Sierra reply ripped by its critics

Sacramento Bee
Minugh -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PDT Thursday, May 4, 2006

They sought closure, but what they got instead, some members of the Sierra College community say, was salt in the wound.

Nearly 100 faculty, staff and community members showed up Tuesday to hear the Sierra Joint Community College District board of trustees craft a response to a March report by the Placer County grand jury. Over 52 pages, that report disputed trustee Aaron Klein's earlier allegations of misconduct by the Sierra College Foundation and former President Kevin Ramirez.

In five hours of painstaking deliberation, the board penned a five-page response that some critics decried as "vanilla," "watered-down" and overly protective of Klein.

Those critics said they are concerned that the board blew an opportunity to show humility and remorse that would've helped heal wounds reopened by the release of the grand jury report.
"What I saw was (trustees) jockeying to protect themselves legally, rather than admitting a mistake was made," said Johnnie Terry, president of the faculty senate. "I'm worried it was not enough. ... It's an avoidance of the truth of the matter that could exacerbate things more."
Trustees - including Klein - counter that the response was fair and well thought out.
"I think you can't please everybody," Klein said Wednesday. "I think what the board issued was balanced, responsible and fair."

The grand jury's report included eight findings, the most significant of which essentially exonerated Ramirez of any wrongdoing associated with errors made in campaign finance filings for three bond measures in 2004, and contended that Klein failed to exercise due diligence before leveling allegations against Ramirez and the foundation that were "utterly without merit."

On Tuesday, however, trustees said they disagreed with the finding regarding Ramirez because they didn't know whether he had been involved or had known about the filings.
In what trustee Dave Creek called "an olive branch," trustees added to their written response that "it does seem unlikely that he did."

Trustees agreed that Klein failed to exercise due diligence and said he should have first requested a closed session with the full board to discuss his concerns.

Though they also decided that Klein's complaint was premature, it has helped the college establish a higher standard of complying with campaign contribution laws, trustees said.
Trustees disagreed with the grand jury that Klein's charges were "unfounded, misleading and full of unsubstantiated allegation" because the trustees lacked knowledge of how the Fair Political Practices Commission would resolve such a matter.

Trustees also responded to four of five recommendations made by the grand jury. Falling short of issuing an apology, as suggested, the board wrote that it "deeply regrets the disruption this matter has caused the college community."

Trustees also said they had already met the jury's recommendation of recognizing "in some tangible way" Ramirez's contributions to the college.

They said they had awarded Ramirez emeritus status, hung his portrait with those of other past presidents, and acknowledged his service in a statement released in January 2005 when Ramirez stepped down as president amid controversy.

The responses - based on a draft written by trustees Scott Leslie and Nancy Palmer - were hashed out paragraph by paragraph, and voted on in small segments. Nearly all were approved unanimously.

Anthony Maki Gill, president of the classified employee senate, said he felt the response was carefully crafted to be "legally accurate," but that it was not sufficient to address the emotional turmoil felt by many on campus.

"I don't think those responses demonstrated personal responsibility or accountability for their actions," he said. "They were sitting (on) the fence."

Cheryl Maki, a former mayor of Auburn and Maki Gill's mother, said she was appalled by the board's actions. At Tuesday's meeting, she spoke angrily to the board and directly to Klein, saying she had supported him in his campaign for a seat on the board and that he should feel ashamed of his actions.

She said Wednesday that she also supported Leslie and had given money to Palmer's campaign. But she said she felt trustees had shirked their duties by hiding behind legal language and protecting themselves.

"Obviously, it's a very emotional issue for me," she said. "I feel responsible, almost, for their actions."

Trustees defended their effort to write a response that was concise and directly addressed the grand jury's findings. They pointed to the spirit of cooperation shown by trustees at the long and often emotional meeting.

"I feel very good about it," Les-lie said Wednesday. "I was very pleased to work out a compromise that all seven board members would be happy with."

He criticized the timing of the grand jury's report - and suggested that it might not have been an appropriate investigation for the 2005-06 jury because too much time had passed. But he said the board had a legal obligation to respond.

Leslie said he hopes the Sierra community now can focus on other pressing issues, such as the Measure B bond campaign on the June 6 ballot, expanding satellite campuses and maintaining academic excellence.

"Dealing with these issues is what's going to move the college forward, not talking about an old issue," he said.

Klein said that he, too, was happy with the board's response and that he felt grateful trustees disagreed with grand jurors that his allegations were without merit.

Trustee Barbara Vineyard said she felt the board's response was too weak in some regards - particularly in how it dealt with the merit of Klein's allegations - but that it would've been impossible to get stronger language past all trustees. "Too much argument tends to agitate more," Vineyard said.

Vineyard also said that regardless of the board's response, she felt the grand jury report itself was a critical part of the healing process because it vindicated many people who felt Ramirez had been treated unfairly.

The board's response will be reviewed by trustees in the coming days for minor adjustments and then submitted to the grand jury next week for its final report.