Good evening, and welcome to the Rochester Community Schools Board of Education special meeting called to order at 6PM. If everyone could please rise and join with me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance 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. This Board of Education special meeting is a meeting of the board in public for the purpose of conducting the school district's business and is not a public community meeting. However,
public comment will be heard under agenda item four. If you wish to speak tonight and have not already filled out a yellow card, they are located on a table near the entrance to the auditorium. Once you've completed the card, please hand it to a shield officer. Please note that cards must be completed prior to speaking, and I'll call the names of those who I have a card for during public comment. I call on my board colleagues to abide by the norms we've agreed to. These include keeping comments germane to the agenda item, that we don't surprise each other at the board table, that we have one speaker at a time that is recognized by the chair before speaking,
to be honest, to refrain from attacking others' motives, to uphold the chain of command, and to truly listen to each other. To those in attendance this evening, I'd like to remind you that we we request that there not be any outbursts from the audience. Outbursts or any other behavior that disrupts our meeting will be seen as a breach of the peace, and those individuals will be asked to leave. On behalf of my colleagues on the board, we're grateful to be able to serve this community, and we appreciate your support. For roll call, all board members are present with the exception of Trustee Lucui, who is absent with notice.
Moving on to our agenda, is there a motion to approve the agenda as presented? Moved by Trustee Annas. Is there support? From Trustee Alspa. Madam president. Trustee Gupta? I'd like to move that we amend our agenda to add an action item to discuss and vote on releasing the arbitration documents. Okay. So there's a motion to amend the agenda to add an action item regarding arbitration documents. That was moved by Trustee Gupta. Is there support? I support. Support from trustee Lausanne.
Is there any discussion on this before we vote? Trustee Gupta? At this time, I just wanna share that it's my view that we owe this consideration and discussion to our community, in the spirit of maximum transparency, particularly considering the overwhelming loss of over $700,000 Anyone else? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, please say no. That's a six o vote. And the, that will be added, item 6.2. Actually, I guess that was a motion to amend it. So now we have to vote on approving the agenda as amended.
All of those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, please say no. Okay. Now it's approved, and that will be item 6.2. We are now at item 4.1, which is public comment. This provides an opportunity for board members to hear from community members. If you wish to speak, as I said, and haven't already, please fill out a yellow card. When your name is called, please move to the microphone and address the board. When addressing the Board, you'll have three minutes to speak. I will try to let you know when you have thirty seconds remaining. Please be mindful of this time limit.
When addressing the Board, please state your name and your relationship to the district. We also ask that you address your comments to the entire board and not to individual board members, school district employees, or to members of the audience. The board will not be responding to comments or questions during the meeting. However, someone will follow-up if needed. At this time, I have three people who have asked to speak. And the first I have is Kim Dinda. Hi. Can you hear me? Okay. My name is Kim Dinda, and I'm the parent of an RCS student. I know you've already heard from many parents,
students, and former students regarding the Chinese program. Is that really feedback? Okay. My daughter would be here, if she weren't on a plane with her support, support. And I'm fully supporting all of their comments, too, regarding this. My main concern right now is I just ask the board to remember that part of your mission statement, for the district. It says in part to provide curriculum which meets student needs and challenges them based on their abilities. The current plan for the Chinese program does not do this. To put 40 plus students in an abbreviated
class time plus having three to four different levels in the same class is not something you would do with any other foreign language or any other course, I would assume, in this district or anywhere. I would hope not. We know that there are budget constraints, which is why we're here. But we've made a commitment to these students to get them through their last few years. And I just ask that you give them the quality and equal opportunity of all the other students in the district to have that attention that's deserved for this foreign
language, time with the teacher, so that they can learn. And I'm I'm sorry. It's just, it's been a rough year and a half with this program. We've not been kept up to date as, it's not been handled well. But, we're all doing our best. Chen Laoshu has been amazing. And we are just asking that you please reconsider this, if there's any possibility. I mean, we know it's going to have to be transferring to different schools. But, to put them all in one class just seems beyond, anyone's expectation of what would be a quality education, especially out of the District Of Rochester.
Thank you. Thank you. Next, I have Andrew Weaver. Hi. My name is Andrew Weaver. I have three students in the district. I wanna start by giving credit where credit's due. I'm obviously been a very big critic of trustee Gupta's, but I really do appreciate that she's picked up on trustee Lecuey's lead and made the motion today to amend the agenda. That again shows great collaboration. Also to trustee Lozant Skinny Curza, for supporting that. Again, I think that is absolutely the right step in the right direction, because unfortunately the message that was put out by president Boudell was very misleading. It did not convey all the facts that for what's going on to get us
to this point. Again, these documents will be facts that speak for themselves, should be transparent to the community. Let let people decide for themselves. With that being said, we've been lectured by this board for a decade that it speaks as one. Every trustee has the same power. The role of the president is basically to administer the meetings, set the agenda, but they do not have any more authority. Over the past two plus years, this majority has given those powers to the president. And unfortunately, president Butel has shown that she's not really fit to leave a local book club,
yet alone this board in making decisions. And again, that's what this decision about the decision about the legal strategy that really needs to be vetted and why these documents need to be made available to the public. What she's gonna give in her president an update is probably a lot of either shifting blame, just saying, hey. We need to move forward. And again, because that's what our district does. We make a mistake, we don't address it, we just move forward and act like it didn't happen. But the reality is, President Butel and our lawyers unilaterally decided the strategy. Just recently, again, I made public. I shared with president Butel as she continued to double down on her false narrative,
that I had to make a motion at the October 7 meeting in 2024. Because at the closed session on September 30, we were given this document that was a decision that was made in the case. When myself and trustee Lacui asked to understand the strategy of how we got to this point, we were told we could not see the documents. We were not allowed to understand the strategy that led to a decision being made. I made it very clear in that closed session that I would be making a motion to get the documents turned over to the client, which was the board.
