13 October 2016

DELIVERED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Ms. Heather Bennett, Board President
℅ Salt Lake City Board of Education
440 East 100 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Re: Treatment of District Employees

Dear Ms. Bennett,

Many of us were disappointed with the outcome of Tuesday night’s 5-1 vote to uphold the unauthorized demotion of the District’s Chief Equity Officer, Dr. Kathleen Christy.[1] Following the meeting, a community leader gave me emails dated May 4, 2016,[2] wherein you and McKell Withers, Tiffany Sandberg and Kristi Swett are discussing Dr. Christy. In that exchange, you state:

“I don’t think she should sign correspondence PhD if she doesn’t have a doctorate…Discipline is      clearly warranted. I also question whether she can be effective in her current role given these breaches       of professional conduct”

Then Kristi Swett states:

“It’s unfortunate the actions of our Assistant Superintendent has put our district in an      awkward situation, with the disclosure of her questionable doctorate…I understand you are      continuing to investigate the doctorate process…should certainly be grounds for termination…”

Then Tiffany states:

“I am echoing Kristie’s thoughts…”

McKell Withers replies:

“The breaches of professional conduct are stunning.” [3]

BACKGROUND
In October 2015, McKell Withers who at the time was Superintendent, demoted Dr. Christy (African American) from Assistant Superintendent to Equity Plan Coordinator. He then elevated three Caucasian administrators and gave them the title of Chief with the rank of Associate Superintendent. [4]

Later that month, in response to an inquiry from me, the entire Board received an email from Business Administrator Janet Roberts advising us that Dr. Christy had a Masters degree and no Doctorate. [5]

In November of 2015, the community [6] and employees[7] alike protested the reorganization plan that was implemented without Board approval.

In December of 2015, I attended a community meeting where I heard people congratulate Dr. Christy incidental to having successfully defended her dissertation.

In January of 2016, the Board was presented with a revised plan of the District’s reorganization.[8]

“Dr. Withers presented the representative group of Equity Leadership Team and SLASA Board Members with a revised reorganization chart identifying four positions that directly report to the   Superintendent:
Assistant Superintendent (Kathleen Christy)
Chief Academic Officer (Barbara Kuehl)
Chief Improvement Officer (Brian Conley)
Chief Operations Officer (Larry Madden)

To date, some concerns regarding the reorganization have been addressed. Dr. Christy has been  added to the Superintendency as an equal assignment as the Chief Officers and responsibilities have been divided to reflect a balance in leadership, accountability, and authority. Concerns remain      regarding transparency, collaboration, and equity in access to district-level leadership positions for all  qualified district administrators…”  [9]

In February 2016, the Board issued a letter titled BOARD SUPPORT FOR EQUITY PRIOITIES:

“The Salt Lake City School District Board of Education recognizes that it serves a diverse   population: 56.9% of public school students in Salt Lake City identify as members of an ethnic or racial minority group. We acknowledge the need for more diversity among support staff,         teachers, and administrators….” [10]

In May of 2016, this “Dr.” accusation was first reported to the Board. We were told that an investigation would commence and the findings of the investigation would be brought back to the Board.

In reviewing my calendar, I see that the Board met on May 3, 2016. The minutes of the meeting show that the Board went into a closed meeting to discuss Character, Professional Competence…. It appears that I left the closed door meeting before it was over. [11] In all probability because someone was leveling false accusations against someone else as is the custom of those that run this District. Nevertheless, the day following that Board meeting it appears Board members were looking into the same issue. Clearly, we handle information differently; while you and your cohorts were exacting judgments on Dr. Christy and giving McKell commands to destroy her career via email,[12] I was up at the University of Utah learning the process that one goes through in order to earn a Doctorate degree. I discovered that there was the program phase and the dissertation phase. The typical phases of the program were as follows: Ph.D. Student, Ph.D. Candidate and then a Ph.D.

I also learned that upon a successful dissertation defense, it was common to refer to the student, as “Dr.” This is even before the student had submitted their final dissertation (already successfully defended) and before they had obtained their degree.

I thought nothing more of the accusation and had every confidence that I would share this information with fellow Board members if this issue came back to the Board. I foolishly thought that an investigation by District personnel would come to the same conclusion I had and recognize this as a non-issue. What I learned at the U matched the actions of Dr. Christy over the past few months.

In June 2016, on his last day on the job, McKell Withers once again demoted Dr. Christy. I suppose in anticipation of the Board conducting the meeting this past Tuesday in an open session, community leaders distributed a number of documents to those in the audience. One such document was a June 30, 2016, letter from McKell Withers to Dr. Christy:

            “…It is untenable that the district allow its licensed educators such as yourself who are statutorily mandated to be a role models for students, to falsify their credentials and perpetuate an appearance of    impropriety…use of titles and credentials for which you have not completed the process is not      acceptable until the granting institution awarded the degree and is…” [13]

In July 2016, the majority of the Board along with the community was shocked when we learned that McKell Withers demoted Dr. Christy as his final act as Superintendent. [14] I now realize that three of my fellow Board members were pretending to be equally shocked.

You, Ms. Sandberg, and Ms. Swett clearly didn’t see a need to come clean to the rest of the Board and tell us that Dr. Christy’s demotion was your own doing? More importantly, the findings of an investigation into Dr. Christy’s use of the title “Dr.” should have come back to the Board for our consideration. Dr. Christy has the rank of Associate Superintendent and in our District, that makes her a “direct report to the Board.”[15] As such, it was within the purview of the entire Board to weigh the findings of an investigation and approve a demotion if it was warranted. Clearly, taking this circuitous route back to the Board was done with the hope that the charges, investigation, and findings from the hearing would be so fractured and convoluted that the Board could not properly deliberate on the issue. To your credit, it worked.

At the July 5^th Board meeting, members of the community spoke against this unauthorized demotion (second time). The Tribune reported the following:

“The chairman of the Utah Republican Party joined the state NAACP leader and a           prominent Latino advocate Tuesday in criticizing Salt Lake City schools for taking what they            characterized as a misstep for civil rights. The trio spoke against recent changes in district     administration at the school board’s Tuesday evening meeting…

            Last week’s reassignment for the district’s main equity and diversity officer, Utah GOP Chairman             James Evans said, demonstrates that the treatment of minority and low ­income students is not a priority for district officials…” [16]

In that same meeting, NAACP President stated:

            “Making organizational changes at the midnight hour when you think no one is looking is the old way         of doing business. This is a new day, we have a new Superintendent, I admonish the new       Superintendent to leave the old dark ways behind and instead follow the recommendations and            wisdom of these young people, make organizational changes within the context of “Transparency and    collaboration…” as that allows for “establishing a trusting relationship between the School Board,    Superintendent, educational leaders, teachers, parents, students, and community leaders” [17]

Later that month the Tribune editorial board, not aware that three school board members initiated this scheme, stated the following:

“The week before — while nobody, including members of the school board, was looking — outgoing Superintendent McKell Withers rearranged his administrative box chart in such a way that the district official in charge of equity and diversity was kicked down a rung in official stature.” [18]

Due to your duplicitous nature, it should surprise no one that you made no effort to divulge the fact that you and two other Board members cleverly instigated the scheme to demote Dr. Christy.

The Tribune editorial board was correct when they declared:

“But to rearrange the lines of responsibility on the district’s administrative flow chart is not a  private  personnel decision. It is a policy choice, one that should have been more openly vetted, at least among board members…” [19]

In October 2016, The Board meeting on Tuesday night was held under a false pretense. [20] Not only was it held under false pretense, the Board was purposefully denied the transcript of the hearing and all of the exhibits associated with it. [21] We were only given a copy of the hearing officer’s determination wherein he engaged hyperbole in his recitation of the facts, he was extremely subjective in his characterizations, and he leveled numerous personal attacks. [22] I actually received more insights into the circumstances surrounding this demotion from documents that members of the community read while the Board was sequestered in the close door meeting.

WITHERS DOCTRATE TIMELINE
In December of 2002, the Deseret News reported the following:

“The Salt Lake City Board of Education has picked the new district superintendent of Salt Lake    City schools, McKell Withers, out of the ranks of neighboring Granite School District. Withers received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the University of Utah and completes a doctorate      degree in educational leadership and policy from the university this year.” [23]

In May 2003, McKell Withers finishes his course work. [24]

In August 2003, the minutes of Board meetings begin to reference McKell Withers as “Dr.” [25]

In November 2003, the District puts out a press release referencing “Dr. McKell Withers.”[26] I have multiple examples of McKell using “Dr.” prior to him receiving his degree and prior to the time that he successfully defended his dissertation. For purposes of this correspondence, I have included the minutes to Board meetings and the press release.

