In addition to the October 2020 incident below, there are other instances in which Director Daily's statements did not agree with other known facts.
At the May 19, 2021 Board meeting, at which Director Daily attempted to present allegations against Directors Gattenby and Sebren, he stated that when Director Berg introduced actions against Director Daily at the April 21, 2021, meeting, Director Daily was not given prior notice. This statement is contradicted by two specific facts from that very April 21st meeting:
(1) Director Berg's proposed action was on the agenda prior to the meeting and Director Daily insisted that it remain on the agenda when Director Diehl moved to remove it from the agenda;
(2) Director Daily had prepared a two-page list of counter allegations against Director Berg, which clearly had to have been prepared before the April 21st meeting; thus Director Daily must have had prior notice of the action.
The April motion did not cite specific allegations against Director Daily, but only initiated an investigation into possible grounds for censure.
Director Daily's May 19th statement can be viewed on the video of the meeting, at 1:50:50.
At the July 21, 2021 Board meeting, Director Daily introduced a motion to recognize the allegations of misconduct that he attempted to bring against Directors Gattenby and Sebren at the May 19th meeting. but which were ruled out of order at the time. The July motion failed.
In the debate, he stated that Director Berg had published the text of the allegations on this website, which Director Berg denied. Director Daily responded that he had a "screen shot" at proof.
The one-minute exchange can be viewed on the video of the meeting at 1:30:40.)
Director Berg still maintains that he did not publish the the text of the allegations against Directors Gattenby and Sebren on this website. Director Daily did however partially publish them on the website maintained by Dave Kimble shortly thereafter. (They were also later filed with the court in October, 2021, and are now publicly available and on this website.)
In giving Director Daily the benefit of the doubt, he could have been mistaken and was thinking of his charges against Director Berg, which were indeed published on this website.
It is very difficult to prove a negative, such as attempting to prove that you never robbed a bank. Therefore, the burden of proof must be upon the party making the accusation that something did happen.
The next day, July 22, Director Berg emailed Director Daily and asked him to provide the "screen shot" as proof, otherwise Director Berg will continue to assert that Director Daily's statement was false. No response was received from Director Daily, but his attorney responded and stated that any correspondence with Director Daily regarding any allegations of wrongdoing should be directed to his attorney and not to Director Daily.
DAILY: It wasn’t too many years ago that everybody got those 20% pay raises. (Facebook 1:08:44)
DAILY: You just pushed through 3% pay raises for everybody during a pandemic. (1:09:00)
WINTER: We talked at the last meeting about the 3% raise. That is an inaccurate fact. That is not the truth. (1:14:26)
DAILY: I will continue to say that your information is wrong and look at the facts. (1:14:37)
WINTER: We have the facts. It was not a 3% raise across the board. I will be very clear on that. (1:14:43)
(Time references are to the Facebook video of the meeting.)
The Board needs accurate information upon which to base its decisions. I ask each of you to supply me with your facts and their source, and refute the alternate version if necessary. Please supply that data to me and to each other before the next Board meeting and I will present them during the board discussion time. The Board can decide which facts to rely upon.
The Board cannot tolerate having a Director and the Superintendent in essence calling each other liars at our meetings. Repeatedly stating false facts at the Board meeting should be grounds for censure or discipline.
Superintendent Winter responded two days later with detailed sources on the pay raises for the various employee groups.
Since no one else seems to want to stop this issue caused by you, I will do so now. Sadly, forcing Mr Winter to comply with your request is probably highly illegal. He was trapped by you as his supervisor but probably decided to comply with your order since for a variety of reasons.
Here are the facts for you to consider.
1. You said you were disturbed by this issue and that is a personal statement. We all have our opinions and you have yours. Show me the law (RCW) and district regulations stating that anyone making any statement they wish to make, fact or fiction, is illegal whether in private or public. It may go against your personal code of ethics but unless you can show me the law, this is a personal vendetta for which you can be removed since it is an abuse of power to use your position to extract information from a subordinate and also call a public official a liar without proof. Since your charge is on the district server, it is a matter of public record and it can be taken outside the district to any court of law.
2. Please show me your authority to speak on behalf of the board. I need to see the RCW and the board policy.
3. I need to see your authority to conduct an investigation on behalf of the board. Please present to me your written authority signed by an authorized authority. Otherwise, you have conducted an illegal investigation and questioned the reputation of an employee and a public employee. District employees are protected by district policies and elected officials by the PDC, SAO, and AG’s office. Mr Winter would have the right to have a public hearing should any action be considered against him as well as many other rights of any one accused of anything. I, as a public official, would have the right to a trial if the board were to take action. Since none of this is authorized by the board (and I wasn’t aware of it, didn’t vote on it, etc), you would be totally liable as the burden of proof is on you to prove your charges and you would bear the costs of an investigation as well as a trial. Any attempt to take action by the board using an illegal investigation would open it up to litigation. And since no one else has spoken out about this, the question of accomplices and collusion would be considered.
4. Show me your personal credentials to investigate absolutely anything. If you have no authority and no credentials, again, you are conducting an illegal investigation and without a license.
5. You have abused your authority as a board member since you without advising the board’s employee of his rights to refuse to provide information, required him to provide you information that will now not be allowed in a court of law since you didn’t advise him of his rights even if you have authority to conduct this investigation. Your request of me also violates my rights. This is also an unethical violation.
6. You threatened punitive action without any due process in an illegal investigation to two people. This alone is probably grounds for your dismissal.