At that October 7 meeting, at that time appointee Blake shared out loud that it was of the advice of our legal counsel not to make that information available. So again, as president Mittel tries to spin this narrative that she was not solely responsible for the strategy, Mister Reno? Hi. I'm Mike Reno. Been a resident of Rochester for a long time, former school board member. I wanted to come to talk a little bit about this arbitrator, decision. And it was partially spurred by some of the communication from the district in which there was talk of, you know, we we need to put this behind us and move on from this.
And I think all that's well intentioned, but I'm gonna propose instead that you look this ugly thing straight face on and try to see what we can learn from this. You know, rather than necessarily assign blame, see what we can learn from this. You need to start by seeing the documents, and I'm so glad to hear that this was proposed tonight. And I hope you guys will all support, getting these documents. Trustee Lecuity, even trustee Emeritus Weaver has been calling for this for some time. I think it will help you to get the documents so that you can study
them and try and learn from them. And I think you owe it to the taxpayers so that we can kinda see how this happened. And what I'm hoping that you learn from this is maybe a couple of things. One is to take a look at these contracts because they have these golden parachutes in there. That's part of the problem that you have is this five year auto renew rolling contract. I see it was changed a bit, but don't do those kinds of things anymore. The second would be, to look at some of your own documents, your own bylaws and codes of conduct and handbooks and all of that.
Because as I read the arbitrator's opinion, I kept wondering, where is it written that, you know, you've gotta defend the superintendents against any sort of critics? And, well, it's written by you. And you got caught, you got sneered because you didn't follow your own rules. You disclaimed instead of censured or whatever it is. But, you know, this is all an attempt to try and curtail free speech. And if Weaver made comments that the superintendent the superintendent's capable of defending himself.
Defamation, if that's what he thinks it is, whatever. But the board shouldn't be obligated to try and chase around every trustee and and counter any comment they made. The third thing that I would suggest, and I would do it in maybe less than incendiary terms than what, Andrew did. And he and I, by the way, didn't discuss what we were gonna say about this. But I think this notion of trying to have a a strong executive board president is not healthy, and this has nothing to do with this particular president. But the notion that Thirty seconds. You know, you're all created equal except one.
One gets to decide how to filter things, what law firms can see, what board members can see from the law firms, that sort of thing. You know, everybody gets elected for different reasons. And, you know, people elected Weaver, people elected Lacui, people elected everybody to represent their views. And by excluding them, you're sort of excluding us from having a say in what goes on. And you're not benefiting from the insight that they might have been able to offer. Thank you, Mr. Reno. So next, for the president's update,
as most of you know, this past week, we received the arbitrator's final opinion in the arbitration claim that Doctor. Schaner filed against the district. I'd like to provide a brief summary regarding the recent arbitration decision. Doctor. Schaner served as superintendent of Rochester Community Schools for ten years from 2013 until his resignation in August of twenty twenty three. Following his departure, Doctor. Shaner filed a claim alleging that the district constructively discharged him, meaning he claimed conditions became so intolerable that he had no choice but to resign.
The board denied that claim and chose to defend the district in arbitration to protect our financial and contractual interests. The case was heard over several days in January 2025. In May, the arbitrator issued an interim opinion finding in favor of Doctor. Shaner. And on 06/25/2025, we received the final ruling. The arbitrator concluded that the district had constructively discharged Doctor. Shaner without cause and awarded him damages totaling $732,631 This amount is not covered by insurance and will be paid from the district's general
fund. Legal expenses were covered minus insurance I'm sorry, were covered by insurance minus our deductible. The arbitrator cited actions and social media activity by two trustees who joined the board in 2023 as creating a hostile work environment for Doctor. Shaner and found that the board did not take sufficient action to support or protect him. While the board did pass a disclaiming motion and later issued a censure related to one trustee's conduct, the arbitrator found those actions were not sufficient. While the board disagrees with the decision,
there is little we can do but accept the outcome, reflect on any changes we need to make individually or as a board, and move forward with continued focus on our students, staff, and community. I know that I have some, personal comments I'd like to make on this, but do my board colleagues have any comments that they would like to make at this time? Trustee Gupta. So I would like to add some additional context. Soon after being appointed to this board in 2022, I learned the board leadership at that time did not intend to evaluate the superintendent
in that year, something the law allowed because he'd been rated highly effective three years in a row. Myself, then Trustee Butel, and Trustee Pottle disagreed with this decision, but we did not comprise the majority. In early twenty twenty three, once we elected President Butel to leave the Board, we immediately started working toward the evaluation process. The law requires that we meet with the superintendent to establish goals and objectives, then must allow adequate time to show progress. And simultaneously, the Board must agree on an evaluation tool and be trained on it.
When President Butel reached out to our previous superintendent to start this process, he was not cooperative with these efforts. When she finally scheduled a date and time to set goals, he left on medical leave. Through '23, we were made aware that Doctor. Shaner retained legal counsel and we were asked to amend his contract to add further protections for him, which we did not support. And in early twenty twenty three, it was suggested that we take a vote of confidence in his favor, considering the ongoing harassment by two individuals who had just been elected to the Board. Unfortunately, at that time, some of us had unrelated concerns about Doctor.
Shaner's performance and were trying to work through the appropriate mechanism for evaluation to pursue a corrective resolution. Without his cooperation in this process, a vote of confidence from the Board was not possible. All of the complexities cannot be fully explained in this three minutes, so I'm going to skip forward to the recent arbitration. It was the advice of legal counsel and consensus of the Board not to have access to the legal documents while the arbitration was ongoing. If documents were leaked, as has occurred in the past, that could significantly compromise our legal defense.