In April 2004, McKell Withers successfully defends his dissertation [27]

In July 2005, McKell Withers Dissertation is accepted in its final form [28]

In December 2005, McKell Withers awarded his Doctorate of Education Degree [29]

The minutes of Board meetings of that time also show that “Kristi Deveraux Swett” was serving as a member of the Board during this timeframe. [30] How is it that Kristi Swett didn’t claim that McKell Withers “put our district in an awkward situation, with the disclosure of [his] questionable doctorate…? [31] Moreover, I have numerous documents where it appears that McKell used the title “Dr.” even before he successfully defended his dissertation.[32]

Yet, when Dr. Christy follows the common practice of using the title “Dr.” following the successful defense of her dissertation, Ms. Swett declares that it “…should certainly be grounds for termination.” [33]

In hypocritical fashion, McKell Withers labels Dr. Christy’s actions “breaches of professional conduct” that he has the nerve to label as “stunning.” [34]

CONCLUSION
What I find “stunning” is that what I initially called a “rigged due process” [35] (for Dr. Christy) was even more insidious than what even I thought. This is yet another example where you have abdicated the authority of the Board and set in motion a very destructive path that inhibits this District’s ability to address the needs of our ethnic minority students (60% of the student body).

Why do you and McKell Withers believe that it is okay to hold Dr. Christy to a standard that is contrary to the custom of the day? How do you and McKell Withers think it is okay to hold Dr. Christy to a standard that not even McKell himself came close to abiding?

I of course recognize that you operate under the conditions of something akin to a moral inversion; you and McKell are blind to the injuries that the two of you have inflicted on employees of this District over the years. I would characterize what the two of you have organizationally orchestrated within this school district as EVIL:

 “Evil consists in intentionally behaving in ways that harm, abuse, demean, dehumanize or destroy innocent others—or using one’s authority and systemic power to encourage or permit others to do so on  your behalf.” [36]

I of course recognize your reluctance to acknowledge the administrative evil you have created and perpetuated within the Salt Lake City School District.  Your ethical blindness service to reinforce administrative evil’s continued influence and increases the possibility of future acts of dehumanization and destruction as long as you are here to lead the charge. The manner in which you orchestrated the demotion of Dr. Christy has shocked the conscious of all who witnessed this saga unfold. To be sure, only the likes of Wormwood would admire your handiwork. [37]

Whether you realize it or not, your acts of intrigue have a negative reverberating effect on the self-esteem of the educators within this District. They all must ask themselves: “Am I next?”

Only something akin to a democracy in action that allows for a deliberative process will change this organization. Since you have sabotaged any possibility of deliberations in Board meetings, this District’s only hope is that the citizens rise up and vote you out of office. Which is the one silver lining to the Board’s Tuesday night vote; it incentivized people to find out which members of the Board are up for re-election this month.[38] Someone mentioned that your opponent, Jason Stevenson, was just down the street from the District offices in the midst of a fundraiser hosted by Mayor Biskupski. In a flash, over half of the people left the building and quickly made their way to the fundraiser so that they could contribute to Jason’s campaign. That’s what I love about America!

I submit that the next 30 days are pivotal for this school district. I predict the critical and active citizenship we have seen at our last two Board meetings will continue to crescendo until the Board is restored to a place where a viable and deliberative democracy can be exercised.

Shalom,

J. Michael Clára
Board Member, District 2
Enclosures

cc:
President Wayne Niederhauser, Senate
Speaker Greg Hughes, House of Representatives
Senator Escamill
Representative Romero
Representative Hollins
Mr. John Dougall, State Auditor
Ms. Rickie McCandless, Mayor’s Designee on the Board
Ms. Susan McFarland, President –Salt Lake Education Association (SLEA)
Mr. Jared Wright, President – Salt Lake Association of School Administrators (SLASA)
Mrs. Teresa Organista, Salt Lake City School Board Candidate –District 1
Mr. Jason Stevenson, Salt Lake City School Board Candidate –District 5
Mr. Ryan Pleune, Salt Lake City School Board Candidate – District 7
Salt Lake City School District Equity Leadership Team
Salt Lake City Board of Education
Tribune Editorial Board

TO:   Senate Education Committee & House Education Committee– Utah State Legislature

FROM:   J. Michael Clára –Board Member, District 2

CC:  President Niederhauser Speaker Hughes Senator Escamilla Representative Romero Utah State Auditor Dougall Superintendent Cunningham Business Administrator Roberts

DATE:       3 October 2016             

SUBJECT:    Misappropriation of the State Gang Prevention/Intervention Program Funding [1]

Janet Roberts- Business Administrator

Earlier this week, I was made aware that Business Administrator Janet Roberts is overstepping her statutory bounds and in the process is disrespecting Horizonte Alternative High School’s site based decisions and challenging the authority of the Board of Education. I am calling upon newly hired Superintendent Cunningham to put Roberts in check and to immediately rectify this foolishness!

