The recent controversy surrounding the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education has highlighted a critical issue in governance - transparency. The state's attorney general office found that the board's chairperson, Craven, failed to provide sufficient notice of a panel discussion on antisemitic bullying, which is a requirement under the Open Meeting Law.

This oversight was not an isolated incident. Since November 2023, when two students addressed the board about antisemitic bullying, Craven had been aware of strong public interest in combating this issue. However, the public notice for the January 23 meeting did not mention bullying or antisemitism. Instead, it simply stated that a panel discussion was planned.

The panel itself consisted of five individuals from different groups, who were invited by Craven to share their experiences with antisemitic bullying in schools. The presentation lasted 25 minutes and sparked discussions among other board members. But what if the public notice had explicitly mentioned bullying or antisemitism? Would it have led to a more meaningful engagement with the Muslim community, which is also experiencing Islamophobia?

Governance is not just about following rules; it's about creating an environment where everyone feels heard and valued. Transparency is key in this regard. By failing to provide sufficient notice, Craven missed an opportunity to engage with the public on a sensitive topic.

The attorney general's office has ordered the state board to comply with the law and attend training on the Open Meeting Law. This is a step in the right direction, but it raises questions about whether these measures are effective in preventing similar violations in the future.

Understanding the Unspoken Rules: A Look into Massachusetts' Governance

Actions