Recognizing we can't share documents with some, but not all, Board members, we opted for none. We did, however, have multiple meetings with legal counsel where they shared general legal strategy status, answered questions, and heard board feedback. All board members were included in this process. Now that the unfortunate decision has been made, we must accept it. It is likely that there are things we could have done differently or better, but I do believe every current board member involved in the arbitration proceedings did the absolute best they could to protect this district from further harm.
Even so, it is understandable that constituents are upset, and that warrants a responsive approach of transparency and open communication. It is my hope that in doing so, we can learn the relevant lessons, heal as a community, and move forward in a positive manner. Thank you. Did anyone else wish to make any comment at this time? Trustee Blake? So we're here tonight to do something that none of us want to do. We're here to approve a budget amendment to pay an arbitration award of over $700,000 as a result of this lawsuit.
All of the events discussed in the arbitration took place before I joined the board, so it's especially frustrating to me to have and probably Shelley feels the same, right? But to have to deal with this, but that is the job that I have been put on this board to do. I wish we could move on and look to the future, but these types of things keep popping up. And to say that I'm disappointed is a huge understatement. I do think I've seen a lot of discussion about this arbitration award online and a lot people seem to have huge misconceptions about it, about the rationale, about the whole process.
And I think the best thing I can do, is to make sure people understand, to tell people the truth about the award, to explain it to them as best I can. It was already mentioned that the board did not voluntarily give this money. I see people online, Who are these board members that have decided to give Doctor. Shaner all this money? There is no board member that has decided to give Doctor. Shaner all of this money. In fact, we defended this case all the way through trial and most cases don't go through trial. So I'm going to take this arbitration award since apparently,
based on online, people haven't read it or a lot people haven't read it. And I'm gonna just point out things. But I want everyone to read it themselves. It's linked to the, email from President Butel, but I'll just read you. This is what the arbitrator concluded. Not saying we agree, disagree. This is what the arbitrator concluded. First, enter the statement of facts. It and I'll just start in. The claimant is Mr. Shaner, was subject to significant criticism during the COVID shutdown for complying with the governor's orders. Claymont as superintendent. They engaged in significant efforts to discredit Klament prior to the election.
They were elected and joined the board on 01/01/2023. First incident. 12/21/2022, Klament wrote a letter to the vice president and vice president of the board requesting the board to address numerous misleading and professionally damaging social media posts by mister Weaver on his board trustee Facebook page. Mister Weaver posted Clement's letter on his board Facebook page in response. The posting created a negative response among a portion of the district's community and triggered a Detroit news article that claimant had threatened the school board.
The board members did not feel threatened, but no statement was issued by the board clarifying that or showing any public support for the claimant. On 01/05/2023, Mr. Weaver posted a Facebook post regarding a class trip by the Hart Middle School band where they had lunch at Nikki's Pizza, which was attached to Nikki's Lounge. The Facebook posts were misleading and created national media attention and a significant reaction in the district. There were grievances filed, and in this instance, he was censured. This is the one and only time he was censured. January and February,
claimant reported that he was being harassed and experienced anxiety. In March, claimant went on medical leave and his attorney, on March 29, sent a confidential letter to the board. That letter was shared with the Detroit News. This letter, by the way, talked about medical issues, things that should never have been released. The board did not investigate how the letter was leaked to the Detroit News, did not issue any disclaiming motion, censure, or statement in support of the claimant. In addition, while claimant was on medical leave, the district canceled his health insurance.
Going forward, on 05/19/2023, President Butel emailed her board colleagues a letter that was to be sent to doctor Shaner regarding doctor Shaner's getting assistance from Collins and Blaha law firm regarding an office of retirement systems dispute. This confidential letter was posted by Mr. Weaver before claimant even received it. The clear implication was that claimant may have misappropriated funds. The board once again failed to censure Mr. Weaver or issue any supporting statement.
They retained a law firm who investigated, who concluded he had done nothing wrong, but the board didn't issue any clarification that he had done nothing wrong. In short, the board did not use its bylaws to discipline Mr. Weaver regarding any of these incidents with the claimant, nor nor did it issue a statement in support of the superintendent, and then he resigned. So that's just the facts section. I'm not gonna read obviously, I can't read everything, but I will jump forward to the conclusions of law, which are, first of all, concluding that Doctor. Shaner did not breach the contract himself, and this is the kind of the money paragraph: The issue then is whether claimant
has a claim for constructive discharge. A majority of the board, including its president, was not supportive of claimant. There were legitimate reasons conditions being being created by Mr. Weaver's and Ms. Licuy's attacks on claimants' integrity. It was also aware of the intolerable situations the attacks were creating for claimant, yet the board failed to issue any statement of support for Claymont or defend his integrity. It failed to censure Mr. Weaver regarding any of the incidents with Claymont. The board consciously elected not to use discipline,
provisions regarding any of the incidents with mister Weaver and claimant. The arbitrator finds that these actions and inactions of the board created conditions that were so intolerable, claimant reasonably had no choice but to resign. Accordingly, the arbitrator finds that the respondent constructively terminated claimant's employment without cause and is responsible to pay his loss of income resulting from that constructive discharge through 2027. That's a lot. Sorry. But I wanted to get that out there because how many people seem to not understand? I'm not even agreeing or disagreeing with this,
but that is the reason why the arbitrator issued the award against us. Those facts, those incidents are the reason. I will quickly because I think I've probably taken too much time, but this isn't the part where we're timed. I I had written out questions or answers to all these different questions I'm seeing float around, out on social media and I'd wish I had chance to go through them and answer them. I don't. But I will just say this, finally, and I said this on my trust you page, but when a verdict like this comes down, we really do need to look at ourself with an unflinching eye. We need to figure out what we did wrong and how not to repeat that
situation ever again. And I think we're doing that. We need to continue doing that. I've had conversations with a number of people up here about that, but it is disappointing, and I'll add this, to see trustees and former trustees, especially people mentioned prominently and repeatedly in the arbitrator's opinion, taking no responsibility for their actions. Pointing fingers at everyone else, but not themselves. Everyone who played a part in this has to look at themselves critically and take responsibility. This was a huge blow to the district.
