Preview
Fee FILED IN DISTRICT COURT
(AERO OKLAHOMA COUNTY
41NL9599NTAS
| IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY MAY 21 2021
STATE OF OKLAHOMA RICK WARRE
COURT TR
111
MATHEW HAMRICK, Individually _
and in his official capacity
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. CV-2021-835
(1) OKLAHOMA STATEWIDE VIRTUAL
CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD, and
(2) ROBERT FRANKLIN, individually and
in his official capacity,
(3) BARRY BEAUCHAMP, individually and
in his official capacity,
(4) BRANDON TATUM, individually and
| in his official capacity,
i (5) REBECCA L. WILKINSON, individually and
in her official capacity.
NS SS SS SS SS SH SS SSL
Defendants,
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND
PRELIMNARY RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION WITH BRIEF IN SUPPORT
COMES now Plaintiff, Mathew Hamrick, by and through his attorney of record
pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit 12, §§ 12-2012, & 12-2056 and for Plaintiff's Response to
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Preliminary Response to Plaintiff's Motion for
Temporary Injunction with Brief in Support, states as follows:
Plaintiff incorporates all allegations and references to his Amended Petition filed
contemporaneously.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT I. DEFENDANT BOARD’S AGENDA FOR THE
DECEMBER 8, 2020 MEETING WAS DECEPTIVELY VAGUE AND LIKELY
TO MISLEAD, THEREFORE IT WAS A WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE
OPEN MEETING ACT. BECAUSE DEFENDANTS WILLFULLY VIOLATED
THE ACT, ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE MEETING ARE_ INVALID.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED.
Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Hamrick v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board
Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 PagelThe Open Meeting Act's stated public policy is to "encourage and facilitate an
informed citizenry's understanding of the governmental processes and governmental
problems." Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Norman, 2021 OK 20, | 8, citing OKLA.
Star. tit. 25 § 302.
Defendants argue that because the Board’s Agenda for December 8, 2020
included “possible action to recuse” the reasonable person would interpret that the Board
would take action to force Plaintiff to recuse (Exhibit 1 — December 8, 2020 Meeting
Agenda).
As it was demonstrated in the Petition and Amended Petition, Plaintiff choose not
to take the action to recuse himself (Exhibit 2 —- December 8, 2020 Meeting Minutes). At
that point, the agenda item was completed, and the Board should have moved on.
After it was announced Plaintiff would not recuse himself, the Board went off the
agenda and Defendant Franklin orally presented a Motion to Disqualify. "All agendas
required pursuant to the provisions of this section shall identify all items of business to be
transacted by a public body at a meeting . . .." OKLA. STAT. tit. 25 § 311 (B)(1) (emphasis
added). Not all items were placed on the agenda and the public was not put on notice
there would be a contested motion to disqualify a Board member (Exhibit 1).
A recusal would have been based upon Plaintiffs own action not the actions of
the Board. On the other hand, Defendant’s actions deprived Plaintiff of the power, right
and privilege to actively engage on the Board.
The “agenda shall 'be worded in plain language, directly stating the
purpose of the meeting . . . [and] the language used should be simple,
a
Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Hamrick v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board
Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 Page 2direct and comprehensible to a person of ordinary education and
intelligence."" Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Norman, 2021 OK 20, J
9, citing Andrews v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 29 of Cleveland Cty., 1987 OK
40, 4 7, 737 P.2d 929, 931 (alterations in original) (quoting Haworth Bd.
of Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-6, McCurtain Cty. v. Havens, 1981 OK
CIV APP 56, § 9, 637 P.2d 902, 904).
Defendants failed to use plain language on the agenda and instead used a more
specific term. In fact, even Defendants themselves seem confused as to what was voted
on as the language of the agenda posted was to recuse Plaintiff from all discussions,
debates, and voting on any matter related to Epic One-on-One Charter School; but then
allowed for Plaintiff to vote on the proposed Administrative Rules which is a matter
related to Epic One-on-One Charter School (Exhibit 2).
While Defendants provided caselaw to argue the terms recuse and disqualify are
“completely interchangeable” they neglect to point out two things this Honorable Court
should consider. (1) The actual definition of recuse is “to disqualify oneself”. (2) The
Oklahoma Caselaw cited was substituting recusal with disqualify and not disqualification
with recusal. Casey v. Casey, 2011 OK 46, 270 P.3d 109.
As stated in the Amended Petition,
“Recuse” is defined as:
1. as to disqualify (oneself) as judge in a particular case or
2. broadly to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of
interest.
Merriam-Webster.com. 2021. https://www.merriam-webster.com (8 April
2021).
“Disqualification” is defined as:
1: to deprive of the required qualities, properties, or conditions: make unfit
2: to deprive of a power, right, or privilege
Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Hamrick v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board
Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 Page 33: to make ineligible for a prize or for further competition because of
violations of the rules
Merriam-Webster.com. 2021. https://www.merriam-webster.com (8 April
2021).
Defendants’ argument that the terms recusal and disqualify are completely
interchangeable is akin to saying the terms suicide and death are completely
interchangeable. While all suicides are deaths not all deaths are suicides. Just as suicide
is a more specific term for death; recusal is a more specific term for disqualification.
Recusal (like suicide) is an action taken by one to their own detriment. On the
other hand, Disqualification (like death) is an action which may be taken by one or by
many. When the Board choose to vote to disqualify Plaintiff, they did not provide ample
notice to the public pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 25 § 311 (A), as a member of the public
looking at the posted agenda would assume Plaintiff would have chosen to recuse himself
or made a statement as to why he would not recuse himself and move on. The fact
Defendants intended to disqualify Plaintiff indicates the agenda was deceptively worded.
The policy of the Act "is defeated if the required notice is deceptively
worded or materially obscures the stated purpose of the
meeting." Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Norman, 2021 OK 20, { 9,
citing Haworth, 1981 OK CIV APP 56, § 8, 637 P.2d at 904. "Because it
was enacted for the public's benefit, the Open Meeting Act 'is to be
construed liberally in favor of the public." Jd. citing Lafalier v. Lead-
Impacted Cmtys. Relocation Assistance Tr., 2010 OK 48, § 37, 237 P.3d
181, 195 (quoting Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 2479 v. Thorpe, 1981
OK 95, § 17, 632 P.2d 408, 411).
In fact, if Defendant’s Argument II is correct and Defendants were not acting
during an individual proceeding, then Defendants were acting without any authority to do
so. Outside OKLA. STAT. tit. 75 § 316, there is no statutory mechanism to disqualify a
—_—_—_——— nn sss
Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Hamrick v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board
Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 Page 4sitting Board member. Local boards of education do not have the power to make any
rules or take any actions inconsistent with State law or the rules of the State Board of
Education. Oklahoma Attorney General Opinion 2012-14, 2012 OK AG 14, citing
OKLA. STAT. tit. 70 § 5-117(A)(2). Therefore, it is impossible for a member of the
general public to even foresee that Defendants would vote to disqualify Plaintiff.
The Open Meeting Act provides that, "[aJny action taken in willful
violation of this act shall be invalid." 25 O.S.2011, § 313. Wilfullness does
not require a showing of bad faith, malice, or wantonness, but rather,
encompasses conscious, purposeful violations of the law or blatant or
deliberate disregard of the law by those who know, or should know the
requirements of the Act. Notice of meetings of public bodies which are
deceptively vague and likely to mislead constitute a wilful violation.
Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Norman, 2021 OK 20, { 18, citing
Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer Cty., 1984 OK 95, J 14, 701 P.2d 754, 761.
Defendant Board’s agenda for the December 8, 2020 meeting was deceptively
vague and likely to mislead, therefore it was a willful violation of the Open Meeting Act.
Because Defendants willfully violated the Act, actions taken at the meeting are
invalid. The Open Meeting Act is not obscure or incomprehensible. On the contrary,
anyone with ten minutes to spare can read the whole thing and understand virtually every
word. Matter of Order Declaring Annexation, 1981 OK CIV APP 57, 4 18, 637 P.2d at
1273. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Open Meetings Act Claims
should fail.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT II. DEFENDANTS DID NOT FOLLOW THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT AND PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING
DUE TO THE HARM CAUSED BY DEFENDANTS’ ACTIONS.
A. THE BOARD WAS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURES ACT.
rr
Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Hamrick y. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board
Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 Page 5Defendants are attempting to dismiss Plaintiff's Administrative Procedures Act
claims by stating the Board was not a necessary party to an individual proceeding and
was not required to file an affidavit. What Defendants fail to mention is that not only was
no affidavit filed pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit 75, § 316, but Defendants fully failed to
follow the statute. OKLA. STAT. tit 75, § 316, sets out the only guidelines for
disqualifying a member of a state agency.
Pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit 75, § 316:
A hearing examiner or agency member shall withdraw from any
individual proceeding in which he cannot accord a fair and impartial
hearing or consideration. Any party may request the disqualification of a
hearing examiner or agency member, on the ground of his inability to give
a fair and impartial hearing, by filing an affidavit, promptly upon
discovery of the alleged disqualification, stating with particularity the
grounds upon which it is claimed that a fair and impartial hearing
cannot be accorded. The issue shall be determined promptly by the
administrative head of the agency, or, if it affects a member or members of
the agency, by the remaining members thereof, if a quorum... (emphasis
added).
At the December 8, 2020, meeting the Board was provided with a copy of OKLA.
STAT. tit 75 § 316, and publicly notified their action to disqualify Plaintiff would be a
violation of law. Instead of following the law, The Board voted to disqualify Plaintiff.
"If a statute is plain and unambiguous, it will not be subjected to judicial
construction, but will receive the effect its language dictates." State ex rel. Okla.
Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys. v. City of Spencer, 237 P.3d 125, 132 (Okla. 2009).
OKLA. STAT. tit 75 § 316, is plain and unambiguous. A disqualification can only occur
during an individual proceeding. The motion must be made by a party to that individual
proceeding. The party is not required to request disqualification, but they are permitted
eS
Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Hamrick v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board
Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 Page 6to do so. Should a party choose to request disqualification they must file an affidavit,
promptly upon discovery of the alleged disqualification, stating with particularity the
grounds upon which it is claimed that a fair and impartial hearing cannot be accorded.
In the present matter, the motion was made during a regular meeting and not an
individual proceeding. Defendant Franklin, who made the motion, was not a party to an
individual proceeding. There was no affidavit filed, let alone an affidavit filed promptly.
There were no legal grounds for disqualification stated. No particular grounds for the
disqualification were given.
Local boards of education do not have the power to make any rules or take any
actions inconsistent with State law or the rules of the State Board of Education.
Oklahoma Attorney General Opinion 2012-14, 2012 OK AG 14, citing OKLA. STAT.
tit. 70 § 5-117(A)(2). As OKLA. STAT. tit 75 § 316, is the only legal mechanism to
disqualify a member of a state agency, either Defendants violated the Administrative
Procedures Act, or they acted completely unlawfully without any authority to do so.
B. PLAINTIFF CLEARLY HAS STANDING TO BRING HIS CLAIMS AGAINST
DEFENDANTS.
Defendants erroneously argue that Plaintiffs claim is based on the vote to
disqualify being a final agency order. Nowhere in Plaintiff's Petition nor Amended
Petition is it argued that Defendants were in an individual proceeding, or that Plaintiff
has brought his claim to appeal a final agency order. Plaintiff's claim is that he is an
injured party based on Defendants’ actions and is requesting the Honorable Court to
consider and grant Plaintiff's request for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to
OKLA. STAT. tit 12, § 133.
Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Hamrick v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board
Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 Page7With regards to the question of standing Defendants are correct in their claims
that the party invoking a court's jurisdiction has the burden of establishing his or her
standing (when contested) to pursue the action in court. Toxic Waste Impact Group, Inc.
vy. Leavitt, 1994 OK 148, 98, 890 P.2d 906, citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504
USS. 555, §§§, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2136, 119 L.Ed.2d 351, 364 (1992).
At a minimum standing contains three elements. In Lujan, the United
States Supreme Court explained these three essential elements of standing
as follows: ... First, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact" -
an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and
particularized, . . . and (b) “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or
“hypothetical,'" ... Second, there must be a causal connection between the
injury and the conduct complained of - the injury has to be "fairly ...
trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not.,, the[e]
result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court."
Third, it must be "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative," that the
injury will be [890 P.2d 911] "redressed by a favorable decision." Jd.
In the present matter Plaintiff meets all three essential elements. First, Plaintiff
suffered an injury in fact. Defendants removed Plaintiff's ability to vote, ask questions,
to take part in any discussions and to make any argument either for or against ANY
matter relating to Epic One-on-One Charter School. Second, there is no denying the
causal connection between Plaintiff's injury and Defendants’ conduct. Third, Plaintiff's
injury would be addressed by this Honorable Court should he prevail, and he is granted
declaratory and injunctive relief. Therefore, Plaintiff clearly has standing to bring his
claims before this Honorable Court.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT III. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO INVALIDATE
HIS DISQUALIFICATION, PURSUANT TO OKLA. STAT. TIT 25 § 313, AND
SUBSEQUENTLY DEEM INVALID ALL ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD
RELATING TO EPIC ONE-ON-ONE CHARTER SCHOOL FOLLOWING THE
DECEMBER 8, 2020 VOTE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED.
nS
Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Hamrick v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board
Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 Page 8Defendants claim that because Plaintiff has not joined Community Strategies,
Inc., Governing Board for Epic One-on-One Charter School (hereinafter, “Epic”),
Plaintiff has violated OKLA. STAT. tit 12, § 2019(C). While it is true, a question has now
arisen regarding the impact Plaintiffs requested relief would have on Defendant’s
Settlement Agreement with Epic; that impacted was created by Defendants’ actions in
attempting to circumvent this lawsuit.
