Letter to the Board regarding Brown Act

April 30, 2009

To the St. Helena Unified School District Board of Education:
On April 8, 2009, Allan Gordon submitted his letter of resignation to the St. Helena Unified School District Board of Education (the “Board”). The Board then posted an agenda for a special meeting to be held on April 9, 2009 (the “Special Meeting”), immediately following its regular board meeting scheduled for the same date. A copy of the Agenda for the April 9, 2009 Special Meeting of the Board of Trustees is attached to this letter for your reference (the “Agenda”). Item 6.A. of the Agenda reads as follows: “6.A. Selection of New Superintendent…The Board will discuss next steps in selection of a new superintendent.” This is the only description in the Agenda that addresses the business to be transacted by the Board at the Special Meeting. It was the understanding of several members of the public at that time that the issue to be addressed at the Special Meeting would be solely to determine the search mechanism to be used to locate a suitable candidate for the job of superintendent (i.e., would the Board look outside and/or inside SHUSD for superintendent candidates?). Further, on the afternoon of April 9, 2009, Ines DeLuna, President of the Board, sent an email to several parents stating in part: “Tonight I have scheduled a Special Board Meeting at 7:15 pm to address a resignation letter submitted by our Superintendent Mr. Allan Gordon yesterday.” As with the Agenda, there was no mention in Ines DeLuna’s email of the Board’s intention to hire the next superintendent at the Special Meeting.
During the public comment period of the Special Meeting, parents and other community members engaged in a discussion with the Board regarding how the search for a new superintendent should be conducted. While Board members stated that they were leaning toward focusing the search to within the SHUSD administration, several individuals who attended the meeting have stated that they had no idea that the Board was planning on filling the position that very night. However, during the closed session of the Special Meeting, the Board “unanimously voted to offer Dr. Robert Haley, Assistant Superintendent, the position of Superintendent.” Letter to the Editor from Ines DeLuna on behalf of the Board of Trustees, St. Helena Star, April 23, 2009.
As you know, California Education Code §35144 and California Government Code §54956 govern the notice requirements for special meetings of the Board. Both statutes state in part that the “notice [of a special meeting] shall specify…the business to be transacted. No other business shall be considered at those meetings by the governing board” Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed. 1993) defines the word “specify” as “to name or state explicitly or in detail.” Further notice requirements are stated in Education Code §35145(b), which provides in part that an agenda of the meeting must be posted in accordance with the requirements of §54954.2 of the Government Code. §54954.2 requires that the posted agenda contain a “brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session.” California Government Code §54954.2(1).
In Carlson v. Paradise Unified School District, (App. 3 Dist. 1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 196, the Third District Court of Appeal found that the school district in that case had provided an inadequate description in its posted meeting agenda and therefore the decision made by the district during that meeting was enjoined. The Court concluded that “the agenda item, though not deceitful, was entirely misleading and inadequate to show the whole scope of the board’s intended plans.” Id. at 200. The Court provided a clear explanation as to why sufficient public notice is such a vital component of school board procedure: “It is now the rule that local government bodies, elected by the people, exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business, and thus their deliberations should be conducted openly and with due notice…. The process of the education of our children is properly a matter of public concern.” Id. at 199. The Court went on to state that “[d]ecisions of local governing bodies of school districts may directly affect parents and teachers, alike, as well as the students themselves. Thus, it is imperative that the agenda of the board’s business be made public and in some detail so that the general public can ascertain the nature of such business.” Id. (emphasis added).
In this case, the description in Agenda Item 6.A. of the business to be transacted at the Special Meeting was vague and misleading. The description leads one to believe that the Board was planning to discuss the process to implement in the search for a new superintendent. In actuality, the Board went far beyond the scope of the Agenda description and ended up voting to offer the position to Rob Haley. There was nothing in the Agenda that would have alerted the public to the fact that the Board was going to hire the next superintendent at the Special Meeting. Taking the “next steps” in locating a new superintendent is not the equivalent of actually appointing the superintendent. In fact, on April 27, 2009, Ines DeLuna and Cindy Warren met with concerned parents regarding the Board’s actions at the Special Meeting. At the April 27, 2009 meeting, Ines DeLuna admitted to the parents that she “had no idea” when she went into the closed session of the Special Meeting that the Board would end up appointing the new superintendent. If the Board President (who has access to more information regarding matters to be discussed at a Board meeting than simply the posted agenda) was not aware of the business that the Board would transact at the Special Meeting, how was the public to ascertain that information from the “next steps” language of Agenda Item 6.A.? Another point made by Cindy Warren at the April 27, 2009 meeting was that very few people regularly show up at the Board meetings anyway. However, as the Carlson Court points out, “[i]t is a well-known fact that public meetings of local governing bodies are sparsely attended by the public at large unless an issue vitally affecting their interests is to be heard. To alert the general public to such issues, adequate notice is a requisite.” Id.
California Government Code §54960.1 provides that any interested person may take action to render null and void any action taken by the Board in violation of Government Code §54956; provided that prior written demand is made to the Board to cure or correct such violation. This letter serves as demand that the Board take the necessary steps to correct the action taken at the Special Meeting to fill the position of superintendent without adequate public notice in violation of Government Code §54956.
Sincerely,
Greg & Kathy Zelazny Pat Friday
Erin Przybylinski Kevin & Sallie Alfaro
Gene & Denise Armstead Kelly Rios
Missy Gott Tim & Maria Stel
John & Beth Milliken Bill Davis
Jeff Smith & Carolyn Duryea Guadalupe Huijon
Joanne M. Yates, PhD Craig & Tish Wagner
Pavi Lawson Denise Smith
Debbie Saldivar Grant & Leslie Ellis
Molly Morales Debbie Hansen
Stephanie Gamble Lynn & Carolyn Sanders
David & Katharine DeSante Dan & Diane Beltrami
Laurence Schlatter Wendy Cole
Catherine Durand Lisa Pelosi