New Haven Register (New Haven, CT)
BOE: Report on probe of board member won’t be released yet
NEW HAVEN — A
Board of Education member who was under investigation by attorneys hired by the school district to investigate his alleged conduct said he is drafting a response to results of that probe.
But whether the report on the probe ever will be aired publicly remains a question.
Board member Darnell Goldson said he wants discussions about the investigative report held in public.
In an opinion by Thomas Mooney, an attorney for the board’s contracted outside legal firm Shipman & Goodwin, however, Mooney said the board is not obligated to have legal discussions about the report in public per Goldson’s request because it is an attorney-client privileged document.
Mooney also wrote in his opinion that the board could decide to hold public discussions of the report, though it would be wisest first to discuss the implications of doing so in a confidential executive, or closed, session.
But board President Yesenia Rivera said the document cannot be made public yet, because it is attorney-client privileged information.
Mooney’s opinion, delivered this month at the request of the board, was on rights the board and Goldson have in discussions, not on the investigation itself.
Mooney also advised the board that Goldson, whose alleged conduct was under investigation by separate attorneys hired by the school district, should be privy to discussions of that investigation.
New Haven Superintendent of Schools Iline Tracey asked for the investigation, at a cost of up to $14,000, after a member of her staff alleged that Goldson’s conduct in board meetings constitutes harassment. Discussions on the investigation report, prepared by Waterburybased law firm Tinley, Renehan & Dost, have stalled as Goldson and school board leadership were unable to agree on what right Goldson has to participate in discussions on the report and whether the presentation of that report could take place in public .
Mooney said in his opinion that Goldson should be allowed to attend discussions in executive session in his official capacity as a board member and that his attorneys should offer written permission to allow other attorneys to answer any questions Goldson may have. This is because Goldson is a “represented party” in the complaint, and there is a “prohibition against direct communication with a represented party,” Mooney wrote.
Mooney said Goldson could during those discussions deliver his response to the findings of the investigative report, as he has not yet done so.
“The Board will benefit in its deliberations by hearing Mr. Goldson’s response, and it would not be a conflict of interest for Mr. Goldson to respond to the Report at the Board’s invitation,” Mooney said in his opinion.
Mooney said any discussion of the board’s response to the investigative report, beyond privileged legal discussions, should be done in the public eye. He said that, because of conflict of interest laws, Goldson should not vote on the board’s response to the complaint.
Board members received the investigative report’s findings prior to a meeting Monday. According to two board members, the report is 44 pages long.
“I’m currently drafting a response to the report,” Goldson said Monday. In addition to the 44-page report, he said there are 48 pages of exhibits.
Rivera said she did not include discussions of the report on Monday night’s school board meeting agenda because of the length of the report.
“Its going to take a little bit before everyone has read through it and formulated their opinions,” she said. “Hopefully we can discuss it in executive session of public session at the next meeting.”
She said the added time of three weeks would also give Goldson time to speak to his attorney about the report.
“No decisions have been made. The board is still reviewing it,” she said.