001[music] Good afternoon everyone. I'd like to call to order the special meeting of um October 21st, 2025 um Proton Board of Education. So stand join me for pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you all. Um, I'm going to turn the meeting over now to Kathy. And, uh, there you go. >> All right. So, we're I'm really proud and pleased to introduce Tom Mooney, who has been our attorney for several decades here in Farmington. And he literally writes the book for Connecticut School Law. And uh he's here to provide uh some professional development uh related to the roles and responsibilities of elected officials on the board
002of education. And last call for the capital city budget. Last call. >> And also we're going to talk about our bylaws uh as well. Uh our attorney Tom Mooney has done a review has some suggestions for us. So welcome Tom. We're really happy that you're here today. >> Well, thank you. I think everyone has received uh an outline of my comments and I have extra copies here if anyone needs needs it. Um and I just also want to say that um I would welcome your questions and your comments. This is going to go a lot better if you don't have to listen to me uh for the the full time. Uh so I uh welcome your questions as as we're going along. But what I'd like to talk about um and um throughout the country
003there's been uh questions and concerns as uh uh districts have dealt with uh speech by students, speech by employees, and speech by uh public officials. uh and uh the rules are different for each and um the advent of social media has made this a more challenging situation uh for all three groups. And so I thought I would just start by differentiating between uh the three groups. And I'll just start with a question uh that I ask my students. I teach at Yukon. Um, who's who has greater free speech rights? Employees who are adults or students who are not yet adults? Who has greater free speech rights? >> Students. >> Bill. >> Students. Even though school officials act in local parents, what free speech rights uh do your kids have at the dinner table? Well, that's
004a different Well, there's no Constitution at my dinner table. [laughter] >> Uh, and and that's uh the huge difference. Back in uh uh 1969, which is the first case I'm going to talk about, the uh Supreme Court changed the rules entirely. Up until then, uh the resp the relationship between educators and students was governed by that Latin phrase in local parents in place of the parents. And so educators could tell kids to be quiet, sit down, listen, eat your peas, do your homework, whatever. And um but 1969, the United States Supreme Court uh said something remarkable, which now seems natural, but at the time the court said it can hardly be argued that students or teachers shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse. >> Dr. for just a second. There's some folks in the audience.
005Are you having a hard time hearing Mr. Mooney? >> Okay. I couldn't tell. You look like you were straight. That's all. >> Okay. >> It could turn around a little bit or I don't know. Just so the audience can hear you a little bit better. That's all. Sorry. >> I'll uh Yeah, I don't want to turn my back on anyone. Uh so if this works for you, it works for you. Uh then I'll proceed. Thank you. So just to to rewind to the Supreme Court decid they said it can hardly be argued that students or teachers shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate and indeed it could be argued and um uh one of the uh justices was justice black dissented and said this is crazy. We're turning over our educational system to the
006students who may h have the loudest mouths but not necessarily would be the brightest students. So there was dissension and in fact there is a a justice of the United States Supreme Court sitting today who continues to believe that the decision in that case was in incorrect. And that case involved a student, Mary Beth Tinker, who's about my age. We graduated from high school at the same time. And Mary Beth Tinker, her brother, and her friend came to school wearing black armbands. And uh she was suspended in local parents because she violated of the rule that they had adopted ad hoc to prohibit the anticipated protest against the war in Vietnam. And uh so she was suspended. As I say to my school district clients, the exciting thing is that decisions you make in the
007ordinary course of business can land you in front of the United States Supreme Court. And that's what happened in that case. She lost in the district court. She lost in the court of appeals. But she won in the uh Supreme Court because the court viewed that the free speech rights of students was a constitutional protection. But contrary to the normal rule regarding the free speech uh regarding the first amendment, the court said that school officials can restrict speech if they reasonably forecast material disruption, substantial interference with the educational process or invasion of the rights of others. uh in the normal first amendment realm, the the um officials have a duty to protect unpopular speech. Uh and if someone wants to come to have an a organized rally and it's unpopular, you can't say you can't
008do that because we anticipate disruption. You have to protect that person's right because in fact the first amendment exists to protect unpopular speech. you don't really need a first amendment if everyone likes what you have to say. Uh so the court said in Tinker that students have a right of free speech. Uh but it can be restricted but only if school officials reasonably forecast material disruption, substantial interference or invasion of the rights of others. And uh so the uh Tinker decision changed the rules. Suddenly school officials are not only in local apprentice but they're viewed as agents of the government and subject to the protections uh students are subject to the protections of the bill of rights. Uh so since that decision in 1969 the court has revisited the free speech rights of students four
009different times and the first time was in 1986 when the court considered a claim made by a student who had made a vulgar speech to his colleagues when he nominated his friend to be uh the class president. and um uh he won given Tinker. The courts the district court said this wasn't materially disruptive. It was a little offcolor but it wasn't materially disruptive. He wanted the court of appeals. But the Supreme Court again refined now the rule and if students engage in vulgar speech in school. School officials have the right to restrict their speech uh even if it isn't disruptive. And then two years later, 1988, the Supreme Court uh considered a claim made by editors of the student newspaper in a particular uh school district. And uh there they had uh written an article
010on uh children of divorce and the court and the school administration felt that that would and teen pregnancy felt that that would uh embarrass particular students. And so they said, "You can't run that article." They sued. That went to the Supreme Court. Uh the um uh school district lost in the district court, lost in the court of appeals. But then when you get to the Supreme Court, the court ruled that when school officials are supervising school sponsored speech like the school play or uh the uh school newspaper, then they have the right to regulate student speech. Uh as long as they have a legitimate educational need. So they don't have to show disruption, they just have to show legitimate educational need. Uh then nothing happened for um almost 20 years until um n uh 2007.