Plaintiff filed his Petition and Plaintiff's Application for Temporary Injunction
and Brief in Support on April 13, 2021.
On April 14, 2021, the Honorable Judge Warren set the hearing on Plaintiff's
Application for Temporary Injunction and Brief in Support for May 6, 2021.
On April 15, 2021, Defendants were served with the Petition, Plaintiff's
Application for Temporary Injunction and Brief in Support and Order Setting Hearing.
On April 16, 2021, one day after service, Defendants scheduled a Special Meeting
for April 20, 2021.
On April 20, 2021, Defendants conducted a Special Meeting in which they first
discussed this lawsuit and then discussed a proposed Consent Agreement with Epic.
On April 22, 2021, Defendants scheduled a Special Meeting for April 26, 2021.
On April 26, 2021, Defendants entered into a Settlement Agreement with Epic
and struck the hearing for the termination of Charter Contract with Community
Strategies, Inc., Governing Board for Epic One-on-One Charter School for May
12 and 13, 2021.
As stated in Plaintiff's Statement of Nonjoinder of Community Strategies, Inc.,
Governing Board for Epic One-On-One Charter School, at this time, it is uncertain if
Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Hamrick v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board
Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 Page 9there would be a negative impact to Epic should this Honorable Court follow the law and
invalidate Plaintiff's disqualification. Unfortunately, Defendants’ Motion stalls the
discovery process and the impact either positive or negative has yet to be determined.
Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to not reward Defendants’ attempt to circumvent
this lawsuit, and to reject Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court reject Defendants’
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Preliminary Response to Plaintiff's Motion for
Temporary Injunction in full. Plaintiff additionally requests this Honorable Court take
note of Defendants’ actions following service.
Respectfully Submitted
?
* I
Tordan{OBA #22613
IE JORDAN LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 850342
Yukon, Oklahoma 73085
Telephone: 405.226.1532
Email: jp@jpjordanlaw.com
ATTORNEYS LIEN CLAIMED ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Thereby certify that on May 21, 2021, I served the attached document via
facsimile and/or U.S. Mail postage prepaid and email, to the following:
Devan A. Pederson, OBA #16576
Assistant Attorney General
Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General
Litigation Section
313 NE 21* Street
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
Telephone: 405.522.2931
Email: devan.pederson@oag.ok.gov
ATTORNEY FOR ALL DEFENDANTS
Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Hamrick v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board
Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 Page 10-and-
William H. Hickman, OBA #18395
Hickman Law Group PLLC
330 W. Gray Street, Suite 170
Norman, Oklahoma 73069
ATTORNEY FOR COMMUNITY STRATEGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Hamrick v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board
Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 Page 11EXHIBIT 1
Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Regular Meeting
Agenda
Tuesday, December 8, 2020
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
STATEWIDE VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD
OKLAHOMA HISTORY CENTER
800 NAZIH ZUHDI DR
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA
AGENDA
Tuesday, December 8, 2020 @ 2:00 PM
Public view and access: A link provided at https://svesb.ok.gov/
Note: Public Comment will only be in person.
1.
2.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETING ACT
(Regularly scheduled meeting held December 8, 2020)
This regularly scheduled meeting of the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board has been
convened in accordance with the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act.
This meeting was preceded by advance notice of the date, time and place, filed with the
Oklahoma Secretary of State on June 11, 2020.
Notice of this meeting was also given at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the
meeting by posting notice of the date, time, place and agenda of the meeting by 2:00pm on
December 7, 2020, on the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board website and at the
principal office of the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, located at 840 Research
Parkway Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, SALUTE TO THE OKLAHOMA STATE FLAG, and
MOMENT OF SILENCE
(Action) Presentation, discussion and possible action on minutes of the October 13, 2020
Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Regular Board Meeting
OPENING COMMENTS - Acting Chairman Robert Franklin
PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comments will be limited to only those subject matters listed in the current meeting
agenda. A sign-up sheet will be posted at least fifteen (15) minutes prior to the scheduled
start time of the board meeting. Only individuals who have signed up to speak will be
recognized during the Public Comment period and will be recognized in the order in which
they have signed. Each speaker will be allocated three (3) minutes for presentation. The
Board Chairperson may interrupt and/or terminate any presentation during public comment,
which does not conform to the procedures outlined under this Section.Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Regular Meeting
Agenda
Tuesday, December 8, 2020
7. ADMINISTRATION
a.
Presentation and report regarding monthly operations of the Statewide Virtual
Charter School Board (SVCSB) office and possible discussion - Dr. Rebecca
Wilkinson, Executive Director
1. Application for Initial Authorization Update
2. Student Story
Presentation and possible discussion of an update on Intent to Terminate proceedings
with Epic One-on-One Charter School - Ms. Marie Schuble, Counsel for the Board
and Assistant Attorney General
(Action) _ Presentation, discussion and possible action to recuse Board Member
Mathew Hamrick from all discussions, debates, and voting on any matter related to
Epic One-on-One Charter School - Dr. Robert Franklin, Acting Chairperson; Mathew
Hamrick, Board Member
(Action) Presentation, discussion and possible action to recuse Board Member
Phyllis Shepherd from all discussions, debates, and voting on any matter related to
Epic One-on-One Charter School - Dr. Robert Franklin, Acting Chairperson; Phyllis
Shepherd, Board Member
Presentation and possible discussion regarding Request for Proposal - Virtual Charter
School Funding Research - Mr. Skyler Lusnia, Compliance Auditor
(Action) — Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding the Statewide
Virtual Charter School Board Administrative Rules - Dr. Rebecca Wilkinson,
Executive Director and Ms. Marie Schuble, Counsel for the Board and Assistant
Attorney General
(Action) Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding Oklahoma
Information and Technology School grade level configuration - Dr. Rebecca
Wilkinson, Executive Director
(Action) Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding the election of
SVCSB officers - Dr. Rebecca Wilkinson, Executive Director
1. Board Chairperson
2. Board Vice-Chairperson
3. Board Clerk
8. NEW BUSINESS
9. ADJOURNMENT
The Board may take any item on this agenda out of order. The Board may discuss and/or vote to approve,
disapprove, or take other action on any item listed on this agenda.
2-2-EXHIBIT 2
Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Regular Meeting
Minutes — December 8, 2020
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
STATEWIDE VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD
OKLAHOMA HISTORY CENTER
800 NAZIH ZUHDI DR.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA
December 8, 2020
The Statewide Virtual Charter School Board met in regular session at 2:01 p.m. on Tuesday, December 8,
2020 in the Oklahoma History Center at 800 Nazih Zuhdi Dr., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The final agenda
was posted at 4:30 p.m. on Friday, December 4, 2020.
