  Custodian  who  serve  during  "good  behavior  and  efficiency."  The 
Superintendent,  the  chief  administrator,  is  elected  by  the  School  Committee 
for  a  term  of  three  years.  Five  Associate  Superintendents  in  charge  of 
personnel,  curriculum  and  staff  development,  educational  policy,  supportive 
services,  and  special  services  and  a  Deputy  Superintendent  of  School 
Operations  are  also  elected  by  the  School  Committee  for  three  year  terms. 

Under  the  Associate  Superintendent  are  six  Assistant  Superintendents 
in  charge  of  geographical  areas  selected  by  the  School  Committee.  In  addition, 
the  School  Committee  elects  a  Chief  Structural  Engineer,  Senior  Structural 
Engineer  and  a  staff  of  three  structural  engineers. 

The  chart  on  the  following  page  illustrates  the  organization  and 
lines  of  authority  of  the  School  Committee. 


-11 


CU 

cu 

s- 

x: 

a; 

Ll.l 

-m 

+j 

+J 

+-> 

c 

o 

•l 

'1 — 

+j 

| 

s 

>^ 

C 

• 

i- 

C  .i 

•~3 

03 

+J 

, — 

■a 

CD 

o 

S- 

t- 

o 

o3 

<_> 

x: 

£ 

CD 

u 

T7 

to 

in 

L^j 

o 
o 


o 
o 
x: 
o 
oo 

e 
o 
+J 
to 

o 

C_j 


XT    E 

C    D)lO 

e 

fO    3    > 

>1 

c 

CD  O  •!- 

OJ 

tO 

•r-    E  I — 

c 

■1 — 

S-     O  r- 

S- 

s_  o  3 

ai 

0)0  00 

•r— 

_u 

t— 

• 

.    .  a) 

• 

■-3 

TT    OJ 

o: 

E    E  X: 

, — 

~ 

x:  x:  +-> 

3 

ia 

O    O    03 

T3 

ex. 

-D  O  ^ 

C^ 

e  03 
CD  CD 
tD  —1 

e 
ai     • 

c 

■r-     £ 

s-  ia 

0)  -i- 
Q-i— 

3  <— 

00   -r- 


cu  s- 

o)  ai 

E  -C 

•r-    O 
CTQ 


""3 

cu  e  e 

•i-   (D  x: 
x:  r—  o 

(_)  Q-  O 


cu  ro 

m  +_> 

e  o 

•r-  <u 

enr — 

E  fO 

LlJ  CU 


03  _J 
S_ 
3    >3 

4-3    C 
4-    O    O 

oj  3r 
•r-  i-  +j 
x:  4->  e 
o  oo  <c 


4-> 

e 

cu 

• 

CU  TJ 

rs 

4->    E 

c 

03     CU 

f= 

o 

•I-   4-> 

n3 

to 

u  e 

■i — 

•1 — 

O  -i- 

i — 

S- 

to    S_ 

. — 

i~ 

to   cu 

•r— 

03 

<=C   Q.2: 

zn 

3 

oo 

4-3 

e 

cu 

CU  "O 

4->  c 

• 

03    cu 

U_ 

•r-   4-> 

o  e 

OJ 

>) 

o  •<- 

u 

cu 

to   S- 

■1 — 

to 

to    CU 

t — ■ 

<a 

<   Q-=C 

c_> 

3 

oo 

cu 


to 

CU  CU  -ii 

e  en  o   s_ 

*-  its  a>   3 

to  e  _i  ca 


4-> 

c 

cu 
cu  "O     • 
■*->  e  o 

03    CU 

r-   +-> 

o  e 
o  -r- 
to  s- 


e 
o  >> 

r-     CU 

s-  x: 


to    CU    03    03 
«=C   o-s:  u- 

oo 


+-> 

e 

cu 

cu  "a 

4->    E 
03    CU       •    >, 

i-+J<-D 

oc  ai 
o  •■-  ■—  c 

to  s~  3  e 
to  cu  03  a> 
<C   Q.O.  ^ 

'  3 
OO 


cu  -c 

+J    CU       • 

u   cu  to  o 

OP  OJ-r- 
to  C  r—  S 
to  •■-  S-  -M 
<    S-    (Bt- 

cu  -c  cu 

Q-C_>  —I 

oo 

4-1 
C 
CU 

■a 


cu 

+->  c     • 

3   -r-   ^3 

Q-   S_  >^ 

CU    CU    C  i — 

Q     CX-C  ^> 

3    O  CU 

OO  --3  i^ 


c 

OJ 

4-> 

XI 

C 

c 

>> 

03 

cu 

•   +-> 

+J 

+J 

■-D     i- 

to 

E 

3 

•r- 

•r— 

E     O 

</l 

'^ 

-E  Ci3 

to 

CU 

O     U 

=r 

q.'xj  s: 

3 

oo 

4-> 

c 

cu 

+j 

-u 

c: 

c 

rn 

a> 

■ 

+J 

+j 

LU    E 

CO 

cr 

•  i — 

•i — 

•i — 

>>+J 

to 

s~ 

t.    5- 

to 

QJ 

03    03 

<" 

o-s:  s: 

3 

OO 

E 

CU 
+J  X3 
E  E 
03    CU 

+j  +j    •  -a 
•  </>  c  s:  s- 

■t-  •>-  03 

to  t,  o  3 

Ul    HI    0)    O 
<C    Q-_l  m 
3- 
oo 


I 
CM 


E 

CU 

4-> 

"O 

x: 

E 

E 

to 

+-> 

03 

a> 

E 

■1 — 

4-> 

+j 

•r— 

M- 

t/) 

E 

i — 

M- 

•i— 

•i — 

rr— 

•  i — 

to 

s~ 

O 

S- 

to 

cu 

rr 

Ci) 

<C 

a. 

00 

+r> 

E 

CU 

* 

4-> 

X3 

ZT. 

E 

c 

rr) 

a; 

T5 

E 

+J 

4-J 

S_ 

ro 

to 

E 

03 

b 

•r— 

•1 — 

E 

i — 

to 

<_ 

l_ 

3 

to 

CU 

cu 

x; 

eT 

O.CQ 

00 

3 

00 

4J 

E 

CU 

+->  -c 

E 

E 

• 

•r~ 

m 

CU 

^3 

i- 

+-» 

+J 

ai 

10 

E 

s_ 

E 

•r— 

■1 — 

aj 

cu 

to 

i- 

+-> 

CD 

to 

O) 

cu 

E 

=r 

O.Q- 

i — i 

3 

tyO 

Boston's  first  School  Committee  dates  from  1789.  The  Committee  grew 
in  size  during  the  next  century  to  116  members.  In  1875  legislation 
reduced  the  membership  to  24.  In  1877  the  School  Committee  of  Boston  was 
incorporated,  and  in  1905  it  was  reduced  to  its  present  size  of  five  members 
elected  at  large. 

The  statutes  of  the  Commonwealth  grant  school  committees  broad 
powers  and  impose  few  restrictions  on  their  conduct.  Massachusetts  sets 
minimum  requirements  for  the  length  of  the  academic  year  and  provides  a 
formula  for  school  budget  appropriations.  Chapter  150  of  the  Acts  of  1972 
provides  that  academic  personnel  cannot  be  appointed  by  the  School  Committee 
except  after  nomination  by  the  Superintendent,  a  measure  meant  to  ensure 
.  that  appointments  would  follow  academic  standards. 

An  outline  of  certain  activities  of  the  School  Committee  follows: 
1 .  Personnel  Decisions  -  Individual 

The  Superintendent  at  regularly  scheduled  meetings  of  the  School  Committee 
presents  his  recommendations  for  academic  personnel  changes  to  the  School 
Committee  for  their  approval.  He  formulates  these  recommendations  in 
multi-page  documents  divided  according  to  the  type  of  action  to  be  taken. 
~~Even  the  most  routine  personnel  changes  are  included  for  deliberation  by 
the  School  Committee,  including  transfers,  assignment  to  special  programs, 
promotions,  demotions,  leaves  of  absence,  approval  of  temporary  teachers, 
initial  appointments,  and  withdrawal  of  appointments.  A  typical  agenda 
indicates  that  personnel  matters  are  subdivided  between  academic  and  non- 
academic  personnel,  with  non-academic  personnel  recommendations  originating 
from  the  appropriate  department  head,  such  as  the  business  manager  or 
chief  school  house  custodian.  The  information  presented  to  the  School  Committee 
lists  individuals  and  the  proposed  changes  in  their  status. 


-13- 


2.  Personnel  Decisions  -  Employee  Groups 

The  School  Committee  deals  directly  with  representatives  of  employee 
groups  such  as  the  Boston  Teachers  Union  and  the  Boston  Association  of 
School  Administrators  and  Supervisors  in  negotiating  contracts  which 
establish  among  other  things,  salary  schedules,  procedures  for  grievances 
and  sick  leave. 

3.  Contracts 

In  discharging  its  duties  to  maintain  school  buildings  and  provide 
educational  services,  the  School  Committee  enters  into  contracts  with 
outside  businesses  and  professionals.  Contracts  for  professional  services, 
generally  awarded  without  public  advertising,  are  approved  first  by  the 
Board  of  Superintendents  and  then  by  the  School  Committee.  Generally, 
the  Business  Manager  recommends  and  approves  contracts  for  non-professional 
services  to  the  Chairman  of  the  School  Committee. 

4.  Authorization  of  Curricula  and  Texts 

The  School  Committee  controls  the  curriculum  for  Boston's  public  schools. 
It  adopts  curriculum  guidelines  written  by  committees  of  teachers  for  the 
various  subject  areas  and  prints  a  number  of  these  guides  as  school  documents, 
The  Committee  also  approves  special  educational  programs  such  as  tutoring 
and  vocational  training.  The  School  Committee  approves  the  textbooks  used 
in  all  schools. 

5.  School  Committee  Budget 

Two  budgets  are  submitted  by  the  School  Committee  to  the  Mayor,  one 
for  general  school  purposes  prepared  by  the  Business  Manager,  and  one  for 
alterations  and  repairs,  prepared  by  the  Department  of  Planning  and 
Engineering. 


•14- 


6.  Logistical  and  Geographical  Policies 

Until  the  Federal  Court  order  on  desegregation,  the  School  Committee 
had  total  responsibility  for  establishing  district  lines,  determining  feeder 
schools  and  setting  up  special  programs  and  magnet  schools.  The  School 
Committee  also  determined  admission  standards  for  the  Latin  and  Technical 
Schools  and  set  tuition  for  non-residents.  All  these  decisions  determined 
where  the  children  of  Boston  go  to  school. 

One  example  of  abuse  by  the  School  Committee  in  this  area  involved 
the  new  English  High  School.  After  construction  of  a  new  building  for 
the  predominently  black  English  High  School,  the  School  Committee  changed 
its  mind  and  voted  to  give  the  building  to  the  predominently  white  Girls 
Latin  School.  A  subsequent  court  order  directed  the  School  Committee  to 
use  the  building  for  English  High  School. 
Priorities  of  the  School  Committee 

An  analysis  of  votes  taken  by  the  School  Committee  in  1972  reveals 
that  the  School  Committee  spends  most  of  its  time  on  individual  personnel 
decisions,  and  only  a  small  portion  of  its  time  on  educational  policy 
matters. 

Severty-four  percent  (994)  of  the  1341  votes  recorded  in  1972 
meetings  concerned  the  details  of  personnel  placement  such  as  hiring 
(29%  of  the  personnel  votes),  leaves  of  absence  (19%),  transfers  (7%) 
and  other  personnel  decisions  (45%). 

More  of  the  Committee's  votes  concerned  leaves  of  absence  than 
issues  of  educational  policy,  since  these  issues  accounted  for  only 
14%  (189)  of  the  total  votes. 

Of  the  votes  on  educational  policy,  nearly  half  dealt  with  rather 
routine  administrative  matters  which  were  not,  in  fact,  policy  decisions, 

-15- 


but  rather  votes  approving  administrative  decisions  made  by  others.  This 
category  included  votes  on  closing  schools  for  half  days  or  for  the  summer, 
renaming  schools,  authorizing  fund-raising  drives  or  the  use  of  school 
buildings  for  evening,  summer  and  other  classes,  amending  the  student 
disciplinary  code,  and  approving  the  selection  process  for  the  Latin  and 
Technical  High  Schools. 

Fourteen  percent  of  the  189  educational  policy  votes  dealt  with  union 
matters,  i.e.,  approving  collective  bargaining  agreements  and  handling 
grievances.  Another  fifteen  percent  related  to  racial  imbalance.  This 
classification  included  votes  on  determining  school  districts. 

Nine  percent  of  the  189  educational  policy  votes  involved  approval  of 
grant  applications  for  federal  funds  and  another  seven  percent  approval  of 
formal  budgetary  matters.  The  final  twelve  percent  of  the  policy  votes 
concerned  choice  of  textbooks,  curricula  and  course  guidelines,  all  of 
which  matters  the  Finance  Commission  believes  should  be  left  in  the  hands  of 
professional  administrators. 


•16- 


Secrecy  and  Avoidance  of  Public  Accountability  by  the  School  Committee 

Studies  by  the  Finance  Commission  reveal  that  the  time  spent  by 
the  School  Committee  in  meetings  declined  at  an  accelerated  rate  from 
1971  to  the  first  half  of  1973.  During  the  first  six  months  of  1973  the 
School  Committee  spent  42%  less  time  in  meetings  than  during  the  comparable 
period  of  1971.  There  were  53  meetings  in  1971  compared  with  41  meetings 
in  1972.  During  the  first  six  months  of  1973,  the  School  Committee  held 
22  meetings. 

Scheduled  meeting  times  vary  and  lack  consistency  as  to  day  or  hour. 
Meetings  are  most  often  held  during  working  hours,  making  attendance  by  the 
public  difficult.  Notice  of  the  date  and  time  of  these  meetings  gets  very 
little  publicity;  generally  nothing  more  than  a  bulletin  posted  on  the 
ground  floor  of  the  administrative  building  at  15  Beacon  Street. 

To  an  increasing  extent,  secrecy  has  marked  the  deliberations  of 
the  School  Committee.  There  is  evidence  that  most  decisions  are  not  made 
in  public  meetings  at  all.  In  1972,  1254  or  an  astounding  94%  of  the  1341 
recorded  votes  were  unanimous,  suggesting  resolution  of  issues  prior  to  the 
meeting.  The  striking  unanimity  of  the  School  Committee  creates  the  impression 
that  public  meetings  are  a  mere  formality  and  that  at  these  meetings 
members  do  not  exercise  independent  judgment. 

While  time  spent  in  meetings  has  decreased,  the  frequency  and  duration 
of  executive  sessions  from  which  the  public  is  excluded  have  increased. 
From  January  1971  through  June  1973  the  School  Committee  held  executive 
sessions  in  96  of  its  117  meetings.  In  addition  to  conducting  executive 
sessions  in  82%  of  its  meetings,  the  School  Committee  spent  an  average  of 
41%  of  its  total  meeting  time  in  executive  session.  According  to 

-17- 


Chapter  39,  Section  23A  of  the  Massachusetts  General  Laws  executive 

sessions  may  be  held 

"only  for  the  purpose  of  discussing,  deliberating, 
or  voting  on  those  matters  which  by  general  or 
specific  statute,  or  federal  grant-in-aid  require- 
ments cannot  be  made  public  and  those  matters  which 
if  made  public  might  adversely  affect  the  public 
security,  the  financial  interest  of  the  district, 
city,  or  town  or  local  housing  authority,  or  the 
reputation  of  any  person..." 

By  holding  executive  sessions  when  it  dealt  with  such  issues  as 
making  an  Assistant  Director  an  Associate  Director  of  Safety  or  trans- 
ferring a  clerk  from  one  school  to  another,  the  School  Committee  has 
clearly  failed  to  follow  the  provisions  of  this  statute. 


•18- 


Findings  of  Finance  Commission 

MECHANICS  OF  TESTIMONIALS 

(1)  THE  IDEA  THAT  SCHOOL  COMMITTEE  MEMBERS  CAN  EXPECT  SUBSTANTIAL 
DONATIONS  BY  VIRTUE  OF  THEIR  OFFICE  HAS  BECOME  SO  ENTRENCHED  THAT 
THE  SIGNIFICANT  LEGAL  AND  ETHICAL  IMPLICATIONS  OF  SUCH  CONDUCT  HAVE 
BEEN  IGNORED  BY  THE  DONORS  AND  THE  SCHOOL  COMMITTEE  MEMBERS  THEM- 
SELVES. 

(2)  while  the  appellation  "testimonials"  or  "friendship  reception" 
might  suggest  an  unsolicited  gathering  to  honor  an  individual, 
fundraisers  held  for  school  committee  members  are  organized  by  the 
members  themselves  and  perhaps  one  assistant.  furthermore,  few  of 
the  individuals  who  purchase  tickets  personally  know  the  school 
committee  members. 

(3)  the  suggestion  that  testimonials  are  held  to  honor  an  unpaid 
official  and  to  express  gratitude  for  his  dedicated  public  service 
is  a  fiction.  the  sole  purpose  of  testimonials  is  to  raise  money 
for  school  committee  members.  committee  members  feel  entitled  to 
spend  the  funds  in  any  way  they  determine. 

(4)  prior  to  june  1973,  committee  members  held  testimonials  at 
least  biennially  and  often  annually,  scheduling  them  far  enough 
in  advance  of  their  re-election  campaigns  to  avoid  the  appearance 
of  raising  funds  for  political  purposes  and,  thus,  the  reporting 
requirements  of  chapter  55  of  the  massachusetts  general  laws. 

(5)  school  committee  members  are  deliberately  vague  about  the 
purposes  for  which  money  is  raised,  be  they  political  or  personal. 

(6)  between  may  1972  and  february  1973,  each  of  four  school 
committee  members  held  one  testimonial.  from  these  four  functions, 
paul  j.  ellison,  john  j.  kerrigan,  john  j.  mcdonough  and  paul  r. 
tierney  raised  a  minimum  total  of  $88,773.16  or  an  average  of  $22,193.29. 
of  that  total,  a  minimum  of  $26,430.22  and  a  maximum  of  $44,430.22 

was  spent  for  personal  expenses  and  a  minimum  of  $22,286.75  and  a 
maximum  of  $25,686.75  was  spent  for  campaign  expenses. 

(7)  most  school  employees  who  contribute  to  school  committee 
members  do  so  with  the  expectation  that  their  contribution  will  be 
used  for  campaign  expenses. 

(8)  by  encouraging  the  persistence  of  the  myth  that  the  money 
raised  is  applied  to  campaign  expenses,  school  committee  members 
fraudulently  entice  contributions  from  persons  who  believe  they  are 
giving  to  a  Political  campaign. 

(9)  most  contributors  would  refuse  to  contribute  to  testimonials 

if  they  knew  that  the  proceeds  were  to  be  used  for  personal  purposes 
by  the  school  committee  members. 

-19- 


(10)  THE  SUGGESTION  THAT  CONTRIBUTIONS  FROM  THEIR  OWN  EMPLOYEES 
FORMS  A  SUITABLE  SOURCE  OF  COMPENSATION  FOR  UNPAID  SCHOOL  COMMITTEE 
MEMBERS  IS  UNETHICAL. 

(11)  GENERALLY,  TICKETS  ARE  MAILED  DIRECTLY  TO  POTENTIAL  CONTRIBUTORS, 
OR  AN  INVITATION  TO  PURCHASE  TICKETS  IS  SENT  WITH  A  RETURN  ENVELOPE. 

(12)  IN  CERTAIN  INSTANCES,  ACTIVITIES  RELATING  TO  THE  DISTRIBUTION 
AND  SALE  OF  TICKETS  TAKE  PLACE  AT  THE  ADMINISTRATION  BUILDING, 

15  BEACON  STREET.  TICKETS  FOR  SCHOOL  ADMINISTRATORS  AT  TIMES  ARE 
PERSONALLY  DELIVERED  TO  THEM  AT  15  BEACON  STREET. 

