Raeder Unilaterally Waived Legal Privilege?

The last post leads me to what Knecht had to say about the "lawyer contact" issue. There is at least one closely related question (unasked until now) that remains publicly unanswered: Was the letter Raeder referred to from the attorney (Haws) and, if so, was it, a) public record or , b) attorney-client privilege? I can guess, but have you ever gotten a letter from an attorney that they didn't consider privileged? I seriously doubt it.

That raises a very serious question: If privileged, what violation(s) did Raeder commit by disclosing the contents in a public meeting without a vote of the board (or even a non-voting "consensus") to do so in a lame attempt to slam Murphy? After all, Raeder herself went way out of her way to make the point that only the whole board is represented by counsel and can make legal decisions (or even contact the attorney, apparently). What effect does her unilateral waiving of attorney-client privilege have on PUSD?

It is common sense that Raeder's unethical conduct will scare off more potential legal representatives than the hiring of an additional law firm ever could.

Reporting Questionable Conduct Is A "Threat" (Unless You're Debra Raeder)

Sometimes I get such a kick out of the Duo's blatant hypocrisy!

With regard to contacting the lawyer directly (discussed at the July meeting), they both recently cast aspersions on Murphy's explanation with empty rhetoric, leaving out the actual facts of which they claim to be so fond. They completely omitted any mention of Erb's extremely defensive outburst, in which he said that he was the "staff" person in question. He never once disputed the timeline or substance of Murphy's description of events.

Apparently, Murphy was telling the truth. Otherwise, Erb would have specifically refuted at least some of the substance of Murphy's statement once he identified himself as the "staff" person.

As for Erickson's "Clintonesque" comment, that is pure sophistry, and he knows it! There is a huge difference between asking for the definitions of "threat" and "is." The word "is" has one clearly understood meaning. The word "threat" (when speaking of lawyers in particular) can have any number of meanings and was purposely used to inflame the situation. Saying you will report questionable conduct (is that really a "threat" anyway) is totally different from a physical threat. Raeder was using the timeless "Do you deny you beat your wife?" tactic. Speaking of being "worthy of the best litigator," it was quite artful for Murphy to force Raeder to define the "threat" rather than sounding defensive by doing it himself.

Where the Duo is concerned, here's the clincher. Several meetings ago, didn't Raeder "threaten" Douglas with possibly reporting her for an open meeting violation? For some strange reason, the Duo failed to chastise Raeder for that "threat." Unfortunately for all of them, Douglas' comment turned out not to be a violation at all. In fact, the statutory reason it was allowed was printed right on the agenda under Raeder's nose!

That wasn't just a "threat," it was an "empty threat" and the height of hypocrisy. But hypocrisy is nothing new for Raeder. Apparently when you're motivated by irrational hatred (with a lot of butt-covering thrown in), your own hypocrisy is tough to notice.

Erb Got Illegal Raise? - Statutory Detail

Due to the level of detail, I'm posting my response to a post on Debbie Lesko's azcentral blog by Veronica1422 on Jul 12, 2007 at 05:58 PM as a separate post here.

You said: "You showed papers or a contract. You didn't show how it was illegal..."

Yes, I explained in specific detail how and why it is illegal. After all of the discussion related to open meeting law that has taken place on various blogs, I presumed, perhaps in error, that most bloggers understand that every action of the board must be noticed on an agenda and happen at a public board meeting by way of a vote.

Incidentally, you said: "get a lawyer, take the governing board to court. Report it to the attorney general's office. If it was illegal prove it!"

How about being consistent, please? Joe has been telling everyone how and why the closed campus decision is illegal for weeks. Have you said the same thing to him? In fact, when someone else suggested that to him, were you one of the people who criticized the suggestion? Hypocrisy isn't a winning persuasive technique. Perhaps you simply didn't realize you were being inconsistent, and plan to remedy that. We'll see.

