001300 p.m. Um, we have with us, I'll just do it really quickly. We have uh myself at Corey, we have Mr. John Kiscoco, Mr. Glenn Ber, Mr. Joe Klesia, Miss Elena Cleo, Miss Christristen Conway, and Mr. Jeff P from the board. And we are joined as well by Mr. Wilson, the superintendent. Um, let me pull back up my little agenda. Uh, okay. So, we just really have one item um for discussion. It's just broken up into the agenda item and then the motion that um would be proposed. So, it's discussion and possible action to appoint an impartial hearing officer for student expulsion hearings in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes 10-233DB. Um the short version of this is um we have a matter that is going to be referred for expulsion. um shortly that I strongly
002feel would be um a pretty serious conflict and also potential legal exposure for the board to hear in our normal process. Um so I would propose effectively just in this one instance that we would use a hearing officer which is allowed under the law. Now, we have not done that in my nine years on the board, so I understand that it is quite unusual. Um, the way that the motion is structured um right now would be that the board would be empowering me to allow the administration to utilize these hearing officers. In this case, it would only be Alyssa Bartlett. Um, it's just a safeguard temporarily that I know the board is not really invested in using hearing officers as a general rule. So, the safeguard for the moment is that uh it could only
003be done if I as a chair agree what I would strongly suggest and what I'm happy to place on our agenda is that we then amend our bylaws because this board is currently uninterested in using hearing officers as a matter of course. So, we should amend the bylaws to make that clear. Um, or the board's policies, whichever is preferred. Um, because I know that might be a concern, right? I'm not saying that we should move in a direction of using these hearing officers frequently. I just strongly feel that we ought to use them in this instance. Uh, and that's based on what little I do know. Um, I know I'm asking the board to make a decision without any of the relevant facts. Um, and that's deliberate for two reasons. One, because of the potential
004exposure and conflict. And two, because if this board does vote no to a hearing officer, then there would have to be a hearing in the normal process. Uh, which I already cannot participate in because I know a little bit about the precipitating incident or students. Um, so I don't want to bi bias the entire board by giving relevant facts that would make it so then you cannot do the hearing um, in case we vote no tonight. So that's the very short version. I'm sure there are questions. I also have Mr. Wilson on um, in case there's a question that maybe I cannot answer that he feels he can. Uh, John, so you John, did you have something? >> I'm I'm having trouble understanding you. You you're coming across as like the bottom of a burrow
005or something, >> but I I do have a question. I I guess you you asked if if I had a question because I unmuted myself. >> Uh, right now I don't have enough information to vote to give this authority. I I need more than just, you know, there's something going on that you can't know about. Um have to do better than that to if you want me to and you maybe don't want me to vote for it, but if you want me to, I need more information. >> Yeah. I mean, as I was saying just before you asked for more information, um, I have given what I can because again, if this motion does not carry this evening, members of the board of education would have to conduct a hearing and going into that hearing,
006they cannot be pre-biased by knowing anything about the matter at hand. So, um, that's the trouble. And I don't I know that this is an unfortunate position to be in. I didn't like being in this position over the course of time. I don't like putting you all in it. Uh, and I don't even like that. I know a little more about this than the rest of you, but not a lot. And I don't like that either. Um, it is my very strong recommendation, having never recommended this before. It is my very strong recommendation that we move ahead with a hearing officer in the matter that uh is at hand. Um I don't know that there is anything else to share that would not compromise the students or the district um in a way that I
007am unwilling to do. I'm not sure if Mr. Wilson you have anything that I may have omitted that you feel can be shared. He shook his head. I'll I'll ask a question then. So, >> can you give a I mean, we have never done this before and in my time on the board and now you've been on the board longer than me. So, can you give an example of something that rises to the that you might that's not this issue but another issue that maybe you could shed light on for the board. Hey, this is something that if something like this happened, maybe you can give us for an order of severity or you know how how grave the situation is just so that we you know you can't give away the details of this