011And uh some of you may have actually heard of this case because its popular name is the bong hits for Jesus case. Uh and in that case uh uh they were uh the Olympic torch was being run by you know how they run the Olympic torch all the way to the Olympics um run by Juno High School and uh the student didn't go to school that day but he and his buddies drove up as the torch was being um run past Juno High School unfurled a banner and I guess you know what it said long hits for Jesus and um the principal suspended him for his impertinence and that went to the Supreme Court. He won at the district court. He won at the Court of Appeals. Got to the Supreme Court and they made
012a new exception like vulgarity. If student speech can be considered to advocate for the illegal use of drugs, you can regulate it without uh uh showing disruption. And the last case is per gerine to our topic today. Uh and and we call it the vulgar cheerleader case because uh BL not her real name but rather her initials uh went out for cheer. Uh and um she had been on the vars the JV team and she was deeply disappointed when she went out and she was relegated to stay on the JV team. She didn't make the varsity. So she went across the street and posted on Instagram uh vulgarities about cheer and vulgarities about the school. And um another uh girl on the team uh well, I guess the phrase is ratted her out and uh
013the coach found out about her uh u uh post on Instagram and kicked her off the team and demanded an apology and that became a Supreme Court case. And um uh what's most significant about that case is that the court reaffirmed that school officials have the right to regulate student speech offampus. Um the third circuit ruled against the school district and said that when students speech speak off-campus, whether it's on social media or otherwise, it's outside of the jurisdiction of the school. So we as those of us who follow these things, we're very concerned about things like bullying and threats and how school officials should be able to address concerns about bullying. And in fact, um, fortunately for us, uh, the, uh, um, court held that the tanker test does apply, that school officials do
014retain the right to regulate student speech off campus uh, in however limited circumstances. And it's it's one of those cases where the school district lost, but it also won. the the school district um was found that they hadn't met the Tinker standard, but because uh her vulgar speech off campus was not significantly disruptive of the educational process, but it um uh so she won, but the court affirmed the principle that uh school officials could regulate student speech online on social media in uh circumstances where there is harm. harm to students, severe bullying, threats, uh, and so on. So that's where we are today in terms of student free speech, uh, and I think the answer to my question at the start was that, uh, students have greater free speech rights and that is the correct
015answer. Um when I started out being a lawyer some years ago, the senior partner in the firm told me to avoid adjectives if I could, you know, doing my work, avoid adjectives. And that's relevant uh to the Tinker case because Tinker says school officials can regulate student speech when they reasonably forecast not disruption, but material disruption, not interference, but substantial interference. So, it's a high bar for school officials before you can uh go ahead and regulate the speech of students whether it's on campus or or off-campus. Uh and and so by contrast, public employees do not have as robust a protection under the first amendment. And for public employees, interestingly, um the court first announced the new rule that public employees have free speech rights the year before Tinker in 1968 in a case involving
016a Mr. Pickering who wrote a letter critical of his board of education uh to the and the superintendent didn't like that a bit. So, superintendent fired him and that became a Supreme Court case. He said, "Oh, I have free speech rights." The Illinois courts all said, "No, you don't. You're a public employee." And um that goes all the way back to the 1890s when Justice uh Oliver Wendell Holmes said the petitioner has a right, a constitutional right of free speech, but does not have the constitutional right to be a police officer. And so it was held he didn't have any free speech rights. The court changed that 1968 with the Pickering case. And the court elaborated on the protections that public employees have under the first amendment in 1983. And so then now the question
017except for a big exception. The question is is a public employee speaking on a matter of public concern? If they're not, there's no f first amendment protection. If they are speaking on a matter of public concern then you ask the next question. The next question is uh uh does the disruption caused by the speech outweigh the benefit or importance of the speech or vice versa. So for something that's important you have to tolerate more disruption. If it's not important you don't. And that's a balancing test that the court announced in 1983. And so whenever now one example of this would be um when uh uh during the um COVID pandemic there were some districts where teachers were on Facebook when we're all trying to reopen the schools. They're on Facebook saying they're putting my life
018at risk, you know, don't don't come here. And um uh it was highly disruptive of trying to get people back into school after the pandemic. And so that was a an example of the balancing test. What is the importance of a teacher's opinion on a pandemic as opposed to an expert, you know, a medical expert? Not so much. What is the impact of a teacher saying this is dangerous significant? So the the um uh many districts struck that balance and saying you really shouldn't be saying that online because you're interfering with our ability to return uh to normal after the pandemic. Um the big exception and so that's the state of the law for speech by public employees in their private capacity when they speak. However, pursuant to their job duties, the first amendment doesn't
019apply. Uh the and that was clarified by the Supreme Court 2006 when uh an assistant district attorney got transferred against his wishes in alleged retaliation for something he said that messed up a criminal prosecution. And so he claimed that that his rights were violated. And on a 5 to4 vote, which and underscores how important it is who sits on the Supreme Court, on a 5 to4 vote, the the court held that when people speak what they said pursuant to duty, that is to do their jobs, then it's a personnel matter, it's not a constitutional issue. Um so that's the um contrast between the rights of public employees relative to the first amendment and the rights of students relative to the first amendments. And of course the um third category is what are your rights under
020the first amendment as board members and your rights as board members are that of any other person. And these constructs where we can regulate speech in this context or that context don't apply. and your citizen volunteers and in serving your community, you don't give up any of your constitutional rights. And so just the normal rules apply. Obviously, we uh free speech is a a central concept for us in our our country. Um but notwithstanding that there are certain things you just free speech doesn't protect, free speech doesn't protect defamation. Free speech doesn't protect fraud. Free speech doesn't protect direct threats. So, there are those limits, but those apply to everyone. And school uh board members and other public officials stand in the same place as any other u member of uh the community. So, that's
