Maryland State Board of Education

MEMORANDUM

January 26, 2022

TO: Dr. Monica Goldson

Tammy Turner, Esq.
Edward Burroughs
Tonya Wingfield (Citizens for Accountability)

FROM: Michelle L. Phillips w

Adinmistrative Officer
Maryland State Department of Education

SUBJECT: In the Matter of Re uest for Removal of Local Board Member EdwardBurrou hs

Enclosed is a copy of Order No. OR22-01 for the above named case which was rendered by
the Maryland State Board of Education at its January meeting.

The State Board's decision may be appealed by filing a Petition for Judicial Review in the
Circuit Court of thejurisdiction in which the local board is located within 30 days of the date of the
decision. COMAR 13A. 01. 05. 11.

Enclosure

ec: State Board File

200WestBaltimore Street, Baltimore, MD21201 . 410-767-0467 .410-333-6442FTY/TDD .stateboard. msde@maryland.gov

IN THE MATTER OF BEFORE THE

REQUEST FOR REMOVAL MARYLAND

OF EDWARD BURROUGHS STATE BOARD

OF EDUCATION

Order No. OR 22-01

ORDER

The State Board received a request to remove Edward Burroughs as a member of the
Prince George’s County Board of Education (“local board”) for misconduct in office, willful
neglect of duty, immorality, and incompetency. Thereafter, on or about December 6, 2021, Mr.
Burroughs resigned from the local board in order to pursue other opportunities.

Given that Mr. Burroughs is no longer a member of the local board, we find the request
for removal to be moot. The test for mootness is whether “there is no longer an existing
controversy between the parties, so that there is no longer any effective remedy which the courts
[or agency] can provide.” Mallardi v. Carroll County Bd. of Educ., MSBE Op. No. 00-07 (2000)
(quoting In Re Michael B., 345 Md. 232, 234 (1997)). We find that Mr. Burroughs’ resignation
has eliminated any controversy that may have existed, and that there is no longer an effective
remedy.

We recognize that we previously addressed mootness with regard to a local board

member removal action in Dyer v. Howard County Bd. of Educ., MSBE Op. No. 13-20 (2013).
We made a determination on the merits of that case even though Mr. Dyer no longer served as a
member of the local board. In Dyer, the State Board had considered the removal request and
issued charges against Mr. Dyer, thereby initiating the administrative process at the Office of
Administrative Hearings (“OAH”). Id. While the matter was at OAH, Mr. Dyer’s membership
term expired and he lost his bid for re-election to the local board. Id. Thereafter, the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) issued a proposed decision finding the Mr. Dyer had
committed misconduct in office, and the State Board considered if the matter was moot prior to
issuing a final decision in the case. Id.

The Dyer case is distinguishable from the case currently before us for two reasons. First,
Dyer was in a different procedural posture than this case. At the time Mr. Dyer lost his seat as a
board member, the State Board had already issued charges against him. The evidentiary hearing
on the merits of the case had already taken place and, ultimately, the ALJ issued a proposed
decision finding that Mr. Dyer had committed misconduct in office. Mr. Dyer argued that his
character was tarnished due to the State Board’s charge of misconduct and that the remedy was
to issue a final decision dismissing the charges against him. See Dyer at 2. In the case at hand,
we merely have a request for removal on which this Board has taken no action.

Second, in Dyer, the State Board applied the “rules of future conduct exception” to the
mootness doctrine which is used to hear cases that may otherwise be moot “when the urgency of
establishing a rule of future conduct in matters of important public concern is imperative and
manifest….” See Dyer at 5. The Board found that the case “present[ed] a matter of public
concern – defining the contours of misconduct in office for local boards,” and proceeded to
review the case on its merits and adopted the ALJ’s conclusion that Mr. Dyer committed
misconduct in office. Id. Since the time the State Board decided Dyer in 2013, the Board has
reviewed numerous cases involving the various bases for removal of local board members, and
has provided guidance on the issues in doing so through State Board orders and opinions. See In
the Matter of Nicholson, MSBE Order No. OR20-21 (2020); In Re Foote, MSBE Op. No. 19-37
(2019); In Re Harshman, MSBE Op. No. 17-17 (2017); In the Matter of Dimaggio, MSBE Op.
No. 16-24 (2016). We find no basis to apply the future conduct exception here.

Therefore, it is this 25th day of January 2022, by the Maryland State Board of Education,
ORDERED, that the request to issue charges for removal of Edward Burroughs is dismissed
because it is moot.

MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

__________________________________________
Clarence C. Crawford
President

2
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5794934D-9AE3-45A0-9D65-C8D27871975C

July 19, 2021

Maryland State Board of Education

c/o Jackie C. LaFiandra, Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General, Maryland State Department of Education
200 St. Paul Place, 19th Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Dear Ms. LaFiandra

REQUEST TO ISSUE CHARGES

COMAR Sec. 13a.01.05.12a. Procedures Applicable to Requests to Remove a Local Board
Member states:
Request to Issue Charges. A request to issue charges against a local board
member may be filed with the State Board by the local board or by a resident
of the county in which the school system is located, if removal by the State
Board is permitted by the statute governing removal of members of that local
board.
Sec. 13a.01.05.12b
(1) The request to issue charges shall set forth in a detailed affidavit, with all
supporting documentation, the factual basis to support a statutory ground for
removal.
(2) Grounds for removal are those set forth by the statute governing removal
of members of that local board and may include:
(a) Misconduct in office;
(b) Immorality;
(c) Incompetency;
(d) Willful neglect of duty; or
(e) Failure to attend a required number of scheduled board meetings.

Hence, I am requesting that charges are brought against Edward Burroughs based on
the following.

AFFIDAVIT

State of Maryland
County of Prince George’s County
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5794934D-9AE3-45A0-9D65-C8D27871975C

I, Steffanie Jackson, of 12503 Clearwater Way, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, 20772 am the
designated representative of the joint Request to Issues Charges and Removal of Prince George’s
County School Board member, Edward Burroughs. Each member of this request does hereby
swear under oath that I have knowledge of the statement below and have provided the supportive
documentation in support of the said statements:

I. Misconduct in Office

A. At the March 1, 2021, Special Board Meeting Mr. Burroughs provided a misleading
report that resulted in expanding contract opportunities for the Community Workforce
Agreements for Capital Improvement Projects with Baltimore Washington Laborers
and Public Employees District Council (LiUna!).

Mr. Burroughs failed to disclose that LiUna! made campaign contributions for his
2020 re-election. Also, Mr. Burroughs was Vice Chair, an officer of the board,
accepting political donations from this labor union while a party to the original
negotiation process in 2020. Mr. Burroughs ignored his Conflict of Interest and
participated in the discussion to expand LiUna!’s contract opportunities and cast an
affirmative vote to have the board adopt that resolution. (Exhibit 1)

B. Mr. Burroughs report of the asbestos removal performed under the contract with
LiUna! cannot be found on the approved board CIP list. No evidence of work orders
for the performed, or invoices paid to LiUna! can be found in BoardDocs; however,
Mr. Burroughs, reported at the March 1, 2021, to the entire board that LiUna! did an
outstanding job and deserved to have their contract expanded. Based on no evidence
of this work happening, Mr. Burroughs mislead the entire board. (Exhibit 2)

C. Board member, Edward Burroughs, abused his authority as Vice Chair when he
created a contractual position for a friend experiencing financial issues. This friend
would be paid $10,000 a month to lobby on behalf of the Board in Annapolis. Mr.
Burroughs used a company of a sitting council member and current Mayoral
candidate from Glenarden, Dr. DonJuan L. Williams, as a pass-through company to
pay this friend. Mr. Williams’ company was neither registered with the state as a
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5794934D-9AE3-45A0-9D65-C8D27871975C

lobbyist nor a company in good standing to do business with the state of Maryland at
the time this lobbyist contract was signed. (Exhibit 3)

D. Mr. Burroughs deliberately circumvented Board policy and Purchasing guidelines

regarding several contracts by attempting to sole source contracts with a value over
$25,000.

1. Prison to Pipeline)

a) Mr. Burroughs presented at the March 1 board meeting he had negotiated

a contract valued at $55,000 with a California consulting company to
provide work sessions for a board committee and never put this contract
to a competitive bid.

b) These are services that are offered free from several organizations,
including a local non-profit in Prince George’s County.

c) Mr. Burroughs worked with another board member as early as December

on this effort before it was discussed with the entire Board.

2. LiUna! (Community Workforce Agreements for Capital Improvement

Projects) - (Exhibit 2)

3. Pugh Law Group, LLC - (Exhibit 4)

a) Having no prior discussion before the full Board, the Pugh Law Group
contract was introduced to the public at a meeting where Mr. Burroughs
presided against the advice of the board legal counsel citing a violation of
board policy.

b) Mr. Burroughs provided the erroneous guidance to the other six board
members based on Roberts Rules of Order and a letter misrepresented as
an opinion from the Attorney General to misguide his fellow board
members.

c) In violation of state law, these seven board members voted to have Mr.
Burroughs sign a contract to engage the services of the Pugh Law Group.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5794934D-9AE3-45A0-9D65-C8D27871975C

d) At the May 12, 2021, board meeting it was disclosed to the public that Mr.
Burroughs had signed a contract with the Pugh Law Group, which by
board policy constitutes Fraud and Forgery since he signed knowing he
did not possess signature authority.

