Special Report: School Board OK’s Open Choice 4-1, with High Profile Support and More Political Discord

Wilton’s participation in the Open Choice program was on Thursday evening’s (April 6) Board of Education meeting agenda, drawing significant public engagement, with almost 200 emails to the BOE, public comments at the meeting, and resident Letters to the Editor and Op-Eds from public officials in GOOD Morning Wilton.

The meeting also triggered tremors and aftershocks of rancor rumbling along Wilton’s political fault lines during the meeting.

The Board’s 4-1 vote to adopt and implement the program in the 2023-24 school year fell along party lines. Board Chair Ruth DeLuca, Nicola Davies, Pam Ely, and Laura Schwemm, all Democrats, voted in favor; Jennifer Lalor, was the lone vote in opposition as her fellow Republican, Mandi Schmauch did not attend the meeting.

But more noteworthy than Wilton opting to participate in Open Choice was the evident tension and discord between board members as well as accusations and angry remarks from some members of the public. The recriminations exposed the ugly conflict between the town’s two political parties, the Democratic (DTC) and the Republican Town Committees (RTC).

Background Leading Up to Approval

Project Open Choice is a CT State Department of Education inter-district program that enables students in one district to attend public schools in a neighboring one. The program aims to improve academic achievement and reduce racial, ethnic, and economic isolation by allowing students in designated communities to attend higher-performing schools in neighboring towns. Students in receiving districts can also attend schools in the sending district.

The program has existed for decades, with almost 50 CT Towns taking part, but it was only offered to Norwalk students last year. Several dozen Norwalk students now attend Westport and Weston schools through Open Choice, and earlier this year, Wilton’s Superintendent Kevin Smith proposed that Wilton participate starting with the 2023-24 school year.

Smith’s memo to BOE members dated Feb. 15 gave program details: Wilton would receive $3,000 per student received, plus additional Educational Cost Sharing funds; transportation would be provided to the students at no cost; and if any students require special education services the sending district would pay “the difference between the reasonable cost of special education and the [$3,000] Open Choice grant amount.”

Based on 2023-24 enrollment predictions, he suggested adding five Open Choice students — three kindergarteners and two first graders — which would have no impact on class size averages or incur additional costs. In fact, he called the actual costs “marginal.”

He pointed to historical precedent: In 1970, Wilton and its neighboring towns began participating in Project Concern, an earlier version of Open Choice. Wilton schools welcomed 25 children from Bridgeport, doubling that number in 1971. Wilton covered educational costs and Bridgeport paid for transportation, and the program ran successfully for several years until Bridgeport ended it, citing growing transportation costs and long commute times for students on school buses. Wilton later became an ABC (A Better Chance) host community and continues today.

During their Thursday, March 2 meeting, BOE members discussed Open Choice and individually sent questions about the program to Smith, who compiled them with answers in one document dated March 6.

Board members had a lengthy Open Choice discussion again at the Thursday, March 16 meeting, this time hearing from Dr. Chip Dumais, the director of Cooperative Education Services (CES) which serves as Wilton’s Regional Education Service Center (RESC) and would administer Wilton’s participation in Open Choice.

As is typical after two open board discussions on any matter, a “discuss and approve” item was scheduled: Open Choice was set to be discussed and voted on at the Thursday, April 6 meeting.

Public Opinion Split, and Incorrect Data Spread

In the month after Smith first proposed that Wilton consider Open Choice, public feedback was brisk. Public comments were plentiful at each meeting; GMW received six letters; and First Selectwoman Lynne Vanderslice wrote an op-ed in strong support of Wilton’s participation in the program — a very unusual move for the town’s top official to advocate for a decision being made by another board.

Board Chair DeLuca reported that between March 2 (the first Open Choice discussion) and April 6 at 7 p.m. (the start of the meeting when discussion and approval occurred), the board received 194 emails regarding Open Choice: 109 of those emails were in opposition, 77 expressed support, and eight said the BOE needed more information before making a decision.

