Roseville School Board member Mona Langston said Tuesday night she is taking "a temporary leave of absence" from the governing body following how it has handled a citzen's complaint against a fellow board member.
Langston said she needs until the end of April to decide whether longer term she wants to continue serving on the board. Langston's stunning announcement came after the board voted 4-2 to reject her motion to review the conduct issue and take possible action at a future meeting against the fellow board member for the incident.
Board chairwoman Kitty Gogins said Langston's announcement "was not expected. I know Mona had a difference of opinion with other board members on how this (issue) was handled. But I wasn't expecting her action and response to the vote.
"I have a lot of respect for Mona," Gogins continued. "She is very capable and talented. I hope she stays on the board. But I will respect what she decides."
The controversy is over the School Board's response to a district resident, who spoke at a recent board meeting and complained she that was followed out of the meeting room and verbally accosted by one of the board members.
Neither the citizen nor board member were named at Tuesday's meeting. But Roseville Patch has learned the controversy involves a verbal spat that board member Lisa Edstrom allegedly had with a citizen, Beth Kolodjski, during a meeting on Feb. 14. At issue is whether Edstrom's conduct violated the board's code of conduct.
On the Roseville Issues forum, Kolodjski said she felt bullied and intimidated by Edstrom after speaking at the Feb. 14 School Board meeting. Kolodjski said she filed a complaint with Roseville Police but asked that no action be action; then sent a letter to the School Board asking the directors to discusss the issue and sought an apology.
Gogins said Tuesday night she investigated the matter and responded to the citizen's complaint. Gogins said she concluded the board member (Edstrom) didn't violate the board's code of conduct.
"I think there is a difference of opinion around the magnitude of what happened," Gogins said,adding that board officers had a chance to see the letter she sent to the citizen.
But Langston said she was bothered that the board's letter didn't acknowledge the board member (Edstrom) used poor judgment to get up from the meeting and walk out to confront the citizen. Langston contended the board's letter to the citizen (Kolodjski) failed to address her complaint.
"It left a bad taste in my mouth," Langston said, later adding that she could not ethically support the board's efforts to essentially brush aside the issue.
"We didn't adhere to our values statement," Langston contended.
Board member Bill Majerus disagreed, contending, "I think the board has already adequately taken care of this issue."
The board's limited discussion took place in regards to Policy 210: School Board Code of Conduct. A related policy, No. 214, spells out how the board should handle violations of its code of conduct.
After Tuesday night's Board meeting, Edstrom declined comment.
In contemplating possibly resigning from the School Board, Langston alluded to other occasions where she feels the board has glossed over uncomfortable issues or rubberstamped actions. However, she did not elaborate on her comment.
Approached after she had walked out of the meeting, Langston said that the handling of the board member dispute has caused her some sleepless nights.
Asked whether she will return to the board, Langston said that might not occur. "Lots of changes have occur before that can happen," she said.
it was nice to see that there is one member of the roseville school board with integrity and who understands that right and wrong goes beyond state laws. i hope ms. langston returns to the school board - it needs to have one person with courage and character to help guide the other members.
Tonight Langston brought forward a complaint that Edstrom violated the school board's code of conduct, policy 210. This involved an incident a few weeks ago where Edstrom left in the middle of a board meeting to confront a citizen in the hallway about an issue that had nothing to do with school business. Edstrom's actions resulted in the citizen filing a police complaint. In response to the complaint, Edstrom filed a statement with the Roseville Police Department confirming all of the issues that were the basis of the complaint brought forward by Langston. The board was in complete chaos as to how to deal with a complaint of this nature. What was especially disturbing is that Edstrom, the subject of the complaint, fully participated in the board discussion as to how to procedurally handle the complaint against her. Langston gave a statement saying that it is imperative that the board have this conversation because all other opportunities to resolve the issue had been exhausted. She said that the integrity of the board is at stake. She asked that the board discuss the issue and that discussion be opened to all the members.
Guess who seconds the motion? Yes, Edstrom, the subject of the complaint, seconds the motion. Then what happens was even more shocking. Edstrom, the subject of the complaint, votes for Majerus' motion to stop debate of the complaint against her! The vote was 4-2 to close debate. Langston and Thao voted no. Azer voted yes after earlier stating, "I don't know what I am voting for." Azer had little idea what was going on during most of the discussion. The motion requires a 2/3rds vote to pass under Robert's Rules which the board has adopted to run their meetings. The motion to close debate only passed because Edstrom voted. Had Edstrom removed herself from voting , the ethical thing to do, there would have been a 5 member board, requiring 4 votes to close debate. There were not 4 votes to close debate. Then it gets even more shocking. The motion to put the item on the agenda for action at the next meeting is now up for a vote. Voting no the motion stops the complaint against Edstrom. The vote is called and on a 2-4 vote, Azer, Gogins, Majerus, and Edstrom vote No to defeat the motion and successfully stop the complaint against Edstrom.
