Denver Public Schools Board of Education Director Scott Baldermann regrets the behind-closed-doors March 23 executive session wasn’t held in public.

And – unlike his board colleagues – Baldermann thinks the public is owed an apology.

“I do apologize,” Baldermann said Thursday. “We made an error. I don’t think that it was ill intended. But it was a mistake and I apologize for not speaking up.”

Board President Xóchitl Gaytán told The Denver Gazette Wednesday she isn’t certain an apology was warranted, but if one were, it would require a consensus from the board.

Denver Public Schools board members say no apology necessary for crafting policy behind closed doors

“I have a totally different perspective,” Baldermann said. “I don’t like board statements.”

He added that board statements should be reserved for policy making.

While no other member has said an apology was necessary, Board Vice President Auon’tai M. Anderson asserted that, if one were to be had, Gaytán and General Counsel Aaron Thompson were most culpable.

Denver Public Schools board members say no apology necessary for crafting policy behind closed doors

Gaytán because of the regular district updates she receives and Thompson because, as the district’s attorney, he is responsible for ensuring the board stays within the bounds of the law, Anderson has said.

The board had entered into executive session publicly saying it would discuss security measures in the wake of the March 22 shooting that wounded two administrators at East High School, the district’s flagship campus.

But what board members wound up discussing was a resolution Baldermann had crafted, which later became the basis for the DPS memo suspending the district’s 2020 police ban. The memo also directed Marrero to find external resources to fund the return of SROs to campus.

“I wish I would have spoken up sooner and encouraged us to move in to public session,” said Baldermann, noting he was sick with COVID-19 at the time and unable to think clearly.

Denver judge finds ‘reasonable’ belief DPS executive session violated Open Meetings Law

Baldermann left the meeting early because he wasn’t feeling well.

During the secret meeting, at least three directors – Baldermann, Michelle Quattlebaum and Scott Esserman – asked Thompson about or discussed the appropriateness of the discussion in executive session.

At each junction, Thompson said that it was OK.

Throughout the executive session, Thompson guided the board discussion, letting them know what they could or couldn’t discuss.

Five hours later, the board emerged – without any discussion – with a memo upending, at least temporarily, the district’s policy against armed police on campus. The move fueled immediate speculation that the board had conducted public business in private.

Colorado’s Sunshine Law requires state and local governments to discuss and take action in public meetings. The law permits government agencies to conduct private meetings for specific purposes, such as to consult with an attorney or discuss personnel matters or an individual student, among other things.

DPS board members discussed its policy on school resource officers at an executive meeting in March

A coalition of media outlets that included The Denver Gazette and Colorado Politics filed a lawsuit to compel DPS to release the recording, arguing the session violated the Colorado Open Meetings Law.

Last month, Denver District Court Judge Andrew Luxen agreed and ordered DPS to release the recording.

Video reveals rare look into Denver Public Schools’ board’s inner conflict, collaboration

District officials, though, fought its disclosure and were actively appealing the court’s decision when the board reversed course last week and voted, unanimously, to release it.

Prompted, in part, by the media coalition’s filing for a motion for contempt against DPS, Baldermann said he pressed for the board to release the video by requesting Gaytán call a special meeting.

“At the end of the day, it was the right thing to do,” said Baldermann, who is up for reelection.

Baldermann also said he was troubled by all the time, energy and expense fighting the recording’s release in court for what he believed to be a losing battle.

In the early stages of the lawsuit, the district spent $6,208.44 for outside counsel with Semple, Farrington, Everall & Case, a May 31 invoice obtained by The Denver Gazette under the Colorado Open Records Act shows.

The total now is likely more.

At this point, the way forward for Baldermann, he said, will be to reject holding any executive session not “specifically carved out in the law.”