Gullixson: What’s with Santa Rosa’s school board?

In this space last week, columnist Pete Golis offered his thoughts on the new and relationally improved Santa Rosa City Council. “Who are these people?” he asked. Given the antipathy of the past, he didn’t recognize them. Yes, it’s amazing what an election, a new city manager and a new year can do.

But here’s the bad news. For reasons that remain something of a mystery, the Santa Rosa school board now seems to have cornered the market on government dysfunction.

It’s all there. The distrust. The backbiting. The hostility. If the school board were a reality TV show, sponsors would be clamoring for a second season. But I’m not sure Santa Rosa is.

The divide consists of board members Laura Gonzalez, Frank Pugh and Ron Kristof on one side and President Donna Jeye and board members Bill Carle, Larry Haenel and Jenni Klose on the other. In the center is Socorro Shiels, who has shaken things up since taking over as superintendent three years ago, replacing Sharon Liddell who had held the post for nearly a decade. But she has clearly ruffled feathers, particularly among teachers. The majority firmly supports her while, for reasons that aren’t entirely clear, those in the minority don’t, at least not in many areas. And the enmity between the groups has reached unhealthy extremes.

Never has it been more evident than at the last school board meeting where the focus was on an allegation, made by the head of the teachers association, that Shiels had dropped the ball on a proposal that would have saved the district $2 million on a bus contract. Shiels didn’t even pass the proposal on to the board, the allegation went.

An independent investigator was hired, and the findings were announced at that April 22 meeting before a crowd thick with teachers, who, it should be noted, are at an impasse in negotiations on a new three-year contract. Thus, anything that shows the district is hiding or wasting money bolsters the union’s contention that the district has the resources to meet its demand for a 5 percent boost - 3 percent in salaries and 2 percent in benefits.

But, as the investigation showed, there was no cover-up. A Nov. 5 letter sent from the West County Transportation Agency that outlined the potential savings if the district joined the agency was, in fact, sent to board members on Nov. 12. The members just overlooked it. Given the volume of material they receive, it’s understandable. What’s not is why it took a private investigator to figure that out. How much money and energy was wasted on that?

Even if the directors wanted to jump on the proposal, there was still the not-so-small matter of the district already being under contract with another bus company, a contract that isn’t due to expire for three years.

The findings were particularly embarrassing for Kristof, who had said he was “outraged” that he hadn’t been alerted about the proposal, and for Amy Stern, the president of the Santa Rosa Teachers Association, who accused the superintendent of “blatant violations of trust.”

The investigator and board majority called particular attention to Kristof’s behind-the-scenes efforts to raise questions about Shiels’ actions. “What happened here was about accusation and damaging peoples’ reputations,” Jeye said at the time. She said Shiels and other staffers deserved an apology.

But it did not end there. On Friday, Kristof sent us an eight-page, 4,000-word response to our coverage, including an April 24 editorial (“A convenient story too good to be true”) in which we suggested that the district and its students would be better served “if the members of the school board start working with a presumption of goodwill - and start acting like adults.”

His response is too long to publish here, but it’s available on pressdemocrat.com. (It’s attached to the online version of this column.)

In brief, Kristof said he “was in no position to accuse any individual of withholding information or wrongdoing.” But he added, “in my mind the public trust had been compromised by the lack of information and communication.” He acknowledged the 4-3 division on the board, noting how it has “hardened” in recent months. “This is not something I want to hide or downplay because it will only lead to increased frustration,” he wrote. “There are some personal differences, but they should not be the topic of public discourse. … The divide is clearly political.” He said the board majority sees his actions “as an impediment and uses current protocols to marginalize me.”

Kristof concludes by saying that the district, among other things, should “provide me with an attorney of my choice to assist me with processing concerns that were not addressed over the last two years by the board leadership and to help develop a legal framework for me to operate …”

Hmm. I really don’t see how having members of the school board get lawyered up at taxpayer expense is going to improve anything - least of all communication and personal relations.

The crazy part is the school district and the teachers aren’t that far apart on a new contract. There’s no disagreement that teachers deserve a raise and better benefits. The impasse centers on how much the district can afford under the state’s new funding formula. My guess is that will be resolved sooner than later. But what divides the school board is going to take much longer to resolve.

