From: "Olson, Jessica" <jessica.olson@everettsd.

org>
Subject: RE: Your Sneaky Meeting with the Superintendent & Lawyer about the real estate deal
Date: December 17, 2010 10:20:09 AM PST
To: "Petersen, Edwin" <ed.petersen@everettsd.org>

Ed,

You admit the attorney was with you and Jeff and the super to discuss the real estate transaction; the context you claim in which that was discussed (a claim that will never be
known for certain) is irrelevant. The fact is that you, once again, took it upon yourself to decide for the board what the board should know -- just like the situation with you
unilaterally deciding whether the board should be informed about the investigation of the principal, and just like the situation with you unilaterally suspending the ability of directors
to view our legal invoices. You evidently believe the title of Board President entitles you to privileged information and exceptional powers; it does not.

Meanwhile, as the Board President, all you had to do to satisfy both the OPMA and the board and people's right to know was properly notice tonight's meeting as being part
executive session, and part special meeting. Especially since you yourself admit that this meeting was not a spontaneous idea, and that you knew about it at least a day ahead of
time.

My one regret is that I didn't enter the superintendent's conference room even earlier to stop (or as you put it, "intrude" upon) your private, non-disclosed meeting. My entrance into
the room had the intended effect: it halted discussion of district business that was being conducted away from the public.

Sadly, it is you who is under the wrong impression and have come to wrong conclusions about what transpired yesterday after the executive session. You can attempt to spin this
all you want, but it will never change the fact that it was inappropriate for you and Jeff to be meeting with a lawyer and the super to discuss this real estate acquisition matter in
ANY context without the full board.

You just don't seem to get it that although you and Jeff may be the president and vice-president, this does not give you two the right to be the keepers of the keys to the
information storehouse.

Now, are you going to give me an answer about my request to have this topic added to agenda of the next regular board meeting in January (Jan 11)?

-- Jessica

-----Original Message-----
From: Petersen, Edwin
Sent: Thu 12/16/2010 6:07 PM
To: Olson, Jessica
Subject: RE: Your Sneaky Meeting with the Superintendent & Lawyer about the real estate deal

Jessica,

You have jumped to unwarranted conclusions.

Jeff and I had asked for a meeting with the Superintendent yesterday and had set this up to occur after the executive session. As leadership for the Board we are responsible for
setting agendas for upcoming meetings. We wanted to discuss when arrangements could be made for a special meeting to discuss the Capital Facilities Plan as it relates to the
Central Administration Facility. This was in part in response to your request for such a discussion in open session. The Superintendent invited the attorney to stay in the event that
there were questions about confidentiality involved in the real estate transaction.

We concluded that a special meeting should be convened either next week or the first week in January, depending on the availability of staff and relevant materials. You will be
contacted when the best option is determined. We were doing this in response to your desire for such a conversation, which could not occur in the three executive session meetings
we have held.

Sorry you got the wrong impression.

It was inappropriate for you to intrude on our meeting and create a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act.

Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: Olson, Jessica
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 5:04 PM
To: Petersen, Edwin; Russell, Jeff
Subject: Your Sneaky Meeting with the Superintendent & Lawyer about the real estate deal

Ed and Jeff --

The two of you are unbelievable. I can't hardly believe what I just witnessed with my own eyes.

Neither of you said anything about going into a private meeting with the superintendent and the real estate attorney to have more discussion on this real estate acquisition matter
after the executive session had just ended. That was wrong. The two of you are engaging in discussions with the superintendent and attorney about this real estate acquisition and
getting information that the other directors do not have.

I especially don't appreciate the sneaky way you went about it, either. The two of you didn't come into Gary's office through the front entrance where Cohn and atty Jerry Lutz came
through, oh no. The two of you came into Gary's office, sight unseen, through the back route via the conference room adjoined to the back of Gary's office. Very sneaky. No wonder
you weren't in a hurry to get up from the table in C-3 where we had held the executive session. You knew you'd be meeting with Cohn and the Lutz ahead of time!

Were the two of you only discussing price in this in your meeting with Cohn and Lutz? If so, why not discuss it in front of the whole board in executive session?

Or, were you instead discussing only those topics that were open public meeting topics -- real estate matters other than price? If so, why not discuss it in an open public meeting,
so the public could be informed of what the two of you are planning for the district? Why not include the other directors, and why not include the public? What are you hiding?
Shame on both of you. You owe the other members of the board and the public an apology. While what you did was not technically illegal (you said as much when I broke up your
meeting), what you did was still absolutely wrong. You had no good reason to exclude the rest of the board. The only plausible reason was that you two decided that the rest of the
board did not need to be part of the conversation. That alone is suggestive that you were doing something sneaky.

The two of you do not speak for the board, and you definitely do not speak for me. In no way do you have my support as a director to gain knowledge about a real estate matter
that the rest of us do not have access to. As I said to you when I broke up your meeting, the two of you are not the Illuminati for the board. Board policy does not grant you any
authority to be privy to information or conversations with lawyers to which the rest of the board is not privy. Especially on a real estate matter that has never been discussed with
the public, involves tens of millions of dollars, involves the district becoming a landlord, and most of all, the purpose of acquiring this real estate for administration has never been
discussed by the board as warranted or prudent.

You two of you either don't realize it, or worse, you don't care, but you two don't get to decide what is best for the board to know and what is best for them not to know -- let alone
what the public should know and what they should not know.

Please put this topic on the next regular meeting agenda in January for board discussion. Consider this a formal request for same.

-- Jessica