Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.
On Aug. 5, as candidates were filing to run for election, the president of the board and the spokesman for the Contra Costa Community College District contacted us.
They wanted to tip us off to investigations of two district trustees who were running for reelection this fall. It’s unusual for an elected board member to join forces with an administrator of a college system to publicly call out and embarrass another board member. But they said they were trying to be transparent.
We have since concluded that this was a raw political and partisan play, timed by board President Rebecca Barrett to try to influence the upcoming college board election.
At the time, we told Barrett, whom we were leery of because of her voter deception during her campaign two years ago, and spokesman Timothy Leong that we would look at the investigation findings but would want to also see the reports. We submitted a Public Records Act request.
Two and half months later, we’ve been provided short summary letters signed by Barrett and a separate executive summary from staff, but we’re still waiting on the full investigation reports. And, according to Interim Chancellor Gene Huff, it’s Barrett who controls the timing of their possible release. Barrett did not respond to our requests for comment.
The allegations involve separate investigations pertaining to trustees Vicki Gordon and Greg Enholm. The two investigations were conducted by separate law firms, and the issues are completely different. The only common factor is that Barrett timed the concurrent release of information about the investigations to coincide with the election.
With Election Day drawing near, we are left to do our best with what we’ve been provided, and our own independent reporting, as we make our election endorsement. It’s also important that voters understand the abusive political manipulation that has transpired and the serious problems with the investigation of Gordon.
Reelect Vicki Gordon
We wholeheartedly endorse Gordon for reelection in Ward 2. No current trustee brings a better understanding of the district and its finances, no one works harder, and no one is more dedicated to helping students.
Gordon has also pushed for district transparency, has been a leader on ending the district’s pension spiking and properly funding the once-anemic retiree health care program for workers. And she hasn’t always earned friends doing it.
She’s not perfect. She acknowledges she has made mistakes, specifically some inappropriate phone calls to other trustees and staff that she regrets and has apologized for. But, as we’ll elaborate below, most of the investigation, as presented in Barrett’s summary, was deeply flawed, with incorrect legal analysis in one case and conclusions about her actions that make no sense to anyone who knows Gordon.
As for her challengers, neither student John Michaelson nor, much more surprisingly, former Diablo Valley College President Judy Walters come close to Gordon’s knowledge of district finances. Gordon is clearly the best candidate.
As for Ward 5, we very tepidly endorse Enholm’s opponent, retired financial consultant Fernando Sandoval. We’ve had long-standing concerns about Enholm’s abrasive style and meddling beyond his appropriate role as a trustee.
So it wasn’t surprising that the investigation found that he also inappropriately lobbied former Chancellor Fred Wood to hire as Contra Costa College president a professor who lacked the needed experience. Unlike in the case of Gordon, the district provided documents regarding Enholm that support the allegations in his case.
Sandoval, whom we endorsed four years ago, remains uninspiring. We wish there were a better alternative.
Barrett’s manipulation
The other part of this story is the political manipulation by Barrett, a Democratic Party activist who is not on the ballot this year but, as the current board president, controlled the timing of release of information.
Barrett has a history of deception. When she ran for office in 2018, she claimed in her ballot designation to be an educator. But she’s not an educator in the sense most people would interpret that. She doesn’t work in our schools. She’s not an accredited teacher or college professor. She tried to justify the educator claim by saying that, as part of her political consulting work, she provides training on political activism.
Gordon had originally endorsed Barrett in that election but withdrew the backing after the ballot designation deception came to light. The relationship between the two has been difficult since.
Then, in September 2019, an anonymous person filed a complaint with the district against Gordon. The anonymous allegations against Enholm came in November 2019.
When Barrett became board president, a rotating position, at the start of 2020, she assumed responsibility for the investigations. The few documents released by the district make it hard to reconstruct the Enholm investigation timeline but provide key information about the Gordon probe calendar.
They show that the investigation was completed on either March 24 or March 26. But the release of the finding summaries, which Huff says Barrett controlled, was delayed three months until just before the election season — when it might do the most political damage.
Finally, on June 30, Barrett notified Gordon in an email that “The findings are back from the ethics complaints that were filed which involve you.” They agreed to meet on July 2.
