Rebuttals

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.