(13)  IT  HAS  BECOME  A  MATTER  OF  TACIT  UNDERSTANDING  THAT  THE  SALE 
AND  DISTRIBUTION  OF  TESTIMONIAL  TICKETS  ARE  EXPECTED  OF  CERTAIN  IN- 
DIVIDUALS IN  ADDITION  TO  THEIR  OFFICIAL  DUTIES  OR  BECAUSE  OF  THEIR 

POSITIONS. 

(14)  TICKETS  ARE  MAILED  OR  DELIVERED  TO  SUPERINTENDENT,  SUPERVISORS,' 
DEPARTMENT  HEADS,  HEADMASTERS  AND  OTHER  ADMINISTRATIVE  PERSONNEL  FOR 
THEIR  INDIVIDUAL  PURCHASE  OR  DISTRIBUTION.  NON-ADMINISTRATIVE  PERSONNEL, 
ON  THE  OTHER  HAND,  USUALLY  PURCHASE  THEIR  TICKETS  INDIRECTLY,  BY  MEANS 

OF  A  RAFFLE,  OR  THROUGH  THEIR  UNION,  ASSOCIATION,  SCHOOL  OR  DEPARTMENT. 

(15)  RELIANCE  UPON  ORGANIZATIONS  AND  ASSOCIATIONS  OF  SCHOOL  DEPARTMENT 
EMPLOYEES  TO  PURCHASE  BLOCKS  OF  TICKETS  HAS  BECOME  AN  INCREASINGLY 

COMMON  PHENOMENON. 

(16)  ESSENTIALLY  SCHOOL  EMPLOYEES  SELL  ALL  TESTIMONIAL  TICKETS  TO 
SCHOOL  DEPARTMENT  EMPLOYEES,  THEIR  ORGANIZATIONS  AND  ASSOCIATIONS,  AND 
TO  CONTRACTORS  DOING  BUSINESS  WITH  THE  SCHOOL  DEPARTMENT. 

(17)  ALTHOUGH  TICKETS  ARE  SOLD  FOR  $25,  DONATIONS  FROM  INDIVIDUAL 
SCHOOL  DEPARTMENT  EMPLOYEES  RANGE  FROM  $10  to  $625.  DONATIONS 
FROM  EMPLOYEE  GROUPS  RANGE  FROM  $50  TO  $3,625.  DONATIONS  FROM 
BUSINESSES  AND  BUSINESS-RELATED  INDIVIDUALS  RANGE  FROM  $25  to  $250. 

(18)  ALL  TICKETS  ARE  NUMBERED  AND  LISTS  OF  TICKET  NUMBERS  ARE  KEPT. 
MOST  TICKETS  ARE  PURCHASED  WITH  CHECKS  WHICH  OFTEN  IDENTIFY  THE 
DONOR'S  DEPARTMENT  AND/OR  TICKET  NUMBER  IN  ORDER  TO  ENSURE  THAT  CREDIT 
IS  GIVEN  THE  DONOR  BY  THE  RECIPIENT. 


-20- 


Each  of  the  four  candidates  for  re-election  to  the  School  Committee  in 
November  1973  had  at  least  one  testimonial  between  their  assumption  of  office 
in  January  1972  and  the  election.  Paul  J.  Ellison  held  a  testimonial  in 
May  1972  at  the  New  England  Aquarium  after  less  than  five  months  on  the 
School  Committee.  John  J.  McDonough  held  one  in  June  1972  and  a  second  one 
less  than  a  year  later  in  May  1973  both  at  the  Aquarium.  In  October  1972, 
John  J.  Kerrigan  also  had  his  testimonial  at  the  Aquarium  while  Paul  R.  Tierney 
chose  the  Parker  House  for  his  in  February  1973. 

The  reasons  for  having  a  testimonial  vary,  according  to  the  person.  A 
letter  from  Theodore  Bakas,  Chairman  of  the  John  McDonough  Friendship  Reception 
Committee,  to  potential  contributors  spoke  of  honoring  John,  "an  unpaid  member 
of  the  Boston  School  Committee."  James  Crecco,  a  close  associate  of  Paul  J. 
Ellison,  told  of  supporters  and  teachers  wanting  to  get  together  to  "celebrate 
the  fact  that...  a  teacher...  was  now  in  a  policy  making  position  as  a 
committeeman."  Ellison  testified  that  the  purpose  was  to  pay  off  campaign 
debts  and  to  recover  personal  expenses.  John  O'Leary,  the  Administrative 
Assistant  to  Paul  R.  Tierney,  testified  that  Tierney  gave  his  Friendship 
Reception  to  raise  funds.  Mr.  O'Leary  also  testified  that  the  "times"  as 
these  testimonials  are  colloquially  called  give  teachers'  "a  chance  to  meet 
other  teachers  (and  that  they  give  a  chance  for  some  of  the  single  people  to 
meet  each  other)."  In  fact,  he  said,  "a  lot  of  teachers  have  been  calling  me 
recently  asking  me  when  I'm  going  to  run  another  testimonial." 

The  testimonial  committee  usually  has  one  or  two  members,  often 
including  the  School  Committee  member  himself.  Because  testimonials  never 
took  place  after  the  member  announced  his  candidacy,  School  Committee  members 
avoided  the  reporting  requirements  of  Chapter  55  of  the  Massachusetts  General 


-21 


Laws.  This  loophole  has  been  closed  by  the  recent  amendments  to  Chapter  55 
which  are  discussed  in  detail  later  in  this  report. 

Bank  records  subpoenaed  by  the  Finance  Commission  reveal  the  volume  and 
disposition  of  funds  raised  at  certain  testimonials.  These  facts,  summarized 
below,  have  been  published  in  greater  detail  in  preliminary  reports  issued 
by  the  Finance  Commission: 


Testimonial 
Held  for 


Testimonial 
Receipts 


Amount 
Testimonial  Spent  on 
Expenses    Campaign 


Amount  turned 
Over  to  Bene- 
ficiary or 
Spent  for  Per- 
sonal Purposes 


Other 
Payments 


Paul  J.  Ellison  $24,053.16 
5/11/72 


John  J.  Kerrigan  $22,790.00 
10/18/72 

Paul  R.  Tierney  $29,010.00 
2/9/73 

John  J.  McDonough  $12,970.00 
5/17/73 


$3,509.25 


$11,561.87 
(minimum) 

$14,561.87 
(maximum) 


$5,450.00 
(minimum) 

$8,450.00 
(maximum) 


$4,672.00    $   170.50  $16,075.00* 


$6,709.18    $ 


$22,155.22 


$1,775.12    $10,954.38  $    0 


$1,872.50 


$  145.60 


$  240.50 


Neither  Paul  R.  Tierney  nor  John  J.  McDonough  made  cash  deposits  into 
their  testimonial  accounts.  The  Kerrigan  Friendship  Dinner  account  had  cash 
deposits  of  $2,025. 


*  A  $15,000  check  to  John  J.  Kerrigan  was  endorsed  by  him  and  deposited 
in  South  Boston  Savings  Bank.  The  bank  book  was  used  as  collateral 
by  Mr.  Kerrigan  for  a  series  of  loans  totalling  $10,000  from  South 
Boston  Savings  Bank.  The  loans  were  repaid  by  Mr.  Kerrigan  from 
unidentified  funds  after  disclosure  of  the  loans  in  the  Boston  press. 


■22- 


The  receipts  listed  for  Messrs.  Tierney  and  McDonough  are  undoubtedly 

understated  because  of  undeposited  cash  receipts.  The  Finance  Commission 

knows  that  certain  cash  was  not  deposited  because  the  following  individuals 

testified  that  they  regularly  bought  tickets  to  testimonials  held  for 

School  Committee  members,  yet  their  names  did  not  appear  on  the  checks 

deposited  into  the  testimonial  accounts: 

Elmo  P.  Boari 
Leo  J.  Burke 
Herbert  C.  Hambleton 
William  J .  Leary 
Robert  V.  McCabe 
George  E.  Murphy 

Moreover,  John  O'Leary,  Mr.  Tierney's  Administrative  Assistant,  testi- 
fied that  Mr.  Tierney  did  indeed  receive  cash  donations  which  he  used  for 
personal  and  not  political  purposes. 

A  review  of  the  bank  records  subpoenaed  by  the  Finance  Commission  also 

reveals  that  the  following  checks  passed  between  School  Committee  members: 

5/5/72  Paul  Ellison  to  Paul  Tierney  $1,256 

5/9/72  Paul  Ellison  to  O'Leary  and  Tierney,  900 

Attorneys 

5/16/72  Paul  Ellison  to  James  Hennigan  500 

6/2/72  Paul  Ellison  to  John  Kerrigan  100 

10/25/72  John  Kerrigan  to  Paul  Tierney.  3,000 

10/26/72  Paul  Tierney  to  John  Kerrigan  3,000 

10/26/72  John  Kerrigan  to  Paul  Ellison  1,000 

These  finanical  transactions  raise  serious  questions  concerning  the 
independence  of  School  Committee  members  in  performing  their  official 
duties. 

Virtually  all  the  witnesses  believed  that  funds  raised  at  testimonials 
would  be  used  for  political  expenses.  James  A.  Kelley,  Safety  Officer, 
and  Kenneth  M.  Calvagne,  President  of  C  &  C  Fence,  Inc.,  both  testified 
that  they  would  not  have  bought  tickets  if  they  thought  the  proceeds  would 


-23- 


be  used  for  personal  expenses.  Theodore  S.  Bakas  testified  that  he  would 
not  have  allowed  the  organization  of  John  McDonough's  testimonial  to  use 
his  name  if  he  had  thought  the  money  would  be  used  for  anything  besides 
campaign  costs.  Thomas  F.  Cavanaugh  indicated  that  it  would  "bother"  him 
if  testimonial  receipts  were  used  for  personal  purposes,  and  John  A. 
Arcadipane  testified  that  he  probably  would  not  have  purchased  tickets  if 
he  thought  the  proceeds  would  be  used  for  personal  expenses. 

Despite  this  evidence  that  the  purpose  of  the  proceeds  decisively 
interests  the  contributors,  the  cover  letters  and  testimonial  tickets  do 
not  assure  purchasers  that  contributions  will  be  used  for  political  expenses. 
Indeed,  they  obscure  the  purpose  of  the  testimonial  and  the  proposed  use 
of  contributions.  (See  sample  cover  letter,  Appendix  B). 

Furthermore,  the  purchasers  of  testimonial  tickets  do  not  usually 
know  that  School  Committee  members  receive  compensation  for  expenses  of 
office,  nor  do  they  know  that  the  members  have  other  sources  of  income. 
Instead,  the  candidates  and  their  testimonial  committees  continually 
characterize  School  Committee  members  as  unpaid  public  officials  who 
must  forego  all  other  employment  and  pay  for  their  own  expenses  of  office. 

In  fact,  Business  Manager  Leo  Burke  testified  that  between  $7,000 
and  $15,000  per  year  goes  to  pay  for  dinners  and  taxtcabs  for  School 
Committee  members  on  the  days  of  meetings  and  other  school  functions, 
such  as  graduations.  The  appropriation  also  covers  the  expenses  of 
stationery  and  postage  used  by  members. 

In  addition,  each  mBmber  of  the  School  Committee  receives  approximately 
$250  per  week  for  administrative  and  secretarial  assistance. 

One  or  two  people  manage  the  organization  and  timing  of  testimonials, 


-24- 


and  certain  rules  govern  the  staging  of  these  events.  Paul  Ellison,  testifying 
before  the  Finance  Commission,  engaged  in  the  following  dialogue  with 
Mr.  van  Gestel ,  the  Commission's  Special  Counsel: 
"Q"  Now  you  indicated  that  there  was  a  rumor  that  one 

of  the  other  members  might  be  having  a  testimonial 
in  the  spring  of  '72? 
A  It  seems  to  me  right  after  I  came  aboard  the  School 

Committee,  there  was  some  talk,  I  don't  remember 
who  or  what  but  there  is  a  reason  why  I  didn't  have 
right  at  that  time  and  as  I  recollect  it  was  because 
somebody  else  was  going  to  have  one. 
Q  Has  it  been  your  experience  while  you  have  been  on  the 

School  Committee  that  the  various  School  Committeemen 
discussed  the  schedule  of  their  testimonials  so  that 
they  wouldn't  conflict? 
A  Yes. 

Q  How  frequently  do  these  discussions  occur? 

A  Not  often,  we  didn't  sit  down  and  discuss  that  but 

if  somebody  is  in  the  case  of  mine  having  it  in  May 
I  remembered  coming  up,  I  don't  know  which  member, 
I  don't  believe  actually  as  it  turned  out,  I  don't 
know  if  anyone  had  one  at  that  time  but  that  was  the 
reason  why  I  didn't  have  one  in  February  or  March. 
There  is  no  question  there  was  the  need  to  have  one 
and  to  pay  these  debts." 
James  Crecco,  who  helped  Mr.  Ellison  organize  his  testimonial  spoke 
of  the  "custom"  and  the  "system"  of  arranging  a  testimonial: 

-25- 


Crecco      "There  isn't  any  .  .  .  formal  organization  that 
informs  me  of  anything.  It  is  by  word  of  mouth. 
This  group  (organization  or  association  of  School 
Department  employees)  does  this,  does  that  etc. 
and  it  really  is  a  custom  that  they  come  down  and 
do  what  they  do." 

and  again: 

"The  system,  the  way  it  works  was  to  write  a  letter 
stating  whether  we  stated,  unpaid  committeemen 
work,  tried  to  defray  expenses,  we  would  mail  these 
out  to  many  people,  hundreds  of  people,  we  put  an 
order  card  in  there  if  they  wanted  one  ticket  or 
ten  tickets,  whatever,  and  we  would  put  a  return 
envelope  in  there  also  showing  where  they  would 
mail  their  check  or  any  monies,  and  the  system  was 
to  get  these  out  and  let  them  know.  Now,  they  would 
get  the  tickets  and  get  them  back  to  us,  indeed  there 
are  blocks  of  tickets  that  are  sold  in  the  school 
department,  as  a  novice  first  found  out  that  certain 
groups  buy  blocks,  you  mentioned  one  before,  the 
headmasters  association,  there  are  other  groups  that 
just  come  in  and  buy  blocks  of  tickets  and  that  is 
the  sum  and  substance  of  it." 
For  Mr.  McDonough's  reception,  Theodore  Bakas  allowed  his  name  to  be 

used  on  a  letter  that  was  sent  out  inviting  the  purchase  of  tickets  by  a 

return  form  and  envelope.  Mr.  Bakas  was  the  chairman  of  the  "committee" 

-26- 


in  name  only  and  as  an  accommodation  to  a  friend  who  wanted  "someone 
removed  from  the  political  arena  .  .  .  not  involved  in  politics  (who)  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  School  Committee  ..."  Mr.  Bakas  did  not  know 
positively,  but  he  assumed  that  John  McDonough  himself  actually,  ran  the 
testimonial.  Paul  J.  Ellison  organized  his  testimonial  with  the  help  of 
his  associate,  James  Crecco,  by  using  the  School  Committee  directory  of 
employees  to  put  together  a  list  of  "friends"  invited.  On  at  least  one 
occasion,  Mr.  Crecco  called  an  administrator  into  his  office  and  gave  him 
tickets  for  distribution.  John  O'Leary,  Mr.  Tierney's  administrative 
assistant,  acknowledged  that  he  had  organized  Mr.  Tierney's  "time"  himself. 
At  an  open  bar  meeting  of  25  to  50  people  at  the  Parker  House,  Mr.  O'Leary 
individually  spoke  to  each  person  present  and  asked  them  to  help  sell 
tickets  for  Mr.  Tierney's  reception. 

In  addition  to  these  more  formal  methods  of  soliciting  contributions, 
another  predetermined  pattern  for  distributing  tickets  exists.  Mr.  Crecco 
testified  that  once  the  "rumor"  is  out  that  a  testimonial  is  to  be  held, 
"it  is  better  than  UPI,  within  60  minutes  .  .  .  many  people  dropped  in  and 
picked  up  their  tickets."  Robert  B.  McCabe,  t'he  administrative  assistant 
to  the  Deputy  Superintendent,  testified,  that  as  soon  as  he  discovered  that 
a  testimonial  was  planned,  he  would  go  to  the  Committee  member's  office  and 
pick  up  60  to  80  tickets  to  mail  to  legislators  and  upper-level  administrators. 
For  instance,  Elmo  P.  Boari,  a  structural  engineer  with  the  Department  of 
Planning  and  Engineering,  testified  that  when  he  found  out  about  a  testimonial, 
he  went  to  the  person  in  charge  and  picked  up  twenty  to  thirty  tickets  which 
he  then  mailed,  to  contractors  with  whom  he  dealt  in  his  official  capacity. 

In  virtually  all  instances,  the  recipients  do  not  request  the  letters 

-27- 


of  solicitation  and  the  delivery  of  testimonial  tickets.  Several  administrators 
testified  that  they  received  the  tickets  at  their  offices  at  15  Beacon  Street. 
Besides  direct  sales  to  individuals,  many  teachers  and  other  employees  con- 
tribute $5  or  $10  toward  the  purchase  of  a  ticket,  and  whatever  tickets  are 
purchased  by  such  pooling  are  then  raffled  off  to  contributors.  Another 
indirect  method  of  sale  consists  of  the  purchase  of  blocks  of  tickets  by 
organizations  and  associations  representing  employees.  In  the  testimonials 
studied  in  detail  by  the  Finance  Commission,  twelve  such  groups  purchased 
from  two  to  one  hundred  forty-five  tickets.  Often,  people  denied  this  practice. 
John  O'Leary,  for  example,  testified  under  oath  that  blocks  of  tickets  had  not 
been  sold  to  Mr.  Tierney's  testimonial.  Subsequent  investigation  by  the 
Finance  Commission  revealed,  however,  that  in  addition  to  several  other 
group  contributions,  a  $3,000  contribution  from  the  120  member  Boston 
Association  of  School  Administrators  and  Supervisors  ("BASAS")  was  made 
to  Mr.  Tierney.  Moreover,  Mr.  O'Leary  himself  returned  a  check  for 
$3,000  to  the  treasurer  of  BASAS.  He  insisted  that  the  contribution  be 
made  in  sixty  $50  money  orders  to  hide  the  magnitude  of  the  contribution 
and  to  create  the  impression  that  sixty  persons  had  individually  purchased 
tickets.  Later,  Mr.  O'Leary  acknowledged  that  he  personally  signed  the 
names  of  60  different  persons  (most  fictitious)  to  the  money  orders- 

Evidence  received  by  the  Finance  Commission  demonstrates  that  the 
holders  of  testimonials  keep  records  of  those  who  purchase  and  those  who 
do  not  purchase  tickets.  John  O'Leary,  Mr.  Tierney's  administrative 
assistant,  testified  that  when  he  receives  cash  donations  he  notes  down 
the  identity  of  the  donor.  People  have  been  questioned  personally  about 


■28- 


their  failure  to  purchase  tickets;  lists  have  been  kept  at  schools  recording 

those  who  purchased  tickets  (supposedly  so  that "thank  you"notes  could  be 

sent,  although  the  Finance  Commission  found  no  person  who  actually  received 

such  a  note);  ticket  numbers  are  recorded;  and  as  already  stated  many  checks 

identify  the  donor's  school  or  department.  The  following  list  indicates 

a  sample  of  the  notations  found  on  checks  given  to  Mr.  Tierney: 

"Data  Processing" 

"Dept.  Music  Ed." 

"Boston  MDTA  Skill  Center  -  East  Boston" 

"Boston  Guidance" 

"Guidance  Counselor  -  Roslindale  High" 

"EB-MDT  Skill  Center" 

"Dept.  Planning  &  Engineering" 

"Title  I  Programs" 

"DE  -  Roslindale  High" 

"Boys  Trade" 

"South  Boston  High" 

"Boston  Technical  High  School" 

"Music  Dept." 

