GMUSD board gets PCB update, continues internal wrangling

By Shawn Cunningham
© 2025 Telegraph Publishing LLC

A few years ago, state sponsored testing found that chemicals known as PCBs are present at the Green Mountain High School.

Last Thursday, Kassandra Kimmey of the state Department of Environmental Conservation gave a presentation on PCBs to the Green Mountain Unified School District Board,  that outlined health risks and levels that the state has established for requiring schools to take action — either over time or “immediate.” The action levels are based on student grade levels, with K-6 being more stringent than grades 7-12.

Since the PCBs were found, the school has been using air filtering devices that remove them from the air. That filtering has reduced the levels of the chemicals in nearly all parts of the school to below the 7-12 grade threshold.

Kimmey noted that while the district is considering moving its 6th graders from its two elementary schools to the middle school at GM, to do so would mean GM must meet the lower level, which is far below the 7-12 grade threshold.

Over the past couple of years, the school’s environmental consultant has been testing to find out where the concentrations of PCBs are located including in:

• Caulks used in doors, window and expansion joints
• Mastics used as adhesives under carpets and floor tiles
• Paints used throughout the school

The identification of the materials will help the school and the state come up with an Evaluation of Corrective Action Alternatives. From those alternatives, it will be up to TRSU to decide which one to go with. That choice will also determine how much of the work the state will pay.

Long time board members remember that the state of Vermont said it would pay for remediation in full, but they noted that the state did not say when. The Department of Environmental Conservation anticipates receiving $9.5 million to use for PCB cleanup and planning in fiscal year 2026 (July 2025-June 2026)

Kimmey said that the funding would be shared by six schools and work is under way to make sure the paperwork for that grant is done.  At this time, DEC doesn’t know how much — or even if — state funding will be available in the future. It was also noted that the state paid around $18 million on PCB mitigation at Burlington High School.

Todd Parah, facilities director for Two Rivers Supervisory Union, told The Telegraph that the other schools in the district have tested negative for PCBs. He said that the levels were high when the high school was first tested years ago, but “the filters are doing what they are supposed to do” and that the PCB levels are at or below Vermont’s school action levels. Vermont’s standards are among the strictest in the country. An EPA table of reference levels for evaluating school exposures can be found here.

“We as the administration feel confident that our school has reached acceptable levels for the safety of our students and staff,” said Parah. Air testing is ongoing.

The mention of moving the 6th grade to Green Mountain in the 2026-27 school year has raised some eyebrows. Kate Lamphere, who represents Cavendish on the GM board,  said she wanted to make it clear that the decision to move those students had not yet been made. The removal of 6th graders from Chester-Andover Elementary would ease overcrowding there while at the same time reduce the population of Cavendish Town Elementary. Many there feel that would make Cavendish a target for closing.

Same as it ever was

As the board was preparing to approve its agenda, Cavendish representative Donovan Nichols offered an addition to it, moving that there be a discussion of “superintendent communication and representation of board authority.” Chair Adrienne Williams suggested that it be discussed during executive session, two sessions of which were scheduled that night.

The first was under the acknowledgement of an Open Meeting violation and “possible litigation” to which the district might be a party. The second was being held to discuss the contract of CAES Principal Joey Blane.

Superintendent Layne Millington asserted that Nichols’ topic needed to be discussed under executive session saying: “You’ll be in a state of liability if you vote yes, (on the motion) so go for it.” He explained that the motion was “essentially trying to have an evaluative discussion.”

Lamphere asked if he meant evaluating the superintendent.

Nichols told Millington that he never meant the motion to be about evaluating Millington but rather to start a governance discussion. Lamphere continued that it was about “how the board will represent itself or defer to the superintendent.” Later in explaining his motion he pointed the lack of board input to the letter Millington sent on the board’s behalf saying “there was no meeting, there was no vote.”

Millington said “the letter is out there” and referred to possible litigation noting that discussing it could put the board at a disadvantage. Telegraph attempts to get a copy of the letter or letters involved have yet to be successful. Superintendent Millington told The Telegraph on Tuesday afternoon that since it was part of an executive session he has asked counsel to review the letter to see if he can release it.

The vote on Nichols’ motion was tied with the three Cavendish members (Nichols, Lamphere and Lisa Sanders) voting yes while Jeff Hance and Casey Leahy of Chester voted no along with Scott Kendall of Andover. Williams broke the tie with a no vote. Under Roberts Rules of Order, there was no need to break the tie except if voting yes because a motion that ends in a tie fails anyway.

Later in the meeting, the board went into executive session to discuss possible litigation. In the agenda, the session was linked to the acknowledgement of a previous Open Meeting violation. Ironically, the board created yet another violation by going into the closed door meeting with a single motion rather than first finding that the closed door discussion was necessary to keep from putting the board at a substantial disadvantage. See 1 VSA 313 (a)(1)(E).  That first motion is an opportunity for board members to discuss whether or not a topic rises to the level of shutting out the public. It’s an opportunity for members to ask questions about the topic and make their decision.

When the board returned from the executive session, it took no action.

Curing another Open Meeting violation 

Speaking for the board, Williams told the meeting that the board correctly evaluated the candidate for the open Chester seat in executive session and then voted in open session. But in the commotion that followed, the board did not explain the reason for its vote. Williams said that “after thorough deliberation, the board determined that the candidate was not the right fit for the goals, vision and priorities of the majority of this board.”

Kendall moved that individual members discuss their reasons for voting as they did. In a nutshell, those who voted for Penny Benelli said they did so because she was qualified. Those who voted against had a number of objections to Benelli’s responses to interview questions or behavior during the interview process.  Hance and Rick Alexander, who joined the meeting late, both said that while Benelli was qualified, they didn’t think she would work with the board.

Standing up for Benelli,

Chester resident Carrie Roy King told the board she was disappointed with the process that resulted in not appointing a candidate she believe is qualified. She also said a remark that Kendall made asking the police to watch the parking lot so the public would not deface board members’ cars following the vote was a betrayal of trust.

She noted that a dissenting opinion isn’t a threat.

Kendall replied that he would make that comment again.

Jerry Ucci of Chester told the board that he had put his name forward to fill the open Chester seat. He spoke of the divide in the community and said that his priority was the education of the children.

Benelli, who was turned down by the board for the open Chester seat at the last meeting, chided the board for not revealing more details about the possible lawsuit against the district.