February 8, 2014 Board of Education Jefferson County School District 1829 Denver West Drive #27 Golden, Colorado 80401 Via Electronic Mail at board@jeffco.k12.co.us Dear Members of the Board of Education of Jefferson County: I am outraged and appalled at the actions the Board of Education has taken since the three newest members took office three months ago. The constructive discharge of Dr. Cindy Stevenson is only the most recent (and perhaps most egregious) of these entirely unacceptable behaviors. As members of the Board of Education, you are governed by Colorado state laws as well as Jefferson County School District R-1 policies, including policy BBBA, which states, in pertinent part, as follows:

It is important that the candidate be sincerely and honestly interested in serving the whole school district for the best interests of all children. Board members shall be nonpartisan in dealing with school matters. The Board does not wish to subordinate the education of children and youth to any partisan principle, group interest, or personal ambition.

At the meeting where Dr. Stevenson announced her earlier-than-anticipated departure from her role as superintendent, one of the Board’s own members asked the three-member majority to explain how this action, in particular, as well as several enumerated prior actions, were in the best interest of the children of Jefferson County. I am certain I am not alone in wanting to know how the Board can justify its treatment of Dr. Stevenson, which amounted to her constructive discharge, especially in light of it’s duty to “serv[e] the whole school district for the best interests of all children.” There are many other examples of actions that the Board has taken that are also in clear violation of the policies that govern the Board, including:

! Policy BDG, which provides that “Any attorney or law firm retained by the Board and district shall at all times conform to the highest ethical standards, shall comply with the Code of Professional Responsibility, and shall keep the superintendent advised of the progress of such matters.” I have no doubt that one of the elements leading to Dr. Stevenson’s early resignation is that she was not kept “advised of the progress” of any matters related to the work that the Board’s new attorneys have been doing.

! Policy KDB, which provides that “[t]he Board is a public servant, and its meetings and

records shall be matters of public information. . .” This morning, a majority of the Board

met in private with its attorney. This constituted a meeting of the Board, and it was not approved by the requisite number of votes of the Board to constitute an Executive Session, based on the advice of the Board’s new attorney, Brad Miller, at a previous Board meeting.

The Board is also governed by Board Policies for Jefferson County School District R-1, including Policy GP-04, which outlines the job description of the Board. The first responsibility of the Board, as defined by this policy, is as follows:

The Board will provide the link between the Jefferson County School District and the people of Jefferson County through a variety of communication strategies both internal and external.

Board Policy GP-05 outlines the President of the Board’s role, in pertinent part, as follows:

The President of the Board ensures the integrity of the Board’s process and normally serves as the Board’s official spokesperson. Accordingly, the President has the following authority and duties: 1. To lead the Board so that the Board’s performance is consistent with its own rules and policies and those legitimately imposed on it from outside the organization.

1. Board meeting deliberations are conducted and monitored to ensure that Board issues are discussed.

2. Deliberations are fair, open, and thorough, but also efficient, timely, orderly and to the point . . . 6. To ensure that the entire Board is fully informed about Board business.

There is little doubt, based on the public response to the Board’s recent actions, that the President of the Board is not only not “ensuring the integrity of the Board” but is, in fact, calling such integrity into grave question. Another comment made by one of the incumbent Board members indicated that the President has not, in fact, “ensure[d] that the entire Board is fully informed about Board business.” Rather, it appears from the meetings, comments of the Board members and the inferences we, the constituents, are able to draw from these sources, that the President is conferring only with the three-member majority, and deliberately (and in direct violation of the policies that govern the Board) not informing the two incumbent members of the Board of the majority’s plans for the School District. Board Policy GP-07 governs Board Member Code of Conduct. First and foremost, it provides that “Board members should represent the interests of the citizens of the school district. This accountability to the whole district supersedes any conflicting loyalty to other advocacy or interest groups, or citizens of a director district and membership on other boards or staffs. It also supersedes the personal interest of any Board member who is also a parent of a student in the district.” It is clear that the three-member Board majority has some sort of special interest or agenda to which it is committed, rather than focusing on the interests of the whole district. In fact, this obvious, though entirely unstated, agenda is a clear violation of the Board Members’ Covenants provided in Board Policy GP-08. This policy provides, in its entirety, as follows:

In order to build efficient and effective relationships, Board members commit to communications that build mutual expectations and trust. Accordingly, we will: 1. Exercise honesty in all communication. 2. Demonstrate respect for each others’ opinions. 3. Focus on issues, not personalities. 4. Build and practice trust. 5. Maintain focus on shared goals. 6. Communicate in a timely manner to avoid surprises. 7. Support majority decisions of the Board. 8. Withhold judgment on issues until fully informed and discussed. 9. Seek to understand and be understood. 10. Criticize privately, praise publicly. 11. Use executive sessions appropriately and judiciously. 12. Maintain confidentiality. 13. Follow the chain of command. 14. Openly share personal concerns, issues and agendas. 15. Assume a non-defensive posture, taking the initiative to communicate

and ask questions for clarification. 16. Share information and knowledge which (sic) constructively contributes to

Board work. 17. Give direction as the whole, not as individuals. 18. Make every reasonable effort to protect the integrity and promote the

positive image of the district and one another. 19. Notify each other of significant events at which we represented the

Jefferson County School District. We will not: 1. Embarrass each other or the district. 2. Intentionally mislead or misinform each other. 3. Maintain hidden agendas.

Finally, Board Policy GP-17, that addresses Community Engagement, reads as follows:

The Board of Education is committed to a community engagement process that assists the board in meeting its ends and the district’s mission to provide a quality education that prepares all children for a successful future. The board believes that engaging our community is essential to preserving a strong system of public education. The board’s policies and decisions should reflect community values, good educational practice and available financial resources. The board believes that an effective community engagement process can include multiple formats, but it is best accomplished by face-to-face interaction – not just between the board and community members, but among community members as well. The Board of Education defines community engagement as a long-term, on-going process focusing on policy level issues framed in public terms that:

! Involves listening to and talking with the Jefferson County community as well as community members listening to and talking with each other

! Informs and deepens the board’s understanding of the community’s perspective, values and priorities

! Informs and deepens the community’s understanding of the issues, costs and trade-offs of the board’s decision-making process

! Focuses on policy-level issues reflecting the board’s ends and the district’s mission – not day-to-day issues

! Uses a variety of strategies to reach the full community ! Increases opportunities, both formal and informal, for meaningful

dialogue and interaction between board members and the community ! Seeks a shared sense of responsibility among the community, board and

district for successfully providing a quality education that prepares all children for a successful future[.]

The three-member Board majority clearly has a hidden agenda that it is shoving through, despite the objection of the community and the two incumbent members of the Board of Education. Nevertheless, the three-member Board majority has informed neither the other members of the Board nor the public of the details of its agenda. If whatever you are planning is truly in the best interest of our children, then stand up and proclaim it from the rooftops. Have the courage and strength of your convictions, and provide the data to support your plans. One of the reasons I moved to Jefferson County when my husband and I came to Colorado in 2000 was because of its outstanding school system. My children are fortunate enough to go to the amazing public schools here. One reason the schools here are among the best in the state is due to the school district’s leadership – both at the district and individual school level. In three short months, you have torn down the very foundation of our school district’s success. That is not to say that the education system here is perfect, nor that we couldn’t benefit from new leadership. But it appears to the public as if you all have already selected Dr. Stevenson’s successor, without any sort of consideration to the chaos you are creating in our county or the best interests of all of our children. It is clear to me that the actions of the Board, and in particular the three-member majority, call into question your commitment to serving the best interests of our children and your integrity. We, the parents of Jefferson County students, cannot trust you to follow the laws and policies that govern you, nor can we trust you to do what is right for our children. For one thing I will thank you – your actions have been so egregious that you have forced the community into action. The three-member majority of the Board may not particularly like the results of the forces they have put into motion. But we can sit idly by and watch you devastate our school system no longer.