It’s too bad. Given the improved state budget and the recent approval by voters of $229 million in school bonds for Santa Rosa City Schools, this should be a time of rejuvenation. Instead it’s become a time of juvenile discord - on a board that makes the old Santa Rosa City Council look good by comparison.

Paul Gullixson is editorial director for The Press Democrat. Email him at paul.gullixson@pressdemocrat.com or call him at (707) 521-5282.

Editor’s Note: What follows is Santa Rosa school board member Ron Kristof’s unedited response to our editorial of April 24 titled “A convenient story too good to be true” and other Press Democrat coverage related to the events discussed above at the April 22 school board meeting. This was sent on Friday.

The need for information, fairness and transparency

By Ron Kristof

I am writing to provide clarity and perspective regarding a formal proposal, not a “letter”, sent from West County Transportation addressed to the SRCS Board of Trustees, the Superintendent, and the Assistant Superintendent of Business Services that was dated November 5, 2014. I do this so I may be more fairly judged by the public and provide the public with the transparency and perspective they deserve. I also do this in hope of moving Santa Rosa City Schools forward.

Busing on my Radar

I have stated previously that one of the most important reasons that I chose to run for the board of education was to prevent the waste of resources that I had been an inside witness to for many years during my tenure as a teacher. School Districts must decide how to spend public funds. Our district budget that is around $130,000,000 necessitates many decisions at many levels, but the board is ultimately responsible for overseeing its operation. I look at budget oversight as my most important responsibility. When poor or bad decisions are made that do not produce the desired results, especially when they involve millions of dollars, we need to take a critical look at the process and do it in a manner that is full view of the public.

Busing students in a district of over 15,000 students is a big-ticket item. We spend several million dollars a year on busing and currently contract with First Student, an international corporation that touts itself as the largest provider of school bus service in the United States. It is a “for profit” corporation. Almost from the time I joined the board I thought that SRCS could save money by having its own buses. The district has seriously looked at this issue before, and earlier this school year it seemed the time was correct to revisit it with our new business manager, Steve Eichman. I mentioned to Steve in a causal conversation last September that I thought the district might be able to save money if we owned our own buses. I am not sure if this is what prompted him, but Steve produced an excellent report on transportation services that was discussed at the October 22 board meeting. This was item F-6 on the agenda, available in the district website archives. The optimism of the last page of the report gave me the impression that the district discussions with West County Transportation had gone well and that we had over three weeks to come to an agreement for this year. Several weeks passed and I assumed that negotiations were ongoing since I had not heard anything specific and we had not had a follow-up discussion in open session. Under previous protocols I would have just called the business manager to check on the progress. Current protocols do not allow me to do this. Inquiries of this nature have been criticized as “micromanaging” and are not allowed per board majority.

From Out of the Blue and What to do?

On March 2, 2015 I received an email from Ron Calloway who is the Superintendent of Schools for the Mark West Union School District. I respect Ron as a dedicated educator. He is also a member of the Board of Directors for the West County Transportation. It is a Joint Powers Agency. A joint power agency is a public body that pools resources and applies economics of scale to save taxpayers money. West County is in the busing business that includes sixteen school districts and has a very good reputation for service (schoolbusing.org). The email Ron sent mentioned a possible $2M savings by joining West County and he said that an email had been sent to the Superintendent and the Assistant Superintendent of Business Services. He also mentioned that it might help with negotiations and that the savings would be on-going, although as it turned out any future savings would be a few years down the line. I asked that he forward the “analysis” because I was not aware of what he was referring to. Ron emailed back that evening with a PDF of the “proposal” complete with a signature page for Santa Rosa City Schools. Ron also emphasized an on going savings of $2M for Santa Rosa City Schools. I did not receive the spreadsheet attachments, but the proposal prepared by Michael Rea, the Executive Director of West County was indeed complete and did offer a $2M on going savings. What was striking was the November 5th date on the proposal. The proposal had been put together in a two-week period. Michael Rea had been at the October 22nd board meeting and noted all of the questions of board members during Steve Eichman’s presentation. I have no idea of what communication and/or negotiations took place between SRCS and West County during that period. The aggressiveness of putting this proposal together led me to conclude that West County was trying to work with us to join the JPA for the following fiscal year. There would be an immediate savings from our small bus routes and a $2M overall savings starting in 2016-17 that would be ongoing.

