Following nearly a year of contention in which a number of board members tendered their resignations (see related article) the air seems to have finally cleared between North Branford's Board of Education (BOE) and the Town Council.

The board first came under fire in the fall of 2017 due to issues raised by a citizen through the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. On July 10, during a brief special meeting of the Town Council and BOE, current BOE chairman Shawna Papa-Holzer updated the council on the progress the BOE has made.

Papa-Holzer assured the council the current BOE is interested in working as a unified board under transparent guidelines. Superintendent Scott Schoonmaker also answered some questions from the council on July 10.

Under state statute, town boards of education, in matters not involving strictly budgetary concerns, act as agents of the state, governed by state statute and not the town. As such, the board sets its own policy and oversees public education in the district.

But going back to at least 2011, past Town Councils have questioned whether the town's BOE chair could act as the "will of the board" (taking action without a full board vote) as described in past BOE bylaws and backed by the BOE's attorney.

In the fall of 2017, following the FOI discovery, the council learned of past BOE chairs' "will of the board" actions which had a financial impact on the town. The complaint focused on contractual changes to the Superintendent's health insurance policy (2015) and unused vacation pay issued to the Superintendent (2017).

The rift between the council and BOE became wider in October of 2017, when the council voted to forward the FOI information to the Office of the Chief State's Attorney for review. However, that decision was discarded in December 2017; when, on advice of the Town Attorney, the council rescinded its plans to go to the state's attorney and instead tasked the BOE with investigating the actions.

In January of 2018, the BOE voted to revise some policies and adopt new policy language, including the removal of language allowing chairs to act as "will of the board."  Despite that, on Feb. 20, councilman Al Rose (R) gained the council's consensus to have Town Attorney Vincent Marino contact the BOE's attorney, William Connon, to ascertain whether Connon had advised past chairs it would be acceptable to act as the "will of the board." Rose also said he felt it wasn't best for boards to vote "in arrears" to correct past actions, even though it is a legally acceptable practice, according to the town attorney. He noted the corrective approach has been taken in the past by other BOE's, notably in 2011, and then only after the Town Council raised questions. Rose also pointed out policy changes can be made by future boards, including those which could undo the current board's latest actions. Additionally, he asked for better checks and balances when the BOE authorizes financial administration of its decisions.

Since that time, the item has remained open on the Town Council agenda.

Rose opened the July 10 discussion by saying, "I personally would like to hear from the Board of Ed members if you guys think that the issues that some of us had with past policy have been resolved, and if you feel that going forward your bylaws [and] rules of procedure are so that a new member coming in will be able to understand them, and not get caught up doing something by themselves or wrong."

"I think this issue was thoroughly addressed," Papa-Holzer responded. She specified the new policy removed the "will of the board," language, "...so that no one person on the board can make decisions; not the chair or any another member. Any vote goes to the complete board."

Papa-Holzer also said new members will have the expertise of senior members, the superintendent, resources such as the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education (CABE) and will consult each other so that "...no one is walking into a vacuum."

"Unless you read the complete policy manual, you are going to have a learning curve," she said, adding that "...we email, we meet, we communicate; and we all do it by our board policy and guidelines."

Rose said he had faith in the current board.

"The reason we need to do this is we need to take our motion off the shelf and put it away. I personally have complete faith in this board," he said.

"It's a very strong board," said Papa-Holzer. "We work together. There are times it's contentious, as any panel will be [and] we're not always going to agree. But we are all trying to move to be respectful, so that a board of seven are moving forward; not a four-three split."

Other questions for the BOE on July 10 came from council members Joseph Faughnan (D), Marie Diamond (D) and Bob Viglione (R).

Diamond asked about contracts brought to the BOE for review.

"Scott brings it to us [and] we usually talk about it in a budget committee meeting; or we talk about it in executive session, depending on what's appropriate," answered Papa-Holzer. "We are free to read it; it's not something we vote on or sign immediately. And when a contract is signed, we initial every page and there's two signers."

Faughnan asked Papa-Holzer to specify there was no "carry-over" of a past policy that allowed the board to work outside of the public eye.

"The thing I found most troublesome about that policy is the ability to conduct board business outside of the public meeting," Faughnan said. "In other words, it [was] done by phone surveys [and] then the decision was made by consensus of the board by phone contact. Is that still a possibility, or are you doing everything at public meetings, where the public can be present and the cameras can be on --where there is an ability to hear what you are doing and to address that, if the public feels it's inappropriate?"

"Everything is now done in a public meeting. So we don't do phone calls; we don't do any of that [and] anything that is voted on is done in a public forum," with proper advance notification, said Papa-Holzer.

Councilman Viglione asked about the school district's purchasing procedures.

"When something gets bought by the schools [does] someone write out a check and someone else signs it?  Are there two people that look at it?" asked Viglione.

"That's all through the business office [and] business manager -- it's double-signed. That's been our policy and procedure," answered Schoonmaker. "We're audited like the town is, so there are checks and balances throughout the year. So we have the same scrutiny. And we've never come close to not having money at the end of the year. We've given money back [to the town] every year."

"That's great," said Viglione.

"Well, its great, Bob, because the board is personally liable if they go over," Schoonmaker pointed out. "So we dot our i's and cross our t's; because the seven people here that represent us are pretty important to us."

"I think you guys are doing a good job, too. I want to say that," Viglione replied.

Addressing the entire council, Schoonmaker said, "You are aware that all polices are on line? The entire series -- there's 50 pages of policy around board committee [and] board chair roles [and] responsibility," he said, adding, "...you do have rep that comes to all the meetings; so you certainly have the ability to find out what's going on. We always highlight -- blue line and red line -- any changes to policy. So it's pretty simplistic. You'll understand it, and it's right here."

Town Manger Mike Paulhus confirmed for Zip06/The Sound that, following the July 10 special meeting, the Town Council will move the item off the agenda.

View the North Branford Board of Education Policies online here