In the meanwhile, and in accordance with District Policy K, this communication is addressed to the Board; as such, please provide me with a response to the questions contained in this letter. In so doing, please remember the many other policies applicable to the Board, including the Board members’ responsibilities related to honesty, integrity, communications and no hidden agendas. In particular, please keep in mind that as a member of Jefferson County’s Board of Education, you have “commit[ed] to communications that build mutual expectations and trust . . . [and to] . . . [e]xercise honesty in all communication.” Board Members Covenants in Board Policy GP-08. Sincerely,

Wendy R. McCord Wendy R. McCord

February 18, 2014 Board of Education Jefferson County School District 1829 Denver West Drive #27 Golden, Colorado 80401 Via Electronic Mail at board@jeffco.k12.co.us Dear Members of the Board of Education of Jefferson County: I am writing in regards to the addition this morning of three new items to the agenda for the Special Meeting of the Board of Education scheduled to take place this evening at 5:30 pm. I confirmed the agenda as of yesterday, and sometime today the following new items were added: agenda item 2.01, agenda item 2.04 and agenda item 2.05. All three of these items were added less than 24 hours prior to the scheduled Special Meeting. Additionally, items 2.04 and 2.05 appear to be completely unrelated to the original purpose of the Special Meeting, which was to discuss a transition plan for the superintendent position and interview firms to conduct a superintendent replacement search. The Board of Education is bound not only by its own policies, but also by Colorado state law. District policy and several state statutes provide that a special meeting is conducted for a particular purpose, hence the term “special meeting.” The only business that may be conducted at a special meeting is “that [business] stated in the notice of said meeting.” C.R.S. 22-32-108(4); see also District Policy BE. Furthermore, both district policy and state law provide that notice, at a minimum, must be provided 24 hours in advance. C.R.S. 24-6-402(2)(c) specifically provides as follows:

Any meetings at which the adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation, or formal action occurs or at which a majority or quorum of the body is in attendance, or is expected to be in attendance, shall be held only after full and timely notice to the public. In addition to any other means of full and timely notice, a local public body shall be deemed to have given full and timely notice if the notice of the meeting is posted in a designated public place within the boundaries of the local public body no less than twenty-four hours prior to the holding of the meeting. The public place or places for posting such notice shall be designated annually at the local public body's first regular meeting of each calendar year. The posting shall include specific agenda information where possible. [emphasis added]

According to the revised Agenda for the February 18 Special Meeting, there are at least three formal actions that the Board is considering taking: Agenda item 2.01 (approving the superintendent’s Early Release Agreement), agenda item 2.02 (adoption of a superintendent transition plan) and agenda item 2.03 (authorization of staff to negotiate a search firm agreement). Therefore, this meeting is subject to the requirements of

C.R.S. 24-6-402(2)(c), and the public should be provided no less than twenty-four hours prior notice of such meeting. In any event, as a “special meeting” the February 18, 2014 meeting of the Board of Education is subject to C.R.S. 22-32-108(4), which provides as follows: “At any special meeting, no business other than that stated in the notice of said meeting shall be transacted, unless all members are present and shall consent to consider and transact other business.” And it is also subject to District Policy BE, which also provides as follows:

The chief of staff for the superintendent and board shall be responsible for giving a written notice of any special meeting to each Board member at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting if mailed and 24 hours in advance if hand-delivered personally or emailed to the member. The notice must contain time, place, and purpose of the meeting. . . No business other than that stated in the notice of the meeting shall be transacted unless all members are present and agree to consider and transact other business. [emphasis added]

