Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics And Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters accuse district lawyer and question MOU around Riverstone Academy; board member responds
Summary
During open forum, public commenters raised ethics and transparency concerns about a June MOU that allowed ER BOCES to place Riverstone Academy in district boundaries and questioned district legal counsel Brad Miller; a board member addressed the allegations on the record.
At the open‑forum period of the board’s December meeting, members of the public raised detailed allegations about a June memorandum of understanding and possible conflicts of interest involving the district’s legal counsel.
Chris Sutton, identified in the transcript as a public commenter, urged the board to prioritize students and staff and questioned the district’s legal expenses under attorney Brad Miller, saying the district has paid Miller’s firm at a substantially higher rate than prior counsel and asking the board to review that relationship. He told the board he had prepared materials documenting legal fees and requested transparency and accountability.
Another public commenter (unnamed in the transcript) alleged that an MOU approved in June allowed ER BOCES to place Riverstone Academy within District 70 boundaries and said an email suggested the school had been created to test whether public funds could support religious education. The commenter said board member Anne Och accepted a job offer from ER BOCES on June 9 and that the board voted to approve the MOU on June 24 without disclosing the background. The commenter asked the new board to investigate and provided a packet of documents to support the claims.
Responding on the record, the board member identified in the exchange as Anne Och said she did not begin employment with ER BOCES until July 1 and denied working with Riverstone; she told the meeting, "First off, I didn't start ... until July 1," and said the job was unrelated to Riverstone. The transcript shows the allegation and the response were both recorded and the complainant handed the board documentation.
The transcript records the allegations and the reply but does not show the board taking formal investigative action during the meeting. The claims raise questions about timing and potential conflicts; those questions remained unresolved in the record by the meeting’s end.
Claims and responses are summarized below and the district is the appropriate actor to disclose any related records or to initiate formal conflict‑of‑interest inquiries.
