SUSD discussions about candidates may violate law
By Yasmin Assemi, Stockton Record, February 10, 2005
Stockton Unified school board members met in parking lots, talked over the phone and consulted each other outside public meetings before appointing a new school board member Tuesday night.
Those actions likely violated the Brown Act, the state's good-government open-meeting law, according to a media attorney for The Record.
On Tuesday night, the board voted 4-2 to appoint Venice Holladay to a vacant board seat. There was little public discussion before the decision.
"If there was no technical violation of the Brown Act, there was a violation of the spirit of the Brown Act," said Record attorney Rachel Matteo-Boehm.
Holladay replaces Clem Lee, who left the board in December after being elected to the Stockton City Council. Trustees Katrina Rios and Ed Garcia voted against Holladay.
Most Stockton Unified trustees said Wednesday that they had discussed the candidates for the open seat outside public meetings but denied that they had collectively come to a decision about whom to appoint.
Rios denied speaking to any trustees about the candidates outside of public meetings. Yet Trustee Sarah Bowden said she had had phone discussions with board members Rios, Anthony Silva and Glen Dolberg about candidates before Tuesday's meeting.
"There was really no pressure exerted," Bowden said. "Maybe they were trying to exert pressure, but I never felt any pressure except from Clem Lee last night. They just gave me information I didn't necessarily know."
Lee had told the school board Tuesday night that voters might demand a special election if the board didn't appoint a qualified candidate.
The Brown Act forbids "serial meetings," in which officials communicate with each other on public business outside of public meetings, because the officials could develop a "collective concurrence" even without committing to a certain vote. Matteo-Boehm said that when the Stockton school board members discussed the pros and cons of candidates, a collective concurrence could result.
Dolberg said he and other trustees interact outside meetings but don't violate the Brown Act.
"Everybody interacts to some degree," Dolberg said. "It's not against the law to talk to each other."
"(Trustees) called me and I shared some of my views with them," Dolberg said.
Silva said trustees weren't given enough time to publicly discuss the candidates because Lee "came during that period and did all the talking."
The school board's discussion over whom to appoint Tuesday night lasted less than 30 minutes.
"We could have gone around and around," Silva said. "That thing could have taken all night."
Gonzales said board members have discussed issues -- including the candidates -- outside the boardroom but there was never talk or pressure on how to vote, he said.
"I don't want to go to the extent of saying, 'Hey, I want you to support this issue,' " Gonzales said. "But I will bounce things off of people and see where things are going. I think there's nothing wrong with that, and I think that's healthy."
The Record's attorney did not agree.
"It's troubling to me that these conversations occurred," said attorney Matteo-Boehm. "It sounds like a violation."
Trustees said they voted for Holladay because he's a "team player," has common sense and would help the board improve school safety.
Trustees Rios and Garcia both preferred candidate Marcia Knudsen. Garcia was unavailable for comment despite several attempts Wednesday by The Record to reach him.
Brown Act violations weren't the only problem with the appointment process.
According to the San Joaquin County Registrar of Voters, candidate Bruce Kern didn't reside in Area 5 -- a school board requirement for representing the area. He lives in Area 4. The school board never disqualified him.
Silva, the committee chair in charge of the appointment process, said he tried to check candidates' eligibility by consulting maps but never verified their eligibility with the Registrar of Voters.
"I did some checking and somehow that must have eluded me," Silva said. "If he (Kern) was really interested he should have checked."
The board also initially disqualified candidate James Whigham because he's a district employee, but then held a special meeting to interview him on Monday. Whigham never showed up.
Holladay's Area 5 seat represents the region generally bounded by Kensington Way and Baker Street to the west, Wilson Way and Sanguinetti Lane to the east, the Calaveras River to the north and Harding Way to the south. The area also includes parts of the city between North California Street and Baker and Edison streets.
Tuesday night was "the beginnings of dysfunction," Lee said.
"There are agendas at work that are not being made public and not being made visible," Lee said.
Lee emphasized that he has no ill feelings towards Holladay, and wishes him the best.
"I feel he is an innocent victim in all of this," said Lee, whose son attends school in the district.
Dolberg, Silva and Bowden countered that it is actually Lee with a political agenda.
"I was leaning myself to Mrs. Knudsen until there was such an overwhelming campaign suggesting there were other things afoot," Dolberg said.
Holladay said Wednesday he was excited to take over the vacant seat.
"I was kind of thrown a bit by the spirit of it," he said, adding that he was surprised he was chosen over some candidates who had good interviews with the board.
Holladay said he doesn't know any of the board members personally and did not speak with any of them between his interview and Tuesday.
"It was just something I would like to do for my community," he said. "This came up, and I thought I'd give it a shot."
SR school bonuses' legality at issue
2002 failure to note 2 awards in minutes after closed meeting attributed to clerical errors
By Robert Digitale, The Press Democrat , March 19, 2005
During the past four years Santa Rosa school board members voted in closed meetings to award bonuses to two top administrators, actions that in two cases never appeared in minutes of those sessions.
But the board is awaiting a determination from its attorney to see if the votes actually violated state open meetings law.
The board sought legal advice following a complaint to the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office by a school district employee.
"There isn't anybody on the board who believes that anything ought to be done in secret," said board member Bill Carle.
Bonuses given in 2002, one to then-Superintendent Mel Solie and another to Associate Superintendent Doug Bower, don't appear in any board minutes.
But Carle insisted that on each occasion the board members emerged from closed session back into the public forum and made announcements about the bonuses. He said the lack of corroboration in the minutes is due to clerical errors.
Even if the school attorney and the district attorney conclude that the closed session actions violated state public meetings law, the only result may be that the board must take the votes on the years-old bonuses again, this time in public session.
The bonuses total more than $95,000 during the past four years. It is the votes on those bonuses, not the bonuses themselves, that are at issue.
They were first brought to light in spring 2004 by Maxine Stornetta-Smith, a longtime school district secretary. In December she complained to the district attorney that the board had violated the state public meetings law when it voted on the bonuses in closed sessions.
"The public had no idea this was happening," Stornetta-Smith said, referring to a $20,000 bonus awarded to Solie and an $11,067.50 bonus given to Bower.
Her complaint came after she filed a lawsuit against the district in early 2003, alleging that administrators were violating the state Public Records Act by refusing to promptly allow her access to records about personnel actions the board had taken.
The lawsuit was settled in 2003 and Stornetta-Smith was given the public records.
She soon determined that while bonuses were publicly recorded for 2001 and 2003, there was no such record in 2002.
The state meeting law, generally known as the Brown Act, requires most government business to be conducted in public.
The law specifically allows school boards and other government groups to meet in closed session to evaluate the performance of employees.
But such bodies must discuss and decide compensation matters in public, said an attorney for a nonprofit group dealing with government access and free speech issues.
"You can't decide to give a bonus in closed session," said Peter Scheer, executive director of the San Rafael-based First Amendment Coalition. "It has to be done publicly. That's all there is to it."
District Attorney Stephan Passalacqua acknowledged receiving both a complaint against the school board and a response from the district. However, he declined comment on the legality of voting on bonuses in closed session.
"The only thing I can say is that the matter is pending review," Passalacqua said. "We are evaluating this entire matter closely and should hopefully have a decision by the end of this month."
Board minutes from 2001 note that the board gave Solie a bonus of $2,856. As well, bonuses of $22,000 in 2003 and $28,752 in 2004 for Solie are noted in the personnel transaction report.
A 2004 bonus of $11,067.50 for Bower was reported in personnel transactions.
But neither the minutes nor the personnel transactions note a June 12, 2002, bonus of $20,000 for Solie or a Sept. 25, 2002, bonus of $11,067.50 for Bower.
Stornetta-Smith said she learned of those bonuses after asking former board member Jere Jacobs if bonuses had been given in 2002.
Jacobs acknowledged the other bonuses, though not the amounts, in an April 19, 2004, letter.
To address the reporting issue, the board earlier this month was scheduled to vote on revising its old minutes from 2002. But board members postponed the action.
School attorney Andy Wick said school officials have assured him that after each of the 2002 votes the board disclosed the bonuses publicly.
Usually such an announcement takes place to an empty meeting room, but it is a requirement of state law.
Wick said he is analyzing the meeting law's requirements on bonuses.
Votes taken in secret to be recast
School board granted bonuses in closed sessions; D.A. reviewing actions
By Robert Digitale, The Press Democrat , April 8, 2005
Santa Rosa school board members are scheduled next week to vote publicly on staff bonuses that were previously approved behind closed doors in apparent violation of the state public meetings law.
The action will correct votes taken during the past four years. But school officials are refusing to explain why the votes are needed and instead are referring questions to school board attorney Andy Wick.
Wick was unavailable for comment Thursday and school officials claimed attorney-client privilege in refusing to release an opinion Wick drafted.
Board President Frank Pugh acknowledged the past board actions on the bonuses "need to be fixed" but he deflected questions on whether the board violated state law by granting them in closed session.
"I guess I would have to wait and see what the district attorney would say to that issue," Pugh said, referring to a review of the past votes by Sonoma County District Attorney Stephan Passalacqua. That review followed a complaint by a longtime district employee.
The board is slated to vote again Wednesday on four bonuses previously approved to two top administrators, former Superintendent Mel Solie, who retired last year, and current Associate Superintendent Doug Bower.
During the past four years the school board members voted in closed meetings to award six bonuses. In two cases the board's actions never appeared in minutes or related personnel reports.
The six bonuses total more than $95,000.
The employee who raised the complaint, Maxine Stornetta-Smith, maintains that state law requires school boards to vote on bonuses and other compensation matters in public session. Her complaint to the district attorney deals with the legality of votes on the bonuses, not the bonuses themselves.
Passalacqua said earlier this week that he expected to conclude his review of the matter soon, possibly by next week.
It remained unclear Thursday why the board was scheduled to vote on only four of the six bonuses. The two bonuses not slated for new action Wednesday were awarded in closed session last August.