We have to do better in the future. I'm committed to that, and we're gonna move forward. Madam president? I'm sorry. Who said that? Trustee LaSanne. I just wanted to read a couple things here. We all received an email from Carol Beth, and I just pulled it up really quick. It was not this week. It was during the whole arbitration process when we had the award. So after she reviewed the award, I just wanted to point out some corrections or takeaways that Carol got shared. She couldn't be here tonight due to a family vacation. So she noted that the district the criticism that the district everyone in the district
had was not the non compliance of the governor's orders. That should not have been considered. Her platform that Andrew and her ran on did not they did not run on terminating Doctor. Shaner. And I even recall that because this is when I was paying attention. The document released a references a Detroit news article that stated that the claimant had threatened to sue the board. They actual the article actually stated that he had threatened to sue the or the school board. It should have been sued the board which was not which was done through arbitration which he ultimately did. And as I recall, I believe he even threatened to sue the board prior to them even taking their
seats when they were elected. So the threat was there prior to them even being on the board. The assertion that the claimant reported that he was being harassed is not supported with evidence. Carol Bass said that she met privately with Doctor. Shaner only once with you President Patel. You were there as a witness. During the period in question, Mr. Weaver and I only communicated with Doctor. Shaner through public board meetings and email where we asked questions and requested information as part of their oversight responsibilities. The arbitrator incorrectly stated that as of March 2023, two board members who were actively campaigning to fire the claimant were on the board.
It should say January 2023. And again, they did not campaign to platform of on firing the superintendent. The claim that the board was aware of the conditions being created by Mr. Weaver and Ms. Lacoue attacks and the claimant's integrity is both troublesome and unstanci unstanciated. There were never attacks on his integrity. There were criticisms regarding decline in the district's performance. The precision of language is important because this falls well within the bounds of the trustee's role. A trustee's duty is not to provide unconditional support to the superintendent. It is to uphold the interests of the district and its students.
In a democracy, board members and its citizens have every right to question leadership and present information that may contradict public narratives. But it appears that our legal representation failed to clearly assert this point. Now we need to understand which position was actually argued on the board's behalf. The arbitrator's comparison to the board prior to the censure of Andrew Weaver over a Facebook post is also flawed. The post, which referenced students being taken to the adults only section of a restaurant during a field trip, was never shown to be factually inaccurate, though it may have embarrassed staff involved.
The board's decision to censure was a misguided reaction to politically driven union grievances, which even included a baseless accusation of sexual harassment. While the censure had no practical, disciplinary effect, it is cited here to justify a claim of inconsistent treatment. The comparison is stretched far beyond reason. Notably absent from the arbitrator summary is the fact that the board granted Doctor. Shaner extended leave and invited him to return to his position multiple times. Why wouldn't this be included? Overall, the conclusion of the board's board created conditions so intolerable that the claimant reasonably did
not have any choice but to resign is not supported with specific examples, only repeated assertions. Given these concerns, it is imperative that the full board should have access to all arbitration related documents so we can conduct our own informed review and better understand the rationale behind this decision. And then thanks, Carol Beth. Trustee Alsbaugh? So we are here, unfortunately, because of the arbitration agreement. And I do not agree with the amount that was awarded to Doctor. Schaner. But during the process of this and this has been a long process the board had many sessions with legal counsel,
about how best to present the arbitrate or a case for the arbitration, where all board members were present. It was in the board's best interest to make every effort to minimize the damage that these two trustees were doing. To my knowledge, we vigorously defended the best interest of the districts, and I know that I did my part in that. However However, the arbitrator accurately recounted the actions of a current and a former trustee and found those actions did rise to construct a discharge. Now, hindsight is twentytwenty, and there may have been other actions that the board could have taken.
However, let's be clear. These events were set in motion by a current and a former trustee, and they have yet to take any accountability for them. Their attempts to gaslight and deflect are ridiculous. And this is a pattern of them working against the district that we can that continues. And we now see the cost our students will pay. Free speech is a protected right, but it's not without consequences. And in this case, it's our children who are paying the price to the tune of 3 quarters of a million dollars Our students deserve better. Again, I don't agree with this.
