Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
In order to 'set the record straight" and avoid contention during Board meetings, this page is included to rebut or counter claims and statements made during Board meetings, through email, the internet, and other media.
It is a violation of Robert's Rules of Order to call another member a liar during a meeting, or to attack their character or motives.
Is Director Berg Responsible for the SK Board Being Sued?
Did Director Berg Rule Director Daily's Motion Out of Order?
Were Daily's May 19th Accusations posted on this Website?
What is the motion Previous Question?
The difference between consent agenda and consent calendar \
The difference between unanimous consent and consent agenda
When is a lawsuit not a lawsuit?
Did Dir. Berg speak for the board in letters to the editor?
Was Director Berg Threatened with GOP Expulsion over CRT?
Director Daily's February Comments on Board Governance
Director Daily's March Comments on Board Governance
Rebuttal to David Kimble's Comments to the Board of August 3, 2022
Is the purpose of this website to attack Director Daily?
Director Berg's Response to Director Daily's Accusations
Complaint against Dir. Berg with National Association of Parliamentarians
Complaint against Dir. Berg with Public Disclosure Commission
Dir. Daily's remarks on the Dir. Berg's nomination to be Board President
Accusations on Dir. Berg's relationship with The Aspen Group
Director Daily, Dave Kimble, and the CSSKS have all repeatedly blamed Director Berg for the School Board being sued in Jeffrey Daily v. South Kitsap School Board.
Director Berg is is only other Director referred to by name in the lawsuit (Complaint, page 7, line16). Director Daily stated at the October 20, 2021 Board meeting that Director Berg "helped the District Into a Lawsuit". (Video of the meeting at timepoint 2:26:05.)
Dave Kimble, in an email to the Board dated January 17, 2022, blames Director Berg for the costs to the District of responding to Director Daily's lawsuit. He referred to the lawsuit as an effort to "pee on Director Daily's leg". (Mr. Kimble was also the individual who served the papers on the District initiating the lawsuit.)
The CSSKS website, in referring to Director Berg as "Our Idiot of the Month", blames Director Berg for Director Daily's lawsuit.
Clearly, Director Daily's decision to file a lawsuit against the School Board was his own decision, for which he is responsible. Apparently Director Daily felt compelled to so because of Director Berg's actions, thus making Director Berg responsible for the lawsuit, at least in the mind of Director
Daily.
An alternative motivation might be to cripple the Board's ability to act because of pending and continued litigation with injunctions and restraining orders. This was disclosed in Director Daily's remarks at the Board meeting of November 17, 2021. See the video of the meeting at timepoint 5:00, at which Director Daily said:
I have said this last meeting and I’ll say it again, this is all tied up in litigation. Mr. Berg has/is being served papers regarding a personal lawsuit, and an injunction that involves his interaction with the Board. Mr. Berg votes on these items. When they pass a temporary restraining order will go into effect and it is possible the item will be tied up for the duration of the lawsuit, which may take months. OK. It will cripple the Board’s ability to act as your actions may be construed by the courts as a violation of the court order.
Director Daily sued the Board to appeal its July 19, 2021 decision to not adopt his motion to have an outside investigation of two other Board members (Directors Gattenby and Sebren). The Board voted 1 to 3 against his motion, yet Director Daily blames Director Berg for the Board's decision and for Director Daily's own decision to sue the Board.
Director Daily accusations against then Directors Gattenby and Sebren originated at the May 19, 2021 Board meeting, which was one month after Directors Gattenby and Sebren voted on April 21, 2021 to investigate Director Daily for possible censure. Director Diehl did not vote to investigate Director Daily and no accusations were made against her. Director Berg originated the motion of April 21, 2021 to investigate Director Daily, after which Director Daily presented accusations against Director Berg, which were dismissed by the Board on May 19, 2021.
It would appear that the only way that the Board's decision to not investigate Directors Gattenby and Sebren could be blamed on Director Berg would be if Director Berg prompted Director Daily's need to accuse Gattenby and Sebren in the first place by Berg's introducing the motion that Gattenby and Sebren voted yet on.
Of the ten requests made of the court in the lawsuit, the eighth was "Granting leave to Petitioner to make a motion, and set a hearing before this Cout, for a reeliminary injunctionn Staying any censure proceedings against Petitioner Mr. Daily for the pendency of this action". (Since this part of the lawsuit was in response to Director Berg's original motion in April, there is some causal effect.) The suit therefore also attempts to stop the Board from pursuing its investigation of Director Daily. In effect, the lawsuit is saying that the Board must investigate Directors Gattenby and Sebren but must not investigate Director Daily. (The investigation of Director Daily was concluded, the report was made public, and the Board voted on October 20, 2021 to take no further action on the matter. That part of the lawsuit is now therrefore moot.)
Director Daily, in his lawsuit (Complaint, page 7, line16), stated that Director Berg ruled as Out of Order his July 21, 2021 motion to appoint an outside investigator to investigate charges against Directors Gattenby and Sebren. (Video of the meeting from timepoint 1:27:40 to 1:34:50; the specific Out of Order is mentioned at 1:29:40.)
Director Berg, presiding in the absence of Board President Gattenby, did not rule Director Daily's motion Out of Order. He only mentioned that Director Daily previous action in May 19th was ruled Out of Order. Director Sebren later mentioned that same fact. See also further discussion of the previous matter.
If the motion were in fact ruled out or order, it would not have been discussed and voted upon.
Director Daily, at the the July 21, 2021 Board meeting, stated that Director Berg posted Director Daily's May 19th accusations against Directors Gattenby and Sebren on this website. (Video of the meeting from timepoint 1:27:40 to 1:34:50; the specific issue is mentioned at 1:30:30.)
Director Berg denied that they were posted on this website which Director Daily disputed and said, "We have a screen shot".
The next day, July 22, 2022, Director Berg emailed Director Daily and his attorney the following:
You stated repeatedly at the July 21st Board meeting that I posted on my website the text of your May 19th allegations against Directors Gattenby and Sebren. I denied that I posted them. You insisted that you had a "screen shot" as proof.
I distinctly remember making the decision to not attempt to post the text of the allegations since they were ruled out of order at the time. While I discussed you making the accusations on my website, I did not include a copy of them. I first saw them posted on your Citizens Supporting South Kitsap Schools website, which I assume Mr. Kimble received from you to post there. Unless I receive such a "screen shot" or other proof that I did indeed post the allegations on my website, I will continue to assert that your statements made at the open board meeting were false.
As requested by your attorney's letter of May 18, 2021, a copy of this email is going to your attorney.
The only response came from Director Daily's attorney, requesting that Director Berg correspond with her and not with Director Daily.
No screen shot or other proof was ever submitted. Why would someone claim to have proof and then refuse to produce it, unless there were no proof in the first place. It is nearly impossible to prove a negative, therefore the burden of proof is on the party who claims that something did occur. (For example, that someone robbed a bank could be proven, but it is nearly impossible to prove that someone never robbed a bank.)
