A two-year-old lawsuit filed in protest of the Enfield Board of Education's practice of holding high school graduations in a Bloomfield megachurch came to an end Wednesday night, when the board voted to accept a settlement proposal made by two activist groups who brought the suit.
In 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed suit on behalf of two high school students and three parents, who objected to holding graduation ceremonies at the First Cathedral Church.
During construction of a new athletic complex, held its graduation at the church in 2007. Both Fermi and Schools utilized the church in 2008 and 2009.
Let Patch save you time. Get great local stories like this delivered right to your inbox or smartphone every day with our free newsletter. Simple, fast sign-up here.
After the board decided to hold the ceremonies in Bloomfield again in 2010, the lawsuit was filed, and District Court Judge Janet Hall issued a temporary injunction barring use of the religious building for a public school function. Commencement exercises at both schools have been held on school grounds since then, with the 2012 ceremonies taking place for the first time on the new artificial turf fields.
Under terms of the settlement, the school board agreed not to hold future graduations at the church. The plaintiffs' legal fees would be partially reimbursed, reportedly up to $500,000, by the Connecticut Interlocal Risk Management Agency (CIRMA), the Board of Education's insurance provider.
Prior to the vote, which took place at the conclusion of a two and a half hour special meeting, audience participants and board members expressed divided opinions as to whether to accept the proposal.
Former school board members Lynn Scull, Bill Thomson and Judy Apruzzese-Desroches spoke in favor of settling.
"Our mistake was in continuing to go there, and in pursuing the suit," said Apruzzese-Desroches, who consistently voted against holding the ceremonies at the venue while serving on the board. "Where it's held should not be the issue; that it's held is what's important."
Board Vice Chairman Vinny Grady, who made the original motion to accept the settlement following a tumultuous on July 10, said via conference call, "I would like to end this tonight. We are voted in as nine members to make responsible fiscal decisions."
Board members Joyce Hall, who also participated via telephone while away on vacation, and Jennifer Rancourt said the majority of emails they had received in recent days indicated support for the settlement.
"I believe in fiscal responsibility, and I feel going forward with this is irresponsible," board member Tina LeBlanc said.
Several others expressed opposing viewpoints, referring to the plaintiffs as "bullies".
"I am a taxpayer, and if it costs me a little more I'm okay with that, but at least I'm standing up for principle," resident John Unghire said.
Board member Kevin Fealy said, "Because the past boards did not keep their word, I am not bound to right their faults. Deep pockets with nothing to lose have the opportunity to push us into a corner. It sets a bad precedent in my house to succumb to it."
Attorney Tom Gerard, representing CIRMA, said, "The insurance carrier has the contract right to make a settlement."
In response, board member Chuck Johnson said, "We have not gone to trial yet. We have a temporary injunction against us, and to me, it's premature for the insurance company to do this to us. It's a heinous way of dealing with a customer."
After considerable debate, the board voted 6-3 in favor of settling. Johnson, Fealy and Peter Jonaitis were opposed.
"I am disappointed in the 6-3 vote that took place, but I am happy that we finally got this before the public, so people who attended tonight's meeting and people who watched it on TV have a better understanding of some of the things that we went through behind closed doors," Jonaitis said after the meeting. "We had to use a parliamentary procedure to get this before the public. I wish we had done this earlier, when people were still in town. It was a bad time of the year. I'm really upset with the insurance company; I feel like they're the ones who are causing us to do something that we think is important to do on principle."
Board Chairman Tim Neville said, "It was an emotional discussion. People had strong views on either side, but I think the will of the board was to make this decision in the best interest of the system and the kids. I'm pleased we had an open session, and I think ultimately the decision we made was the right one."
Ain't that the truth!
The only good thing - was finally - it came out of "executive session" and the public got to participate. Bad thing - they held this "emergency" meeting in the middle of vacation week. This is one bitter pill to swallow.
And yeah, it was hot on the fields but those temperatures that we experienced are the exception, not the rule. I graduated from highschool, college and graduate school (all during better ecomnomic times) and yet I was out on a field of some sort each and every time and had rain, heat or a combination of both. None of my classmates or relatives melted or died, and from what I recall we all had a wonderful time celebrating our accomplishments. Seems like a sad trivialization of a milestone when all the focus is on venue rather than the things that actually matter...Hopefully Enfield gets back to the basics before my little one is that old....
2.) Vinny Grady and certain BOE members should be ashamed of how they dealt with the entire situation, from closed doors meeting, to allowing emotions to get the better of them. 3.) The BOE has every right to hold the graduation ceremonies as they see fit, and no matter where they choose, people will argue. Case in point (XL Center = high cost for venue and participates pay to park; Banquet Halls = high cost; Mass Mutual Center/Springfield Symphony Hall = out of state, high cost for venue and participates pay to park). So, why not keep it at the high school? It goes well beyond the fields. Those who attended this year’s graduation ceremony can tell you that the weather was not accomidating, and to predict good weather is impossible. So therefore, have it inside…but now the students complain because they are only allowed so many tickets per student, and, the A\C is not made to accommodate over 1,000 individuals in the gym. In Bloomfield, students had unlimited access to invitees, free parking, air conditioning and cover from the harsh weather. They covered any religious symbols, and at no time, that I am aware of, handed out religious materials.
The plaintiffs weren't bullies. The Town was. Had the Town "won", can just imagine all the gloating some would do. But the Town "lost", so its time to stop acting like sore losers. Time to pay up, and move on. For the record, I attended Fermi'12 graduation - was down on the synthetic field with all the others who came to the school grounds to celebrate the seniors' accomplishment. Was a very happy crowd. Yes, it was hot, but heck, it was the end of June!!! Also attended a ceremony in Cathedral - w/its huge cross out front - parking was a pain, plus it was a much longer ride to, and from Bloomfield. Once inside, it was clearly a church. Banners and "quotations" were everywhere. They made no attempt to cover up religious symbols, as previously reported. One thing is very clear from this brouhaha - elected officials, and folks in general, need to learn to "disagree agreeably". Should be no name calling permitted. Everyone has a right to their opinion, & should feel safe when expressing it.
ACLU ... a bunch of greedy lawyers
http://enfield.patch.com/articles/kiner-s-korner-donna-szewczak-the-voice-of-reason-and-fiscal-restraint
This whole thing is as absurd as restricting all public vehicles such as public works, police etc from being parked on the property of OLA or the congregational church as an affiliation of church and state. God (yes God) forbid they are parked in the front when one of these plaintiffs drive by. They could say the town is promoting that religion. The fact is this was a waist of time resources and our tax dolors and just amplifies the ridiculous behavior of the "It's all about me" population today. Think about this. If the founding fathers of this country didn't make decisions based on their religious beliefs, this country wouldn't exist, and you wouldn't have a lawsuit to peruse.