"Boston  High  School" 

"Higginson  School " 

"Copley  Sq.  High" 

"English  High" 

"Trade  High" 

"Jamaica  Plain  High" 

"DE  Dept.  Hyde  Park" 

Evidently  many  contributors  want  their  contribution  to  be  recorded, 
and  these  additional  notations  are  means  of  ensuring  that  credit  is 
properly  given. 

Finally,  an  analysis  of  the  checks  written  for  tickets  to  testi- 
monials for  Messrs.  Kerrigan,  McDonough  and  Tierney  reveals  that  a 
core  of  permanent  employees  regularly  attend  testimonials.  Approximately 
sixty-eight  people  attended  all  three  of  the  testimonials,  and  a  little 
less  than  one-half  of  the  permanent  employees  who  contributed  to  each 
"time"  also  contributed  to  at  least  one  other.  The  chart  below  illustrates 
the  breakdown  of  the  contributors  to  the  three  testimonials  for  which 
the  Finance  Commission  was  able  to  identify  most  of  the  donors. 

-29- 


Kerrigan 

390 

76 

19 

Tierney 

421 

64 

23 

McDonough 

186 

70 

2 

Permanent     Temporary  Unions 

Committee   School  Dept.   School  Dept.  Organiz. 

Member     Employees     Employees  Assoc.  Business  Other    Totals 

# %        # %  #    %  #  %  #  %        #  % 

4  7     1    65  13   31  6   512  100 

3  10    2    94  14  114  17   662  100 

1  5     2    50  19   22  8   265  100 


Totals    997     69    44      3   22    2   209    14  167  12  1439  100 

The  total  number  of  contributors  affiliated  with  the  School  Committee 
(permanent  and  temporary  employees  and  employee  organizations)  to  the  three 
testimonials  listed  above  amounted  to  1063:  74%  of  the  total  number  of 
contributors  identified  by  the  Finance  Commission. 


-30- 


Findings  of  Finance  Commission 

EFFECT  OF  TESTIMONIALS  ON  INDIVIDUAL  PERSONNEL 

I.  Administrative  Employees 

(1)  ADMINISTRATORS  OF  THE  BOSTON  SCHOOL  COMMITTEE  GENERALLY  BELIEVE 
THAT  A  CONNECTION  EXISTS  BETWEEN  THE  PURCHASE  OF  TESTIMONIAL 
TICKETS  AND  THE  SCHOOL  COMMITTEE'S  HIRING  AND  PROMOTION 
PRACTICES. 

(2)  MANY  TOP  LEVEL  ADMINISTRATORS,  EVEN  THOSE  WHO  PERSONALLY 
OBJECT  TO  THE  SOLICITATION  OF  TESTIMONIAL  CONTRIBUTIONS  FROM 
EMPLOYEES,  FEEL  THEY  MUST  PAY  FOR  TICKETS  THEY  RECEIVE  IN  THE 
MAIL  IN  ORDER  TO  RETAIN  THEIR  POSITIONS  OR  BECAUSE  IT  IS  "THE 
NAME  OF  THE  GAME",  OR  TO  ENSURE  "FAIR  TREATMENT". 

(3)  ADMINISTRATORS  WHO  DECLINE  TO  BUY  OR  SELL  TICKETS  OFTEN  DO  SO 
ON  THE  GROUNDS  THAT  THEIR  SALE  REPRESENTS  AN  APPLICATION  OF 
PRESSURE  OR  THAT  SUCH  SALE  IS  INAPPROPRIATE. 

(4)  IN  MAILING  UNREQUESTED  TESTIMONIAL  TICKETS  TO  UPPER  LEVEL 
ADMINISTRATORS,  TESTIMONIAL  COMMITTEES  EMPLOY  A  QUOTA  SYSTEM 
BY  WHICH  THE  NUMBER  OF  TICKETS  SENT  OUT  VARIES  ACCORDING  TO 
THE  ADMINISTRATOR'S .RANK. 

(5)  THE  SALE  AND  PURCHASE  OF  TESTIMONIAL  TICKETS  HAS  BEEN  A  POINT 
OF  CONTROVERSY  AND  DIVISIVENESS  AMONG  SCHOOL  ADMINISTRATORS. 

(6)  THE  DECISION  BY  SUPERINTENDENT  WILLIAM  LEARY  NOT  TO  RENOMINATE 
INCUMBENT  DAVID  ROSENGARD  AS  AN  ASSISTANT  SUPERINTENDENT  RESULTED 
AT  LEAST  IN  PART  FROM  MR.  ROSENGARD' S  OUTSPOKEN  OPPOSITION  TO 
THE  PRACTICE  OF  SOLICITING  TESTIMONIAL  CONTRIBUTIONS  FROM 
SCHOOL  DEPARTMENT  EMPLOYEES. 

(7)  THE  DECISION  NOT  TO  ELEVATE  JOHN  COAKLEY  TO  THE  POSITION  OF 
PRINCIPAL  OF  A  DAY  SCHOOL  AND  TO  REMOVE  HIM  AFTER  A  YEAR  FROM 
HIS  POSITION  AS  PRINCIPAL  OF  AN  EVENING  SCHOOL  EVEN  THOUGH  HE 
WAS  FIRST  ON  THE  RATING  LIST  FOR  THE  FORMER  POSITION  AND  HAD 
RECEIVED  NO  ADVERSE  COMMENT  ON  HIS  PERFORMANCE  IN  THE  LATTER 
POSITION,  RESULTED  AT  LEAST  IN  PART  FROM  HIS  REFUSAL  TO  PURCHASE 
TESTIMONIAL  TICKETS  WHEN  APPROACHED  DIRECTLY  BY  REPRESENTATIVES 
OF  SCHOOL  COMMITTEE  MEMBERS. 


■31- 


The  solicitation  of  testimonial  contributions  from  school  employees 
has  created  an  atmosphere  of  politicization  and  pressure  in  the  City's 
school  system.  The  Finance  Commission  has  found  widespread  evidence 
that  personnel  policies,  staff  morale,  educational  planning  and  intra- 
professional  relationships  have  been  intruded  upon  and  adversely  affected 
by  the  testimonial  process. 

Within  the  area  of  personnel  policies,  top  level  administrators  in 
the  school  system  believe  that  decisions  to  promote  or  retain  individual 
administrators  are  affected  to  a  significant  degree  by  their  participation 
in  and  attitude  toward  testimonials.  Several  witnesses  testified  that 
administrators  are  expected  to  contribute,  without  regard  to  the  esteem 
in  which  they  hold  any  individual  School  Committee  member.  Herbert 
Hambleton,  Executive  Assistant  to  the  Superintendent,  noted  that  political 
expediency  was  one  reason  for  purchasing  tickets  to  testimonials.  He 
also  stated  that  some  administrators  suffered  because  of  their  refusal 
to  participate.  William  Harrison,  an  Area  Superintendent,  called  testimonials 
''the  name  of  the  game"  and  testified  that  as  he  rose  in  rank  in  the  school 
system,  he  purchased  more  testimonial  tickets.  Paul  Kennedy,  Associate 
Superintendent  in  Charge  of  Personnel,  testified  that  he  thought  testimonials 
should  be  banned  but  that  he  bought  all  tickets  mailed  to  him  because  it 
was  the  customary  thing  to  do.  Rollins  Griffith,  an  Assistant  Superintendent, 
bought  four  tickets  to  each  testimonial,  totalling  $500  per  year,  because 
it  was  "the  customary  thing  to  do."  Wilfred  O'Leary,  the  Headmaster  of 
Boston  Latin  School  and  an  officer  of  Boston  Association  of  School  Admin- 
istrators and  Supervisors  ("BASAS"),  said  BASAS  made  large  contributions 
to  testimonials  in  order  to  insure  the  "good  will"  of  the  School  Committee. 


-32- 


Evidence  that  top  level  administrators  are  expected  to  purchase 
testimonial  tickets  exists  in  the  procedure  by  which  they  receive  tickets. 
Robert  B.  McCabe,  Administrative  Assistant  to  the  Deputy  Superintendent, 
uniformly  mails  out  tickets  to  administrators  above  a  certain  echelon. 
A  quota  system  exists  in  the  mailing  out  of  these  unrequested  tickets: 
Mr.  Harrison  and  Mr.  John  Kelley,  Associate  Superintendent,  testified 
that  after  they  received  promotions  to  the  superintendent  level,  they 
began  to  receive  and  pay  for  four  tickets  to  testimonials  rather  that 
two.  An  analysis  of  contributions  to  the  testimonials  of  School  Committee 
members  Kerrigan,  McDonough  and  Tierney  indicates  that  teachers  and  lower 
level  personnel  purchase  one  ticket  or  contribute  less  than  $25  for  part 
of  a  ticket.  Upper  level  administrators  generally  purchase  one  or  two 
tickets;  and  top  level  administrators  at  the  superintendent  level  purchase 
four  tickets.  The  level  of  participation  expected  at  a  given  rank  is 
clearly  suggested  by  the  number  of  tickets  mailed  to  the  recipient.  The 
Finance  Commission  believes  that  this  quota  system  and  its  link  to  the 
administrative  hierarchy  constitutes  a  form  of  pressure  to  respond  to  a 
promotion  with  a  higher  level  of  contributions.  None  of  the  top  personnel 
who  testified  stated  as  their  reason  for  purchasing  tickets  or  attending 
"times"  that  they  liked,  admired  or  held  in  esteem  particular  School  Committee 
members. 

Within  the  ranks  of  administrators  are  a  number  of  employees  who  have 
refused  to  participate  in  the  testimonial  process  either  by  selling  or 
buying  tickets.  The  reasons  they  give  for  their  refusal  to  take  part  in 
this  "customary"  activity  include  the  conviction  that  it  is  inappropriate 

-33- 


for  School  Committee  members  to  ask  employees  for  money,  a  general  distaste 
for  the  activity,  or  a  belief  that  the  testimonial  process  constitutes  a 
form  of  pressure  or  coercion.  Mr.  Kennedy  said  he  believed  all  political 
testimonials  should  be  banned  because  "political  fund-raising  and  campaigning 
should  be  put  on  a  different  level."  Leo  Burke,  School  Department  Business 
Manager,  testified  that  while  he  purchases  four  tickets  to  most  testimonials, 
he  has  never  been  asked  to  sell  tickets  because  "they  know  better  and  no 
one  has  ever  offered  them  to  sell,  either."  He  explained  that  he  found 
the  idea  that  the  head  of  a  department  would  sell  tickets  to  his  employees 
"distasteful".  Elmo  Boari ,  a  Planning  and  Engineering  Department  employee 
who  mails  out  tickets  to  contractors  doing  business  with  the  School  Committee, 
does  so  in  secret  because  he  is  aware  that  the  head  of  his  department  would 
not  approve  of  the  action.  Joseph  Carey,  Director  of  the  Educational 
Planning  Center,  testified  that  he  has  not  purchased  tickets  to  testimonials 
because  he  believes  they  open  an  avenue  for  abuse  by  public  officials 
with  enormous  power. 

In  1970  the  then  Principals  and  Headmasters  Association  (the  predecessor 
to  BASAS)  voted  to  assess  each  of  its  members  $150  for  contributions  by 
the  organization  to  three  testimonials  for  School  Committee  members.  At 
that  time,  the  Association  was  negotiating  salary  increases  for  its  members 
with  the  School  Committee.  David  Rosengard,  then  Secretary  Treasurer, 
spoke  out  against  the  assessment  and  decried  the  group's  support  of 
testimonials.  Letters  received  by  Mr.  Rosengard  from  other  members  expressed 
some  of  the  concern  of  administrators  to  the  pressure  and  political 
overtones  of  testimonials: 

-34- 


"Enclosed  is  my  check.  I  admire  your  courage  for  saying  what  we 
all  felt." 

"With  reluctant  concessions  to  our  bright  new  world." 

"Am  enclosing  check  in  the  amount  of  $50  for  annual  dues  in  the 
Joint  Association.  The  group  can  do  anything  they  want  with  it.  My 
conscience  stops  me  there." 

"However  I  try  to  rationalize  the  action  taken  by  the  membership, 
I  cannot  avoid  the  conclusion  that  by  their  vote  our  members  have  authorized 
the  executive  board  to  seek  a  satisfactory  salary  schedule  by  the  bribery 
of  public  officials.  The  fact  that  other  groups  have  allegedly  acted 
in  the  past  in  similar  fashion  does  not  justify  our  adoption  of  the 
principle  that  the  end  justifies  the  means.  I  am  not  happy  to  disagree 
on  this  issue  with  the  obviously  overwhelming  majority  of  our  associates, 
I  should  be  much  less  happy  if  I  agreed." 

The  Finance  Commission  has  concluded  that  many  administrators  view 
testimonial  solicitations  as  a  form  of  coercion  and  that  they  participate 
out  of  fear.  To  oppose  the  practi ce  would  endanger  their  careers  or  their 
groups'  interests,  and  they  know  that.  . 

As  indicated  by  Mr.  Rosengard  in  his  testimony: 

"A  person  would  have  to  be  extremely  naive  if  he  were  to  say  that 
there  does  not  exist  and  does  probably  not  exist  today  a  very   definite 
pressure  on  members  of  the  School  Department  to  puchase  tickets." 

and  again: 

"I  have  attended  testimonial  dinners  myself,  I  attended  one  a  couple 
of  weeks  ago  given  for  the  retiring  deputy  superintendent  of  schools. 
I  attended  one  given  in  honor  of  retiring  superintendent  of  schools 

-35- 


William  Ohrenberger.  I  attended  those  testimonial  dinners  because  they 
were  testimonial  dinners.  They  were  dinners  run  in  testimony  of  the 
work  performed  by  the  men  who  they  were  run  for.  This  to  me  is  not  the 
same  as  a  testimonial  dinner  which  is  run  for  a  member  of  the  School 
Committee  who  has  just  become  a  School  Committeeman  and  hasn't  actually 
done  anything  for  the  School  Department  or  for  the  citizens  of  the  City 
of  Boston  or  for  the  children  of  the  City  of  Boston  but  for  whom  a 
testimonial  dinner  is  run.  I  believe  that  the  problem  of  raising  funds 
for  candidates  is  a  ^ery   complex  and  difficult  one  and  I  can  understand 
the  predicament  of  a  man  who  is  running  for  the  School  Committee  which 
is  an  unpaid  job  or  even  for  the  mayoralty  or  governorship  which  is  a 
paid  job,  I  know  that  the  salary  they  earn  cannot  possibly  cover  the 
expenses  of  running  for  the  office.  Nevertheless,  nobody  twists  the 
arms  of  these  people  to  run  for  these  offices  and  if  they  wish  to  run 
for  an  office  and  solicit  funds  to  help  them  do  so  in  a  proper  way  I 
suppose  there  is  no  other  alternative  but  when  a  School  Committeeman 
has  money  to  run  two  testimonial  dinners  a  year  at  fifty  dollars  a  plate 
and  send  me  tickets,  two  tickets  for  each  testimonial  dinner  and  I  am 
sitting  in  my  office  and  wondering  is  anyone  keeping  score,  do  I  have 
to  buy  all  of  these  tickets,  would  it  be  judicial  for  me  to  buy  them, 
am  I  jeopardizing  my  career  by  not  buying  them,  it  isn't  a  matter  of 
people  twisting  my  arm  and  saying  like  you  want  to  hold  this  job,  by 
implications  there  and  I  am  not  naive  and  neither  are  the  people  who  are 
claiming  that  you  have  to  have  direct  concrete  evidence,  the  threat  is 
hanging  over  your  head  and  when  a  man  runs  two  fifty  dollar  testimonial 
dinners  a  year  and  in  one  case  as  I  was  given  to  understand  not  for  any 
other  reason  except  for  the  reason  that  he  was  celebrating  the  first 

-36- 


anniversary  of  his  marriage  or  birthday,  it  was  something  equally  inane, 
I  see  no  reason  why  I  should  have  to  buy  two  fifty  dollar  tickets  for 
such  an  affair. 

If  you  want  to  send  me  a  letter  and  say  a  testimonial  dinner  is  being 
run  for  someone  because  he  is  running  for  an  office,  he  does  have  enormous 
expenses  and  his  friends  want  to  help  him,  please  participate,  fine  but 
don't  send  somebody  down  to  my  office  with  two  tickets  and  make  me  feel 
that  I  have  to  buy  those  tickets  because  if  I  don't  maybe  I  won't  be  the 
assistant  superintendent  come  September  1,  1972  .  .  .  and  I  know  what  I 
hear  and  I  know  how  I  feel  and  I  know  my  feeling  is  shared  with  so  many 
other  people  of  whom  I  have  identified  just  a  few  and  I  am  not  altogether 
wrong  in  my  judgment  so  I  say  if  they  have  to  raise  money  for  campaigns 
let's  see  if  we  can  find  some  better  way  of  doing  it  but  don't  put  the 
entire  School  Department  in  a  box  where  people  are  afraid  to  stand  up 
and  be  counted  and  they  feel  they  have  got  to  buy  tickets  and  this  is 
what  is  happening. " 

The  fears  of  administrators  are  borne  out  by  the  fact  that  at  least 
two  opponents  of  the  testimonial  process  have  been  forced  out  of  the  school 
system  or  denied  promotions  for  which  they  were  eligible.  David  E.  Rosengard 
is  a  case  in  point.  After  nis  promotion  to  the  balance  of  a  term  as  an 
Assistant  Superintendent  by  the  then  Superintendent  William  Ohrenberger, 
he  continued  to  refuse  to  purchase  the  four  tickets  mailed  to  him  in 
advance  of  each  testimonial.  Several  colleagues  warned  him  that  his 
refusal  was  unwise.  Before  being  rejected  for  another  term  as  Super- 
intendent, Mr.  Ohrenberger  advised  Mr.  Rosengard  that  he  intended  to 

-37- 


nominate  Mr.  Rosengard  for  another  term  as  Assistant  Superintendent. 
But  he  cautioned  Mr.  Rosengard  that  several  School  Committee  members 
might  oppose  him.  Everyone  recognized  that  Mr.  Rosengard's  performance 
of  his  official  duties  had  been  outstanding.  Yet,  at  the  same  time, 
School  Committee  member  Ellison  told  Mr.  Rosengard  that  the  School 
Committee  would  not  vote  for  him  unless  the  Superintendent  submitted 
his  name.  When  Dr.  William  Leary  became  Superintendent,  he  informed 
Mr.  Rosengard  that  only  John  McDonough  supported  his  nomination  and 
that  consequently  Dr.  Leary  would  not  nominate  Rosengard  for  the  position, 
As  a  result,  rather  than  accept  a  demotion,  Mr.  Rosengard  retired  in 
September  1972.  Dr.  Leary  testified  to  the  Finance  Commission  that 
he  had  not  nominated  Mr.  Rosengard  because  he  wanted  to  appoint  new 
administrators  of  his  own  choosing.  Based  on  the  overwhelming  evidence, 
the  Finance  Commission  does  not  believe  that  desire  to  be  the  principal 
reason  for  Dr.  Leary 's  actions. 

