During the last campaign, I warned the people of Lodi that
the “machine” was focused on attaining a 100% conflicted Board. Its ultimate goal was to have a Board where
members would first negotiate their children’s contracts and spouses’ contracts
and then vote on the contacts that they negotiated. In some cases, the Board members live in the same
households and will receive a direct financial benefit from the contracts in
which they negotiate. The “machine” candidates
told the people of Lodi to ignore my warning and that I wasn’t telling the
truth.
The superintendent’s contract was supposed to have
been negotiated in June. Those
negotiations were sabotaged and obstructed for seven months. Why? So the superintendent can have his
contract negotiated by conflicted Board members whose relatives work under him. The Board Attorney’s husband works under the superintendent. She gave the Board a wrong legal opinion at
the time to benefit the superintendent.
This week, the
Board plans on voting a Resolution that will allow its members to
NEGOTIATE their relatives’ contracts and the superintendent’s contract.
This is disastrous for a district. This
will erode all public trust. This is
self-serving. This is the definition of
corruption.
Something has changed since Election Day. Dominic Miller resigned. There is a vacant seat. That seat should be filled by someone without
conflicts. There is no “necessity” for “Doctrine
of Necessity” unless a situation is intentionally created by conflicted Board
members. Creating that situation is
completely unethical.
“Doctrine of Necessity” is only supposed to be used when there are no other
options- when everything else has been exhausted. It’s bad enough to use Doctrine of Necessity when
voting. It’s even worse to use Doctrine
of Necessity for negotiations.
Lodi politicians plan on gaming the system this week.
I’m just giving the Lodi taxpayers a heads up.
