BOCA RATON PALM BEACH

FT. LAUDERDALE STUART

JACKSONVILLE TALLAHASSEE
MIAMI TAMPA
ORLANDO VERO BEACH
WEST PALM BEACH

Osceola County School District

Investigation Report Re: Mark Cavinee v. Jon Arguello
April 27, 2022

Table of Contents
Summary...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Background and Scope ............................................................................................................................... 2
School Board Rule 2.70............................................................................................................................... 3
Summary of the Evidence .......................................................................................................................... 3
Interview with Natly Torres ...................................................................................................................... 4
Interview with Laura Manlove.................................................................................................................. 4
Interview with Giselle Lee ........................................................................................................................ 4
Interview with Terry Castillo .................................................................................................................... 5
Interview with Randy Shuttera ................................................................................................................. 5
Interview with Tammy Otterson ............................................................................................................... 5
Interview with Dona Shafer ...................................................................................................................... 6
Interview with Robert Bass ....................................................................................................................... 6
Interview with Clarence Thacker .............................................................................................................. 6
Interview with Julius Melendez ................................................................................................................ 7
Interview with Dr. Debra Pace.................................................................................................................. 7
Interview with Joe Thacker ....................................................................................................................... 7
Interview with Ricky Booth ...................................................................................................................... 7
Interview with Frank Kruppenbacher ....................................................................................................... 7
Response from Jon Arguello ..................................................................................................................... 8
Investigative Findings ................................................................................................................................. 9
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 10
Statement of Completion .......................................................................................................................... 11

D
AoCcTuIm
VeEn:t44682618.20
April 27, 2022
Page 2

Summary
There is insufficient evidence to support a belief that a discriminatory practice, as defined
in Osceola County School Board Rule 2.70, occurred with respect to the complaint filed by Mark
Cavinee against Osceola County School Board member Jon Arguello. The evidence does not
indicate that any harassment suffered by Mark Cavinee was on the basis of a protected
characteristic or as retaliation as proscribed by School Board Rule 2.70.
Background and Scope
Complainant Mark Cavinee submitted a complaint to Osceola County School District (the
“District”) Superintendent Dr. Debra Pace via email on January 12, 2022 (the “Complaint”). 1 The
Complaint accused Osceola County School Board Member Jon Arguello of harassment and
retaliation. Gunster was retained on February 11, 2022 to conduct an independent investigation
into Mr. Cavinee’s Complaint.
The scope of the investigation was limited to analyzing whether a violation of Osceola
County School Board Rule 2.70 occurred. Analysis of compliance with other laws, rules, or codes
of conduct is beyond the scope of this investigation. School Board Rule 2.70(VII)(B)(2) contains
the procedures to be followed in investigating alleged violations of Rule 2.70. Among other things,
it directs the investigator to prepare a written recommendation as to whether there is “reasonable
cause to believe that a discriminatory practice may have occurred.” Id.
Gunster followed standard investigative practices. We interviewed the Complainant and
other witnesses he identified, attempted to interview Mr. Arguello, and reviewed the evidence
submitted by Mr. Cavinee and Mr. Arguello. A transcript of the interviews along with all of the
other evidence reviewed in this investigation is included in the attached Appendix.

