Wi llamette

E EDUCATION SERVICE DISTRICT

Success, Achievement, Together ... for All Students

Lisa Frelley
School Attorney

July L5, 20L9

Natalie Pate
Education Reporter
Statesman Journal
Sent via email: npate@Salem.sannett.com

Natalie

You have requested a response from the Jefferson School Board and the following is that response

The School Board disagrees with pretty much the entirety of your email and feels a review of the
complete process is the only way in which to demonstrate the flaws in the Statesman Journal's
(hereinafter referred to as Statesman) analysis.

ln the Fall of 2018 the Jefferson School District began the search for a new superintendent with the
resignation of Kent Klewitz in the Summer of 2018.

The Board contracted with the Oregon School Boards Association and the Association assigned Steve
Kelley to facilitate the process. The process used in the Jefferson search is the exact same process used
by the Association in school districts across the state of Oregon.

ln October 2018 the school board adopted a search calendar. This calendar included Steve Kelley
spending a full day in the District to meet with staff and the community to obtain input for the qualities
and qualifications the Board should look for in a new superintendent. ln addition, an on-line survey was
developed and available to the community for their input between October 15th and October 26th.

At the November 6th Board meeting Steve Kelley presented the public input in a report to the full
Board. lt is based on this input and discussion with the Board which provided the basis for recruiting
brochure and notice ofvacancy.

The Board also decided to involve community members in the review of applications and the interviews
of the actual applicants. Once the screening committee was selected Steve Kelley provided training on
appropriate interview and reference checking processes. The screening committee did it works
between January 2L,20Lg and February t3,2OI9.

Dave Novotney, Ph.D.

Superintendent
2611 Pringle Rd SE . Salem, OR 97302 . 503.588.533O . www.wesd.org
Finalists were selected by mid-February and another opportunity for public input occurred February 25th
and 26th to allow community members to meet the finalist and submit written comments and feedback
to the board.

At the end of the last finalist forum the Board went into executive session and arrived at a consensus on
a first choice candidate in which to engage in negotiations. Those negotiations took place and resulted in
a proposed employment contract which was originally presented to the Board at the March 1L,20tg
board meeting. The employment contract was finally approved at the March L8th board meeting.

The facts in this situation is not really in dispute, the issue seems to be arising around the application of
the relevant statutes to the facts.

While the Statesman has completely discounted the investigation conducted by the Oregon
Government Ethics Commission (OGEC), this is the agency which is identified as the expert in this area
and is legally vested with the responsibility for enforcing the executive session laws.

Even though their investigation is labeled as a "preliminary investigation", it was an extensive

investigation where the investigator collected information from all the board members, including Board
member LaCrosse and the complainant, Matt LaCrosse. This included reviewing agendas, written and
recorded minutes as well a statement from the Oregon School Boards Association staff member who
facilitated the process and was present every time the board met during this process. lt is unclear what
other relevant individuals or documents the Statesman believes the OGEC should have been reviewed
prior to making an decision about whether or not the actions of the Jefferson School Board complied
with the legal requirements of State law.

The OGEC investigation did address the following issues:

a. Whether the Board fulfilled the prerequisites of ORS 192.660(7XdXD)?

b. Whether the Board made a final decision and voted in executive session?
The findings of the OGEC are the following:

a Hiring standards, criteria and policy directives were adopted in public meetings and the
board accepted public input;
b. Public input was gathered in public meetings and thru an on-line survey.
c. There is no statutory obligation to take public comment on final candidates.
d. Contemporaneous minutes from board meetings indicate the decision made in the February
26th meeting was for two (2) board members to negotiate with the Board's first choice
candidate and that is not considered a final decision.

The Statesman seems to be contending the actions taken at a later date (e.g. voting to hire and approve
the employment contract on March 18th) retroactively turns the consensus arrived at in the February
26th meeting into a final decision. This is at best a tortured application of the statute. lt is also the
Statesman's opinion this issue was not addressed by the OGEC, yet the OGEC was clearly aware the
Board met in February to reach consensus and again in March to vote to hire and approve the
employment contract of the current superintendent and still found the Board did not violate the
executive session laws.

Page 213
As to your assertion the Board's vote to approve the Superintendent's contract on March 18th changes
the nature of the consensus arrived at during the February 25th executive session to a final decision; the
Statesman has provided no legal basis forthis unique and unprecedented legal interpretation.

There also seems to be an argument there needed to be separate motions to vote to hire and approve
the employment agreement. There is nothing in State law which indicates the acceptance of the
contract negotiated by the designated board members is not both a decision to hire someone while at
the same time approving the terms of this individual's employment. ln addition, the Attorney General's
Manual does not prohibit the public employer from combining these two (2) decisions in one singular
vote. The Board's process is reflective of the process recommended by the Oregon School Boards
Association and used by school districts across the state for many years.

The Jefferson School Board felt it was important to have a search'and selection process which was as
inclusive and transparent. The process the Board used involved the community in multiple ways (e.g.
input on the qualities and qualifications (both in person and by survey); participants on the selection
committee; public forums where the community was able to meet the finalists). Finally the process used
was the exact same process used by many other school districts throughout the state of Oregon.

It is the Board's hope the Statesman will now accurately publish a report confirming it actions as being
legal and in compliance with State law.

Sincerely,

Lisa M. Freiley
Attorney for the
Jefferson School Board

Cc Kaye Jones, Board Chairperson (via email)

Brad Capener, Superintendent (via email)

Page 3l3