Quality of Life Ethics Complaint

7/30/2019 Quality of Life Ethics Complaint

1/10

By Viola Davis with Unhappy Taxpayer & Voter and Coalition Members (C-TEA)

In the name of transparency, ethics, and accountability, Citizens for

Transparency, Education, Ethics, and Accountability submit the Quality Life

for DeKalb Ethics Complaint against the DeKalb County Board of Education

on the issue of No Cell Towers On School Grounds to identify violations of

the boards fiduciary responsibility to uphold their oath of office.

We have evidence of several violations of policy and ethics that have

jeopardized the health of our children, property value of our homes, and

decrease the overall quality of life of our citizens. To ensure the highest levelof education for our children, we submit this ethics complaint to hold our

elected officials accountable for actions that undermined their oath of office

to work in the best interest of the children and our school system.

We will examine the school policies that were allegedly violated in

the following areas:

1. Domain II: Strategic Planning - Each member of the Board

agrees that he or she will:

Reflect through actions that his or her first and foremost concern

is for the educational welfare and academic achievement of

children attending schools within the District.

DeKalb Board of Education work with the Board and the

Superintendent to ensure prudent and accountable uses of the

Districts resources.

Render all decisions based on available facts and his or her

independent judgment, and refuse to surrender his or herjudgment to individuals, special interest groups, or partisan bias.

Uphold and enforce all applicable laws, the rules and regulations

of the State Board of

Education, the policies of this Board, and all court orders


2/10

pertaining to the District.

2. Domain III: Board and Community Relations - Each member of

the Board agrees that he or she will:

Seek regular and systemic communications among the Board,students, staff, and community.

Not use District resources for community programs without the

approval of the Board.

3. Domain IV: Policy Development - Each member of the Board


Work with other Board members to establish effective policies for

the District.

Be familiar with the Board policies in effect during his or her

tenure in office.

Periodically review and evaluate the effectiveness of the

Districts programs and performance.

Make decisions on policy matters only after full discussion at

publicly held Board meetings.

4. Domain V: Board Meetings - Each member of the Board


Be informed and prepared to discuss agenda items to be

considered or acted upon by the Board.

Work with other Board members in a spirit of harmony,

cooperation, and respect in spite of differences of opinion that

may arise during the discussion and resolution of issues at Board

meetings.

Vote for a closed executive session of the Board only when

applicable law or Board policy permits consideration of a matter

in executive session.

Make decisions in accordance with the interests of the District as

a whole and not any


3/10

particular segment thereof.

5. Domain VII: Financial Governance - Each member of the Board


Refrain from using his or her position as a Board member for

personal or partisan gain or to benefit any person or entity over

the interest the school system.

Not surrender his or her responsibilities as a Board member to

any other person, group, or organization.

Not provide Board members, staff, or the public with intentionally

misleading information about matters pertaining to the Board orthe District.

6. Conflicts of Interest - Each member of the Board agrees that

he or she will:

Announce potential conflicts of interest before Board action is

taken.

No Board member shall use, or knowingly allow to be used, his or

her official position or any information not generally available to

the public which he or she receives or acquires in his or her

capacity as a Board member for the purpose of securing financial

gain for himself or herself, any member of his or her immediate

family, or any business organization with which he or she is

associated.

7. Disclosure of Conflicting Interest Policy

Whenever a Board member is required by this policy to refrain

from voting on a matter, the Board member shall fully disclose

the reason for not voting to the other Board members and the

public.

The Quality of Life Ethics Complaint on Cell Towers includes:

A. DeKalb Board of Education did not follow school policy.


4/10

B. DeKalb Board of Education did not properly inform the parents

and homeowners of the placement of cell towers on school

grounds.

C. DeKalb Board of Education had a conflict of interest to solely

work with the PTA as an avenue to inform the public on the celltower construction.

D. DeKalb Board of Education signed a 20+ year contract knowing

that the board had denied a prior contract for more money on

the policy that the school does not permit cell towers on school

grounds.

A. DeKalb Board of Education did not follow school policy.

DeKalb School System has a school notice policy for construction projects.

The Plant Service Department shall:

Notify the owner of each parcel of residential or occupied

commercial property located within 250 feet of the school

systems property line on which property the board of education

proposes the construction

Notify each parcel of residential or occupied commercial property

by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery prior to the

commencement of any development

Hold a public meeting for such property owners and other

interested citizens prior to the commencement of proposed

construction for the purpose to exchange information on the

construction project

The state law was quoted to say that the school can lease public school

property for private purposes when the school is no longer needed for school

purposes.

