Submitted by Karen Fassuliotis
The Voting Moms ask a reasonable question about the Town of Greenwich’s lawsuit against the Board of Education (BOE): What does “winning” actually accomplish?
The Voting Moms: Exactly what is “winning” in the Town vs. Board of Education lawsuit? Sept 29, 2026)
Their argument is straightforward. The BOE seat at the center of the dispute is no longer vacant. The Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) has ruled that the October 2024 BOE meeting did not qualify as an emergency. And taxpayers have already spent substantial money on lawyers.
So why keep going?
The answer starts with a distinction that has been blurred throughout this debate: The seat is no longer the issue. The authority to fill the seat—and when that authority can act—is.
The Seat Is Gone. The Dispute Isn’t.
Karen Kowalski’s resignation in 2024 created the vacancy. On October 21, more than 30 days after the vacancy was created, the BOE held an emergency meeting and voted to appoint Jennifer Behette. The following day, the Board of Selectmen voted to appoint Paul Cappiali to the same seat, leading to the litigation.
Much has changed since then. Cappiali was subsequently elected to the BOE, so no one is suggesting that a court can turn back the clock and recreate that vacancy. But the FOIC’s October 2025 ruling addressed the legality of the October 21 meeting under the Freedom of Information Act; it did not resolve the separate legal dispute over the authority to fill the vacancy or the legal effect of the competing actions that followed.
And when Judge Yamini Menon declined to dismiss the Superior Court case, she did not decide who was right. She expressly said whether the October 21 meeting qualified as an emergency was a factual issue, not a jurisdictional one.
So, an important question remains: Who had the legal authority to fill the BOE vacancy, and what happens when the Town and the BOE reach different conclusions about that authority?
The Town’s complaint seeks a judicial determination concerning the validity of the competing appointments and the legal effect of the October 21 meeting and subsequent BOE actions.
Without an answer, the next vacancy could put Greenwich right back where it started. If the BOE and Board of Selectmen disagree again, taxpayers could once again end up paying lawyers to resolve the disagreement after the fact.
That is what continuing the case could accomplish—not changing what happened with the last vacancy but obtaining a definitive answer about the legal authority at issue if this happens again.
The court will ultimately decide the legal questions before it. But the fact that the original vacancy has been filled does not necessarily make those questions disappear.
But What Will It Cost?
That does not mean the Town should continue litigating regardless of the cost. Taxpayers deserve to know what this lawsuit is costing and what they are getting in return.
At a May 2026 RTM Budget Overview Committee meeting, approximately $496,646 in legal costs were discussed in connection with the BOE lawsuit. That included $192,644 in Town legal fees and $304,002 in BOE legal fees that had been invoiced but not paid.
That is significant money. There has also been public discussion about what future litigation might cost, but those figures are projections, not documented costs taxpayers have already incurred.
Before anyone puts a final price tag on this lawsuit, show us the math. How much has actually been paid? How much remains unpaid? What is the Town’s and BOE’s best current estimate of the additional cost to reach a final resolution? And what would Greenwich get for spending that additional money?
The issue is not whether the lawsuit costs money. It does. The issue is whether the next dollar spent will buy Greenwich something it can actually use.
If continuing the case means spending substantially more without producing a meaningful resolution, taxpayers have every reason to question that expense. But if the litigation can produce a definitive answer about who has authority to fill a BOE vacancy—or a settlement that establishes a workable way to handle that issue in the future—then the expense would serve a purpose beyond keeping an old lawsuit alive.
Settlement Is Another Option
Settlement is another possible path. In May 2026, the BOE unanimously authorized its attorneys to enter settlement discussions with the Town, although a later settlement proposal did not receive enough support to move forward.
Settlement could save additional legal expense and bring the dispute to an end. But taxpayers should ask the same question: What does the settlement accomplish? If it simply ends the lawsuit because the original vacancy is over, that is one outcome. If it also gives the Town and BOE a workable understanding of how future vacancies will be handled, that is another.
The choice is not simply “litigate forever” versus “settle immediately.” The real issue is whether either path can produce something worthwhile for Greenwich.
What Really Is at Stake?
That brings us back to the Voting Moms’ question: What does “winning” accomplish?
The answer should be more than simply “the Town wins.” The objective should be clarity: Who has the authority to fill a vacant BOE seat, and what happens when the Town and the BOE disagree?
Greenwich has already paid to fight about those questions once. If taxpayers are going to spend more, they should expect something in return—a court ruling that settles the dispute or a settlement that meaningfully resolves it.
If neither is possible, continuing the case becomes much harder to justify. But if the case can resolve the disagreement in a way that prevents Greenwich from paying to fight the same dispute again, then the fact that the original seat has been filled does not make the litigation pointless.
The seat is gone. The uncertainty over who has the authority to fill it and when is not.
So perhaps the better question for taxpayers is not simply, “Who wins?”
It is: “When the next BOE vacancy occurs, will Greenwich know who has the authority to fill it and when?”
Greenwich has already paid for the question. It’s time to get the answer.
Karen Fassuliotis is currently a Magistrate in the Small Claims, Housing and Traffic Infraction Courts and a former Board of Estimate and Taxation (BET) member who chaired the BET Law Committee for six years.