8/3/2019 Friday Report (Jan 28 2011) & Response

1/3

directors has been provided to the Daily Heraldfor publication as an opinion piece.

(Attachment: Pursuit of Excellence 20110128)

Board-Superintendent Relations & Director and Staff Safety

During the past several months a number of events have occurred that, taken together, create a heightened level of

concern regarding the relationships among the board-superintendent team members. In addition, I have heard

expressed concerns about the safety of directors and staff relative to director behavior. Continuing to devote resources

to addressing these concerns draws from focus on the priorities approved by the board. Eight situations give rise to this

elevated level of concern. They are described here with what I trust the board will accept as the best of intention and a

respectful and dispassionate recitation.

During a lockdown at two of our northern schools, upon being informed by Kathy Mahan of the situation, Director

Olson requested that Kathy contact a nearby private school to check on the safety of Director Olsons children.

Kathy followed the directions, and wrote and sent a summary of the request and her compliance. Director Olson

objected to Kathys accounting. Subsequently, Director Olson confronted Kathy about the characterization of the

request and the disclosure, indicated she wouldnt want other directors to get the wrong impression. Kathy

reported concern about the uncomfortable nature of the follow-on exchange.

During the boards annual planning workshop at the Lively Center this past August 2010, Director Dutton

disclosed that she felt threatened by Director Olsons behaviors toward her. Director Olson responded that she

was sure Director Dutton could take her and they could step outside to see.

During the boards annual planning workshop at the Lively Center, during a break, in close quarters Director

Olson confronted me about not being truthful regarding her requesting a series of coffee meetings for board

members to hold with the community, saying she never made such a request. However, a board request was

created based on a January 20, 2010 email from Director Olson, which is attached.

Following the boards December 16, 2010 special meeting, while still in Conference Room 3, Director Olson

requested a copy of a board resolution. Having begun to exit from the room via the west door, I turned to

respond that we could find and copy the document by tomorrow. Director Olson approached me, stopping inches

away, stated she had a right to the document immediately, and asked if I was blocking her egress from the

room. As I backed immediately away against the wall, Director Olson said Shame on you and walked down the

narrow hallway past me, stating my behavior was unacceptable.

Following the boards December 16, 2010 special meeting, while meeting with the board president and vice

president and real estate counsel in the superintendents conference room, Director Olson entered the room and

inquired why we were meeting. Upon being informed her presence was a violation of the OPMA, she retreated.

(Afterward, staff seated outside the conference room entrance reported that Director Olson had stood outside

the conference room with her ear pressed to the door in order to listen to the discussion.) Shortly thereafter,

Director Olson re-entered the conference room, declared the meeting unlawful, and refused to leave. Everyone

else in the meeting elected to leave to avoid further violation of the OPMA.

Following the boards January 11, 2011 regular meeting, Director Olson followed the board president and myself

to the superintendents office stating that the board president and superintendent would not be meeting without

her present, even if she had to follow the superintendent home. Director Olson remained in the superintendents

office, refusing to leave until President Petersen left with me.

During an unscheduled visit to the Longfellow Building, Director Olson entered a staff members office and

removed public records prepared pursuant to her records request. Coincidentally with the event, Director Olson

send a text to me, including symbols, that I interpret as taunting. During the process of removal of the records,

Executive Director Moore challenged her right to take the records. Director Olson indicated he couldnt stop her,

and said to Say hello to Gary, which I interpret as taunting.

Prior to the boards January 25, 2010 regular meeting, Director Russell received what he characterized as a

threatening letter from an unsuccessful school board candidate from Port Angeles warning against going after

Jessica. Two former Port Angeles school board members provided disturbing background about this individual(see attached email). This appears to be an attempt to coerce at least one director from performing his

responsibilities.

Individually, any one of these events might be overlooked. In my judgment, the series of events cannot. I find i

necessary to request an opportunity to review with the board the impact upon the district resources; to seek

advice from the board as to how we might respond more effectively to ensure an atmosphere of mutual respect

and improved safety for directors and staff during the performance of our duties. I will work with the board

president to determine an appropriate time to schedule a discussion.

