Town Square

Post a New Topic

Superintendent search limited to insiders

Original post made on Mar 12, 2010

The field of candidates for the next superintendent of the Sequoia Union High School District has significantly narrowed less than a month after Superintendent Patrick Gemma announced plans to retire at the end of June.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 12:00 AM

Comments (25)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by jim watson
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Mar 12, 2010 at 3:12 pm

Hats off to Chris Thomsen. The voice of reason in the Sequoia Union High School district. He is the only board member to stay true to his mission (the written mission of the SUHS) to represent all students in the district. He is not afraid to go againt the other members who care little about the students and more about pleasing the superintendent. He is the only member who seems to know that things must change and that it is possible to improve and make the education of all students better. Keep up the good work Chris Thomsen.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 16, 2010 at 2:27 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The saga continues:



Begin forwarded message:

Subject: Sequoia Union High School District Issue

Dear Mr. Peterson,

Thank you for your interest in ensuring that the provisions of the Brown Act are followed. I have had the opportunity to review your concerns, as well as the applicable law, and based on that review, I do not believe that the actions of the Board violated either the spirit or the letter of the law.

As we discussed in our telephone conversation last week, case law interpreting the Brown Act confirms that discussions relating to personnel decisions can be done in closed session. These cases interpret this exception rather broadly, finding that it extends to "all employer consideration of an employee, up to (but excluding) 'discipline' or 'dismissal' of the employee." Duvall v. Board of Trustees (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 902, 909. The Duvall court found that "evaluation" encompasses "consideration of the criteria for such evaluation, consideration of the process for conducting the evaluation, and other preliminary matters, to the extent those matters constitute an exercise of [the board's] discretion in evaluating a particular employee." Ibid.

Opinions of the Attorney General further support the broad parameters of the personnel exception. "Opinions of the California Attorney General have consistently interpreted the personnel exception's use of the term 'employment' broadly.... [T]he Attorney General interpreted the term 'employment' to include 'all personnel matters relating to an individual employee at executive sessions and not simply matters relating to initial employment or final discharge,' thereby permitting a closed session to evaluate a school superintendent's performance." Travis v. Board of Trustees(2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 335, 344-5. The court in Travis concluded, based on this review, "a more flexible interpretation of 'employment' is permitted when it is consistent with the purposes of both the Brown Act and the personnel exception." Travis, supra., at p. 346

The principle that can be distilled from these authorities is that a Board can shield from public scrutiny matters that are inherently likely to risk "undue publicity and embarrassment" to persons under consideration for employment. Applying this principle to the Board's action, it appears that discussions relating to the performance, abilities and criteria for selection of candidates for superintendent fall squarely within the closed session exception. In other words, the Board could have simply selected a new superintendent based on a closed session review of candidates without violating the provisions of the Brown Act.

I have also had the opportunity to review the Agenda and Minutes of the February 17 and 24 meetings. From these sources, it is apparent that the Board was mindful of the preference for transparency, beyond what was technically required by the Brown Act. On February 17, there was a discussion of the utility of doing an in-house search before looking outside, as well as a discussion about obtaining public input via the internet. The Agenda for the February 24 meeting appropriately listed the closed session relating to appointment of the superintendent and allowed for public comment as the agenda item immediately preceding retiring into closed session. As the letter of Mr. Beiers makes clear, the February 24 reporting out was not a final personnel action and was therefore not necessary under the law. This too appears to be consistent with a desire to keep the public involved in the process.

In sum, while I appreciate the vigilance that you have brought to this process, it appears that the actions taken by the Board are consistent with the requirements of the Brown Act, in that consideration of the qualities of potential candidates and the process for making the selection are appropriately conducted in closed session. If you would like discuss this further, you may contact me directly at (650) 363-4823.

Sincerely,

Albert A. Serrato
Deputy District Attorney

*****************
my email to the District Attorney:


Mr. Fox,

The personnel exemption only applies to agendized discussion regarding specific individuals. As Mr. Serrato very correctly notes " this exception rather broadly, finding that it extends to "all employer consideration of an employee, up to (but excluding) 'discipline' or 'dismissal' of the employee." Mr. Serrato further cites ""Opinions of the California Attorney General have consistently interpreted the personnel exception's use of the term 'employment' broadly.... [T]he Attorney General interpreted the term 'employment' to include 'all personnel matters relating to an individual employee at executive sessions." These very citations by Mr. Serrato clearly contradict his conclusion.

The School Board's minutes clearly show that they took an action with regard to filling a position - without the mention of even a single individual employee.

I urge you to reverse Mr. Serrato's incorrect interpretation of the Brown Act with regard to the School Board's closed session action.


Peter





 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 17, 2010 at 3:39 am

The saga continues as the government officials circle their wagons:
On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:43 PM, "James Fox" <jfox@co.sanmateo.ca.us> wrote:

Mr. Carpenter
I have read Mr. Serrato's memo to you and I am in agreement with it. There is no mandated process for selection of a Superintendent set forth, so the Board of Trustees can choose to evaluate current employees without initiating a broader search. In fact, if the Board chose, they could evaluate and interview current employees and then make a selection. There is no requirement that an agenda list who they are considering, unlike acquisition of real estate.
If you are not satisfied with the decision to evaluate current employees, you have a right to address the Board in a public meeting to urge them to adopt an alternative process, but they are not obligated to do so.
Jim Fox

From: Peter Carpenter <peterfcarpenter@gmail.com>
Date: March 16, 2010 8:36:35 PM EDT
To: James Fox <jfox@co.sanmateo.ca.us>
Cc: tom gibboney <tgibboney@AlmanacNews.com>, Dave Boyce <dboyce@AlmanacNews.com>
Subject: Re: Sequoia Union High School District Issue

Jim,
I will seek the wisdom of the courts since you are unwilling to interpret the law in the interest of the citizens and instead have chosen to protect secrecy by elected officials.

Peter Carpenter
Sent from my iPhone


 +   Like this comment
Posted by James
a resident of Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks
on Mar 17, 2010 at 9:26 am

This case may ultimately have to be settled in the courts. However, in a time when government should be heeding the need to be more open than secretive, it would seem prudent that the School Board act accordingly. Perception plays a big role in an elected official's life. Even if it's decided that the Board didn't technically violate the Brown Act, they are now viewed as hiding something. Maybe the School Board needs to review their Brown Act responsibilities. This is the kind of act which damages the public's trust in their elected representatives.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 17, 2010 at 11:01 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

The saga continues - my email this date:

Dear President Martinez and Fellow School Board Members,



Be advised that the decision of the Board as to the scope of the search for a new superintendent, having been made in closed session, is in violation of the Brown Act and California Code 54957.1.

This action was confirmed by your President and by your own lawyer, John Beiers: "On February 24, the Board met in closed session under Public Employee Appointment: Superintendent. At the conclusion of that session, the Board announced a decision, on a 4-1 vote, to essentially confirm the original public direction to continue the selection process in house before contemplating an outside search." Mr. Beiers further states that "One should surmise from the vote taken by the Board that the Board discussed the strengths and weaknesses of internal candidates and arrived at a conclusion that it needed not to conduct an external search."

If that was indeed what transpired, then the Board had the obligation to report the closed session conclusion 'that it needed not to conduct an external search' in public session and then to vote on the motion to do a closed search in such a public session. While any purported discussions regarding specific individuals would fall under the personnel exception the subsequent motion, made without any reference to said individuals, to conduct a closed search is not a permitted exception to the requirement that the public's business be conducted in public and with the public being given the opportunity to comment.

The personnel exemption in the Brown Act applies ONLY to actions regarding a SPECIFIC individual and not to decisions regarding general personnel policies. Thus your closed session action is a violation of your public trust and an insult to the citizens of the district. The citizens elected you to do our business; we did not elect you to do that public business in secret.

