An Oxford resident headed to Hartford to challenge the validity of a school board meeting held last spring that resulted in the nullification of then-Superintendent Judith Palmer’s employment contract.
In an administrative hearing at the Freedom of Information Commission, Nancy Schmitt argued the school board did not properly notice a May 19 meeting where they went into executive session to discuss Palmer’s contract.
The school board voted to void the contract later that night, touching off a controversy that lingered until Palmer left the district in August.
Click here to read our past stories about the Palmer controversy.
Schmitt said the notice advertising the meeting said it would take place Tuesday, May 19.
The problem — May 19 was a Wednesday.
The Oxford school board was represented at the meeting by attorney Roseann Padula. Board chairwoman Rose McKinnon was called to testify. A decision was not rendered at the hearing — the purpose was to collect evidence and facts in order for the hearing officer to make a recommendation to the state’s Freedom of Information Commission.
Mistake Or Malice?
Even though anyone showing up Tuesday probably had the opportunity to find out the meeting was Wednesday, Schmitt said listing the wrong day of the week kept more people from attending the meeting.
As proof, she said the crowd at the meeting was unusually small — especially given the subject matter. That was because people thought the meeting had already been held, Schmitt said.
“If I had known this meeting was on a Wednesday I would have been there,” Schmitt said.
Schmitt argued the notice deprived people of their ability to attend the meeting, which, according to the state’s Freedom of Information Law, renders any decisions made at the meeting null and void.
Valicia Harmon, an attorney with the Freedom of Information Commission, presided as the hearing officer for Schmitt’s complaint. The hearing was held Oct. 19.
Harmon asked Schmitt whether she thought listing the wrong day was done on purpose.
“I have to tell you very honestly that I’m not sure that it was a mistake because at that meeting the contract for the superintendent of schools was voided,” Schmitt said. “That was a very major thing that happened.”
“You think that they might have wrote Tuesday on purpose?” Harmon asked.
“I think it might have been caught earlier and it was decided to let it go by,” Schmitt said.
“Do you have any evidence on that?”
“I don’t except that something very big happened at that meeting,” Schmitt said. “Subsequently to that meeting, there were rallies, there was a public hearing . . “
At that point the school board’s attorney objected, saying Schmitt’s statements were false.
McKinnon Testifies
Schmitt was able to question McKinnon during the hearing.
Under Schmitt’s questioning, McKinnon said the meeting notice was prepared by an administrative assistant who has since left the district. School officials realized the wrong day of the week was listed on the notice as the meeting got underway.
The school board’s attorney advised the board it was OK to continue the meeting.
“We felt we were able to proceed,” McKinnon said.
“Because you thought it was a typo?” Harmon asked.
“That’s correct,” McKinnon said.
Nitpicking?
Padula, the school board’s attorney, said Schmitt’s complaint was baseless. The listing of the wrong day was a clerical error. Furthermore, the law states the date, time and location of a meeting has to be listed — the day of the week is not required under the Freedom of Information Law, Padula said.
As for the incorrect day of the week, the administrative assistant who created the meeting notice probably used the same document template she always used to create notices and forgot to change the day of the week for that particular meeting, Padula said.
Schmitt’s complaint also alleged that the school board does not file meeting minutes within seven days of meetings. Schmitt said minutes for a May 11 meeting weren’t posted until May 27.
However, Schmitt acknowledged she doesn’t go into the school board office to see if meeting minutes are filed. She checks in the town clerk’s office and online.
The school board doesn’t have to file the meeting minutes in Oxford Town Hall and — as of October — they don’t have to file meeting minutes online.
Padula admitted the May 11 meeting minutes were not posted online in a timely manner, as per state law at the time.
The attorney pointed out that Schmitt often failed to file meeting minutes within seven days when she served as secretary of the Oxford Board of Finance.
Schmitt objected to that line of questioning.
“My point is that these are public agencies. They do their best,” Padula said.
Next Step
Harmon will take the evidence and testimony from the hearing and file a report with the state’s five-person Freedom of Information Commission. Commissioners can either adopt, reject or alter her recommendations.
Schmitt and the Oxford school board then get 10 minutes each to argue their cases in front of the commission.
A date for the next hearing hasn’t been scheduled.
Schmitt or her husband have filed complaints in the past regarding the way the school board conducts business.
Click here to learn more about the state’s Freedom of Information Act.