HARTFORD — The School Board this week acknowledged a “procedural glitch” in the non-public session of a June meeting, but denied that it violated the Vermont  Open Meeting Law when it negotiated and signed a severance agreement with the district’s former superintendent outside of public view.

In an acrimonious public comment session Wednesday night, the board denied allegations made in a Sept. 25 complaint that Jeff Arnold, a Wilder resident and former Hartford School Board member, filed with the board. Roughly 15 people attended the meeting in person and another handful on Zoom.

Arnold alleges that the board used non-public sessions and private meetings that were inadequately recorded when it decided this summer to award Tom DeBalsi a severance package worth more than $210,000 and to hire Caty Sutton as interim superintendent.

In a two-page letter distributed to meeting attendees Wednesday, the board acknowledged some lack of clarity around the process and wrote that “in the interest of further transparency” it would hold a public vote to “retroactively authorize” its chairman, Kevin “Coach” Christie, to negotiate the two superintendent agreements. 

The board rejected Arnold’s request that its members undergo additional training in Open Meeting Law and his request for clarification on the timeline of events surrounding the severance negotiation.

“It's not clear that there was a violation of the Open Meeting Law,” Bernie Lambeck, the board’s attorney who is a partner at Montpelier-based Main Street Law, said at the meeting.

DeBalsi, now associate director of student support services in the Windsor Southeast Supervisory Union based in Windsor, left his position in Hartford on June 30 with a year remaining on his contract. In a July 3 news release, the School Board announced that he had tendered his resignation. 

Central to Arnold’s complaint is an executive, or non-public, session held during the board’s regular June 12 meeting and the question of whether a “straw poll” conducted at that meeting constituted a binding agreement that should have been made public. 

In its response, the board wrote that during the executive session the straw poll, or informal survey of board members, was conducted, which “resulted in the Board giving the Chair authority to negotiate a separation agreement with Tom DeBalsi and to hire Caty Sutton as Interim Superintendent.” 

The board holds that because a straw poll is informal, it did not warrant a public vote even though it conferred authority on the chairman to enter into legally binding contracts. Any binding decisions made in an executive session must be formalized by a public vote, according to Vermont statute.

As Christie and Lambeck alternately fielded questions about the purpose and validity of the “retroactive” vote, tensions and voices rose. 

“Nothing is being hidden from you. It's right in front of you,” board member Peter Merrill said. 

The board on Wednesday voted unanimously to give Christie the authority to engage in the negotiations with DeBalsi and Sutton that took place in June.

Some residents found the tone of the discussion dismaying.

The board displayed a “condescending tone around being willing to listen to citizens,” White River Junction resident Tim Fariel said at Wednesday’s meeting. 

Wilder resident Heidi Duto asked each board member how familiar they were with Open Meeting Law, which seemed to elicit a personal insult from board member Nancy Russell. 

“We're not perfect,” Russell said. “As my grandmother used to say, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.”

Duto sent a message to Russell after the meeting asking her to elaborate on the comment. She had not heard back by Thursday afternoon, she said. 

Some of those in attendance were disappointed in the board’s response to the complaint.

The board “came up short in behaving appropriately chastened and did not signal that they were committed to improving their behavior,” Hartford resident Colin Butler, who attended Wednesday night’s meeting, said by email Thursday. “Their resistance to agreeing to take additional training in OML compliance is a clear indicator of their insincerity,” he added.  

Whether there are any next steps in the process is uncertain. Anyone affected by the violation can file a lawsuit in the Civil Division of the Superior Court. The Attorney General’s office has the discretion to take a range of actions, from working with the board’s attorney to encourage compliance to litigation. 

The Legislature enacted an amendment to the Open Meeting Law in July that mandates annual training for all public boards, which means that despite its rejection of Arnold’s remedy, the School Board is still required to undergo training. 

“These kinds of things will never occur again,” Christie said. But not everyone in attendance seemed reassured. 

“I have little confidence that the board will be more attentive to transparency going forward,” Butler said.

Christina Dolan can be reached at cdolan@vnews.com or 603-727-3208.