BACKGROUND
“In 1994, then-Horizonte Principal James Andersen and his wife, Shannon, along with Ric and Janet Harnsberger, physicians and University of Utah professors, established the Horizonte Scholarship Fund…For nearly 20 years, the Horizonte Scholarship Fund has provided as many as 60 scholarships each year, with individual awards ranging from $500 to $2,000, for a total of up to $57,000.”  [1]

In 2011, the following report was given to the Board of Education:

“The Horizonte Scholarship fund will award $80,000 in scholarships this year. Horizonte thanks Kimball Young for his hard work in securing twenty-four $1,500 scholarships for Horizonte graduates from the Eccles Foundation. SLCC received two grants to support Horizonte graduates with transition to college. Fifty seniors and 75 juniors will receive intensive counseling in an effort to prepare first generation college students for success.” [2]

SITE BASED DECISION
In 2014 – Horizonte’s School Improvement Council and School Community Council decided to hire a full-time person to facilitate a student’s transition from Horizonte to continuing education due to the following: [3]

 “Every year, Horizonte Instruction and Training Center, an alternative high school in Salt Lake City awards college scholarships to dozens of graduates. And every year, many of those scholarships go unused. A new partnership between Horizonte and Salt Lake Community College helps grads stay the course and enroll in college, despite the obstacles.”  [4]

Another article at that times stated:

“An alternative high school has partnered with Salt Lake Community College to offer a multiple-week “bridge” class aimed at helping students with the transition to higher education…”The goal is to help them navigate the process and orient them to the rigors of college and give them a little taste of the environment,” said Kimball Young, a member of the Horizonte Scholarship Fund board of directors…The Horizonte Scholarship Fund awarded roughly $70,000 in aid to 47 students this year, with a focus on those from low-income families, he said. But Young said the bridge program is about more than just helping students with the costs of college. He said the program is intended to familiarize students with higher education as they approach the end of their high school education. “It’s not just a problem of affordability,” Young said. “It’s a problem of navigation, comfort, familiarity and ownership, so to speak, feeling like you’re part of something that is going to be rewarding for you when you graduate.” [5]

BOARD AUTHORITY
To that end, the District published a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Graduate Advisor Service and in September of 2014, published the following letter of intent:

“This letter is notification that it is the intent of the Salt Lake City School District to select Kimball Young as the single responsive and responsible respondent. As a result, the District will enter into a contract with Kimball Young to provide Graduate Advisor Services at Horizonte High School.”

The District then entered into a contractual agreement with Kimball Young to act as Horizonte’s Graduate Advisor Services. [6]

The Board of Education approved the funding for this contract on September 16, 2014, for the 2014-15 school year. [7]

Prior to being hired full-time, Mr. Young was working in a limited capacity as a volunteer with the Horizonte Scholarship program. Mr. Young tells his own story:

“I was introduced to Horizonte a decade ago.  The Salt Lake City Rotary Club annually awards college scholarships to graduating seniors of all four city high schools.  As a Rotarian, I volunteered for the Horizonte selection.  Over the years I’ve interviewed I have been deeply impressed by these amazing, determined, resilient, mostly minority, young men and women, some new parents, who realize that college education or post high school training is the exit from intergenerational poverty and the door to their American Dream…

Cancer and work related set-backs altered my life.  As I recovered my health and discovered some new pursuits, I continued on my own, to raise scholarship funds for these worthy but needy Horizonte graduates. …Secondly, education will break their chain of poverty.  They are first generation college students. Without education these students dream of, they are poverty bound.  No greater cause or campaign could I coordinate, build, and help perpetuate.   My life’s skills are uniquely situated to successfully assist.  My cumulative know-how and professional experience can help.   I invite your consideration and participation.” [8]

The following year, the Board authorized the $48,000.00 payment for the second year of the contract between Horizonte and Kimball Young for Graduate Advisor Services for the 2015-16 school year. [9]

