Special Meeting

No content available.

[246] Nancy Thomas: Good evening. This is the December 21st special meeting of the Board of Education. NUSD has opened its boardroom for in-person meetings and will follow the state's and Alameda County's safety guidelines for public gatherings. Please refrain from attending in-person meetings if you have any of the COVID-related symptoms. Members of the public may observe the meeting via the Newark USD YouTube channel. live transmission on Comcast Channel 26 or in person in the NUSD boardroom. Spanish translation will be available via Zoom. The public will have the opportunity to address the Board of Education regarding agendized items with a written or live audio-only comment via Zoom with advance notice requested by email at publiccommentatnewarkunified.org or a live in-person comment by submitting a speaker card with the executive assistant. I call this meeting to order at 6.03 p.m. Please join me in the pledge.

[332] SPEAKER_28: Member Jones? Here. Member Zhang?

[335] Cindy Parks: Here.

[335] SPEAKER_28: Vice President Hill? Here. President Thomas? Here. All present.

[341] Nancy Thomas: Great. I have been made aware of an error on the cover of the agenda regarding the order in schedule. Therefore, at this moment, I would like to make a request to amend the agenda so that we can move agenda item 5.1 to agenda item 2.2 and begin with that in closed session. Then we will come back out to open session at 7 PM and then proceed back to closed session for item 5.2. May I get a motion and a second for this change in the agenda?

[371] Phuong Nguyen: I move to approve the change.

[374] Bowen Zhang: Question for 4.1. Is 4.1 going to happen in closed session or open session?

[383] Nancy Thomas: That part's going to be in open session. So we will be coming back to open session and then going back to closed session.

[388] Bowen Zhang: OK. I second that.

[390] Nancy Thomas: OK.

[390] Bowen Zhang: Please vote. Five yeas.

[410] Nancy Thomas: Thank you. So we will be recessing now to close. Are there any public comments on the agenda? I'm sorry. So we will be recessing to close. session where we will have conference with labor negotiators, employee organizations, NTA and CSCA. Thank you. Good evening. We are reconvening from closed session where no action was taken on this December 21st, 2022 meeting. We have one public agenda item after which we will be returning to closed session. We do have a speaker on item 4.1, Ms. Lupe Lopez.

[3858] Guadalupe Lopez: Good evening to everyone. On October 20th, the board approved a contract with Mayor's Nava to provide legal services required to conduct an investigation to determine if the disclosure of information violated the Brown Act or any other privilege. The investigation was to conclude within 30 days. Today, the board is here to hire another attorney to conduct another investigation or the same investigation. But we, the public, have not been made aware of the results of the original investigation. As taxpayers and your constituents, we deserve transparency. If someone from the board is disclosing confidential information, then the board member should step down. And if the board member is violating the Brown Act, then That board member should be held responsible. Newark School District is already known for the past grand jury report. We do not need a board that does not know how to behave and will tarnish Newark School District name once again. I want to know the results of the investigation conducted by Mayor Snabb, since my taxpayers paid for that investigation before wasting another with another investigation. To spend additional money in a new firm is irresponsible. The district is already facing substantial fiscal challenges. This is a clear disregard for our taxpayer money. And believe me, I pay a lot of money. So I am very concerned about this issue. Thank you.

[3970] Maria Huffer: Thank you.

[3971] Chery Villa: I just want to say that I second what Mrs. Lopez just mentioned. Thank you very much.

[3976] Nancy Thomas: Have a good night.

[3981] SPEAKER_28: We now move on to, sorry President Thomas, we do have two online public comments. The first one is from Elisa Martinez. Elisa Martinez, you may begin. Hello? Sorry, Ms. Martinez, you may begin. Oh, sorry.