008one but you certainly could give the details of another type of an incident that would rise to the same level. >> Sure. Um I give this example only because he's on my screen. Uh so let's say Mr. Wilson here lived in Torington and had kids in his school system and his son beat somebody up at school. Uh, in the normal course that would be referred for expulsion. But of course, the board would not um I would say the board would not be an appropriate venue to hear that expulsion because that's our direct employee. uh a public figure in the district um somebody with whom we all have a relationship of some kind. Um so or the same thing could be true um if it were uh one of our union presidents, if it were somebody
009in our central office team that we see several times a month um or even if they were victimized in some way, right? if uh if there was an assault by a student on the superintendent, right? Um you know, by some miracle there's a student who's a bigger guy than our superintendent is and they beat him up. Um right, in the same vein, taking testimony from a a victim in a matter that is somebody you work with day in and day out um and have a relationship with could pose a pretty significant conflict. uh or unfairly bias the matter and present possible legal exposure. Uh none of these examples fit neatly into the incident at hand, but um you know I think that those are some strong examples of why I would suggest we might do
010this. So it's not a mild it's not a mild incident. It it does not sound like it's a mild incident just by somebody that we the board may know. I know you can't answer that, but it sounds like it's a se it's a severe issue with a lot of conflict of interest by your definition of the other examples. >> Yeah, you know, I I like to think uh I have conducted myself generally speaking with integrity and have made it a priority for this board to be transparent and engaged and involved in the happenings in our district. And I have gone to many, many expulsion hearings over the years and have never been interested in stipulated agreements or hearing officers. This to me is something that warrants it um in a way that I did not
011anticipate experiencing, but here we are. >> And it's a one time a one-time uh pass basically. >> Yeah. effectively. So, the motion, and I I spoke directly with Jessica Ritter about this, the board's attorney. Um the motion is structured um that in this case, the impartial hearing officer would be quote authorized to serve in such expulsion hearings only when specifically designated to do so by the chair of the board. And again, that is a temporary safeguard. I would strongly suggest that we put into some kind of codified language um for you know for posterity if you will that the board doesn't do this without a vote of the board or something like that. Um it's just because we don't have any of that governing language right now. Um attorney Ritter uh felt that this would
012be the best way to to get this to happen provided the board votes. But again, I don't really want this authority in the long term. Um, so I would love for the board to take it away from me by setting a policy or a bylaw down. >> Thank you for the >> Yeah. Anyone else? >> Uh, I'm not sure that any of that satisfies your concerns, Mr. Gizope. I have done my level best within the confines the situation has placed around me. Okay. Then have seeing no hands. I'm looking at cameras. Nobody's unmuted. Nobody looks through the speak. Um I would ask the board for a motion uh that would read the as follows. that in accordance with section 10-233DB of the Connecticut General Statutes, the board moves to appoint attorney Alyssa Bartlett as an
013impartial hearing officer authorized to serve in such expulsion hearings only when specifically designated to do so by the chairman of the or excuse me, chairperson of the board. Is there such a motion? >> So move. >> Is there a second? Second. >> Okay. It's made by Mr. Burgerer, seconded by Misso. Any further discussion or questions on the question before us? >> I I have a question and that is naming a specific third party >> who will always be our hearing officer should this pass. >> Is Jessica recommended just like she recommended the same person for a previous uh job from the board? >> Yeah. Uh we can actually um have a roster if you will of hearing officers. Um when I talked to Jessica about how we would structure this and what needs to happen,
014she just suggested this attorney. She said this is somebody who does this for school districts. Um so you know in theory we could designate uh a hearing officer of our choosing. I don't know if it has to be an attorney or not. I didn't ask that question. I would assume it it should be um but no, we could if we wanted to go ahead and do these routinely, we could appoint a panel um and choose from that panel. >> From the sounds of it though, this is not something we're interested in pursuing time and time again. So, I imagine at this stage of the game, a single person wouldn't much matter. >> Right. When I called attorney Ritter and and talked to her about this, she said, "What you actually need to do is appoint
015somebody when you take the vote." So, you know, then that's when I said to her, you know, can it be you? She said, "No, you know, probably not because she does a lot of the other the district's other legal work." And um, you know, she suggested attorney Bartlett. But again, if the board had wants to go in this direction in the future, it can appoint multiple people to do this work. Um, that's how many districts do it. I have a friend who's a an attorney in the Waterberry School District and he conducts uh a good chunk of their expulsion hearings as the hearing officer. Um, we just generally don't want to and I I'm not really interested in changing that, although I suppose that takes us away from the discussion here. >> Ned, I understand
016the position you're in and I I sympathize with it, but I won't be able to vote for it. No comment on on you going this route. I just won't be able to vote for it. >> Certainly, I understand. Anyone else? Any further discussion or questions matter before us? >> What are your main concerns, John? Maybe I have some of the same ones. I'm just >> I don't I don't have enough information to take this power out of the board's hands. The state allows the boards to do this. It's our responsibility as we are elected officials to fulfill that responsibility. And I don't like giving up any of that authority. I don't have enough information. If if I understood exactly what we were talking about, or more precisely, I should say what we were talking about,
017I might be able to vote for it, but I don't have enough information to to vote on something this serious. Yeah, we came across this once in one other thing. I think it was employee related where we had a vote on something but we didn't have enough information because we weren't allowed to know the information, >> right? And it's always >> for just a case for, you know, a little bit different of a situation but similar. Um, I think you just have to have faith in Ed that he's doing it in the best interest of the district and us. And if it was to happen again, Ed, it's not like, hey, you can say, oh, we're going to go, you know, the administration brings something to you and say, oh, we're going to use this
018third party again, without letting the board know. >> That's right. Like I said, the the motion is structured in such a way that it reads uh only when specifically designated by the chair. I am telling you publicly and recorded. Um I would not do this a second time. Uh I wouldn't suggest doing it this time if I didn't think it was important. Uh but uh like I was saying earlier, I would very much want the board to take this designating authority out of my hands um by crafting a bylaw for it in the future. It's just that the the the sort of somewhat rushed and urgent nature of this led it to be structured this way. And then that's why I'm making it very clear what it says and what you are giving me the
019power to do because I don't want to pull anything over on anyone and I don't really have an interest in exercising this ability beyond this one time. >> Okay. >> The negative way to look at this would be that somebody's getting getting a special privilege getting treated differently because of who they are. I see this as on the contrary because they may get special treatment because who they are because all us would be involved. The purpose of this is to avoid that have a neutral third party so that there is no special treatment. >> Yeah. I looked at it as if it was like me. if if it was if it was if it was me or somebody else on the board, you know, would we want to go to the hearing? I mean, I'll
020just say I'm willing to vote for on a one-time basis. And in my head, I justify this with the fact that look, nobody's going to sit us down in a legal room and tell us what happened, but this is Torington. You're eventually going to hear what happened. And at that point, you'll have some idea of whether we put the faith in you rightly or wrongly, but at that point, I mean, you're asking for it one time. I'm not uh >> I understand John's position. And I don't disagree with you, John, that we should know more, but at the same time, if we can't know it, um, you know, this is not a total vault in Torington. Torington word travels. So, I mean, eventually, I think something would might come about, but if we can't know
021about it now, I'll back Ed on a one-time basis. >> There's also the idea that we can't be trusted to make a decision, a detached decision about this. And I'm not sure I like that assumption being made about me or anyone else. It's an understandable criticism I would say and I only say this because um you know nobody uh you know all the board members here I assume will be voting and the other two board members who aren't here don't have kids in the school system. So I if I were to give another example, if there were a member of the board of education with a student who had uh who was accused of serious misconduct and referred for expulsion, I would probably have come with the same request um having previously asked that member
