[2:54] Ready for me?
[2:57] All right. The Medford School Board special meeting for September 17th, 2026 is
[3:02] called to order. Angela has let us know that she has experienced a
[3:08] family emergency and is going to be late.
[3:11] So at this time, we're going to recess for 15 minutes and reconvene at 5:30 to give
[3:15] her some time to get here.
[19:26] We are back from the recess. If everyone would please stand for the pledge of
[19:29] allegiance.
[19:35] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic
[19:41] for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
[19:47] for all.
[19:50] Jodi, please conduct roll call.
[19:53] School board directors, Tabby Roe. Here. Ferguson.
[19:56] Here.
[19:57] Johnson.
[19:58] Here.
[19:58] Linnea McHenry.
[19:59] Here.
[20:00] Spicer.
[20:01] Here.
[20:01] Williams.
[20:02] Here.
[20:02] Vakowski.
[20:03] Here.
[20:04] Thank you, everyone. Before we move into discussion tonight, I want to remind
[20:09] everyone of the importance of following public meeting laws.
[20:12] We should not discuss or disclose any statements or information from any prior
[20:16] executive session, and we also need to refrain from identifying any staff members
[20:20] by name or sharing information that could potentially identify a staff member.
[20:25] These restrictions do not apply to identifying board members or to a superintendent
[20:28] by name. Please keep these guidelines in mind as we proceed with our discussion.
[20:33] Has everyone reviewed the letter from our attorney and the documents that are at
[20:37] issue this evening?
[20:39] Yes.
[20:40] Okay. Because these two matters involve the same type of concerns with respect to
[20:45] public records and editing of documents, I'm going to open the meeting to Sunny to
[20:49] discuss her concerns, then I will discuss my concerns, and then we will turn over
[20:54] to Angela to be given the opportunity to address both matters.
[20:57] After that, the board can engage in conversations as to what, if anything, the
[21:01] board would like to do in response to these concerns.
[21:05] The first matter is the issue of the document that was sent to OGEC, followed by a
[21:10] response from OGEC, with the response having been edited by Angela and then
[21:14] circulated to the board as though the edited version was the response received from
[21:18] OGEC. This matter proceeded through the policy BBG by Sunny, and I will now turn it
[21:23] over to Sunny to discuss her concerns related to the OGEC document.
[21:27] Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for your time and consideration on this.
[21:32] So I want to be clear why I brought this complaint to step three, and to know that
[21:37] I don't take this position that we are in lightly.
[21:40] This is not about a disagreement between board members, nor should it discourage
[21:44] anyone from raising a legitimate ethics concern.
[21:48] We should always be willing to ask difficult questions.
[21:51] This is about accountability and whether we are willing to hold ourselves to the
[21:54] same standards we expect throughout the district.
[21:57] We expect accuracy, integrity, transparency, and accountability from our
[22:02] superintendent, administrators, staff, and from our students.
[22:05] This is all a primary responsibility and our role as a governing body responsible
[22:10] to the public education of the children in our community.
[22:14] Those expectations have little credibility if we are unwilling to apply them to
[22:19] ourselves. There are two fundamental concerns before us now.
[22:23] First, materially inaccurate information was provided to a state government ethics
[22:27] body concerning another board member.
[22:30] Seeking ethics guidance is very appropriate, but that process depends upon accurate
[22:35] information. The facts shape the question, the guidance received, and potentially
[22:40] the actions of a public body relying on it.
[22:42] Second, an official communication received from the Oregon Ethics Commission was
[22:46] altered before being presented to the district's board and legal decision-making
[22:50] process. The nature of those changes are particularly concerning.
[22:56] When the original response is compared with the version circulated, the edits
[23:00] appear to remove or change portions that reference several inaccurate assertations
[23:05] contained in the original request for guidance.
[23:08] I'm not asking the board to presume why those changes were made.
[23:11] I'm asking the board to determine what happened and whether the conduct meets the
[23:15] standards we have committed to uphold.