021um fairly brief u description of uh the three categories and how the first amendment applies. I do um am prepared to talk a little bit about um how those rules may uh invite uh review of your board your board bylaws. Um but before I do, I would invite any questions you might have or even comments about the how these rules apply to the different categories. >> I I have a little thing I wrote out for you, uh Mr. Mooney. Uh I was directed by chairman Bill Becker and the vice chair who's not here, Andrea Sabinsky to direct the questions to you. So um first question uh was who are the eight members that asked for the special meeting here because the entire board is undergoing training because of what Bill Becker chose to post on
022his Facebook page. This is insulting why we are being schooled this way. Why are we? We could have gone and been given this handout and it if any one of us after we read it had any questions we could ask you the lawyer. I would like to know how much this is costing the taxpayers of Farmington. And I would continue on with at my first official meeting as a board member on January 8th 2024 the board chair Mr. Bill Becker began his remarks with the following statement. This board can only exceed if we're a-political. This is not to say we won't have many dis disagreements, which is healthy, but it won't be political. I won't allow it. I promise I will do my best to respect everyone, students and parents. Those are strong words of
023leadership and unity. Unfortunately, Mr. Beckard's subsequent behavior has not reflected those principles. I've never questioned Bill Beckard's First Amendment rights to post anything on his Facebook account. However, I do expect him to follow through with his promises in the public meeting that he would get to the bottom of whomever he claimed put up that post. This is a political stunt right now because Bill Becker put up a reprehensible post on his private Facebook account and because of the backlash that he received, Mr. Mr. Becker chose to use this public forum to explain himself. Mr. Becker has refused for an entire month despite asking being asked repeatedly to disclose the results of the investigation he said was going on. Instead, he constructed a charade through the special meeting here on ethics and the first amendment. and
024this only distracts from his duty to be accountable to the taxpayers of Farmington for his own political gain. I'd like to have the question answered that I've been asking continually. I don't know how I got here. I spent today working with IT professionals and we'll get to the bottom of this. We have got no answer to the public. He made a private comment in a public setting and the the taxpayers and and the the board the rest of the board here deserves an answer. >> Well, I'm sorry that you don't share my enthusiasm for school law. Um I'm here uh to talk about the First Amendment as is on the agenda and whatever uh issues you have um I'm sure that you you can address them. But that's not really why I'm here. I'm here
025because I was asked to talk about the rights that all of you have, board members, students, and uh public employees. That's what I did. And um I just I'll leave to you whatever rhetorical question you've posed. Uh and I would ask if anyone else has a question. Yes. Um, you know, I think there's an elephant in the room and I think Marty kind of alluded to it and I'm just going to, you know, give my take on it, too. Those of us that called the meeting for a special meeting related to this have been very frustrated because there were direct incidents by two individuals on the board. So, I want to make that clear, too. I mean, each of us have different issues and that's part of the elephant in the room that there's been
026zero discussion as a board related to this topic. yet communication has gone out signed by the board, which I'd like to get to on agenda item B, but I'll get to that in the bylaws when that comes up. Um, and I don't think it's fair to us as board members that we can't have a forum to ask questions. Like, so for me, like I respect Gy's opinion and I understand that. My concerns come from Bill is one of the people that posted something and Beth is another person that posted something. I'm not defending or condoning or really having an opinion on what they did. That's for them to do. But at the last meeting, Bill gave um a statement and he said he condones uh he does not he's against political violence. He said it
027was, you know, it wasn't his post. He took it down. Okay, fine. That's Bill's story. That that's fine. I've never heard from Beth yet. I mean, I have posts here that we as a board have order. >> There's a point of order. She has the right to ask a point of order while you're speak. >> I think much like Tom's answer to Marty, I think this would apply also to your commentary. I just don't see this on the agenda or the point of the meeting. I understand you have complaints, concerns, you're not happy with the way things have been handled. I'm not going to make a statement. I don't need to make a statement. We need to move on and we need to do the business of the board. This is a distraction from the
028business of the board. >> But you caused the distraction, not the seven other members who are forced to go through a training that has nothing to do with the seven of us. >> My point of order is that this isn't relevant to the agenda of what we're hearing about tonight. >> So, so in response to that, you made a point of order. I I feel like that is a proper point of order. um if you want. So I would r will rule that that your comment to the extent you're asking Beth to speak on something. I think that's out of order. I think you're able to make whatever statement you want to make and I would support that right. Um but you know cross-examining I guess we'll talk about this in the next portion when
029we talk about board accountability and board membership accountability right as part of bylaw discussion. Um, but I think at this point I I I would continue with the remarks, but I would defer any, you know, direct questions to Beth. >> That's fine. I mean, and this was anticipated. I'm not really shocked by that response. So that's fine. Um, I I guess again, I just want it on the record then the frustration on my part is that there is no forum for discussion on this topic. Zero forum for other members who had nothing to do with this, who are getting emails. And I will go on the record and say the day after the last meeting, my home was personally defaced by a threat that the Farmington police have been um were called and are actively
030investigating because of the rhetoric of other board members who some refuse to explain themselves. Fine. That's fine. I don't understand as a board member how do we get a conversation going or how do we try to have a conversation? This is not the meeting we call for. I to be honest with you, Tom, I appreciate you being here. I never even thought this was a first amendment issue. I have no problem with people post posting whatever they want. It's not about that you're going to be arrested for posting it or that you can't post it. It's about accountability and setting the culture and climate of a town that you're an elected official for. So that's where I just have an issue. This is again like I'm I was anticipating this so I'm just I'm just