e) At the May 26, 2021, board meeting it was disclosed that the Pugh Law
Group would not cooperate with the Board’s request to produce the
contract signed by Mr. Burroughs and instead withdrew its name from
consideration for the interim legal services. It was also announced at that
time that following the guidance from the Purchasing Department, a
interim legal services contract had been legally executed with Karpinski,
Cornbrooks, and Karps.

f) Due to conflicting advice given to the Board Chair by the Administration

General Counsel, a special meeting was held on June 4, 2021, where the
Karpinski contract and Pugh Law Group contracts were discussed.

g) The entire Board was informed that the Pugh Law Group could not be
considered being the firm is party to a formal investigation relating the
forgery actions of Mr. Burroughs and therefore moving on the Pugh Law
Group contract presented a conflict of interest.

h) Mr. Burroughs ignored all the facts that were best to protect the Board
and put forth a motion to vote on the Pugh Law Group contract and in
violation to board policy, voted in the affirmative to adopt the board
resolution to accept this contract fully aware of the conflict of interest his
participation in any discussion and vote presented.

II. Immorality

A. From the day of his December swearing-in and a day after Dr. Alvin Thornton
announced his resignation as Board Chair, Mr. Burroughs has led a mission to disrupt
the academic goals of the state and county Board of Education with that of his own
and his followers. (Exhibit 5)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5794934D-9AE3-45A0-9D65-C8D27871975C

B. On April 28, Edward Burroughs presided over a board meeting in violation of board
policy. This meeting lacked the required quorum of eight members as stated in Board
policy. Further, Mr. Burroughs refused to follow the advice of the Board attorney
who advised Mr. Burroughs the meeting could be challenged when he proceeded.
Additionally, Mr. Burroughs mislead the other board members by presenting a letter
addressed to Delegate Julian Ivey as an opinion of Attorney General, Brian Frosh, to
validate holding the meeting. (Exhibit 6)

III. Incompetency

A. Mr. Burroughs has been on the school board since 2008 where he served twice as the
student member and was elected in 2010. Mr. Burroughs continues to demonstrate
his failure to adequately learn and understand board policies and state laws that
govern the Board of Education. (Exhibit 7)

1. 2010 Changes to Policy 8100

a) Mr. Burroughs provided a committee report of recommended amendments

to Policy 8100 at a November 16 Policy Committee meeting.

b) Mr. Burroughs had those recommendation placed on the Consent Agenda

and skipped the first reading.

B. Mr. Burroughs pressuring the CEO to push the acceptance of the Pugh Law Firm
based on policy 9270 demonstrates his failure after almost 13 years on the school
board to learn to proper application of state law, board policies and Roberts Rule of
Order relating to precedent in executing state law and policies that conflict with state
law. (Exhibit 4)

IV. Willful Neglect of Duty/ Failure to attend a required scheduled board meetings

Mr. Burroughs has claimed to the media that appeals are not being heard because the
board does not have attorney which is false. Roger Thomas remains under contract to the
Board. Additionally, the executed contract with Karpinski, Cornbrooks, and Karp was
not terminated and therefore legal counsel is available. The Board has legal counsel, just
not who Mr. Burroughs wanted.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5794934D-9AE3-45A0-9D65-C8D27871975C

A. Mr. Burroughs voted against the Board holding executive session on three occasions
since he expressed to the media that appeals were not being heard: June 24, 2021,
May 12, and May 6. Again, during this period, the Board still had access to legal
counsel through the existing contract with Mr. Roger Thomas’ firm and the duly
executed contract with Karpinski, Cornbrooks and Karp. (Exhibit 8)

Under penalty of perjury, I hereby declare and affirm that the above stated facts, to
the best of my knowledge, are true and correct.

DATED this 19 day of July 2021

Steffanie Jackson 7/19/2021

Name: Signature: Date Signed:

Donna Young 7/19/2021

Name: Signature: Date Signed:

Derrick Homesley 7/19/2021

Name: Signature: Date Signed:

Jennifer Hooker 7/19/2021

Name: Signature: Date Signed:

Diane Edwards 7/20/2021

Name: Signature: Date Signed:

Tonya Wingfield 7/19/2021

Name: Signature: Date Signed:

Terry Williams 7/20/2021

Name: Signature: Date Signed:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5794934D-9AE3-45A0-9D65-C8D27871975C

Valerie Gales 7/20/2021

Name: Signature: Date Signed:

Name: Signature: Date Signed:

Name: Signature: Date Signed:

Name: Signature: Date Signed:

Name: Signature: Date Signed: