All right. I'd like to call the meeting to order and ask that you stand and join me for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. So, first I would actually like to take this time to acknowledge all the firefighters and even our admin team who
has been helping with this fire. Um, our thoughts and prayers are with all of them as well as all the residents and we're praying and hoping that everyone makes this out with minimal casualties and losses and stuff. So, we're very
thankful for the people protecting us. All right, next up to discussion. So, we would like to discuss um, so this is a discussion on >> Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. Sorry, my bad. Uh I would like to move to uh approve the board meeting
as presented. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Sorry. >> AJ Wilson. >> Yes. >> Yes. Mark. >> Yes. >> Michelle Ericson.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Motion carried. All right. Now we can move on to discussion. All right. So this is a discussion on um the lawsuit with Lewis vers PBLO County District 70 Board of Education.
And I don't want to read all that. So, we're going to start the discussion on uh the approval for the appealing if uh if the trial court orders to remove a board member or directs the board to
conduct a meeting to consider an appointment to fill the board vacancy. All right. Well, I'll start um if that's okay with you guys. Yeah. So, part of the reason I voted no on the last one because I didn't want a blanket appeal
to go through. Um, I wanted certain options, this being the options to where I didn't want us to have to go back to a fourperson board and I felt like we were never getting anything done with that. And so, I wanted to be able to keep it at five so that way we can still move
forward with business and we're not getting stalemated essentially. So that's why I was able to um talk to Scott not before the last meeting um because I didn't plan ahead as well as I needed to probably but uh afterwards I
did and we were able to or I was able to understand that we could tweak that and only do appeals for certain things. And so that was my hesitation on the last one just so you guys know where I'm coming from. And I would like to approve
this so that way we don't have to have a fourperson board again. >> Anybody else? >> Um I have a comment prepared. Several actually questions for guest uh for attorney guestler to begin with.
I think it is an unprecedented move to begin asking for an appeal before we have a ruling and to include a motion to stay in addition. So can you explain the
precedent here because I believe there we are out of line to begin the process to ask for an appeal before we have a ruling. >> Um certainly so in my practice it is not unprecedented. Um I don't have specific
examples of clients and even if I did I would be hesitant to uh to discuss that because that would invade the attorney client. But I can that from my perspective there's there's two considerations um one is which board
member Wilson you know as an attorney I of course want a client or that is able to make decisions um so a deadlock is always puts an attorney in a difficult position when a client is
not unable to make decisions um in this instance the uh the other consideration is in some instanc And this would be one instance. Um there's a need to move with rapid dispatch. In other words, um depending
on what the court may or may not do, there's certain actions a court could take where it would require a quick and immediate appeal to prevent irreparable harm. Uh so one of the requirements for legal requirements to
ask for a stay is impending irreparable harm. Um, and in this instance, uh, there's two possible decisions or two possible things the court could order. I think they're both very unlikely, but I think they're you have to consider the possibility. And
those two are one, removing a board member. Um, and that would prevent that board member from being able to vote on items. And so that's irreparable harm. You can't, you know, go back in time to enable a board member to vote on things uh, when that time has passed. So that
would be irreparable harm there. Uh the second instance uh would be the board to once it goes a meeting it conducted the meeting you don't unring the bell. So that would be another form of irreparable harm. Uh there have been
times when trial court I've been involved in where trial court makes >> you're cutting out a little Scott. Last step is ask the court to issue a stay. See that very often. I'm sorry. And you see that very often in litigation where you say, "Hey, trial court, if this goes
into effect, there will be irreparable harm with this until we can get from the court of appeals." I've had instances where the court has done that. I've had instances where the trial court has refused that. Um, and there have been instances with when the trial court has refused that where I've gone to the
court of appeals, which is the next step, and you say, hey, court of appeals, will you issue a stay because there would be irreparable harm. Um, and I have had in a couple instances, the court of appeals issue the stay. Normally, at least in my practice, the
trial court will will do that. Uh, but where the court of appeals will issue the stay um imposing the trial court's action until the court of appeals can consider the issue. Um so the concern I have is so a need for a rapid decision
making [clears throat] um as well as concern about a client not being able to make a decision. So in my look in my practice this is not unprecedented at all. Um it it may be for others but not for me but those are
the considerations I have. Okay. >> Thank you. Mark you had something. Yes. Uh >> Scott Mark Emry here. uh this appeal proposition seems to be waving a white flag and saying we're going to lose
already so we better get ready for that. Second part of my question is how much time after a decision is reached are you able to file an appeal? How much time do you have? >> Sure. Um, so I understand the perception
about waving the white flag and that's why I've tried to every time I address this subject I always say I think we have a very strong case. I think this is unlikely. So I I'll say that now. Um, you know, as a lawyer friend once told me he said the problem with being a
lawyer is you look at things in the blackest light possible. In other words, we're always worried about contingencies and what do we do in this instance or that? And that's really the spirit in which I'm offering this. I do think we have a very strong case. I think factually we have a very strong case as
well that the plaintiff was not able to even under the plaintiff's legal theories, they weren't able to prove anything that they had wanted to. Um, but with that said, no, I I I do not view this as waving the white flag. I view this as a credential
measure, a matter of prudence uh to ensure no matter what happens, we have a smooth functioning and a way forward. Now, with respect to an appeal, um, under normal circumstances for an appeal jurisdictionally, I think it's around 41 or 43 days after the final order that we
have to file a notice of appeal. And that launches the appelllet process. My concern here is not so much being able to appeal, it's being able to uh appeal on a very short notice in order to obtain a stay if the court orders some
type of action which is improper. Uh now at least in my discussions and analysis if let's say the court says um well if the court says there's no violation then that's the end of it we don't appeal of course um but if the court were to say
well there may there was a violation and uh theou is no longer in effect which it isn't anyway since Riverstone is not going to be operating or the court were to say well um you have to pay attorney's fees or something along those lines that doesn't create a sense of
urgency uh and that gives us uh you know a comfortable 41 or 43 days to file a notice of an appeal. The notice of an appeal, just so people know what that is, that's really like a two-page document which informs the court of appeals that we're going to be filing an
appeal identify um and the action and gives an advisory just advisory sense of what the appeals what the issues of appeal are going to be. That's the notice of appeal. Then that starts a whole process of you know
transmitting the record with trial court up and then doing your briefs and then doing your oral and so on. That whole process can easily take a year sometimes longer um before before the court of appeals will render a decision. But from
the moment that a court makes a decision under the normal appellet processes um you have 41 43 days to file your notice of appeal and then of course the appeal goes forward. Mark, you had something else? >> No, go ahead. >> Um, so I This is Michelle Ericson. I
hope you can hear me. Um, to date, court prep court preparation and proceedings have cost far exceeded our deductible with each hour logged costing more. As stated previously, why are we voting to appeal a ruling we haven't received and
haphazardly requesting to incur more expense that may or may not be covered by insurance. Our insurance will cover the current case. I don't know and I'm not sure if we know if an appeal would
be covered. And as part of the board, I ask that we cautiously take on more expense without knowing that without knowing the ruling. So, do we
know um Director Wagner or do we know um Attorney Gestler if any of this cost additional cost would be covered? because I don't think it is. I I did look it up and I do not believe the cost
is covered for an appeal. >> I don't know that answer. I have to check. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, I can address that within the realm of my knowledge. I'm not an insurance expert, nor obviously have I reviewed your insurance policy. In my experience, I've done some insurance uh work and
been involved in that. At least in my experience, it is normal for an insurer to pay for an appeal as well as the trial. I am not aware of insurers splitting the two off or an insurance policy saying you're allowed to go to trial but you're not allowed to appeal a
case. I've never seen that. Um and my understanding is it is always covered. But again with a caveat, I have not read your insurance policy so I can't specifically give you a concrete answer there. >> Mr. Guestler, have you filed your
closing arguments? >> Uh, not yet. I'm finalizing it tonight. Um, and it is due today. Yes, sir. >> So, we want to try and appeal before we've even done closing arguments. >> Um, I I I'm not recommending we appeal.
