Quality Life for DeKalb Ethics Complaint: No Cell Towers on

School Grounds - Representation Neutered and Tax Equity Denied

By Viola Davis with Unhappy Taxpayer & Voter and Coalition Members (C-TEA)

In the name of transparency, ethics, and accountability, Citizens for

Transparency, Education, Ethics, and Accountability submit the Quality Life
for DeKalb Ethics Complaint against the DeKalb County Board of Education
on the issue of No Cell Towers On School Grounds to identify violations of
the boards fiduciary responsibility to uphold their oath of office.
We have evidence of several violations of policy and ethics that have
jeopardized the health of our children, property value of our homes, and
decrease the overall quality of life of our citizens. To ensure the highest level
of education for our children, we submit this ethics complaint to hold our
elected officials accountable for actions that undermined their oath of office
to work in the best interest of the children and our school system.
We will examine the school policies that were allegedly violated in
the following areas:
1. Domain II: Strategic Planning - Each member of the Board
agrees that he or she will:

Reflect through actions that his or her first and foremost concern
is for the educational welfare and academic achievement of
children attending schools within the District.

DeKalb Board of Education work with the Board and the

Superintendent to ensure prudent and accountable uses of the
Districts resources.

Render all decisions based on available facts and his or her

independent judgment, and refuse to surrender his or her
judgment to individuals, special interest groups, or partisan bias.

Uphold and enforce all applicable laws, the rules and regulations
of the State Board of
Education, the policies of this Board, and all court orders

pertaining to the District.

2. Domain III: Board and Community Relations - Each member of
the Board agrees that he or she will:

Seek regular and systemic communications among the Board,

students, staff, and community.

Not use District resources for community programs without the

approval of the Board.

3. Domain IV: Policy Development - Each member of the Board

agrees that he or she will:

Work with other Board members to establish effective policies for

the District.

Be familiar with the Board policies in effect during his or her

tenure in office.

Periodically review and evaluate the effectiveness of the

Districts programs and performance.

Make decisions on policy matters only after full discussion at

publicly held Board meetings.

4. Domain V: Board Meetings - Each member of the Board

agrees that he or she will:

Be informed and prepared to discuss agenda items to be

considered or acted upon by the Board.

Work with other Board members in a spirit of harmony,

cooperation, and respect in spite of differences of opinion that
may arise during the discussion and resolution of issues at Board
meetings.

Vote for a closed executive session of the Board only when

applicable law or Board policy permits consideration of a matter
in executive session.

Make decisions in accordance with the interests of the District as

a whole and not any

particular segment thereof.

5. Domain VII: Financial Governance - Each member of the Board

agrees that he or she will:

Refrain from using his or her position as a Board member for

personal or partisan gain or to benefit any person or entity over
the interest the school system.

Not surrender his or her responsibilities as a Board member to

any other person, group, or organization.

Not provide Board members, staff, or the public with intentionally

misleading information about matters pertaining to the Board or
the District.

6. Conflicts of Interest - Each member of the Board agrees that

he or she will:

Announce potential conflicts of interest before Board action is

taken.
No Board member shall use, or knowingly allow to be used, his or
her official position or any information not generally available to
the public which he or she receives or acquires in his or her
capacity as a Board member for the purpose of securing financial
gain for himself or herself, any member of his or her immediate
family, or any business organization with which he or she is
associated.

7. Disclosure of Conflicting Interest Policy

Whenever a Board member is required by this policy to refrain

from voting on a matter, the Board member shall fully disclose
the reason for not voting to the other Board members and the
public.

The Quality of Life Ethics Complaint on Cell Towers includes:

A. DeKalb Board of Education did not follow school policy.

B. DeKalb Board of Education did not properly inform the parents
and homeowners of the placement of cell towers on school
grounds.
C. DeKalb Board of Education had a conflict of interest to solely
work with the PTA as an avenue to inform the public on the cell
tower construction.
D. DeKalb Board of Education signed a 20+ year contract knowing
that the board had denied a prior contract for more money on
the policy that the school does not permit cell towers on school
grounds.