(Attachment: Olson Emails (PRR) 2020110121)

(Attachment: Olson-Petersen Email (Agenda Request) 20110120)

(Attachment: Board Email (Threatening Emails) 20110126)

8/3/2019 Friday Report (Jan 28 2011) & Response

2/3

Jessica Olson Response to Gary's 1/28 Friday Report Regarding Staff & Director Safety

February 18, 2011 6:23:48 AM PST

Ed Petersen , Edwin Petersen Jessica Olson

2 Attachments, 2.3 MB

Ed -- I am sending this to you (but have addressed it to the full board) from my gmail account because district email will not allow me to italicize orunderline text, nor can I figure out how to include attachments. I am copying this email to my district account so the district has the record, and will alsoforward that district copy to you at your district email address if you desire as per the board's preference to receive only district email correspondencefrom directors. Let me know. [I do note, however, that whatever email account is used by either one of us, this email is obviously subject to the PRAregardless.]

Thanks.

-- Jessica.

*************************

Fellow Directors:

This is in response to Dr. Cohn's comments in the Friday packet dated January 28, wherein Dr. Cohn deliniates items that have crossed his threshold ofthreatening the safety of staff and directors. I will attempt to address each of the items causing Dr. Cohn distress:

1) Lockdown Incident I will not rehash the particulars here, as I believe my views on this matter have been previously and succinctly stated;there is little use in rehashing old news. I stated these views in an email to Kathy (cc'd to Dr. Cohn), and to Kathy in conversation when I ran intoher at her office. I can easily provide you with the email so you can examine the text and symbols it contains. I believe the tone and verbiage arequite non-threatening; Dr. Cohn's mileage obviously varies. The ensuing conversation had a similar tone as I recall -- the fact that Dr. Cohnchooses to describe a conversation he wasn't present for as confrontational doesn't make it so. Kathy may have characterized the conversationas uncomfortable -- however, there is a chasm between a conversation that is uncomfortable, and feeling threatened for one's safety. If Kathyhad felt threatened, I trust Dr. Cohn would have noted this back in February of 2010 when it occurred. Classifying it differently a year later seemsless than forthright.

2) I recall Director Dutton levying an accusation that she felt physically threatened during a disagreement we were having at the board retreat,although she chose not to articulate why. There was no physical altercation, no push, no shove, no raised hand or clenched fist as the six of uswere sitting around the table, but I do recall her saying that. My lighthearted response was to inquire, "You feel physicallythreatened, Kristie?Really? I'm pretty sure you could take me! I can think of no situation in which the phrase I'm pretty sure you could take me constitutes a threat.In fact, the statement would seem in all cases to point to the opposite. I did not ask Director Dutton to step outside.

3) Dr. Cohn states that during a break and in close quarters (at the approximately 800 square feet room of Lively Hall used for our board

retreat) I said he had been untruthful about a director request regarding a series of coffee meetings. (I stand by that statement: in the email Dr.Cohn provides as evidence of a director request, the email is clearly to Ed Petersen (not Dr. Cohn) as an item to put on the agenda for Boarddiscussion. I'm certain that every agenda request is not considered a director request. Please correct me if I'm wrong.) In any case, once againthere was no physical confrontation or threat that I recall, and none noted by Dr. Cohn at the time or by the people in the room with us. It feels asif Dr. Cohn has difficulty differentiating between a conversation even a confrontational one and a genuine threat to safety. I have beenconfronted in conversation by all four board members never once have I, as a reasonable person, confused these conversations as a threat tomy safety.

4) Regarding the Dec. 16th threat: Even if one assumes, for the sake of argument, that Dr. Cohn's account is 100% accurate (which it is not),in what situation is asking are you blocking my egress a threat? Similarly, Shame on you is not to my knowledge widely construed to be athreat. Neither is demanding a document or stating your behavior is unacceptable. Once again, had there been an actual threat to staff ordirector safety, I'm sure Dr. Cohn would have mentioned it. Trying to concoct a threat from phrases such as "shame on you" is spuriousreasoning.

5) Again, on Dec 16th: Again, for the sake of argument, let us assume Dr. Cohn's account is 100% accurate. Entering a room and refusing toleave is not a threat, nor did it make anyone unsafe. With four grown men in the room, even if I had made a threat, I can't believe that one middle-aged housewife would truly have violated their sense of safety. However, that doesn't matter, as even according to Dr. Cohn's account no threat

was made. [As an aside, there was also no violation of the OPMA. Had there been, Directors Petersen and Russell would also be guilty. But therewas no violation, as there is no rule that three directors cannot be together only that no district business can be discussed when they are. WhenDr. Cohn was ignorant of this provision, his accusation of a violation was simply incorrect; however, him knowing there was no OPMA violationyet continuing to insist there was is disingenuous.]