I'm recommending that we have the option in case things go in a bad direction. Um, I will again reemphasize uh that look like I'm going through I've gone through every item of the evidence. I've read the transcript twice. I've renewed
all of my research on this. Um, we have a very strong case and even even if the court trial court rules against us, I believe that on um probably under an abuse of discretion standard for facts, but certainly on the legal standard, we win this case. Um, I have had times
where sometimes a trial court is, you know, sort of close to the emotional content of a case and and they allow that to uh to influence the reasoning. The court of appeals is one step removed and then, you know, focuses on the legal standards. Uh, but I'm not saying we
appeal this and I'm not saying we lose. On the contrary, I think we win this case and I'm reasonably confident. I'm very confident that we win on an appeal. But I am saying that, you know, my suggestion for what it's worth is that the court maintains I'm sorry, is that
the board uh maintains its full array of options to be able to operate very quickly and and and look, I mean, if if we file a notice of appeal um and start moving forward and the board wants to hold a meeting and decide not to, that's
always within your purview. Um, but I'm looking at the possibility of uh protecting this board's, you know, rights and latitude in in all circumstances. And so that's really the uh the thinking there.
>> Dr. Wilson, I have a question. >> Hi, Mr. Guess. This is uh Mr. Dietro. If the board votes for >> Yeah, I'm If the Can you hear me? You want to just come sit here? Yes, sir. >> He said yes.
>> He can. Yeah. >> So, if the board votes for the action tonight, um will you from a financial standpoint, will you just sit on that until the actual ruling comes out and then begin to work on any kind of um
legal items that need to be done or will you start to work on something preemptively before the ruling? I'm just looking at from a cost benefit. Is this just a vote and then you wait for the ruling? >> I I would not do any work until the
court made a decision. Um again, I think the odds of the court making a decision that would require immediate action are are low. If I if I had to bet, I would bet on our side easily. Um but um but again, it's an option. I I I would not
spend time working on that unless the unless and until the court comes out with a decision. You look, I'm used to having to scramble when you need to to turn things around on a quick basis and I'm comfortable in that environment and that's what I would do in this instance. So, I would not
work on it in advance. >> I have a I have an additional question. This is Michelle Ericson. Um, do you once you issue your closing remarks tonight, what is the next step?
Uh so the next step is let me just back up and give you the framework which will explain it easily. Um so both sides the plaintiffs and us the defendant we have to file a simultaneous briefs today. Today's our deadline. Midnight
technically is our deadline to file our closing argument. Then each one of us has the option uh to file a response in seven days is our deadline from that. Uh, so we'll have an opportunity to respond to what they argue. They'll have an opportunity to respond to what we
argue. At that point, the briefings are closed, the case is closed, and the court will make a decision. >> And we don't have a time frame on that. Correct. It could be a day. It could be months. >> Um, I am assuming that that's correct.
We don't there's no guarantee. Um, I I'm pretty confident the court's going to take more than a day. Um, and I've had one court give me a one day turnaround and that was sort of an emergency election law matter. Um, but I
don't think it will be months. Um, I would my guess and I'm really just reading tea leaves and I'm guessing my guess is it'll probably be three or four weeks on the earlier side, maybe eight weeks on the later side. And that is just a guess.
>> Okay. Thank you. Mark, you had something. Uh, it's not for the attorney. >> Okay. >> Just comment. Well, we've been through weeks and weeks of turmoil and now we are signing up for at least
another year should we do an appeal. So, as I told our guest, we've been through hell over this stuff. We have been through hell. the [clears throat] starting with the board
members not a dream not a dream to select a certain board member etc etc and I would just love to get back to the business of school instead of legal legal issues so that's my comment
>> thanks Mark I would I would too I guess part of the reason why I like this is because if for some chance we don't win and somehow we go back to a four-person board, how are we going to effectively do that at times?