Officials said several letters and emails contained incorrect information that had spread through the community, including:

• The belief Open Choice would add exorbitant costs. Using Wilton’s calculated average cost-per-student (approximately $23,000) as the actual cost for each Open Choice student, they thought a possible $100,000-plus annual cost could balloon to well over $1.3 million per year with Open Choice students enrolled in every grade.
• A claim that Westport had a $1.3 million budget line item to pay for Open Choice.
• The notion that adding students would require more teachers and other extra costs — when a tough budget year already meant cutting $1.4 million from the district’s budget proposal.
• Concern that children of Wilton residents would get less attention from teachers as a result of adding Norwalk students.
• Concern that Wilton would be responsible for covering the cost of providing any special education services for Open Choice students, including for students with 504 accommodations.
• A belief that the program would be open to all Norwalk students rather than through a weighted lottery — and that wealthier non-minority families would take advantage and apply for Open Choice.
• A concern that Norwalk might balk at paying any excess costs incurred (e.g. special education, transportation). This concern stemmed from a disagreement between Woodbridge and New Haven over Open Choice costs between the two municipalities.

Smith, Vanderslice, and others made a concerted effort to correct the misinformation that had spread.

In his opening statement of “unequivocal” support Thursday night, Smith refuted those and other incorrect assumptions about Open Choice. He said class size would remain the same and within average range. He directly addressed the economics of per-pupil vs. actual incremental cost.

“If the program was actually going to add $23,000 per participant per year to our budget, given the conversation we’ve just had, and for those of you who know the way that I work, it’s not a program I would ever support. … The incremental cost of adding five open choice students is not five times our per pupil expenditure,” he said, adding, “[Enrollment] fluctuations do not result in a straight line increase or decrease in per pupil expenditure multiplied by whatever it is. It just doesn’t work that way.”

He continued: “With the proposed addition of five students spread across two grade levels, we’re not adding new staff. Because the class average is already in our typical range, we possess the furniture and the materials already. And just to complete the point, the per pupil expenditure average includes all expenses across the district, including, for example, transportation, special education outplacement, and utilities. All are included in that [per-pupil expense], but none of them would be impacted by adding an open choice student.”

Smith also reported speaking with Westport’s superintendent who he said confirmed “they don’t have a line item of a million dollars or anything to support Open Choice students.”

Later in the meeting, Assistant Superintendent Andrea Leonardi — who previously worked in Fairfield, which participates in Open Choice — answered questions about special education needs and costs and reimbursements from a sending district.

“We did not see a higher percentage of students in Open Choice being identified as students with special needs than among the typical population. …it wasn’t anything outside of the realm of typical that we would typically see proportionally for Special Education. And we had no issues with billing back the services, we received the funding, it was not an issue,” she said.

Both administrators also provided more clarity around what constituted reasonable special education costs for which they would likely bill Norwalk.

“Any costs above basic special education services … if a student’s PPT [Planning and Placement Team Process] recommended additional service — so speech and language, OT [occupational therapy], PT [physical therapy], paraprofessional services, counseling, ESY [extended school year], or pullout direct instruction — those costs would be tabulated and billed to the sending district,” Smith explained

Leonardi later added that there would be no additional costs incurred by students with 504 plans: “There’s no cost to charge [because] there’s no services directed under a 504 plan. It’s typically reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities,” she said.

Leonardi also shared more about her experience heading up special education in Fairfield and any crossover with Open Choice students, and whether the sending district (Bridgeport) ever balked at paying to cover services.

“Well in my experience in Fairfield, over 20 years, I think I had one time when the supervisor in Bridgeport questioned the nature of the IEP [individualized education plan] and then it was a phone call and a conversation and once we explained what the need was, it was a non-issue,” she said.

Smith echoed her reassurance, noting that he has a good working relationship with the superintendent of the Norwalk schools. “We have a relationship with this district. We have other agreements and so I just … don’t foresee an issue.”