Only after the allegations were included in documents submitted to the Superior Court on and readily available to the public were they posted on this website.
Giving Director Daily the benefit of the doubt, he could have been thinking of his allegations being posted on the CSSKS website, or the fact that his allegations against Director Berg were indeed posted on this website.
There appeared to be some confusion between the parliamentary terms Move the Previous Question, Call for the Question and a motion to End Debate.
At the November 17, 2021 Board meeting, Director Sebren moved to End Debate on a motion, and that motion to End Debate was defeated. Director Diehl then Called for the Question. Director Berg, presiding, pointed out that the two terms were synonymous. Director Daily disagreed and insisted that they were two different things.
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed), known as RONR, states at 16:6, under the topic of Previous Question:
Equal Application of Rules to Nonstandard Forms Such as “Call for the Question.” A motion such as “I call for [or “call”] the question,” “I demand the previous question,” “I move to close [or “end”] debate,” or “I move we vote now” is simply a motion for the Previous Question made in nonstandard form, and it is subject to all of the rules in this section. Care should be taken that failure to understand this fact does not lead to violation of members’ rights of debate.
At the meeting, Director Berg attempted to clear up that "failure to understand" that the terms are synonymous.
If one seeks an authoritative source for the meaning of parliamentary terms used in United States, RONR is the most widely accepted and used authority.
At a Board workshop, during a discussion of the consent agenda, Director Berg referred to the consent agenda as a consent calendar. Director Daily corrected him, to which Director Berg stated that the terms are synonymous. Director Daily insisted that they were two different things.
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed), known as RONR, states at 41:32, under the topic of Consent Calendar:
Consent Calendar. Legislatures, city, town, or county councils, or other assemblies which have a heavy work load including a large number of routine or noncontroversial matters may find a consent calendar a useful tool for disposing of such items of business. Commonly, when such a matter has been introduced or reported by a committee for consideration in the assembly, its sponsor, or, sometimes, an administrator, may seek to have it placed on the consent calendar. This calendar is called over periodically at a point established in the agenda by special rule of order, at least preceding standing committee reports. The matters listed on it are taken up in order, unless objected to, in which case they are restored to the ordinary process by which they are placed in line for consideration on the regular agenda. The special rule of order establishing a consent calendar may provide that, when the matters on the calendar are called up, they may be considered in gross or without debate or amendment. Otherwise, they are considered under the rules just as any other business, in which case the “consent” relates only to permitting the matter to be on the calendar for consideration without conforming to the usual, more onerous, rules for reaching measures in the body.
The above describes what is also known as a Consent Agenda. Nowhere in RONR is the term Consent Agenda used. It is simply refers to a Consent Calendar. The Board policy uses the term Consent Agenda.
If one seeks an authoritative source for the meaning of parliamentary terms used in United States, RONR is the most widely accepted and used authority.
Director Daily has repeatedly argued that the consent adenda must be adopted unanimously, and consistently votes no on it. Such a policy would, in effect, give one member veto authority over board action.
He appears to be confusing the terms consent agenda and unanimous consent. See the previous section for an explanation of consent agenda.
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed), known as RONR, states at 4:58, under the topic of Adoption of a Motion, or Action Without a Motio, by Unanimous Consent:
In cases where there seems to be no opposition in routine business or on questions of little importance, time can often be saved by the procedure of unanimous consent, or as it was formerly also called, general consent. Action in this manner is in accord with the principle that rules are designed for the protection of the minority and generally need not be strictly enforced when there is no minority to protect. Under these conditions, the method of unanimous consent can be used either to adopt a motion without the steps of stating the question and putting the motion to a formal vote, or it can be used to take action without even the formality of a motion.
This does not necessarily imply that every member is in favor of the action, only they choose not to take the time oppose it (RONR 4:60).
If only one member objects to any action proposed to be taken by unanimous consent, there would need to be a vote on the question (preceded by debate if it is a debatable action).
Similarly, under RONR, if one members objects to something being on the consent agenda, it would be taken off the consent agenda and debated and voted upon. (RONR 41:32, quoted previously.) Under RONR, debate is technically permited on a consent agenda, but in most bodies, the consent agenda is handled without debate.
In the casse of the South Kitsap School Board, its rules specify that the consent agenda (but not other action taken by unanimous consent) is undabatble unless two members request that an item be removed from the consent agenda (GC-12, Meetings, under "Agenda planning", paragraph 4, items b and c.) This is because the default rule under RONR would allow one member to defeat the whole purpose of using a consent agenda if they don't like the concept of an agenda agenda and want to debate every little detail.
The Kitsap Sun, August 19, 2021, carried the headline " South Kitsap School Board member files lawsuit against the board" and the article repeatedly referred to the matter as a lawsuit.
The Kitsap Daily News, aka Port Orchard Independent, on August 27, 2021, refers to the action as a "summons and complaint" and quotes Director Daily's attorney as saying, " While this looks in the caption like suing the board, it’s actually an appeal of a board decision and the failure of the board to make other decisions. So it’s not a lawsuit against the board. "
Director Daily himself referred to the matter as a lawsuit at the October 20, 2021 Board meeting.
Dave Kimble, in an email of January 17, 2022, insisted "And let us be absolutely clear, this current action is not a lawsuit. "
Lawsuit is defined in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) as "as suit in law" or "a case before a court" (p. 705). Suit is defined as "an action or process in a court for the recovery of a right or claim" (p. 1249). Case is defined as "a suit or action in law or equity" (p. 191).
Other definitions of lawsuit include:
The action in question is an appeal under State Law, specifically RCW 28A.645, regarding an appeal to the superior of a decision of a school board. The statute itself does not use the term suit or lawsuit.
The action, Kitsap County Superior Court Case No. 21-2-01233-18, is titled "Jeffrey Daily, Petitioner vs. South Kitsap School Board, Respondent". The first sentence of the Summons and Complaint says, "A lawsuit has been started against you" and "In order to defend against this lawsuit, ....". On page two it states, "You may demand that the plaintiff file this lawsuit with the court"... and ... "Within fourteen days ... the plaintiff must file this lawsuit with the court, or the service on you of this summons and complaint will be void." (If there was no lawsuit filed, the action would have been void after fourteen days.)
Accompanying the Summons (2 pages) was the Complaint (14 pages).
One, four, or five?
It really doesn't matter. It is what it is, regardless of what you call it. So don't get hung up over definitions.
Director Berg had two letters to the Kitsap Sun published Sept 3, 2021 and October 25, 2021.
The CSSKS website criticized Director Berg for attempting to speak for the South Kitsap School Board in writing a letter to the editor.
The September 3rd letter referred to school boards in Kitsap County and their directors but the body of the letter did not refer to Director Berg as a school board director.
The letters to the editor were sent from John Berg of Southworth without mentioning that Director Berg was a member of the South Kitsap School Board. The editor writes the headline for the letters and added "is also a member of the South Kitsap School District's board of directors" after "John Berg, Southworth".
