BARRE — Technical difficulties were the least of the Barre Unified School Board’s troubles on a night that highlighted a persistently deep divide fueled by trust issues that turned routine business into great debates.
It took several minutes, but the technical difficulties that prevented those attending remotely from fully participating in Wednesday night’s meeting were resolved, even as calls to cancel the scheduled session morphed into a failed attempt to gut the agenda.
With no administrator designated to pinch hit for vacationing Superintendent Chris Hennessey, and the lack of backup materials on some items scheduled for discussion, School Director Terry Reil sought to abbreviate the agenda.
Among other things, Reil argued there was no one to field questions about the warrants, or two new hires the board was being asked to approve, and there was nothing in the board packet about a “superintendent evaluation committee” or a “school board member matter.”
The latter items were eventually discussed at length, but not before Chair Giuliano Cecchinelli broke a 4-4 tie and voted in favor of approving the agenda with two additions — one of them a closed-door update on teacher negotiations requested by Reil.
Cecchinelli joined board members Sonya Spaulding, Chris Parker, Emily Wheeler and Ben Moore in voting in favor of the slightly longer agenda, while Reil and board members Nancy Leclerc, Paul Malone and Michael Boutin were all opposed.
Thanks to Boutin and Moore, who occasionally switched sides, it was the only tie Cecchinelli had to break on a night when his leadership and decision-making were repeatedly questioned by members who came armed with copies of Robert’s Rules of Order.
The rocky start prompted Barre Town resident Josh Howard to question the board’s decision to proceed in the absence of administrators who could answer questions.
“This is a joke,” he said, even as Barre resident Joelen Mulvaney stressed the importance of “decorum.”
“Be respectful of each other,” she pleaded.
The consent agenda, which included the warrants, was approved on a 4-3 vote, with Boutin breaking from Reil, Leclerc and Malone, who all voted “no.” The three then abstained on the hiring of two new staff members, before talk turned to the superintendent evaluation committee.
Two weeks after the board voted 4-3 to enlist the assistance of the Vermont School Boards Association in conducting the annual evaluation, those who voted against that motion — Reil, Leclerc and Malone — questioned the composition of the committee and Cecchinelli’s authority to unilaterally appoint it.
“This is being handled wrong,” Leclerc complained.
Reil agreed, questioning whether Cecchinelli had the power to appoint a committee members were told would be asked to work with the VSBA to “review source documents that establish expectations for the superintendent and the criteria for the evaluation.”
“I believe you are acting independently of the board, which is inappropriate,” Reil said.
Cecchinelli said he believed he had the authority to appoint Malone, Parker and Moore to the committee, but the board was free to overrule him.
Capping a tortured discussion that saw members squabbling over parliamentary procedure and Mulvaney renewing her call for decorum, Spaulding’s motion to affirm the committee proposed by Cecchinelli was amended to include a fourth member: Leclerc.
The motion was amended and approved on the strength of back-to-back 4-3 votes, with Moore joining Boutin, Leclerc, Malone and Reil in a slim majority.
It didn’t get better when talk turned to a critical email Leclerc wrote to Cecchinelli last month, copying the district’s lawyer and blind copying the board members.
Cecchinelli sought to address the email at the board’s last meeting, but the matter was postponed until Wednesday night amid questions about whether the discussion should be held in executive session.
Cecchinelli said he’d consulted with the district’s lawyer and confirmed the topic could be discussed in open session. However, that assertion triggered a protracted discussion over the fact Cecchinelli didn’t request a written opinion, prompting some to suggest the matter be postponed again.
“It’s not that I’m doubting your word,” Malone told Cecchinelli, adding: “It’s a ‘trust, but verify’ situation.”
Malone joined Leclerc and Reil on the short end of a 4-3 vote to postpone the agenda item until a written legal opinion was in hand.
The discussion began with Leclerc reading the email she’d written to Cecchinelli in its entirety.
“Giuliano, I’m expressing my concerns about the treatment I have been experiencing from you in and out of board and committee meetings,” she said, quoting the email. “Specifically and most importantly, your direct hostility towards me, cutting me off in a rude manner, your refusal or limiting my comments or discussion and your disrespectful responses. Secondarily, the unresponsiveness to my emails, the conspicuous ignoring of my emails, the denial of my requested agenda items, and lack of communication.
“This kind of behavior can easily be interpreted as harassment and targeting of a single board member,” Leclerc continued. “It is unprofessional and does not fit the expectations and role of the board chair as outlined by the VSBA. This behavior does not contribute to a productive board relationship, nor a successful board. Therefore, I am requesting and expressing that you begin conducting yourself with decorum expected of a board chair; and that continued treatment as this goes forward is unacceptable and needs to stop.
“We have all come together to serve the best interest of the organization and we must all be respectful and considerate to reach our goals,” the email concluded. “Thank you for taking my concerns seriously and I hope that we can move forward with positive interactions and results in the best interest of the BUUSD organization.”
Cecchinelli bristled at the notion his ability to conduct a meeting could be construed as “harassment,” acknowledging he admonished Leclerc during a recent facilities committee meeting for speaking when she wasn’t recognized about an item that wasn’t on the agenda.
“You did not listen, I raised my voice and cut you off,” he said, noting he has taken the same approach with other board members.
With respect to Leclerc’s claim he was “unresponsive” to emails, Cecchinelli said there was frequently a reason. He said most of Leclerc’s emails pose “questions” and are copied to other board members, making responding to them without violating the Open Meeting Law problematic.
“If they came to me, and only me … I would respond,” he said.
Cecchinelli said other board members have told Leclerc her email practices are problematic, prompting her to push back.
“It is not improper,” she said.
It went on, with Leclerc complaining Cecchinelli hadn’t honored her request to invite the district’s lawyer to a meeting and Cecchinelli noting his request board members submit questions they’d like to ask in advance to make the most of that time was ignored.
The board also discussed Reil’s recent complaint Cecchinelli violated the Open Meeting Law by preventing Malone from asking a question during a meeting of the facilities committee. Cecchinelli is chair of that committee; Malone is not a member and asked to interject under “other business.”
Cecchinelli said his “rule” is to limit discussion under that agenda item to committee members, while providing for public comment at other times. In any event, he suggested, he would drop “other business” from the agenda at the advice of the district’s lawyer in response to the concerns.
Board members agreed their time would be better spent focusing on issues that improve education for students and bolster the district’s test scores. That said, Cecchinelli indicated he didn’t believe in letting complaints fester without directly addressing them.
david.delcore
@timesargus.com
