From the Schoolhouse to the Courthouse

Posted on by
Court Petition

Court Petition

In the District Court of Utah
Third Judicial District Salt Lake County
450 South State St. Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Jon Michael Clara, in his official capacity as an Elected Member of the Salt Lake City Board of Education, District 2

Plaintiff,

v.

Salt Lake City Board of Education; and its MEMBERS: President Kristi Swett; Vice President Heather Bennett, Laurel Young, Doug Nelson, Rosemary Emery, Tiffany Sandberg, in their individual and representative capacities as Board Members.

 

Defendants.

 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

Case Number 140907356

Judge  Robert P. Faust

 

COMES NOW the Plaintiff and moves this Court for an Order declaring that portions of the Closed Executive Sessions (closed door meeting) of the Salt Lake City Board of Education (the “BOARD”), Utah that was held on August 7, 2014 (the “MEETING”) and September 16, 2014 to be invalid and a violation of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act (the “ACT”) §§ 52-4-101 to 52-4-305, Utah Code; enjoining Defendants from taking any official action resulting from those MEETINGS; and declaring null and void the BOARD’s actions that resulted in the classification of certain documents as protected and to appropriate for expenditure  unbudgeted public funds; and seeking reasonable attorney fees and costs.

PARTIES

  1. Plaintiff Jon Michael Clara is a resident of Salt Lake City, Utah and a duly elected member of the BOARD.
  2. Defendant BOARD is the governing body of the Salt Lake City School District.
  3. Defendant Kristi Swett is the president of the BOARD.
  4. Defendant Heather Bennett is the vice president of the BOARD.
  5. Defendant Laurel Young is a member of the BOARD.
  6. Defendant Doug Nelson is a member of the BOARD.
  7. Defendant Rosemary Emery is a member of the BOARD.
  8. Defendant Tiffany Sandberg is a member of the BOARD.
  9. Defendant Janet Roberts is the Business Administrator for the BOARD.

JURISDICTION

  1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraph 1-9, supra;
  2.  The Utah Legislature has declared it to be State policy that the political subdivisions of the State are to conduct their deliberations and take their actions in full view of the people whose business they are conducting. See § 52-4-102, Utah Code.
  3. The BOARD is a body corporate and a legal subdivision of the state vested with the powers and duties of a government entity. See § 53A-3-401(1), Utah Code.
  4. A public body “meets” when a quorum of the body is present to deliberate toward a decision or to take action on any matter over which the public body has jurisdiction. See §§ 52-4-103 to 52-4-201, Utah Code.
  5.  All meetings of public bodies must be open and public, and all persons must be permitted to attend any meeting of these public bodies. A meeting may only be closed pursuant to §§ 52-4-204 to 205, Utah Code.
  6. The BOARD has a “duty to comply” with the ACT and cannot create “procedures” in conflict with the ACT, pursuant to § 53A-3-106(3), Utah Code.
  7.  Plaintiff has an obligation to ensure that the “peoples business” is being carried out openly, publicly and transparently, “Notwithstanding a local school board’s status as a body corporate, 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.” See, § 53A-3-401, Utah Code.
  8. Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s right to discourse with constituents, members of the public, members of the media, members of the legislature and regulatory agencies the deliberations entered into by Defendants at the MEETINGS. See
    § 52-4-102(2), Utah Code.
  9. Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s right to publicly distribute, for public inspection, documents currently classified as protected as a result of the MEETINGS. See § 52-4-204(2), Utah Code.
  10. Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s right to participate in an open and transparent process of creating public policy by convening MEETINGS closed to constituents and the general public. See § 52-4-102, Utah Code.
  11. Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s right to have his vote to appropriate for expenditure, public funds, recorded in the minutes of the meeting. See § 52-4-203, Utah Code.
  12. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to §§ 52-4-302 to 304, Utah Code.
  13.  A person denied any right under this chapter may commence suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to compel compliance. See § 52-4-303 (3), Utah Code. 

