At the Feb. 11, 2010 meeting of the Board of Education, the new board chairwoman Sandra Cummings unceremoniously issued a half-page document entitled “Public Participation at Meetings.” Copies of the unofficial policy were placed on the table near the public seating beside the evening’s agenda without comment.

No reference was made to the distribution of the board’s position on public decorum in the minutes of that meeting. It was a seemingly subtle way of sending a message without dealing with the issue head on. The Citizen noted at the time that the statement said that board meetings “are not public meetings but meetings held in public.” Furthermore, the Citizen pointed out that a reporter had publicly questioned Cummings about the motive for suddenly publishing the written position statement, but despite their lively debate, there is no record of the interchange.

Gary Amato brought up the issue again at the March 11 meeting stating, “You seem to have closed the door on public comment.” The minutes of that meeting reflect his following question in regard to training for teachers about substance abuse, but there is no mention of the seemingly taboo topic. Five other topics that came up under public comment were listed in the minutes, however.

The unofficial minutes posted at the board’s website for the April 8 meeting make no reference to further discussion of the topic by attorney Thomas Mooney. The summation of his informative presentation simply reads, “Mr. Mooney spoke regarding Board of Education meeting procedures.”

However, in regard to a remark by Gary Amato under the agenda’s Public Comments section, the minutes report: “He stated that he was disappointed with the way the BOE is not answering questions like they did in the past.” It does not reference that a moment later he walked out of the meeting, apparently in protest. Two attempts by the Citizen to contact him did not receive a response.

A gentleman who posts a blog entitled “The North Haven Way” recently commented on the wisdom of announcing the board’s public feedback position. He wrote, “to limit the content and to refuse to answer questions from the public is a downright cowardice action that contradicts every single one of their campaign promises. Folks, plain and simple this is just an easy way out for a board to not have to answer the tough questions that you and I have. If the BOF or Mike Freda ever tried to do this, they would be run out of town.”

Asked for his position on the matter, First Selectman Michael Freda said that he had contacted members of the Board of Education. He stated, “After speaking to them, there is no question in my mind that they are not trying to stifle public comment. They have also indicated that anyone can state whatever they like.” He added that, “They would like to keep anything of a personal nature out of the discussion. They reserve the right to send them to a private meeting with a teacher, an administrator, or the superintendent.”

Superintendent of Schools Sara-Jane Querfeld said that several years ago, when she interned with former superintendent Mary Jane Sheehy, she was told that only topics that were on the agenda could be discussed at a meeting. “The issue is one of procedure,” she was told. She concurred with the position taken by the board’s attorney at the last meeting, that the public should follow the chain of command. She said that sometimes they prefer to go right to the top when the top is unaware of the particular issue.

When asked for her official position, Querfeld wrote, “The Board of Education is not limiting public participation and welcomes comments from all citizens during the Public Comment part of the agenda. Board of Education attorney Mooney was very clear about this.” Former member and secretary of the board Gerry Feinberg said that each member receives training on these procedures when they are elected to the board. He indicated that they were always advised not to engage in a debate with the public, but to send a concern to the appropriate level of administration where it could be properly handled.

Feinberg had the following to share on the matter. “With the six-year term of office for Board of Education members, the only recourse some members of the public may feel they have to express their dissatisfaction is at the ballot box or at a referendum. Given the confluence of the present circumstances, i.e. a difficult economic climate, a town where the public reasonably expects town officials to be responsive to their concerns because of our town meeting form of government, and the vagaries of the budget process, the Board of Education must be mindful that if it runs the risk of alienating any group of people, it does so at the expense of the students they serve.”

Since the record seems to clearly show that the recommended procedure for public participation at meetings is anything but new, the Citizen contacted a representative of the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education (CABE) for an opinion.

Nicholas Caruso, Jr., senior staff associate for CABE in Wethersfield, suggested that the BOE may simply allow a valid issue that arises from the public session that is not on the agenda to be added to the agenda. He wrote, “The FOI laws require a 2/3 vote to add something to an agenda only during a ‘regular’ meeting. You cannot add something to an agenda during a special meeting.” This apparently means that controversy might be avoided by applying a degree of flexibility rather than raising ire by putting off every concern that is expressed by the public at a given meeting. Perhaps the tempest could be tamed after all.