After the vote, Langston expressed her disgust with the actions of the board and questioned if she could continue to associate herself with a board that was so ethically challenged. She announced that she was taking a month long leave of absence from the board and would determine by the end of the month if she was going to resign. She picked up her materials and left the building. Edstrom smirked when Langston made her statement and gave a bigger smile as Langston left the room. After the meeting, I asked Edstrom if it was proper for her to vote. She replied, "Nobody told me I could not vote, so I voted".
In reviewing district policies, Edstrom's decision to participate in the debate, voting to close debate, and voting to prevent a code of conduct complaint against her from being put on the agenda for action at the next meeting, is a breach of Board Policy 210, School Board Code of Conduct. Clearly Edstrom's behavior does not uphold the statement "School Board members will conduct themselves lawfully, with integrity and high ethical standards in order to model the behaviors expected of staff and students and to build confidence and credibility.
It was a railroad job by Majerus and Gogins, with the assistance of Azer, who appeared to have little idea what was going on during most of the issue, who was then joined by Edstrom, who cast two unethical votes. After the meeting, Azer left the room looking distraught with what appeared to be tears. Edstrom was smiling. Then when I was discussing Edstrom's voting issue with Gogins, informing her that this would not be allowed at Roseville City Hall, Merrie, the Superintendent's secretary, rudely butted into our conversation and said in a snide tone of voice that "well we aren't the city" and then she walked out of the room.
It is also important to note School Board Policy 212– School Board Conflict of Interest.. "If a Board member has a personal or private interest in any matter pending before the School Board, the member will disclose such interest to the School Board, will not vote on the matter and will not attempt to influence the decisions of the other School Board members." Clearly Edstrom had an interest in and was disqualified from voting to stop debate on the complaint against her and disqualified from voting to stop the complaint process.
The board member decided to voluntarily submit a written statement to the Roseville Police Department concerning the incident. The board member's statement confirmed much of what the citizen stated. In reading both statements submitted to the police, there are actions that can be considered fact because both parties are saying the same thing. The board member did leave in the middle of the meeting. The member specifically did so for the purposes of confronting the citizen. The member took action on district property. The subject matter had nothing to do with district business. At the end of the meeting, I believe that Langston was privy to some comments made by the board member.
The basis of the complaint is that the board member's actions violated the district's code of conduct. Is a board member leaving the middle of the meeting for the sole purpose of creating a confrontation with a citizen, in a district building, on district property, concerning an issue that had nothing to do with district business, when this board member has previously displayed a dislike of this citizen, a violation of the district's code of conduct policy? Langston objected to the letter that the Chair sent out before it was sent out. So Langston attempted to resolve the issue following the district policy. After exhausing all options, she is left with the final option, which is to place it on the agenda for discussion by the entire board.
The Superintendent and all the staff have no standing to participate in this issue. In fact, it would be a serious lapse of professional judgment for any employee to participate in this. The only employee who may have standing to participate is the district's attorney, but only for purposes of giving advice on process issues, and only doing so to the entire board, not private meetings with one or two members.
Not only do you have the issue of the member's behavior towards the citizen, but you also have the actions of the chair towards the citizen, and then you have the actions that occurred at the meeting itself, which broke several additional policies. It has nothing to do with her position prevailing on an issue. The situation hasn't even gotten to that point. She expects that there will be a fair and honest process. Nothing even remotely close to this has happened. You have members who are intentionally trying to prevent a fair and open process from even occurring.
Unlike most groups, a school board must comply with the open meeting law. Issues like this should be aired in a public forum from time to time. If you want to have a discussion with a quorum of your fellow members, it must be done in public.
When someone files an ethics complaint, no matter how trivial someone may think it is, it gets a hearing. Sometimes they are delayed, recessed, etc. but a hearing happens. Just because you sit in the majority politically, or are friends with the speaker, the process is not waived. All information is brought forward. A decision is rendered based upon the information presented. You have no staff members pulling strings in the background. The elected officials run the process. This did not happen at the school board.