He also said that while students accepted in kindergarten or first grade would continue attending Wilton schools until graduation from high school, Wilton could reassess annually whether or not to receive new students that year.

Public Comment from Residents and — Notably — Town Officials

Several public officials spoke during the meeting’s public comment section in support of Open Choice. Again Vanderslice advocated for the program, reiterating points she made in her earlier op-ed in GMW. She mentioned by name current residents who she said benefitted from their Project Concern or A Better Chance of Wilton (ABC) connections when they were students in Wilton years before, and told of her own close friendships made as a Project Concern benefactor and a longtime ABC volunteer/board member.

Vanderslice also provided factual data to counter inaccuracies that had circulated through the community, noting that there was capacity in the budget for five new students at Miller-Driscoll, and that “direct incremental costs are minimal.”

“Any good accountant will tell you the incremental cost of one student is not equal to the average cost per student,” she said.

She also identified herself and her husband as one of several families who have pledged financial support toward helping Open Choice students’ families afford extra costs, including activity fees, athletic equipment, musical instruments, and more.

“There’s an outstanding Board of Education and community commitment equivalent to two and a half students for 13 years that is currently unfilled. I believe this community still stands by that original commitment through Open Choice to have the opportunity to continue Wilton’s proud and generous legacy at minimal cost to the taxpayers,” she said.

Board of Finance member Chris Stroup spoke next and said he and his wife Catherine had also already agreed to contribute toward private funding in support of Open Choice. “I’m quite confident that private funding can be secured,” he said, adding, “The decision seems straightforward to me. We can do good for the less fortunate at no cost and we should.”

State Rep. Keith Denning, who had also written an op-ed in support of Open Choice, read a letter from Elbert Ruff, a former Project Concern student who graduated in 1983. Ruff wrote of friends he still keeps in touch with from Wilton, and how he said he benefitted greatly from the opportunity.

“‘I graduated with a 3.2 GPA, was accepted to Babson College (early admission) and went on to work at several Fortune 500 companies. This environment and the ability to develop new, long-lasting friendships, I feel less discrimination and I’m more comfortable in predominantly white surroundings. I am who I am today because someone stood up and decided to take a chance to help an inner-city young boy who wanted to learn. If you’re looking for the success story, you can say I’m a living testament to the positive outcomes of Project Concern,'” Ruff wrote.

State Sen. Ceci Maher also spoke in support of Open Choice, and said Wilton would be giving the “gift of education” to students who were motivated to make the most of the experience.

“Students who will be coming to us are self-selecting into a program. … Think about that type of child who’s willing to come into our classrooms and be bused or driven by their parents and take on what it’s like to come into a predominantly white environment and thrive,” Maher said, adding, “They will be nothing but a benefit to our school for our children, for our students, and for their families.”

One Wilton official who spoke in opposition to the program was Selectwoman Kim Healy, who also serves on a statewide reading program. She questioned whether the few success stories that come out of the program were “enough,” given that the majority of children in urban schools are not able to participate.

“What do we tell the children that have applied to be participants in the program that don’t get accepted? They know that their schools are failing them. What are they going to believe is their chance for success if they must stay when their friends leave them behind?”

She added, “Everyone who supports this program right now, I hope you do not believe that you’re done with your work here because that is not the case.”

Several residents spoke up in support, including Stephen Hudspeth, who spoke on behalf of the Wilton Interfaith Action Committee (WiACT) board to pledge assistance from the organization for logistical help — for example, providing transportation for after-school activities for Open Choice students — as it has done with a Syrian refugee family it sponsored and cystic fibrosis patients who come to the area for medical treatment.

Resident Jennifer Wulff spoke to suggest that a program like Open Choice would provide a benefit to children who live in Wilton.

“Our kids are in a school with 1% Black kids and it’s not right. … Having kids in our district from a very early age would make an enormous difference in not only their lives but our kids’ lives as well. Four-year universities, their Black populations are around 13%. So our kids are coming from here, going there, and they’re suddenly seeing this whole world that we could have given them much earlier just a smidgen.”

