Former Regional School District (RSD) 13 Durham Board of Education (BOE) chair Lindsay Dahlheimer filed a complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC) in February alleging that the Durham Ethics Commission violated the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by failing to follow the law’s open meeting requirements during multiple meetings held between August 2025 and January 2026.
During that time period, the Ethics Commission considered a complaint made against Dahlheimer by Coginchaug High School football coach Anthony DeFilio alleging her participation in two BOE meetings violated the town Code of Ethics by failing to make her personal interest in a matter under consideration clear and by abstaining rather than recusing herself from several votes, which he claimed amounted to a favorable vote under a BOE policy that 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 Ethics Commission found, via a vote on December 12, 2025, that Dahlheimer had violated the Code of Ethics and issued a formal report with recommendations on January 28, 2026.
But according to Dahlheimer’s FOIC complaint, the Ethics Commission repeatedly violated FOIA during that time period, including when they entered into executive session to discuss DeFilio’s ethics complaint and a separate civil lawsuit DeFilio filed against Dahlheimer.
FOIA limits when public agencies can enter into executive session and who may attend those sessions. Agencies can only enter into executive session to discuss specific topics outlined in statute, including strategy and negotiations, and pending claims and litigation. The FOIC has established through multiple rulings that FOIA’s requirements that agencies state why they are entering executive session must not be so vague that they prevent the general public from understanding what business will be discussed.
As Dahlheimer’s complaint alleges, a number of Ethics Commission agendas from the time period covered by her complaint state the reason for entering into executive session as “pursuant to Section 5.B. of the Town of Durham Code of Ethics.” That section of the town’s Code of Ethics lays out procedures for the commission to find probable cause of an ethics violation and requires a complaint to be considered in executive session within 30 business days of receipt.
Ethics Commission agendas from August 26, 2025, and September 23, 2025, both include this language. Minutes accompanying those meeting dates also do not contain details about what was discussed during the executive session.
Other agendas, including one from December 15, 2025, list the reason for entering executive client session as attorney client privilege.
Dahlheimer’s complaint alleges that the descriptions of the executive sessions violate FOIA.
“The Commission did not state on the record any FOIA-authorized purpose for executive session prior to convening, nor did it limit discussion to a permissible subject once in executive session. Local ordinance language cannot substitute for the statutory requirements of [FOIA].” the complaint states.
Additionally, Dahlheimer alleges that at a September 30, 2025 meeting where the Ethics Commission entered executive session to vote to find a probable cause in the ethics complaint against her, the agenda did not disclose that a probable cause discussion would be held or a vote taken, violating FOIA’s requirement that the purpose for executive session be described. The agenda for that date states executive session was entered “pursuant to Section 5.B. of the Town of Durham Code of Ethics.” Minutes from that meeting state the executive session was entered “pursuant to the relevant portions of the Durham Code of Ethics.”
Dahlheimer further alleges that the Ethics Commission failed to list the meeting location on a number of agendas and that others listed locations that do not exist. The FOIC has ruled that meeting agendas must independently list meeting times and locations as part of the law’s notice requirements.
Further, Dahlheimer alleges that she and her legal counsel were denied access to a January 27, 2026, Ethics Commission meeting as a result of an invalid Zoom meeting ID. The meeting was recessed and an agenda was posted to reconvene the meeting the next day. However, Dahlheimer alleges that because she and other members of the public were denied access to the meeting, it was never properly convened and therefore could not be recessed. Dahlheimer’s complaint states that independent notice should have been issued for the January 28 meeting.
“The Commission’s failure to cancel the January 27, 2026, meeting and issue proper notice for a new meeting following the denial of public access constituted an additional violation of the open-meeting requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. This violation also occurred in the context of an ongoing ethics proceeding affecting the complainant’s legal rights, further underscoring the importance of strict adherence to the open-meeting requirements of the FOIA.” Dahlheimer’s complaint states.
Dahlheimer also filed supplemental allegations after she learned that there were no written minutes for hearings held on November 17 and November 18, 2025, on DeFilio’s complaint against her. FOIA requires that meeting minutes be publicly posted within seven days of a meeting.
Dahlheimer is requesting that actions taken at a number of meetings, including the September 30 meeting where the Ethics Commission voted to find probable cause in the complaint against her, be voided. She is also seeking the imposition of a civil penalty.
DeFilio’s lawsuit against Dahlheimer has since been withdrawn. Attorney Craig Fishbein, who represented DeFilio in the suit and an FOIC complaint that has also since been withdrawn, told Inside Investigator the complaint was dropped over concerns the town would be responsible for the costs. Dahlheimer disputes that and says the lawsuit was withdrawn because it lacked merit after a judge ordered discovery to proceed.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