The recent precedent in PUSD has been to construe the open meeting requirement extremely narrowly. Case in point: changing the agenda items to "possible consideration." Regardless of your opinion of the decision that was made on that issue (irrelevant since we are discussing process here), two board members didn't think the "board meeting protocol" agenda item was sufficiently specific to make the vote valid. Galbraith, Raeder and Erb got a "legal opinion" and forced the board to re-vote the item at subsequent meeting with a more specific agenda item.

Ironically, those are three of the six people who apparently approved a pay increase and a retirement package under an agenda item (and a motion) that only mentioned an extension of the contract end date. Looks like they didn't hold themselves to the same standard when they had monopoly control of the board, did they? By any reasonable standard, the contract issue is of much greater importance and, if anything, one would want to err on the side of prior public disclosure of the various elements of the addendum in that instance.

So, since you apparently need "more information" I'll spoon-feed you a link to the exact statutes that were broken. I'll even quote them here, just in case you can't follow the links (in the statute headings below). The statute quotes (with pertinent/violated items highlighted) are copied and pasted directly from azleg.gov.

38-431. Definitions

3. "Legal action" means a collective decision, commitment or promise made by a public body pursuant to the constitution, the public body's charter, bylaws or specified scope of appointment and the laws of this state.

38-431.01. Meetings shall be open to the public

A. All meetings of any public body shall be public meetings and all persons so desiring shall be permitted to attend and listen to the deliberations and proceedings. All legal action of public bodies shall occur during a public meeting.

38-431.02. Notice of meetings

H. Agendas required under this section shall list the specific matters to be discussed, considered or decided at the meeting. The public body may discuss, consider or make decisions only on matters listed on the agenda and other matters related thereto.

38-431.03. Executive sessions

D. Legal action involving a final vote or decision shall not be taken at an executive session, except that the public body may instruct its attorneys or representatives as provided in subsection A, paragraphs 4, 5 and 7 of this section. A public vote shall be taken before any legal action binds the public body.

38-431.05. Meeting held in violation of article; business transacted null and void; ratification

A. All legal action transacted by any public body during a meeting held in violation of any provision of this article is null and void except as provided in subsection B. [ed: which requires a new notice and vote.]

38-431.09. Declaration of public policy

It is the public policy of this state that meetings of public bodies be conducted openly and that notices and agendas be provided for such meetings which contain such information as is reasonably necessary to inform the public of the matters to be discussed or decided. Toward this end, any person or entity charged with the interpretations of this article shall construe any provision of this article in favor of open and public meetings.

Whew!

Now, before you hang your hat on the part of ARS 38-431.02(H) that states, "and other matters related thereto" you should remember that all statutes are interpreted in context (which is why I have erred on the side of being thorough). ARS 38-431.09 makes it very clear that if the board wanted to approve an extension of the contract end date, a retirement package and a pay increase, they have to clearly state in the agenda that they intend to do each of those things or, if they simply mention approving a contract, have a copy of the proposed contract available for public inspection.

If you still have any doubt that there is a pattern of serious open meeting violations regarding Erb's various contracts, you simply aren't willing to listen to the truth.

Erb Got Illegal Raise? - The Sequel

A review of PUSD Superintendent Jack Erb's contract, which is public record, shows that there was more than one occasion where he recieved a pay increase that was not approved in a public meeting as required by law.

His contract, as provided upon request by the district, includes this document. It is a contract dated May 10, 2005 which increases Erb's base salary (effective July 2005) from $130,000 (see previous post) to $135,000. This increase is an even bigger problem than the first one. There are multiple problems with this document, namely:

1. There are no original signatures from either the board or Erb. When asked, the district has repeatedly said there is no other version with signatures to provide.
   
2. The document refers to legal action by the board on May 10, 2005. The agenda for that meeting makes no mention whatsoever of any action related to the superintendent's contract.

