Cover-up and spin

School district board members should carry out their duties with honesty, integrity and accountability. They should be positive role models for our children.

On December 14, 2007, I sent an e-mail to superintendent Elaine Drakulich and board chair Mike Gould requesting a meeting to resolve outstanding issues regarding my complaint to the Ethics Commission. I received no response.

At issue is the dismissal of my complaint regarding the October 23, 2006, executive session specific to Superintendent Thonstad. I am not contesting the dismissal of my complaint concerning the executive sessions to discuss the Secretary of State (SOS) audit and resulting ODE action to recoup $1.2 million; more on that later.

Per the commission, all I had to do is establish the appearance of a violation. In any Oregon court, duly adopted and approved minutes carry considerable weight over notes, recollections and assertions contrary to the approved minutes.

There will never be an unlawful executive session if public boards can simply rewrite the minutes to make the complaint go away.

The final report of the commission staff confirms that after I filed my complaint and long after he had resigned, former board chair Rob Corrigan was somehow allowed to direct the board secretary to rewrite the brief but official minutes of the October 23, 2006, executive session. She did this twice to get the minutes to say what Mr. Corrigan wanted them to say. Eliminated was the reference to a discussion of superintendent goals. The board never approved this version of the minutes.

Not one board member who was in that meeting has come forward to right this wrong. Covering up one misdeed with another is not an example of honesty, integrity and accountability. I will seek judicial review of the decision to dismiss this complaint.

I am not contesting the decision to dismiss the complaint regarding the SOS and ODE executive sessions. In it's final report, the commission made public that those meetings involved legal advice on the following statute specific to personal liability of public officials:

"ORS 294.100 Public official expending money in excess of amount or for different purpose than provided by law; civil liability. (1) It is unlawful for any public official to expend any moneys in excess of the amounts provided by law, or for any other or different purpose than provided by law."

Porter v. Tiffany, was an action to require the five commissioners of a municipally owned utility to personally reimburse the utility for unauthorized expenditures.

The Court of Appeals excused the unauthorized expenditures because "the board members had acted in good faith and on the advice of counsel." The Oregon Supreme Court rejected this defense:

"The court in Mines v. Del Valle held that despite the fact that there was no doubt that the defendants therein had acted in good faith, nothing could justify the attempted exercise by an official of any power or authority not expressly given to him, no matter how honest may be his intention or how upright his motives."

Accordingly, the commissioners were held liable despite their alleged good faith.

The action of ODE and the admissions in the open letter to the community establish that there were significant expenditures not authorized by law. Recovery of damages from public officials is allowed and confirmed by case law. The spin suggesting that recovery is not possible is disingenuous, self-serving and does not reflect honesty, integrity, and accountability.

I don't know how these complex issues will be resolved. Perfect solutions almost never happen. My intent is to counter misinformation and spin in hopes the community will make informed decisions regarding the conduct of all school board members.