Rochester Community Schools board votes 5-2 to censure trustee over disclosure dispute

The Rochester Community Schools Board of Education voted 5-2 to adopt a resolution of censure against Trustee Lacui, saying she had disclosed district information that should have remained confidential and that her op-ed misrepresented the district's handling of a proposed countywide tax.

Trustee Gupta introduced the resolution, which the board packet described as a breach of board bylaw 1,001. "I move to adopt a resolution of censure against Trustee Lecui included in the packet," Gupta said during the motion (the resolution text was read into the record). The resolution directs that the trustee "is removed without future assignments for 1 calendar year from all committees and liaison roles," effective immediately.

Supporters of the censure argued the trustee violated an obligation to refrain from sharing documents or information that had not been authorized for public release. Trustee Annas said the bylaw exists to protect sensitive information and preserve trust between the board and administration, and that the reported premature disclosure threatened relationships and could harm other districts. Trustee Blake cited the U.S. Supreme Court decision Houston Community College System v. Wilson (2022) while explaining why a censure is within a governing body's prerogative.

Trustee Lacui disputed the allegation during the meeting. "I did not release confidential information. Everything referenced in my article is already public," she told colleagues, saying she had shared publicly available financial and county proposals and had sought constituent feedback when she heard no response from other trustees.

The meeting drew extensive public comment before the vote from residents and parents. Mike Reno, a former board member, told trustees the censure looked like a punishment for dissent and said the trustee had been "bullied and berated" at the dais. Several other speakers urged the board not to censure her and argued the public had a right to know about a potential millage; others said the board must uphold confidentiality where required.

The board's 5-2 vote to adopt the censure followed more than an hour of debate. The resolution and its discussion focused on the scope of board bylaw 1,001 and the factual question of whether the material the trustee published was nonpublic. The board did not identify any criminal or statutory violation in the motion; the action was a formal disciplinary resolution under board bylaws.

The board moved on after the measure, amending the agenda to skip member comments and adjourning at 10:04 p.m.