Vote to Meet in Executive Session, June 24, 2021

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bat1BA-A1cY&list=PL4585E4C6234DE895&index=1

There seems to be some confusion as Adams-Stafford asks “are we going to start the meeting over?” and Trina Young (who is Board Executive Secretary) apologizes.

Chair Miller introduces Mr. Kevin Karpinski, who will be providing interim legal services to the board until a permanent legal counsel is found. She thanks Dr. Goldson for her help facilitating procuring these parliamentary and other legal services.

Williams reads the motion to move the board to closed session, and Boozer-Strother seconds.

Discussion follows. Ahmed states that they started the meeting earlier but it was not recorded, so they had to restart. She recaps her earlier remarks that she will vote no to go to closed session because she has requested several times for a few items be put on the executive session agenda, and they have been ignored or rejected by the chair and vice chair. The current agenda has items that are less pressing and time sensitive than those which she has attempted to have placed on the agenda. She is also concerned about having Mr. Karpinski on the call and asks if he is authorized to be on it. She also asks if he is aware that the board voted down his contract on June 4, 2021.

Karpinski states that yes he is aware, but it is his understanding that the board chair is authorized to sign contracts under $25,000. He doesn’t want to rehash this but his name got raised because the chair and vice chair asked the county attorney for a recommendation for an attorney knowledgeable about parliamentary procedure. He asserts that he only agreed to do this on a part-time basis until a new attorney was hired; “that was the only thing I was willing to do.” Ahmed clarifies he is talking about the general counsel for the Prince George’s County government, which he affirms. She asks Mr. Karpinski if he expects to get paid and by whom, to which he responds yes and by the Board of Education. Ahmed states for the record that the Board of Education did not approve the contract and that the chair and board leadership are the ones who authorized his presence.

Queen stated she is concerned because we are one board. If the board majority votes on something it should be upheld. Her other concern is that Dr. Goldson made the referral and asks for clarification.

Goldson responds that as she wrote in a June 2 email to all board members, the administration would not execute the contract signed by Mr. Stewart and as the board vice chair stated, the board chair has the authority to sign contracts under $25,000.

Burroughs asks for clarification from Goldson about her statement about the board chair having signatory authority. Goldson responds that she is not in a court of law and does not have the exact policy in front of her; she was simply relaying what the vice chair has said. He then asks the chair, vice chair, and Mr. Karpinski what authority gives the chair the right to sign a contract absent the vote of the board.

Williams responds. First, she clarifies that she was elected twice by the constituents of District 9 to the board and then appointed twice by two county executives to take leadership positions, which is in response to Queen’s comment about elected board leadership. She states she will find the policy right now and will send it to the entire board.

Burroughs states he is “scouring” the policies online. He notes there is board bylaw 9210 that says Chair shall sign authorized and approved contracts but the Karpinski contract was not authorized or approved. The vote to approve that contract only got four votes. Board bylaw 9270, he continues, states board members do not have authority to compel action by the board unless pursuant to instruction by board. He thinks this is a dangerous precedent to have an appointed chair sign off on a contract without the approval and knowledge of the Board of Education. He will also vote no to go into executive session.

Murray is recognized next. He cites policy 9250 that states the board may retain legal counsel with board referring to majority of members. Murray is disappointed in Mr. Karpinski for showing up at the meeting as a barred attorney. Murray briefly spoke with Karpinski regarding the contract so he was aware it is in dispute. Murray argues that surely Karpinski learned about contracts in law school and that two parties have to agree to a contract; in this case, the board did not agree to the contract. He goes on to state that there is no way this is a valid contract and frankly it is disrespectful to the citizens of Prince George’s county that he logged on and pretended he had a valid contract.

Karpinski responds to Murray that he is limited to providing parliamentary procedure guidance and has no interest in serving the Board of Education on an extended basis. He was simply filling in until an attorney was retained. For Murray to sit there and comment on his license is totally unacceptable, and quite, frankly, he doesn’t need this. Murray responds that he can appreciate his blunt lack of interest in serving as the board’s attorney and thinks all the board would like an attorney who wants to be there and serve the citizens of Prince George’s County. Murray ends by stating maybe Karpinski could ask the chair to sign the contract the board already approved.

Queen is wondering why the chair did not state in her opening remarks that Mr. Karpinski was just there for parliamentary procedure. She thinks the board might have been more accepting if that was made clear at the start. Miller re-reads a portion of her opening statement that states the attorney is there for parliamentary and other legal services as needed.

Adams-Stafford apologizes to the public that the meeting was broadcast but not recorded at first and states her concern that it was not initially recorded. She is sorry the public has to witness this pettiness. She notes that the original contract with Karpinski was voided by the administration, and then even after it was voted down by the board, board leadership still brought Karpinski onboard. She doesn’t feel comfortable going into a private session discussing things that will impact PGCPS employees without proper representation. This is just another example of board leadership skirting policies and procedures to do what they want to do.

Williams refers to policy 9210 that states the chair shall preside over all meetings, sign authorize or approve contracts on behalf of the board, and perform such duties as prescribed by law, and it refers to Maryland annotated code. She notes the state has already cited the board for several actions. Williams notes that if they do not vote to go into executive session, they will not be doing the work of the board and there are matters affecting staff of PGCPS. She begs the board to vote to allow them to go into executive session so they can do the work of the board as they have already missed a few executive sessions due to a lack of votes.

Valentine asks for clarification regarding agenda setting in response to Ahmed’s earlier comments. Miller responds that she has asked that anything board members want placed on the agenda be submitted at least two weeks in advance with proper notification and information. Board Member Ahmed has made requests at the last minute and has failed to provide information.

Williams notes that the three board members who have raised their hands have already spoken twice on this motion.