Since this decision has not been rescinded and then agendized for a public meeting, I will file suit against the School District and each Trustee. The Court will also be asked to 1) issue a temporary restraining order prohibiting the School District from taking any action pursuant to this illegal motion, including any action to search for or select a new superintendent, until this matter can be fully adjudicated or has otherwise been resolved, 2) void the closed door action to pursue a closed search and 3) pay all of my legal expenses incurred until such time as this matter is resolved. (REMEDIES AND SANCTIONS - Individuals may file civil lawsuits for injunctive, mandatory or declaratory relief, or to void action taken in violation of the Act. 54960; 54960 Attorneys' fees are available to prevailing plaintiffs.)

To assist you in deciding to reverse course and to address this issue in open session prior to my filing a civil suit, let me quote from the recent correspondence from the San Mateo District Attorney which clearly confirms, contrary to the DA's interpretation but consistent with the later cited California Attorney General's opinion, that the personnel exception allowing closed session action applies ONLY to personnel actions which relate to a SPECIFIC individual:

"These cases interpret this exception rather broadly, finding that it extends to "all employer consideration of an employee, up to (but excluding) 'discipline' or 'dismissal' of the employee." Duvall v. Board of Trustees (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 902, 909. The Duvall court found that "evaluation" encompasses "consideration of the criteria for such evaluation, consideration of the process for conducting the evaluation, and other preliminary matters, to the extent those matters constitute an exercise of [the board's] discretion in evaluating a particular employee." Ibid.


 Opinions of the Attorney General further support the broad parameters of the personnel exception. "Opinions of the California Attorney General have consistently interpreted the personnel exception's use of the term 'employment' broadly.... [T]he Attorney General interpreted the term 'employment' to include 'all personnel matters relating to an individual employee at executive sessions and not simply matters relating to initial employment or final discharge,' thereby permitting a closed session to evaluate a school superintendent's performance." Travis v. Board of Trustees(2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 335, 344-5."

And here is guidance from the California Attorney General:

"The Brown Act authorizes a closed session "to consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, discipline, or dismissal of a public employee or to hear complaints or charges brought against the employee.

The purpose of this exception – commonly referred to as the "personnel exception" – is to avoid undue publicity or embarrassment for an employee or applicant for employment and to allow full and candid discussion by the legislative body; thus, it is restricted to discussing individuals, not general personnel policies."

Frankly, I am at loss as to why the decision to do a closed search was done in closed session - what was there to hide, which individuals were you ostensibly attempting to protect? Was this simply a procedural error or was it done intentionally to hide something from the public? Note that if it were an intentional act to "deprive the public of information which the member knew or had reason to know the public was entitled to receive" then that would be cause for criminal action. Will not a closed search be inherently discriminatory if the internal applicant pool is not representative of the community that you serve?

Should the School District wish to avoid the expense and the extensive discovery and time consuming depositions which may be required in conjunction with a civil suit, you have the very simple option of rescinding your closed session motion decision and then properly agendized this matter for a public meeting.

Your attorney states:" I can tell you based on personal experience with this Board, that Brown Act compliance is important to them".

I challenge you to meet that standard.





My motivation in this matter derives from the beautifully worded Preamble to the Brown Act:

"In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards,

and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's

business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations

be conducted openly."

"The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The

people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good

for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining

informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."



The people reconfirmed that intent fifty years later at the November 2004 election by adopting Proposition 59, amending the California Constitution to include a public right of access to government information:

"The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's

business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and

agencies shall be open to public scrutiny."





While I may not prevail on this matter, I can assure you that to continue down this road will be very expensive and time consuming for the School District and will result in a significant amount of negative publicity - is it worth it, what are you hiding?



Please do the simple thing and rescind this closed session motion.


Peter F. Carpenter


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 17, 2010 at 11:15 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

an interesting footnote - the above email was rejected by the recipients server as I have been blacklisted by the school district's email server. A very interesting response given their stated interest in citizen input.

I suggest that those of you who are so motivated might send them the above message with whatever comments you wish.

Peter
omartinez@seq.org, dgibson@seq.org, lrumley@seq.org, asarver@seq.org, cthomsen@seq.org,


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 17, 2010 at 11:34 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Dear School Board members,

The below email was sent to you from my normal gmail address and was uniformly rejected with the comment - The error that the other server returned was: 554 554 5.7.1 Blacklisted by dbl.spamhaus.org. The same email has been sent to you from another of my email addresses and was accepted.