The October 25th letter spoke of elections in general and mentioned that the writer happened to be an elected official but did not give any further identification. The Sun editor did not add any mention of the writer being a member of the school board for that letter.
In an email of August 16, 2021, David Kimble insisted that the Republican Party threatened Director Berg with expulsion from the party if he did not not introduce the resolution on Critical Race Theory in the spring of 2021.
The issue of Critical Race Theory came up after the passage of SB 5044, and was discussed briefly at the Board's June 2, 2021 meeting. Since Superintendent Winter reported that CRT was not being taught in the SK Schools, Director Berg thought those concerned citizens could be assured of that fact if the Board adopted a resolution stating that CRT was not to be taught in the SK Schools. Director Berg offered to draft a resolution on the issue for further discussion.
Director Berg identifies himself as a Republican, even though he does not agree with all of the others who identify as Republicans. He has been a GOP elected Precinct Committee Officer since 2016 and was awarded the Kitsap County Republican Party's "2018 Republican Man of the Year Award".
Director Berg attended a GOP meeting on June 7, 2021 only to discover that the discussion topic was Critical Race Theory. He mentioned to the group that he was preparing a resolution on the topic for the South Kitsap School Board and that attracted some interest. It was not the other way around: Director Berg told them he was preparing a resolution, they did not tell him to draft it.
The resolution was presented at the July 16, 2021 Board Meeting and defeated on a vote of 2-3. Only Directors Daily and Berg voted in favor of it. Curiously, even though Superintendent Winter had stated that CRT was not being taught in the SK Schools, the public comment at that meeting, particularly from teachers there, suggested that it actually is being taught and that the teachers wanted it to be taught, or at least they opposed the resolution.
Following the defeat of the resolution, some GOP leaders strongly encouraged Director Berg to reintroduce that or a similar resolution, and they pressured another Board member to change their vote. Director Berg resisted the requests for another resolution and determined that that was not the right approach to the problem.
There was no threat to expel or otherwise punish Director Berg from GOP leaders in the County and particularly in South Kitsap. When Director Berg heard of the rumor of threatened expulsion, he contacted GOP leaders in South Kitsap, and the County Chairperson of the Party and the rumor was denied by all.
In preparation for the Board's March 2, 2022 consideration of the adoption of revised Governance Culture policies and proposed Bylaws, Board members were invited to submit their proposed amendments for distribution to the Board in advance of the meeting. Click here for more details and the full text of these documents..
Below is Director Berg's rebuttal to Director Daily's remarks. Director Daily's remarks will be quoted in full line-by-line, followed by Director Berg's response.
DAILY WROTE:
As we work on putting in our policy comments, I offer my thoughts on the process. As a school board we have a duty to and must abide by our states revised codes, legal statutes, and municipal codes. There are also federal statutes to be considered.
BERG RESPONDS:
There is no disagreement that the School Board and its members are bound to obey Federal and State Laws as well as County and City ordinances.
DAILY WROTE:
Some current board members may still believe what other boards members of past boards have told them. Clearly our present board policies, procedures, and bylaws do not have the force of law.
BERG RESPONDS:
The use of the term "clearly" is not appropriate since Director Daily has given no specific example of which current board policy, procedure or bylaw does not have the force of law. On the contrary, Washington State Law, RCW 28A.320.040 specifically grants the school board "power to make such bylaws for their own government, and the government of the common schools under their charge, as they deem expedient, not inconsistent with the provisions of this title, or rules and regulations of the superintendent of public instruction or the state board of education."
If Director Daily has identified specific policies and procedures that are not in accordance with the law, he should propose specific amendments to correct them rather than just throwing out the baby with the bath water.
DAILY WROTE:
For us as a board or as individual board members to believe otherwise is at our individual and collective peril. We must not forget that board polices, procedures, and bylaws that are not substantiated by laws can be challenged in court.
BERG RESPONDS:
It is unclear what is meant by "not substantiated by laws". Under RCW 28A.320.015 (1) (c), the Board has “Such powers as are necessarily or fairly implied in the powers expressly authorized by law.” Therefore the Board can act as specifically authorized by law and as deemed necessary to accomplish its lawful duties. The board cannot do things specifically prohibited by law. The fact that Director Daily has filed two legal actions against the South Kitsap School Board is evidence that Board actions can be challenged. Whether or not the court will overturn any Board actions is another matter.
DAILY WROTE:
As I see it, there are at least five important issues to consider.
The WA State Ethics Commission, AG, and the courts will not support unenforceable parts of any board polices that violate constitutional or individual rights.
BERG RESPONDS:
The Washington State Ethics Commission has no jurisdiction over local school boards. lt only applies to "state officer or state employee" (RCW 42.52.020) and specifically defines those positions in RCW 42.52.010 (18) & (19). School districts and school board directors are not included.
In spite of Director Daily's alleged correspondence with the Washington State Attorney General, the AG's office has said nothing to the SK School about not supporting any unenforceable or unconstitutional parts of SK Board policy.
While the Kitsap County Superior Court could overturn Board decisions in response to Director Daily's two [now three] appeals, it has not yet done so.
DAILY WROTE:
As duly elected board directors we have all taken an oath of office. This oath is not conditional, we each may assert our rights to sit on this board and no rules or board conditions or policies can change that.
BERG RESPONDS:
It appears that Director Daily is asserting that his "rights sit on this board" cannot be infringed upon. This ignores the above-stated RCW that grants the Board authority to make bylaws for its own government.
Every organization has an inherent right to maintain order at its meetings and to silence an unruly member who refuses to obey its adopted rules of conduct. Even the United States Senate has the power to expel a member.
DAILY WROTE:
State law provides for board director recalls, which is the only way to successfully remove any board member.
BERG RESPONDS:
That is incorrect. There other ways in which a school board member can be removed from office. These are detailed elsewhere on this website.
DAILY WROTE:
Roberts Rules of Order are not policies, not laws, not rules with any force of law. In fact as the Aspen group seems to have intonated, RROO’s have little if any place in board policies.
BERG RESPONDS:
The Aspen Group did not "intonate" or state that Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised have no place in board policies. Aspen, in fact, included two references in their proposed policies that specifically stated that the meetings are to be conducted according to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (GC-2, #8 and GC-4, 1, c).
(The correct abbreviation for the book is "RONR", not "RROO", which fact can easily be ascertained by opening the book to its seventh page. Also, there was nothing musical in The Aspen Group's workshops, so nothing was "intonated".)
DAILY WROTE:
RROO's are simply guidelines to be used to manage and run group meetings. They may be desired, but they are not required.
BERG RESPONDS:
That statement is reminiscent of the comical line from the movie Pirates of the Caribbean. When the character Elizabeth attempted to invoke the "Pirates' Code", she received the response, "The Code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules." The book RONR is generally referred to as Robert's Rules or Order -- how could they not be rules?