[snorts] >> Well, I think we're assuming a lot here because we're assuming that we would be a for I part of the ruling could be that we vote again. part of the ruling could be I mean there were many things asked
in in the filing so I'm not sure are you suggesting that we would go for a year without a fifth board member are you I don't know what you're suggesting I think waiting to get the ruling is the most logical thing to do
to ask for a stay before you have a ruling seems out of order to me >> I guess this is I just >> Go ahead Jam >> to I just have just a little thing to add. It seems to me that what Mr.
Guestler is asking for is really akin to insurance. When I purchased property insurance for my house, I'm not admitting that it's going to be consumed by a wildfire or some other catastrophe.
I'm just putting some protection in place in case the worst case scenario comes to pass. And to me, that's what we're discussing here. We're not admitting anything. We're not taking on
um legal cost in the event that we win. It's just it's providing a way forward if if the worst happens. Um and so for that reason I think it is really prudent um to move forward.
>> Anybody [snorts] else? >> Well well I think your reference to insurance I understand and as mentioned and I had prepared for this a week ago when this was on our agenda um and didn't have an opportunity to say it so
I'll say it now. A school district is no different. We purchased insurance hoping to never have to use it and here we are and we've already spent $25,000 out of pocket. um that's our deductible and we're potentially facing more costs and
I am just as a board member representing district 70 wanting to practice um and and I I just want to make sure that I'm thinking about the people we serve and that's a lot of money and I I think my question to Mr. Wagner. Um, we
need to get that answer because this is, you know, this is our school district's money and we have pinched pennies forever and we're very conscious of every dollar and I don't want to commit to something that would cost the district
money and time and to I think what Mr. Emory was saying, what Director Emory was saying, I want to focus on kids. I want to focus on getting ready for next school year. I want to focus on um how to improve district 70. I mean meaning like our facilities and and making sure
that we're doing right by our our our district. So um that's my my my concern about the cost and and making sure we're we're taking care of things. Okay. And [clears throat] to build upon
this, uh, a few several weeks ago, we talked about the emails we'd received. Well, you know, we've received many emails, all five of us, all saying, "Can
we get on with education? Can we get beyond this lawsuit? Can we quit putting our school district on the front page of chalkbeat? Can we? Can we? Can we? And
I think we can, but we're deciding not to. >> Now, why do you think we're deciding not to if we can keep a fivep person board? >> Well, I don't have any problem with keeping a fivep person board. I want to come out of court and be and be done with it.
>> Me, too. Okay. >> That's why I'm hoping we win. [laughter] >> There you go. I I think the concern is if I think your question I I get it AJ but I am concerned because we're by approving this if we had you know
um patience is you know I mean I I think being patient waiting for the ruling and and seeing what we need to do um to move forward is is I mean I think prudent as mentioned I think rushing this is
I don't think we need to rush this and as mentioned by attorney Gestler we have like four six weeks basically he said 42 days to contemplate an appeal if necessary if that's what board you know the majority of the board wants to do
but why are we rushing to do this before we have a ruling that >> we're also rushing to do this and do you think the judge won't see it the judge will say Hey, I haven't even made a decision yet, and they're trying
to appeal my decision. I wouldn't feel good about that if I were in charge. >> See, and I'm not trying to appeal any decision right now. I just Okay, let me let me ask our attorney this. Hey, Mr. Guestler. Um, what would happen if by
chance they make us go back to a four-person board or to reconvene anything? What would happen if we didn't appeal that or if we didn't get um like if we tried to vote on it as a
board and it kept getting deadlocked, what would happen in that case? Um I don't know. Um what the plaintiff asked for was a fiveday extension or to sort of tack on an additional five
days of the statutory timeline. um you know the 60 days and followed by the time in which um the board president can appoint a member to to fill the vacancy. So what happened is the board deadlocked. I think it was around the
55th day and so the plaintiff says hey um court you should open that window up for another 5 days and require the board to uh to to hold another meeting. Um, now obviously from our point of view
that's a somewhat futile effort because the board assumably will continue to deadlock. I don't know if it will. Um, but um, you know, I mean, and again, you know, I I I've never ever seen a court assume
powers to try and force an elected body to hold meetings. That's something unpre that is truly unprecedented. Um I don't know maybe there's a case somewhere that says it. Um which is why I think we would want to move to say that but part of it depends on the court the content
of the court's order but likely uh the court would sort of order that 5 days and order a meeting. So board members regardless of what they're doing or what's going on in their lives would apparently be uh enjoined and forced to go to a meeting and then you would be
forced to vote on the meeting and if you're not able to come to a decision I don't how the court could force a decision. It can't. Um, and then it would probably go back into the hands of the board president to make a choice. Now, part of what the plaintiff
complained about is that uh the board did not formally adjourn the meeting on on February 10th. Um, and there were deadlocks. There were efforts to adjourn the meeting. So at least the state of affairs at the end of that February 10th
meeting was a deadlock on votes and an inability of the board to adjourn itself and an inability of the board to make a decision um which of course was ultimately uh that situation was changed when when Mr. Wilson you had the medical
emergency. So um uh so I mean I I I don't I see just a complete standoff going forward at least based on the past history of what happened with the board prior to [snorts] the uh or on the on the February 10th meeting.