"Why would they only do four of the six?" asked Stornetta-Smith. She said she would await Passalacqua's review before making further comment.
Pugh referred questions on the remaining two bonuses to the school district's attorney. But he said of the four other bonuses, the attorney had concluded "those are the ones that have a problem."
In bringing the bonuses to light, Stornetta-Smith previously had filed a lawsuit against the district, alleging that administrators were failing to promptly make available the personnel actions the board had taken.
After that suit was settled, Stornetta-Smith received the public records and soon discovered that bonuses were recorded in 2001 and 2003, but there were no records for bonuses handed out in 2002. School officials eventually acknowledged the board that year gave a $20,000 bonus to Solie and a bonus of $11,067.50 to Bower.
Wick, the school district's attorney, previously has said that even if the board failed to follow the law, the only action needed was to have the elected officials take the votes on the bonuses again, this time in open session.
Appeals court agrees Rio board erred
By John Scheibe, VenturaCountyStar.com, January 27, 2006
The 2nd District Court of Appeal in Ventura this week upheld a judge's decision that Rio School District trustees violated the state's open-meeting law when they voted 2 years ago to fire Superintendent Yolanda Benitez.
The court would not, however, order the district to give Benitez back pay. Instead, it ruled that Ventura County Superior Court Judge Henry Walsh erred in ordering the district to give back pay and benefits to Benitez. But it left the door open for Benitez to seek back pay and benefits through a lawsuit she filed in Superior Court.
Benitez, reached by telephone in Los Angeles, where she works as an education consultant, said she was ecstatic over the court's decision.
"I always knew we were going to win," Benitez said.
Benitez could be owed as much as $445,000 in back pay and benefits, said Nick Calderon, one of her attorneys. The Court of Appeal also ruled that Benitez is entitled to attorney fees and costs related to her legal defense that the district violated the Brown Act the state's open-meeting law.
Esau Herrera, an attorney for the district, said trustees will discuss what to do next when they meet behind closed doors on Feb. 2.
Trustees placed Benitez on administrative leave during a closed-door meeting in March 2003, nearly eight years after she was hired to lead the often troubled school district. Their action came after the board received complaints alleging Benitez was abusing the district's bilingual education program. Benitez said the meeting violated the Brown Act because the board failed to notify her that it was considering taking disciplinary action.
Trustees voted 3-2 behind closed doors three months later to fire Benitez, even though she'd asked that they discuss her employment in public.
The district argued that Benitez was not entitled to a public hearing because the action to fire her was based on an internal investigation of her job performance.
Judge Walsh agreed that the district had violated the Brown Act. The district appealed Walsh's decision.
Benitez brought a separate lawsuit against the district, alleging that it violated her civil rights and her right to privacy, Calderon said. The lawsuit also alleges that the district owes Benitez back pay, since the board failed to follow the Brown Act when it voted to fire her, Calderon said. Benitez is alleging in another lawsuit that she's owed 28 days of vacation pay, Calderon said.
Those lawsuits were put on hold until the Court of Appeal decided whether the district violated the Brown Act, Calderon said. He said those lawsuits can now proceed.
Calderon said he fully expects Benitez will prevail in court, given the Court of Appeal's decision. Still, Calderon said, he hopes the district will agree to settle the two remaining lawsuits out of court.
Trustee Simon Ayala, who voted not to fire Benitez in 2003, said on Thursday he was saddened that the district has spent so much time and money on this case.
"Much of it has been a political vendetta against Mrs. Benitez to ruin her reputation," said Ayala, who now serves as the board's president. He said he hopes the district will settle with Benitez out of court, rather than spend more time and money on the case.
"I also want an investigation so that those who are responsible for all of this be held accountable," he said.
Trustee Henrietta Macias, who voted to fire Benitez, said the Court of Appeal's decision was a loss for Benitez, not the district.
"She got no back pay, she got zero," Macias said. As to an out-of-court settlement, Macias said she would be against it.
"Let her go to court; she won't win."
Open Government Threatened by Recent Court Rulings
By Terry Francke, General Counsel and Founder, Californians Aware
Sunshine Week (March 15-21) is a national celebration of open government, but here in California a court decision has favored the suppression of dissent and cost a long-time open government advocate $80,000.
More than four years ago the people of California went to the polls and, by an overwhelming 83 percent support for Proposition 59, passed a state constitutional amendment guaranteeing the public fundamental access to the meetings and records of their local and state government agencies.
This month, however, despite those constitutional protections, California courts finalized an order that a small public interest non-profit group and its past president must pay nearly $86,000 for merely asking them to protect the public’s right to hear the opinions expressed by its local elected representatives.
The problem began when a majority of the Orange Unified School District (OUSD) Board didn’t like one of its members’ criticism of its decision supporting the superintendent’s transfer of a high school principal to a nonexistent position, “principal on special assignment,” at a continuation school. The dissident member said the board should have fired the principal after the many complaints received from parents about his performance—instead of transferring him to a school already having achievement problems.
The superintendent edited the dissenter’s comments out of the DVD the district distributes to local cable TV stations for airing. Then, in violation of its own bylaws, the board censured the member for his negative comments, warning him not to repeat the offense. The Board majority saw its chance to issue a public rebuke to a dissident thorn in their side, who favored the use of long diatribes during meetings to pronounce the Board majority and school administration corrupt.
Richard McKee, then president of Californians Aware (CalAware), had earlier warned the board that such an action violated the Brown Act’s prohibition against discouraging the expression of one or more of its members. After the censure action, McKee and CalAware petitioned the court for an order overturning the censure and for a declaration that the editing of the recording of the meeting was unlawful. It sought no money damages or other remedies, and was filed by a trial lawyer on the CalAware board who took the case pro bono publico —waiving any fees if the action was unsuccessful.
Orange Unified filed an anti-SLAPP motion, claiming that McKee and CalAware were trying to stifle the district’s right to free speech. Such a motion asks dismissal of any lawsuit that attempts to chill the valid exercise of free speech in matters of public interest. If the court grants the motion, not only is the case against the speaker tossed out of court, but the plaintiff seeking to stop the speech must pay the speaker’s attorney fees.
The trial judge liked—and promptly granted—the district’s anti-SLAPP motion, saying the OUSD Board was right to censure the minority member’s criticism, calling it “boorish,” and concluded that the alteration of the meeting tape to remove the critical comments was protected, because it represented the right of the district to control its own speech.
Confident that the ruling would be overturned under Proposition 59, the Brown Act and the First Amendment, McKee and CalAware appealed, pleading that the public had a right to hear all the comments made by its elected representatives at an open meeting. But the Fourth Appellate District sitting in Santa Ana agreed with the trial court that the district’s speech rights trumped the dissident trustee’s, ruling that McKee and CalAware were responsible for OUSD’s attorney fees. Then, after the California Supreme Court denied review, reality set in.
Despite the fact that the Brown Act itself protects plaintiffs suing to enforce open government from such a fee order unless the action is judged “clearly frivolous and totally lacking in merit” (a finding not made by either of these courts), McKee and CalAware are on the hook.
But CalAware is a five-year-old nonprofit with very limited assets. It has already contributed all the cash it could raise, $6,000. Thus McKee, whose wages have already been garnished by OUSD, and who has had a lien placed upon his home by the district, is left to scramble to come up with the remaining $80,000. He’s already paid $59,000 of it through a second trust deed on his home, depleted his savings, and is now taking another $16,000 from a tax shelter annuity. How he will come up with the remainder is uncertain.
None of this was supposed to happen. The California Constitution requires that any law, like the Brown Act, which furthers the people’s right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, “shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.”
In this case the courts gutted the Brown Act of the protections that were there to secure the people’s right to hear the concerns expressed by their local elected representatives, as well as their statements of support.
Here, despite the California Constitution and the Brown Act, the courts have granted public agencies the right to punish expressions of concern made by their own officers to the public they serve, and to censor any information from its publications that the agency doesn’t want the people to see or hear. These are rights usually associated with an authoritarian regime, not a democratic republic.
So now it’s back to the drawing board, trying to formulate a legislative remedy for the loss of a fundamental right voided by the courts.
Meanwhile McKee, a chemistry professor of 34 years who, as a non-lawyer, has successfully prosecuted 14 other Brown Act and Public Records Act cases to protect the public’s right to open government, is wondering what happened to his retirement savings—and not just because of the economy.
Trustees seek to muzzle quirky colleague
Orange Unified board members want to cut Steve Rocco's speaking time; parents are with them. He says it's part of 'the Partnership' plot
By Seema Mehta, Los Angeles Times, March 23, 2007
Fed up with eccentric Orange schools Trustee Steve Rocco, his fellow school board members will try to curtail his ability to place discussion items on the meeting agenda next week.
District staff will present a proposal at the Thursday board meeting that calls for the board president to decide whether a trustee's discussion item ought to be placed on the agenda. If the president denies the item, the trustee can appeal the decision to the full board.
The move comes at a time when parents have begun publicly discussing a recall effort aimed at Rocco, the conspiracy-minded school board member who was elected in what was considered a fluke more than two years ago.
The board proposal and recall threat were prompted by Rocco's attempt this month to make a presentation at a school board meeting about what he calls "the Partnership," a shadowy cabal of politicians, business leaders, judges and other powerful individuals he says run Orange County and have tried to assassinate him. As parents at the meeting fumed, board members cut off Rocco, saying his talk wasn't related to school business.
"How dare you play your childish games at the expense of my children and the taxpayers of this city?" Michelle Thomas, a mother of two elementary students, said at the meeting.
In an interview this week, Rocco dismissed the recall threat, saying it was being made by associates of his fellow board members, who are themselves a part of "the Partnership."
"They get their cronies to come in and talk about recall," he said. "I could care less."
Rocco was elected to the Orange Unified School District board in 2004 with nary a campaign appearance or flier. His quirky style and conspiracy theories he contends, for instance, that local authorities were behind his father's death called into question voters' attention to school board races. Many in the district suspect that voters chose Rocco because he listed his occupation as a teacher, although he has not taught in years and currently is a caregiver to his elderly mother.
