TWIN LAKES — The Jan. 27 closed session termination of Lakewood School Aide Jan Iselin may have violated Wisconsin’s open meetings law, according to an opinion by state Assistant Attorney General Thomas Bellavia.

Iselin, a 13-year employee at the rural K-8 school, had no idea her employment was being discussed during the midday meeting of the Board of Education. She was unexpectedly fired as a result of a “determination” made by the board in the closed session.

The Kenosha News made a written request for an opinion from the state Department of Justice on Jan. 28 regarding whether or not the board violated open meetings law by making the decision in closed session.

According to the Wisconsin Attorney General’s Open Meeting Law Compliance Guide, “a governmental body should vote in open session” in most circumstances.

Bellavia responded with a four-page letter on Monday that concludes the closed-session decision would only have been permissible if the board had first given Iselin notice of the closed session and an opportunity to demand an open session.

“In the absence of such notice and opportunity, a court could conclude that it was impermissible for the board to make the termination decision in closed session,” Bellavia wrote, adding his decision is based on the facts as presented.

Bob Dreps, attorney for the Wisconsin Newspaper Association, said, “The attorney general is basically saying they should have given the employee notice of the meeting. The employee’s rights were violated, and the public’s rights were as well.”

Dunn defends move

School Board president Steve Dunn, who is in the midst of a recall election, stood behind the board’s process Tuesday.

“I feel we have conducted ourselves appropriately,” Dunn said, but added he will look at the opinion in depth.

Dunn said no official vote was taken in the closed session, but that “a consensus was arrived at.” The letter of termination states the board made both a “decision” and a “determination.”

According to Iselin’s termination letter, the board is not required to provide an at-will employee with any reason for the termination. Dunn did not respond to Iselin when she asked him for a reason.

The letter states it was the “determination of the School Board that continuation of (Iselin’s) employment would be detrimental to the interests of the school district.”

Before her termination, Iselin, a longtime school board member in a neighboring district, had been vocal in her opinions about the role Dunn was taking at the school.

Iselin said she joined the committee seeking Dunn’s recall after she was fired. The recall petitioners claim Dunn is micro-managing the district and circumventing administration.

Her unexpected firing prompted the rest of the school’s unrepresented teacher’s aides to seek union representation.