Clearly you have decided that you do NOT want citizen input. I am amazed at your arrogance.

I also think you may end up getting copies from other citizens who share my outrage at your behavior.

Peter


 +   Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Mar 17, 2010 at 12:21 pm

Regardless of whether you feel the SUHSD board of trustees is doing a good job or not, voters must certainly be concerned that the board lacks transparency. There is no reason they needed to hold a general discussion about the boundaries of a job search behind closed doors.

Our community deserves better and I call upon the trustees to override their attorney's opinion when these recommendations are made. We elected you, not your attorney. The attorney works for you. Elected officials should ALWAYS error on the side of sunshine.

Voters should remember this little episode when Trustees Gibson, Martinez and Rumley stand for re-election in November 2011. We pay the bills and we deserve transparency from our TRUSTees.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by C'mon Peter
a resident of Menlo Park: Park Forest
on Mar 17, 2010 at 1:00 pm

C'mon Peter, give it a rest. Is this THAT big of an issue?? There are so many other much larger problems and concerns right now with school budgets, city budgets etc. What is costing us taxpayers more, the decision to keep the selection process in-house, or the ridiculous benefits, pensions and salaries that you helped approve during your tenure on the Fire District Board? Seriously.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 17, 2010 at 1:05 pm

Secrecy in local government trumps ALL other issues. If they operate in secret then we cannot trust whatever they do or say.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by WhoRUpeoplle
a resident of another community
on Mar 17, 2010 at 2:21 pm

Right on, POGO! And my sincere compliments and gratitude to Peter. Anyone reading this string of posts, I encourage you to email the Trustees as Peter suggested - I have. The real issue here is a school board that feels no obligation to the public it serves. This has been a long standing issue under Gemma, and it will be perpetuated unless something changes. Unfortunately, none of the trustee positions come up for election until 11/11. Too long to wait. To C'mon Peter, and others that are only thinking of this in terms of the specific issue of the replacement search, it is a big deal! This school district NEVER asks for public input on any issue if it doesn't HAVE TO. That is B.S.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by POGO
a resident of Woodside: other
on Mar 17, 2010 at 7:50 pm

C'mon Peter makes a reasonable point and I could actually overlook this issue if it weren't for the fact that the SUHSD has done this MANY times before.

When asked about specific budgets, cost overruns at performing arts centers, student statistics like drop out rates and test scores, the district consistently refuses to disclose details.

This is what happens when there is a culture that "they" know better than the public... the trustees resort to their old ways even when the issues are relatively inconsequential. They like their secrets.

I will write to the trustees expressing my disgust for their lack of transparency. But I plan to show my full contempt by supporting their opponents in the fall 2011 elections.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by another view
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Mar 17, 2010 at 8:18 pm

Actually, I don't really care about whether the board made the decision to limit their search in closed session. What I care about is the outcome, and I think it severely damages the credibility of the new Superintendent if they have not been selected through a full search. Going through a full search would ensure that the district is selecting a person with full knowledge that he/she is their best option. And it is also best for the person selected so that he/she doesn't always have a question mark hanging over their head. The internal candidate that is being fast-tracked into this job is being set up to fail if they are selected in a process where people will always question whether he was really the best person for the job.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by WhoRUpeople
a resident of another community
on Mar 18, 2010 at 8:35 am

Another View--you make an excellent point, BUT, this Board (with the exception of Thomsen) has consistently demonstrated that THEY DON'T CARE. Now, given the latest announcement about the appointment of the new superintendent last evening, its obvious to me that he doesn't care either. I have to give credit where it is due, Gemma did a masterful job of creating an empire that can be sustained--who wants to bet that his influence will end on June 30th?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by outraged
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 18, 2010 at 8:41 am

Another View, I believe we should care about the outcome AND the process, because if public agencies flout the law that is meant to ensure transparency and public participation, what kind of trust can we have in them? And I firmly believe, based on much familiarity with the Brown Act, that the district and our elected officials did indeed violate the law when it made its decision to limit the search in closed session.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by SUHSD parent
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Mar 18, 2010 at 9:12 am

Oh, ok, so the board didn't violate the Brown Act because they were discussing a specific employee -- in this case, whether the heir apparent should be anointed to the throne. But don't we members of the public have any input as to whether there should be a search or not?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 18, 2010 at 9:47 am

I hope now everyone understands why challenging the first closed session motion's legality was and is so important. This Board is operating totally behind closed doors on a matter that has profound implications for the community and there has been NO public input on this decision.

