Unmasking Deception #3: Education leaders play "race card" in retaliation against whistleblower

Issue #3 in a new series of stories: "Unmasking Deception: Unveiling Lies, Corruption, and Intimidation in Oregon Public Education"

(Updated July 9, 2023) In October 2022, I filed three serious complaints with the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC). The individuals implicated were from the Oregon Department of Education (ODE), including one serving and two former high-ranking officials. Those individuals were Carmen Urbina, Daniel Ramirez, and Shadiin Garcia, respectively. After a fairly quiet four months, I uncovered a disconcerting truth: the OGEC, and their established process, do not provide any sanctuary for whistleblowers.

In what seemed to be a strategically synchronized move, the three individuals - current and former ODE officials - declared themselves as victims of racial harassment, intimidation, and violence. With no tangible evidence to substantiate these claims, I expected the OGEC commissioners would concentrate on the objective facts and investigator recommendations. Yet, contrary to those reasonable expectations, the OGEC commissioners shockingly participated in the counterstrike against me - the one who dared to blow the whistle.

Home page for the Oregon Government Ethics Commission

Background on the three complaints

To provide a bit of context, I’ve provided a few bullet points about each ODE official and the nature of the complaints against them. What I provided to OGEC was obviously much more detailed and included other evidence such as emails, contracts, and other relevant information.

For those interested in more details, I also included a link to the investigators’ final reports for the OGEC commissioners to review and consider. These reports contain the original complaint, relevant evidence, results from the investigation, and their recommendation to either dismiss the complaint or proceed with a formal investigation.

Carmen Urbina: Deputy Director of ODE

• Did not disclose potential conflicts of interest when requesting contracts to hire a former business partner

• Used her public position to benefit her private business (an educational equity consulting and training company)

• Made false statements in a prior ethics complaint

• Final report: Click here to access

Article covers contents of Urbina’s training course she hired former business partner to facilitate

Daniel Ramirez: former Interim Executive Director, Educator Advancement Council at ODE

• Used his public position for personal financial gain by directing a $1.1M contract extension to Community Design Partners (CDP), a company he then took a job with

• While simultaneously in his interim Executive Director role at ODE and working for CDP, approved one or more payments to CDP without disclosing the conflict of interest

• Final report: Click here to access

CDP’s description of the project funded by ODE

Shadiin Garcia: former Executive Director, Educator Advancement Council at ODE and former Senior Strategy & Operations Officer at ODE

• Used her public position for personal financial gain and failed to disclose potential conflicts of interest by:

  • Amending EAC’s Section 48 plan to use $1.9M to create a Racial Justice Institute

  • Playing a significant role in a $2M contract awarded to Mississippi-based Institute for Democratic Education in America (IDEA) to create and operate the Racial Justice Institute for ODE (click here for an article diving deeper into the Racial Justice Institute’s content)

  • Left ODE and joined IDEA as their lead facilitator for the Racial Justice Institute

• Final report: Click here to access

Some of the courses delivered by IDEA for Oregon's Racial Justice Institute

Keep in mind this “Preliminary Review” is just the first step in OGEC’s process, and investigators must complete it within 60 days. While they may conduct interviews and collect additional evidence, it’s often very limited. Investigators are just trying to determine if the complaint falls within the narrow scope of OGEC’s jurisdiction, and if there’s enough reason to warrant a formal investigation. They then present their findings to the OGEC commissioners, as they are the ones who decide whether to dismiss the complaint or investigate further.

February 3, 2023: OGEC preliminary review meeting

The OGEC meets about every six weeks to address issues and complaints related to lobbying expenditures, public meetings law, and ethics laws. These meetings are open to the public, except when they go into Executive Session. It was in an Executive Session when the OGEC went through the preliminary reviews of my three complaints.

