Title: LaFlamme v. Essex Junction School District

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

LaFlamme v. Essex Junction School Dist. (97-493); 170 Vt. 475; 750 A.2d 993

[Opinion Filed 21-Jan-2000]
[Motion for Reargument Denied 2-May-2000]

       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. 97-493

Stanley LaFlamme	                         Supreme Court

	                                         On Appeal from
     v.	                                         Chittenden Superior Court

Essex Junction School District and	         April Term, 1999
Essex Junction Prudential Committee	

Linda Levitt, J.

       Edwin L. Hobson, Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

       Douglas C. Pierson and Thomas M. Higgins of Pierson, Wadhams, Quinn &
  Yates, Burlington, for Defendants-Appellants.

PRESENT: Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse,  Skoglund, JJ., and Allen, C.J. (Ret.),    	
         Specially Assigned

       MORSE, J.  Defendants Essex Junction School District and Essex
  Junction Prudential  Committee (school board) appeal a jury verdict
  awarding plaintiff Stanley LaFlamme damages  for violation of his right to
  procedural due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  Because the  evidence was
  insufficient to support such a claim as a matter of law, we reverse.	

       This controversy arose when the Essex Junction Prudential Committee,
  which functions  as the school board for the Village of Essex Junction,
  publicly "censured" LaFlamme, who had  been elected to the Prudential
  Committee in May 1994.  Conflict and tension between LaFlamme  and other
  committee members plagued his tenure.  For example, members considered
  LaFlamme  difficult to work with and disruptive of committee proceedings. 
  The committee particularly took  umbrage at LaFlamme's participation in a
  May 1995 meeting of  the Village of Essex Junction  Board of Trustees, at
  which the formation of a union high school was discussed.  During the 

 

  meeting, LaFlamme offered opinions that, in the Prudential Committee's
  view, were inaccurate,  offensive, and belied its position.

       In February 1995, the Chair of the Prudential Committee, Leslie
  Mooney, sought advice  concerning the committee's working relationship with
  LaFlamme from the Executive Director of  the Vermont School Board
  Association.  According to Mooney, the committee considered the 
  possibility of censuring LaFlamme because the members had been unsuccessful
  in their several  attempts to discuss with him issues concerning his
  committee membership.

       The committee held a special meeting on May 30, 1995, which LaFlamme
  did not attend.  While in executive session, the members discussed the
  ramifications of censure.  They agreed to  publicly censure LaFlamme during
  the next regularly scheduled meeting, subject to the approval  of the
  committee's legal counsel.

       Following the meeting, Mooney discussed with the committee's counsel
  the logistics for  censuring LaFlamme.  Counsel informed Mooney that the
  committee was not required to  publicly warn LaFlamme of the upcoming
  censure.  She and another member drafted the censure  motion and marked it
  on the agenda as a code of ethics discussion to avoid attracting attention 
  and turning the matter into a "circus."

       On June 12, 1995, the Prudential Committee held a regularly scheduled
  meeting, which  LaFlamme attended.  The committee, again in executive
  session, presented him with the censure  motion.  Its substance read in
  pertinent part:

     After viewing the tape of the Village Trustees meeting of May 23, 
     the consensus of the members present . . . was to protect the 
     public's interest by censuring Stan LaFlamme for violating 
     [Vermont School Boards Association] and [National School Boards 
     Association] Code of Ethics, district policy, and standards of good 
     boardsmanship.  The board has previously attempted to discuss 
     these concerns with Mr. LaFlamme in executive session, but he 
     was unwilling to do so.

     I [James Riley, who read the motion] make a motion that Stan 
     LaFlamme be reprimanded for failing to uphold the following 
     tenets of the codes of ethics:

 

          1.  Attend all regularly scheduled board meetings insofar as 
     possible, and become informed concerning the issues to be 
     discussed at those meetings.  Mr. LaFlamme failed to attend 
     several meetings, has left meetings before adjournment, and has 
     failed to attend executive sessions at which information critical to 
     sound decision-making was presented.  He has indicated to two 
     board members that he does not intend to attend any further 
     executive sessions.
          2.  Abide by board decisions regardless of how individuals 
     voted.  Mr. LaFlamme spoke publicly against the board-approved 
     draft budget.  He also supported the village trustees in opposing 
     the Union High School at their May 23 meeting despite the 
     unanimous vote of the Prudential Committee to support the Union.
          3.  Listen to legal counsel and constructive criticism to 
     protect the board and the school system from liability.  Mr. 
     LaFlamme has made public unsubstantiated allegations which have 
     exposed the district to liability.
          4.  Accept the responsibility to secure facts before arriving 
     at conclusions.  Mr. LaFlamme corroborated the inaccurate data 
     presented at the trustees meeting, and his statements about teacher 
     job security were not factual.
          5.  Board policies BBAA Board member Authority and 
     BBFA Conflict of Interest state in part that "an individual board 
     member, including the Chairman, shall have power only when the 
     board, by vote, has delegated authority to him or her."  Mr. 
     LaFlamme invited the trustees to make their presentation at [t]he 
     Prudential Committee hearing without authorization from the 
     Board.  Under procedure BD-R, board meeting agendas are 
     established by the Chair and the Superintendent.  
          6.  Good boardsmanship requires that each member take on 
     a fair share of the workload, including committee assignments.  
     Mr. LaFlamme has not fulfilled his responsibilities around sub[-
     ]committee work.

  (Emphasis in original.)

       Mooney explained to LaFlamme that, unless he was willing to discuss
  the committee's  concerns, it was prepared to vote on the censure motion
  during the regular meeting.  LaFlamme  responded by noting that the motion
  could not properly be brought during executive session.  At  that point,
  the executive session ended and the Prudential Committee resumed its
  meeting in  public.  

       Committee member James Riley read the motion in its entirety, after
  which LaFlamme  spoke in his own defense.  LaFlamme took issue with many of
  the allegations made in the  motion, 

 

  and challenged in several respects the information upon which the
  allegations rested.  After  hearing LaFlamme, the committee granted the
  motion to censure by a vote of four to one.  

       On July 21, 1995, LaFlamme sued defendants and the members of the
  Prudential  Committee individually.  The superior court dismissed the suit
  against the individuals on the  basis of immunity afforded to municipal
  officers under 24 V.S.A. § 901(a).  While this lawsuit  was pending,
  LaFlamme served on the Prudential Committee a second year before resigning. 
  During that year he made an unsuccessful bid for election to the Village
  Trustees.

       LaFlamme raised three claims: (1) failure to accommodate handicap
  under 9 V.S.A.  § 4502, (2) denial of the right to free speech, and (3)
  denial of the right to procedural due  process.  He withdrew a fourth claim
  alleging defamation.  

       The jury found in favor of defendants on the handicap accommodation
  and free speech  claims, but awarded LaFlamme $75,000 compensatory and
  $25,000 punitive damages for  violation of his right to procedural due
  process.  In essence, the claim upon which the verdict  was rendered, as
  evidenced by the jury instructions, was that the Prudential Committee
  damaged  LaFlamme's reputation so severely "that his opportunity and
  ability to associate with others were  significantly limited and that the
  damage resulted without due process of law."  Defendants  appeal on the
  ground that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

       Before reviewing the merits of the appeal, we explain the concept of
  censure as a method  of discipline.  In Vermont, school boards derive their
  power from statute.  See Cole v. Town of  Hartford School Dist., 131 Vt.
  464, 467,