In  1972  the  General  Court  enacted  legislation  attempting  to  foster 
the  independence  of  the  Superintendent  of  Schools  in  making  decisions 
affecting  personnel.  Chapter  150  requires  nomination  by  the  Superin- 
tendent as  a  prerequisite  to  any  School  Committee  academic  appointment. 
By  refusing  to  nominate  an  administrator  whom  he  knew  the  School 
Committee  disliked  partially  at  least  because  of  his  opposition  to 
testimonials,  Dr.  Leary  relinquished  the  independent  role  accorded  to 
him  by  the  General  Court  and  subverted  the  purpose  of  that  legislation. 
This  sign  of  the  Superintendent's  willingness  to  limit  his  nominations 
to  those  of  whom  the  School  Committee  approves,  indicates  that  the 
Superintendent  does  not  guard  against  the  politicization  of  school 


-38- 


personnel  policies.  Mr.  Ohrenberger,  who  was  rejected  for  a  second  term 

as  Superintendent  by  the  School  Committee,  had  refused  to  poll  the 

Committee  before  making  nominations.  An  interview  with  education  writers 

which  appeared  in  the  May  4,  1972  Boston  Herald  Traveler,  noted: 

"Questioned  about  school  board  complaints 
that  he  never  gave  it  advance  notice  of 
pending  appointments,  including  major  ones, 
the  superintendent  said:   'That  was  to  pro- 
tect the  nominees  and  keep^appointments  on 
the  highest  level . ' " 

Formal  rating  systems  or  customary  school  personnel  practices  are 
not  immune  from  politically-inspired  interference  and  alteration.  John 
Coakley  of  the  Educational  Planning  Center  was  first  on  a  list  of 
employees  eligible  to  fill  the  next  opening  as  a  principal  at  a  day 
school.  Although  Mr.  Coakley  had  never  received  any  adverse  comment 
regarding  his  administrative  abilities,  he  had  consistently  refused  to 
buy  or  sell  testimonial  tickets.  Normally,  an  administrator  first  on 
a  rating  list  for  an  opening  will  get  the  next  available  position. 
However,  when  Mr.  Coakley's  name  reached  the  head  of  the  principal  list, 
the  list  unaccountably  ended.  Similarly,  contrary  to  custom,  Mr.  Coakley 
was  not  asked  to  serve  a  second  year  as  principal  of  an  evening  school. 
Again,  Mr.  Coakley  did  not  hear  any  evidence  or  mention  that  his  performance, 
which  pays  an  extra  stipend,  was  in  any  way  unsatisfactory. 

Such  incidents  as  those  involving  Messrs.  Rosengard  and  Coakley  confirm 
the  impression  among  administrators  that  sanctions  may  be  applied  by  the 
School  Committee  against  those  who  step  out  of  line  in  political  matters. 


-39- 


Findings  of  Finance  Commission 

II.  Teachers  and  Non-Academic  Employees 

(1)  MANY  EMPLOYEES  OF  THE  SCHOOL  COMMITTEE  BELIEVE  THAT  THE  PURCHASE 
OF  TESTIMONIAL  TICKETS  AND  PROMOTIONS  AND  DEMOTIONS  IN  THE  SCHOOL 
SYSTEM  ARE  RELATED. 

(2)  FOR  MANY  REASONS,  INCLUDING  THE  MEANS  OF  DISTRIBUTING  TESTIMONIAL 
TICKETS,  MANY  SCHOOL  EMPLOYEES  FEEL  THEY  HAVE  BEEN  DIRECTLY  OR 
INDIRECTLY  PRESSURED  TO  PURCHASE  TESTIMONIAL  TICKETS. 

(3)  ON  AT  LEAST  ONE  SPECIFIC  OCCASION,  A  SCHOOL  COMMITTEE  MEMBER  HAS 
EXPRESSED  PERSONAL  DISPLEASURE  TO  AN  EMPLOYEE  WHO  SPOKE  OUT 
AGAINST  THE  PURCHASE  OF  TICKETS  TO  HIS  TESTIMONIAL  BY  A  TEACHERS' 
ASSOCIATION. 

(4)  A  TEACHER'S  REOUEST  FOR  AUTHORIZATION  OF  A  CUSTOMARY  TRIP  TO  A 
PROFESSIONAL  MEETING  WAS  DENIED  AT  LEAST  IN  PART  BECAUSE  OF  THE 
TEACHER'S  OPPOSITION  TO  THE  PURCHASE  OF  TESTIMONIAL  TICKETS. 


-40- 


Many  teachers  see  the  purchase  of  testimonial  tickets  as  necessary  or 
at  least  related  to  promotions,  demotions  and  favorable  treatment  in  the 
school  system.  Boston  High  School  teacher  Lawrence  K.  Foti  testified  that 
he  bought  a  ticket  to  Paul  Ellison's  testimonial  because  he  was  a  member 
of  a  select  faculty  with  a  one  year   appointment.  Boston  Teachers  Union 
President  John  Doherty  reported  that  he  had  received  "hundreds"  of  complaints 
from  teachers  about  testimonials,  and  credited  the  Union's  approval  of  a 
motion  to  file  legislation  banning  testimonials  to  "a  general  feeling  that 
there  were  too  many  testimonials  and  that  people  believe  that  they  should 
attend  those  if  ttiey  want  to  advance  in  the  system."  Thomas  J.  Feenan, 
a  teacher  at  Boston  High  School  at  the  time  of  the  Finance  Commission's 
hearings,  testified  that  he  opposed  testimonials  held  on  behalf  of  people 
who  control  the  employment  of  those  to  whom  most  of  the  tickets  are  sold 
because  the  practice  "smacks  of  blackmail  and  bribery."  Boston  High  School 
teachers,  Henry  L.  Dionisio  and  Mark  Crehan  pointed  to  the  transfer  of 
William  Maher  from  his  special,  higher  paid  assignment  at  Boston  High  to  a 
lower  paid  position  at  another  City  high  school  as  an  instance  of  the 
repercussions  that  attend  speaking  out  against  the  way  School  Committee 
members  conduct  their  testimonials. 

Teachers  testified  that  they  have  felt  pressure  to  buy  or  sell 
testimonial  tickets.  Some  pointed  to  unwillingness  to  violate  a  "custom" 
of  the  School  Committee.  Others  complained  to  union  officials  that  names 
were  taken  of  those  who  had  bought  tickets;  and  some  teachers  objected  to 
having  been  asked  to  sell  tickets  by  persons  above  them  in  the  school 
hierarchy, often  by  administrators  who  had  power  to  decide  their  rating. 
Cesare  Yannetty,  a  teacher  at  Boston  Trade  High  School,  testified  that  the 


■41 


teachers'  association  was  afraid  of  offending  candidates  by  unequal  con- 
tributions to  testimonials,  and  moreover,  that  many  Trade  teachers  believed 
their  extra  $1080  stipend  would  be  jeopardized  if  they  refused  to  buy 
tickets. 

In  addition  to  advancement,  special  assignments,  and  extra  stipends, 
authorization  by  the  School  Committee  of  trips  to  professional  meetings 
may  be  affected  by  a  teacher's  participation  in  or  opposition  to  testimon- 
ials. One  teacher  testified  that  after  he  opposed  a  donation  by  the  Boston 
Trade  High  School  Teachers'  Association  to  the  testimonial  of  John  J. 
Kerrigan,  the  School  Committee  refused  him  authorization  to  attend  a; convention 
that  he  had  attended  for  the  previous  four  years.  The  Finance  Commission 
believes  with  Mr.  Pirrone  that  this  denial  proceeded  at  least  in  part  from 
his  position  on  testimonials. 

The  Finance  Commission  notes  that  teachers  and  administrators  who 
testified  exhibited  considerable  anxiety  about  commenting  on  School  Committee 
members  or  their  fund-raising  tactics.  Teachers  believed  that  testifying 
to  this  Commission  might  have  adverse  consequenses  on  their  careers. 
Experience  proved  them  right.  Several  of  the  Boston  High  School  teachers 
who  described  the  pressure  applied  by  Mr.  Lllison  and  their  principal, 
Mr.  Ippolito,  were  transferred  to  other  schools  where  salary  scales  are 
lower.  Myron  Croteau,  a  Boston  Trade  High  School  teacher  who  testified 
that  he  felt  pressured  to  buy  a  testimonial  ticket,  lost  his  job  after 
testifying.  Though  other  explanations  have  been  given,  the  Finance  Commission 
believes  that  criticism  of  the  testimonial  process  caused  these  changes. 

Extreme  nervousness,  reluctance  to  provide  more  than  minimal  answers 
to  questions,  and,  on  some  occasions,  lack  of  candor  to  the  point  of  apparent 
perjury,  marked  the  testimony  of  several  witnesses.  Frank  Laquidara,  for 

-42- 


instance,  the  principal  of  the  evening  session  at  Boston  Trade  School, 
lied.  He  claimed  that  he  occasionally  purchased  one  or  two  tickets. 
Recalled  to  the  hearings  and  confronted  with  records  showing  that  he 
had  made  out  checks  for  $625  to  Mr.  Tierney's  testimonial  and  $250  to 
Mr.  Kerrigan's  testimonial,  he  acknowledged  these  contributions. 

The  apprehension  of  employees  about  speaking  out  against  practices 
of  which  they  disapprove,  the  hesistancy  with  which  they  responded  to 
even  the  most  innocuous  questions  of  fact,  and  the  occurrence  of  several 
transfers  and  dismissals  after  comments  about  testimonials  were  made, 
whether  at  faculty  meetings  or  to  the  Finance  Commission,  are  in  them- 
selves indications  of  the  alarming  degree  to  which  politics  rules  the 
conduct  and  fortunes  of  employees  of  the  School  Committee. 


-43- 


FINDINGS  OF  THE  FINANCE  COMMISSION 


EFFECT  OF  TESTIMONIALS  ON  EDUCATIONAL  PERSONNEL  AND  ADMINISTRATIVE  POLICIES. 


(1)  HEADS  OF  AT  LEAST  TWO  PROGRAMS  HAVE  SUGGESTED  TO  MEMBERS  OF  THEIR 
FACULTIES  THAT  THE  SCHOOL  COMMITTEE  MIGHT  DECIDE  WHETHER  OR  NOT  TO 
CONTINUE  A  PROGRAM  OR  RETAIN  PERSONNEL  ON  THE  BASIS  OF  VOLUME  OF 
SALES  OF  TESTIMONIAL  TICKETS. 

(2)  THE  DECISION  TO  DISMISS  THE  ENTIRE  STAFF  OF  BOSTON  HIGH  SCHOOL 
AND  TO  REASSIGN  ONLY  CERTAIN  TEACHERS  TO  THAT  SCHOOL,  WHERE  SALARIES 
ARE  HIGHER  THAN  IN  OTHER  SCHOOLS,  RESULTED  AT  LEAST  IN  PART  FROM 
FACULTY  CONTROVERSIES  OVER  TESTIMONIALS  AND  FROM  TESTIMONY  TO  THE 
FINANCE  COMMISSION  CONCERNING  THE  SOLICITATION  OF  CONTRIBUTIONS 

FOR  TESTIMONIALS. 

(3)  THE  SALE  OF  TESTIMONIAL  TICKETS  HAS  HAD  A  DISRUPTIVE  INFLUENCE 
ON  THE  FACULTIES  OF  BOSTON  HIGH  SCHOOL  AND  BOSTON  TRADE  SCHOOL  AND 
HAS  CAUSED  ANIMOSITY  AND  DIVISIVENESS  WITHIN  TEACHERS'  PROFESSIONAL 
ASSOCIATIONS. 

(4)  THE  SALE  OF  TESTIMONIAL  TICKETS  IN  SCHOOLS  BY  TEACHERS'  COLLEAGUES 
AND  SUPERIORS  IS  FRAUGHT  WITH  RISKS  OF  REAL  OR  PERCEIVED  EXERCISE  OF 
PRESSURE,  PRODUCES  INTRA-FACULTY  CONTROVERSY  AND  DISRUPTS  THE  EDUCATIONAL 
FUNCTIONS  OF  SCHOOLS. 

(5)  ON  ONE  OCCASION,  A  DISCUSSION  OF  TESTIMONIALS  DOMINATED  A  FACULTY'S 
MONTHLY  IN-SERVICE  MEETING,  A  SERIOUS  OCCURRENCE  BECAUSE  THE  FACULTY 

MEETS  INFREQUENTLY. 


-44- 


Administrators  and  teachers  in  the  Boston  school  system  realize  that 
testimonials  affect  not  only  individual  personnel,  but  also  entire  programs. 
The  Finance  Commission  received  contradictory  testimony  concerning  incidents 
at  Boston  High  School,  a  special  work/study  school  having  salary  levels 
several  thousands  of  dollars  above  those  in  other  schools.  On  the  basis 
of  all  the  evidence,  it  has  concluded  that  the  following  summary  correctly 
sets  forth  the  events  at  Boston  High  School  in  1972. 

In  the  Spring  of  1972,  Director  Joseph  Ippolito  announced  to  the 
faculty  that  the  previous  evening  School  Committee  member  Paul  Ellison  had 
called  him.  In  his  phone  call,  Ellison  urged  the  faculty  to  buy  tickets  to 
Ellison's  testimonial  and  stated  that  he  expected  to  see  the  Director  and  his 
wife  at  the  "time".  Mr.  Ippolito  openly  stated  to  the  faculty  that  the  special 
program  and  the  teachers'  assignment  to  it  could  be  jeopardized  if  they  did 
not  comply. 

Controversy  followed  this  announcement,  resulting  in  the  dismissal 
of  two  teachers.  Several  opponents  of  testimonials  got  lower  rating  marks 
than  they  had  ever  previously  received.  One  of  the  teachers  dismissed  was 
William  Maher,  who  had  cautioned  the  faculty  to  buy  tickets  because 
Mr.  Ellison  could  be  "vindictive".  John  Doherty,  President  of  the  Boston 
Teachers'  Union,  who  received  twelve  formal  complaints  from  Boston  High 
teachers,  characterized  the  faculty  as  having  felt  pressured. 

The  Boston  High  incident  is  not  an  isolated  example.  Teachers  and 
administrators  at  Boston  Trade  School,  for  instance,  felt  that  their 
failure  to  contribute  generously  to  testimonials  might  cause  the  elimination 
of  their  additional  $1080  stipend  and  an  evening  session. 

-45- 


Myron  Croteau,  a  teacher  in  the  evening  session  at  Boston  Trade  who 
subsequently  lost  his  position,  testified  that  his  Director,  Frank  Laquidara, 
approached  him  and  other  employees  on  one  occasion  with  his  paycheck  in  one 
hand  and  testimonial  tickets  in  the  other.  Mr.  Laquidara  warned  that  the 
School  Committee  could  very  well  decide  to  close  the  night  school.  Since 
paychecks  for  the  evening  session  were  customarily  delivered  by  mail  in 
envelopes  stamped  and  self-addressed  by  employees  to  their  homes,  Mr.  Croteau 
felt  this  method  of  delivery  was  chosen  to  pressure  him  to  buy  a  ticket. 
Teachers  Union  President  John  Doherty  testified  that  he  received  complaints 
concerning  hand  delivery  of  paychecks. 

Trade  teacher  Cesere  Yannetty  and  BASAS  officer  Wilfred  O'Leary  also 
believed  that  purchase  of  testimonial  tickets  would  make  the  School  Committee 
look  favorably  on  requests  from  specific  schools. 

The  apprehension  of  teachers  is  correct:  School  Committee  members  do 
make  decisions  on  the  basis  of  support  of  testimonials  and  political 
loyalty.  Following  the  outspoken  controversy  at  Boston  High,  the  School 
Committee  voted  to  dismiss  the  entire  staff  of  the  school  and  to  reassign 
only  some  of  the  existing  faculty.  The  Finance  Commission  believes  that 
this  decision  partially  resulted  from  School  Committee  members'  desire  to 
punish  those  who  criticized  testimonials. 

Teachers  from  Boston  High  and  Boston  Trade  testified  that  disagreements 
over  testimonials  divided  the  faculties  of  the  two  schools  for  a  substantial 
period  of  time,  diverting  attention  from  the  educational  programs.  Petitions 
and  counter-petitions,  criminal  charges  against  Mr.  Ippolito  filed  by  several 
teachers,  and  letters  of  condemnation  and  support  of  administrators  split 
the  faculties  and  created  an  atmosphere  of  strife,  disruption  and  division 
in  the  schools.  The  devotion  at  Boston  High  School  of  an  entire  monthly 


-46- 


in-service  neeting,  one  of  the  relatively  few  times  in  the  academic 
year  when  an  entire  faculty  customarily  gathers  to  discuss  school 
policy,  to  the  topic  of  testimonials  was  only  one  instance  of 
the  intrusion  of  testimonials  on  the  primary  purposes  of  a  school 
system.  Thomas  Feenan  and  Henry  L.  Dionisio,  teachers  at  Boston 
High  School,  testified  that  morale  among  teachers  at  Boston  High 
suffered  because  of  the  controversy  over  the  purchase  and  sale 
of  testimonial  tickets.  Mr.  Feenan  testified  that  the  controversy 
even  affected  students.  When  they  became  aware  of  the  split  in 
the  faculty,  some  of  them  expressed  disillusionment  with  the  mixing 
of  politics  and  education  in  Boston.  "They  feel  that  one  must  pay 
his  way",  Mr.  Feenan  commented. 


-47- 


FINDINGS  OF  THE  FINANCE  COMMISSION 

EFFECT  OF  TESTIMONIALS  ON  COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING  UNITS  AND  OTHER  SCHOOL 
EMPLOYEE  ORGANIZATIONS. 


(1)  ASSOCIATIONS  REPRESENTING  JOB  CATEGORIES  UNDER  THE  DIRECT 
CONTROL  OF  THE  SCHOOL  COMMITTEE,  NOT  SUBJECT  TO  THE  SUPERINTENDENT'S 
NOMINATION,  HAVE  MADE  SUBSTANTIAL  CONTRIBUTIONS  TO  TESTIMONIALS. 

(2)  PROFESSIONAL  ASSOCIATIONS  AND  ORGANIZATIONS  ACT  AS  VEHICLES  FOR 
DONATIONS  TO  SCHOOL  COMMITTEE  TESTIMONIALS.  THE  ASSOCIATIONS,  NOT 
INDIVIDUALS,  MAKE  THE  DONATIONS. 

(3)  UNIONS  AND  ASSOCIATIONS  OF  SCHOOL  EMPLOYEES  BELIEVE  IT  NECESSARY 
TO  DONATE  TO  TESTIMONIALS  IN  ORDER  TO  PRESERVE  OR  ESTABLISH  THE 
"GOOD  WILL"  OF  THE  SCHOOL  COMMITTEE  OR  TO  GAIN  FAVORABLE  TREATMENT. 

(4)  THE  BASAS  ORGANIZATION  WAS  FORMED  AT  LEAST  IN  PART  TO  RELIEVE 
ITS  MEMBERS  FROM  THE  NEED  TO  VIE  AGAINST  EACH  OTHER  IN  PURCHASES  OF 
TESTIMONIAL  TICKETS. 

(5)  THE  BOSTON  TEACHERS'  UNION  PASSED  A  RESOLUTION  BANNING  UNION 
PARTICIPATION  IN  TESTIMONIAL  FUND-RAISING  AND  URGING  AMENDMENT  OF 
CHAPTER  55  TO  COVER  ALL  SCHOOL  COMMITTEE  FUND-RAISING  ACTIVITIES, 
INCLUDING  TESTIMONIALS. 


-48- 


The  School  Committee  does  not  just  vote  on  individual  appointments, 
promotions  and  transfers  of  teachers  and  administrators  in  the  Boston 
school  system.  It  also  oversees  all  personnel.  These  include  school 
custodians,  cafeteria  v/orkers,  clerical  employees,  supervisors  of  attendance, 
school  physicians  and  nurses.  Many  of  the  employment  classifications  have 
formed  unions  or  professional  associations  which  bargain  with  the  School 
Committee  over  such  matters  as  salary  schedules,  fringe  benefits  and 
working  conditions.  The  School  Committee  thus  controls  overall  personnel 
policies  affecting  groups  or  categories  of  employees  as  well  as  details 
of  personnel  placement  and  promotion  for  particular  members  of  those  groups. 

