An unusually well-attended meeting of the Hampton Elementary School Board of Education took place on September 19, 2024. This special meeting was called for a “Discussion of Board and Superintendent’s Goals” and “Discussion concerning performance of a Board member.”

After a review of survey results of the Board, members identified Vision, Community Leadership and Ethics as their primary areas of focus since these areas reflected the survey’s three lowest scores. Specific objectives will be developed over the course of many meetings.

The second agenda item concerned Board member Juan Arriola. Prior to the meeting, Chair Rose Bisson sent Arriola a statement citing issues with his “involvement in personnel issues, yelling at the Superintendent, Principal and Board members, not supporting Board of Education decisions; public statements made to the newspaper; and not following the Bylaws of the Board of Education.” Bisson claimed that Arriola’s “involvement” in a personnel issue concerning former custodian Armin Harris, who resigned in July, was “not appropriate” and “caused large problems,” while not specifying what those problems were. Harris, a person of color, has filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Rights, the second complaint filed by a school employee in as many years.

When granted an opportunity to speak, Arriola defended himself. He acknowledged writing letters to the editor on a variety of matters but never as a spokesperson for the Board of Ed. He asserted his right to vote his conscience, stating that he has “voted against budgets and stated my reasons … but I have never campaigned against a budget or any other matter once it was approved by the Board.” He also denied yelling at anyone and making public statements to the press. Reportedly, the Hampton Gazette article concerning Harris was based solely upon documents provided by Harris, the board’s response to a request for invoices for legal representation, and attendance at the Freedom of Information Commission and Board of Education meetings. The author of the Willimantic Chronicle article confirmed the same, stating that she did not speak with Arriola concerning any of these matters.

It was only when Arriola started to discuss the Board’s breaches of policy that Bisson interrupted and tried to prevent him from speaking, claiming it was a “personnel” issue, although Harris is no longer employed at the school. But Arriola pressed on and asserted that the Board breached the section of the Bylaw on Board Ethics by allowing one member to serve for over a year after moving out of town, and neglecting to object when another member, at a meeting during the pandemic, wished finance board members would “get sick”. He asserted that the Board “breached policy in nearly all of our dealings with Mr. Harris”, stating that policy dictated an immediate call to police when Harris was assaulted on school grounds; that the Superintendent had twenty days to resolve his grievance (the investigation took 90 days at a cost of $18,000) that the Board needed to be apprised of the grievance immediately instead of seven months later; and that the Board furthered Harris’ grounds for discrimination by suggesting that members rip up his resignation, refusing to read it because he hadn’t delivered it himself, though a review of the last five years of minutes revealed that no one has delivered a resignation in person. Arriola went on to say that his “involvement” in a personnel matter was not one of interference or representation, but “to listen, support and lend a shoulder.” He also stated that the Human Rights Commission recommended that he attend a meeting between Harris and two administrators due to what transpired at an earlier meeting.

Board member Dennis Timberman called Arriola’s defense of himself “uncalled for and unethical” and “a waste of time” that “belittled the Board”. Bisson claimed “people will report that their work atmosphere is hostile” and that Arriola’s conduct is “hurting our school culture… hurting our ability to keep and attract staff members.” Nine employees have resigned in the last year, though none cited Arriola as the reason.

Timberman then suggested that Arriola should be “dismissed from the Board.” He was corrected by Arriola and others that an elected official can only be removed if they are convicted felons or have moved out of town, according to State Statute. Timberman also accused Arriola of a “conflict of interest” but didn’t explain Arriola’s financial gain in the situation. (Bylaw 9270 refers only to direct monetary interest in contracts with the school and a Board member’s family). Timberman also suggested censure, and repeatedly pressed Arriola on whether he would abide by it, but never explained what the censure would be for or what abiding by it would mean.

Echoing Timberman’s claim that “teachers don’t feel safe”, Superintendent Andrew Skarzynski described the school climate as one of “tension”. He expressed concern that the school could lose teachers, stating multiple times that “the climate is indicative in the number of staff present,” referring to the attendance of many staff members. “They are feeling the tension and hostility…that’s why you have such a large turnout”, he said. “The collateral damage is reflected by the number of staff here. They are frustrated by what they see and what they hear.”

Arriola addressed the teachers, thanking them for their service. A teacher for 38 years, Arriola said he understood the challenges they face daily and spoke of his positive relationship with the staff, of the cultural lessons he had presented in several of their classrooms, how he had provided resources for them, raised hundreds of dollars for the Nature’s Classroom trip, and prepared ethnic meals for them throughout the year.

Although Board member David Halbach said he wanted to hear for himself from the teachers, Bisson would not allow it as “Audience for Staff” was curiously not on the agenda; other meetings offer two opportunities for public input. Though silenced during the meeting, teachers were observed approaching Arriola’s wife immediately after the meeting adjourned in a manner which could only be described as a show of support.

It is uncertain what the board’s next steps are, but hopefully, the goals being developed will address these issues.

Kathi Newcombe