(See Exhibit A: school notice policy)

B. DeKalb Board of Education did not properly inform the parents


5/10

and homeowners of the placement of cell towers on school

grounds.

DeKalb School System has a responsibility to be transparent by informing

parents and homeowners of changes in policy and new construction through

the use of open meetings. The issue of cell towers was documented in theyear of 2010 according to the T-Mobile Proposal agenda (64681596-DCSS-

13T-MobileProposalAgenda). We need to know if the DeKalb School System

used the RFP process to solicit an open bid for the best proposal concerning

the cell towers as a method of increasing money for the budget. Second, we

need to verify that the DeKalb School System followed their policy and

informed the parents as well as the homeowners via certified mail for

property owners within 250 feet and state agencies such as parent councils,

community papers, PTAs, etc.

We will demonstrate how the flyer that was sent out to the parents was too

vague and did not identify the locations of the schools the cell towers were

to be constructed, thus presenting an element of confusion and misleading

information. We requested information about the attendance to meetings

concerning cell towers with the PTA and have not received an answer or reply

to our Open Records Request.

(See Exhibit B: T-Mobile Proposal Agenda, Cell Tower Flyer for DCSS, Article

from CrossRoads Newspaper, etc.)

C. DeKalb Board of Education had a conflict of interest to solely

work with the PTAs as an avenue to inform the public (parents

and homeowners) on the cell tower construction.

DeKalb School System used the PTAs as an avenue to inform the parents and

homeowners of the cell tower construction and change in policy. Several

Open Records Requests were submitted that requested details on how the

Board of Education chose to inform the parents and homeowners by using

the PTA. We requested dates, time, signatures, etc; however, our OpenRecords Request was not answered. Fortunately, Crossroads Newspaper

obtained the information and published the results in their newspaper on July

20, 1012. Viola Davis with the Unhappy Taxpayer and Voter also recorded a

public meeting in which School Board member Jay Cunningham admitted the

Board of Education did poor notification.


6/10

We later learned that the PTAs were due to receive $25,000.00 from the cell

tower deal which we viewed as a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest

increased once we knew that Jay Cunninghams wife was the President of the

PTA at MLK High School which reported no signatures for a public meeting on

the issue of cell towers. However, there is a conflict with the verbal report

given on the tape recording and the written answer given in the Open

Records Request.

(See Exhibit C: Video on Town Hall meeting with Jay Cunningham and Articles

from Crossroads Newspaper)

D. DeKalb Board of Education signed a 20+ year contract knowing

that the board had denied a prior contract for more money on

the policy that the school does not permit cell towers on schoolgrounds.

Viola Davis with the Unhappy Taxpayer and Voter submitted an Open Records

Request for documentation on the cell tower request at Clarkston Community

Center and the refusal by the DeKalb County Board of Education. The Open

Records Request was sent to Dr. Cheryl Akinson, Tom Bowen, and the Board

of Education. The answer to the Open Records Request was from

Audrey Qualls with the Office of Internal Affairs which said, a

comprehensive search of the Board of Education meetings and

minutes. No responsive documents exist.

During an informational town hall meeting in City of Clarkston at the

Womens Center, Mayor Emanuel Ransom stated that our Board of Education

refused to place a cell tower on the Clarkston Community Center because

and I quote, Cell towers were not permitted on school grounds. Mayor

Ransom repeated this in a meeting held by Representative Karla Drenner in

downtown Atlanta.

Mayor Ransom went on to say that the original offer was for $18,000 per

year. He could not understand the reason the school board would sign

contracts for such little money. We multiplied $18,000 times the 25 years,

the total equal $450,000. I then multiplied $450,000 times nine tower and


7/10

found our school system should have received over $4,050,000. The fact

that we are receiving just fewer than 3 million dollars over 25 years makes

the present contract a travesty especially since the Chairman Tom Bowen is

an attorney and accountant.

Why would our Board of Education sign a deal for less money? Why would

our Board of Education risk our childrens lives for less money? Mayor

Ransom said that this is one of the major reasons he opposed these contract.

I asked him if I may quote him especially about the amount of the original

deal and he said yes.

Since Tom Bowen claims that we needed the money, we submit an ethicscomplaint to clarify the original amount for cell tower placement on DeKalb

County schools compared to the present contracts signed in 2011. Did our

school board uphold their fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of

the school system?

