Stonington — The Board of Education considered censuring board member Alisa Morrison this summer after she told The Day she had called for an independent investigation into how school officials handled years of complaints that former high school teacher Timothy Chokas had inappropriately touched female students.

During the summer, board Chairman Alexa Garvey emailed board attorney Nick Grello about questions board members had raised regarding a response to Morrison's actions. In an Aug. 21, 2019 email to board members, Garvey wrote that Grello said a censure by vote of the board was one option but that “now is not the time to do this as there would be too much negative press on this action.”

The email was among those released to The Day on Dec. 2, 2019 after the newspaper filed a Freedom of Information request on Oct. 21, 2019 for all emails sent from board members Candace Anderson and Farouk Rajab to any school board member, school system official or school employee since June 1, 2019.

In her Aug. 21 email, Garvey informed board members that they could not vote to remove one of their colleagues even though the board's bylaws specify that such action can be taken by a two-thirds vote of members. State law, however, which governs school boards, does not have a provision for removal.

Garvey also added that while Morrison’s decision in late July to release an email to The Day calling for the investigation and the placing of Superintendent of Schools Van Riley, high school Principal Mark Friese and Guidance Director Margo Crowley on paid suspension during the probe was not illegal, it was against the advice of Grello, who had told the board “not to discuss Chokas with the media.”

Garvey said Morrison’s comments violated board bylaws, which state that the chairman is the spokesman for the board.

Emails such as the one Morrison sent to her fellow board members about the investigation are public documents under state law. No law prohibits elected public officials, such as school board members, from speaking with the media.

"I stand by what I did. I did what my conscience told me to do," Morrison said Thursday when told about Garvey's email, which she said she previously had been unaware of.    

While board members Jack Morehouse and Heidi Simmons have recently joined Morrison in calling for an independent investigation into how the allegations against Chokas were handled, Garvey, Anderson, Rajab and Craig Esposito have blocked the probe.

In another Aug. 21, 2019 email, Anderson apologized for “an outburst” she directed at Morrison during an executive session that night.

“At this point, while I continue to appreciate your insight, I do not find you trustworthy,” she told Morrison. “Your lack of confidentiality is very concerning to me.”

Anderson and Garvey also charged in the emails that in the high school parking lot after the Aug. 21, 2019 meeting, Morrison was overheard discussing comments Anderson had made that night during an executive session with former Selectman John Prue.

Morrison said she was talking in the lot with Prue and former board member Deborah Downie, who she said are friends, but that she has never discussed confidential information from an executive session outside of a meeting.

The Day asked Garvey and Anderson Thursday what comments they heard Morrison allegedly making and how they violated state law or any regulations overseeing school board conduct.

"To answer your questions, neither myself nor Candace (Anderson) were part of the conversation in August and therefore cannot comment on the conversation and whether the comments violated any state laws or regulations," Garvey said. "We have seven individual board members, each board member has an important role on the Board of Education. As one board, we remain focused on the welfare of the district."

In the Aug. 21 email to board members, Garvey said she had emailed Grello the questions they had about Morrison’s actions.

As for the question about what recourse the board had, Garvey wrote “at this juncture there really isn’t any recourse other than to censor (sic) her or to have a vote of the BOE (Board of Education) wherein the BOE does not support her actions ...”

Garvey wrote that censuring a board member “is simply a vote of the BOE on the issue, so it really is just symbolic.”

Board members also asked about the potential legal ramifications of Morrison’s actions and her release of the email to The Day.

Garvey said Morrison “is considered an agent of the BOE” and “when she acts in a certain manner, the BOE is acting in such manner. Her actions and how they affect us — it would depend how things went going forward as far as administration and her comments on placing on leave.”

Garvey also addressed whether everything said in executive session must remain private, even it is about another board member’s actions.

“What is said in executive session should remain in executive session," she said. "When discussions are shared with people not in attendance, it subjects the BOE to potential disclosure to other members of the public. For example, members of the BOE should not discuss the reaction of the other BOE members toward Alisa during the meeting Nick was at. (This was my question as I believe I overheard her speaking to John Prue in the parking lot after the meeting when I was leaving.)”

There is no state law prohibiting the “reaction” of a board member towards another board member from being discussed outside of executive session. A “reaction” is not among the reasons certain information can be withheld from the public or discussed in executive session under state Freedom of Information law.

Garvey added in her email, “Essentially, sounds like legally she is skirting the line and depends on what happens going forward. She has not followed by laws, she has certainly broken trust and her actions have made board members uncomfortable and unsure about communicating their thoughts without worrying who she is going to tell. This and her attendance (18 BOE meetings/ attended 7 but was late to one of those/missed 11) do need to be discussed.”

“We have a tough couple of months ahead of us and all of us need to know we can trust each other, that does not mean we all have to agree, just respect each other so we know we can express our thoughts openly to each other,” she added.

The four members opposing the investigation have said they prefer to wait until state Child Advocate Sarah Eagan completes her review of the school system’s policies and procedures regarding the handling of the Chokas matter. School officials say that report is not expected until late January or February.

That review, though, is not expected to include interviews with teachers and past students who complained about Chokas to determine if their complaints were addressed.

Numerous girls have told The Day they were repeatedly touched by Chokas and saw him touching others and making inappropriate comments to them dating back to 2004. After a January 2019 incident in which a student reported to a police officer in the building that Chokas was touching a female classmate and making inappropriate comments, Chokas was allowed to resign with his full salary of $81,396 and benefits through the end of the school year.

The school system also agreed not to fire Chokas or disclose any information concerning his employment to anyone, except as required by law.

Friese, the high school principal, and Riley, the superintendent, have testified under oath they did not consider various complaints about inappropriate touching and comments lodged against Chokas by students referred to in various school documents and emails in 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2019 and reports from the girls themselves as complaints. Instead, they considered them “reports,” “interactions with people” and “concerns” expressed by students and others.

Their categorizations meant that these complaints were not placed in Chokas’s personnel file and not released to The Day when the newspaper requested them last year.

Anderson, the board member, revealed last month that in March 2016 she brought four students' concerns about Chokas to high school administrators and asked that he be “monitored.” One of the students was her daughter. Anderson said she learned through an FOI request that her words had been heeded and had become part of the record involving Chokas. Anderson’s report was not released to The Day when it twice filed FOI requests for all complaints and disciplinary action against Chokas.

j.wojtas@theday.com