[4011] Elisa Martinez: OK. Right on time. Hi, good evening, President Thomas, Board, Superintendent Triplett, and staff. My name is Elisa Martinez, and I am a parent of two students at Newark Unified. I'm sorry I can't be there in person, but I wanted to weigh in on a couple of things for tonight's meeting. Obviously, the agenda item about the board president recommending to bring Lozano-Smith into an investigation case. I guess my first reaction is Lozano-Smith, the same Lozano-Smith that has cost our district over $500,000. I don't know the exact number. President Thomas might know it better because she served on the board when this situation happened. It wasn't that they were just representing us, but they were the key driver of why we ended up in the lawsuit. And so I can't understand for the life of me why on President Thomas's first meeting, this is the first order of action. I hope that the remaining board, I'm not sure if you are aware of the situation, but I certainly would recommend that you look into that before you take any action on bringing Lozano-Smith on anything of substance. And I just encourage anybody who's listening, again, our new board members to look up the Brazil case and you'll understand my concern. The second item is the reason to bring them back in, which is apparently another investigation. And I know that in, I believe it was the second meeting in October, the board approved an investigation, not sure if it's the same investigation. Regardless, we still haven't heard a report on how that initial investigation went. And I would like to make sure that we're not putting additional resources on the same thing without understanding if we've hit a hiccup and what those results are. So at the end of the day, it's just very concerning that we're starting to see some of the behavior in the past that has gotten us into, I'll just say, not just hot water to exaggerate, I'll say, but it's cost us in real terms. And I know that now board member Jones was a teacher in the district when this happened. So not sure if you're familiar member Jones as to the instance, but as a citizen of Newark, As a parent of students, I hope that you represent us well and ask those difficult questions as to why a law firm that has cost us so much, why we're trying to bring them in as the first order of business. It just doesn't make any sense. Something doesn't sit right with me. So thank you for the opportunity to speak. I really appreciate it.

[4203] SPEAKER_28: Thank you. We have one more comment. Next one is from Michelle Padilla. Michelle Padilla, you may begin.

[4212] SPEAKER_27: Good evening, President Thomas, boards, Superintendent Triplett, and staff. My name is Michelle Padilla. I am the parent of students at Newark Junior High and BGI. My older kids have since graduated from Newark Memorial. When I saw the agenda for tonight's meeting, I was concerned about board member Thomas's request to replace or change the current law form representing NUSD to bring back Lozano-Smith. Nancy? I now see that the more things change, the more they remain the same. Isn't this the same law firm that while you were on the board caused our district hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe closer to a half million? Is there a reason that on your very first meeting you called for such a request? The board president's recommendation is that the Board of Education approves the use of Lozano Smith, attorneys at law for legal representation regarding the complaint received, and possible investigation and litigation. I believe we were supposed to hear back within 30 days. When will we be hearing out on the reports the results of this report. I don't think it's a The reason this is public knowledge is because there was a public records request that was then posted on a social media channel. Is this the potential Brown Act violation that is being investigated? I really hope not, Nancy. At the end of a very long complaint by Aiden, we see your name as a person that can testify or support his concerns. If this is, in fact, the Brown Act violation being investigated, I certainly would expect that you and Aiden recuse yourself from any conversation, or any vote to change or select a new law firm. Those of us that have seen the mess that Lozano-Smith, along with the board that you sat on, created, we will be watching closely. Thank you for listening.

[4340] SPEAKER_28: Thank you. And President Thomas, we do have one more speaker in person.

[4344] Nancy Thomas: Yeah. Ms. Nicole Aizen.

[4350] Nicole Izant: Thanks. Again, sorry, and thanks for letting me get in on the agenda late. Again, echoing what the last two speakers were mentioning, we've heard a lot at recent board meetings, actually at every single board meeting about, I think Member Hill has mentioned he's got decades of experience in the corporate sector and expert on procurement. So my question to you is, with having just joined recently the board again, with just under a week of being on the board, I find it a very speedy type of procurement. The kind of the stuff that maybe Member Hill in the past has said like he's not into. So I'm going to be very surprised if we're able to change the procurement process to quickly grab some legal counsel without perhaps vetting and maybe seeing other whatever the magic word they like to use this request for proposal. So that's something that I think that instead of making a hasty decision to randomly hire a law firm, I think you should do a deeper dive and evaluate various options. especially given that this law firm in the past, at least as far as the track record that I can see, was responsible for the district having to pay out a $200,000 plus settlement to some citizen here in Newark. So again, just urging you to make, you know, practice what you preach, make decisions wisely, and don't use, you know, friends of the family or friends of the cronies or whatever you want to call it type of policies. And second of all, the money, I think that's it. Sorry, I just ran in here from work. So I think I'll cut my comments short, but I think you know where I'm going with this. Please make your decisions wisely. Let's not repeat the mistakes of the past. Thank you.

