Menlo school district board to appoint new trustee
Original post made
on Jun 3, 2011
The Menlo Park City School District board will appoint a replacement for member Mark Box, who announced his resignation from the five-member board last week. Applications for the post are due on June 17.
Read the full story here Web Link
posted Friday, June 3, 2011, 10:33 AM
Like this comment
Posted by Parent in Atherton
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jun 3, 2011 at 4:36 pm
I agree with Blue Collar Public Worker. It's very easy to say what should be done and ramifications if rules are not followed. Maybe you are the one that should follow up here, as you seem more adamant than anyone else (saying this in a positive way). You can say that they are "PROHIBITED by law from discussing among themselves this issue . . . ." but how is anyone going to verify whether this happens or not? We all know that it does.
You made the following demand of the school board regarding the appointment of the new superintendent. Could you let readers know what the result was? Were any actions taken against the board?
Peter Carpenter wrote: "Posted by peter carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on May 12, 2011 at 3:22 am
peter carpenter is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
Dear Menlo City School District Board,
Pursuant to Section 549601. you are hereby notified that your actions in appointing a new superintendent violated the Brown Act and those actions will need to be declared null and void.
School Board President Maria Hilton announced on May 6 the appointment in an email to district families, saying Mr. Ghysels "possesses an impressive depth of educational and business leadership experience and a demonstrated passion for excellence."
The action leading to this announcement violated the Brown Act in at least two ways.
First, as Mrs. Hilton stated on May 10 that board members had voted, in a blind-ballot process, to rank the candidates.
Second, the Board had reached consensus on this matter without the opportunity for public comment at a properly agendized meeting. On May 10 Mrs. Hilton announced a "welcome reception" for the appointed individual BEFORE its regular meeting on Tuesday, May 10. The reception will be from 6 to 7 p.m. in the district office at 181 Encinal Ave. in Menlo Park. The agenda for the 10 May meeting, after the "welcome reception" included a Closed session item titled:
''The Board will meet in Closed Session regarding Public Employee Appointment (Superintendent) as per Government Code 54957"
and an Open Session item titled :
"a. Ratification of Contract with Dr. Maurice Ghysels for Position of Superintendent, Beginning July 1, 2011 "
Cure and Correct Demand:
1 - The Menlo Park City School Board made a preliminary decision regarding the appointment of a new superintendent by secret ballot in violation of Section 54953c which states (c) No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final.
2 - The Board reached consensus on this appointment without public input thereby denying the public's right to comment before the Board's decision was made.
3 - The Board then announced this appointment well before a regularly scheduled meeting at which the public would have been give the opportunity to comment before the legislative body voted to take action, also thereby denying the public's right to comment before the Board's decision was made.
4 - The Board then also announced that a welcoming reception for this appointee appointment would be before a regularly scheduled meeting at which the public would have been give the opportunity to comment before the legislative body voted to make this appointment, also thereby denying the public's right to comment before the Board's decision was made.
Therefore, the Board is respectfully requested to nullify this entire appointment procedure and to begin it search ab initio. When doing the new search and making the appointment the Board is urged not to use either secret ballots or closed sessions (even in those narrow instances when such session might be legally permitted) in order to ensure the public's confidence in and participation in the new appointment process.
I am also copying this Cure and Correct Demand Letter to the San Mateo District Attorney so that he may determine if civil or criminal action should be taken.
54960.1. (a) The district attorney or any interested person may
commence an action by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of
obtaining a judicial determination that an action taken by a
legislative body of a local agency in violation of Section 54953,
54954.2, 54954.5, 54954.6, 54956, or 54956.5 is null and void under
this section. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent
a legislative body from curing or correcting an action challenged
pursuant to this section.
(b) Prior to any action being commenced pursuant to subdivision
(a), the district attorney or interested person shall make a demand
of the legislative body to cure or correct the action alleged to have
been taken in violation of Section 54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, 54954.6,
54956, or 54956.5. The demand shall be in writing and clearly
describe the challenged action of the legislative body and nature of
the alleged violation.
(c) (1) The written demand shall be made within 90 days from the
date the action was taken unless the action was taken in an open
session but in violation of Section 54954.2, in which case the
written demand shall be made within 30 days from the date the action
(2) Within 30 days of receipt of the demand, the legislative body
shall cure or correct the challenged action and inform the demanding
party in writing of its actions to cure or correct or inform the
demanding party in writing of its decision not to cure or correct the
(3) If the legislative body takes no action within the 30-day
period, the inaction shall be deemed a decision not to cure or
correct the challenged action, and the 15-day period to commence the
action described in subdivision (a) shall commence to run the day
after the 30-day period to cure or correct expires.
(4) Within 15 days of receipt of the written notice of the
legislative body's decision to cure or correct, or not to cure or
correct, or within 15 days of the expiration of the 30-day period to
cure or correct, whichever is earlier, the demanding party shall be
required to commence the action pursuant to subdivision (a) or
thereafter be barred from commencing the action.
(d) An action taken that is alleged to have been taken in
violation of Section 54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, 54954.6, 54956, or
54956.5 shall not be determined to be null and void if any of the
following conditions exist:
(1) The action taken was in substantial compliance with Sections
54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, 54954.6, 54956, and 54956.5.
(2) The action taken was in connection with the sale or issuance
of notes, bonds, or other evidences of indebtedness or any contract,
instrument, or agreement thereto.
(3) The action taken gave rise to a contractual obligation,
including a contract let by competitive bid other than compensation
for services in the form of salary or fees for professional services,
upon which a party has, in good faith and without notice of a
challenge to the validity of the action, detrimentally relied.
(4) The action taken was in connection with the collection of any
(5) Any person, city, city and county, county, district, or any
agency or subdivision of the state alleging noncompliance with
subdivision (a) of Section 54954.2, Section 54956, or Section
54956.5, because of any defect, error, irregularity, or omission in
the notice given pursuant to those provisions, had actual notice of
the item of business at least 72 hours prior to the meeting at which
the action was taken, if the meeting was noticed pursuant to Section
54954.2, or 24 hours prior to the meeting at which the action was
taken if the meeting was noticed pursuant to Section 54956, or prior
to the meeting at which the action was taken if the meeting is held
pursuant to Section 54956.5.
(e) During any action seeking a judicial determination pursuant to
subdivision (a) if the court determines, pursuant to a showing by
the legislative body that an action alleged to have been taken in
violation of Section 54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, 54954.6, 54956, or
54956.5 has been cured or corrected by a subsequent action of the
legislative body, the action filed pursuant to subdivision (a) shall
be dismissed with prejudice.
(f) The fact that a legislative body takes a subsequent action to
cure or correct an action taken pursuant to this section shall not be
construed or admissible as evidence of a violation of this chapter.
54960.5. A court may award court costs and reasonable attorney fees
to the plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to Section 54960 or
54960.1 where it is found that a legislative body of the local agency
has violated this chapter. The costs and fees shall be paid by the
local agency and shall not become a personal liability of any public"