Retiring: Chancellor Linda Salter
Chancellor announces retirement as bond controversy intensifies
By Rebecca Ray
After serving for three years as chancellor of the West Valley-Mission Community College District, Linda Graef Salter announced that she will resign at the end of the semester. Like many people, Salter said, since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, she has refocused on personal priorities.
Salter, 62, says she wants to spend more time with her family members, including her 91-year-old mother, Louise Graef, who lives with her. Salter says she also looks forward to the birth of her second grandchild.
Once she has free time, Salter says, she would like to indulge in her passion for oil painting, which she hasn't done since she became chancellor. Salter says she also looks forward to sitting down and having a cup of coffee, instead of chugging it on the run.
Salter's decision to resign, she says, has nothing to do with the controversy that currently surrounds the campus. As a chancellor, Salter said, one is bound to encounter tension.
In fact, Salter says, her decision to resign was not an easy one. Overall, she says, she feels strong support from the trustees, and listed the most satisfying part of her job as the harmonious way the district works together. She says she may even stay on as chancellor through the summer, if the district has not found a replacement.
Salter turned in her resignation letter Jan. 17.
In the meantime, three Saratoga residents who belong to the West Valley Homeowners Association--an organization of local homeowners who oppose the district's proposed plans to upgrade the football and track venue at West Valley College--are challenging the district on a variety of separate issues.
Association member Steve Rowe says he saw a backhoe split up a concrete path on the West Valley campus around 1996. A few days later, Rowe says, bulldozers dumped thousands of cubic feet of concrete into Vasona Creek, which flows through the campus.
At the Jan. 17 board meeting, trustees and district officials discussed a report that corroborated Rowe's statements.
Patrol Lt. Dennis L. Baldwin of the California State Department of Fish and Game, who investigated the creek in April 2001, says in the report that concrete chunks matching college walkways were placed in the creek after 1983. This action was not authorized by a stream alteration agreement, the report says.
In the report, Baldwin concluded that the creek channel was "not stable" and that it showed "signs of moderate to significant erosion." College officials should hire a hydraulic engineer, Baldwin said, to tell them how to stabilize the creek and prevent more possible bank erosion.
At the board meeting, Trustee Jeffrey Schwartz said that district administrators should have notified the board of the report once they received it Aug. 2. The only reason the board knew of the report, Schwartz said, is because he put it on the agenda.
District Vice Chancellor Steven Kinsella replied that the report didn't require follow-up action. As he understood it, Kinsella said, the department merely suggested, and did not mandate, that the district hire a hydraulic engineer. However, the district has included restoration of the creek as one of its long-term projects for its facilities' master plan, Kinsella said.
Board president Robert T. Owens and vice president Chris Constantin agreed with Schwartz that a professional should evaluate the creek and recommend a course of action. However, Owens and Constantin said, it was wrong of Schwartz to insinuate a cover-up.
Schwartz said he wasn't insinuating anything, and that the district had the obligation to present the correct information to the board.
Although restoration of the creek, which would probably cost about $5.4 million, was not originally a top priority in the master plan, Kinsella said, the district plans to re-evaluate the priorities because conditions in the Pacific Ocean are leading meteorologists to predict the likelihood that El Niño--the weather system blamed for extreme weather, including heavy rains--is brewing.
Since the new year, two other members of the West Valley Homeowners Association have sued the district. Both members requested that Santa Clara County Superior Court issue the district temporary restraining orders, one of which was granted.
On Jan. 22, Judge Jamie Jacobs-May issued the temporary restraining order requested by association member Michael Scandling. He asked the court to issue the district the order for allegedly violating the Brown Act, the state's open meeting law. Scandling said he learned of the alleged violations from board member Schwartz, whose son, Gregory, is representing Scandling in this lawsuit. Scandling said he filed a lawsuit, because he had seen the board in action before and "had enough."
Scandling and board member Schwartz, who wrote a letter to the board that supported Scandling's statements, argue that the district violated the law by meeting in closed session when its attorney was not present. The district, however, contends that it did not violate the law, because an attorney can communicate through a designated employee. According to the brief prepared by defense attorney Mark S. Williams, Kinsella related legal advice from the district counsel, Laurie Juengert.
Scandling and Jeff Schwartz also argue that the district gave inadequate notice of an agenda item to be discussed during closed session. The district says that it was not required to make a public statement about the case.
Until the hearing for a preliminary injunction, set for Feb. 7, the district must hold closed session meetings while counsel is present and must notify the public of future closed session meetings regarding anticipated litigation. When potential plaintiffs know the facts of the anticipated litigation, the district must describe the issue.
Victor Monia, who heads the association, requested the other restraining order, which the judge denied, according to defense attorney Ash Pirayou. Monia argues that the district violated state law by using public funds to disseminate information that advocated the district's proposed bond measure. The $268 million Measure E general obligation bond, which calls for the construction, repair and safety upgrades of district equipment and facilities, will appear on the March 5 ballot.
While district officials argue that the documents are informational and do not advocate the proposed bond measure, Monia says the documents are not informational because they don't present both sides of the story. The documents in question are a letter Salter mailed to district residents in December 2001 and an item in the district's spring semester 2002 course catalog.
A hearing on the merits of a preliminary injunction is scheduled for Jan. 29. If granted, the injunction would order the district not to disseminate material similar to the documents in question until a trial occurs.
Meanwhile, oral arguments are scheduled for Feb. 13 in an appeal by the city of Saratoga of a ruling in Santa Clara County Superior Court that, in essence, said the college could upgrade its athletic fields. When the city approved the campus within the boundaries of Saratoga some 35 years ago, the district was restricted from upgrading its athletic fields as one of the conditions of the permit. The battle over upgrading the fields has erupted from time to time over the years. The district argues that upgrades would elevate its football field to the caliber of a high school field, with bleacher seating and a scoreboard. Opponents refer to the proposed upgrade as a "stadium."
Saratoga, California Since 1955