Later that year, the Board of Education received the following report:

“Ms. Holmdahl said many of the students who graduate from Horizonte and move on to college are often the first in their families to do so. Horizonte offers a College Bridge class in partnership with Salt Lake Community College, to help prepare students for college, take advantage of scholarships, register for classes, and develop goals. Kimball Young, College/Career Transition Specialist.  [10]

Last month, the Board authorized the payment of $48,000.00 for the contract services between Horizonte and Kimball Young for Graduate Advisor Services for the 2016-17 School year. [11]

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATOR
Earlier this week I was advised that Business Administrator Janet Roberts severed the contract between Kimball Young and Horizonte High School. The reason given is that the District is going to replace Kimball Young with a Community Scholarship Advisor. [12] The job posting states that this is a part-time job with no benefits. Apparently, The Business Administrator did this without notifying the Superintendent or the Board of Education. [13]

The Business Administrator is to “be custodian of all district funds, be responsible and accountable for all money received and disbursed, and keep accurate records of all revenues received and their sources;” and to “countersign with the president of the board all warrants and claims against the district as well as other legal documents approved by the board…” [14]

The Business Administrator is not the Human Resources Director and neither is she an educator. Ms. Roberts is appointed by the Board of Education and does not have the authority to override a site based decision. Ms. Roberts is a subordinate of the Board and must obediently carryout the official acts of the Board who are elected to represent the interests of the community.

CONCLUSION
I have called upon Superintendent Cunningham to rectify this situation and instruct the Business Administrator to perform her statutory duties and resume payments to Kimball Young for his contractual services.[15]

Anyone who has worked with Mr. Young or benefited from his services will readily testify that a part-time (or full-time for that matter) person will not even come close to matching the skill set that Mr. Young brings to this position.

We all need to ensure that we continue the vision of former Principal James Anderson:

“James has made Horizonte a touchstone and an icon for our community, and he knows that the success of Horizonte is because of the support the Salt Lake School Board, administration and community have given in putting students first. James leaves knowing his legacy will live on: a place where learning and individuals are cherished.” [16]

2nd GRAMA Appeal Letter

12 September 2016

HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Janet Roberts, Business Administrator
℅ Salt Lake City School District
440 East 100 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Re: 2^nd GRAMA Notice of Appeal: Gang Prevention Expenditures

Dear Ms. Roberts,
Acting under the authority of my elected office, and in my official capacity as a member of the Salt Lake City Board of Education, I submit the following appeal on behalf of the residents of Salt Lake City, District 2. [1]

Pursuant to Utah Government Records Management Act – please accept this: GRAMA NOTICE OF APPEAL in your capacity as the district’s chief administrative officer. [2]

BACKGROUND
On April 5, 2016 – At the regularly scheduled Board meeting, I specifically requested that the Board look at student, police, community and gang intervention in a comprehensive manner within the context of budget development. [3]

On May 16, 2016 – I met with Superintendent Cunningham and among other issues advised her of my concern for the manner in which District personnel were misappropriating state funding allocated to the District for gang prevention and intervention.

On May 17, 2016 –During a regularly scheduled Board meeting, I renewed my request for financial information on the gang prevention and for at-risk students. [4]

On June 7, 2016 – Prior to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board commencing, I once again asked you in your capacity of the Board’s Business Administrator, for information on gang funding as well as clarification on a $20,000.00 expenditure for the Salt Lake Area Gang Project.

You consulted with Larry Madden who claimed to not have any information on the expenditure, but would check with one of his subordinates and get back to me. [5]

On June 21, 2016 – During the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board, I once again, raised the issue of the status of the District’s gang intervention program. The Board president spoke to my request with a commitment to have the information provided to me. You spoke to my concern and advised me that it was a grant from the state and you signed off on it, although you would not provide me any information in response to my questions. In that same meeting I asked about the details of RDA expenditures. I was told that the information I requested, would be provided.

On July 12, 2016– I sent Superintendent Cunningham an email renewing my request for information on the finances of the District for at-risk students. I in part stated the following:

On May 6, 2016 –Superintendent Withers sent me the following information; “Enhancements for At-Risk Students (EARS) Resources”.

Our EARS funding peaked at $5,051,765 in 2008-09 and totals $2,463,967 for the current year (2015-16).