Harris raises a point of order that Adams-Stafford has only spoken once and Ahmed should be allowed to respond to the points raised by Miller. Miller asks Karpinski and he agrees that Ahmed should be allowed to respond.

Ahmed states she wants to make it clear that she has sent several emails in regard to one of the items but the chair has failed to respond. It’s not her fault if the chair does not check email. Ahmed states she has ‘cced colleagues because the chair fails to respond. She has followed the process and it has failed. She also wants to ask about the contract with Mr. Karpinski. Is this the same contract that was already voted down? Or is it a new one and can we get a copy? Williams responds it is the same contract. Ahmed responds that the policy read by Williams says the chair can sign contracts authorized or approved by the board, but this contract was neither. She also states that Williams and Miller have not shared the state appeals with the board, and Miller can be heard laughing.

Williams responds that the issues under state review include Open Meetings Act complaints filed by constituents and appeals under review by the State Board of Education. Everyone is aware of those appeals, and Mr. Roger Thomas is handling them appeals as he is the attorney of record.

Ahmed says documentation has not been provided to the board, despite them asking for that.

Williams replies she thought the PGCPS internal auditor, Michelle Winston, had provided that information to the board, but she will follow up to make sure that is sent to the entire board.

Miller begins to speak, but Adams-Stafford raises a point of order and asks if the chair wants to engage in debate, does she need to recuse herself?

Karpinski responds that the chair can clarify a point.

Miller continues that the board was given notification of its violation of the Open Meetings Act in public session, and each board member received a notification from the chair and from the policy director requesting their signature on the form indicating receipt. Some board members refused to sign.

Ahmed raises a point of clarification that this is not the item she is talking about; there are additional items that have been brought to the board they are not aware of. Miller responds she does not know what those items are. She continues that Ahmed is making public allegations that are unfounded, so she will not debate this and take up the public’s time. Miller reveals that she has found some of Ahmed’s emails threatening—"bullying is the term you use”—and demeaning to her role as chair. She is not going to go back and forth with Ahmed tonight; she has done that in email and had to stop.

Murray asks Karpinski if this is still clarification? Ahmed says it sounds like something else at this point.

Miller says she is going to close debate at this point. Ahmed wants to clarify, and they start going back and forth that each is out of order.

Adams-Stafford asks Karpinski to weigh in. He says Miller has completed her statement so it’s time for the person who has their hand raised to have their second round.

Adams-Stafford is recognized next. She wants to go back to the process for getting items added to the agenda, the items that really matter to the working people of the county. We can’t cite a process because there really is no process, it’s arbitrary. So here’s her question; there was an item added to tonight’s meeting, and she just wants to know when that item was requested, item 4.1. Williams responds the item was requested on June 9 and the documentation for that item was provided…Adams-Stafford interrupts, it was yesterday. And that’s where we have an issue. Because this item was asked to be put on the agenda YESTERDAY. Follow the policy and don’t follow it indiscriminately. You can’t pick and choose what items you put on the agenda.

Murray clarifies that Miller has already signed this contract for legal services, and Miller replies no, she has not. It was done through the legal procurement process. She didn’t need to sign it.

Adams-Stafford raises a point of order and asks if this is debate. Murray says he is interested in Miller’s answer so she should just answer.

Miller continues she finds it interesting they are having this discussion over a contract that was legally procured as opposed to the contract board members had procured. Murray interrupts he would like to just keep it to this contract. Miller says excuse me, you have made reference to it. Murray interrupts there is no excuse me, I have the floor. It was a yes or no question. Miller says you don’t tell me yes or no. They continue to talk over each other with Murray eventually asking have two parties signed this contract?

Williams again explains that because this was under $25,000, they have a requisition. Murray again asks who signed the contract on behalf of the board. Williams replies, the vendor (Mr. Karpinski) and the board chair has the authority to procure services under $25,000. It does not have to be provided to the board for approval.

She would like to call the vote since the discussion has been going on for an hour.

Murray says he believes that $25,000 contract policy applies to the CEO, not the board chair. Williams disagrees explaining there is no separate procurement process between the board and the school system. We follow the same processes.

Burroughs asks Karpinski if he has a signed contract with the board. He says his office signed a contract. Burroughs asks if there is a contract with a board or school system representative signature. Karpinski states they may have had one at one point but he’s not sure where it is. He continues that they work with clients without a contract. He simply agreed to serve as a parliamentarian at this meeting. He does not even know why they need one as they have been discussing this for an hour and haven’t even voted to go into executive session. That was the extent of what he agreed to. Burroughs responds that he must understand that this is concerning to the board that they voted down his contract but then he is at this meeting. Karpinski says that frankly his role is so limited that he is not that worried about a contract as it is so miniscule and trivial in his practice. Burroughs asks Karpinski what are their legal options, do they go to court? Because he believes something illegal has occurred. The law is clear that there are seven votes required for approval. He has not seen any policy or authority that allows the chair to sign contracts. Karpinski says I can understand that concern. He doesn’t mean this in a disrespectful way, but it’s readily apparent that this board is entirely dysfunctional and he suggests they work very hard to find a full-time lawyer who everyone can work with because they really need legal guidance. That should be the goal of the board.

Miller apologizes for the length of time this has taken. She points out that seven board members approved a contract; it was signed by a board member who was not authorized to sign it. It put the board in a litigious position. Harris interjects a point of order that someone called the question. Miller says you may be trying to cut me off but I am trying to give the public some information.

Vote to go into closed session:

Yes: Boozer-Strother, Queen, Valentine, Williams, Miller

No: Ahmed, Burroughs, Murray

Abstain: Adams-Stafford, Harris, Jackson, Monteiro

The board does not go into executive session.