|
By Olin Ericksen
Staff Writer
May 15 -- In an effort to clinch $750,000 in City
funding and put to rest fears of a lack of financial transparency,
School District officials last week amended a controversial
"gag" provision against their former chief financial
officer.
But whether former CFO Winston Braham will break his silence
and whether the general public will get to hear his testimony
remain two key questions that could impact crucial council
votes on substantial funding for the financially-strapped
District.
A seven-line paragraph tendered on May 7 by Superintendent
Dianne Talarico informed Braham that he may legally make "factual
comments to the Santa Monica City Council," if he chooses,
about the District's "finances during the term of his
employment," which ended on shaky terms last year.
The language specifically amends one sentence in the $189,000
settlement agreement last December that bars Braham from making
"comments to any third party concerning the financial
condition of the District unless requested to do so by the
Superintendent or Governing Board,” according to the
letter.
District officials, including School Board President Kathy
Wisnicki, said they saw the amendment as a way for Braham
to speak to the council about strictly fiscal issues, without
making negative comments about the District that would void
his settlement under what is known as a "non-disparagement"
clause.
"I don't know one way or another if he will speak,"
said Wisnicki. "I definitely think he could speak about
(finances) without talking negatively about the district,
if he chooses."
Calls and an email to Braham were not returned, and his lawyer
declined to respond to a request for comment by The Lookout
on whether he felt the new agreement allowed Braham to
speak without endangering his settlement.
While that answer remains unclear, Wisnicki said she believes
the amendment shows an effort on the part of the District
to resolve the matter, which three council members have said
publicly could impact their decision to approve hundreds of
thousands of dollars in additional funding for the District.
If approved by the council in an anticipated May 24 vote,
the City would boost funding for schools to $7.2 million annually
-- from $6.5 million last year -- under a three-year old agreement
with the District to share school facilities with the public
in exchange for financial support.
"I think we have done everything on our part to alleviate
(City Council members’) concerns," Wisnicki said
in a Monday interview with The Lookout. "I am
comfortable with (the agreement), but can certainly understand
people's concerns over transparency issues."
At least one vocal City Council member, Bobby Shriver, said
that if Braham does not speak publicly, whether under the
advice of his attorney or on his own volition, his silence
could jeopardize additional financing.
"I'm just worried," said Shriver "It seems
a very difficult atmosphere to approve funding.'
While District supporters and others close to the negotiations
insist the issue is an internal "personnel” matter
and Braham's silence does not cover up any financial mismanagement
or wrongdoing, Shriver is not satisfied.
"If (it’s) nothing but an honest disagreement”
between Braham and the District, Shriver said, “it seems
awfully convoluted."
While disappointed that the new amendment could potentially
impact Braham's decision to speak on the matter in the future,
Shriver and the District reportedly had approved a compromise
to delete the paragraph barring the former CFO from speaking
without consent.
That compromise, however, was reportedly rejected by Braham's
attorney, according to a non-district source familiar with
the negotiations.
Others, such as Council member Ken Genser -- who said he
would vote for the school funding increase -- said he does
not expect Braham's testimony to reveal any important new
information.
"My sense is that what appears to be the case is it's
much more about personnel matters than anything else,"
Genser said.
"I hope that everybody keeps in mind that we must provide
sufficient resources to educate the youth of this community,"
said Genser. "If we stop providing sufficient funds for
a year or two, a group of kids going through the schools now
will permanently suffer."
But some School District supporters worry that prohibiting
a high ranking school official, such as the CFO, from sharing
financial information with those outside of the district could
set a bad precedent and jeopardize the public confidence needed
to approve new school funding.
"These kind of accountability and transparency issues
could jeopardize future funding," said Chris Harding,
a land use attorney who sat on the District’s Financial
Oversight Committee for five years.
"The board has a responsibility past the May 24 decision
and that is to still continue to address the issues of fiscal
accountability and oversight," he said.
Still, Harding said the compromise is a positive step.
"I think the board and District have made good-faith
efforts to address Braham's situation," he said.
“I personally think that all the public information
that needs to be known is known," he added.
If Braham chooses to speak, a new tussle may be brewing over
whether he speaks behind closed doors or in a public setting.
While Wisnicki suggested the amendment letter allowed Braham
to speak only to the City Council, both Shriver and Harding,
who are both attorneys, believe the council might need to
hear the testimony in public.
"I don't think that this should be addressed quietly
before closed doors," said Shriver, who said doing so
would be "very troubling."
Harding, too, said that if council members speak with Braham,
they might be required to do so in an open setting, such as
a council meeting.
"They can only meet in closed session on a very limited
scope of topics," Harding said.
Calls to the City Attorney's office on the matter were not
returned by deadline.
| 
