New Leadership & Important Questions for Watertown Special Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. SEPAC Bylaw Exclusion & Retaliation Finding

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

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

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

Document (OCR Letter & Agreement):

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

2. Voluntary Resolution Regarding Independent Special Education Advocacy Groups

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

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

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

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

Document (OCR Resolution Agreement):

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

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

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

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

Governance by Silence: How Procedural Maniuplation Shielded the Watertown School Committee from Public Acccountability

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

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

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

Shielding the System: Erasing 300+ Signatures From the Record

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Parliamentary Mechanics of 2–0–5

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

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

Chair Kendra Foley declared that the motion failed.

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

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

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

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

Dissecting the Chair’s Rationale & The Supermajority Fallacy

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

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

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

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

Why Claiming the Policy is "Unclear" Misses the Mark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is "Intent" Ever Considered in Parliamentary Law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The REALITY Behind the Rhetoric:

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

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

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

The True Stature of Dysfunction: Governance by Silence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Case for 2 Year School Committee Terms in Watertown

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

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

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

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

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

2. Parity with the City Council & Fiscal Realities:

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

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

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

3. Opening the Door for a Larger Candidate Pool:

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

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

4. Aligning with the Commonwealth Standard:

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

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

Let’s address some potential concerns up front:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Why change something that has worked for decades?”

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

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

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