An intriguing scenario is playing out in the single board race being held in the Adelanto Elementary School District this year, one which is testing several competing concepts and/or constructs, including how far the First Amendment principle of free speech and expression extend before being curtailed by the restrictions of contract law.
Krause, a graduate of Northern Alabama University, participated in local school education programs as an undergraduate. Upon graduation in 2000, he began work as a stockbroker and bond salesman, but left that profession to enlist in the U.S. Army after September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C. He served as a medic with the 11th Armored Blackhorse Cavalry Regiment, in which capacity he was eventually stationed at Fort Irwin. While at Fort Irwin, he obtained his emergency teaching credential to fill the gap in available substitute teachers in the Silver Valley School District, which serves the children of soldiers stationed at Fort Irwin. Upon his discharge from the Army in 2004, he used the GI Bill to further his education, achieving his master’s degree in management at Webster University and his teaching credential by 2007, whereupon he went to work as a teacher in the Victor Valley Union High School District, teaching at Silverado High School. After four years there, in 2011, he transitioned into educational administration, going to work with the Baker Unified School District as its chief business officer. In 2013, he jumped at the chance to go from overseeing a district budget of $2.7 million with an average daily attendance of less than 400 at Baker Unified to becoming the associate superintendent with the South Whittier School District, with a budget of $34 million and an average daily attendance of 3,300. Thereafter, he worked for more than three years with the California Association of School Business Officials. In 2018, he returned to the role of school district administrator as the assistant superintendent for administrative services with the Anaheim Elementary School District, which had 23 schools and a budget of $230 million. In October 2020, he was lured to the Adelanto Elementary School District, which was in a pinch and needed to fill the position of assistant superintendent of business services. His performance in that role was exemplary, so much so that in July 2022, he was chosen as the interim superintendent to replace Dr. Kennon Mitchell. In January 2023, halfway through the 2022-23 academic year, the board voted to make Krause the full-fledged superintendent.
Krause remained on what appeared to be positive terms with the board, which suffered the loss of Holly Eckes in February 2023 and filled that vacancy with the appointment of Miguel Soto the following month.
In January 2024, Krause resisted what he said were actions by the board collectively or requests by board members individually that were illegal, constituted graft or were conflicts of interest which he deemed to be contrary to the interests of the district’s students and the district’s overall educational mission. When members of the board redoubled those requests, according to Krause, he again objected. On April 9, during a closed-door session of the school board, by a 4-to-1 vote, with members La Shawn Love-French, Christine Turner, Miguel Soto and Christina Bentz prevailing and Stephanie Webster dissenting, Krause was placed on administrative leave. John Albert, the assistant superintendent for human resources was appointed as the interim superintendent.
In June, the district and Krause signed a separation agreement, effective June 30, by which he was to continue to receive his salary as superintendent through to the end of 2024 and was to continue to receive for six months or until he found employment elsewhere the health benefits he had been provided as an employee, which included coverage for his family.
In July, Krause, a resident of Adelanto within the School District’s Area 1, filed for candidacy in the November election for the District Area 1 position on the board, held by Turner, which was up for election. The registrar of voters office determined he had met the requirement to qualify his candidacy. Turner likewise qualified her candidacy for reelection.
On October 18, Dominic Quiller, the district’s legal counsel, informed Krause by letter that he was being given notice that the district was Making “recission [sic] of your June 30, 2024 ’Separation Agreement And General Release’ with your former employer, Adelanto Elementary School District, demand for reimbursement of all benefits and other remuneration obtained by you since the execution of said agreement, and demand that you immediately withdraw from the race for a district board seat. Failure to cooperate will result in immediate litigation.
Quiller referenced the non-disparagement clause of the separation agreement, which states, “Neither Krause nor [the] District shall make any disparaging or derogatory remarks to or about operations, agents, board members or assigns… including but not limited to disparaging postings or statements on social media or in any other venue regarding the other party. Krause and the district also agree to take no action which is intended or would reasonably be expected to harm the other party’s reputation or interests individually or collectively, even if truthful, or which would reasonably to lead to unwanted or unfavorable publicity to the other party, regarding issues related to Krause’s employment with the district. This shall include statements made to the press, in social media, during public comment period in social media, or any other statement that is published to anyone other than Krause or the district.”