I urge everyone to speak out on this issue and demand that this appointment be withdrawn until there is the opportunity for public input.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by to Mr. Carpenter
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Mar 18, 2010 at 2:02 pm

Instead of continually critiquing and crippling the decisions of school districts, please, please oh please find a volunteer effort where you can put your energies, skill and time into. Maybe one where you might make a welcomed difference? Sitting behind a keyboard 24/7 and playing unsolicited advocate for "others" who are not asking of your opinion is so hard for the public to watch. It's especially concerning when you are now wasting the time and money of our schools which need all time focused and money carefully managed. Find a cause to support that is looking for your time and support. Or find a life. please. That alone would be a community service.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 18, 2010 at 2:22 pm

Posted by to Mr. Carpenter:"Find a cause to support that is looking for your time and support. Or find a life. please. That alone would be a community service."

Obviously you do not know that I served 8 1/2 years as an elected Director of your Fire District, that I am currently the President of the Atherton Civic Interest League and that I have spent more than 20 years in various forms of public service.

Your qualifications please.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by WhoRUpeople
a resident of another community
on Mar 18, 2010 at 2:58 pm

Peter, please don't go there! You didn't ask for it, your certainly do not need it, and you may not even welcome it, but your going to get it--my defense of your efforts on this issue or any other. Peter Carpenter, while I disagree with him on issues from time to time and have debated such issues in this forum, does not deserve anything but praise for his interest in issues of importance to the community/county/district. He has put his name, reputation, time and money into supporting those things he believes are important. Please, if you are a reasonable and interested person, disagree with Peter on this or any other issue that comes along, but please don't waste his time or ours, who have to read your crap, trying to cloud issues with personal attacks. Peter, on a personal note, I only wish I was in a position to share your passion (and I still disagree with you about fire sprinkler regulations).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by David Boyce
Almanac staff writer
on Mar 18, 2010 at 5:19 pm

David Boyce is a registered user.

The governing board of the Sequoia Union High School District did seek community opinion as it worked through the process of seeking candidates to replace the outgoing Patrick Gemma.

The district posted a questionnaire on the web site on Monday, Feb. 22, and kept it up until Friday, March. 5. (Note that the board decided in closed session on Feb. 24 to limit the search to district employees only.)

The questionnaire results are available in paper format from the district office. They will not be available online from the district, as spokeswoman Bettylu Smith explained in response to my e-mail asking if they would be posted anywhere.

"As mentioned in my cover letter to you last week, the questionnaire was developed expressly for the trustees as part of their search for a new superintendent (as one means of informing that decision). Trustees are grateful to those who took the time to complete the questionnaire, and the responses and comments are being considered by the trustees as the search process progresses. The reports will be made available upon request."

The questionnaire is from 2003 and used during the recruitment of Mr. Gemma.

I am making arrangements to get the results ready for online posting in connection with a story that will go up at The Almanac's web site shortly.

Here is an excerpt from my story:

The bulk of the survey was 13 multiple-choice criteria. Respondents were asked to rate a candidate's view of priorities as either very important, somewhat important, or not too important.

The results showed 12 of the 13 items as "very important," including:

â–  "Sustain and improve the performance of ALL students while closing the gap between higher and poorer achieving students." Very-important rating: 83 percent.

â–  "Value and capitalize upon diversity in the schools and community as s/he addresses the unique needs of an ethnically, culturally and socio-economically diverse student body." Very-important rating: 53 percent.

â–  "Address the multi-faceted issues associated with charter schools in an objective manner." Very-important rating: 68 percent.