The current Board policy, and the proposed bylaws, designate RONR as the board's "parliamentary authority". Wikipedia states: A parliamentary authority is a book of rules on conducting business (parliamentary procedure) in deliberative assemblies. A group generally creates its own rules and then adopts such a book to cover meeting procedure not covered in its rules."
There is the legal principle of incorporation by reference in which one document includes the provisions of a second document by only mentioning the second document. This legal principle is codified in the District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act, Section 29-40.50 (e), which provides that when the bylaws adopt a book as the specified parliamentary authority, the rules in that parliamentary authority are treated as provisions of the bylaws.
DAILY WROTE:
To be clear, they [RONR] are not enforceable and carry no weight in a court of law.
BERG RESPONDS:
The enforceability of the rules in an adopted parliamentary are so well understood by most, that few appellate courts are called upon to specifically rule on that issue. Director Daily has nevertheless made that very challenge in his first lawsuit against the Board (Daily v. SKSD (1) filed in August 2021. Since that time no evidence or legal citations have been submitted in support of that claim. It is highly unlikely that he will be able provide any legal support for his claim that RONR, when adopted as a parliamentary authority, is not enforceable and carry no weight in a court of law.
There is an opinion from the New York State Attorney General that relates to the authority of an adopted parliamentary authority. Opn. No. 1978-313 (Ops. N.Y. Atty. Gen. Dec. 19, 1978) reads, in part:
The Charter of the City of Poughkeepsie specifically authorizes the Common Council to adopt "all the necessary rules and regulations for its own conduct and procedure." We believe that implicit in this authorization is the power to discipline members. While the Council's Rules and Regulations make no provision for its enforcement, Chapter XX of Robert's Rules of Order does set forth disciplinary procedures which include various forms of punishment for disorderly members. Among the measures which are available is the right to use such force as is reasonably necessary to remove the offender from the meeting room. The adoption of Robert's Rules of Order, therfore, [sic] should provide sufficient authorization for the discipline of a disorderly member, including reprimand, suspension or expulsion.
DAILY WROTE:
The Revised Code of Washington at 42.30 is the law in accordance with the OPMA. Violations of this law are borne by the individual, thus the district risk pool will not represent or protect violators.
BERG RESPONDS:
RCW 42.30 is not just "the law in accordance with the OPMA", it is the OPMA. Chapter 42.30 of the Revised Code of Washington is designated as the "Open Public Meetings Act of 1971" (RCW 42.30.900).
The act does provide that penalties for violation of the OPMA are a personal liability of the members of the governing body violating the OPMA. Without reading the exact provisions of the insurance coverage for the school board directors, insurance for directors typically does not cover willful wrongful acts of directors (such as attacking a visitor at a board meeting), but do cover directors' acts in taken good faith in the normal course of their duties.
As far as the costs of defending a director, those costs can be born by the District as authorized by RCW 28A.320.100. Otherwise, no one would be willing to volunteer to serve as a school board director if they were personally liable for legal costs of defending against anyone who has the $240 to file a lawsuit against them. OPMA, (RCW 42.30.120 (4)) specifically states that "any public agency which prevails in any action in the courts for a violation of this chapter may be awarded reasonable expenses and attorney fees upon final judgment and written findings by the trial judge that the action was frivolous and advanced without reasonable cause." This contemplates that the agency (the District) will be incurring legal costs in defending against an alleged violation of the OPMA.
DAILY WROTE:
Thus anyone of us voting on any policy, process, or procedure that violates the OPMA will subject you individual and personal liability.
BERG RESPONDS:
Voting for a policy, process, or procedure that would violate the OPMA is not in itself a violation of the OPMA. For example, if the Board were to adopt a policy that requires all individuals in attendance at a Board meeting to disclose their names before being allowed into the room, voting to adopt that policy initially would not be a violation of the OPMA, while trying to enforce the policy would. Since violation of the OPMA is not a criminal act (RCW 42.30.120(3)), planning to violate it would not constitute either criminal conspiracy (RCW 9A.28.040) or criminal attempt (RCW 9A.28.020).
Director Daily has failed to provide any recommended amendments to the proposed documents. Nor has he provided any sources to back up his legal claims.
DAILY WROTE:
None of us are attorneys of course. We all must make our own personal choices in these matters. I believe it is best to choose carefully who you speak with when relying on how past boards and their members 'managed' prior boards.
Please do not reply to this message.
In preparation for the Board's March 17, 2022 consideration of the adoption of revised Governance Culture policies and proposed Bylaws, Board members were invited to submit their proposed amendments for distribution to the Board in advance of the meeting. Click here for more details and the full text of these documents.
Below is Director Berg's rebuttal to Director Daily's second set of remarks submitted for the March17th meeting. Unlike the rebuttal to Director Daily's February remarks above, his March remarks will be not quoted in full line-by-line, but will be referenced in Director Berg's rebuttal below.
Governance Culture policies are those policies that the Board has adopted for its own governance, and constitute the 'bylaws' by which the Board functions.
Washington State Law, RCW 28A.320.040 specifically grants the school board "power to make such bylaws for their own government, and the government of the common schools under their charge, as they deem expedient, not inconsistent with the provisions of this title, or rules and regulations of the superintendent of public instruction or the state board of education."
The overriding tone of Director Daily's remarks are that the Board has no authority to regulate its own members. This is contrary to the law cited in the preceding paragraph. Director Daily wrote, under GC Policies, b. GC-2, Item #3, "Nice ideals to strive for but you cannot legislate behavior and most are not legally enforceable." He than rambles on about lying and hiding things from the public.
The next paragraph, Item #4, he complains that he does not take part in the agenda planning. I agree that the entire board should be involved in agenda planning. See my remarks on that topic elsewhere on this website.
HIJACKING
Under Item #5, Director Daily writes, "Concerns about someone hijacking the consent agenda are overblown and irrational and hints that we are not all equal in what we want to say and address. Anyone should be able to have an item removed and considered separately. The time involved to discuss is minimal and clarifying questions often take up more time. This is a perceived RROO [sic] issue to fix a problem that doesn't exist."
The consent agenda at the board meetings is intended to contain routine, non-controversial items that are combined and adopted with one vote, typically without debate. Under the Board's previous policy, a majority of the Board was required to remove something from the agenda and consider it separately. This is consistent with the WSSDA model policy, but not with Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed.), properly abbreviated as RONR. Under RONR, one member can have an item removed from the consent agenda for separate consideration. When there is a conflict between rules in RONR and Board policies, the Board policy prevails. (To take something off the meeting agenda and not consider it at all requires a majority.)
While I preferred the RONR rule of one member being able to take something off the consent agenda (in order to promote free debate), it was the Aspen Group that warned that one member could hijack a meeting by taking most items off the consent agenda for separate consideration. Requiring two members to take an item off was a compromise arrived at in the January workshop with the Aspen Group.
Actually, the time taken up in Board meetings by Director Daily to address individual items on the consent agenda is not minimal but rather substantial.
