SAUGUS — A copy of Superintendent of Schools Erin McMahon’s contract obtained by The Daily Item sheds additional light on apparent violations of the agreement by the School Committee during McMahon’s leave of absence.
McMahon, the first woman to serve as superintendent, has been on paid administrative leave since January — with no end in sight — amid a supposed investigation into unspecified allegations of misconduct. Last month, her attorney and the longtime general counsel to the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, Michael Long, alleged the committee violated McMahon’s contract. The contract was agreed to in May 2021 and pays McMahon nearly $1 million over the course of a five-year agreement.
Section 8.8 of the document reads “any criticisms, complaints, and suggestions called to the attention of the committee shall be promptly and discreetly referred to the superintendent in writing,” and additionally “any such matter not promptly raised may not be considered in the summative evaluation as the superintendent may not be aware of same or may not have time to take remedial action.”
Long said the committee failed to provide McMahon with written notice of any complaints brought against her, which constitutes a violation of the above section. As a result, McMahon initiated arbitration proceedings against the committee.
Committee Chairman Vincent Serino declined to comment on the allegation that his committee violated McMahon’s contract.
The committee has also apparently failed to conduct an investigation into McMahon, with Long saying the matter was referred to Town Manager Scott Crabtree, who in turn hired a private law firm to conduct the investigation. But, McMahon’s contract dictates that she is to serve as the chief executive of the school department, and as a result Crabtree has no real oversight of her work.
To that end, only the committee has the power to terminate or suspend McMahon. The town charter also states “the town manager shall supervise and direct the administration of all departments, commissions, boards and offices, except the Board of Selectmen, the School Committee, the Board of Appeals, the Board of Library Trustees, election officers, and the registrars of voters.” The town charter does not distinguish between the School Committee and the school department. Nowhere in the charter does it indicate Crabtree would oversee McMahon. Instead, Massachusetts General Law dictates that it is the committee’s responsibility to do so.
The charter also lays out the process by which the town can conduct investigations — noting that Crabtree can “without notice… cause the affairs of any division or department under his control or the conduct of any officer or employee thereof to be examined.” But, with the School Committee and thus the school department outside of his control, that does not appear to apply in this case.
The document also states the Board of Selectmen may “employ such experts, counsel, and other assistants and incur such other expenses, not exceeding in any year the sum of $1,000.” The Selectmen can approve larger sums by authorizing the treasurer to spend additional funds. To do so, a majority of the board must sign a warrant approving the additional expenses.
But, Crabtree and Treasurer/Collector Wendy Hatch (whose husband, John Hatch, serves as the vice chair of the School Committee) have seemingly not done so. Long told The Item last month that the town spent nearly $17,000 to investigate McMahon during February and March.
Section 12 of McMahon’s contract, concerning the termination of the employment agreement, lays out the process by which the committee may suspend McMahon from her position. The committee has not officially suspended McMahon, but by voting to place her on paid administrative leave has essentially done so. McMahon has spent nearly five months on leave while the committee has remained silent.
The document states that McMahon could be suspended or terminated from her position for “insubordination, incompetency, neglect of duty, or other good cause.” The contract defines good cause as “any ground put forth by the committee in good faith that is not arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, or irrelevant to the task of building and maintaining an efficient school system.”