RUTHTON — A Ruthton resident says he just want an answers from the Russell-Tyler-Ruthton School District on why it has been paying for two superintendents for more than a year.

Darwin Sietsema, a retired truck driver and a Ruthton councilman, has attended several school district meetings and claims he has been prevented from making comments and asking questions. He said the school board has consistently resisted, citing data privacy laws. Sietsema believes there is something wrong in the district.

The issue began April 12, 2016, when then-superintendent Bruce Houck was put on administrative leave from RTR Schools, forcing the school district to hire interim Superintendent Dick Orcutt.

“Who had the authority to have Houck removed last April?” Sietsema asked when contacted by the Independent.

“He’s not our employee,” Sietsema said. “The (RTR) board doesn’t have the authority to remove him.”

He charges that he never received a reply other than “data privacy prevents us from answering that.”

“Mr. Houck’s contract is with SWEC (Southwest Educational Cooperative),” Orcutt said. “The RTR Schools pay their share of the agreed upon contractual agreement with Mr. Houck. RTR’s amount is 60 (percent). Quarterly, RTR pays $21,812.45. This is for all his salary, benefits, etc. (FICA, TRA, Worker’s Compensation). The total for one year would be: $87,249.80 (again, this includes everything).”

Houck receives the balance of his salary from Lynd and Hendricks schools, which are also members of SWEC and contract for his services.

“My contract with the RTR Schools is ‘day to day,'” Orcutt said. “I don’t have an annual wage. In Fiscal Year 2016, I was paid $18,500; FY 2017 (to-date) it is: $67,250. This excludes benefits (FICA, TRA, and so forth). I get no additional benefits. I must show up and work in order to get paid, no holidays, et cetera.”

Sietsema had included legal fees in his calculations, which Orcutt split out.

The district will not pay dual salaries in April of 2018 when RTR Schools’ membership in SWEC will end, Orcutt said. There will be no more obligations to SWEC for any other obligations such as Houck’s salary and benefits, Orcutt said.

According to the audit report for 2015-16, RTR is doing well even with two superintendent salaries, but Siestema noted that the salaries only overlapped for about three months for that fiscal period. The expenditures will be felt more in the upcoming audit.

With two grandchildren in the school system and being a tax-paying resident of the school district, Sietsema feels he has a right to know how his tax money is being spent and why roughly $230,000 have been spent on legal fees, an additional superintendent’s salary and other expenses related to supporting two superintendents.

“Having two superintendents does not drive the costs associated with legal fees,” Orcutt said. “The fees are generated due to the nature of data privacy. The RTR Schools has employed the services of Pemberton Law to represent them; specifically, Kristi Hastings, attorney. The costs through April, 2017, are: $17,188.90. Additionally, costs incurred through the SWEC contract are $7,962.41. This is RTR’s share of the legal fees incurred by SWEC and charged to us (our share).”

Sietsema said he became even more concerned when he was unable to get on the agenda for the March meeting to ask the board questions regarding why RTR still has two superintendents. At that time, he thought it might be a permanent restriction.

RTR Board Chair Jeff Hansen disagreed.

“It is untrue that Mr. Sietsema has been barred from addressing the board during the open forum,” Hansen said. “Mr. Sietsema did make a request to be on the agenda for the March meeting, but did not complete the form correctly and was not allowed on the agenda as a result. The form specifically asks that the individual ‘Please check the staff that you have directly discussed this issue with: teacher, principal, superintendent.’ 

“Mr. Sietsema failed to indicate who he had discussed his concern with previously. The purpose of this requirement is to make sure that proper chain of command and good communication has taken place first,” Hansen said.

Sietsema said he had never had to check that box before.

 In fact, Sietsema was allowed to and did speak during the open forum at the March meeting, Hansen said.  

“He has never been denied an opportunity to address the board and speak during an open forum and has done so,” Hansen said. “In addition, after the first time he addressed the board during the open forum, I sat down with Mr. Sietsema, knee-to-knee and tried to explain that SWEC had not provided the RTR board with information regarding the investigation, at that time he felt that was not appropriate. I also tried to explain to him that under the advisement of legal counsel, even though the public may want to know, RTR board members could not share information due to data privacy.”

“They let someone else interrupt the meeting without being on the agenda,” Sietsema said. “At least I filled out the proper paperwork to request being on the agenda.”

Hansen responded to that allegation.

“During a presentation regarding a consulting firm, while in the audience, Mr. Sietsema asked to address the board and was told ‘no,'” he said. “This has been done in the past when other community members have asked if they could add something to a discussion or presentation. We have to maintain decorum during meetings, and we cannot allow for blurting out during agenda items. This is a standard practice for many schools.”

Sietsema said he’s noticed other improprieties as well.

“They have been caught holding secret meetings, but nothing’s been done about that,” he said. “Number one, they should resign their positions.”

Sietsema said he thinks that certain board members have gotten themselves into trouble and won’t admit it.

“I think the board has dug themselves into a hole, and they have to keep covering everything up,” he said.

It was noted that on certain topics such as employee wages, the board is allowed to hold closed meetings.

Recently, Sietsema said he was given a hand-delivered letter written by the school’s attorney, Kristi A. Hastings of the Pemberton Law Firm. He thought it would explain why he could no longer speak at a board meeting. However, Sietsema said the letter asked him where he got the idea that Superintendent Houck had been cleared to return to work. The attorney also asked him where he got other information regarding the situation.

“What did it cost the school and taxpayers to have the lawyer write that letter?” he asked. “If something’s wrong, fix it. If not, move on. I think it’s just egos butting heads.”

“Mr. Sietsema was given a letter from RTR’s attorney,” Hansen said. “Mr. Sietsema announced at an open meeting that he had certain information in his possession. Our attorney asked him to share that information. Mr. Sietsema has not yet done so.”

Sietsema said he refuses to answer the attorney. However, he did say some of the information he had received had come from the district office just by asking for it. He said some of it was redacted to avoid divulging data privacy-protected information. He understood the reasoning behind that.

“There are still so many unanswered questions,” Sietsema said. “I just want answers. The public deserves that because they’re paying for it.”

Sietsema thinks he may have to wait until school board elections come around and see what happens then.

Part of Hansen’s reply was a list of positive actions Orcutt has taken, including the fact that the schools fund balance is improving and that Orcutt assisted the school in self-reporting its E-rate issues which saved the district money and possibly future funding.

“SWEC has yet to provide the RTR school board with a copy of the investigation,” he said. “All that the RTR board has been provided is a press release stating that there was an investigation completed and the SWEC board is not taking action. There has been nothing reported to RTR to indicate what the findings of the investigator actually were.

 “Due to data privacy and recommendations from our attorney, I am not able to share further information,” Hansen said. “I realize that there is a desire to know more and some people even have stated that the RTR board knows the findings, but that simply is not the case. Should anyone question that, I would encourage them to contact SWEC, I am sure they would be happy to reiterate their stance that SWEC has not and does not intend to share the findings, even though the RTR board shared in the cost of the investigation.”

Sietsema was placed on the agenda for the RTR School Board’s April 19 meeting and was allowed to speak. He said he asked mostly the same questions he had been asking and that the discussion got very “confrontational.”

He said he left the meeting with no answers.