The district, with a $248-million annual budget and more than 31,300 students, is among Orange County's largest.
Since his election, Rocco has abstained from scores of votes because he believes administrators have failed to provide enough information, refuses to vote to expel students or fire teachers because he believes administrative hearings are biased against them, and refuses to participate in closed school board meetings to discuss issues such as personnel matters. Rocco says all school business should be done in public.
Agencies violate public access law
40% in county failed to release documents, with law enforcement the worst offender
By Tamara Koehler, Ventura County Star, March 12, 2006
Ventura Unified School District employees feared for their lives when a young man walked into the office, asked for public records and refused to give his name. He didn't get the records.
When confronted with a similar anonymous request, employees of the tiny Oak Park Unified School District produced the documents promptly no questions asked.
At the Ojai Police Department, a sergeant told a man asking to review and copy the log of daily calls for police service: "Unless you're a reporter, we don't allow private citizens to see those records."
At the Thousand Oaks Police Department, a free copy of the daily call log was handed over immediately.
From schools to police departments, city halls to special districts, the public's ability to inspect government records is uneven at best in Ventura County, an audit by The Star found. At worst, that access guaranteed under the state Constitution depends on policies that violate the law or on the whims of public agency employees.
The audit, conducted during the last week of January, sought to test how average people are treated when they ask for public documents.
A person wanting the daily log of calls to police may want to know if a crime wave of burglaries or car break-ins is occurring in the neighborhood. A parent may want to prepare for a school board meeting on shortening the school day by viewing a consultant's report on the issue. The state Public Records Act says they're entitled to that information.
All told, 91 documents were requested of 51 agencies. About 40 percent of those agencies either denied the request outright or made demands that violated the law.
"As journalists, we know the law and have lawyers to fight for us, yet it's a struggle every day in our jobs to access public records. So what must it be like for ordinary citizens who want to know their government's business? That's why we conducted this audit, and what we found is pretty disheartening," said The Star's editor, Joe Howry.
The issue is an important one to the voting public. In 2004, 83 percent of Californians voting passed a proposition making public access to government information a constitutional right. Under Proposition 59, there is even more of a burden on government agencies to either turn over documents or give legal grounds for withholding information.
A recent nationwide poll by Scripps Howard News Service found Americans overwhelmingly believe that public access to government records and other official information is critical to good government. Most Americans believe that the federal government is closed and secretive.
That's what Steve Schleder of Ventura believes of local government. For years, Schleder has painstakingly tried to piece together the history of Cemetery Memorial Park in Ventura. The struggle for public records has been intense at times, he said, with Schleder at one point going to the Grand Jury over allegations that the city of Ventura withheld information from a file. The grand jury's findings were inconclusive.
"You have to be able to stand up to them and take the position that they are your employees, you are not their's," Schleder said. "The clerks and government officials work for the citizens of this county."
Starting the last week of January, a team of Star journalists fanned out across the county seeking public records such as expense reports, appointment calendars, employment contracts, police blotters and student expulsion rates. To ensure that they were treated as average citizens, the reporters were instructed to give only their first names. If an agency insisted on a last name before turning over the records, the request was considered denied.
Under the California Public Records Act, any member of the public is entitled to inspect public records without providing identification or a reason why the information is sought.
Special district staff and city and county clerks fared the best, turning over documents 80 percent to 100 percent of the time.
School districts and police agencies were the worst offenders, with 46 percent of school districts and 90 percent of police agencies failing to fully comply.
Several agencies insisted that subpoenas were needed to release the information. Others flatly refused to release expense reports or labor contracts, insisting that the documents were not public.
Many denials and delays sprang from the refusal to give a last name or a reason for requesting a document. Several agencies cited policies that required identification.
A request for Sheriff Bob Brooks' travel and credit card expenditures for the last month was denied after 12 days. Sheriff's officials required a letter be written directly to Brooks as well as a full name, address and phone number.
Moorpark Unified School District employees grew suspicious of a request for expulsion rates and the superintendent's contract. A secretary demanded a last name, phone number and employer name first. "Why would we give that to you?" the secretary asked.
In a post-audit interview, Superintendent Frank DePasquale who has since retired said he believes that the law requires identification but that he would check with the school district's attorney.
California Newspaper Publishers Association attorney Tom Newton said "suspicion" about who is asking for the documents or why they want them is not a valid legal excuse for denying access.
"The law is very clear these documents belong to the public, and that means all of the public, even those you don't like the way they look," Newton said.
While the public records act requires state agencies to adopt and post regulations for releasing information, there is no such rule at the local level, Newton said. The result is a hodgepodge of public access at the neighborhood level. The responsibility for making sure that employees follow the Public Records Act lies with top officials superintendents, city managers, police chiefs, he said.
"Why is this important? Because the people create government institutions. In order to maintain control over government, the people have to have access to the information generated by the government. The government is a mere custodian of the public's records," Newton said.
School districts
Six school districts turned down requests to review a form filed with the state listing student expulsions for carrying weapons on campus. Those same districts also denied requests to inspect and copy the superintendent's employment contract.
Staff members at nearly every district, including many that eventually complied, repeatedly asked reporters: "Why do you want this?" and "Who are you with?"
In the case of Ventura Unified, a newspaper intern's request for documents and refusal to identify himself were viewed as sinister. Nancy Bradford, administrator of support services, thought that it was "strange" that the young man refused to give his name.
His quiet demeanor also frightened Bradford, who works frequently with angry, upset parents, she said.
"That was the most frightening experience I've had in my career. I thought he had a gun. He had his hand behind his back. My job is to protect the superintendent. I didn't know if her address was in the contract and that he didn't plan to go and shoot her or blow the school up. It was a very odd situation," Bradford said.
Superintendent Trudy Tuttle Arriaga said later that Bradford spent hours going over surveillance video to see if the man's face showed up on camera. If it had, Bradford intended to forward the tape to police.
"The request for records became secondary because staff felt something was off and we were put in danger," Arriaga said.
Intern Daniel Miller's written account of the encounter described Bradford as friendly and helpful. He wrote that he simply entered the office and asked politely for the records.
Such a strong reaction, coming from a school district office, was surprising to Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Arlington, Va.
"Perhaps if the request had been made at an individual school where children are present and there's heightened awareness of security, I can see that sort of reaction, human nature being what it is these days," Dalglish said. "But at the district office, who you are and what you want the public record for should be no big deal."
At the Ocean View School District in Oxnard, the reporter was told to make an appointment with Superintendent Nancy Carroll to get a copy of her employment contract. Carroll repeatedly questioned why the contract was wanted and how the information would be used.
"It's just that I don't want these documents all over the place without my knowing why," she said.
The school district did, however, comply with the request.
In the case of the Santa Paula Elementary School District, the refusal to give a name or reason was taken in stride. "Even if someone has an agenda and wants the information for that purpose, we're obligated to give it to them, without question," Superintendent Luis Villegas Jr. said.
Villegas said it is critical to have "experienced" employees who know the public records law.
"All of our employees know all the information we have here at the district office is mostly public information," Villegas said. "We work for the public, and we're here to serve the public."
Law enforcement
Police agencies put up the most roadblocks, with nearly all denying requests for call logs and some requiring face-to-face meetings with top law enforcement officials.
A reporter asking for records at the front counter of the Ventura Police Department was told that she would have to meet with Assistant Police Chief Glen "Skip" Young. Eight days later, the meeting took place in Young's office. Young told the reporter that the department did not keep a daily call log and that producing such a document would be onerous.
As for the chief's expense account report, Young said he could produce a copy right away but only if the reporter signed the city's public request form.
"Now I understand you have not been wanting to give your last name; however, we will need that information for this document," Young told the reporter. He added that an address was also required because of the "Homeland Security Act." Some asking for documents, Young said, plan to use them "for not very nice reasons."
City Manager Rick Cole said Ventura does not require that information before releasing public records. He said he would talk to the police chief about the department's response.
"Police officers by nature are trained to follow the law. If they interpreted it more strictly than necessary, that's the kind of thing we're happy to look into," he said.
All but one police agency denied or partially denied access to the day's log of calls for service. The Thousand Oaks Police Department a Sheriff's Department's contract station produced the document free of charge without asking questions. The Sheriff's main office responded to the request for its log but provided the wrong documents.
At the Santa Paula police station, a clerk allowed viewing of the call log but no copies because the information could not leave the station.
Steve McKenna, appointed last year as police chief, said the staff has been poorly trained when it comes to public access. "Our record system is not very strong. I've been here a short time, and we're fixing things that are broken. I'll be fixing this, too," he said.
Like McKenna, most police chiefs accepted the audit's findings and promised change.
"I'm glad you brought this to my attention. I'm going to modify our policy," Simi Valley Police Chief Mark Layhew said.
Brooks, who oversees five contract stations in cities throughout the county, said a standard public records policy should be in place. He said he will review the matter.
Cities, county, special districts
City and county clerks who are trained to deal with requests for information complied most frequently.
However, many still required forms and identification, especially when the records requested were not the regular grist such as budgets or board letters.
Several cities make public record request forms available to the public and ask people to fill them out before viewing or copying. Star reporters who filled out the forms gave their first names and an e-mail address.
The Star's audit asked for appointment calendars, expense accounts and conflict-of-interest forms.
City managers became suspicious after talking with each other about the rash of anonymous requests. They speculated that The Star was behind the effort, said Cole, the Ventura city manager.
"We figured it out," Cole said. With so many people coming in with an air of mystery, "it caught our attention."
In Thousand Oaks, a deputy city attorney refused to turn over a copy of the City Council members' appointment calendars or the city manager's expense report unless a full name and address were given.
Patrick Hehir wrote in an e-mail: "I need your full name and address. The City of Thousand Oaks needs to maintain proper records on requesting parties under the California Public Records Act."
After word got out that The Star was behind the requests, the city changed its position.
