JAY – School Committee members acting on a teacher’s grievance have decided both the complainant and the school superintendent bore some responsibility for the situation.

School Committee members Friday voted 4-0-1 to issue a written decision on the grievance.

Though initially the board declined comment on the multilayered decision citing personnel confidentiality laws, School Committee Chairman Clint Brooks wrote in an e-mail later Friday that, “After considering all information submitted by both sides in the grievance hearing last Thursday evening, the Jay School Committee asked our attorney to comprise a statement based on a committee consensus concluding that neither party could be exonerated in this matter.”

The board heard the grievance Nov. 4 in executive session, and the panel had five working days to issue a response.

The Jay Education Association had appealed Superintendent Robert Wall’s decision on a teacher matter to the school board, association President Sherry Gilbert said. She declined to be more specific.

Brooks wrote in his e-mail that, “Although ultimately one of the grievant’s contractual rights may have been violated, some committee members felt that culpability rested with both parties,” Brooks stated.

“Unlike many grievance matters there was not a clear-cut decision to render in this situation,” Brooks wrote. “As a result, we did not feel that the compensatory remedies sought by the grievant were appropriate relative to the violation and causes of it. In fact, the prevailing sentiment among board members was that solutions offered by the superintendent were eminently fair, but apparently had been rejected by the grievant.

Because of the inherent nature of confidentiality with respect to (personnel) issues, the board is not currently at liberty to comment any further on the matter.”

Gilbert in a voice message Friday said that the decision would be turned over to the grievant, and it would be to leave it up to that individual to decide whether to make the decision public.

The School Committee’s counsel, Peter Lowe, attended the 88-minute executive session Nov. 4. Another attorney within the law firm of Brann & Isaacson of Lewiston, Dan Stockford attended Friday during the roughly 14-minute executive session. He said, after some hesitation, that the decision was drafted by Lowe.

Stockford said the School Committee approved the decision addressing the grievance. Under state confidentiality laws, the written decision is a confidential personnel document that the School Committee is prohibited from releasing.

Committee members, Brooks, Mary Redmond Luce, Tim Toothaker and Gene Uhuad voted to issue the written statement; new member, Joel Pike, who was appointed last Thursday and was not present for the initial grievance hearing, abstained.