Norwich — The Board of Education held a two-hour, closed-door session Tuesday to discuss conduct of Republican board member Heather Fowler after a parent alleged she shared confidential information about a student with an outside group in an email.

Afterward, the board voted to authorize board Chairman Robert Aldi to serve as its liaison and contact the parent involved and inform the parent of the discussion held in executive session.

Fowler and her husband, Republican Joshua Chapman, who were elected to their first term on the board in November, abstained from voting on the motion, which was approved 7-0. Fowler left the closed-door session twice during the discussion, the second time visibly upset, with her husband accompanying her. As the meeting continued, the couple waited in the hallway outside the Kelly Middle School Community Room before they rejoined the board near the end of the closed-door discussion.

Norwich parent Jennie Chzanowski, who complained to the board that she believed Fowler had shared with an outside group an email Chzanowski had sent to the board describing an incident involving her daughter. Chzanowski called the move an egregious action by a school board member to share confidential information about a student to outside parties.

Prior to the meeting, Chzanowski praised board Chairman Aldi for taking her complaint seriously and for investigating thoroughly.

Aldi said the board will hold a special meeting in April at a date prior to the board’s April 12 meeting. He acknowledged the issue is “very unusual” for the board.

Chzanowski said Aldi called her Tuesday night but said he could not disclose issues discussed in the executive session. She said she looks forward to the board’s continued discussion and response. “If nothing else happens about all this, at least everyone is aware of this issue,” she said.

Fowler and Chapman declined to comment after the meeting Tuesday.

Chzanowski said the issue began after her daughter, a student at Kelly Middle School, allegedly was assaulted by another student and needed to go to the hospital emergency room. The girl was ordered by a physician to stay home for several days, Chzanowski told The Day.

When she initially was not satisfied with how the school handled the situation, Chzanowski said she wrote a long email to all the Board of Education members describing the incident, her daughter’s medical situation and complaining about the lack of response from the school. Chzanowski said her email prompted calls from the Kelly principal, vice principal and Superintendent Kristen Stringfellow and action by the school that she said was satisfactory regarding the incident.

But shortly after she sent her complaint to the school board, Chzanowski said she received a puzzling email from an email address for “fightforfreedomCT17” with a message saying the writer was sorry for what she went through and offering support for her family and her daughter. The email was signed by “Heather and others,” Chzanowski said.

“My reaction was, ‘How did a parent get an email that was sent to the Board of Ed that contained private information that even administrators and teachers couldn’t share?’” Chzanowski said Tuesday.

She sent a complaint to Chairman Aldi that she believed a board member had shared her information with the outside group and recalled that there was a Heather on the school board who commented frequently on social media outlets, criticizing school policies in the state.

She said Aldi had asked her to provide him with the emails she had received and said he would consult with the board’s attorney and investigate the matter. After a few weeks, she said she contacted Aldi again and was told the investigation was ongoing, and it was difficult to trace the email chain.

The board was allowed to discuss the matter in executive session under a provision covering “public officers” in the state Freedom of Information law, said Thomas Hennick, public education officer for the state Freedom of Information Commission.

The law allows an executive session for “Discussion concerning the appointment, employment, performance, evaluation, health or dismissal of a public officer or employee, provided that such individual may require that discussion be held at an open meeting.”

c.bessette@theday.com