BEFORE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RESOLUTION RECONSIDERING CENSURE OF TRUSTEE TERRY SLATIC
Resolution No. 20-03
The Board of Trustees (“Board”) of the Fresno Unified School District (“District”) hereby
reconsiders and extends the terms of the censure of Trustee Slatic as follows:
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2018, Trustee Slatic took an oath to faithfully discharge the
duties of a Board member, consistent with the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution
and laws of the State of California, and the policies, regulations, and bylaws of this District.
WHEREAS, on January 11, 2019, Trustee Slatic was involved in a physical altercation
with a freshman student at Bullard High School. An independent investigator concluded that
Trustee Slatic physically engaged the student as a result of disrespectful comments.
WHEREAS, following the January incident, and on various other occasions, individual
Trustees reached out to Trustee Slatic to inform him that he was acting outside the scope of his
role as an individual trustee and requested that he change his behavior.
WHEREAS, on January 15, 2019, Superintendent Bob Nelson sent Trustee Slatic a letter
reminding him that a Board member has no individual authority. In the letter, Superintendent
Nelson raised concerns about Trustee Slatic’s presence at meetings where his attendance had not
been requested and general behavior toward staff that was unnecessarily confrontational.
Superintendent Nelson insisted that Trustee Slatic refrain from interfering in impermissible
administrative functions and otherwise conform his conduct to the limits of “law, Board Bylaw,
and general policy of civility.”

1 

 WHEREAS, in February 2019, the District received a complaint regarding Trustee Slatic’s
inappropriate conduct toward an Army recruiter. An independent investigator found that Trustee
Slatic was confrontational and hostile with the recruiter in his pursuit of information regarding the
recruiter’s activities at Bullard High School. The investigator concluded that Trustee Slatic’s
conduct violated existing Board Policies and Bylaws.
WHEREAS, in February 2019, the District received a complaint regarding Trustee Slatic’s
inappropriate conduct toward a wrestling coach. An independent investigator found that Trustee
Slatic engaged in a verbal confrontation with the coach and threatened to use his position as a
Board member to limit the coach’s employment opportunities with the District. The investigator
concluded that Trustee Slatic’s actions violated existing Board Bylaws.
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2019, Trustee Slatic attended a cheerleading practice as an
individual Board member and ordered the members of the cheer team to refrain from commenting
on discipline arising from a social media post of a cheerleader wearing blackface. Trustee Slatic’s
conduct was perceived as confrontational and threatening by many of the cheerleaders. An
independent investigator found that Trustee Slatic did not have authority to discipline or correct
behavior of students. The investigator concluded that Trustee Slatic’s actions violated existing
Board Bylaws.
WHEREAS, a special meeting was held on July 18, 2019, where the Board found that
Trustee Slatic failed to treat the cheerleaders with civility and respect after hearing from several
cheerleaders and other individuals involved in the incident.
WHEREAS, on August 7, 2019, the Board held a public meeting wherein it voted
unanimously to censure Trustee Slatic finding that: “Trustee Slatic’s abusive and disrespectful
behavior, language, and conduct toward District employees, students, and the public continues to

2 

 fail to meet the professional standards for an elected representative or the minimum standards
expected of any District employee or trustee, and violated District Policies and Board Bylaws,
including Board Bylaws 9000, 9005 and 9200.”
WHEREAS, the Board adopted a resolution (“Censure Resolution”) directing Trustee
Slatic to “[k]eep the district focused on learning and achievement for all students” by avoiding
“behavior that distracts from this object,” and to “cease and desist from engaging in abusive and
disrespectful treatment of District employees, students, fellow Trustees and members of the
public.” The Censure Resolution is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
WHEREAS, as part of the Censure Resolution, Trustee Slatic was prohibited from
attending internal staff meetings without authorization from the Board and directed to “wait to
enter any District school campus until accompanied by a school site representative.”

