Farmington school board votes to censure member Burke

The Farmington school board voted Monday to censure board member Tim Burke and ask the Dakota County attorney to decide whether criminal charges should be filed against him.

In a 4-2 vote, the school board passed that resolution after hearing a report on an investigation it commissioned last month to determine whether Burke had violated the board's code of conduct. The probe found that, since Burke joined the board in early 2009, he has violated both the code of conduct and state law, said board attorney Mick Waldspurger.

Key among Burke's offenses, according to Waldspurger: He disclosed private data on employees and information obtained in closed board meetings.

The board's resolution to censure Burke, which Waldspurger recommended, also takes Burke to task for "creating an unpleasant working environment" and "repeatedly seeking to undermine the credibility of [district administrators]," as well as disclosing attorney-client privileged communications to the board.

The resolution also faults him for making an unsuccessful motion at a recent board meeting for the school district to reimburse him for legal fees incurred in his defense of the allegations made against him, despite the fact that he had a personal financial stake in the motion's outcome.

The vote comes after years of tension between Burke, other board members and Superintendent Brad Meeks.

Board members have said Burke has made false accusations against district administrators, burdened them with unnecessary data requests and been so rude that he could be putting them at risk of a lawsuit from employees. Burke, who has made no secret of the fact that he does not like Meeks' leadership, has countered that the district's real problem is a lack of transparency.

The resolution drew a strong response from Burke's attorney, Fred Finch, who said it was the first time he'd ever seen a school board censure someone "on the basis of a report that they didn't allow the subject to see."

Attorney Jim Martin, who conducted the investigation, turned over his findings to Waldspurger last week. Burke said he and other board members were given a copy of the report's executive summary on Friday, but said he had not seen the full report -- which runs to hundreds of pages -- until Waldspurger put a copy in front of him during Monday's board meeting.

Citing data practices law, Waldspurger redacted the names of district employees from a version of the report's summary shared with the public Monday. The summary said Burke made several allegations against others in the district that Martin did not explore because they were outside the scope of his investigation.

Board members Veronica Walter, John Kampf, Julie Singewald and Julie McKnight approved the resolution to censure Burke, with Burke and Craig Davis voting against it.

Waldspurger told board members that their options also included removing Burke from office, but warned that the process -- which would involve a hearing -- would be expensive and "unpleasant."

"In a way, I wish they had," said Finch, who argued that the process of removing Burke would have given Burke a better chance to present evidence in his favor.

Citing legal expenses, Burke said that, if the county attorney does not act on the board's resolution, he will probably "let it lie."

The board was divided about whether to forward the investigation's findings to the county attorney. Davis made a motion to amend the resolution by removing that step, but only he and Burke supported that proposal.