This is the response received from the Sierra Community College Board of Trustees regarding Grand Jury Final Report 1

R1

(cid:31)The practice of (cid:31)confidential(cid:31) settlements of lawsuits by a publicly supported institution is misleading to the public and unacceptable to the Grand Jury. Such confidential settlements erode public confidence in the integrity of its elected and appointed officials and could be perceived as a (cid:31)cover up(cid:31) whether or not an actual cover up is intended. The Grand Jury believes that Sierra College specifically 1999-2000 Placer County Grand Jury Final Report 54 This is the response received from the Sierra Community College Board of Trustees regarding Grand Jury Final Report 1 titled, “Sierra Community College District, Secret Settlement of Gender Lawsuit.” This report is reproduced as presented without Exhibits. and public institutions generally should not enter into (cid:31)confidential(cid:31) settlement agreements such as were utilized in the Furtado lawsuits.(cid:31) 1999-2000 Placer County Grand Jury Final Report 55 This is the response received from the Sierra Community College Board of Trustees regarding Grand Jury Final Report 1 titled, “Sierra Community College District, Secret Settlement of Gender Lawsuit.” This report is reproduced as presented without Exhibits. RESPONSE The Sierra College Board, in reviewing the findings of the Grand Jury, and discussing the Furtado case feels that settlements should be provided to the Board before being signed in order for the Governing Board to fully understand the reasons for settlement. All school districts in Placer County belong to the same insurance JPA. The Governing Board of the JPA holds the policy with the insurance carrier beyond $115,000.00 suits. Once a suit is referred to the insurance company, that company can settle the case at its discretion. The College District, and for that matter all school districts in Placer County, cannot afford individually to refuse policies with insurance companies that have the discretion to settle suits without approval of the governing board. JPA(cid:31)s are necessary in order for school districts to be adequately covered. According to John Wilson, an insurance company representative who made a presentation to the College Board at a special meeting held on February 24th, 2000, confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements with public entities are sometimes used in order to prevent (cid:31)copy cat(cid:31) claims, to prevent the settlements of one claim from influencing settlement demands in another claim, and to avoid encouraging lawsuits, and therefore increased insurance costs. CONCLUSION FOR RECOMMENDATION #1 Public institutions in general are forced to accept confidential settlements by their insurance companies because state law does not prohibit it. It is recommended that the Sierra College Board of Trustees take two actions. 1. Adopt a Board policy that requires all settlements that the college District is involved with be forwarded to the Board of Trustees for review. 1999-2000 Placer County Grand Jury Final Report 56 This is the response received from the Sierra Community College Board of Trustees regarding Grand Jury Final Report 1 titled, “Sierra Community College District, Secret Settlement of Gender Lawsuit.” This report is reproduced as presented without Exhibits. 2. The Board will investigate the viability of legislation that would limit the authority of insurance companies to settle suits without the approval of the Governing Board and to limit their ability to apply confidentiality clauses.

R2

(cid:31)The Sierra College Trustees are elected officials. As such, they have a responsibility to see to it that the institution is well managed. They are expected to set policy for governance of the College, its officials, employees, students and physical assets. To achieve these goals, they must receive information that is accurate and reliable. Such information may come from many sources, but principally it should come from college administrators. In the Furtado matter the Trustees were ill informed in that they had not received the details of the settlement. Despite that lack of knowledge, none of them, either individually or collectively, made any inquiries into the terms and conditions of the settlement of a multimillion dollar lawsuit that attacked the discriminatory personnel practices of the Sierra College administration. The Grand Jury believes that the Board of Trustees in their role of fiduciaries should never relinquish control over settlement of lawsuits as they did in the Furtado matter.(cid:31) RESPONSE The Board of Trustees held numerous closed session discussions about the Furtado case between 2/14/95 and 5/26/98, and were well informed on the proceedings. Unfortunately, circumstances occurred that resulted in the formation of the three member committee due to a perceived conflict of interest by one Board member. The three member committee structure prevented a majority of the Board from being informed about the details related to the case. In the author’s sixteen years on the Board, this circumstance has never happened, and for that matter, may have never happened in any of the school 1999-2000 Placer County Grand Jury Final Report 57 This is the response received from the Sierra Community College Board of Trustees regarding Grand Jury Final Report 1 titled, “Sierra Community College District, Secret Settlement of Gender Lawsuit.” This report is reproduced as presented without Exhibits. districts in Placer County. Hopefully, the Board will never again be faced with this type of conflict of interest. The Board should have been informed of the settlement after the three member committee was informed. The committee requested that this happen, but it never did. The Board should have acknowledged publicly the existence of the contingent settlement even though we were not a party to the settlement and the insurance company had complete authority to settle the case. 1999-2000 Placer County Grand Jury Final Report 58 This is the response received from the Sierra Community College Board of Trustees regarding Grand Jury Final Report 1 titled, “Sierra Community College District, Secret Settlement of Gender Lawsuit.” This report is reproduced as presented without Exhibits. CONCLUSION FOR RECOMMENDATION #2 Same as Recommendation #1.

R3

(cid:31)The Grand Jury believes that Sierra College is a fine educational institution that delivers a sound educational product for its students and that its employees who provide that instruction are dedicated professionals. It is unfortunate for the college and its employees that the matters addressed in this Grand Jury report were ever allowed to occur. The Grand Jury further believes that truth in the conduct of public affairs is essential and to that end recommends that the facts of the Furtado lawsuits and settlement be investigated and revealed to public scrutiny by the Board of Trustees and administration as promptly as possible.(cid:31) RESPONSE The Board of Trustees, through the Grand Jury response process, has conducted three special meetings, totaling approximately eleven hours of discussions, related to the circumstances of the Furtado case. All of these meetings were held in open session. Available information and documents were released as part of this process. Materials related to the federal case were made available in the Sierra College Library for a period of one month (March 16 to April 14, 2000) for viewing by the Board and the public. The intent of the Sierra College Board is not to retry the case publicly, but to disclose the available facts. Additional Information: The Board of Trustees, at its meeting on March 8th recognized several items that still need to be discussed: 1999-2000 Placer County Grand Jury Final Report 59 This is the response received from the Sierra Community College Board of Trustees regarding Grand Jury Final Report 1 titled, “Sierra Community College District, Secret Settlement of Gender Lawsuit.” This report is reproduced as presented without Exhibits. 1. The matter of who was responsible for initiating the confidentiality and penalty clauses in the settlement. 2. The need to have further clarification of the order by Judge Burrell that the settlement be approved by the Board. 3. The matter of how we agendize future settlements of lawsuits. Response to Above Questions: 1. See letter from Bridget Halvorson (Exhibit 16) and response to Finding 4. 2. See Exhibit 19: Letter from Mediator and letter from Bridget Halvorson referring to and 15. 3. New Board policy as referred to in conclusions as part of response to Recommendation 1 shall include this. V. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS: The following questions were raised by individual Board members, which were not addressed as part of the responses to the findings: 1. Barbara Vineyard: Why did they think they should settle the case rather than go to court? COMMENT This issue was addressed in comments received from Mike Krill in that Coregis settled for what they thought would be the minimum amount that would have been spent if the case would have gone to court. The settlement eliminated the risk of paying additional money for damages if the case prevailed. Coregis representatives would not respond to inquires. Information on the amount of Furtado(cid:31)s legal fees to date which the District might have had to pay if Furtado had prevailed in even a small matter was taken into consideration also. 2. Sally Robison(cid:31)s Comments: 1999-2000 Placer County Grand Jury Final Report 60 This is the response received from the Sierra Community College Board of Trustees regarding Grand Jury Final Report 1 titled, “Sierra Community College District, Secret Settlement of Gender Lawsuit.” This report is reproduced as presented without Exhibits. Statement made by Sally Robison at the February 17, 2000, Sierra Community College Special Board Meeting, addressing Recommendation 3 of the 1999-2000 Placer County Grand Jury Final Report 1. The Grand Jury further believes that truth in the conduct of public affairs is essential and to that end recommends that the facts of the Furtado lawsuits and settlement be investigated and revealed to public scrutiny by the college Board of Trustees and administration as promptly as possible. The point is not the amount of money paid for the Furtado settlement or if the money was paid by private, public, or insurance funds. The point is the Furtado settlement should have been a red flag to the members of the Sierra College Board of Trustees that at least one person (namely the insurance carrier) felt that there was merit to the Furtado case. If there was merit to the Furtado case (if paying over one-half million dollars shows merit), then the Board of Trustees had a duty to make an in-depth inquiry into the facts of the case; and to come to a conclusion as to whether or not the personnel practices of the administration should be continued, discontinued, or altered. There is no way a Board should make that decision without an independent investigation. The results and facts of the investigation would be revealed and made available to public scrutiny. Additionally, the entire Sierra College Board of Trustees should also conduct an in-depth exhaustive investigation. COMMENT The Board has conducted three public hearings with no closed sessions to reveal to the public the events of the Furtado case. It is not the purpose of this report to try the case in public, but to release the information that was available as a result of the discovery process. I. JUDGE RICHARD L. GILBERT(cid:31)(cid:31)(cid:31)(cid:31)S ARBITRATION DECISION: (Discussion provided by George Holt of Johnson, Schachter and Collins) In addition to the federal Furtado lawsuit and her state court petition for writ of mandate, Ms. Furtado litigated the decision of the District to deny her tenure in a grievance filed on February 21, 1997. See Exhibit 8, Decision and Findings after Advisory Arbitration ((cid:31)arbitration decision(cid:31)). In this proceeding, Ms. Furtado alleged that the failure to grant her tenure (cid:31). . . was the result of or a subterfuge 1999-2000 Placer County Grand Jury Final Report 61 This is the response received from the Sierra Community College Board of Trustees regarding Grand Jury Final Report 1 titled, “Sierra Community College District, Secret Settlement of Gender Lawsuit.” This report is reproduced as presented without Exhibits. for discrimination or retaliation against her because of her sex, marital status or ethnicity or because of the fact that she has brought an action against District and others on similar grounds . . . .