BOARD DIRECTING THROUGH POLICY
GC-2, paragraph 6 states, "The Board will direct the district through policy. The Board's major focus will be on the results expected to be achieved by students, rather than on the operational choices made by the Superintendent and staff to achieve those results."
This is the wording recommended by The Aspen Group. Director Daily claims that this statement from the Aspen Group is not consistent with the Aspen Group's own Coherent Governance (R) model and needs to be revised. (See Coherent Governance.) The purpose of Coherent Governance is to have the Board avoid micro--managing the District, yet Director Daily writes, "The whole purpose of the coherent governance model is to monitor all facets of the district; not to ignore something because it is 'operational' and unions/others have a vested interest in the board remaining ignorant of district issues."
UNANIMOUS BOARD DECISIONS
Under Item #7. Director Daily is proposing that all important Board decisions must be unanimous, including any decision to end debate. This would effectively give any one Board member veto authority over the rest of the Board. This is contrary to the basic principle of majority rule. (How can the United Nations Security Council effectively deal with the conflict in Ukraine when Russia has veto power in the Security Council?)
If every decision that Director Daily voted against failed, the entire District would cease to function. He consistently votes against all expenditures, including regular payroll.
ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER
Much like the Pirates' Code in the movie Pirates of the Caribbean, Director Daily believes that Robert's Rules of Order is more like guidelines rather than actual rules. In his first lawsuit against the School Board, he argues that RONR has no legal force of law (page 5 of Summons and Complaint). He also claimed that is was nowhere in Board policy, even when the Board had adopted RONR as their parliamentary authority in the former Governance Policy GP-2-E5 and now in Policy GC-12.
As cited above, the State Law authorizes the Board to adopt bylaws for their own government. The Board's bylaws consists of these governance policies. Rather than including all of the procedural rules in the policies, the Board through policy adopts RONR at its parliamentary authority so that the RONR rules apply unless they conflict with other Board policy.
Director Daily fails to accept this concept. When a group of individual join together for a game or activity, the usually agree to follow certain rules. When one person insists that the rules do not apply to them, there is bound to be some dysfunction and contention. That dysfunction is not the fault of the rules, nor of the referee, but of the individuals who refuse to accept that the rules apply to them.
For this reason, Director Daily objects to all references to RONR in GC-2, paragraph 8, GC-4, item 1 c, and what is now the section of GC-12 on meeting conduct.
BOARD MEMBER CODE OF CONDUCT (GC-7)
Consistent with Director Daily's belief that the rules don't apply to him, he objects to an attempt by the Board to impose rules of conduct upon its members. He writes, "Items #5, #6, #7 are not legally enforceable and may be violations of individual rights. These are certainly good ideals to strive for and are in the interest of all board members but you cannot legislate behavior. The world has changed and we need to change with it. Repressing/supressing individual rights is exactly the opposite of the transparency we seem to talk about."
ADDRESSING BOARD MEMBER VIOLATIONS (GC-9)
Director Daily writes only "h GC-8 No comments I would avoid this one. Under litigation."
The litigation to which he refers is Jeffery Daily v. South Kitsap School Board [1], in which he claims that the Board process for addressing board member violations in not legal. It was previously GP-12, and is reads identically as the new CG-9. That policy is based upon and similar to the WSSDA model policy #1825, and most districts in the State have similar provisions in their policies.
BYLAWS IN GENERAL
Director Daily writes, "The concept of bylaws is a certain board member's initiative and those views were not shared with/by other board members. The policies from the previous board are under litigation and therefore cannot be fully discussed. This is an attempt to make those prior policies applicable and to give them some type of authority which they do not have; either ethically or legally. The legality of these bylaws and policies will depend on the upcoming court rulings and the WA State Ethics Board once they have ruled; except as delineated by the applicable RCWs."
The reference to "a certain board member's initiative" appears to be directed at Director Berg. The concept of taking former Governance Policies that were not included in the Aspen Group's recommended Governance Culture Policies and putting them in a document called bylaws, was not Director Berg's idea, it was proposed by the Aspen Group over Director Berg's objection. Director Berg wanted all of the applicable policies together in one document.
The fact that Director Daily has challenged some of the Board's policies in court does not prohibit the Board from continuing its work until their is some ruling from the court. (If someone filed a suit challenging the District payroll policies, would the District have to stop paying all payroll until the lawsuit was decided? Obviously anyone with the $240 to file a lawsuit cannot bring the work of the District to a halt until there is a court ruling.)
The WA State Ethics Board is cited because in Director Daily's first lawsuit claims that the provisions of RCW 42.52 should apply to school boards. The Board's legal counsel does not agree with that opinion. When lawyers disagree, the one with the black robe will decide.
SEVEN MEMBER SCHOOL BOARD (Bylaw #2, now GC-11)
Director Daily proposed a seven-member school board. However that would require a change in state law and is not a decision that the Board can make now.
BOARD MEETINGS AND THE OPMA (Bylaw #3, now GC-12)
Director Daily's second lawsuit addresses the Board's compliance with the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30).
Director Daily believes that there should be more public comment before any major decision and that there should be no restrictions upon who may speak to the Board. He also believes that there should be more room for visitors at the Board meetings. (Prior to COVID, there were typically less than five visitors in the audience at in-person Board meetings.
The OPMA is clear that there can be no restrictions nor conditions upon any members of the public attending board meetings, other than rules of civil behavior. Thus the Board cannot require visitors to sign in or give their name in order to attend. The OPMA does not address the public comment portion of Board meetings, and it is common for all boards (city councils, school boards, etc.) to require those addressing the Board to identify themselves. Director Daily claims that anonymous individuals should be allowed to address the board. Current and past Board policy has required those wishing to address the Board to identify themselves.
There is a difference between attend, participate, and speak. A member of the public may attend a session of Congress, from the visitors' gallery, but may not participate by speaking, shouting, applauding, or whatever. In order to address Congress, it must be done by appointment during a designated public hearing. If one has a ticket to attend a concert, that conveys the right to be there and to listen, and even to applaud or cheer when appropriate, but it does not convey the right to go on the stage and perform. Anyone not complying will be ejected.
Attending the Board meeting is not the same thing as speaking to the Board during a meeting.
[See also March 2022 changes to the OPMA.}
Mr. Kimble's comments during the Public Comment portion of the August 3, 2022 Board meeting can be found on the video of the meeting from 1:45:50 to 1:49:00. Rebuttal to his three topics is shown below.
Mr. Kimble's comments at the Budget Hearing will be addressed after that.
Mr. Kimble complains that budget and personnel matters are on the Board's Consent Agenda and are handled by the Board without any questions or debate. He claims that this precludes the public from commenting on them, and that they don't even have adequate notice of them. These claims are not valid.
The Consent Agenda at the board meetings is intended to contain routine, non-controversial items that are combined and adopted with one vote, without debate. Under the Board's previous policy, a majority of the Board was required to remove something from the Consent Agenda and consider it separately with debate. This is consistent with the WSSDA model policy, but not with Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed.), abbreviated as RONR. Under RONR, one member can have an item removed from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration. When there is a conflict between rules in RONR and Board policies, the Board policy prevails. (To take something off the meeting agenda and not consider it at all requires a majority vote.)
