Censure Rebuttal                                                                                Go to: HOME
Kathleen Jankiewicz                                                                       Go to: Letter MO 09 05
October 14, 2009  

           
Last month Mr. Falk introduced a Resolution for Public Censure of me.  The resolution was unanimously approved.  I feel that resolution was unjustified.  Not only was Mr. Falk’s substantiation flawed, but the entire process was in violation of my First Amendment right to Free Speech.  The rights given to me by the Constitution constitute the highest governmental authority in this land.  Policy Governance cannot make a policy in violation of that law.  Indeed, the book Mr. Smith gave us called Reinventing Your Board indicates on p. 43 that the board must comply with the law.  To not allow me to speak in my own defense did not only seem unfair, it was illegal.  We are not speaking of some secret society or club that has its own rules having nothing to do with legal rights.  We are talking about a school board member who represents the interests of citizens.  Those rights were not only taken from me, but from every person I represent.  I consider myself to be an honest and upstanding citizen.  I raised four children to be good and productive citizens. I’ve been happily married for 41 years to a man I love and admire.  I have never been accused of anything in my life.  I had to look up reasons why people are censured.  People are censured for things like embezzlement, drunkenness, divulging the secret password, telling people to lie on public documents, and calling others racial epithets.  I could not find a single instance of a board member being publicly censured for the reasons I was censured.  A number of people I have spoken with recently have encouraged me to seek legal counsel and restitution.  I am still debating my options.

Our board policy dictates that we follow Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised. The board did not follow those rules in its censure process.  Those rules indicate on p. 120 that “a motion to censure is a main motion, and as such, is a debatable motion.”  I was never given an opportunity to debate the censure.  I twice requested the written opinion of the lawyer Mr. Smith referred to when he insisted that censure of a board member meant that the member had no opportunity to speak.  I have never received a copy of that opinion. Criminals and parties in lawsuits have the right of “full disclosure” in defending themselves.  I received nothing to show that actions taken by the board were legal.  Board policy indicates that members will “encourage the free expression of opinion by Board members…”  Where was my right to free expression of opinion?  Board members are required to make policy decisions “only after full discussion at publicly held Board meetings.”  Where was the full discussion at this meeting?  Repeatedly, this board failed to follow its own policy in performing my censure. 
 
Board members are not allowed to conduct business out of open session.  Before the vote even occurred, Mr. Smith indicated that the decision to censure me was “pretty much a unanimous decision.”  How could “pretty much a unanimous decision” have been made before a meeting was held?  Such a thing would have been against board policy and the Sunshine Laws.

Mr. Stoinski appeared to be the only board member unaware of the pending censure.  He indicated that he had no knowledge about the censure before the meeting occurred.  He insinuated that his decision to censure was influenced by a letter read by the teachers asking that the issue be tabled.    Board policy states that each member “render all decisions based on the available facts and my independent judgment….” Why should I receive a vote of censure from Mr. Stoinski because he didn’t like a letter written by the teachers?  For that matter, all the available facts were never presented because I was not allowed to present my side of them. Board policy states that members will “withhold judgment on issues until fully informed.” Why would board members vote on a resolution of censure without hearing all of the facts?  Once again, the board failed to follow its own policies.

The following address the particular reasons Mr. Falk promoted as grounds for censure.

1.    Acting unilaterally without Board Authority by going to the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office and then the newly formed Ethics Commission seeking an advisory opinion.

This accusation is possibly the most ridiculous of all the assertions.  Colorado Revised Statutes and our own Colorado Association of School Boards directs individual board members to request advisory opinions from the Secretary of State regarding conflict of interest.  I was totally unaware of the Ethics Commission until Mr. Falk emailed me that he was considering filing a grievance against me and until the Secretary of State’s office directed me to that commission.  Did Mr. Falk get permission from the entire board before researching the Ethics Commission?  Did I try to hide anything?  Board policy states members should “share information and knowledge.” (GP-L2d).  I kept the board apprised of my efforts to clarify a possible conflict of interest situation.  Not once was it brought to my attention that the board felt that I should have gotten their permission first.  Why would the board not have wanted that information?  How can this board possibly justify censuring a board member who is following the law and the recommendations of the Colorado Association of School Boards. The fact that this board would censure me for such a reason is an indictment more of their character than mine.

2.    Acting unilaterally by publicly criticizing Chris Zak regarding her job performance as Secretary to the Board without seeking Board consensus on her personal evaluation.  In addition to the public criticism, she followed that with an email to Chris that was both unprofessional and a violation of Board Policy. 

