|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
After revelations about Las Lomitas Elementary School District Superintendent Beth Polito’s spending, the thousand-student district went from nearly empty board meetings to gymnasiums packed with parents and teachers all wanting to speak and listen to the board.
At these meetings, members of the board have said they are unable to legally discuss the superintendent in open session, couldn’t respond to public comment and limited public comment to the beginning of the meeting.
However, the board can choose to discuss the superintendent in open session, can respond to public comment and could be violating the Brown Act by limiting public comment in that way, according to experts in state open records laws.
The board may discuss the superintendent publicly
At the board’s last meeting of 2024, every member of the Las Lomitas Elementary School District board emphasized to members of the public that they face legal limitations on public discussion of certain topics.
Trustee Paige Winikoff said during the meeting, “As Trustee [Jason] Morimoto explained, one of the most frustrating things about being on the board is we want everything in open session unless it absolutely has to be in closed session and things like litigation and negotiation have to be in closed session.”
Over the past several months, the board has met in closed session to discuss the superintendent many times yet has never done so in open session, often claiming they were not allowed to.
Neither David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, nor Angelica Salceda, director of the ACLU of Northern California’s Democracy and Civic Engagement Program, could find any law that prevents the board from discussing the superintendent’s performance in open session. Public employees do have a right to privacy, but mainly on private matters.
In one case Salceda cited, Morrow v. Los Angeles Unified School District, a principal sued the Los Angeles Unified School District after the superintendent criticized his performance in an interview with a newspaper. “The court held that public criticism of a school employee by another employee did not amount to a formal ‘evaluation of performance’, such as those subject to the Brown Act’s closed session exemption. The public (including board members and other staff) can publicly raise concerns or ‘complaints’ about school staff,” Salceda said.
Districts often choose to address employment matters in closed session for various reasons.
“Closed sessions are reserved for a few specific things. One of them is personnel. We don’t want to discuss personnel issues in public because that would compromise the privacy rights of our employees. Sometimes, closed session actions are obvious (litigation, privacy rights of students, certain personnel matters). Others are a judgment call. The LLESD board takes advice for these decisions from county counsel,” Winikoff said in an interview.
“But there’s also a right to privacy for the superintendent. We don’t want to make people not want to have that job or to publicly embarrass [the superintendent],” she added.
Winikoff also mentioned that discussing pending litigation or active negotiations may harm the district’s ability to respond to a potential lawsuit and negotiate.
The Brown Act allows the board to meet in closed session to discuss the superintendent’s performance. “The Brown Act sets forth the minimal standards for public access,” Salceda said, but districts can always allow more access.
Winikoff said in a statement after the interview, “I am open to differing opinions about what should or should not be in an open/closed session and would like to seek out more information about the Brown Act on behalf of the LLESD board.”
Board may be violating the Brown Act by limiting public comment
Unlike peers in other districts, the board does not give the public an opportunity to comment on each agenda item. Members of the public are only able to address the board for three minutes, which is sometimes revised to less time, at the beginning of the meeting.
“The case law has made it very clear that there must be an opportunity for public comment on each specific agenda item that is taken up by the district,” Salceda said.
“There’s a case called Chaffee v. San Francisco Library Commission that really clarifies that when you’re talking about public comment on each agenda item, you can’t just fulfill that requirement by having one large public comment period before the start of the meeting,” Salceda added.
Winikoff wants to review the board’s practice. “I want to consider having public comment not just once before the entire meeting, but instead asking for public comment before any pressing action items. I don’t think we need to have public comment on every item, because we’d have a very long board meeting,” Winikoff said. “I’m absolutely open to [revising public comment practices].”
“People work hard to prepare their comments on certain agendized items and deserve to have them heard and considered by the board in its discussion of the item,” she added in a statement.
Las Lomitas could be sued for violating the Brown Act if they fail to amend their policies, according to the First Amendment Coalition.
Board can respond to public comment
At the board’s November meeting, then-board President Heather Hopkins told members of the public, as she often does, that the board cannot respond to any public comment. She has joked in the past that it is “kinda awkward” because board members can only listen and nod their heads.
Loy said that generally “That’s not exactly true. If somebody gives public comment about an item that’s on the agenda, then they can certainly address that, because it’s within the scope of the agenda.”
“To be fair, the Brown Act does limit the board from launching into a whole discussion on an item not on the agenda,” Loy added.
The Brown Act allows members of the board and district staff to “briefly respond to statements made or questions posed” during public comment about items not on the agenda. The board can also ask a public commenter questions or direct staff to respond to the commenter at a later date.
