After deciding to refer two pieces of disclosed board communications to the local Board of Ethics for review and filing an appeal with the Freedom of Information Commission, the Board of Education voted at its November 17 meeting to delay its conversations on the topic until further information is gathered.

Board members have discussed at multiple meetings an e-mail and a screenshot of a text message recently shared on social media.

On Tuesday, October 20, the school board discussed the leaked e-mail, from January 2014, regarding discussion of the superintendent’s contract between board members and the board’s attorney at the time. After a vote at a special meeting on Monday, October 26, to have the school board chair look into hiring an investigator, member David Freedman announced the following day that he had released the e-mail.

The board then voted at its Wednesday, November 4, meeting to direct its chair to look into hiring an investigator following the announcement by board Secretary Kathy Hamilton that she had shared the text message months ago.

At a special meeting on Wednesday, November 11, the board decided not to hire an investigator for $15,000 to $20,000, and decided instead to look into both filing a Freedom of Information “complaint” and to refer the entire situation to the local Board of Ethics.

This week, board Chair Keith Alexander said he has been working with counsel on the referral to the ethics board, and the letter should be sent out “later this week.” The district has also been made aware of two pending FOI actions, according to Mr Alexander, pertaining to the disclosed board communications.

“It does not appear to be worthwhile to go forward with a board-initiated FOI complaint with those two… pending at the FOI Commission,” said Mr Alexander. “So we haven’t done that.”

Before he entertained a motion to put discussions regarding the disclosed board communications on hold until further information is known, Mr Alexander explained doing so would allow more time for “discussing teaching and learning, [and] put the focus back on the future.”

Board member Michelle Ku said she also believes it is worthwhile to wait for more information from the FOI Commission and from the Board of Ethics.

“I feel that would allow us a more solid footing on which to ask questions and make recommendations,” said Ms Ku. “I just think it would be better to wait until that all is done.”

Board member John Vouros said it is important for “members of the audience” present for the meeting to understand the processes in place “could take time. And please don’t interpret that timing as lack of commitment on our part to get to the truth, because that is what is all about, I think, the truth… So far we are not getting it.”

The motion to hold further discussion on the subject of the disclosed communications passed unanimously. Board Vice Chair Laura Roche was not present for the meeting.