After learning that hiring an investigator would cost roughly $15,000 to $20,000 to look into leaked board communications, the Board of Education decided at a special meeting on Wednesday, November 11, to look into both filing a Freedom of Information “complaint” and to refer the entire situation to the local Board of Ethics.

The decision came after discussions at multiple meetings on the subject of 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.

Ms Hamilton and Mr Freedman have both stated they did not share what the board has referred to as “leaked communications” with the person who posted the information on social media, though neither revealed with whom they did share the information.

“We’re just trying to understand the extent of the disclosure,” said Board of Education Chair Keith Alexander at the November 11 meeting.

While Ms Hamilton and Mr Freedman did not attend the November 11 meeting, Mr Freedman sent a statement to Mr Alexander to be read.

Mr Freedman apologized for the distraction the e-mail has caused and wrote the children and community of Newtown deserve the full focus of the Board of Education.

“I have accepted responsibility for my actions. As I have explained to you it was not an attempt to breach the privilege nor for it to go public as an attempt to undermine the board. I honestly thought that the communication at issue was no longer privileged since the matter at issue had concluded and since there is a final document reflecting that brief discussion,” wrote Mr Freedman, adding that he chose to come forward to spare Newtown the expense of an investigation.

Mr Freedman urged the board to “look at correcting their actions moving forward as opposed to spending their time looking backwards and seeking retribution, which only leads to a cycle of further accusations.”

Superintendent of Schools Joseph V. Erardi, Jr, said an investigator would take between two to four weeks to conduct interviews and look at the town’s charter, board e-mails, other communications, press articles, and the board’s code of conduct.

“The rough estimate of the cost of an investigation would land somewhere close [to $15,000 to $20,000],” said Dr Erardi. “That’s a reasonable guess if all went well as expected.”

The superintendent also said the premise of the investigation would be built on cooperation.

“If there are interviews that could not take place or would not take place, it is my belief that the board takes a risk at running the investigation without reaching the information that you are looking to gather,” said Dr Erardi.

Board member Debbie Leidlein said there is an underlying concern that people in the community are “looking to make this board follow what they believe is the right course of action, and I believe that it is unfortunate that members of this board are not showing allegiance to this board and to the children of Newtown.”

Ms Leidlein also questioned why the information is not forthcoming with the board.

Multiple members questioned whether an investigation would provide the information the board wants.

Mr Alexander said boards try to follow the rules of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), but the rules are not always specific to different situations. When mistakes occur, Mr Alexander said, the school board tries to correct them.

“The argument in this case is about transparency. Were we following the FOI rules? The result is we have a couple of board members who are not being transparent in their own responses to that,” Mr Alexander said. “They are letting us know that they are taking responsibility, but when I tell my son to take responsibility it doesn’t turn out this way. When you take responsibility that means you stand up for what you did, you go through whatever process there is to try and fix it. We do this with our students and we would expect the same from our adults.”

School board member John Vouros brought up the idea of filing an FOI request with the two board members who shared communications, followed by a complaint to the FOI Commission if they fail to comply.

While the board made a motion to seek the information through the FOI process, it also moved to simultaneously move the entire situation before the local Board of Ethics for review.

Mr Alexander requested the disclosure information at the meeting from the two board members not present, and said he would further discuss with the attorney whether that fulfills an FOI request.

The board then discussed what to do regarding the discussion of board member conduct, but, after a failed motion to hold off that discussion until more information is known, the board members spoke about adding that discussion to its agenda for its next meeting, scheduled for Tuesday, November 17.