The Arizona Attorney Generalโs Office has cleared the Tucson Unified School District in a pair of open-meetings complaints, but characterized Governing Board membersโ actions as โill advisedโ and in violation of the โintentโ of the law.
The board was hit with a pair of open-meetings complaints last February, alleging that open-meetings laws had been violated.
One complaint alleged that board members Kristel Foster and Adelita Grijalva broke the open-meetings law when they ambushed board member Mark Stegeman in a parking lot as he attemped to meet with an attorney about firing former Superintendent H.T. Sanchez. Another claimed that board members Michael Hicks, Rachael Sedgwick and Stegeman violated the law by planning Sanchezโs ouster.
Assistant Arizona Attorney General Kevin Smith wrote in a letter of findings that there was no violation in either account. On the first charge, Smith described the parking-lot stunt as โill advised,โ saying similar confrontations should be avoided .
In his findings on the second allegation, Smith noted that while Sedgwick and Stegeman had communicated about Sanchezโs removal, a conversation between just two board members doesnโt violate the law โ it has to be a majority of the five-member board.
โThe crucial question is did they involve Board member Hicks in any such discussions,โ Smith wrote, adding that โthe evidence does not support a conclusion that this occurred.โ
Smith noted that Stegeman said he was very aware of open-meetings law and was actively trying to avoid violating it, and did not involve Hicks in the discussion about Sanchez.
Smith pointed out that Hicks and Stegeman have served on the board together for years and certainly had some understanding of each otherโs position on the topic, โbut having a good idea of another memberโs position and how they are likely to vote on an issue based upon past experience is not the same as discussing the issue with that member.โ
And while it wasnโt specifically brought up in any complaint, the Attorney Generalโs Office found one area of the boardโs communications โconcerning.โ
It said evidence shows that after Sedgwick won the election in November 2016, but before she was officially sworn in in January 2017, she, Stegeman,and Hicks all discussed issues that were certain to come before the board, including protocols and policies.
Smith cited an email from Stegeman stating, โI think it is legally OK to discuss these (issues) collectively before (Sedgwick is officially sworn in).โ
While Stegemanโs logic was true to the letter of the law, the communications violated the lawโs intent, which is to ensure that public officials donโt conduct public business in secret.
While the law doesnโt specifically state that it applies to members-elect, the Attorney Generalโs Office recommends as a best practice that public bodies treat the law as if it did.
โMr. Hicks, Dr. Stegeman and Ms. Sedgwick clearly frustrated the spirit and purpose of the open meetings law. โฆ They may not have violated the letter of the law, but they did violate itโs intent,โ he wrote.