To say this is highly unusual is the quintessential understatement. There is absolutely no circumstance that adequately explains how Erb got another raise to his base salary less than six months after his previous raise when there wasn't even an agenda item. At least the board members knew about the first raise, even if they broke the law in giving it to him. A reasonable person might ask if they were even aware of this raise since none of them signed it. Erb didn't even bother to sign it, which, according to its own terms, makes the contract void. But we know he took the money because his current third-party employment contract amount was based on this salary amount.

It sounds like Jack has "a lot of splainin' to do!"

Erb Got Illegal Raise? (Where There's Smoke...)

It appears Greg Donovan and the "old board" wanted to give Jack Erb a gift before Donovan left the board, but after the voters unceremoniously dumped him in favor of Diane Douglas. Everything they did might have even been legal in and of itself. There was only one problem...they didn't bother to do it in a public meeting.

As of the beginning of December 2004, Erb's base salary was $125,000, with several other monetary "perks" thrown in. At the December 14, 2004 board meeting the final agenda item (minutes here) was listed as considering extending the superintendent's contract. So far, so good. The board went into executive session (for about 2-3 minutes, tops) and then came out and voted to extend Erb's contract until 6/30/07. If that was all they actually had done, that would have been fine, too. But it wasn't!

The actual contract addendum the board and Dr. Erb signed did three other things:

1. Increased his base salary by $5,000
2. Gave him an additional $1,500 stipend for having his doctorate degree
3. Allowed him to take a retirement buyout package "at any time" as agreed to by the board in place at the time he decided to retire

None of those three things were ever mentioned in public! They weren't on an agenda. They weren't discussed in the board meeting. They weren't part of the motion Pat Galbraith made and, most importantly, there was NEVER A PUBLIC VOTE! Listen for yourself. The actual motion and vote is in the last 20 seconds of the clip.

So far, Jack Erb has been paid at least $12,000 (that we know of) that was never legally approved in a public meeting. That doesn't include the fact that his AZ state retirement is probably inflated by this improper raise, as well. That means he'll get about $4,000 extra every year for the rest of his life!

I can only hope the proper authorities look into this ASAP. This was too carefully orchestrated to have been a simple oversight. How many other "mistakes" would they would find?

Where there's smoke...

Oops! Accidental Comment Rejection

While I do believe I'm right much more than I'm wrong about PUSD issues, that doesn't make me immune from mistakes.

A few minutes ago, I accidentally rejected two comments I meant to publish when I was distracted by an interruption and clicked the wrong button. As clearly stated before, I fully intend to publish ALL comments that are even reasonably respectful, whether or not the commentator agrees with me. For what it's worth, I interpreted one comment as "supportive" and one as "questioning" my take on things.

So if you read this, "Hello" and "IM4PUSD" (I think I remember the names correctly), please resubmit your comments and I will be glad to publish them right away. And thanks for taking the time to comment.

Raeder Spanked by AZ Ombudsman for Threat

Most of us remember the PUSD board meeting from last May 22. You know, the one where the Call to the Public was clarified to apply to non-agenda items.

You may also remember that Diane Douglas tried to ask staff to review a point mentioned by a speaker during the Call to the Public. At that moment, Debra Raeder practically tore Douglas' head off, claiming she was violating Open Meeting laws and threatening to file a complaint. Apparently, Raeder didn't notice that printed right there on the agenda under her nose was the statement that explains the agenda item. It specifically says (as does state law) that board members may ask staff to review a matter, which is exactly what Douglas did.

A member of the public, however, didn't think Raeder's inaccurate tirade was appropriate and filed a complaint with the Arizona Ombudsman. After reviewing the recording of the incident, their finding was that Raeder was totally out-of-line and is formally recommending PUSD receive training on Open Meeting laws (again), preferably during a regular board meeting so that the public can benefit from the instruction, as well. That's a good call. Some of our regular speakers need it, quite frankly.

I guess working for the governor causes some people to forget how to follow the rules.

