PUSD/PCOE Board Trustee Appointment Tonight, Shenanigans Ensue

By Dan Kearns

Tonight, May 12, 2025 there will be a special meeting of the PUSD/PCOE board. One of the agendized items in this meeting is the appointment of a new Board Trustee for Area 5. The two candidates for this seat are Kieth Barnett and Mathew De La Montonya. I would love to provide links to the candidates' resumes and info, but none have been provided by the district, as they were in the last election. School Board Trustees are generally elected by Plumas County residents in the local election process. However, the resignation of Leslie Edlund has left a vacancy on the board. The current Board Trustees are now voting to appoint one of the two candidates. This vote may happen tonight. 

The purpose of this article is to inspire as many folks as possible to attend in order to witness board behavior and exercise their right to participate in the process which governs our schools. Tonight's meeting will be held at the Quincy High School Cafeteria. Closed session begins at 4 PM and the public portion of the meeting begins at 5:30 PM. This and all meetings can be viewed live on YouTube.  

Kieth Barnett is a husband, father of a child in the school system and a local business owner. I am aware that he has been publicly calling out our school district for questionable and potentially illegal behavior for some time. I do not know Mathew De La Montonya. Does he have kids in the school system? What are his relationships with the other board members? I have nothing bad to say whatsoever about Mathew, and I do not presume him to be a poor candidate. My criticism is for the behavior of the Board, not for Mathew. Why is the district not providing resume and background information for the candidates? Does this have anything to do with the fact that certain trustees or staff members may not like the criticism Keith has been offering? Is the PUSD board is attempting to limit support for Keith Barnet (who has been skeptical of the district's behavior and has much public support)?

While these questions are based on my personal opinions, my opinions are backed by the fact that this particular appointment has seen the removal of public comment from the board agenda, no candidate resumes have been included as they were in the last elections, and the candidate interview process has been altered, to include a private meeting of the board members before they vote. Keep in mind, this is the appointment of a Trustee who would generally be elected by the People. Why would the Board want to take away the voice of the Public? 

Below is the content of an email I sent to the board this morning: 

Good Morning All,

I have some concerns regarding tonight's meeting. 

The public comment opportunity for members of the public to show their support for the Trustee Candidates, as was the case during the last election between Cindy and Tommy, has been removed from the agenda for tonight's meeting. You have replaced the public's opportunity to speak with an interview by Jo Dee. This is an unethical diversion from the norm and one that limits the legal right of the Public to participate in meetings. You are reminded that the public is allowed to discuss any agendized item, as it comes up in the meeting, provided the public's comments are relevant to the item. 

Tonight's agenda also states that, after Jo Dee interviews the candidates, the board will take a break to discuss the upcoming vote in private. What is the purpose of this special little closed session? Why are you discussing the results of a public process in private before voting? This appears to be very questionable behavior. 

The candidates' resumes are not included on the agenda. Are they available somewhere else? Also, the candidates' resume and background were not shared with the Plumas Sun, as they were last time. Why is that? 

Furthermore, prior to the last election there was a Zoom meeting with members of the public, teachers, staff and union representatives present in order to get to know the candidates and their intentions for running. Why did this not happen this time? 

There are major inconsistencies between how this election is being run and how the last one was run. What is the reason for these new, inconsistent practices?

Over the past several months the public's concerns over mismanagement of the district have been confirmed. Now the public is trying to bring new voices to the board, ones we believe will be honest and transparent as we work our way through this crisis. It appears that those who have caused the problem are now trying to interfere with the public's ability to participate in elections. If this is not true, it would be proper and appropriate to see this election postponed until the interviews and resumes have been posted, the public, teachers, staff and union reps have had an opportunity to interview the candidates and, when the election comes back to an agendized meeting, the public has the opportunity to voice their support for each candidate. 

I remind the trustees of the board that they have the ability to vote against the approval of the current meeting agenda (Agenda Item 6). 

I would also appreciate answers to my above questions. 

Thank you for your continued commitment to the highest and greatest good of our children and those who educate, feed and transport them.  

All the Best,

Dan

It is my opinion that the current financial crisis the school district finds itself in is not the result of bad accounting practices. Rather, it is the result of a culture which exists within the district office and board members which is not transparent, honest, ethical, legal or moral. It is also my opinion that the appointment of Keith Barnett would bring more transparency, honesty, ethical, legal and moral behavior to the board. Isn't it interesting that those who have allowed the district to collapse into a $12 million deficit appear to be trying to keep Keith out? 

Please contact the board with your concerns and questions. Please consider coming to the meeting tonight and to future meetings. This is, after all, about ensuring the greatest possible education for our children. It is important (and apparently necessary) that we stand up for what is right in this case.