[4444] Nancy Thomas: Thank you. So next, we move on to item 3, excuse me, 4.1, the legal counsel representation selection. And since I asked for this item, I would like to speak to it. Members of the board, I ask that this meeting be scheduled for a closed session discussion of agenda item 5.1, conference with legal counsel, anticipated litigation. As you know, this item was tabled after a lengthy discussion during last week's regular meeting. I am calling for this agenda item as a continuance from last week's meeting because we clearly did not have enough time to conclude our discussion then. In addition, I'm asking for your approval for an additional request during this open session portion of the meeting. My request is that we engage Lou Lozano as our counsel to help us move through and forward in bringing this item 5.2 to closure, or excuse me, 5.1. He is available to join us by Zoom in closed session. A little bit of information about Mr. Lozano. He is a founding partner of Lozano Smith and is preeminent among attorneys engaged in the practice of education law in the state of California. He has been representing and advising school districts in all areas of the law for more than 40 years. Mr. Lozano's roots in education trace back to his early career as a high school teacher in the Oakland Unified School District. He received his Juris Doctor degree in 1975 from the Bolt Hall School of Law. after receiving his secondary life teaching credential in 1971 and bachelor's degree in 1970 from the University of California at Berkeley. He was named a Northern California super lawyer in 2004 and 2007 through 2015 in the field of education law. Only 5% of the attorneys in California are selected for this distinction each year. Mr. Lozano has been the only attorney in the field of education law who was so recognized in 2010 and 2011. I've known Mr. Lozano through his handling of multiple Newark unified items and issues over my 17 years as a member of the board. He was instrumental in helping the board settle personnel issues. He also helped us negotiate contracts with our superintendent and assistant superintendents. He responded to legal questions regarding our programs and he has advised us on other legal issues. In all of these matters, Mr. Lozano was the consummate professional and provided the board with sound legal advice. I have no doubt that Mr. Lozano will continue to provide the board with sound advice on this item. Under all circumstances, he will represent and strive to protect the district. He will be clear in spelling out the district's anticipated litigation exposure and any associated risks. He may tell us of any options that we should consider and he may suggest priorities and possible outcomes for each. If his advice is basically the same as that of our previous council, I hope and I believe as a body that we will accept his recommendations and move forward with full consensus on next steps. So having said that, I would entertain board comments.

[4668] Bowen Zhang: So who is the current legal representation for us? Is this a replacement?

[4674] Nancy Thomas: No, this would be a replacement. Superintendent, who is the legal?

[4680] Mark Triplett: I believe that F3 is the legal representation that the board has been using for closed session for this closed session, a closed session item? I don't want to make assumptions that we're talking about the same thing.

[4694] Phuong Nguyen: Yes, for this closed session item, but the report out of the findings is to be presented by Myers-Nave, yes. And we would like to know what the findings are.

[4713] Mark Triplett: If I may, President, I believe Myers-Nave, I'm not very familiar with them, but I believe they're an external attorney or investigators that conduct investigations?

[4726] Phuong Nguyen: They are the third party investigation law firm that we had hired, the prior board had hired to do the investigation regarding this item of anticipated litigation. So in a way, in a way President Thomas is looking to replace the findings of the investigation.

[4757] Nancy Thomas: I don't believe it is specifically looking to replace the findings. Mr. Zhang?

[4764] Bowen Zhang: Yeah, I guess my question is that it is a replacement. Generally speaking, the board actually retained multiple law firms to work with us. Is that true? That's the practice that we don't just hire one law firm, right? Right. Yes, because I just want to know, are we firing any law firm or not?

[4781] Nancy Thomas: No. No, we're not. This is just replacing for this particular issue, the attorney that has been doing it. And in fact, you know, the difference in cost because it's, Matt, they bill us by the hour, will probably not be significant.

[4799] Bowen Zhang: So can you talk? Yeah, I guess. So I heard about that $500 thing before. But I obviously didn't know that. I didn't know the content of that. Anyway, you can explain that in a public session or whatever you think that. Because obviously, that's something I did hear about. I did hear about that before. I do not know what that really is. Yes.

[4830] SPEAKER_28: Sorry, board members. Again, just for the audience and YouTube, they only hear you if your mic is on.