While the Executive Session is held in private, they do allow the respondent (the person named in the complaint) to join when it’s time for their case. Each case begins with the investigator giving a brief overview of their findings and recommendation to formally investigate or not. The respondent is then allowed to provide a brief statement of their own. The commissioners then have the opportunity to ask clarifying questions before voting on the investigator’s recommendations.

You may not have caught this, but there is another person involved in the case who is not allowed to participate: the one who filed the complaint (in this case, me). I believe this is one of several major flaws in their process as it allowed the respondents and the commissioners to make false accusations about me and my motives without giving me any opportunity to defend myself.

As a side note, I was able to listen in to the Executive Session virtually thanks to a loophole that I imagine they will soon address. Oregon public meetings law does allow media representatives to attend Executive Sessions, but there are tight restrictions on what they can report on afterwards. As Save Oregon Schools, LLC is a formal news media organization in Oregon, they had to honor my request to join the Executive Session.

To their credit, the OGEC does post recordings of their meetings, including Executive Sessions, to their website. So this loophole just meant I didn’t have to wait for them to post the recordings online a day or two later.

The attacks and retaliation by the respondents: Carmen Urbina

All three respondents chose to attend their case reviews and provide live testimony in their defense. Urbina made her racial identity a key part of her defense. She tried to paint a picture of her as a champion for all Oregon students and me as a toxic, hateful, and racist individual. This turned out to be a common theme between all three respondents, and I contend they have it backwards.

Below is the final page of a letter Carmen Urbina sent to the OGEC investigator during the preliminary review, and I’ve highlighted two key paragraphs.

I don’t dispute I am against their “goal of equity in education” as they’ve defined it, as it has led to lower student achievement, increased harm in schools, and an incredible amount of fraud and corruption. I also want to point out she provided no evidence of any social media posts or emails to demonstrate there is any “ongoing intimidation”. That’s because she made it all up, and she knows it. She’s just hoping the commissioners will believe her lies (hint: they do).

Urbina also provided a letter from ODE Director Colt Gill. In it he claims Urbina has “come under regular attack” and “is regularly misrepresented and villainized on websites, Twitter, and other social media outlets.” He then appears to claim my complaint is aligned “with a national movement to challenge equity work…” As I pointed out in my previous story, Unmasking Deception #2: Oregon’s Education Director Delivers Fraudulent ‘Equitable Graduation’ Report, Gill is very comfortable spewing lies to get what he wants.

Following Urbina’s approach, Gill provides no real evidence to support these wild claims. With that said, he did provide two tweets of mine, which you can see below.

I acknowledge he may not like these tweets but they are nothing more than somewhat snarky messages aimed at shedding light on them and their actions. But he made some pretty bold accusations, and this is all he provided as evidence? Surely the OGEC commissioners could see through this (hint: they don’t).

As a final note about Urbina’s case, I do want to point out the commission did vote to dismiss the complaint. This makes sense as Urbina’s actions didn’t violate the specific ethics laws that are within the OGEC’s jurisdiction. In short, the laws only apply to the public official, a relative, or a member of their household. The complaint I filed involved Urbina hiring a former business partner, Kim Feicke. Feicke is not related to Urbina and they don’t live together. So while what Urbina did may have violated other laws or codes of conduct, they are outside the scope of the OGEC.

The attacks and retaliation by the respondents: Daniel Ramirez

Daniel Ramirez took advantage of both his live testimony and written response to play the victim while taking jabs at me. You can click here to listen to his case’s recording, and below are some of the more “interesting” parts of the session worth listening to (each bullet shows the range in time for that section in mm:ss format). Of note are the comments by Commissioner Burke (starting at 14:18), who seemed completely convinced by Ramirez’s passionate speech while seemingly forgetting all the evidence against Ramirez along with the investigator’s recommendation to proceed with a formal investigation.