I note that on the BoardDocs website, the February 18, 2014 Special Meeting Agenda, item 2.05 specifically bases the addition of matters unrelated to the business intended to be conducted at the Special Meeting on “the canceling of the February 8 budget study session.” However, that meeting was canceled ten days ago, so there is no reason that items 2.04 or 2.05 could not have been included on the original Special Meeting agenda, of which I received notice on February 12 (six days ago). Failure to provide full and timely notice to the public of the topics to be discussed at any public meeting of the Board of Education, regardless of the ability to provide public comment, contributes to a lack of transparency on the part of the Board. There may be many citizens of JeffCo who are interested in the topic of budget development (many thousands if the results of the recent JeffCo budget survey are any indicator), who have not made plans to attend tonight’s Special Meeting because the matters added this morning weren’t previously indicated on the agenda. I can understand that the Board of Education is meeting this evening, and it seems efficient to go ahead and add these topics since you will all be meeting together already. Nevertheless, the appearance of impropriety, and the frequency with which last minute agenda items are added to virtually every meeting of the new Board of Education, continues to undermine the Board’s integrity and credibility. Additionally, Ms. Williams has indicated that she wanted to add to tonight’s meeting a discussion regarding something related to union contract issues – something completely unrelated to any other topic being discussed tonight. At least some members of the public are watching the actions of the Board of Education closely, and scrutinizing highly every decision made by the members of the Board of Education – including even these seemingly inconsequential decisions. The Board of Education is not the board of directors of a private corporation. Colorado state laws and Jefferson County district and board policies make clear that, with very limited exceptions, everything the Board of Education does is subject to public scrutiny. See, e.g., District Policy KDB (providing that the Board is a public servant and its meetings are matters of

public information). In order for this to be anything more than aspirational, the Board must provide the public with advance notice on the business to be discussed at meetings of the Board. The Colorado legislature has made clear that the “Sunshine Law” is not aspirational. See e.g. C.R.S. 24-6-402(9) (providing that a court can issue injunctions to enforce the provisions of the “Sunshine Law” and shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing citizen). As a tax-payer of Jefferson County and a parent of several JeffCo students, I strongly urge you to consider carefully how your actions are perceived, and to follow strictly not only the requirements of Colorado state laws and district policies, but also the spirit with which they were intended – namely open and honest communication with the community regarding the Board of Education’s agenda and actions. In this case, that might mean inconveniencing yourselves to schedule another meeting in order that you timely provide notice to the public regarding the addition of several topics to tonight’s agenda unrelated to the original purpose of the meeting (and as stated as late as this morning on the Board’s website). Sincerely,

Wendy R. McCord Wendy R. McCord

March 13, 2014 Board of Education Jefferson County School District 1829 Denver West Drive #27 Golden, Colorado 80401 Via Electronic Mail at board@jeffco.k12.co.us Dear Members of the Board of Education of Jefferson County: I am writing in regards to one of the agenda items at last week’s regular Board of Education meeting, on March 6, 2014 at Golden High School. The item was the resolution supporting Colorado SB 10-191. I don’t know anything about SB 10-191, and my comments are not substantive to the bill. Rather, I am writing about two comments made during the “discussion” of this supporting resolution. After providing her suggested revisions as a friendly amendment to the resolution, Ms. Dahlkemper pointed out to Mr. Witt that, in the past, Board members were given time to consider new topics without having to make decisions on the spot. I believe that Ms. Dahlkemper mentioned that new topics on the agenda would be discussed but not voted on until the next Board meeting. Rather than acknowledging this historic practice, Mr. Witt attempted to discount Ms. Dahlkemper’s concerns by pointing out that since she had enough time to offer suggested revisions, she clearly had enough time to consider the resolution. But Mr. Witt’s comment is completely beside the point. Ms. Dahlkemper, though she may not have realized it, was in fact referring to an existing Board Governance Policy, GP-02. The second item 10 provides: "The Board will not take a position on discussion agenda items the first time such items are placed on the agenda for Board consideration." Yet, time and again the new Board majority is doing just that: inserting items on the agenda, often at the last minute, then steamrolling the issues through with little to no discussion. I believe here, Ms. Dahlkemper and Ms. Fellman mentioned they had received the resolution less than two days prior to the Board meeting. Hiring Mr. Miller as the Board’s independent attorney was also done in clear violation of this policy, as were several loans to charter schools that had, at the very least, failed properly to budget and plan for their expenses. Regardless of the existence of GP-02, providing the Board members time to review the material presented, consider all sides and aspects of the issue, as well as to do their own research to determine facts vs. opinions is simply good governance practice. Hence the rationale for the policy in the first place. The Board isn’t even just taking positions on issues, but rather they are acting on issues the first time they appear on the Board agenda. This does not provide transparency to the community, rather it supports concerns that many community members have expressed that the three-member majority is meeting (or discussing district issues) in violation of Colorado’s Sunshine Law.

