Region 10 Board Members Admit to Getting Off Topic in Executive Session
by Christine Stuart | October 18, 2007 9:38 PM
Posted to Media Matters
Three members of the Region 10 Board of Education and their attorney tried to downplay remarks made about a student, who was not the topic of an executive session on June 11.
At a Freedom of Information Commission hearing Thursday, Peter Turner, a board of education member for 14 years, testified that last spring a lot of people around town where talking about Avery Doninger, the student who was banned from running for class secretary after calling school administrators “douche bags” on an online journal.
Mr. Turner said prior to the June meeting he had a conversation with the First Selectman of Burlington, who indicated there was a chance “we were going to be sued,” by the Doninger’s. He said toward the end of the executive session which was called for the purpose of discussing pending litigation filed by another family that resides in Region 10 and a personnel issue, he asked the School Superintendent Paula Schwartz if she had heard of any litigation regarding the Doninger’s.
“I brought this up because we were talking about potential litigation,” he said. The Doninger’s attorney asked Turner why he didn’t ask the question during the public portion of the meeting and he said, “anything having to do with litigation, we do in executive session.”
While the Doninger’s did finally file a civil rights lawsuit against Region 10 administrators, they didn’t do it until July 16.
Another Region 10 school board member, Beth Duffy, testified Thursday that the conversation about Doninger was brief. When asked what brief meant, she had trouble putting a number on it. “I recalled it as brief, but I couldn’t put a number on it,” she said.
In closing, Region 10 attorney Christine Chinni said the school board members did not violate the Freedom of Information Act and besides, “public agencies can’t be expected to gag a member mid-sentence,” when they’re asking a question. There was no decision made and no notes taken during the session, she said.
Turner said that Superintendent Schwartz answered his question by telling the board the situation was being handled administratively.
The Freedom of Information Commission hearing officer, Attorney Victor Perpetua, will file a report with the full commission after reviewing all the evidence. The report, which may take several weeks or months to file, will then go before the commission for a vote.
Click here for Andy Thibault’s report on the meeting Thursday.
Comments (4)
Posted by: The Real Justice | October 23, 2007 2:22 PM
Umm, wow. This is not the FOI testimony, just a few sentences taken out of context. Watch the FOI testimony. The discussion was about agreeing not to discuss it as part of Board of Ed meeting. Get your facts straight.
Why don't you put the facts up on your posts ever? You should be ashamed of yourself.
Posted by: Christine | October 23, 2007 4:13 PM
First of all I was at the FOI hearing and your assessment is wrong. Secondly you must be mistaken when you say "The discussion was about agreeing not to discuss it as part of Board of Ed meeting." Here is the video from CTN to refresh your memory. And finally I do not allow personal attacks against me or anyone else on my news site.
Posted by: Christine | October 23, 2007 4:15 PM
By getting off topic I'm referring to the fact that Turner asked a question about Doninger in executive session when she was not on the agenda for executive session. FOI law is very clear when it comes to the reasons and notice you must give to go into executive session.
Posted by: The Real Justice | October 24, 2007 3:29 PM
Like I said, when the question off topic came up, the door was slammed on discussing it appropriately by the board. I have watched the full video. Sitting there doesn't make your "interpretation" correct. Lauren Doninger believed that her case was part of the agenda which would have been inappropriate to discuss during the meeting. The way our article is written you make it appear as if they discussed the case to any extent, which the testimony during the FOI clearly corrects.
No personal attack Christine, just disappointment that your coverage continues to be one sided and the need exists for clarity of which your articles have not shown in my opinion.