CVSD Responds: Our Actions Were Proper
District school board says it followed the state's Open Meeting Law on June 30 meeting.
The Champlain Valley School District, responding to a lawyer representing Hinesburg residents and Responsible Growth Hinesburg, said it stood by its votes of June 30 and that it would not vacate its decision to accept a gift of an artificial turf field and hold another vote.
The lawyer, James Dumont of Bristol, had written the board on July 31 saying it had violated law when it voted on June 30 to go into executive session to discuss a proposed Gift Agreement with a private group that proposed to finance an artificial field, stands, lights and access. He also said it erred in voting to enter into the agreement.
Not so, says the district.
In a statement released Tuesday, CVSD Board Chair Megan Metzler said the “allegations” were reviewed by the district’s lawyer and were found not to have merit. She outlined why the votes followed the law.
Dumont responded to the response saying that when violations of the state’s Open Meeting Law are alleged, a public board must hold a public meeting to discuss the issue and must give notice of such a meeting and he knew of and saw no notice of any such meeting being held.
Metzler’s statement
Here is CVSD’s statement which was signed by Metzler:
“The CVSD board takes seriously its responsibility to the public and its obligations under Vermont’s Open Meeting Law. After receiving a letter from James Dumont Esq. this weekend, the board promptly reviewed the allegations and its process and consulted with legal counsel.
“Based on that review, the board determined that no violation occurred and that no cure is necessary for the following reasons:
“The board discussed the Gift Agreement in executive session on June 30, 2026, because it involved a contract that remained subject to negotiation. The executive session was therefore proper under 1 V.S.A. § 313(a)(1)(A), and the board properly moved into executive session pursuant to 1 V.S.A. § 313(a)(1). No action was taken in executive session. The final Gift Agreement was subsequently made public after being signed. Accordingly, the board is confident that its process complied with Vermont’s Open Meeting Law.
“The letter also raised concerns regarding a nonbinding term sheet authorized by the superintendent in August 2025. The board did not review, discuss, or take action on that nonbinding preliminary agreement. Such agreements are commonly used to establish a framework for further exploration and negotiation before a proposed contract is brought to the board for consideration.
“Over the following months, the parties engaged in a substantive negotiation process. Because the Gift Agreement remained under negotiation, publicly discussing draft terms could have compromised the negotiating position of either party and created confusion by disclosing provisions that were still subject to change.”
Lawyer responds
Later on Tuesday night, Dumont issued this statement in an email to Supt. Adam Bunting:
“In my experience, the standard procedure when an [Open Meeting Law] violation has been alleged is for a public body to include the claim in its agenda for a noticed meeting, meet in open meeting, make a motion to enter executive session to discuss the claimed OML violation, discuss the claimed OML violation in executive session, and then return to the open meeting to vote on what response to make to the claimed OML violation. This standard procedure conforms to the OML.
“In “emergency” situations, the statute allows modification of the standard notice requirements “provided some public notice thereof is given as soon as possible before any such meeting.”
“I checked your website, and there is no notice of any board meeting that occurred between Friday and this afternoon. Nor is there an agenda or any minutes.
“Pursuant to the OML and the Public Records Act:
1) Please produce copies of the notice of the meeting at which the determination was made, a record of when and where the notice was posted, the audio or video record of the meeting, the agenda for the meeting, and the minutes showing the determination that was made by the Board, including the wording of the determination and the vote on the determination;
2) If there was no notice, no agenda, no minutes, and no audio or video record of the meeting, please produce all emails, letter, texts and all other documents that constitute the determination that the letter refers to, including a record of the vote that was taken by the board in reaching that determination;
3) If there are no documents that constitute the determination, and it there exists no record of the vote that was taken, please state that no such documents exist; and
4) Pursuant to the OML, I request that the Board provide me with written notice of all special meetings of the Board this calendar year.”