However, we do not have a choice. We cannot vote against this. We have no grounds for appeal. I hope at this point we can reflect and move forward. And it's my hope that we learn from this. And maybe this devastating amount is enough to finally break some people's patterns. All right. Did anyone else okay. Well, I had oh, no. No. No. This is a one one round, piece. Trustee Innes, did you have anything at this time? I'm gonna be making my comments during Later. Okay. Well, I have a couple things. I mean, I'll just say that I'm angry about this outcome,
and I certainly understand why why many in our community may be as well. I don't feel that, as a board, we created a hostile work environment. There may have been individual trustees who made it difficult, but as a board, the superintendent was still able to get work done. There was sufficient support for action items brought before the board. Any decision that was made by the board in regards to our former superintendent was made with the advice of legal counsel. The board strongly defended the district through arbitration rather than reaching a settlement because we felt the superintendent chose to leave and that we had not done anything as a
board to force the superintendent to resign. I sat through five days of the arbitration hearing and testified over three of them. It was a grueling process in which I defended our district with the intent to show the arbitrator that the board was not at fault. I'm disappointed that was not the finding of the arbitrator. The Board of Education has one employee, the superintendent. And specifically, one of our board members at the time, Andrew Weaver, did not act like an employer. Employers do not publicly post damaging remarks about their employees. They do not release confidential information about an employee,
especially before that employee even has a chance to see it. That kind of behavior is not only unprofessional, it can be harmful. While many on the board believe that the actions of one specific trustee at the time were unacceptable, we were also told that this trustee had First Amendment rights and that what he was doing was not, quote, against the law. Since trustees are elected, there is very little that the rest of the board can do to stop a trustee from doing anything. We were given advice that a disclaiming motion might be better than a censure, which would indicate that the Board did not agree with what an individual trustee did.
However, as we heard, this arbitrator did not find that this was a disciplinary option since our bylaws did not identify a disclaiming motion as a means of discipline, something we may want to consider updating in the future. And while I still don't believe a censure would have had any impact on Mr. Weaver's actions, in hindsight, based on this arbitrator's opinion, I regret that I did not support Accenture against Mr. Weaver sooner for some of his actions that were clearly unacceptable. But my frustration and anger does not stop there. As the relationship between Doctor.
Shaner and the newly elected trustees became strained, in my opinion, Doctor. Shaner did not conduct himself as a leader should. Rather than helping bring the Board together, Doctor. Shaner's actions and attitude further deepened the division. That failure on both sides eroded trust and made the work environment difficult for everyone. And while we had scheduled a meeting to formally review expectations and goals with the superintendent, we were unable to hold that due to Doctor. Shaner's medical leave. I wish there was a true appeal process in arbitration, but there isn't. There was an arbitration clause in Doctor.
Shaner's contract that we did not include in our current superintendent contract, along with some other changes to limit any potential future incident like this. I'm saddened that over $700,000 will not be able to be used on our students. But I'm also grateful that the board has been good stewards of our taxpayer dollars over the years and have built up a fund balance. I know that the Board will continue to evaluate changes that need to be made. And this includes, as I mentioned earlier, the self reflection both of individuals and the Board so that we can limit our
exposure and that we can continue to focus on positively impacting our students, staff, and families. This arbitration has concluded, and nothing can be done to change the result. We do. We do need to turn that page, and we need to focus on the future so that we can move forward and do what's best for these students because they do deserve better than what they've received so far. Thank you. At this point, we're moving on to item 6.1, which is the budget amendment. Because we were notified of the arbitration award during the twenty four-twenty five school year,
just barely, we need to adjust our general fund budget amendment to include this award. This is required so that our staff can pay the award such that Doctor. Shaner's attorneys do not convert the award into a judgment which could adversely affect our district's credit score. Our credit score is important anytime we need to borrow funds. The better the credit score, the lower the interest rate for borrowing. Again, I want to reiterate that we do not have an option to not pay this award. If we don't pay it, they will take the arbitrator's award to court and turn it into a judgment.
Once it's a judgment, they can simply take the funds from the district. So at this point, in our packet is the, general fund budget amendment, and it identifies that, the general fund budget will be a total of $236,000,000 I'm sorry. I think the revenue would be $236,213,851 with expenditures totaling $241,283,697 And this will leave us with a projected fund balance of $42,000,939
800 $939,821 At this point, is there a motion to approve the general fund budget amendment as presented? So moved. Moved by trustee Annas. Is there support? Trustee Alspa. Is there any discussion on this? Trustee LaSanne? I just wanna say that I'll be voting no on this just because we haven't been allowed to review the documents, so we don't exactly know what we're exactly paying for. So I will be voting no. I I guess I just wanna answer that because you did receive the judgment or
or the, I'm sorry, the arbitrator's opinion and award. So that tells you exactly Well, everything that miss Gupta is asking to be released. I would like to Well, that would make no difference, just so you know. Well, just letting you know. Okay. Thank goodness, we do not have others who feel that same weight and want to turn this into a judgment to decrease our credit score. So if there's no other discussion at this time, Trustee Blake. Not only would it affect our credit rating, they can levy this judgment. They could levy it on bank accounts, put liens on property.
