From: Subject: Date: To: Cc: Gary --

Jessica Olson <jessicaeverettschoolboard@gmail.com> Re: Questions about today's agenda September 9, 2011 7:39:47 PM PDT Gary Cohn <GCohn@everettsd.org>, Edwin Petersen <ed.petersen@everettsd.org> Jessica Olson <jessica.olson@everettsd.org>

I don't feel that you understand the request. To recap: On August 23, I requested: "For item 10.0, will you please forward over any communications about the video taping issue? This would include communications to and from Val Hughes or her legal colleagues, communications to and from any other legal counsel or resources, and any communications between any combination of board members, the superintendent and staff." A week later, on August 30, you inquired: "Are you expecting communications subsequent to that event, or both prior to and subsequent to that event on June 24, 2011?" The next day, on August 31, I replied: "Originally I was anticipating that any communications relevant to that event would have occurred subsequent to that event. But if there are communications that occured prior to that event that discussed videotaping or any other means of documenting what transpired in such a meeting (a director having a meeting or encounter with a district employee), and have relevance to the event as a board disussion item in July or August of this year, then by all means include these communications." On September 3, you replied that you were unsure if the events of June 24th were discussed in communications prior to June 24th. You also arbitrarily decided on a date from which you would search: "I do not know if there are communications on the subject prior to that event on Jun 24. By reasonably bounding the records search, we save taxpayer resources. This records search involves electronic and manual process, so its a matter of more or less staff time devoted to searching and then reviewing records that may be relevant. I will extend the search back to Sept. 1, 2010 unless you request an different date by the close of business this coming Tuesday, Sept. 6." Puzzled by your response and why you may be unsure if you in engaged in communications about these events prior to their occurrence, I asked you directly that same day: "Do you personally believe that you engaged in communications on this subject with another administrator, board member, attorney or some other type of advisor prior to June 24, 2011?" On September 6, you answered my question - and I would think, your own. Even so, you still tried to tie it to a date almost a year earlier: "Finally, with regard to your last, and new, question: it doesnt seem possible for any of us to have engaged in a conversation about an event (on this subject) that had not yet occurred. Please let me know by the end of today the time frame you choose if it is other than Sept. 1, 2010."

On September 8, you further added: "Jessica, absent your decision about a specific date range for your director request by the close of business Monday, Sept. 12, I will understand your choice is to abandon this director request. Thank you again." I feel that even the casual reader can determine that I do not want to abandon my request, so I am not sure why this would be your understanding. In fact, your desire to attach a date is difficult to understand as well. The request is a simple one; it is not a request based on time, it is a request based on subject. The subject is, as stated before: Communications about the June 24 video taping issue, to include communications to and from Val Hughes or her legal colleagues, communications to and from any other legal counsel or resources, and any communications between any combination of board members, the superintendent and staff. I do not care from what time period these communications appear -- time is not a factor, merely the subject. If in your heart you truly believe that communications exist on the subject from prior to June 24th, by all means search as far before that date as you deem proper. From your comments on September 6, where you state that such communication "doesn't seem possible", I would think such a search would be a waste of staff and taxpayer resources. In fact, if it doesn't seem possible to you, I am curious as to what led you to first broach the question, much less suggest a date almost a year prior. I feel like I cannot be any more clear: please provide the communications specified from whenever they occurred. Regards,

Jessica

Jessica Olson Everett Public Schools Board of Directors, Position #4 (425) 772-0437 www.jessica4everettschoolboard.com www.facebook.com/jessicaeverettschooldirector

On Sep 8, 2011, at 4:56 PM, Olson, Jessica wrote:

------------------------------------------From: Cohn, Gary Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 4:56:37 PM To: Olson, Jessica Cc: Petersen, Edwin Subject: RE: Questions about today's agenda Auto forwarded by a Rule