City Attorney Amy Albano e-mailed the reporter that the records were available for inspection and copying and that a name and address would not be required.
Eight out of 10 special districts responded promptly and completely. The director of an 11th district, South Coast Area Transit, discovered that the requester was a reporter and chastised her for being unprofessional. Deborah Lindham insisted that the reporter give her name and reasons for wanting Lindham's expense account and employment contract. When the reporter refused, Lindham sent her away empty-handed.
"There was this cagey thing; it was never about the records disclosure," Lindham said. "I definitely would have provided the information if this game was not being played."
Government officials don't get to make that decision, according to public record experts.
"Records are public. That doesn't mean there are segments of the public. It's the whole public. And anybody has the right to see public records," said Edwin Guthman, a journalism professor at USC's Annenberg School for Communications and former editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Surprisingly, small special districts with tiny staffs performed better than large ones such as the Ventura County Fire Protection District.
Employees at the fire district in Camarillo said the expense report and employee contract for Fire Chief Bob Roper were confidential, then directed the reporter to the county Human Resources Department 10 miles away in Ventura. A secretary there also denied the request, saying the information was private.
Human Resources Director Barry Zimmerman, after checking with county counsel, said that a mistake was made and that the documents were public record.
Tactics questioned
Some agency officials, such as Cole, said the audit was an "artificial exercise" that measured people's instinctive response to anonymity rather than requests for documents.
"We're used to people, businesspersons, citizens, activists requesting public records, but it's so unusual not to give a name," Cole said. "While it's good to flex democracy's muscles, I don't really think this tells us anything accurately."
Others, like Ventura Unified's Arriaga, questioned The Star's method of conducting the audit.
"It surprised me as a longtime subscriber to The Star. And after working collaboratively with the press on many occasions, this particular mode of operation surprised me," she said.
But public access experts say similar audits in other states and communities have provoked change for the better. As a result, agencies have trained staff, laws have been passed improving public record access, and governments have changed policies.
"These types of audits are extremely beneficial in many ways, and most certainly result in voters having better ideas of what information they're entitled to," Dalglish said.
Closed CUSD meeting draws criticism
Worst example of meeting-law violation in 25 years, attorney says
By Sam Miller, Orange County Register , July 27, 2006
One of the state's foremost experts on open-meetings law called Capistrano Unified the worst violator he has seen in 25 years and called for the district attorney to file charges.
Terry Francke, general counsel for Californians Aware, reviewed staff notes on a closed-session meeting held last July 30.
"This seems to be one case for drawing a line in the sand," he said. "This is the worst example of a Brown Act violation in closed session I have ever seen in 25 years."
Superintendent James Fleming said the district holds closed-session meetings twice yearly to consider criteria for his evaluation.
He defended the meetings, citing a 2001 court case out of Coalinga that, he said, allows for closed discussion of "criteria for evaluation."
School attorneys say that the law allows for closed meetings when criteria for evaluation are discussed.
"It's pretty broad in its interpretation," said Warren Kinsler, a Cerritos attorney who represents school districts in Orange County, but not CUSD.
Discussing the criteria for evaluation, he said, often includes evaluating past performance. If an issue or request may be used as criteria for a superintendent's evaluation, it can be discussed in closed session.
Said Fleming: "We've been doing this for 15 years. It's based on a good-faith interpretation of the Fresno decision."
Francke and Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, reviewed the meeting notes, which show that trustees discussed such topics as:
- which school calendar to adopt
- whether to advertise on school buses
- a presentation on No Child Left Behind
"Any reasonable person looking at these minutes would be unlikely to come away thinking he had just observed a performance evaluation," Scheer said. "He'd come away thinking he'd just seen what most people would call a school board meeting."
No actions were taken at the meeting. Trustees made suggestions and requested staff action. Some issues were later considered in open sessions.
Each topic, Fleming said, related to the objectives he would be judged on. For instance, the board discussed requiring that the public communicate with CUSD only through postal mail to deal with an "e-mail explosion."
"Could we have done that in open discussion? Sure, somebody could argue. But because it related to my performance as superintendent," he said, it was a valid closed session.
Not so, said Scheer and Francke.
"I don't see any noted discussion on the superintendent's performance whatsoever," Francke said.
Fleming announced his intention to retire last week after criticism over a list of recall supporters compiled by the district.
Teri Morelli of Laguna Niguel said she and other parents will go to the State Board of Education in September to complain about CUSD's meetings.
"I'm at my wit's end with all this stuff," she said.
The district's school board illegally discussed items behind closed doors, according to a district attorney's report released today
By Scott Martindale, Orange County Register, Ocotber 9, 2007
The Capistrano Unified school board violated state open-meeting laws by discussing its $38 million administration building and other key district issues during private, all-day Saturday meetings, according to a report issued today by the Orange County District Attorney's Office.
The findings, which could lead to a civil lawsuit, are the latest setback for the Capistrano Unified School District, still reeling from the May indictments of retired Superintendent James Fleming and district administrator Susan McGill over the creation of "enemies" lists of vocally critical parents and political opponents. Both have pled not guilty and are awaiting trial.
"By discussing everything and anything that is going on in the district (in closed-session meetings), you can close the meetings and not report what happened in them," said Senior Assistant District Attorney Bill Feccia, the author of the 58-page report. "It is wrong. It is not even within shouting distance of the law."
District officials are reviewing the report and expect to release a statement later today, spokeswoman Beverly de Nicola said this morning.
The report cites dozens of instances of district issues that were discussed by the district's seven-member Board of Trustees behind closed doors in violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, the California law that governs transparency in meetings involving elected officials.
The report, which examined a six-month period beginning in July 2005, focuses in particular on cost overruns associated with construction of the district's administration building, which opened last year for about $15.3 million more than originally expected.
Not only did the board fail to disclose on a published agenda the cost overruns that were to be discussed during a July 2005 closed-session meeting, but the board also failed to disclose the $3.8 million funding increase that was approved at the meeting, according to the report.
Four of the school board members serving at that time are still on the board.
Also at the private Saturday meetings, which are held twice a year to evaluate the superintendent's performance, the board agendized items the district attorney deemed inappropriate for the evaluation, such as guidelines for future parent fundraising, advertising on school buses, naming a high school's entry street, and reviewing a district policy on head lice.
"That such discussions are undertaken in secret by a body charged with the community's most important obligation, to adequately educate its young, is nothing short of disturbing," the report says.
In the 58-page report, the district attorney urges CUSD to record open meetings, transcribe or record closed-session meetings, and retain legal counsel who can advise trustees of Brown Act compliance issues.
The board already audiotapes open meetings and, since the spring, has been temporarily audiotaping closed-session meetings, de Nicola said.
If the recommendations are not implemented, the district attorney may file a civil lawsuit against the district, according to the report.
The district attorney's recommended actions follow on the heels of a lawsuit earlier this year against the district, when the district agreed to record its closed-session meetings for one year and have trustees undergo Brown Act training as part of a February settlement agreement. However, the district admitted to no wrongdoing in that settlement. The district attorney's report, by contrast, insists that the district confess to the alleged violations.
The report has been in the works for about the past six months, Feccia said. The Orange County District Attorney's Office first announced it was pursuing the alleged Brown Act violations in May, at the time of Fleming and McGill's indictments.
In addition to the Brown Act violation allegations, the 51,000-student school district also faces the possibility of one or more lawsuits stemming from the district's "enemies" lists. In June, about two dozen parents on the lists filed claims for as much as $5 million against Capistrano Unified alleging civil rights and privacy violations. The claims are a necessary step prior to litigation.
Petitions are circulating now to recall two of the district's seven school board members.
Capistrano trustees rescind illegal contract; adopt revised deal for superintendent
New pact approved after accusations that initial one was negotiated behind closed doors, violating state law
By Scott Martindale, Orange County Register, June 4, 2008
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO Rancor over the Capistrano Unified superintendent's contract negotiated three months ago, but subsequently determined to be illegally authorized and invalid boiled over this week, with three trustees walking out of a board meeting and the superintendent lashing out at critics for sullying his reputation.
Superintendent A. Woodrow Carter denied accusations he publicly rejected his three-year, $972,850 employment contract in late February and then conspired with board President Mike Darnold to illegally modify and sign it.
"I never rejected the contract," Carter said at Monday's board meeting. "That was not the language I used. I was reluctant to take additional compensation. The rest of this has become innuendo, slander and misrepresentation of what I was attempting to do."
On Monday, on the advice of the school board's attorney, trustees rescinded their February vote authorizing the superintendent's contract. The attorney, Mark Bresee, told trustees they violated the Brown Act the state's open-meeting law by negotiating and approving the contract behind closed doors.
Then, in a 4-0 vote in open session, trustees approved a nearly identical contract for Carter. Trustees Ellen Addonizio, Anna Bryson and Larry Christensen had excused themselves from the dais and were not present for the vote.
CONTRACT CONTROVERSY
Carter has been without a valid, permanent contract since December, when trustees voted unanimously to make him their permanent superintendent. Carter began working for the 51,000-student South County district in September as interim superintendent.
Carter's first permanent contract was approved Feb. 25 behind closed doors in a 5-2 vote, with Addonizio and Christensen dissenting. The contract stipulated a base pay of $273,000 annually an 11.4 percent raise over his interim contract. With benefits, Carter's compensation swelled to $324,950 annually.
Three days later, amid heated criticism that he was taking a $28,000-a-year pay raise while the district was looking to slash $27 million from its budget, Carter publicly rejected the new contract and said he would continue working under his interim contract.
"I announced last night that I would not sign the new contract and accept compensation at this time," Carter wrote in a Feb. 29 e-mail to the school board.
Less than two weeks later, he told trustees he had signed his contract, but still would not take the 11.4 percent pay raise.
But, as parents would soon learn, the signed contract contained a termination clause entitling him to 18 months' compensation if he were to be fired. The clause was inserted after trustees approved the contract and was never authorized by the board.
When these revelations came to light last month, they became the basis of the CUSD Recall Committee parents group's allegations of an illegal cover-up.