Five more residents made public comments in support of the program, and two residents commented in opposition, one of whom was Noah Littin. He said that despite school officials’ assurances that there would be no added costs from the Open Choice program, it would still take resources away from Wilton students and that the BOE should investigate more before participating.

“Property taxes are meant to be used in Wilton, not to subsidize the residents of other towns, no matter how good the cause and no matter how much our hearts want it. It’s sometimes hard to do the right thing that is fiscally responsible. Sometimes it’s hard to fight the urge to spend other people’s money,” he said.

Diversity Discussion

Each of the board members present asked questions and gave their thoughts and comments.

The first to speak was Vice Chair Jennifer Lalor. She had several questions to get more clarity around special education costs the district might incur — including how confident administrators were that Norwalk would cover the cost of whatever services Wilton thought reasonable and necessary.

“They have no choice. They’re not part of the PPT that makes those decisions. Okay. That student becomes our student, our PPT, we make the decisions about what they need in collaboration with their parents. And we just bill back. We don’t invite Norwalk to the meeting. They don’t weigh in. That’s not part of the process. We just send them the bill. That’s it,” Leonardi said.

Lalor said she represented people who had concerns after reading recent news stories about the conflict between Woodbridge and New Haven school districts over costs for Open Choice students. Smith tried to reassure her that situation would be highly unlikely in Wilton. She reserved her full remarks for after the other members commented.

Board Chair Ruth DeLuca read an email that had been sent in by board member Mandi Schmauch, who was absent from the meeting. Schmauch wrote that she had concerns about knowing who would pay for special education costs as well. She also said there was no specific plan in place for transportation for Open Choice students who remain in Wilton for after-school activities.

“As of today, we cannot guarantee or even offer an estimate of cost to Wilton taxpayers for this program for next year or beyond. And this is fiscally irresponsible, especially in a year when we cannot even get our own current BOE budget with solely Wilton students through the BOF,” Schmauch wrote.

She also wrote that the district had no plan with specifics on who would participate, how all costs would be covered, and “no legal documentation with Norwalk that clearly outlines who is paying for what.”

Pam Ely said that Open Choice would “elevate Wilton as a community.”

“There are roughly 47 school districts in the state that do Open Choice. And I think we should be one of them. It speaks to the values of the Portrait of the Graduate. It speaks to the values of this town and who we are as people,” she said, adding, “I think we start as a community to become more open to what Open Choice will give us. It’s an opportunity — an educational opportunity, cultural opportunity, a social opportunity for all of us. We will benefit and we will be the better for it.”

Nicola Davies said she believed much of the opposition came from “misinformation” that had spread, and the fact that almost 50 districts participate in Open Choice shows it can be successful.

“I hope that today Dr. Smith’s clear explanation of the costs will be accepted at face value by those members of our community who’ve previously expressed doubt. Open Choice is a success today in 50 districts across Connecticut because it confers benefits on both sending and receiving districts. If it cost a fortune as some of asserted, it would not still be a viable concern 20 years after its inception. If Weston, a town very much like our own can run this program successfully, so can we. If we have capacity (and we’ve heard tonight that we do), we should move forward with courage and firm belief that this is the right thing to do for our students and the students from Norwalk,” Davies said, adding that the program “aligns with the values of our town, our schools” and the intent of the Portrait of a Graduate.

Laura Schwemm expressed her support by referencing values. “When I sat down a month or so ago to write out why I supported Wilton’s participation in Open Choice, my first thought was because it’s the right thing to do, and I didn’t get any further than that.” She also said that as students growing up in Wilton, both she and her husband favorably recalled having classmates who attended Wilton schools as part of Project Concern.

DeLuca explained her support. “The program would not be successful if the costs were as high as some speculate. The program has been running successfully, both physically and academically for more than 20 years. And in almost 50 districts across Connecticut. The costs are zero to minimal. The experience of Weston and Westport bear this out. This is not regionalization. There is no mandate. There is no loss of control.”

Lalor then spoke at length, intermingling her concerns about the Open Choice program with larger issues she had with the Board itself and the operations and interactions between members. Some of her remarks touched on the broader political dispute overshadowing the question of adopting Open Choice [see next section].

Lalor said she believed people were not opposed to welcoming students from another town or increasing diversity, but rather questioned the financial aspects of the program. She said the information had not been communicated clearly.

“People find out about it after the fact. People find out about it at the very last minute and then they feel like they don’t know what’s truly going on. And then people are all over the place with their facts. And then people get angry,” she said.

She was apprehensive about how prepared the district really is to accept these students from outside Wilton and make them feel truly part of the school community, asking, “What are we doing about the children when they come here and helping them truly integrate?”

“I would like for people to truly think about these kids who we are asking to come here. Some of them will be on a bus up to 45 minutes. They’ll be brought to our schools. They will have school here and they will go home on a bus for 45 minutes. There is no plan in place to support them afterward, at least not one that I’ve heard of,” she said, adding that other districts that have been part of Open Choice have struggled with this factor.

She brought up important social-emotional questions that she felt hadn’t been considered.

“I don’t want to have somebody come here and feel like they truly don’t fit. It’s hard when you don’t come to any social event, when you don’t come to sporting events, when you don’t participate in after-school activities because suddenly you are a person that — people keep calling Wilton ‘the bubble’ — that you were invited into this bubble and now you’re like a pet that we are all kind of looking at because you’re different than us,” she said, adding that she wished the district would have a plan to address those questions before voting.

She questioned the ethics around what she called “cherry-picking” students to participate based just on race.

“Wilton is not going to see diversity in somebody who is a white child who just doesn’t have the same social economics that we do, which means now we are actually selecting a Black person or a Hispanic person or whatnot. That, in and of itself, is racist. I don’t understand why nobody else agrees with that,” she said.

Smith defended the way Open Choice selects students to participate.

“The state has established a goal about reducing economic, racial, and ethnic isolation. It’s a broad goal. … The purpose was to take a step to reduce those barriers. We’re proposing to create an opportunity for a few kids. So it’s a small effort, but it’s an important effort both materially and symbolically. … The weighted lottery absolutely is intended to address those goals, and so there is a profile of a student that this is intended to benefit. That’s a profile that’s different from most of the kids — certainly not all here — but many of the kids in our town,” Smith said, adding that his “own personal belief that greater diversity is good for everybody.”

Smith addressed Lalor’s comments about being better prepared with a plan to best integrate the students. He said that while some private citizens had offered financial and other support, the details can’t be fully worked out until the participants are identified.

“Until we know who the families are, who the kids are, what the kids’ interests are, I that’s all going to develop,” Smith said. “We could probably make things happen for the kids, but until we know who they are and what their circumstances are, I don’t know the answer.”

When Lalor asked Smith to personally promise to “do everything you possibly can to make these kids truly feel like they belong,” he said, “I promise.” Lalor added, ” … even if you’re going to pick them up yourself and bring them.”

Lalor came back to the issue of diversity, referring to a 2020 open letter and petition signed by more than 600 Wilton High School students and alumni calling for changes in how race is taught, discussed and represented in Wilton schools. She said it was signed by a “small group of people that have said we have not made them feel comfortable outside of their Wilton bubble and that they weren’t exposed to diversity enough and whatnot.”

“We all made a choice to move here. We also have a choice to leave. And you also have a choice to take your kid to any other program and expose them to diversity. So on some level, this isn’t a school responsibility. … I wish people in this town also would recognize the fact that there’s [only] so much a parent can do to help their child not feel like they are part of an affluent, primarily white town,” she said, adding, “Let’s not forget about the 25% of our school population who’s not white. That’s not fair to all of them who are here and who have organically made our town more diverse.”

Political Discord Outside Spills Over at the Board Table

Politics became unavoidable in the Open Choice discussion as both the Wilton Republican Town Committee (RTC) and the Wilton Democratic Town Committee (DTC) inserted themselves into the debate.

The RTC website added an individual Open Choice webpage titled “Ode to Open Choice” under the “Stay Informed” heading. There, the RTC used poetic rhyme to make its case against adopting the program in Wilton. It included several of the points that Smith, Vanderslice and others said were incorrect. The RTC organized a letter-writing campaign urging residents to email the BOE in opposition of Open Choice.

The DTC also urged its members to write letters and send emails to the BOE, but in support of the program. On the day before the BOE vote, DTC officials blasted out an email accusing “‘cultural war’ Republicans” of using “specious arguments about cost that really are about fear and resentment of minorities, and of any program that seeks to bridge income and cultural gaps.”

The RTC and others swiftly condemned the email, calling the DTC message “ugly, personal attacks” that were “false and defamatory” and also “orchestrated to discourage people from getting involved.” An RTC statement on its Facebook page singled out BOE chair Ruth DeLuca and member Nicola Davies, who are also members of the DTC. Republican Selectwoman Kim Healy emailed both the BOE and the BOS to say she felt personally maligned and that she was being labeled ‘racist’, and later addressed the BOE remarking that no member even acknowledged her complaint or apologized despite the fact that she was a constituent.

The next day, the DTC apologized, saying its assertion “went too far,” and specifically noting that the Democratic Board of Education members “had nothing to do with that messaging.”

The political discord was clearly evident during the April 6 BOE meeting.

First, DeLuca referred obliquely to the events at the start of the meeting. “This table is about our kids and our community, and while all six of us may not all always agree, it is not about politics. Sometimes our discussions and decisions turn political outside of this table. With politics can come frustration and hurt feelings. I’ve certainly experienced that and I’m sorry if others around the table or in this room have as well.” 

Both Lalor and Schmauch referred to it in their comments.

In her appeal for the board to hold off on adopting Open Choice, Schmauch wrote: “Please let us use our brains and not our politics to move forward with open choice, the smart way for Wilton Kids, Norwalk’s kids and our community.”

Lalor referred to opinions on “the other side” several times in her comments. Before things got heated, she said, “People look at this as being a win and a win, but people don’t look at the other side of it sometimes. And I don’t think that that’s fair.”

If the line separating them wasn’t apparent then, it became crystal clear when it was Lalor’s turn to give her thoughts following the other four members.

She suggested that the other four had coordinated their efforts and that her opinion was discounted, and she said that happens often to both her and Schmauch.

“I’m sure you guys have had conversations…nobody’s ever asked me my opinion of this. … This is just like something that’s, we’re like on a wheel, it happens every time. This just never ends,” she said, later adding, “I’m always ignored… Mandy writes emails. They’re ignored. I mean, at some point we’re all here. We all got elected to this position and it would be nice to feel like we’re truly a part of it.”

She spoke directly to DeLuca about the chair’s comments early in the meeting. “Ruth, I appreciate the gesture at the beginning of this meeting, but I really would’ve expected as chair of the Board of Education and also a member of the DTC that you would’ve said maybe something specifically to me or spoken to me separately.”

Lalor called it “ironic” that Open Choice is about increasing diversity in Wilton schools, but that didn’t seem to apply to differing opinions, and she said it’s an issue for students as well.

“Whether anyone here wants to acknowledge this, students in the high school who wish to agree with a Republican value or position or raise certain questions or concerns often feel coerced into silence and compliance. We have always believed them, but following yesterday’s comments, I had zero doubt. Nor should any of you,” Jennifer Lalor said.

Her remarks were echoed during the public comment period at the end of the meeting by Bill Lalor — who identified himself as “a parent, I’m a taxpayer, I’m a husband of a member of the board. I’m a person who opposed Open Choice. I’m one of the people that was maligned by that [DTC] statement.”

