Susan Stoops' response to my complaint regarding the superintendent's mileage reimbursements, leave accounting, vacation buy-outs, and record keeping can be found here: http://thecentraladvocate.blogspot.com/2011/03/complaint-response.html
After receiving her response, I made a formal public records request for the directives she said were given to the superintendent related to improving procedures and policies and I also requested a copy of the Buck report. Since she claimed that the report exonerated Hunter from wrong-doing and only identified problems with record keeping procedures, there is no reason to deny public access to the report. Under Oregon statute, very few public documents, with the exception of employee disciplinary matters, are exempt from public disclosure.
In response to my records request, I received from Brian Hungerford (one of the district's attorneys) the letter dated March 23, 2011. In it he states that the district in invoking attorney-client privilege in denying my public records request. It's quite a neat trick. If someone files a complaint, have the attorney hire the investigator and then the investigative report can be concealed from the public under "attorney-client privilege." It is important to note that it is the client, in this case the Central School Board, who invokes the privilege but that they are not required to do so. They are not required to conceal this report, it is an active choice on their part. One wonders "Why?"
The other note worthy part of this letter is paragraph three in which Mr. Hungerford states that there are no written directives to Superintendent Hunter. This would seem to contradict Susan Stoops' statement that such directives had been issued. Perhaps they were given verbally in which case they don't really count, there is no record of them, and they cannot be used as part of the superintendent's evaluation. In other words, they're not really worth the paper they're not printed on.
Mr. Hungerford also states that while under Oregon law the whole report may be exempt from public disclosure, I could request a condensed version of the factual information contained within it. That I did and in response received the letter dated April 6, 2011. Read it carefully and tell me whether Susan Stoops' statement, "Based on the results of the investigation, it is the determination of the Board that the Superintendent has not engaged in behavior that constitutes a violation of the law or Board policy. Nor has he violated any directives or expectations of him as communicated by the Board" is an accurate summary of the Buck report. Four summary pages that detail a multitude of problems and non-compliance reduced to "Nope, nuthin' there!" (If anyone can follow the twists and turns of Section B, please enlighten me.)
I have appealed the district's denial of my public records request to the Polk County District Attorney, Stan Butterfied. He has asked for a copy of the Buck report so that he may compare its findings to the information provided to me by Susan Stoops and Brian Hungerford. After reviewing the report, he may well decide to order its public release. Let's hope so. It is probably the only way we will ever know the truth.
The documents to accompany this post can be found in the post below titled "Documents."
And Susan Stoops wonders why there is a recall effort going on? I can't believe the tricks she and Hunter go through to protect each other. You know you must not be a very good superintendent when you are the only candidate and St. Helens still doesn't want you.
ReplyDeleteThe DA has denied my appeal. In his letter he notes that, "It appears to me that the investigation into Ms. Stanley's allegations was designed to insulate the District from public scrutiny by use of the attorney/client privilege. This attorney/client privilege is at the core of our justice system and I will not attempt in this ruling to weaken it." So we will have to content ourselves with the factual summary provided by Brian Hungerford and found in the post titled "Documents." The facts as he summarizes them cast serious doubt on Susan Stoops' assertion that the superintendent did nothing wrong.
ReplyDelete