FACTS
MEETING: August 7, 2014

  1.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-21, supra;
  2. On August 7, 2014, Defendants held a closed-door executive session to discuss litigation, negotiations, property, and personnel (the “Meeting”).
  3. Those present for the MEETING included Board member Kristi Swett acting as president for the meeting, Board member Heather Bennett, Board member Doug Nelson, Board member Jon Michael Clara, Board member Rosemary Emery, Board member Tiffany Sandberg, Board member Laurel Young, Salt Lake City School District Superintendent McKell Withers, Salt Lake City School District Business Administrator Janet Roberts, Associate Superintendent Patrick Garcia, Kristina Kindl and Joan Andrews, and Board legal counsel from Fabian Attorneys at Law. Attached as Exhibit A.[1]
  4.  On August 1, 2014, Defendants caused the Business Administrator to publish a public a meeting notice of the meeting. The notice stated that the August 7, 2014, Board of Education meeting would convene at 6:00 p.m. into a Closed Executive Session to discuss •litigation •negotiations •property •personnel. See Notice of Public Meeting, attached as Exhibit B.[2]
  5.  On August 7, 2014, Defendant Doug Nelson made a motion to go into closed session for the purposes of litigation, negotiations, property, and personnel, seconded by Defendant Tiffany Sandberg. Plaintiff Clara, Defendant Emery, Defendant Young, Defendant Bennett and Defendant Swett all voted in the affirmative to convene in closed session.[3]
  6.  During the MEETING, Plaintiff objected to the subject being discussed under the guise of “litigation.”
  7.  Following the MEETING, the Salt Lake City School District responded to a GRAMA request submitted by Plaintiff. The school district stated the following in the October 1, 2014, response:[4] “However, insofar as these records relate to imminent litigation, they are classified as protected and you must maintain that classification and not re-disclose these records. Utah Code Ann. § 63G-2-305 (32) (b).” Letter, attached as Exhibit C.

COUNT I
FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
MEETING: August 7, 2014

Defendants did not provide public notice or minutes of the MEETING
in compliance with the ACT.

  1.  The Agenda[5] for the August 7, 2014, MEETING states, Closed Executive Session: •Litigation •Negotiations •Property •Personnel
  2.  Defendant Kristi Swett, signed a STATEMENT AFFIRMING THE PURPOSE OF A CLOSED MEETING[6]. The affirmation states: “the sole purpose for closing the meeting was to discuss the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual”. See § 52-4-206, Utah Code.
  3. The STATEMENT AFFIRMING THE PURPOSE OF A CLOSED MEETING states the time of the meeting to be 6:25 p.m. to 6:26 p.m.
  4.  The minutes of the meeting state that the Closed Executive Session convened at 6:05 p.m. and adjourned at 6:26 p.m.  
  5. The posted Agenda, public minutes and Statement Affirming the Purpose of A Closed Meeting are clearly in conflict with each other as to the purpose and duration of the MEETING.  
  6. On information and belief Defendants entered into a MEETING without first appraising the public of the nature of the closed-session. The format of the agenda places the public in a position to guess the topics to be discussed because the agenda provides four possibilities.
  7. This same format places the BOARD in a position to blindly cast votes to convene a closed session pursuant to § 52-4-204(a).
  8. On information and belief, Defendants did not provide “reasonable specificity to notify the public as to the topics to be considered at the meeting” pursuant to
    § 52-4-202 (6a), Utah Code.
  9.  On information and belief, Defendants did not provide accurate minutes of the MEETING pursuant to § 52-4-203, Utah Code.
  10.  On information and belief, Defendant Kristi Swett did not truthfully affirm the purpose of the meeting pursuant to § 52-4-206(6), Utah Code.   

COUNT II
FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
MEETING: August 7, 2014

Defendants did not conduct the MEETING
in compliance with the ACT.

  1.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations on paragraphs 1-39, supra.
  2. The requirement that public bodies meet publicly has limited exceptions.
    See § 52-4-204, Utah Code, including those occasions when a public body holds “a strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation.” Id. at
    § 52-4-205 (1c), Utah Code.
  3. The Utah Supreme Court has given some guidance about what constitutes “litigation” with regard to the “litigation strategy” purpose for holding a closed meeting. The court has stated that because the expressed purpose of the Act is “openness,” the exceptions should be “strictly construed.” Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Salt Lake County Comm’n, 2001 UT 55, ¶ 15, 28 P.3d 686, attached as Exhibit D.[7]
  4.  During the MEETING Plaintiff objected to the discussion of the topic because it did not meet the exception as prescribed in § 52-4-205 (1c), Utah Code.
  5.  Despite Plaintiffs objections, Defendants continued the MEETING under the guise of “litigation”.
  6.  Plaintiff asked for evidence (explanation, documentation etc…) that there was “pending or…imminent litigation”, none was presented. Plaintiff maintains that the litigation exception is designed to permit a public body to discuss a real threat of litigation (for example to discuss strategy). Virtually everything a public body does may result in litigation, to permit the use of some vague threat of future litigation to close meeting is a misuse of the exception.
  7.  On information and belief, Defendants made a mockery of the ACT. When a public body is authorized to conduct the people’s business outside of public scrutiny it must be done within the limits prescribed by
    § 52-4-204, Utah Code.

COUNT III
FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
MEETING: August 7, 2014

Defendants did not limit discussions at the MEETING to strategy regarding pending litigation, nor did they open the meeting for discussion of those matters not related to pending or reasonably imminent litigation, as required by the ACT.

 

  1.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations on paragraphs 1-46, supra.
  2.  Plaintiff filed a GRAMA request on September 17, 2014, with the Salt Lake City School District, seeking all audio, minutes, and documentation pertaining to the subject discussed under “litigation strategy,” attached as Exhibit E.[8]
  3.  On October 1, 2014, Plaintiff (as well as all of the Defendants) received the response from the Salt Lake City School District, attached as Exhibit C. The letter included two sets of documents labeled Public, attached as Exhibit F,[9] and Protected, attached as Exhibit G.[10] The records received did not substantiate the claim that litigation was “pending” or “imminent”.
  4.  The October 1, 2014, GRAMA response letter refers to a previous GRAMA response that was provided to Plaintiff two months prior: “Your GRAMA request also included the following two statements: ‘I am requesting any emails pertaining to the [August 7th litigation topic] that was discussed; beginning June 3, 2014, to the present’….With regard to your first statement, you were already provided with the requested emails dated from June 3, 2014, up through August 13, 2014. Accordingly, GRAMA does not require us to fill this portion of your request because it ‘unreasonably duplicates’ a prior record request. Utah Code § 63G-2-201(8)(a)(iv). You are being provided with the remainder of the records responsive to this request dated August 13, 2014, through September 17, 2014. However, insofar as these records relate to imminent litigation, they are classified as protected and you must maintain that classification and not re-disclose these records. Utah Code Ann. § 63G-2-305 (32) (b).”
  5.  The August 27, 2014, GRAMA response[11] that is referenced, is attached as Exhibit H, and was the result of an August 13, 2014, GRAMA request[12], attached as Exhibit I.
  6.  Plaintiff submitted this GRAMA request to the Salt Lake City School District requesting all records pertaining to School Bus #199 and its involvement with an accident where students were burned on June 3, 2014, attached as Exhibit J. [13]
  7.  The Salt Lake City School District initially denied Plaintiff’s request[14], attached as Exhibit K. Plaintiff filed an appeal[15] attached as Exhibit L.
  8.  In response to the August 13, 2014, GRAMA request, the Salt Lake City School District provided Plaintiff (and all of the Defendants) with approximately 109 pages of public documents including emails.
  9. In that initial GRAMA response, Plaintiff discovered an email[16] dated August 11, 2014, from Ken Martinez to Steve Woods, Executive Director of Auxiliary Services, attached as Exhibit M. This email stated the Salt Lake City School District had 18 school buses in service that were subject to a June 11, 2014, Safety Recall[17] by the U.S. Department of Transportation, attached as Exhibit N.
  10.  This August 11, 2014, email was significant because it contradicted a July 29, 2014, email[18] by Steve Woods, attached as Exhibit O, advising the BOARD that there were no buses in the School District’s fleet subject to the safety recall of June 11, 2014.
  11.  The discovery of this attempt to deceive the BOARD caused Plaintiff to notify the Utah State Office of Education and the Utah Highway Patrol of the danger that students were being exposed to.
  12.  Plaintiff requested that the Utah Highway Patrol exercise their authority under
    § 41-6-115, Utah Code and compel the Salt Lake City School District to place the defected buses OUT of SERVICE. This letter[19] is attached as Exhibit P.
  13.  Plaintiff received a response[20] from the Utah Highway Patrol advising that the recall buses would not be placed Out of Service based on the fact that the school buses meet the current standard to pass a safety inspection in spite of the fact that they do not meet Utah’s current design standard for a safe school bus. This response is attached as Exhibit Q.
  14.  Plaintiff exchanged emails[21] with the Utah State Office of Education from August 21, 2014, to September 10, 2014, about potential solutions and additional safety concerns as the Utah State Office of Education had authorized school districts throughout the state to turn off the heating system in the school buses, which in turn caused yet another safety hazard. These emails are attached as Exhibit R.
  15.  On September 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint[22] with the Utah Highway Patrol because the Utah State Office of Education authorized school buses in the District (as well as state-wide) to disable the defrosters so as to prevent the hazard caused by the (safety recall buses) potential rupture of a coolant hose in the passenger compartment. Plaintiff received a phone call from a bus driver who stated that he was unable to see out the window during a rainstorm because the defroster was disabled. Letter is attached as Exhibit S.
  16.   On September 16, 2014, Plaintiff received a reply[23] from the Utah Highway Patrol that they re-inspected the buses in question and the defrosters are once again functional. This email exchange is attached at Exhibit T.
  17. In Exhibit R and Exhibit T, Plaintiff asked the Utah State Office of Education and the Utah Highway Patrol about the hazard that we are currently placing drivers and students in, by allowing them to be transported in buses that have hoses in the passenger compartment that can potentially rupture. These inquires were made on September 10, 2014, and September 16, 2014, respectively. Neither agency has replied.
  18.  The public notice posted at the direction of Defendants on August 1, 2014, stated the MEETING would be a Closed Executive Session in order to allow Defendants to discuss litigation, negotiations, property, and personnel. [24]
  19.  Had the MEETING been conducted in accordance with the ACT, only those portions of the closed session in which “strategy” regarding “pending or reasonably imminent litigation” could lawfully have been discussed outside of public scrutiny; deliberations that did not directly relate to “strategy” regarding “pending or reasonably imminent litigation” were required to be conducted in open session. See § 52-4-202 (2), Utah Code.
  20.  On information and belief, matters other than those relating to “pending or reasonably imminent litigation” were discussed during the closed portion of the Meeting; those portions of the MEETING in which Defendants discussed public policy unrelated to “pending or reasonably imminent litigation” were not open to the public and should have been.
  21.  Plaintiff maintains that it is vital to the formation of public policy, that the documents currently classified as “protected” in the school district’s GRAMA response of October 1, 2014, should be public documents as their current classification is due to Defendants’ abuse of Utah’s Open and Public Meeting Act.

COUNT IV
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
MEETING: August 7, 2014

Defendants have mocked the ACT by suppressing information that is vital to the formation of public policy and ensuring the safety of students in the Salt Lake City School District and the entire State of Utah 

  1.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraph 1-67.
  2.  On June 6, 2014, in reference to the school bus mechanical failure that injured students the prior week, Salt Lake City School District Superintendent sent a memo to the BOARD advising that he would provide the BOARD with a “full report of what happened…as it becomes available.”[25] This memo is attached as Exhibit U.
  3.  On August 7, 2014, Defendants violated the ACT and in effect have suppressed information that is vital to the public interest.
  4. By claiming that this issue is “imminent litigation,” the Superintendent has relieved himself of the responsibility to provide the BOARD, and thus the public, with an accounting of events surrounding school bus safety and the school district’s actions following the incident.
  5. On October 7, 2014, a constituent of Plaintiff, Mrs. Keller Jensen, attended the BOARD meeting and spoke to the BOARD during the public comment portion of the meeting. Ms. Jensen asked the BOARD to “advise the public of what went wrong and give us the assurance that our students are safe.” The text of her presentation[26] is attached as Exhibit V.
  6.  On October 9, 2013, Plaintiff received an email[27] from Ms. Keller stating her daughter was sent home on one of the buses that is subject to the safety recall. This was upsetting to Ms. Keller as her daughter was injured on June 3, 2014, when a hose ruptured inside the passenger compartment, spraying hot scalding fluid on the students. This email is attached as Exhibit W.
  7.  On information and belief, the purpose of Defendants’ MEETING was not as advertised (e.g. to hold a strategy session about pending or reasonably imminent litigation); rather, it was designed to cloud transparency on a school bus safety recall issue[28] that adversely impacts students (and bus drivers) within the local school district and the state of Utah.
  8. Plaintiff maintains that the Act aims at prohibiting the negative secondary effects of closed MEETINGS that (1) prevent transparency; (2) encourage fraud and corruption; and (3) foster mistrust in government.
  9.  The ACT does not permit closed door meetings to be held for the purpose of suppressing information that is vital to developing public policy and enforcing existing safety standards or developing better laws to ensure the safety of our children. § 52-4—205, Utah Code.

FACTS
MEETING: September 16, 2014

  1.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-76, supra;
  2.  On September 16, 2014, Defendants held a closed-door executive session to discuss litigation, negotiations, property, and personnel.
  3.  Those present for the MEETING included Board member Heather Bennett acting as chair, Board member Jon Michael Clara, Board member Rosemary Emery, Board member Tiffany Sandberg, Board member Laurel Young, Salt Lake City School District Superintendent McKell Withers, Salt Lake City School District Business Administrator Janet Roberts, Associate Superintendent Patrick Garcia, Kristina Kindl and Joan Andrews, and Board legal counsel from Fabian Attorneys at Law. Attached as Exhibit Y.[29]
  4.  On September 12, 2014, Defendants caused the Business Administrator to publish a public meeting notice of the meeting. The notice stated that the September 16, 2014, Board of Education meeting would convene at 6:00 p.m. into a Closed Executive Session to discuss litigation, negotiations, property, and personnel. See Notice of Public Meeting, attached as Exhibit Z.[30]
  5.  On September 16, 2014, Defendant Tiffany Sandberg made a motion to go into closed session for the purposes of litigation, negotiations, property, and personnel, seconded by Laurel Young. Plaintiff Clara, Defendant Emery, Defendant Bennett, and all voted in the affirmative to convene in closed session.[31]
  6.  During MEETING, Plaintiff objected to the discussion and approval of appropriating public funds for expenditure, under the guise of one of the exceptions for holding a public meeting: “personnel.” See § 52-4-103(5)(b)(iii), Utah Code.
  7. Plaintiff also objected that the person initially being spoken about under the topic of “personnel” was not an employ of the School District.
  8. Plaintiff’s objections were ignored, he left the meeting in protest. The minutes of the meeting reflect the following: “J. Michael Clára (left closed executive session at 6:25 p.m.)”. [32]
  9.  Following the MEETING, the Salt Lake City School District responded to a GRAMA request submitted by Plaintiff. The school district stated the following in the October 1, 2014, response:[33] “You also requested any paperwork that was distributed during those meetings pertaining to certain topics…With regard to the September 16, 2014, discussion…As you may recall you were provided with a copy of a draft financial document…” See Letter, attached as Exhibit C.

COUNT V
FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
MEETING : September 16, 2014

Defendants did not provide public notice or minutes of the MEETING
in compliance with the ACT. 

  1.  The Agenda[34] for the September 16, 2014, MEETING states, Closed Executive Session: •Litigation •Negotiations •Property •Personnel
  2.  Defendant Heather Bennett, signed a STATEMENT AFFIRMING THE PURPOSE OF A CLOSED MEETING[35]. The affirmation states: “the sole purpose for closing the meeting was to discuss the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual”. See § 52-4-206, Utah Code.
  3. The STATEMENT AFFIRMING THE PURPOSE OF A CLOSED MEETING states the time of the MEETING to be 6:05 p.m. to 6:47 p.m.
  4.  The minutes of the meeting state that the Closed Executive Session convened at 6:00 p.m. and was adjourned at 6:47 p.m. 
  5. The posted Agenda, public minutes and Statement Affirming the Purpose of A Closed Meetings are clearly in conflict with each other, as to the purpose and duration of the MEETING. 
  6. On information and belief, Defendants entered into a MEETING without first appraising the public of the nature of the closed-session. The format of the agenda places the public in a position to guess the topics to be discussed because the agenda provides four possibilities.
  7. This same format places the BOARD in a position to blindly cast votes to convene a closed session pursuant to § 52-4-204(a).
  8. On information and belief, Defendants did not provide “reasonable specificity to notify the public as to the topics to be considered at the meeting” pursuant to
    § 52-4-202 (6a), Utah Code.
  9.  On information and belief Defendants did not provide accurate minutes of the MEETING, pursuant to § 52-4-203, Utah Code.
  10.  On information and belief Defendant Heather Bennett did not truthfully affirm the purpose of the meeting.   

COUNT VI
FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
MEETING: September 16, 2014

Defendants did not conduct the MEETING in compliance with the ACT 

  1.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations on paragraphs 1-95, supra.
  2.  The Utah Legislature has declared it to be State policy that the political subdivisions of the State are to conduct their deliberations and take their actions in full view of the people whose business they are conducting. See § 52-4-102, Utah Code.
  3.  The requirement that public bodies meet publicly has limited exceptions, see
    § 52-4-204, Utah Code. Including those occasions when a public body holds “discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual;” Id. at § 52-4-205 (1)(a), Utah Code.
  4. During the MEETING, Plaintiff objected to the violation of Utah’s Open and Public Meeting Act because the topic did not meet the exception as prescribed in § 52-4-205 (1a), Utah Code.
  5.  Despite Plaintiffs objections, Defendants continued the MEETING under the guise of “personnel.”
  6.  Plaintiff left the meeting in protest stating that he would file a complaint with the Utah Attorney General’s Office, see § 52-4-303, Utah Code .[36]
  7.  On information and belief, Defendants made a mockery of the ACT. When a public body is authorized to conduct the people’s business outside of public scrutiny it must be done within the limits prescribed by § 52-4-204, Utah Code.