1
A copy of this Complaint is included in the Appendix at 11–74.

2
ACTIVE:14682618.20
April 27, 2022
Page 3

School Board Rule 2.70

Osceola County School Board Rule 2.70, a copy of which is attached to this Report in the
Appendix at 1–10, prohibits discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against individuals on the
basis of “race, color, religion, gender, age, marital status, disability, political or religious beliefs,
national or ethnic origin, genetic information, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, or
any other characteristic protected by law.” Rule 2.70 (V)(B)(2). Rule 2.70 also prohibits retaliation
against an individual who files a complaint alleging a violation of the School District’s
antidiscrimination policy and/or sexual or illegal harassment policy or who participates in the
investigation of a discrimination complaint.
Summary of the Evidence
Complainant Mark Cavinee was interviewed on February 21, 2022 (a transcript of this
interview is attached at Appx. at 75–203). At all relevant times, Mr. Cavinee was the director of
the maintenance department at the Osceola County School District.
Mr. Cavinee asserts that Mr. Arguello harassed him by: 1) requesting to review his
personnel file, 2) demanding an investigation into the maintenance department, and 3) requesting
an investigation into his retirement status. Collectively, Mr. Cavinee contends that this conduct
constitutes harassment and created a hostile work environment.
Mr. Cavinee’s allegations begin on or about April 2, 2021, when he was notified by the
human resources department that Mr. Arguello requested a copy of his personnel file. Mr. Cavinee
explained that it was unusual, in his experience, for a school board member to request a copy of
the personnel file of a District employee. Other witnesses shared this sentiment, including Tammy
Otterson, Chief Human Resources Officer for the District. All of the witnesses generally agreed,
however, that this request was not improper.
On October 25, 2021, Mr. Arguello sent a memorandum to the “audit advisory committee”
of the District (Appx. at 204–205) requesting an investigation into the maintenance department’s
relationship with a vendor. The letter explains that “[s]everal anonymous sources” reported to Mr.
Arguello that HVAC replacement work was unnecessary and resulted in expenditures “ten times
what should have been.” The letter never mentions Mr. Cavinee by name, but in light of his role
as the head of the maintenance department, and Mr. Arguello’s prior inquiry into his personnel
file, Mr. Cavinee interprets this investigation as an attack on his reputation. That investigation is
ongoing.
Finally, on January 11, 2022, Mr. Arguello sent an email to RSM, an outside auditor that
was conducting an audit of the human resources department. See Appx. at 206. In that email Mr.
Arguello requested an investigation into the “facts revolving around the retirement of Mark
Cavinee.” Mr. Cavinee perceived this request as continued harassment against him. Mr. Cavinee
explained that he is currently in the “DROP” program, a deferred retirement program for District
employees. Although he verbally expressed his intent to retire to the superintendent in January of
2022, Mr. Cavinee decided to postpone his retirement until the investigation into the HVAC
vendor was complete.

3
ACTIVE:14682618.20
April 27, 2022
Page 4

Interview with Natly Torres

Natly Torres was interviewed on March 3, 2022. A complete transcript of the interview is
included in the Appendix at 207–233. At all relevant times, Ms. Torres was the attorney assigned
to investigate Mr. Arguello’s allegations against the maintenance department regarding HVAC
unit replacements. As noted above, Mr. Arguello requested this investigation on October 25, 2021,
based on information he received from “[s]everal anonymous sources.” According to Ms. Torres,
the anonymous sources were never revealed, and she is not aware of any specific factual grounds
that supported the initiation of the investigation. Moreover, in her opinion, “[t]hat’s not even close
to any kind of substantive evidence to—to merit a full-blown investigation.” Ms. Torres attributes
the allegations against the maintenance department to the ongoing animosity between the
maintenance department and the facilities department. She suspects that the “anonymous sources”
referenced in Mr. Arguello’s letter were employees of the facilities department. Moreover,
although the inquiry was directed at the maintenance department, Ms. Torres explained that “[Mr.
Cavinee has] been there for a very long time. And so when you say the maintenance department
has done X, it’s understood that it’s Mr. Cavinee he has done X because he’s the head of that
department.” Appx. at 215.
As of the date of her interview, Ms. Torres had not uncovered any impropriety by Mr.
Cavinee or anyone else in the maintenance department. Ms. Torres is awaiting a final report from
an HVAC expert to determine conclusively whether anything improper occurred.
Interview with Laura Manlove
Laura Manlove was interviewed on March 4, 2022. A complete transcript of the interview
is included in the Appendix at 234–265. At all relevant times, Ms. Manlove was a director in the
risk consulting practice at RSM, a company that conducts internal audits for public entities. RSM
previously conducted internal audits for various departments in the Osceola County School
District, and at the time of the interview, was conducting an internal audit of the Human Resources
department.
On January 11, 2022, Mr. Arguello emailed Ms. Manlove requesting an inquiry into the
circumstances of Mr. Cavinee’s retirement. Ms. Manlove explained that she was confused about
the purpose of the request, but that RSM has a responsibility to follow up on any potential
allegations of fraud during their audit. RSM placed Mr. Cavinee’s file into the review sample and
interviewed him. After reviewing his file and conducting the interview, RSM concluded there was
no cause for concern regarding Mr. Cavinee’s retirement.
Interview with Giselle Lee
Giselle Lee was interviewed on March 8, 2022. A complete transcript of the interview is
included in the Appendix at 266–299. At all relevant times, Ms. Lee was the Administrative
Assistant to the Superintendent and General Counsel at the Osceola County School District. In her
position, Ms. Lee assists the Superintendent, Dr. Debra Pace and the General Counsel, Mr. Frank
Kruppenbacher, in their day-to-day responsibilities. Ms. Lee was included on Mr. Arguello’s
October 25, 2021 email, but had no further relevant involvement in this matter.