This leads me to the second comment that was made during this discussion that has left me scratching my head and wondering what the three-member majority, and in particular Mr. Witt, are thinking. When Ms. Dahlkemper asked who had drafted the resolution, Mr. Witt’s response was something along the lines of, “a group of people.” Ms. Dahlkemper called Mr. Witt on this non-response, yet Mr. Witt never answered the question. As a Jeffco parent and taxpayer, I definitely want you to answer this question: Who drafted this resolution?

1. Please identify, with particularity, all persons who participated in drafting the resolution supporting SB 10-191, including by email, phone or in-person. 2. If Mr. Miller (or anyone else at the law firm) participated, please provide the number of hours and dollar amounts Jeffco is being billed for the services in this matter. 3. If anyone else was paid for their service in connection with the drafting of this resolution, please provide their names, the service(s) they rendered and the amount each was or will be paid.

As a tax-payer of Jefferson County and a parent of several JeffCo students, I strongly urge you to consider carefully how your actions are perceived, and to follow strictly not only the requirements of Colorado state laws and district policies, but also the spirit with which they were intended – namely open and honest communication with the community regarding the Board of Education’s agenda and actions. Comments like those made my Mr. Witt at last week’s regular meeting of the Board of Education do not support transparency or integrity. I look forward to receiving a response to this letter in the two-week stated time frame. I currently have two letters outstanding to the Board to which I have yet to receive a response – they were dated February 8 and February 18, 2014. Sincerely,

Wendy R. McCord Wendy R. McCord

Wendy McCord <wmccord@alumni.virginia.edu>

Re: Email to Board No. c-14-305

Newkirk John <jnewkirk@jeffco.k12.co.us> Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:21 PMTo: Wendy McCord <wmccord@alumni.virginia.edu>Cc: Neal Helen E <hneal@jeffco.k12.co.us>

Dear Ms. McCord:

In your reply to my email response of 4/10/14, you ask who created the SB-191 draft resolution presented at theMarch 6 Board meeting. It is my understanding that Mr. Witt (kewitt@jeffco.k12.co.us), acting as Board president,crafted the first draft, though I cannot speak for him. Regarding the remainder of your message, I value your input,have noted your admonitions, and trust that we may all move forward now in the mutual best interests of our children.

Policy KDA, as you may know, requires that the District reply to correspondence from the public, but it does notobligate the Board secretary, superintendent, or designee to engage in ongoing debate or rebuttal of allegations orissues. Again, thank you for your involvement and for your active interest in our Jeffco schools.

I am, respectfully,

John J. Newkirk, SecretaryJefferson County Board of Educationjnewkirk@jeffco.k12.co.us

Wendy McCord <wmccord@alumni.virginia.edu>

Re: Email to Board No. c-14-305

Wendy McCord <wmccord@alumni.virginia.edu> Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 8:13 PMTo: kewitt@jeffco.k12.co.us, board@jeffco.k12.co.usBcc: Ingrid Mielke <ingrid.mielke1@gmail.com>, Jill Fellman <jcfellman@yahoo.com>, Lesley Dahlkemper<ldahlkemper@comcast.net>, Brandy Gulliford <bngdanes3@gmail.com>, Tammy Story <beflippin@msn.com>, "J.Levine" <jlevine922@yahoo.com>, Darcie Bolton Weiser <darciebolton@yahoo.com>, Kelly Johnson <kellyjjj@me.com>

Mr. Witt, I will ask you to please reply to the question that I posed to the Board back on March 13, 2014. At the Marchregular meeting, you informed Ms. Dahlkemper that a group of people drafted the statement in support of SB-191.Therefore, I take it that Mr. Newkirk's responses to my email are incorrect. Surely, if you had been the primary authorof the referenced statement, you would have indicated as such to Ms. Dahlkemper back at the March meeting, ratherthan refusing to answer her when she specifically asked who was involved in the drafting.