Members of the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Present:
Barry Beauchamp
Robert Franklin
Mathew Hamrick
Phyllis Shepherd
Brandon Tatum
Others in Attendance:
Rebecca Wilkinson, Executive Director
Lynn Stickney, Secretary to the Board
Lisa Daniels, OSOCP Director
Skyler Lusnia, Compliance Auditor
Marie Schuble, Assistant Attorney General
Jenny Dickson, Assistant Attorney General
Bart Banfield, Epic Charter School (EPIC)
Lealon Taylor, Epic Charter School (EPIC)
Bill Hickman, Hickman Law Group
Jennifer Wilkinson, Insight School of Oklahoma (ISOK)
Michelle Scionti, insight School of Oklahoma (ISOK), and Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy (OVCA)
Melissa Gregory, Oklahoma Connections Academy
Rebecca James, Oklahoma Connections Academy
Konuni David Yilmaz, Oklahoma Information and Technology School
Jeanene Barnett, CCOSA
Tom Pickens, Public School Finance
J. P. Jordan, Jordan Law Firm
Kelly Hughes, Pliris Strategies
Nuria Martinez-Keel, The Oklahoman
Other general publicStatewide Virtual Charter School Board Regular Meeting
Minutes — December 8, 2020
1.
3.
5.
6.
7.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Dr. Franklin called the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board regular meeting to order at
12:01 p.m. Roll was called and ascertained there was a quorum.
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE OKLAHOMA OPEN MEETING ACT
Ms. Stickney read the Statement of Compliance with the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, SALUTE TO THE OKLAHOMA STATE FLAG, AND MOMENT OF SILENCE
Dr. Franklin led board members and all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the
American flag, a salute to the Oklahoma flag, and a moment of silence.
Discussion and possible action on minutes of the October 13, 2020 Statewide Virtua! Charter
School Board Special Board Meeting
Mr. Beauchamp moved to accept the October 13, 2020 minutes. Ms. Shepherd
seconded the motion. The motion carried with the following votes:
Barry Beauchamp Yes
Robert Franklin Yes
Mathew Hamrick Abstain
Phyllis Shepherd Yes
Brandon Tatum Yes
OPENING COMMENTS
Dr. Franklin shared his thoughts regarding the opportunity for every student to have an
Individualized Education Plan and the ability of digital learning to support this concept.
Dr. Franklin introduced and welcomed new board member Dr. Brandon Tatum to the
Statewide Virtual Charter School Board.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The Board heard comments from J. P. Jordan regarding Statewide Virtual Charter School
Board Members Mathew Hamrick and Phyllis Shepherd.
ADMINISTRATION
a. Presentation and report regarding monthly operations of the Statewide Virtual
Charter School Board (SVCSB) office and possible discussion
1. Dr. Wilkinson provided the Board with an update regarding Application for Initial
Authorization timeline and answered Board questions.
2. Dr. Wilkinson shared the story of a twenty-two (22) year-old young woman, a
single mom raising her daughter without the benefit of family support. The young
woman recognizes the importance education and is now attending Insight School
of Oklahoma in order to complete her education and receive her high-school
diploma.Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Regular Meeting
Minutes — December 8, 2020
c
d.
f.
Presentation possible discussion of an update on Intent to Terminate proceedings with
Epic One-on-One Charter School
Ms. Marie Schuble provided the board with an update on the Intent to Terminate
proceedings with Epic One-on-One Charter School and answered board questions.
She noted the hearing date has been changed to March 8-11, 2021.
Presentation, discussion and possible action to recuse Board Member Mathew Hamrick
from all discussions, debates, and voting on any matter related to Epic One-on-One
Charter School
Dr. Franklin addressed concerns regarding Board Member Mathew Hamrick. Mr.
Hamrick responded to those concerns. Dr. Franklin moved recuse Board Member
Mathew Hamrick from all discussions, debates, and voting on any matter related to Epic
One-on-One Charter School. Dr. Tatum seconded the motion. The motion carried with
the following votes:
Barry Beauchamp Yes
Robert Franklin Yes
Mathew Hamrick No
Phyllis Shepherd No
Brandon Tatum Yes
Presentation, discussion and possible action to recuse Board Member Phyllis Shepherd
from all discussions, debates, and voting on any matter related to Epic One-on-One
Charter School
Dr. Franklin addressed concerns regarding Board Member Phyllis Shepherd. Ms.
Shepherd responded to those concerns. Mr. Beauchamp moved recuse Board Member
Phyllis Shepherd from all discussions, debates, and voting on any matter related to Epic
One-on-One Charter School. Dr. Tatum seconded the motion. The motion carried with
the following votes:
Barry Beauchamp Yes
Robert Franklin Yes
Mathew Hamrick No
Phyllis Shepherd No
Brandon Tatum Yes
Presentation and possible discussion regarding Request for Proposal Virtual Charter
School Funding Research
Mr. Lusnia provided the board with an update on the Request for Proposal process and
award for the Virtual Charter School Funding Research.
Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding the Statewide Virtual Charter
School Board Administrative Rules
Dr. Wilkinson, Ms. Schuble and Dr. Daniels reviewed the proposed Administrative Rule
changes with the board and answered board questions. Mr. Beauchamp moved for the
Board to enter the Permanent Rulemaking Process to consider these rule changes. Mr.
Hamrick seconded the motion. The motion carried with the following votes:
Barry Beauchamp Yes
Robert Franklin Yes
Mathew Hamrick Yes
Phyllis Shepherd Yes
Brandon Tatum YesStatewide Virtual Charter School Board Regular Meeting
Minutes ~ December 8, 2020
8. Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding Oklahoma Information and
Technology School grade level configuration
Dr. Wilkinson provided the board with information regarding the request of Oklahoma
Information and Technology School to approve 6" - 9 grade level configuration for the
2021-2022 school year and answered board questions. Mr. Hamrick moved to allow
Oklahoma Information and Technology School to add grades 8 and 9 for the 2021-2022
school year. Mr. Beauchamp seconded the motion. The motion carried with the
following votes:
Barry Beauchamp Yes
Robert Franklin Yes
Mathew Hamrick Yes
Phyllis Shepherd Yes
Brandon Tatum Yes
h. Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding the election of SVCSB officers f
1, Board Chairperson
Mr. Beauchamp nominated Dr. Franklin. Dr. Franklin accepted the nomination.
Mr. Hamrick nominated Dr. Tatum. Dr. Tatum declined the nomination.
Board Chairperson votes to approve Dr. Franklin as Board Chairman as follows:
Barry Beauchamp Yes
Robert Franklin Yes i
Mathew Hamrick Yes ;
Phyllis Shepherd Yes
Brandon Tatum Yes
2. Board Vice-Chairperson
Mr. Beauchamp nominated Dr. Tatum. Dr. Tatum accepted the nomination,
Board Vice-Chairperson votes to approve Dr. Tatum as Board Vice-Chairperson as
follows: L
Barry Beauchamp Yes !
Robert Franklin Yes i
Mathew Hamrick Yes
Phyllis Shepherd Yes j
Brandon Tatum Yes r
3. Board Clerk
Dr. Franklin nominated Mr. Beauchamp. Mr. Beauchamp accepted the nomination.
