We ran two stories on Saturday, one on a new diversity committee and another on a school bond discussion, that mentioned school district committees that are closed to the public.
At first glance, you might think that this is a violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, California's open meeting law enacted in 1953 to safeguard the public's right to attend and participate in government meetings within the state.
We thought so. A Tracy Press reporter was assigned to cover a meeting in which the specifics of a survey and an upcoming school bond to fix Tracy High School were discussed. He was told the meeting was closed to the press.
Tracy Unified School District Superintendent Jim Franco said the meetings are not covered by the Brown Act, because his staff has appointed the members, not the school board. He's instructed the committee members to stay mum if reporters call them outside the meetings.
We called California Newspaper Publishers Association Attorney Jim Ewert, who vertified that the meetings can be closed, as long as the committee's membership doesn't include a quorum of school board trustees. The committee's roster lists about a dozen residents of Tracy, along with trustees Gregg Crandall, Joan Feller and Gerry Machado, with Bill Swenson as an alternate, which means it's just short of the four elected officials that make a quorum.
Do you think the district has found a way to sidestep the Brown Act and meet privately? Or is this a legitimate way to discuss important issues before presenting them to the public?
Just thought I'd put the question out there.
2 comments:
I think district officials should try to understand it's often times the appearance of secrecy that undermines their ultimate objective. The Brown Act can be supplemented by local municipalities and districts with a Sunshine ordinance to expand public access rights. To read about Sunshine ordinances follow the link: http://www.calaware.org/programs/sunshine.jsp
Posted by: Carole at October 26, 2005 01:32 PM
Strange that I should have an opportunity to address this very subject after speaking about it with several associates last night about it.
Absolutely, if there was a quorum of school board members at this meeting, especially if there was any discussion regarding anything to do with the school district, it is a direct violation of the Brown Act, and they should be censured for it. So it would appear that someone should determine that a quorum was not present. Granted, the members of the committee did not constitute a quorum if they were, in fact, not all in attendance. But the selection of an alternate that would serve may constitute a quorum if not for the very fact the alternate would have to be supplied the same information in order to act should he or she be called. This then becomes a variant of Straw Polling, and that is illegal.
Another issue, which would be a violation of public law, would occur if a school board member had been a member of an audience in one of these meetings. Granted, an audience should not have been present, but frequently in such meetings, there are people who are given access to such meetings. How would anyone know if a violation occurred if there are no public minutes detailing who was in attendance for these closed-door meetings?
I am starting to see a dangerous thing in our government system concerning the usage of the Brown Act and using it to abuse and violate the right of the public to have firsthand knowledge of issues that affects it.
Naturally, personnel issues are something that cannot be discussed in a public venue. There is such a thing as a person's right to privacy here, and I don’t have a problem with that because it does not affect the general public they are charged to represent.
But it seems that far too many of these types of meetings are indeed occurring behind closed doors, and I have a problem with it.
A scenario in which this might occur, which seems to be what might have happened in this case, is that the board will appoint a committee to "study" the issue. Committees of this nature are very loosely controlled by the Brown Act and don't always have to be open to the public, even though they should if they are dealing with matters important to the public. An example of this “gray area” might be a party where a quorum accidentally occurs. As long as nothing of public importance is discussed, then I have no problem with it.
But I digress. This committee will usually report its results to staff who then reports, as it sees fit, to the governing body, such as a city council or school board, which then summarily accepts staff's proposal without ever giving the public a chance to comment. Rarely do committees report their findings directly in a board or council meeting.
The Brown Act, in this type of scenario, has thus prevented the public from making comments and receiving information that it should be made aware of before a final decision is made ,unless the governing body purposefully provides the public an opportunity to do so. Actually the public can do this by having items removed from the consent calendars for discussion before the governing body votes on the information. However, few people know this, and it is rarely advertised in such meeting.
One incident in particular that I am aware of has recently occurred with our own City Council in relation to a pipe organ that was to be donated to the Grand Theater.
In this case, apparently the Art Alliance League, a special committee appointed by council that operates without public scrutiny and is defacto controlling an estimated $23 million cost to renovate/restore the theater, provided their "recommendation" against receiving this organ. The accounting I received on this had something to do with box seats that are to be installed. Box seats, by the way, were not in the original configuration of the theater.
This “recommendation” was provided to staff, which in turn provided its information and recommendation to City Council. Because the issue was primarily focused on the money issues, City Council agreed, and this opportunity to get something the people may have wanted was missed.
The real tragedy about this is the public had no idea what had occurred and was not given an opportunity to comment about it. To me, this is a violation of the intent of the Brown Act and should not be allowed to take place.
With respect to the recent School Board activities, the Brown Act is pretty clear on the subject. If enough members of a governing body are in attendance of a meeting where information and activities of that meeting are going to be discussed and those members will be making decisions on the subject material in future actions, it is a violation of the public’s trust. These types of meetings must be legally noticed and opened to the public to allow witnessing of what is going on and provide comment when necessary.
Simply selecting a committee, closing it to the public and allowing a quorum of the governing members to attend is a blatant and flagrant violation of the Brown Act and a complete violation of the public’s trust. If, after investigation has determined the fact, they have violated the law they should be censured for it.
Dave Hardesty
When Mr. Hardesty went to the podium the evening of Nov. 1st City Council Meeting to request that the pipe organ issue be put on a subsequent City Council agenda, he became a victim of a Brown Act violation. Acting Chair councilmember Evelyn Tolbert required him to sign a attendance list at the podium.
The Brown Act states:
54953.3. Conditions to attendance at meetings
A member of the public shall not be required, as a condition to attendance at a meeting of a
legislative body of a local agency, to register his or her name, to provide other information, to complete a questionnaire, or otherwise to fulfill any condition precedent to his or her attendance.
If an attendance list, register, questionnaire, or other similar document is posted at or near the entrance to the room where the meeting is to be held, or is circulated to the persons present during the meeting, it shall state clearly that the signing, registering, or completion of the document is voluntary, and that all persons may attend the meeting regardless of whether a person signs, registers, or completes the document.
Another irregularity occured when a vote was taken on the aquatic center at the end of the agenda item discussion Acting Chair Councilmember Evelyn Tolbert asked Mayor Dan Bilbrey to come to the dais from where he had been sitting in the back of the room, asked him if he had heard enough of the item to vote on it and then he joined in the vote on the issue without officially being on the dais during review of the item. Does anyone know how long he was siting in the audience? Was he present for the entire item?
The City Council and Tracy Unified need regular Brown Act education.
Posted by: Carole at November 9, 2005 08:56 PM
Post a Comment