Winikoff disagrees with her colleague Hopkins and believes that the board can respond to public comment. “My interpretation is that the school board is able to comment on public comments on anything that is on the agenda. There’s no reason why, while discussing agendized items, we can’t comment on the public comments made,” she said.
“I don’t like people coming and then saying something that’s very meaningful to them, that they’ve considered and researched, and they’re looking at five blank faces. We don’t need to be blank,” she added.
Change is coming to the Las Lomitas board. The board recently chose Winikoff as board president, replacing Hopkins.
In the Nov. 5 general election, Winikoff won reelection with 72% of the vote, a clear supermajority.
“I feel like for two years, I’ve been a minority on the board and very unpopular most of the time, but that’s just my perception,” Winikoff said.
“I voted in the minority on multiple occasions, sometimes four to one. I didn’t know whether I was going to win or not. So when I won with a lot of buffer room, I was actually very surprised, and started thinking, ‘maybe I’m not crazy,’” she added. “I don’t want to say anything negative about board members or staff — I just have a different view on my role as a board member.”
Winikoff was the only trustee to vote against renewing Superintendent Politio’s contract in June 2023. “She (Polito) is one of the most exceptional people I have ever worked with, … my concern and the reason I voted not to extend is I am concerned about the direction of this district with regard to academic excellence … and I am also concerned about Dr. Polito’s ability to communicate with concerned members of this district and possibly also staff,” Winikoff said at the time.
Polito’s communication with staff and members of the community was one of the reasons listed in a petition calling for her removal that has over 1,000 signatures. Winikoff said she did not sign the petition.
The board’s next meeting is a special session on Wednesday, Jan. 8, at 7 p.m. to select a superintendent search firm in order to replace Polito, who is retiring in August.
This is very true. The practice of dodging questions, disengaging quickly from parents, teachers, and other taxpayers, and misusing the Brown Act without fully understanding it has been a recurring issue within the LLESD. This tactic has been employed for far too long, particularly by former board presidents Hopkins and Morimoto.
Hopkins and Morimoto have allegedly violated the Brown Act on multiple occasions, using it as a shield to avoid accountability and deflect legitimate questions and comments.
This behavior by the board has been especially evident in matters related to budget management, finances, spending decisions, hiring practices, justification of redundant positions (such as the assistant superintendent role), contract extensions, and performance reviews.
Given these concerns, an independent investigation by the District Attorney into the conduct of these board presidents is both necessary and warranted.
The practices adopted by Jason Morimoto (during his two-year tenure) and Heather Hopkins (for one year) as board presidents over the past three years are unlike those of any other school district or public body, such as a city council. They systematically silenced dissenting voices and even those simply expressing opinions by disallowing meaningful public discussions during board meetings. They misused the Brown Act as an excuse—without fully understanding it—as a façade to appear engaged with the public, only to proceed with predetermined decisions.
In contrast, at other school district board meetings or city council meetings, public comments are not only allowed before each agenda items, but board members also actively engage, ask questions, and seek clarifications.
Heather Hopkins and Jason Morimoto consistently failed to properly respond to legitimate questions or requests from their constituents. They essentially operated without accountability, doing what they wanted without holding themselves or the administration—particularly the superintendent—responsible for their actions. Lavish spending, as documented in previous reports, appears acceptable to them, yet addressing the public’s concerns and being accountable to taxpayers does not.
Under Heather Hopkins and Jason Morimoto, the Board repeatedly and blatantly disregarded the Brown Act. I am so hopeful that under Paige Winikoff’s professional leadership, we are entering a new era of following existing laws and leading with respect and kindness. We have a lot of toxic culture and financial concerns to fix, and transparency and respect will make the rebuilding much easier and more collaborative.
For example, both Hopkins and Morimoto refused to discuss the District’s Ladera School Site in open session (apart from a scripted and ill-conceived public Q&A session with their attorney, during which they completely blew attorney-client privilege…). Instead the Board met numerous times in closed session, even though none of the discussions related only to price/payment for the property (the California Attorney General issued an opinion clarifying that the closed session exemption for real property negotiations only related to discussions about price and nothing else).
The DA was alerted to this issue, and in response, instead of having the discussions in open session, the Board lied, claiming they were only discussing price (they were not). I was shocked by that behavior at the time. Now, seeing all the blatant policy, contract, ed code, and penal code violations that Beth Polito committed under Hopkins’ and Morimoto’s watch, and watching Hopkins demand that a neighborhood negotiate with LLESD’s tenant, who continually violates LLESD’s contract, instead of handling the matter at the Board level, nothing seems impossible.
I am just so excited that things seem to be turning a corner. I want our kids’ superintendent and Board members to be positive role models with integrity, respect for the law, and thoughtfulness for the communities they serve.