Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District started its crucial Jan. 18 meeting in typical fashion: late.
Thirty-five minutes after the set start time, SMMUSD President Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein introduced a hot-button, conflict-of-interest issue involving three current board members.
The board’s legal counsel—Howard Friedman and Jay Fernow of Fagen, Friedman and Fulfrost—presented their findings and recommendations following an internal investigation to attendees.
On behalf of the board, Tahvildaran-Jesswein began by stating, “While we were looking into the conduct, our primary concern was forward looking with an eye toward best practices as opposed to reaching a determination whether a conflict of interest exists.”
The legal counsel then provided a presentation of the findings, excluding information closed to the public due to attorney-client privilege. Friedman emphasized that they were not a “legally-authorized investigative body” and, therefore, could not subpoena any involved parties.
On the allegations posed, he said, “I would characterize some as rumors.”
Their investigation found that Maria Leon-Vazquez—the first member to be accused of conflict-of-interest dealings—had approved contracts with Keygent LLC at four different meetings and contracts with The East Los Angeles Community Union Construction Management (TELACU) at five meetings. Her husband, Santa Monica council member and former mayor pro tem Tony Vazquez, worked as a paid consultant through his firm for the two companies.
As stated in a shared memorandum, the Keygent contracts did note that the Vazquez firm was under retainer.
In these instances, legal counsel recommended members of the board should abstain from “taking action on items that would give the ‘appearance of impropriety,’” something that is already stated in SMMUSD bylaws.
The investigation also found that Leon-Vazquez had not listed income from Vazquez & Associates on the required annual Statement of Economic Interest from 2008-16.
Ralph Mechur was then mentioned for his architectural work on the Vazquez home from 2001-05; he was elected to the board with a unanimous vote by board members shortly thereafter in 2007.
The memo states that “there is no information” to suggest Mechur gave the Vazquezes a sweetheart deal, or whether there was a board discussion among the trio. It is unclear whether paperwork or emails from the time were shared for the investigation.
Board Member Oscar de la Torre was brought into the conversation for his involvement as project manager with Woodcraft Rangers. While de la Torre was in that position, Mechur had been involved with Woodcraft Rangers and The Pico Neighborhood Youth and Family Center in 2001 and early 2002. The investigation found that de la Torre had no involvement in the building ownership, nor Mechur’s contract.
During public comments, Jerry Rubin, a Santa Monica peace activist, thanked the accused board members for their service and suggested that something could be done regarding the consent calendars to make them easier to understand for board members.
Malibu attorney Kevin Shenkman followed up, voicing a different opinion.
“I’m disturbed by the fact the board has a report that it is asserting attorney-client privilege,” he said. “That’s not transparency.”
Prior to the presentation, Tahvildaran-Jesswein cautioned fellow board members to wait on legal determinations from the Fair Political Practices Commission or the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office before sharing their thoughts.
Despite the warning, Board Member Craig Foster—Malibu’s only representation—had strong words for the board, even alluding to the current political climate.
“ … with the pattern of facts we have, I would suggest to Maria, who’s been on the board 18 years, that this would be a good time to retire,” Foster said.
“We do not deserve that pass of, ‘Oh, gee, the consent calendar is complicated,’” he added.
This ruffled the feathers of Board Member Laurie Lieberman, who defended Maria.
“Before you kind of ask them to resign over allegations about which we have a very limited amount of knowledge and evidence, I really think you have to be more careful and discreet,” Lieberman shot back.
The item concluded with a promise of continuing discussion in the form of trainings and better communication—though the conclusion was not satisfactory to Malibu stakeholders or the DA’s office.
“I wouldn’t call it an investigation,” Shenkman said, in a phone call with The Malibu Times. “They didn’t send it out to an independent third party, which is what you would do if you actually wanted to get to the truth.”
A spokesperson for the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office said it is currently reviewing the conflict-of-interest allegations.