Some respondents found this tedious, with one person writing: "All the questions are leading -- 'How important is it for the (superintendent) to do a good job on everything within their job description?'"

Said another: "I don't get it. How will this line of questioning be useful?"

That line of questioning is balanced by items asking for open-ended responses, Sequoia board President Olivia Martinez said in an interview. One part is quantitative and the other qualitative and, lacking a better method, the board uses the results as it may, she said.

The multiple choice items "reaffirm that there a consensus in the community as to the importance of what these things are," she said. "In a democracy, nothing is perfect."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Mar 18, 2010 at 5:34 pm

David Boyce reports:"The district posted a questionnaire on the web site on Monday, Feb. 22, and kept it up until Friday, March. 5. (Note that the board decided in closed session on Feb. 24 to limit the search to district employees only.)"

Unfortunately,this process involved no outreach to the community encouraging participation, no online posting of the results, and no discussion of the option of inside vs outside candidates.

More important, it is very clear that the Board had already selected the new superintendent long before the closing date of this so called survey.

The survey was a cover story, a diversion and a sham.

The Brown Act does NOT recognize surveys as an acceptable means of allowing the public to be heard on a pending public decision. There is only ONE legally acceptable method - put the decision on a posted agenda and permit public comment in open session. The School Board made both the decision to restrict the search to inside candidates (illegally in a Closed Session) and the choice of a new superintendent (permitted in a Closed Session but by no means required)in Closed Sessions.

Here is what the Attorney General's Office says about public comment on Closed Session items:

- Every agenda for a regular meeting shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to DIRECTLY ADDRESS the legislative body on any item under the subject matter jurisdiction of the body.

- With respect to any item which is already on the agenda, or

in connection with any item which the body will consider pursuant to the exceptions contained in section 54954.2(b) )i.e. in Closed Session), the public MUST be given the opportunity to comment before or during the legislative body's consideration of the item. (§ 54954.3(a).)

What is not clear about the law???


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Concerned Parent
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Mar 18, 2010 at 5:38 pm

Personally whether the letter of the law was broken or not, it's pretty clear the spirit of the law was. The goal is transparency and accountabililty and it is an unfortunate reflection of the state of government that it requires a law to try to get our elected officials to do the right thing. To continually improve our society requires an informed an engaged electorate. I can think of few topics more important than education and yet here we have a Board that appears to want to rule rather than govern. We deserve better. Peter, I have no idea about whether your legal position has any merit or not, but I appreciate that youare willing to spend your time on this issue as SUHSD BoT needs to know they can't continue business as usual. These are the same people who are going to come back and say they need more money and to trust them. Trust is earned and they have not earned mine.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Concerned Parent
a resident of Menlo Park: The Willows
on Mar 18, 2010 at 6:02 pm

I just saw the postings relating to the "survey". Things really don't add up. It looks as if the survey was almost an afterthought. How could it really be of use if a major decision was made two days into the survey? Aside from what sound like poor questions, the sampling would have to be suspect, hence the conclusions are perhaps even less valid than those from a Fox News poll. At least those are described up front as non-scientific.
The other thing that gets me about the wording is the presumtive language: "closing the gap between higher and poorer achieving students". Presumably lowering the scores of high achieving students would lower the gap, but that's not really what we want is it? How about all of us being in favor of improving the achievement of lower achieving students and improving the acievment of all students?
This whole process stinks!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Apr 5, 2010 at 1:34 pm