Speaking of Micromanagement...Redux

It looks like Debra Raeder is an expert on hypocrisy. She has been the loudest (and most shrill) critic of the "Amigos" whenever they try to give any input whatsoever on personnel matters (beyond rubber-stamping Erb's appointments, of course).

It turns out that on 7-8-2003, there was an Executive Session to "evaluate" district administrators and the superintendent. The "Amigos" just wanted to discuss the finalists before making the appointments. It looks like Raeder and company actually participated in the evaluation process of administrators other than the superintendent. Too bad PUSD meetings and agendas prior to 2004 aren't available online. I'll post a copy of the agenda for that meeting as soon as I get one. After all, I wouldn't want to be accused of making this up.

Speaking of Micromanagement...

The Dynamic Duo and other bloggers like to label as "micromanagement" any attempt by Douglas, Knecht and/or Murphy to perform the oversight someone in their position is supposed to provide. Actually, the mere discussion of new or different oversight or accountability measures often causes the label to be invoked.

Let's see if those bloggers will be consistent in their application of that label. My guess is that it is a one-way street and that if an example of "micromanagement" by anyone else is pointed out, the response will be, "But that was different!"

Debra Raeder has developed a well-deserved reputation among PUSD insiders for making demands about who should be interviewed and/or hired for various upper-level staff openings. For example, the current Centennial High principal was Raeder's hand-picked choice for that position. A more egregious example was when candidates were interviewed for the PR Director position currently held by Jim Cummings. Multiple DAC employees have first-hand knowledge of Raeder calling up in a rage, demanding to know if a particular applicant would be interviewed. I will refrain from mentioning the applicant's name to avoid embarassing this person.

Recently, the board expressed interest in resuming a practice that used to be typical. The board used to convene in executive session to consider virtually all principals, assistant principals, directors and top-level administrators. That changed immediately prior to when Douglas was sworn in (but after she was elected). The timing of the change in PRACTICE, which did not coincide with a change in official POLICY, is very unlikely to be a coincidence.

About a year later, the POLICY regarding principals, directors and top-level administrators was changed from "make appointment" to "consider appointment." It has been claimed by some that this one-word change limits the board to discussing the one candidate the superintendent recommends. However, since all of the official actions of the board are labeled on the agenda as "consideration," it would be safe to say that the board has latitude in how they "consider." Whether they simply accept or reject the superintendent's recommendation or actually choose from amongst the finalists, with the superintendent's recommendation duly noted, should be up to their discretion, just as it was until recently. Accusations that such an interpretation "violates board policy" are absurd and mere rhetoric.

Apparently, the definition of "micromanagement" depends on whose actions are in question. Raeder gets a pass, but the new members don't. Who has an "agenda" now?

Erb About to Quit?

Word from PUSD insiders is that Superintendent Dr. Jack Erb is planning to break yet another committment to PUSD by quitting. This may happen as soon as June 26 with a "surprise" announcement at the board meeting that night. I guess it won't be such a surprise now, will it?

We shouldn't be too shocked, however, we should be relieved.

He has been doing his best to undermine the board now that he can't "keep them in their place" and get the votes he wants. Whether it is stonewalling selected members' requests for information, foot-dragging on requested agenda items or allowing the closed-campus "protests" to get out-of-hand, Erb has done everything he can to get back the near-monopoly control he used to have, to no avail. He has been known to viciously bad-mouth certain board members to teachers and administrators, even before some of them were sworn in.

We will be better off once we finally have a superintendent who doesn't govern by fear and intimidation. All but his "buddies" are afraid to ever express any contrary opinion for fear of retaliation, including possibly losing their jobs. I've gotten emails from some of them myself. Many PUSD employees privately look forward to the day this climate of fear ends.

We also deperately need a superintendent who understands financial responsibility. Erb, with the knowing (or maybe just incompetent) complicity of the past few boards, has made a complete mess of PUSD finances.