Trustee

Slatic was further removed from any committee or leadership position he sits on in his capacity as
a Trustee until he demonstrated successful completion of an anger management program along
with a commitment to abide by Board Bylaws.
WHEREAS, the Censure Resolution did not limit Trustee Slatic’s ability to participate in
Board meetings, debate or comment on items on the agenda, cast votes, attend District-related
meetings or events open to the general public, make public statements in his individual capacity,
serve constituents, or otherwise perform the basic duties of an individual Board member.
WHEREAS, instead of heeding the direction of the Censure Resolution or demonstrating
a commitment to follow Board policy, Trustee Slatic has continued to deny any personal
responsibility or demonstrate an understanding of the proper role of a Board member. In fact,
immediately following the Board’s adoption of the Censure Resolution, Trustee Slatic told media
outlets that he intended to file a motion for a temporary restraining order by the end of the week.

3 

 WHEREAS, on December 3, 2019, Trustee Slatic emailed Board leadership and requested
that the censure resolution be modified. When asked for clarification, Trustee Slatic said to
“[s]imply remove all of the punitive and/or illegal parts.”
WHEREAS, in response to the request, the Board held a hearing at the January 15, 2020
Board meeting, to consider whether the Censure Resolution should be modified. Instead of
providing any evidence of a commitment to abide by Board Bylaws, Trustee Slatic gave the
following statement:
When a matter is brought before a court, a judge – I have been advised by my attorney –
asks if informal attempts have been tried to remedy the situation prior to going to court.
This is that informal attempt. Thank you.
WHEREAS, at the January 15, 2020 meeting, the Board received testimony from members
of the community in support of the censure. Several Board members also stated that they had
witnessed continued confrontational behavior that made them feel threatened. As a result, the
Board found that there had been no adjustment to behavior or commitment to abide by Board
Bylaws. As such, the Board declined to take action to modify the Censure Resolution at the
January 15, 2020 Meeting.
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2020, Trustee Slatic filed a government claim for monetary
damages, claiming that the Censure Resolution was “deeply flawed both legally and factually”
claiming claims that it “encroaches upon matters strictly limited under the law exclusively to the
judiciary branch of government.”
WHEREAS, at the March 4, 2020 Board meeting, the Board held a hearing to consider the
government claim and voted to deny it. The District issued the denial letter attached hereto as
Exhibit A and incorporated by reference.

4 

 WHEREAS, in addition to denying any personal responsibility for his actions, Trustee
Slatic has continued to engage in hostile and unprofessional conduct with staff, students, fellow
Trustees, and members of the public, and exceeded his role as an individual Board member.
WHEREAS, Trustee Slatic also filed a series of complaints against staff and members of
the Board. While these complaints were resolved informally, they distracted from the District’s
primary objective of educating students in violation of the Censure Resolution and Board Bylaw
9005.
WHEREAS, Trustee Slatic has provided misleading and confidential information to the
public during Board meetings and multiple media outlets in violation of the Censure Resolution
and Board Bylaw 9005, negatively impacting the District’s ability to perform essential functions
on several incidents.
WHEREAS, Trustee Slatic has refused to recuse himself from closed session on several
occasions in violation of Board Bylaw 9270, thus impairing the Board’s ability to consider and act
on important District matters.
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2020, two pastors filed independent complaints against Trustee
Slatic where he engaged in a hostile outburst during an incident involving the three individuals
and asked that Trustee Slatic be asked to attend anger management training. An independent
investigator found that Trustee Slatic said that the bad students from Bullard High School should
be sent “back South.” The investigator also found that Trustee Slatic personally attacked one of
the pastors with profanity, and words like “you don’t know what you’re talking about” and “you
need to go back to your barrio and pastor your little church.” Such conduct violated Board Bylaws
and the Censure Resolution.

