A Freedom of Information (FOI) complaint filed last year has attracted state-wide attention, with the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education and the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents submitting a brief at a May 22 meeting of the FOI Commission to counter a decision against the Hampton Elementary School Board of Education’s conduct at an executive session.
The complaint, filed by Board of Education members Juan Arriola, Diane Gagnon, and John Russell on July 10, 2023, alleged that former Superintendent Samantha Sarli was invited into an executive session on June 28, 2023 without offering the testimony or opinion necessary to allow inclusion of anyone other than a board member. Connecticut General Statute 1-231 states that: “At an executive session of a public agency, attendance shall be limited to members of said body and persons invited by said body to present testimony or opinion pertinent to matters before said body provided that such persons’ attendance shall be limited to the period for which their presence is necessary to present such testimony or opinion”.
Arriola, Gagnon and Russell alleged the superintendent attended the entire executive session without speaking a word, a statement which was confirmed by Board of Education Chairman Rose Bisson, member Maryellen Donnelly, and Sarli herself during a hearing conducted on January 3, 2024. At this hearing, the complainants and respondents presented evidence and testimony regarding the matter. The Hearing Officer submitted a final decision on April 24, 2024, which concluded that “the respondents violated the provisions of CGS1-231(a) when they permitted the superintendent to remain in attendance at the executive session for the entire duration of such executive session, without providing any testimony or opinion during such executive session.” The report recommended that “Henceforth, the respondents shall strictly comply with the executive session provisions of CGS1-231(a).”
The Board of Education’s attorney immediately submitted a Motion to Reopen the Hearing or for Reconsideration, but that request was denied the same day by the Commission. However, a request to submit an Amicus Brief, filed jointly by the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education (CABE) and the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents (CAPSS), was granted.
Attorneys from the law firm Shipman and Goodwin represented the Hampton Elementary School and the professional associations. According to the school’s counsel, the firm represents 120 school districts, and they all invite their superintendents, as Chief Executive Officers, into executive sessions for their entire duration. The attorney representing CABE and CAPSS, therefore, was concerned with the state-wide implications if the Commission upheld the decision.
In oral and written testimony presented to the Commission, both attorneys objected to Boards of Education limiting a superintendent’s participation in executive sessions to only the period of time when they provide testimony or opinion, despite what the statute stipulates, claiming that the decision “raises issues of state-wide concern”. They stated that board members are “citizen volunteers” who require the expertise of the superintendent in order to make informed decisions, and claimed that the elected officials would require clairvoyance in order to determine in advance whether or not additional testimony might be needed. “How can citizen volunteers serving as board of education members determine ad hoc and in advance when the opinion or testimony of their superintendent on matters under the board’s consideration will be required?” they argued.
Arriola, who represented himself, Gagnon and Russell, countered that superintendents can make themselves available in case board members require their advice during the closed session. “If the executive discussion generates questions needing answers, simply call or text them or ask them to join the session from wherever they’re waiting,” he said. He also suggested that if limiting the superintendent’s presence was as problematic as alleged, a legislative change was needed to amend the statute.
The hearing officer defended her decision, stating that she simply relied on the statute to reach her conclusion. She said she found it interesting that the statute on executive session attendance was not included in the multiple pages prepared by the Board of Education, CABE and CAPSS. She argued that the statute is clear and necessarily restrictive; executive sessions, she said, are not “spectator sports”. She also stated that if adherence to the statute proves impossible for school boards, a legislative change would be in order, as did the Director of the Commission and two commissioners. Multiple members also suggested that compliance with this statute is probably “relaxed”, and that the Commission has no way of knowing if a violation occurs unless a board member reports it, as was the case with Arriola, Gagnon and Russell.
In the end, the Commission unanimously upheld the decision, ruling in the complainants’ favor.