For  some  school  employees,  such  decisions  filter  through  the  Super- 
intendent, who,  under  Section  58  of  the  Rules  and  Regulations  of  the 
School  Committee,  has  the  authority  to  appoint,  reappoint,  designate, 
assign,  promote,  transfer  and  remove  teachers,  supervisors,  librarians, 
nurses,  principal  clerks,  etc.,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  School 
Committee.  As  previously  stated,  Chapter  150  of  the  Acts  of  1972  attempted 
to  increase  the  Superintendent's  independent  power  over  academic  employees. 
Despite  these  provisions,  the  School  Committee  still  controls  all  appoint- 
ments. The  Superintendent  cannot  nominate  employees  such  as  custodians 
and  secretaries.  Moreover,  the  Superintendent  makes,  only  nominations. 
The  School  Committee  approves  these  nominations  and  thus,  it,  not  the 
Superintendent,  controls  all  personnel  decisions. 

The  Chief  School  house  Custodian  makes  recommendations  on  personnel 
decisions  affecting  custodians  and  the  Secretary  of  the  School  Committee 
makes  recommendations  concerning  clerical  personnel.  But  in  both  categories 
the  School  Committee  ultimately  decides. 


-49- 


As  this  summary  suggests,  few  limits  exist  on  the  School  Committee's 
power  over  personnel  matters  for  large  numbers  of  employees.  These  limits 
consist  of  nothing  more  that  the  assertiveness  and  independence  of  the 
Superintendent,  the  Chief  School  house  Custodian  and  the  Secretary.  In 
other  areas,  such  as  cafeteria  employees  and  school  physicians,  the  School 
Committee  has  virtually  absolute  control  over  personnel  matters  affecting 
both  groups  and  individuals. 

Unions  and  associations  representing  employees  have  made  substantial 
contributions  to  School  Committee  testimonials.  Mr.  Tierney  received  checks 
amounting  to  $4700  from  employee  organizations;  Mr.  McDonough  received  checks 
totalling  $4000;  and  Mr.  Kerrigan  received  checks  totalling  $1100.  Further 
contributions  from  employee  groups  may  have  come  in  cash,  since  fifteen 
tickets  ($375)  to  Mr.  McDonough's  testimonial  recorded  in  the  newsletter  of 
the  Administrative  Guild  Local  398  do  not  appear  in  the  checks  obtained  by 
subpoena.  (See  Appendix  C  for  a  listing  of  contributions  by  check  from 
employee  unions  and  professional  organizations).  The  officers  or  membership 
customarily  decide  the  number  of  testimonial  tickets  the  group  will  purchase. 
The  organization's  treasury,  derived  from  membership  dues,  then  pays  for 
the  tickets. 

Individual  School  Committee  members  do  not  like  to  admit  that  they 

accept  contributions  from  employee  associations.  Mr.  John  0'Leary,  for 

instance,  who  directed  School  Committee  member  Tierney's  testimonial,  testified 

that  checks  bearing  the  name  of  employee  groups  were  actually  individual 

contributions  from  members  of  the  groups.  According  to  him,  they  had 

merely  used  their  organizations  as  a  convenient  way  of  buying  a  few  tickets 

at  one  time.  The  Finance  Commission  found  no  evidence  to  support  this 

contention. 

-50- 


It  should  be  noted  however,  that  recipients  do  not  always  accept 
large  single  contributions  from  employee  organizations.  Robert  Buck, 
treasurer  of  BASAS,  testified  that  Mr.  O'Leary  asked  that  BASAS1 
contribution  to  Mr.  Tierney's  testimonial  be  made  in  small  amounts. 
He  refused  to  accept  a  single  check  from  BASAS  for  $3000.  As  requested, 
Mr.  Buck  delivered  the  contribution  in  the  form  of  unsigned  money  orders 
for  $50  each  and  Mr.  O'Leary  signed  60  different  names  (most  fictitious) 
before  depositing  them.  Likewise,  Mr.  McDonough  refused  a  payment  of 
$3625  from  BASAS  for  testimonial  tickets  for  his  May  "time"  until  October. 
Apparently,  Mr.  McDonough  feared  that  disclosure  of  such  a  large  contribution 
might  adversely  affect  his  November  1973  re-election  campaign. 

Testimony  from  BASAS  officers  Wilfred  O'Leary  and  Frank  Power,  Jr. 
supports  the  conclusion  that  groups  wish  their  contributions  to  be  known  , 
to  the  School  Committee  members  as  group  contributions.  Mr.  Power  testified 
that  one  of  the  purposes  for  the  formation  of  BASAS  was  to  make  testimonial 
contributions.  Individual  administrators  felt  the  formation  of  a  group 
organization  would  eliminate  competition  against  one  another  in  purchasing 
tickets.  "So  rather  than  having  anyone  go  up  individually  purchasing  tickets, 
the  general  feeling  of  the  group  was  that  it  would  be  far  better  for  there 
to  be  a  collectivism  about  it  and  we  would  purchase  the  tickets  and  the 
people  who  received  the  tickets  would  be  anonymous  from  our  point  of  view," 
he  testified.  BASAS  contributed  $3625  to  Mr.  McDonough's  testimonial  and 
$3000  to  Mr.  Tierney's  testimonial.  Mr.  Power  acknowledged  that  some  of 
BASAS'  members  wanted  to  purchase  tickets  to  insure  a  favorable  collective 
bargaining  position  with  the  School  Committee.  Wilfred  O'Leary  stated  that 
the  organization  purchased  tickets  to  create  good  will  -  important  when 
requests  were  made  of  the  School  Committee  by  administrators  or  for  particular 

-51- 


schools. 

Substantial  evidence  exists  to  support  the  conclusion  that  all 
employee  groups  are  approached  for  the  purchase  of  tickets  and  are  expected 
to  purchase  substantial  numbers  of  tickets  according  to  their  total  member- 
ship. Ralph  Vozella,  a  guidance  counselor  at  English  High  School  provided 
such  evidence.  He  testified  that  he  was  asked  to  attend  an  organizational 
meeting  before  Mr.  Tierney's  testimonial  in  February  of  1972.  He  indicated 
that  he  did  not  know  Mr.  Tierney  and  denied  ever  having  sold  tickets. 
Although  the  two  did  not  know  one  another,  Mr.  Tierney  had  a  good  reason  for 
calling  upon  Mr.  Vozella.  For  several  months  before  the  meeting,  Mr.  Vozella 
was  actively  attempting  to  organize  guidance  counselors  in  the  Boston  school 
system  into  a  bargaining  group.  At  the  organizational  meeting  he  was  asked 
"how  much  can  you  handle,"  to  which  Mr.  Vozella  responded,  "I  will  send  the 
tickets  out  to  the  guidance  counselors,  which  is  what  I  did."  He  recalled 
that  he  then  received  approximately  50  or  60  tickets  which  he  mailed  to  each 
of  the  guidance  counselors  in  the  school  system. 

Frank  Laquidara,  who  was  also  present  at  the  meeting,  provided  more 
evidence.  He  testified  that  many  of  those  present  represented  employee  groups 

Since  March  1973  the  Boston  Teachers'  Union  has  refused  to  purchase 
testimonial  tickets  in  this  manner.  According  to  Union  President  John 
Doherty,  the  Union  resolved  to  ban  all  participation  in  School  Committee 
fund  raising  activities.  The  Union  further  resolved  to  sponsor  legislation 
amending  Chapter  55  of  the  Massachusetts  General  Laws  to  cover  all  School 
Committee  fund  raising  activities,  including  testimonials.  The  Union  thereby 
declared  itself  in  favor  of  prohibiting  any  contribution  to  testimonials  by 
public  employees. 

-52- 


Witnesses  who  testified  concerning  contributions  by  employee  unions 
and  professional  associations  at  no  time  mentioned  any  group  enthusiasm 
about  the  achievements  of  a  particular  School  Committee  member.  Rather, 
the  link  between  contributions  and  favorable  treatment  for  their  group 
or  its  individuals  motivated  their  participation  in  the  testimonial  process. 

The  practice  of  collective  bargaining  units  making  contributions 
directly  to  members  of  the  School  Committee  raises  serious  questions. 
The  School  Committee  has  the  obligation  to  negotiate  labor  contracts  with 
its  employees  solely  in  the  interests  of  the  citizens  of  Boston.  These 
contract  negotiations  should  not  be  influenced  by  the  extent  of  contributions 
made  by  unions  to  School  Committee  members. 


■53- 


FINDINGS  OF  THE  FINANCE  COMMISSION 

EFFECT  OF  TESTIMONIALS  ON  CONTRACTING  PROCEDURES  OF  THE  SCHOOL  COMMITTEE 

(1)  THE  SCHOOL  COMMITTEE'S  PLANNING  AND  ENGINEERING  DEPARTMENT 
AWARDS  SUBSTANTIAL  NO-BID  CONTRACTS  AND  SERVICE  ORDERS. 

(2)  THE  SCHOOL  COMMITTEE  HAS  NOT  PROVIDED  ADEQUATE  GUIDELINES 
FOR  THE  AWARDING  OF  NO-BID  CONTRACTS  AND  SERVICE  ORDERS;  GREAT 
LATITUDE  FOR  ABUSE  EXISTS. 

(3)  AM  EMPLOYEE  WHO  PARTICIPATES  IN  THE  AWARDING  OF  NO-BID  CONTRACTS 
AND  SERVICE  ORDERS  REGULARLY  SENDS  OUT  TESTIMONIAL  TICKETS,  SOMETIMES 
WITH  PERSONAL  NOTES  FROM  HIMSELF,  TO  CONTRACTORS  WITH  WHOM  THE  SCHOOL 
COMMITTEE  DOES  BUSINESS. 

(4)  A  PLANNING  AND  ENGINEERING  DEPARTMENT  EMPLOYEE  SOLICITS  TESTI- 
MONIAL CONTRIBUTIONS  FROM  CONTRACTORS  IN  SECRET  CLAIMING  THAT  HIS 
DEPARTMENT  HEAD  WOULD  NOT  APPROVE  OF  THE  PRACTICE.  HOWEVER,  SCHOOL 
COMMITTEE  MEMBERS  KNOW  THAT  THIS  EMPLOYEE  SOLICITS  FROM  BUSINESSES 
WHICH  PERFORM  SCHOOL  CONTRACTS. 

(5)  MANY  CONTRACTORS  CONTRIBUTE  IN  EQUAL  AMOUNTS  TO  ALL  SCHOOL 
COMMITTEE  MEMBERS  AND  DO  NOT  LIMIT  CONTRIBUTIONS  TO  THEIR  FRIENDS. 
SUCH  BEHAVIOR  INDICATES  THAT  CONTRACTORS  BUY  TICKETS  SENT  TO  THEM 
IN  ORDER  TO  OBTAIN  FURTHER  BUSINESS  FROM  THE  SCHOOL  COMMITTEE. 


•54- 


On  September  5,  1973,  the  Finance  Commission  issued  a  comprehensive 
report  on  contracts  awarded  by  the  School  Committee  without  public 
advertising.  On  September  12,  1973,  the  Finance  Commission  issued  another 
report  dealing  with  legal  requirements  for  the  awarding  of  School  Committee 
contracts. 

These  reports  revealed  the  following: 

1.  Most  contracts  awarded  by  the  School  Committee  were  illegal.  They 
lacked  two  requirements  of  State  law:  the  Mayor's  signature  and  the  Mayor's 
approval  of  contracts  over  $2000  without  public  advertising. 

2.  The  School  Committee  awards  a  substantial  amount  of  no-bid  business. 
In  1972,  for  instance,  the  School  Committee  awarded  112  no-bid  contracts  in 
excess  of  $2000  each,  totalling  $2,132,597. 

3.  The  awarding  of  contracts  by  the  School  Committee  is  under  the 

general  control  of  the  Business  Manager,  who  has  broad  discretionary  powers 

under  section  1,  Chapter  318  of  the  Acts  of  1906  and  section  1,  Chapter  231 

of  the  Acts  of  1932.  The  only  rules  and  regulations  which  the  Finance 

Commission  located  concerning  the  awarding  of  contracts  for  the  purchase  of 

equipment  and  supplies  consisted  of  sections  116  and  117  of  Chapter  VI  of 

the  School  Committee  Rules  and  Regulations  (adopted  in  1935),  which  reads  as 

follows: 

116.  "He  [the  Business  Manager]  shall  annually,  and  from  time 
to  time,  advertise  in  the  City  Record,  published  in  the 
City  of  Boston,  for  proposals  to  furnish  any  supplies  or 
equipment  except  text  and  reference  books,  film  and  film 
strips,  the  estimated  cost  of  which  shall  be  in  excess  of 
two  thousand  ($2000)  dollars  unless  the  preparation  of  such 
proposals  would  cause  delay  in  the  furnishing  of  supplies 
or  equipment  needed  promptly  in  the  schools.  In  such  cases 
competitive  bids  showing  detailed  costs  of  the  various  items 
in  each  schedule  shall  be  obtained."  (as  amended  7/16/62) 


■55- 


4.  The  Board  of  Superintendents  approves  contracts  for  professional 
services.  Such  contracts  are  then  approved  by  the  entire  School  Committee. 
The  Business  Manager  and  the  Chairman  of  the  School  Committee  execute 
contracts  for  non-professional  services. 

5.  There  are  no  procedures  regulating  the  awarding  of  non-advertised 
contracts.  In  purchasing  supplies  and  equipment,  the  Business  Manager 
determines  whether  to  have  public  advertising  as  well  as  the  procedures 
followed  in  awarding  no-bid  contracts.  In  contracts  awarded  without 
public  advertising  to  professionals,  the  Finance  Commission  did  not  find 
any  written  rules  or  regulations. 

After  the  reports  were  released,  the  Mayor  insisted  that  the  School 
Committee  comply  with  State  law  regarding  contracts.  As  a  result,  the 
Mayor  now  signs  all  contracts  of  the  School  Committee  in  excess  of  $2000. 
In  addition,  no-bid  contracts  in  excess  of  $2000  are  handled  in  the  same 
manner  as  those  of  other  City  departments.  The  School  Committee  sends  a 
letter  to  the  Mayor  requesting  his  approval  to  the  awarding  of  each  contract. 
The  Mayor  then  sends  the  letter  to  the  Finance  Commission  for  its  review. 
In  all  instances,  the  Mayor  approves  the  contract  before  its  award. 

With  the  exception  of  this  new  procedure,  the  School  Committee  has 
not  taken  any  action  on  a  voluntary  basis  to  improve  its  procedure  for 
awarding  contracts. 

The  investigation  of  the  Finance  Commission  into  the  effect  of 
testimonials  on  the  operations  of  the  School  Committee  demonstrates  clearly 
the  need  for  the  adoption  of  stricter  rules  and  regulations  regarding  the 
awarding  of  contracts  by  the  School  Committee. 

-56- 


A  full-time  employee  of  the  School  Committee  who  plays  a  substantial 
role  in  the  awarding  of  no-bid  contracts  regularly  mails  testimonial 
tickets  to  contractors  with  whom  the  School  Committee  does  no-bid  business. 
Because  he  is  under  the  impression  that  "you  must  do  something  for  these 
people,"  Elmo  Boari ,  a  structural  engineer  in  charge  of  alterations  and 
repairs  in  the  Department  of  Planning  and  Engineering,  mails  out  up  to 
200  testimonial  tickets  on  behalf  of  School  Committee  members  to  contractors. 
He  often  encloses  a  personal  note  saying,  "your  contributions  will  be  greatly 
appreciated,  please  make  the  check  payable  to  ...."  Mr.  Boari  claims  that  he 
conceals  these  solicitations  from  the  head  of  his  department,  whom  he  knows 
would  disapprove.  However,  members  of  the  School  Committee  know  full  well 
what  happens  because  Mr.  Boari  obtains  the  tickets  from  their  assistants.  And 
the  School  Committee  has  done  nothing  to  stop  or  discourage  it. 

In  the  course  of  analyzing  contributions  to  testimonials  for  School 
Committee  members  Kerrigan,  Tierney  and  McDonough,  the  Finance  Commission 
found  that  businesses  contributed  a  total  of  $7,075,  and  that  forty-five 
contractors  doing  business  with  the  School  Committee,  often  on  a  no-bid 
basis,  contributed  to  two  or  more  testimonials.  (See  Appendix  D).  The  uniformity 
of  the  contributions  suggests  that  these  contractors  contributed  not  because 
of  friendship  with  an  individual  School  Committee  member.  Instead,  they 
believed  that  buying  tickets  was  necessary  to  obtain  business  from  the 
Department  of  Planning  and  Engineering.  In  other  words,  contractors  view 
the  purchase  of  tickets  to  testimonials  as  an  "entrance  fee". 

The  sworn  testimony  of  Kenneth  M.  Calvagne,  President  of  C  &  C 
Fence  Company,  Incorporated,  supports  this  conclusion.  Mr.  Calvagne's 


corporation  erects  chain  link  and  wood  fences  and  since  1971  has  averaged 
between  $12,000  and  $25,000  of  business  a  year  from  the  School  Committee. 
During  1973,  C  &  C  Fence  obtained  contracts  from  Mr.  Boari  and  from  two 
other  employees  of  the  Department  of  Planning  and  Engineering.  On  at  least 
six  occasions  Mr.  Calvagne  received  two  tickets  for  testimonials  in  his 
office  mail.  He  testified  that  he  associated  the  buying  of  tickets  with 
"being  in  business"  and  stated  that  the  reason  he  buys  tickets  for  School 
Committee  members  and  not  for  other  testimonials  is  simple.  He  does  business 
only  with  the  School  Committee. 


-58- 


TESTIMONIALS  AND  VIOLATIONS  OF 
MASSACHUSETTS  GENERAL  LAWS, 
CHAPTERS  55  and  268A 


School  Committee  members  have  consistently  violated  the  letter 
and  spirit  of  Massachusetts  law  in  connection  with  their  testimonials. 
On  the  one  hand,  they  have  ignored  those  provisions  of  Chapter  55  of 
the  Massachusetts  General  Laws  regulating  the  receipt  and  expenditure 
of  contributions  by  candidates  for  public  office.  Perhaps  even  more 
importantly,  School  Committee  members  have  flaunted  the  safeguards 
contained  in  Chapters  55  and  268A,  which  attempt  to  insure  that  employees 
are  not  coerced  to  support  candidates  in  return  for  the  continuation  of 
jobs  and  programs. 
ProvisioRS  of  Chapter  55  Regulating  Campaign  Contributions  and  Expenditures 

Section  11  of  Chapter  55  prohibits  any  public  employee  from  "directly 
or  indirectly"  soliciting  any  contribution  "for  the  political  campaign  purposes 
of  any  candidate  for  public  office  or  of  any  political  committee,  or  for 
any  political  purpose  whatever".  Section  12  prohibits  the  solicitation  of 
contributions  in  any  state,  county,  or  municipal  building;  and  Section  13 
provides  that  no  public  employee  may  "directly  or  indirectly,  give  or 
deliver"  to  another  public  employee  "any  money  or  other  valuable  thing 
on  account  of,  or  to  be  applied  to,  the  promotion  of  any  political  object 
whatever." 

While  Section  13  of  Chapter  55  appears  to  prohibit  public  employees 
from  making  political  contributions  of  any  kind,  in  1964,  then  Attorney 
General  Edward  W.  Brooke  interpreted  the  law  to  permit  contributions  by 
public  employees  to  legally  constituted  political  committees.  Mr.  Brooke 

-59- 


acknowl edged  that  Section  13  was  written  into  law  "to  protect  public 
employees  from  political  exploitation  including  coercion,  intimidation, 
political  blackmail  or  'kickbacks.'"  However,  he  pointed  to  Section  6 
of  Chapter  55  which  states  that  any  individual  may  contribute  to  candidates 
or  to  legally  constituted  political  committees.  He  argued  that  despite 
the  words  "directly  or  indirectly",  Section  13  prohibits  only  contribu- 
tions to  "an  officer,  clerk  or  person"  in  the  service  of  the  Commonwealth 
or  of  any  county,  city  or  town,  not  to  political  committees  legally 
organized  under  Chapter  55. 

