The fallout from Tuesday's chaotic Christina school board meeting continued Wednesday, when the district's own lawyer penned a blistering memo saying he is “gravely concerned” about the board's inability to follow the law.
“Recent board actions discussed previously demonstrate wholesale disregard of the law. Last night, they continued,” attorney James H. McMackin III wrote in an email sent to board members and later obtained by the Newark Post.
McMackin highlighted a litany of concerns, including that the board violated the First Amendment by denying a citizen the ability to speak during the public comment time, censored a state legislator's remarks, misrepresented McMackin's legal advice, published a private personnel file and violated parliamentary policy.
He also revealed that Robert Andrzejewski – who the board hired as interim superintendent Tuesday night without discussion, explanation or opportunity for public comment – does not have a current license from the Delaware Department of Education. A public database indicates his educator license expired in 2020.
“I could go on, but I know I am falling on deaf ears,” McMackin wrote. “I am not sure what the board's goal is, but it is not adherence to the law.”
McMackin, whose firm has represented Christina for more than 40 years, had previously given the board notice that he is dropping the district as a client. On Wednesday, he sought to expedite his departure and encouraged the board to find new legal representation as quickly as possible.
Until then, he wrote, he will continue to assist the administration with routine matters but will only give opinions to board members in writing, with copies sent to the entire board.
“I cannot be a part of this,” he said.
First Amendment violations
The board's first violation of the First Amendment on Tuesday came when State Rep. Paul Baumbach was addressing the board during public comment, McMackin wrote.
Baumbach compared members of the board to the captain of the Titanic, burying their heads in the sand when it becomes clear they made mistakes.
“Do you change your course?” he asked rhetorically. “No, full steam ahead.”
When Baumbach attempted to direct a comment toward Board President Donald Patton, Patton cut him off.
“Excuse me. Let's be very clear,” Patton said. “I've said that you will not address your comments in the negative, derogatory way to any board member sitting here or anyone working in our district. Please, you can continue, but your respect needs to be cleaned up a little bit.”
According to McMackin, that amounted to Baumbach being “censored.”
“There is no gray area there,” he wrote.
Patton also denied public comment time to Kevin Ohlandt, a blogger who has been critical of the board. Ohlandt had signed up to speak via Zoom, but Patton skipped over him.
Board member Doug Manley brought it up later in the meeting, and Patton said that Ohlandt doesn't have a right to speak to the board because he is not a Delaware resident.
“The justice department and our lawyer has determined that person doesn't have a right because they live in New York,” Patton said.
However, McMackin wrote in his Wednesday memo that he did not provide that legal advice, which he referred to as a “legal falsity.”
Delaware's Freedom of Information Act allows governments to deny document requests from non-residents but it does not include any provisions regarding non-residents speaking at meetings, McMackin explained. It's possible the board could enact a residency requirement but it would have to be applied uniformly, with every speaker's address verified.
As it stands now, denying Ohlandt the right to speak is “a tremendous free speech issue” and puts the district at legal risk.
“In other words, we are exposed,” McMackin wrote.
Ultimately, during Tuesday's meeting, Manley read aloud the comment Ohlandt had planned to give, which mostly consisted of complaints and allegations against board member Naveed Baqir.
Manley's microphone was cut, but he continued to shout the comment from the stage as another board member tried to talk over him. Board members and audience members began shouting at each other until enough board members walked out and the meeting ended.
Publication of personnel document
As part of his monthly board president's report, Patton submitted documents to be published online as part of the meeting agenda. One was a lengthy letter defending himself against various criticisms made against him. Another was a document that was part of a district employee's personnel file.
The personnel document dates back to 2019, when Patton was working in the district office and had not yet been elected to the school board.
The document is addressed to the employee and summarizes the results of an investigation into complaints that Patton and the employee had filed against each other.
The investigation substantiated a complaint that Patton bullied and intimidated the employee. It could not substantiate a complaint that the employee bullied and harassed Patton. However, the report did fault the employee for hasty communication and inequitable treatment and ordered additional coaching and supervision of the employee.
Fifteen minutes before Tuesday's meeting, McMackin emailed the board and reported that the now former employee – who left the district at some point after the 2019 investigation and later pursued legal action against the district – was “irate” that a private document from her personnel file had been published.
“I urge you to remove it immediately,” McMackin told the board members.
Board member Monica Moriak had a secretary remove the personnel document, which Patton later criticized her for.
“You don't have the right to remove anything that's on mine,” Patton said, adding that the document had already been leaked online and published on blogs. He accused Manley of leaking the document, which Manley denied.
In the accompanying letter, Patton said he was publishing the personnel document because his opponents have been using the 2019 incident to question his fitness to lead the board.
Most Popular
Comments / 0