COUNT VII
FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
MEETING: September 16, 2014

Defendants did not limit discussions at the MEETING to personnel, nor did they open the meeting for discussion of those matters not related to personnel, as required by the ACT.

  1.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations on paragraphs 1-102, supra.
  2.  The district admits that the disbursement of public funds was the topic under the guise of a “personnel” issue. 
  3. The October 1, 2014, GRAMA response: “Accordingly at this time the district is denying your request for a record of the deliberations of the closed meetings. You should, however, be aware that because the September 16th deliberations you are seeking involved a “discussion of the character, professional competence or physical or mental health of an individual, there is no recording and there are no minutes of this discussion… You also requested any paperwork that was distributed …With regard to the September 16, 2014, discussion…As you may recall you were provided with a copy of a draft financial document…”[37]
  4. On October 6, 2014, Salt Lake City School District, public information officer Jason Olsen sent out an email[38] to the Uintah Elementary School parents. The first sentence of the email states: “During the course of the external investigation commissioned by the Salt Lake City School District Board of Education, it was discovered that over $8,000.00 in Uintah student lunch monies had been misapplied to various student accounts”. This email is attached as Exhibit Z.
  5. The email states that “funds were misapplied” and that the district will be contacting families at Uintah Elementary to discuss “potential remedies”.  
  6. Plaintiff has reviewed The Thompson Ostler & Olsen [39] external report, attached as Exhibit AA as well as the Squire [40] external report, attached as Exhibit BB and neither report references the $8,000 dollar amount.
  7. The Salt Lake Tribune ran a story titled: $8,000 in Utah School Lunch Money was Misdirected Before Scandal.[41] There is no public record of the Board discussing or approving this public funding for disbursement for this particular school or any others.
  8.  On information and belief, matters other than those relating to “personnel” were discussed during the closed portion of the MEETING; those portions of the MEETING in which Defendants discussed the formation of public policy and expenditure of public funds unrelated to “personnel” were not open to the public and should have been. See § 52-4-103(5b)(iii)
  9.  Plaintiff maintains that it is vital to the formation of public policy and the disbarment of public monies, that the decision to disperse public funds should be null and void as it was the result of an illegal meeting. See § 52-4-304(2b).

COUNT VIII
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
September 16, 2014 Meeting

Defendants have mocked the ACT by conducting the people’s business in secret, abusing the exceptions of closed door meetings as set forth in the ACT. 

  1.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraph 1-111.
  2. On September 16, 2014, Plaintiff advised the Defendants that the discussion and actions they were taking was in violation of the ACT.
  3. Plaintiff left the meeting in protest, advising Defendants that he would file a complaint with the Utah Attorney General’s Office.[42]
  4. On information and belief, the purpose of Defendants’ MEETING was not as advertised (e.g. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual); rather, it was designed to cloud transparency and conceal the fact that the BOARD made a decision on the disbursement of public monies in violation of the ACT.
  5.  The ACT does not permit closed door meetings to be held for the purpose of suppressing information that is vital to developing public policy and appropriation of public funds for expenditure, see §52-4-103, Utah Code.

COUNT IX
PLAINTIFF HAS EXHAUSTED ALL LOCAL & STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

  1. On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Utah Open and Public Meetings Act violation complaint[43] with the Utah Attorney General’s Office, pursuant to § 52-4-303, Utah Code. Letter is attached as Exhibit DD.
  2. On October 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed the same [44] complaint with the Salt Lake County District Attorney’s Office on the advice of the Utah Attorney General’s Office, pursuant to § 52-4-303, Utah Code.
  3.  On October 15, 2014, Plaintiff wrote a letter to the BOARD Attorney, Joan Andrews of Fabien & Clendenin, asking for an opinion on Plaintiffs concerns about the BOARDS violations of the ACT.[45] Plaintiff also asked that the BOARD take affirmative steps to rectify the violations of the ACT. Email attached as Exhibit EE.
  4. On October 16, 2014, Plaintiff received an email reply[46] from Attorney Andrews, requesting that Plaintiff allow the BOARD to consider the recommended remedies as prescribed in his letter. Attached as Exhibit FF.
  5. On October 16, 2014, Plaintiff sent a NOTICE OF CLAIM to the BOARDS Business Administrator, Janet Roberts and DEFENDANTS,[47] pursuant to
    § 63G-7-401(c), Utah Code, Attached as Exhibit GG.
  6. On October 22, 2014, Plaintiff received a response from Ms. Joan Andrews, legal counsel for the BOARD stating the following: “after the discussion at last night’s meeting, there will be no further action regarding your request [NOTICE OF CLAIM] at this time”. [48]  Attached as Exhibit HH.