Carter, who denied the allegations, defended the clause's inclusion at the time, saying it "merely emphasizes the Government Code that is in effect in the case of the termination of a contracted school employee."
California Government Code Section 53260(a) states that the maximum cash settlement for an employee whose contract is terminated is 18 months' compensation; it does not say the employee is entitled to receive that money.
When Carter's contract came before the school board for approval Monday, the clause had been removed. District spokeswoman Beverly de Nicola said it was taken out "because it confused people and wasn't necessary."
"There was never an intention to mislead the public," she said.
CONTENTIOUS DISCUSSION
During Monday's meeting, the three trustees who were absent for the final 4-0 vote approving Carter's contract left the room one at a time.
Bryson, the first to leave, stepped out even before discussions about the superintendent's contract had begun. She did not give a reason and did not return.
Christensen, the next to leave, said he was concerned the school board still might be out of compliance with the Brown Act, even after assurances by the school board attorney that this was the proper way to proceed.
"I'm going to have to leave at this point " Christensen said. "I'm not comfortable with it. I think we're still in violation of the Brown Act."
Attorney Bresee explained that members of the public who were concerned about potential Brown Act violations had 90 days to file a complaint with the agency; because the district had not received a complaint within the 90-day period, the school board's rescission of its February vote was sufficient from a legal standpoint.
"It's not even clear you have to do this," Bresee said. "Rescinding this one action is completely consistent with the Brown Act and goes beyond what you are legally obligated to do."
The school board rescinded its February vote with a 4-1 vote. Addonizio cast the dissenting vote.
Addonizio then hammered on the point that the board wasn't only dealing with a Brown Act violation; there also were accusations that an employment contract had been illegally altered and signed.
"We agreed to compensation. In the meantime, Mr. Carter relinquished that, rejecting the contract, and then another contract was drawn up that never went by the board," Addonizio said before she, too, left the room.
"I don't know the condition of that contract. We can't rescind something we didn't approve of in the first place."
Bresee said the contract in dispute was not legally binding because it had not been ratified in open session by the entire board. He explained that the board was not being asked to rescind the contract itself, but merely the vote approving it.
He added that the allegations of improper conduct by the superintendent and the school board president would be best addressed separately, as a legal claim for damages.
"Tonight is the night to create the binding obligation," Bresee said. "That's the only thing the board needs to fix. All of the other things are damages claims."
CROWD REACTIONSCUSD Recall Committee spokesman Tom Russell, who was at the meeting, said he agreed with the attorney's interpretation and would consider filing a legal claim seeking declaratory relief in other words, demanding that Carter and Darnold acknowledge they illegally modified and signed the February contract and be publicly censured for it.
"The more we look at it, the more we see it's flawed," Russell said. "They've said nothing about the contract's existence."
An audience of about 100 in the board room broke into a loud applause when the superintendent's contract was approved by the trustees remaining in the room. The 4-0 vote was the final vote of the contentious 2.5-hour meeting.
"How valuable your insight and experience is and will be during the looming budget crisis," parent Linda Verraster of San Clemente told Carter. " Superintendent Carter has already invested himself in our district and our kids during a very difficult time. I'm frankly happy he didn't run screaming from the building."
Capistrano has had five people fill the role of schools chief in the past two years; the last permanent superintendent, Dennis Smith, walked off the job in less than a month.
Some at the meeting said they were upset that three trustees had left before the contract vote.
"Their behavior is absolutely unacceptable," said parent Erin Kutnick of San Juan Capistrano, who praised Carter during the meeting. "How juvenile was it for them to get up and walk out, especially after the attorney went to great lengths to explain that it was not illegal."
Board President Mike Darnold said that it was crucial that Carter finally had a valid, permanent contract.
"I work with this man everyday. I trust our superintendent," Darnold said. "Trust is a huge thing. I trust him as a person, manager and CEO with a half-billion-dollar budget."
Trustees found looking through superintendent's desk
Ellen Addonizio and Sue Palazzo left without incident; authorities were not contacted
By Scott Martindale, Orange County Register, August 1, 2008
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO Two Capistrano Unified trustees, including the school board president, were found in the superintendents office looking at papers on a day when all district offices were closed, a district official said.
Board President Ellen Addonizio and trustee Sue Palazzo were spotted in Superintendent A. Woodrow Carters private office on the second floor of the districts administrative headquarters at about 1:20 p.m. on July 25, said Sherine Smith, deputy superintendent of education, who discovered them.
The trustees left the San Juan Capistrano building without incident, Smith said, and authorities were not contacted.
But Smiths account of what transpired after she found the two trustees differs sharply from Addonizio's account.
Smith said she saw them as she was returning from a lunch break and heard voices coming from Carters office. She announced her presence by saying, Hi, ladies!
They appeared startled, Smith said. Ellen asked me repeatedly where the superintendent was, and then said she was looking for the superintendents calendar.
Addonizio said she and Palazzo had been in Carters office for only about a minute when Smith walked in. A newsletter on the table caught her eye, and she was looking at that when Smith spotted them, she said.
It wasnt anything too surprising because we knew she was in the building, Addonizio said. At no time did we go into the superintendents desk. I have no reason to be doing that anyway.
Addonizio said the door was unlocked and she had been showing Palazzo the private shower inside the superintendents suite. She added that she did not recall asking Smith about where the superintendent was or mentioning that she was looking for his calendar.
Palazzo and Carter did not return phone calls Thursday seeking comment, and it wasn't immediately clear whether the superintendent would formally follow up on the incident.
But the trustees' presence in the office has raised questions about what they were doing there.
Ive been in this business for over 50 years, and Ive never, ever in my entire career seen this behavior by a trustee, said trustee Duane Stiff, who found out about the incident Monday. Its horribly unprofessional. They knew he was out of town and the building was closed. If they needed to talk to the superintendent, they have his cell number.
When Smith found them, she said the door to Carters office was open and the lights were on. The door is always locked when Carter is out, Smith added.
But Addonizio said the door was unlocked on that day.
Smith said Addonizio was standing behind Carters desk, looking at papers on a table behind the desk. Palazzo was standing near the front of the desk.
Addonizio and Palazzo are part of the five-trustee bloc on the Capistrano Unified school board whose campaigns were endorsed by and largely funded by the CUSD Recall Committee parents group. Addonizio was elected in 2006; Palazzo was elected in Junes recall election that ousted longtime trustees Sheila Benecke and Marlene Draper.
The five so-called reform trustees on the seven-member school board have been outspoken critics of the districts administration, calling for increased scrutiny over district affairs and aggressive investigations to get to the bottom of a number of controversies that have dogged the district in recent years.
At their most recent meeting, trustees authorized the school boards finance subcommittee to undertake a thorough review of all of the districts contracts with outside vendors, in an effort to identify cost-cutting measures. Their action was seen by some district observers as evidence they didnt trust the superintendent and district staff to do the job.
December 2008 Installment
Was Capo superintendent supposed to be fired?
A. Woodrow Carter faces an uphill battle against Capistrano Unified's "reform"-minded school board
By Scott Martindale, Orange County Register, December 23, 2008
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO A contentious, 4-1/2-hour Capistrano Unified school board meeting that focused solely on whether Superintendent A. Woodrow Carter was to be fired Thursday has cast an even darker cloud of uncertainty over the beleaguered school district and starkly illuminated the tension among trustees increasingly at odds with their schools chief.
When board President Ellen Addonizio announced at the end of the meeting that no action had been taken behind closed doors regarding Carter's purported dismissal, an audience of hundreds of fervent Carter supporters clapped and cheered wildly.
But the emotionally charged meeting also provided a candid snapshot of just how badly interpersonal relations have deteriorated among teachers, administrators, trustees and parents in the 52,000-student district and offers a compelling explanation for why nearly all 250 people at the meeting, including Carter himself, truly seemed convinced the board intended to fire him.
"With a sense of regret and bewilderment, I stand before this audience awaiting my fate in closed session, which almost assuredly spells my removal from this district," Carter said at the start of a 10-minute speech, setting the tone for the rest of the protracted meeting.
'MORTALLY WOUNDED'
Carter, a retired Army colonel, was hired as superintendent of the Capistrano Unified School District in September 2007 on an interim basis, the fifth person to fill the top administrative spot in 13 months' time. But during his short tenure, a politically popular parents group known as the CUSD Recall Committee was waging a successful campaign to reconstitute the school board with all "reform" trustees.
The 3-year-old "reform" movement pledged to clean house, ridding Capistrano of what's been characterized as mismanagement and corruption reaching into the highest levels of the district's administration.
The years-long battle has left many wounds that only seem to grow deeper with each passing day. Carter told trustees Thursday that even if he were not fired, the school board had "mortally wounded" the role of district superintendent and made him the subject of "demeaning comments and behaviors" at meetings and among exchanges with trustees.
"No matter what the vote is today, you have created a hostile work environment that no single administrator in this district can endure," he said. "The unbearable stress that you create in the daily course of our duties is unlawful, and I have repeatedly reminded Trustee Addonizio that these actions deteriorate working conditions and ruin morale of this entire 4,500-person district, but to no avail."
One of Capistrano's senior district administrators, in an unusual and candid speech defending Carter to the school board, echoed those sentiments.
"Morale is terribly low," said Sherine Smith, deputy superintendent for education. "Now is not the time to add more instability to our district. He is competent, capable and a proven leader."
Carter, who has worked as a school district superintendent for 8 1/2 years, is enormously popular among many of the district's teachers, administrators and other staff. During his 15 months at Capistrano Unified, he has earned tremendous respect from the district's PTA council leaders as well as fierce support from employee union leaders.
More than 50 speakers reaffirmed his qualifications during the three hours of public comments Thursday, calling him a respected, gracious, skilled leader who sought to bring harmony and camaraderie to an embattled school district.
"You've heard today all the good things about Mr. Carter, all the steps for the future," said parent Cathy Patton of Rancho Santa Margarita. "The past of this district has been so crazy and tumultuous that it truly is time to move on. Mr. Carter has shown that he is very capable of moving this district forward."