[23:17] There's a significant difference between clearly summarizing a document and
[23:21] altering an official government communication and presenting it without disclosing
[23:25] those changes. Board members, administration, legal counsel, and the public must be
[23:30] able to trust the accuracy and integrity of information used to conduct public
[23:34] business.
[23:36] ORS 244.10 establishes that service as a public official is a
[23:42] public trust and places the highest ethical standards above loyalty to government,
[23:47] individuals, political parties, or individual interests.
[23:50] Our obligations must be to the public and the integrity of the office that we hold,
[23:55] not allegiance to any individual, organization, union, political interest, or any
[24:00] outside group. That public trust depends upon the integrity of our process and the
[24:05] accuracy of the information and records upon which the public decisions are made.
[24:10] Our own board operating agreement reinforces that responsibility.
[24:14] We have committed to follow the law consistently, apply district policy, make
[24:19] informed decisions, operate transparently, and respect the collective authority of
[24:23] this board. Legal counsel serves the whole board, not any of us individually.
[24:28] Those commitments only work when the information placed before the board and its
[24:32] counsel can be trusted, so accountability matters.
[24:35] This is why I don't consider this an interpersonal dispute or a personal dispute.
[24:40] The conduct of one board member can affect the credibility of all of us
[24:44] individually.
[24:51] When
[24:53] a departure from that ethical or governance standards occur without meaningful
[24:57] accountability, those standards lose their meaning and undermines our collective
[25:01] ability to govern, our credibility when we demand accountability elsewhere in the
[25:06] district, and we do demand that of everyone in the district.
[25:10] We can't effectively set policy, oversee public resources, hold the district to
[25:14] high standards, and ask our community to trust us while accepting a lower standard
[25:18] from ourselves, and that applies to each of us. Accountability is not retaliation.
[25:24] It's not punishment. It's not about pre-judging the outcome.
[25:27] It means establishing the facts, providing a fair opportunity to respond,
[25:31] consistently applying our policies and standards, and taking appropriate action
[25:35] based upon the evidence it establishes.
[25:38] I'm not asking the board to simply accept my conclusions.
[25:41] I'm just asking the board to determine whether materially inaccurate information
[25:45] was provided through a government ethics process, whether an official government
[25:48] communication was altered and presented without disclosure of those changes, and
[25:53] whether the conduct established through this process is consistent with our
[25:57] policies and our board operating agreement, the code of conduct, the oath of
[26:00] office, and the responsibilities we have as public officials.
[26:04] If the board does not substantiate these concerns, a fair process should establish
[26:08] that. But if it does, there must be meaningful accountability.
[26:12] No individual board member is more important than the integrity of this board.
[26:17] Our ethical standards can't simply be words we adopt.
[26:20] They must guide our conduct, particularly when applying them is difficult or
[26:24] uncomfortable. Public office is public trust.
[26:28] If we expect accountability throughout this district, starting with our students
[26:33] and with our staff, we must be willing to expect it from all of us ourselves.
[26:38] Thank you.
[26:40] Okay. The second matter also involves editing of documents that are likely public
[26:44] records. The text messages that were included in the letter from our attorney are
[26:47] the records at issue for the second matter.
[26:50] I brought this matter because it's a continuation of the concerns from Sunny.
[26:54] The concern is twofold. First, there's a continuation of editing documents without
[26:58] retention of the original version being maintained, which is a problem when we are
[27:02] required to maintain our records in the event of a public records request.
[27:05] The second is that the changes appear to have been made with an attempt to hide the
[27:09] original information contained in the documents. I proceeded through BBG as well.
[27:14] As discussed by Sunny, the biggest problem is... Well, I don't know.
[27:19] Actually, I didn't hear if you said that, but we had trouble obtaining the
[27:22] documents. I understand that Sunny had to obtain the original OGEC request and the
[27:28] original letter from OGEC through a public records request.
[27:33] Angela offered to let me review the texts when I raised the concern, but despite
[27:37] multiple requests, those were never provided.
[27:39] I did obtain them from a different source
[27:42] and had them sent directly to our attorney so as to keep that information
[27:46] confidential.
[27:48] Our operating agreement is pretty clear that we want no surprises, and having
[27:52] edited documents presented is a surprise, and it's not something that we should
[27:56] take lightly. I did ask, as part of my BBG complaint,
[28:02] to have Angela take additional training in public records.
[28:04] I understand she's done that, and she's going to have a chance to talk about that.
[28:08] But the bigger concern is the accountability, as Sunny discussed, that when we do
[28:13] something, even if it's something we're not proud of, we need to own those things.
[28:16] We can't expect our students to take responsibility for their actions if we don't
[28:19] do it ourselves, and we can't expect our students to not hide things that they are
[28:24] uncomfortable with if we're hiding things.
[28:28] It appears to be a need for individualized coaching, potentially.
[28:32] I'm hoping the training that was taken will resolve this.
[28:35] I did ask OSBA at the Board Chair Cafe about the potential for targeted additional
[28:40] training with respect to what qualifies as a public record, if it's our personal
[28:44] text messages, if it involves board business, and they are looking into creating
[28:48] training specifically for that. This creates a bad look for the entire board.
[28:53] It's a bad look to have edited public documents, and the public needs to be able to
[28:57] trust documents that come from us.
[29:00] It's an appearance of fraud, and I don't think that's something that anyone on our
[29:03] board takes lightly or anyone on our board wants to be associated with.
[29:09] I'll now turn it over to Angela to have her response to these concerns.
[29:16] I did not bring a prepared statement because I don't
[29:20] work that way. Sunny and I had multiple discussions about her complaint.
[29:26] I view it differently but understand her perspective.
[29:30] I entirely disagree that my private personal text messages were a public record.
[29:36] Even though I disagree with that, I have sought out every possible available
[29:43] on-demand training related to public records and public communication, and what
[29:47] constitutes a private versus a public communication.
[29:52] And I have completed those. I don't agree that that was a public record.
[29:56] I don't agree that it was appropriate to
[29:59] seek those out from a district employee.
[30:01] I don't think that it sets a good precedent that employees are not allowed to have
[30:08] personal discussions that
[30:12] would be handled as a public record.
[30:16] I don't agree that the subject matter was anything that would necessitate it being
[30:23] brought forward, but since we have now,
[30:31] I'm really frustrated. I'd like for the text to be read out because I think the
[30:35] subject of the text might be playing a role in what's happening here.
[30:41] However, this board, for more than a year now, has been focused on things
[30:47] that do not improve student outcomes.
[30:49] And here we are again,
[30:52] sitting and discussing things that are not student-facing.
[30:54] So I have asked both of you numerous times in multiple formats, what is it that
[31:00] you would like to do to resolve this? I was told training. I did the training.
[31:04] I'm asking again, what is it that you would like to do that feels like resolution
[31:09] to you so that we can get back to a focus on students?
[31:15] Well, Sunny?
[31:18] I said repeatedly that I wanted just to see a level of accountability.
[31:22] There was never once an admonition that this is what
[31:28] happened, that this was wrong, not going to do this, what the steps were going to
[31:33] happen to make sure that this was not going to happen again.
[31:38] Altering a document from the Ethics Commission is a
[31:44] fraudulent act, and admitting that that's a fraudulent act is
[31:51] important to me. And I think that should be important to the board, having
[31:57] that admitted into our own record, as in having it submitted to our
[32:02] attorney for a decision.
[32:06] That, to me, is a serious offense. And saying that this was not something that
[32:11] should have happened, that it's not going to happen again, and
[32:17] moving forward from that, I'm good with that piece.
[32:20] But there was never an, "I understand that this is wrong.
[32:23] It shouldn't have happened."
[32:25] I understand your perspective, and I feel like there was a long response that
[32:30] essentially said three points, and I shared those points with the board.
[32:33] That's why when we met again, and I asked you specifically what is it that you
[32:36] wanted shared with the board, I just forwarded your words out to the board, along
[32:40] with the entire complete text, so that I wouldn't in any possible way misrepresent
[32:44] what you want said. In doing that, I did say, "Here's what you received.