The meeting
While Barrett had an attorney with her, she forbade Gordon from bringing her lawyer, her husband Scott Gordon. Vicki Gordon says she didn’t know the breadth of the investigation, nor did she have any idea of the findings in advance.
So she was surprised when presented with Barrett’s six-page letter of determination that Gordon had tried to remove an item from the agenda for her own personal gain, that she had violated the Brown Act and that, while intoxicated, she had threatened other board members.
Barrett gave Gordon a one-page resolution agreement to sign, which she did. At that point, Gordon says, she was so stunned that she didn’t want to put up a fight. About three weeks later, the resolution agreement was presented to the full board.
Earlier that day, July 22, Barrett and Leong contacted a Times reporter to alert her to what was coming at the meeting. The reporter asked for all the documentation. When no story appeared over the next two weeks in part because Barrett and the district hadn’t produced the full report, the pair contacted the editorial page to try to reignite interest but were met with the same request to first produce the supporting documentation.
In a July 2 email to Gordon before their meeting that day, Barrett said, “I am genuinely hopeful this can be a fruitful conversation about how we can best move forward on behalf of the district.” But Barrett apparently wasn’t interested in patching up the relationship.
The following month, in a large Zoom meeting, Barrett vehemently argued to the Democratic Party of Contra Costa County that it should endorse Gordon’s leading opponent in part because Gordon, a Democrat, had endorsed three local Republicans in the past — candidates who have often garnered bipartisan support.
Barrett also falsely told the Democratic gathering that the investigation findings about Gordon had been released in a timely manner. And then Barrett doubled down with misinformation. Responding to Gordon’s comments to the board, Barrett told the committee, that there was no dispute that Gordon used her position for personal financial gain.
Probing the findings
That finding is very much in dispute. The issue revolved around a change to a 2019 memorandum of understanding for managers in the district. The agreement was to give them an extra 1% salary increase in exchange for their paying an additional 6% of their health insurance premiums.
For those with higher-end salaries, it was a good deal. But those on the lower end, depending on their coverage, might end up losing from the bargain. And trustees, who receive health care from the district at the same price as managers but receive only a $750 monthly stipend, would also be negatively affected. The contention was that Gordon tried to block the deal because she personally stood to lose.
Actually, according to Gordon, and separately verified, she had received calls from members of the bargaining group who were confused about the deal. She says she may have used her situation to make a point to staff members that lower-income people would be adversely affected. But what she wanted was to make sure that the affected managers understood the deal. The management group agreed to postpone the vote; they resurveyed their members and the board, including Gordon, subsequently approved the agreement.
What makes the allegation so questionable is that it requires one to believe that Gordon is working as a trustee for the paltry compensation. Gordon is married to a very successful lawyer. It’s hard to fathom that she, who has aggressively worked to control district benefit costs, would cross an ethical line to avoid paying $220 more each month for health insurance.
The credibility of Barrett’s letter is further undercut by the finding that Gordon violated the Brown Act, the state open meeting law for local government, by asking two directors elected in 2018, Barrett and Andy Li, to support her for board chairwoman the following year.
Gordon says that wasn’t the point of the conversations, but even if it was, there was no violation of the law. The law prohibits communication by a quorum of five-member board members outside of properly noticed meetings.
But it only applies to trustees after they have been elected. Barrett’s summary of the findings says that her conversation with Gordon occurred before Barrett was elected. Thus, there was no quorum communication and, hence, no violation of the law.
The final allegation, the only one Gordon acknowledges, is that she made some calls to other employees and board members while intoxicated. She says that she did make some calls that she regrets and has apologized for. It was during a time of some family difficulties, she said.
While she did step over the line, we appreciate her contrition. For us, the findings are not enough to undermine the fine work she has done.
Epilogue
Meanwhile, as we approach Election Day, the district has stonewalled for nearly three months on release of the full investigation report. Huff, who oversees responding to records requests, finally said Thursday that the report is subject to attorney-client privilege.
And, he said, it’s up to the board whether to waive that privilege. Barrett, who has been copied on all our requests for records, controls the meeting agenda because she is board president. She has not brought the matter to the board. The next scheduled meeting isn’t until eight days after the election.
