John Flowers’ article in the November 16th edition of the Independent mentioned that I had hired a lawyer to challenge the Addison Central School District’s decision to make its superintendent search confidential. I wanted to take a moment to provide a bit more detail about the grounds for that challenge, and also for my decision to pursue this route, in light of some concerns I have heard from community members about the downsides of contentious approaches to conflict resolution in a small community.

First, the grounds for the challenge. It is true that it is the board’s job, as a group of elected representatives, to choose and hire our next superintendent. There is no dispute about that fact. The question is how open the process is required to be under Vermont law. The default under Vermont statutes is to grant the public access to information, unless there is a specific exemption that allows the information to be withheld. The exemption in question in this instance is one that earmarks “Personal documents relating to an individual, including information in any files maintained to hire, evaluate, promote, or discipline any employee of a public agency.”

On its face, that exemption would seem to apply here pretty squarely. But over time, Vermont courts have looked specifically at the phrase “personal” documents and interpreted it to mean only those documents that “would not normally be shared with strangers.” In other words, not every document in a personnel file is necessarily exempted. The question is whether names and résumés submitted during a hiring search would qualify as personal.

On the one hand, they might. The argument is that people applying for jobs do not necessarily want their employers to know that they are looking for other opportunities. On the other hand, superintendent searches are very often public, so there may be less of an expectation of privacy in that context. That is why it potentially matters that 32 out of the 42 current superintendents who responded to the survey that was the subject of the Nov. 16 article reported being hired through an open public process.

This nuanced question is the reason for seeking judicial interpretation of the law.

That brings me to the question of the impact on our small community of pursuing litigation involving our local institutions. The reality is that it does have a negative impact on the feeling of community cohesiveness. I love community, especially small communities, and it is one of the main reasons I wanted to move to Vermont. I work very hard in Cornwall, through my role with Friends of Cornwall School, to provide opportunities for our youth and their families.

The issue that I personally see at our district level, and others may disagree, is one of transparency. In my view, it is not possible to build a genuine feeling of community without a basis of transparency to build on. Although litigation and public records requests may disrupt cohesiveness in the short run, I am motivated to pursue them in the long run toward the goal of creating a community that first and foremost is open, honest, and welcoming of public engagement.

Once we achieve that goal, my hope is that the need for direct action will subside. In the meantime, it is often the only means available. Records requests are one of the only options the public has to shed light on issues that raise public questions. Denials of those requests can unfortunately only be reviewed through a judicial process, because that is how the process works.

These actions feel confrontational, and in all honesty, they are. But they also drive home the seriousness of transparency as an essential aspect of our public discourse. Hammering home the gravity of that requirement, hopefully, will help shape the culture of our public administration going forward.

Chris Kramer

Cornwall