School board members have decided not to take legal action against longtime school board trustee Pat Kernan, whose residency has been under scrutiny.
The vote was 4-0 with Kernan out of the room and not voting. The board members referred to their recent legal battle with Signature Properties in saying they didn’t want to use taxpayer dollars for another court case.
Harold Freiman, a lawyer from Lozano Smith who represents the district, investigated the residency claims and compiled a report in May, which found Kernan to be a Pleasanton resident. The Alameda County District Attorney’s office was also asked to do an investigation and found no criminal behavior in the situation.
Questions regarding the school board member’s residency were brought up on the Pleasanton Weekly’s Town Square forum, where parent and school activist Julie Testa and anonymous users posted web links connecting Kernan to Camino, Calif., which is east of Sacramento.
In response to the online chatter, Kernan told the Weekly April 7 that he considers his apartment on Andrews Drive in Pleasanton to be his permanent residence where he also runs his law practice. Myla Grasso, school district spokeswoman, said April 29 that the residence in Camino is a vacation home.
The postings continued as Kernan was absent from school board meetings, including a May 1 special meeting where the board agenda shows him phoning in from Camino, although some occasions have been due to hip surgery recovery.
Testa requested the item be put on an agenda and it was discussed at the June 25 meeting. At the beginning of the item, Kernan said he should not only abstain from discussion, but would leave the room until the item was finished.
Testa presented personal research in response to the lawyer’s findings to show, in her opinion, that Kernan was a resident of Camino and not Pleasanton. Some of her arguments were that he could not have been summoned as a juror in El Dorado County were he not a resident, the DMV can’t confirm his residency and a personal check for filing fees dated Aug. 10, 2006 showed a Camino address. She also said that the district should not have confidence in Freiman, who she claims gave unsound advice in the PUSD v. Signature case.
Kernan’s wife Marcia, whose primary residency is listed in Camino, spoke before the board in defense of her husband and his Pleasanton residence.
“I say goodbye to Pat Monday and see him on Friday,” she said of their living arrangement. “A good 90 percent of his clients are down here.”
“Pat’s been here for 12 years and he may have missed two to four meetings all together,” she added, not counting the meetings he missed due to recent hip surgeries. “Integrity–no one knows it better than Pat Kernan.”
After the DA’s decision, Senior Deputy District Attorney Jeff Stark said the investigation could continue through a quo warranto, which is a legal opinion of the California Attorney General.
At the meeting, Testa said she wanted an opinion from the attorney general as it would be unbiased. Her understanding was that governmental bodies could ask for an opinion without going through quo warranto and without cost. The board, however, said if they were to vote against Kernan, they would be going against the recommendations of their attorney and the DA, confirming they don’t believe Kernan lives in Pleasanton and committing taxpayer dollars to hire an attorney and proceed with a lawsuit against him.
Jim Ott, board president, said at the meeting that “a quo warranto action is designed to provide members of the public a means to remove an individual from office who is not a resident of the town or county they represent.”
“If a member of the public, through the quo warranto process, contacts the attorney general, the attorney general reviews the proposed case to ensure that sufficient evidence exists to bring a reasonable case against the individual,” he added.
In their decision, they welcomed members of the community to band together to absorb the costs if they felt further investigation was needed.