The following programs in the General Fund receive EARS allocations:

Board Distributed Student Achievement Funds (elementary);

Program 1013-District Achievement Testing;

Program 1016-AVID/Equity; program 4255-MESA;

Program 4261-Truant Student;

Program 4266-ALS Services; and,

Program 4267-ESL Endorsement.

The EARS resources also help fund the 7.0 FTE used to support high school English as a Second Language (ESL) classes.”

I went on to advise Superintendent Cunningham:

All that is doing, is telling me that the funding is being scattered among these categories. This does not tell me what this funding is being used for. I would like to know the specific expenditures that EARS money is being used for in terms of amount of monies and their purpose. I cannot make an informed decision on funding if I do not have a clear picture on how the District is utilizing this particular category of state funding.

A couple of months ago, I asked Janet R. what was the $20,000.00, expenditure for Salt Lake Area Gang Project Inc. in the May 3, 2016 – Purchase report was used for. Janet referred the question to Larry M. who confirmed that Misty S. spent the money. Someone was going to get back to me on what exactly that money was used for.

I am also wanting to see a copy of the Gang Prevention application that was submitted to the State Office of Education. I am being told that Colors of Success is being eliminated from the District.

If that is true, then I submit that this District is placing the community in danger if we are eliminating this type of gang intervention program.

I have also asked for a break down on how the District is funding transportation with school buses. Earlier this year Barbra K. attempted to cancel a school bus that serves students attending Clayton Middle School. I am of the opinion that bus routes and their funding are the purview of the Board not a District administrator.

I would also like to know the total amount of RDA funding that the District receives and where that money is being spent. 

Is there a place to know where Title I funding is being spent? I continue to receive complaints from employees that Title I monies are being spent inappropriately. Can you provide me a break down on how and where Title I money is being expended throughout the District?  

I would also like to know what funding the District plans to put forward towards the University of Virginia turn around program during the 2016-2017 school year. What is the source of that funding? 

Finally, I want to ensure that the Board has been informed about all available funding. Last year we were told of the need to raise taxes by 1.5 Million and then in late November we are told of an additional ongoing 2 million dollars available in the budget. 

It is imperative that all information about revenue be disclosed to the Board during the budget process and prior to the Truth in Taxation hearing, not afterwards. [6]

On July 18, 2016– I once again met with Superintendent Cunningham and among other issues renewed my request for information on the status of at-risk student funding. In that meeting, I renewed my request for information on the finances of the District. I also renewed my objection to personnel changes occurring without Board approval. I also renewed my request for an updated organization chart of the District administration and departments.

On July 29, 2016 – I received a copy of the Gang Prevention and Intervention proposal signed and submitted to the State Office of Education by you and Chief Operations Officer, Larry Madden, back in May of this year.[7] The proposal confirmed what I was being told, that you and Chief Madden did indeed eliminate Colors of Success as the District’s gang intervention program. In my correspondence to the Superintendent I asked the following:

“…from a procurement standpoint, [8] can you please advise me what process Administrator Roberts and Chief Madden followed in order to utilize the services of a teacher from East High and her program, Technique for Tough Times in place of Color of Success? My records indicate that Colors of Success is the District’s designated “Sole Provider” [9] for Gang Prevention programs within the District? [10]

I have as of yet to receive a response from the Superintendent.

On July 31, 2016 – I sent Superintendent Cunningham correspondence that she acknowledged receiving, yet as of this writing, has not responded to my requests in that email. I here renew one of them:

In light of the fact that I have received multiple reports of administrators utilizing District resources in order to generate income for their private sector business, I would request copies of all “conflict of interest” declared by employees of the District as required by state statute: “An employee shall declare a potential conflict of interest…”[11]

On August 2, 2016 – During a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board, I once again renewed my request for details on the finances of the District and a current organizational chart of the departments and personnel on the District level. [12]

On August 3, 2016 – I did receive scant information (four pages) on Title I expenditures. However, it is not to the level of detail that I require in order to make decisions on the finances of the District. [13]

On August 25, 2016 – I submitted a GRAMA request to Superintendent Cunningham, “formally” requesting information on the finances of the District, which I had previously “informally” requested but had not yet received. [14]

On September 2, 2016 – After receiving no response from Superintendent Cunningham, which under GRAMA is considered a denial, I sent a GRAMA appeal to your attention. [15]

Later that day, I did receive a response to my initial GRAMA request from the Superintendent’s attorney, Kristina Kindl, who advised me that I would be provided the requested information upon payment of $337.50.

