The board president of the Arizona School for the Deaf and Blind has prevented other members of the board from discussing possible discipline of the school’s superintendent as a result of an e-mail the pair sent to lawmakers.
The board had decided not to take a stand on the legislation and had advised the school’s superintendent, Dr. Harold Hoff, to withhold his opinion. But Hoff and the board president, Orlenda Roberts, sent the note anyway to point out what they considered flaws in a bill that would affect the school’s employees.
Now Hoff’s job may be in jeopardy, and the board itself is torn on how to proceed. One board member, Sami Hamed, has requested that the board discuss the e-mail and Hoff’s employment status in a formal meeting, but the board president appears to have bucked the board’s policy by resisting the item’s placement on an agenda.
Roberts, who signed on to Hoff’s controversial e-mail, said she was seeking guidance from attorneys and would not put the disciplinary item on the agenda for an April 10 meeting.
“I have a concern that the Capitol Times article and your comments may pose potential violations of the open meeting law, (a) violation of confidentiality of personnel information rules and regulations and present potential liability exposure to the ASDB Board,” she wrote April 9, responding to a story posted on www.azcapitoltimes.com on April 1.
Hamed was quoted as saying Hoff deserved to be disciplined and the board should consider firing him. At the time, Hamed also said he would like to see Roberts removed as board president for being complicit in Hoff’s e-mail to lawmakers about H2035, which would give employees of the school more protection under state personnel rules.
However, Attorney General Terry Goddard determined last year that elected members of a public body did not violate open meetings laws by speaking to the press about matters that may come before the body. Some school districts and city councils had raised concerns that speaking to the media would violate the law because other members of the public body could read the comments, constituting a quorum.
In an opinion dated Dec. 24, 2007, Goddard wrote: “Unlike e-mails to a quorum of members, a message communicated to the media reaches other members of a public body indirectly, if at all. In addition, when the media disseminates the information, it is open to and intended for the public.”
Hamed said Roberts’ assertion that he violated confidential personnel information rules is untrue. The e-mail Hoff sent to lawmakers, Hamed said, is a public record, and is not subject to personnel confidentiality regulations.
“When a man sends out a public record like that, he opens himself up to a problem like this,” Hamed said. “Dr. Hoff should have been very careful when crafting and sending that e-mail off to those representatives.”
Roberts’ denial of an agenda-item request also appears to be contrary to ASDB Board of Directors policy, which allows board members to place items on the agenda if they notify the superintendent at least five work days before the meeting.
Hamed submitted his request to Hoff on April 2, six days before the April 10 meeting.
Hoff and Roberts did not return multiple phone calls.
Hamed contended that Hoff disobeyed the board by sending an e-mail to lawmakers on March 25 that said H2035 would leave the school “academically and financially devastated” if it became law.
Nearly three weeks earlier, the board had voted to remain neutral on the legislation.
Republican leaders in the House said Hoff’s e-mail was the reason the bill was assigned to an additional committee for further oversight. Prior to the e-mail, it had received preliminary approval from the House.
The bill was assigned to the Appropriations Committee April 8, though House Speaker Jim Weiers had improperly assigned the bill to the committee nearly a week earlier. That assignment had to be withdrawn because it was against House rules; it was officially assigned to the committee by a special vote of the House.
Weiers blamed the confusion on a clerical error and said he and his staff did not realize the bill had already been given preliminary approval by the House and couldn’t be assigned to a committee without approval from the body.
“There were no shenanigans,” he said.
But the bill’s sponsor — and Weiers’ Democrat seatmate — disputed that assertion.
“From my perspective, that’s all it has been,” Rep. Jackie Thrasher, D-10, said. “If it had been all professional and above board, he or someone would have come talk to me about it.”
Weiers said he initially assigned H2035 to the Appropriations Committee April 2 because it would cost the state money to implement.
“We’re in a $3 billion deficit,” he said. “We’re trying to restrain… We’re not looking for ways to increase the budget, we’re looking for ways to decrease the expenditures.”
He pointed to Hoff’s e-mail, which was sent the day before the bill was granted preliminary approval on the House floor. In the e-mail, Hoff estimated the cost of the legislation at about $4 million.
It’s not permissible under House rules for a bill to be assigned to a committee after it had been approved by the Committee of the Whole, unless a special motion is made and approved by the entire House.
Thrasher objected to her bill’s reassignment.
Republican and Democrat aides met with the chief clerk and determined the additional committee assignment violated House rules. A source with knowledge of the meeting, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said a top Republican adviser had conceded the re-assignment was a mistake and had said the bill would be withdrawn from the committee.
On April 7, Weiers withdrew H2035 from the Appropriations Committee. The next day, Thrasher made a floor motion for the bill to be given a final vote on April 9. House Majority Leader Tom Boone made a substitute motion to re-refer the bill to the Appropriations Committee, citing the e-mail sent by Hoff as the reason the bill needed to be heard by the committee. Boone’s motion was approved by a 29-26 vote.
Thrasher said Weiers’ acknowledgement of the Hoff e-mail demonstrates that the initial re-assignment of the bill wasn’t “a mistake,” as Republican staff had claimed.
“He basically said today that when he saw the e-mail, he (re-assigned the bill),” she said April 8. “It wasn’t a mistake.”