Oversight Committee Prepares to Decouple From Regulation;
Brown Act, Conflict of Interest Rules
All told, the proposed deregulation promises to make it easier for District decision-makers to profit from their decisions, for developers to profit and to keep the public in the dark.
Those proposed changes can be seen in red here: http://emeryusd.k12.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Packet_2.11.2020-1.pdf
Compendium of District Proposed Deregulation
On page 15 (of the entire committee pdf packet), the District is proposing removing the existing two-year moratorium on oversight committee members profiting from Emery school bonds. Given that there is currently one member who is a developer (Josh Simon, more on him later) and another is a contractor, the roll back would permit them to approve a project, resign from the committee, then bid on the project.
The District thinks it’s better to allow the overseers to immediately move into bidding on projects and working for the District upon vacating their positions, a classic ‘good old boy’ network the two year moratorium rule is meant to stop.
On page 12, the District excludes the committee from the Brown Act. While the removal of the Brown Act from the bylaws does not exempt the committee from the Act, as all government committees are beholden to the Brown Act, striking it from the bylaws does not make Emery Unified look good.
The District might be trying to exempt the committee by reducing the number of members needed for a quorum as they do on page 12. The new rules propose that two members represent a quorum. Under the Brown Act, anytime two members of the committee discussed the bonds, it would be a violation of the Act if not done at a public meeting. It also allows a single member to decide issues during a meeting because of the abstention voting rules.
Other changes throughout the update make it easier for quick opaque decisions. Things like updating the bylaws become easier by removing the two-thirds requirement putting into the hands of any two members, or a quarter of the members. The update removes the requirement for parents or seniors to be members. It leaves in “people with knowledge of facilities,” code for developers (page 11).
It should be noted that former School Board member and regional developer Josh Simon has been the consistent member of the oversight committee since he moved out of Emeryville. He is about to be term-limited out because of state law. It is an interesting coincidence that Mr Simon, the same person that pushed for the ECCL single school site, campaigned for the $95 million bond measure that built it, and has been on the oversight committee that fought against an audit, is now about to be set free for his company to bid on projects or surplus land from the District. Some might say this sort of conflict is exactly what lawmakers had in mind when the rules constraining this were written.
The Superintendent of the Schools was called to comment on this deregulation vote tomorrow night, but she didn’t return calls.
While your point is well taken, singling out Josh Simon as personally benefiting as a developer is unfair and misleading. His company, east bay Asian Local Development Corporation, specializes in affordable housing and commercial spaces as well as community development. It is a nonprofit.
ReplyDeleteWhile it’s true that Mr Simon’s development corporation, EBALDC, is a non-profit, 100% of Mr Simon’s salary is personal profit for him. To the extent he brings jobs to the company, his status and hiring desirability is raised and so too then is his income gathering potential. It is both fair and accurate that we suggest Mr Simon could leverage his association with Emery because he has already done it. We know of at least one project Mr Simon personally has forwarded through the Emeryville approval process for EBALC in the recent past. That time it was a proposal not associated with the school district and therefore perfectly legal. To think he would try it again, only at the school district with it newly made legal, requires no imagination whatsoever.
DeleteHow radical is the Tattler’s assertion that people would quit a regulatory trustee position (at a school district) and then try to leverage their associations built up there to try to make money after leaving the position? That’s not radical at all. In fact, that’s the very reason governments have encoded conflict of interest laws. It’s so normal, it’s to be expected. That’s why there’s rules against it. Emery now is moving to eliminate this law protecting the people from rapacious developers and other profiteers. We have to ask, why?
Look to a future Tattler story as we pull it out of these decision makers.
Thanks for commenting.