SELMA -- A Fresno County Grand Jury report has been released criticizing the decisions and behavior of Selma Unified School District’s former board of trustees that have since been ousted from office.
The 29-page report, resulting from a six-month investigation, claims that there was tension between the board members, an intimidating work atmosphere throughout the district, a board president that witnesses say stepped well beyond his authority and numerous violations of Brown Act requirements regarding open-meeting laws.
A press release issued by Selma Unified officials states that the board will act as a unit, not with individual authority, over the schools.
“With the appointment of Dr. [Tanya] Fisher as superintendent, and with the new board, many of the Grand Jury recommendations have been already been addressed. Additionally, the superintendent, key staff members and the board have participated in board trainings, and workshops on effective Governance and legal mandates regarding the Ralph M. Brown Act.”
The investigation began when the Grand Jury received a complaint of allegations that the Brown Act had been violated by board members who witnesses say met prior to special school board meeting Feb. 3, 2015, at which then-board Superintendent Mark Sutton was released from his contract.
The Brown Act gives the general public the right to attend and participate in government meetings and requires that public meetings be announced in advance. The law prohibits secret meetings under most circumstances.
It is still unknown why Sutton was let go. No legal action has been taken against him.
The board members are referred to as trustees A, B and C in the report. In coverage of those school board meetings and the subsequent successful recall effort, those members are identifiable as Lorona and trustees Orosco and Lopez, respectively.
Witnesses state in the Grand Jury report that there was tension between Sutton and the three board members, who “directed or asked the superintendent and top administrators to approve building construction and/or school site improvements not sought by the full Board of Trustees.
Witnesses say the three commented negatively about district personnel in closed session, even though such discussion was not on the agenda.
The report also states that Sutton had received a favorable evaluation on October 2014 but after the November elections thereafter, Lorona called a private meeting with the superintendent on Jan. 29, 2015.
“The superintendent was informed that trustees had decided to move in a different direction, so he would be released from his contract,” the report reads.
Sutton asked whether this was the full board’s consensus and Lorona “indicated his confidence that the majority of the trustees agreed.”
Lorona called for that January meeting even though “Trustee A was not authorized publicly by the Board of Trustees to take this action,” the report states.
He consulted with the district’s legal counsel on how to do so and then “cut off communication between administrators and legal counsel.”
At the Jan. 30, 2015, meeting, the board voted 3-2 in favor of Sutton's release, with trustees Jennifer Winter and Paul Green voting against it. An estimated crowd of up to 300 attended, with the vast majority speaking out against Sutton’s release.
A major finding of the report shows that while buying out Sutton’s contract may have in itself cost $296,940 for the district, when considering legal fees and the search to replace the superintendent, the actual cost soared to $432,955.
The report showed that the final amount came from the expenses of:
• Paying the assistant superintendent an additional salary to perform superintendent duties: $40,213.
• Hiring a superintendent search firm: $18,500.
• Additional legal costs to have legal counsel present at all board meetings since Feb. 24, 2015, estimated at $919 per meeting.
• Legal counsel’s advice regarding former, interim and new superintendents, the superintendent search and contracts, document review and researching Brown Act violations and issues regarding staff political activities, $9,183.
• Legal counsel’s advice regarding the Grand Jury investigation, $4,000.
• District costs to terminate Sutton’s contract, $377,174.
• Cost of the Fresno County Elections office to conduct the recall election, $55,781.32
A recall effort was immediately started after Sutton’s release, with recall papers served to the three board members in March 2015. During the November 2015 recall election, the board members were voted out and replaced by the current board members: Mark Falcon, Andy Montijo and Sara Rodriguez.
Sutton said he’s read the report and was glad to see the district now moving forward.
“[The report] just confirms what I stated from the outset when things happened in February 2015. [It] also confirms that the citizens of Selma are now in a better place with a governing board that will support the needs of both students and staff so that Selma Unified can continue to be a successful district,” he said.
Sutton has since been hired as a superintendent by the Fresno’s Central Unified. He said Selma “will always hold a special place in my heart because of the many tremendous people that supported not only myself, but the schools, staff and students for us to accomplish many great things!”
Two of the former board members responded to an email request for comment and say the charges alleged in the report are not justified.
Lorona said he had served seven terms prior to the investigation and his integrity had not been questioned prior to this report. Things changed during the recall effort, he said, even turning violent.
“During the recall effort, a group of individuals said and did ugly things about me with a tremendous amount of hate. In one situation, a recall group yelled out my name when they saw me and threaten my life with violence using obscenities,” he said.
Lorona characterized fellow board members Roger Orosco and Gilbert Lopez as “outstanding individuals” who “care deeply about the education, health and safety of all children at Selma USD, as I do.”
Lorona said he did not yet have a written response, as he had not reviewed all the statements yet.
“It will take time to review the statements made by witnesses and verify the validity of those statements to prepare comments,” he said.
Orosco said witness statements in the report seemed to be more about personal agendas and not about the meeting the students’ needs.
“I think it’s sad that the complaints came after the fact because certain people didn’t get their way,” he said. “They made it about friendships, not our kids, dividing our city and schools [and] showing who they really are.”
Orosco said he hasn’t read the full report but said it did not seem to be a full portrayal of what occurred, especially when it came to recall campaigning and hiring decisions. He also said testimony in the report are “things that never happened and the people who mislead the public should be ashamed of themselves.”
Grand Jury foreman Lanny Larson stands behind the report and its process however. Those who have been interviewed cannot speak until after the jury’s term ends on June 30.
“We don’t release a report we don’t feel is a truthful representation of what happened,” he said.
In the report, the jury's recommendations to the district included 10 steps it needs to take, including adhere to Brown Act requirements, establishing school visitation policies, issuing secure emails for board members, working collaboratively and refrain from becoming involved in personnel matters.
District Superintendent Tanya Fisher has 60 days to respond to the findings and recommendations in the report and current board President Jennifer Winter has 90 days to respond.
Larson said once official responses are received, a consolidated report of this investigation and others will be released as public record.
June 22, 2016
Hanford Sentinel
By Laura Brown
No comments:
Post a Comment