I found the fact that I didn’t know about this proposal and what negotiations had taken place before and after the district had received it very disturbing. I was in no position to accuse any individual of withholding information or wrongdoing, but in my mind the public trust had been compromised by the lack of information and communication. Santa Rosa City Schools is a public body as is West County Transportation. Could we have signed a contract for next year? I don’t know, but a discussion should have taken place and in public. $2M is a lot of money.

Ron’s intent seemed that by passing the proposal along to me that it might help rekindle an interest in joining West County. Why me? Why not the board president? My guess is that I was the most likely person bring this to the public’s attention. Yes my emails to Ron provide the “smoking gun” that the investigator was directed to find. However, I want to make clear my intent for which I take full responsibility. I was ready to produce the real weapon. I was preparing to roll this out to the general public. Amy Stern, the Santa Rosa Teachers Association President did this before me on the night of March 11. The “Unfair Labor Practice” complaint recently filed by SRTA and made a public document after a board member discussed it in open session made clear her concern about not receiving the proposal. The Santa Rosa Teachers Association issues with the busing proposal are different than mine and focus on negotiations. Upon receipt of the proposal I viewed it as something the public should know about. Ron did nothing to caution me about who to give it to or what to do with it. In a subsequent phone conversation I asked him when it had become a pubic document to which he replied mid November. Almost four months had passed and the board had not been made of what had transpired between Santa Rosa City Schools and the West County JPA. The public as well had not been made aware of the proposal. Under normal circumstances I might have been able to put it on the next board agenda to discuss in open session what had transpired. But these aren’t normal circumstances.

My Role as a Board Member

I believe myself to be a steward of the district first. However, having been a classroom teacher for almost thirty years my inclination is to look at how my decisions as a board member directly impact the classroom. During my initial campaign and my recent reelection as well as during my tenure in office I have consistently espoused the following: I am a firm believer in collective bargaining. It allows teachers the security to do the best job they can in the classroom and allows them to wear the mantle of “professional”. What goes on in the classroom on a day-to-day basis is the essence of public education. I believe our teaching corps is our most valuable asset and our district needs to make the recruitment, retention, and development of our classroom teachers is first priority. I want to expand the role of parents in the process of education their children. They know their children best and in close alliance with teachers I trust them to do what is right for their children’s future. Site administrators working in an open and trusting relationship with teachers and parents should be given the autonomy to run their schools – real site based decision making. Each school is a unique community we should always look for multiple ways to serve them. Each child is unique and deserves the best education we can provide. The most important role of the central office is to provide support for the sites. As a board member I am committed to increasing transparency and improving our accountability to the public.

It’s No Secret

I respect all of the members of the Santa Rosa School Board for their dedication and hard work on behalf of the students of our district. I believe that each member of the board operates on the belief that he/she is doing what is best for students. The board with slight variations shares a common vision and common goals and has weathered some difficult times together. Most votes taken by the board are unanimous.

However, over a period of the last two years differences have evolved and the wall separating the board majority of four and the minority of three has hardened. This is not something I want to hide or downplay because it will only lead to increased frustration. There are some personal differences, but they should not be the topic of public discourse. Where once board members frequently communicated freely with each other we now talk to each other in camps. Where once interesting articles on education were passed along to one another there is now silence.

The divide is clearly political. The alignments in the last election provide a good example of this. In hope of avoiding the type of deep divide that plagued the city council for years there were suggestions to me and in a letter to the editor that the executive board responsibilities be shared between the two groups as the city council now does. Our last board reorganization meeting proved that this was not in the cards even though the two top vote getters during the last two election cycles were members of the minority faction.

The central issue for me is what decision making model we use and how do we implement our policies and programs. The board majority believes that the only real job they have is to hire and fire the superintendent and that the board should stay out of the way of the decision making process. I call this a pyramid model. My view is the opposite. My role is to question decisions at every level and have as many decisions flow from the bottom up knowing that there will be exceptions.

In my model of governance quality, verifiable information is the lifeblood of a board member. If information is incomplete, inaccurate, or simply missing I cannot do my job. When requests for information go unheeded, or I receive information that I am unable to verify, or I am given information that I know to be inaccurate then resentment and frustration build and my lack of trust increases. When I object I have been accused of trying to micromanage. There have been several discussions about this in closed session breaking down along the lines of the current factions.

I feel I am unable to do my job while the board majority views my actions as an impediment and uses current protocols to marginalize me. The board president and the superintendent set the agenda. The superintendent along with the board majority, develop operating protocols. My history in this operating model over the last two years has been one of denied requests and lack of attention to what I consider serious concerns. If I am unable to place simple matters on the agenda how could I possibly expect to place such a controversial item, one that might be embarrassing to the district on it.

Things to Remember

1. Both Santa Rosa City School and the West County Transportation Agency are public bodies and if they are doing business the public there are both legal and moral obligations to keep the public apprised.

2. The November 5, 2014 busing proposal from West County Transportation to Santa Rosa City Schools became a public document in mid November confirmed by two sources including Ron Calloway. Nowhere does it say “confidential” or “classified”.

3. Negotiations for the upcoming year most likely had been concluded over three months before Ron Calloway, Superintendent of Mark West Union School District and a member of the Board of Directors for West County Transportation sent it to me. This came to me via email on March 2, 2015. His intent was an attempt to rekindle an interest from SRCS in joining the West County Transportation. I shared this interest.

4. Ron and I exchanged two emails on March 2nd. The first points to my lack of knowledge of any negotiations that had transpired between SRCS and West County. The second makes clear I intended to distribute this publically. Ron did nothing to discourage me from doing this and did not give me any specific guidelines regarding who or who not to give it to.

5. Because of the importance of a possible on-going $2M savings, and because it was a public document, and because I wanted to make sure the public including district officials was made aware of it I began to plan how to make it public. This was my intent. The proposal was presented to the board at the March 11th board meeting by SRTA President, Amy Stern before I was able to do so. I had no way of knowing if any other board members knew of the proposal or had recently received a copy.

6. SRTA’s concerns about the proposal were different than mine. The recent release of SRTA’s unfair labor practice claim clarifies the SRTA allegations regarding information about transportation being withheld from negotiations. The Public Employees Relations Board will decide this case.

7. My concerns center on my lack of information and involvement as a board member in a matter of this importance and the fact that the public had never been made aware of it.

8. All board members claim not to have seen the stand-alone proposal presented in PDF format in a November 14th board update. I can only assume then that only staff was involved with the talks with West County Transportation. Ron Calloway told me in a phone conversation he was providing transcripts of the discussions and they would be made available during the “investigation”. They were not included in the “report”.

9. After the release of the proposal I met with an outside expert on school busing who confirmed that West County Transportation offered high quality busing service and that contract proposal warranted a board discussion before the public as a follow up.

10. The “Investigation Report” prepared by Jay Resendez was biased, flawed, designed to deflect attention from the real issues at hand, and has only added to the mistrust.

A. School and College Legal Services hired Mr. Resendez, an attorney who resides in the Sacramento area to conduct an investigation. School and College Legal Services provide substantial legal services for SRCS. Margaret Merchat, an attorney with the firm works closely with the superintendent and the board president on a very regular basis. Mr. Resendez told me he reported directly to Ms. Merchat and that he had worked for the firm before. Essentially School and College Legal Services is on our payroll and indirectly so is Mr. Resendez. This was not an independent outside investigation.

B. The framing of the first four questions was designed to determine if the superintend had failed to pass the proposal along to the board. The answer is it was sent out in a Friday update, but attached as a stand alone PDF with no explanation. Although I was only able to open the file on one of my four home devices it was referenced in a cover letter as an attachment from West County and I should have picked it up. The fact that no board member remembers seeing this is problematic, but clearly absolves the district office of not sending the document to the board.

C. It is easy to understand on the night of March 11th why no one from staff recollected the proposal being sent out. However, because of the severity of the charges I would guess that this had been researched and cleared up within a short period of time. Larry Haenel’s response to Matt Davis, a teacher at Santa Rosa High School who wrote an email to complain about the district’s lack of attention to the proposal said, “When the facts come forth, I think you will be relieved about the actions of the board and the superintendent. I hope when all the facts come out, teachers (will) be able to look critically and that the trust can be reestablished.” This was dated March 19th and sent to the entire board (by accident). It was not included in the investigator’s attachments. What facts did Vice President Haenel know? It was truly good news that the proposal had been sent to board members, but why wasn’t this information passed along to all the board members and to the public? Why did we go on with an “investigation”? And how much money and time could we have saved by immediately coming forward with the information?