When Directors Berg and Daily were first on the Board, questions and debate were allowed on Consent Agenda matters. Director Daily took advantage of that fact and raised questions on minor issues on the consent agenda, such as questioning individual expenditures from a forty-page listing of all expenditures. The questions were left unanswered and the public was left with with unresolved suggestions of impropriety on the District's part.
The purpose of debate is to sway votes, but this was not the apparent intent. The intent appeared to be to use the Board meeting as a forum to publicly criticize the District. If any discrepancy was serious enough that the Board should not approve it, it should have been taken off the consent agenda, and postponed until the appropriate questions were answered. Director Daily rarely, if ever, proposed that procedure. He has, however, often objected to the entire concept of a Consent Agenda, wanting debate on every issue, and demanding that only a unanimous vote can adopt items on a Consent Agenda. (This is probably because the term Consent Agenda contains the word "consent", being confused with a different parliamentary procedure called "unanimous consent".) The time taken up in Board meetings by Director Daily to address individual items on the Consent Agenda was not minimal but rather substantial.
While Director Berg initially preferred the RONR rule of one member being able to take something off the Consent Agenda (in order to promote free debate), it was the Aspen Group consultants that warned that one member could hijack a meeting by taking most items off the consent agenda for separate consideration. Requiring two members to take an item off was a compromise arrived at during a workshop with the Aspen Group.
Regarding the public's lack of debate or comment on Consent Agenda items, even if they were debatable during the meeting, the public would not be entering into the Board's discussion at that point in the meeting. The public has advance notice on the published agenda of those matters and is free to correspond with the Board members prior to the meeting or to comment during the Public Comment portion of the meeting. If two Board members are convinced that a matter needs a more complete discussion and consideration before voting, two members can have an item removed from the Consent Agenda. This is occasionally done.
The public has the same rights to comment on Consent Agenda items as to any other Board business. The claim that the public has no notice is false. The claim that the public has no opportunity to comment on Consent Agenda items is also false. It is possible that Mr. Kimble's complaints regarding a lack of public comment is simply echoing Director Daily's ongoing complaint that he, as a director, cannot debate items on the Consent Agenda (without the agreement of one other board member).
Mr. Kimball said:
Why is Mr. Berg, Director Berg, able to maintain a private website where he has regularly siphoned off off very official-looking school district and board information? The site looks like an official school website. People I've talked to thought it was official. Why is Director Berg permitted to maintain a private website with official-looking info when none of the other board members maintain any websites. Of the number of other school districts that I have so far contacted, none of them permit board members to maintain private websites related to school district business. The only exception that I have found is when board members are running for office and candidacy, and when that's over, they go away -- they are gone. Why aren't any of the other board directors maintaining private websites. And we know what Mr. Berg's website looks like and, John, I don't want to hear you say, "Dave, you get rid of yours and I'll get rid of mine."
While the word "private" applies to this website only with regard to the fact that it is privately financed and maintained, it is not private in the sense that it is closed to the public view. The public is welcome to view it and respond with comments to Director Berg. Most comments from the public are not posted on this website because it is not intended as a public forum, which would preclude Director Berg from restricting or editing comments. This website is therefore self-identified as a personal website rather than a private website.
Director Berg is able to maintain this website because it is a personal website and no permission is needed from the Board to do so. Director Espy does not need Board permission to walk her dog and talk with constituents about Board business during her walks. Director Daily does not need Board permission to write letters to the editor or to speak to the Port Orchard City Council. Nor can the Board prohibit such actions. Director Daily claims that the Board has no right to limit his rights of free speech, such as with a motion of limit or end debate, in spite of the fact that almost nothing passes the U.S. Senate without first adopting a motion to end debate. Director Berg uses this website to communicate with his constituents and the Board has no right to prevent him from doing do. The use of this website avoids the need of Director Berg to engage in contentious rebuttal during Board meetings. There have been thousands of visits to the website.
Mr. Kimble complains that this website looks like an official District website. The home page of the website very clearly and repeatedly identifies it as a personal website and it even has a link to the official District website. The only time the District logo is shown is in the section directing people to communicate with Director Berg through the official District email system. Perhaps this website looks "official" because of its professional-appearance and organization. If public information is available on or through the District's website or email system, it is not necessary for Director Berg to put the District through the expense of responding to a public disclosure request before posting the available public information on this website.
If the people Mr. Kimble talks with confuse this website with the District's official website, that that is more of an indication of the literacy level of Mr. Kimble's associates than any deficiency in this website's disclosures. At least this website clearly identifies the individual responsible for its content, in contrast to the website managed by Mr. Kimble in association with Director Daily, which refuses to name any individuals taking responsibility for its content.
With the exception of Director Daily, whose views are adequately represented on the website managed by his associate Mr. Kimble, other South Kitsap directors do not feel a need to have their own websites most likely because this website managed by Director Berg is very exhaustive and sufficient in covering Board matters.
While other districts do not have directors maintaining private websites like this one, that could be because the other districts do not have the same circumstances and contention as on the South Kitsap School Board. (How many other districts have a director filing three lawsuits against the Board?) For any that may, this website could become a trendsetter.
Mr. Kimble previously filed a complaint against Director Berg with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commisston (PDC) regarding this website and Director Berg's mentioning it during a board meeting. The PDC found no violations and issued no warnings to Director Berg, but merely reminded him to avoid discussing election matters on the website. Director Berg modified this website and now maintains a separate website addressing his reelection campaign. Mr. Kimble's claims that this website is "illegal" are not substantiated by any facts.
Mr. Kimble opined that community involvement through survey monkey or thought exchange surveys is inadequate and will backfire. He did not elaborate.
He also complained about the District maintaining a 40-sailboat without someone to train the students to sail it and limiting its use to Navy ROTC students.
He also complained about the District deciding how to spend taxpayer money without adequate public input.
The annual budget hearing preceded the regular Board meeting. Mr. Kimble's initial comments can be found on the same video of the meeting from to 39:15 to 42:58.
Mr. Kimble asked , "When is OSPI going to reimburse the several hundred thousand dollars of ESSER funds that were not properly reported? " In response, ESSER funds are COVID relief funds from the Federal Government that are reimbursed through the State. Some of the funds were intended to cover "lost revenue" but, while the District documented the lost revenue, the State Auditor found that the District did not report specific expenditures to be reimbursed corresponding to those lost revenues, and many other districts in the state had the same omission. The ESSER funds were reimbursed to the District and the issue of whether or not additional documentation is required or the funds will need to be returned has not yet been resolved.
Mr. Kimble noted that this 2022-2023 budget looks similar or the same as the last budget and with no more ESSER funds coming it pretty obvious that the current level of funding cannot be continued. He asked if the District is going to rely of levy funds to hire beyond what the state allocates? In fact, there are more ESSER funds available. The proposed budget is for the 2022-2023 school year and there are millions of dollars in ESSER funding still available for the next year.