>> Okay. So, what would >> what do you guys see happening as far as if we don't approve this and the judge comes back and says, um, you're going to have to go through the last five days again and we're deadlocked and we go through it. Is it
going to say is it going to end up the same way? >> Probably the same thing would happen and we'd be right where we are right now. Well, I think it really depends on what the judge's orders are because I think the judges the judge could order that we come back to the quorum that we had on February 10th. That could happen or the
judge could say that we have to have five days of meetings. We don't know what the judge is going to say. And in addition, um I think what I am suggesting is that we comply with the ruling because again, um in my notes, I
said I want to focus, we as a board need to focus on students, staff, and preparing for the next school year. And we're talking about literally a potential year-long appeals process
if that happens. uh if if that happens or if if we remain the five member board, we remain the five member board and we move forward. I'm asking to move forward. I'm asking to not do anything
to I don't I I think this voting prematurely for an appeal again, I think what Mr. Emory said is correct that we're voting for something um and and one that hasn't happened and two we're
asking for caveats that um are specific very specific and in reality you're also limiting the school district itself to say we might want to appeal something else. I don't know. I mean I I I can't say for sure but I think this is very
specific and I feel very uncomfortable with it. Jamie, we need questions answered first. >> I think that is a primary question. >> Yeah. Can I I might be able to chime in a little bit on the insurance piece, but
I did we lose Ann and Mr. Guestler. >> Tim, Kimberly, >> pardon. Sorry. We did. And I'm trying to text them right now um to tell them they have to relo. >> Okay. So, maybe we wait till they get
back on. Sure. We're kidding. Yeah. >> AJ has >> Jamie's wearing shorts. Shorts >> because I know >> Well, I think he was out with Bob >> taking care of business. >> Never wear long pants. Would you have a cap?
>> Show them all your stuff. >> I don't want to see your stuff. know step and >> [snorts] >> Is yours? I can hear you. Can you hear me? >> Okay. Are we? >> Yep.
>> So, I have Mr. Wagner. He's he's trying to get a hold of our our hub representative. Try to get a couple question. I don't >> you might have to talk louder. >> Luck. >> They can't hear from that. They're on a different speaker. I know. I'm sorry.
>> I'm giving my best. I don't know how much >> You can sit in Tim's place. >> Okay. Can you guys hear me? >> I sure can. >> Okay. >> I can. Yes. >> So, um >> Okay. So, we're we're going to we think we have some insurance information. You
know, our insurance is it is per incident. Um it does cover things such as our attorney fees any um awards uh you know aware awarded to the plaintiffs but it does not cover the pliff's attorney fees. So that's one thing that
we have to consider down the road. Um, the other piece and I think Jamie might have got some questions answered is if because this has been turned over to Gladfelter, they kind of control some things in regards to they did allow us to hire our own attorney which which um
that that was our choice to do that. Um they didn't assign their own attorney, but our question would be is if we did have to get to an appeal, would Gladfelder have to kind of sign off? And I Jamie, did you >> No, they said it's it's one case. It's $25,000 deductible. It can go all the
way to the Supreme Court and it's one $25,000. >> So I I think that might answer some of the questions that I I know Michelle I think you >> Well, I mean my concern is just even having to go through this process.
