LYNNFIELD — Former Lynnfield School Committee member Jamie Hayman has expressed concern about the agenda publicly posted for the July 1 meeting, which listed him as the one who submitted the Open Meeting Law complaint filed on June 18.

Hayman, who served on the committee for 12 years, wrote a letter directly to Chair Kristen Elworthy and Superintendent of Schools Thomas Geary. The Daily Item obtained the letter — and Hayman’s permission to publish it — the day before the Lynnfield School Committee’s meeting on Wednesday, during which they went into Executive Session to discuss the matter of the complaint.

As was written in the July 1 agenda, the committee met to “discuss complaints or charges brought against a public officer, employee, staff member, or individual, specifically the Open Meeting Law Complaint submitted by Jamie Hayman on June 18, 2026.”

In Hayman’s letter, he asks a series of questions about why his identity was listed on the agenda. Ahead of the meeting, the Lynnfield School Committee also posted the same wording directly onto its Facebook page.

Hayman also expressed concern about the “broader implications” that could result.

“From my time on the SC, I know responsibility for preparing the agenda rests with the School Committee, typically in consultation with the Superintendent,” he wrote. “With that understanding, I have several questions regarding the agenda for Wednesday’s executive session. First, who made the decision to identify me by name as the complainant on the publicly posted agenda? Second, was that decision made based upon the advice of legal counsel?”

He continued: “If so, I respectfully request that you identify: The attorney who provided the advice; Who requested or received that advice; When the advice was provided; and whether the advice specifically addressed identifying the complainant by name on the public agenda.”

Hayman also stated that, after researching other Open Meeting Law complaints across Massachusetts, he had not found any examples in which a complainant’s name was included on the publicly posted agenda. He also noted that while his complaint is a public record, identifying him on the meeting agenda appears to be “unusual” and “serves no governmental purpose.”

He also expressed concern that including his name gives the impression that he has a role in Wednesday’s meeting or are participating in the committee’s Executive Session, which he has no role in.

“I am concerned that this wording could create confusion for members of the public,” Hayman wrote.

Lastly, Hayman’s letter raises concerns about the “broader implications” this could have for those who might want to use the complaint process in the future.

“Publicly highlighting the identity of an Open Meeting Law complainant on an agenda could reasonably have a negative effect on residents who may otherwise consider using the complaint process to hold public bodies accountable.”

Hayman told the Item that he has not yet received a response.

This is not the first time that the topic of confidentiality has been brought up recently in a School Committee meeting. At the last meeting, Dr. Darnisa Amante-Jackson emphasized in her presentation that the issue is not limited to Lynnfield Public Schools, either, but is townwide.

“In a small town, it becomes really hard to guarantee that people aren’t going to find out who said it and what happened … This is deeper than the schools,” she said.

Other news from the July 1 meeting was that during Open Session, the committee also voted 4–1 to approve Geary’s annual salary of $229,030 for the contract period of July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027. This is a 3% increase ($6,670) over the prior year’s salary.

The committee posted the news to its Facebook page, citing that “the 3% adjustment is consistent with the cost-of-living increases approved for the teachers’ union, other Lynnfield municipal unions, and district administrators for the upcoming fiscal year.”