031going on the record saying it. It's just frustrating that I have young kids. I have to be here early to get schooled on something that I did nothing wrong. I've already sat through training. I have done nothing wrong. And there's just an elephant in the room here. That's that's what this is. This is just a check the box elephant in the room. >> Don't you think we should all be on the same page? >> What? >> James, how can we be on the same page? >> Responsibility. >> It's ridiculous. >> Please, James, you were speaking. >> I was just saying, don't you think it would be ideal for all of us on the board to be on the same page with regards to this issue and what we have? we have the ability to do
032as board members what we can and can't do, what mechanisms we have as a board to deal with this situation. We should all be on the same page. This is an opportunity for us to do that. >> That's not what this is addressing though. This is nothing. >> We are talking about free speech and that leads into what we're going to talk about with the bylaws. >> If you feel that way, that's fine. It's just my opinion. That's not what this is addressing. >> Marty, you got a point. >> Your opinion. In our bylaws, we have a code of ethics. And that's why I wrote this letter because I believe the code of ethics has been violated by you, Bill, and by because Andrew brought it up as well as Beth. We have a professional
033responsibility and you violated it. >> I would just caution uh the board. Um >> that's the agenda, >> right? And under the freedom of information law, um, you have a obligation to follow your agenda. And, um, I you've heard from the board members and I've not interrupted, but um, I would say that that's the agenda. That's why we're here if people don't like it. Uh, then they have the right to complain and ask for a different agenda. But for right now, that's the agenda. And under the freedom of information law, the board should be addressing that that agenda and not other concerns. >> Is it regarding the agenda? >> Yes, it is regarding the agenda related to the first amendment which you just went over. If a board member um posts something that in your
034in anyone's opinion or in the public's opinion, you voted that amendment is inappropriate. Do you feel like there should be accountability? Or is there >> Does the First Amendment mean lack of accountability or no accountability for what you say, do, or anything? How does accountability come into play with the First Amendment? >> Well, I'm not here to uh define how you as a board should um hold people accountable for their actions as board members or as individuals. But uh no it would not be correct to say that the first amendment absolves uh people of any accountability. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other uh >> yeah what's you talk about um you know whether something is offensive in the public opinion in the board's opinion whether something is considered inappropriate unacceptable who determines that I mean
035maybe that's where we get into bylaws and how we're going to examine that but I think that's a really big question right it's a question not just for this board but in our sorry new microphones um I think that's a real important question. Oh, I thought that was me. Um, who gets to determine those things, right? So, I think I hope we that's something that we can >> I think that's a a comment that's an appropriate segue to the the next part of the agenda, but you raise a a valid point, which is um we all have different opinions as to what we think is appropriate, what we think is not appropriate. If we were going to uh sketch that out, I think that there are certain things that everyone would agree is not appropriate
036and there are certain things that everyone would agree is appropriate. The gray area is the challenge and that's where I think you as a board have to decide where you want to quote hold people accountable. Um and um that would be something I'll talk about when we get to item B. Are there any other comments about the >> Yeah, Tom, something I would like to cover as well is what does what is the distinction between a member who is acting in their capacity as a board member and that of a private citizen? >> Yes, I think it's a clear distinction. Um, and that is that when you act uh as when you um refer to yourself as a board member, uh when you act on behalf of the school district, when you're at a meeting
037as a board member or you're at a meeting because you're a board member, uh then it's inferred that you're acting in your capacity as a board member. Uh the good news for all of you is that that's a fairly small part of your life. And um all of you retain your rights as individuals to make decisions as to what you want to say and how you want to act. And unless you fall within that category of described as official board conduct, then you the board member would be acting as an individual. >> Thank you. You can move on to >> I'm sorry. >> You can move on to the next part. >> Happy to. Um and this relates to some of the comments that I heard. Uh and that is that um if there ever
038a board member engages in conduct that the board finds or the board as a whole finds problematic along a continuum. I think it's very important that there be great deference given to individuals. You know, you don't give up your rights as a board member when you u choose to serve your community to be a member of the board of education. Um but there are certain things that can implicate the interest of the board as a whole. Um, I've been involved with the board members getting arrested for pretty bad things and that implicates the interest of the board and the board has to deal with it. Uh, but in Connecticut there's no mechanism for removing a person from a board of education. Uh, the premise is that you all serve here as elected by your community.
039the voters put you here. So, this board cannot override the will of the public voters by taking action to remove a person from elected office. You do however elect your officers and um as you know we have a model policy project and some boards uh have uh adopted procedures uh that would um address a concern if a board member is serving as an officer because the board members elected that person then the board members are are uh free to remove that person from the responsibilities to which the board itself elected that member. And um so in the materials that I shared um in advance of the meeting, uh one potential uh issue here is uh for the board to consider a policy that would uh uh operationalize its right to remove board officers under certain
040circumstances. And um as a lawyer, I just want to uh concede that presenting policies to boards of education makes me a little uneasy because my role as the lawyer is to tell you what's legal and what's not legal. When you adopt policies, you make policy judgments and um that really is your job, not mine. But we work with many boards of education and to facilitate your process of adopting policies, we have these model policies. And so this is a model policy that we adopted, we present it to you. But whether you wish to go down this road, whether you wish to consider and or adopt this uh draft policy is a judgment for you. And I'm not here to recommend one way or the other that you do that because that's a decision for the
041board uh to itself to make. >> A couple questions, Tom. Um first, um do other board of educations um have this particular policy in place? >> Yes. In fact, um just a brief comment on that. Um, this this very issue was the subject of a decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court when uh the Winchester Board of Education uh decided they didn't like their chairman and they had a meeting and removed him and that became litigated and went to the Connecticut Supreme Court and the court said you don't have to have this policy. If you have a policy, you have to follow it. And in that particular case, they reinstated the chair because the board had a policy such as this and didn't follow it and their action was therefore ruled to violate the due process