He created vast numbers of new positions and hired so many new employees, especially administrators (including a many at the DAC), it was a virtual certainty that there would barely be enough money to keep them all, much less give decent raises (unless you were one of his DAC "buddies"). That's why they did the early retirement buyouts a few years ago, to get rid of the experienced teachers who had higher salaries. It bought him time so that the real crisis would happen on someone else's watch and he could escape the blame. With him at the helm, it has been about carreer-making for adults, not doing the best to educate our kids.

We have seen some pretty good "spin" lately about an Auditor General's report that says PUSD administrative costs are below the state average. Great, we're average! But we used to be the BEST! The other half of the truth is that compared to our own past history, we are doing worse, not better in this area. But you won't hear the defenders of the status quo talk about that!

Then there is the Challenger fiasco. Erb and Debra Raeder were primarily responsible for costing PUSD approximately $1 million that is unlikely to ever be repaid. Did you know they were both on the Challenger board of directors (in addition to their PUSD responsibilities) when the majority of the debt was incurred? Most people don't, and that's the way they want it. What was that saying about not being able to serve two masters? When they claim they "didn't know" the extent of the debt, their dual roles show that claim to be either a lie or an admission of incompetence, take your pick. In addition, there are still rumblings that some of what was done when PUSD was paying salaries of Challenger employees was flatly illegal. A separate post in the next day or so will provide more specifics, including a detailed timeline.

What's In A Name? or The "Dynamic Duo" Unmasked!

The Duo has confirmed their status by spending significant time and space reveling in my nicknaming them the "Dynamic Duo." Anyone who was taken even a basic writing or literature class would be able to recognize sarcasm when they read it, but not these "two." Actually, the inspiration for them was none other than Ren & Stimpy.

Since we're on the subject of nicknames, what exactly is so bad about"The Three Amigos," anyway? Last time I checked, "amigos" means "friends" and, after all, isn't that a good thing?

Compare PUSD's "Call to the Public" with Glendale & Peoria City Councils

We have been regaled recently by tales of "free speech" being quashed by the "new" PUSD board. On May 22, they modified (some say clarified) the Call to the Public during meetings so that it is now reserved for non-agenda items. Previously, some people (on both sides of issues) would "double-dip" and speak twice to the same agenda item, once during Call to the Public and again when the item came up.

I think most reasonable people would agree with the logic of this clarification. However, the defenders of the "old" board (which fought against enacting Call to the Public to begin with), have claimed this is a move to silence the critics of the "new" board. Depending on the critic, the new policy will "clamp down on the First Amendment rights of all of us" (Erickson) or eliminates "free speech" in PUSD (Rohrig). This drivel (and worse) has been spewed by the Duo and other bloggers in comments on both AzCentral and Newszap. Let's see if their claims stand up to outside scrutiny.

The logical basis of their claim is that PUSD is somehow out-of-step with other public bodies by limiting Call to the Public to non-agenda items. However, the facts of the matter are that both Glendale and Peoria have the exact same limitation clearly stated on their agendas. They must be fascists!

But seriously, it turns out Call to the Public in PUSD is significantly more accomodating than in either Glendale or Peoria. PUSD's Call to the Public is near the beginning of the agenda, while both cities' are at the very end. If the Amigos' true goal was actually to silence their critics, as claimed by some of those critics, placing the Call to the Public at the end of the agenda would be much more effective.

So to summarize, the Duo claims the Amigos, who supported creating Call to the Public, don't want you to have free speech, while they defend the "old" board, which opposed creating Call to the Public in the first place.

Who's the hypocrite now?

Comments & Facts on This Blog

My apologies for not approving comments sooner the past few days. Several comments, some supportive of me and some not, have waited equally. I was simply unable to check the blog for the past several days.

Several folks, both here and on other blogs, have accused me of not having my facts straight because they read my post as stating that the Duo have endorsed the recall. That is not correct, although I can understand how some people might have understood it that way.

I started the post by referring to "Several anonymous bloggers," which includes those who comment on the Duos' blogs, Newszap and AzCentral. There was a separate paragraph about the "Duo" that doesn't even reference the possible recall. The paragraph that references the possible recall refers to the "several" bloggers, as does my mission statement at the top of the blog.

