See You In Court – December 2025

Bob Bombast, veteran member of the Nutmeg Board of Education, was surprised to read on social media the complaint of Tom Teacher, a popular teacher at Nutmeg Memorial High School.  Tom announced his resignation from his employment with the Nutmeg Public Schools on Instagram, and in so doing he complained bitterly about how Mr. Superintendent had forced him out, posting “My career gone for only $50,000 on trumped up charges!  Nobody should have to go through what I went through, and I am not going away!”

Bob was understandably curious, and he called Mr. Superintendent immediately to find out the full story.  However, Mr. Superintendent would not spill the tea, telling Bob that personnel decisions are none of his business.  Bob responded that a $50,000 expenditure was certainly his business as a Board member, but Mr. Superintendent simply said that the money was available from the salary account.

Bob was upset at Mr. Superintendent’s stonewalling him, and he called Ms. Chairperson to demand that she call a meeting to get to the bottom of this “unauthorized” expenditure.  Mrs. Chairperson gave in to Bob’s demand, and she called a special meeting, the agenda for which stated, “Discussion of a personnel matter.”

The day before the special meeting, the Board members were served with a complaint brought in superior court on Tom Teacher’s behalf by local attorney Bill Alot.  In that complaint, Bill alleged that the separation agreement that Tom had signed was null and void because Mr. Superintendent had coerced Tom by threatening him that termination would ruin his career and that Tom’s union representative was complicit in letting that happen.

At the beginning of the special meeting, the Board convened into executive session to discuss the situation.  Bob accused Mr. Superintendent of spending district funds without Board authorization, and he demanded to know more about the reasons why Mr. Superintendent would agree to pay Tom Teacher $50,000 if he was really a bad teacher.

Mr. Superintendent responded by saying that he would not be getting into the details of his investigation because personnel matters are outside the Board’s purview.  He assured the Board, however, that Tom needed to go because a number of parents of current and former students of Tom’s had valid complaints about how Tom had treated their children.  Mr. Superintendent further explained that he had worked with Ms. Board Attorney to negotiate this separation agreement and that paying $50,000 to get Tom’s resignation was a lot cheaper than going through a termination proceeding.

This explanation satisfied the other Board members, but Bob was still adamant that Mr. Superintendent had overstepped his authority by entering into this agreement without Board approval.  “At budget time,” Bob stated, “we argue about every penny.  $50,000 is a lot of money, and we Board members should have been in on this decision.  We might have even agreed with Mr. Superintendent that this deal was worth making.  But we are not potted plants, and we should have been involved.”  With that, Bob made a motion to require that Mr. Superintendent obtain Board approval before entering into any separation agreements with teachers or other employees.  Fellow Board member Mal Content seconded the motion.

Would you advise the Board members to vote in favor of this motion?

*          *          *

This situation raises issues of due process and the authority of the superintendent, and, though such a motion may be legally permissible, it may be unduly restrictive.

Mr. Superintendent was correct in asserting that personnel matters are his responsibility, and it was proper for him to negotiate the separation agreement without involving the members of the Nutmeg Board of Education.  When the termination of the contract of a certified employee is under consideration, as a matter of due process, board of education members should not get involved.  Board members will act as the judge in any related termination proceedings, and judges must be impartial in making their decisions.  Moreover, when a controversy involving a teacher becomes public (e.g., “Teacher Arrested in Police Sting Operation!”), to preserve their impartiality board members must be careful not to investigate on their own or to comment on the situation

That said, Mr. Superintendent was incorrect in telling Bob and the Board that he could not discuss the details of this case with them.  Personnel matters are indeed the responsibility of the superintendent and his or her administration.  However, board members have an oversight role, and they have a legitimate interest being aware of and understanding district expenditures.  By the time this matter came to the Board’s attention, Tom had already resigned, and thus there was no longer a need for Board members to maintain their impartiality.  Accordingly, Mr. Superintendent could have debriefed fully with the Board.

Separation agreements are a common way to resolve employment disputes without incurring the cost of termination proceedings (for certified staff members) or grievance proceedings (for non-certified staff members).  However, given the due process concerns that apply to certified staff members, separation agreements pose special challenges.

Superintendents clearly have the legal authority to enter into such agreements, given their role defined by statute (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-157) as the “chief executive officer of the board.”  Whether and what role board members play in authorizing related expenditures, however, is a matter for boards and superintendents to sort out through discussion, preferably before the superintendent is required to deal with a potential termination.  Board insistence on being involved, however, complicates negotiations, because a superintendent would be able to involve the board in related decisions only if the employee in question waives any due process objections to the board members discussing the situation before possibly conducting a hearing.

Here, we also note that Tom Teacher’s claim after the fact is unlikely to succeed.  Tom was represented by his union on the separation agreement, and it would be difficult or impossible for Tom to prevail with a claim of coercion. Indeed, many separation agreements include a provision that an employee who later sues unsuccessfully to challenge a separation agreement must pay the employer’s legal fees, and such provisions can be enforceable.  Rice v. Regional School District #4 Board of Education, 2014 WL 4746869 (Conn. Super. 2014). 

Finally, we note that the posting of the special meeting was deficient.  The Freedom of Information Commission has repeatedly ruled that reference to a “personnel matter” in a posted agenda does not fairly apprise the public of the business to be transacted by the public agency.  Here, the discussion could have been posted as “relating to a separation agreement” (with the concomitant need to notify Tom Teacher of his right to require that the discussion be held in open session) or to “the performance of the Superintendent.”  Moreover, if Ms. Board Attorney provided written legal advice on the separation agreement, the posting could have been “Discussion of a confidential attorney-client communication on a separation agreement.”