On Tuesday, during a Board of Selectmen special meeting, the three-person board voted 2-1 in favor of filing a complaint and motion for a temporary restraining order challenging the legality of the Board of Education’s meetings since Oct 21, 2024.
Of course that was the date the BOE convened an emergency meeting where they elected a new Republican member to replace Republican Karen Kowalski who resigned in July.
During that emergency meeting, the BOE voted in Republican Jen Behette in a vote of 4-1, with Dr. Mercanti-Anthony voting no, calling the vote “a railroad.”
Two Republicans were not in attendance at that meeting: Mr. Kittle and Ms Vizzo Walsh.
At a special meeting of the Republican-controlled Board of Selectmen on Oct 23, they voted 2-1 to appoint harbor master Paul Cappiali to the BOE, with Mr. Camillo and Ms Rabin saying the BOE emergency meeting had been illegal.
Since then, both Ms Behette and Mr. Cappiali believe that are the rightful member of the board, though Mr. Cappiali has not been allowed to participate as a panelist at BOE meetings.
The BOE have hired counsel and, the Board of Selectmen retained attorney Ben Bianco to represent the Town against the BOE.
The Selectmen held a special meeting on Oct 30 where they voted 2-1 to pursue a FOIA complaint about the BOE’s alleged “illegal meeting.”
The FOIA Commission has declined to expedite a hearing.
Meanwhile, last week, the BOE voted on officers for the 2024-2025 term with Democrat Karen Hirsh voted in as chair, Ms Behette voted in as vice chair and Laura Kostin voted in as secretary.
During that meeting Mr. Cappiali shared Wendy Vizzo Walsh’s screen as he was not provided a link to be a panelist.
Though he was asked to log in separately as an attendee rather than a panelist, he attempted to vote for Dr. Mercanti-Anthony but was not recognized as BOE member.
On Monday, an e-blast from Greenwich Patriots referred to the BOE vote on Oct 21 as “a coup,” and the Nov 21 officer elections as suspect because “Democrats essentially installed an ‘imposter.'”
The e-blast featured an altered image of actor Samuel L Jackson next to a sign that says Greenwich Board of Education.
In the image Jackson is holding up a card that says, “This is to certify that Paul Cappiali has been sworn in as a member of the Board of Education,” from Oct 22, 204 to Nov 18, 2025.
The card is signed by Town Clerk Jackie Budkins. The image has a headline, “What’s in your wallet?”
Asked in an email whether the “card” itself was real, town clerk Ms Budkins said, indeed the card (or likeness of it) is real.
That said, not all BOE members have “cards” saying they are certified members.
Zoom screenshot of First Selectman Fred Camillo at the Nov 26, 2024 special meeting of the board of Selectmen.
At the Nov 26 special Selectmen meeting, Mr. Camillo said that while time was of the essence with the budget season coming, the FOIA commission had said twice they could not get to the complaint for a few months.
“That’s a problem. Due to the fact that the Democrats on the BOE have ignored their own bylaws, they have ignored state law, we have no other choice than to ask our counsel here seek injunctive relief,” Camillo said.
“As I mentioned since back in summer, I could care less who the chair is. It doesn’t effect my life or my job one iota, but I do care about the process…” Camillo said.
“We are the Board of Ed, not the Board of Fred.” – Board of Education chair, Karen Hirsh
Democratic Selectperson Janet Stone McGuigan asked Mr. Bianco about the intention of a proposed restraining order.
“What that means is we would ask a court to enjoin certain members of the board from taking certain conduct – i.e. seating members that are not proper members, from not seating members that are proper members – in order to put the board back where it should be in the town’s opinion with respect to the conduct that took place on Oct 21 and further after that, where there were no quorums based on certain members not being members yet forming quorum,” Bianco said.
“This is the mother of all power grabs – and for no reason. It’s embarrassing and it’s not going to stand.” – First Selectmen Fred Camillo
Ms Stone McGuigan, reading from notes, said she had more than once requested a legal opinion that would establish whether the Selectmen had legal standing to take action against the Greenwich BOE, but had yet to receive one.
“Without a sound legal basis, I will not support any legal action against our BOE. It is not in the interest of Greenwich Public Schools or our taxpayers to engage in an expensive, protracted legal battle solely for the purpose of installing your preferred BOE candidate,” Stone McGuigan said.
“This legal action is unnecessary. A complaint has already been filed with the FOIA commission. Now that the Board of Selectmen has embarked on this path, we need to let that process play out or dismiss the complaint,” she said.
“If this board takes the legal action it has proposed, it would be unprecedented. No process should be used by one board to intimidate another,” Stone McGuigan added.
Mr. Camillo quipped, “Thank you for the scripted response.”
Camillo placed the blame at the BOE.
“We did not start this. We were not the ones who had a lawyer threaten the town. We were not the ones who hired a lawyer to sue the town with our own taxpayer dollars. We were not the one who ignored their own bylaws which clearly state that the town clerk has to swear in a member of the BOE, or designate someone to swear them in.”
“We were not the ones who ignored state law about the 24-hour posting notice and claimed there was an emergency when there wasn’t,” he added.
“They had plenty of other choices. The one objectionable person they found is the one they put in there,” he said, referring to Ms Behette.
“And for what, Janet? For a tie break?” Camillo asked. “The chair doesn’t even have a tie-breaking vote. They picked a fight and we’re not going to ignore state law.”
“I could have acted on day 31,” Camillo continued. “Ninety-four days later, it’s very clear I did not want to get involved, but for political purposes to circle the wagons, just because your party is telling you what to say…”
“Wait, wait, wait,” Stone Mcguigan said.
