Candidate Platform by Kevin Alfaro

I’m running for the school board of the St. Helena Unified School District because I believe that we have a great school district, but that it can be even better by incorporating more fiscal responsibility, community interaction, transparency, accountability and independence.

As a member of the school board, I would provide fiscal responsibility and oversight regarding our district’s $22 million budget.

As a certified public accountant and a local community bank board member, I understand numbers and budgets. I’ve devoted numerous hours to learning the fiscal demands and responsibilities of a public educational institution. I’ve done this by poring through our district’s 151-page budget document and conducting independent research to gain a full understanding of what our district needs.

I’ve also taken the time to ask district and county officials questions. I’m ready for the continued challenge to learn more about the process, especially as our state continues to look for ways to cut precious dollars from our budget.

As a board member, I’ll work to put more money in the teachers’ hands to educate our kids by reducing administrative bloat. From my own research, and information recently published in the Star by a community member as well as our district’s CBO, it’s very apparent that we have room for cost savings regarding administrative expenses. In spite of our declining enrollment, our administrative costs continue to soar while some of our kids’ programs have been cut and will be subject to further cuts.

Now is the time to reexamine our fiscal priorities. We need to prepare our district for the difficult economic times ahead and I would like to be involved in that process. Part of that process includes staying informed about Basic Aid legislation. As California continues to feel pressure to reduce the deficit, education and, in particular, Basic Aid districts like ours are in jeopardy of losing funds. The board and the administration need to stay active and informed on this issue and I intend to do just that.

If elected to the board, I’ll engage the community through open dialogue and promote board meetings where public comments are considered in the decision making process. I believe that board meetings can be an opportunity for give and take with the community. Unfortunately, the current procedures regarding board meetings don’t take advantage of this opportunity.

The board meetings should invite open dialogue with the community by allowing people to speak and interact with board members at the appropriate time. I would help make this process more inviting and assist in establishing guidelines and deadlines for board responses to community questions.

As a member of the board, I’ll ask administrators the tough questions and keep the administration accountable in order to promote a board that leads rather than follows.

I’ll approach board matters with thoroughness and intellectual curiosity, and ask constructive and productive questions when the opportunity arises.

I’ll make it a priority that all recommendations by the administration have clearly stated objectives and are supported by factual data.

I also believe a board member needs to go beyond asking the administration for the answers, and that independent fact-finding and problem-solving are critical attributes of a board member. I would therefore also take steps to independently verify the information provided by the administration. Additionally, if a recommendation of the administration is subsequently approved, I will follow up to determine if the desired outcome has been accomplished.

While I believe in the importance of working together with people to achieve a common goal, I also feel that it’s extremely important to incorporate independent thoughts and ideas into the process. I intend to vote independently and act with transparency if elected to the board. Board members should be able to clearly explain the reasons behind why they voted for or against an issue.

I believe that I’m qualified to sit on our school board. I have children who attend St. Helena public schools. I’ve spent my entire working life as a business person/CPA, which gives me added insight into what the term “fiscal responsibility” means.

For the last seven years, I’ve been the treasurer of the Boys and Girls Club. I also currently sit on the boards of Napa Community Bank, RLS Parent Group and Napa Valley Wine Library Association.

I’d be truly honored to serve on the St. Helena school board. I look forward to meeting you and answering questions. I can be reached at 707-318-9494 or kevin@gjscollp.com.

Why Alfaro's Counter-Sued

Kevin Alfaro, candidate for a school board seat in the Nov '09 election, had a letter in the Star this week clearly explaining the "lawsuit" with the district. (below).

WHY ALFAROS COUNTER-SUED

Thursday, August 06, 2009 St Helena Star

Editor: There has been talk recently regarding my family’s legal issues with the district. I’m committed to running for Jim Haslip’s seat and, since there are unfounded rumors being spread about this matter, I feel the need to set the record straight.

• On Nov. 7, 2008, the district filed suit against us because we decided to move our child from the SHUSD to another school that could meet her needs. Before filing suit, the district refused to discuss a meaningful resolution with us. We were then forced to hire an attorney.

• To protect our child’s educational rights and preserve some important administrative rights, we subsequently had to counter-file in the district’s lawsuit. The district proposed that we waive some of our administrative rights. We didn’t agree, since we felt it necessary to try to meet and work this out so that no one had to waste time and money on lawyers.

• The district refused mediation. We were told by a top district official, “I don’t believe in mediation.”

Ten days before the hearing, the district tendered a written offer to settle the matter. We accepted. They acknowledged receipt of our acceptance. The next day, the district unlawfully withdrew the offer.

• The hearing lasted 10 days. We lost most issues, but won one. According to statistics, districts win 9 out of 10 of these sorts of hearings. The cards were stacked in the district’s favor. They knew it, and we didn’t have a choice.

• On July 14, we filed a claim against the district concerning their unlawful withdrawal of the settlement offer. The July 14 document is what the district recently gave the Star. Unfortunately, that document contained confidential information regarding our child. The district could have easily edited out this information to protect our child, but chose not to do so.

All district children deserve respect and a right to representation. More personal attacks will be made about whether it’s appropriate for someone to sue the district and then run for the board. I’m prepared and have nothing to hide.

Kevin Alfaro

Update on Fair Political Practices Commission Complaint‏

Dear Community Members:

As many of you know, a complaint was submitted to the Fair Political Practices Commission concerning the issues that were raised in June about the PARS retirement plan. Unfortunately, there was a technical problem with the filed complaint (the incorrect Government Code Section was referenced) and it will have to be resubmitted.

Rest assured, we will resubmit it next week and this error will not in any way impact our position. Please also know that the FPPC has NOT reviewed or considered the substance of this matter yet and, contrary to an e-mail that is being circulated on this point, the SHUSD school board has NOT been exonerated.

Citizens for Quality Education

Robert Haley Superintendent Employment Contract 2009

[converted into a word document for purposes of posting on this site. Please send an e-mail to
citizens4qualityed@gmail.com for a .pdf copy of the signed agreement]

I. CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
This Contract of Employment is entered into by the SAINT HELENA UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT (“District”) BOARD OF TRUSTEES (“Board”) and Dr. Robert A.
Haley (“Superintendent”).

1. Term
A. The Board, pursuant to its action duly taken on May 14, 2009 and
recorded in its official records of proceedings, ratifies its decision to
employ Dr. Robert A. Haley to serve as Superintendent for a term of 24
months that begins on July 1, 2009 and ends on June 30, 2011.

B. Following receipt of a satisfactory evaluation, as defined herein, or in the absence of an evaluation, by August 30 of each year, an additional year shall be added to the term of employment. Superintendent shall provide written notice to each Board member of the August 30 deadline no later than the preceding June 30. If he fails to provide such notice, this provision is null and void for the year in question.

2. Salary.
A. The Board agrees to pay, and Superintendent agrees to accept an annual salary of $l89,000. The salary is to be paid in 12 equal installments, each installment to be paid on or about the last day of each calendar month during the term of this Contract.

B. Following receipt of a satisfactory annual evaluation by the Board, or in the absence of an evaluation, the Superintendent shall receive without further action of the Board in each fiscal year thereafter the same raise in salary as that received by the teachers of the District.

C. Based upon performance by the Superintendent, the salary of the Superintendent may be changed by mutual consent of the parties hereto for the remaining period during the term of this Contract. Such a change in salary shall not constitute the creation of a new contract nor extend the termination date of the Contract unless so stipulated.

3. Work Year.
A. The Superintendent shall be required to render 220 duty days per year of full and regular service to the District during the term of this contract. Non-duty days shall be scheduled by the Superintendent so as to avoid, as much as reasonably possible, disruption of his duties.

