[B]URLINGTON — The Burlington School Board has decided to release the findings of an investigative report that determined comments allegedly made by a board member did not constitute illegal discrimination.
On the advice of the district’s attorney, the board said in a resolution that if members decided not to release the entire report — or if it redacted portions other than the name of the person lodging the complaint — Vermont courts would order disclosure.
The district has not yet said when it would release the report, which had been sought by VTDigger through a public records request.
The board launched an investigation following remarks made by then-chairperson Mark Porter accusing fellow school commissioner Jeff Wick of racial bias because of comments Wick allegedly made about the school district’s leadership during a conversation the two had last summer. Porter stepped down as chairman not long after he made the charge at the conclusion of a board meeting in January.
Superintendent Yaw Obeng then sent a letter to the board asking how it intended to respond to the comments that Porter said had been made by Wick. Obeng later said he had not made a formal complaint of racial bias against Wick or any other board member, he said.
“I’m glad it’s going to get released,” said Porter. “People can get to read it and stop the speculation.”
Wick, who is now the board’s vice chairman, did not respond to a request for comment on the report’s findings or the board’s decision to release the report.
The board’s decision came late Tuesday at its first official meeting following an April 1 emergency session during which commissioners got their first chance to review the report. The district paid about $3,000 for the report, which was authored by former Vermont State Police officer Daniel Troidl.
Earlier Tuesday, Commissioner Liz Curry explained why the board had gone ahead with the emergency meeting last week over an objection from its attorney. The hastily called executive session, which drew criticism from many city residents, occurred about three hours after board members had received the report.
Curry said that although she and other school commissioners believe that such sessions should be rare, the Easter night meeting was essential because of special circumstances.
“We had an investigator’s report that was due for review, and our attorney failed to notify the investigator the board’s term expired on April 1 at midnight,” Curry said. “The overriding rationale for the meeting was that if the report contained substantive reasons for a formal (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) complaint, it could be filed against those of us who conducted the superintendent’s evaluation and contract renewal.”
