School board records lawsuit hearing today

The offices of the Douglas County School District are located in the historic Minden School.

The offices of the Douglas County School District are located in the historic Minden School.

Share this: Email | Facebook | X

An evidentiary hearing for the records lawsuit facing the Douglas County School Board is scheduled for today and Wednesday in Douglas County District Court with Judge Thomas Gregory.

On Monday, Gregory issued an order that should it be found that the four individual school board trustees accused in the lawsuit failed to turn over emails sought in a records request, they would be personally liable for the legal fees under Nevada Law.

Also, Gregory denied an emergency motion for a protective order to prevent communication between trustees and their counsel from being published. The four trustees accused in the case plan to defend themselves in part based on their reliance on legal counsel's advice, according to Gregory’s denial.

Last week, attorney Frank Gilmore filed a notice he would be representing the school district at next week’s hearing.

In May and July 2023, petitioners Joe Girdner, Robbe Lehmann, Dean Miller, and Marty Swisher submitted two NRS 239 public records requests to the Douglas County School District and four of its board of trustees; David Burns, Susan Jansen, Katherine Dickerson, and Doug Englekirk.

The public records requests sought communications to, from, and between the four trustees regarding various topics, including the decision who would be board president and vice president, the firing of Maupin, Cox and LeGoy and hiring Joey Gilbert Law, and suspicion that the newly elected trustees were subject to outside political influence.

A correspondence email by Joey Gilbert Law on Aug. 3, 2023, stated that the requested records would be available by the end of Aug. 13, which according to the petitioners, did not happen and as a result filed the lawsuit. 

The matter was scheduled for an evidentiary hearing on Aug. 25, 2023, but due to procedural issues, the hearing was delayed for seven months.

A settlement was reached on March 27 after questioning and testimonies provided by former Superintendent Keith Lewis and Trustee Jansen.

As part of the settlement, a search was performed by Douglas County School District IT Director Michael Roth, the school district would have been responsible for paying attorney costs for the petitioners which would be determined and approved by the board, trustees were required to perform a thorough search from a mutually agreed third party and the district would provide additional training to the Trustees regarding Nevada’s open record law.

On April 9, the settlement went before the school board during a public meeting and was rejected by Trustees Linda Gilkerson, Yvonne Wagstaff, and Carey Kangas who made up the board after the four accused trustees abstained due to conflict of interest. 

During the meeting Wagstaff made a motion not to approve the settlement and to have attorneys go back and negotiate a more favorable term for the district.

After the settlement was rejected, Gilbert told The Record-Courier that it would go back to the “drawing board,” for more negotiations.

“Parties will attempt to work together to determine whether litigations will continue or if the parties can resolve the matter,” said Gilbert.

During a July 25 status hearing on the matter in Douglas County District Court, petitioners’ attorney Richard McGuffin and School District representative Anthony Hall, and Robert Smith representing school board trustees David Burns, Katherine Dickerson, Susan Jansen and Doug Englekirk presented updates on the case, along with concerns that could affect which witnesses and information would be presented during the Sept. 17 evidentiary hearing.

McGuffin said he received roughly 128 incomplete documents from the district on July 2 and 6,100 pages from Smith, who represented the trustees, the night before the hearing and were overly redacted without explanation.

Gregory ordered a briefing be completed between the lawyers in the case by Aug. 8 and replies by Aug. 15 in time for the September hearing.


Comments

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment