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

org>
Subject: Correction RE: Your Sneaky Meeting with the Superintendent & Lawyer about the real estate deal
Date: December 20, 2010 12:21:29 PM PST
To: "Petersen, Edwin" <ed.petersen@everettsd.org>

Ed, a slight correction to my preceding email to you. I incorrectly cited the date of the subsequent executive session where Carol Andrews and I took notes as November 16. I
meant to say DECEMBER 16 -- December 16 (just this past Thursday) was the meeting I am referring to. -- Jessica

-----Original Message-----
From: Olson, Jessica
Sent: Mon 12/20/2010 11:05 AM
To: Petersen, Edwin
Subject: RE: Your Sneaky Meeting with the Superintendent & Lawyer about the real estate deal

There would be no need for an attorney to provide advice on any discussion of the Capital Facilities Plan as that document is public and every aspect of discussion about the CFP
should occur in public. But most importantly, there was no good reason for you and Jeff to have decided for yourselves to keep the rest of the board out of this discussion.

Futhermore, this attorney, Jerry Lutz, has demonstrated to the board that his knowledge and methods are in serious question regarding this real estate acquisition. He gave the
board erroneous and specious advice on November 9 when he told the board we could not keep notes. He explicitly told us our personal notes would be subject to the Public
Records Act, which is not true; and, he led us to believe that keeping notes would be unethical -- also not true. Yet despite knowing this*, you and Jeff evidently willingly invited
Lutz to be part of a private meeting to have further discussion that excluded the other directors. I don't understand that. Would you continue to use an attorney on an issue dealing
with you own personal finances if that attorney gave you false or misleading advice?

Meanwhile, you haven't acknowledged my request to have this whole matter added to the January 11th regular meeting agenda. I continue to request that this topic -- you and Jeff
meeting with the board's real estate attorney and superintendent without the full board's knowledge or consent -- be added to the January 11th agenda. Please acknowledge and
respond to this request.

Jessica

*It is important to note that Lutz has never accounted for giving the board this bad advice. However, he subsequently did not ask to collect notes taken during the November 16
executive session when both myself and Carol Andrews took personal notes. Clearly Carol Andrews also saw value in taking notes.

-----Original Message-----
From: Petersen, Edwin
Sent: Mon 12/20/2010 9:13 AM
To: Olson, Jessica
Subject: RE: Your Sneaky Meeting with the Superintendent & Lawyer about the real estate deal

Jessica,

The attorney was present to advise on confidentiality questions as we discussed how to have an open meeting discussion on the capital facility plan without breaching items
reserved for executive session.

Ed

-----Original Message-----
From: Olson, Jessica
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 10:20 AM
To: Petersen, Edwin
Subject: RE: Your Sneaky Meeting with the Superintendent & Lawyer about the real estate deal

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