The political lies must stop especially when it risks the lives of our children

and threaten to decrease the property value of our community. We are

losing over 1 million dollars on these contracts. This also distracts from thefact that the state takes over $100 million out of our school system every

year since 2006. Why didn't the BOE go after that money?

The Board of Education should start this process over again due to total

negligence and disregard for the law and school policy. The Board of

Education members that voted in favor of these leases especially knowing

that we were receiving a lesser amount should not see another day in

political office.

After further research to locate documentation on a prior cell tower

request, we located documentation on the website of the City of


8/10

Clarkston City Council minutes dated December 5, 2006:

New Business:

Public Hearing to change the permitted use in OI (Office Institutional district) zoning to allow

cell towers in institutional zoning on plots larger than 5 acres. Mr. Rhodes stated that cell towers

and microwave towers taller than 15 feet are currently permitted uses in C1, C2, C3 and M1zoning and this ordinance changes so that it is no longer a permitted use in C1 zoning and it is a

permitted use in OI district on any parcel containing more than 5 acres. He said it has been

advertised and is considered for approval under the Zoning Procedures Act. The change will

allow a required cell tower to be located at the Community Center. After discussion the Mayor

opened for public comment.

Jan Gardner asked how close the tower will be to where children will play. Emanuel Ransom

stated over 150 feet. Ms. Garner asked what is the requirement and Mr. Rhodes stated there is no

requirement. Ms. Gardner asked why did the City need a cell tower. Mr. Rhodes stated the City

did not want a cell tower but the Federal government has a law, which supersedes all local law,

which says if a cell company engineer states they need a cell tower to provide continuous

telecommunications then the city must make accommodations for them.

Dean Moore asked if it could look like a cell tower and not a fake tree. Emanuel Ransom said it

would look like a tree but will be in a forested area.

There were no further public comments. The Mayor closed the public comments.

Wayne Foster made a motion to change the permitted use in OI district zoning to allow cell

towers on plots larger than 5 acres. Joyce Wade seconded and the motion passed (6-0).

March 6, 2007 Clarkston City Council Minutes:

Chris Busing said he was encouraged by the first zoning ordinance public hearing

and especially the cottage housing. He discussed carriage house ordinances where

larger houses have smaller houses on the property to supplement their income. He

mentioned his website about Clarkston.com as a place to discuss issue in Clarkston.

Emanuel Ransom said they have started construction at the Community Center and

Joan Swaney can arrange tours of the construction. He said the status of the celltower was that the Board of Education wanted all the revenue from the tower but

wanted the Community Center to manage and be responsible the site. He would

provide further updates.

Conclusion:


9/10

Amendment to the Bylaws & Polices: Board Duties, Descriptor Code ABB

Ms. Judy OBrien, Attorney, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, recommended that the Board of Education

amend Board Policy ABB, Board Duties.

Board Policy Descriptor Code ABB

Board Duties

The DeKalb County Board of Education shall faithfully execute all powers and duties assigned to it by

the Constitution and laws of Georgia. The Boards powers and duties include but are not limited to the

following:

1. Enact policies for the efficient and effective governance of the District.

2. Select, hire, and evaluate the Superintendent.

3. Approve an annual budget.

4. Review and approve financial reports and audits.

5. Set the local educational millage rate as necessary for the operation of the District and its schools.

6. With the input of the Superintendent and staff, establish policies to strengthen the academic

achievement of all students in the District.

7. Working with the Superintendent and staff, periodically evaluate the Districts strengths and

weaknesses and develop goals for continuous improvement.

8. Periodically conduct a self-assessment of the Boards governance and performance.

9. Work with the Superintendent to ensure that all employment decisions are based on individual merit,

without regard to family, political, or other connections.

10. Enact policies for progressive discipline in student matters, resorting to suspension and expulsion of

students only as necessary to ensure safety in the schools.

11. Ensure that adequate facilities are available to educate all students in the District.

The DeKalb County Board of Education has overstepped their constitutional

duties as stated above with the issue of cell tower on school grounds. The

telecommunication companies show a method to bypass local zoning

ordinances by manipulating our local school board to sign a 20+ year

contract to place cell towers on school grounds to increase their profits while

bypassing local laws.


10/10

As defined in the amended bylaws and policies, the Board of Education in

DeKalb had no responsibility to provide increase cell service for the region.

The BOE increase our childrens health risk, decrease our property value, and

decrease our overall quality of life. Their action reposition the Board of

Education into a quasi-Board of Commissioners with the responsibility of

zoning that violated local homeowner property rights, especially those

without children, and rights to due process of the law.

Documents

Quality of Life Ethics Complaint