Obviously um we have our deductible and the cost and surely our premiums will probably go up. It's very possible. Yeah. I mean when I've had claims but I think it's something to consider but most importantly we are not focusing on
what we should be focusing on as a board >> right how many meetings have we had sitting talking about legal stuff >> how many >> instead of about students >> anybody All right, next item is open forum.
Miss Kimberly, do we have anybody for open forum? >> We have four people. >> All right, the timer. Um, our first one is Ellen Mo. Oh, never mind. I'll stop you because I'm not plugged in. I'm sorry.
>> Okay, no worries. >> If I go like this, it's because you're at 30 seconds. Okay. >> Okay. She goes like this. Then your time is up. >> Okay. Just don't gabble me and I'll be fine. [laughter] >> Whenever you start, I'll start it. >> Good afternoon, board members. My name is Ellen Macko and I'm a social studies
teacher at PO West High School. I'm here today to address how the board of education should proceed as it navigates the continued controversy over Mrs. K's seat. Common sense and legal statutes combined to guide school behavior. members must act in the best interest of the public they serve and not advance
their own personal interests. To that end, the Colorado Association of School Boards cites uh Colorado Revised Statute 24-18-103 subsection 1 in stating that the board members owe a fiduciary duty to the public. Beyond that, Casby also advises that any board member who has a personal
or private interest in any matter proposed or pending before the board shall disclose such interest to the board shall not vote on the matter and shall refrain from attempting to influence the decisions of other board members voting on the matter. Mrs. KS has a very vested personal interest in
how today's discussion and vote proceed, and she simply must recuse herself. It would be unethical not to. Continuing as a participant will further tarnish the credibility of this board and erode the public's faith in its ability to provide ethical leadership for District 70. This
is not a matter of politics or personalities. It is a matter of public trust and adherence to the ethical standards established in Colorado law. I respectfully ask this board to ensure that those standards are followed consistently, transparently, and without
exception. Our students, families, staff, and community deserve nothing less. Thank you for your time. >> Our next person and I say it wrong and I say it different every time is Andrea Mlitch. You got it right. Okay, we're good. That's all right. I have a tough
name, too. >> Good afternoon, members of the board. Delightful to be with you all again so soon. This afternoon, I ask you to exercise restraint, respect the law, and put the interest of District 70 ahead of personal interests and ahead of your chosen attorney's pocketbook. This theme
of appealing continues to align with a theme of a lack of accountability. If you lose the lawsuit, why would you appeal it? Members of this community have had to unite to file a lawsuit against this board because of the behavior. At what point does this end?
At what point do you accept responsibility for having simply done wrong, whether it was intentional or not? If you lose the lawsuit and then you appeal, you only further the negative public sentiment concerning these issues. Before voting to appeal
the recent Colorado Open Meeting Law case, I urge you to wait until the court has issued its final ruling. Committing additional taxpayer dollars before you even know the outcome is premature and risks extending litigation that may ultimately prove unnecessary. Your attorney cited irreparable harm. I want
to highlight that the irreparable harm argument goes in both directions because the board member in question is already on paid staff and on the board of an organization attempting to take advantage of this school district for their own personal gain. Yet again, the
irreparable harm is already ongoing. It needs to come to an end now. Regardless of the outcome, I urge this board to recommit itself to full compliance with Colorado opening law. Transparency is not optional. It is the foundation of public trust. Colorado law exists
because the formation of public policy belongs in public, not behind closed doors. I also want to remind the board that the executive sessions have strict legal requirements. And if the board does not obtain the legally required vote to enter into executive session, then your deliberations belong in open
session where the public can observe the work of its elected officials. Individual members should not be having individual conversations with your board attorney. You should speak to your attorney either in an open meeting or in a board approved executive session with
everyone present. These individual chats with the board attorney are at cost to the district and it's incredibly inappropriate behavior that is hanging on from our Brad Miller era. The open meetings laws exist to protect the public's right to know. I also asked
Director Susie Kins to seriously consider recusing herself from any vote concerning an appeal today. Mrs. Kins, the very lawsuit verdict under discussion concerns actions that could affect the legal validity of your position on this board. Before you make
a decision, help preserve the board's public trust by recusing yourself today andor not appealing and waiting until you have the right to vote on this matter. Finally, I believe meaningful healing for all stakeholders requires accountability. In my opinion, the resignations of President Anne Bennett
and Director Susie KS would go a long way to restoring public confidence and allowing this board to simply move forward. >> Our next one is Michael PCO. I'm setting my own timer, too. That way, we're >> It's probably easier.