4
ACTIVE:14682618.20
April 27, 2022
Page 5

Interview with Terry Castillo

Terry Castillo was interviewed on March 8, 2022. A complete transcript of the interview
is included in the Appendix at 300–327. At all relevant times, Ms. Castillo was a member of the
Osceola County School Board. As a school board member, Ms. Castillo is tasked with approval of
the budgeting process, assuring District adherence to the strategic plan, and oversight of the
Superintendent. Ms. Castillo is aware of the complaints against Mr. Arguello and about Mr.
Cavinee’s allegations specifically. She was surprised to learn that Mr. Arguello requested a copy
of Mr. Cavinee’s personnel file because school board members are not responsible for oversight
of District employees. If there is a personnel issue not being properly resolved by the
Superintendent, the proper process would be to advise the school board of the situation so it can
decide as a body whether further action is warranted.
Ms. Castillo testified that Mr. Arguello has a pattern of intimidation and retaliation against
perceived political foes, often using the school board meetings or social media as a platform. Ms.
Castillo has been a target of Mr. Arguello’s harassment and was forced to block Mr. Arguello from
social media to escape his hostile treatment. Mr. Arguello’s actions, including his frequent
demands for investigations, have been a drain on District resources and resulted in no appreciable
benefit. According to Ms. Castillo, Mr. Arguello “feels that he is trying to uncover some kind of
conspiracy” which does not exist in Osceola County, at the monetary expense of the District. Appx.
at 319.
Interview with Randy Shuttera
Randy Shuttera was interviewed on March 3, 2022. A complete transcript of the interview
is included in the Appendix at 328–370. At all relevant times, Mr. Shuttera was the Assistant
Superintendent for School Operations for the Osceola County School District and Mr. Cavinee’s
direct supervisor. Mr. Arguello requested access to Mr. Shuttera’s personnel file in addition to Mr.
Cavinee’s. Mr. Shuttera is also aware of the investigation into the maintenance department. His
understanding is that anonymous sources reported to Mr. Arguello that Mr. Cavinee was
unnecessarily hiring vendors to repair HVAC units. Mr. Shuttera does not believe these allegations
to be true. He believes Mr. Arguello’s anonymous source is Jonathan Romberg, an employee of
the facilities department. Mr. Shuttera suspects that the investigation into the maintenance
department is retaliation for an investigation he and Mr. Cavinee prompted into the facilities
department.
Mr. Shuttera is also aware that Mr. Arguello requested an investigation into the retirement
of Mr. Cavinee. He explained that Mr. Arguello’s actions have interfered with the working
operations of the maintenance department by causing employees to be reluctant to make decisions
for fear of backlash from Mr. Arguello.
Interview with Tammy Otterson
Tammy Otterson was interviewed on March 3, 2022. A complete transcript of the interview
is included in the Appendix at 371–419. At all relevant times, Ms. Otterson was the Chief Human
Resources Officer for the Osceola County School District. Due to her role, Ms. Otterson is familiar
with Mr. Arguello’s allegations against Mr. Cavinee. She explained that Mr. Arguello went in-
person to the file clerk for the District to request Mr. Cavinee’s personnel file. Board members of

5
ACTIVE:14682618.20
April 27, 2022
Page 6

the District are permitted to view a personnel file but requests for hard copies are treated as public
records requests. It is her policy to inform employees when their personnel files are requested, and
she informed Mr. Cavinee of Mr. Arguello’s request for his personnel file. Ms. Otterson never
spoke directly to Mr. Arguello regarding the personnel files he requested. According to Ms.
Otterson, it was unusual but not improper for a school board member to request a personnel file.
Ms. Otterson was present for RSM’s interview of Mr. Cavinee following Mr. Arguello’s
inquiry into his retirement status. Ms. Otterson explained that there was nothing improper about
Mr. Cavinee waiting to submit his formal notice of retirement.
Ms. Otterson also described feeling harassed by Mr. Arguello following a disagreement
over a salary increase for Mr. Arguello’s secretary. Following this dispute, Mr. Arguello demanded
the internal audit of the human resources department—which Ms. Otterson perceived as
retaliation.
Interview with Dana Schafer
Dana Schafer was interviewed on March 3, 2022. A complete transcript of the interview is
included in the Appendix at 420–458. At all relevant times, Ms. Schafer was the Public Information
Officer for the Osceola County School District. Ms. Schafer is not familiar with the circumstances
surrounding the complaints from Mr. Arguello. She believes she was listed as a witness to
demonstrate Mr. Arguello’s pattern of harassment. Despite her 30-year service with the District,
Mr. Arguello has demanded several investigations into Ms. Schafer and questioned her integrity.
Mr. Arguello alleged, for example, that she was discussing politics on school campus in violation
of policy; that she allowed her employee to perform political work during business hours; that she
gave preferential treatment to an AV company; and that she has an improper conflict of interest
with a marketing company. Each allegation, according to Ms. Schafer, is baseless and was never
substantiated.
Interview with Robert Bass
Robert Bass was interviewed on March 8, 2022. A complete transcript of the interview is
included in the Appendix at 459–513. At all relevant times, Mr. Bass was a school board member
for the Osceola County School District. As a school board member, Mr. Bass is generally aware
of Mr. Cavinee’s Complaint. According to Mr. Bass, Mr. Arguello is constantly pushing for
investigations into District employees due to his belief that the District is controlled by the
“establishment” or “good ole boys” network.
Mr. Bass testified that he has been the target of Mr. Arguello’s negative attention. Without
provocation, Mr. Arguello began accusing Mr. Bass of being dishonest and a “coward” on social
media. Mr. Bass discontinued further communication with Mr. Arguello outside of board meetings
as a result. Mr. Bass has also received complaints from teachers against Mr. Arguello on at least
two separate occasions.
Interview with Clarence Thacker
Clarence Thacker was interviewed on March 8, 2022. A complete transcript of the
interview is included in the Appendix at 514–563. At all relevant times, Mr. Thacker was a school
board member for the Osceola County School District. As a school board member, Mr. Thacker is

6
ACTIVE:14682618.20
April 27, 2022
Page 7

generally aware of the complaint against Mr. Arguello by Mr. Cavinee. Mr. Thacker testified that
Mr. Arguello has a pattern of intimidation and embarrassing individuals through school board
meetings and social media platforms. Mr. Arguello’s disrespectful actions make it difficult for the
school board to function efficiently and his frequent allegations of corruption take up valuable
time. According to Mr. Thacker, Mr. Arguello’s conduct has negatively impacted the reputation
of the District.
Interview with Julius Melendez
Julius Melendez declined to be interview for this investigation.
Interview with Dr. Debra Pace
Dr. Debra Pace was interviewed on March 9, 2022. A complete transcript of the interview
is included in the Appendix at 564–647. At all relevant times, Dr. Pace was the Superintendent for
the Osceola County School District. As Superintendent, Dr. Pace is aware of the complaint against
Mr. Arguello by Mr. Cavinee. Dr. Pace has also accused Mr. Arguello of contributing to a hostile
work environment for herself and her staff.
According to Dr. Pace, Mr. Arguello has made inquiries into roughly a dozen employees
based on “rumors” in the community. One of these inquiries was regarding Mr. Cavinee’s behavior
as a leader in the maintenance department. She is aware that Mr. Arguello questioned Mr.
Cavinee’s retirement status. She characterized that inquiry as “highly unusual and inappropriate.”
According to Dr. Pace it is not unusual for employees to delay their retirement as Mr. Cavinee did.
Interview with Jo Thacker
Investigators reached out to Ms. Thacker but were unable to schedule an interview.
Interview with Ricky Booth
Osceola County Commissioner Ricky Booth declined to be interviewed for this
investigation.
Interview with Frank Kruppenbacher
Frank Kruppenbacher was interviewed on March 28, 2022. A complete transcript of the
interview is included in the Appendix at 648–685. At all relevant times, Mr. Kruppenbacher was
the General Counsel for the Osceola County School Board. In his role as General Counsel, Mr.
Kruppenbacher receives requests for information or investigations by board members and then
determines the appropriate course of action, including whether to refer the matter to be investigated
by independent legal counsel.
Mr. Kruppenbacher received the request from Mr. Arguello to determine whether there
was an improper relationship between an HVAC vendor and “any relevant management people
within the maintenance department.” To best remain neutral, Mr. Kruppenbacher referred the
investigation to Natly Torres, outside legal counsel. Mr. Kruppenbacher has no further
involvement with the investigation process or into the allegations against the maintenance
department.

7
ACTIVE:14682618.20
April 27, 2022
Page 8

Summary of Evidence from Mr. Arguello

Mr. Arguello declined to be interviewed in person for this investigation. 2 Instead, he
provided two written statements relating to Mr. Cavinee. Appx. at 686–701. In summary, Mr.
Arguello denies the allegations against him. He insists that he was acting within his duties as a
school board member at all relevant times and that all of his requests were made through the proper
channels. Mr. Arguello declined to identify his anonymous sources and declined to explain the
specific information he received that prompted his October 25, 2021 email. He denies any
motivation to harass Mr. Cavinee.

2
In our email correspondence attached as Appx. at 686–701, Mr. Arguello requested written interrogatories in lieu of
an interview. Although Rule 2.70 does not provide for written interrogatories, and none of the witnesses were offered
that opportunity, we provided a general prompt and follow-up questions.

