Case Title: Trombley v. Bellows Falls U.H.S.

Citation: 160 Vt. 101, 624 A.2d 857

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1993-02-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
TROMBLEY_V_BELLOWS_FALLS_UHS.91-392; 160 Vt. 101; 624 A.2d 857


[Filed 26-Feb-1993]

 NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court,  109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 91-392


 Patricia Trombley and                        Supreme Court
 Georgia Lique
                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Windham Superior Court

 Bellows Falls Union High School              September Term, 1992
 District No. 27, et al.


 Silvio T. Valente, J.

 Stephen L. Fine, Athens, for plaintiffs-appellants

 Lawrence Miller and John Paul Faignant of Miller & Faignant, Rutland,
   for defendants-appellees


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiffs, residents of the Town of Rockingham, brought
 this action against their local union high school district, its board of
 directors, the chair of the board and the superintendent of the district,
 alleging that the board violated the open meeting law, 1 V.S.A. {{ 311-314,
 and the access to public records act, 1 V.S.A. {{ 315-320, in denying them
 information about a teachers' grievance.  The Windsor Superior Court found
 no violation of either law.  Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that the court mis-
 applied the relevant laws.  We reverse and remand.
      This controversy started when the board reduced the budget for the
 district, in response to voter rejection of an earlier budget, by cutting
 some of the allocation for sports activities.  Three athletic instructors
 complained about the action in a letter, sent out on official high school
 stationery, to voters in the district.  The board, believing that the
 instructors had misused the school letterhead, voted to condemn the actions
 of the instructors.  At a special meeting to reconsider the budget cuts, the
 board read its condemnation statement to the public.
      The three instructors responded by filing a grievance contesting the
 condemnation.  The grievance came before the board on July 19, 1990.  Under
 the contract between the board and the Windham Northeast Education
 Association, the union representing teachers in the district, the grievants
 requested that the grievance be heard in executive session.  The board
 agreed and so heard the grievance, which it denied on July 30, 1990.
      On August 2, 1990, one of the plaintiffs requested to see the grievance
 and the response to it by the board, the superintendent and the principal of
 the high school.  The superintendent denied this request.  Plaintiff
 appealed the superintendent's decision to the chair of the board, who put it
 on the agenda for the next board meeting.  On advice of counsel, the board
 adopted in open session on September 10, 1990, a resolution formally denying
 the grievance for the reasons stated in the July 30th written decision.  The
 board denied plaintiff's appeal on the grounds that the documents requested
 were exempt from disclosure under 1 V.S.A. { 317(b)(7).  This suit followed.
      In a lengthy complaint, plaintiffs sought (1) a declaration that the
 board had violated the open meeting law, together with an injunction
 against further violations, (2) an order requiring disclosure of the
 documents, (3) a declaration that the board chair did not act timely in
 response to the appeal of the superintendent's denial of the documents, and
 (4) costs.  The Windham Northeast Education Association was allowed to
 intervene as a party defendant.  On cross-motions for summary judgment, the
 court dismissed the complaint, holding that the grievance could be
 considered in executive session pursuant to 1 V.S.A. { 313(a)(1), that the
 decision on the grievance was valid, and that the documents are exempt from
 disclosure under 1 V.S.A. { 317(b)(7) because they relate to a personnel
 matter.
      Plaintiffs first attack the court's decision that the grievance could
 be considered in executive session, claiming that the statutory requirements
 were not met. (FN1) Specifically, they argue that the grievance hearing was a
 meeting of a public body that was required to be open to the public under 1
 V.S.A. { 312(a), and that it could not be held in executive session under {
 313(a)(1) because the statutory prerequisite that "premature general public
 knowledge would clearly place the . . . public body[] or person involved at
 a substantial disadvantage" was not present. (FN2) Defendants argue, and the
 court held, that the language quoted above is an expression of why the
 Legislature found that grievances could be conducted in private, and not a
 prerequisite to an executive session in each case.
      The open meeting law implements the command of Chapter I, Article 6 of
 the Vermont Constitution that officers of government are "trustees and
 servants" of the people and are "at all times, in a legal way, accountable
 to them."  See 1 V.S.A. { 311; Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v.
 Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, 3 Vt. L.W. 309, 309 (Aug. 28,
 1992).  Although this Court has not previously addressed the question,
 courts in other jurisdictions have held that similar public meeting laws are
 entitled to a liberal construction in support of the goal of open access to
 public meetings for members of the public.  See, e.g., Hinds County Board of
 Supervisors v. Common Cause,