Also, since Mr. Newkirk was not 'in the loop' related to the drafting (and therefore his prior answers may beinaccurate), please advise me (and the rest of Jeffco), whether any of the time billed by Mr. Miller in the 22 days hebilled time to Jeffco in February (or indeed, any of his time) was utilized in connection with SB-191 or the statement insupport of it. If so, please advise me how many hours reflected on Mr. Miller's February statement (or any statements)are related to this particular statement/senate bill.

If Mr. Newkirk is, indeed, not able to speak for the Board, then he most definitely should not be responding to Boardcorrespondence. We, the people of Jeffco, have questions that we would like answered. It is disingenuous and hardly"transparent" to have someone with no authority or information answering the citizens' questions and correspondence.It is, rather, a waste of everyone's time.

I would love to move forward in the best interests of all of Jeffco's children; that is my goal. However, I fear that you(and therefore Mr. Newkirk and Ms. Williams) have a very distinct subset of children in mind for whose benefit you areacting - and they do not include the children who most need our efforts and attention. That has been made clear inmany of the decisions you, Mr. Newkirk and Ms. Williams have made since you took your oaths of office last fall, manyof which violate at least one board or district policy.

I am gravely disappointed in the manner in which the Jefferson County School District's Board of Education conductsitself - the complete lack of respect for the constituents to which you report (and your fellow board members), the lackof interest in learning about your role and information that could help improve the situation of all of Jeffco's students,and the disregard you have for your own policies and even Colorado law. The people are speaking to you, repeatedlyand clearly, yet you refuse to listen, respond or engage in any sort of intelligent discourse with us. We will not besilenced by your lack of responsiveness or disinterest. We will continue to ask questions, and we will continue todemand answers.

Wendy R. McCord, J.D., M.O.M.

---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Newkirk John <jnewkirk@jeffco.k12.co.us>Date: Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 7:21 PMSubject: Re: Email to Board No. c-14-305To: Wendy McCord <wmccord@alumni.virginia.edu>Cc: Neal Helen E <hneal@jeffco.k12.co.us>

[Quoted text hidden]

--

April 12, 2014 Board of Education Jefferson County School District 1829 Denver West Drive #27 Golden, Colorado 80401 Via Electronic Mail at board@jeffco.k12.co.us Dear Members of the Board of Education of Jefferson County: Mr. Witt acted in clear violation and reckless disregard of District Policy BEDH at the April 3, 2014 meeting. This is not the first time Mr. Witt and other members of the Board of Education have violated numerous Board policies (and possibly state laws). Based on Mr. Newkirk’s replies to three letters I have sent to the Board on this topic, I anticipate that the violations will continue with impunity, as clearly Mr. Witt is interested in following Board policies only when they support his agenda and has no concern for violating the exact same policies when they do not. And Mr. Newkirk and Ms. Williams sit idly by, complicit in these actions. To remind you, I wrote a letter on February 8, 2014 (c-14-148) reminding the board of its responsibilities with respect to policies BBBA, BDG, KDB, GP-04, GP-05, GP-07, GP-08 and GP-17, in particular in connection with the constructive discharge of Dr. Stevenson. My February 18, 2014 letter (c-14-203) related to C.R.S. 22-32-108, C.R.S. 24-6-402 and policy BE, in connection with the myriad of last-minute items that seem to appear on meeting agenda less than 24 hours before Board meetings. Here is Mr. Newkirk’s response to these first two letters, in its entirety:

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed questions regarding Board governance and decision-making in Jeffco schools. Each director strives to continuously uphold the duties and obligations of our office, and we remain diligent to follow our policies and Colorado law in every respect. We are honored to have constituents such as you who seek to hold public officials accountable and we respect your concerns. However, I assure you that we have not acted in violation of our policies as alleged in your correspondence of February 8 and 18. Thank you again for your vigilance. Please be aware that each Director acts in accordance with his or her principles in the best interest of the District, its staff, and especially its parents and students. [emphasis added]

The third letter, dated March 13, 2014 (c-14-305), dealt specifically with the resolution supporting SB-10-191 that Mr. Witt proposed at the March 6, 2014 regular meeting of the Board of Ed, the application of Board Governance Policy GP-02, and the Board’s blatant violation of this policy in connection with the resolution proposed by Mr. Witt and adopted by the three-member board majority. I finally received a partial reply from Mr. Newkirk to this

letter a few days ago. The response was completely unsatisfactory and did not answer fully the questions I posed to the Board. I have responded to Mr. Newkirk and the Board on that issue separately. This letter continues on my theme of blatant policy violations by Mr. Witt and the three-member board majority and focuses on the April 3 regular board meeting. There were many decisions made at the April 3 meeting that are, in my opinion, not in any way “in the best interest of the District, its staff and especially its parents and students.” And it is also my opinion that the three-member board majority is not educating itself properly on education issues, nor are you truly interested in gaining additional knowledge. But let’s focus on the facts: Mr. Witt acted in clear violation and reckless disregard of District Policy BEDH at the April 3, 2014 meeting. Fact: District Policy BEDH, Public Participation in Meetings, provides in relevant part as follows:

All regular and special meetings of the Board of Education shall be open to the public. . . The Board president will request that a large number of citizens who sign up to speak on a single topic select speakers and comment for no more than ten (10) minutes. An individual speaker on a single topic will be given three minutes to speak.

Fact: More than 30 people signed up to provide public comment, in both the on-agenda and off-agenda lists, pertaining to charter school equalization or agenda item 7.03. And more than a dozen of the people were all from the same charter school. Fact: Mr. Witt, as Board president, did not mention District Policy BEDH on the microphone, nor did he mention on mic that any of these citizens would need to form a group and be limited to ten minutes. Fact: The dozens of people who spoke in favor of charter school equalization spoke for more than 90 minutes, repeating many similar comments, themes and ideas. Fact: Mr. Witt (and Mr. Newkirk and Ms. Williams) voted in favor of reserving at least $3.7M in additional funds for charter schools serving only 8% of Jeffco students in the 2014-15 school year. Fact: At a meeting of the Board earlier this year, Mr. Witt told a group of parents that had signed up individually to speak regarding the STEM program expansion at Deer Creek that the Board could not have 25 people all speaking on the same topic, and that they would need to form a group and be limited to 10 minutes total. Fact: Mr. Witt (and Mr. Newkirk) voted against expanding the STEM program at Deer Creek. Inference: Mr. Witt had at least an inkling of what the people were going to discuss at the April 3 meeting, since he was able to identify with particularity certain people on the

off-agenda list who were actually addressing the same topic, and many parents wore t-shirts identifying their affiliation with Compass Montessori charter school. Conclusion: Mr. Witt is interested in following Board policies when they support his agenda, and has no concern for violating the exact same policies when they do not. The Board of Education appears to remain “diligent to follow [y]our policies and Colorado law in every respect” only when those policies and laws do not get in the way of the “education reform” agenda that the three-member majority is pushing in Jeffco. While I have your attention, I would also like to point out another element of Policy BEDH. Policy BEDH is entitled “Public Participation at Meetings.” In addition to the excerpt above, it also provides as follows:

At regular meetings, citizens can address the Board on any topic related to the operation of the schools. Only those topics which are on that particular agenda may be addressed at special meetings. [emphasis added]