Quiller’s letter goes on to state, “As you are aware, you have made several comments in public forums that are disparaging to the district. This includes publicly discussing events that occurred during your employment, which you pronounced reflected badly on the district – in other words, disparaging the district’s reputation.”
In the letter, Quiller further charged Krause with having violated no-contact clause contained in the separation agreement in which he was enjoined “to stay away and not come upon district property nor contact district employees during work hours, or trustees in any form or manner whatsoever, except as may be necessary to participate in public meetings of the board of trustees as allowed by law or to exercise any parental rights he may have for his child[ren] while attending district’s schools.”
In the letter, Quiller asserts that Krause’s termination “was caused by your unfettered harassment of your subordinates.”
Krause’s candidacy for the public office of Adelanto Elementary School District board member constitutes a violation of the separation agreement, according to Quiller. He goes on to state, “Even though you agreed to discontinue all contact and relationship with this district, you ignored your promise and entered the race for a board seat, This filing evidences your intent to “come upon district property [and] contact district employees.”
Moreover, according to Quiller, by posting campaign signs, Krause is imposing upon district employees the burden of having to think about him. Quiller notes that Krause “recently placed one of your campaign signs at the Mojave Drive exit of the 395 Hwy. This exit is not in the Trustee Area – Area 1 – in which you are running for a board seat. Instead, you are aware that several employees who previously submitted complaints against you, live off and near that exit and would see your campaign sign.”
As a consequence of Krause’s actions, Quiller informed him in the letter, the district is discontinuing the payment of his monthly salary through the end of 2024and the provision of hi his health and welfare benefits until the end of the year and wants him to pay back all of the money he has been paid since his official departure from the district on June 30 and for him to reimburse the district’s coverage of his and his family’s medical benefits during that time.
According to Krause, while he was in the capacity of district superintendent, he had information that board members were being benefited, both financially and personally, by the use of district resources and personnel that were not authorized by action of the full board and which, if known to the public, would have damaged the reputation of those benefiting. He provided the Sentinel with the names and/or identities of district personnel who are able to verify that the diversion of district resources took place and that the district sustained increases in the overtime that was paid because the district personnel needed extra time on the clock to finish the work not completed while the board members were being catered to.
According to Krause, when he moved to at first quietly inquire into the diversion of district resources and personnel, he was told, he said to “stand down, do not worry about it and leave it alone.”
In that particular case, Krause said, “I dropped the matter because I knew what had happened to all of the prior superintendents before me.”
Ultimately, when he took up other similar matters, Krause said, he ran afoul of four of the district’s five board members, leading to his suspension and eventual separation.”
His board candidacy, Krause maintains, is part of his effort to redress those issues he experienced as superintendent which the political alliances on the board would not allow him to redress.
This week, the Sentinel sought to catch up with Quiller and explore with him the competing concepts and/or constructs embodied in his October 18 letter relating to the First Amendment principle of free speech and expression and the restrictions that were contained in Krause’s separation agreement with the district, most specifically whether a contract or agreement can be entered into which abridges one or both of the parties’ Constitutional rights.
The Sentinel asked Quiller to clarify if it was his contention that Krause’s board candidacy platform and campaign statements violated the non-disparagement clause contained in the separation agreement, thereby abrogating it and that Krause, simply by running for the board, disparaged the district.
The Sentinel sought to zero in on the absolute applicability of the several provisions contained in the separation agreement, including whether such an agreement can impose a binding limitation on one or both of the parties’ Constitutional rights and if, there comes a conflict between a provision of a contract or agreement with Constitutionally guaranteed rights of an individual, under the law as Quiller in his capacity as a lawyer understood it, which would prevail, the Constitution or the letter of the contract.
The Sentinel asked Quiller if someone can be deemed to be in violation of a contract for exercising his/her Constitutional rights and whether it was his contention that the separation agreement between Krause and the district, primarily by virtue of its non-disparagement clause, prohibited Krause from running for a position on the school board.
The Sentinel asked Quiller how precisely Krause disparaged the district and whether he could provide specific examples of Kraus having done so.