8
ACTIVE:14682618.20
April 27, 2022
Page 9

Investigative Findings
Based on the above, there is insufficient evidence to support a belief that a violation of
School Board Rule 2.70 has occurred because (1) there is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Cavinee
was subjected to harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, age, marital status,
disability, political or religious beliefs, national or ethnic origin, genetic information, sexual
orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy; and (2) there is no evidence that Mr. Arguello’s actions
constitute retaliation under Rule 2.70.
No Evidence of Harassment Within the Meaning of Rule 2.70
There is no doubt that Mr. Cavinee has been subjected to extensive scrutiny by Mr.
Arguello. There is no evidence, however, that any of the conduct was undertaken on the basis of a
protected characteristic. School Board Rule 2.70 defines “harassment” as verbal or physical
conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward an individual because of their race,
color, religion, gender, age, marital status, disability, political or religious beliefs, national or
ethnic origin, genetic information, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, or any other
characteristic protected by law. None of the letters or public statements from Mr. Arguello contain
any reference to a particular characteristic of Mr. Cavinee. 3 Mr. Arguello declined to be
interviewed for this investigation and his written responses offer no evidence that his motivations
were discriminatory in the relevant sense.
Mr. Arguello insists that he was acting within the scope of his duties as a school board
member in inquiring into the maintenance department HVAC contracts, but he has refused to
identify his “anonymous sources” or to explain the specific information he received. 4 According
to Natly Torres, the attorney investigating these claims, the anonymous sources were never
revealed and she is not aware of any specific factual basis that supported the initiation of the
investigation. Moreover, in her opinion, “[t]hat’s not even close to any kind of substantive
evidence to—to merit a full-blown investigation.”
Inquiring into legitimate concerns of corruption is certainly within the authority of a school
board member. There is no evidence here, however, that Mr. Arguello was acting based on any
legitimate concerns. Mr. Arguello has positioned himself against “corruption” which he frequently
claims to be pervasive in the District. This motivation is evident in public board meetings, during
3
Ms. Otterson testified that Mr. Cavinee told her that he felt Mr. Arguello’s harassment was due to him being
Caucasian and not Hispanic, but Mr. Cavinee did not specifically make that assertion in his Complaint or in his
interview. In several of his emails to the Superintendent and others, Mr. Cavinee implied that Mr. Arguello was
targeting “Caucasian” staff members. Aside from these assumptions, there is no evidence that Mr. Arguello targeted
Mr. Cavinee because of his race.
4
In response to our requests for more information about his anonymous sources, Mr. Arguello responded:
I will not divulge the source of this information at this time. This is not a law enforcement or judicial
proceeding and it cannot offer any protection to the person from professional retaliation, in an
environment which has clearly demonstrated willingness to do so and to protect those who it chooses
to. This investigation being a perfect case in point. Needles (sic) to say, I would not have known
about the subject matter had not someone come forward. Any reasonable person can conclude that
as long as it is more probable than not that someone reported these issues to me that I was in fact
working according to my duties and responsibilities and well within statute.
Appx. at 695.

9
ACTIVE:14682618.20
April 27, 2022
Page 10

which he has accused virtually every school board member of some form of corruption, in social
media posts, and in his correspondence with District employees. This motivation is evident in his
October 25, 2021 letter initiating the investigation into the maintenance department when he says,
“I had no idea I would be taking a stance on corruption, fighting against conflicts of interests, or
safeguarding the public’s trust and confidence in our district.” Although not the within the scope
of this investigation, we have not uncovered any evidence of any corruption, and to our knowledge,
neither have any of the investigations prompted by Mr. Arguello.
In the absence of any evidence that his concerns were justified or prompted by legitimate
concerns, virtually every witness believed that Mr. Arguello was motivated by his own political
ambition. While this conduct may deserve condemnation, it is not prohibited by Rule 2.70. 5
No Evidence that Mr. Cavinee was Subjected to Retaliation
There is also insufficient evidence that Mr. Arguello retaliated against Mr. Cavinee. Rule
2.70 prohibits “retaliation” against an individual for filing a complaint alleging a violation of the
School District’s harassment policy or who participates in the investigation of a discrimination
complaint. The only conduct here that could potentially constitute retaliation is Mr. Arguello’s
January 11, 2022, email to Ms. Manlove inquiring into Mr. Cavinee’s retirement status. Mr.
Cavinee did not file a formal complaint, however, until January 12, 2022. Mr. Cavinee made other
inquiries in November and December of 2021 that could be considered pre-cursors to his
complaint, including public records requests and meetings with Frank Kruppenbacher and Tammy
Otterson. There is no evidence, however, that Mr. Arguello was aware of these inquiries when he
sent his email. Additionally, there is no evidence that Mr. Arguello ever followed-up on his
request, or that Mr. Cavinee experienced any negative consequences as a result. Accordingly, we
find that a single inquiry into Mr. Cavinee’s retirement status, before Mr. Cavinee’s complaint was
filed, is insufficient to constitute “intimidation, reprisal or harassment” required for retaliation
under Rule 2.70.
Conclusion
As Mr. Cavinee acknowledged, much of his anxiety and concern stem not from what Mr.
Arguello has actually done, but what Mr. Cavinee fears he may do. All of the witnesses agreed
that Mr. Arguello’s political style is aggressive and accusatory. He has leveled numerous
accusations at District employees and school board members and prompted several investigations
into suspected corruption. 6 He is convinced that the District is controlled by “special relationships”

