Board of Education member Robert Harrington writes:
Yesterday evening I received a letter from the school administration’s attorney.
It was very much directed at me. It was a clear warning about my recent actions and comments — including a risk that I might be prosecuted. The letter was marked “Attorney-Client Privilege,” so I can’t go into specific details here.
However, I believe this classification appears to serve more as a shield from public accountability than as a necessary protection of legal confidentiality.
As such, I wrote to the entire Board of Education last night. I respectfully asked that they waive the attorney-client privilege on this letter, and make it available to the public — as it directly concerns me.
I truly hope the Board of Ed will agree to making this letter public.
Robert Harrington
Should this letter not be made public near term, I am also asking that this issue be added to the agenda of the 5th June Board of Ed meeting.
This comes in addition to another letter prior to last Monday’s hearing that was sent by the attorney/“mediator” representing the board. (Different from the attorney for the school administration).
In that letter I was effectively scolded for asking questions to the attorney as “they must come from an officer — not an individual board member.”
It was also suggested there could be a “need to recuse yourself from participating in the hearing.”
Finally, it was made clear to me that by asking some basic questions I might be responsible for “increasing the Board expenses for legal information by approximately seven-fold.”
I will keep asking questions, and highlighting the lack of thoroughness surrounding the investigation.
This legal interference towards an elected representative is outrageous and wrong. It needs to stop immediately.
Our district needs to support all students, and ensure that any form of bullying is not tolerated. At the same time, we also need to ensure we support our valuable and committed coaches.
Is this Westport or 1930s Berlin? Something smells fishy here and it goes far beyond reinstating soccer coaches. Have we gone down a rabbit hole or have we taken our eye off the ball? Let’s remember who we are and what we believe in. Loving lawyers isn’t traditionally our DNA, but if they know their responsibility, they represent the guard rails of our democracy, something that is critical in the current environment. Are these the kind of lawyers we need representing our town? Good question.
File a lawsuit for intimidation and being threatened! The lawyer sounds like an asshole! Make sure he reads my comment too.
Another FUBAR without leadership. 😢
Sounds to me as if Mr Harrington could benefit from better information on what attorney client “privelege” means. It is not the same as a obligation of confidentiality on his part.
Advice I was given – Attorney-Client Privilege belongs to the Whole Board, not the Individual.
Privilege is held by the client, which in this case is the Board of Education as a whole, not any single member. An individual board member does not have the authority to waive that privilege without the consent of the full board (typically through a vote).
I can understand that argument . . . but in 30 years of practice never heard of it before. The problem with a en banc panel is that the various conflicts and/or privileges may conflict and then one might find one client pitted against another. Nope, won’t fly and any attorney worth his/her salt should know how to manipulate it. Do some research on your own.
First, the attorney-client privilege is the client’s privilege; the attorney cannot invoke it to silence one of the clients. In attempting to do so, the lawyer has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. But more about that later. Mr. Harrington, you are free to speak about anything that you deem important (or even not). The alleged potential increased cost that the BoE might incur because you took a principled position contrary to the other members of the BoE is of absolutely no import. Rather, it is a part of the cost of a free democracy. Furthermore, as the client, you have every right to make public whatever the attorney wrote to you. She cannot shield it by attempting to invoke attorney-client privilege, and I strongly suggest that you publish it along with the identity of the lawyer who wrote it. We cannot tolerate this kind of sub rosa assault. Once we learn of that identity, I will pursue disciplinary action against the lawyer in question, who, in my opinion, should not be permitted to practice.
How could this be attorney-client privileged as to the Board? According to Mr. Harrington, the attorney who sent him the letter represents the Administration, not the Board. On the matter of the coaches’ nonrenewals, the Board has its own separate legal counsel. Therefore there is not (or certainly should not be) an attorney-client relationship between the Administration’s lawyer and the Board when it comes to this specific matter.
To be clear: in the matter of the coaches’ nonrenewals, the coaches have their lawyer; the Administration has its own lawyer; and the Board has its own separate lawyer from a different (third) law firm. Whatever letter Mr. Harrington is referencing from the Administration’s lawyer clearly concerns Mr. Harrington’s continued actions regarding the dispute with the coaches. On that matter, Mr. Harrington and the Board are not clients of the Administration’s lawyer. It would be highly improper if the Board was taking legal advice on the coach nonrenewal matter from the same lawyer who represents the Administration.
Sounds like a FOIA request to produce this letter to Mr. Harrington or any other BOE member might be fruitful.
This entire situation raises serious red flags. When an elected representative is threatened with legal action simply for asking questions and demanding transparency, something is deeply wrong. The use of “attorney-client privilege” in this context seems less about confidentiality and more about shielding administrative decisions from public scrutiny which only fuels the appearance of conspiracy or internal corruption.
If the administration has nothing to hide, they should have no problem making this letter public. The fact that legal pressure is being used to silence inquiry and discourage accountability is disturbing. Whether it’s about bullying, staffing, or budget decisions, the community deserves full transparency; not intimidation tactics.