[4836] Bowen Zhang: So I'm asking President Thomas, given that that's during your tenure about this law firm, the concern that people had about this law firm.

[4847] Nancy Thomas: I believe that we had to pay $200,000 in a settlement as a result of a California Public Records Act issue with this law firm. I don't think that speaks to whether or not Mr. Lulazano should not be retained for this particular issue. Wait, let's take turns. Member Hill.

[4886] Aiden Hill: Thank you, President Thomas. Yes, as I mentioned when this item first came up and decisions were made in closed session and then a report out was made beginning an investigation, I registered an objection to this. And the reason that I registered an objection is because the board does not have jurisdiction and the district does not have jurisdiction into the kind of investigation that is being conducted. That's something that, again, I'm hoping that if we decide to engage Mr. Lozano, that he can provide additional information on my contention.

[4936] Phuong Nguyen: Thank you. Thank you. So, I just wanted to give some reference, you know, we do have Bylaws 9,000, role of the board, and especially item three, providing support to the superintendent and staff as they carry out board direction by establishing adhering to standards of responsible governance. There is other bylaws, 9005, governance standards. 9011, disclosure of confidential privileged information. 9200, limits of board member authority. And 9270, conflict of interest. And in 9005 governance standards, on one of the items, board members have the responsibility, shall consume collective responsibility of building unity and creating positive organizational culture to operate effectively. The board shall have a unit and a unity of purpose One, keep the district focused and learning achievement of all students. Two, communicate a common vision. Three, operate openly and trust in integrity. Govern in dignified and professional manner, treating everyone with civility and respect. And five, the main point here, govern with board-adopted policies and procedures, which we did in the form of our governance handbook here. And not only was this mentioned once, but it was definitely mentioned twice. Under board deliberations, following board deliberations, a motion and a second will be made and a vote will be taken. The majority position will prevail and all board members agree to abide by the prevailing vote, which we did take on October 20th. The board approved a contract with Mayer Nave to provide legal service reasonably required to conduct an investigation to determine if the disclosure of information violated the Brown Act or any other privileges. The investigation was to conclude reasonably within 30 days. The firm has been paid, and the investigation is being completed. So I do not understand the need to have another law firm to conduct the same investigation. I believe it is important that we are not frivolously spending taxpayers' money. It is important that we and the public hear the results of this investigation, which was conducted by an independent investigator who was selected by the board back in October 20th. After hearing the results of the investigation, if the board is not happy with the results, then I am open to a second investigation. But I want to hear the results of the first investigation. Therefore, I will not be voting in favor of selecting Lozano Smith Law Firm to conduct the investigation without making sure the public is aware of the results of the investigation that had already occurred. And I also am in agreement with a couple of our public our public speakers tonight. If there is the perception of collusion between Member Thomas and Member Hill based on the document that was released on Facebook and social media and with the confirmation of Member Hill dissenting, I would be, I would also take their recommendation to have you guys recuse yourself from the vote tonight. Thank you.

[5152] Nancy Thomas: Is there any other board member that wants to speak? If not, I would like to ask for a motion.

[5159] SPEAKER_28: President Thomas, I'm not sure if it's you wish to entertain another public comment arrived after discussion.

[5166] Nancy Thomas: I think it's only fair that we don't after we've already started discussion.

[5190] Aiden Hill: I'd like to move that we approve the engagement of Lou Lozano for review of this matter.

[5206] SPEAKER_28: Sorry, point of order. I believe we have a motion from Member Thomas. So do you, Member Hill, do you want, is that your second?

[5212] Aiden Hill: I think she asked for the motion.

[5213] SPEAKER_28: You asked for the motion, okay.

[5216] Nancy Thomas: Can I have a second? I'll second. Please, okay. Call for the question. Voting is open.

[5255] SPEAKER_28: It hasn't come through Member Hill. If you want to just state your, out loud, I can lock it in.

[5263] Aiden Hill: Yeah, I vote too. I vote yes.

[5266] SPEAKER_28: OK. So one second. I have all votes in this case. I have three yeas from Member Hill, Member Jones, and Member Thomas. And I have a no from Member Nguyen and Member Zhang. Thank you. Motion passes.

[5277] Nancy Thomas: With that, we are leaving open session and going into closed session. Thank you.