CRITICAL TRUSTEES
Many of the trustees, however, have painted a far different picture of the superintendent. They have said repeatedly in meetings and interviews that Carter is recalcitrant, defiant and unresponsive to the directives of trustees.
In September, for example, a school board presentation on the California Distinguished School award quickly dissolved into acrimony, with Carter getting into an argument with one trustee about the source of rumors regarding her supposed proposal to tear down older Distinguished School signs.
Trustees also routinely get into verbal tiffs with Carter from the dais, accusing him of failing to gather information and set up meetings as instructed.
In Carter's speech Thursday, he suggested some trustees were trying to "micro-manage and usurp" his authority and turn him into "a pawn on the chessboard that has to be removed."
Trustee Larry Christensen, an outspoken critic of Carter's management style, denied the charges, saying it was Carter and other district staff who were to blame.
"No one on the board wants to micromanage the district staff," Christensen said in an interview. "They are forced to do certain things because they are not following the direction that the board has given. We ask for certain things, and they're just not followed through. We as a board cannot make the correct decisions when we're not given the information we've asked for."
Regardless of who's to blame, the flap over Carter's purported firing is likely a harbinger of more clashes and conflicts to come.
Recall Committee leader Tony Beall, a Rancho Santa Margarita city councilman, reminded trustees Thursday that they would need to continue their "reform" effort, even if it wasn't the politically popular move.
"These entrenched interests don't want to reform our school district," Beall said. "With the removal of the last of the old guard (trustees), one battle is over, but no one should misunderstand: This fight is far from over."
Investigation clears Delhi school board
By Leslie Albrecht, Modesto Sun-Star, August 3, 2006
MERCED The Merced County district attorney will not press criminal charges against the Delhi Unified School District board of trustees. The district attorney's office was looking into whether the Delhi board violated the Brown Act, a state law that guarantees public access to government meetings.
The 2005-2006 Merced County grand jury found that the Delhi board may have violated the law, and requested an investigation by the district attorney.
An investigation found no criminal wrongdoing, said Deputy District Attorney Mark Bacciarini.
"To be criminal, it's a very specific violation, but we just didn't see it (based) on these facts," Bacciarini said.
The allegations centered on a meeting that five school board members allegedly held at a Delhi pizza restaurant hours before they voted to dismiss Delhi High School Principal George Grijalva on Oct. 25, 2005.
Bacciarini said the meeting would only qualify as a criminal violation if the board members had taken some action such as voting on board business while they were at the restaurant, but there was no evidence to support that.
The grand jury recommended that the board's vote to dismiss Grijalva be declared "null and void," but Bacciarini said he couldn't address that recommendation because too much time had passed since the meeting.
The district attorney's office agreed with the grand jury's recommendation that the Delhi board keep better meeting minutes and do a better job of notifying the public about meetings.
Delhi board President Stephen Selph said he agreed with the district attorney's findings.
"As far as I'm concerned, there was no violation and no charges to file, so I agree with (the district attorney's) decision," he said.
But former Principal Grijalva called the decision a setback for the Delhi community.
"It's unfortunate that the people from Delhi are requesting help and they're not getting any help from anyone, and the corruption will continue," Grijalva said.
It was Grijalva who filed the complaint with the grand jury. After the Delhi school board voted to dismiss him, about 500 of Delhi's 600 students walked out of class in protest and angry parents and teachers confronted the board.
Board members refused to say why they voted to remove Grijalva, citing confidentiality laws surrounding personnel issues.
Grijalva finished the year at Delhi. The new principal, Michael Horwood, started work Monday.
Superintendent Bill Baltazar said the district is ready to put the episode behind it.
"We have a new principal and we're moving forward," Baltazar said. "We're not dwelling on the past, and I think everyone is ready to do that."
But Grijalva isn't giving up.
He has started a new job as a counselor at Turlock High School, but the 2006-2007 grand jury is investigating another complaint he filed against Baltazar.
SMUSD board member demands grand jury investigation over Brand's resignation
By Brenda Duran, North County Times, October 31, 2006
SAN MARCOS ---- San Marcos Unified School District board member David Horacek said he is demanding a grand jury investigation into the reasons why the board voted to accept the resignation of former superintendent Ed Brand.
In a two-page statement released Monday, Horacek said there were no discussions of wrongdoing by Brand and no allegations were ever raised to board members before Brand decided to resign from the district on Aug. 30.
Brand's resignation was accepted by a split board on a 3-2 vote during a special closed-session meeting, and his contract was bought out for nearly $400,000.
Board members Mary Borevitz, Sharon Jenkins and Alan Brown voted in favor of accepting Brand's resignation. Horacek and Pam Bancells voted to oppose it.
The months following Brand's departure have been filled with speculation and rumors that continue to divide the community, Horacek said.
"In my opinion, this appears to be nothing more than an orchestrated witch hunt designed to deflect the public's attention from an unjustifiable decision by the board majority to waste $410,000 of taxpayer's money," said Horacek in the statement.
Brand's resignation agreement includes a confidentiality clause for both parties which prohibits anyone to talk about decisions made during closed session meetings.
District records show the board met for 11 consecutive closed session meetings leading up to the resignation.
However, Horacek said he would never discuss what took place in closed session meetings, but felt he had to speak out and "shed some light" on the way Brand's resignation was handled.
"I am still sick to my stomach about what happened to Dr. Brand and believe it's in the best interest of the public to get to the bottom of these unjust and wasteful actions," Horacek says in the statement. "The board has a responsibility to the public and that responsibility is not being fulfilled."
Horacek said he demanded answers from board president Jenkins regarding the motivation behind the majority's vote. However, Horacek said Jenkins responded that the board majority knew "what they were doing" and had their reasons for the decision.
Board member Bancells said she too has been told the same but has never received any answers as to why the majority voted the way they did.
"If there was in fact a reason, they never discussed it with us," said Bancells.
Horacek alleges that Jenkins' response implied the majority had met to discuss issues outside of normal board meetings, which would constitute a violation of the Brown Act, the open meetings law that requires public notification when a majority of board members meet.
Jenkins, who is seeking a third term on the board Nov. 7, did not return calls for comment Monday.
Throughout his statement, Horacek cites various governing board bylaws and policies to support his claims. Horacek also defends school board candidate Cyndy Minnery, one of six candidates running to fill two open seats on the school board.
Minnery, who is leading the race in campaign donations, has received a total of $12,000 in the past month. President of the Woodland Park Middle School parent teacher organization, Minnery received $6,000 from Rancho Santa Fe millionaire businessman William D. Lynch, as well as a $6,000 loan from Assemblyman Mark Wyland, R-Escondido, for her campaign.
A vocal opponent of Brand's resignation and the only San Marcos school board candidate officially endorsed by the Republican party, Minnery has been questioned about her ties to Brand, and has been criticized for receiving the large donations.
In his statement Horacek, who is a friend of Minnery, said it strikes him "as odd that there are people worried about $12,000 in campaign contributions and donations of non-district money ... but don't care the majority wasted $410K (of tax payer money) to buy out Brand's contract without reason or justification."
Horacek, who also voted against both the salary and terms of current interim superintendent Kevin Holt's contract, said he is concerned about the public's trust, and the lack of scrutiny following the resignation.
"There were a number of wiser and more fiscally responsible ways that this could have been handled," said Horacek. "In the end, the worst and most expensive possible decision was made. The people have a right to question their elected leaders as well as the decisions they make."
Horacek said he will continue to demand that an investigation into Brand's resignation be held so "all the board members can communicate freely with authorities."
"We can put an end to the mystery and sly innuendoes for the public once and for all," said Horacek.
Brown Act challenge goes to state
Employees' right to address school meetings at issue
By Cheri Carlson, Ventura County Star, December 30, 2006
The Ventura County district attorney is seeking an opinion from state officials on the rights of public employees to attend meetings and address local school boards that employ them.
The issue came up recently when the District Attorney's Office advised the Oxnard Union High School District board that it broke state law when a teacher was prohibited from speaking at one of its meetings. Trustees were asked to make sure the incident was not repeated and to protect the public's rights under the Brown Act, the state's open-meeting laws.
Oxnard Union officials, however, said no law was broken. Their attorney argued that the Brown Act shouldn't apply because the board meeting was not yet called to order when the employee was told not to speak. That conversation took place between Thomas Ito, a former assistant principal at Channel Islands High School, and the superintendent, who, the attorney said, was not acting on direction from the board.
After exchanging letters and phone calls with the district's lawyer and attempting to interview the superintendent, the District Attorney's Office sent letters to the attorney general and the school district late Wednesday "to try and resolve" the issue, said Special Assistant District Attorney Michael Schwartz.
"While the district attorney has authority to bring legal action to determine the school district's obligations under the Brown Act ? we have determined instead that the appropriate action at this point is to seek an attorney general opinion on the issue," Schwartz wrote to former board President Socorro Lopez Hanson.
The district attorney might seek an opinion from the attorney general once or twice a year, according to Schwartz, and it normally takes several months for the Attorney General's Office to render a formal opinion.
Assistant principal blocked
The issue stems from a March 8 board meeting when trustees ratified the superintendent's decision to reassign Ito from assistant principal to a teaching position.
Ito, who has taught biology at Oxnard High School since August, said he went to that meeting to address the board about his reassignment. However, according to a statement signed by Ito in May, he was approached by Superintendent Jody Dunlap as he was filling out a yellow speaker card at the back of the meeting room. Dunlap told him he couldn't address the board and to leave the building, according to his statement, and he left.
An attorney representing Ito later sent a letter to Oxnard Union, alleging Brown Act violations and asking the board to rescind its decision to ratify Ito's reassignment.
His request was turned down, leading to another letter from Ito's attorney, Jack Futoran, which this time was sent to the District Attorney's Office asking for an investigation.
