Dear Superintendent Watson,
On September 7, 2023 the Peoria Unified School District #11 (PUSD) governing board convened an executive session to discuss the applicants they would recommend to you for consideration to be appointed to the seat vacated by Mrs. Rebecca Hill.
The meeting was convened at 4pm when regular board meetings are scheduled for 6pm. While this is the prerogative of the board, it most certainly did not bode well for the community’s availability to attend a meeting of such importance.
Mrs. Hill’s last board meeting was August 24th. That meeting did not include an agenda item for the board to discuss and determine the process they would use to choose applicants to be recommended to you. Without such a discussion administration was allowed to mandate the process to the board rather than the board delegating to administration only those areas in which its assistance was needed.
Legislative policy always favors the utmost transparency possible of public bodies. According to the AZ Attorney General’s Handbook (Chapter 7 Open Meeting Law) “While the Open Meeting Law does permit executive sessions for discussing certain matters, it does not require that these discussions take place in executive session. If public disclosure of the public body’s discussion is not prohibited by any other statutory provision and government interests are not threatened, a public body may choose to conduct all of its discussions in a public setting.” (All emphasis mine).
In light of this one can’t help but wonder why the majority of the board voted to hold this discussion of applicants behind closed doors rather than in public. Exactly how are the “government interests” “threatened” by having this discussion open to the public?
Board clerk Mrs. Heather Rooks is the only member who voted “no” to convening the executive session. She explained her vote stating that she would not go behind closed doors and be part of excluding the community from a discussion they “should be able to hear…”
But moreover this was not a lawful executive session under Arizona Revised Statute.
Arizona Revised Statute 38-431.03(A) allows for executive session but only for very specifically defined purposes under the law.
A.R.S.38-431.03(A)(1) permits “Discussion or consideration of employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, demotion, dismissal, salaries, disciplining or resignation of a public officer, appointee or employee of any public body,…”
Herein lies the rub. The PUSD governing board was not discussing or considering the appointment of a public officer. As you are well aware A.R.S.15-302(A)(3) grants the authority to appoint board members solely to County School Superintendents. The PUSD board was discussing and considering its recommendations for appointment, which is not a purpose allowed under the statute.
A.R.S.38-431.03(A)(1) continues “…except that, with the exception of salary discussions, an officer, appointee or employee may demand that the discussion or consideration occur at a public meeting. The public body shall provide the officer, appointee or employee with written notice of the executive session as is appropriate but not less than twenty-four hours for the officer, appointee or employee to determine whether the discussion or consideration should occur at a public meeting.”
This is really a moot issue since the discussion of recommendations is not permitted in executive session. Nonetheless upon returning to public session and just prior to public comment board President Mr. David Sandoval “warned” those requesting to speak that the applicants were notified of the executive session discussion but not that they may be discussed in public (at least 2 of the applicants apparently had requested that any discussion pertaining to them by the board occur in public but that was not the case). His statement essentially shut down any comments from the public about the candidates and ultimately any discussion of the candidates by the board.
However public comments fall under 1st Amendment free speech rights. Certainly comments about those who have chosen to put themselves in the public sphere by applying for an appointment to a public board would and should anticipate their qualifications being discussed in public. Nothing that I am aware of in statute precludes such a discussion.
If allowed to stand, it also appears that this executive session is precedent setting. As best that can be determined, no other school board has held the discussion of applicant recommendations behind closed doors.
Mrs. Heather Rooks made a motion to recommend three applicants. The motion died for a lack of a second. Next Mr. Sandoval moved to recommend three different candidates. Member Ms. Melissa Ewing seconded the motion which passed 3-1. And while apparently there are no official minutes of this meeting as yet, interestingly the board’s electronic agenda has been updated to reflect Mr. Sandoval’s motion and the vote but thus far that record does not reflect Mrs. Rooks’ motion.
The board held no public discussion whatsoever of the applicants, their qualifications, lack thereof, any feedback received about the candidates or the boards’ reasoning for the three candidates it is recommending. Absolutely nothing about the rationale as to why the board chose these candidates to replace the board member the community chose via the election process.
Finally, it appears that acting superintendent Mr. Kevin Molino, Public Relations Director Ms. Danielle Airey and perhaps Human Resource Director Ms. Laura Vesley may have gone into the executive session.
A.R.S.38-431(2) reads “…only individuals whose presence is reasonably necessary in order for the public body to carry out its executive session responsibilities may attend the executive session.”
But ONLY for that portion of the executive session that their presence is “reasonable necessary.” Once their presence is no longer “necessary” those other than the board members should leave.
A.R.S.15-302(A)(3) gives the authority to make recommendations to school district governing boards. To what degree the board may need the help of administration should have been discussed, decided and delegated during the meeting on August 24th. While it never should have been held in the first place, no one but the board members were “reasonably necessary” in this executive session for the board to discuss its recommendation from all the candidates who applied. It was/is solely the responsibility of the board. IF and to what degree these administrators participated and possibly influenced the ultimate decision of a majority of the board will remain unknown.
IF these administrators were in fact in the execution session the community is left to wonder why administrators’ input was welcome but theirs was not? These are questions that under executive session statute we can never have answered.
The last time PUSD had a problem with the appointment process was because your predecessor mandated to the board who he would “allow” to participate in choosing the candidates to be submitted by the board – only the board president, the district superintendent and the PEA (aka union) president – excluding the other board members and the community.
It is shameful in my opinion that this time the majority of this board, of its own accord, has done everything possible to exclude the community from this discussion of who will be chosen to represent them on the board. The community was entitled weigh in during public comment at an open public meeting AND hear the board’s discussion.
I respectfully request that you reject the applicants submitted to you by the Peoria Unified School District #11 governing board. Please return the process to the PUSD board requesting that it conduct the candidate recommendations in an open public meeting with the communities’ involvement. Anything less makes a mockery of the appointment process. If the board refuses please consider calling a special election under A.R.S.15-302(A)(3). The actions of the board excluding the community and keeping the process secret should not be deemed in the best interests of the community.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Diane M. Douglas
Diane Douglas was AZ Superintendent of Public Instruction 2015-2019. She served on PUSD Governing Board 2005-2012; President 2008, 2009; the State Board of Education and the State Board for Charter Schools 2015-2019.