Emails disclose board’s misplaced priorities
S tonington school board member Alisa Morrison tried to do the right thing. For years, female high school students had complained to administration officials about what they considered invasive and inappropriate touching by a male teacher and coach, yet the teacher long remained in place.
The best way to get at the facts, to assess whether administrators had failed in their duties to protect students, to determine if lessons needed to be learned and policies changed, she concluded, was to have a fully independent investigation.
An elected official, Morrison shared her thoughts and concerns with Day Staff Writer Joe Wojtas. This is how things work in a democracy. An idea is put before policy makers and the public to succeed or fail.
But instead of receiving support, or receiving a counter argument in the public domain, board Chair Alexa Garvey quietly explored with other board members the possibility of having Morrison censured for having the audacity to openly share her ideas. There were even discussions about her removal.
How all this went down should concern the people of Stonington and particularly parents with children in the school system. It was disclosed only because of the digging of Wojtas, who used the state’s Freedom of Information Commission law to access emails between board members in their capacities as public officials. It suggests a school board majority more concerned with protecting the board’s and the institution’s image, and in limiting legal vulnerabilities, than in getting at the hard-toface facts and demanding accountability.
This we know. As far back as 2004 girls had complained that former high school teacher and coach Timothy Chokas had inappropriately touched them, making them uncomfortable. Administrators responded with a series of communications to try to get Chokas to alter his behavior, yet the teacher remained in place and the conduct continued.
Finally, after a January 2019 incident in which a student reported to a police officer assigned to the high school about Chokas touching a classmate, did the administration take steps to remove him. The administration allowed Chokas to resign and provided him with his full salary and benefits through the end of the school year. School officials agreed not to raise red flags with other school systems where Chokas might apply, agreeing to only disclose information required by law.
As concerning was learning — again through the power of an FOI request — that none of the complaints filed by numerous female students over the years had found their way into his personnel record.
Given these facts, Morrison’s proposal — that an independent investigation was called for, and that Superintendent Van Riley, high school Principal Mark Friese and Guidance Director Margo Crowley should be placed on leave during the probe — was a reasonable one.
Other board members could disagree, and they did. The state Office of Child Advocate is reviewing policies and procedures. Most board members want to see those findings before considering any further investigations. Morrison happens to want a more intensive investigation now. We agree.
In the wake of the November election, support has grown for the investigation Morrison seeks, the board now split 4-3, the minority in support.
But setting aside differing views, that Morrison would confront such antipathy for openly taking a different position — including facing speculation that she had disclosed information in closed board sessions, without hard facts to back such claims — is troubling. On Aug. 19, 2019, one board member in an email apologized for “an outburst” directed at Morrison during an executive session, indicating the pressure Morrison faced.
Last August, Garvey emailed board attorney Nick Grello about what options fellow board members had concerning Morrison, with the possibility of censure raised.
“Now is not the time to do this as there would be too much negative press,” came a response from the lawyer.
No, it was not the time because such an action would have been entirely unjustified.
In an Aug. 21 email Garvey informed other board members — but not Morrison — that they had no legal authority to vote Morrison off the board.
What? Don’t investigate the administration but discuss removing a board member who sought an investigation?
The email exchanges also indicate the board attorney had advised board members “not to discuss Chokas with the media.” If true, this was inappropriate. While legal strategies discussed in closed session would be off bounds, elected board members are free to discuss the issues of public policy raised by the Chokas matter.
Board members don’t surrender their right to free speech upon election.