Dunlap has said she told Ito he could not speak about confidential personnel issues, but never told him to leave the building. And, Oxnard Union's attorney Jackson Parham said the conversation between the superintendent and Ito cannot be a Brown Act violation, because it took place before the meeting started.
Both Dunlap and Ito said they spoke after the board finished its closed session and before it reconvened in open session.
Parham to pursue issue
Recently, the Oxnard Union board announced plans to reinstate Ito to his former post as assistant principal, but said that decision had nothing to do with the Brown Act issue.
Ito's attorney said his client turned down the offer because the reinstatement was not made retroactive to the date of his reassignment to a teaching position.
Parham said Friday he plans to submit his own letter to the attorney general on the district's behalf.
"I support the concept of the attorney general addressing the issue," he said, but added he disagreed with how the District Attorney put the questions to the attorney general.
While Parham continued to argue the Brown Act was not violated in March, he pointed out that Ito and Futoran showed up at a November meeting and did address the board.
Schwartz also addressed that in his letter to the attorney general, writing, "It is not clear whether this was intended as a change of position of the district regarding the right to speak."
Before appealing to the state, Schwartz said, the District Attorney's Office attempted to interview Ito and Dunlap.
Ito consented to a telephone interview, but Parham advised Dunlap not to cooperate with an interview, which Schwartz said left his office with no evidence to rebut Ito's statement.
Parham said the District Attorney's Office overstepped its boundaries asking to interview Dunlap.
She had the right to be represented by counsel, he said, and "anything she said, the district attorney would have used against the district."
Civil charges planned against Capistrano Unified officials
The looming complaint alleges district officials violated the state's open-meetings law
By Seema Mehta, Tony Barboza and Yvonne Villarreal, Los Angeles Times, July 7, 2007
Orange County prosecutors plan to file a civil case against Capistrano Unified School District officials alleging that trustees illegally conducted public business in secret, including approving millions of dollars in construction cost overruns at the new district headquarters, according to grand jury transcripts unsealed Friday.
The looming complaint alleging that district officials violated the state's open-meetings law is the latest controversy in the beleaguered south Orange County school district, which in May saw its superintendent and another top official indicted. Susan Schroeder, a spokeswoman for the Orange County district attorney's office, confirmed that the civil case would be filed, but declined comment on details.
Deputy Dist. Atty. Dan Hess told the grand jurors in May about the planned civil filing. His comments were included in more than 1,300 pages of county grand jury transcripts that include the testimony of 14 district employees and trustees. Along with district documents seized by prosecutors, the testimony led to the indictments of former Supt. James A. Fleming and former Assistant Supt. Susan McGill over the creation of an enemies list of district critics.
Fleming was charged with misappropriating public funds, using district money to influence an election and conspiracy to commit an act injurious to the public. McGill was charged with conspiracy and perjury. They are to be arraigned Friday.
Although most of the district's 56 schools are well-regarded academically, its trustees and administrators have been mired in a string of controversies for more than three years. Critics of the 50,000-student district have loudly protested the location of a new high school, attendance boundary changes and construction of a $35-million administration complex while hundreds of classes were being held in aging portables.
The critics tried to recall all seven district trustees in 2005 but didn't get enough signatures to quality for the ballot. They succeeded in placing three new trustees on the school board in November. Earlier this week, they announced the launch of a recall against the four remaining old-guard trustees.
The transcripts laid out the creation of the two lists that are at the heart of the indictments. The first, a list of people receiving e-mails from recall proponents, was created by Fleming and his secretary Kate McIntyre, according to the testimony. McIntyre offered varying accounts of what prompted the list's creation, first repeating Fleming's defense that it was the result of an investigation into whether someone had hacked into the district's databases of parent and student information. But under further questioning, she said Fleming had hoped to use the list to appeal to recall backers.
"We were just trying to figure out where these people that wanted to recall the trustees were, what their issues might have been," she said.
The second list, created at Fleming's direction by McGill and her secretary Bobbie Thacker, included personal information about the recall backers who gathered signatures on petitions, according to testimony.
McGill and former district spokesman David Smollar visited the county registrar of voters and were illegally allowed to look at the recall petitions. McGill testified that she never created a list, but Thacker said that McGill gave her a list of those who gathered signatures and had her consult confidential pupil data to look up addresses, the names and schools of their children and other information.
Thacker testified that she didn't understand why district critics and prosecutors were making such a big deal about the lists. "Not discounting anything that you all are doing, but it's been blown way out of proportion," she told prosecutors. "I know Dr. Fleming would never target any children, you know. He just probably wanted to know what he was up against."
Fleming refused to answer most of the prosecutors' questions on the grounds that he could incriminate himself, aside from a handful of basic questions, such as his wife's name, Lilly. McGill did testify, which led to the perjury charge.
The Brown Act complaint stems from two closed meetings in 2005. The first, held in July, was billed as an evaluation of Fleming, which can take place in private. However, topics scheduled for discussion included advertising on school buses and the naming of a new road at San Juan Hills High School.
Trustee Marlene Draper told prosecutors that the board needed to consider a broad swath of topics to evaluate Fleming. Deputy Dist. Atty. Michael Lubinski repeatedly asked how issues such as the road-naming were relevant.
"How did that go into the superintendent's evaluation?" he asked. "Were you going to name it after him?"
During the meeting, the board agreed to settle a potential lawsuit with the general contractor for the district's new $35-million headquarters. The district paid the firm an extra $3.8 million and signed the settlement during a closed-session meeting in August.
Although potential litigation legally can be discussed during closed session, prosecutors questioned why once the matter was settled it was not made public. Lubinski asked why the district was trying to "hide" the cost overrun and deemed the superintendent evaluation meeting "a secret board meeting."
Draper said the board discussed in closed session that the payment should not be made public because it could make it easier for other district contractors to drive up prices.
"I wouldn't say it was secret," she testified. "I would say it was supposed to be confidential."
Capistrano Unifed school board members are recalled
Sue Palazzo and Ken Maddox replace Marlene Draper and Sheila Benecke
By Seema Mehta, Los Angeles Times, June 25, 2008
With the recall Tuesday night of two school trustees in South Orange County, a group of parents, politicians and gadflies claimed their greatest in a series of recent victories: control of the embattled 50,000-student Capistrano Unified School District.
With relatively low turnout, about 70% of voters approved recalling Marlene Draper and Sheila Benecke, who between them have 36 years of experience on the board, and replacing them with substitute teacher Sue Palazzo and termed-out Assemblyman Ken Maddox.
Tuesday's special election was expected to cost the district more than $800,000 at a time when the district is grappling with millions of dollars of proposed state budget cuts. Draper's and Benecke's terms expire in November, and both had said they did not plan to run.
The recall campaign was the latest controversy to dog the district.
Most of the district's 56 schools are high-performing, but parents in the 195-acre swath of southern Orange County have in recent years loudly protested.
Among their concerns: the near closure of three elementary schools, the location of a new high school, attendance boundary changes and the construction of a $35-million administration complex while hundreds of classes were being taught in aging trailers.
Three years ago, parents joined forces to focus on getting rid of the district's seven longtime trustees and the district's longtime superintendent, James A. Fleming.
Fleming resigned weeks after the administrative complex opened in 2006, and he was indicted last year on felony charges of misappropriating public funds, using school district funds to influence an election, and conspiracy to commit acts injurious to the public, among them creation of an "enemies list" of people opposing him. He and another former administrator are scheduled to go to trial in August.
Critics had tried to recall all seven trustees in 2006 and failed because of a lack of valid signatures, but their slate of candidates won three seats on the board that year.
Capistrano district's victorious 'reformers' face big challenges
School board members will be up against significant funding challenges, skeptical parents and a politically fractured school district
By Scott Martinadale, Orange County Register, Novmeber 6, 2008
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO The four Capistrano Unified "reform" candidates who clinched decisive wins this week in a bitterly fought school board race face steep funding challenges, skeptical parents and continued unrest and scrutiny as they take the reins of the politically fractured school district.
Jack Brick, Mike Winsten and incumbents Ken Maddox and Sue Palazzo, all backed by the politically influential CUSD Recall Committee parents group, defeated a group of candidates endorsed by the school district's powerful teachers union with 3- to 32-point margins of victory Tuesday, according to unofficial election results.
It was the culminating victory of a three-year effort by parent recall leaders to replace all seven district trustees.
Already looming over the newly reconstituted school board is the $12 million or more in cuts that likely must be made this spring in response to a dismal state budget outlook. The drastic cost-cutting measure could completely eliminate the popular 20:1 student-teacher ratio in primary grades, increase class sizes by up to three students each in all other grades and wipe out funding for sports and music, officials say.
The school board also faces serious doubts and skepticism among many parents about its own transparency and accountability the same principles that were the bedrock of the "reform" campaign. Last month, trustees refused to admit to an open-meeting law violation that their own attorney concluded they had committed.
Trustees also must address a long list of problems and concerns they have pledged they would fix, ranging from equitable distribution of scarce funding among the district's many aging campuses to an in-depth "forensic" financial audit of $145 million San Juan Hills High School, which may have bled out up to $10 million in illegally spent taxpayer money during its construction.
REVERSAL OF FORTUNE
The seven-member school board is now comprised entirely of self-described "reform" trustees, a stunning reversal of fortune for parent recall leaders who just three years ago failed to collect enough valid petition signatures to force a recall election in the 52,000-student district.
"Voters want their trustees to be looking out for the best interests of the school district, and that's why they voted for 'reform' candidates dedicated to restoring honesty, integrity and accountability to a very troubled school district," said CUSD Recall Committee leader Tony Beall, a Rancho Santa Margarita city councilman.
Tuesday's election was bitterly fought, with Capistrano Unified's 2,400-member teachers union a staunch foe of the Recall Committee backing an opposing group of candidates. The union poured at least $73,427 into an aggressive campaign intended to elect Erin Kutnick, Andrea Kooiman and Duane Stiff and, simultaneously, to stop the "reform" movement from sweeping all seven trustee seats.
