To the Editor:

I am reaching out to request that the Hampton Gazette print a correction to the recently settled CHRO complaint. The statement made in the Gazette to effect that the case was “resolved last year in the employee’s favor” is both misleading and inaccurate. A review of the Board minutes from June 29, 2023 indicates the Settlement Agreement, which the BoE approved on June 28, 2023 page 4, #8, noting “The Parties agree that (a) this Agreement does not render either of them a prevailing party in any legal action: and (b) this Agreement is not and shall not be considered an admission of any wrongdoing on the part of Bowen, the Board or any of the Releases. All parties specifically disclaim any liability to and any unlawful action against the other parties.”

The portrayal of said action, as settling in the employee’s favor is, at a minimum, inaccurate. Worse, however, is it continues to misleadingly cast aspersions on the capacity of the entirety of the full Board and its capacity to serve in its governance role for the students and families of Hampton. We request that the Gazette either reprint the article with the exact wording of the Board approved action or provide a corrected statement sharing the above so that we may focus on the most important work in which schools engage — ensuring that student needs are met.

Thank you,

Andrew Skarzynski, Superintendent
Hampton Elementary School

Editor’s Response:

The Board of Education met on June 28 to discuss the CHRO complaint. The terms of the settlement were not part of the public discussion. The minutes confirm that the board entered into Executive Session “for the purpose of discussing CHRO complaint”, and that the only public comment was the motion “to accept the resolution to settle the CHRO complaint”. Mr. Skarzynski erroneously attributes the terms of the settlement to a review of the June 29 meeting, however the board did not meet on June 29, and the settlement itself was not available to the public.

The Gazette is confident that our sophisticated readership is sufficiently familiar with the wording of settlements to understand clauses that protect against future claims as standard language in settling disputes. Agencies such as the CHRO investigate and pursue one of three courses: to dismiss the complaint if found to have no merit, to negotiate a settlement, to issue the right to sue. The complainant in this case sought a financial settlement to resolve the issue rather than a lawsuit and received unemployment compensation retroactively and $20,000, paid by the school’s liability insurance, as reported by Board of Education Chairman Rose Bisson at a November 15 meeting of the Board of Finance. In simplest terms: the complainant was given what she requested, financial compensation, hence the complaint was settled “in the employee’s favor.”

In his statement regarding the board’s “governance role”, Mr. Skarzynski neglects one of the entities for which the board is responsible: the community. The Gazette has not. While the board’s primary responsibility is to educate students, ours is to inform the public on matters which they have the right to know, including those that impact their taxes, and especially since the board’s minutes are sorely lacking. Mr. Skarzynski’s claim that this interferes with the school’s ability to “focus on…ensuring that student needs are met” is puzzling, since the Gazette has not “cast aspersions” on the curriculum, instructional staff, or materials. The claim that reporting on matters of concern for taxpayers interferes with the board’s ability to meet the needs of students suggests we need new board members.