042rights of the uh individual. So, um yes, there are many districts that have many school boards have this type of policy. Uh and those that do are obligated to follow the policy if they ever wish to uh remove an officer. What about [clears throat] excuse me um what about in the um the pharmacy community? Any other boards or commissions that currently have something like this in place? >> I don't >> mechanisms. >> I don't know. I mean, that'd be easy to find out, you just go online and look at their bylaws, but I just happen not to know that. >> Um and just to confirm that this applies to removing um a chair or vice chair from their role um as an officer and not removing them from the board. Is that Uh yeah the
043the um only action would be to remove a person from uh the office that they hold as a board member. They would remain members of the board of education at any event and the officers include chair, vice chair, secretary. Some boards have treasurers. Um some boards even have parliamentarians. Um but the um uh the only right the board would have relative to removing a person from an elected office as an officer of the board uh would be to take them out of that responsibility but the board member would continue to serve on the board. What are, and this kind of gets back to my question um a little bit earlier, um what are examples of cause? >> What is the like a a distinction between a member acting as an officer or a board member
044and that of a private citizen? >> Um well, I think cause could arise in either circumstance. I think that there's uh and again, I want to be cautious. These are policy judgments, but I'll do my best to answer. Um, when a board member is acting in his or her official capacity, I think the board has a much more direct interest in uh addressing concerns over that board me the way the board member is fulfilling his or her public responsibilities. But there are um uh situations in which like the board member who got arrested where the board would have a concern uh that was unrelated to the execution of the board member's public responsibilities and u to circle back to your question what what's cause? Um this policy takes a stab at defining cause as you
045see here. uh cause which means a reasonable ground for removal and because lawyers wrote it we say includes but it's not limited to and then we give illustrations um uh so I would say that this policy again you'll consider whether you want to adopt it but this policy uh doesn't purport to define exclusively what cause is but rather uh defines more expansively cause as a reasonable ground for removal which makes sense to me. I mean, you know, the person serves the board uh and so if the board as a whole and this policy requires a majority vote of all members. So it, you know, that's another uh important uh aspect to this, but it these uh paragraphs one through four are illustrations and not exclusive definitions. >> Thanks. >> Tom, I just had a quick
046question. >> Yes. Are there any models that are for all board members that would impact not removal but just not being part of the board or inappropriate? >> Are there any policies? >> Is there any model policy or anywhere else in other districts that have anything like that? I'm not aware of any model policy that would purport to regulate the actions of board members uh outside of their board responsibilities. Um but boards do have the right to disavow particular actions or to um specifically and under Robert's rules the term is censure um under Robert's rules and they have elaborate procedures for that. So um that's more the exception than the rule. There's no rule saying this is how you should act as board members as as a policy. I mean people from CAB will come
047in and give you training on how they think you should act as board members. But the where uh the I I would see uh specific guidance would be in the negative circumstances where a concern arises uh that would cause a majority of the board to uh want to make a statement relative to that. And I do know that um uh you have a your policy uh supplements uh Robert's rules. If these circumstances come up, instead of following Robert's rules, you have a a board policy that uh sets forth those procedures. >> Thank you. >> And yes, >> Beth first. Sorry. Um Tom just around um [clears throat] in districts where you've worked with boards of education who have adopted this gone through the process of maybe sorry um so you've worked with boards of education
048that have gone through this process maybe considering implementing a policy like this deciding not to but you said that many do what would you see as the pros or cons of bringing on a policy like this are there different versions or changes and kind Well, I I think this model policy >> uh serves as a starting point for your further deliberation on first whether you want such a policy and second what you want it to say. Um but uh despite your invitation, I'm going to decline to suggest whether you should or should not adopt this policy because I think that's a decision for the board. >> Sure. Sure. No, I I wasn't expecting [laughter] that. I just didn't know if you had um situations or experience where you could say there were some pros to
049go ahead with this versus cons like what are we weighing? >> Oh um no uh I I don't view this as a particularly um controversial issue. You just have to decide whether you want a policy like this because it's one more way in which a board can uh address a concern about the conduct of an individual board member who happens also to be an officer of the board. >> Any questions over here? >> Um >> oh I have a question. >> Oh sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry. Yes. >> Um so the agenda item is just bylaw. So, as I alluded to earlier, I've been concerned about like the communication just surrounding all of this whole topic and why we're here and everything that happened. Um, and one point of contention for me is that a
050letter went out to the entire uh student body, parents, and everyone signed on behalf of the board of ed when we had had no discussion. [clears throat] No one approached me, no one approached the other seven members. Um, so I looked into bylaw 9015, which is transaction of business for Farmington. Um, and I'm just going to read it just so that we can get on the same page in terms of our discussion. But one says, the Farmington Board of Education, the board shall transact all business at a legal meeting of the board. Two, the board shall act as a whole entity except that a committee created in accordance with these bylaws may act on matters before it is before it in conformity with the committee's purpose or charge. Three, individual members shall make no commitments
051for the board or issue orders for the board except when executing an assignment delegated by the board. And four, the board shall concern itself with questions of educational policy and not with administrative details concerning the Farmington Public Schools operation. In the past, I've been fine with communication that's gone out on behalf of the board. In the spirit of working together, I felt like the communication was appropriate and I was fine to have it say on behalf of the board. Given this situation, I have concern now that communication goes out on behalf of the board and my name is tied to that because I did not agree with that communication nor did I have any discussion and I would like to understand how the bylaws number three individual members shall make no commitment for the board
