Source: https://www.dwkesq.com/practices/board-ethics-transparency-and-accountability/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 19:05:24+00:00

Document:
Maintaining the public’s trust and confidence is of utmost importance to school district and community college boards and officials. It is only through securing and maintaining public trust that schools and colleges are able to focus on the fundamental work of teaching and learning and pursue projects to support the educational objectives.
For over 40 years, we have acted as trusted advisors to school districts and community colleges. We have provided counsel not only within specialized areas but also on overarching issues of governance and accountability. Our dedication to the work of school districts and community colleges and long history of advising boards and officials as trusted general counsel on sensitive governance issues provide us the wisdom and awareness to address every legal challenge.
The increasing challenges and scrutiny that school districts and governing boards face on issues of public governance and accountability, as well as our unparalleled and longstanding expertise on those very issues, led us to expand and reshape our governing boards practice to launch a legal specialty called BETA—Board Ethics, Transparency and Accountability—to encompass the full spectrum of accountability issues that boards and administrators face.
Governance issues are often sensitive and high profile, and we pride ourselves on providing boards with solid legal advice and the benefit of our depth of experience. We represent the interests of the full board as a decision-making body. When problems arise between board members, or when assistance is needed to navigate the relationship between the full board and the rights and conduct of individual members, we provide that legal support.
Our attorneys are aware of the intricate requirements that govern the work of boards, the interrelationship of applicable rules, and how issues in this area can be judged harshly in the court of public opinion. We help boards and officials not only stay in full compliance with these laws, but also accomplish the public’s business.
DWK attorneys regularly draft amicus briefs before the California Supreme Court on behalf of the California School Boards Association’s Education Legal Alliance (ELA), most recently advocating for the ELA on groundbreaking cases involving the California Public Records Act.
On behalf of five school districts, we formed a joint powers agency (JPA) to call a region-wide parcel tax election to benefit a high school district and all of its feeder elementary districts; the parcel tax election serves as one component of a multi-pronged plan to enable on feeder elementary district to become a unified district, while mitigating financial loss to remaining area of the high school district. When the JPA’s voters approved a tax, we successfully defended the tax before the Court of Appeal solidifying a multi-million dollar funding stream for the districts. Suarez v. Centinela Valley Union High School District, 2015 WL 601696 (2015).
We assisted a community college in successfully recovering payments from construction contractors based on alleged criminal violations of Government Code section 1090 through excessive gifts and former employees’ alleged violations through acceptance of gifts and other acts. Simultaneously DWK defended the community college from a taxpayer lawsuit seeking to force invalidation of the construction contract.
In a complex matter involving allegations of tax misallocation between public agencies. DWK brought a petition for writ of mandate and achieved a settlement to restore approximately $548,000 of misallocated tax funds to the District while maintaining constructive relationships between public agencies dependent on one another for operations. Amador County Unified School District v. County Of Amador, (Super. Ct. Amador County, 2011, No. 11CV7629).
We have successfully represented school districts across the State before the Fair Political Practices Commission regarding complaints alleging misuse of public funds during an election process.
DWK represented the District and successfully defeated a petition for writ of mandate under the California Public Records Act as to a newspaper’s request seeking every email to and from the superintendent for an entire year. The Superior Court denial of the requester’s writ petition was summarily rejected by the Court of Appeal. Tim Crews dba Sacramento Valley Mirror v. Willows Unified School District, (Super. Ct. Glenn County, 2010, No. 09CV00697).
When a permanent teacher petitioned for a writ of administrative mandamus challenging the termination of her employment, DWK advocated for the District in resolving a longstanding question under the personnel exception to the Brown Act. The court held that the board was not required to give notice to the employee that it was considering initiating dismissal charges, and the teacher did not have a due process right to notice or to address the board before the board initiated dismissal proceedings. Kolter v. Commission on Professional Competence of the Los Angeles Unified School District, 170 Cal.App.4th 1346 (2009).
We prosecuted a case on behalf of the District against two employees and a publishing company arising from the employees’ misuse of their status to enter into a contract, purportedly on behalf of the District, for the purchase of approximately $4 million in books. The books were authored by one of the employees, and he was scheduled to receive royalties in violation of conflict of interest statutes, including Government Code section 1090, and the False Claims Act. We successfully negotiated a settlement which allowed the District to recover up to $3.6 million dollars and provided for the District to keep the books at no cost. Los Angeles Unified School District v. Vheru and Coordination Group Publications, (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2007, No. BC328510).
DWK was successful in obtaining dismissal of an action to invalidate a voter-approved parcel tax. The court found the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the claim, as he did not reside in the District. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal by the trial judge. Katz v. Mountain View-Whisman School District, 2006 WL 3293747 (2006).
Will You Be Filing a Form 700?
Must a School Board Agendize an Item from a Member of the Public?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.