Letter 1
Title: Concerns Regarding Efficiency, Reliability of Filings, Truthfulness of Marketing Claims, Governance, Compliance with 501(c)3 exemption requirements per the IRS, and Transparency at SparkBy: Matt Kirk and Stephen Marotto | Date: 6/1/23
To: Dr. Brett Geithman
CC: Larkspur-Corte Madera School District Board of Trustees
Letter Summary: Shares concerns regarding numerous Spark financial filing anomalies (including Ryba 2020 compensation stated as zero), Spark unwillingness to comply with nonprofit disclosure laws and steep decline in Spark Efficiency under Sara Ryba. Calls for an investigation and audit.
District Response: Geithman Response to Complaint Dated June 1, 2023
Response Summary: On June 16, 2023, district responds that it has evaluated the complaint, found no evidence of fraud or illegal wrongdoing and is denying the request for an investigation and audit with the materials then to be released to the public. Dr. Geithman further criticizes authors for voicing concerns, labeling them "a disruption to District operations" that "negatively impacts the SPARK Foundation, which consists primarily of volunteers."
Letter 2
Title: Public Records Act Request For Ryba Correspondence with District Dated June 23rd, 2023By: Matt Kirk | Date: 9/13/23
To: Larkspur-Corte Madera School District Board of Trustees
CC: County Superintendent John Carroll
Letter Summary: Referencing a PRA Request for Ryba correspondene with the district's leadership, notes the request has been outstanding for 82 days at time of letter and requests that Dr. Geithman be recused from fulfilling the PRA request given historical behavior (including two separate appeals to me to withdraw this request), a clear conflict of interest (the request will include his correspondence in part), and to ensure the district's response is perceived as transparent and impartial by the community.
District Response: District Response to Geithman Recusal Request Dated September 13, 2023
Response Summary: On September 20, 2023, Dr. Geithman responds to the letter despite it being addressed to LCMSD board and writes that he will remain in charge of the fulfillment process (in effect representing the district's denial of my request for his recusal).
Letter 3
Title: Response to District’s Complaint Response / I Seek to Address the Board Regarding the ComplaintBy: Matt Kirk | Date: 9/20/23
To: Dr. Brett Geithman
CC: Larkspur-Corte Madera School District Board of Trustees | County Superintendent John Carroll | State Superintendent Tony Thurmond | Representative Jared Huffman
Letter Summary: Calls on district to help address identified Spark issues instead of recuse itself from any obligation to do so on premise they are separate legal entities. Challenges district's finding in June 16th response of "no wrongdoing" given evidence presented and Spark's subsequent continued unwillingness to provide a 2020 Ryba compensation figure (at this time, 120 days had passed from the initial request and in the interim Spark's lawyer lied to me about the figure and then ceased communications when I pointed it out), and presents new findings (unreported PPP loans) that again support the need for an investigation and audit. Asks to address the board of trustees.
District Response: District Response to Kirk Request Dated September 20, 2023
Response Summary: On September 28, 2023, Dr. Geithman does not address any questions posed or items presented in the prior letter except to consider the request to address the board "to be a request to place an item on the Board’s agenda" and to grant a 10 minute speaking window for October 11, with Kirk required to provide any meeting materials by October 4th.
Kirk Response: Kirk Response to Type of Request to Address the Board
Response Summary: On October 3, 2023, Kirk responds to Dr. Geithman and clarifies that since Dr. Geithman told him and Mr. Marotto at the June 12th meeting that the district was processing this complaint under its policies for district employees (why he says he provided the letter to Ms. Ryba immediately after we sent it, which is unusual when investigating potential wrongdoing), Kirk seeks to address the board subject to those policies. Importantly, this policy would require Dr. Geithman to furnish a summary report to the board that includes the supporting work he performed behind his decision to reject the call for an investigation and audit on the back of his finding of "no wrongdoing."
Also, Kirk points out that meeting materials being due by October 4th doesn't make sense when Superintendent Carroll has told him restated Spark financials are to be released soon but also after that date."
District Response: District Response to Kirk Request to Address Board Pursuant to District Policy
Response Summary: On October 3, 2023, Dr. Geithman rejects Kirk's request to continue treating this matter under policies governing Complaints Concerning District Employees by pointing out that Ms. Ryba is not a district employee.
Kirk Response: Kirk Requests to Keep Policy Consistent
Response Summary: Kirk responds that Ms. Ryba was never a district employee but since Dr. Geithman elected to begin the processing of the complaint under those policies he and the district should now remain consistent. Kirk also asks when did the district change the policies it was using for the Spark complaint, and why?