Was the town's former education chairman authorized to approve payment of approximately $3,500 to the Superintendent of Schools for unused vacation days, without first seeking a vote of the full Board of Education (BOE), and when no contract language exists allowing for such pay?

While an attorney for the BOE has said the answer is "yes," some Town Council members want another opinion. On Sept. 5, the council voted 7-1 to have documents involved in the pay-out decision, first gathered by a citizen through Freedom of Information (FOI), put into a packet and sent for review by The Office of the Chief State's Attorney (CSA) in Rocky Hill, which has a specialized unit focusing on public integrity.

The 7-1 vote had one dissenter, council member Marie Diamond (D). The nine-member council also only had eight in attendance on Sept. 5 due to the resignation of council member Chris Manna (D), who is moving to a new residence in Branford.  In other council action on Sept. 5, a motion made by council member Al Rose (R) to table a vote replacing Manna with Democrat Vince Mase Sr. was defeated along party lines.  However, a motion to appoint Mase also didn't get traction that night, after failing to gain enough of a majority response. The motion received two Republican "no" votes (Mayor Michael Doody, Anthony Candelora), four Democratic "yes" votes (Deputy Mayor Joseph Faughnan, Diamond, Dan Armin and George Miller) and two Republican abstentions (Rose and Rose Marie Angeloni).  The item will be revisited at the next Town Council meeting, Town Manager Michael Paulhus told Zip06/The Sound.

FOI Raises Unpaid Vacation Day Pay-Out Questions:

The issue of compensation for five unpaid vacation days from 2016-17, paid out to Superintendent Scott Schoonmaker on the approval of former BOE chairman Phillip Dahlmeyer, is one of several town government procedure discrepancies being scrutinized through at least 20 Freedom of Information (FOI) Act requests made by citizen Victor Pietrandrea since April, 2017. 

As previously reported, at the Aug. 17 BOE meeting, interim BOE chair Colby O'Rourke read a statement from the board's attorney supporting the Superintendent's right to receive a check for his unpaid vacation days. The statement also interpreted BOE bylaws to support Dahlmeyer's action to sign off on the decision as the will of BOE, without requiring a full board vote. See the story here.

Then, on August 31, the BOE held a special meeting, with five of six members present, and voted 4-1 to support a motion to "...ratify the agreement reached earlier this summer between former Board chair Dahlmeyer and Superintendent Schoonmaker, to pay the Superintendent, at his 2016-17 rate of pay, for his five (5) accrued, unused, 2016-17 vacation days, rather than carry them forward till [sic] a later time," according to the unapproved meeting minutes (here) The minutes also state the vote was made following board discussions of questions raised by member Elizabeth Siena and a statement from member Sara Querfeld (absent).

Near the end of the Sept. 5 Town Council meeting, during Citizen's Comments, BOE vice-chair Dianne Vumback discussed some of the questions being raised by the council. She also addressed an earlier comment, made by Rose, that the Town Council had requested a letterhead copy of the BOE attorney's Aug. 17 statement, but as of Sept. 5, it had not been received.

"I think it's important for us to state that we operated under the purview of our board attorney; number one," said Vumback. "Number two; we did request that he put it on his letterhead per your request, and he kind of indicated he doesn't work for you. With that said, there's a lot of things going on, and I'd like to believe that I'm operating with the best intentions [but] there's a lot stuff going on... I'm hearing that people on the board are directing Board of Education members on what to ask, what to say, what to do, what information to gather."

Vumback also noted that, having listened to the council's discussion that night on the FOI-related BOE issues, "I will tell you right now, there was some information discussed that's wrong. I'll leave it up to you to find it when you send it to the State Attorney's office, but there were some things that were stated that were wrong. "

During earlier discussion, Rose said he had reviewed the BOE by-laws as well state statutes and those of the CT Association of Boards of Education (CABE). He said he felt the state attorney's review of the unpaid vacation days pay-out was needed because, in Rose's opinion, "...this is blatant misuse of public funds by a fiduciary board that handles $30 million of the town's money, and I think that this needs to be cleared up. By every state statute I've read, by CABE, by their own rules and by-laws there's ten places that say nobody can act alone. There's not one place that says somebody can. So I feel that this should be sent up to the State Attorney's office, because I truly believe this is a theft of municipal funds; and I don't know what else to do."

Armin sought and received clarification that the council did not have to prove criminal intent in order to request such a review. Armin also said he viewed the issue as stemming from "mistakes" rather than criminal intent.

"We all have spent a tremendous amount of time on this issue the past two weeks. This was a mess and it made a lot of people look bad. However, for me, it's difficult to say there was criminal intent," said Armin. "There was a lot of mistakes made, we all acknowledge that. I think there's a difference between mistakes that we have to figure out how to correct so [they] never happen again; and criminal intent."

Miller weighed in, saying he felt it was relevant to request the state attorney's review because this appeared to be an instance of a chairman making a decision without board participation.

"I think Al's suggestion was exactly right," said Miller. "We're just commenting around these various issues; and his suggestion was to at least ask for someone outside to look at it. That's really what their function could and should be."

Candelora said review by the state's attorney puts the issue in front of a "non-biased" third party, rather than placing the burden on the Town Council.

"Instead of us guessing or trying to debate this, why don't we have all this information sent to a third, non-biased party?" Candelora asked. "That way it's over, it's been looked at; none of us are involved. It's looked at by a non-biased party; and its done."

Diamond had questions on whether state statutes governing the BOE supersede the council, asking, "...aren't Boards of Education pretty much allowed to run their budgets themselves? We're not supposed to interfere."

The Town Council, acting as the town's Finance Board, decides the bottom line each year for the school district budget. Beyond that, the BOE independently manages all district policy and implementation and is charged with specific roles and responsibilities governed by state and federal statute.

"I'm not looking at it as running their budget," Rose replied. "I'm looking at it as a theft of municipal funds. His contract says he doesn't have [unused vacation pay]. They had the board chair do it. Other than North Branford, there's no other board chair in state that has that [option]...even their attorney's ruling, he hung his hat on that the board chair can act at the will of the board. Everybody knows the will of the board is established only one way, legally, by a public vote."

Rose said that, even though the BOE went on to vote on August 31 to approve pay-out, it was done "after the fact," adding, "...that doesn't clear up the point that it's not in his contract to be paid for this vacation time."

Rose also noted, "...there's another thing we're going to talk about [tonight], the 2015 [Superintendent's] contract, when the insurance was changed and there was never a full board vote on that. I'm open to suggestions of how this gets corrected, but it needs to be corrected. We are the financial board of the town; and I haven't seen anything that proves anything I've said tonight is wrong."

FOI Raises Questions on 2015 Superintendent's Contract:

Angeloni said reviewing the FOI documents involved in the unpaid vacation days pay-out issue led her to request the last five years of Superintendent contracts. She said documents related to the 2015 contract shows the BOE voted to extend the contract by one year with a three percent salary raise. However, the same contract also included a significant change to insurance coverage expenses, and the change was not part of the full board vote to extend the contract, said Angeloni. The change took out the Superintendent's non-union administrator's premium insurance payment share cost, replacing it with insurance coverage paid "100 percent" by the BOE, said Angeloni. The cost savings to the Superintendent are above and beyond the three percent salary increase approved by the board, she explained.

"All of the sudden, the Board pays 100 percent," insurance costs, said Angeloni. "That change increases his contract."

Ultimately, with some council members asking for more time for review; the council decided to continue the 2015 contract discussion to the next meeting; at which point the council could vote to decide whether to send a request for review of the 2015 contract to state's attorney.

Speaking during final Citizens' Comments on Sept. 5, resident Lynn Riordan told the council, "It seems to me a lot of you don't care for Scott Schoonmaker...we have far bigger fish to fry here...I don't appreciate the witch hunt. It seems sad to me."

Riordan was on the agenda earlier to discuss her continued effort to have the Town Council act to bring about Police Department building improvements (she was told the council has had to curtail plans as part of the 2017-18 budget revision).

"You may call it a witch hunt; but we are just trying to be fiscally responsible here," said Angeloni. "This is about protocol and procedure. This is not personal."

"Yes, it is," answered Riordan, adding, "[He's] one of the best superintendents we've had in this town in a long time."

Riordan also commented on another recent school board/Superintendent action which had raised a question that night: Angeloni's query as to why the council wasn't notified of the school district's recent purchase of apparent street signs in honor of recently-retired North Branford Intermediate School principal Alan Davis.

O'Rourke later clarified, during Citizens' Statements, that Superintendent Schoonmaker had asked to have a request for discussion of the signs withdrawn from the Sept. 5 Town Council agenda because the signs will be placed inside the school building.

Regarding Riordan's comments made in support of the Superintendent, Deputy Mayor Faughnan commented, "...anybody that's construing the actions of the Town Council tonight as personal, or a reaction to not liking the Superintendent, is really misreading the Town Council. From my perspective, what transpired tonight is a real desire for total transparency. It is not the amount of money that's an issue, but it is the manner in which that money is allocated and provided as a benefit to the Superintendent. And while I have absolutely no personal animosity for the Superintendent, and indeed like him as a person, I think it's important for the integrity of our government to look at these kind of questions and scrutinize them, and be sure that they were handled appropriately."

Faughnan, an attorney, added, "...I frankly doubt that the State Attorney's office is going to take any action on this, but I welcome the fact that there is a Professional Integrity Unit that can look at stuff like this and decide."