The Sentinel also sought to explore Quiller and the district’s position as to how disparagement is to be defined within the context of the issues that involve the district and Krause and whether there was mutual applicability of the non-disparagement clause. The Sentinel asked if Krause’s statements on the campaign trail could be legitimately construed as disparaging, either of the district or his opponent, that being Board Member Turner. The Sentinel sought from Quiller whether he believed Turner might be deemed to have disparaged Krause by her campaign statements and platform and whether Quiller’s October 18 letter could also be construed to have disparaged Krause.
The Sentinel further sought to involve Quiller in a dialogue pertaining to a set of intriguing journalistic subjects, extending to how free a former employee of a governmental entity is or should be to make use of inside or confidential information obtained in his/her role as an employee in either the context of a reform effort or political campaign. Along this tangent, the Sentinel challenged Quiller as to whether his October 18 letter interfered impermissibly in a political campaign.
The Sentinel noted in its email to Quiller that the most pointed statements made by Krause in the course of the campaign were relatively benign observations pertaining to stalled contract negotiations and the district’s lack of administrative continuity extending back over the last decade.
The Sentinel asked Quiller if it was his contention that Krause noting that the district has not provided raises to faculty for more than two years running was a disparagement of the district
The Sentinel asked Quiller if it was his contention that Krause stating that the district has had eight superintendents in the last ten years disparaged the district
The Sentinel asked Quiller if it was his contention that Krause by stating that if elected he would use his in-depth knowledge of the district gleaned from his time as superintendent to seek to make changes which he felt would enhance the district’s educational mission engaged in disparagement of the district.
The Sentinel moved on to those subjects relating to the district dwelling below the surface that have not been overtly explored in the course of the campaign but which it has now been suggested might explain why the district has taken an aggressive stance toward Krause. Without engaging in hard specifics, the Sentinel noted that the separation agreement contains language which alluded to “guilt or liability on the part of either party,” implying that such guilt exists. The Sentinel asked Quiller if his October 18 letter “was intended as a cudgel, perhaps, to dissuade Mr. Krause from revealing any details relating to that guilt.” Noting that logic dictates that Quiller, as the district counsel is aware of the circumstance relating to district board members having been provided with accommodations that were not given approval by the full board during the course of public meetings or public hearings, the Sentinel asked Quiller if he could make a statement cogently and convincingly refuting that such acts of graft or conflict of interest involving at least some of its board member took place Mr. Krause was in place as superintendent.
Noting that it appeared Krause had been terminated earlier this year because of his opposition to actions or requests by the board collectively or board members individually that were illegal or constituted graft or conflicts of interest which he deemed to be contrary to the interests of the district’s students and the district’s overall educational mission, the Sentinel asked Quiller if it had been his intent, as the board’s legal representative, to prevent an exposure of the facts pertaining to that graft/conflict of interest in writing his October 18 letter?
The Sentinel angled at the blackmail element contained within the October 18 letter of rescission sent to Krause. “If Mr. Krause were to offer you and the district an explicit guarantee that he will remain silent with regard to these acts involving graft and/or conflicts of interest, would you rescind your October 18 letter abrogating the separation agreement between Mr. Krause and the district?” the Sentinel asked Quiller.
The Sentinel offered Quiller an opportunity to deny that he was knowledgeable about instances of graft and/or conflicts of interest on the part of the board members he represents.
It has been suggested that Quiller’s October 18 letter was a bald-faced effort to assist Ms. Turner’s reelection campaign and that Quiller had written the letter as a political favor to Turner and perhaps other board members as a gesture that would ingratiate him with those in the decision-making positions with the district, ensuring that he and his firm, McCune & Harber maintain their $460,000 per year contract for the provision of legal services.
The Sentinel requested of Quiller a convincing refutation of that accusation and asked whether his letter was a prohibited use of district resources in a political effort.
Quiller did not respond to the Sentinel’s initial email.
As the Sentinel’s deadline approached, it sought once more to induce Quiller to respond to the Sentinel’s inquiries. Quiller at that point responded with a proforma email in which said he was to “be out of the office in depositions and will return November 5, 2024” and thanking the Sentinel “for your understanding and patience.”