I mean, by saying you're not gonna vote for this, you're saying you're not gonna follow a court order. So just understand that. Alright. So at this point, all of those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, please say no. No. That is a five one vote, and the motion passes. Now we are moving on to the item 6.2, which was added to the agenda at the beginning of the meeting. And I will trustee Gupta, since you had recommended this, why don't you go ahead? Okay. So just to get things started, I'd like to move that we release all the legal documents related to the recent
arbitration with our previous superintendent, Doctor. Shaner, with redactions consistent with our standard FOIA process. Alright. Is there support for that motion? Alright. I am not seeing any support for that motion. Trustee Lausanne will support that motion. Alright. And then, trustee Koepcke, I'm assuming you would like wish to speak to this? Yes, please. So primarily, my rationale for this motion rests on the following factors. While my understanding is that we've been advised by legal counsel not to release these documents, The rationale for this was that it would not be value added,
which I strongly disagree with given the context and dynamics of where we find ourselves at this time. When pressed to provide any additional legal rationale to not release the documents, we were advised that there is no strong legal case to do so. At a time when we desperately need to rebuild trust with our community, for the sake of all of our staff, parents, and most importantly, our community for the sake of all of our staff, parents, and most importantly, our students. I believe not releasing these documents may do the opposite. While some exploit to perpetuate a false narrative of hiding information,
further eroding credibility which will negatively impact everyone associated with our district. Additionally, misinformation thrives in a vacuum. Releasing these documents allows everyone to have the same set of facts to process and reach their own conclusions. If we combine that with opportunities for two way communication with board members and correcting false information when it becomes egregious, we have a chance to overcome misinformation. If we don't share the information, we forfeit our credibility in that effort. While there may be instances in the future where releasing all documents related to legal
matters is not in the district's best interest. In this case, we have not been provided a compelling legal reason not to. In this unprecedented circumstance where the district unexpectedly has to pay out over $700,000 I believe our community deserves maximum transparency to understand what led to such an outcome. It is possible that these documents could be leaked out in the future at some unpredictable time. Scenarios in which this could be possible include if the previous superintendent chooses to release
them or if there is additional civil litigation in which these documents get released as part of discovery. We have an opportunity to be in control of the timing by releasing them now without leaving this hanging over everyone's head in the future. The last thing we want is for our amazing staff and administrators to have to yet again carry a burden solely by association for the decision made by this board. I have faith in our community and that most would appreciate the transparency and have grace when considering the difficult experiences of those who testified under oath during the difficult
arbitration process. I also believe that with access to all the available information and opportunities for more communication, both staff and community members will be better equipped to combat misinformation. It is with these factors in mind that I put this motion on the floor for consideration. Trustee Lozanne? As you know, I do support this motion. There's a couple key reasons to support this. Transparency matters, Hiding documents from the board and the public without a strong legal reason undermines trust. Avoids embarrassment not only, is not a valid reason to keep it secret. We must understand what we are paying for.
We deserve to know to know the legal strategy that was used in this case. Why were some of the key people never deposed? Why were others with close ties with Doctor. Shaner prioritized? If there was favoritism or intentional mishandling, voters have the right to know. There's no legal reason not to disclose. The case is closed and it cannot be appealed. There is no legal risk in releasing the documents. Our attorneys have already said these documents are not confidential. The board was left in the dark. We have not received any new case documents since January of twenty twenty four. Two board members named in the complaint were never directly interviewed by our attorneys.
Legal decisions were made by a small group, not the full board. We were only informed after the fact. We need firsthand information. The final ruling contained factual errors. Different board members took away different conclusions from the ruling. Like the invoices, we should see actual materials, not filtered summaries. Our public confidence is at stake. Full transparency helps restore trust, and withholding documents only increases suspicion of misconduct. Trustee Blake? So I understand, what Trustee Gupta is saying about transparency and all of that and I think what
maybe she doesn't realize, or maybe she does, is in a typical case like this, how many pieces of paper there are. There are probably file cabinets full of papers. There's thousands upon thousands of pieces of paper. I heard from, President Butel that there were seven large binders of trial exhibits alone and so I would worry about burying people in paper and not having them be able to actually see what matters. There are some things I think would be really helpful. At the end of an arbitration, each side prepares a post arbitration brief.
It's where you tell what the case was, what your case was. You highlight the testimony and the documents that make your case. And each side does that and then that's what the arbitrator reads and they make their opinion off of that. That would give a lot of information to have the post arbitration briefs, any exhibits. The complaint and the answer, although that was early in the case, that The complaint and the answer, although that was early in the case, that would be helpful. The motion to dismiss the response to the motion to dismiss the opinion, those things would be helpful. Other things, though, tell you nothing. The depositions, they're never reviewed by the arbitrator. They're not reviewed.
Except so that doesn't tell you anything. The only live testimony is reviewed. Emails between the lawyers setting up dates for meetings and conferences, those things tell you nothing. So I'm not against it per se, but I just think it's a lot and the other thing is the expense. You're gonna pay expenses for redactions. You're gonna pay expenses, potentially for copying. If we don't have transcripts already prepared, you have to pay for transcripts, which over a four day trial could be $10,000 So I am open to something, but it just seems like throwing all this out there,
I don't I don't know if it really gets what people are looking for. Trustee Annas? While I respect Trustee Gupta's reasons for bringing this motion forward, I have several serious concerns in passing it. Legal clearance does not automatically make this proposed disclosure wise or responsible. Our own legal counsel has advised caution here. These documents contain employee statements that, if taken out of context, could be harmful. Legal advice often includes not just what's allowed, but what's recommended. And in this case, the recommendation is clear.
Even if future testimony is subpoenaed, public release creates a chilling effect for any current or future employee. Staff may feel exposed or to betrayed, leading to lower morale and less trusted leadership. We've already seen how this can play out under previous trustees, and the community responded to that leadership at the ballot box by voting this individual off of our school board. While transparency matters, it must be balanced with responsibility. Releasing all arbitration documents is reactive and performative, not principled.
Trust in this district won't be rebuilt through a document dump. It will come through consistent leadership, thoughtful communication, and integrity, not by yielding to political pressure from current or former trustees. The hope that reasonable people will interpret these documents fairly this was part of the conversation I had with one of my colleagues up here frankly, is idealistic. We've seen time and again that the loudest voices, especially those attending our board meetings and on social media, are not always objective,
fair, or reasoned in their analysis. Releasing this material opens the door to misinterpretation, selective quoting, and even outright misinformation that Continue to damage this school district, our staff, and this governing body. Capitulating to this pressure signals that our board governs reactional reactively based on fear optics, not sound judgment. Precedent matters. Once we normalize releasing internal arbitration documents, we may be expected to disclose every future expenditure, personal matter,
or legal process, no matter how minuscule in nature. That undermines effective governance and sets a precedent this board may regret, especially in cases where the stakes are lower. Also, let's be honest. Releasing these documents, as has been said, won't change the arbitrator's outcome. It only shifts the optics. And while it's fair to change one's mind, the timing of this reversal could appear to the public as political calculation rather than principle, further eroding trust. We are not here to one up another trustee or call anyone else's bluff.
