Only two board members served as the negotiations
committee for Mr. Capizzi’s contract (even though many
members were non-conflicted and could have negotiated). But now there is an attempt to invoke
doctrine of necessity so two board members cannot serve as the negotiations committee
for Mr. Quatrone’s contract (six out eight members have conflicts of interest).
They can’t have it both ways.
Lodi needs an advisory opinion from the school ethics
commission. An advisory opinion from
1998 stated that doctrine of necessity can be used for negotiations (a County
Special Services District) since four out of five members of its appointed
board had conflicts of interest. Opinions
from 2012 and 2014 stated that three or four non-conflicted members were
sufficient to serve as a superintendent selection committee or conduct
superintendent evaluations and that doctrine of necessity should not be
invoked.
Lodi needs an advisory opinion on whether or not two
non-conflicted members is sufficient for a negotiations committee. If it is not sufficient, some past
contracts should be deemed void and redone.
If it is sufficient, doctrine of necessity should not be invoked.