>> Good evening slashgood afternoon um D70 board. My name is Michael Pacheco. I am a teacher here in District 70. And um to be honest, I'm kind of disappointed that we're in this conversation to begin with. Um, I feel very deeply that
there's a certain amount of responsibility that needs to be taken either way with either way that this the the court makes the decision. Either doesn't matter which way the appeal goes. The fact that we're here
is almost it's unexplainable. the fact that the district in the end of June is having this conversation when you have stores are rolling out
their beginning of school year sales, teachers are planning, and we're here continuing something that's been going on for six months. I feel very deeply that the way that we represent ourselves out in public is so
important when we're and I know it's not just me. When we're out and about and we're talk, people ask what we do and we say, "Oh, well, I'm a I'm a teacher in District 70." Do you think that they don't know what's on the news? Do you think that that does
not I've had to put out many fires telling people that no D70 is not going down the tubes because our board is in constant crisis. You know, we're talking this conversation about, you know, oh well, the court might do something that's
going to cause irreparable irreparable harm's gone. >> That's no longer a concern. >> Look at the news. >> Do a Google search. >> It's done. the irreparable harm is done.
[clears throat] And regardless of what you vote today, it needs to be with the idea that we are done with playing the political games of who goes where and you know what what what organization do we pledge
allegiance to? and think about all of the constituents and not just the constituents that you know we agree with but everybody within the district 70 perview because so far this board has not done that
and the public sees it. Thank you. >> And my last one is Sheila Good afternoon. My name is Sheila Sloan. I'm a teacher and a community member. I am deeply concerned about the idea of rushing this vote.
We are in an unknown situation. Clearly, we have not delivered closing arguments yet. The case is still ongoing. We do not know what the ruling will be. We do not know if we'll be paying for the plaintiff attorney's fees should we
lose. There's clearly money, time, and energy that will be lost if we make this decision preemptively. Additionally, we have a situation where a board member making the decision is
clearly conflicted personally sets to gain or lose based on how this appeal vote would go today and certainly should not be participating in a vote that is is hinging on her very
legitimacy as a board member. So my concerns are echoing a lot of what has already been said, but it is absolutely critical to our community that we not
leave the taxpayer hanging again and and expose ourselves to more vulnerability through actions that do not follow protocol. And I mean if you have a board member who is not legitimately on the
board and then they are voting on this vote like is the vote even legitimate? So my my concern is that we are rushing this. We are exposing ourselves further financially, reputationally,
and we need to wait and see what has happened with the verdict before we pledge taxpayer dollars to advance this further. [clears throat] Um, and and I'm very concerned. Our district, we teachers are we haven't had textbooks since like 2004.
Uh, $25,000 may not seem a lot to some folks, but it's a lot for us. Uh it's a lot of hours that we uh you know we we fall behind when we get tied up in these kinds of things and it is certainly not
putting the kids first. Thank you. >> I have Thank you. All right. Next up is action item 5.01. says, "In the case of Lewis First, PBLO District, PBLO County District 70 School
Board of Education, case number 2026 CV30266 authorize an immediate appeal and motion to stay if the trial court orders removal of a board member or orders the board to conduct a meeting to consider
an appointment to fill a board member vacancy. An appeal of any other court order will require board approval. Do I have a motion to approve the action item as presented?
>> So moved. >> I'll second. >> Can I say something really quick before we vote? >> Yeah. >> Would that be okay? Um, thank you. So, I absolutely will not be recusing myself of this vote for the following reasons.