B. The Superintendent shall submit his annual work-year calendar to the Board President by August 1 of each year of this contract. The Superintendent may alter the calendar upon at least 15 working days prior notice to the Board, except in case of emergency.

4. Fringe Benefits.
A. Superintendent shall be eligible for benefits at the level accorded to certificated employees of the District.

B. Superintendent shall receive an allowance of $500 per month to compensate him for all use of his personal automobile in the performance of District business while in Napa County. He is eligible for mileage reimbursement for travel on District business outside of Napa County. In addition, he will be reimbursed for actual and necessary travel expenses incurred in the performance of his duties. To obtain reimbursement, he shall submit documentation pursuant to the requirements of Board Policy applicable to all District employees.

C. The Board shall pay the Superintendent’s annual dues for membership in appropriate national, state, and local organizations and the Superintendent’s attendance at meetings of these organizations. The Superintendent shall give prior notice to the Board when he attends a function outside of the State.

5. Expenses.
A. The Superintendent shall receive an additional amount of $10,000 for expenses related to conducting District business to be paid on payroll.

B. The District shall reimburse the Superintendent for actual and necessary expenses, incurred by the Superintendent within the scope of employment, for conference fees, travel and lodging or these may be paid directly by the District. All other expenses of this type shall be bone by the Superintendent.

6. Duties.
A. The Superintendent agrees to perform at the highest professional level of competence, the services, duties and obligations required by this contract, the laws of this State, and the rules, regulations and policies of the Governing Board.

B. Superintendent shall give his exclusive professional services to the District during the period of time such services are to be rendered to the District except as otherwise provided herein.

C. Superintendent shall serve as the chief executive officer of the District and administer the instruction services, business affairs, personnel, and property management with the assistance of the employee staff of the District, which shall include, but not be limited to, the nomination for employment and the assignment of all employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California and the appropriate rules and regulations of said State agencies and those of the Board of the District.

D. The Superintendent is directly responsible to the District Board of Trustees. It is his responsibility to facilitate communication and information among the administrators, the Board, staff parents and community, and set a positive tone for the District.

E. The Board encourages the Superintendent to maintain and improve his professional competence by all available means including subscription to and reading of professional journals, membership in professional organizations, attendance at professional meetings, and other continuing education activities.

F. The Board encourages the Superintendent to attend workshops and
conferences put on by the Small School Districts Association, attend the
Association of California School Administrators Superintendents’
Symposium and conferences of the Northern California Superintendents’
Association.

7. Physical Examination
A. Superintendent shall have a comprehensive medical examination at least once every two (2) years from the initial date of employment with the School District, unless otherwise authorized or directed by the Governing Board. Said examination shall be conducted by a licensed physician designated by the Governing Board. Any report of the medical examination shall be given directly and exclusively to the Superintendent. Upon request by Board President, said examination will be provided to the Board.

8. Evaluation.
A. Not later than September 1 of each year, Superintendent and Board shall meet to develop goals, objectives and priorities for the Superintendent for the coming school year. On a quarterly basis, the Board and Superintendent will meet to review the Superintendent’s progress. The Board will formally evaluate the performance of the Superintendent and his working relationship with the Board in writing not later than August 30 of each year. Superintendent shall provide written notice to each Board
member of the August 30 deadline no later than the preceding June 30. Failure to meet these deadlines shall not invalidate an evaluation.

B. All written evaluations shall be delivered to the Superintendent and a copy of the evaluation, along with any written comments from the Superintendent, shall be placed in the Superintendent’s personnel file in a sealed envelope marked, “Confidential: To Be Opened by Authorized Personnel Only.”

9. Limitation on Payments at Termination
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53260, in the event of termination of this Contract for any reason, no cash settlement may be made in an amount which exceeds the salary remaining under the contract or salary for 18 months, whichever is less. This amount shall not be construed as a guarantee or minimum entitlement.

B. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53261, in the event of termination of this Contract for any reason, no non-cash benefit may be conferred in settlement except for employer-paid health benefits which may be provided for a period not to exceed the monthly period by which any cash settlement is measured. In any event, employer-paid health benefits shall be discontinued if and when the employee obtains other employment before the measuring period has expired.

10. Governing Law.
A. This Contract is made subject to the laws of the State of California, the lawful rules and regulations of the agencies of the State and those of the District, all of which said laws, rules, and regulations are by reference hereto incorporated herein as if set forth in full.

11. Entire Contract
A. This Contract contains the entire Contract and understanding between the parties. There are no oral understandings, terms or conditions, and neither party has relied upon representations, express or implied contained in this Contract. This Contract can be changed or modified only by a written document signed by both parties.

12. Ratification
A. The Superintendent and the Governing Board agree that this Contract is not binding or enforceable unless it is ratified by the Governing Board at a meeting of the Governing Board.


/s/ Robert A. Haley /s/ Ines DeLuna
DR. ROBERT A. HALEY, Superintendent FOR THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Date: 5/14/09 Date: 5/14/09

Ratified in an open session of the Board of Trustees on: 5/14/09

Allan Gordon Superintendant Employment Contract

[converted into a word document for purposes of posting on this site. Please send an e-mail to
citizens4qualityed@gmail.com for a .pdf copy of the signed agreement]


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
Superintendent

THIS AGREEMENT is made this November 16, 2006, by and between the
Governing Board of the Saint Helena Unified School District (“District’ or “Board”) and Allan E. Gordon (“Superintendent”), hereinafter “Superintendent.”

1.Term. The parties hereto agree that the Employment Agreement between the District and the Superintendent, dated February 14, 2006 and effective for the term of July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2009 is hereby terminated and the Superintendent is reelected for a new term commencing July 1, 2006 and ending June 30, 2010, subject to the terms and conditions set forth below.
The Superintendent shall be required to render 220 “duty days” per year of full and regular services to the District during the terms of this Agreement. Non-duty days shall be scheduled by the Superintendent so as to avoid, as much as reasonably possible, disruption of his or her duties. Reasonable sick time is allowed and it is considered reasonable not to exceed twelve (12) duty days per year. The Board wilt need to be notified if unusual circumstances occur.

2.Salary. The Superintendent’s annual salary shall be $235,058 per year payable in twelve (12) equal monthly payments,. The Superintendent shall receive without further action of the Board in each fiscal year hereunder the same raise in salary (reflected as a percentage cost of living adjustment or other type of payment) as that received by the teachers of the District. The Board reserves the right to increase the Superintendent’s salary for any year or any portion of a year of this contract with the mutual written consent of the Superintendent and the Board. Such a change in salary shall not constitute the creation of a new contract nor extend the termination date of the Agreement.

3.Fringe Benefits
a. Health. The Superintendent shall be entitied to purchase, at his own expense, any or all of the health, dental, vision benefits as are provided to other certificated employees of the District. The Superintendent may have his payments for any such benefits deducted from his salary pursuant to the District’s IRC 125 Plan.
b. Term Life Insurance Policy. The Superintendent shall purchase a term life insurance policy in which the District shall be named as co-beneficiary up to the amount of $25,000.
c. Expense Reimbursement. The District shall reimburse the Superintendent for actual and necessary expenses, incurred by the Superintendent within the scope of his employment, for conference, travel, lodging and dues (md. ASCA) or these may be paid directly by the District. All other expenses of this type shall be borne by the Superintendent.
d. Mileage Reimbursement. The District shall reimburse the Superintendent for mileage incurred for work related travel at the rate established by Board policy.