A. DeKalb Board of Education did not follow school policy.

DeKalb School System has a school notice policy for construction projects.
The Plant Service
Department shall:

Notify the owner of each parcel of residential or occupied

commercial property located within 250 feet of the school
systems property line on which property the board of education
proposes the construction

Notify each parcel of residential or occupied commercial property

by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery prior to the
commencement of any development

Hold a public meeting for such property owners and other

interested citizens prior to the commencement of proposed
construction for the purpose to exchange information on the
construction project

The state law was quoted to say that the school can lease public school
property for private purposes when the school is no longer needed for school
purposes.
(See Exhibit A: school notice policy)

B. DeKalb Board of Education did not properly inform the parents

and homeowners of the placement of cell towers on school
grounds.
DeKalb School System has a responsibility to be transparent by informing
parents and homeowners of changes in policy and new construction through
the use of open meetings. The issue of cell towers was documented in the
year of 2010 according to the T-Mobile Proposal agenda (64681596-DCSS13T-MobileProposalAgenda). We need to know if the DeKalb School System
used the RFP process to solicit an open bid for the best proposal concerning
the cell towers as a method of increasing money for the budget. Second, we
need to verify that the DeKalb School System followed their policy and
informed the parents as well as the homeowners via certified mail for
property owners within 250 feet and state agencies such as parent councils,
community papers, PTAs, etc.
We will demonstrate how the flyer that was sent out to the parents was too
vague and did not identify the locations of the schools the cell towers were
to be constructed, thus presenting an element of confusion and misleading
information. We requested information about the attendance to meetings
concerning cell towers with the PTA and have not received an answer or reply
to our Open Records Request.
(See Exhibit B: T-Mobile Proposal Agenda, Cell Tower Flyer for DCSS, Article
from CrossRoads Newspaper, etc.)

C. DeKalb Board of Education had a conflict of interest to solely

work with the PTAs as an avenue to inform the public (parents
and homeowners) on the cell tower construction.
DeKalb School System used the PTAs as an avenue to inform the parents and
homeowners of the cell tower construction and change in policy. Several
Open Records Requests were submitted that requested details on how the
Board of Education chose to inform the parents and homeowners by using
the PTA. We requested dates, time, signatures, etc; however, our Open
Records Request was not answered. Fortunately, Crossroads Newspaper
obtained the information and published the results in their newspaper on July
20, 1012. Viola Davis with the Unhappy Taxpayer and Voter also recorded a
public meeting in which School Board member Jay Cunningham admitted the
Board of Education did poor notification.

We later learned that the PTAs were due to receive $25,000.00 from the cell
tower deal which we viewed as a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest
increased once we knew that Jay Cunninghams wife was the President of the
PTA at MLK High School which reported no signatures for a public meeting on
the issue of cell towers. However, there is a conflict with the verbal report
given on the tape recording and the written answer given in the Open
Records Request.
(See Exhibit C: Video on Town Hall meeting with Jay Cunningham and Articles
from Crossroads Newspaper)

D. DeKalb Board of Education signed a 20+ year contract knowing

that the board had denied a prior contract for more money on
the policy that the school does not permit cell towers on school
grounds.
Viola Davis with the Unhappy Taxpayer and Voter submitted an Open Records
Request for documentation on the cell tower request at Clarkston Community
Center and the refusal by the DeKalb County Board of Education. The Open
Records Request was sent to Dr. Cheryl Akinson, Tom Bowen, and the Board
of Education. The answer to the Open Records Request was from
Audrey Qualls with the Office of Internal Affairs which said, a
comprehensive search of the Board of Education meetings and
minutes. No responsive documents exist.

During an informational town hall meeting in City of Clarkston at the

Womens Center, Mayor Emanuel Ransom stated that our Board of Education
refused to place a cell tower on the Clarkston Community Center because
and I quote, Cell towers were not permitted on school grounds. Mayor
Ransom repeated this in a meeting held by Representative Karla Drenner in
downtown Atlanta.

Mayor Ransom went on to say that the original offer was for $18,000 per
year. He could not understand the reason the school board would sign
contracts for such little money. We multiplied $18,000 times the 25 years,
the total equal $450,000. I then multiplied $450,000 times nine tower and

found our school system should have received over $4,050,000. The fact
that we are receiving just fewer than 3 million dollars over 25 years makes
the present contract a travesty especially since the Chairman Tom Bowen is
an attorney and accountant.

Why would our Board of Education sign a deal for less money? Why would
our Board of Education risk our childrens lives for less money? Mayor
Ransom said that this is one of the major reasons he opposed these contract.
I asked him if I may quote him especially about the amount of the original
deal and he said yes.

Since Tom Bowen claims that we needed the money, we submit an ethics
complaint to clarify the original amount for cell tower placement on DeKalb
County schools compared to the present contracts signed in 2011. Did our
school board uphold their fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of
the school system?

The political lies must stop especially when it risks the lives of our children
and threaten to decrease the property value of our community. We are
losing over 1 million dollars on these contracts. This also distracts from the
fact that the state takes over $100 million out of our school system every
year since 2006. Why didn't the BOE go after that money?

The Board of Education should start this process over again due to total
negligence and disregard for the law and school policy. The Board of
Education members that voted in favor of these leases especially knowing
that we were receiving a lesser amount should not see another day in
political office.

After further research to locate documentation on a prior cell tower

request, we located documentation on the website of the City of

Clarkston City Council minutes dated December 5, 2006:

New Business:
Public Hearing to change the permitted use in OI (Office Institutional district) zoning to allow
cell towers in institutional zoning on plots larger than 5 acres. Mr. Rhodes stated that cell towers
and microwave towers taller than 15 feet are currently permitted uses in C1, C2, C3 and M1
zoning and this ordinance changes so that it is no longer a permitted use in C1 zoning and it is a
permitted use in OI district on any parcel containing more than 5 acres. He said it has been
advertised and is considered for approval under the Zoning Procedures Act. The change will
allow a required cell tower to be located at the Community Center. After discussion the Mayor
opened for public comment.
Jan Gardner asked how close the tower will be to where children will play. Emanuel Ransom
stated over 150 feet. Ms. Garner asked what is the requirement and Mr. Rhodes stated there is no
requirement. Ms. Gardner asked why did the City need a cell tower. Mr. Rhodes stated the City
did not want a cell tower but the Federal government has a law, which supersedes all local law,
which says if a cell company engineer states they need a cell tower to provide continuous
telecommunications then the city must make accommodations for them.
Dean Moore asked if it could look like a cell tower and not a fake tree. Emanuel Ransom said it
would look like a tree but will be in a forested area.
There were no further public comments. The Mayor closed the public comments.
Wayne Foster made a motion to change the permitted use in OI district zoning to allow cell
towers on plots larger than 5 acres. Joyce Wade seconded and the motion passed (6-0).

March 6, 2007 Clarkston City Council Minutes:

Chris Busing said he was encouraged by the first zoning ordinance public hearing
and especially the cottage housing. He discussed carriage house ordinances where
larger houses have smaller houses on the property to supplement their income. He
mentioned his website about Clarkston.com as a place to discuss issue in Clarkston.
Emanuel Ransom said they have started construction at the Community Center and
Joan Swaney can arrange tours of the construction. He said the status of the cell
tower was that the Board of Education wanted all the revenue from the tower but
wanted the Community Center to manage and be responsible the site. He would
provide further updates.

Conclusion:

Amendment to the Bylaws & Polices: Board Duties, Descriptor Code ABB
Ms. Judy OBrien, Attorney, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, recommended that the Board of Education
amend Board Policy ABB, Board Duties.
Board Policy Descriptor Code ABB
Board Duties
The DeKalb County Board of Education shall faithfully execute all powers and duties assigned to it by
the Constitution and laws of Georgia. The Boards powers and duties include but are not limited to the
following:
1. Enact policies for the efficient and effective governance of the District.
2. Select, hire, and evaluate the Superintendent.
3. Approve an annual budget.
4. Review and approve financial reports and audits.
5. Set the local educational millage rate as necessary for the operation of the District and its schools.
6. With the input of the Superintendent and staff, establish policies to strengthen the academic
achievement of all students in the District.
7. Working with the Superintendent and staff, periodically evaluate the Districts strengths and
weaknesses and develop goals for continuous improvement.
8. Periodically conduct a self-assessment of the Boards governance and performance.
9. Work with the Superintendent to ensure that all employment decisions are based on individual merit,
without regard to family, political, or other connections.
10. Enact policies for progressive discipline in student matters, resorting to suspension and expulsion of
students only as necessary to ensure safety in the schools.
11. Ensure that adequate facilities are available to educate all students in the District.

The DeKalb County Board of Education has overstepped their constitutional

duties as stated above with the issue of cell tower on school grounds. The
telecommunication companies show a method to bypass local zoning
ordinances by manipulating our local school board to sign a 20+ year
contract to place cell towers on school grounds to increase their profits while
bypassing local laws.

As defined in the amended bylaws and policies, the Board of Education in

DeKalb had no responsibility to provide increase cell service for the region.
The BOE increase our childrens health risk, decrease our property value, and
decrease our overall quality of life. Their action reposition the Board of
Education into a quasi-Board of Commissioners with the responsibility of
zoning that violated local homeowner property rights, especially those
without children, and rights to due process of the law.