052or issue orders for the board. How that relates to communication that goes out um specifically because we had no legal meeting of the board concerning this issue before the communication went out. So, I'd just like to understand that better and moving forward, I'd like to understand if um like it could sign the individual members who maybe agree to the statement um because I don't want to be lumped into the board when I've had no discussion or communication on a topic moving forward because now I don't trust it. >> Well, you've raised an issue concerning a communication that I haven't seen. So, I can't speak to the uh specifics. I would say that um uh I would presume that uh when you go to the bylaws and I look at the officers of the board, it
053is typical that the chair speaks on behalf of the board. >> I didn't see I'm just I mean I'm happy to have a follow-up on this. Like I've done some research on this since this all happened. I don't think I think the bylaw that is appropriate to this conversation is 9015 which does not say that. We actually don't have a bylaw. other Connecticut board of eds do, like I found one in Bethany that they say is the public spokesperson for the board and there's an actual bylaw that says that. I don't believe Farmington has that. I mean, you can check me on that. That that might be true. Maybe I missed it. That's possible. Um, but I guess regardless of the communication that went out, you know, me as a board member, my name was
054signed to it indirectly as the board and I don't I did not approve of what the content was. So, how can I advocate for myself moving forward? >> Well, I think you're doing fine. Um, there's no, you know, I'm not here to tell you how to do your business as a board member. I would say that the um if the current bylaws do not say that the board chair serves as the spokesperson for the board, uh that's another thing for the board to consider because it is a standard and you're uh you as a board make decisions only at meetings and that's understood and there are circumstances where the board u needs a voice in between meetings and it is a common practice and perhaps your custom if it's not expressly stated in the bylaws
055that the board chair would speak on behalf of the board in between meetings. I do acknowledge that there are there's an important difference between speaking as the chair and speaking for the board. and speaking for the board uh would typically um uh relate to circumstances where board action is being described by the board chair. Um because the board chair can speak for him or herself, but the board chair should not speak on behalf of the board except as is describing the deliberations and actions by the board itself. >> Kathy, you want to add something to that? No, I >> there's a question. >> I would only say that um in the role of the chair and the vice chair uh the role of the chair, it's listed that uh the board chair is the spokesperson
056for the board and in the absence of the board chair, the vice chair is the spokesperson of the board. So that is in our in our policy. >> What bylaw number is that? >> 9121. As I as I recall, that was correspondence that was summarizing what we did at the meeting on the 15th, >> right? >> That Andreas. Yeah. >> Andrea Andrea, right? And Adrea did that, right? >> Sorry. Can you say that again? Andrea, >> that was something I think. Sorry. >> Is this a sign? Okay. So, my understanding is Andrea summarizing what had happened um the previous night at the board. No, I'm talking about the correspondence that went out before the the meeting, the last meeting. It was there was a correspondence that went out, I believe, by Andrea before the last
057meeting. I'd have to pull it up, but I can try to find it. >> I don't remember which one that is, but okay. I mean, it's a fair it's you raise a fair point. Um, and I think that's something we could probably talk about in terms of going forward providing board members an opportunity to u I mean again the spokesperson will speak but you can either ratify you can you can [laughter] you know dissent or just you know expressly indicate you don't want to be on I think that's a reasonable uh suggestion actually. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Appreciate it. All right. >> Okay. Anybody else have any other questions? Tom. Um, my question, you know, we we had an exchange at the beginning of the meeting where, uh, board members are calling on
058other board members to do certain things and and and and respond to whatever feelings they have about other board members behavior. Um, what process is it? Is it in the context of a disciplinary hearing that that conversation can occur or in other words my understanding in my reading of Robert's rules is that that conversation can't happen in the regular order that it has to be something a little bit be an agenda item or something like that. Can you help me understand that process of I understand there's some frustration about people not getting answers they feel like they deserve >> right >> um and I just want to understand that a little bit more like how how that works. >> Sure. I would differentiate between um uh interactions between board members outside of the uh board
059table and actions or comments or requests of board members at the board table. At the board table, you're limited by the Freedom of Information Law to the agenda that's established for the um meeting. Uh and in my experience, it wouldn't be common to have on the agenda a particular request by an individual board member uh that the board chair or the board as a whole take particular action. Um that could be on the agenda, but that would be um a rare circumstance in in my experience. I think the more common um uh circumstance uh and this is essentially universal. You all have your opinions as to um whether you're acting in a way that uh should be free of criticism and whether other people are not meeting that standard. And uh any board member is
060free, this is back to the first amendment to take issue with the way a board me another board member is um uh exercising his or her responsibilities as a board member. There could be a concern this board member never comes to meetings. This board members late. This board member doesn't read the stuff beforehand. There are any number of concerns that a uh one board member could have about another board member. I would uh counel that a certain level of tolerance is going to be better than people getting on people's cases uh you know anytime things don't uh quite uh suit them. Um but anyone's free to say I don't like the way you did that or I want you to free to say that and the board member to which that uh to whom that
061comment is addressed is free to listen and free to respond however that board member wishes including not to respond. That is there is no internal supervisory structure among board members. So one board member cannot impose a demand on another board member but rather uh any board member can raise questions or concerns and uh typically when one raises a question in a non-confrontational way to get to a particular place that usually goes over better than making demands. Uh so but I I would just say that you all are here elected by the voters, you all are equal in your authority and uh if one board member wants another board member to do a particular thing, it's up to the board member to whom that request is addressed to decide what he or she wants to do.