He asks if the District going to continue to use levy dollars to hire beyond what the state allocates? The answer is yes. The state "allocates" only 1.267 nurses (that is less than two) for over 8500 students in 17 schools. The District budgets for 9.8. The state allocates for .22 psychologists (that is less than one psychologist) while the District budgets for 14. The state allocates for 14.89 counselors while the District budgets for 27. When the voters approve the levy, they approve the additional staffing deemed necessary to serve the kids. The voters elect the board of directors who direct the superintendent and approve the budget.
He asks how can the District go over budget on the pool and cut the number of days the kids get free lunches. In actuality, the pool repair and renovation costs come from the Capital Levy approved by the voters and the school lunches are Federally funded. The District cannot and does not move lunch money to cover the pool.
See the budget presentation below. Page 14 shows the state funding model. Page 9 shows the breakdown of ESSER funding available through September of 2024.
Mr. Kimble's follow-up comments from the budget hearing can be found on the same video of the meeting from to 1:32:00 to 1:32:40.
Mr. Kimble said:
I just wanted to take exception to, you know, often we don't give feedback to the directors, we are not permitted, but I thought it was rather cagey of Director Berg to go after Director Daily and ask those hypothetical questions, "Do you not want to have enough nurses for the students? do you not want to have enough mental health available?" I mean it was all ta da ta da ta da with not really wanting an answer. Just an opportunity to box in a fellow director. Yea, they're suing each other. Yea, Berg's probably getting his legal bills paid, bla bla bla bla bla. But to go in that route is not attractive and that is why the community doesn't like listening to these meetings. Thanks.
Director Berg's questions to Director Daily were in response to Director Daily's comments about the District not being able to afford to pay for personnel beyond what the state pays for in basic funding. This line was similar to Mr. Kimble's comments a few paragraphs above. Director Daily had opposed the previous levy which pays for these additional services to the students. The question was to determine if Director Daily was in favor of funding the additional services that the levy pays for. They were not rhetorical questions that did not expect an answer. Director Daily answered the questions and Director Berg acknowledged that Director Daily had indeed answered the questions.
Regarding the comment that Director Daily and Director Berg are suing each other, that statement is false. Director Berg has no lawsuit against Director Daily. Although Director Daily has threatened a personal lawsuit against Director Berg and even stated at the November 17, 2021 board meeting, "Mr. Berg has/is being served papers regarding a personal lawsuit and an injunction that involves his interaction with the Board", no such papers have ever been served. In a December 16, 2022 email to Board President Wilson, Director Daily wrote, "Mr. Berg is being sued for the content of his website as well as others issues." There have been no such lawsuits. Director Daily's statements were false.
What is fact is that Director Daily has filed three suits against the South Kitsap School Board, in August 2021, February 2022, and April 2022. These suits were against the board as a whole. The individual members of the Board were not named as Respondents. Mr. Kimble should know the difference between filing a suit against an entity and against individuals. (Mr. Kimble was the one who personally served the papers on the District on behalf of Director Daily.) Since the suits are against the Board and not against its members as individuals, the District is paying the legal expenses in responding to the suits. Director Daily is responsible personally for his own legal fees as the Plaintiff.
There has been references in the media and at Board Meetings regarding a letter that Board President Wilson sent to Director Daily. Details will be given here.
On December 21, 2022, Board President Willson sent the following email to Directors Pickard, Berg, and Espy, together with Superintendent Winter, as follows:
SK Board Members,
Please see the attached letter detailing Director Daily’s most recent conflicted and unethical behaviors. As Mr. Winter and Vice President Pickard know, I attempted to speak with Mr. Daily before the last board meeting about these concerns but he declined to engage with me outside of the formal board meeting.
Typically, this would mean that we would have and executive session at tonight’s session to discuss this information and hear from Director Daily directly. However, as you know Director Daily has declined to participate in any executive session for almost a year now so on the advice of our district’s attorney, I have documented my concerns in the attached letter instead.
Per a working agreement between our attorney and Director Daily’s, they have agreed to handle all questions of policy violations attorney to attorney.
Mr. Winter. Please pass along the attached letter to our attorney and have them in-turn provide it to Director Daily via his legal council.
As board president, I would be happy to discuss this matter with Director Daily along with the attorneys and/or we could discuss them with the full board an an upcoming public board meeting if that is still Director Daily’s standing wish.
Sincerely,
Jefé………...
Dr. Jeffrey (Jefé) Wilson
School Board President & Director No. 4
South Kitsap School District No. 402
wilsonj@skschools.org
360.328.1185
The attached letter to Director Daily was as follows:
December 21, 2022
To: Jeffrey Daily (South Kitsap School Board Director)
Fr: Jeffrey (Jefé) Wilson (South Kitsap School Board President)
Cc: Director Pickard, Director Berg, Director Espy, Superintendent Winter
Re: Director Daily Conflicts of Interest.
I am writing you today (via your attorney) to formally notify you that you are in multiple violations of our SK School Board Policies (see GC-7, GC-8) and Washington State Laws (see RCW 42.23.030) on Conflict of Interest. Per our policy (and my role as Board President under GC-4) on December 7th, I attempted to speak with you privately prior to our last School Board meeting about my concerns with your behavior but you declined to speak with me outside of the board meeting itself. Typically, the next step in this process (see GC-9) would be to speak with you as an entire board about these concerns during a closed executive session at today’s meeting, but you have also declined to attend any executive sessions in recent months. So, after consultation with our attorney, I am proceeding with this letter (delivered through your attorney) as a means for convey my concerns about your multiple violations of policy and law.
Conflict #1: Operating as an Agent Against SKSD (see GC-7, GC-8, B/SR-3, RCW 42.23.030). You are operating as your Wife’s council in her workplace complaint against the SK School District which has included meeting with District Administrators and District Attorneys while representing your wife against the district. This directly violates both state law and our policies. You should NOT be participating in or attempting to influence any employment actions such as hiring, firing, wages, benefits, working conditions, performance reviews, and disciplinary actions related to your spouse. You must cease and desist in the behavior immediately.
Conflict #2: You have been putting your Anti-Tax membership group interests above the District’s interests (see GC-7). You are a confirmed founding partner (and principal) of the CSSKSD anti-district, anti-union, anti-school board group where you continue to produce hit pieces again other school board members (including me), the district, and our teachers and staff. You have stated in board meetings that you will not support our school rebuilding bond efforts on their merits and instead are trying to withhold approval of a bond as leverage to eliminate what you personally deem to be “excess staff” which are in fact voter-backed and levy-funded positions. You are also the head of an anti-tax group targeting the fire-fighters bond. My assumption is that you will continue put your anti-tax agenda ahead of valid school capital and operational needs through your web-site propaganda presumably form a formal group to fight a new school bond should the full school board vote to approve one for a ballot in the coming year (2023).