[32:50] Here's the entire text. I'm sharing Sunny's words so that you can hear what Sunny
[32:55] wanted to share about this."
[32:56] I hope that that was, "This is what Sunny thinks." It isn't a,
[33:01] "I understand this was wrong."
[33:03] The point of clarity.
[33:05] Just want a couple of things. And I heard some
[33:11] leveled accusations like fraud,
[33:15] like altering public documents, and what I don't think is
[33:21] completely clear are a couple of things.
[33:23] The specific things that were not included,
[33:30] and the other thing that we're not discussing is intent.
[33:33] Because the idea with fraud, one would imply,
[33:41] specifically when it has to do with public documents, in order for it to be
[33:47] fraud, it has to have intent. In my understanding, it has to have intent.
[33:51] Therefore,
[33:53] I would have to assume that the person would have to know that they're altering a
[33:57] public document. We just heard earlier, and this is pivoting a little bit to the
[34:02] text messages. In order for what is being alleged with the complaint
[34:08] concerning the text messages that she was committing fraud by altering a public
[34:12] document,
[34:14] I would have to assume that she would have needed to know that it was a public
[34:19] document. If she is sending a text message and she is thinking that it is her own
[34:24] private text message, then why wouldn't she alter it?
[34:27] And Angela, I have done the same thing that you've done.
[34:31] I'm confessing that I have had a-- I don't know why we're talking about this,
[34:35] y'all. I have sent a text message as a person,
[34:40] as a citizen, whenever I'm not conducting board business, to people who are
[34:46] employees in our district.
[34:47] I'm not talking about the text message.
[34:49] I'm only talking-
[34:49] I know. I'm coming back to that.
[34:51] Okay.
[34:51] But the point is going back to intent.
[34:54] If someone had told me, "Michael, you absolutely cannot alter any of your text
[34:59] messages or you'll be committing fraud because your text messages are public
[35:05] documents." If I knew that, and that was made very clear to me, then maybe I would
[35:09] not have done that. What is being alleged and what is being framed is that there's
[35:13] a pattern of behavior that disregards the significance of a public document.
[35:18] I don't see that here, because that would have to mean that she understood that
[35:25] her text messages were public, and she didn't know.
[35:27] Which, even Kendall, you said likely public record.
[35:30] I stand firmly that these are not public records, but also the litmus test that you
[35:34] gave me when we met is, "Would this conversation have taken place if you were not
[35:38] on the board?" And I can raise my hand to whatever deity you believe in and say,
[35:44] "Absolutely this conversation would've taken-- Very similar conversations did take
[35:48] place before I was on the board, which led to me running to be on the board." These
[35:52] are personal relationships that predate my service on the board.
[35:56] They were private, personal conversations. They're not public record.
[36:00] So again, I'm asking Sunny. We sat down and had multiple conversations.
[36:05] I wanted to not misrepresent your words, so I shared exactly your words with the
[36:09] board and laid out exactly what happened. This was the long advice.
[36:13] These are the three points that are, I think, relevant, which essentially said,
[36:17] this isn't a matter for OGA. Which, by the way,
[36:21] it's kind of hard to discuss all of this without discussing the nature of why this
[36:25] even existed in the first place. But
[36:28] when I've asked you multiple times if you wanted to bring this out in the public
[36:31] and discuss it, you haven't. I've tried to respect that, and I've tried to navigate
[36:36] this as
[36:39] productively as possible, which is why I've continued to ask what is it that-- I
[36:44] think that these are entirely two separate matters.
[36:46] I don't agree with Kendall's assertion, but I understand your point. I do.
[36:50] And I want to move forward in a way that resolves that for you, and I attempted to
[36:54] do that by
[36:57] ... sharing your exact words so that your thoughts wouldn't be misconstrued to the
[37:00] board. So I'm asking, what else would you like to do so that we can productively
[37:05] work through this?
[37:07] I think I just said that. You shared my words, but it was still a, "This
[37:13] is what Sunny thinks." It wasn't a, "I accept responsibility for this."
[37:20] I have a question.
[37:24] I'm still a little confused about-
[37:25] No, I can save us the time. I don't want to hold up this whole room.
[37:27] Sunny, I accept responsibility. I understand your
[37:33] feelings and your thoughts and your perspective on the way things happened.
[37:36] I apologize. I take accountability for that.
[37:38] I did not intend, in any way, to present a different case than the advice that I
[37:43] got, but I fully apologize, and I take accountability.
[37:47] And you understand
[37:49] what was wrong with that?
[37:51] I understand your perspective. I do.
[37:55] What is the thing that was wrong? That's what I still don't understand.
[37:58] What was the thing that was wrong?
[38:00] It was a letter from the Oregon Ethics Commission that was altered and presented
[38:06] as-
[38:07] Which the entire board has.
[38:08] Wait, no. Were the words in the letter changed, or was there some-
[38:15] Yes. The letter from the Oregon Ethics Commission giving advice to our board was
[38:20] materially changed.
[38:22] How?
[38:22] Can that legitimately be a public record?
[38:24] Because I feel like you-
[38:25] Yeah.
[38:25] I request the public-
[38:26] That is part of the packet that was sent, and there's actually a page-
[38:29] Okay
[38:29] ... that details what-
[38:30] Okay. But that was presented as though that was the original, and that is the
[38:33] problem. Okay.
[38:34] It's part of the letter from-
[38:35] But that's the whole problem here.
[38:37] So
[38:39] Sunny, I'm trying. I am-
[38:40] I know, but Michael asked a question, and I'm answering it.
[38:44] It was presented as though that was the original. It was edited.
[38:50] The portion that was edited, the things that were changed, were the things that
[38:56] were
[38:58] not factual from the first portion of it.
[39:02] Okay.
[39:04] And then to mine, my understanding of public record is anything that, and as we've
[39:09] discussed, it's anything that is a conversation you wouldn't have but for your
[39:13] position on the board and anything that involves board business. It's a two-part.
[39:17] It's not just only your position, but it involves board business.
[39:20] And one of the things that was discussed was the upcoming retreat.
[39:23] It was something that hadn't happened yet.
[39:25] And I did discuss it when I found out about it with our lawyer first, and she said,
[39:29] "Yes, it's very likely a public record.
[39:31] If there was a request, it would have to be disclosed." The person texting me did
[39:34] not make a request of me. There was no attempt to influence.
[39:37] They did not ask me to take any action.
[39:41] What was discussed was very much what had been discussed in a public meeting the
[39:45] night before or whatever, nights before.
[39:47] It was commentary on what was said in the public.
[39:49] Nothing that was shared in that text exchange was not discussed in the public
[39:53] meeting. Everyone knew there was an upcoming retreat.
[39:55] Everyone knew what the conversation was about, what would happen at that upcoming
[39:59] retreat.
[40:01] That was all public.
[40:02] But it still involved board business, so my understanding from our attorney is
[40:05] that, yes, that would be something that-
[40:06] Okay
[40:06] ... would have to be disclosed in a records request.
[40:08] And I know that that's not something that you understood or agree with me, which is
[40:10] why I requested the training, which I very much appreciate you took.
[40:13] And you did let me know yesterday morning about three trainings that you had taken,
[40:17] which I didn't know until yesterday morning-
[40:18] We agreed to that on September 2nd, though.
[40:20] We agreed that-
[40:20] Yes
[40:20] ... the three of us agreed to that.
[40:22] Right, but you did tell me if I felt like I needed to proceed to a hearing, then go
[40:26] ahead and go for it, so I understood you to say, "Have your hearing.
[40:29] I'm not doing anything." And then yesterday, I get this email that says, "Here are
[40:33] some I've taken," which I appreciate you taking the initiative to take those, but
[40:36] we'd already scheduled this.
[40:39] Does anyone else have anything they would like to say?
[40:44] I just have a--
[40:47] What I'm hearing a lot of is fundamentally just a different
[40:51] opinion on
[40:54] what is maybe
[40:56] considered public documents, editing, whatever.
[41:00] I guess even just moving forward, my question for you would just be, do you feel
[41:03] like
[41:05] it-- It's obviously caused a lot of this, that we would like to move on.
[41:11] You would second-guess whatever you might text or edit in the future.
[41:16] And the trainings, were they beneficial?
[41:21] Yep.
[41:26] I just have one thing to add for the record.
[41:31] The school year is just underway.
[41:37] We spent an entire year
[41:40] discussing this policy. Entire year.
[41:45] The ink wasn't even dry before complaints were levied.
[41:50] And I just want it on the record that this is what I warned about,
[41:54] that a policy like this would not result in meaningful conflict
[41:59] resolution, and it has not. Nothing about those steps have slowed it down.
[42:05] We ended up in the same place.
[42:08] And this subject and all of this, I do not think has a significant and
[42:14] impactful bearing on whether or not our kids can read.
[42:19] I think that all of this could've been resolved before bringing it to a public
[42:22] meeting. And this was what I warned about.
[42:25] Michael-
[42:25] And here we are. Here we are.
[42:27] Attempted.
[42:27] Here we are. Here we are. Well, technically what?
[42:31] That I said it was attempted to resolve before.
[42:33] Yeah, but that was my point.
[42:35] That's-
[42:35] My point was that this was a pathway to this very thing.
[42:39] That the attempt wouldn't work, that it wouldn't stop at step one.
[42:42] It wouldn't stop at step two. That we would be ending up spending our time, the
[42:46] public's time, talking about, in my opinion, very petty things that are not
[42:52] consequential to public education.
[42:55] And we went through this for a year last year.
[42:58] We took the public on a soap opera the year before that of conflict, having to do
[43:04] with the very things that we codified in Policy BG. So here's how I feel.
[43:10] We have had a
[43:15] confession.
[43:18] After our Spanish Inquisition, we have had our confession. We have had an apology.
[43:23] We have a commitment by someone to do better.
[43:26] I would think that that would be enough.
[43:28] I believe that the complaint should be satisfied, and I would like to move to make
[43:31] a decision on whether it's satisfied or
[43:36] whether or not we need to continue discussing this. And may I have a second?
[43:44] Yeah, that's the process, right?
[43:46] Yeah.
[43:46] It now goes to-
[43:47] Well, the next step is a roll call. Well, we need to let everyone else that has
[43:51] something that they want to ask, ask.
[43:54] But the roll call would be if the board believes the allegations in one or both of
[43:58] the complaints are substantiated.
[43:59] After that, it would go to, if yes,
[44:03] should the board inform Angela the allegations have been substantiated and that
[44:07] she's to refrain from any further behavior, or no, there's nothing further to do.
[44:11] If yes, the board then determines if the completion of this third step is
[44:15] sufficient to stop continued violations.
[44:17] So that's basically the motion you're making.
[44:21] The motion would be the third option, that, well-
[44:25] Okay
[44:25] ... I don't have it in front of me, but yeah.
[44:29] So we can move to that. We can move, unless Eric or Aaliyah has anything
[44:35] they would like to add.
[44:37] There's a motion. Do we need a second?
[44:39] There was a motion. It was never seconded.
[44:40] Want a second?
[44:41] Can we clarify what the motion was?
[44:43] Okay.
[44:47] I think we were trying to move to that step.
[44:49] I was trying to move to that step, essentially.
[44:50] So it would be just-- So I'll rephrase it, and then you can tell me if it's right
[44:54] or not, okay? The motion is for the board to determine if the completion of this
[44:59] third step of BG is sufficient to stop continued violations.
[45:04] That is my motion. Is there a second?
[45:06] Second.
[45:09] Okay. So is there any discussion?
[45:12] Yes.
[45:13] Eric.
[45:17] For the record, you guys know this, but I had hoped as well that this could be
[45:22] resolved outside of a public meeting.
[45:27] Angela, the documents that we've been provided from the attorney, are those all
[45:32] accurate to your knowledge?
[45:34] Yep.
[45:34] Okay.
[45:38] As Michael alluded to earlier, I think intent is important.
[45:43] Some of the things in the ethics commission email that were removed, to me, is just
[45:50] friendly fluff from the person who responded.
[45:54] But I don't think materially-- It's not guidance.
[45:58] It's just preface to the guidance.
[46:01] There's a couple things that are guidance that were changed, it appears.
[46:07] Can you help me understand
[46:10] why- Are those changes accurate? Was there intent there?
[46:17] No. I cut and pasted. The three points of the response were, one, this
[46:23] isn't a matter for OGEIC. Two, if there is ever the potential
[46:28] for conflict, you should disclose, and the third one was something irrelevant.
[46:32] So in attempting to quickly summarize those, those are the points that I put
[46:37] forward. There was no intent. And I went back and read them over and over again.
[46:41] I don't believe that the words sent to the board materially change what the
[46:46] response from OGEIC was.
[46:51] My initial reaction was as well. Nothing really came of the guidance.
[46:56] We didn't change anything we did.
[46:59] The things that are potentially material, there was a change from a
[47:05] "has
[47:09] had a pending or active legal claim" to a "could have."
[47:14] So a slight change in context from a definite situation to a potential situation.
[47:20] And then there was another reference to
[47:26] if there is a material conflict of interest, a board member
[47:29] must declare that and then refrain from
[47:34] discussion or debate and may not vote.
[47:37] And then there was a part that was removed, unless a vote is required to satisfy
[47:43] a minimum vote.
[47:45] The matter didn't have anything to do with voting, so
[47:49] I didn't find that to be relevant.
[47:52] Okay.
[47:54] It's my understanding that the implied intent is inaccurate, and so
[48:00] if, in this case, if she didn't know that it was a
[48:05] public document that she was altering, then it wasn't her intent to
[48:11] commit fraud.
[48:14] And I wasn't there for the first and second step.
[48:17] If that was made clear to her then, I'm trying to understand
[48:23] what is the goal, and what are you all trying to accomplish by bringing this
[48:27] forward in this meeting and spending time discussing it? What is the goal?
[48:33] Sunny's was accountability. I had requested specific training, which has since
[48:38] occurred, which I discovered and was told about yesterday.
[48:42] So then if you were told about it yesterday...
[48:46] Let me rephrase that. If I was told that prior to this meeting, and I was the board
[48:51] chair, I would amend this special meeting not to include that complaint because
[48:57] it sounds like the complaint had already been satisfied, and that knowledge was
[49:01] brought forth prior to this meeting.
[49:04] What I did was disclose that she let me know that she had taken the extra training,
[49:08] but this meeting had already been scheduled.
[49:09] I had hoped to not even have to have the meeting.
[49:12] Oh, very well then. But I've seen meeting agendas change same day since I've
[49:18] been on the board. So that's why I don't understand what the goal was, if the
[49:23] action necessary to satisfy the complaint had been provided.
[49:27] And so it leaves people with the impression that the point was to have it in public
[49:32] in this way. I'm not making that accusation, but it might lead one to believe that.
[49:36] And so I think that it's important identifying what the goal was, if that was
[49:42] already satisfied, and then why discuss it here?
[49:46] But you don't have to answer that. Sunny, please, I deeply want to understand
[49:52] what was it that you were trying to accomplish by bringing this to a third step so
[49:56] that the board could have this discussion?
[50:00] Because accountability would typically apply, I would think, if the intent was to
[50:06] do something wrong. What I have heard this evening is that this board director has
[50:10] been acting in good faith, who is a new board director who is learning the ropes,
[50:15] and I would like to consider giving this board director grace in that regard.
[50:20] Her intent is clear that she was just attempting to communicate a message in the
[50:24] most effective way possible. So if any of that was made apparent in step one and
[50:30] step two, lastly,
[50:33] what does accountability look like in a material way at this point?
[50:38] That was not my understanding.
[50:41] The guidance that I got from multiple attorneys was that this was a
[50:47] serious infraction, changing a letter from the Oregon Ethics Committee, sending
[50:53] information to the Oregon Ethics Committee that was false.
