Posted by Park Neighbor, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2012 at 10:18 am

What about all the money the water district will lose from one of their largest customers?

Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Mar 20, 2012 at 10:51 am
Peter Carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online

The law requires that that agenda description be more specific:

"The purpose of the brief general description is to inform interested members of the

public about the subject matter under consideration so that they can determine whether

to monitor or participate in the meeting of the body. In Carlson v. Paradise Unified

School Dist. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 196, the court interpreted the agenda requirements

set forth in section 966 of the Education Code. That section required “. . . [a] list of

items that will constitute the agenda for all regular meetings shall be posted. . . .”

(Carlson v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 196, 199.) In

interpreting this section, the court stated:

“In the instant case, the school board’s agenda contained as one

item the language ‘Continuation school site change.’ This was entirely

inadequate notice to a citizenry which may have been concerned over

a school closure.

“On this point alone, we think the trial court was correct

because the agenda item, though not deceitful, was entirely misleading

and inadequate to show the whole scope of the board’s intended plans.

It would have taken relatively little effort to add to the agenda that this

‘school site change’ also included the discontinuance of elementary

education at Canyon View and the transfer of those students to

Ponderosa School.” (Carlson v. Paradise Unified School Dist. (1971)

18 Cal.App.3d 196, 200, original emphasis; see also 67

Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 84, 87 (1984).)