• 03:46-09:04: Daniel Ramirez’s testimony

• 12:21-13:06: Motion by Commissioner Fiskum to investigate – stresses he “may” have violated…

• 13:15-13:57: Commissioner Fiskum makes statements questioning my motives and shares misgivings with continuing to an investigation

• 14:00-14:17: Commissioner Thompson associates himself with Fiskum’s comments (Thompson didn’t state his name during the meeting, but was identified in the meeting minutes)

• 14:18-14:55: Commission Burke suggests OGEC is being used for “personal goals” or “personal axes to grind” and is satisfied with response given by Ramirez and declares he will vote “nay” to investigate

• 19:00-19:20: Chair Hollister states support for staff and then says “…there’s some obvious motivations in this case that I also recognize”

• 19:23-20:40: Commissioner Fiskum makes more comments about feeling like their commission is being used like a tool, and why he needs to state his misgivings

• 20:43-21:04: Commissioner Burke stated support for what Fiskum & Bersin said while adding he “…will reluctantly be voting for the motion”

• Commission voted 6-0 to proceed with investigation

I also obtained a copy of a letter Ramirez sent to the OGEC investigator prior to this meeting, which you can read in its entirety here. Here are some parts of Ramirez’s letter worth noting:

This is a completely baseless inquiry that was started by Jeff Myers who is persecuting educators working on equity and social justice issues - specifically educators of color - and this process is allowing him to further target us. This individual and his supporters are actively seeking to ruin our reputation - they send us threats, they’ve driven some people out of their jobs, and some have even moved out of the state as a result of this hateful campaign.

What evidence did Ramirez provide to support these claims? None.

Ramirez provided no evidence of any threats, no examples of people being driven out of their jobs, or anyone moving out of state due to any actions I have taken. My complaint included a great deal of evidence, enough that the investigator clearly agreed a formal investigation was needed. Daniel Ramirez is the one making the baseless claims here, and one can only assume he’s doing so as he lacks a real defense against the legitimate complaint.

Further down in the letter he goes on to include these remarks:

I was first made aware of Jeff Myers in the spring of 2022 when he began to post allegations on twitter about my former boss Shadiin Garcia and several other prominent leaders of color both in the Beaverton School District and at the Oregon Department of Education. He has subsequently intensified his attacks - focusing specifically on folks of color and those connected to the Educator Advancement Council’s racial equity work as well as others leading equity work at and beyond ODE. He began to include me in his social media attacks during the spring of 2022. What seems to escape Jeff is that his unqualified attacks have led to real life consequences.

As mentioned, folks have received threats on personal and professional lines of communication (including death threats); educators have had to take safety trainings and install security devices because they were part of an EAC professional learning; special safety procedures and accommodations and have had to be instituted in case of retribution from his followers; reputations and jobs have been impacted by his claims; and there has been untold trauma (mental/physical health, family, friends, etc.) that has transpired from his baseless claims.

Whether you agree or not with the decisions, actions, and outcomes of the work by Ramirez and the others, it is never acceptable to threaten harm against them or anyone else for that matter. I have never made any threats nor have I encouraged others to do so. I’m an investigative journalist. I conduct research, collect evidence, and report on issues. I stand behind my work as it is rooted in facts.

While I do find it concerning he and others are experiencing threats of harm, I believe he is exaggerating the claims and fraudulently labeling me as the cause. This appears to be nothing more than a last ditch effort to avoid being held accountable for breaking the law by using his public position for personal gain.

The attacks and retaliation by the respondents: Shadiin Garcia

Garcia was the last of the three to meet with the OGEC that day, and I think she was by far the worst. She very clearly tried to base her entire defense on being the victim in this whole process. Here are some key parts of her session, which you can listen to here:

• 04:56-08:26: Garcia’s live testimony, which includes this horrendous part:

“I would like briefly to name the elephant in the room, for the sake of transparency. This is about an indigenous woman and educator who has endured harassment, stalking, handwritten death threats at my home against me and my children and more. It has been painful and scary for me and my colleagues, and all we want to do is serve our state with integrity. I'm not the only one. I'm not the first one. And I know I won't be the last one. I think you all understand that this really, it's not about a complaint and standing up for Oregon's ethics laws, but it’s about one person’s very public and vocal disagreement with the Oregon legislature’s decision to spend taxpayer funds in this way.”

