See You in Court – April 2026

With the arrival of spring, misbehavior by students in Nutmeg has escalated.  For example, Joe Blow, a sophomore at Nutmeg Memorial High School, was caught on video defacing a wall at the high school with spray paint, writing a message that threatened Ms. Principal with harm.  Ms. Principal was understandably upset, and Mr. Superintendent brought a recommendation for Joe’s expulsion to the Nutmeg Board of Education.

It has been a couple of years since the Nutmeg Board of Education has been called upon to consider expelling a student, and Board member Mal Content called Mr. Superintendent to learn about the related procedures.  Mr. Superintendent assured Mal that the procedures are quite simple – the Administration will present its case against the student, the student will have an opportunity to respond to the Administration’s case, and the Board members will then deliberate and make their decision.  Mr. Superintendent assured Mal that this case will be particularly easy.  “We have Joe Blow on videotape writing a threatening message.  I hope that I can count on you and the other Board members to do the right thing here.”

The day of the hearing arrived, and Mal was joined by fellow Board members Red Cent, Penny Pincher and Bob Bombast.  Mal convened the hearing, and the Board members promptly voted to go into executive session to hear the case.  As predicted by Mr. Superintendent, the Administration presented its case first.  On its behalf, Mr. Board Attorney explained that Joe had spray painted a threatening message on a hallway wall late after school, not realizing that a surveillance camera was recording his actions.  Mr. Board Attorney then played the video with Bob’s misconduct for the Board members, and he ended his presentation by calling Ms. Principal to testify as to how upsetting Joe’s actions were to her.

For his part, Joe’s father had little to say.  He described Joe as a good kid who made a mistake, and he implored the Board to show Joe mercy by agreeing that Joe’s ten-day suspension would serve as an appropriate response to Joe’s misconduct.

After hearing from the parents, the Board asked Mr. Board Attorney if he had anything else to say, who responded that he would reserve any further comment for the Board deliberations.  With that, the Board members and Mr. Board Attorney retired to a nearby conference room for deliberations.

Penny Pincher started the conversation at the beginning of deliberations by expressing surprise that Joe was the student under consideration.  She explained that she will be recusing herself from the decision because Joe Blow had bullied her daughter in middle school and, accordingly, she could not be objective in this case.  She told the other Board members that Joe is a terrible person who deserves whatever he gets, but in fairness she would leave that decision to the other Board members.

Mr. Board Attorney thanked Penny for her sensitivity and asked the other Board members had any questions about the case, which he described as open and shut.  Mal, Red and Bob all agreed with Mr. Board Attorney that Joe should be expelled.

Mal reconvened the hearing and made a motion to expel Joe for one calendar year, provided that Joe can return to school on probation at the beginning of the 2026-2027 school year if his father presents evidence that Joe has participated in counseling in the interim.

The Board members voted 3-0-1 in favor of Mal’s motion.  Did the Board members appropriately fulfill their responsibilities in expelling Joe?

*          *          *

Mr. Superintendent, Mr. Board Attorney, and the Board members need training on how to conduct an expulsion hearing.

The most significant problem here was their various failures to recognize their obligations under the Due Process clause.  Students are entitled by law to public education, and school officials can deprive them of that right only after they are provided due process.  An essential element of due process, however, is an impartial decision-maker.  Those involved here violated that principle in several respects.

First, Mr. Superintendent should not have told Mal about the facts of the case and asked for Mal’s support.  Normally, boards of education and superintendents are on the same side of most issues, and by statute the superintendent serves as the chief executive officer of the board of education.  However, when board members must act as an impartial judge of the superintendent’s actions, they must maintain a separation, and the superintendent should only explain his or her position in a hearing at which the student, parent, or teacher can also be heard because the board is adjudicating their rights.  Such situations include expulsions, as was the case here, school accommodations hearings (including transportation hearings), and employment decisions under the Teacher Tenure Act.

Second, it was a violation of Joe’s due process rights for Mr. Board Attorney to serve both as the advocate for Mr. Superintendent’s recommendation to expel Joe and as the Board’s advisor in this hearing.  Indeed, to assure that everyone’s rights are protected, three different lawyers can be involved in some expulsion hearings, one for the Administration, one for the student, and one for the board of education members.  Here, Mr. Board Attorney was Mr. Superintendent’s advocate, and he should not have also participated in the Board’s deliberations.

Penny’s disclosure that she could not be impartial as to Joe was appropriate, but her further commentary was not.  In doing the public’s work, board members sometimes confront situations in which they cannot be objective and impartial, and as such have a conflict of interest.  Though the other board members can weigh in on whether a fellow board member has a conflict, the final decision remains with the board member.  Where due process rights are involved, however, the affected party may claim in subsequent proceedings that a conflict of interest deprived him or her of due process.

Penny appropriately recognized the conflict and recused herself from voting.  However, as soon as she recognized the conflict, she should not have offered any further comment about Joe.  Boards of education make their decisions through a deliberative process in which they exchange their views, and thus comments by a member who has a conflict can affect the decision even though that member does not vote.

Finally, the Nutmeg Board here provided for Joe’s early return from expulsion (albeit on probation) provided that his parent shows that Joe has been in counseling.  Significantly, the district would be required to provide any such counseling because the statute provides that school districts may “not require the pupil or the parent or guardian of the pupil [who is being permitted to return early from expulsion] to pay for participation in the [Board-specified] program.”  Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-233d(c)(2).

More generally, Section 10-233d includes a number of other requirements, and boards of education must act carefully in making expulsion decisions.