[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.

2026-09-17 - Special School Board Meeting

Transcript