I criticized minutes, not Ms. Zak.  There were critical errors in fact, not simply errors in spelling and grammar.  I talked with the superintendent about the errors first and I also sent him an email regarding the errors.  To do so was perfectly in keeping with board policy since policy states that all accountability of the staff is considered the accountability of the superintendent. (B/SR-L2b).   Nothing was done.  Who should be accountable for doing nothing?  My question to this board is—why did none of you recognize substantial errors in fact and why did none of you do anything to correct them?  Mrs. Koverman, as board secretary, has only one responsibility—to “ensure the integrity of Board documents and records.”  (GP-L2c)  What was her responsibility in making sure the minutes were correct?  Robert’s Rules of Order directs the president of the board to ask for corrections to the minutes.  There is no place in Robert’s Rules of Order or Board Policy that states that corrections to the minutes should be taken to the school district secretary’s office or given to the secretary by phone.  I violated no policy or law in correcting the minutes at the meeting.  Rather, I am the only one who followed Robert’s Rules of Order and corrected what should have been corrected.  I should not be censured for performing due diligence.

3.    Acting outside of Board policies and guidelines by publicly declaring at the May 7, 2009 work session that she never agreed to abide by Policy Governance. 

A work session is not a public board meeting.  There was no audience for me to shout to that I never agreed to abide by Policy Governance.  I don’t recall anyone but board members being there.  Was there a time when we swore an oath to “abide” by Policy Governance?  Was that a condition to board membership?  I have tried my best to follow Policy Governance, but by May 7, 2009, I had seen enough of this board’s version of “Policy Governance” to consider it dysfunctional.  Monitoring reports did not monitor.  Accountability and transparency were lacking.  Community engagement was nearly non-existent.  Community members quit corresponding because they were not rewarded with responses.  In two years, the only policy not introduced by me was introduced against me.  I let my concerns with Policy Governance, Re-2 Style be known.  To do so is totally in keeping with board policy that directs members to “openly share personal concerns, issues and agendas.” (GP-L2d)  Instead of addressing any of those concerns, this board refused to see the validity of anything I said and has come to censure me when, once again, I was following board policy.

4.    Acting unprofessional and disruptive at the August 2009 Executive Session. 

I don’t know why Mr. Falk would include this in his resolution.  He knows that what happens in executive session is not to be disclosed.  Since I cannot disclose what happened, I am unable to defend against his allegations.  This argument for censure should not be considered.  If all the board members and the superintendent wish to waive their rights to privilege, I will be happy to talk about this charge. 

5.    Directly undermining the administration rather than working through the Board and using the formal evaluation mechanism for Superintendent and his staff.

Each board member evaluates the superintendent individually before a summative evaluation is done.  Since each member evaluates the superintendent individually, there is no working through the board for that part of the evaluation.  Each member simply follows the format for the evaluation. The formal mechanism for evaluation of the Superintendent charges him with responsibility for the general management of the schools of the District under the requirements of the state, Board policies and contractual agreements (page 1, Superintendent Evaluation, under Duties of the Superintendent).  Despite that statement, this board has refused to consider the superintendent’s contractual obligations when evaluating him. 

The Procedures for the evaluation state, “criteria for the evaluation may include information gathered from appropriate administrative staff.” (Page 3, Procedures)   I interpret that statement to mean that I should be able to request information from administrative staff to help me make an accurate evaluation.  The process does not mandate that board members first get permission from our employer or each other to get those records.  However, our superintendent now “requires“ board members to get his permission before obtaining information from his staff.  I know from experience that having that one little step can mean days of delay.  I also know that Colorado law states that I am entitled to those records without delay.  I worked hard to get a change of policy added to our manual that would reflect the rights to those records.  Nonetheless, as a courtesy, I typically request the information from the superintendent before I ask a member of his administrative staff. When the question is simple and the superintendent is unavailable, I normally go ahead and ask the staff member my question while emailing the superintendent my request.  I do not feel I should have to wait for days or a week for a simple answer to what is normally a simple question.   

I have done no formal evaluation of the administrative staff.         
 
Mr. Falk has not substantiated his claim to this charge.

I would like to address Mr. Smith’s remarks ridiculing me for “tabbing” my law book.  I am a trained paralegal and I’m proud of it.  I am well aware that I am not an attorney, but it is apparent that Mr. Smith is unaware of the value of a good paralegal.  A candidate running for the Platte Canyon board of education this year spoke of how valuable she could be to the board because she was a trained paralegal.  I couldn’t help thinking that she would not be welcomed on this board…  I have a great respect for the law.  To denigrate me for marking pertinent areas of law in my law book  is an insult.  I respect each member of the board for the expertise they bring to this group.  I deserve the same respect.

This board had no good reason or valid documentation for censuring me.  I  should not have been censured for asking for an advisory opinion from the Secretary of State’s office because it was totally legal and within policy to do so.  I should not have been censured for correcting minutes, because all minutes should be accurate before they are accepted.  I should not have been censured simply for expressing a dislike for policy governance, because policy allows for openly voicing concerns, and I continued to follow policy governance.  I never undermined the administration regarding the superintendent’s evaluation and I never formally evaluated any of his staff.

A person should be censured for substantial wrongs, not for having different ideas or perspectives.  All sides of an issue and the individual rights of the member concerned should be taken into consideration. Debate should be allowed.

This board should rescind its Resolution for Public Censure of  Kathleen Jankiewicz.