News

Editorial: School district was right to cancel meeting

A reader posted a comment on the Almanac's Town Square about last week's cancellation of a closed-session meeting of the Menlo Park City School District board, an action taken after the Almanac raised questions about whether the meeting would meet Brown Act requirements. "The Brown Act is a trap for the unwary. I'm not opposed to it, but for those who are subject to it, it is very very easy to accidentally cross lines," the poster wrote. To which we can say, "How well we know."

The school district had received an opinion from its attorney that a closed-door meeting to discuss "existing litigation" over the Mandarin Immersion Charter School proposed for -- but rejected by -- the district would be legal under the state's open meeting law, the Brown Act. But the big problem, in our mind, was that there is no "existing litigation" to justify such a closed meeting, and the Almanac wrote to the district asking it to cancel the scheduled Jan. 9 meeting. It did so, and deserves credit for the action.

The question centered on legal interpretations of the Act by John Yeh, an attorney specializing in charter school law. The district had hired Mr. Yeh to help with the complicated issue of whether to grant organizers' request that the district charter the proposed Mandarin immersion school. In our original and subsequent emailed letters, we challenged Mr. Yeh's interpretations.

We were backed by attorney Jim Ewert of the California Newspaper Publishers Association, a widely recognized expert on the Brown Act and other laws dealing with public access to government. In an interview with the Almanac, Mr. Ewert reviewed the four criteria set forth in the Brown Act regarding when a public agency's elected board is legally permitted to meet in private over litigation matters; he asserted that the district didn't meet any of those criteria.

Superintendent Maurice Ghysels said in an email to the Almanac on Monday that he and the board decided to act "in an abundance of caution" once the question was raised, and they postponed the meeting within about two hours of receiving the Almanac's first letter. He said that there are no current plans to reschedule the meeting, but left open the possibility that Mr. Yeh's analysis was correct, noting that "this is an area where legal opinions may differ."

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Almanac Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

While we're pleased that the district has taken this course, we're also aware that it's far from uncommon for public agencies seeking legal advice on open meeting questions to receive overly broad interpretations of the Brown Act -- no matter how tortured the reasoning -- to justify excluding the public from the process.

Mr. Ewert also told the Almanac that, if the scheduled meeting had taken place, he believes the closed session also would have violated Article 1, Section 3b, of the California Constitution, which states that a statute, court rule, or other authority "shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access."

The Town Square poster was correct in saying that it's all too easy to inadvertently violate the Brown Act, and we give the school district and the board the benefit of the doubt in believing that they didn't intend to flout the law. Elected officials are required to take an online course on the Brown Act, but one must wonder, with the number of violations and possible violations that come to light, how effective the online instruction is. In the past, public agencies arranged workshops for newly elected officials on the Brown Act and other open government laws, with a legal expert who could field questions and clarify areas of confusion. That's a practice we'd like to see local agencies return to.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

Follow AlmanacNews.com and The Almanac on Twitter @almanacnews, Facebook and on Instagram @almanacnews for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Editorial: School district was right to cancel meeting

Uploaded: Tue, Jan 13, 2015, 11:15 am

A reader posted a comment on the Almanac's Town Square about last week's cancellation of a closed-session meeting of the Menlo Park City School District board, an action taken after the Almanac raised questions about whether the meeting would meet Brown Act requirements. "The Brown Act is a trap for the unwary. I'm not opposed to it, but for those who are subject to it, it is very very easy to accidentally cross lines," the poster wrote. To which we can say, "How well we know."

The school district had received an opinion from its attorney that a closed-door meeting to discuss "existing litigation" over the Mandarin Immersion Charter School proposed for -- but rejected by -- the district would be legal under the state's open meeting law, the Brown Act. But the big problem, in our mind, was that there is no "existing litigation" to justify such a closed meeting, and the Almanac wrote to the district asking it to cancel the scheduled Jan. 9 meeting. It did so, and deserves credit for the action.

The question centered on legal interpretations of the Act by John Yeh, an attorney specializing in charter school law. The district had hired Mr. Yeh to help with the complicated issue of whether to grant organizers' request that the district charter the proposed Mandarin immersion school. In our original and subsequent emailed letters, we challenged Mr. Yeh's interpretations.

We were backed by attorney Jim Ewert of the California Newspaper Publishers Association, a widely recognized expert on the Brown Act and other laws dealing with public access to government. In an interview with the Almanac, Mr. Ewert reviewed the four criteria set forth in the Brown Act regarding when a public agency's elected board is legally permitted to meet in private over litigation matters; he asserted that the district didn't meet any of those criteria.

Superintendent Maurice Ghysels said in an email to the Almanac on Monday that he and the board decided to act "in an abundance of caution" once the question was raised, and they postponed the meeting within about two hours of receiving the Almanac's first letter. He said that there are no current plans to reschedule the meeting, but left open the possibility that Mr. Yeh's analysis was correct, noting that "this is an area where legal opinions may differ."

While we're pleased that the district has taken this course, we're also aware that it's far from uncommon for public agencies seeking legal advice on open meeting questions to receive overly broad interpretations of the Brown Act -- no matter how tortured the reasoning -- to justify excluding the public from the process.

Mr. Ewert also told the Almanac that, if the scheduled meeting had taken place, he believes the closed session also would have violated Article 1, Section 3b, of the California Constitution, which states that a statute, court rule, or other authority "shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access."

The Town Square poster was correct in saying that it's all too easy to inadvertently violate the Brown Act, and we give the school district and the board the benefit of the doubt in believing that they didn't intend to flout the law. Elected officials are required to take an online course on the Brown Act, but one must wonder, with the number of violations and possible violations that come to light, how effective the online instruction is. In the past, public agencies arranged workshops for newly elected officials on the Brown Act and other open government laws, with a legal expert who could field questions and clarify areas of confusion. That's a practice we'd like to see local agencies return to.

Comments

Bob
Menlo Park: Downtown
on Jan 13, 2015 at 11:31 am
Bob, Menlo Park: Downtown
on Jan 13, 2015 at 11:31 am
Like this comment

Mr. Ghysels stated "in an abundance of caution" they decided to cancel the meeting. Translation - they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar....

The Brown Act is in place for a reason, and elected officials and senior leaders [should] receive annual reminders of its boundaries. Mr. Carpenter is a good watchdog for this Act and process.


SOP
Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Jan 13, 2015 at 12:54 pm
SOP, Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Jan 13, 2015 at 12:54 pm
1 person likes this

Closed meetings are Standard Operating Procedure for the MPCSD. There is at least one closed meeting a month and usually more since Superintendent Ghysels joined the district. He held more closed meetings in his first year than Ranella held in seven. The notices of those meetings normally indicate that they are either for litigation or for personnel matters. Those discussions are protected under the employees' or students'/parents' rights to privacy. But two or more personnel discussions a month for all those years is an awful lot of board-wide personnel discussions. The big difference now is that this particular meeting was less opague so it hit The Almanac's radar screen. The newspaper isn't picking on the district -- if anything, it can be faulted for not looking more closely at the legitimacy of all the other closed-door sessions over the past five years.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jan 13, 2015 at 1:52 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jan 13, 2015 at 1:52 pm
Like this comment

Note that EVERY closed door session MUST be preceded by an opportunity for public comment .

Concerned citizens, not the press, are the true safeguards of democracy.


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

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.