[50:56] Those are two pretty serious infractions.
[50:59] And-
[50:59] What information was false? I'm sorry, I don't remember us discussing that.
[51:02] What information was false?
[51:03] Okay. Those are things that we can't discuss because they were talked about in the-
[51:08] Executive session.
[51:09] Well, that's important because we're in public, and we're levying an accusation.
[51:16] It's also in the packet that you got, but there were things in there that were
[51:22] not true.
[51:23] I just think that it's fair if we say publicly in a public indictment, which that
[51:27] indictment is, that false information was submitted in the beginning,
[51:33] that puts another person at a disadvantage when they can't clarify whether or not
[51:37] they were submitting that original information and whether or not it was false.
[51:41] And those were the things that were removed from the document.
[51:45] And the other important point is the thing that Sunny had specifically requested is
[51:50] an acknowledgement that the change was made. And I disagree.
[51:53] I don't think changing a government ethics letter is petty.
[51:58] I don't think it's petty at all. It's a very important document.
[52:01] It's a public-facing document on the ethics commission, and it's an issue of
[52:04] modifying an ethics letter.
[52:06] All I asked from the beginning was to understand that this was wrong, we don't do
[52:10] this, and that our communications are forthcoming because I feel like that's
[52:14] important to the board. I'm not trying to do anything more than that.
[52:17] I'm not asking for any level of punishment. I don't think that's appropriate.
[52:23] All I'm saying is that we make sure that our communications are ethical, that
[52:29] they're clear, and that we hold ourselves accountable.
[52:31] It's literally all I'm asking.
[52:33] And-
[52:34] And that's what happened right at this meeting, where Angela acknowledged that she
[52:38] shouldn't have made the changes.
[52:39] In the last communication to the board,
[52:42] that didn't come through. It said, "This is what Sunny says." It wasn't a, "I
[52:46] understand this is wrong. I'm not going to do this again."
[52:50] Yeah.
[52:50] It was, "This is what Sunny thinks."
[52:52] I'm just saying that not that changing a government document, that's not what I
[52:57] said was petty. All of this is. It seems like this is something that should've been
[53:02] resolved-
[53:02] I don't want to do this either. None of us want to be here.
[53:05] Okay. So then let's just-
[53:05] Well, let's move on.
[53:05] ... moving forward because I have acknowledged, we've had our
[53:11] discussion. Kendall's had a chance to clarify what it is that she's seeking out.
[53:16] Let's move to the next step.
[53:18] Well, I'm pretty sure we're with it, yeah.
[53:20] Yeah.
[53:20] The first time it was said that she admitted that this was wrong, "I'm not going to
[53:25] do it," was a few minutes ago. So that's good. We're good.
[53:31] So vote.
[53:34] Roll call, Jody.
[53:35] We're good.
[53:35] Oh, wait, wait. Do we need to restate the motion?
[53:38] Please.
[53:39] So we know it, yes or no? Okay. The motion was that the board has determined
[53:45] that the completion of the third step of BBG is sufficient to stop continued
[53:48] violations. Correct?
[53:50] Correct.
[53:50] Okay. Now we're voting on that.
[53:52] I'm sorry. Can you just state a yes vote means and a no vote means?
[53:56] Yes vote means that the board-
[53:58] The matter's done
[53:59] ... the matter is done, and if it's a no vote, then we proceed to step four and
[54:04] deal with dismissal, admonition, censure.
[54:08] Correct.
[54:11] Okay. Everybody got that?
[54:13] We're good.
[54:13] All right. Board Director Johnson.
[54:17] Yes.
[54:18] Cabrero.
[54:19] Yes.
[54:20] Spicer.
[54:21] Yes.
[54:21] Linnea McHenry.
[54:22] Yes.
[54:23] Williams.
[54:24] Yes.
[54:24] McKowski.
[54:25] Yes.
[54:25] Ferguson.
[54:26] Yes.
[54:27] Motion carries.
[54:30] And that concludes. There being no further business before the board, this meeting
[54:35] is adjourned. We will reconvene at 6:15 for the regular board meeting.