6) Regarding the January 11th threat: Again, not allowing two directors to meet alone with the superintendent to further discuss boardbusiness outside of the full board meeting we'd just adjourned from is not a threat. I never said I'd follow the superintendent home what Istated was something to the effect that the three of you may find a room somewhere in the building with a locking door to keep me out, or maybethe three of you would meet at Gary's house later and I can't stop you, but this meeting here tonight won't happen. Interestingly, prior to going intoGary's office, there was a somewhat heated exchange between myself, Director Petersen, and Director Russell. Though the tone wasconfrontational, and I was outnumbered 2-1, I never felt threatened. I can state that Ed and Jeff were angry, but they didn't appear to fear for theirsafety either.

8/3/2019 Friday Report (Jan 28 2011) & Response

3/3

7) Here is the text I sent to Dr. Cohn: Thank you for making the copies of the personal service contracts available to me Gary. I'll be sure andreturn them to the appropriate district staff just as soon as I'm finished with them. :-) You have a great day!! [At first I was concerned about thesymbol in the text referred to by Dr. Cohn. I thought perhaps there was a glitch in the text that caused some menacing symbol to appear. Then Isaw it it was the smiley face emoticon. I am unsure why Dr. Cohn referred to it as a symbol -- certainly this "symbol" sounds less sinisterwhen referred to as a smiley face.] Not only is there nothing resembling a threat or safety concern in this message, there is nothing that is evenrude. In fact, when Dr. Cohn emailed me in response to the text, he didn't mention that he felt threatened (or even taunted) he seemed moreconcerned that I chose texting as a communication form. (Nevermind that Gary has texted me 18 times. In addition, I tried calling first, but hissecretary stated he was unavailable on a phone call). Even if we grant that Dr. Cohn's perceptions are reality, and this was in fact taunting

feeling taunted and being threatened are not the same.

8) As far as the Say hello to Gary comment to Jeff Moore, this was in response to Dr. Cohn's self-admitted policy to have each staff memberwith which I have contact make a report to Dr. Cohn. I find it hard to believe that Dr. Cohn takes issue with this simple salutation as either a threator an issue with Board-superintendent communications.

9) I dealt with the e-mail that Dr. Cohn classified as "threatening" and "bringing anti-semitism to our board table in Everett" in a previous letter toEd (attached) in the interest of saving time I will refer the reader to that response.

In short, it is my opinion that Dr. Cohn's feelings of heightened tension are a bit out of touch with the actual situations presented. He seems to regard anyconfrontation as a threat. Reading his statements of concern for director and staff safety and juxtaposing them with the actual reality of the occurencerenders the following conclusion: there was never any real threat, nor was anyone's safety ever in question. I suppose we could contact the EverettPolice Department and see if any of these instances satisfies their criteria of a legitimate threat -- better to be embarrassed by hypervigilence thanattempt to work in a constant state of grave concern.

What I see listed by Dr. Cohn is a litany of behaviors Dr. Cohn dislikes. Whether Dr. Cohn is honestly plagued by these instances as threats to staffsafety or is simply exaggerating and reclassifying old events as a means to discredit me, the irony is that most of these issues were aired out at greatlength in a public forum January 24 (only four days prior to the Friday report), at the conclusion of which Director Petersen stated we should now moveon, and hoped we can find ways to create communication to work together. To regurgitate those same issues a mere four days later on January 28, butthis time framed in the context of safety of staff and directors, seems counterproductive. In reading the list of Dr. Cohn's worries above, it is clear that nodirector's safety was ever truly threatened; no staff members' safety was ever truly threatened. Dr. Cohn himself states that devoting resources toaddressing these concerns draws from the focus of the priorities of approved by the board why then does he bring up the same concerns less than aweek after we agreed to move on and make a new attempt to work together?

Jessica OlsonEverett Public SchoolsBoard of Directors, Position #4(425) 772-0437www.jessica4everettschoolboard.comwww.facebook.com/jessicaeverettschooldirector

Everett_Fridapdf (93.5 KB)

LettertoPetersen.pdf (2.2 MB)