(cid:31) These are the same allegations that Ms. Furtado made in her federal lawsuit. The grievance was heard by Judge Gilbert (retired) for four days between March 30, 1998 and June 8, 1998. Among the witnesses presented by Ms. Furtado on her behalf was Trustee Sally Robison, who testified directly against Dr. Ramirez and the District. After evaluating the evidence from both parties, including the testimony of Ms.Furtado and Ms. Robison, Judge Gilbert decided that Ms. Furtado(cid:31)s claims (cid:31). . . have not been proven.(cid:31) Arbitration decision, p. 2. Judge Gilbert also held that: (cid:31) (cid:31)Ms. Furtado has failed to present any credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that any act or omission of the District was motivated by bias toward her on account of her marital status, gender, or ethnic origin.(cid:31) Arbitration decision, pp. 10-11. (cid:31) (cid:31). . . no action was taken with the intent or result that she was discriminated against on account of illness or disability.(cid:31) Arbitration decision, p. 11. (cid:31) (cid:31)Likewise, Furtado has presented no credible evidence of bias or retaliation against her because she filed suit against the District.(cid:31) Arbitration decision, p. 11. (cid:31) (cid:31)The evidence of alleged statements of bias or improper motive attributed to Superintendent Ramirez are wholly lacking in credibility. The suggestion that Ramirez or the District Administration designed a process to (cid:31)get(cid:31) Furtado or attempted to influence the outcome of the [Tenure Review Committee(cid:31)s] work, including that Kastanis was somehow improperly planted on the [Tenure Review Committee] or as Furtado(cid:31)s supervisor in order to aid this effort is unsupported by any evidence that is not the wildest conjecture.(cid:31) 1999-2000 Placer County Grand Jury Final Report 62 This is the response received from the Sierra Community College Board of Trustees regarding Grand Jury Final Report 1 titled, “Sierra Community College District, Secret Settlement of Gender Lawsuit.” This report is reproduced as presented without Exhibits. VII. FURTADO(cid:31)(cid:31)(cid:31)(cid:31)S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE: (Discussion provided by George Holt of Johnson, Schachter and Collins) Another procedural development that the Grand Jury should consider was the filing of Ms. Furtado(cid:31)s petition for writ of mandate alleging a Brown Act violation which she claims occurred during the Board meeting at which the Board decided voted not to re-employ Ms. Furtado. The Superior Court rejected this claim and denied the petition. Ms. Furtado appealed, and the Third District Court of Appeal upheld the decision. Furtado v. Sierra Community College (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 876. VIII. REASONS WHY THE THREE MEMBER COMMITTEE WAS FORMED: A three-member committee of Board members was appointed on May 26, 1998, because it was felt that a potential conflict of interest existed with one Board member pertaining to the Furtado case. Delegation of authority by a Board of Trustees to a committee is governed by Education Code (cid:31) 70902(d). A board may delegate its power to a committee and the motion delegating the authority sets the limits of the delegation. The Board delegated its authority to monitor all matters related to the Furtado litigation, the committee was not empowered to act in place of the Board. The committee was necessitated because Sally Robison had a perceived conflict of interest in the case, based upon the following: 1. Sally Robison was subpoenaed by Furtado in the Grievance Arbitration hearing. 2. On March 12, 1998, Sally Robison filed a Declaration in Support of Quashing a Deposition Subpoena, which was set on behalf of Dr. Ramirez, thus refusing to answer questions from Dr. Ramirez(cid:31)s attorney. (Exhibit 13) 1999-2000 Placer County Grand Jury Final Report 63 This is the response received from the Sierra Community College Board of Trustees regarding Grand Jury Final Report 1 titled, “Sierra Community College District, Secret Settlement of Gender Lawsuit.” This report is reproduced as presented without Exhibits. 3. Sally Robison hired a personal attorney to file an Opposition to the college(cid:31)s Motion for Summary Judgment, which had been filed on behalf of the college to dismiss Furtado(cid:31)s suit. (Exhibit 7) 4. On May 12 and May 26, 1998, Matt Evans (attorney for the college) advised the Board that Sally Robison(cid:31)s testimony, due to the fact that she was a sitting Board member, was very damaging. (Exhibit 10) He further advised that in his law firm(cid:31)s opinion, Furtado was using Sally Robison(cid:31)s testimony as her major weapon, and that it was clear that Ms. Robison had been prepared to testify at the grievance hearing by Furtado(cid:31)s attorney. For all of the reasons set out above, the Board felt that any future closed session discussions could be compromised. IX. EXHIBITS 1 THROUGH 21: See separate volume. (Editors note: The Grand Jury chose not to reprint the Exhibits to this report.) 1999-2000 Placer County Grand Jury Final Report 64