1. CALL TO ORDER

Meeting Practices and Information

Type Procedural IN-PERSON MEETING INFORMATION:

NUSD has opened its boardroom for in-person meetings and will follow the State's and Alameda County's safety guidelines for public gatherings. Please refrain from attending in-person meetings if you have any of the following symptoms: Loss of taste/smell Difficulty breathing Vomiting Diarrhea Fever Cough Headache Sore Throat Runny Nose For additional COVID-19 information please go to https://www.newarkunified.org/covid-19 or https://www.acoe.org/guidance

OBSERVE THE BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING:

Members of the public may observe the meeting via the NUSD YouTube Channel, live transmission on Comcast Channel 26, or in-person at the NUSD Boardroom. Spanish translation will be available via Zoom.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

The public will have the opportunity to address the Board of Education regarding non-agendized matters and agendized items with a live audio-only comment via Zoom with advance notice requested by email at PUBLICCOMMENT@newarkunified.org, a written comment by submitting a speaking card via email at PUBLICCOMMENT@newarkunified.org, or with live in-person comments by submitting a speaker-card with the Executive Assistant.

Pledge of Allegiance

Type Procedural PURPOSE:

The Governance Team will recite the Pledge of Allegiance

Roll Call

Type Procedural TRUSTEES:

President Nancy Thomas Vice President/Clerk Aiden Hill Member Katherine Jones Member Phuong Nguyen Member Bowen Zhang

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Approval of the Agenda

Type Action

Recommended The recommendation is that the Board of Education approve the agenda for this meeting. Action

PURPOSE:

Members of the Governance Team may request that the agenda be amended or approved as presented.

Motion & Voting The recommendation is that the Board of Education approve the agenda for this meeting, with the amendment of moving item 5.1 to 2.2 and 5.2 will become 5.1.

Motion by Phuong Nguyen, second by Bowen Zhang.
Final Resolution: Motion Carries
Yea: Phuong Nguyen, Aiden Hill, Bowen Zhang, Katherine Jones, Nancy Thomas

3. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS

Public Comment on Agenda Items

Type Procedural

PURPOSE:

The Board of Education encourages the community's participation in its deliberations and has tried to make it convenient to express their views to the Board.

BACKGROUND:

Please see the instructions on the link below for public comment information on non-agenda items and agenda items.

http://go.boarddocs.com/ca/nusd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=C4Q2D4019F40

4. BOARD MEMBER REQUESTS

Legal Counsel Representation Selection

Type Action

Recommended The Board President's recommendation is that the Board of Education approves the use of Action Lozano Smith, Attorneys at Law for legal representation regarding the complaint received and possible investigation and litigation. PURPOSE:

For the Board to discuss and select legal representation from the currently retained NUSD law firms.

BACKGROUND:

Per the request of the Board President, Nancy Thomas, the Board will have a discussion, provide direction, and take action regarding which existing legal counsel to use regarding the complaint received and possible investigation and litigation.

Motion & Voting The Board President's recommendation is that the Board of Education approves the use of Lozano Smith, Attorneys at Law for legal representation regarding the complaint received and possible investigation and litigation.

Motion by Aiden Hill, second by Katherine Jones.
Final Resolution: Motion Carries
Yea: Aiden Hill, Katherine Jones, Nancy Thomas
Nay: Phuong Nguyen, Bowen Zhang

5. CLOSED SESSION

CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Gov. Code, � 54957.6, subd. (a): Employee Organizations - NTA and CSEA

Type Action, Information, Procedural PURPOSE:

Information may be provided by the agency negotiator, Executive Director of Human Resources, and/or assistance from the legal firm Dannis, Woliver, Kelley, Attorneys at Law may be provided.

The employee organizations include NTA & CSEA.

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL � ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Gov. Code, � 54956.9, subd. (d)[(2) or (3)]

Type Action, Discussion, Procedural PURPOSE:

Information may be provided regarding significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: One case

Recess to Closed Session

Type Procedural PURPOSE:

The Board will recess to Closed Session, and reconvene to Open Session on or about 7:00 p.m.

6. ADJOURNMENT

Adjournment

Type Action

Recommended The recommendation is that the Board of Education adjourns this meeting. Action PURPOSE:

No items will be considered after 10:00 p.m. unless it is determined by a majority of the Board to extend to a specific time.

This action will conclude the meeting.

No minutes available.