This story by Christina Dolan was first published in the Valley News on Sept. 29.
HARTFORD — The School Board is the subject of an allegation that it violated Vermont’s Open Meeting Law when it negotiated and formalized a severance agreement with then-Superintendent Tom DeBalsi outside of public view.
DeBalsi, who left his position on June 30 with a year remaining on his contract, received a payout worth more than $210,000. He is now the associate director of student support services in the Windsor Southeast Supervisory Union, which includes Windsor-area schools.
“The use of our tax dollars was not done with a public vote,” Jeff Arnold, a Wilder resident and former Hartford School Board member, wrote in his complaint, which he sent to the board and the Attorney General’s office Wednesday.
The primary allegation is that the decisions to terminate DeBalsi’s contract, pay his severance and hire an interim superintendent were made in a non-public session and carried out by Kevin Christie, the board’s chairman, without the presence of other board members.
The complaint asks that the severance agreement be nullified since the board never publicly gave Christie the authority to negotiate it.
Vermont’s Open Meeting Law gives “enforcement power to aggrieved members of the public” when boards violate the law, whose purpose is to promote transparency and accountability in the conduct of public business, Jenny Prosser, General Council for the Vermont Secretary of State’s office, said.
Neither Christie nor the board’s attorney responded to requests for comment by deadline.
Arnold’s complaint states that at its June 12 meeting, the board “entered into an Executive Session, where, according to an August 28 meeting, Chair Christie took a ‘straw poll’ among Board members which resulted in them giving him the authority to negotiate a separation contract,” with DeBalsi and hire secondary curriculum director Caty Sutton as interim superintendent.
A straw poll is an informal assessment of board members’ stances on an issue, and its use is not permitted under Robert’s Rules of Order, which guides board meeting procedure. Christie’s acknowledgment, first that he conducted a straw poll, and then that he understood it to confer on him the formal authority to unilaterally negotiate contracts is at the heart of Arnold’s complaint.
“I filed the violation because I don’t believe spending our tax dollars behind closed doors and without transparency is legal and I don’t believe the settlement was fair to the taxpayers who explicitly told the Board back in March that they didn’t want to pay two Superintendent salaries,” Arnold wrote in an email Friday.
In February, the board had faced criticism from the teacher’s union and a group of the district’s administrators for a plan to hire a new superintendent a year early while allowing DeBalsi to stay on as a paid employee of the district doing special projects unrelated to the duties of a superintendent. That plan was abandoned in March as the district faced budget challenges.
Vermont statute 1 V.S.A. § 313 requires that a board state the nature of the business to be discussed in an executive session, which is closed to the public. During a closed session, “no other matter may be considered.” Any votes related to issues discussed in executive sessions must be conducted in public and recorded in the minutes, which are a formal record of a meeting.
The minutes of the June 12 board meeting state that the executive session was needed “for the purpose of discussing the evaluation of a public employee,” and that “no action was taken” during the session. There was no indication from the meeting documents that the departure of the superintendent was under consideration.
Then on July 3, the School Board announced in a press release that DeBalsi had “tendered his resignation” to the board.
Just over a week later, the School District posted an update regarding DeBalsi’s “recent retirement,” stating that “paying him a severance equal to a year’s salary and benefits was an appropriate recognition of his service to the district.”
While the complaint addresses alleged irregularities in a public process, Arnold also objects to the payment itself.
“Finally, why would a Superintendent who resigned two weeks before the end of the fiscal year and with one year left on his contract be so generously rewarded?” he said by email.
Within 10 days of receiving the complaint, the School Board must respond publicly, either to deny or acknowledge the violation. If the board concedes that a violation occurred, it must “cure” or correct the issue within 14 days, according to statute.
Whether the school board denies or acknowledges the violation, the Attorney General’s office or anyone affected by the violation can file a lawsuit in the Civil Division of the Superior Court.
Arnold said that he hopes that the complaint serves as a reminder to the board to follow the law, especially regarding executive sessions. His complaint asks that the board retain its municipal association, the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, to conduct a public training on Open Meeting Law.
“I hope that my violation report makes them follow the rules,” Arnold said by email Friday.
Read the story on VTDigger here: Hartford School Board faces open meeting law complaint.