022of the board not to vote on the motion. of course um for the same or similar reasons. Um there are just certain times where even if maybe you know you could right there's sort of an implicit nature that could be inferred of bias and if it were a matter say with the victim uh that presents significant legal exposure as well right for the victimized student to turn around and say well hey that's your colleague are you sure you didn't uh give their you know their child special treatment. So, there's a lot of factors that that may or may not be at play in something like this. Um, so I'm just giving lots of examples of of what kind of exposure I think there is or could be. Um, again, none of these are the actual
023example, but um, that's I guess where I'm coming from. But I I see your I see your point, John. I you know, I'm not trying to bludgeon you into doing anything. I I acknowledge your point as as valid. any other discussion on the matter before >> um can you guys hear me? Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I I can see both sides. Um but I appreciate Ed's example of, you know, a different situation, but correct me if I'm wrong. If it goes to a an arbitrator or sorry, an impartial hearing officer, does it come back to us to then determine the students fate? >> No. Um, if you use the hearing officer route, um, they complete the expulsion hearing in the same way that the board of education would by hearing the relevant facts,
024hearing the recommendation, and making a determination um, based on all of those things. Um, >> okay. >> I would say that somebody who does this professionally is perhaps uh, you know, not going to reach the same conclusion that the board of ed does, which is why we like to do these hearings generally ourselves because these are our students and we care about them. Um, but yeah, it doesn't come back. It's stipulated agreements that would come back to the board for review. Um but uh in in this case uh stipulate, you know, giving the superintendent the ability to enter into a stipulated agreement would sort of defeat the purpose of referring it to a hearing officer because it would ultimately still come before us. >> Okay. Sorry, I'm having a little trouble hearing you toward the
025end there. But then are we given the details of the situation after they determine their ruling? Uh no, with the exception that uh as in all cases with an expulsion, um the motion or in this case the final determination I believe are a matter of public record the same way they would be when we have a motion and take a vote to expel a student. But I'm not 100% sure on the answer to that. That's my belief. I I did not ask that question. the court's legal counsel. >> Okay. Yeah, that's a tough one. I can see both sides of it, but I am confident that you, you know, would refer it the way you did based on the situation. So, thank you. >> I appreciate that. I I uh I'm in a bind myself
026here. Uh I find this to be deeply unpleasant experience that we are all sharing. Um but I am doing my level best. Is there any further discussion on the matter before us? Okay, hearing none. Um instead of voting by acclamation because I think there's some contention here. I'm just going to I'm just going to do this as a roll call vote for posterity. Uh I'm just going to go down the list of names as they appear in my participant listing. Um so first is Mr. Kiscoco. I didn't catch much of that. >> Oh. Uh, I'm just going to call the vote by roll. So, you're first, John. >> I'm first. I vote against this. >> Okay. Mr. Burgerer, >> I will vote for it. >> Mr. Klesia, >> uh, I will vote for it. >>
027Miss Cleo, >> sorry, trying to find the unmute. I will vote for it. Miss Conway. >> Um, I will vote for it reluctantly. >> Okay. Uh, Mr. Putnham, >> I'll vote for it on a one-time exception. And Mr. Cronin, >> Ed, I trust your judgment. So, yeah, I'll vote for it. >> All right. Thank you. That is um six in favor and one against. So, the motion carries. Um, so we will go ahead with this process. I do very much appreciate you all putting a little trust in me. Uh, I never anticipated that I would have to ask the board to do this. Um, so it's been a interesting week. Um, I do thank you all. Uh, please let me know if you have additional questions about this uh, going forward. And again, uh, let's
028put a pin in the bylaws or policy discussion so that if this ever needs to happen again, there can be more structure than just giving the board chair total ability to to say yes or no because that is not authority that I want uh to hold in the long term. And with that, I will hear a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? I >> I >> we are journed at 557.