One lawyer has responded to the preliminary findings resulting from an investigation conducted by staff for the Oregon Government Ethics Commission, completed January 30th. Attorney Roy Pulvers has asked the Commission to dismiss the preliminary findings of the staff and if it will not do that to, “at most, and “in lieu of finding a violation of law,” the Commission should issue a written letter of explanation or education, pursuant to ORS 244.350(5).” Pulvers is representing Ann Samuelson.
Last year, in August 2008, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission began an investigation of eight current and former Jewell School Board directors, initiated after a complaint was made by Lauren Jacobsen, herself a past director on the same school board, earlier that year.
Jacobsen charged that the board members had broken the law in 20 executive sessions and asked that they be investigated. According to Ronald A. Bersin, Executive Director, Oregon Government Ethics Commission, the Commission can charge up to $5,000.00 and require up to two times the financial benefit if a public official violates any of the laws in ORS Chapter 244. However, Bersin cautioned, in this particular instance, if a public official relies on its legal council for advice on executive sessions, the Commission is prohibited from charging a civil penalty.
The investigation of Jacobsen’s complaint included minutes relating to the 20 executive sessions that were convened between October 2006 and March 2008 and include board members Karl Meier, Ulrich “Oly” Schockelt, Carrie Thompson, Terri Greenwood, Ann Samuelson, Alan Foster, Cathy Rosinek and Tania Skinner. Foster and Skinner are the only two that are current board directors.
Ironically, Schockelt led a recall campaign against Samuelson and Meier, alleging in mailers and an open letter to the Jewell community that as the “two most senior members of our school board” Meier and Samuelson “had inappropriate discussions behind closed doors.” In the Ethic Commission’s preliminary findings Samuelson and Schockelt have both been charged with violating executive session meeting laws for the exact same three meetings. Schockelt was the senior board member at these meetings having served a full term before Samuelson was appointed. Meier and Samuelson were subsequently recalled May, 2008.
The turmoil dates back to October 2006, when the board put former superintendent-principal John Seeley and later his wife, kindergarten teacher Laura Seeley, on paid leave, pending the results of a criminal investigation and subsequent child abuse charges. Because of Oregon law pertaining to not allowing those charged with child abuse to hold positions in school administration or teaching executive sessions were held, according to the ethics investigation, so that legal matters could be discussed and an interim superintendent could be hired.
The Ethics Commission staff found that on all occasions the Jewell School Board met in executive session on the advice of legal counsel and as such the Commission would be prohibited from charging a civil penalty. Notwithstanding, the Ethics Commission staff found that four separate executive sessions resulted in four distinct violations of ORS 192.660(2) had occurred and as such all eight school board members had committed violations, to a certain extent: Karl Meier (4 violations), Ann Samuelson (3 violations), Ulrich Schockelt (3 violations) and Carrie Thompson (3 violations), Terri Greenwood (2 violations), Cathy Rozinek (1 violation), Allen Foster (1 violation), Tania Skinner (1 violation).
The preliminary findings are hard to follow. For instance, the preliminary findings seem to suggest there isn’t enough evidence to make a determination, then it goes on to make a determination. For example:
[1/30/08] In the public meeting following this executive session there was a motion passed to adopt a resolution that changed Mr. Jones title from Interim Superintendent to Superintendent and extend his employment agreement by 24 months. One member of the board of directors believed that this resolution was discussed in the preceding executive session. Three other participants in the executive session indicated that the resolution was not discussed in the executive session, but they were aware of Mr. Jones willingness to extend the term of his employment agreement. There is not a preponderance of evidence to indicate that the resolution was discussed in the executive session in violation of ORS 192.660.
The evidence relating to the executive session held on 1/30/08 is sufficient to recommend making a preliminary finding that [Meier, Rozinek, Foster, Skinner] participated in an executive session to discuss the Maintenance Supervisor’s contract which was not authorized by provisions set forth in ORS 192.660(2).
In another example the staff feels that the wrong provision was used and proper prerequisites weren’t followed.
As in the executive sessions that were held on 10/30/06 and 1/20/07, the prerequisites set forth in ORS 192.660(7) were not satisfied and the board of directors violated ORS 192.660(2)(a) when the presiding officer provided this provision as the statutory authority for holding the executive session and again violated ORS 192.660(2)(a) by discussing the selection of Mr. Jones as the school district’s chief executive officer.
The evidence relating to the executive session held on 5/16/07 is sufficient to recommend making a preliminary finding that [Meier, Shockelt, Samuelson, Thompson, Greenwood] participated in an executive session to discuss topics not authorized by ORS 192.660(2)(a) and for which the prerequisites in ORS 192.660(7) were not satisfied.
Jim Mabbot, superintendent of NWRESD, states, “I believe that the Jewell School Board was correct in all four instances. They did nothing wrong. Out of all of the bogus claims against them by a frustrated community member, at the end of a long investigation, four were mentioned. This was not the best use of valuable tax payer dollars.”
The Northwest Regional Education Service District (NWRESD or ESD) has the job of providing support services to the school districts. They provide Special Education, Instructional Services and Technology Support to the 20 School Districts in Clatsop, Columbia, Tillamook and Washington Counties. The Northwest Regional ESD’s service area includes more than 170 public schools and serves 115, 373 students. When school districts are in trouble or need help they often turn to the NWRESD for guidance, support and answers, as the Jewell School Board did in the fall of 2007.
Mabbot clarifies what the Jewell Board was experiencing during the executive sessions, “Hiring an interim superintendent is very similar to hiring a substitute teacher. Oregon state law says that school boards must hire licensed staff but substitute teachers are hired every day without the board taking action, without them being posted or advertised. The same logic applies to the interim superintendent. You cannot hire a person into the job with any permanence because someone else currently holds that position (in this case, John Seeley).”
When asked if the school board should have done something differently, or what NWRESD would recommend school board members do in similar situations Mabbot responded, “My advice to board members is to get advice from their legal counsel and follow it. That is exactly why the Jewell board members have no sanctions or fines against them.”
In the Objection to Final Order, Samuelson’s attorney, Roy Pulver, writes,
“… the Commission appears to have concluded that the job description for the position and hiring policies of the Board, all in place for years, were not sufficient to satisfy the law requiring hiring procedures, standards, criteria and public comment. In addition, the Commission appears to have concluded that the act of making the vacancy known to a statewide body of licensed school administrators was insufficient to satisfy the law requiring advertisement of the position.In both of these respects the lawyer for the School District and senior statewide school administrators involved in the decisions strongly disagree with the Commission and have concluded that the Executive Sessions were properly held. In all events, and in each instance, the purpose of the meeting was to facilitate the ability to attract and hire in an emergency an Interim Superintendent for the District so that the school could operate.”
Bersin said that next the Board members can move for a contested case or or they can settle their case with the Commission. Samuelson is the only board member who has made a decision to respond to the preliminary findings at this point.
Seeley Update
According to George Finch, Coordinator of Professional Practices with the Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices Commission, on May 16, 2008, the Commission considered reports regarding John and Laura Seeley. The Commission voted to charge both with violations of standards. An educator has 21 days following the date of the Notice of Opportunity for Hearing within which to request a hearing. The commission cannot suspend, revoke, or otherwise take action against a license until the case is completed. The case is completed whenever any of the following occurs:
- The educator agrees to the charges and enters into a settlement agreement and discipline order describing the discipline and conditions of the discipline.
- The commission enters a final order as a result of a hearing officer’s recommendation and the educator’s decision to not further appeal the commission’s decision to the Court of Appeals.
- The educator fails to respond to the charges and the commission enters a Default Order against the educator that includes the terms of any discipline on the license (unless there is an appeal to the Court of Appeals).
Finch clarified that an educator’s license remains active until the commission takes final action that results in either a suspension or a revocation. A suspension may not exceed one year and may be for as little as 30 days. At the end of a suspension, barring any further misconduct, the license is generally reinstated upon application by the educator. A revocation based on facts not related to serious criminal convictions is for one year. An educator may apply for reinstatement of the revocation after one year has expired and must convince the commission with compelling evidence that the educator is “fit” to be relicensed. An educator is eligible for employment so long as the educator holds an active license.
Whether the educator must disclose whether they are being investigated by the commission and/or charged by the commission depends on various factors, including whether the employing school district asks the educator to disclose this type of information. The Commission does not govern the employment contracts between districts and educators. If the commission takes final action against the educator the order, including the charges and facts found by the commission become public information.
Seeley, Laura L.—Charged by Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices Commission on 05-16-08. Contested case hearing scheduled before the Office of Administrative Hearings for April 28-29, 2009.
Seeley, John H.—Charged by Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices Commission on 05-16-08. Contested case hearing scheduled before the Office of Administrative Hearings for June 2-5, 2009.
192.660 Executive sessions permitted on certain matters; procedures; news media representatives’ attendance; limits. (a) To consider the employment of a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent. (b) To consider the dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent who does not request an open hearing. © To consider matters pertaining to the function of the medical staff of a public hospital (d) To conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to carry on labor negotiations. (e) To conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to negotiate real property transactions. (f) To consider information or records that are exempt by law from public inspection. (g) To consider preliminary negotiations involving matters of trade or commerce in which the governing body is in competition with governing bodies in other states or nations. (h) To consult with counsel concerning the legal rights and duties of a public body with regard to current litigation or litigation likely to be filed. (i) To review and evaluate the employment-related performance of the chief executive officer of any public body, a public officer, employee or staff member who does not request an open hearing. (j) To carry on negotiations under ORS chapter 293 with private persons or businesses regarding proposed acquisition, exchange or liquidation of public investments.
244.350 Civil penalties; letter of reprimand or explanation. (5)In lieu of or in conjunction with finding a violation of law or any resolution or imposing a civil penalty under this section, the commission may issue a written letter of reprimand, explanation or education.
No comments:
Post a Comment