Bill Lalor, also a former RTC chair, called the DTC email “appalling,” and directed his comments directly at DeLuca and Davies as members of the DTC.

“One would think the decent thing to do, if Ruth and Nikola, you distance yourself and you disavowed those statements, would be to personally take responsibility for being on the DTC, having made those statements and walk them back. I think a lot of people out here would like to hear you say, Ruth, especially as chair of this Board of Education, that you don’t agree with those statements and you don’t subscribe to such malignments of people who disagree with you politically.”

As he continued to speak, he raised his voice and pounded on the podium at one point to emphasize his thoughts.

“There are … hundreds of people out there in Wilton who will not speak up because they’re afraid to do so. They are afraid to speak up because they know that if they step in, not just speaking up on issues, but if they step in, they get involved, they volunteer, they put their name into the fray, they’re going to be maligned. That is wrong. And what you guys have done and your silence and complicity in this and not speaking up, you’ve had three hours, you’ve done nothing and you’ve made the situation worse. We deserve better,” he said.

The final complaint came from Mandi Schmauch, who was not present at the meeting because she said she was traveling to be with family for the Easter weekend.

Schmauch wrote that, with her absence, she was upset that the board would be discussing and voting on a “decision that impacts decades of future students and taxpayers” without the total board present.

Schmauch wrote that she had asked that the meeting date be changed so she could attend and was ignored. Jennifer Lalor supported Schmauch, questioning why the Board would hold a discussion and a vote on something “of this magnitude” when the entire board wasn’t present.

Schwemm pointed out that the BOE has been meeting on the first and third Thursdays of every month for several years, and that the meeting schedule had been set for a long time. DeLuca said that alternative dates had been offered to Schmauch and “consistently rejected,” and that the Board could not meet on the date Schmauch suggested — Wednesday, April 5 — because it was a religious holiday [Passover].

However, the board had established a precedent this year for holding a vote or discussion of “magnitude” without all members present.

• on March 27, 2023, at the Public Hearing on the BOE budget, all BOE members except Schmauch were present
• On Feb. 16, 2023, at the regular BOE meeting, BOE members took a vote on whether or not to approve the superintendent’s proposed budget for FY-2024. It was approved 5-0; Schmauch was absent and did not vote.

Schmauch was present at the first meeting when Open Choice was discussed, on March 2, 2023; she was absent from the March 16, 2023 regular meeting when the board discussed Open Choice and welcomed Dr. Chip Dumais, the director of Cooperative Education Services (CES), to explain the program and answer questions.

Following the April 6 BOE meeting, GMW reached out to Schmauch to ask about her response to the discussion at the meeting as it pertained to her absence, as well as about her prior absences. She emailed the following statement:

“As a full time employee and mom to two teenagers and one of only two of us who work full time on the BOE I work tirelessly to achieve a balance. I think it is important for our volunteer boards to have a diverse group of community members on our boards and I love representing the working moms out there on the BOE.

“As I stated in my letter, on March 16, prior to my knowledge of the Open Choice vote, I requested we move last night’s meeting to Wednesday, April 5 due to the Holiday. Once a possible vote was scheduled, I requested again, twice, that we not vote on April 6 due to the holiday out of respect for community members celebrating Passover, Ramadan and Easter. I never received a response to those requests and there was never a discussion about alternative dates (post my March 16 email of me requesting April 5).

“Regarding my absences. Last night during the meeting I was on a plane for 5 hours. I was on a plane headed out of state on Feb 16. I was out of state at a work event March 27-28 and during the March 27 evening meeting was at a client event, March 16 I was dealing with a family illness.  For each meeting that I miss, due to other obligations, I watch the entirety of the meeting (when a recording is available).

“Regarding upcoming meetings, I will continue to prioritize all my obligations as needed — family, work and volunteer commitments; as so many of our amazing community members do every day.”