GM board member complains of improper executive session Telegraph request for public docs only partially fulfilled

By Shawn Cunningham
© 2025 Telegraph Publishing LLC

On Thursday, June 19, when we last spent an evening with the board of the Green Mountain Unified School District, the agenda contained an item to “cure” a violation of the Vermont Open Meeting Law relating to an executive session at a previous meeting.

Also on the agenda was a new executive session, which is now the focus of yet another violation complaint. But, in an unusual twist, this complaint comes from a member of the board, and it will be the subject of a special meeting on Thursday, July 10.

Regular readers will recall that all this brouhaha came out of the board needing to fill one of the Chester seats on the board after Tuck Wunderle resigned to attend grad school. Less regular readers can catch up here:

• June 25: GMUSD Board gets PCB update, continues internal wrangling
• June 2: GM board votes down sole candidate; to restart process of filling Chester vacancy
• May 23: GM school board to hold special meeting to revisit board appointment, complaint
• May 20: News Analysis: More questions than answers to fill a school board seat
• May 14: Chester board punts making school board rep recommendation; hears protests about protests

The latest complaint, dated June 21, comes from Cavendish representative Donovan Nichols,  is contending that the executive session held on June 19 “to discuss possible litigation to which the public body may be a party” did not rise to the level necessary to shut out the public and in fact that there was never any discussion of possible litigation.

The law – 1 VSA 313 (a)(1)(E) – says that the board can go into executive session to discuss “pending or probable civil litigation or a prosecution, to which the public body is or may be a party.” 

Prompt but incomplete response to Public Records request

On July 1, The Telegraph requested related documents under Vermont’s Public Records Act and, on July 2, received a number of emails to and from Nichols, Superintendent Layne Millington and GM board chair Adrienne Williams. But more documents could be forthcoming after the meeting on Thursday, July 10, since Millington gave board members until July 15 to produce any communications or notes regarding the executive sessions, five days after the special meeting addressing this specific complaint and long past the time allotted by state law.

In an email to board members, Millington said the board members would have to turn over those materials by that July 15 deadline. In fact, the Public Records Act says that such materials “shall promptly produce the record,” and for the purposes of the law promptly means “immediately, with little or no delay, and … not more than three business days”

In the materials provided to The Telegraph, Nichols asserts that the phrase “possible litigation” that was used in the motion to enter the closed door setting does not “meet the statutory requirement” and that “no legal threat, demand, claim or communication from counsel was presented to the board.”

Nichols continued, saying that he had requested clarification on the reason for the executive session and was told that the executive session would address Nichols’ concern that Millington issued a letter on the board’s behalf without consulting the board and also address the Open Meeting Law complaint that had been on the agenda to be cured ahead of the closed door session.

Again, Nichols asserted that neither of these were regarding “pending or probable litigation.” Nichols went on to say that he raised his concerns about the validity of the executive session during the executive session and “no other board member offered a legal basis or evidence to justify the exemption.”

If Nichols’ allegations are true, the board held a closed door meeting discussing topics that were not disclosed to the public.

On June 24, Millington sent an email to the board suggesting a special meeting and asserting that since Nichols was the complainant, it would be a “conflict of interest” for him to participate in the proceedings and any communications about the complaint would only be sent the the rest of the board, and not Nichols.

Nichols responded, saying that those decisions should be made by the board not by Millington. He added that his complaint was made as a board member and that filing a complaint is a statutory and ethical obligation, and not a conflict of interest. “Failure to have done so in my role as a board member would have been a dereliction of duty,” Nichols wrote. He also said that preventing him from participating deprives the Town of Cavendish (and the entire district) of representation.

Nichols elaborated on Millington’s assertion of “conflict of interest,”  pointing out that the board’s own p0licy distinguishes between a board member’s private interests and his interest as a member of the general public. Throughout the process, Nichols has said he is acting as an individual member of the GM board.

Nichol’s complaint also includes a request for curing the violation, including an acknowledgment from the board that the executive session in question was not justified, a public correction of the record and an affirmation that no formal or binding action was taken during the session. Nichols
also wants the board to hold a training on the Open Meeting law “with particular focus on executive session requirements.”

Toss in another violation

When the board went into executive session to discuss “possible” litigation, it created yet another violation. The law says that for the exemption regarding litigation, the board must first make “a specific finding that premature general public knowledge would clearly place the public body or a person involved at a substantial disadvantage.” In other words, that the board agree that the closed door discussion was necessary.

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 before voting on a second motion: to go into executive session. It would have been the appropriate moment for Nichols to express his misgivings. But that first motion never happened and as such, the board violated the law yet again,

Ironically, Nichols became a member of the board to replace Steve Perani, who stepped down earlier this year. In that instance, the Cavendish Select Board was asked by the GM board to recommend a candidate. After interviewing Nichols and Wendi Dowst-McNaughton, the Cavendish board tapped the latter unanimously. But on April 7 the GMUSD board chose Nichols by a 5-4 vote. The remaining two members representing Cavendish had voted for Dowst-McNaughton, along with two Chester representatives. Four of the six Chester members and the single Andover representative voted for Nichols. As board chair, Williams of Baltimore did not vote.

It will be interesting to see how his complaint fares with those factions now.

The special meeting to take up Nichols’ complaint is scheduled for 6 p.m. on Thursday, July 10 at the Green Mountain High, 716 Route 103 South in Chester and via Zoom. To join the meeting, click here.