Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Wallowa County chieftain. (Enterprise, Wallowa County, Or.) 1943-current | View Entire Issue (March 27, 2019)
A8 NEWS Wallowa County Chieftain Wednesday, March 27, 2019 Has the Enterprise School Board gone overboard? By Steve Tool Wallowa County Chieftain A controversial campaign by the Enterprise School District Board to push a stu- dent athlete’s ineligibility question to the highest levels not only utterly failed, but possibly opened another can of worms. On March 7, the Oregon Government Ethics Commission recommended the agency investigate the board’s alleged violations of Oregon’s Executive Session provisions. In particular, ORS 192.660, which gov- erns virtually every aspect of executive sessions: pro- cedures, news media atten- dance and limits. The ethics commis- sion issued fi ve prelimi- nary reviews with its inves- tigation recommendation to each of the board’s fi ve members: Board Position 4 and chair, Kate Fent; Board Position 5 and vice-chair, Heather Melville; Board Position 1, Mandy Decker; Board Position 3, Mike Wie- deman; Board Position 2, Adrian Harguess. The doc- uments are dated from Feb. 26 of this year. The original complainant is Ilene Wells, wife of for- mer Enterprise school’s athletic director and pres- ent high school basketball coach, Larry Wells, who, on Jan. 4, tendered his res- ignation to the school board and superintendent, Erika Pinkerton, effective Feb. 22 of this year. Among other things, Wells accused Pinkerton and the board of “unprofessional behavior” in regards to the student’s eligibility request including an alleged deliberate falsifi - cation of the student’s atten- dance records. While the Chieftain does not possess the complaint that Ilene Wells made to the ethics commission on Jan. 30, it does possess the notice from the ethics commission that it had decided to con- duct an investigation of the Courtesy photo Former Enterprise Athletic Director Larry Wells board regarding Wells’s complaint. Also included in the let- ter are the case numbers assigned to each individ- ual board member. All are named in the commission’s response to Ms. Wells. The preliminary review of board chair, Kate Fent, case no. 19-010XSM, stated Ms. Wells alleged that Fent and the other school board members possibly violated executive session provi- sions, including discussing unauthorized topics, took fi nal action in executive ses- sions and failed to satisfy statutory prerequisites. The review also noted that Ms. Wells stated a num- ber of concerns with the board but that the commis- sion only had jurisdiction to investigate executive ses- sion complaints. The com- plaint alleges that board member Decker confi rmed to Wells on Dec. 7, 2018, that school board chair Fent and vice-chair Melville had drafted a letter outlining the board’s stance on the stu- dent’s eligibility and sent it to the student’s family on Dec. 3. Ms. Wells alleged that no open meeting was held in December or January to dis- cuss the decision. She also said that the board discussed the employment related per- formance of Larry Wells without providing him notice or an opportunity to Rocky Wilson A solitary student approaches the steps at the newly refurbished Enterprise Middle School. request an open hearing. Moreover, Ms. Wells alleged that the ineligible student’s family participated in the meeting to plead his case and that action was taken (the decision to send the letter), which violated the executive meeting stat- ute in terms of the meeting’s content. The board responded to the allegations in writ- ten form, through its attor- ney, Luke Reese, of Gar- rett Hemann Robertson. The board alleged that it discussed student records, which does allow for exec- utive session (barring mem- bers of the public). It also alleges that during the Dec. 3 session, the board only sought to reach con- sensus on whether to con- tinue discussions on a let- ter to the student or to fi rst send it to legal counsel. The response also called the let- ter a confi dential student record exempt from public disclosure and discussion only regarded the content of the letter, not the decision or action underlying the letter. The board said that to the extent that a poll was taken on the letter caused mini- mum harm, or was exempt as they were discussing a confi dential student matter and the letter was sent to the student. Lastly, the board denied it performed a formal evalua- tion or considered dismissal or discipline of Larry Wells although it discussed the former AD. Consequently, it did not have to notify him of a meeting. The ethics commission noted that the board does not record meetings but keeps minutes. The com- mission noted that execu- tive minutes in particular are “quite brief.” Of particular interest in the commission’s examina- tion of the minutes is the Dec. 3 executive session that saw the council exam- ining a draft of the letter later sent to the student, in which a roll call vote took place, and the board did not convene for a public session afterward. The commission received a copy of the letter the board sent to the student that explained why his initial request for hardship eligibil- ity was denied. According to the commission, the let- ter states that Larry Wells or Blake Carlsen did not han- dle the student’s initial eli- gibility request in a timely manner or with good per- sonal communication. The board also said they advised the superinten- dent not to forward the stu- dent’s eligibility request up the chain of command on academic grounds, but also asked that the super- intendent review the stu- dent’s request upon regain- ing academic eligibility. The board also affi rmed it would develop policies and proto- cols to better address similar situations in the future. The commission’s rec- ommendations concluded that the Dec. 3 “letter” exec- utive meeting possibly vio- lated executive session pro- visions because of the vote on the letter that took place. It was not clear whether the vote was subject to the pro- visions the board outlined. Also, the commission noted that the Dec. 3 and Jan. 7 executive sessions possibly formally reviewed Wells’s performance as the board’s letter to the student possibly indicates despite its protestations that dis- cussions of Wells’s per- formance didn’t rise to the level of a formal evaluation. The commission also noted the minutes to the execu- tive sessions are so brief that certainty of what hap- pened is negligible without investigation. In the end, the commis- sion concluded: “There appears to be a substantial objective basis to believe that violations of the exec- utive session provisions of Oregon Public Meetings law may have occurred on Dec. 3, 2018.” That state- ment was in regard to the letter vote. “Additionally, there appears to be a substantial objective basis to believe that violations of the exec- utive session provisions of Oregon Public Meetings law may have occurred on Dec. 3, 2018 and Jan. 7, 2019. This citation regards the board’s possible discussion of Wells’s job performance. The document further notes: “Ms. Fent partici- pated in the executive ses- sions when these viola- tions may have occurred. The Oregon Government Ethics Commission should move to investigate whether Ms. Fent violated ORS 192.660.” The commission doc- ument was prepared by investigator Susan Myers and approved by execu- tive director Bersin. Amy E. Alpaugh, Assistant Attor- ney General reviewed the document. Time Time Flys Flys When When You’re You’re Serving Serving Great Great Coffee Coffee and and Making Making Amazing Amazing Memories! Memories! We are so thankful! 16 years (2003-2019) of support for our small family owned and operated business continues to be one of our greatest successes. To be known throughout Wallowa County and beyond, exceeds all our expectations! The next generation will quickly be nipping at the bit to take the reigns and running the Blue Banana counter before you know it! Serving ESPRESSOS MORE Established April 1, 2003 Lostine, Oregon Open Mon -Fri 6am to 4pm • Sat 6am to 1pm 541.569.2400