(PROPOSED) Resolution of Censure of Board of Regents Del Mar College District WHEREAS, the Board of Regents ofthe Del Mar College District (*Del Mar College” or College”) is the governing body for Del Mar College and the keystone of the College's governance structure; and, WHEREAS, the Board and each individual Regent is subject tothe College Policies and Board Bylaws, the Board Duties and Responsibilities, and the Board's Statement of Conduct and Ethis; and, WHEREAS, the Duties and Responsibilities of each Regent include the duty to enhance the public image ofthe Callege; and, WHEREAS, the Statement of Conduct and Bihies in the Board Bylaws details the ethical ‘standards and sules applicable to each Regent and includes, speitically, the duty to act on Sehalf of the Board only with the official authorization of a majority ofthe members of the Board; -the duty to reftain from communications which could be interpreted as having authority ouside tke meetings of the Board; -the duty to work with other Board members in spirit of harmony and cooperation and in a manner that creates and sustains mutual respect; -the duty o retain ftom using the Board positon for personal or partisan gain; -the duty to abide ty and uphold the final majority decision of the Boards the duty to bring shout desired changes through legal and ethical procedures; and, WHEREAS, each Regent annually accepts the responsibilty to adhere to the highest ethical standards by reviewing the Board's Bylaws, participating in an ethies law review, and personally signing a Code of Ethies; and, WHEREAS, Board Bylaw IJ specifically authorizes the Board to formally censure any Regent who is found, after an investigation by the Board or the Board's designee, to have violated a specific statute or law, Board Bylaw, or Board policy defining the Board Member's duties and responsibilities; and,WHEREAS, as a result of numerous public statements andl actions by Regent Guy Watts, 1s well as correspondence, emails and other documents authored by Regent Watts, on February 9, 2016, ata properly noticed public meeting the Board voted to authorize the Board Chair to conduct an investigation (or to designate another to conduct an investigation) to determine if Regent Watts had violateé duties under Board Bylaws 1.A.2, 9.8, 9.E,9.G, 9.M, 9.N3 and, WHEREAS, by leiter dated February 12, 2016, Regent Watts was advised by the Board Chair of the Board's intistion of an investigation into whether statements, actions and ‘communications by Regent Watls violated duties under Board Bylaws 1.A.2, 9.B, 9E, 9.6, 9M, ON;and, WHEREAS, by same letter dated February 12, 2016, Regent Watts was also advised by the Board Chair of his right to an opportunity to respond to the allegations that he violated duties ‘under Board Bylaws 1.A2,9.B,9.E, 9.G, 9M, 9.N; and, WHEREAS, as authorized by the Board, Mr. Cobby A. Caputo and the Law Firm of Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta, LLP, (“investigating law firm") were engaged to conduct an investigation into the allegations of misconduct by Regent Watts; and, WHEREAS, sever efforts were made by the investigating law firm on March 4, 2016, March 5, 2016, and Mare1 15, 2016, to solicit a response from Regent Watts to the allegations, including via emai, overright delivery and U.S. Regular Mail, Regent Wats didnot respond in any way to the specific all2gaions of misconduct; and, WHEREAS, despite Regent Watts’ refusal to cooperate in the investigation, the investigating law finn was able to eonduet, (or the time period berween October 2014 to the present), a comprehensive review of numerous emails, letters, and other communications between Regent Watts and other members of the Board of Regents and College Administration; ‘humerous newspaper articles or editorials; and, at least four documents written and publicly distributed by Regent Watts; and, WHEREAS, the investigating law firm also reviewed the circumstances that led to the Boan’s prior vote on December 9, 2014, to repudiate six specific statements in an article authored by Regent Wats that appeared in @ local newspaper; and, WHEREAS, as a result of its investigation, the investigating law firm completed a \wetten report on March 21, 2016, (attached hereto and inconporated by reference), that included 28 detailed Findings and the following 6 Conclusions: 1. ‘Theres substantial evidence to support a conelusion that Regent Wats has violated Bylaw 1.A.2 (Duty to enhance the public image ofthe College), 2, ‘Thete is substantial evidence to support a conclusion that Regent Watts ins violated Bylaw 9.B (Duty to act on behalf ofthe Board only with the official authorization of a majority ofthe members of the Board);3. Thetis substantial evidence to support a conclusion that Regent Watts has violated Bylaw 9.F (Duty to refrain from communications which could be interpreted as having authority outside the meetings of the Board); 4. There is suostantil evidence to support a conclusion that Regent Watts has violated Bylaw 9.G (Duty to work with other Board members in a spirit of harmony and cooperation and in a manner that creates and sustains muta respect; 5. _ There i susstantial evidence fo support a conclusion that Regent Watts has violated Bylaw 9.M (Duty to refrain from using the Board position for personal or partisan gain); 6. Theres su>stantial evidence to support a conclusion that Regent Watts thas violated Bylaw 9.N (Duty to bring about desired changes through legal and ethical procedures), including a finding that Regent Watts repeatedly {aled to abide by end support the final majority decision of the Board, Which i also a violation of Bylaw 9.D; and, WHEREAS, on February 11, 2016, afer the February 9, 2016 vote by the Board to initiate an investigation into Regent Watts’ conduct, and after Regent Watts was put on notice of the Board's concem that fe had violsted provisions of the Bylaws, Regent Watts continued to engage in the type of coniuct that originally eaused concer and prompted the Board to initiate the investigation; and, WHEREAS, as a result ofthe subsequent conduct by Regent Watts, the investigating law firm made a Supplemental Conclusion that Regent Wats has not modified his unethical conduct, as he continues to make rublic statements that do not enhance the public image of the College: continues to pass out materials containing false and misleading statements about the Board and Regents; continues to politically attack and threaten the rest ofthe Boards and continues to use non-ethical means to try and advance his personal agenda; and, WHEREAS, on March 22, 2016, the investigating law firm presented its Report and Findings and Conclusions, to the Board at a properly noticed Special Called Meeting of the Board and, WHEREAS, the Board voted to accept the Findings and Conclusions in the Report submited bythe investigaing law frm; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, because there is substantial evidence ‘supporting the Findings ard Conclusions in the Repost of the investigating law firm, the Board of Regents of the Del Mar College District hereby FINDS that Regent Guy Watts has repeatedly violated Board Bylaws, the Regents’ Code of Ethics, and his duties and responsibilities as a‘Regent, and that such conduct is unethical and warrants the most serious Board response possible under the law and Board Bylaws, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, Regent Guy Watts is hereby PUBLICLY CENSURED for his conduct in accordance with Board Bylaw 1 ADOPTED THIS __ day of 2016. ‘Ghai, Regent Trey MeCampbell Regent James Boggs Vice-Chair, Regent Elva Fsirada Regent Gabriel Rivas —o Regent Susan Hutchinson ‘Regent Sandra Messbarger ‘Secretary, Regent Nick Adame Regent Carol Scott