BENNINGTON — Residents of the Mount Anthony Union school district and the district’s school board have settled a lawsuit over violations of the open meeting law.
Judge William Cohen told attorney Amanda Lafferty, who represented the board in the suit, that he expected to approve the settlement agreement after reviewing paperwork signed by both parties. Until then, Cohen said, the trial, scheduled to start Feb. 21, would remain on the court calendar.
Lafferty, who participated via telephone in Thursday’s session at Bennington Superior Court Civil Division, said she had already signed on behalf of the MAU board, which approved the settlement at a meeting Tuesday.
Mary Gerisch, one of the six plaintiffs in the suit, said later Thursday the other plaintiffs also had signed the settlement. They were Laurie Mulher, Nancy Sanford, Eileen Zazarro and two town Select Board members, Jeanne Connor and Jeannie Jenkins.
The six district residents sued the school board over what they said were violations of the open meeting law in 2015, when the board was considering finalist candidates for a new MAU High School principal.
“We are very happy that the MAU Board has decided to settle this matter, and to avoid further expensive litigation to the taxpayers,” Gerisch said. “We never thought the matter would actually proceed to litigation, since all we were requesting was compliance with the law, which the board always said they wanted to do.”
“Both parties put together an agreement acceptable to each party,” Board Chairman Timothy Holbrook said Thursday evening. “I’m hopeful this will satisfy both sides.” Holbrook said the board vote to approve the settlement was unanimous.
The agreement does not address whether in fact the MAU board violated the law. The agreement says the board “does not admit or agree that the requirements of this order are necessarily requirements of the Vermont Open Meeting Law. MAU stipulates to this order as a compromise to avoid further litigation expense and costs and to fully resolve the … matter.”
However, the agreement says the board in future would “make a good faith effort to ensure that each MAU meeting agenda gives a true indication of the business planned for that meeting.”
The board also agreed that, “when considering whether to hold an executive session, MAU shall make and vote on the motion to hold an executive session in the course of an open meeting …
“Attendance in executive session shall be limited to MAU members, and in MAU’s reasonable discretion, MAU’s staff, clerical assistants and legal counsel, and persons who are subjects of the discussion or whose information is needed,” the agreement says.
The board also agreed that in future it would “make a good faith effort to ensure that a public ‘sign-in’ sheet is available at MAU meetings.”
The plaintiffs’ initial complaint, filed in March 2016, was that the school board had admitted a member from an outside school board into an executive session for no stated reason. When the board emerged from the closed session, it proceeded to choose an out-of-district candidate for principal over a popular in-house candidate.
The complaint also said of the contended April 2015 meeting that the board had opened the meeting, and gone immediately into executive session, in a room designated for executive sessions, not in the room where the board holds its open sessions. After meeting behind closed doors, the board then moved to the regular meeting room to announce their decision.
The plaintiffs also accused the board of failing to properly warn the meeting, or properly note a change in the meeting agenda, the result of which was that members of the public were not informed that the controversial appointment was to be made at the meeting.
The suit originally sought to reverse the board’s decision to hire Glenda Cresto as principal. The complaint specifically sought “an injunctive order requiring that the current MAU principal be suspended pending a proper hiring procedure and an opening meeting for discussion of same.”
But before the suit made it to its first court hearing, Cresto announced she would leave before her contract expired in June 2018..
Cresto, who had been hired over then-Assistant Principal Michael Molloy, left the school in August 2017. She had said earlier that she would leave at the end of the school year, but she and the board negotiated a separation agreement according to which she would leave immediately but be paid through June 2018.
SVSU Director of Curriculum Development Laura Boudreau is currently serving as interim principal.
For their part, the plaintiffs in the suit agreed not to take legal action against the board without first “providing MAU written notice” of a specific meeting law violation and requesting a specific cure for the alleged violation.
If MAU were to address the issue within 14 days, by acknowledging a violation and stating intent to resolve it, no further action would be taken.
The board agreed that at least six of its members would attend a professional meeting law training session of not less than two hours duration and open to the public. The board also agreed that future Southwest Vermont Supervisory Union policy should include professional training for new board members in all SVSU districts.
The citizens group had sought repeatedly to settle the suit, stressing they were not looking for damages but for an admission there had been violations and some assurance steps would be taken to ensure against future violations.
The judge in the suit denied various motions by the school board last summer, saying in his 10-page decision, “As should be clear to the parties, the court has found much of the board’s interpretation of the open meeting law to be incorrect.”
Gerisch said Thursday she was pleased “the board has committed to complying with the provisions of the state’s Open Meetings Law going forward. Their having embraced the concept of transparency is very important to the public, and to the board’s ability to function as effective representatives of their community.”
Holbrook said Thursday that the cost of the lawsuit has yet to be determined, but he expected it would be made public at the next board meeting.
Read the story on VTDigger here: School board and citizens settle suit over open meeting law.