Board Clerk votes to approve Mr. Beauchamp as Board Clerk as follows: i
Barry Beauchamp Yes i
Robert Franklin Yes L
Mathew Hamrick Yes |
Phyllis Shepherd Yes
Brandon Tatum YesStatewide Virtual Charter School Board Regular Meeting
Minutes ~ December 8, 2020
8. NEW BUSINESS
No new business.
a ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mr. Hamrick moved to adjourn the meeting at
3:32 p.m. Mr. Beauchamp seconded the motion. The motion carried with the following
votes:
Barry Beauchamp Yes
Robert Franklin Yes
Mathew Hamrick Yes
yilis Shepherd Yes
indon Tatum Yes
Robert Franklin, Chairman of the Board
Lynn Ai Secretary of the Boag
ap
Preview
Fee FILED IN DISTRICT COURT (AERO OKLAHOMA COUNTY 41NL9599NTAS | IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY MAY 21 2021 STATE OF OKLAHOMA RICK WARRE COURT TR 111 MATHEW HAMRICK, Individually _ and in his official capacity Plaintiff, vs. Case No. CV-2021-835 (1) OKLAHOMA STATEWIDE VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD, and (2) ROBERT FRANKLIN, individually and in his official capacity, (3) BARRY BEAUCHAMP, individually and in his official capacity, (4) BRANDON TATUM, individually and | in his official capacity, i (5) REBECCA L. WILKINSON, individually and in her official capacity. NS SS SS SS SS SH SS SSL Defendants, PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND PRELIMNARY RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WITH BRIEF IN SUPPORT COMES now Plaintiff, Mathew Hamrick, by and through his attorney of record pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit 12, §§ 12-2012, & 12-2056 and for Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Preliminary Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction with Brief in Support, states as follows: Plaintiff incorporates all allegations and references to his Amended Petition filed contemporaneously. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT I. DEFENDANT BOARD’S AGENDA FOR THE DECEMBER 8, 2020 MEETING WAS DECEPTIVELY VAGUE AND LIKELY TO MISLEAD, THEREFORE IT WAS A WILLFUL VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEETING ACT. BECAUSE DEFENDANTS WILLFULLY VIOLATED THE ACT, ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE MEETING ARE_ INVALID. DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED. Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Hamrick v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 PagelThe Open Meeting Act's stated public policy is to "encourage and facilitate an informed citizenry's understanding of the governmental processes and governmental problems." Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Norman, 2021 OK 20, | 8, citing OKLA. Star. tit. 25 § 302. Defendants argue that because the Board’s Agenda for December 8, 2020 included “possible action to recuse” the reasonable person would interpret that the Board would take action to force Plaintiff to recuse (Exhibit 1 — December 8, 2020 Meeting Agenda). As it was demonstrated in the Petition and Amended Petition, Plaintiff choose not to take the action to recuse himself (Exhibit 2 —- December 8, 2020 Meeting Minutes). At that point, the agenda item was completed, and the Board should have moved on. After it was announced Plaintiff would not recuse himself, the Board went off the agenda and Defendant Franklin orally presented a Motion to Disqualify. "All agendas required pursuant to the provisions of this section shall identify all items of business to be transacted by a public body at a meeting . . .." OKLA. STAT. tit. 25 § 311 (B)(1) (emphasis added). Not all items were placed on the agenda and the public was not put on notice there would be a contested motion to disqualify a Board member (Exhibit 1). A recusal would have been based upon Plaintiffs own action not the actions of the Board. On the other hand, Defendant’s actions deprived Plaintiff of the power, right and privilege to actively engage on the Board. The “agenda shall 'be worded in plain language, directly stating the purpose of the meeting . . . [and] the language used should be simple, a Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Hamrick v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 Page 2direct and comprehensible to a person of ordinary education and intelligence."" Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Norman, 2021 OK 20, J 9, citing Andrews v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 29 of Cleveland Cty., 1987 OK 40, 4 7, 737 P.2d 929, 931 (alterations in original) (quoting Haworth Bd. of Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-6, McCurtain Cty. v. Havens, 1981 OK CIV APP 56, § 9, 637 P.2d 902, 904). Defendants failed to use plain language on the agenda and instead used a more specific term. In fact, even Defendants themselves seem confused as to what was voted on as the language of the agenda posted was to recuse Plaintiff from all discussions, debates, and voting on any matter related to Epic One-on-One Charter School; but then allowed for Plaintiff to vote on the proposed Administrative Rules which is a matter related to Epic One-on-One Charter School (Exhibit 2). While Defendants provided caselaw to argue the terms recuse and disqualify are “completely interchangeable” they neglect to point out two things this Honorable Court should consider. (1) The actual definition of recuse is “to disqualify oneself”. (2) The Oklahoma Caselaw cited was substituting recusal with disqualify and not disqualification with recusal. Casey v. Casey, 2011 OK 46, 270 P.3d 109. As stated in the Amended Petition, “Recuse” is defined as: 1. as to disqualify (oneself) as judge in a particular case or 2. broadly to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of interest. Merriam-Webster.com. 2021. https://www.merriam-webster.com (8 April 2021). “Disqualification” is defined as: 1: to deprive of the required qualities, properties, or conditions: make unfit 2: to deprive of a power, right, or privilege Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Hamrick v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 Page 33: to make ineligible for a prize or for further competition because of violations of the rules Merriam-Webster.com. 2021. https://www.merriam-webster.com (8 April 2021). Defendants’ argument that the terms recusal and disqualify are completely interchangeable is akin to saying the terms suicide and death are completely interchangeable. While all suicides are deaths not all deaths are suicides. Just as suicide is a more specific term for death; recusal is a more specific term for disqualification. Recusal (like suicide) is an action taken by one to their own detriment. On the other hand, Disqualification (like death) is an action which may be taken by one or by many. When the Board choose to vote to disqualify Plaintiff, they did not provide ample notice to the public pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 25 § 311 (A), as a member of the public looking at the posted agenda would assume Plaintiff would have chosen to recuse himself or made a statement as to why he would not recuse himself and move on. The fact Defendants intended to disqualify Plaintiff indicates the agenda was deceptively worded. The policy of the Act "is defeated if the required notice is deceptively worded or materially obscures the stated purpose of the meeting." Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Norman, 2021 OK 20, { 9, citing Haworth, 1981 OK CIV APP 56, § 8, 637 P.2d at 904. "Because it was enacted for the public's benefit, the Open Meeting Act 'is to be construed liberally in favor of the public." Jd. citing Lafalier v. Lead- Impacted Cmtys. Relocation Assistance Tr., 2010 OK 48, § 37, 237 P.3d 181, 195 (quoting Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 2479 v. Thorpe, 1981 OK 95, § 17, 632 P.2d 408, 411). In fact, if Defendant’s Argument II is correct and Defendants were not acting during an individual proceeding, then Defendants were acting without any authority to do so. Outside OKLA. STAT. tit. 75 § 316, there is no statutory mechanism to disqualify a —_—_—_——— nn sss Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Hamrick v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 Page 4sitting Board member. Local boards of education do not have the power to make any rules or take any actions inconsistent with State law or the rules of the State Board of Education. Oklahoma Attorney General Opinion 2012-14, 2012 OK AG 14, citing OKLA. STAT. tit. 70 § 5-117(A)(2). Therefore, it is impossible for a member of the general public to even foresee that Defendants would vote to disqualify Plaintiff. The Open Meeting Act provides that, "[aJny action taken in willful violation of this act shall be invalid." 