Charter school CEO also sits on Sacramento Board of Education. Is it a conflict of interest?

Reality Check is a Bee series holding officials and organizations accountable and shining a light on their decisions. Have a tip? Email realitycheck@sacbee.com.

A twice-elected Sacramento County Board of Education trustee is facing a lawsuit that could remove him from his seat. Two Sacramento County residents, backed by the California Teachers Association and the blessing of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, are challenging Paul Keefer’s right to hold public office while he is the CEO and president of a charter school organization.

Keefer represents an area that comprises Arden Arcade, McClellan Park, North Highlands and portions of Carmichael and Foothill Farms. He was first elected to the board in 2018 and reelected in 2022 with 57% of the vote.

The state is suing Keefer on behalf of Mara Harvey, a local parent and educator, and Victoria Gunter, a Twin Rivers Unified School District employee, who say that Keefer’s day job at Pacific Charter Institute disqualifies him from holding elected office under two groups of state laws: Government Code 1099, which states that an elected official can’t hold two “incompatible” public offices at once, and Education Code 1006, which bars a superintendent or employee from any school district within the county board of education’s jurisdiction from serving as a trustee for that board.

Harvey, a teacher at Natomas Unified School District and president of its teachers association, said that she feels a responsibility to her community to ensure fair representation for the people of Sacramento. She and Gunter are represented by lawyers from the California Teachers Association (CTA) and the California School Employees Association.

“It’s important to me as an educator, a parent, a taxpayer and a voter,” Harvey said. “Our communities deserve elected leaders who are making decisions in the best interest of the students and not their own financial gain.”

Keefer must respond to the complaint by the end of May.

The case against Keefer by California Teachers and Attorney General Bonta

Charter schools must obtain a charter either from a local school district board, the county board of education or the California State Board of Education. Keefer’s employer operates a network of charter schools, including two schools within Sacramento County. Although the Sacramento Board of Education is not the chartering authority for either of these schools, litigants say that even the possibility of one of PCI’s schools requesting a charter through SCBOE is enough to create an “egregious conflict of interest.”

The litigants contend that Keefer’s job with PCI should be treated as similar to that of a school district superintendent or board member. Another education code states that charter school administrators should comply with key state laws related to transparency and conflict of interest.

“He may not be able to pass policy that potentially changes his working conditions, but he could pass policy over those schools that has direct fiscal impact (on him),” CTA spokesperson Jackie Howard said.

To file a quo warranto lawsuit, which challenges whether someone is lawfully entitled to their office, against Keefer, the plaintiffs needed the attorney general’s permission. This permission was granted in an advisory opinion released in February in which Bonta wrote that there is substantial reason to question Keefer’s eligibility for holding both positions.

“We are satisfied that allowing the proposed suit in quo warranto will serve the public interest by determining whether the positions of Pacific Charter Institute executive director and Sacramento County Board of Education Trustee are incompatible public offices, determining whether Education Code section 1006(a) applies to employees of charter schools, and by ensuring that public officials avoid conflicting loyalties in performing their public duties,” Bonta wrote.

The complaint against Keefer lists several specific incompatibilities, including complications that could arise due to SCBOE’s oversight over PCI operations or potential legal dispute between the two entities. Howard clarified that the effort to remove Keefer from office has been in motion for a couple years and is not in response to any particular decision Keefer made as trustee.

“This isn’t a personal thing against him as much as it is a means to preserve these spaces for people who are not going to benefit from these positions personally,” Harvey said.

Keefer finds support from California Charter School Association

Keefer declined to comment on the details of the lawsuit but said that he does not plan to step down.

“I was duly elected by the voters, and I plan to serve out my term,” he said.

Keefer and his legal representation have long resisted the argument that he does not belong on the board. When CTA began the process of trying to oust Keefer in 2022, his lawyers in a response to the plaintiff’s application to sue denied claims that Keefer’s position is considered “public office” and that his two positions are legally incompatible.

His lawyers argued that Keefer’s position as PCI president did not meet any of the criteria to be considered public office — his job was not created by any law, it is not permanent and it’s not he who holds public power, but the charter school organization’s governing board. They also argue that “public interest would not be served” by a court ordered removal because it would nullify the will of the voters who elected him earlier that year.

Keefer also retains the allyship of the California Charter School Association, whose representative called the lawsuit against Keefer “without merit.” Richard Soto, Chief Advocacy Officer and General Counsel for CCSA, thinks that the move is politically motivated.

“CTA and CSEA have been strong opponents of charter schools both at the legislative level but also locally,” Soto said. “I believe that this is just another effort by the plaintiffs who are associated with those organizations to try to remove a county board member who is obviously charter school-friendly and also a charter school executive director.”

The plaintiffs’ complaint also lists divided interests when reviewing charter petitions of potential rival or allied charter organizations as a conflict of interest, but Soto does not share this concern, citing existing laws that require board members to recuse themselves of decisions that could affect them financially.

“We certainly believe that our charter school employees bring unique perspectives and ideas to the governance of our public school system in California and I think it would be a shame if we were to extend these prohibitions ... just because it would mean that there would be less potential voices serving on county boards of education that may be able to drive better outcomes and improvements in the K12 public school system,” Soto said.

Soto clarified that CCSA is not providing any financial or legal help to Keefer’s defense. CCSA Advocates, the association’s PAC, donated $154,000 to his 2018 campaign.

If Keefer steps down or is removed from the board, the remaining SCBOE board members will either order an election or make a provisional appointment to fill the vacancy within 60 days, according to the board policies.