062There is no obligation for one board member to do whatever another board member requests. >> But in that conversation that you've just described can absolutely happen and I I agree it can happen. What's the context of that convers? Is it in in the context of can they just blurt it out or is it does it have to be in the context of an agenda? Help me understand that. >> Well um uh outside of a meeting. >> This is what I'm talking about. So inside a meeting >> in a meeting it uh there should be an agenda item related to that particular issue. >> Uh the board members uh and any members of public agencies more generally under the freedom of information law should not be discussing matters among a quorum of a multimember public agency
063that aren't on the agenda. And uh so I just would caution um I mean you know we're human beings and we make comments but uh the problem I would see is that if a board member makes a comment or a request and the board then engages in a discussion of that request then that would be where the freedom of information law would be violated because uh the commission has been very clear that discussion of matters within the jurisdiction of the board should be on the agenda of a board meeting and a quorum should never discuss such matters without a formal meeting and uh the matter being on the agenda. A quorum individual board members >> less than a quorum you're free to say whatever you want. Thank you. Angela, >> just to go hand up
064first. >> Just to clarify for everyone, I actually know the answer to this, but just so that everyone in the public know >> in order to get an agenda item on an agenda, >> the agenda is set by the chair. So you would as a board member if you would want an agenda item you'd have to ask the chair and that would have to be accepted as you know it have to even though a board member would make want something on the agenda it's not like any board member can really make an agenda it has to be requested and approved correct >> um partially >> okay >> uh and I think any board would u uh want to be clear that no individual board member can drive the agenda for the board uh you delegate
065that responsibility to the chair in consultation with the superintendent. But I believe the Farmington bylaws also include a provision that says that if three board members want an agenda item, then it should be added to the agenda. Is that >> that's not it. >> Oh, you don't have that by >> they get a special meeting. >> I'm sorry. >> They can ask for a special meeting as I understand it. >> Well, but any request for a special meeting would perforce involve an agenda. >> Right. Right. Right. So that would be >> but but as opposed to in a meeting if someone wants to there's different >> Oh well that's a separate question >> within a meeting within a meeting the only way you can add something to the agenda is to move it has to
066be a regular meeting >> there has to be a motion and it has to be uh passed by two/3 it has to be seconded and passed by twothirds vote. So that's the only way in in process an item can be added to the agenda. >> But if it's a special meeting that is not permissible, all special meetings including tonight are uh by law limited to the agenda uh that's posted. Um but am I correct, Bill, in my understanding that if three board members want a special meeting, then under the bylaws >> it's it has to be at least three people to ask for. And um uh as uh for uh what it's worth, that really comes from the statute creating boards of education. Um you'll be happy to know that the law requires that boards
067of ed meet at least once every six months by law. You have to meet every at least once every six months. And then it goes on to say if the chair does not call a meeting, >> right, >> three members of the board may call the meeting and that's how you get from there to your bylaw. >> Right. >> That's my understanding as well. >> So Bill, just to clarify, three members have to request the special meeting, but the agenda of the special meeting is still set by the chair and Kathy or >> is the special meeting request >> based on the request from the member? >> That is what the agenda is. >> Right. So like you asked you made a comment at the beginning of our meeting. We did have eight requests for
068a special meeting. Majority of those requests were addressed to the stuff that we're talking about today. I know your request was not aligned to that. Marty's wasn't either, but we the other ones were effectively of this of this temporary tone kind of following up from the meeting of the 15th. So the majority of the special meeting requests were aligned to what we saw tonight. So we're clear that if three board members ask for a special meeting, it would be a meeting on the purpose for the special meeting being requested. >> Kathy has a comment. >> Um I just wanted to add because of the comment about the spokesperson of the board for the last 16 years as superintendent. The chair has always been the spokesperson has always been the one to communicate on behalf of
069the board. If that were to change, it would have to change in the bylaws. So that would go to policy to clarify that um because that has been the way it's always been done. And then if the board chair is not able to communicate, they would then designate the vice chair to do that. So that's how it's always been done. And you know, in in the whole time I have been a superintendent, I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm just saying it would need a review and potentially some revisions. Um, Tom, can I ask a followup on that? >> Sure. >> So, >> yes, I agree. I mean, obviously, like for the vast majority, I'm fine with it, but I guess I'm a little confused because I feel like there has to be some
070gatekeeping to that. I mean, let's just say Bill decides he wants to say something completely obscure and terri, you know, like and signs all of our names. Obviously, that's not allowed. So when you're saying you're the spokesperson for something, again, I have no problem if it's something that we discussed and it's being told as, okay, the board had a meeting or, you know, we're starting a superintendent search and the board is doing it. Of course, like absolutely, but where I feel like this went arry was that there was no communication whatsoever to any of the members and then we were spoken, we were it was signed on behalf of us. So to me, like I understand it was related to the board, but there's got to be like in the example I just gave, if
071Bill says everyone's getting $100, you know, and signs all of our names to it, obviously that would never be accepted. So what >> it would be effective? >> Well, >> because the board hadn't made that decision, >> Right. So how is this any different that there there was someone a letter was written on our behalf, but the board didn't make a decision about it? Well, you asked about that earlier and I said I haven't seen the communication, so I really can't speak to the communication question. >> Okay. Yes, we can follow up with that, >> Tom. >> Yes, >> I agree with the idea that and and I think I support the notion that three people can ask for a special meeting. I agree with Angela's comment that no one person should have complete control
072over the agenda. Just as a clarifying point, my understanding is we actually don't technically have what's called an agenda agenda. We actually have a standing order under Robert's rules. And as I as I did my research and stuff like that, as I'm sure we all did coming into tonight's meeting, so the agenda is not set by the board chair in the sense that I sit down with Kathy on a Wednesday and say, "This is what we're going to talk about." The agenda exists independent of anything myself, Ellen say is here tonight, Chris Fagan, whatever any of us ever did that that agenda has existed from as long as I know. So, it's not like we we we control the agenda. Sometimes there's special items that we add, right? Um if there's a motion to add
073add to agenda. We've had that in the past happen too. That has to be a super majority, but we've we've we've done that historically. Um, so it's not like there's like this gatekeeping function where we're not going to let anybody have an opportunity to try to add something to an agenda. I we don't have I don't it's never been how we've ever operated. So I want to be clear clear on that and I forgot my other point. >> Bill also add that it's a it's actually in the bylaws as well the order of business right 9325. >> Right. So because in other words, as I understand it, in a classic agenda sense, we would have to approve the agenda before every meeting under under Robert's rules. That's why we have this standing order. It's been,
074like I said, it's been true for, you know, 20 years at least. So, >> and also just, you know, in the consideration of the pol the model policy that we went over a little bit earlier, I um under the uh impression that this policy was put in front of a different board with different leadership a couple years ago. Um Kathy, I don't know if you can speak to that if that is something that came to this board before. Um so the policy chair uh at the time uh had looked at all the bylaws and just reviewed various shipment uh model policies. This is not a mandated policy that you're s you know you're uh sharing with the board but there were if you look you'll see a lot of the bylaws changed in 2022 and
075that was a result of that review. >> Thank you. Sorry, can I I have a question on that and then I have a a question slash comment or not quite sure what it is. Um so with following up on that when at that time at that with that board who were considering this you know reviewing that policy of that model policy uh was it across the board that the group decided you know what it's not necessarily how was that decision made that it would not adopt that? It was more uh the policy chair at the time. Uh you know it was time to look at them. Some of the policies are from 2000. >> Yeah. >> So it was just time to look at them. In fact, we've just engaged since that time in a
076very comprehensive review of all policies where we we've been repealing and we've been adding policies and modifying them. Still have some work to do on those. But it was more the policy chair uh working with the policy committee >> and and they and so that policy chair working with that policy committee um obviously a decision was then made not to bring it forward. It wasn't like with the pros cons to it. There was a lot of probably a lot of discussions about pros and cons to Beth's point earlier about what would be some pros and cons. The >> it wasn't brought forward because it's not adopted. Yeah. So there was some discussion and decisions that were made with at at the committee level that maybe as a bipartisan may not necessarily be conducive to adopt.
