Proceedings related to two Newtown Board of Education members involved in a state Freedom of Information appeal and local ethics matter appear to have generated in excess of $25,000 in legal fees to firms representing the school board and its members, and the attorney representing the local Board of Ethics. And costs continue to mount.The Newtown Bee with nearly 100 pages of legal bills and e-mail correspondence that detail the fees along with a number of interactions between school board members and ethics board Chair Jacqueline Villa.Ms Roche, who did not seek reelection last November, and town resident Laura Terry were recommended for dismissal by an FOIC hearing officer on April 7. The full FOI Commission is expected to support those recommendations when it meets May 11.Another Secret Meeting?The Bee that once probable cause is found to conduct an ethics hearing at the local level, all subsequent meetings and hearings are bound to be held in public. Probable cause notifications sent to the respondents were dated February 15.Background On ComplaintsThe Bee, former school board member David Freedman announced that he had released details from that e-mail, which also eventually appeared on social media.The Bee in early November 2015 that the e-mail included attorney-client privileged discussion and would be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, but he later said the text message is not exempt.The Bee after the ethics hearing that he admitted what he did and apologized, because he sought to put an end to any activity that would generate added expense to local taxpayers.

Former school board member David Freedman, along with current member Kathryn Hamilton, was one of the respondents in the ethics and FOI matters. He provided

Copies of invoices from the law firms of Shipman & Goodwin, LLP, and Bercham Moses & Devil, PC date from October 2015 through early March 2016 were received by Mr Freedman and turned over to the newspaper on April 19, the day after he and Ms Hamilton were found in violation of certain sections of the Town Code of Ethics.

The matter involves separate complaints or "referrals" filed by Board of Education members Keith Alexander, John Vouros, Debbie Leidlein, Michelle Ku, and Laura Roche alleging violations of the Code of Ethics by Mr Freedman and Ms Hamilton.

In the matter of Mr Freedman, the ethics panel referred violations of Sections 27-2a, 27-2b, 27-6a, and 27-6b of the local ethics code to selectmen. In the matter of Ms Hamilton, the ethics panel referred violations of Sections 27-2a and 27-2b to selectmen.

Parts A, B and D of Section 27-2 direct Newtown officials and employees to recognize and maintain "a special responsibility, by virtue of the trust invested in them by the town's residents, to discharge their duties conscientiously, impartially, and to the best of their ability, placing the good of the Town above any personal or partisan considerations."

Parts A and B of Section 27-6 involve officials' access to certain or confidential information that may not be in the public domain, or that may be detrimental to the public interest.

Two state FOI appeals filed separately by

The legal billing includes a January 12 conference between board attorney Richard Mills and Ms Roche, and was authorized for payment despite the fact that Ms Roche was no longer a board member.

While most of the legal invoices clearly identify that attorneys for the two firms engaged in work and meetings regarding these specific cases, additional thousands of dollars are tied to work that appears to be related to the cases, but is not clearly identified as such in the documents.

Those unspecific invoices were not included in preliminary calculations that amounted to $28,042.

In addition, Town Finance Director Robert Tait said he is holding an outstanding bill for about $7,400 for Attorney Brendon Levesque of Horton, Shields & Knox, PC, who represented the ethics board during meetings and deliberations on the matter.

Along with mounting legal bills over the ethics case, which at its heart is rooted in the soon-to-be-dismissed dismissed FOI appeal, e-mail correspondence between school board members and Ms Villa also points to an additional potential FOI violation on the part of the ethics board.

It was previously reported that according to ethics board minutes from March 14 of this year, and during the April 18 hearing, members conducted at least three closed or executive sessions after notifying both Ms Hamilton and Mr Freedman of probable cause to investigate violations against them.

An FOI spokesman explained to

In a January 11 e-mail between Ms Villa and Mr Alexander and the school board, the ethics chair said she was convening a meeting of her board January 14 to "glean facts" about the complaint, saying, "Please keep in mind that this is a confidential, informal inquiry which is not posted."

That means the ethics board met without notifying the public ahead of time, and may have conducted public business. But since there is no record of an agenda and no minutes were taken, it is impossible to determine the extent to which conversations about the case transpired.

An earlier e-mail from Ms Villa to the school board January 9 states that the January 14 meeting would provide an "opportunity to present as much documentation as possible to support the facts [in the case]."

The complaint against Ms Hamilton resulted from an acknowledgement that she shared a text message correspondence among school board members that eventually showed up on local social network sites.

An e-mail made public from January 2014, revealed communications related to the superintendent's contract that was shared among board members and the board's attorney at the time. In a letter to

School board Chairman Keith Alexander told

The text message, from June 2015, referenced a planned executive session about nonunion employee increases, according to Ms Hamilton. The information is on the public record according to Mr Alexander.

After Mr Alexander sent the June text message, and a separate e-mail about the superintendent's salary negotiation, Ms Hamilton said she asked the chairman to refrain from sending messages to the school board as he was holding the equivalent of an online meeting.

Ms Hamilton said she spoke with Mr Alexander prior to an October 26, 2015, executive session, noting that nothing in the text message was private or confidential. Mr Freedman told

Both Mr Freedman and Ms Hamilton maintained after the ethics rulings that the sole reasoning behind releasing what they believed were public documents was to evidence that the Newtown Board of Education was conducting illegal meetings via text messages and e-mails.

The ethics board draft referrals were approved during a meeting May 4, and will be turned over to the Board of Selectmen, which has the authority to uphold or reject the panel's finding. The selectmen are expected to receive and review the recommendations before acting on them at a future date, which has not been determined.