The Recall Committee spent at least $25,189 to elect its four-member slate. And the "reform" candidates themselves managed to garner support from several influential groups outside the district, including the Elverta, Calif.-based California Taxpayer Protection Committee, which paid for a $22,964 slate mailer.
"I've already heard from several constituents very concerned about the future of the district," said Kutnick, who lost the race against Brick by 3 points. "They are very concerned about the board's ability to govern."
Stiff, the only incumbent to be unseated in the race, had few words Wednesday when reached at home for reaction.
"I'm glad to be out of here," he said.
FPPC tells Natomas district to shape up
Conflict-of-interest code needs to go before Board of Supervisors
By Terri Hardy, Sacramento Bee, July 6, 2007
A state political watchdog agency has notified the Natomas Unified School District that it has not complied with state conflict-of-interest law for nearly three decades -- prompting the school superintendent Thursday to vow to overhaul the district's practices.
Superintendent Steve Farrar said Natomas Unified will send its conflict-of-interest code to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors to approve -- a step that is legally necessary to comply with state law.
In addition, Farrar said he will require every manager and purchasing agent in the district to fill out economic interest forms.
"It might be a little overkill, but we might as well make sure it all gets covered," Farrar said.
Farrar said the school board every year reviews its conflict-of-interest code and makes changes when necessary, but it hadn't been going to the county for approval.
"Either people didn't know (it was necessary), which is my best guess, or thought it was being done," Farrar said. "Now it will be done."
Last week, the California Fair Political Practices Commission sent the district a letter saying Natomas Unified's code wouldn't be effective until it is reviewed by the supervisors.
"Your code was last approved in 1977," wrote Dixie Howard, a manager in the FPPC's technical assistance division. "Therefore, you must provide an updated conflict-of-interest code to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors as soon as possible."
The FPPC's review of Natomas Unified's conflict-of-interest practices stemmed from a Bee investigation into the district's contracting practices and potential conflict-of-interest concerns. The district's former head of facilities, Frank Harding, gave five no-bid contracts worth $433,900 to the construction management firm he founded.
The Bee found Harding and several other employees never filed economic interest statements, even though the Natomas school board had voted to require employees in their job classifications to submit the yearly documents.
Farrar and the district's five board members did file annual reports.
Farrar in April said he believed the district should have required the employees to file the statements, and he said he had launched an internal investigation. No information about the probe has been made public.
The FPPC has since found that the board's previous designations of several employee classifications required to file the statements weren't valid because they needed to be approved by the Board of Supervisors in order to become official. The FPPC said the reviews must take place "each even-numbered year."
"Our goal is to gain compliance," said Roman Porter, an FPPC spokesman. "If the district doesn't go any further, we will have to escalate our effort to get them to comply with state law."
If the district fails to rectify the problem, it could face fines of up to $5,000 for each offense.
In a similar case, the FPPC in 2004 fined the Compton Community College District $100,000. For two decades, none of the employees or consultants designated by the code filed economic interest statements, and for two decades, the college district did not review its conflict-of-interest code.
The FPPC last week also alerted Natomas that economic interest statements must be open for public inspection and copying during regular business hours, even when the official in charge of those documents is on vacation or in a meeting.
DA says school board wrong to hush mom
LAFAYETTE: Acalanes trustees broke Brown Act rules ensuring the public's right to comment at meetings
By Shirley Dang, Contra Costa Times, September 14, 2007
Acalanes school board president Richard Whitmore violated state law when he ordered a parent to stop talking during a school board meeting, according to the Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office.
In May, parent Joan Grimes spoke out against the suspension of her daughter for underage drinking and also criticized a teacher. Whitmore told the Lafayette woman to cease her comments, citing confidentiality concerns.
In a letter to the school district, the Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office says that Whitmore inappropriately tried to silence Grimes. Under the Brown Act, the state open-meeting law for local government, convening boards of public agencies must give the public an opportunity to speak.
"Board President Whitmore took that opportunity from Ms. Grimes on a specific subject she wished to address," the letter says.
Whitmore, interim superintendent of the Davis school district and a former administrator with the state Department of Education, did not respond to requests for comment. Acalanes school district Superintendent Jim Negri referred calls to the school district lawyer, who is on vacation and could not be reached.
However in a letter sent to Grimes in June, Negri invited her back before the school board. "If you were discouraged or prevented from addressing any comments to the Board, as provided for in the Brown Act, we welcome you to attend a future regular Board meeting and complete your presentation."
The Brown Act requires that legislative bodies conduct their business publicly. Among other things, the law requires that boards cast votes in public, provide 72 hours' notice of meetings and ensure equal public access. Deputy District Attorney Steven Bolen, who handled the Acalanes complaint, said he receives one or two complaints of Brown Act violations per month. Grimes accused the district of violating the act on May 16. During the public comment period then, Grimes complained about an event where students from the Acalanes High School Chamber Singers sat in a hot tub and pool with alcohol available.
The district suspended Grimes' daughter and other students for drinking at the private home. Grimes, who has launched a petition to fine hosts of parties where minors are served alcohol, called the suspension unfair and said the teacher who was present at the event should be reprimanded.
"I would like you to stop, please," Whitmore said.
Shortly after, Grimes lodged a complaint with the district attorney's office.
Whitmore e-mailed Grimes to say he may have infringed on her free speech rights, but did not break Brown Act rules. A lawyer for the school district argued in a letter that Grimes made her point before being interrupted by Whitmore, meaning that her comments were not censored.
Bolen said Whitmore strayed outside the law by ordering Grimes to limit her remarks.
"This not only may have prevented Ms. Grimes from continuing, but also may have discouraged other members of the public from addressing that issue," his letter says.
The District Attorney's Office recommended that school district staff and board members attend training on the act and that Whitmore make a public apology.
G
rimes said she hoped the district attorney's guidance would prevent the board from making similar mistakes in the future, but remains dismayed that neither Negri nor the other four board members interceded on her behalf at the time.
"It's very disappointing that the district attorney's intervention was necessary," Grimes said. "They know the rules."
KHSD may face suit over input dispute
A couple are considering litigation against the Kern High School District for what they believe was a violation of California open-meeting law
By Tara mcLaughlin, Bakersfield Californian, December 7, 2007
Trustees voted on Nov. 5 to hang a newly designed poster displaying the nation's motto, which the public had never seen, in every district classroom, potentially costing the district $12,000.
Michael and Jessica Korcok, who have spoken to the board on several occasions, said Thursday night that perceived violations of the Brown Act prompted them to send a "cure and correct demand letter" to the board. They asked the board to rescind the vote and not discuss or act on it again so long as several of the current school board members are still in place.
"The behind-the-scenes conclusion of what to do without public input (brought him to act)," Michael Korcok said. "We saw person after person go up there (to give public comment on an earlier proposal) having no idea the majority of the trustees had already agreed that a (different proposal would be made)."
The California Supreme Court has ruled that governing bodies cannot introduce new items for action without public comment if they are substantially different from original or similar proposals, according to Terry Francke, general counsel of Californians Aware, a First Amendment watchdog group based in Sacramento. They also cannot form a consensus in a series of meetings outside the boardroom, Michael Korcok said.
Allegations from local coupleThis is what the Korcoks believe happened when trustee Bryan Batey introduced the new poster, with a new cost structure, without the public's ability to review and comment on the proposal. Trustee Joel Heinrichs had been involved in the new poster's development and Trustee Chad Vegas commented favorably during the Nov. 5 meeting that Batey had shared the new poster with him earlier in the day before the vote.
"When people had been led to expect a certain option or array of options or choices and the one that is actually presented and adopted is significantly different from the ones that have been placed on the agenda, then that decision can be voided because people had no ability to prepare themselves," Francke said, "even (if) it wasn't intentionally done to deceive the people."
Messages left for Batey were not immediately returned Thursday evening.
The board has 30 days from the date it received the Korcoks' letter to respond in writing as to its intent to either correct or not correct the allegations, according to "The CalAware Guide to Open Meetings in California," written by Francke. The Korcoks then have 15 days to file a suit.
'This is about governance'The issue is now back on the agenda for Monday's meeting, and the Korcoks said that while they have yet to receive a letter from the board, they believe the move was out of concern over possible litigation brought by their letter.
They did receive correspondence from Superintendent Don Carter notifying them that the issue would be taken up again Monday.
But district spokesman John Teves said Carter's letter was simply a courtesy because they had placed an alternative proposal on a previous agenda and was not related to the Korcoks' letter to the board.
The latest board action may not be enough to quell the Korcoks' concerns.
"This is about governance," Mr. Korcok said, a Bakersfield College communications professor. "The rescinding of the decision, I'm not sure it really addresses anything legally or as a practical matter."
Mistake on poster
Earlier Thursday, a press statement notified local media that Batey submitted two agenda items addressing an error in the motto section of the poster and the lack of public comment on the new design before the board took action.
The first item retracts the Nov. 5 approval of a new poster displaying the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and both national mottos.
The second calls for its approval with changes.
"Because my motion in November was to approve a specific layout for the poster, I thought it was best that we let the board members review and approve those changes at our meeting here next Monday," Batey said earlier. "An added benefit is that we'll be able to accept additional comments from the public on our individual poster."
The new poster, which Teves said will be available for the public to view before the public comment period, corrects the motto portion of the poster, which stated "E Pluribus Unum" had been approved by Congress as the nation's motto in 1776 when it had actually only been used as the de facto motto after its inclusion on the Great Seal of the United States a few years later, Teves said.
The mistake was made when information pulled from the Internet and attributed to the Boy Scouts of America was used to present a concept design but accidentally became part of the final approved poster, Teves said.
"The poster will remain a patriotic poster that places the nation's motto in the appropriate historical and educational context," Batey said.
Also, the district acknowledged concerns that the public did not view or have the ability to comment about the revised poster before the board approved it, according to the news release. Teves said he did not think laws were violated by presenting the poster after the close of public comment.
No mention was made in the news release or in talking with Teves of the Korcoks, their concern or the possibility of litigation.
