Despite what you may have heard recently from local media, the board of trustees of Johnson County Community College did not violate the Kansas Open Meetings Act earlier in the year. That’s according to a ruling – and a reaffirmation – by the Johnson County district attorney’s office. It’s unfortunate that part of the story is so readily ignored by those hoping to capitalize on sensationalism and accusation.

 

Please know that the JCCC trustees take the Kansas Open Meetings Act (KOMA) very seriously. They appreciate that the district attorney’s office recognized that the board did not and would not violate the law. We had hoped to put this matter behind us and to have it publicly recognized that the board did not violate KOMA. Unfortunately, a former trustee encourages local media to continue to bring up a matter that has been settled. When he revisits the situation, he knowingly leaves out critical facts so the situation is misrepresented and misunderstood. When you ignore the facts, it’s easy to believe that a violation occurred. When you look at the facts, you come to a different conclusion.

 

In an attempt to put this matter to rest, let’s look at the facts, about which media representatives have not inquired:

 

On Friday, Jan. 23, 2009, Sue Kuder, executive assistant to the president and the board of JCCC, sent a copy of the evaluation form to all trustees, asking them to complete it and return it by Feb. 4. A timeline shows how the trustees responded. Former Trustee Hodge did not reply until Feb. 18, the day before the board meeting.

 

Former Trustee Hodge asked to see a copy of the budget before completing his ratings. See the copy of the president’s evaluation (specifically, page 10) for his request. During the executive session when my evaluation was discussed, I provided a list, in response to Former Trustee Hodge’s request, that included suggestions for cutting the budget, such as reducing travel budgets, outsourcing services, reducing “comfort snacks” for meetings, and centralizing scheduling. However, the list also included specific programs and, in a couple of instances, specific names. The list was provided in response to Former Trustee Hodge’s request and, as he admits, was not discussed – it was simply provided to show that thought had been given to budget reductions. Since it included names, I asked that the trustees not share it with anyone.

 

At the end of that month, the Kansas City Star ran on its PrimeBuzz blog a story about the budget challenges the college was facing that listed a number of items that were purportedly under consideration. (Some of the items have already been implemented, such as eliminating non-essential capital requests, reducing the number of sabbaticals and not filling some open positions.) The items were from the list I provided the trustees in executive session, without context. You can see a transcript of a message I sent to employees regarding this. Former Trustee Hodge had leaked information from executive session to a Star reporter. Furthermore, the information came from my performance review, which is supposed to be confidential; I was never consulted about whether or not I wanted parts of my review made public.

 

In April, after the election in which he was not re-elected to the board, Former Trustee Hodge asked the DA’s office to look into the question of whether the trustees had violated the Kansas Open Meetings Act. One must consider whether this was an act of retribution. Mr. Hodge had written a letter to The Kansas City Star in the fall saying he was the only trustee trying to curb taxes, and four trustees responded with a letter of their own to counter this and other misstatements in Hodge’s original document. Mr. Hodge alleged that the group letter violated the act, which you’ll see below was not the case.

 

Former Trustee Hodge also alleged that the board violated the act through the presentation of the list of possible budget cuts that I gave – in response to Mr. Hodge’s request – during my semi-annual performance review in executive session in February. 

 

On July 15, in response to Former Trustee Hodge’s accusation, the district attorney ruled that the board did not violate the Kansas Open Meetings Act. See the copy of the district attorney’s ruling. Johnson County District Attorney Steve Howe issued his ruling on July 15, 2009, stating “The Johnson County District Attorney’s office finds that no violations of the Kansas Open Meetings Act occurred in the above cited incidents and therefore the matter is considered closed.”

 

The district attorney had this to say about the letter: “While the letter involves a majority of the membership of the Johnson County Community College Board of Trustees, it did not appear to be intended to reach agreement on a matter that would require binding action to be taken by the body or agency. Giving thorough consideration to the needs of students and taxpayers in addressing the undecided issue of raising the mill levy does not require binding action.”

 

The ruling also stated this regarding the evaluation in executive session: “Dr. Calaway said he did not receive Trustee Hodge’s written evaluation [which included the request] until the morning of February 19, 2009 [the day of the review]. As a result, he had virtually no time to prepare any kind of response. He decided to provide the list for this purpose. This fits within the purview of ‘personnel matters of nonelected personnel,’ which is a topic that may be discussed in a closed meeting under K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 75-4319 (b) (1). . . Again, there was no violation of KOMA.”

 

Note a critical factor – KOMA violations involve the discussion of a matter in closed session that should have taken place in open session. Even Former Trustee Hodge has admitted that no discussion ever took place. I simply presented the list, in response to Mr. Hodge’s question involving an evaluative measure, to show that such considerations were taking place.

 

Following the district attorney’s initial opinion, Mr. Hodge asked the state attorney general’s office to review the matter. Stephen Six, Kansas attorney general, declined to do so.

 

In October, four legislators presented a hypothetical case involving hypothetical information shared in an executive session to the state attorney general for his opinion. Although it involved information shared in an executive session, the hypothetical case did not mirror the college’s situation. See the copy of the attorney general’s opinion.

 

At the end of October, three representatives from the Kansas Press Association asked the district attorney to revisit his decision, in light of the attorney general’s opinion on the hypothetical case. The district attorney declined to change his decision, citing his belief that the attorney general’s opinion was based on a hypothetical situation and that facts should dictate whether a violation of the law occurred, which it had not in this case. See the district attorney’s ruling.

 

Former Trustee Hodge has indicated in e-mails and in his blog that he is out to ruin my reputation and career and the reputations of the trustees and former trustees. With so much good news going on at the college, it’s unfortunate that so much attention is given to a matter that has been settled, albeit not in a way that satisfies the media’s thirst for sensation or our former trustee. KOMA is a civil statute that applies only to elected personnel. As non-elected personnel, I could not have violated KOMA. And once and for all, the JCCC board of trustees did not violate the Kansas Open Meetings Act.