4. Superintendent’s Duties
a. General Duties The Superintendent is employed as a District Superintendent and shall perform the duties of District Superintendent as prescribed by the laws of the State of California and the District’s job description for the Superintendent, if any. The Superintendent shall have primary responsibility for execution of Board policy and responsibility for the duties prescribed by Education Code Section 35035. The Superintendent shall be the Board’s chief executive officer.
b. Personnel Matters The Superintendent shall have primary responsibility in making recommendations to the Board regarding all personnel matters, including selection, assignment and transfer and dismissal of employees.
c. Administrative Functions The Superintendent as chief executive officer, shall: (1) review all policies adopted by the Board and make appropriate recommendations to the Board; (2) periodically evaluate or cause to be evaluated all District employees; (3) advise the Board of sources of funds that might be available to implement present or contemplated District programs; (4) assume responsibility for those duties specified in Education Code section 35035; (5) endeavor to maintain and improve his or her professional competence by all available means, including subscription to and reading of appropriate periodicals and membership in appropriate professional associations; (6) establish and maintain positive community, staff and Board relations; (7) serve as liaison to the Board with respect to all matters of employer-employee relations and make recommendations to the Board concerning those matters; (8) recommend to the Board District goals and objectives; (9) unless unavoidably detained, attend all regular, special and executive session meetings of the Board.
d. Professional Meeting The Superintendent is expected to attend appropriate professional meetings at local, state and national levels and to periodically report to the Board his appraisal of such meetings. The Superintendent shall give proir notice to the Board when he attends a function outside of the County.

5. Outside Professional Activities By prior approval of the Board, the Superintendent may undertake for consideration outside professional activities, including, but not limited to, consulting, speaking and writing, so long as such outside professional activities do not, in the Board’s sole judgment, interfere with the Superintendent’s performance of his or her duties. The Superintendent’s outside professional activities shall not occur during work hours. In no event will the Board be responsible for any expenses attendant to the performance of such outside activities.

6. Evaluation The Board may evaluate and discuss the performance of the Superintendent at any time during the term of this Agreement, and provide a written evaluation report to the Superintendent at least once a year. If the Board determines that the performance of the Superintendent is unsatisfactory, the Board shall communicate, its evaluation to the Superintendent. All written evaluations shall be delivered to the Superintendent and a copy of the evaluation shall be placed in the Superintendent’s personnel file. The Superintendent’s written comments shall be filed with the evaluation in a sealed envelope in the Superintendent’s personnel file and marked as “Confidential: To be Opened by Authorized Personnel Only.”
The Board shall, if requested by the Superintendent, meet and discuss the contents of the evaluation with the Superintendent within a reasonable time after the Superintendent has heard or received the evaluation. Evaluations of the Superintendent shall only be discussed in closed session.

7. Physical Examination: The Superintendent shall undergo a physical examination at least once every other year to determine his ability to perform his duties, The report of the physical examination shall be given directly to the Superintendent; however, the examining physician shall advise the Board in writing of the Superintendent’s continued physical fitness to perform the duties of Superintendent. The costs of the physical examination shall be paid by the District unless such costs are covered by an applicable health insurance plan.

8 Termination of Contract
a. Mutual Consent This Agreement may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of the Board and the Superintendent upon thirty (30) days prior written notice provided to the other party.
b. Nonrenewal of Agreement by the District The Governing Board may elect not to renew this Agreement for any reason by providing the Superintendent with forty-five (45) days written notice prior to the expiration of this Agreement, in accordance with Education Code section 35031. The Superintendent shall inform each member of the Board of this notice requirement on or before March 1 of the year in question.
c. Termination as Superintendent for Cause. The Superintendent’s employment and all of the Superintendent’s rights under this Agreement may be terminated by the Board at any time for, but not limited to, breach of contract; any ground enumerated in the Education Code; or the Superintendent’s failure to perform his or her responsibilities as set forth in the Agreement, as defined by law, or as specified in the Superintendent’s job description, if any. The Board shall not terminate this Agreement pursuant to this paragraph (c) until a written statement of the grounds of termination has first been served upon the Superintendent. The Superintendent shall then be entitled to a conference with the Board at which time the Superintendent shall be given a reasonable opportunity to address the Board’s concerns. The Superintendent shall have the right to have a representative of his or her choice at the conference with the Board. The conference with the Board shall be the Superintendent’s exclusive right to any hearing otherwise required by law.
d. Early Termination. The Board unilaterally and without cause may terminate this Agreement and the Superintendent’s employment by providing the Superintendent a minimum of forty-five (45) days notice of termination. In consideration of the Board’s right to terminate this Agreement without cause, the District shall pay to the Superintendent his or her then current salary for the remainder of the term of this Agreement or for a period of twelve (12) calendar months following the effective date of termination, whichever is less.
9. General Provisions
a. Governing Law and Venues This Agreement, and the rights and obligations of the parties, shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The parties also agree that in the event of litigation venue shall be the proper state or federal court located in Napa County, California.
b. Entire Agreement This Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding between the parties. There are no oral understandings, terms or conditions, and neither party has relied upon any representation express or implied, not contained in this Agreement.
c. No Assignment The Superintendent may not assign or transfer any rights granted or obligations assumed under this Agreement.
e. Modification This Agreement cannot be changed or supplemented orally. It may be modified or superseded only by a written instrument executed by both of the parties.
f. Severability If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

/s/ Monty Reedy
President, Board of Trustees
Saint Helena Unified School District
Napa County, California

ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER
I accept the above offer of employment and the terms and conditions thereof and will report for duty as directed above.

I have not entered into a contract of employment with the Governing Board of another school district or any other employer that will in any way conflict with the
terms of this employment agreement.

I hold legal and valid administrative and teaching credentials, each of which is or will be recorded in the Office of the Superintendent of Schools of Napa County before receipt of my first payroll warrant, and I agree to maintain valid and appropriate credentials to act as Superintendent throughout the life of this Agreement. I further certify that I meet the qualifications of Education Code section 35028 and that I have read the entire offer of employment.

/s/ Allan E. Gordon
Dated: 12/1/06

Signature Gathering Retains Momentum

RECALL SIGNATURE UPDATE!

We are pleased to announce that we are on track to meet out signature goals for the month. Thank you to all of our supporters.

It is clear that our community is truly interested in the positive changes we want to bring to our school district!

Keep up the good work everyone!

YES ON RECALL

The Recall Is Going Strong

Dear Community Members:

As recall supporters have ventured out into our neighborhoods to gather signatures on petitions, they’ve been greeted by friends, neighbors, and acquaintances who are concerned about what’s going on with our school district and are sincerely interested in making a change. The recall effort seems to have united many people who may have otherwise never had the opportunity to talk with and really get to know each other. For this, we’re truly thankful.

There is no doubt that the recall is now going strong. At this early stage, hundreds of signatures have been collected, with almost all of the signers asking to sign all four petitions. Some signers have also taken this opportunity to register to vote. Signature gatherers are taking every precaution to ensure that the signatures they collect are valid and that confidentiality is preserved. They‘re also taking the time to really talk about the issues with people.

Recall organizers made the decision early on that public celebrations, such as Cheers! St. Helena, would not be used as political forums and that we wouldn’t actively gather signatures during those events. Those of us who attended the July 3^rd Cheers! were nonetheless greeted with words of support and were asked if we had petitions with us that people could sign.

The community is now more engaged in what is happening with our schools. Great schools need active community support. The recall is bringing about positive change by involving our entire community in the dialogue regarding how our schools are managed and financed.

We’re extremely thankful that this process has given us the opportunity to bear witness to how strong and dedicated this community truly is. There is an excitement in the air as people in our community band together to stand up for change; change for the better.

Petition Confidentiality

Dear Community Members:

During a regular election, if a candidate questions the validity of the election results, that candidate can inspect the ballots because they are public records. Who can forget the hanging chads in 2000? (Note: Although the ballots can be inspected, they CANNOT be traced back to the voter. This is one of our most fundamental rights.)

The process is different, however, in a recall. Because of the sensitive nature of a recall, the recall petitions are strictly confidential. The only people that will ever be able to see the petitions are the people organizing and submitting the recall petitions (the recall proponents), our registrar of voters, John Tuteur, and his staff. No one connected with the school board or the school district will have access to the petitions. Ever.

Specifically, Government Code §6253.5 provides that the recall petitions: “shall not be deemed to be public records and shall not be
open to inspection except by the public officer or public employees who have the duty of receiving, examining or preserving the petitions.”

John Tuteur has confirmed this information and if you continue to have concerns, you may contact him directly. Mr. Tuteur can be reached at 253-4459 or jtuteur@co.napa.ca.us.

YES ON RECALL

Citizens For Quality Education

Informational Meeting & Group Canvassing This Saturday

The Citizens For Quality Education will be holding an informational meeting this Saturday, July 18th, beginning at 9am in Jacob Meily Park. This will be an opportunity for community members to ask questions, get clarifications to things you may be hearing around town and to sign petitions.
At 10 am, the group will head out to canvass for signatures. All are welcome to attend!
Thank you for your support and for your voice for choice.

Important Reminders As You Gather Signatures

A few important reminders for those of you gathering signatures on petitions:

· The signer must personally complete all of the information on the petition. (For example, the circulator cannot complete the zip code, city, or any other part of the petition for the signer.)

· The printed name and residence of the signer must be legible and must match the voter records. (If a signer has recently moved, have them complete a new voter registration card.)

· The signature of the signer must match the voter records. (The registrar may check certain aspects of the signature to assure that it has been signed by the registered voter).

· If a signer is not certain how they registered, they should include more information, rather than less. (For example, if the signer is not certain if he is registered as Bob Smith, Bob E. Smith or Bob Earl Smith, have him print and sign as Bob Earl Smith.)

· For signers that are registering to vote, for their signatures to be valid, the registration date (which is located next to the voter signature) must be within the range of dates on the petition that he/she signed. (Have them sign and date the registration card when they sign the petition!)

· Every part of the circulation declaration must be completed and signed by the circulator.

· Only one circulator for each petition.

Accuracy is important! We want each and every signature to count!

YES ON RECALL

Summary of Special PARS Board Meeting

We know that many of you attended or watched the SHUSD's Special Board Meeting on Monday night. For those of you that were unable to attend or view the meeting, we thought that we would provide our perspective on what happened at that meeting.

To summarize, the PARS memo that was delivered to the Board on June 18th raised three major concerns about the PARS retirement plan that awarded approximately $327,000 in benefits to Allan Gordon and Jim Zoll:

1) The Board neither publicly disclosed nor properly authorized the inclusion of Gordon and Zoll into the PARS plan. The Board only discussed providing this plan to 6 teachers. This is a potential Brown Act violation in that the Board failed to notify the public that it would be addressing these issues, and therefore failed to give members of the community an opportunity to comment on them as well.

2) The Board failed to provide an accurate analysis of the cost of adding Gordon and Zoll to the plan. The inclusion of Gordon and Zoll actually decreased the total savings to the district by approximately $80,000.

3) Most importantly, Gordon was very much involved in the planning, negotiation, and execution of the PARS retirement plan that ultimately awarded him approximately $180,000. He should not have been involved in any way in the planning or signing of this agreement, since he would financially benefit from this plan. This conflict of interest is prohibited by California Government Code Section 1090, and any contract made in violation of such section is VOID.

On Monday night, the Board took the following actions related to the above points.

1) The Board corrected any prior missteps related to the Brown Act by listing all of the pertinent PARS plan documents on the agenda, allowing the public to comment, and officially approving the inclusion of Gordon and Zoll into the plan. The Board did this under the guise that they had only recently received some of these documents. The Board never admitted that they violated the Brown Act, despite the fact that they actually had many of these documents months ago.

2) The Board continued to argue that the PARS plan as a whole will provide a cost-savings to the district (this has never been in dispute) and that providing Gordon with the PARS plan was a reasonable way to compensate Gordon for the consulting services he will provide after retirement (the Board previously stated that such consulting services were to be provided to the district FOR FREE). The Board's attorney also made several inconsistent statements, such as that a cost savings is not necessary for the Board to implement the PARS plan.

3) Most disturbing was that THE BOARD MADE NO COMMENT WHATSOEVER REGARDING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST ISSUE. The Board completely disregarded the grave concerns expressed by several community members during the meeting.

Although the actions taken by the Board were not surprising, they are nonetheless disappointing. While Cynthia Lane's comments during the meeting would have everyone think otherwise, the Board did have alternatives.

What is next for those of us who continue to be concerned about this issue and the Board's disregard for the public interest? We will continue to pursue the conflict of interest matter with the District Attorney, the Fair Political Practices Commission, the Grand Jury, and any other organization that may have jurisdiction. Although it is extremely difficult to entertain the idea of commencing litigation against the district, it is also very difficult to watch $350,000 walk out of our classrooms and land in the pockets of retired administrators.

To learn more about the PARS issue and the RECALL, please review the archives of our blog and as always, please feel free to email us at citizens4qualityed@gmail.com

YES ON RECALL

SHUSD Legal Fees 2005 through 2009

We have received the FYE 2005 and 2006 information and it is astonishing how much more in legal fees the district is now incurring:

· 2005 - $51,956 ($0 on special ed)

· 2006 - $102,863 ($5,476 on special ed)

· 2007 - $240,464 ($12,883 on special ed)

· 2008 - 353,487 ($178,742 on special ed) and

2009 - through April 29, 2009 for the FYE June 30, 2009 $255,39

($116,597 on special ed).

Dr. Rob Haley took over special ed the beginning of the 2008 FYE.

TRUSTEES TO APPROVE PARS RETROACTIVELY AT SPECIAL BOARD MEETING, MONDAY, JUNE 29 AT 6:30

The SHUSD School Board has scheduled a special meeting for Monday, June
29th, at 6:30 p.m. to discuss the PARS retirement plan for Allan Gordon
and Jim Zoll.  Specifically, the Board intends to retroactively ratify
all of the actions taken by the Board and Allan Gordon to include Allan
Gordon and Jim Zoll in the PARS retirement plan and award them almost
$350,000 in benefits.  The Board is taking this action despite the
serious conflict of interest issues presented to them by concerned
parents.
IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT PEOPLE ATTEND THIS BOARD MEETING 
AND TELL THE BOARD THAT THEY NEED TO INVESTIGATE
ALLAN GORDON'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST REGARDING THE
PARS PLAN AND THAT THEY SHOULD NOT RATIFY PREVIOUS
ACTIONS, THE LEGALITY OF WHICH ARE IN DISPUTE.

Contractual Conflict of Interest And Ethics Orientaion For State Officials

Copied From the Website of the Office of the Attorney General : (http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/contract.php)

Following is a list of topics we’ll cover in this lesson.

• What does Government Code section 1090 prohibit?
• Contract requirement
• Most officials covered
• Participation in the making of a contract
• Financial interest broadly defined
• Timing is crucial
• Harsh penalties and remedies

Here’s Jessica Carrington speaking with Dennis Lowery, the ethics officer for her agency. Follow along to learn more about Government Code section 1090.

Jessica: “Hi Dennis, as the ethics officer for our department, I have a question for you. Although the Political Reform Act covers a lot of ground, apparently, it is not the only conflict of interest law in this state. I’ve heard something about section 1090. What does it cover?”

Dennis: “Well Jessica, section 1090 deals specifically with conflicts of interest in the contract-making process. It does not supplant the Political Reform Act, but acts in tandem with it. Here’s what it does. It provides that an officer or employee may not make a contract in which he or she is financially interested.”

Jessica: “Does that mean a public official cannot be involved with such a contract process at all?”

Dennis: “That’s right. Any participation by an officer or an employee in the process by which such a contract is developed, negotiated and executed is a violation of section 1090. Also, there are situations where a board member’s participation is attributed even where the board member does not actually participate.”

Jessica: “Now let me make sure that I am following you. Did you say that section 1090 applies only to contracts or does it apply to other types of governmental action?”

Dennis: “For the prohibition of section 1090 to apply, there must be a contract. Section 1090 does not apply to other types of governmental action such as adopting regulations, issuing permits or licenses, conducting investigations or issuing reports.”

Jessica: “Does section 1090 apply only to written contracts?”

Dennis: “No. In addition to written contracts, section 1090 applies to all contracts, including oral contracts and purchases made outside the formal contract process.”

Jessica: “What about grants? Are grants considered separately from contracts?”

Dennis: “No. Jessica, grants generally qualify as contracts for purposes of section 1090.”

Jessica: “What happens if I discover that I have a conflict of interest under section 1090 at some point in the contract-making process.”

Dennis: “You’d want to discontinue the contract process at once. Fortunately, if a contract in which an officer or employee has a financial interest is not ultimately executed, no violation exists.”

Jessica: “Thank you, Dennis, for helping me understand a little bit about section 1090.”

Let’s Review

The Department of Technology is considering adopting regulations that would restrict access to the Internet, and thereby adversely affect stocks owned by the director. Does section 1090 apply? Yes or No.

• Answer: No. Section 1090 does not apply to regulations. Section 1090 pertains only to contracts.

The prohibition of section 1090 applies to virtually all state and local officers, employees and multi-member bodies, such as boards or commissions, whether elected or appointed, at both the state and local levels.

---

General Rule

An official participates in the making of a contract if the official is involved with its preparation at any stage in the process. The contract-making process begins at the time the idea for the contract is conceived and continues through the actual execution of the contract. That means that planning, determining the scope of the contract, drafting plans and specifications, setting contract terms, evaluating applicants, and negotiating are all included.

Under the general rule, officials may avoid a violation of section 1090 by disqualifying themselves from participation in the making of the contract whenever they have a financial interest in the contract. There are limited exceptions to the general rule that are strictly interpreted.

The Rule as Applied to Multi-member Bodies

Members of bodies with contracting power are conclusively presumed to participate in the making of all contracts under the body’s jurisdiction.

If a member of a multi-member body with contracting power has a financial interest in a contract, section 1090 generally provides that the contract cannot be made even if the member has disqualified himself or herself from actually participating in the contract.

The law does provide several limited exceptions that will permit a financially interested board member to disqualify himself or herself and allow the remaining members of the body to enter into the contract.

These exceptions are termed “remote interest exceptions.” They are quite limited and are strictly interpreted.

Let’s Review

Armando is an employee in the Network Technology Division of the department. He discussed with his supervisor recent problems encountered by the department and the benefits of contracting with a private vendor for certain services. Subsequently, the department approved the Network Technology Division’s proposal to solicit bids from vendors for the performance of such services. Did Armando’s conversation with his supervisor constitute “participating in the making of a contract” according to section 1090? Yes or No.

• Answer: Yes. Armando participated in the early idea development and reasoning stages of the contract-making process.

---

Financial Interest Broadly Defined

Section 1090 does not define when an official is financially interested in a contract. However, the courts have applied the prohibition to include a broad range of interests.

The courts have continually reiterated that no matter how twisted and winding the trail may be, if the connection between the financial interest of the official and the contract can be made, a violation of section 1090 will be found.

Under section 1090, financial interests are often defined in terms of relationships. For example, if you have an employment relationship with the person or entity that seeks to contract with your agency, you are deemed to have a financial interest in the contract. Other examples are listed below.

• Attorney, agent or broker of a contracting party;
• Supplier of services or goods to a contracting party;
• Landlord or tenant of a contracting party; and
• Officer or employee of a nonprofit corporation that is a contracting party.

The official’s interest also includes the community property and separate property interests of the official’s spouse.

Let’s Review

TRUE or FALSE: Under section 1090, the term “financial interest” is specifically defined in statutes and regulations.

• Answer: False. The term “financial interest” is not defined in section 1090 or in regulations, but rather has been given broad construction by court decisions.

TRUE or FALSE: The separate property of an official’s spouse is not a financial interest under section 1090.

• Answer: False. The separate property of an official’s spouse is a financial interest under section 1090.

As you know by now, section 1090 prohibits officials with financial interests from making contracts in their official capacity. If a person has previously entered into a contract with the state prior to appointment or employment with a government agency, the contract is unaffected by section 1090. However, section 1090 would apply to any modification, option, renewal or extension of the contract.

---

Harsh Penalties and Remedies

Any contract made in violation of section 1090 is void and cannot be enforced. An official who commits a violation of section 1090 is subject to criminal, civil and administrative sanctions.

A person convicted of violating section 1090 is also forever disqualified from holding any office in this state.

Thomson v. Call

A city council member had sold a parcel of land to a third party, which in turn re-sold the property to the city. Despite the fact that the council member had abstained from the council vote that authorized the city’s acquisition of the property, and had acted throughout in good faith, the California Supreme Court concluded that he had violated section 1090.

As a sanction, the Court required the council member to forfeit the entire sales price of $258,000, while the city was permitted to retain the property. Thus, where section 1090 is violated, the government can get its money back without having to restore any of the benefits received under the contract.

The fact that the contract is fair, or even highly advantageous to the government, is irrelevant.

People v. Honig

The State Superintendent of Public Instruction was found guilty of violating section 1090 by entering into official contracts in which he had a financial interest. Superintendent Honig was criminally convicted of this offense, and eventually was required to relinquish his public office as a result.

Let’s Review

Violation of section 1090 can lead to which of the following? Select all that apply. There may be more than one correct answer.

1. Avoid contract
2. State retains benefit; any payment received must be returned
3. Felony conviction
4. Permanent loss of office in California

• Answer: a, b, c, and d. All of the above answers are correct.

Remember These Points

Remember that section 1090 applies to contracts. Following is a list of important points to remember about section 1090.

• Participation at any stage of the process counts
• Financial interests broadly defined
• Violation voids contract, but government keeps the benefits
• Felony and permanent ban from holding office

Copied From the Website of the Office of the Attorney General : (http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/contract.php)

Don't Be Fooled Or Distracted: Focus To Remain On The Facts

Dear Community Members:

Over the course of the last week, we have been subjected to ridiculous personal attacks and the false accusations by two members of our school board, Cindy Warren and Cynthia Lane, and the husband of a school board member, Jeff Warren. Up until now, we have refrained from addressing these attacks because, first and foremost, THEY HAVE NO MERIT. However, due to the fact that the Warrens have engaged in a barrage of public statements which are meant to defame and discredit us, and are based on nothing more than the desire to distract our community from the real issues at hand, we now feel the need to respond to these outrageous and completely baseless allegations. Therefore, we are now providing the facts of what actually took place last week regarding our meeting at the Warrens’ house. The facts are as follows:

About two weeks ago, we discovered some troubling information about the PARS retirement plan offered to Superintendent Gordon and Jim Zoll. Specifically, we discovered that the Board neither publicly discussed nor properly authorized their inclusion into the PARS plan (potential Brown Act violation), that the Board failed to provide an accurate analysis of the cost of adding Gordon and Zoll to the plan (their inclusion decreased the total savings to the district), and that, according to California law, the PARS plan for Gordon and Zoll may be void since Gordon would financially benefit from the very plan that he negotiated and signed. Because of this, there are serious questions as to whether Gordon and Zoll are entitled to their combined $327,727 retirement benefit.

We requested a copy of the PARS plan from the school district numerous (at least 8) times over several weeks and were refused. It was not until we requested the PARS plan in a meeting on June 15th with several other individuals, including Cindy Warren and Cynthia Lane, that the district finally gave us a copy. We spent countless hours researching and investigating every aspect of this situation. It was critical to us that we come forward with this information only if we were certain that our statements were factually and legally correct. We came to the conclusion that our suspicions were valid and our legal position was solid. We then decided to do what we thought was the right thing: share this information with the school board members. We thought that they needed to know this information and we felt that blind siding them at the public meeting the following day would be wrong.

When we made the decision to meet with the board members, we realized that we could only meet with 2 at a time under the provisions of the Brown Act. We decided to contact them and set up a meeting in a neutral, private place. We did not think that it would be wise to go over our findings in a crowded coffee shop in a small town. When Cindy Warren said she was not comfortable with our meeting place, Kevin Alfaro suggested her house and she agreed.

Soon after our meeting with Cindy Warren and Cynthia Lane began, Jeff Warren walked in and joined us. We sat down with the three of them and went through the memo that we had prepared setting forth what we had discovered about the PARS plan. We were professional and calm in our delivery of this information. At the end of the memo, we listed 4 requests of the board, one of which was that they resign due to their lack of oversight in this matter. After we finished reading the memo with them, we all discussed some of the details regarding the financial data in the memo and we asked them whether they had obtained a legal opinion regarding including Gordon and Zoll in the PARS plan. We also clearly and in no uncertain terms explained that we would be making this information public, but that we wanted to give them a heads up about it and discuss it with them as a courtesy. Cindy Warren at one point made a statement that “WHY SHOULD WE RESIGN IF THIS IS GOING TO COME OUT ANYWAY?” At another point, Cynthia Lane stated “IF WE RESIGN, THEN YOU WON’T TAKE THIS TO THE DA?” To which we responded “WE ARE DEFINITELY TAKING THIS TO THE DA. IT’S COMING OUT.” The memo itself states that a copy will be sent to the DA, the newspapers, and various other public officials. This was always our intention.

Cynthia Lane, Cindy Warren and Jeff Warren have publicly claimed that they were intimidated, threatened and extorted at this meeting. We never made any threats or intimidated anyone during this meeting. If anyone in the room felt intimidated or threatened by us then why, after we finished our discussion, were we brought into their library to look at family photos?

These allegations were made to distract our community from the issues that we raised in our thoroughly documented and researched memo. It was a political maneuver with no basis in truth. What is particularly disturbing about these allegations is their intended affect on our community. A group of concerned parents went to these board members with troubling information they discovered regarding the board's implementation of the PARS retirement plan. Instead of addressing these concerns, these board members made baseless criminal allegations against us and used the regular board meeting to discredit and falsely accuse us of wrongdoing. Their inexcusable actions will now have a chilling effect on the First Amendment freedom of speech rights of our entire community. Who will be brave enough to speak out to these elected officials with the threat of criminal retaliation looming overhead? Freedom of speech is one of our most basic constitutional rights. This attack on that right should be alarming to everyone.

It is disappointing to us that Cindy & Jeff Warren and Cynthia Lane have turned to these mean spirited personal attacks, but you can be certain we will not do the same. We intend to continue to focus on solely the issues. We will not desert our high ethical and moral standards as we continue to uphold the truth.

If you would like to review a copy of our memo on the PARS plan, you can find it on our blog: citizensforqualityed.blogspot.com We also would encourage you to review the Office of the Attorney General's website on this point. http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/contract.php. This link will take you to the Ethics Orientation for State Officials which provides a practical explanation of the law with examples.

Kevin Alfaro
Jeanne DeVincenzi
Sharon Harris
Kathy Zelazny

PARS Memo of June 18, 2009

MEMORANDUM

To: Ines DeLuna, Carolyn Martini, Cindy Warren, Cynthia Lane,
St. Helena Unified School District Board of Trustees

Cc: Superintendent Allan Gordon
Assistant Superintendent Robert Haley
County Superintendent Barbara Nemko, Napa County Office of Education
Napa County District Attorney Gary Lieberstein
California Fair Political Practices Commission
California State Senator Pat Wiggins
Doug Ernst, St. Helena Star
Bill Kisliuk, Napa Valley Register

Date: June 18, 2009

From: Kevin Alfaro, Jeanne DeVincenzi, Sharon Harris and Katherine Zelazny,
Citizens for Quality Education

APPROVAL OF ORIGINAL PARS PLAN
On September 18, 2008, the St. Helena Unified School District (“SHUSD”) Board of Education (the “Board”) approved a supplementary retirement plan known as the Public Agency Retirement Services (“PARS”) Supplementary Retirement Plan (the “PARS plan”). The Board minutes from the September 18, 2008 meeting state that “Superintendent Gordon indicated that the local teachers’ association has requested that the Board consider offering this supplementary retirement plan. He provided the criteria required for a teacher to be eligible to participate in this plan and indicated that offering the plan must provide a financial benefit to the District. The Board moved to approve Resolution #08-03 as presented. ” The motion was carried 5-0. Item 11.D., Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Board of Trustees, September 18, 2008. (Attachments 1 and 2) On that same day, Superintendent Gordon signed on behalf of the SHUSD that certain “Agreement for Administrative Services” in which SHUSD retained PARS for the purpose of administering the PARS plan. (Attachment 3)
On September 29, 2008, Superintendent Allan Gordon sent a memo to all of the members of the St. Helena Teachers Association regarding the Board’s decision to look into the possibility of offering the PARS plan to the teachers. (Attachment 4)
On October 6, 2008, Assistant Superintendent Dr. Robert Haley executed on behalf of the SHUSD, the “2008-09 PARS Supplementary Retirement Plan” for “Certificated Non-Management Employees” (“Original PARS Plan”). (Attachment 5) As its heading clearly denotes, the Original PARS Plan was established for the benefit of SHUSD certificated teachers and did not apply to individuals employed as management in the SHUSD. Further, according to the Original PARS Plan, the deadline for enrolling in the Original PARS Plan was November 21, 2008.
At the December 11, 2008 regular meeting of the Board, Superintendent Gordon informed the Board that 6 staff members had elected to participate in the Original PARS Plan and “recommended that the Board approve the proposal and move forward to accept the resignations submitted.” The Board “moved to approve the Public Agency Retirement Services Supplementary Retirement Plan as proposed.” The motion was carried 5-0. Item 12.B., Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees, December 11, 2008. (Attachment 6)

ADDENDUM TO ORIGINAL PARS PLAN
On January 14, 2009, Superintendent Gordon executed on behalf of the SHUSD an “Execution Agreement” the terms of which state that it is an “Addendum for Supplementary Retirement Plan,” which modifies the Original PARS Plan (the “Addendum to PARS Plan”). (Attachment 7) (On that same day, Superintendent Gordon also signed on behalf of the SHUSD the “Agreement for Custody Services” in conjunction with administration of the PARS plan.) (Attachment 8) The Addendum to PARS Plan has a retroactive effective date to September 1, 2008 and amends the Original PARS Plan to include “Certificated employee[s] of the District as of September 1, 2008.” Therefore, the Addendum to PARS Plan executed by Allan Gordon effectively broadened the Original PARS Plan by adding certificated administrative employees, including, but not limited to Allan Gordon and Jim Zoll, as employees who may elect to participate in the PARS plan.
There is nothing in the agendas or minutes of the Board meetings prior to the January 14, 2009 execution date of the Addendum to PARS Plan authorizing Allan Gordon to execute the Addendum to PARS Plan on behalf of the SHUSD. In fact, the minutes of the January 15, 2009 regular meeting of the Board state that the Board “moved to approve the AB 1200 Public Disclosure with the St. Helena Teachers Association Public Agency Retirement Services Supplementary Retirement Plan.” (emphasis added) The motion was carried 5-0. Item 10.C., Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees, January 15, 2009. (Attachment 9)

GORDON’S AND ZOLL’S RETIREMENT
In April 2009, Superintendent Gordon and High School Principal Jim Zoll announced their respective retirements. At the April 9, 2009 special meeting of the Board, the Board “voted unanimously in Closed Session to accept the resignation of Superintendent Allan Gordon, and approve his participation in the PARS Retirement Program.” Item 4.A., Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees, April 9, 2009. (Attachment 10) Members of the Board have also informed the public that Jim Zoll will be participating in the PARS plan.

