EDUCATION

While it’s unclear exactly what expenses the seven board members could be on the hook for, the district paid its search firm about $50,000 for work Yost says is now worthless because of the board’s illegal activity.

While state law allows them to discuss personnel matters, such as hiring, firing and discipline, in private “executive sessions,” board members can’t vote or make any decisions without reconvening into public meetings.

“Be aware that any actions taken based on those (closed) meetings could result in the issuance of noncompliance

citations and findings for (financial) recovery by this office against the district, the appointed individual, and board members,” Yost wrote in a letter dated Monday, which the district says it received Tuesday afternoon.

A remedy for violating the Open Meetings Act “is to begin the search process anew to avoid potential financial losses for the district and individual board members,” Yost wrote. “I recommend you commence this promptly.”

But the board ignored the warning hours later, voting 4-3 to reject a resolution proposed by member Mary Jo Hudson that would have Yost

followed Yost’s advice. Voting for immediately scrapping the search were Hudson, Dominic Paretti and Eric Brown. Voting against it were President Gary Baker, Vice President Michael Cole, W. Shawna Gibbs and Ramona Reyes.

The resolution documented a series of secret decisions made by the board in private meetings, including: winnowing the list of superintendent candidates during multiple closeddoor meetings; adding new, secret candidates that were unknown to the public; interviewing eight candidates secretly, four of them never having applied for the job; selecting finalists; and changing the finalist list when two secret candidates dropped out.

“We are still reviewing

the letter and its impact on the current search and taking advice from our general counsel,” Baker said Wednesday. “The board hasn’t taken any further action and doesn’t have anything scheduled.”

Both Baker and Hudson said the board’s actions in executive session were done under the advice of the district’s general counsel, Larry Braverman, who is now reviewing the Yost letter. The resolution would have replaced Braverman with an independent counsel on the new search.

Braverman couldn’t be reached for comment late Wednesday, and an attempt to reach him through a district spokesman was unsuccessful.

No one on the board mentioned Yost’s latest letter during Tuesday’s meeting, but Hudson said Wednesday it “certainly contributed” to her push to immediately end the search. She is unclear about what the board could be financially liable for, but she acknowledged she is “concerned about that myself.”

“We did not even have a chance to discuss anything,” Hudson said.The three members on the losing side of the resolution have requested a special meeting for next week, but Baker has said that isn’t possible because of scheduling conflicts, Hudson said. The debate on how the board extricates itself from the situation should be done completely in public, she added.