Legitimacy of Sousa’s selection as superintendent questioned
By Curt Peterson
Monday evening, Feb. 22, the Windsor Central Unified Union School District held a special meeting to address several complaints filed by Catherine Peters, a Pomfret resident and parent of two students in the district.
Two letters from Peters listed general complaints and specific objections regarding a Feb. 15 meeting during which the board voted to enter into negotiations with Sherry Sousa to fill the superintendent position.
The complaints relate to alleged violations of Vermont’s open meetings law that Peters feels were improper vis-a-vis state statutes regarding school boards and public meetings. Most of her concerns focused on the board’s search for a prospective district superintendent.
Sousa has been acting superintendent since her predecessor, Mary Beth Banios, resigned in June 2019.
Peters had publicly advocated for another candidate, former Secretary of Education Rebecca Holcombe of Norwich, who withdrew her application shortly before the board made its decision.
Peters told the Mountain Times that the “Superintendent Search Committee” met several times without public notice, which, she alleges, is illegal.
“I understand that the business would have been likely conducted in executive session, but should have opened and closed in public and some info could have been public, like the number of applicants and decisions to reduce that number as the steps were taken,” she wrote. “All of the board’s other committees are made up of less than a quorum of the board, and have some members of the public and are subject to open meeting law … I don’t understand how [the Superintendent Search Committee] is any different.”
The alleged violations concerned, among other issues, the board’s entering “executive session,” excluding the public from deliberations. Vermont law requires acknowledgement that discussing the cited topic in public might cause “disadvantage” to someone, thereby requiring non-public deliberation. If a decision is made during the executive session, it must be announced publicly as soon as the regular meeting is reconvened, and a public motion and vote taken if required. If no decision was made, no announcement is required.
Board chair Bryce Sammel (Barnard) acknowledged that the pre-executive session step had been omitted in error. He also admitted he and other members of the board should bring themselves up-to-date on required annual open meeting training by the state.
Other cited violations were late posting of minutes, limited opportunities for public comment, and illegal formation of committees and/or non-public committee meetings.
Sammel went through each item in Peters’ letters, admitting legitimately cited errors, describing actions to correct and prevent future errors, and dismissing others as inaccurate. Each motion regarding a complaint received unanimous approval.
On the subject of public comments, Sammel pointed out that topics to be discussed are listed on the meeting agenda, with those for which a decision is anticipated so noted, and a time is provided for public input.
Peters told the Mountain Times that she had asked for, and expected, a written response from the board rather than the special meeting format.
Regarding the decision to negotiate with Sousa, Peters said, “It is my belief that the vote was not legal due to the process being illegally held in private meetings … they do not give the public any confidence that they won’t do the same thing again.”
Peters suggested that the board ratify their vote regarding the negotiations with Sousa to make the process “legal.”
“Overall accountability of this board is all I had hoped for,” she added. “[If the board members] don’t want to discuss it any further, I will have to seek further recourse.”