On September 10, 2016 – I received a certified letter from you stating that my appeal was “moot” because you were asserting that attorney Kindle’s (Superintendent’s legal counsel) reply to my email was within the specified timeline under GRAMA. I don’t agree with your math, nevertheless, I am submitting yet another GRAMA appeal in the form of this correspondence. In your rejection letter, you duplicitously admonish me as follows:

…Please keep in mind that as an elected board member, you can request district information through the informal process provided for in Board Policy B-1: Board of Education Legal Status, Responsibilities, and Ethics.

This Policy outlines the process through which board members can receive information necessary for the performance of their elected duties, and receive such information free of charge, and may, if appropriate, provide you with information that is not available to the general public. ^[16]

You will note that I have documented numerous instances that I did indeed “request district information through the informal process” which includes negative responses from you.

On September 12, 2016 – I am submitting this GRAMA Denial Appeal to you, in your capacity as the Chief Administrative Officer of the District as prescribed in GRAMA.

APPEAL
I am appealing Superintendent Cunningham’s decision to charge me $337.50. for information on the finances of the District as my “legal rights are directly implicated by the information in the records” that I am requesting[17] as I am a duly elected member of the Board of Education. [18] Current Utah law states that local Board members are elected by a vote of the people.  ^[19] The law further states the following:

“…an elected member of a local school board serves and represents the residents of the local school board member’s district, and that service and representation may not be restricted or impaired by the local school board member’s membership on, or obligations to, the local school board.” ^[20]

Among other responsibilities state statue endows a local Board of Education with the following responsibilities: ^[21]

Implement training programs for school administrators, including basic management training, best practices in instructional methods, budget training, staff management, managing for learning results and continuous improvement, and how to help every child achieve optimal learning in core academics.

• Local school boards shall spend minimum school program funds for programs and activities for which the State Board of Education has established minimum standards or rules under Section 53A-1-402.

• Each school board shall adopt and implement a comprehensive emergency response plan to prevent and combat violence in its public schools, on school grounds, on its school vehicles, and in connection with school-related activities or events.

• A board shall do all other things necessary for the maintenance, prosperity, and success of the schools and the promotion of education.
  

Additionally, the Board of Education Handbook^[22], which has the force of policy states the following:  

The powers and mandatory duties of the Board of Education are defined in the Utah Code and State Board of Education Rule. They are divided among executive, legislative, and quasi-judicial responsibilities, as follows:

Executive
1. Select and appoint the Superintendent of Schools.
2. Select and appoint the Business Administrator.
3. Continuously appraise the educational and administrative management of the school system, through the evaluation of the superintendent and business administrator.
4. Periodically adopt a multi-year strategic plan. In the Salt Lake City School District this is called the Student Achievement Plan.
5. Communicate and meet with community members, staff, and students, both to receive feedback and communicate board views on educational issues.
6. Approve collective bargaining agreements.

Legislative
1. Develop, adopt, and interpret policies.
2. Adopt operating and capital budgets.
3. Approve curriculum guides and courses of study.
4. Establish school boundaries.
5. Advance a legislative agenda.
6. Advise and approve decisions on facility, procurement, and financial matters as necessary.
7. Authorize legal settlements.

Quasi-Judicial

1. Decide appeals of the superintendent’s administrative decisions.

Moreover, Utah law places school Superintendents and Business Administrators in a subordinate position to the local Board of Education. ^[23] Speaking of the Superintendent and Business Administrator, current Board policy^[24] states the following:

“The board expects these appointed officers to work together, with district employees and members of the board, to promote student learning.

The board further expects that the business administrator and superintendent will exemplify the highest standards of professional competence and ethical conduct…The board expects the superintendent to discharge all of his or her statutory duties and to consult with and inform the board about school operations and problems in timely, accurate, and appropriate ways. …The superintendent is accountable to the board for his or her performance.”

SHAME ON YOU AND SUPERINTENDENT CUNNINGHAM!
In spite of the statutory authority of the Board and the subordinated position of that you and Superintendent Cunningham occupy in relation to my elected office; I have had to resort to submitting GRAMA request in order to obtain information needed to carryout the duties assigned to me by the State Legislature and given to me by my neighbors at the ballot box. In denying me information on the finances of the District the two of you have effectively silenced the voice of the citizens in District 2.

