The Durham Ethics Commission will tonight open an ethics hearing against former Region 13 Board of Education (BOE) chair Lyndsay Dahlheimer. Dahlheimer has submitted an affidavit for a temporary injunction seeking to have the hearing put off until the resolution of a civil complaint being brought against her by Anthony DeFilio. There is currently a scheduling conference slated for November 7 in DeFilio’s civil suit.

DeFilio, the football coach at Coginchaug High School, filed a lawsuit against Dahlhemier and her husband, Anthony, in June over statements he claims Dahlheimer, at the time the Region 13 BOE chair, took to discredit him and cause him to lose his job. DeFilio claims Dahlheimer complained to the high school principal about him and also made a complaint to the Department of Children and Families (DCF) alleging he was engaging in inappropriate conduct with football players. Dahlheimer’s allegedly had her husband corroborate claims she made in her DCF complaint.

Separate investigations by the school and by DCF found the claims were baseless.

DeFilio has also filed a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission, alleging Dahlheimer and her then-BOE co-chair Robert Moore violated the Freedom of Information Act by illegally holding an executive session during a July 16 special meeting where members voted on whether to investigate Dahlheimer. The BOE ultimately voted to indemnify Dahlheimer in connection with DeFilio’s civil suit and voted against conducting an investigation into Dahlheimer’s conduct at an August 13 meeting.

DeFilio then filed a complaint with the Durham Ethics Commission. That complaint claims Dahlheimer violated two provisions in the town’s code of ethics, one that requires town officials to be “independent, impartial, and responsible to the public” and a second that prohibits conflicts of interest. DeFilio’s complaint alleges Dahlheimer’s conduct at both the BOE’s July 16 and August 13 meetings violated those two provisions.

The complaint argues Dahlheimer should not have presided over an agenda item at the July 16 meeting, following the executive session DeFilio is arguing was illegal, which discussed indemnifying her for her actions. While Moore initially made a motion on the agenda item, it did not receive a second. Dahlheimer called for a second, which was eventually offered.

“Even though the motion passed, the BOE never made (in public at least) a finding that Dahlheimer “was acting in the discharge of his or her duties or within the scope of employment or under the direction of such board of education” as required for such indemnification to be appropriate.” DeFIlio’s complaint to the ethics board states. It also claims that while Dahlheimer did not openly vote on the agenda item, she did not recuse herself and this, allegedly due to a BOE policy, amounts to an affirmative vote.

The complaint cites BOE Policy 9367, which states “A member may abstain from voting (with the knowledge that the effect is the same as if the Board member had voted on the prevailing side).”

The complaint makes a similar complaint about Dahlheimer presiding over a subsequent agenda item from the July 16 meeting, where Dahlheimer called for a voice vote about adding an agenda item to the next meeting about whether to investigate her.

“Following this special meeting, having secured her own personal benefit from her position as BOE chair, Dahlheimer resigned as Chair of the BOE.” the complaint claims.

As Dahlheimer did not recuse herself from the voice vote on whether to enter executive session to discuss whether to investigate herself at the next BOE meeting, the complaint also alleges Dahlheimer implicitly voted in support of the motion.

In her response to DeFilio’s complaint, Dahlheimer disputes DeFilio’s claim that she effectively voted in favor of indemnifying herself by failing to abstain from the vote. While she admits she did not recuse herself, she claims she did not vote on the item. She also denies DeFilio’s claim that she voted in favor of entering executive session to discuss investigating herself or against investigating herself.

Dahlheimer claims DeFilio’s complaint fails to establish probable cause that she broke the code of ethics. “Ms. Dahlheimer neither used her office for “personal gain,” nor did she act in a manner that compromised the principles of independence, impartiality, and her responsibility to the community.” It also denies there is any basis to find that her actions were a conflict of interest.

Dahlheimer stated that BOE Policy 9367 also states that no member can “vote on a question in which the Board member has a direct personal or pecuniary interest” and said she complied with this by refraining from voting on the two occasions. She also cited BOE Policy 9210, which states it is the chairperson’s duty to preside over all board meetings.

“Given her express duties as Chair, Policy 9210 required that she remain present during discussions and voting concerning all items that appeared on the agenda.” her response stated.

Dahlheimer has filed an application for a temporary injunction in Superior Court for the Judicial District of Middlesex seeking to have the Board of Ethics’ hearing delayed. It argues that allowing the ethics complaint to proceed before DeFilio’s civil complaint is concluded will cause Dahlheimer to “suffer irreparable harm to which there is no adequate remedy at law.”

Dahlheimer argues that a municipal hearing does not have the same protections as a civil hearing, including allowing her to raise objections to evidence and discovery requests. It also argues she could be harmed by being forced to testify under oath about “confidential” discussions that occurred during executive session and that could harm the “protected identity of minors or other confidential matters” related to the DCF investigation.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.