Mr.  Brooke's  interpretation  of  the  law  has  never  been  tested  in  court. 
However,  this  interpretation  has  been  relied  upon  by  all  elected  officials 
in  the  raising  of  funds  for  political  campaigns  even  though  it  nullifies 
the  explicit  prohibition  in  Section  13  of  Chapter  55  against  political 
contributions  by  public  employees. 

In  addition  to  the  provisions  of  Chapter  55  designed  to  protect  public 
employees  (Section  11  through  15),  the  law  requires  the  scrupulous  reporting 
of  the  sources  and  amounts  of  all  political  contributions  and  expenditures. 

School  Committee  members  claimed  that  two  loopholes  existed  in  Chapter 
55.  First,  they  claimed  that  the  funds  raised  at  their  testimonials  were 
not  "contributions"  within  the  meaning  of  Chapter  55.  Contributions  are 
defined  as  gifts  of  money  "for  the  purpose  of  influencing  the  nomination 
or  election"  of  any  person.  School  Committee  members  never  stated  that 
funds  received  at  testimonials  would  be  used  for  campaign  purposes.  Rather, 
they  were  deliberately  vague  about  the  purposes  for  which  the  money  was 
raised.  Even  though  most  contributors  believed  they  were  giving  for  political 
purposes,  and  even  though  funds  raised  at  testimonials  were  actually  used 


•60- 


for  campaign  purposes,  School  Committee  members  argued  that  such  funds 
were  not  raised  for  that  purpose.  Consequently,  they  claimed  that  their 
testimonials  were  not  covered  by  the  restrictions  and  requirements  of 
Chapter  55. 

Second,  School  Committee  members  asserted  that  they  were  not  "candidates" 
when  funds  were  collected  at  testimonials.  Thus,  they  maintained  they  were 
not  required  to  report  testimonial  contributions  and  expenditures.  Prior 
to  the  amendments  to  Chapter  55  effectve  January  1,  1974,  no  definition  of 
"candidate"  appeared  in  the  statute.  As  a  result,  School  Committee  members 
alleged  that  even  though  they  held  elective  office,  they  did  not  have  to 
report  testimonial  receipts  or  expenditures  or  otherwise  comply  with  the 
restrictions  imposed  by  Chapter  55  until  they  publicly  announced  their 
candidacies  or  until  they  filed  nomination  papers.  School  Committee  members 
uniformly  attempted  to  evade  Chapter  55  by  holding  testimonials  prior  to 
the  filing  of  nomination  papers  and  prior  to  announcing  their  re-election 
intentions.  * 

The  Finance  Commission  considers  these  excuses  for  non-compliance  with 

the  provisions  of  Chapter  55  frivolous.  In  fact,  Section  11  is  not  limited 

to  "contributions"  as  defined  in  the  Chapter,  but  instead  specifically 

includes  any  gift,  payment,  assessment,  subscription,  or  promise  of  money 

for  any  political  purpose  whatever.  Section  13  prohibits  public  employees 

-61- 

*  In  its  1973  Session,  the  General  Court  attempted  to  tighten 
the  requirements  of  Chapter  55  and  eliminate  some  of  the  abuses  and 
evasions  commonly  committed  by  School  Committee  members  and  others.  The 
amendment  to  Chapter  55,  effective  January  1,  1974,  provides  that  contribu- 
tions to  testimonials  and  disbursements  of  the  proceeds  must  be  disclosed 
in  reports  filed  at  the  same  intervals  as  candidates'  reports.  The  amended 
version  defines  a  candidate  as  all  elected  officials  and  persons  who  declare 
candidacy  after  holding  a  testimonial  or  disbursing  funds.  As  a  result, 
School  Committee  members  will  no  longer  be  able  to  dodge  the  disclosure 
requirements  of  Chapter  55  by  holding  a  testimonial  prior  to  declaring 
their  candidacies. 


from  giving  or  delivering  "any  money  or  other  valuable  thing  on  account  of, 
or  to  be  applied  to,  the  promotion  of  any  political  object  whatever".  With 
respect  to  the  reliance  by  School  Committee  members  on  the  claimed  loophole 
in  Chapter  55  concerning  the  meaning  of  "candidates",  although  the  Finance 
Commission  believes  this  claim  to  be  without  legal  merit,  the  question  has 
become  moot.  The  amendment  to  Chapter  55,  effective  January  1,  1974,  defines 
candidates  to  include  any  elected  official. 

Moreover,  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Brooke  did  not  make  legal  the  contributions 
to  testimonials  of  School  Committee  members  by  public  employees.  Such 
contributions  were  not  made  to  committees  organized  under  Chapter  55,  but 
rather  to  School  Committee  members  themselves  or  to  loosely  organized 
committees.  Thus,  even  assuming  the  validity  of  Mr.  Brooke's  opinion, 
contributions  to  testimonials  by  School  employees  violated  Section  13  of 
Chapter  55. 

Regardless  of  the  arguments  of  the  School  Committee,  one  thing  is  clear. 
By  circumventing  the  law,  School  Committee  members  achieved  the  result  which 
Chapter  55  sought  to  prevent:  they  have  politicized  the  workings  of  the 
School  Department  and  weakened  morale  by  spreading  the  impression  that 
personnel  policies  rest  on  a  system  of  patronage  and  quasi-political 
contributions  rather  than  on  merit. 


-62- 


Violations  by  School  Committee  Members  of  the  Donation,  Receipt, 
Expenditure  and  Reporting  Requirements  of  Chapter  55. 

School  Committee  members  violated  the  letter  and  spirit  of  Chapter  55 
in  the  following  ways: 

John  J.  Kerrigan 

John  J.  Kerrigan  accepted  direct  political  campaign  contributions  from 
five  School  employees  for  his  1973  campaign.  These  contributions  clearly 
violated  Section  13  of  Chapter  55,  which  forbids  any  person  in  the  service 
of  the  City  of  Boston  from  directly  or  indirectly  giving  or  delivering  to 
any  other  person  in  the  service  of  the  City  anything  of  value  to  be  applied 
to  the  promotion  of  any  political  object  whatever.  He  further  violated 
Section  2  of  Chapter  55  by  commingling  funds  from  his  testimonial  and  his 
campaign.  Mr.  Kerrigan  violated  the  reporting  requirements  of  Section  16 
by  failing  to  disclose  all  contributions  and  by  omitting  himself  from  his 
contributors'  list. 

Between  January  1973  and  June  1973,  John  J.  Kerrigan  paid  for  campaign 
expenses  from  the  proceeds  of  a  testimonial  held  in  October  1972.  The 
Kerrigan  Friendship  Dinner  checking  account  issued  checks  to  cover  Mr. 
Kerrigan's  primary  campaign  months  before  any  of  the  campaign  contributions 
appeared  in  the  candidate's  report.  However,  no  contributor  to  the  testi- 
monial was  reported  as  a  contributor  to  the  Kerrigan  campaign  even  though 
the  money  was  used  for  political  purposes.  Since  81%  of  the  $19,715  in 
checks  received  for  the  testimonial  came  from  School  Department  employees, 
and  since  employees  were  engaged  in  selling  testimonial  tickets  to  their 
colleagues  within  school  buildings,  Mr.  Kerrigan  violated  the  spirit  and 
purpose  of  Sections  11,  12  and  13  of  Chapter  55. 


•63- 


Mr.  Kerrigan  violated  the  purpose  of  Section  16  by  failing  to  report 
donations  to  his  testimonial  as  campaign  contributions  even  though  he  used 
these  funds  for  political  purposes.  Mr.  Kerrigan  thus  received  indirect 
campaign  contributions  from  public  employees  over  whose  employment  he  had 
control.  The  proceeds  from  this  circumvention  of  the  law  amounted  to  an 
average  contribution  of  $33.48  from  409  permanent  and  temporary  employees, 
and  an  average  of  $171.43  from  seven  employee  groups  or  professional 
associations.  No  record  is  available  of  cash  contributions  to  Mr.  Kerrigan 
from  employees  or  employee  organizations. 

Paul  J.  Ellison 

Paul  Ellison  evaded  the  provisions  of  Sections  11,  12  and  13  of  Chapter 
55  by  using  a  minimum  of  $11,561.87  or  a  maximum  of  $14,561.87  of  the 
$24,053.13  collected  for  his  May  1972  testimonial  for  campaign  expenses  and 
the  repayment  of  loans  applied  to  political  expenses.  Some  loans  repaid  by 
Mr.  Ellison  from  testimonial  proceeds  may  have  been  personal  loans;  thus 
the  exact  amount  of  funds  used  for  political  purposes  in  evasion  of  Chapter 
55  is  uncertain.  Because  the  State  Street  Bank  and  Trust  Company,  where 
Mr.  Ellison  deposited  his  testimonial  proceeds,  did  not  retain  copies  of 
contributor's  checks,  it  is  impossible  to  calculate  precisely  the  percentage 
of  contributions  received  from  public  employees.  However,  both  Mr.  Ellison 
and  his  testimonial  chairman,  James  Crecco,  admitted  in  testimony  before  the 
Finance  Commission  that  many  of  the  donors  were  School  employees.  The 
solicitation  and  use  of  monies  collected  from  public  employees  to  pay  off 
campaign  loans  constituted  violations  of  the  purposes  of  Sections  11,  12  and 
13  of  Chapter  55.  Failure  to  report  contributors  to  the  testimonial  violated 
the  purpose  of  Section  16.  From  his  own  Reception  Committee,  Mr.  Ellison 


■64- 


disbursed  money  for  campaign  expenditures,  personal  purposes  and  testimonial 
expenses.  These  payments  violated  Section  2  of  Chapter  55  which  requires 
that  political  accounts  be  kept  separate  from  all  other  funds. 

John  J.  McDonough 

John  J.  McDonough  even  more  blatantly  evaded  the  purposes  of  Chapter  55 
by  transferring  $10,711.27,  or  83  per  cent  of  the  total  proceeds  of  his 
May  1973  testimonial,  to  the  Committee  to  Re-elect  John  McDonough.  In  some 
cases,  the  exact  amount  of  deposits  to  the  bank  account  of  the  McDonough 
Friendship  Reception  were  withdrawn  in  the  form  of  checks  to  the  McDonough 
campaign  account.  Laundering  these  contributions  through  a  testimonial  account 
should  not  make  them  legal.  School  employees  and  organizations  representing 
employees  gave  seventy-eight  per  cent  of  the  testimonial  proceeds  collected. 

The  average  contribution  from  188  employees  amounted  to  $31.45.  Con- 
tribution from  188  employees  averaged  $800,  including  a  $3,625  contribution 
from  BASAS.  Since  Mr.  McDonough  used  the  same  methods  of  soliciting  contribu- 
tions as  did  other  School  Committee  members,  and  since  he  also  received 
testimonial  contributions  from  corporations,  he  violated  the  purposes  of 
Sections  7,  11,  12  and  13  of  Chapter  55.  His  failure  to  report  testimonial 
contributors  on  his  candidate's  report  constituted  a  clear  evasion  of  the 
purpose  of  Section  16. 

Paul  R.  Tierney 

Paul  R.  Tierney  similarly  committed  direct  violations  of  Section  16 
of  Chapter  55  by  failing  to  list  a  $5,000  loan  from  himself  to  his  campaign 
as  a  contribution. 


-65- 


Legal  Restrictions  on  the  Conduct  of  Public  Officials 

Chapter  268A  of  the  General  Laws  forbids  conduct  by  public  officials 
and  by  members  of  the  public  which  would  create  conflicts  of  interest  or 
would  lead  to  abuses  of  official  duties.  Section  2  forbids,  upon  pain  of 
criminal  penalty,  any  municipal  employee  from  corruptly  asking  for, 
soliciting  or  accepting  money  for  himself  or  for  any  other  person  or  entity 
in  return  for  being  influenced  in  his  performance  of  any  act  within  his 
official  responsibility.  Section  2  also  forbids,  upon  pain  of  criminal 
penalty,  the  corrupt  giving  of  money,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  anyone 
or  to  any  entity  with  intent  to  influence  any  act  within  the  official 
responsibility  of  a  municipal  employee.  In  addition, to  criminal  action 
Section  21  permits  a  city  to  bring  a  civil  action  against  any  person  who 
has  acted  to  his  economic  advantage  in  violation  of  Sections  2  or  3,  and 
to  recover  damages  in  the  amount  of  such  economic  advantage,  or  $500, 
whichever  is  greater. 

In  addition,  Chapter  55  of  the  General  laws  seeks  to  prevent  misuse 
by  elected  officials  of  their  powers  in  the  hiring,  firing,  promotion  and 
demotion  of  personnel.  Section  14  provides  that  a  public  servant  cannot  be 
forced  to  contribute  to  any  political  fund  or  to  work  in  any  political 
campaign  and  that  he  "shall  not  be  removed  or  otherwise  prejudiced  for 
refusing  to  do  so".  Section  15  provides  that  no  public  official  "shall  dis- 
charge, promote  or  degrade  an  officer  or  employee  or  change  his  official 
rank  or  compensation,  or  promise  or  threaten  so  to  do,  for  giving,  withholding 
or  neglecting  to  make  a  contribution  of  money  or  other  valuable  thing  for 
a  political  purpose". 

-66- 


In  addition  to  the  provisions  of  Chapters  55  and  268A  of  the  General 
Laws  which  provide  criminal  penalties,  Section  3  of  Chapter  268A  contains 
a  standard  of  conduct  for  public  officials.  This  standard  forbids  public 
officials  from  engaging  in  conduct  which  would  "give  reasonable  basis  for 
the  impression  that  any  person  can  improperly  -influence  him  or  unduly  enjoy 
his  favor  in  the  performance  of  his  official  duties,  or  that  he  is  unduly 
affected  by  the. . .influence  of  any  party  or  person".  This  Section  also 
forbids  any  public  official  from  pursuing  "a  course  of  conduct  which  will 
raise  suspicion  among  the  public  that  he  is  likely  to  be  engaged  in  acts 
that  are  in  violation  of  his  trust". 

Based  on  the  findings  contained  in  this  report,  the  Finance  Commission 
believes  that  School  Committee  members  have  violated  Sections  14  and  15 
of  Chapter  55  and  Sections  2,  3  and  23  of  Chapter  268A.  These  probable 
violations  are  numerous  and  include  the  following  serious  examples: 

1.  The  refusal  of  Superintendent  Willaim  Leary  to  renominate  David 
Rosengard  as  an  Assistant  Superintendent  of  Schools  (see  Page  31). 

2.  The  decision  not  to  promote  John  Coakley  to  principal  of  a  day 
school  and  to  remove  him  from  his  position  as  principal  of  an  evening 
school  (see  Page  31 ). 

3.  The  dismissal  of  the  entire  staff  of  Boston  High  School  (see 
Page  44). 

4.  The  attempts  by  faculty  members  at  Boston  Trade  High  School  to 
maintain  their  "$1,040  stipend"  by  making  testimonial  contributions  (see 
Page  45). 

5.  The  contributions  made  to  testimonials  by  unions  and  associations 


-67- 


of  school  employees  to  preserve  or  establish  the  goodwill  of  the  School 
Committee  or  to  gain  favorable  treatment  (see  Page  48). 

6.  The  collection  of  testimonial  contributions  from  contractors 
doing  business  with  the  School  Committee  by  an  employee  who  participates 
in  the  awarding  of  no-bid  contracts  (see  Page  54). 

The  Finance  Commission  believes  that  testimonials  are  fraught  with 
the  constant  risk  of  violation  of  Chapters  55  and  268A.  Sworn  testimony 
received  by  the  Finance  Commission  demonstrates  that  persons  contribute 
out  of  fear  and  with  the  expectation  of  favorable  treatment.  Whether 
actual  proof  sufficient  for  indictment  and  conviction  under  these  laws 
can  be  obtained  is  irrelevant.  The  entire  testimonial  process  creates  an 
avenue  for  abuse  by  public  officials  in  the  performance  of  their  official 
duties  and  permits  elected  officials  to  entice  or  coerce  persons  under 
their  control  to  evade  or  violate  the  law. 
Future  Testimonials  by  School  Committee  Members 

If  School  Committee  members  continue  to  hold  testimonials  or  other 
fund  raising  events,  they  must  comply  with  all  applicable  provisions  of 
Chapters  55  and  268A.  In  soliciting  contributions  for  testimonials,  School 
Committee  members  and  those  who  participate  run  the  continual  risk  of 
violating  the  criminal  sanctions  of  these  laws.  Because  of  the  recent  amend- 
ment to  Chapter  55,  the  requirements  of  this  Chapter  apply  to  testimonials, 
whenever  they  are  held.  It  is  true  that  so  long  as  Mr.  Brooke's  1964  opinion 
remains  in  effect,  elected  officials  will  continue  to  rely  on  it  to  permit 
public  employees  to  make  contributions.  However,  it  is  the  view  of  the  Finance 
Commission  that  even  if  solicitations  of  School  employees  for  testimonials  do  not 
violate  criminal  provisions,  School  Committee  members  cannot  do  so  without 
violating  the  standards  of  conduct  contained  in  Section  23  of  Chapter  268A. 

-68- 


RECOMMENDATIONS 

The  Finance  Commission  investigation  demonstrates  that  the  School 
Committee  does  not  conduct  itself  in  a  manner  calculated  to  improve  public 
education  in  Boston.  Instead,  it  has  presided  over  a  system  riddled  with 
politics  and  patronage  in  which  glaring  abuses  of  power  in  office  have  prevailed, 

Prior  to  the  preparation  of  this  report,  the  Finance  Commission  made 
numerous  recommendations  for  changing  various  aspects  of  the  School  Committee's 
administration  of  public  education.  Among  other  things,  the  Finance  Commission 
urged  the  School  Committee  to: 

1.  Eliminate  the  Department  of  School  Health  Services  and  transfer 
responsibility  for  child  health  care  to  the  Department  of  Health 
and  Hospitals. 

2.  Investigate  the  receipt  and  expenditure  of  school  funds  in  the 
public  schools  and  formulate  policies  regarding  them. 

3.  Establish  guidelines  for  awarding  contracts  without  public 
advertising  based  upon  procedures  followed  by  all  other  city 
departments. 

4.  Take  steps  to  eliminate  the  gross  inequities  in  the  distribution  of 
financial  resources  among  the  various  elementary,  middle  and  high 
schools  in  Boston. 

5.  Comply  with  the  laws  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  in  the 
awarding  of  all  contracts. 

6.  Comply  with  the  open  meeting  law  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts 
in  connection  with  meetings  of  the  School  Committee  by  holding 
executive  sessions  only  where  permitted  and  in  the  manner  provided 

by  such  law. 
Regrettably,  the  School  Committee  has  failed  to  act  voluntarily  on  any 

-69- 


of  the  recommendations  made  by  the  Finance  Commission.  Despite  the  refusal 
of  the  School  Committee  to  implement  changes  recommended  not  only  by  the 
Finance  Commission  but  by  numerous  other  professional  and  civic  organizations, 
in  at  least  one  instance,  substantial  change  has  taken  place.  Immediately 
after  the  issuance  of  the  report  of  the  Finance  Commission  on  the  illegality 
of  school  contracts,  Mayor  Kevin  H.  White  informed  the  School  Committee  that 
he  would  refuse  to  make  payment  on  any  School  Committee  contract  unless  it 
complied  in  form  and  substance  with  applicable  State  law.  Faced  with  the 
prospect  of  non-payment  of  its  contractors,  the  School  Committee  has  complied 
with  the  applicable  laws,  but  not  voluntarily  so;  the  Mayor  forced  the  School 
Committee  to  obey. 

The  School  Committee  has  demonstrated  time  and  again  its  contempt  for 
change  and  innovation.  To  a  large  extent,  the  continued  growth  of  the  City 
depends  upon  the  quality  of  education  provided  in  its  public  schools.  Residents 
leave  the  City  in  order  to  obtain  a  better  education  for  their  children  in  suburban 
areas.  Non-residents  who  might  otherwise  move  to  Boston  fail  to  do  so  because 
of  the  poor  quality  of  education  in  Boston. 