077>> I I think it's fair to say that you know as a different board members come onto a board and there are new members on a policy committee and there's a potential suggestion right of this possibility. It's up, it would be the policy committee having that discussion about the pros and cons. >> Um, and is this the time to do it? Why would we do it now? You know, that to me is kind of how this board has run for many years. Different members and at different times there's a different need for uh policy changes or new reports to the agenda. uh we ad hoc ad hoc committee sometimes because we're continuously improving. So I do think um shipment and goodwin is continuously improving and suggesting new uh policies as we go on. So I
078think it's always appropriate for uh as board members change to revisit things and so um you know that that would be the case uh in in that suggestion that potentially if the board were in agreement uh at the next board meeting you could potentially send this to the policy committee for their review. then the policy uh committee, you know, would either bring it back to the board or describe to the board why they're not bringing it to the board. >> No, I think No, and you know, and so sorry, I want to end that this particular question with a comment and then I have another comment about something else. >> I just want to just keep an eye on the title. >> Okay. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry. So, and and believe me and I I live
079in the world of policy in my in my life. I I in professional life and so always right I always say there's an evolution the the evolution of a policy because of what may be happening because there may be a specific you know and even with that evolution of that policy those modifications should be based on the need and there's a specific you know there's there's a need for that right there's justification for um and uh you know and uh it needs to be weighted so the pros and cons and all of that so I I I agree and and you I would be interested in part of if this were to move forward and that's a big if you know for me if it were to move forward I would want to go back
080and lessons learned there's always something in lessons learned >> there was a lot of work that was done probably by that policy committee >> in weighing the pros and cons and trying to determine why and why not and so it would behoove any board member to also review those decisions that were made or those notes and so forth. um to learn from the past and to learn from the time and the effort that was done and whether to determine if those lessons learned uh apply now in the current time. So that's one sorry I just had to comment on that. But something I'm I've been thinking about and I've um and I don't know this answer so I I want to say that very clearly. I don't know this answer. Um, back to the board
081chair and or the vice chair speaking on behalf of the board. One of the things I've heard a few times mentioned here and it was sort of and I could be 100% wrong. So, this is where it's a le level setting for me. on learning is um that a lot of you know maybe it's not necessarily in the policy and maybe it's not in the bylaw but it is a a probably a a common practice that really this is a partnership and a collaborative collaboration right and so things that get communicated out to the public there's probably a there is probably from leadership not just from our chair and our vice chair but dis you know like I don't foresee that a board chair would put something out there uh without saying, you know what,
082let me talk to the superintendent who's the leader of our district. You know, I just think that there is still some checks and balances there in place. And I just I kind of and I heard a little bit of that here in this conversation that you know, uh there's discussions that take place maybe, you know, at different levels and I believe me also understood that lead, you know, certain individuals are put in certain roles. um as a leader and um there's processes for those uh roles um and sometimes um >> you know like I think I heard you say earlier there's also a level of trust right um and um and so I just you know I think it's just like I said I don't know if it's necessarily it's a question or a comment
083it's just that I'm this is something I've been thinking about a lot and I just think that I just don't necessarily see like it's a stamp sealed and deliver I am the leader leader and now no one else I would consider nobody else. I just don't think that that is necessarily the practice in which we have been functioning as my time on this board and I don't think uh you know um based on some of the the uh action steps that I've seen of this board members who have been part of this board for many many years who have committed their voluntary hours on this board for many years because as I said at the last meeting because we are fierce advocates for our students. I really truly believe that there is what I like
084to call collaborative leadership >> and I think this board has done a great job of executing and implementing that collaborative leadership. That doesn't mean that it's uh I am the decider. It means we collaborate together. We discuss and we put forward something good. >> I just wanted to comment. Thank you. >> Tom, one last question with respect to [clears throat] a special meeting request. How do we determine when a special meeting request comes in whether the request is appropriate? In other words, we get three se we get three requests for a special meeting but it doesn't necessarily align with what [clears throat] we should be having special meeting but other doesn't align to a a reason to have a meeting. How do you how do you handle that? Well, >> I think the three member
085request as long as they're the same request that's critical. um then they have created the cause of to have the meeting on that topic. >> The board would deliberate whether or not they want to go any further at that special meeting. >> You'd have to have that that on the agenda for discussion and take it from there. >> Consider whatever it is and then make a decision collectively at that point. >> Yes. >> Got it. >> Okay. All right. Um we have probably we have 15 minutes before our regular meeting. So I guess there's anything else last thing at the time. Thank you very much for sharing your time with us this evening. We appreciate it. >> And I will uh enjoy a special meeting.