This policy contemplates that public comment will take place at special meetings. The language specifically addresses what topic(s) may be addressed during special meetings, namely only those items on the particular agenda (as compared to a regular meeting, where “citizens can address the board on ANY topic related to the operation of the schools”). I will also note that there are three types of meetings permitted by District Policy BE and Colorado state law, namely Regular Meetings, Special Meetings and Executive Sessions. I realize the Board occasionally has what they call “study sessions,” but we should be clear that what the Board calls “study sessions” are, in fact, special meetings of the Board. Therefore, I would like to know how a citizen can sign up to participate via public comment at special meetings of the Board with respect to the topic(s) on the special meeting agenda? Also, if you understand there to be types of meetings of the Board of Education permitted in addition to those set forth above, please provide me with the types of such meetings and the basis for your understanding. Finally, there were so many people in attendance at the Board meeting on April 3 that the building was closed to the public. In order that the Board may fulfill its obligations to the citizens of Jeffco, it is important that the Board hold its meeting in a location with sufficient room to house all interested members of the public. There was at least one communication going around to charter school parents prior to the April 3 meeting that suggested that the charter parents should show up in such numbers as to ensure that others not supportive of their position not have room to attend/participate in the meeting. The quote I saw was: “and anyone not in support of our charters ends up on [sic] the overflow room and [sic] no seat/no voice.” While this opinion goes right along with your obvious agenda, it is inappropriate for Board members to support or encourage, in any way, such behavior. It violates many of the policies that I have delineated previously to the Board regarding its fiduciary obligations to the citizens of Jeffco.

Based on the dismissive responses I have belatedly received, the Board has not taken my concerns seriously. I am not alone in noticing the lack of transparency and integrity in the Board of Education since the three new members were elected and took office last fall. Ms. Dahlkemper and Ms. Fellman have pointed it out on numerous occasions, most recently when they refused to participate in another Executive Session that Mr. Witt wanted to call. In fact, the number of dissatisfied parents and citizens (not to mention teachers and administrators) is growing. You are under a microscope. The rules are clear. You must follow them. If you cannot, then you must step aside for citizens who actually care about public education in Jeffco to participate in the Board. Sincerely, Wendy R McCord

April 14, 2014 Board of Education Jefferson County School District 1829 Denver West Drive #27 Golden, Colorado 80401 Via Electronic Mail at board@jeffco.k12.co.us Dear Members of the Board of Education of Jefferson County: I am writing to applaud Lesley Dahlkemper and Jill Fellman for standing up to Mr. Witt, Mr. Newkirk and Ms. Williams at last week’s special meeting of the Jeffco Board of Education by voting against holding an Executive Session. While Executive Sessions are a necessary part of the governance process of an entire school district, their use should be extremely judicious. In this particular case, I can understand the three-member majority’s interest in having discussion’s take place in Executive Session, as permitted by Colorado law. However, I believe that it was not only appropriate to have open discussions, on the record, I also believe that it was a wise decision. Over the last two years, the Board of Education made “promises” to the teachers in Jeffco – help us through the budget crisis, and we will make it up to you when the economy rebounds and we have additional money. Teachers partnered with the district to ensure that there was the least amount of negative impact on the classrooms as possible, with the tremendous cuts that needed to be made. Now that the legislature is looking to restore some funding, the new Board has made a decision not to fulfill the promises made to the teachers. Rather than allocate funds as more than 13,000 members of the community suggested (to full-day Kindergarten and appropriate teacher compensation), the three-member majority has decided to provide millions of dollars of funding to 14 charter schools. On average, that is $265K per school – that’s a whole lot of money with no strings attached. As a result of this (and many other actions taken by the three-member majority), there are many non-teacher members of the public who are dissatisfied with the direction in which this new Board is taking Jeffco. Ms. Dahlkemper and Ms. Fellman’s decision to hold open discussions regarding how to proceed with union negotiations at an impasse was bold. It sends a message to the citizens that at least two members of the Board are concerned with the transparency that you all purport to support. It allows the citizens of Jeffco to understand precisely what is going on with union negotiations, and at the same time discounts the propaganda that Mr. Witt is propounding in the press, blaming the impasse on recalcitrant union representatives. It is at least encouraging to see that two members of the Board take seriously their fiduciary obligations. Brava, ladies. Sincerely, Wendy R McCord