Based  on  the  information  gathered  in  its  twenty-two  month  investigation  of 
the  School  Committee,  the  Commission  recommends  the  following: 

1.  The  abolition  of  the  School  Committee.  The  City's  schools  should  be 
operated  by  a  department  answerable  to  the  Mayor  and  City  Council  with  maximum 
community  participation. 

The  Finance  Commission  is  keenly  aware  that  Boston's  citizens  defeated 
such  a  proposed  change  in  a  referendum  held  last  November.  The  Finance 
Commission  is  convinced,  however,  that  because  of  the  circumstances  under  which 
this  referendum  took  place,  namely,  the  controversy  surrounding  the  Federal 
Court's  school  desegregation  order,  the  vote  was  not  an  expression  of  opinion 
on  the  most  effective  system  of  school  administration,  but  rather  a  referendum 


■70- 


on  court  ordered  busing. 

The  Finance  Commission  strongly  believes  that  structural  changes  are  the 
only  way  to  improve  the  quality. of  education  in  Boston.  The  School  Committee 
has  consistently  demonstrated  unwill ingness  to  respond  to  community  needs,  to 
comply  with  the  laws  of  the  Commonwealth  and  of  the  United  States,  and  to  pro- 
vide quality  education  in  Boston.  Such  a  body  should  not  be  permitted  to 
continue. 

The  Finance  Commission  realizes  that  the  abolition  cr  the  School  Committee 
cannot  be  achieved  at  the  present  time.  The  problems  of  integration  currently 
consume  the  time  and  energy  of  all  public  officials  and  absorb  the  emotions  of 
most  of  Boston's  citizens.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Finance  Commission  strongly 
believes  that  at  the  appropriate  time,  when  the  present  integration  and  busing 
controversy  subsides,  the  structure  of  the  School  Committee  must  be  changed. 
The  replacement  of  the  School  Committee  by  a  City  Department  answerable 
to  the  Mayor  and  City  Council  and  with  maximum  community  participation  would 
offer  the  following  advantages: 

(a)  Subject  to  community  approval,  the  Mayor  would  appoint  a  Super- 
intendent of  Schools  with  total  responsibility  for  the  administration 
of  public  education,  including  the  hiring  of  personnel.  Unlike  the 
present  situation  where  the  School  Committee  approves  on  an  individual 
basis  the  hiring,  firing,  transferring  and  promoting  of  all  personnel, 
with  the  results  set  forth  in  this  report,  the  Superintendent  of  Schools 
would  have  authority  to  hire  persons  solely  based  on  merit  and  not  on 
politics  and  patronage.  The  Finance  Commission  is  not  naive  enough  to 
believe  that  politics  and  patronage  can  ever  be  totally  eliminated  from 
government.  On  the  other  hand,  the  outrageous  nature  of  the  School 
Committee's  actions  on  personnel  matters  can  and  must  be  altered.  The 
Finance  Commission  believes  that  a  Superintendent  of  Schools  charged 

-71- 


with  the  responsibility  for  hiring  personnel  without  the  obligation  to 
obtain  the  approval  of  the  Mayor  would  greatly  reduce  the  problems 
existing  under  the  present  system. 

(b)  The  Mayor  would  have  a  far  greater  influence  on  the  budget  of  the 
School  Committee.  Currently,  the  Mayor  is  responsible  to  and  held 
accountable  by  the  citizens  of  Boston  for  the  City's  tax  rate;  yet  he 
exercises  minimal  control  over  the  School  Committee  budget.  The  largest 
single  expenditure  in  the  City  budget  is  for  educati jn.  The  Finance 
Commission  has  no  doubt  that  a  Mayor  held  accountable  for  the  tax  rate 
could  find  significant  expenditures  for  the  School  Committee  budget  to 
cut  without  in  any  way  adversely  affecting  the  quality  of  education  in 
the  public  schools. 

(c)  Any  proposal  involving  the  creation  of  a  City  Department  in  place 
of  the  School  Committee  would  involve  guaranteed  maximum  community 
participation.  This  participation  must  include  such  matters  as 
finanicial  expenditures,  hiring  of  personnel  and  program  development. 
The  School  Committee  has  taken  few,  if  any,  steps  to  involve  parents  in 
decision-making  roles.  In  fact,  it  has,  directly  and  indirectly,  dis- 
couraged this  essential  process.  The  citizens  of  Boston  need  an  opportunity 
to  participate  actively  in  the  education  of  their  children. 

(d)  The  Mayor  has  the  responsibility  for  all  other  city  departments. 
Placing  the  administration  of  the  schools  under  his  control  would  greatly 
enhance  cooperation  among  city  departments.  As  indicated  in  this  report, 
the  School  Committee  has  consistently  refused  to  work  with  other  city 
departments  to  the  detriment  of  Boston's  children.  Obviously,  the 
possibility  of  abolishing  the  Department  of  School  Health  Services  and 
transferring  health  care  responsibility  to  the  Department  of  Health  and 


-72- 


Hospitals,  as  recommended  by  the  Finance  Commission  (as  well  as  by  the 
Boston  Municipal  Research  Bureau  and  other  professionals)  would  be 
greatly  enhanced  if  the  administration  of  Boston's  schools  lay  in  the 
hands  of  a  City  Department  answerable  to  the  Mayor.  Likewise,  cooperation 
between  school  administrators  and  the  Library  Department,  Youth  Activities 
Department  and  Parks  Department,  would  be  significantly  easier. 
The  Finance  Commission  believes  that  abolishing  the  School  Committee 
would  greatly  contribute  to  quality  education  in  Boston.  However,  this  is 
not  the  only  solution.  Others  with  expertise  in  the  field  may  recommend 
the  continued  existence  of  an  independent  school  committee.  Whatever  the 
change  may  be,  since  the  Boston  School  Committee  has  failed  to  respond  to  the 
needs  of  Boston's  children,  the  Finance  Commission  feels  that  structural  changes 
of  some  kind  in  the  administration  of  Boston's  schools  is  critical. 

The  Finance  Commission  trusts  that  responsible  officials  and  community 
leaders  will  revive  this  issue  when  the  emotions  surrounding  busing  have  abated. 

2.  The  Finance  Commission  strongly  recommends  that  the  School  Committee 
discontinue  its  intense  preoccupation  with  personnel  matters.  For  too  long 
the  members  of  the  School  Committee  have  acted  as  surrogate  administrators 
within  the  school  system  dealing  with  matters  which  clearly  should  be  left  in 
the  hands  of  professionals.  At  the  same  time,  the  School  Committee  has  neglected 
important  fiscal,  administrative  and  operational  matters. 

The  Finance  Commission  believes  that  all  personnel  decisions  regarding 
the  hiring,  firing,  transferring  and  promoting  of  personnel  should  be  made 
by  the  Committee's  staff  of  professional  administrators.  The  reasons  for  this 
recommendation  are  obvious.  The  School  Committee  has  based  its  decisions  more 
on  politics  and  patronage  than  on  merit.  It  has  used  its  power  over  the 
hiring  and  promotion  of  personnel  to  obtain  substantial  monetary  contributions 


■73- 


from  school  employees. 

3.  The  Finance  Commission  recommends  the  legal  prohibition  of  all 
elected  and  appointed  public  officials  from  raising  funds  from  any  person, 
firm  or  corporation  for  any  non-political  purpose.  The  practice  of  raising 
funds  through  testimonials  and  other  devices  for  their  own  personal  use  is 
unconscionable  and  should  be  stopped. 

The  Finance  Commission  strongly  recommends  that  the  Massachusetts 
Legislature  and/or  the  Boston  City  Council  take  action  promptly  to  eliminate 
this  obvious  violation  of  trust. 

4.  The  Finance  Commission  recommends  that  the  1964  Attorney  General's 
opinion  permitting  public  employees  to  contribute  to  political  committees  be 
reconsidered  by  the  Attorney  General.  If  this  opinion  is  not  overruled  and  if 
the  prohibitions  against  political  contributions  by  public  employees  contained  in 
Section  13  are  not  made  effective  then  the  Finance  Commission  recommends  that 
the  law  be  amended  to  prohibit  employees  from  contributing  to  their  appointing 
authorities. 

The  Finance  Commission  recognizes  that  the  bar  of  political  contributions 
by  public  employees  contained  in  Section  13  touches  upon  individual  rights. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  abuses  described  in  this  report  relating  to  pressures 
brought  to  bear  on  School  Committee  employees  to  contribute  to  testimonials  for 
their  employers  must  be  eliminated.  To  prevent  such  abuses,  the  public  interest 
dictates  some  limitations  on  the  freedom  of  public  employees  to  contribute.  The 
Finance  Commission  believes  that  a  prohibition  against  contributions  by  public 
employees  to  their  appointing  authorities  is  the  fairest  way  to  guarantee  the 
rights  of  public  employees  while  at  the  same  time  protecting  them  from  pressure. 

Therefore,  if  existing  law  must  be  amended  to  prevent  the  type  of  abuses 
described  in  this  report  the  Finance  Commission  recommends  that  such  amendment 


-74- 


prohibit  public  employees  and  their  immediate  families  from  making  contributions 
of  any  kind  to  their  appointing  authorities.  Under  this  proposal  School 
Committee  employees  and  members  of  their  immediate  families  would  be  prohibited  ' 
from  contributing  to  School  Committee  members.  They  could,  however,  contribute 
to  other  elected  officials.  Employees  of  other  city  departments  would  be 
prohibited  from  contributing  to  the  Mayor  or  members  of  the  City  Council,  but 
would  be  permitted  to  make  contributions  to  other  elected  officials.  Likewise, 
State  employees  would  be  prohibited  from  contributing  to  t.ieir  immediate 
employees  but  could  contribute  to  other  elected  officials. 

Unless  and  until  public  financing  of  campaigns  eliminates  the  legitimate 
needs  of  persons  running  for  office  to  raise  funds,  the  Finance  Commission  urges 
the  Massachusetts  Legislature  and  the  Boston  City  Council  to  take  steps  to 
eliminate  the  problems  raised  in  this  report  regarding  contributions  to  elected 
officials  by  public  employees. 

5.  The  Finance  Commission  recommends  that  all  elected  officials  in  the 
City  of  Boston  be  required  to  divulge  information  regarding  sources  of  income 
on  a  yearly  basis.  The  fact  that  School  Committee  members  for  years  have 
conducted  testimonials  and  raised  large  sums  of  money  as  an  adjunct  to  their 
offices,  without  disclosure  to  the  public,  argues  strongly  for  prompt  implement- 
ation of  this  recommendation. 

There  is  precedent  for  such  income  reporting  requirements  in  Massachusetts 
and  elsewhere.  Massachusetts  state  officials  are  required  by  law  to  report 
annually  under  oath,  all  compensation  received  from  any  source  for  services 
Derformed.  And  in  New  York  the  City  Council  has  recently  passed  an  ordinance 
equiring  disclosure  of  the  kind  recommended  by  the  Finance  Commission.  This 
iction  has  been  favorably  viewed  by  the  media  in  New  York  and  in "Boston.  There 
is  no  reason  why  elected  officials  in  Boston  should  not  be  held  to  the  same 
">tandard.  Accordingly,  the  Finance  Commission  urges  the  City  Council  to  enact 

-75- 


an  ordinance  requiring  yearly  disclosure  of  the  sources  of  income  of  all  elected 
officials. 

6.  The  Finance  Commission  recommends  that  the  existing  laws  regulating 
the  conduct  of  public  officials,  political  fund  raising  and  public  meetings  be 
vigorously  enforced.  It  is  a  matter  of  public  knowledge  that  these  laws  are 
widely  ignored.  One  common  excuse  for  inaction  in  the  enforcement  of  political 
fund  raising  requirements  has  been  that  the  laws  are  filled  with  "loopholes". 
However,  it  is  notable  that  these  alleged  "loopholes"  have  not  been  subjected  to 
judicial  test.  Moreover,  the  recent  amendments  strengthening  Chapter  55  offer 
even  less  excuse  for  inaction.  The  Finance  Commission  also  urges  that  the 
Mayor  act  under  Section  21  of  Chapter  268A  of  the  General  Laws  to  recover  on 
behalf  of  the  City  the  funds  raised  at  the  testimonials  of  School  Committee 
members  in  probable  violation  of  the  provisions  of  the  Chapter. 

The  Finance  Commission  recognizes  that  the  political  financing  laws  are 
detailed  and  complex.  It  is  inevitable  that  there  will  be  unintentional  technical 
infractions  of  some  of  these  requirements,  and  it  certainly  is  not  the  intent  of 
the  Finance  Commission  to  recommend  that  the  laws  be  used  to  harass  candidates 
for  public  office.  Nevertheless,  where,  as  this  report  has  demonstrated,  elected 
[officials  have  systematically  and  consciously  acted  in  direct  violation  of  their 
public  trust  and  duties  there  can  be  no  substitute  for  the  application  of 
existing  laws. 

The  recommendations  set  forth  above  are  intentionally  limited.  The 
rinance  Commission  strongly  believes  that  testimonials  in  the  form  conducted  by 
School  Committee  members  in  the  past  should  be  immediately  terminated.  However, 
the  Finance  Commission  believes  that  stopping  testimonials  will  not  result  in 
iubstantial  change  in  the  quality  of  education  in  Boston's  schools.  Such 


•76- 


improvement  requires  drastic  change  in  the  way  in  which  Boston's  schools  are 
administered.  The  Finance  Commission  trusts  that  this  report  will  assist  in 
•accomplishing  that  end. 


-77- 


\ 


APPENDIX  A 


LIST  OF  WITNESSES 


The  Finance  Commission  received  sworn  testimony  and  docu- 
ments from  the  following  witnesses  identified  below  as  to 
position  and  the  date  of  their  appearance. 

June  11,  1973 

Edward  C.  Winter,  Secretary  to  the  School  Committee 
Carol  D.  Gold,  Assistant  to  Ralph  I.  line.  Chairman 

of  the  Boston  Finance  Commission 
Leo  J.  Burke,  Business  Manager  of  the  School  Committee 

June  12,  1973 

John  Doherty,  President  of  the  Boston  Teachers'  Union 
Frank  G.  Power,  Jr.,  Headmaster,  Charlestown  High  School 

and  President  of  BASAS 
Philip  Pirrone,  Teacher,  Boston  Trade  High  School 
Myron  C.  Croteau,  Teacher,  Boston  Trade  High  School 

June  13,  1973 

Rollins  Griffith,  Assistant  Superintendent,  Boston 

School  Committee 
John  Doherty,  resumed 
David  Rosengard,  retired  Assistant  Superintendent, 

Boston  School  Committee 

June  19,  1973 

Jeffrey  Conley,  Investigator,  Boston  Finance  Commission 

Lorraine  Ash,  Teacher,  Boston  High  School 

Henry  L.  Dionisio,  Teacher,  Boston  High  School 

Thomas  Feenan,  Teacher,  Boston  High  School 

Mark  Crehan,  Teacher,  Boston  High  School 

Timothy  O'Connell,  Teacher,  Boston  High  School 


APPENDIX  A  -   p.  2 


September  5,  1973 

Frank  A.  Laquidara,  Project  Director,  Occupational 

Resource  Center;  Headmaster,  Boston  Evening  Trade 

High  School 
Thomas  F.  Cavanaugh,  Teacher,  Boston  High  School 
William  J.  Harrison,  Associate  Superintendent,  Boston 

School  Committee 

September  6,  1973 

John  R.  Coakley,  Associate  Director,  Educational  Planning 

Center 
Paul  A.  Kennedy,  Associate  Superintendent,  Boston 

School  Committee 
Joseph  F.  Carey,  Director,  Educational  Planning  Center 
Wilfred  L.  O'Leary,  Headmaster,  Boston  Latin  School 

September  10,  1973 

Herbert  Hambleton,  Executive  Assistant  to  Superintendent 

William  Leary 
James  A.  Crecco,  Educational  Specialist,  Educational 

Planning  Center 
John  J.  Kelly,  Associate  Superintendent,  Boston  School 

Committee 
Leo  M.  Howard,  Assistant  Superintendent,  Boston  School 

Committee 

September  11,  1973 

William  J.  Leary,  Superintendent,  Boston  School  Schools 

September  17,  1973 

Robert  McCabe,  Administrative  Assistant  to  the  Deputy 

Superintendent 
James  A.  Kelley,  Coordinator,  Department  of  Safety 
George  E.  Murphy,  Assistant  Director,  Staff  Development 

September  18,  1973 

Theodore  S.  Bakas ,  Attorney 

Francis  X.  Shiels,  Administrative  Assistant  to  James  Hennigan 

John  A.  O'Leary,  Administrative  Assistant  to  Paul  R.  Tierney 

November  8,  1973 

Drew  G.  Doty,  Employee,  City  Bank  &  Trust  Company 

John  Smolinsky,  Employee,  State  Street  Bank  &  Trust  Company 

Oscar  H.  Nickers on,  Employee,  First  National  Bank 

Richard  Crosby,  Employee,  Commonwealth  Bank  &  Trust  Company 


APPENDIX  A  -  p.  3 

November  21,  1973 

Carol  Belanger,  former  secretary  to  Paul  Ellison 

November  29,  1973 

David  Shulman,  Employee,  Liberty  Bank  &  Trust  Company 
Raymond  Abdella,  Employee,  National  Shawmut  Bank 

February  7,    1974 

Salvatore  J.  Messina,  Assistant  Director,  Department  of 
Informational  Services 

February  11,  1974 

Elmo  P.  Boari,  Structural  Engineer,  Department  of 

Planning  &  Engineering 
Kenneth  Calvagne ,  C&C  Fence  Company 

February  12,  1974 

Robert  F.  Buck,  Director,  Business  Education;  Treasurer 

of  BASAS 
R.alph  Vozella,  Guidance  Counselor,  English  High  School 
Anthony  Olivieri,  Teacher,  Boston  High  School 
Joseph  L.  Ippolito,  Director,  Boston  High  School 

February  15,  1974 

Frank  A.  Laquidara  (second  appearance) 

March  4,  1974 

James  Crecco  (second  appearance) 

J.  Michael  Freedberg,  Field  Director,  Ellison  campaign  1971 

March  5,  1974 

Paul  J.Ellison,  School  Committee  of  the  City  of  Boston 

March  11,  1974 

Emil  J.  Dow,  Teacher,  Timilty  Junior  High  School 
Cesare  J.  Yannetty,  Teacher,  Boston  Trade  High  School 

March  13,  1974 

Francis  E.  Casey,  Teacher,  Boston  High  School 
Lawrence  K.  Foti,  Teacher,  Boston  High  School 
Francis  J.  Sullivan,  Teacher,  Boston  High  School 

March  22,  1974 

John  Arcadipane,  Teacher,  Boston  Trade  High  School 
Richard  R.  Viscarello,  Teacher,  Boston  Trade  High  School 
Joseph  T.  Flanagan,  Teacher,  Boston  Trade  High  School 

March  29,  1974 

John  A.  O'Leary  (second  appearance) 


APPENDIX  B 


boston  school  committeeman 

john  Mcdonough 

friendship  reception  committee 


Dear  Friend: 

Friends  of  Boston  School  Committeeman  John  IV  Donough 
are  planning  to  honor  him  with  a  reception  and  Cocktail  party 
at  the  New  England  Aquarium  on  Thursday  evening,  May  17, 
1973,  from  5:30  to  7:30  P.M. 

John,  as  an  unpaid  member  of  the  Boston  School  Com- 
mittee, has  devoted  much  of  his  time  and  effort  on  behalf  of 
the  children  of  Boston.  As  you  know,  John  has  been  involved  in 
many  civic  endeavors  over  the  years. 

So,  we  are  writing  to  you  as  a  friend  of  our  honored  guest 
to  invite  you  to  join  with  us  in  making  this  reception  a  success. 