I would surmise that you will find no other local elected official in the state of Utah that is forced to submit GRAMA requests in order to obtain information from the very agency that the elected official oversees. Yet in this case, newly hire hired Superintendent Cunningham has denied my verbal and written request for information and has now denied my GRAMA request in the form of charging me a $337.50 for the information I am seeking.

As you are aware, during my first year of serving on the Board of Education, I submitted a GRAMA request and received the following clarification from the late John E. Robson of Fabian, Attorneys At Law. At the time, Mr. Robson was serving as the attorney to the Board of Education. In part he stated the following:

“…As you know a GRAMA request only entitles a person to inspect and obtain copies of public documents.  It does not entitle a person to documents that are protected or private.  … However, in your position as a Board member you have the ability to review protected and private information as long there is a valid educational or business reason to do so. 

Thus, the District wants to provide to you all of the information you might need to carry out your responsibilities…As a board member you have the same duty as the District to make sure that you do not disclose protected or private information…” [25]

Subsequent GRAMA responses from the Superintendent personal attorney used the following language:

“…as I have done in my prior responses to your GRAMA requests, you have been provided with both public and protected information. Obviously as a board member you are entitled to view documents not available to the general public, but all protected information that is being provided to you as a board member must be kept and maintained in a confidential manner.” ^[26]

Additionally, here is the language in a GRAMA response I received late last year:

“As we have discussed, because you are a member of the Salt Lake City School District Board of Education, your access to documents is not the same as the general public’s access. Due to your position as a board member, you are being provided with certain draft documents which are responsive to your request…Accordingly, I am providing you with two distinct sets of documents; one set comprises the documents I would provide to the requesting members of the public, and the other set contains confidential information, including private and protected information, which you are entitled to view based on your position as a board member. As always, all private and protected information that is being provided to you as a board member must be kept and maintained in a confidential manner and must not be disclosed.” ^[27]

Clearly, the Superintendent’s attorney, acknowledged my elected office and recognized that my access to records is different from that of the “general public”, yet in this instance, I am to be assessed a fee of $337.50 in order to view the records about the finances of the District.

While a local school board member is not mentioned in GRAMA, I do believe that the exceptions provided in §63G-2-206 apply to me in terms of what I am seeking i.e.

“…request the record in relation to the Legislature’s [local board member] duties including: preparation in review of a [board policy and] legislative proposal or legislation; appropriations [local school budget] or an investigation or review…” ^[28]

GRAMA does allow for the “sharing” of “private, controlled, or a protected record” ^[29] between governmental entities; where is the logic in denying the request of an elected member of the governing body over one of those governmental agencies?

In conclusion, I am embarrassed that as a duly elected member of the Salt Lake City Board of Education, I am having to expend an inordinate amount of time and energy in an effort to receive information on the most basic aspects of this school district. In requiring me to ask for request information in multiple venues and formats, you and the Superintendent have displayed distain for elected officials, which stands as a blatant example and symbol of everything that is wrong with public education in the state of Utah.

Accordingly, GRAMA encourages agencies to fulfill a records request without charge.[30]

Based on Utah Code §63g -2-203 (4a), I am appealing the fee of $337.50 that has been assessed and I am requesting a waiver of copy costs because releasing the records primarily benefits the public rather than a person as the “person” requesting the information is a duly elected member of the governing body [31] of the government agency and therefore “entitled by law to inspect the record”.

Equally persuasive, the Utah Legislature has established that “an elected member of a local school board serves and represents the residents of the local school board member’s district, and that service and representation may not be restricted or impaired by the local school board member’s membership on, or obligations to, the local school board.” [32]

I have sent a courtesy copy of this appeal to the State Auditor. I have sent a courtesy copy to my state Senator and the Senate President as they are in the process of reviewing a local elected official’s ability to obtain information from the very agency over which that elected official has governing authority.
Shalom,

J. Michael Clára
Board Member, District 2

09/12/16 GRAMA Denial Appeal in PDF

09/08/16 Roberts Response

09/02/16 Attorney Kindl Response w/Invoice

09/02/16 First GRAMA Appeal

08/25/16 GRAMA REQUEST

VP Sandberg – Pres Bennett – Sup Withers

School Board Attorney sends me an intimidation letter, trying to regulate the content of my blog; in response to my contacting my Senator and requesting an Audit on the School District’s Transportation Funding. 

PDF of Attorney’s Letter