SHEPPARD MULLIN
HEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER ST HAMPTON L
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
990 Marsh Road I Menlo Park, CA 94025-1949
650-815-2600 office I 650-815-2601 fax www.sheppardmullin.com
James M. Chadwick
Writer's Direct Line: 650-815-2605
jchadwick@sheppardmullin.com
April 5, 2010
VIA FACSIMILE AND FEDEX
President Olivia Martinez
Members of the Board of Trustees
Sequoia Union High School District
Board of Trustees
480 James Avenue
Redwood City, CA 94062
tel. (650) 369-1411
fax. (650) 306-8870
Re: Board of Trustees Meetings on February 24, 2010, and March 17, 2010
Appointment of a New Superintendent
Dear President Martinez and Members of the Board of Trustees:
I am writing on behalf of Atherton and District resident Peter Carpenter to request
that the Board of Trustees ("the Board") cure and correct two actions: the Board's February 24
decision, made during a closed-session discussion, to limit the search for a new superintendent to
employees of the Sequoia Union High School District ("the District"), and the Board's March 17
appointment of James Lianides as the District's new superintendent. Mr. Carpenter requests that
both actions be rescinded, and that any and all future actions with respect to the hiring of a
superintendent be taken in strict compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.
The Board's February 24 closed-session discussion violated the Ralph M. Brown
Act (Government Code section 54950, et seq., hereafter the "Brown Act"). In particular, that
discussion violated Government Code sections 54953 and 54957.
On February 24, the Board convened in a closed session to discuss the search for
a new superintendent. The Board apparently considered the relative merits of internal candidates
for the superintendent job. The Board went beyond that, however, to discuss the broader policy
issue of whether to limit the superintendent search to District employees, or to look beyond the
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
President Olivia Martinez
Members of the Board of Trustees
Sequoia Union High School District
Board of Trustees
April 5, 2010
Page 2
District. For this second discussion, the Board remained in closed session – an action which
exceeds the Brown Act's narrow exception for personnel matters.
The personnel exception, Government Code section 54597, permits closed
sessions to "consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance or dismissal of a
public employee." The exception is to be construed "strictly and narrowly." (San Diego Union
v. City Council (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 947, 954.) It therefore plainly does not permit policy
discussions which go beyond the "appointment, employment, evaluation. . . or dismissal" of a
particular employee. (See, e.g., Santa Clara Federation of Teachers v. Governing Board (1981)
116 Cal.App.3d 831; 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen 153 (1980).) The Board's discussion of the broad
policy issue of whether to limit its search to insiders exceeds this narrow exception.
As all members of the Board well know, the Sequoia Union High School District
Superintendent holds a position of considerable power and importance in the community. The
position oversees the education of more than 8,000 students, and steers a large organization with
an annual budget of more than $100 million. The person who holds this position wields
enormous influence. More importantly, he or she holds a position of public trust. The
fundamental and critical decision of how to go about finding the best person for this job is
precisely the sort of decision the California Legislature intended to be conducted in the open.
The fundamental premise of the Brown Act is that "[t]he people, in delegating
their authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to
know and what is not good for them to know." (Brown Act, section 54950.) By excluding the
public from the decision-making process, the Board has shrouded in secrecy an important policy
discussion that should have been exposed to the light of day. Your decision to conduct secret
deliberations on an important policy decision—i.e., the decision not to conduct a search that
might have produced more highly accomplished and qualified candidates for the most critical
position in the District not only violates the Brown Act, but contravenes its central purpose: to
ensure public awareness of and participation in such decisions. Furthermore, this critical
appointment was made without the public even knowing who the candidate was before the
decision was made, thereby depriving all concerned of the opportunity for public comment on
his qualifications.
Therefore, Mr. Carpenter respectfully requests that the Board take immediate
action to cure and correct those violations by rescinding the decision to conduct an internal
search, by rescinding the appointment of Mr. Lianides, and by ensuring that any future actions
with regard to the hiring of a superintendent are made in accordance with the Brown Act.
Finally, the Board should take all necessary steps to ensure that hard-copy and electronic
documents or records relating to the search for a new superintendent are preserved, including
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
President Olivia Martinez
Members of the Board of Trustees
Sequoia Union High School District
Board of Trustees
April 5, 2010
Page 3
electronic communications or records that might otherwise be erased or expunged by automated
processes.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your prompt
response, as required by the Brown Act.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
W02-WEST:5DAS 1 \ 402567890.2


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Early Decision Blues
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 2,149 views

One night only: ‘Occupy the Farm’ screening in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 1 comment | 2,059 views

What Are Menlo Park’s Priorities?
By Erin Glanville | 37 comments | 1,471 views

Water Torture
By Paul Bendix | 1 comment | 462 views

Are you considering a remodel?
By Stuart Soffer | 0 comments | 38 views