Wallingford Board of Education Chairman Michael Votto “illegally accessed” a fellow board member’s emails and then held an alleged illegal executive session with the BOE to discuss the contents of those emails in an effort to shame and embarrass the board member, according to a complaint filed with the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission (FOIC).
According to the March 22, 2026, complaint filed by Wallingford BOE member Caroline Raynis and her attorney, Wallingford Town Councilman and State Representative Craig Fishbein, R-Wallingford, Votto and BOE Attorney Rebecca Santiago “had illegally accessed her Board email account and had reviewed her emails to and from her constituents, without her prior knowledge or authorization.”
The email review was in response to a blanket Freedom of Information request made by a member of the public for all of Raynis’ emails since she’d been on the board. The emails purportedly contained some unflattering statements concerning the Wallingford Superintendent and fellow board members, although who made those statements and in what context is unknown at this time.
Typically, the subject of an FOI request is notified of the request as a courtesy, but it is not legally required unless the request involves personnel records or other records that could be construed as containing private information, according to information provided by the FOIC.
Votto then held an executive session with the entire BOE during their February 25, 2026, meeting to discuss the contents of those emails that had been compiled into a memo by Santiago. The executive session was allegedly held without notifying Raynis that she was the subject of the session so she could have her attorney present or assert her right to have the discussion held in public.
According to the Wallingford BOE’s bylaws regarding proposed censure and disciplinary actions against fellow board members, “The Board shall review the performance and/or conduct of the Board member in open or executive session (as determined by the Board and the Board member in according with the Freedom of Information Act) at a regular or special meeting of the Board, prior to initiating action to censure or take other disciplinary action regarding a Board member for cause.”
However, at the time of the February 2026 executive session to discuss Raynis’ emails, that ordinance did not exist in the BOE’s bylaws. It was later passed in June.
According to the complaint and emails, Raynis had already informed Votto and Santiago that, should the matter of her emails be discussed, she wanted it discussed in public.
Email correspondence included with the FOI complaint shows Fishbein reaching out to BOE attorney Santiago and cc’ing Votto, asking whether the noticed executive session for the February 25 meeting involved Raynis and “your illegal review and apparent dissemination of said emails.” Fishbein wrote that he wanted to attend the executive session as Raynis attorney if the emails were to be discussed.
“As you may recall, at the meeting attended by yourself, myself, Board Chairman Votto and my client, you threatened to bring your ‘concerns’ regarding the contents of my client’s emails to the attention of the members of the BOE in Executive Session, still without officially informing me or my client about those ‘concerns,’” Fishbein wrote. “I indicated that if that were the case, that I would be attending the Executive Session with my client so as to protect her from your on-going bad acts.”
“Nonetheless, during this ‘Executive Session,’ Mr. Votto permitted a memo to be circulated from Attorney Santiago to the members of the Board,” Fishbein wrote in the complaint. “This memo contained henpecked portions from Mrs. Raynis’ emails to and from her constituents, followed by Attorney Santiago as well as other Board members expressing their disdain about Mrs. Raynis having communicated with certain of her constituents, especially those known to ask a lot of questions of the Board, as well as of Board staff.”
The complaint alleges Votto called the executive session specifically to place Raynis “in a position of ridicule and embarrassment.” Fishbein also claims the session would likely never have happened had Raynis been allowed to assert her right to have the discussion in public.
According to meeting minutes, Fishbein was not included in the executive session, however, Superintendent Danielle Bellizzi was, which Fishbein claims is also a violation of FOI laws. Individuals who are not part of a public agency can be invited to attend an executive session for the purpose of offering testimony or opinion only for the time that testimony or opinion requires.
According to an FOIC decision in 2024 involving a similar case, it was determined that the Hampton Public Schools superintendent’s participation in an executive session violated FOI laws because “the superintendent did not present any testimony or opinion during the executive session,” and her attendance “was not limited to the period for which her presence was necessary to present testimony or opinion.”
Following the executive session to discuss the memorandum regarding Raynis’ emails, Votto added a motion to the agenda to grant him sole discretion over whether to release the memorandum in response to Fishbein’s request for it.
The “Motion to Authorize the Board of Education Chairperson to Address Any Requests from Board Members or The Legal Counsel for the Release of The Attorney/Client Privileged Memorandum Reviewed Tonight After Reviewing Such Request with Legal Counsel,” passed unanimously.
Reached for comment, Fishbein said this was a matter of politics with Democrat leadership on the BOE trying to bully a Republican, despite an overall Republican majority on the board.
“Email communications of elected officials should be free from un-authorized intrusion, and unbridled scrutiny by their political opponents. Here though, that appears to be exactly what occurred,” Fishbein wrote in an emailed statement. “When the Republican elected official tried to protect herself, by asking that any proceeding take place in open session (as is her statutory right), the Democrat trampled on that right. We firmly believe that if her right was properly acknowledged, the closed-door bullying would never even have occurred.”
Despite the executive session incident occurring in February, it remains a source of conflict on the board after Bellizzi asked the board for a bid waiver over $16,000 so she could hire outside counsel to handle the FOIC complaint during the August 24 meeting. Although the complaint is leveled only at BOE Chairman Votto, Bellizzi claimed it could involve the entire board when it came to offering testimony before the FOIC.
Board members on both sides of the political aisle lamented the cost to defend against the complaint. Raynis was not present at that meeting.
“We are asked every year to justify every dollar we spend, and this is a hard justification for me. I hope that people just watch that because how is this benefiting education?” asked Marla Roscoe, a Republican. “I have concern that this could skyrocket to a number that we actually have no control over because we have to defend ourselves against someone who we sit here with at every meeting.”
“I find it extremely disappointing that we are spending $16,000 and likely more than that of taxpayer dollars on defending ourselves on a complaint brought by a board member,” said Rajan Doering, another Republican board member. “I just find the whole situation extremely disappointing.”
Despite Bellizzi’s request for a bid waiver, Fishbein took to social media and presented a May 7, 2026, memorandum from Wallingford corporation counsel indicating that the superintendent does not require board approval before submitting a bid waiver to the town council. Furthermore, FOIC documents show the law firm had already filed an appearance a month before the August BOE meeting.
Fishbein questioned Bellizzi’s motivations for bringing the bid waiver matter to the BOE on social media; “So, was this agenda item really an act of good faith, or just mean girl bullying?”
“Interestingly, while normally matters such as this would be discussed in Executive Session, instead here this was addressed in open session, with misrepresentation fostering publicly demeaning comments by Board Members believing (based upon Bellizzi’s untruthful representations) to be attacked by the filing,” Fishbein wrote.
**This article was updated to reflect the BOE bylaw regarding censure of a member was not passed until June 2026**
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
