Board of Education censures Sherr
GREENWICH — Six members of the Board of Education voted Thursday night to censure fellow member Peter Sherr for a profane “hot mic” moment that occurred at a Zoom meeting of the school board in February.
Board members at the time called for an apology from Sherr after he was heard uttering the words “f------ dou------” after Sherr’s lengthy questioning of a school employee was cut off by board Chair Peter Bernstein. The comment appeared to be directed at Bernstein — with whom Sherr, a fellow Republican, has had a contentious past — though Sher has repeatedly said, including at Thursday’s meeting, that his use of profanity was not related to the board at all.
Bernstein and board members Christina Downey, Karen Hirsh, Joe Kelly, Meghan Olsson and Kathleen Stowe all voted to censure Sherr, with board member Karen Kowalski as the lone vote against. Sherr abstained from the vote.
By using the profanity at the meeting, Sherr violated the board’s code of ethics, the other board members said. The censure is a formal, and public, group condemnation with no other repercussions.
In a nearly 15-minute speech in his own defense, Sherr painted himself as the victim. His First Amendment rights were jeopardized, Sherr said, by a board acting not out of concern at his language, but out of personal animosity.
“This is the really troubling part,” Sherr said. “This is about using the power of this board, which is an agent of the state of Connecticut, to try to chill my speech and wind up denying me my civil rights. That’s a very dangerous place for the board to be.”
Sherr was interrupted at multiple points by Stowe, the board vice chair who was presiding in place of Bernstein after Sherr raised questions as to whether Bernstein should recuse himself because he had a conflict of interest.
Bernstein countered that, according to Sherr, the comment wasn’t directed at the board chair, so Bernstein’s vote — which was needed to meet the two-thirds threshold required by board policy — presented no conflict.
That point has been debated recently not just by board members, but also by attorneys representing the town.
A first attempt to vote on censuring Sherr at the board’s March 11 meeting was postponed because Kowalski questioned whether it was properly noticed. Tim Herbst, a former Republican gubernatorial candidate and part of the firm that was recently hired to represent the town of Greenwich, opined that, because of the history between Bernstein and Sherr, the board chair should recuse himself from a vote, or else leave the town liable for a lawsuit.
On Thursday, Sherr seized on the idea that the school board was leaving the town legally liable, noting a “number of defects in this situation,” which he characterized as a “political stunt.”
“I think you’ve been advised by the town attorney the risk that you’re in,” Sherr said. “I would rather you do not force my hand to the next step. Board members can’t so brazenly use state-given authority to besmirch one’s reputation and then deprive them of the civil rights without accountability . ... You’re exposing yourselves and others to penalty. I would encourage you not to do that.”
Bernstein, however, said he spoke to Barbara Schellenberg, another attorney who represents Greenwich, about Herbst’s opinion and he determined there was nothing in Connecticut law or board policy prohibiting him from participating.
“This has never been personal,” Bernstein said. “This issue is about behavior at a meeting. ... We have a code of ethics we all must follow.”
“This is not personal, though I do regret the fact that you’ve tried to make it so,” Bernstein continued. “At the end of the day a real apology would’ve gone a long way, Peter.”
Since the incident, Sherr has not publicly apologized for the comment. Bernstein said Thursday he had also not privately heard from Sherr.
In a March op-ed in Greenwich Time, he admitted to making a mistake by failing to turn off his microphone, but claimed the language had to do with a “personal problem.”
He, like others in town who have defended him, pointed to the other, more pressing work before the school board. In the op-ed, he did apologize, but only for not having “any more time for this subject.”
Several board members who voted in favor of the censure also mentioned their desire to move past it, but they said they felt it was dragged out by Sherr’s unwillingness to take responsibility.
“Since Mr. Sherr seems to be doubling-down rather than apologizing for this, I don’t see any other option than to vote for censure,” Olsson said.
Multiple residents spoke on the censure in the public comment section of the meeting. Several voiced their support of censuring Sherr, while at least five spoke out against it.
Sherr’s supporters on and off the board hit on similar talking points: Everybody uses profanity at times; the board has more important things to discuss; and Sherr has a long history of service to the district.
“You may not like the speech. I get it,” Kowalski said. “And there may be a better place for it. I get that, too. But this is free speech. He didn’t say he was going to kill someone. He wasn’t inciting a riot.”
State Rep. Kimberly Fiorello, R-149, also took up Sherr’s cause in the public comment section. She urged the board not to censure Sherr, whom she called a friend and said she was speaking as a “character witness.” Fiorello noted Sherr’s many years of service.
“I feel that it’s a harsh sentence, especially in these times when everything is Google-able,” Fiorello said. “It would be a terrible last note on someone’s long service to our town.”
Beth MacGillivray, a member of the public, said she was appalled at the board’s move to censure. Another resident, David Langhorne, said he was getting frustrated with the board’s handling of Sherr’s comments.
“The poor Mr. Sherr, for a brief moment of lunacy said something he regrets every day, and is being vilified beyond what a person should be vilified for calling somebody a little bit of an off-color name,” Langhorne said. “Leave the man alone!”