GORDON & ZOLL INELIGIBLE UNDER PARS PLAN
In general, a PARS plans can cover teachers or administrators, or both. The Original PARS Plan adopted by the Board on December 11, 2008 covered solely certificated teachers, not administrators or management. Further Dr. James Haslip, a former Board member during the time when the PARS plan was proposed and adopted, verified that, prior to the adoption of the Original PARS Plan, the Board never discussed approval of a PARS plan for any employees other than the members of the local teachers’ association. There is currently no other PARS plan that has been approved by the Board. Superintendent Allan Gordon and Principal Jim Zoll are administrators employed by the SHUSD and, although they hold teaching certificates, they are management employees and not members of the local teachers’ association.
Upon further investigation, it has been confirmed by a senior representative at PARS that, if new participants are to be added to the Original PARS Plan, a new cost-benefit analysis must be completed and approved by the Board. Additionally, if a new class of participants is to be added to the PARS plan (i.e., administrators or management) all members of this class must be given the opportunity to join as well. These steps can only be taken if the Board follows the proper notice and approval procedures under the PARS plan.
As stated above, Superintendent Gordon informed the Board at the December 11, 2008 regular meeting that 6 staff members had elected to participate in the PARS plan. Superintendent Gordon and Jim Zoll were not among the 6 people that made such an election. In fact, Superintendent Gordon and Jim Zoll did not announce their respective retirements until April 2009. Therefore, including Superintendent Gordon and Jim Zoll in the Original PARS plan in April 2009 was not possible under the express terms of the Original PARS Plan because the enrollment period had expired on November 21, 2008 and a new cost-benefit analysis had not been completed and approved for Gordon and Zoll. Further, there was nothing in the Agenda posted for the April 9, 2009 Board special meeting regarding the discussion and/or decision of the Board to approve Allan Gordon’s participation in the PARS plan and there was no mention whatsoever in any of the Board agendas of approving Jim Zoll’s participation in the Original PARS Plan.
Therefore, the inclusion of Superintendent Gordon and Jim Zoll as participants in the PARS plan is not permitted under the Original PARS Plan nor has it been properly authorized by the Board.

GORDON’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Superintendent Gordon became eligible to participate in the PARS plan by virtue of the Addendum to PARS Plan executed by him. California Government Code Section 1090 (Attachment 11) and SHUSD Board Bylaw Section 9270 (Attachment 12) strictly prohibit Superintendent Gordon from being involved in any way in the development, negotiation and execution of the PARS Plan if he has a financial interest, or the expectation of a financial interest, in the plan. Government Code Section 1090 prohibits public officers from having a financial interest in “any contract made by them in their official capacity.” A contract made by a public officer in which that public officer has a financial interest is not just voidable, it is void. Thomson v. Call (1985) 38 Cal 3d 633. Further, California Government Code Section 1097 (Attachment 11) provides that every person who willfully violates Government Code Section 1090 “is punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or imprisonment in the state prison, and is forever disqualified from holding any office in this state.”
The California courts have interpreted Section 1090 broadly, stating that the statute prohibits certain officers and employees from being interested in contracts made in their official capacity and that a contract is “made” by the officer or employee when the officer or employee engages in “preliminary discussions, negotiations, compromises, reasoning, [and] planning…” of the contract. Millbrae Asso. For Residential Survival v. Millbrae (1968, Cal App 1st Dist) 262 Cal App 2d 222. See also, People v. Honig (1996, Cal App 3d Dist) 48 Cal App 4th 289. During the time when the Original PARS Plan was proposed and adopted, it was well known throughout the St. Helena community that Superintendent Gordon was preparing for retirement during this school year. This information was shared with many parents. Yet, Superintendent Gordon participated in the making of the Original PARS plan and the Addendum to PARS Plan by negotiating the plan with the teachers and executing the Agreement for Administrative Services, Agreement for Custody Services and the Addendum to PARS Plan. Superintendent Gordon executed the very document which awarded him a lucrative retirement package under the Original PARS Plan. If Superintendent Gordon had not executed the Addendum to PARS Plan, he would not have been eligible to participate in the Original PARS Plan that was established for “Certificated Non-Management Employees” (See Section 1.1 of Original PARS Plan). Due to Superintendent Gordon’s conflict of interest, the Addendum to PARS Plan signed by him is VOID and UNENFORCEABLE. Therefore, Superintendent Gordon and Jim Zoll are not eligible to participate in the Original PARS Plan.
If, for the sake of argument, Superintendent Gordon was eligible to participate in the Original PARS Plan without the operation of the Addendum to PARS Plan, Government Code Section 1090 would still apply because, as stated above, during the period in which the Original PARS Plan was proposed and adopted, it was widely known in the community that Superintendent Gordon’s retirement was imminent. Therefore, Superintendent Gordon engaged in the preliminary discussions, negotiations, reasoning, and planning of the Original PARS Plan in which he was financially interested or, at a minimum, had an expectation of financial interest upon his impending retirement. His September 29, 2008 memo to the teachers, the Board meeting minutes and Superintendent Gordon’s signature on the Agreement for Administrative Services and Agreement for Custody Services confirm his participation in the making of the Original PARS Plan. Accordingly, if Superintendent Gordon was eligible to participate in the Original PARS Plan, he should NOT have been involved in the PARS negotiations. Any agreement made despite such a conflict of interest is VOID and CANNOT BE ENFORCED.
When Dr. Haslip asked fellow Board member Carolyn Martini whether further analysis of the legality of allowing Superintendent Gordon to participate in the PARS plan was warranted, Ms. Martini referred the matter to Ines DeLuna and Ms. DeLuna indicated that the Board’s counsel would review the contract for the Board and subsequently advise the Board. (Attachment 13) Dr. Haslip was not informed of any additional actions taken as a result of this correspondence.

THE REAL COST OF ADDING GORDON AND ZOLL TO PARS
As mentioned above, the Original PARS Plan was based on the savings for 6 staff members. Relying entirely on the figures provided by Catrina Howatt, CBO of SHUSD, (Attachment 14) the Original PARS plan as originally proposed saves $1,324,283.00 over 5 years if Superintendent Gordon and Jim Zoll are excluded from the analysis. See attached spreadsheet replicating numbers from Ms. Howatt. (Attachment 15)
Once again, using figures provided by Catrina Howatt, if a cost-benefit analysis of the PARS plan is performed with respect to solely Superintendent Gordon and Jim Zoll (assuming that they were eligible to participate) there will actually be a net cost to the district of $80,089.80.
Put another way, without the PARS plan for Superintendent Gordon and Jim Zoll, the SHUSD pays $0 for Superintendent Gordon and Jim Zoll to retire, and, with the PARS plan for Superintendent Gordon and Jim Zoll, the SHUSD pays them an additional $327,737.00, plus a 5.5% service fee to PARS. Total cost to SHUSD is $345,762.55.
Another way to see that the SHUSD will lose money by offering the PARS plan to these select administrators is by comparing Catrina Howatt’s figures for teachers only and for both teachers and administrators. (Attachment 15) It is evident that the SHUSD will lose money when one compares the savings of $1,324,283.03 (teachers only) to $1,244,193.23 (teachers and administrators) showing a net cost to the SHUSD of $80,089.80.

