To the Editor:

We are writing to you in hopes of providing clarity to this issue that has been written in editorials or letters to the editor regarding the use of emails and how they fall in line with Open Meetings Law, as well as the conduct of the Berne-Knox-Westerlo Board of Education and such use.  

In December of 2017, the current members of the BKW BOE and the BKW superintendent attended a retreat that was facilitated by the current executive director of the New York State School Boards Association, Timothy Kremer.

The purpose of the retreat was to identify the roles and responsibilities of the BOE and the superintendent, define a decision-making process to minimize micromanagement, and to identify issues that can put pressure on the relationship of the BOE and superintendent. During that meeting Mr. Kremer answered a question regarding the use of emails and all in attendance were given a handbook that the New York State School Boards Association has published, outlining the use of email as a communication tool and how such communications work within the Open Meetings Law.

In addition, the handbook also covers how the emails: 1— become part of the district records; 2 — are retained; and 3 — may be disclosed. The purpose of this letter is to discuss the use of email pertaining to communications, so we will focus on that going forward.

Section 1:1 of the handbook — “Can individual school board members communicate by email?”  The answer is yes, if the communications between the individual BOE members are not making a collective decision, or a vote, taken by email. Such action would be considered a violation of the Open Meetings Law. Virtual meetings are prohibited.

Section 1:2 — “Can school board members receive their board meeting packets by email prior to board meetings?” Again, the answer is yes, according to the Committee on Open Government, the Open Meetings Law is not implicated when a superintendent or a board clerk transmits materials to school board members prior to a school board meeting to enable board members to prepare for the meeting.

Section 1:3 — “Can school board members ask questions by email regarding the contents of a school board meeting packet delivered to them by email?”Again, the answer is yes. According to the Committee on Open Government, the exchange of the information, knowledge or expertise is not inconsistent with the Open Meetings Law, if the receipt of messages and responses does not result in a vote.

Prior to the retreat that we attended in December 2017 and the related discussion, the BOE has also asked for the advice of our legal counsel and received a memo dated Jan. 26, 2017 to ensure that we were operating appropriately per the Open Meetings Law. The counsel memo supports the above information.

The BKW BOE does receive board packets via Board Docs, a software platform that compiles an agenda and the relevant information that supports the agenda, typically Thursday prior to a Monday BOE meeting. At times, there are questions that BOE members have regarding the information; sometimes there are questions about a topic or there might be a request for more information or even clarification.

Those questions are typically emailed to the BOE president or to the superintendent with the remaining members of the board being copied. The responses are emailed back to the entire BOE so that all have the same information at the same time to effectively make decisions at the meetings and conduct the business of the district.

At no time has or will the current BKW BOE members vote on, or act on, any of the items on the agenda or items off the agenda via email. In addition to the packets that BOE members receive, the superintendent or the clerk of the board will provide updates or information that the BOE needs to be aware of in the governance of the school. Again, at no time has or will the current board make decisions or take votes upon receipt of these emails; all action is carried out at a BOE meeting.  

The use of email allows for a more efficient exchange of information so that the business of the district can happen more effectively and promptly. This correlates to a more informed governing body who shows up to a meeting ready to move the business forward.

There have been implications made at recent BOE meetings that there has been misuse of emails. In fact, such implications resulted in a FOIL request by The Altamont Enterprise for all emails dating back to Jan. 1, 2017. Due to the massive amounts of information that this request was asking for and at the advice of counsel, all the emails were given to the district’s attorney and were reviewed and redacted where appropriate to ensure no inappropriate information was released.

This resulted in many hours of our attorney’s and staff’s time and resources being spent to gather the information. As taxpayers, parents of current and former students, graduates, and BOE members, we can think of better uses of taxpayer monies than that.

The current administration and BOE is as transparent as it has ever been.

If you have attended a BOE meeting or watched a meeting on Facebook Live over the past year, you would see a tremendous amount of data being shared with the community. The current BOE, along with Dr. Mundell, Ms. Sloma, Ms. Landry, Ms. King-McElhiney, and Dr. Pitterson, has done an exceptional job managing the school budget and limiting its growth over the last three years, promoting new programs, finding new grant money to support various programs, improving school pride as well as community pride in the school and the successful passing of a capital project that will return $15 million dollars in tax money back to the Hilltowns.

There is still much more to accomplish, and we are all committed to ensuring that the children of Berne, Knox, and Westerlo have the opportunities to compete and be successful in their futures.  

Matthew Tedeschi

Nathan Elble

Lillian Sisson-Chrysler

Kimberly Lovell

BKW Board of Education Members

Editor’s note: We have no quarrel with the bulk of this letter and, in fact, cited and linked to the New York State School Boards Association’s email usage handbook in our April 5 editorial, “Sunshine laws apply to emails, too,” urging school districts to consult it.

The problem comes when those guidelines are not followed. We made a Freedom of Information Law request on Dec. 13, 2017 for records of the school board’s electronic communications (we wanted not just emails but also copies of BKW Outlook exchanges, a platform where board members discuss matters electronically) because Maria Tedeschi was appointed at a public meeting on Dec. 11, 2017 to a new position that had not been discussed or created in public.

“Any such discussion should have occurred during a open meeting,” said Robert Freeman, executive director of the state’s Committee on Open Government.

“If a position were created or eliminated in private, a court could invalidate that and require the attorney fees be reimbursed,” said Freeman. He also said, “It is not proper to discuss the creation of a position in an executive session. The board is allowed to, but not required to, discuss a particular individual in closed session but not a position.”

Our request was only partially answered on Feb. 15, 2018. Only emails sent to or received from the account were returned from our request, several totally redacted. Among them was one that listed “Personnel Assistant 1 Duties,” the job that Maria Tedeschi ultimately filled, as well as a “Business Office Organization” chart that lists salaries for a personnel assistant and a part-time office assistant in one column and combining them for the new post with a different salary in another column.

So on Feb. 26, 2018, we asked them to continue the search, seeking “transcripts of emails, instant messages, or website posts exchanged between the Berne-Knox-Westerlo board of education members or administration during the time period of Jan. 1, 2917, to Dec. 13, 2017, that pertain to the creation of the position of Personnel Assistant 1, the subsequent hiring process for that position and the decision on whom to hire.”

We received no written response but, when our reporter called the district’s Freedom of Information officer last week, she was told there was nothing more.

Meanwhile, on Feb. 27, 2018, the board appointed a person to another new post — technology integration specialist  — with no public discussion about creating the new position or setting a salary; no motions were made and no votes taken to do so.

This week, we are submitting a request, as allowed by the Freedom of Information Law — Public Officers Law, article 6, section 89.3(a) — to have certified in writing that the further electronic records on the creation of the post now held by Maria Tedeschi are not maintained by or for the school district.

Every citizen has a right to request information from elected officials — their public servants — including school board members. If new positions had been created in public session by the school board, as the law requires, there would have been no need for the district to spend taxpayers’ money on assembling records.

— Melissa Hale-Spencer