D. Questions 5-9 tell the real story of the investigation. They are framed to find out how the President of SRTA could have come into possession of the proposal and who could have passed this along. President Jeye in a March 13th reply to my concerns about the proposal said, “In addition, aren’t you just a bit curious about how Amy came into possession of the letter…?” My email is included in the investigator’s attachments. Her response is not. There is nothing wrong with this question, but the focus being on the messenger is apparent. Nothing about the substance or significance of the proposal or any possible wrongdoing was mentioned.

E. The investigator selected what information would be included and what he wanted to leave out of the attachments. Email responses already referenced from the board president and the board vice-president are examples of what were left out. Much more significant is the communications (emails, meeting notes, phone logs, etc.) that tell the story of the negotiations between SRCS and West County Transportation. In a phone conversation with Ron Calloway he said he would be turning these documents over to the investigator. Thinking these documents would become public is the only reason I participated in this process. This story is yet to be told.

F. There was no input from any member of the board minority regarding choosing an investigator or framing the questions for an investigation.

G. No one was under oath and the many, many details surrounding all of this do not appear because of the nature of the investigation. It is a story based on incomplete truth and innuendo and it told from the point of view of those who contracted the “investigation”.

H. The report was paid for with district funds. Personnel time and the distraction this has caused need to be calculated in as well.

11. It is important and significant news that superintendent did not withhold the West County busing proposal from the board and I am grateful she was able to clear her name of this charge. However, the Press Democrat does this community a great disservice by not looking into the underlying issues surrounding the current controversy. The timing, framing, and emotive language of its front page article the day after the board meeting suggest a desire to use its power to pick winners and losers and with a blatant disregard for the complete truth. I was never contacted for this story or were the other board members in the minority. The information had to come from somewhere. As with the “report” this story is based on partial truth and adds to the mistrust.

12. Relations with our teachers and staff are worse than I can ever recall. Negotiations have been contentious and are now in the hands of a state mediator. The Santa Rosa Teachers Association has filed a complaint with the grand jury as well as an unfair labor practice the later of which is now public. The district must make settling with the teachers association its number one priority. Santa Rosa City Schools is bleeding teachers because of pay and benefits and we are squandering the good will of those who remain. Teachers are our most valuable asset and making them whole again should be our top priority.

13. Lastly, I am a messenger. During the “investigator’s report” before the board there was a crescendo leading up to the question we had all been waiting for. As the board president, using my name for emphasis, said, “…why didn’t you come to us?” You and the public have my answer if it wasn’t already known. And the corollary of that question is?

What Needs to Happen

1. I would like the district to provide me with an attorney of my choice to assist me with processing concerns that were not addressed over the last two years by the board leadership and to help develop a legal framework for me to operate within the current governance model; this would allow me to be true to my constituents. The district spends very large amounts on legal services. I am asking for just a small portion in order to help improve the governance of our district.

2. I would like to see the West County Transportation proposal brought back as a discussion item in front of the board in order to revisit it in full public view. The potential is still there for saving $2M a year in “on-going” savings and to improve our bus service. It is also a way to become involved in a cooperative endeavor with other county school districts and could lead to providing more efficient services in other areas. In other words reducing bureaucracy and thus saving taxpayers money. This could act as a prelude to further discussion about the level of transparency the public expects from us.

3. I would like to see a professionally developed, anonymous survey administered to all teachers, classified employees and, site administrators that would focus on the current state of the governance of our district. The goal would be to assess the different parts of our governance system including the board, individual board members, the superintendent, and the central office. The purpose would be to improve how we govern Santa Rosa City Schools. It would have to been done externally and done in the spirit of taking an honest look at what we are doing. And of course this should be reported out before the public to seek input before any action is taken. The junior college already does something like this.

4. I would also like to see a discussion on whistleblower protection for district employees. We can only get better if people bring problems forward to be addressed openly.

In Conclusion

Santa Rosa City Schools and our community would be better served if all board members had complete information before casting their votes. Moving toward including those in the minority on the board into a more active role would improve trust and hopefully avoid a repeat of the situation at hand. It would do the public a great disservice to let the current situation devolve into what plagued our city council for years and would refranchise those who voted for members in the minority faction. The public would be well served if the board were to conduct periodic open forum discussions that seek to clarify the expectations and limitations of transparency as a part of their operating procedure. We are accountable to you. Make us live up to our ideals as a democratic institution.