25 O.S.2011, § 313. Wilfullness does not require a showing of bad faith, malice, or wantonness, but rather, encompasses conscious, purposeful violations of the law or blatant or deliberate disregard of the law by those who know, or should know the requirements of the Act. Notice of meetings of public bodies which are deceptively vague and likely to mislead constitute a wilful violation. Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Norman, 2021 OK 20, { 18, citing Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer Cty., 1984 OK 95, J 14, 701 P.2d 754, 761. Defendant Board’s agenda for the December 8, 2020 meeting was deceptively vague and likely to mislead, therefore it was a willful violation of the Open Meeting Act. Because Defendants willfully violated the Act, actions taken at the meeting are invalid. The Open Meeting Act is not obscure or incomprehensible. On the contrary, anyone with ten minutes to spare can read the whole thing and understand virtually every word. Matter of Order Declaring Annexation, 1981 OK CIV APP 57, 4 18, 637 P.2d at 1273. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Open Meetings Act Claims should fail. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT II. DEFENDANTS DID NOT FOLLOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT AND PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING DUE TO THE HARM CAUSED BY DEFENDANTS’ ACTIONS. A. THE BOARD WAS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT. rr Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Hamrick y. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 Page 5Defendants are attempting to dismiss Plaintiff's Administrative Procedures Act claims by stating the Board was not a necessary party to an individual proceeding and was not required to file an affidavit. What Defendants fail to mention is that not only was no affidavit filed pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit 75, § 316, but Defendants fully failed to follow the statute. OKLA. STAT. tit 75, § 316, sets out the only guidelines for disqualifying a member of a state agency. Pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit 75, § 316: A hearing examiner or agency member shall withdraw from any individual proceeding in which he cannot accord a fair and impartial hearing or consideration. Any party may request the disqualification of a hearing examiner or agency member, on the ground of his inability to give a fair and impartial hearing, by filing an affidavit, promptly upon discovery of the alleged disqualification, stating with particularity the grounds upon which it is claimed that a fair and impartial hearing cannot be accorded. The issue shall be determined promptly by the administrative head of the agency, or, if it affects a member or members of the agency, by the remaining members thereof, if a quorum... (emphasis added). At the December 8, 2020, meeting the Board was provided with a copy of OKLA. STAT. tit 75 § 316, and publicly notified their action to disqualify Plaintiff would be a violation of law. Instead of following the law, The Board voted to disqualify Plaintiff. "If a statute is plain and unambiguous, it will not be subjected to judicial construction, but will receive the effect its language dictates." State ex rel. Okla. Firefighters Pension & Ret. Sys. v. City of Spencer, 237 P.3d 125, 132 (Okla. 2009). OKLA. STAT. tit 75 § 316, is plain and unambiguous. A disqualification can only occur during an individual proceeding. The motion must be made by a party to that individual proceeding. The party is not required to request disqualification, but they are permitted eS Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Hamrick v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 Page 6to do so. Should a party choose to request disqualification they must file an affidavit, promptly upon discovery of the alleged disqualification, stating with particularity the grounds upon which it is claimed that a fair and impartial hearing cannot be accorded. In the present matter, the motion was made during a regular meeting and not an individual proceeding. Defendant Franklin, who made the motion, was not a party to an individual proceeding. There was no affidavit filed, let alone an affidavit filed promptly. There were no legal grounds for disqualification stated. No particular grounds for the disqualification were given. Local boards of education do not have the power to make any rules or take any actions inconsistent with State law or the rules of the State Board of Education. Oklahoma Attorney General Opinion 2012-14, 2012 OK AG 14, citing OKLA. STAT. tit. 70 § 5-117(A)(2). As OKLA. STAT. tit 75 § 316, is the only legal mechanism to disqualify a member of a state agency, either Defendants violated the Administrative Procedures Act, or they acted completely unlawfully without any authority to do so. B. PLAINTIFF CLEARLY HAS STANDING TO BRING HIS CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS. Defendants erroneously argue that Plaintiffs claim is based on the vote to disqualify being a final agency order. Nowhere in Plaintiff's Petition nor Amended Petition is it argued that Defendants were in an individual proceeding, or that Plaintiff has brought his claim to appeal a final agency order. Plaintiff's claim is that he is an injured party based on Defendants’ actions and is requesting the Honorable Court to consider and grant Plaintiff's request for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit 12, § 133. Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Hamrick v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 Page7With regards to the question of standing Defendants are correct in their claims that the party invoking a court's jurisdiction has the burden of establishing his or her standing (when contested) to pursue the action in court. Toxic Waste Impact Group, Inc. vy. Leavitt, 1994 OK 148, 98, 890 P.2d 906, citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 USS. 555, §§§, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 2136, 119 L.Ed.2d 351, 364 (1992). At a minimum standing contains three elements. In Lujan, the United States Supreme Court explained these three essential elements of standing as follows: ... First, the plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact" - an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, . . . and (b) “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or “hypothetical,'" ... Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of - the injury has to be "fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not.,, the[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court." Third, it must be "likely," as opposed to merely "speculative," that the injury will be [890 P.2d 911] "redressed by a favorable decision." Jd. In the present matter Plaintiff meets all three essential elements. First, Plaintiff suffered an injury in fact. Defendants removed Plaintiff's ability to vote, ask questions, to take part in any discussions and to make any argument either for or against ANY matter relating to Epic One-on-One Charter School. Second, there is no denying the causal connection between Plaintiff's injury and Defendants’ conduct. Third, Plaintiff's injury would be addressed by this Honorable Court should he prevail, and he is granted declaratory and injunctive relief. Therefore, Plaintiff clearly has standing to bring his claims before this Honorable Court. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENT III. PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO INVALIDATE HIS DISQUALIFICATION, PURSUANT TO OKLA. STAT. TIT 25 § 313, AND SUBSEQUENTLY DEEM INVALID ALL ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE BOARD RELATING TO EPIC ONE-ON-ONE CHARTER SCHOOL FOLLOWING THE DECEMBER 8, 2020 VOTE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED. nS Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Hamrick v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 Page 8Defendants claim that because Plaintiff has not joined Community Strategies, Inc., Governing Board for Epic One-on-One Charter School (hereinafter, “Epic”), Plaintiff has violated OKLA. STAT. tit 12, § 2019(C). While it is true, a question has now arisen regarding the impact Plaintiffs requested relief would have on Defendant’s Settlement Agreement with Epic; that impacted was created by Defendants’ actions in attempting to circumvent this lawsuit. Plaintiff filed his Petition and Plaintiff's Application for Temporary Injunction and Brief in Support on April 13, 2021. On April 14, 2021, the Honorable Judge Warren set the hearing on Plaintiff's Application for Temporary Injunction and Brief in Support for May 6, 2021. On April 15, 2021, Defendants were served with the Petition, Plaintiff's Application for Temporary Injunction and Brief in Support and Order Setting Hearing. On April 16, 2021, one day after service, Defendants scheduled a Special Meeting for April 20, 2021. On April 20, 2021, Defendants conducted a Special Meeting in which they first discussed this lawsuit and then discussed a proposed Consent Agreement with Epic. On April 22, 2021, Defendants scheduled a Special Meeting for April 26, 2021. On April 26, 2021, Defendants entered into a Settlement Agreement with Epic and struck the hearing for the termination of Charter Contract with Community Strategies, Inc., Governing Board for Epic One-on-One Charter School for May 12 and 13, 2021. As stated in Plaintiff's Statement of Nonjoinder of Community Strategies, Inc., Governing Board for Epic One-On-One Charter School, at this time, it is uncertain if Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Hamrick v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 Page 9there would be a negative impact to Epic should this Honorable Court follow the law and invalidate Plaintiff's disqualification. Unfortunately, Defendants’ Motion stalls the discovery process and the impact either positive or negative has yet to be determined. Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court to not reward Defendants’ attempt to circumvent this lawsuit, and to reject Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Honorable Court reject Defendants’ Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Preliminary Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Injunction in full. Plaintiff additionally requests this Honorable Court take note of Defendants’ actions following service. Respectfully Submitted ? * I Tordan{OBA #22613 IE JORDAN LAW FIRM P.O. Box 850342 Yukon, Oklahoma 73085 Telephone: 405.226.1532 Email: jp@jpjordanlaw.com ATTORNEYS LIEN CLAIMED ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that on May 21, 2021, I served the attached document via facsimile and/or U.S. Mail postage prepaid and email, to the following: Devan A. Pederson, OBA #16576 Assistant Attorney General Oklahoma Office of the Attorney General Litigation Section 313 NE 21* Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 Telephone: 405.522.2931 Email: devan.pederson@oag.ok.gov ATTORNEY FOR ALL DEFENDANTS Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Hamrick v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 Page 10-and- William H. Hickman, OBA #18395 Hickman Law Group PLLC 330 W. Gray Street, Suite 170 Norman, Oklahoma 73069 ATTORNEY FOR COMMUNITY STRATEGIES, INC., Plaintiff's Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Hamrick v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Oklahoma County, CV-2021-835 Page 11EXHIBIT 1 Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Regular Meeting Agenda Tuesday, December 8, 2020 REGULAR MEETING OF THE STATEWIDE VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD OKLAHOMA HISTORY CENTER 800 NAZIH ZUHDI DR OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA AGENDA Tuesday, December 8, 2020 @ 2:00 PM Public view and access: A link provided at https://svesb.ok.gov/ Note: Public Comment will only be in person. 1. 2. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETING ACT (Regularly scheduled meeting held December 8, 2020) This regularly scheduled meeting of the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board has been convened in accordance with the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act. This meeting was preceded by advance notice of the date, time and place, filed with the Oklahoma Secretary of State on June 11, 2020. Notice of this meeting was also given at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting by posting notice of the date, time, place and agenda of the meeting by 2:00pm on December 7, 2020, on the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board website and at the principal office of the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, located at 840 Research Parkway Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, SALUTE TO THE OKLAHOMA STATE FLAG, and MOMENT OF SILENCE (Action) Presentation, discussion and possible action on minutes of the October 13, 2020 Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Regular Board Meeting OPENING COMMENTS - Acting Chairman Robert Franklin PUBLIC COMMENT Public comments will be limited to only those subject matters listed in the current meeting agenda. A sign-up sheet will be posted at least fifteen (15) minutes prior to the scheduled start time of the board meeting. Only individuals who have signed up to speak will be recognized during the Public Comment period and will be recognized in the order in which they have signed. Each speaker will be allocated three (3) minutes for presentation. The Board Chairperson may interrupt and/or terminate any presentation during public comment, which does not conform to the procedures outlined under this Section.Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Regular Meeting Agenda Tuesday, December 8, 2020 7. ADMINISTRATION a. Presentation and report regarding monthly operations of the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board (SVCSB) office and possible discussion - Dr. Rebecca Wilkinson, Executive Director 1. Application for Initial Authorization Update 2. Student Story Presentation and possible discussion of an update on Intent to Terminate proceedings with Epic One-on-One Charter School - Ms. Marie Schuble, Counsel for the Board and Assistant Attorney General (Action) _ Presentation, discussion and possible action to recuse Board Member Mathew Hamrick from all discussions, debates, and voting on any matter related to Epic One-on-One Charter School - Dr. Robert Franklin, Acting Chairperson; Mathew Hamrick, Board Member (Action) Presentation, discussion and possible action to recuse Board Member Phyllis Shepherd from all discussions, debates, and voting on any matter related to Epic One-on-One Charter School - Dr. Robert Franklin, Acting Chairperson; Phyllis Shepherd, Board Member Presentation and possible discussion regarding Request for Proposal - Virtual Charter School Funding Research - Mr. Skyler Lusnia, Compliance Auditor (Action) — Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Administrative Rules - Dr. Rebecca Wilkinson, Executive Director and Ms. Marie Schuble, Counsel for the Board and Assistant Attorney General (Action) Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding Oklahoma Information and Technology School grade level configuration - Dr. Rebecca Wilkinson, Executive Director (Action) Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding the election of SVCSB officers - Dr. Rebecca Wilkinson, Executive Director 1. Board Chairperson 2. Board Vice-Chairperson 3. Board Clerk 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. ADJOURNMENT The Board may take any item on this agenda out of order. The Board may discuss and/or vote to approve, disapprove, or take other action on any item listed on this agenda. 