Though the February Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) Board of Education meeting was a whopping four hours in length, the most divisive item on the agenda was the payment of former chair and current board member Dr. Juanita Miller’s legal fees. The legal fees have been incurred as she fights her removal from the board. A group of fellow board members brought charges against Miller, but Miller claims she’s been targeted as a whistleblower because she reported those same members for various violations. Miller’s outstanding legal fees total $148,444.62.
The recurrent message Miller sought to convey to her colleagues at the February meeting was, “This could happen to you.” During her remarks she shared a timeline of her embattled tenure as chair, which she referred to as full of “distractions, political power grabbing, complete falsification of facts and potential perjury.”
Referring to a group of board members – Shayla Adams-Stafford, Raaheela Ahmed, Edward Burroughs, Kenneth Harris, David Murray and Joshua Thomas – as “the six,” Miller said they provided “false” and “misleading” statements to constituents and sought her removal, beginning with a “threat” from one just five days into her term as chair. Miller said she sought legal counsel as she was “harassed, bullied and disrespected” and facing false allegations. At the time, she noted, the board had no legal counsel of its own.
Current Chair Judy Mickens-Murray pushed back against the implication that the legal fees were incurred because the board had no counsel for a period, stating that for almost a year the board has had legal counsel. That counsel also noted that they represent the board rather than individual members.
Miller characterized herself as a whistleblower who had revealed infractions by board members and been retaliated against. “I was a whistleblower and now I’m being harassed,” she said. She highlighted the ethics panel investigation into seven board members which recommended the resignation or removal of six of them. (The Maryland Office of the Inspector General for Education subsequently called those findings “flawed,” reported that the ethics panel had violated some board policies and found that Miller, as one of those calling for the investigation, should have recused herself rather than voting to accept the findings. The all-volunteer ethics panel then resigned en masse.) Miller claimed “the six” filed to remove her from office “for doing my job of exposing [their] violations,” which included campaign contributions, lobbyist contracts and unauthorized contracts on behalf of the board, she said.
Her fees were drawn out further, said Miller, by the fact that complaints were refiled and added to. She stated that of 35 brought against her by board members the state chose to pursue only two. She spoke of being confronted at her home by media and repeated her warning: “This could be you.” Her prepared remarks were greeted with some applause, to which Chair Mickens-Murray said, “OK, that’s enough,” as she sought to move to discussion.
Legal Counsel Advice
The legal counsel to the board advised that certain board members, namely Miller, herself, Shayla Adams-Stafford, Kenneth Harris and David Murray (three of those who brought charges against Miller and are still on the board) and Pamela Boozer-Strother could participate in discussion but could not vote due to their conflict of interest.
Board member Boozer-Strother was the most outspoken in favor of paying the fees. She repeatedly asked the two members of the board’s legal counsel to repeat the advice they’d previously given in “very strong terms” that not paying Miller’s fees would be “perilous” for those running for the board in the future and would incur greater legal fees going forward. The legal counsel responded to her questions to say that it was something that was at the board’s discretion and that Miller had made a good case herself by repeatedly telling the board members “This could be you.” “I guess you’re not going to repeat what you shared with us before,” Boozer-Strother conceded as she gave up her attempts to have them articulate the danger in a precedent of not paying board members’ fees.
Boozer-Strother also disagreed with the counsel’s view that board members should be recused from the vote for conflict of interest. “I think this vote is about something completely separate from the facts of the case, that this is about protecting this board, that every single board member should be on record about paying these legal fees,” argued Boozer-Strother. “This is about a board policy that we may pay a chair’s legal fees.” The counsel, however, maintained that if the decision was to end up in court, then it would be important that only “uninterested members” voted. “Every board member who has served here until September has expressed an interest in this case,” argued Boozer-Strother, but the legal counsel repeated that they believed there was a conflict of interest.
Board member Jonathan Briggs, representative for District 2, which includes Greenbelt, seemed to speak in favor of tabling the vote again, though he made no motions. He noted that the board had previously tabled this vote because they’d received only one side’s information. Now they’d received further information, he said, but it was a 150-page document shared just hours earlier, which he said they hadn’t had a chance to fully digest.
David Murray, one of those Miller referred to as “the six,” spoke strongly against paying Miller’s fees. If he was able to vote, he said, he’d vote against it. “My constituents did not send me here to spend $150,000 dollars that could go to teachers and children to pay personal legal fees,” he argued, and he also attempted to counter Miller’s claim that this could happen to any board member in the course of carrying out the board’s work. “She was issued charges of removal by the State Education Board because she went far beyond her capacity. These weren’t just random charges that came out of nowhere,” he argued. He also noted that Miller entered into the agreement with her lawyers without sharing it with the board or getting board approval. “She probably didn’t because the board would have voted no as the board has voted no repeatedly,” he said, expressing a wish to move on to things that will “actually affect the lives of students.” “There are so many more pressing things in our school district that we should be discussing,” said Murray and he asked his colleagues to “vote no, abstain, whatever we need to do to save taxpayers’ dollars so that when we get to our budget amendments we might be able to vote some of them up to provide for our children and families.” His remarks were met with applause.
In response to Murray’s comments, Miller argued that the case was dismissed in January 2022, but a board member refiled and added additional charges, thus continuing her legal costs. The group of six members had a majority vote, she said, and were upset she’d exposed them and that they’d had violations that were sent to the state. “It is not the State of Maryland that’s pressing the charges…. These charges are by those six. They’re costing the board,” countered Miller. “I am categorized as a whistleblower,” she again asserted.
Vote
When it came time to vote, Mickens-Murray allowed the full roll to be called and declined to enforce the legal counsel’s advice that certain board members must recuse themselves. “If adults in this room decide that they want to vote, they vote. But then there are consequences to that if you vote and you have a conflict, so understand that please,” she said. In the end Adams-Stafford, Harris and Murray recused themselves. Boozer-Strother voted, against the counsel’s advice. Several members chose to abstain rather than vote. Five board members voted, three for paying the legal fees and two against, including Briggs. Without the required number of votes in favor the motion failed.
Public Comments
In the public comment section which came later, Tanya Lingfield argued that the board was violating the Open Meetings Act by not providing copies of the agenda and documents at the meeting and by taking a vote on a matter before the public had their chance to comment. Lingfield argued that there was said to be enough evidence to pay Miller’s legal fees at a previous meeting and that they’d been warned it would cost more if they didn’t. “Now it’s going to cost us more because you all have allowed board members to lie,” alleged Lingfield. “They have said ‘we are independent people,’ but they used in their complaint against a board member confidential information that we wouldn’t be privy to, but they used it and called themselves ‘individual citizens,’” she claimed. She also took issue with the board members who chose not to vote but hadn’t been asked to recuse themselves: “It’s no excuse for any recusals or for any abstentions unless you are part of that lying crew. There’s no excuse for votes not to have been taken tonight. You’re gettin’ paid, do your job! Because at this point, there more than likely will be a lawsuit, as we were told on December 8 and you will lose because it will show that there were plenty lies….”
A former employee of PGCPS, Donna Young, also spoke to allege that the school system is repeatedly violating policies and procedures and that “whistleblowers get fired.” She identified herself as one of those who had filed a case because a contract was signed without authorization. Young said she is still waiting for her termination case to be reviewed by the board. She was told it had been reviewed, but upon checking there was no record of any meeting, and she’s still waiting.
Jayna Parker, who also made comments during the public comment portion, pointed out that the county executive asked Miller to step down before legal procedures began. “If she actually listened to the county executive and stepped down, we wouldn’t be voting on legal fees now, would we?” asked Parker.