Jessica, I believe I understand your response: I understand you are not agreeing to the Sept. 1, 2010 date suggested earlier. By this answer I understand you are not choosing a specific date range for the data base search. Absent a specific choice for your director request, this work can not be done. In response to your additional question, Jessica, Ive no opinion about how far back you should request a search to satisfy your director request. Jessica, absent your decision about a specific date range for your director request by the close of business Monday, Sept. 12, I will understand your choice is to abandon this director request. Thank you again. Dr. Gary Cohn Superintendent From: Jessica Olson [mailto:jessicaeverettschoolboard@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:45 PM To: Cohn, Gary Cc: Olson, Jessica; Petersen, Edwin Subject: Re: Questions about today's agenda Again, Gary, if YOU believe there is a reasonable chance that responsive records may exist from Sept 1 2010, so be it. I can only infer that you do believe this date is reasonable because you haven't, to date, given a clear indication otherwise -- even in the face of direct questions asking same. Here -- I'll even ask you the question still another time: Gary, how far back do you think this search should go in order to give me the information I seek? If you can give a direct answer to the above question, great. But if you cannot unequivocally state your opinion that it is unreasonable to go back one year tells me you think it IS reasonable to go back one year. Again, I am deferring to you since you are the person who knows much more about district communications amongst other administrators and with our lawyer on this subject than probably any other person. If I am incorrect in this assumption, please tell me who would be in a better position to know than you; I'm happy to be set straight. Thanks Gary. Jessica Olson Everett Public Schools

Board of Directors, Position #4 (425) 772-0437 www.jessica4everettschoolboard.com www.facebook.com/jessicaeverettschooldirector On Sep 7, 2011, at 4:03 PM, Olson, Jessica wrote:

------------------------------------------From: Cohn, Gary Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:03:02 PM To: Olson, Jessica Cc: Petersen, Edwin Subject: RE: Questions about today's agenda Auto forwarded by a Rule
Thank you for the response, Jessica. Im appreciative that you agree we are working to be responsive to your director request and to be good stewards of taxpayer resources, and there is yet an unanswered question regarding your request. I understand you are asking me if there are any responsive records in the database prior to June 24, 2011, but prior to Information Technology staff having conducted the search. Im sorry, but I cant know until they conduct the search. Please allow me to clarify: going back to Sept. 1, 2010 cuts the search on the database in half; that was the reason for suggesting a date in absence of you establishing a beginning limit. I can not tell from your response whether you have decided on a records search that begins on June 24, 2011, or prior to June 24, 2011, or after Sept. 1, 2010, or some other possible start date. Thank you for understanding I am not recommending the choice for your director request; I must make it in lieu of a clear choice from you in order to initiate the search. I will ask staff to proceed with the search using the Sept. 1, 2010 date unless I receive a decision on a different date from you by the close of business tomorrow, Sept. 8. Thank you for understanding, Jessica. Dr. Gary Cohn Superintendent From: Jessica Olson [mailto:jessicaeverettschoolboard@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 7:03 PM To: Cohn, Gary Cc: Olson, Jessica; Petersen, Edwin Subject: Re: Questions about today's agenda Gary -Let me be very clear with you. I only want the records search to go back in time from June 24, 2011 date if YOU think there is a reasonable chance that responsive records might exist from such a time frame. So here is what you need to do, Gary. Tell me if you think communications -- written communications, not conversations -- on this subject exist prior to June 24th. If they do, provide those communications to me. I find it difficult to believe that communications about on this subject exist from a year ago, but I will defer to your judgment since you (obviously) are in a position to know whether they exist or not. Keep the Sept 1, 2010 only if you believe it is warranted and reasonable. That is all you need to do, Gary. This way you can be responsive to the request and be a good steward of taxpayer resources. If you still require further clarification after this, please let me know. Jessica Olson Everett Public Schools Board of Directors, Position #4 (425) 772-0437 www.jessica4everettschoolboard.com www.facebook.com/jessicaeverettschooldirector On Sep 6, 2011, at 7:59 AM, Olson, Jessica wrote: ------------------------------------------From: Cohn, Gary Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 7:59:56 AM To: Olson, Jessica Cc: Petersen, Edwin Subject: RE: Questions about today's agenda Auto forwarded by a Rule

Jessica, in reviewing this latest in this email series, I see that you have not made a choice about the time frame for your request. Please let me know by the end of today if you prefer a different time frame than Ive proposed for me to define the work of staff. You asked why I proposed Sept. 1, 2010; it offers a reasonable chance of cutting the work of staff in half, and still collecting the information you have requested. I am not recommending the choice; Im making it in lieu of a clear choice from you. The director request is yours; it will use valuable staff time and therefore taxpayer resources, and indeed already has. The results will determine whether taxpayer resources were unduly expended. Finally, with regard to your last, and new, question: it doesnt seem possible for any of us to have engaged in a conversation about an event (on this subject) that had not yet occurred. Please let me know by the end of today the time frame you choose if it is other than Sept. 1, 2010. Dr. Gary Cohn Superintendent From: Jessica Olson [mailto:jessicaeverettschoolboard@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 2:39 PM To: Cohn, Gary Cc: Olson, Jessica; Petersen, Edwin Subject: Re: Questions about today's agenda Gary, The email you just sent me states the following: B) I do not know if there are communications on the subject*prior to that event on Jun 24. By reasonably bounding the records search, we save taxpayer resources. This records search involves electronic and manual process, so its a matter of more or less staff time devoted to searching and then reviewing records that may be relevant. I will extend the search back to Sept. 1, 2010 unless you request an different date by the close of business this coming Tuesday, Sept. 6. [Emphasis added.] * The phrase "communications on this subject" has been agreed to by both of us to be defined as "You are referring to the video and audio taping that occurred in Jennifer Farmers office when Carol Andrews and you met to review the un-redacted attorney-client invoice copies on June 24, 2011."] Gary, I believe that we both share the goal of making this a reasonable search. I earlier indicated to you that I am not in a position to know what date back in time might be a reasonable (you are in a better position to know than I), which was why I asked you in my most recent email to suggest what timeline might be appropriate. To that end, can you please clarify why you are choosing this particular date (Sept 1, 2010)? I want to ensure that you personally recommend this timeline for the records search, and that you personally believe it is a reasonable one that will not unduly expend taxpayer resources. Also, I have thought of another question to ask you that I didn't think to ask you earlier: Do you personally believe that you engaged in communications on this subject with another administrator, board member, attorney or some other type of advisor prior to June 24, 2011? Just wondering what you personally recall about your personal involvement in any of these discussions. If you could provide a direct, non-dissembling answer to my question to you in bold above, I would appreciate it. Thank you again for your attention to this matter. Jessica Olson Everett Public Schools Board of Directors, Position #4 (425) 772-0437 www.jessica4everettschoolboard.com www.facebook.com/jessicaeverettschooldirector

On Sep 3, 2011, at 12:37 PM, Olson, Jessica wrote: ------------------------------------------From: Cohn, Gary Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 12:37:28 PM To: Olson, Jessica Cc: Petersen, Edwin Subject: RE: Questions about today's agenda Auto forwarded by a Rule Jessica, thank you for the clarification. I understand your responses as follows: 1) This is a director request, not a public records request. Both will take time and staff resources, and require legal review. The rules are different (Chapter 42.56 RCW compared to Policy 1715 et al), providing similar but different responsibilities on process. B) I do not know if there are communications on the subject prior to that event on Jun 24. By reasonably bounding the records search, we save taxpayer resources. This records search involves electronic and manual process, so its a matter of more or less staff time devoted to searching and then reviewing records that may be relevant. I will extend the search back to Sept. 1, 2010 unless you request an different date by the close of business this coming Tuesday, Sept. 6. Dr. Gary Cohn Superintendent From: Jessica Olson [mailto:jessicaeverettschoolboard@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:41 PM To: Cohn, Gary; Petersen, Edwin Cc: Olson, Jessica Subject: Re: Questions about today's agenda ------------------------------------------From: Cohn, Gary Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 6:53:50 PM To: Olson, Jessica Cc: Petersen, Edwin Subject: RE: Questions about today's agenda Auto forwarded by a Rule Jessica, thank you for the clarification. I understand your responses as follows: 1) This is a director request, not a public records request. Correct. But I would still like clarification, Gary, on which type of request for this info would be quickest. Is a director request for this information going to produce a response quicker, slower or the same as a public records request for this information?

A. You are referring to the video and audio taping that occurred in Jennifer Farmers office when Carol Andrews and you met to
review the un-redacted attorney-client invoice copies on June 24, 2011.

B. This is an open-ended request, having no beginning time limit and concluding on the date it was made. (This will considerably
lengthen the response time; a reasonable date certain prior to the event would shorten the response time.) Actually, this is not correct. My original response to this question was as follows: Originally I was anticipating that any communications relevant to that event would have occurred subsequent to that event. But if there are communications that occured prior to that event that discussed videotaping or any other means of documenting what transpired in such a meeting (a director having a meeting or encounter with a district employee), and have relevance to the event as a board disussion item in July or August of this year, then by all means include these communications. I only wish to have communications prior to the date if indeed communications were made prior to this date. Do you expect there communications exist about the recording of staff encounters with board members prior to June 24th, Gary? If yes, please go ahead and forward those communications. But if you believe none exist (and none were used by you, district admin, or the board or sent by our legal counsel or other entities), please so state as it seems to make no sense to "considerably lengthen" the response time. As to me providing a "reasonable date" for communications that may exist prior to June 24th, establishing such a date would be impractical and difficult for me to accomplish, since I am in no position to know what dates may be "reasonable". You and Ed and Jeff and Valerie Hughes, however, seem much more likely to be in a position to define what might be a reasonable date prior to the June 24 event. Can you please tell me what timeline might be appropriate since it seems like you are in a better position to know? Thanks. Everything else you've clarified seems correct. Please let me know if you have further questions.

-- Jessica

B. C. You intend we provide communications from Val Hughes given to district employees and other board members about this issue,
whether generated by or including advice from any colleague of Val Hughes or by her alone.

D. You intend we forward any communications about the video taping issue to and from any other resources besides Val Hughes. E. You intend communications from or between any district employee within Everett Public Schools and an administrator, board
member, or higher level organizational entity such as WASA, WSSDA or ESD 189. If I have misunderstood any of your responses, please write me a clarification by the close of business Thursday of this week. If I dont hear from you, Ill begin the work based on these clarifications. Dr. Gary Cohn Superintendent From: Jessica Olson [mailto:jessicaeverettschoolboard@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 12:16 PM To: Cohn, Gary Cc: Olson, Jessica; Petersen, Edwin Subject: Re: Questions about today's agenda Hi Gary -Got both of your emails. I originally was asking for the information as a school director, but I am also willing to make the request as a public records request if that will expedite the process; just let me know if this is the case. You have asked me some clarifying questions, to which I provide answers below. I hope you find my responses helpful. Please let me know if you require further clarification.

A. Are you referring to the video and audio taping that occurred in Jennifer Farmers office when Carol Andrews and you met to
review the un-redacted attorney-client invoice copies on June 24, 2011? Answer: Yes.

A. B. Are you expecting communications subsequent to that event, or both prior to and subsequent to that event on June 24, 2011?
Answer: Originally I was anticipating that any communications relevant to that event would have occurred subsequent to that event. But if there are communications that occured prior to that event that discussed videotaping or any other means of documenting what transpired in such a meeting (a director having a meeting or encounter with a district employee), and have relevance to the event as a board disussion item in July or August of this year, then by all means include these communications.

B. C. Are you intending we request copies of communications between attorneys within the Perkins Coie Seattle office related to this
video and audio taping event, the Washington offices, all of Perkins Coie, or all colleagues of Val Hughes? Answer: I am intending that communications by legal counsel to the district employees or board members be shared. If Valerie Hughes communicated with colleagues, but did not share that information with a district employee or board member, then I would think that communication would not be relevant to the information I am seeking. I am just wanting access to the same information given to district employees and other board members about this issue.

C. D. Do you mean other legal resource or do you mean other resources?

Answer: I mean "other resources". If the district sought or was provided other types of advice or information about this taping issue, regardless of whether or not it was sought or provided by a bona fide attorney, I would like to have access to those communications.

D. E. Do you mean communications among any of the staff within the Everett Public Schools, or just the cabinet members, or just the
administrators, or some other subset of district staff? Answer: I do not mean communications amongst all of the district employees within Everett Public Schools. For example, I am not interested in an email on the district's server sent by a a teacher to another teacher, a custodian to a paraeducator that never found its way to an administrator, board member or higher level organizational entity such as WASA, WSSDA or ESD 189. I see no reason to

comb the entire district server for each and every scintilla of a communication, just the relevant communications as described in the above bullet points. Jessica Olson Everett Public Schools Board of Directors, Position #4 (425) 772-0437 www.jessica4everettschoolboard.com www.facebook.com/jessicaeverettschooldirector On Aug 30, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Olson, Jessica wrote: ------------------------------------------From: Cohn, Gary Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:03:50 AM To: Olson, Jessica Cc: Petersen, Edwin; Val Hughes (vhughes@perkinscoie.com) Subject: RE: Questions about today's agenda Auto forwarded by a Rule Jessica, this reply seeks clarification for your director request regarding communications concerning the video taping issue as described in Item 1 below: 1) For item 10.0, will you please forward over any communications about the video taping issue? This would include communications to and from Val Hughes or her legal colleagues, communications to and from any other legal counsel or resources, and any communications between any combination of board members, the superintendent and staff. Please provide me answers to these clarifying questions:

A. Are you referring to the video and audio taping that occurred in Jennifer Farmers office when Carol Andrews and you met to
review the un-redacted attorney-client invoice copies on June 24, 2011?

B. Are you expecting communications subsequent to that event, or both prior to and subsequent to that event on June 24, 2011? C. Are you intending we request copies of communications between attorneys within the Perkins Coie Seattle office related to this
video and audio taping event, the Washington offices, all of Perkins Coie, or all colleagues of Val Hughes?

D. Do you mean other legal resource or do you mean other resources? E. Do you mean communications among any of the staff within the Everett Public Schools, or just the cabinet members, or just the
administrators, or some other subset of district staff? In summary, because you have not indicated otherwise, I am treating this request as a director request and not a public records request. In order for me respond timely in a fashion that is consistent with what you intend by this request, timely answers to these questions are important. Thank you. Dr. Gary Cohn Superintendent From: Jessica Olson [mailto:jessicaeverettschoolboard@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 1:30 PM To: Cohn, Gary; Petersen, Edwin Cc: Dutton, Kristen; Andrews, Carol; Russell, Jeff; Olson, Jessica Subject: Questions about today's agenda KRISTIE, CAROL AND JEFF are CC'D SO THEY KNOW I ASKED THESE QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE. PLEASE DON'T REPLY ALL WE CAN DISCUSS AT MEETING. -- JESSICA Gary and Ed -I was hoping the get the following information from you soon so I can review it in time for today's board meeting. I spent yesterday reading all the materials, and now today I am sending you my questions about the agenda, especially the consent agenda. I was out of town for Fri, Sat and Sun and had no access to the internet.: 1) For item 10.0, will you please forward over any communications about the video taping issue? This would include communications to and from Val Hughes or her legal colleagues, communications to and from any other legal counsel or resources, and any communications between any combination of board members, the superintendent and staff.

2) Regarding 4.02, the board is being asked to approve leave of absences after-the-fact, instead of ahead of time. Why is this? 3) Why is the non-exempt salary and vacation schedule on the Consent Agenda when the board has never discussed this issue? How many AV technicians do we have? What union do they belong to? How are their salaries determined? 4) Is there a minimum amount for a contract that the board must approve? In other words, what, if any, are the parameters for contracts and their amounts that the superintendent or designee can enter into without board approval? 5) Why is board travel on the Consent Agenda? The board has not discussed it. Why do we authorize the superintendent's attendance at school director conferences, but the board is not likewise authorized to attend superintendent conferences? Why do we pay to have the superintendent attend conferences for superintendents? The information shared and gleaned from these conferences is not shared with the board or the public. 6) Why is the approval of the Disciplinary Appeals Council members on the consent agenda? The board has never discussed the membership of this council. Why are only central administrators and one (at large) board member on this council, and not teachers, parents or community members? 7) Why is the application for the Grant for the Transitional Bilingual instructional program on the Consent Agenda? The board has never discussed this program or assessed its outcomes or efficacy, to my recollection. There are 3 areas on the grant application that have "NO" marked by OSPI as being not approved; is this not a problem for the application, and shouldn't the board be discussing these aspects of the application? And when was the last report issued to the board on the results and efficacy of our ELL programs as required by 28A.180.090(2)? Finally, for the regular portion of the agenda, I do have these questions I will be asking. I was wanting Terry to have them in advance so he can answer them at the meeting or even discuss them and obviate the need for me to ask the questions: 8) For the presentation on Special Ed High School graduations, can Terry be asked to please provide a breakdown of disability eligibility category? In particular, I am interested to hear how many students are graduating in the eligibility category of Autism, and I am also interested to hear what numbers are graduating in the other 12 IDEA eligibility categories. Finally, I would also like to know out of all the graduates, how many students from each school and in each category will be graduating with a certificate of academic achievement, or individual achievement. I would like to know how many special ed students take the regular HSPE (by eligibility category), the state approved alternative assessment (by elig. category) and the modified assessment (leading to the Cert. of Ind. Achievement). Overall, I would like to know what percentage of student in special ed will be graduating with a regular diploma, as defined by the ESEA. Jessica Olson Everett Public Schools Board of Directors, Position #4 (425) 772-0437 www.jessica4everettschoolboard.com www.facebook.com/jessicaeverettschooldirector