BROWN ACT VIOLATIONS
As stated above, the Board voted unanimously to approve Allan Gordon’s participation in the PARS plan during the closed session of the April 9, 2009 special meeting of the Board. Item 4.A., Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees, April 9, 2009. There was no mention in the agenda posted for the April 9, 2009 special meeting of the Board’s consideration of adding Allan Gordon to the Original PARS Plan. Further, there was no mention whatsoever in any of the Board meeting agendas of approving Jim Zoll’s participation in the Original PARS Plan. Finally, there is nothing in any of the Board meeting agendas approving the Addendum to PARS Plan and/or authorizing Superintendent Gordon to execute the Addendum to PARS Plan.
California Education Code §§35144 and 35145, and California Government Code §§54954.2 and 54956 govern the notice requirements for regular and special meetings of the Board. These statutes state in part that the notice of regular or special meeting of the Board shall specify the business to be transacted. Further notice requirements are stated in Education Code §35145(b), which provides in part that an agenda of the meeting must be posted in accordance with the requirements of §54954.2 of the Government Code. Government Code §54954.2(a)(1) requires that the posted agenda contain a “brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session.” That statute further provides that “[n]o action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda…” California Government Code §54954.2(a)(2).
Since (i) the Agenda for the April 9, 2009 special meeting failed to provide any language regarding the Board’s consideration or decision regarding adding Superintendent Gordon to the Original PARS Plan; (ii) there was no mention in any Board agendas of including Jim Zoll in the Original PARS Plan; and (iii) there was also no mention whatsoever in any of the Board meeting agendas of the Addendum to PARS Plan or including certificated non-management employees in the Original PARS Plan, the Board had no authority to transact such business.

LACK OF OVERSIGHT BY BOARD
The Board allowed Superintendent Gordon to negotiate and execute a retirement plan that would directly benefit Superintendent Gordon. The Board was well aware of Superintendent Gordon’s plans to retire and members of the Board have recently gone so far as to defend Superintendent Gordon’s participation as a beneficiary of the PARS plan. The Board expressly authorized Superintendent Gordon to participate in the making of the PARS plan as evidenced by the Board meeting minutes referenced above. Further, when Dr. Haslip questioned the legality of Superintendent Gordon’s participation in the PARS plan due to Gordon’s conflict of interest, Dr. Haslip never received an answer from Board President Ines DeLuna.
Section 9000 of the Board Bylaws states that the Board “has been elected by the community to provide leadership and citizen oversight of the district.” Further, Section 9005 of the Board Bylaws provides that “[t]o maximize Board effectiveness and public confidence in district governance, Board members are expected to govern responsibly and hold themselves to the highest standards of ethical conduct.” The Board failed to provide any oversight in this case. In fact, the Board unambiguously supported Superintendent Gordon’s actions, while keeping the public in the dark and violating the Brown Act in the process. The Board is culpable for Superintendent Gordon’s violation of Government Code Section 1090.

HALEY’S PARTICIPATION
As stated above, Assistant Superintendent Rob Haley was also intimately involved in the making of the PARS plan. He signed the Original PARS Plan and was present at the Board meetings at which the PARS plan was discussed and approved. It was well known during the period that the Original Plan was proposed that Superintendent Gordon had expressed the intent to retire soon. Dr. Haley knew about the PARS plan and the Board’s actions to approve the plan and include Superintendent Gordon in the plan, and yet Dr. Haley sat by and did nothing. If Allan Gordon were to retire, Dr. Haley would be the most likely candidate to replace Superintendent Gordon. This has been borne out by guest commentaries written by Board members for the St. Helena Star. See “School Board Will Listen But Don’t Bash Haley,” Guest Commentary by Board Member Carolyn Martini, St. Helena Star, April 30, 2009. (Attachment 16) Eligibility to participate in the PARS plan would give Superintendent Gordon added incentive to retire early.
The California courts have stated that “the term ‘financially interested’ in section 1090 cannot be interpreted in a restricted and technical manner. The law does not require that a public officer…share directly in the profits to be realized from a contract in order to have a prohibited interest in it.” People v. Honig (1996, Cal App 3d Dist) 48 Cal App 4th 289, 315. Further, “[t]he fact that the officer’s interest ‘might be small or indirect is immaterial so long as it is such as deprives the [state] of his overriding fidelity to it and places him in the compromising situation where, in the exercise of his official judgment or discretion, he may be influenced by personal considerations rather than the public good.’” Id. (quoting Terry v. Bender (1956) 143 Cal. App 2d 198, 207-208).
Dr. Haley benefited from Superintendent Gordon’s wrongful actions to include Gordon in the PARS plan and should be held accountable for his participation in such activities.

CONCLUSION
Under the express terms of the Original PARS Plan, Superintendent Gordon and Principal Jim Zoll are not eligible to participate in the PARS plan because the Original PARS Plan applies to certificated non-management employees of the SHUSD, the enrollment period for the plan had expired on November 21, 2008 and a new cost-benefit analysis had not been completed and approved for Gordon and Zoll.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 1090, and relevant case law, the Addendum to PARS Plan is void. Therefore, Superintendent Gordon and Jim Zoll are not eligible to receive any benefits under the PARS plan. Additionally, Superintendent Allan Gordon may be subject to criminal penalties for his actions with respect to the PARS plan.
The Board has also violated the Brown Act by failing to post any information in a meeting agenda regarding the Addendum to PARS Plan and the inclusion of Superintendent Gordon and Jim Zoll in the PARS plan.
The Board breached the trust of the public by misleading them about the true cost of including Superintendent Gordon and Jim Zoll in the PARS plan. Including Superintendent Gordon and Jim Zoll in the PARS plan will cost the SHUSD $345,762.55. Excluding Superintendent Gordon and Jim Zoll from the PARS plan will cost the SHUSD nothing, as these individuals have already submitted their letters of resignation to the Board.
The Board and Dr. Haley have engaged in such a level of involvement in this matter that they are liable for the consequences of their actions, as well as the actions of Superintendent Gordon.

Therefore, the following is hereby requested:
1. The Board acknowledge that the Addendum to PARS Plan is void and therefore Superintendent Gordon and Jim Zoll are not entitled to receive any benefits under the PARS plan;
2. Due to their participation in this very serious matter and their violation of the public trust, the Board members tender their resignations immediately;
3. The Board remove Superintendent Gordon from office immediately pending an investigation into the conflict of interest issues raised herein; and
4. The Board remove Dr. Haley from office due to his involvement in this very serious matter.

For a copy of the attachments listed below, please send an email to: citizens4qualityed@gmail.com.

Once we determine how to post a pdf file to our blog, we will post the attachments. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank You.

Attachments:

Attachment 1 (Minutes September 18, 2008)
Attachment 2 (Board Resolution #08-03)
Attachment 3 (Agreement for Administrative Services)
Attachment 4 (September 29, 2008, memo from Superintendent Gordon to St. Helena Teachers Association)
Attachment 5 (2008-09 PARS Supplementary Retirement Plan)
Attachment 6 (Minutes December 11, 2008)
Attachment 7 (Execution Agreement -Addendum for Supplementary Retirement Plan)
Attachment 8 (Agreement for Custody Services)
Attachment 9 (Minutes January 15, 2009)
Attachment 10 (Minutes April 9, 2009)
Attachment 11 (Government Code Sections 1090 – 1099)
Attachment 12 (Board Policy 9270)
Attachment 13 (E-mails between J. Haslip, C. Martini and I. DeLuna)
Attachment 14 (Estimated cost of early Retirement Package prepared by C. Howatt)
Attachment 15 (Spreadsheet showing the real cost of adding Gordon and Zoll to PARS)
Attachment 16 (“School Board Will Listen But Don’t Bash Haley,” Guest Commentary by Board Member Carolyn Martini, St. Helena Star, April 30, 2009)