Chester Telegraph claims TRSU board violated state Open Meeting Law

By Shawn Cunningham
© 2019 Telegraph Publishing LLC

In a complaint dated May 7 and sent to Two Rivers Supervisory Union Superintendent Meg Powden and board members, Cynthia Prairie, editor and publisher of The Chester Telegraph, is contending that the board of the SU improperly entered into an executive session even after it was warned that it was doing so illegally.

Vermont’s Open Meeting Law allows “public bodies” like select boards and school boards to meet in private but only under specific circumstances. To hold a closed door session without the public, the board has to show that one of the exemptions to the law fits its situation. (See Page 3, When Can A Board Meet In Private?) There is no exemption for discussions that may be controversial, uncomfortable or embarrassing.

To hold an executive session under one of the six exemptions that protect contractual negotiations and legal matters, the board has to first consider the topic at hand and decide that discussing it in public would put the board at a disadvantage in its negotiations or legal situation. The law calls that decision a “specific finding.” After that, the board can vote to meet in executive session.

Most of board did not know reason for exec session

Item 8 on the agenda for the May 2 meeting of the TRSU board was listed as an executive session to be held for “labor relations.”

Board member Mary Alberty moved to go into executive session when Powden read aloud from the law that says the board had made a “specific finding” that public knowledge of their discussion would put them at a disadvantage. Such language is used for issues like contract and real estate negotiations where showing your hand eliminates your bargaining position.

Since Alberty was making the motion, she quickly replied “what Meg said,” as a signal she was including it in her motion.

But the exemption that was used actually states “labor relations agreements with employees” not just “labor relations.” And the board said it had made that “specific finding” without discussing it and without knowing what it contained.

On the first point, The Telegraph asked board chair Paul Ozechowski which labor agreement the board was referring to.

“It’s cited properly, Shawn, and I don’t think we’re obligated to give you any further information,” replied Powden speaking for the chair.

The Telegraph pointed to the full wording and asserted that if the session was not about an agreement, it would not fall under the exemption.

At that point, The Telegraph asked if any of the six-member board knew what the session would be about.

When asked individually during the meeting, five of the members – including Alberty who made the motions – acknowledged that they did not know what topic would be discussed. Board members Joe Fromberger and Alberty actually said they did not know what was to be discussed, while Dan Buckley, Fred Marin and Kate Lamphere shook their heads signifying the same. Orzechowski at first said he did not know but reversed course when Powden said he actually did know.

On Friday, The Telegraph asked Deputy Secretary of State Chris Winters if a board could reach the “specific finding” described in law without knowing what they were talking about.

“Such a finding requires a weighing of specific facts and circumstances that is impossible if you don’t know what you are voting on,” Winters responded by email. “The finding must relate to one of the six categories set forth in subsections (A)-(F). Again, this would be impossible to do without know what you are voting on.”

Another law says that every year, the superintendent and chairs of all the boards in the SU must attend at least eight hours of training together on a variety of subjects, but one that is specifically named in the statute is the Open Meeting Law.

In January 2018, The Telegraph complained about an executive session in which the board’s discussion was kept secret because it related to “personnel.” While there is an exemption for the hiring, evaluation, discipline and dismissal of an employee, The Telegraph found that the closed door session was to discuss a “reduction in force” or layoffs. The Finance Committee also held an executive session for “labor relations with employees.”

When called out on these sessions, Powden read a letter written with the SU’s lawyer Chris Leopold that called the violation not “intentional” and said in part: “This complaint does highlight the need for us to improve … being more descriptive as to why the Board is entering into Executive Session.

‘…the public’s right to know is too important to put even the most mundane of matters on
cruise control.’

Chris Winters
Deputy Secretary of State

In its May 7 complaint, which you can read here, The Telegraph says that its reporter cautioned board members that they would be entering into an questionable executive session. But rather than postpone the closed door portion of the meeting, the board went forward with the executive session for approximately 15 to 20 minutes, exposing them to the legal liability of the statute that says that any member of any board that “knowingly and intentionally” prevents the public from attending a portion of a meeting, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined up to $500.

That was something that Winters cautioned against in his email on Friday. “As a former school board member and chair myself, I completely understand the instinct to trust the superintendent or the board chair and not question his or her judgment on open meeting law,” wrote Winters, while also praising the work of volunteer board members.

“However, the public’s right to know is too important to put even the most mundane of matters on cruise control – we must remain constantly vigilant on behalf of the public and err on the side of openness to preserve accountability and trust in government,” he wrote.