5 

 WHEREAS, Trustee Slatic has also been involved in additional incidents where no formal
complaints were presented, but the incidents nonetheless have negatively impacted staff morale
and continued to distract from the District’s primary function of educating students.
WHEREAS, Trustee Slatic’s conduct has cost the District over Two Hundred Fifty
Thousand Dollars in fees from attorneys and investigators in less than two years on the Board. It
has also diverted substantial staff and Board time from the “learning and achievement for all
students.”
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board does hereby find that Trustee
Slatic has continued to violate Board Bylaws as well as the terms of the Censure Resolution by
extending his role as an individual Board member and engaging in hostile outbursts.
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the Board hereby disavows and formally condemns Trustee
Slatic’s derogatory and hurtful comments against students of the District. Trustee Slatic is
admonished that he has been elected to “act in the best interests of every student in the District,”
not just the students of the Bullard High School attendance area. Any conduct that discriminates
against students of a particular geographical location, race, religion, or orientation will not be
tolerated as it violates the District’s core beliefs and commitments.
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the remaining six Board members are committed to make
themselves available to the students and families of Area 7 that may be offended or otherwise
alienated by Trustee Slatic.
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the Board finds it necessary to extend the terms of the
Censure Resolution for an additional (1) year term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Board will
reevaluate the terms of the Censure Resolution or terminate entirely sooner than one year if Trustee
Slatic is able to demonstrate compliance with the direction of this Resolution by recommitting to

6 

 abide by Board Bylaws. Trustee Slatic is also encouraged to attend the District’s Implicit Bias and
Cultural Proficiency training, California School Boards Association governance training, and/or
anger management training.
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the Board does formally request that Trustee Slatic’s
conduct be investigated by the Fresno County Grand Jury and other appropriate regulatory
agencies to consider appropriate discipline for Trustee Slatic.
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that Trustee Slatic is reminded that a failure to comply with
Board Policies, Regulations, Bylaws, or this Resolution has, and will continue to result in the
Board’s refusal to indemnify Trustee Slatic for any claims or actions resulting from said conduct
to the fullest extent permitted by law.
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that should any portion of this Resolution be held invalid, the
invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Resolution which can be given
effect without the invalid provisions or application, and to this end the provisions of this Resolution
are declared to be severable.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION PASSED AND WAS ADOPTED by the Board of
Education of the FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT at a regular meeting held on August
12, 2020 by the following vote:

________ Ayes
________ Noes
________ Abstain

7 

 I, Keshia Thomas, President of the Board of Education, do hereby certify that the foregoing
is a true and correct copy of a Resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees of the FRESNO
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August, 2020, which
Resolution is on file in the office of said Board.

DATED: August 12, 2020

__________________________________
Keshia Thomas
President, Board of Trustees

8 

 (BOARD OF EDUCATION

6 Keshia Thomas, President
Valerie F. Davis, Clerk
- Claudia Cazares

Fresno Unl?ed Genovevalslas
1 D. . Elizabeth Jonasson Rosas
Carol Mills, J.D.

Major Terry Slatic USMC (Retired)
Preparing Career Ready Graduates SUPERINTENDENT

Robert G. Nelson, 

March 6, 2020

VIA MAIL HAND-DELIVERY

Trustee Major Terry Slatic
2309 Tulare Street
Fresno, CA 93721

Re: Rejection of Claim No. GL19-0807-4747
Dear Trustee Slatic:

By this letter, notice is hereby given that the claim you presented to Fresno Uni?ed School District
on February 5, 2020, challenging the censure was rejected unanimously by the Board on March 4,
2020. The claim contends as follows:

The censure document is deeply ?awed both legally and factually. It is without merit or
substance, and encroaches upon matters strictly limited under the law exclusively to the
judiciary branch of government.

The censure document imposed is in violation of the State of California Constitution as it
seeks to disenfranchise an elected member of local government in the utter absence of due
process of law. Thereby voiding a valid and proper vote by the constituents in District 7,
who by their vote duly elected me to represent them and the Bullard School District to the
best of my ability. Said censure seeks to eliminate and void their vote by way of an
improper instrument called a ?censure? that has no legal or factual vitality. Moreover, it
was imposed in the utter absence of due process of law.

We strongly disagree with each of these contentions as we strive to provide equal access for all
students and parents, including the ability to be represented by their elected Board member. To
that end, we made several attempts to informally address your refusal to follow Board policy
before resorting to the adoption of a censure resolution. However, you have continued to engage
in abusive and unprofessional conduct with staff, students, fellow trustees (myself included), and
members of the public. The censure was adopted as a last resort to minimize the District?s liability
from future unacceptable conduct on your part.

