The inclusion of information into meeting minutes that was never presented in public is a rarity. Even more rare is the apparent ability to develop that highly detailed information from inside sealed envelopes being sequestered by an independent party.The Newtown Bee reported that minutes to an April 18 ethics hearing involving David Freedman and Kathryn Hamilton were accepted at a special meeting one month later.The Newtown Bee received copies of each preprinted ballot, and noted that no board members' names were assigned to corresponding votes on those ballot sheets.The Bee initially asked Ms Villa via e-mail about the unexplained inclusion of the vote breakdown that was produced on May 18, the ethics chair replied: "The goal of the Board of Ethics was to ensure that the information regarding the votes on the Freedman and Hamilton complaints was made available to the public."Back StoryThe Bee that they shared the e-mail and text out of frustration after, they say, a number of illegal meetings were conducted by school board members electronically through e-mails instead of holding discussions at public board meetings.BOS Actions, CriticismsThe Bee initially reported, First Selectmen Pat Llodra, along with Selectmen Herb Rosenthal and Will Rodgers, also acknowledged that members of the ethics panel appear to have violated Connecticut's Freedom of Information law during the course of handling the complaint. At the same time, selectmen found that the respondents, in the words of Mrs Llodra, acted inappropriately - using the term "wrong-headed" to describe their actions - which the first selectman said were "well-intentioned but landed with the wrong solution."

But that seems to be the case with secret ballots that were collected and sealed during an April 18 Ethics Board hearing involving two former members of the Board of Education.

At the end of May,

The approval of those minutes was unanimous, and featured an amendment requesting the inclusion of a document providing a breakdown of how each ethics board member voted during that hearing using secret ballots - even though those ballots remained sealed with the board's clerk until at least May 26.

The mystery deepened June 22, when

According to board clerk Arleen Miles, Ethics Chair Jacqueline Villa never had access to the printed ballots, which the clerk reported on May 26 remained sealed, in her possession.

Although ethics board members did meet twice between the April 18 hearing and when the vote results and attributions were produced on May 18, no revisiting of the voting process or affirmations of how each member had voted was ever discussed - publicly.

When

A subsequent call for comment on how Ms Villa was able to articulate the vote breakdown by member on each violation without access to the ballots was not returned as of June 23.

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.

The complaints were generated after a separate text message and e-mail containing what appear to be public documents were circulated on social networks by one or more unidentified third parties.

Mr Freedman, who was not reelected to the school board last November, and Ms Hamilton, who resigned from the school board June 21, previously told

Ultimately, the Board of Selectmen by charter is charged with accepting or rejecting any recommendations or finding made by the ethics board.

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 the Board of Selectmen. In the matter of Ms Hamilton, the ethics panel referred violations of Sections 27-2a and 27-2b.

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.

On June 6, selectmen took up the ethics board recommendations, and instead of accepting or rejecting any of them, they formulated their own requests to the respondents, while rebuking the ethics board for its process handling the complaints and maintaining an assumption of guilt without doing appropriate fact-finding before ruling Mr Freedman and Ms Hamilton were in violation of the local ethics code.

As

Mrs Llodra said the "right-headed response" to the situation facing Mr Freedman and Ms Hamilton would have been to appeal to the state Freedom of Information Commission.

Mr Rodgers and Mr Rosenthal agreed that there were opportunities available for the respondents to publicly introduce concerns about apparent illegal meetings occurring via e-mails and text messages among school board members, but respondents inappropriately released the evidence to other private parties.

So instead of endorsing any ethics board recommendations, selectmen suggesting Mr Freedman and Ms Hamilton prepare and publish a statement acknowledging their handling of documents eventually published on social networks were "inappropriate and wrong-headed."

The selectmen additionally requested that Mr Freedman complete FOI training as a precondition of accepting any appointed or elected position in town government in the future, and that Ms Hamilton should also complete an FOI workshop. Selectmen noted that they have no power to order the respondents to follow their suggestions, but they reserve the right to censure either or both individuals in the future if they fail to comply with the alternate directives Mrs Llodra, Mr Rosenthal and Mr Rodgers suggested.