GM Board finds no Open Meeting violation but agrees to Open Meeting training

By Shawn Cunningham
© 2025 Telegraph Publishing LLC

Last Thursday, five of the 11 member board of the Green Mountain Unified School District assembled in the GM High School Library. A sixth joined by Zoom to make it a quorum. They weren’t there for a regular meeting but rather to answer an Open Meeting Law complaint about a recent executive session that was made by one of the members sitting at the table.

In the end, after two tie votes, Board Chair Adrienne Williams voted to break the tie and say that the board had not violated state law.

The situation began when recently appointed Cavendish representative Donovan Nichols asserted that the board improperly entered an executive session at its June 19 meeting. The agenda listed the reason for the closed door session as “to discuss possible litigation to which the public body may be a party.” Nichols’ complaint noted that 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.”

He went on to assert that not only did the board go into executive session misstating the law, once in the session there was no discussion of any “legal threat, demand, claim or communication from counsel was presented to the board.”

Williams laid out the ground rules – Nichols would have 10 minutes to make his case and Superintendent Layne Millington would answer his complaint. Board members would then have time to ask questions of both followed by a discussion and vote. After Nichols laid out the case for why he believes that the board should not have gone into executive session, Millington said he would be providing “counterpoint” saying that the Vermont law does not require school boards to use that exact language of the law if the intent for going into executive session fits the exemption.

Millington said that having received three complaints from the same group, which has two lawyers within it, would give a reasonable person to expect the complaints would go to court if not handled properly. He referred to legal guidance that he distributed to the board but then collected at the end of the meeting.

When the board began the discussion portion of the topic, Millington recused himself, citing a conflict of interest. Previously he had asserted that Nichols should not take part in the discussion or vote on the complaint saying that such participation would be a conflict of interest. Nichols however contended that holding the board to do what is legal is the duty of every board member and that he had no material interest at stake in the board’s decision.

As the discussion went on, the level of tension rose. At one point, Williams said that the board dynamics was getting on her nerves and that the issues like this complaint are taking up too much time.

“This board cannot catch a break,” said Williams,  citing “external and now internal sources creating issues in the most disruptive way possible.” She pointed to “what’s going on in the state,” likely referring to the changes in funding and governance coming out of the last legislative session and said the it would be “nice if we were all in the same boat.”

Saying that she was “legitimately over this nonsense,” Williams told the board she was looking for a motion that would “cure” the complaint without admitting a violation. She said that there was no need to void any actions because no actions had been taken in the session, but she did say that further education on the Open Meeting Law could be added to the board’s August retreat.

Cavendish rep Lisa Sanders moved to void the executive session, affirm no actions taken and get training on the OML. Nichols said there was not a third option and that the board would have to either admit or deny a violation of the law. He also said he has no intent on legal action or escalation of his complaint.

The vote on Sanders’ motion was defeated. And board member Jeff Hance of Chester then moved that the board did not violate the law but added for the board to get training on the law. After little or no discussion, that vote ended in a 2-2 tie with Chester board member Katie Murphy abstaining because she was not at the June 19 meeting.

The board took a recess to look at the Open Meeting statute, after which Williams asked for more discussion. She read the law aloud and at each point she said she felt the board had met the requirements. But one of those requirements – making a specific finding that discussing the topic of the proposed executive session in public would put the board at a substantial disadvantage – is normally done as a two-part motion. The first part is to make the finding, which can also include discussion and questions by the board. Once the first part is approved, the second motion is to enter executive session. But the first part was never made and only the second part was made and approved on June 19.

Hance offered his earlier motion again with the same tied results, but this time Williams voted to break the tie, and the 3-2 majority concluded there was no violation. This is also problematic since Roberts Rules of Order – which school boards are required to use – says that a motion that has been passed or defeated (a tie is considered a losing vote) cannot be introduced a second time.

The board will hold another special meeting on Thursday, July 17 to hear from three candidates for the vacant Chester seat and to appoint one of them.