“No. You are the one reading off a script. I know the law. I don’t have to do that because I know what the law is. It’s in my mind,” Camillo said. “You’re the one who always talks about process, and you’re completely ignoring it.”
“I am still as focused on process as I’ve ever been, and your words about my script are unnecessary and unfair because you know, you’ve seen me at every meeting, I always read from a script. These are my own words. No one puts words in my mouth.”
Camillo said the BOE did not get permission from the Republicans on their board to hire a lawyer.
Further, he said the elected Republicans on the BOE had received more votes in the last municipal election than the Democrats.
“This is the mother of all power grabs – and for no reason,” Camillo said. “It’s embarrassing and it’s not going to stand.”
Screenshot of Janet Stone McGuigan at the Nov 26, 2024 special meeting of the Board of Selectmen. Nov 26, 2024
Screenshot of Lauren Rabin at the Nov 26, 2024 special meeting of the Board of Selectmen. Nov 26, 2024
Mr. Bianco outlined the process going forward, saying they would ask the court, “In aid of that complaint to rectify and restrain certain board members from acting outside the law and their own bylaws, and seating members that aren’t members because they have to be sworn in and weren’t, and seating members that were not sworn in.”
He said it was doubtful that the FOIA commission would determine the Oct 21 BOE meeting was an “emergency,” and therefore not a legal meeting.
And to avoid having to unwind months of worth of votes, including critical votes, he said, “We would ask the court to follow the clear law and issue restraints against certain conduct in order to put the board back in order.”
Ms Rabin asked if the BOE would revert back to the time when neither Ms Behette, nor Ms Behette was seated.
“Putting Back Status Quo”
Bianco said the easiest way to obtain a restraining order was to put the board back to what lawyers call “a status quo,” which would have been where the board was before was the alleged illegal conduct started.
“At that point it would be to not permit Ms Behette from participating, but also not to permit Mr. Cappiali from participating, which would put ut basically back wehre we were,” he said.
“At that point, we may even go back to the FOIA commission and ask them for a binary ruling that absolutely shouldn’t take more than 10 minutes, because it’s purely a legal ruling by the FOIA Commission, was there was an emergency,” he said. “And we will ask to say, the board has been put back, and it really does need an eighth member and an eighth member was properly appointed by Fred.”
“And we would probably go back and ask the FOIA commision to rule, and if they didn’t we may go back and say we really need the court to rule because the FOIA commission is not acting,” he added. “That’s why I say the process is still a bit up in the air.”
Ms Rabin, who formerly served on the BOE herself, said unlike the BET where the chair has a tie breaking ability, the BOE chair does not have a tie breaking vote.
She said most BOE votes were not 4-4, but typically reflect a majority of the board.
Mr. Bianco, whose wife was the previous BOE chair before their family moved out of town, said he followed the BOE, and with “politically charged close votes, espcially when it comes to budgetary issues, should be done by actual board members.”
He said in those cases it would be particularly important that the votes include properly seated board members.
Ms Stone McGuigan said it was confusing to open up a second process, and that a judge might say to wait for the FOIA commission make its ruling before legal action was taken.
“That is possible,” Bianco said.
However, Bianco said a temporary restraining order would be “in aid of the commission’s action.”
“If the commission doesn’t rule for several months, and a lot of things can be done that are going to be very difficult if not impossible to unwind, so that the relief sought – essentially irreparable harm – the harm cannot be repaired reasonably or rationally because too many things would have to be unwound. So that is a possibility.”
“But there is a lot of precedent to support something in aid of a commission or an arbitral decision.”
He said when he listened to the audio of the FOIA commission that at least one commissioner, “recognized that unwinding these things and deciding the appropriate board member was not in the commission’s purview.”
The Selectmen voted 2-1 in favor of seeking injunctive relief in court.
Voting yes were Mr. Camillo and Ms Rabin.
Ms Stone McGuigan voted no.
Following the meeting BOE chair Karen Hirsh issued a statement.
“At the Board of Selectmen’s meeting tonight, the First Selectman made unfounded accusations regarding Board of Education actions in following proper procedure and precedent,” Hirsh wrote.
“We are the Board of Ed, not the Board of Fred, and were elected to work for the children, parents, and residents of this school district, not the First Selectman,” Hirsh continued.
“We remind the public that this conflict began when Fred Camillo attempted to undermine the Board of Education’s authority to fill a vacancy.”
Hirsh said the BOE followed an intentional and transparent process to fill that vacancy.
“Fred Camillo chose to intervene, even though the BOE already had a date scheduled to take action, ignoring the BOS process for filling vacancies, with a power grab intended to seat an ally,” Hirsh continued.
“When his first effort failed, First Selectman Camillo hired outside counsel and filed a complaint in Hartford. Instead of waiting for a ruling from the FOI Commission, he has decided to take further legal action, forcing the taxpayers in Greenwich to continue to fund a petty, partisan grievance. First Selectman Camillo picked this fight, and tonight’s escalation diverts even more time and money away from our mission of educating our students. The people of Greenwich deserve better from their First Selectman.”
After the meeting Democratic Selectperson Stone McGuigan also issued a statement:
“I am deeply disappointed that my fellow Selectmen, for the purpose of appointing their preferred candidate to the Board of Education, have voted to take legal action against that State body,” she said.
“Not only is the expense unfair to our taxpayers, the action is disruptive to the work of educating our students, and creates an environment of confusion and distrust. Our children are watching us and the words we choose matter. We need to be the role models they deserve.”