That is not leadership or positive stewardship of a district. It's posturing. Transparency should never be performative or strategic. It should be principled. Public perception won't be shaped by releasing these documents. It will be shaped by how those documents are interpreted and weaponized. That should go that could do far more harm than the temporary skepticism we're currently facing. So, yes, transparency is important, but this motion, though well intended, risks continuing long term harm to our district, staff, and board. And for these reasons,
I will be abstaining from this vote. Alright. Trustee Gupta? So I just would like to respond to some of the points that were made. I would just say, to some of, Trustee Annis' points, that same rationale about, the fact that some people will not interpret reasonably could be used to justify not ever sharing anything. But we are a public institution, so we don't have that, that purview. I also would like to say that I think, you know, it's important to take into context the fact that, you know, no no attorney wants their work out there on social media being torn apart either.
So I take that into account when I, think about the advice not to share in light of not very good reasoning to go with it. And I I hear the argument that it could prevent people from coming forward in the future, but at the end of the day, if you're called to be a witness, you you could be subpoenaed. It's not voluntary. So, I understand that it's a large volume of information, and that most people probably won't read at all. But that's not really the point to me. The point is that it is available if they would like to and that builds
trust. I think, some people will choose not to read at at all or read any or, you know, all of it. And that's their choice. But, the idea that because it could be so many volumes of information, we should somehow not make it available. I'm open to ideas. I think if we leave anything out, though, then we leave the window of doubt open. And I don't think that serves us well in the long run. Trustee Blake? So I do have those concerns about what's going to happen, and and I have a bet to make for anybody who wants to take me up on it. Let's see how clairvoyant I am.
Within four days, we'll say, of the release of these documents, Mr. Weaver, probably also Trustee Lacoue, will make bombshell posts on their social media. We've found the smoking gun. We've found it's really this document that made us lose. It was not us at all. We did nothing wrong. It was really this question and answer that Barbannis made. It was this question and answer that Michelle Butel made. Our lawyer really screwed up here. You can see it was the lawyer's fault, but definitely, definitely, definitely not our fault.
Not 1%. Let's make that bet. That's what's gonna happen. And you know why I am sure of that? Because there is something in every trial record. There's a question not asked, an argument that's not made, a question and answer that sounds bad without reading more. And there will be something in this case. There will be. But here's the second part of my prediction, and we'll see if I'm right on this. What you will not see in those bombshell social media posts is one ounce of taking responsibility for their part in this.
For being really, truly the primary cause of this. You'll not see one ounce of contrition. You'll not see one lesson learned. And that tells you all you need to know. Because someone who knows everything, who cannot be wrong, who cannot admit that they messed up, that's a dangerous person. That's a person who costs a school district over $700,000 and that is a person who has no business being anywhere near a place of authority ever again. Yes. Anyone else have any comments? No. You've really had your two unless you had a question of some sort.
I I'll I'll just say that I see both sides on this. I but I completely agree with trustee Blake on, you know, I I think he's got the crystal ball and knows exactly what will happen. And it's it's it's difficult, because it's lose lose. I mean, I don't see anyone winning in this situation. You either don't release it and you're hiding something and, you're not being transparent, or you release it and every single item, as trustee Blake said,
will be picked apart. So this it's it's difficult here, and, you know, I try to look at it as what's best for the district. I mean, that's that's the hard piece. And, So it's, it's a tough call. But anyway, so at this point, if there's sure, you may ask a question. So I'm just curious to hear from my colleagues on, do you what is your thought on whether or not this information is going to come out eventually anyway? And all these things that we're saying, I agree with. I don't I think the fears are well founded,
that we're and I would make that bet too, that Trustee Blake put out there. But, that's the question is, do you think it's not gonna come out eventually? Anyone have an answer? I guess unless unless this board votes to put it out, I doubt that it would be coming out. That would be my but, I have one question for you, trustee Gupta. You say to release all the legal documents. I guess I'm really not sure what all that what you think that encompasses, because I've heard other people making comments about how they think this is, you know, going to show our you know,
what they decided the strategy was and that type of thing, which, by the way, the board was well aware of and shared with. But, I mean, I don't know what legal document is going to show that other than you can see their arguments that they made in a brief. Sure. Well, my understanding is legal what I have understood to this point is that anything regarding, communication regarding legal strategy is protected under attorney client privilege. But to answer your question about what would be included, I mean, that's really difficult to say when we haven't seen the documents.
So we don't know what the menu of options are at this time, which is why I made it as broad as possible, to say all with redactions consistent with FOIA. And then a follow-up on this, meaning that, when the board received them, it would be redacted versus the board receiving an intact one and a redacted one? I would say that the Board would receive them unredacted, and then we would go through our redaction process like we would for FOIA to release. Trustee Blake, did you I wanted to make a motion.
I'd like to move to replace the motion with I had to think this through with a motion that we will obtain and release the following documents relating to the Schaner arbitration. Post arbitration briefs from both parties along with any exhibits attached Okay. I'm gonna ask you to go really slow. So right now I have that we will retain and release post Arbitration briefs of both parties. Post arbitration briefs. Of both parties. Okay. Along with exhibits, the complaint and the answer,
The motion to dismiss. The response. And the opinion denying it. Along with any exhibits. That's I think that should be Okay. So let me just read this back. You move to replace the motion with that we will retain and release post arbitration briefs of both parties along with exhibits, the complaint and answer, the motion to dismiss and response an opinion denying along with any exhibits. What was the first few words that you said?