Conflict#3: You have been misrepresenting the school board’s intentions regarding our Funding Sourcing Intentions, Infrastructure Rebuilding Feasibility Studies, and School Bond Approval Process (see GC-7, GC-4). It has come to my attention that you have been acting as a board representative and approaching banks an implying that we are seeking alternatives to traditional school bond funding; we are not and have ONLY been pursuing capital bond funding options to date. You have been making phone calls to public officials regarding our growth property on old Clifton board implying that you are representing the board, you are NOT and have NOT been authorized you to participate in this process. Furthermore, the district has hired a bond consultant to handle such matters and we are working with him directly on these matters. Lastly, you have been writing letters to the newspaper (again appearing to speak for the board) and describing (albeit inaccurately) our approach for the bond while imposing several of your personally developed hurdles as part of the formal process. Again, you do not (and should not) speak for the board. In my role as president, I am the sole designated representative for the press (see GC-4).
Like it or not, your role as a South Kitsap School Board Director is in effect 24/7 and 365 days a year which means that both state laws and our own Board policies apply to you whether you would like them to or not. Board members cannot pick and choose in what capacity (and which times) their duty to “conduct themselves lawfully with integrity and high ethical standards” should apply; they must always behave ethically. If you would like to be unencumbered with the duties and responsibilities of an elected School Board member, I would suggest that you tender your resignation as South Kitsap School Board Director #5 effective immediately.
Sincerely,
Jefé…………..
Jeffrey D. Wilson, PhD
South Kitsap School Board President
School Board Director – District # 4
The letter was written by Director Wilson and other Board members were not consulted in advance (except perhaps Director Pickard, as suggested in Director Wilson's remarks at the February 15, 2023, board meeting.
It is legal, under the Washington Open Public Meetings Act (RCW 42.30) (OPMA) for two members of a five-member board to consult with each privately, but including a third member in the discussions outside of a public meeting violates the OPMA. Therefore when one board member sends an email to multiple other board members, those receiving it may not use a 'Reply to All', but must "passively receive" the email. Therefore there was no discussion between multiple board members except as noted above.
Dave Kimble, in his remarks at the February 1, 2023, Board meeting, stated that the other board members receiving the email from Director Wilson became complicit in the letter by not taking any action to stop or repudiate Director Wilson. Yet such action could legally be taken only at a public meeting. In a contradictory statement by Mr. Kimble at the February 15, 2023 Board meeting, he accused the Board members of violating the OPMA by privately colluding upon writing and approving the letter.
Board Policy GC-9, the process for addressing Board member violations, states that the Board President should communicate privately with the offending member. President Wilson was unable to do that because Director Daily refuses to talk to other Board members outside of meetings. Item two in the process is a discussion in a private session between the offending director and the Board. This was also not possible because Director Daily has invoked his rights under RCW 42.30.1110 to have any Board discussions regarding his behavior in a public meeting. (Director Daily's own attorney has admitted that these steps need not be taken in order.) The third item on the list is consideration of public censure of the offending director.
Jeff Daily Response
POI Story Published 01-16-23
A local paper published an article relating to the January 4th SKSD board meeting. The reporter was given my attorney’s contact information for my comments, but the paper did not contact my attorney so the story was published without my attorneys or my comments. This delayed response is due to me not having all of the facts at that time I was contacted by the reporter.
Listening to the audio of the SKSD board meeting held January 4th, one can hear where Mr. Berg fails to accurately recite the pertinent laws I requested and Mr. Wilson and Ms. Espy offer their own critical comments regarding my displeasure. Mr. Wilson offers more inappropriate commentary suggesting my actions were “antics” and implied a “mental issue” as well as illegally muting me. He then abruptly stopped the meeting. Their dialogue sounded scripted, because the other board members and the superintendent were in possession of a letter drafted by Mr. Wilson; dated December 21st, 2022.
Mr. Wilson's letter is nothing short of a demand letter seeking my immediate resignation. The districts law firm delayed transmitting Mr. Wilson's letter to my attorney, thus I was not aware of it until Friday, January 6th, two days after the board meeting. Why would Mr. Wilson demand that I resign my seat now? Union and District politics stand out, as I am perceived to be a threat to the status quo for both should I choose to run for re-election. I apparently represent a threat to secretive SKEA negotiations for the ever increasing pay raises and employee perks. Disparaging me at meetings and now this demand for my resignation is clearly an attempt to strengthen their cherry picked board candidate chances of winning my seat.
Mr. Wilson’s letter alleges three conflicts. First, a grievance was filed by my spouse against the district. He alleges that I interfered in the complaint process. How; because I support my wife in this matter. She has her own attorney so there are no ethical or legal restrictions with a spouse offering support. There is a legal issue now since this board has violated my spouse's rights to confidentiality. Grievances must be kept confidential, yet this board knew all about this grievance. How did the entire board learn about this grievance when only two other district and union people attended the grievance meeting? Who leaked the information to Mr. Wilson and the board?
Secondly, the letter alleges that I continue stating my concerns regarding 403 additional unfunded district employees which the state does not pay for and costs local taxpayers over $30M a year. This concern has yet to be addressed and I cannot support the November bond measure until it is resolved. Mr. Wilson and the board complain this is not “proper” behavior. With student enrollment falling, which affects the budget, and academic scores continuing to dec cline, this is not only “proper”; but actually required due diligence. Isn’t money for the students the taxpayer’s first priority?
Finally, Mr. Wilson alleges I inappropriately spoke with various banks in our community to explore other local financing options for the proposed bond(s). He claims, then legislates that only he is authorized to speak to the community. Exactly where in the law and constitution is this written? The board and the district talk a lot about community partnerships. They say we need their support of the District, yet the facts show otherwise. When I apprised local businesses of the district's proposed funding plans, none of them had heard of them. No one at the district bothered to ask them if they wish to help. Using a Seattle bond broker will enrich them with millions in commissions on the sale of the proposed bonds versus our local institutions. I am the only board member who reviews the district’s bills and accounts. I have many examples documenting the district’s use of businesses outside our own community. Thankfully, our businesses remain committed to the students and district.
Currently the board carries a 4-1 majority of votes, so why the attempt to stifle the “minority” member's voice? Apparently, diverse opinions aren’t wanted and they certainly don't consider the minority voice as equal. Last year, Mr. Wilson held an illegal executive session over a comment he considered a threat to his ego. His illegal actions were an attempt to intimidate me. Now he works on shredding my reputation and attempts to socially shame me. Our community is certainly tired of hearing all of arguments and discord among board members. But it is far easier for Mr. Wilson, Mr. Berg, and the others to scapegoat me for all the board’s ills and dysfunction by requesting my resignation.
[The above was posted on the CSSKS website and referenced by Director Wilson at the February 15, 2023 Board meeting.]
There has been previous correspondence between Directors Wilson and Daily dating back to December of 2021. That correspondence will be added here in the future.
Copyright © 2021, 2022 John R. Berg - All Rights Reserved.