Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Freedom Of Information topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board counsel warns Greenwich BOE: 'Every email... is a public record' in FOI briefing
Summary
At a June 22 special meeting, attorney Tom Mooney gave the Greenwich Board of Education a legal briefing on board roles, conflicts of interest and Freedom of Information obligations, warning that routine electronic communications can create public‑record and quorum risks.
Get email alerts on the Freedom Of Information topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorney Tom Mooney, retained as legal counsel and introduced to the Greenwich Board of Education at the board’s June 22 special meeting, told members they must treat most communications about district business as public records and guard against informal decision‑making outside posted meetings.
Mooney framed school boards as primarily legislative bodies that set policy and adopt budgets, with the superintendent serving as the board’s chief executive. He said judicial functions — for example, expulsions or termination hearings — are rare but require impartiality by board members.
Mooney gave repeated, specific cautions about the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). “Every email you write or receive related to the operation of the Greenwich Public Schools is a public record,” he said, adding that the most common FOIL pitfalls come from reply‑all group messages and group chats. He emphasized that when a quorum of members discusses district business over electronic channels, the exchange can be treated as an unposted meeting under FOI rules.
He illustrated risks with scenarios: three board members posting a Facebook letter urging voters to support a budget might not be unlawful in itself, he said, but if the act appears to result from a prior, unposted discussion it can trigger an FOI violation. He also noted that personal emails touching on students can nevertheless be subject to public‑record requests, but that some documents involving students are protected under FERPA and therefore exempt from disclosure.
On public comment and personnel controversies, Mooney advised restraint: board members should typically listen but avoid engaging with speakers during public comment because they often hear only one side and may later be required to rule impartially. He described cases in which board members’ off‑hand comments undermined their impartiality at later disciplinary or termination hearings.
Mooney concluded with practical guidance: avoid group texts or chats among a quorum, refrain from using individual communications to substitute for deliberation at a posted meeting, and channel operational complaints through the superintendent rather than investigating them as individual board members.
Next steps: Mooney’s materials will be made available to remote members; the board did not take formal action on the briefing but used the presentation to frame later discussions about board procedures and the district’s responsibilities under FOI and FERPA.

