BEDFORD -- A Feb. 26 vote to hire a new superintendent could have been handled more appropriately under the state's public access laws, the Bedford County School Board acknowledged Thursday night.

The school board passed by unanimous vote a resolution stating the manner in which the board hired Doug Schuch "did not inform the public to the extent the Board aspires under Virginia's Freedom of Information Act."

Schuch's hire was included in a personnel report, but school board members refused to release his name until a news conference the next day.

Thursday's vote came after the board met in closed session for more than an hour and a half but was followed by no public discussion other than a statement by board Chairman Gary Hostutler after the vote saying the documents related to the resolution are available at the school board office.

Hostutler declined an offer to comment on the resolution after the meeting, saying only, "I think it speaks for itself."

The resolution, read by Vice Chairwoman Debbie Hoback, stated that future "votes on matters previously discussed in closed session will be preceded by sufficient disclosure of the substance and content of the issue being voted on so as to reasonably inform the public."

The board also approved a settlement agreement with Times-World Corp., which publishes The Roanoke Times, that would "forever discharge the Board and its members regarding any FOIA violation" occurring Feb. 26 and that the newspaper would not "initiate any lawsuit under FOIA" in response to those actions.

The settlement states that Times-World would forgo a lawsuit "based on the Board agreeing to pass the resolution."

Prior to the vote on the resolution, school board member David Black made a motion to approve Thursday evening's personnel report, items one through 34 and to omit number 35. Although the board did not disclose what personnel matters were being approved, a copy of the report was available after the meeting.

FOIA states when a vote is taken, its substance shall be "reasonably identified."

The Roanoke Times requested the e-mails among school board members related to the superintendent's search and hire leading up to Feb. 27. Frank Wright, the school board's attorney, provided more than 150 pages of e-mails.

According to one of the e-mails, Hostutler's "proposed game plan" was to withhold Schuch's name after the public vote was taken, according to an e-mail obtained by The Roanoke Times under FOIA.

Hostutler spelled out his intentions to save the announcement for a news conference in an e-mail to the board dated Feb. 20.

Maria Everett, executive director of the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council said on Tuesday she understood what Hostutler wanted to do. "He wants [wanted] to hold this for a press conference, but there are still FOIA requirements at stake."

When former school board member Talbot Huff announced his resignation at the Feb. 26 meeting, claiming he could not support hiring a superintendent who did not have management experience or had never been principal of a high school, it became clear the new hire was part of the evening's personnel report.

After the meeting Feb. 26, school board members refused to identify Schuch, who is currently executive director of strategic planning and accountability for Stafford County Public Schools.

"Whenever possible, the public's business should be conducted in public," said Michael Stowe, managing editor of The Roanoke Times. "The newspaper believes the school board violated the state's freedom of information law by not openly disclosing the contents of the personnel report that approved hiring a new schools superintendent. It's our job to hold public officials accountable when we think FOIA has been violated."

The newspaper was prepared to file a lawsuit and have a judge determine whether the board broke the law but is pleased with the agreement reached, Stowe said.

Such a settlement "is not completely unheard of, but it is also not something we see frequently," said Megan Rhyne, executive director of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government.

Schuch, reached by phone on Thursday, declined to comment on the situation.

The board approved his four-year contract at Thursday evening's meeting. Schuch will earn $140,000 a year. The current superintendent, Jim Blevins, will earn about $135,000 in his 11th and last year as superintendent.

In response to Huff's resignation, Schuch said: "Whenever you come into a situation as a new person you are going to have people that feel differently about your background and qualifications."

When Huff resigned, he said the move was a vote of "no confidence" in Hostutler because he "unilaterally" handled negotiations and informed board members by e-mail. Huff did not return phone messages.

At least two board members expressed opposition via e-mail to Hostutler's initial plans to hold the news conference at Jefferson Forest High School, which is located in the district he represents.

"I think that you should not do the press conference at JF. It's sure to cause hard feelings at the other end of the county. I know it's convenient for you but I think we should consider the perception," wrote Mickey Vanderwerker, the city of Bedford's representative on the school board, to Hostutler.

Hoback e-mailed Hostutler to say she wanted the news conference held at Bedford Science & Technology Center, the division's vocational school.

"It is a central location, most students will be gone for the morning, and it includes programs for all three high schools. It is also the location for Board meetings and where, I believe, we should start with the introduction," Hoback wrote.

Wright withheld about 50 e-mails that identified applicants by name. Wright deemed those e-mails personnel records, which are protected by state legislation. Portions of two e-mails provided by Wright included redactions.

In the e-mails obtained, Hoback was the only board member to express concerns of confidentiality.

Government officials' e-mails are considered public record in Virginia.

In a correspondence dated Feb. 9, Hoback wrote: "I think....Email is not confidential. Maybe we need to be careful about sending names. Please correct me if I am mistaken?????"