Um, no one asked Mr. Emmery to recuse himself when he voted on the teacher union contract and the teacher pay raises which directly affected him financially as his wife is a district 70 teacher. Um, also his passionate speeches about those two things were
part of the discussions that led us to make those decisions. So asking me to recuse myself from a vote that affects me personally um, seems a bit out of order when it did not apply to Mr. Emory in that situation. Um, furthermore, no
one took into consideration um, my legitimacy in my voting um, when it came to me voting for the teachers union contract or for the teacher pay raises, which I was happy to do. So, um, for those reasons, I will absolutely not be
recusing myself of this vote. You understand his wife's paycheck goes to his wife and your paycheck goes to >> Sorry, >> I since you spoke, I'd like to ask the attorney a question. I just Okay, thank you. Is that okay? >> Okay. Um, Attorney Gestler, if
if when this has happened in or if it's ever happened, is it possible that past votes, if the vote were a deciding vote, that that vote would not be counted if
it were a 32 vote, would that change? Could Could that be challenged? Could that be an appeal on the other side? I mean, I I I meant to ask you that earlier, actually. Sure. Um so in this case the answer is no. Uh the plaintiff has not asked for that type of relief.
It is not teed up here. Uh could it be challenged? Um I always tell people this is America and in America people can sue anyone for anything. Um so there's nothing that prohibits people from actually filing lawsuits. Uh would that succeed? Um it's very very difficult for
me to envision any way in which that would succeed. >> You have a question. Okay. Ready to vote. Everybody. All right. Ann, can you hear us? Yeah. Okay. >> Oh, okay. All right.
>> Is everybody ready? >> Ready to vote? >> Let me muted. >> I think she can still hear though. >> Okay. >> Are we good? >> Are you Can you hear me? Yep. You can now. AJ Wilson, >> yes.
>> And Bennett, >> yes. >> Mark Emry, >> no. >> Michelle Ericson, >> no. >> Susie K, >> yes. >> Motion carried. >> All right. Next up is the consent agenda item. Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda item?
>> So moved. >> I'll second. >> EJ Wilson, >> yes. >> And Bennett, >> yes. Mark Emry, >> yes. >> Michelle Ericson, >> yes. >> Susie K, >> yes. >> Motion carries.
>> Before we ask to adjourn, I would like to hand it over to Mr. >> Yes. Thank you. So, even though it's summer, we are still very busy in the high. >> May I respectfully interrupt for one moment? >> Sure. >> Um, do you need my do you need me at
this meeting anymore? If so, I'll respectively sign off, but I'm happy to stay if you want me to remain. I think we should be good with you. I think if you want to take off, you're more than welcome to. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> Thanks. >> We we do work very hard in the summer uh
still staffing our buildings and and our district and so we've had several things under the consent, but what I do want to just mention is South Mesa uh is going to have a new principal that was just voted on under this consent agenda item and that person is Sarah Perero. And so
Sarah is not here with us tonight. She is out of town, but Sarah will be coming from Cedar Ridge as the Dina students there and we'll be taking over South Mesa and so very excited for Sarah to move into that position. Just thought that it be worth mentioning. I do know
we have a couple South Mesa staff here. I'm sure they might wanted to know who that person was. So, now it is official. You can share it with >> Perfect. >> Let's give THEM A ROUND. [applause] WE CAN ACKNOWLEDGE that at the next meeting as well if you would like to. I
think that would be cool. >> All right. Do we have a motion to adjourn the meeting? Oh, wait. I can read the next meeting. The next board meeting is scheduled for July 21st, 2026 at the Educational Service Center uh beginning at 6 PM. Now, do we have a
motion to adjurnn? >> So, >> second. >> Sorry, >> that's all right. Last time we didn't do it, so I didn't put it on. So, >> oh, I didn't know. >> You're good. I can add it however you want. >> AJ Wilson, >> yes. >> And Bennett,
>> yes. >> Montgomery, >> yes. >> Michelle Ericson, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Motion carried at 4:51 p.m.