5
The Florida Ethics Code prohibits public officers from “corruptly use[ing] or attempt[ing] to use his or her official
position or any property or resource which may be within his or her trust, or perform his or her official duties, to
secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself, herself, or others.” § 112.313(6), Fla. Stat. There is no
evidence that Mr. Arguello received, or expected to receive, any privilege or benefit for the conduct at issue here.
Several witnesses suggested, however, that his motivation was to gain political support. Whether that is sufficient to
violate this statute is outside the scope of this investigation.
6
Several witnesses testified to the hostile environment Mr. Arguello’s conduct has created in the school board and
District as a whole. Ms. Otterson and Ms. Schafer, for example, both described conduct that could constitute retaliation
or harassment under the School Board Rules or other laws. Federal law, for example, prohibits workplace harassment
under Title VII where a victim is subjected to “unwelcome harassment” based on his or her membership in a protected
class, and that is “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an

10
ACTIVE:14682618.20
April 27, 2022
Page 11

and takes every opportunity to seek evidence to support his suspicions. 7 Unfortunately for him,
Mr. Cavinee has fallen within the scope of one of Mr. Arguello’s inquiries. There is insufficient
evidence, however, that he has been harassed or retaliated-against as it is defined in Rule 2.70.
Mr. Cavinee cited a variety of other laws and rules that he claims were violated by Mr.
Arguello. School Board Rule 2.20, for example, prohibits individual school board members from
giving “instructions to or exert[ing] undue influence over employees who report directly or
indirectly to the Superintendent.” Individual members, like Mr. Arguello, “have authority to take
official action only when sitting as a member of the School Board in public session, except when
the School Board specifically authorizes the member to act.” Evidence uncovered in this
investigation suggests that Mr. Arguello violated this Rule by unilaterally requesting RSM to
investigate Mr. Cavinee’s retirement status. The School Board Rules contain no guidance,
however, on the implications of a violation of Rule 2.20 or how such a violation may be prosecuted.
In our view, that is a matter of internal school board governance, not something that is subject to
prosecution by individual employees, like Mr. Cavinee.
In light of the investigation and analysis summarized above, we find that there is
insufficient evidence to support a belief that a violation of School Board Rule 2.70 has occurred.
Statement of Completion
The independent investigation of the Complaint submitted by Mark Cavinee has been
completed by the undersigned and all material information and evidence discovered during this
investigation has been reviewed, analyzed, and considered in setting forth the conclusions herein.

abusive working environment.” See Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269, 1275 (11th Cir. 2002) (internal
quotation marks omitted). There is insufficient evidence here for us to determine whether any of the allegations by
Ms. Otterson or Ms. Schafer establish a violation of this or any other laws. There is a legitimate concern, however,
Mr. Arguello’s conduct could lead to additional legal risk for the District.
7
As frustrating as this might be for the targets of Mr. Arguello’s attacks, we recognize the “profound national
commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open, and that it may
well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. . . . The
language of the political arena . . . is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact.” Watts v. United States, 89 S. Ct. 1399,
1401–02 (1969).

11
ACTIVE:14682618.20