As a preliminary matter we note that a censure is an inherent power of a legislative body, including
a school board, to express its opinion on the conduct of one of its members. The Board as an
entity also has the right to publicly speak on issues of importance to the school district. Minimal

 

2309 Tulare Street Fresno, CA 93721-2287

 

Trustee Major Terry Slatic
March 6, 2020
Page 2

due process standards are typically applied to a public body?s censure of one of its members,
requiring advance notice and an opportunity to refute the allegations prior to a public vote.

In this case, we provided you much more due process than is required in this context. At the July
18, 2019 special meeting, you were provided an opportunity to explain comments you made to the
Bullard High School Cheer Team. The Board considered your explanation before publically
disapproving of your behavior and directing the matter to an ad hoc committee for
recommendation regarding a censure.

The ad hoc committee worked closely with legal counsel to prepare a resolution that disapproved
of your past behavior and protect the District from future liability while balancing your First
Amendment rights. The proposed resolution directed you to comply with Board policy and
instructed you to wait to enter campus until accompanied. The resolution also requested that you
attend an anger management program and removed you from any committees or leadership
positions until the Board determined you demonstrated a willingness to comply with the direction
given. Your ability to participate at Board meetings was not limited in any way nor were you
prohibited from attending or speaking at public events in your individual capacity.

Following the ?nalization of the resolution, you were provided advance notice of the August 7,
2019 Meeting where the censure would be considered and a copy of the proposed resolution. Your
legal counsel was given the opportunity to provide comments that were considered by the ad hoc
committee prior to the meeting.

At the August 7, 2019 Meeting, you were provided time to speak before action was taken. These
comments were considered by the Board before unanimously adopting the resolution. Later that
month, you expressed several concerns with the censure and Superintendent Nelson agreed to sit
down with you and your counsel to discuss. The District?s legal counsel provided relevant case
law for your counsel to review at the meeting and offered to consider any authority to the
contrary. To date, you have not provided any authority that supports your position.

On December 2, 2019, you requested that Board leadership ?remove/amend? the censure due to
the ?ongoing and illegal nature of the censure and the ongoing disenfranchisement of my
constituents.? When asked for clari?cation on what changes you were requesting, you responded
to ?[s]imply remove all of the punitive and/or illegal parts.? Despite the refusal to provide further
explanation, Board leadership granted your request and placed an item on the agenda to reconsider
the censure at the January 15, 2020 Board meeting.

At the January 15, 2020 Board meeting, you were given an opportunity to present your arguments
for revisiting the censure resolution. However, you chose to simply state the following:

When a matter is brought before a court, a judge I have been advised by my attorney 
asks if informal attempts have been tried to remedy the situation prior to going to court.
This is that informal attempt. Thank you.

 

2309 Tulare Street Fresno, CA 93721-2287 resnosz Fedor

   

Trustee Major Terry Slatic
March 6, 2020
Page 3

The Board had anticipated that you would attempt to demonstrate compliance with the direction of
the censure. Instead, this ?informal attempt? to resolve your concerns appeared to be nothing more
than a bad faith publicity stunt. Trustee Islas stated that she had seen ?no adjustment to behavior,
no information provided about attendance at an anger management so I feel no need to explore
this.? Trustee Cazares expressed her fear of your conduct that has been ?unbecoming of a trustee
and it is not What we were voted in for to threaten lawsuits when we didn?t get our way.?
Although direction was not given to revise the censure, the Board expressed an intent to revisit it
once again in August.

The Board ?nds your contention that the censure was adopted with an ?utter absence of due
process of law? to be laughable. You have been provided many opportunities to respond to the
concerns. You have also been invited several times to provide speci?c examples and/or authority
supporting your contention that the censure resolution ?encroaches upon matters strictly limited
under the law exclusively to the judiciary branch of government.? To date, you have failed to do
so. As a result, the Board has voted unanimously to reject your claim.

Be advised that you have six (6) months from the date of this letter was deposited in the mail to
file a court action on this claim (Govt. Code ?945.6). Please note that any action challenging the

Board?s legislative immunity will be vigorously opposed.

You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter at your sole
cost. If you desire to consult or retain an attorney you should do so immediately.

Sincerely,

 

Trustee es
Board President

 

2309 Tulane Street Fresno, CA 93721-2287

wu?u'. i'esnouni redo:-