2-2-EXHIBIT 2 Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Regular Meeting Minutes — December 8, 2020 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the STATEWIDE VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD OKLAHOMA HISTORY CENTER 800 NAZIH ZUHDI DR. OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA December 8, 2020 The Statewide Virtual Charter School Board met in regular session at 2:01 p.m. on Tuesday, December 8, 2020 in the Oklahoma History Center at 800 Nazih Zuhdi Dr., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The final agenda was posted at 4:30 p.m. on Friday, December 4, 2020. Members of the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Present: Barry Beauchamp Robert Franklin Mathew Hamrick Phyllis Shepherd Brandon Tatum Others in Attendance: Rebecca Wilkinson, Executive Director Lynn Stickney, Secretary to the Board Lisa Daniels, OSOCP Director Skyler Lusnia, Compliance Auditor Marie Schuble, Assistant Attorney General Jenny Dickson, Assistant Attorney General Bart Banfield, Epic Charter School (EPIC) Lealon Taylor, Epic Charter School (EPIC) Bill Hickman, Hickman Law Group Jennifer Wilkinson, Insight School of Oklahoma (ISOK) Michelle Scionti, insight School of Oklahoma (ISOK), and Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy (OVCA) Melissa Gregory, Oklahoma Connections Academy Rebecca James, Oklahoma Connections Academy Konuni David Yilmaz, Oklahoma Information and Technology School Jeanene Barnett, CCOSA Tom Pickens, Public School Finance J. P. Jordan, Jordan Law Firm Kelly Hughes, Pliris Strategies Nuria Martinez-Keel, The Oklahoman Other general publicStatewide Virtual Charter School Board Regular Meeting Minutes — December 8, 2020 1. 3. 5. 6. 7. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Dr. Franklin called the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board regular meeting to order at 12:01 p.m. Roll was called and ascertained there was a quorum. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE OKLAHOMA OPEN MEETING ACT Ms. Stickney read the Statement of Compliance with the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, SALUTE TO THE OKLAHOMA STATE FLAG, AND MOMENT OF SILENCE Dr. Franklin led board members and all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag, a salute to the Oklahoma flag, and a moment of silence. Discussion and possible action on minutes of the October 13, 2020 Statewide Virtua! Charter School Board Special Board Meeting Mr. Beauchamp moved to accept the October 13, 2020 minutes. Ms. Shepherd seconded the motion. The motion carried with the following votes: Barry Beauchamp Yes Robert Franklin Yes Mathew Hamrick Abstain Phyllis Shepherd Yes Brandon Tatum Yes OPENING COMMENTS Dr. Franklin shared his thoughts regarding the opportunity for every student to have an Individualized Education Plan and the ability of digital learning to support this concept. Dr. Franklin introduced and welcomed new board member Dr. Brandon Tatum to the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board. PUBLIC COMMENT The Board heard comments from J. P. Jordan regarding Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Members Mathew Hamrick and Phyllis Shepherd. ADMINISTRATION a. Presentation and report regarding monthly operations of the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board (SVCSB) office and possible discussion 1. Dr. Wilkinson provided the Board with an update regarding Application for Initial Authorization timeline and answered Board questions. 2. Dr. Wilkinson shared the story of a twenty-two (22) year-old young woman, a single mom raising her daughter without the benefit of family support. The young woman recognizes the importance education and is now attending Insight School of Oklahoma in order to complete her education and receive her high-school diploma.Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Regular Meeting Minutes — December 8, 2020 c d. f. Presentation possible discussion of an update on Intent to Terminate proceedings with Epic One-on-One Charter School Ms. Marie Schuble provided the board with an update on the Intent to Terminate proceedings with Epic One-on-One Charter School and answered board questions. She noted the hearing date has been changed to March 8-11, 2021. Presentation, discussion and possible action to recuse Board Member Mathew Hamrick from all discussions, debates, and voting on any matter related to Epic One-on-One Charter School Dr. Franklin addressed concerns regarding Board Member Mathew Hamrick. Mr. Hamrick responded to those concerns. Dr. Franklin moved recuse Board Member Mathew Hamrick from all discussions, debates, and voting on any matter related to Epic One-on-One Charter School. Dr. Tatum seconded the motion. The motion carried with the following votes: Barry Beauchamp Yes Robert Franklin Yes Mathew Hamrick No Phyllis Shepherd No Brandon Tatum Yes Presentation, discussion and possible action to recuse Board Member Phyllis Shepherd from all discussions, debates, and voting on any matter related to Epic One-on-One Charter School Dr. Franklin addressed concerns regarding Board Member Phyllis Shepherd. Ms. Shepherd responded to those concerns. Mr. Beauchamp moved recuse Board Member Phyllis Shepherd from all discussions, debates, and voting on any matter related to Epic One-on-One Charter School. Dr. Tatum seconded the motion. The motion carried with the following votes: Barry Beauchamp Yes Robert Franklin Yes Mathew Hamrick No Phyllis Shepherd No Brandon Tatum Yes Presentation and possible discussion regarding Request for Proposal Virtual Charter School Funding Research Mr. Lusnia provided the board with an update on the Request for Proposal process and award for the Virtual Charter School Funding Research. Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board Administrative Rules Dr. Wilkinson, Ms. Schuble and Dr. Daniels reviewed the proposed Administrative Rule changes with the board and answered board questions. Mr. Beauchamp moved for the Board to enter the Permanent Rulemaking Process to consider these rule changes. Mr. Hamrick seconded the motion. The motion carried with the following votes: Barry Beauchamp Yes Robert Franklin Yes Mathew Hamrick Yes Phyllis Shepherd Yes Brandon Tatum YesStatewide Virtual Charter School Board Regular Meeting Minutes ~ December 8, 2020 8. Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding Oklahoma Information and Technology School grade level configuration Dr. Wilkinson provided the board with information regarding the request of Oklahoma Information and Technology School to approve 6" - 9 grade level configuration for the 2021-2022 school year and answered board questions. Mr. Hamrick moved to allow Oklahoma Information and Technology School to add grades 8 and 9 for the 2021-2022 school year. Mr. Beauchamp seconded the motion. The motion carried with the following votes: Barry Beauchamp Yes Robert Franklin Yes Mathew Hamrick Yes Phyllis Shepherd Yes Brandon Tatum Yes h. Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding the election of SVCSB officers f 1, Board Chairperson Mr. Beauchamp nominated Dr. Franklin. Dr. Franklin accepted the nomination. Mr. Hamrick nominated Dr. Tatum. Dr. Tatum declined the nomination. Board Chairperson votes to approve Dr. Franklin as Board Chairman as follows: Barry Beauchamp Yes Robert Franklin Yes i Mathew Hamrick Yes ; Phyllis Shepherd Yes Brandon Tatum Yes 2. Board Vice-Chairperson Mr. Beauchamp nominated Dr. Tatum. Dr. Tatum accepted the nomination, Board Vice-Chairperson votes to approve Dr. Tatum as Board Vice-Chairperson as follows: L Barry Beauchamp Yes ! Robert Franklin Yes i Mathew Hamrick Yes Phyllis Shepherd Yes j Brandon Tatum Yes r 3. Board Clerk Dr. Franklin nominated Mr. Beauchamp. Mr. Beauchamp accepted the nomination. Board Clerk votes to approve Mr. Beauchamp as Board Clerk as follows: i Barry Beauchamp Yes i Robert Franklin Yes L Mathew Hamrick Yes | Phyllis Shepherd Yes Brandon Tatum YesStatewide Virtual Charter School Board Regular Meeting Minutes ~ December 8, 2020 8. NEW BUSINESS No new business. a ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mr. Hamrick moved to adjourn the meeting at 3:32 p.m. Mr. Beauchamp seconded the motion. The motion carried with the following votes: Barry Beauchamp Yes Robert Franklin Yes Mathew Hamrick Yes yilis Shepherd Yes indon Tatum Yes Robert Franklin, Chairman of the Board Lynn Ai Secretary of the Boag ap