Enclosed  will  be  an  order  form  with  a  return  envelope.  We 
would  be  most  grateful  for  an  early  reply. 


Sincerely  yours, 


Theadore  Bakas, 
Chairman 
Enclosures 


APPENDIX  C 


CONTRIBUTIONS  BY  CHECK  TO  SCHOOL  COMMITTEE 
TESTIMONIALS  BY  EMPLOYEE  ORGANIZATIONS 


BASAS 

Boston  School  Nurses'  Association 

Boston  School  Physicians'  Association 

United  City  Employees  Local  285 

Association  of  Heads  of  Departments 

Assistant   Principals'   Association 

Boston  District  Council  45    -  AFL-CIO 

Boston  High  School  Coaches1   Association 

Boston  Home   Economics   Teachers' 
Association 

Boston  Public   School   Building 
Custodians'   Association 

Boston  School  Cafeteria  Association, 
Local    230. 


Tierney 

Kerrigan 

$  3000. 

$ 

200. 

250. 

200. 

50. 

200. 

250. 

250. 

250. 

250. 

100. 

50. 

50. 

50. 
250. 
150. 


$   3625. 
100. 

100. 


50, 


150. 


125. 


Totals 


$   4700. 


$  400. 


$4000. 


O 
•r-l 
U 

cu 
Cm 

C 
co 

Ml 

•rH 

u 
u 

CU 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


o 

o 

LO 

o 

o 

to 

m 

LO 

m 

i^- 

m 

LO 

CM 

r^ 

</> 

CU 

£ 

r-l 

■1) 

•H 

H 


•a 

o 

g 

Q 
U 

2 


<u 

cu 

4-) 

J_) 

irl 

o 

o 

rO 

0) 

rH 

4~> 

o 

cfl 

o 

o 

X. 

•H 

u 

T3 

to 

C 

M 

s-> 

£t 

to 

ij 

•X) 

O 

•H 

•i-l 

to 

U 

P-. 

CU 

PM 

co 

4-J 

M 

C 

C 

3 

•rH 

o 

5-1 

EJ 

3 

<  P 

en 
r-- 
-c/> 


in 

CN 

■co- 


in 

CM 


m 

CM 


m 
CM 


O 
in 


O 
m 


m 


o 
m 


o 
m 


m 

CM 


CO 

rH    13 

m 

rH 

NX)   tj 

CN 

CN 

00     U 

<t 

oo 

CX>    u 

00 

o 

O 

CM 

CN 

o> 

CO 

O 

-tf      • 

o 

r- 

r-l       • 

CN 

?-£ 

r-< 

"I'll 

m 

in 

v£> 

r-^   cu 

<* 

<t 

r-^   co 

m 

to 

T-l 

ov  CO 

r-l 

•CO- 

■^^ 

•*~s 

o 
in 


m 

CN 


<x> 


m 

CM 


m 
CM 


en 


CM 


00 

m 


m 


m 
<i- 


o 

CM 


O 

m 


o 
m 


cr.  co  vo 
co  vo  -cf 
oo        <j-        rH 


m 


CO  CO  CO 

r^  r-^  r^. 

i  i  i 

r-4  O  r-l 

CO  CO  CO 

II  I 

O  r-l  r«» 

l-H  r-l 


CN 

CM 

CN 

i-» 

r- 

r- 

i 

1 

1 

r-l 

rH 

r-1 

1 

1 

1 

l-l 

CM 

00 

rH 

rH 

II 

II 

II 

r-l 

CM 

CO 

p 

o 

M 
PS 

w 
p* 


• 

0) 

o 

CJ 

c_> 

•rl 

4J 

o 

r 

,C 

C 

o 

cu 

00 

M 

r-\ 

/— N 

to 

^-x 

•r-l 

•"■s 

rH 

co 

bO 

r-l 

•.  to 

CU 

U 

rH 

a 

fo 

CO   cu 

PQ 

o 

o 

•H 

^! 

B  o 

• 

4J 

4J 

rQ 

/— X. 

CO 

CU   i-l 

o 

co 

CJ 

o 

r-. 

E 

i-l 

4J    f> 

CO     i-l 

CJ 

CO 

CO 

S 

C 

3 

• 

0) 

oS 

/^~\ 

rH 

r-l 

CO 

i-H 

• 

o 

•r-l 

>.  0) 

4-1 

CO 

o 

4J 

CJ 

a 

a, 

>^ 

o 

cj 

r-l 

r-l 

«) 

to   co 

}-i 

U 

,fi 

c 

1-1 

6 

s^ 

c 

CJ 

ex 

CU 

C 

ct) 

0) 

CJ 

o 

?H 

o 

cO 

OJ 

a 

a 

•H 

<D    r—l 

£ 

4J 

•rl 

o 

4J 

CJ 

>. 

a 

^ 

o 

3 

ex 

14-1 

CJ    cfl 

cu 

CO 

S 

CJ 

c 

2 

o 

•rH 

to 

< 

O 

•r-l    "r-l 

4J 

CU 

M 

CU 

cu 

CO 

G 

o 

£ 

o 

rs 

to  x; 

^ 

C 

rH 

o 

a 

O 

H-1 

• 

• 

Pi 

i 

•H 

w 

c 

| 

cu 

r-< 

•-> 

01    4-» 

rN   U 

.G 

4J 

CU 

o 

c 

to 

•U 

CO 

to  -i-l 

CU 

CU 

a 

c 

CJ 

ft, 

u 

n 

co 

c 

cO 

c 

r-l 

4J 

cu 

•rl 

3 

o 

CU 
CJ 

Pi 

o 

r-l 
4J 

o  cd 

<<i  •r-> 

•r-l 
CO 

CO 

5 

CO 

o 

CO 

a 

O 

u 

s 

ft 

< 

< 

►-> 

< 

PQVw/ 

PQ 

N-^ 

**1 

v— s 

PQ 

o 

P 

X 
O 


J-i 
CD 
0-> 


CN 


CM 


CN 


CM 


CM 


CM 


c 

CO 

bfl 

J-i 

CD 


m 

o 

in 

in 

m 

o 

m 

j-rv 

in 

CM 

r-. 

CM 

m 

CM 

o 
m 


cu 
C 
H 
cu 


LT, 

o 

m 

m 

m 

O 

in 

p> 

in 

r^ 

r^ 

CM 

m 

CM 

</> 

o 
m 


o 

a 

o 
Q 
u 
£ 


o 

G 

in 

m 

m 

O 

in 

m 

m 

CM 

CM 

CM 

m 

CM 

<Tr 

m 

CM 


0) 

<u 

•U 

4-) 

•H 

0 

<j 

X) 

cu 

r— 1 

4-1 

O' 

CO 

C 

CJ 

J3 

•ri 

O 

X 

(n 

c 

M 

>> 

X> 

cn 

XI 

X) 

o 

•H 

■rJ 

cO 

J-i 

P-. 

41 

Cu 

CO 

4J 

oc 

c 

c 

3 

•r4 

o 

1-1 

a 

3 

<  Q 

CM 


en 
oo 

CM 

<t 


1^. 

i-i 

T5 

r< 

CO 

r^ 

^ 

<t 

• 

» 

o 

• 

r^ 

m 

m 

<t 

CM 

• 

o> 

<y\ 

t-4 

> 

•st 

n 

•> 

!-i 

« 

en  ' 

m 

CD 

<r 

m 

CO 

1—1 

o 

CM 

m 

<n 


m 
en 

oo 


in 

X 

o 

en 

o 

X 

o 

■J: 

o> 

w 

o 

•u 

o 

J-I 

c 

4-1 

• 

o 

• 

cj 

• 

o 

• 

0 

i— i 

o 

co 

in 

o 

na 

CO 

• 

o 

)-i 

r-i 

• 

o 

n 

<r 

> 

VO 

4J 

vO 

t 

m 

4-) 

*» 

u 

r> 

C 

#\ 

* 

c 

<)■   cu    co    o       o<umo 


cm   en 


o 


cm   cn 


o 

X 

c 

•r-l 

cu 

4J 


> 

CO 

c 

r-l 

co 

PU 

D 

! 

e 

!-i 

c 

cu     ' 

cj 

4-1     o 

cn  cj 

0) 

.c   cn 

O    en 

M    cO 

O    r-l 

Q  O 

•  5^ 
O  O 

CJ  4-> 
CJ 

q  co 

co  u 

00  4-! 

C  o 

C  o 

O  r-l 

•  P 

fn  CU 

•  bO 


C 

CO 
bO 
cO 
C 

cO  - 


-5 


cn 
}-i 

01 

cu 

r-l     4J 

cu   cn 

4J      CO 
4J    r-l 

•r-l       CX 

CJ  ^ 


o 

CJ 

o 
•i-i 

4-1 
CJ 
CU 
r-l 
W 

c 

•r4 
IW 
IW 
•r-l 
>-l 
CJ 


CO    cn 

X    U 

cu 

•  en 

•-,   o 

■—I 

en    cj 

•H 


O 

o 


o 

4-) 
CJ 

CO 
5-i 


en   4J 

bO  C 
C    O 

•r-l     O 
33 


•    5-t 

O    O 
CJ    4J 

o 

en  cO 

CU  u 

P  4J 

>.  C 

x  o 

CJ 


}-i  X 


•-3  c        c   c 

0)  42    CU 

.   bO         o    bO 


cn 

O 

O 

CO 


PC 
►J 


X 

o 

•rl 
U 

CD 
Ph 


CN 


CN 


CN 


CO 


CN 


CM 


c 

CD 
Ml 


CD 


LO 

O 

o 

o 

o 

CN 

m 

LO 

iO 

o 

o 


o 
o 


CD 

c 

0) 

H 


o 

m 

o 

o 

o 

LO 

CN 

LO 

o 

o 

<n- 

r-l 

.-4 

o 
m 


in 


m 


X 
O 

C 
o 
p 
u 


in 

in 

m 

in 

o 

o 

CN 

CN 

CN 

r> 

m 

m 

-co- 

c 
m 


o 
m 


m 

CN 


cu 

CD 

4J 

4J 

•r-l 

E 

E 

■  o 

U 

X 

CD 

1— I 

4J 

o 

CO 

o 

CJ 

X 

•r-l 

CJ 

XI 

CO 

c 

M 

p~> 

43 

CO 

XI 

XI 

o 

•r-l 

•r-l 

CO 

!h 

P-. 

CD 

P< 

en 

■U 

5C 

C 

d 

d 

•r-l 

o 

r-l 

E 

3 

< 

P 

o 

CO 

O 

LO 

•J- 

r-l 


CN 

<* 

en 

00 
CN. 


o 

X 

m 

O 

CO 

X 

o 

en 

r-l 

M 

ON 

o 

o\ 

U 

cr. 

4-> 

ft 

o 

• 

• 

• 

o 

* 

CJ 

CN 

co 

o 

r-l 

CO 

cci 

CO 

• 

vO 

o 

CN 

ft. 

r-l 

H 

vd 

i 

r-l 

00 

o 

> 

r-l 

4J 

#1 

n 

n 

•» 

5-i 

A 

a 

m 

CD 

r-H 

rH 

r-l 

CD 

in 

o 

i—i 

CO 

<t 

<f 

in 

en 

CO 

U 

o 

p- 

X 

m 

en 

o 

en 

co 

o 

r-l 

CO 

4J 

r-l 

4J 

• 

• 

O 

• 

o 

• 

CJ 

ON 

ST 

o> 

ccj 

>o 

CO 

o> 

r-l 

• 

r-l 

u 

cr> 

rl 

r-l 

r- 

B 

•tf 

u 

CO 

4J 

*l 

M 

M 

a 

m 

e 

Ch 

-ct 

01 

00 

o 

vO 

o 

r-l 

00 

CO 

r^ 

CJ 

<t 

o 

d 

4J 

o 

CD 

•r-l 

CD 

4-1 

Jd 

CJ 

/ — \ 

CO 

• 

3 

5-i 

o 

5-i 

O 

•3 

cj 

4J 

O 

4J 
CJ 

M 

O 

, — v 

r-l 

CJ 

d 

o 

CO 

d 

CJ 

M 

cO 

•r-l 

o 

5-i 

•i-i 

d 

CJ 

r4 

a 

d 

4J 

4-1 

d 

•rl 

•rl 

4-1 

CD 

d 

o 

o 

>>    4J 

CD 

r-l 

CJ 

r*l 

CD 

o 

o 

•ri 

CD     CO 

d 

4J 

• 

CD 

x 

M 

o 

Pi 

4J 

> 

r-l       CD 

60 

U 

a 

r-l 

4J 

CJ 

CJ 

c 

-     .C 

•H 

/— N 

CD 

d 

w 

!-i 

S 

r-l 

d 

d 

cc 

CJ 

> 

u 

i—l 

H 

cd 

CO 

•H 

n 

a 

fcd  ^ 

CO 

CD 

W 

>1 

cj 

• 

CJ 

n 

• 

4J 

E 

rJ 

4J 

#* 

CD 

CJ 

rJ 

•H 

o 

o 

en 

0 

• 

C 

CD 

CD 

r-l 

£ 

5-i 

£ 

cj 

d 

CJ 

W   43 

X 

CD 

c 

O 

d 

X 

4J 

o 

E 

CL 

o. 

•r-l 

•r-l 

•i-i 

• 

a 

U 

• 

r-l 

CJ 

c   3 

CD 

u 

4-1 

£ 

W 

•-3 

CD 

0) 

w 

CO 

X    r-l 

en 

CO 

d 

CJ 

CO 

rH 

4J 

3 

O      D- 

o 

CJ 

CD 

CD 

co 

• 

o 

CD 

• 

CD 

■-,    w 

•-5 

rJ 

CO 

£ 

P 

<-> 

^^ 

-i  £ 

Pi 

o 

en 
en 

d 

pd  /-n 

rl 
44  CD 
CJ  43 
•rl      E 

5-i    3 

4J    r-l 
CfJ 

P* 


a 


X> 

o 

•r-l 
U 

CU 


cm 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


C 

CO 
M| 

•r-4 

M 
r-l 

cu 


o 

in 

m 

in 

in 

in 

un 

CM 

r~. 

r-- 

r>. 

r-» 

</> 

o 
m 


m 

CM 


CO 

C 

)- 

a' 


o 

m 

O 

o 

in 

o 

m 

CM 

m 

in 

r» 

in 

</> 

m 

CM 


0 
o 
C 
o 

Q 

o 


o 
in 
</> 


o 
m 


o 
n 


o 
in 


o 
in 


o 
in 


CU 

cu 

4-1 

4-> 

•r-l 

O 

CJ 

X) 

CU 

r-l 

-U 

o 

CO 

o 

a 

JC 

■H 

cj 

X> 

CO 

c 

H 

P^ 

,Q 

CO 

XI 

X» 

O 

•r-l 

•r-l 

cfl 

u 

cu 

<D 

P- 

co 

4-) 

fc£ 

c 

C 

3 

•r-l 

o 

i-l 

1 

a 

CO 

m 

XI 

r-i 

o 

5-< 

• 

• 

O 

CM 

CT> 

CM 

ON 

• 

a> 

t--. 

> 

m. 

a 

U 

vo 

CM 

a) 

x-l 

tn 

•oo- 


<t 


On 
vO 

O 
CM 


o 

vO 

X> 

o 

x> 

m 

co 

o 

XI 

o 

CO 

m 

o 

r-~ 

u 

CTN 

^ 

o 

4-> 

SO 

(-1 

in 

4-> 

o 

• 

• 

o 

• 

o 

• 

CJ 

• 

O 

• 

O 

• 

-d- 

co 

o 

SO 

CO 

sO 

SO 

CO 

CM 

CM 

en 

• 

o 

• 

m 

M 

r-4 

• 

r^ 

r-l 

in 

r^ 

00 

> 

00 

> 

r~^ 

4J 

in 

> 

CO 

4J 

vO 

n 

•s 

r-l 

#1 

n 

A 

Pi 

« 

r4 

r. 

CJ 

* 

r-- 

00 

cu 

00 

cu 

vO 

o 

o 

<U 

On 

o 

cy> 

r-l 

r-l 

CO 

m 

CO 

CM 

o 

r-l 

co 

o 

r-l 

cj 


'"7 

o 
a 

bO 

4-) 

00 

ctf 

14-1 

ci 

•r-4 

bO 

10 

^~~. 

CO 

S~ N 

4J 

CJ 

co 

• 

CO 

CO 

CJ 

CO 

• 

CJ 

•H 

}-; 

O 

00 

cj 

S-I 

o 

r4 

o 

CO 

CH 

cu 

CJ 

•r-l 

o 

CO 

O 

CJ 

H 

O 

X 

* 

4J 

4J 

4J 

4-1 

O 

4-J 

•i-I 

• 

4J 

CJ 

«i 

CJ 

r4 

C 

>1 

Pi 

O 

4-) 

bO 

P 

CO 

CO 

OJ 

o 

c 

r-l 

CO 

•U 

CL 

U 

o 

5-1 

r« 

CJ 

ca 

rC     r-l 

FQ 

r-l 

CU 

c 

4J 

4J 

4-) 

r-l 

r~\ 

C- 

4-1     CO 

s~\ 

r-4 

.c 

CO 

e 

CU 

C 

« 

CO 

c 

s 

-i-l     4-J 

P^ 

CO 

CO 

f-^ 

o 

c 

o 

£ 

01 

o 

0 

6   cu 

cu 

S-i 

> 

n 

CJ 

OJ 

CJ 

•H 

4-1 

CJ 

co  S 

s 

<U 

• 

CM 

> 

• 

J-l 

bO 

cu 

rQ 

x> 

£> 

<4-l 

r-l 

r-l 

s 

OJ 

C 

•    4-J 

x. 

P 

r-l 

B 

O 

— 

}-i 

— 

a 

•H 

<      CU 

4-1 

'3 

CO 

0 

r-l 

c 

CU 

c 

c 

CO 

rC 

CD 

01 

r-l 

r-l 

r-l 

CU 

CU 

4-J 

CU 

rC 

J-l 

10 

•  X 

5-1 

D. 

Q) 

Q- 

o 

bO 

OJ 

00 

O  XI 

CO 

Sfi  CO 

E-+. 

w 

O 

"— ' 

Pi 

^— ' 

ru 

•^s 

•n 

v— ' 

rS 

o 

CJ 

cu 
n 

rO 

4J 
•r-l 

!-i 


co 
O 

PQ 

4J 

r-l 

CO 
CJ 


T3 

O 

•i-l 

J-i 

CN 

CN 

Q) 

P-i 

C 

TO 

M 

•r4 

O 

in 

>-l 

in 

CM 

u 

</> 

0> 

t^ 

>! 

QJ 

C 

^ 

o 

<y 

in 

•r-J 

</> 

H 

X 

M 

3 

o 

C 

m 

o 

CNJ 

Q 

u 

i^-i 

a 

<y 

(U 

4J 

4-> 

?r4 

O 

U    X> 

<D 

t-<    4-> 

O    CO 

o    O 

.c  «h 

O   XI 

CO     0 

i— i 

O 

M 

m 

en 

S*, 

• 

,J3    W 

OV 

<j\ 

T2 

o 

I-*. 

"0     O 

en 

C3> 

•r<    -H 

n 

r. 

CO   'J-i 

vD 

o 

P-i     Q) 

i— 1 

i — i 

f^ 

</> 

to 

4-J    bC 

c  c 

3    -r-l 

O    M 

e  3 

<j 

p 

o 


s-4 
o 

4-1 
CO 
> 

CD 


> 

I-l 

p 

w 

cd 

C-, 

4J 

B 

en 

o 

cO 

u 

0> 

.C 

o 

S3 


<D 
4-1 

o 
Jj 


CO 

J-I 
o 

4-1 
U 
CO 
J-J 
4J 

c 

O 

o 


•r-l  - 
4-J      C 

W     01 
•H     00 

pi  <w