So my "facts" are not wrong, after all. Some folks simply misinterpreted what I said. To avoid pointless discussion about tangental issues, I will grant that a reasonable person might have read it that way in good faith. I will be happy to clarify my intent for the future by re-wording the statement in the page header.

More About Secret Meetings

The Dynamic Duo recently accused Douglas and Murphy of participating in a "conspiracy" to violate Arizona's Open Meeting Laws regarding Challenger. Rohrig has gone so far as to demand both members resign from the board immediately. Erickson said they should be subject to a criminal investigation and not participate in any board proceedings regarding the CLC.

Apparently they believe that if two members meet other than at a posted meeting, it is a violation. Even though it isn't, I'll grant their premise for discussion purposes.

I hope they will level equal condemnation at Galbraith and Raeder. Both of them (Raeder regularly, Galbraith occasionally) have been seen meeting, either individually or together, with none other than Superintendent Jack Erb at the Applebee's at 59th Ave & Peoria after some board meetings going back to at least last year. Mind you, there were weighty issues at hand, such as Jack's "golden parachute" retirement package and "double-dip" contract.

Now that buyout/new contract WASN'T rushed through before the end of the year (just ask them if you don't believe me) after two of the Gang of Four lost the election. Plus, I'm sure they NEVER discussed agenda items or Jack's buyout/new contract. To quote Erickson, "So much for transparency."

Of course, we all know the Duo will make no such rebuke. They will dream up a string of excuses about how that was different, probably because their heroes "care about PUSD" and the "bad" members are just "grandstanding" or flaunting their "own personal agenda."

Welcome to the PUSD Truth Squad blog!

Several anonymous bloggers have taken to attacking the three PUSD board members (Douglas, Knecht and Murphy) who are independent from the administration, particularly Superintendent Erb. These board members think for themselves and listen to the entire community, not just administration sycophants.

Two of these bloggers in particular, Michael Erickson (NoHoneymoon) and Frank Rohrig (EyeOnPUSD) have been particularly nasty and biased. Erickson even attacked the two newly-elected members (Knecht and Murphy) before they were sworn in! They clearly have a goal undermining the effectiveness of these independent board members, thereby mitigating the loss of monopoly power by their cronies.

So far, their efforts have either been in vain or backfired altogether. They've been reduced to encouraging a recall for the sin of closing the high school campuses at lunch. Ridiculous!

This site will be the "truth check" on them and anyone else who tries to get away with statements or accusations based on gossip, innuendo, half-truths or outright lies. There will be much more coming about a whole host of subjects. Some of the information will seem new, even though in reality it has been available for quite some time.

Stay tuned...

The Open Meeting Law Violation that Wasn't

The Dynamic Duo has recently tried to make it sound like Douglas and Murphy are trying to pull something underhanded regarding the Challenger Learning Center (CLC). That is supposedly indisputable because they reportedly met after a board meeting with Mary Lynn Kelly (CLC Exec Director) at the Denny's just down the street from the DAC.

That is the partial truth they use to spin their tale of deceit. Here's the rest of the story...

What they conveniently "forgot" to mention is that Mary Lynn Kelly has had at least one private conversation (all but one in person) with EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE BOARD, not just Douglas and Murphy! Does that mean they all "violated open meeting laws" (absurd - it takes a majority at one time & place to do that) or "divulged privileged executive session" information. Of course not!

But it does fit the Dynamic Duo's political agenda to express selective outrage about the "bad" board members talking to her. I have been told that both Douglas and Murphy have known Mrs. Kelly for years. Oh no, maybe they're friends! Douglas and Murphy might have a "conflict of interest" and should resign right away! (That is the Dynamic Duo's newest refrain). Gimme a break.

Check back for more juicy Challenger-related tidbits in the coming days. I promise it will be worth your effort.