Kudos to Mr. Harrington for standing firm. We need more officials who ask tough questions and fewer who hide behind legalese.
Right on
This stinks
This intimidation is in undemocratic and unacceptable
Where is the leadership including from the first select woman?
It will not end until people are fired
Seems like another attempt by the Superintendent and administration to sweep this issue under the rug. Stay strong, and keep fighting the good fight, Robert.
Thank you for continuing to hold a light on this issue troubling issue, Robert.
The BoE should, at all times, demonstrate integrity, equity, accountability and a commitment to excellence in education. In these fundamental areas, your colleagues have failed.
Our town, Coach Russ, and—most importantly—our students deserve better.
Mr. Harrington: do what Mark Jacobs recommends. Also get your own lawyer; consult Mr. Jacobs for a recommendation. SOMETHING is going on here. And it is not you being a cranky so & so.
Again, I would like to suggest Scrarice, the AD & Mr. Thomas should brush up their resumes and get them out to headhunters ASAP. THIS Board will give you all good recommendations. The next one might not. Because I do not think it is going to get any better for any of you.
Just a “been around the block” former SHS band alto clarinet.
As noted by commentators above: in a confidential relationship between a client and as a prospective representative attorney rest with the CLIENT. The CLIENT may waive the confidentiality at all times, the attorney may not. That said, and reading your article twice: you need to get an attorney now. The entire Staples campus is if full rumors, gossip and all sort of bullshit and I am not sure you fully secure on your legal mindset? The retention of an attorney would mandate the rights of YOU rather than this dog and pony show of gossip surrounding the North Avenue smog these days. IMO, any “Blue Ribbon School” should have a standardized “sports coach” contract which protects the school as well as as maybe a tax payer? No exception, no looking the other way. Plus, a board, of possible another coach, a parent, and perhaps a student could sit in deliberation on Coach Hamiliton and truly bring full jurisdiction. Otherwise? Hire an attorney and sue for breach of contract to not only protect you at this early stage but also mount an aggressive change against the school. GOOD LUCK.
Kudos to Mr Harrington for continuing to speak up. And thanks to Dan for continuing to bring these ongoing theatrics to Westport’s attention. Sadly this meets the 06880DanWoog.com intro- where Westport meets the world!!
Hopefully- Either the Selectmen’s office or the RTM will see fit to appoint a truly impartial commission to reexamine what happened, the evidence presented and not presented, as well as obtaining actual eyewitness accounts from the student athletes.
Maybe Mr. Harrington should be First Selectman.
Jack – appreciate the compliment … but I have full-time day job. Will keep speaking out when and as it’s called for – but I can only commit to part-time role.
Are we in “liberal” Westport or Trump’s Washington?
And, BTW, Robert, as the client, you are the one who decides what and how much to reveal…not your intimidating attorney.
IANAL, but I dont think one can force confidentiality with attorney-client privilege upon the “client”. Its my understanding that attorney-client privilege is a privilege afforded between the attorney and client and its up to the client to maintain it or disregard it. Documents get labeled as such to attempt to keep them from discovery. Did you agree to anything in terms of confidentiality, usually via a confidentiality agreement, that may be court enforceable? If not, I think you are free to share it, but again IANAL. You may have agreed to confidentiality as a part of the governing documents/charter for your role, or by rules established and agreed, but I dont think those are court enforceable and only may be subject to disciplinary action as laid out in the aforementioned. Short version is if someone threatens you, doesnt matter if they are a lawyer, typically you are free to publicize and share their threat if its directed at you. Don’t let yourself be manipulated or strong armed.
“Hire an attorney”, “they can’t do this”, “ignore the threats and release the letter,” “an attorney can’t invoke privilege” “this is a conflict of interest by the attorney”…..all well meaning and possible true, however in the real world plenty of spurious, costly lawsuits are filed with no underlying legal basis. The town has much deeper pockets than Mr. Harrington (although in Westport that may not be the case). My advice? Protect yourself first and always. Even though maybe not required, get the Board to publicly vote on waiving privilege. Their refusal to do so or silencing you, will tell the story. When you shine a light the roaches flee. I applaud you’re intention not to be intimidated. Unfortunately what’s happening to you is the main reason good, honest people who enter civic service with good intentions wind up giving up after running headlong into political agendas. There’s also a reason why most of your fellow board members were so quiet and non-confrontational during this “coaches” travesty….they got the message, whether specifically told or not. I believe the majority of Westport supports your vocal approach to transparency and holding our officials accountable. If the more contentious meetings/hearings were not intentionally held during the day to mitigate opposition I think you’d know that. Keep up the good work and thank you for being a voice of reason.
So let me get this straight, Robert and the Board are not clients of the Administration’s lawyer. It’s improper for the board to take legal advice from the same lawyer who represents the Administration. Robert speaks out, and is threatened with potential lawsuit?
Sounds like another settlement. We can afford this, we can afford Staples “S” Block trophies.
