Submitted by Brian Raabe, Greenwich
If you haven’t kept up, the condensed version of the First Selectman’s legal fight with the Board of Education is –
There was a resignation from the Board of Education in late 2024 due to a member’s move out of town.
The preference within the Republican caucus was to fill the opening with the Republican harbormaster.
The BOE called an emergency meeting and filled the slot with a Republican with experience in education instead.
The First Selectman did not like that and felt the meeting was out of order (i.e., there was no emergency) so filed a complaint with the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission.
The FOIC agreed and ruled the meeting null and void late last year.
From here it seems Fred’s objective is to reverse all action that took place from the voided meeting forward.
The Town was not a party to the FOIC complaint filed. The Town is not a “person” as required. The singular complainant was Fred Camillo.
Fees for the firm representing Fred Camillo total $180,156.84. They have been paid in full by the Town of Greenwich.
The Board of Education has been billed $165,985.50 for legal representation.
None of their bills have been paid by the Town. The reason is not known.
A total of $346,141.50 has been tallied on this Greenwich versus Greenwich battle.
And the response from the First Selectman on the radio was, “They started it…”
Leadership demands more than that.
There is extensive court activity scheduled ahead. Money spent so far is the warm-up round. The flywheel of litigation costs is just spooling up.
It is unclear whether, as a function of their bills not being paid, the BOE is pursuing a claim with the Connecticut State Board of Education to force payment (and presumably enjoy effective representation). Which will bring more legal bills.
With the response to a FOIA request, other than knowing what has been spent through year end 2025 ($346,141.50) on this suit by Fred Camilllo, and a few other points mentioned above, this has become your run of the mill political, legal violence.
The BOE seated a Republican with a background in education during their “emergency” meeting.
But time has passed, and since then Republicans have their harbormaster seated on the BOE via elections.
The right person to involve in molding your child’s intellect as they see it.
So why is Fred Camillo continuing the litigation?
Having this e-mail to M. Mercanti Anthony referenced in the billing records secured via FOIA might help.
There was a thesis articulated back in November of 2024 as to what the Town’s position would be on votes in the future.
11/12/24 Draft e-mail to M. Mercanti-Anthony regarding Town’s position on BOE votes going forward.
11/13/24 Correspondence with K. Hirsh; revise draft-correspondence to M. Mercanti Anthony in view of K. Hirsch’s e-mail; teleconferences with various Town officials regarding status; correspondence and teleconference with FOIC employees on status of complaint.
The contents of that email seem an important input into today’s action. They seem the earliest documentation of the Town’s position.
Did the full board benefit from its contents so it might shape their decision making and avoid all this?
Fred and his representatives appear to have investigated nullifying a large swath of votes taken by the BOE during the contested period, as per this notation from the legal bills:
11/18/25 Research into various issues, including recovery of attorney’s fees, striking even unanimous votes of an unlawfully constituted board that included an improper member, and striking actions by unlawfully constituted boards that impact third-party agreements.”
They have been researching the reversal of votes taken – including votes related to “third party agreements,” even “unanimous” votes.
Seems silly – reverse unanimous votes?
The content of this letter would likely shed light as to who will cover these costs:
6/24/25 Receive and Review insurance coverage letter from Safety National.
And did that coverage letter from Safety National precipitate an off ramp for this that was not taken?
This notation in the legal invoices appears afterward:
7/24/25 Call and correspondence with Dan Young of Wofsey Rosen regarding opening dialogue for settlement, potential intervention, resolution.
Is Wofsey Rosen, via Dan Young, Safety National’s representation, and were they looking to wrap this all up?
Why didn’t we?
For Fred, the preference seems to continue to litigate to undo all business (even unanimously agreed to) while this dispute took place.
Reverse “third party agreements” like –
The School Superintendent’s contract extension (recall our Superintendents average time in position under Republicans is a revolving door of about 18 months).
The teacher’s contract (which contains a 2.5% general wage increase going forward. With inflation at 2.8% under the Trump administration that means negative wage growth for our kid’s teachers. Is the idea to reopen this contract to further a negative? )
Construction contracts (we can’t educate kids in condemned schools, what’s the goal here?)
If Fred prevails, he is going to feel a lot like the dog that caught the car.
Now what?
You will reopen all these contracts and do what exactly? Go back to Superintendents with average time in position of a Wal-Mart greeter? Reopen the teachers contract?
But legal violence has no litmus test for logic.
It’s a subtle, nonpartisan point made in the past, the idea that winning a lawsuit by Fred Camillo – and anything that comes with victory – is unlikely to offset legal fees, and unlikely to offset our degraded ability to attract qualified education talent in the future – but one wouldn’t expect this administration to get it.
They seem blinded by the desire to retaliate and their budgeting process over the years demonstrates an ability to conceptualize the future as far as what’s for lunch.
And why not litigate if insurance will pay for it, and maybe it’s taco Tuesday at Town Hall.
Yum.
This is the same administration and the same players that settled the very costly Mark Kordick lawsuit involving some odd stuff.
This is also the political party that whines about the weaponization of government.
Fred Camillo began his quest trying to sue volunteers on the BOE by name. That is weaponization.
In addition to removing the Town from the complaint, the FOIC commission said no to that.
Fred Camillo may be smiling at photo ops and something of a Town Mascot by day, but this legal action speaks to something else.
I hope the BET and RTM can rise to the occasion and have the ability to withhold funding for this lawfare, or open public hearings.
This letter has many more question marks than periods, a hearing might help provide much needed clarity.
By cutting off funding, the BET will be accused of playing politics.
Well, this is an entirely political case now.
The idea that past contracts will be reopened and cut defies reality and the clock.
Court action is unlikely to conclude before the end of the Superintendent’s extended contract.
And from the billing records – there appears to have been a settlement discussion that went nowhere.
Who decided that?
This has cost more than a George Bush Statue, less than a Greenwich Avenue Hotel.
About as much as a few teachers, or policemen, or firemen.
Shame.
Add to that property values that have been aided by the golden goose of our highly desired school system will flatline or worse if we throw signed contracts in the incinerator.
Not the path to becoming a destination employer.
Don’t get too used to headlines like these:
So here we are, Fred researching voiding contracts to get a second bite at the apple.
Anything to cut school funding and diminish education it seems.
Fred Camillo litigates.
You pay more than legal bills.
Brian Raabe