WHEREFORE, THE PLAINTIFF PRAYS FOR RELIEF AS FOLLOWS:

  1. That the Court review the recording, written minutes and security camera of the MEETINGS consistent with § 52-4-304 (1a), Utah Code.
  2. That the Court “enjoin violations” of the ACT pursuant to § 52-4-303(3a), Utah Code.
  3. That the Court declare that Defendants violated the ACT, §§ 52-4-101 to 305, Utah Code, on August 7, 2014, by failing to provide reasonable specificity to notify the public as to the topics to be considered at the MEETING as prescribed in § 52-4-202(6a), Utah Code, when they published the Agenda for the meeting.
  4. That the Court declare that Defendant Kristi Swett violated the ACT, §§ 52-4-101 to 305, Utah Code on August 7, 2014, by falsely stating in the minutes: “affirming that the sole purpose for the closing the meeting was to discuss the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual” as prescribed in § 52-4-206(6), Utah Code.
  5. That the Court declare that Defendants violated the ACT, §§ 52-4-101 to 305, Utah Code, on August 7, 2014, by failing to meet the limited exceptions as prescribed in § 52-4-205 (1c), Utah Code when they discussed the issue of school bus safety under the guise of “litigation.”
  6. That the Court “publicly disclose or reveal from the recording or minutes of the August 7, 2014, MEETING, all information about the portion of the meeting that was illegally closed” to the public, as prescribed in § 52-4-305, Utah Code.
  7. That the Court declare that the documents that the School District provided to Plaintiff on October 1, 2014, in reference to the subject matter of the August 7, 2014, MEETING be made a public record.
  8. That the Court declare that Defendants violated the ACT, §§ 52-4-101 to 305, Utah Code, on September 16, 2014, by failing to provide reasonable specificity to notify the public as to the topics to be considered at the meeting as prescribed in § 52-4-202(6a), Utah Code, when they published the agenda for the MEETING.
  9. That the Court declare that Defendant Heather Bennett violated the ACT, §§ 52-4-101 to 305, Utah Code, on September 16, 2014, by falsely stating in the minutes: “affirming that the sole purpose for the closing the meeting was to discuss the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual” as prescribed in § 52-4-206(6), Utah Code.
  10. That the Court declare that Defendants violated the ACT, §§ 52-4-101 to 305, Utah Code, on September 16, 2014, by failing to meet the limited exceptions as prescribed in § 52-4-205(1a), Utah Code, when they discussed the issue of appropriating public funds for expenditure of under the guise of “personnel.”
  11. That the Court “publicly disclose or reveal from the recording or minutes of the closed meeting on September 16, 2014, all information about the portion of the meeting that was illegally closed” to the public, as prescribed in § 52-4-305, Utah Code.
  12. That the Court declare the documents that the School District provided to Plaintiff on October 1, 2014, in reference to the subject on September 16, 2014,be made a public record.
  13. That the Court declare that the decision to appropriate public funds for expenditure in the September 16, 2014 MEETING be null and void pursuant to §52-4-302 (1), Utah Code.
  14. That the Court “compel compliance with” the ACT by having Defendants conform to all aspects of the ACT including but not limited to, publishing the agenda with proper specificity, conducting the meetings and in posting the accurate and true minutes of the meeting etc…pursuant to § 52-4-303(4), Utah Code.
  15. That the Court order Defendants to reimburse Plaintiff for attorney’s fees and costs consistent with § 52-4-303(4), Utah Code.

I declare under criminal penalty of Utah Code Section 78B-5-705 that this Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Request for Attorneys Fees and cost is true and correct.

 

 

[1] The Board of Education of Salt Lake City School District Minutes dated August 7, 2014 p 2 [Exhibit A]

[2] Notice of Public Meeting, Salt Lake City School District dated August 7, 2014 pp 1-3 [Exhibit B]

[3] See fn 1 [Exhibit A]

[4] Salt Lake City School District GRAMA Response Letter, October 1, 2014 [Exhibit C]

[5] See fn 2 [Exhibit B]

[6] See fn 7 [Exhibit F]

[7] Convening Meetings Which Are Open to the Public, a Handbook for School Board Members by Burbidge & White L.L.C. pp 10-11  [Exhibit D]

[8] Plaintiff GRAMA request to Salt Lake City School District, September 17, 2014 [Exhibit E]

[9] GRAMA response, Public Document, includes two statements of affirmation for the closed meetings, October 1, 2014 [Exhibit F]

[10] GRAMA response, Protected Documents, cover sheet only. October 1, 2014  [Exhibit G]

[11] GRAMA Response, Bus #199, August 27, 2014 [Exhibit H]

[12] Plaintiff’s GRAMA request: Bus #199, August 13, 2014 [Exhibit I]

[13] See Blog, Local School Board Can Make a Difference: School Bus –Manufacturing Defect June 5, 2014 [Exhibit J]

[14] GRAMA denial letter, August 14, 2014 [Exhibit K]

[15] Plaintiff’s appeal letter, August 15, 2014 [Exhibit L]

[16] Ken Martinez email to Steve Woods, August 11, 2014 [Exhibit M]

[17] United States Department of Transportation Safety Recall 14V-313, June 11, 2014 [Exhibit N]

[18] Steve Woods email to the Board, July 29, 2014 [Exhibit O]

[19] Plaintiff’s letter to Mr. Joel Coleman, Superintendent Public Education, Utah State Office of Education and Colonel Furh, Utah Highway Patrol, August 29, 2014 [Exhibit P]

[20] Major Rapich response to Plaintiff, September 12, 2014 [Exhibit Q]

[21] Plaintiff’s email exchanges with Murrell Martin of USOE, September 10, 2014 [Exhibit R]

[22] Plaintiff’s complaint to Lt. Greg Wilmore -Utah Highway Patrol, September 15, 2015  [Exhibit S]

[23] Lt. Wilmore email to Plaintiff, September 16, 2014 [Exhibit T]

[24] See fn 2 [Exhibit B]

[25] Salt Lake City School District, Superintendent’s Weekly Board Memorandum, June 6, 2014 [Exhibit U]

[26] Ms. Jensen comments to the Board, October 7, 2014 [Exhibit V]

[27] Ms. Jensen email to Plaintiff, October 9, 2014 [Exhibit W]

[28] See fn 9 [Exhibit H]

[29] The Board of Education of Salt Lake City School District Minutes dated September 16, 2014, pp 1- 2 [Exhibit X]

[30] Notice of Public Meeting, Salt Lake City School District dated September 16, 2014  pp 1-2 [Exhibit Y]

[31] See fn 29 [Exhibit X]

[32] See fn 28 [Exhibit Y]

[33]  See fn 4 [Exhibit C]

[34] See fn 30 [Exhibit Y]

[35] See fn 7 [Exhibit F]

[36] See fn 28 [Exhibit Y]

[37] See fn 4 [Exhibit C]

[38] Olsen email to parents, October 6, 2014 [Exhibit Z]

[39] Thompson Ostler & Olsen, Independent Investigative Final Report, September 10, 2014, pp 1-2 only [Exhibit AA]

[40] Squire Independent Accounting Report, May 16, 2014 [Exhibit BB]

[41] Salt Lake Tribune 10/07/14: $8,000 in Utah School Lunch Money Was Misdirected Before Scandal  [Exhibit CC]

[42] See fn 28 [Exhibit Y]

[43] Plaintiff’s complaint letter to Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes, October 3, 2014  [Exhibit DD]

[44] Fn 46 [Exhibit DD]

[45] Plaintiff’s letter to Attorney Joan Andrews of Fabien & Clendenin, October 15, 2014 [Exhibit EE]

[46] Attorney Andrews email to Plaintiff, October 15,2014 [Exhibit FF]

[47] Plaintiff’s Notice of Claim letter to Business Administrator Janet Roberts, USPS Certified Mail #7012-2920-000-7124-9158 and Priority Mail Tracking  # 9114-9999-4423-8342-6236-95 [Exhibit GG].

[48] Attorney Andrews email reply to Plaintiff, October 22, 2014 [Exhibit HH].

Comments are closed.