You moved to replace the motion. No, it was retain and release? Was that what you're saying? Obtain and re okay. That makes more sense. Okay. Obtain and release. Okay. We'll obtain and release post arbitration briefs of both parties along with exhibits, the complaint and answer, the motion to dismiss and respond the response and opinion denying along with exhibits. With appropriate redactions as legally required. With appropriate. Change your pen. Okay. So there is a motion to replace by trustee Blake.
Is there support for that? Trustee Alspa is supporting that. So now we have a this, motion to replace that is more specific on which documents to release. And is there any discussion here? Trustee LaSanne? I would just like to say that I'm not sure I agree with that. I think that we should be allowed to see everything, not just certain portions of it. Okay. Trustee Annas? Can I ask Trustee Blake, other than these documents that you've outlined in your new motion,
what else is there? There's all the discovery that's gone back and forth between people. There are depositions that were not used at trial. There are communications between, like, the two lawyers amongst themselves. I don't know what there is. I haven't as has been established, I haven't seen these documents. But those documents that I've listed will tell you the case. I mean, it has everything in there that anybody who only truly wants to learn about the case would possibly need.
Trustee Elspa? The reason I second this motion is because and I thank you, Trustee Lozan. I'd like to hear from Trustee Lozan and Trustee Gupta because you guys are the ones who, are wanting the release of the documents. And I understand the points that Trustee Gupta made, but I also understand and agree with the points that Trustee Blake met. So I'm wondering if this meets the standard enough for, as a compromise or if it does not. Because I haven't decided if I'm going to support this emotion yet or not. I'd like to hear from you two to see if you think that this is a compromise that will,
appease the deed. I'm willing to compromise on it and support this replacement motion. I'm just worried that Sorry. May I speak? Sorry. Sorry. I'm just worried that without having all the raw data and having everything there, we're still gonna have the issue of he said, she said by just having kinda like just a summary. Is it not because we don't have all the raw data without the depositions and stuff? It's just kind of a summary of what took place in an opinion in a sense or May I? So I don't know what these post arbitration briefs look like because I haven't seen
these, but I've seen many others and they vary. But usually, the person describes their case. They say, they point to key documents, which would be the exhibits. They point to deposition. So this deposition testimony was helpful. Please, you know and they refer to helpful deposition testimony and then a lot of times you attach the whole transcript. Sometimes they attach just those pages. I don't know what we've done here. So, I mean, I could see if something comes out and there are only excerpts of the dep
transcript, but those would be the ones that the arbitrator is considering. I mean, it wouldn't be let me rephrase. It's not the deposition transcript. It would be the trial transcript, the live testimony. Trustee LaSalle? I guess, what's the fear of having everything released? Like, what what's what's the reasoning behind let's just do a little here, a little inside of everything? What's the biggest fear? Like, why are are you worried about something coming out or as a whole? Like, why can't we just if people wanna read it, they can read it. If they don't wanna read it, they don't have to read it. We're not forcing people to read it. I guess I'm trying to be helpful to give people people say we wanna know
what was argued. We wanna know, why why they came to these conclusions. We wanna make sure that this was argued or that that was argued and this will tell you what was argued. Happened in the arbitration. And so I think that's the most helpful to people. And if you just release, you know, a 100,000 pages, it's hard for people to find. But, you know, that's just my thought. It's trying to be helpful and give people a full picture of what happened at the arbitration. Are there any other questions or discussion before we vote on replacing the motion?
Alright. Seeing none, all in favor of replacing the motion, say aye. Aye. Can I see hands, please? One, two, three. Three ayes. Those opposed, say no. No. Three nos. It's a actually, I'm gonna be an abstain on this. So it's a three two one. It does not get replaced. So we're back to the original one. So is there any other discussion here? Several people have already spoken twice, so we have, I think, trustee Lozan, trustee Annas, trustee Alsma, or I could speak. So does anyone wish to speak before
we vote on releasing? Okay. Well, seeing then I this is no part of me, but I just want everyone to understand from a leadership perspective, internally, that if if any any passing of, getting all the documents and the redaction of that, it does come with a very large cost because we would be using other attorneys to do so. I just wanna make sure everyone understands that that there's an additional cost to this and it's not free. Do do you have any idea how big that cost would be? Are we talking $1,000 or $100,000 I mean, I don't know. I mean, if it's 2,000 pages and someone has to go through that,
I'm assuming it's going to be in the tens of thousands of dollars. Trustee Luzanne? I don't see any harm to get that price, and then maybe we vote on it, you know, if it's substantial. But there's some areas where we could probably make some cuts or five zero one carrying stats. But why not see what that number is first instead of less? I'll speculate that it could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The problem is that once it's in our possession, it's foible, which means then you are required to, go through it to redact it. Alright. So is there is there any,
any other discussion then before we vote on this? Alright. So the motion is to release all of the legal documents related to the recent arbitration with our previous superintendent, Doctor. Schoenher, with redactions consistent with our standard FOIA process. All of those in favor I'm gonna ask for hands just since I think this may be divided. All of those in favor, say aye and raise your hand. There's five ayes. Any opposed? Any abstentions? So that's a five-zero-one motion or, vote, and the motion does pass. So I will be, I'll be in contact with the law firm that did this to see how quickly
they can get it to us. And, it might be faster for them to potentially redact it, so maybe we can talk with Matt to make sure they have the information on that that's needed. Okay. Alright. I'm missing my last page here, I think. Well, I think we are does someone have an agenda? All right. So, we had no remainder of public comment. So with that then, we are adjourned at 07:11 if there's no objection. Seeing none, we're adjourned. Thank you.