Reinstate Russ, keep the traditions of this community, praise and respect coaches who went to Staples, enough already.
Mr. Harrington thank you for standing up for transparency.
BTW- The only ‘rising’ attorneys fees is the attorney,
which BTW is not your issue or problem, you didn’t hire him.
Robert, after the BOE meeting of Jan 16, where you heard two opposing statements, one from the student whose life was turned upside down, and another person advocating to renew the coach contracts, you said to Westport journal this: “It is very hard as a board member to sit and listen to two different things and then just go away to work tomorrow. I just can’t pretend I didn’t hear what I just heard.”
Now here we are. You have taken sides in this tragedy that not only impacts the coaches, but also the student who is most likely not playing soccer anymore, and his family.
I have zero information on what transpired in that retreat or after the anonymous tip. And you along the board don’t seem to have a lot more information because you didn’t get access to witnesses or the emails. What was also striking is that the investigation took only a few days to complete, and a swift decision was made. I believe the soccer players who think this coach is outstanding. But could there be other explanations to this decision than the ones you are pushing for? There are rules and privacy laws that prohibits the administration from sharing more than they can, and that unfortunately can lead people to speculate and think of the worst. Let’s not jump into wild conclusions because it does not help anyone.
I do have a critical question to the school administration though. How can we prevent this tragedy in the future, and what is going to change? These changes should be discussed openly in the BOE public meeting so that we know it is not just business as usual. Robert, as a BOE member, perhaps you can help push for that?
Of course I will continue to push for that as a BOE member.
You are correct I did say that in Jan. Then at the hearing we were presented with the evidence from both sides. I am compassionate to any student – including this one. However, I can only look a the evidence that was presented.
The person who reported this matter, was also the person that was clear that they would “carry the coach” to the banquet themselves if they had to ensure they attended.
The administration stated during the public session of the non-renewal hearing – there was no physical confrontation or interaction between any coach or player. Coach Russell Oost-Lievense was not even involved into a verbal contraction or interaction with the student. That is what the Executive Session is for – so this type of sensitive and confidential information can be presented. I heard no evidence inside the executive session (apart from the name of the student) that was any different to what we heard in public setting. That was the time to inform us.
How can we prevent this tragedy in the future? Proper training, clearer procedures and policies. Codified into a coaches handbook. Better communication. I believe A change in leadership at the Athletics Department is essential to drive this.
As a volunteer coach, I had to go over hours of training and refreshers over the years. We go over our duty to report incidents, prevent abuse (emotional and physical), and foster a positive culture in the team. One thing that struck strange is the invitation to the banquet. The training is very clear that retaliation is prohibited in case someone reports an incident, even if that report is false. Ostracizing is a form of retaliation. If I were the coach, I would have skipped the banquet until the investigation is complete, especially if there was a chance that the person involved could be in the banquet.
But yes, there needs to be training at all levels, and the AD should be accountable to bring on these changes and to the BOE public meeting. This is crucial especially if this tragedy could have been preventable.
Joe there isn’t even a Coaches handbook! I am proud that the coach went to the banquet. Our Superintendent, AD and Principal didn’t bother. There has been no communication with the team since the end of Jan. That is NO way to run a program.
Sure, we need to have a handbook and training. Lack of such handbook should not be an excuse. And I am still unclear on how on one hand you say that you didn’t hear all the evidence (even in executive session), and on the other hand you are 100% supporting the coach. How did you come to that conclusion without all the information? I certainly don’t know what happened, and as you can see I am asking critical questions. How can I take a side when I have no information, or some one sided version, or some gossips that are floating around?
100% agree Joe – lack of a Coach’s Handbook is not and should not be an excuse – but it is a reality and its wrong and problematic that this District doesn’t yet have one in place. This is NOT about taking a side. You can believe both that the student and Russ were failed by this district. I do. However, at the end of the day – as Board of Education members are job was to make a choice.
I came to a conclusion based on the evidence that I was given. Others clearly came to a different conclusion. I have been critical of the lack of evidence presented. I have also been critical that the School Administration chose not to call any actual witnesses that were physically present themselves for the “incident” (or permit the coaches to do so either).
This is not about choosing a coach over a student. It’s about asking our leadership to do better. The lack of a thorough investigation is simply not defendable – in my view.
I would reiterate my ask to the other Board of Education members: Can they defend the investigation that was carried out by our School Administration?
As to the letter actually quoted, you can’t have every member of a Board reaching out to the Board’s lawyer individually. Surely the “seven-fold” comment is a reference to “if everyone on BOE was reaching out individually that would be seven people” instead of just one BOE. (Imagine the 36-member RTM all individually sending questions to the Town Attorney or the Police Chief or the First Selectperson.) This is less “legal interference” than “sensible protocol.”
Questions to be asked need to be determined in properly noticed BOE meetings. Then, even if members disagree with one another, everyone is on the same page, including the general public, as to the information being sought. If the officers try to quash a request, it is all out in the open.