WATSONVILLE – The Pajaro Valley Unified Board of Trustees did not appoint an interim superintendent during a special board meeting Friday as originally intended.
After nearly four-and-a-half hours of public comment, most of which berated the board for its decision to fire beloved former superintendent Michelle Rodriguez on Wednesday and its lack of transparency around the matter, Trustee Jennifer Schacher made an announcement in which she publicly apologized about the decision. She then made a motion to rescind the action.
“In the interest of transparency to the public, I’m making a motion to rescind the prior action of this board regarding the dismissal of the superintendent,” Schacher said. “I apologize to my community and Dr. Rodriguez, as I can’t legally discuss personnel issues. I can and I will learn from my mistakes. My vote was extremely difficult and complicated. However, I believe now that my grievance could have been handled differently.”
The announcement and subsequent motion came as a surprise after sparks flew and tensions rose over the first hour of the meeting, which featured heated debate about the preceding from Wednesday and the legality surrounding overwhelming public comment.
The motion was seconded by Trustee Kim DeSerpa, who has been an advocate for Rodriguez since her termination. The motion never came to a vote, as it was never an item that was on the meeting agenda. Board President Georgia Acosta asked for the advice of present legal counsel, which did not sit well with some board members.
“It’s not our legal counsel,” DeSerpa said of the present attorney, which was another issue that caused discourse among board members. “That’s the legal counsel that you brought in to do your bidding. That is not the legal counsel for this district or this board.”
However, the present legal counsel did inform the board that it can’t vote on a matter that is not on the agenda. Instead, the board voted to table the appointment of an interim superintendent and reconvene in a special meeting to rescind Rodriguez’s termination.
The vote passed 5-2, with President Acosta and Vice President Oscar Soto each voting “no.” The board expressed interest in setting the special meeting for Sunday but did not determine a specific time. The decision came five-and-a-half hours into the meeting, and was the first action of 10 planned agenda items. The time of Sunday’s special meeting will be announced Saturday, according to Acosta.
The motion to rescind Rodriguez’s termination wasn’t the only drama within Friday’s meeting. The meeting started off on the wrong foot after Acosta declined to hear the first of more than 200 comments submitted to the board regarding the issue. The comment came from “Miami Vice” actor Edward James Olmos, who advocated for Rodriguez in a video submitted to the board.
“We can only have public comment on items that are agendized,” Acosta said. “If it is someone speaking specifically only solely to the interim, we will hear those comments. Otherwise, they will not be heard. They deferred to our regular board meeting on Feb. 10 where we will hear them.”
The decision ignited outrage among some of the trustees. An argument ensued and over whether all the public comments should be heard, regardless of whether they mention the former superintendent or not.
The board broke for recess to discuss the issue and reconvened after 20 minutes. Another argument that lasted nearly 20 minutes broke out over whether all the comments should be heard.
The district’s public information officer, Alicia Jiménez, said the interpretation could put comments regarding the former superintendent in the same conversation as an interim superintendent. Acosta was steadfast in her decision and stated that she will direct any comment that refers to the former superintendent to be halted and deferred to Feb. 10.
“If you will be unable to handle that, then I will have Matt take over the public comment for you,” Acosta said to Jiménez who is in charge of reading public comments aloud to the board. Matt Juhl-Darlington is the lawyer Acosta brought to the meeting as legal counsel.
However, several trustees stated Juhl-Darlington does not represent the board. Those trustees expressed interest in bringing the board’s normal legal representation on the call to mitigate issues.
A motion was made to vote to hear all comments and was seconded. However, Acosta remained stout in her position and attempted to not hear the motion, which once again sparked outrage.
“You don’t get to decide that Georgia. I’m sorry,” DeSerpa said.
There was continued reluctance to read all of the comments, surrounded by concerns over a perceived violation of the Brown Act. The Brown Act states that all meetings of a legislative body must be public and open. Within those meetings, items discussed must be on the agenda, which must be made publicly available 24 hours before the meeting in the case of a special meeting such as this. Actions or discussion of items not on the agenda are not permitted by law.
“I’m not stating terms of illegality. What I’m talking about is issues under the Brown Act. Because this is a special board meeting, there are limitations about what can be discussed in this meeting,” Juhl-Darlington said. “If there’s a public that is admitted and permitted to be brought in at this board meeting, then it wouldn’t be permissive in this time because it could then be perceived as being a Brown Act violation.”
However, Trustee Maria Orozco argued that perception shouldn’t lead to an issue.
“It could be perceived as a Brown Act Violation, but is it? Perceived is not the same as violating the Brown Act,” Trustee Maria Orozco said.
A discussion over legality or illegality of moving reading all public comments bore no fruit. Some trustees were uncomfortable moving forward without having the board’s regular legal counsel present to advise them. There was a standing motion and second on the floor to recess until they could be present at the meeting, but Acosta once again said she would not hear that motion.
“You do not have the right to block out legal counsel from being here,” DeSerpa said. “Matt is not our legal counsel for the district. He is not the legal counsel for this board.”
Jiménez started reading public comments. They either mentioned the displeasure in the termination of the superintendent or the lack of transparency behind it. Acosta once again halted the reading and claimed it didn’t have to do with agenda item at hand.
“She’s asking for the superintendent to be reinstated. That would negate the need for an interim,” Trustee Jennifer Holm said of the public comment and its relevance to the item.
Acosta gave in shortly after, interrupting another trustee who was about to make a motion to close the meeting and reconvene on a later date when the comments could be read.
“We will continue, and we will deal I guess with the legal fallout and repercussion,” Acosta said. “Thank you, Trustee Orozco, for putting us in that very vulnerable position and the district.”
Jiménez proceeded to read a public comment, which included a petition that called for transparency surrounding the termination decision and the reinstatement of Rodriguez. The petition also threatened the recall of the four trustees that voted to terminate Rodriguez if the demands were not met.
Several hundred people tuned into the meeting and witnessed the fiasco. The meeting saw peek viewership of more than 1,100 people at times.
"board" - Google News
January 30, 2021 at 02:11PM
https://ift.tt/2MlUdqC
PVUSD Board of Trustees to reconsider superintendent termination - Santa Cruz Sentinel
"board" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KWL1EQ
https://ift.tt/2YrjQdq
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "PVUSD Board of Trustees to reconsider superintendent termination - Santa Cruz Sentinel"
Post a Comment