• 08:27-09:29: Chair Hollister provides a brief statement to show support for Garcia and to express concerns about what she’s gone through

• 10:50-12:02 – Commissioner Fiskum thanked Garcia for her comments, expressed his misgivings like he did with Ramirez, and delivered a motion to investigate while expressing and emphasizing she “may have violated…” the laws referenced in the complaint

• Commission voted 6-0 to proceed with investigation

What I find most troubling about Garcia’s testimony is how she implies I targeted her for being “an indigenous woman and educator”, and that I am possibly tied to the “harassment, stalking, and handwritten death threats” she received at her home.

On that last note, I decided to contact the Gresham Police Department to obtain any records they may have to back up this claim. I know if I were to receive death threats at my home, I would call the police immediately. In the first document, which you can read here, it shows a record of all calls to the police. Note that there were no calls to the police on or after when Garcia moved into the home on June 27, 2021, which is well before I began investigating Garcia and the issues referenced in the ethics complaint.

Gresham Police Department address report on Garcia’s home - page 1 of 2

The only other police record provided to me was this report regarding a neighbor’s home, which includes some statements made by Garcia regarding information she had about the incident. It’s in her statement that she mentions when she moved in.

Like the other two, Garcia wrote a letter to the investigator in response to the complaint. You can click here to view her two page letter. I wanted to call out one specific part here:

I am responding in good faith with documentation and information in order for the Ethics Commission to gain a complete perspective of the level of misinformation, intimidation, and violence that is occurring repeatedly against me and other state employees. These attacks have been especially vitriolic when it comes to women of color who are working towards equity in education.

Garcia plays the race card, like the others, as part of her defense. She also calls out, “violence that is occurring repeatedly against me and other state employees”, but provides no evidence to support this wild accusation. If she and her family have truly experienced violence and harassment, that is terrible! However, for her to claim that I somehow am involved in this or actively doing it myself is not just careless, but defamatory. It’s a lie, plain and simple.

What I found truly hilarious was what Garcia wrote in the very next paragraph:

I have no reason to respond with counter evidence…

What happened to, “responding in good faith with documentation and information”? Garcia clearly believes the victim strategy is the most effective approach, but we’ll see how effective that is once the formal investigation has concluded.

Final thoughts about the OGEC process

After the dust settled, I did reach out to a couple of the OGEC commissioners and the OGEC Director to express concerns I had about the process. Both Commissioner Burke and Chair Hollister refused to speak with me, stating that they couldn’t due to their rules against “ex parte communications”. That just means they can’t talk “off the record” about pending cases. Even after explaining I didn’t want to talk about the cases but the negative statements made about me during the meeting, they still refused to talk.

I did get a phone call from OGEC Director Ron Bersin, but it was clearly not to apologize. He was very rude and dismissive about the concerns I had. I asked why I couldn’t be there to defend myself from the personal attacks by the respondents as well as the commissioners. I don’t recall his exact words, but his response was essentially this, “Once you submit the case, your involvement is done. You have no rights as you’re no longer part of the process.” He failed to see how this will discourage whistleblowers from coming forward, as they can be openly attacked with the recordings made public for all to hear.

I look forward to the OGEC meeting on July 14th, which is when more information about the investigations involving Daniel Ramirez and Shadiin Garcia should become public. You can view the meeting agenda here, which includes the information on how to attend the meeting in-person or virtually.

I’ll leave you with these two questions, and please feel free to comment on this story with your thoughts:

Would you be comfortable filing a complaint with the OGEC knowing now that there are no protections of any kind for you?

What do you feel needs to change?