7. If you accuse someone, the burden of proof is on you to prove it. So, you gather the information, not ask for it to be provided to you. Are you a judge also? The information you seek is available in the previous board minutes but you obviously did not read them, extract the information for yourself, and are expecting people to provide you as the self-appointed judge, jury, and executioner information to convict themselves. Perhaps you should read the Constitution of the United States as well as consult our legal process to see what it actually says and guarantees. Mr Winter’s information is now probably not usable as it was gathered under duress (you are his supervisor) and without due process, advisement of rights, and a myriad of other issues you failed to ensure were accorded the “accused”. In short, you can now be sued since you forced an employee to provide information in an unauthorized and probably illegal investigation.
8. Back dating any documents to support you would also be highly illegal and a violation of ethics.
9. Under what authority do you have to speak for the board in this matter? Show it to me. We have a process for asking the superintendent for information- a form to be precise. You went around that process for a personal cause versus having board authority to ask for information not related to district business. Again, you are in violation of our process and doing this for a personal reason. Using your positon for personal reasons is also a violation of ethics. You made the Superintendent spend district resources for your own personal reasons, not related to any board actions. Your values are not the values of the board. As I board member, my values are mine that I do not impose on others, and the board has no written values that subscribe to yours.
10. Under what authority are you using to state that the board wants this information? I don’t recall any motions, resolutions, discussions that asked for this investigation? If you talked with other board members, then you again violated the law of public meetings by conducting business illegally. Since I was not consulted, this would then look like a conspiracy. Conspiring to get rid of someone is also an ethics violation.
11. Your actions with two others are suspect since you and two others discussed the district’s priorities to WSSDA without the full vote of the board. You told others not to reply to your email and then somehow, a very short notice board meeting occurred and priorities were sent to WSSDA without full board concurrence. Since I have no notification of the meeting, the 24 hour notice to the public, and was not allowed to state my preferences since the previous work session was stopped before the list was approved, one could wonder exactly what the intent of you and the others was. Especially since the top two priorities you gave were obviously items that I disagreed with.
12. If the board were to consider any “evidence” at a future board meeting, you would be open to an extortion charge since you had no authority to ask for any information without proper due process. Any action out of that meeting would expose you to liability since there exists no board authority to authorize you to do anything.
13. As you have accused me, you will need to prove that I lied in a court of law, not to the board. Your charge is serious and will be met with serious consequences. You will be required to document absolutely everything and it won’t look good since your opening statement starts with “I was disturbed…” Should I win in court, I will expect your resignation as well as take action against you.
14. You could have voiced your concern in a manner for the board to discuss but you took it upon yourself for some reason to appoint yourself as a champion of justice. You will need to provide a court of law your authority and your motivation in order to take action on anything that involves the board. Having a Kangroo court hearing in a board meeting is also highly illegal and opens the board to litigation. Again, any attempt to back this in at the next board meeting for some type of justification will just implicate the entire board in your unethical behavior.
15. If you have a concern about ethics, then the PDC, SAO, and AG’s office are the proper authorities to contact for investigation. You have absolutely no authority to investigate anything at any time on behalf of the board. The board would use an attorney to do this. Using the “board wants” when you have no proof that the board even discussed this is also a “lie” and ethics violation.
16. It is obvious that your intent is to hurt and embarrass an employee and a public figure. Should you figure out how to get the evidence you need, if it comes out that your charges are unfounded, you will be sued. The board is not a court of law.
17. You have 24 hours to provide the documentation I have asked for or I will file charges against you with the PDC, the SAO, and the AG. In short, you caused the issue, you solve it. A better solution (since I am a fair person and have no vendetta) would be to figure out how to extricate yourself from this mess and fix things with all parties.
Since Superintendent Winter supplied sources in support of his facts and Director Daily did not, the remainder of the Board was able to make its own determination as to the relative accuracy of the two factual claims.
No further action was taken on the matter.
At the August 4, 2021 Board meeting, an update on the Pool Renovation project was presented. The planned pool renovations were part of the projects to be funded by the Capital Levy approved by the voters in 2018. The voters approved $21,594,378 to be collected over four years, in 2019, 2020, 2021 & 2022.
In 2018, the pool renovations were estimated to cost about $5,000,000. After a more detailed analysis of the project, they are estimated to cost over $10,000,000. This will include roof replacement, new ventilation system, locker and restroom renovation, and ADA compliance upgrades that were all not part of the original estimate. Construction cost have also risen dramatically over the past three years.
The design phase was nearly complete, and the project should be out for bids fall of 2021 with construction to take place between January 2022 and December 2023.
Funding is expected to come from from the following sources:
1. Capital Project Levy $5,070,400
2. State Construction Funds 3,345,000
3. ESSER (Covid funds for HVAC) 2,000,000
In order to cover the Capital Levy costs, some of the projects were initially planned will be postponed, including renovation of Madrona Heights, portable classroom at Marcus Whitman, propane fueling Station for Busses, district office electrical system and HVAC upgrades. In addition, the middle schools roof replacements were $760,000 under budget and the $1,100,000 for property acquisition will be transferred to cover the pool project.
Director Daily argued that the voters were sold on the capital levy because the District stated specific projects that would be included in that funding and that the District is not keeping its promises when it proposes changing the list and diverting funds to the pool.
Director Daily said that final costs could be more than the $10,000,000 and that his original estimate of the pool costs, which he sticks to, was $12 - 14,000,000. He proposed that since it is a "community pool", funding should be sought from community partners and obtain a line of credit.
He made the following motion, which was defeated:
That the SKSD pool project be suspended until we have secured alternate funding sources and informed the community of our resolve to fix this issue with transparency and honoring the terms of the previous capital projects levy.
The specific fact that is under dispute is whether or not the District's description of the proposed uses of the capital levy committed to District to complete specific projects from the capital levy funds. The documents below do not establish that level of specificity that would constitute a contract between the District and the public.
Four documents below are:
Copyright © 2021, 2022 John R. Berg - All Rights Reserved.