High school board asked to rescind superintendent appointment

Someone explain to me why Mr. Carpenter is doing this and whose interest is he looking after. I don’t see a reason why this decision is detrimental to the students which seems to be the most important issue.

Here is my complaint:

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 Carpenter requests that both actions be rescinded, and that any and all future actions with respect to the hiring of a superintendent be taken in strict compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act.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 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 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

While Mr. Carpenter’s tactics may offend some, I am grateful that there are people who still believe in complying with the rules. It seems that the school board didn’t follow the rules of the Brown Act and should be held accountable.

Given the folderol of many of the local boards and councils, I am glad we have a watchdog. If we don’t hold our elected officials accountable, we are just as guilty as they are for their actions. One has to look no further than Sacramento for proof of that.

First and foremost, Peter, thank you for taking this action on our(the public) behalf. Second, I have a question if you wouldn’t mind taking the time to answer for me. Your attorney’s letter closed with a phrase specific to the Brown act regarding his request for a prompt response. Does this means that the BOT has some requirement to respond within a given period of time? It would be useful to know so that I (and I hope others) can track this and provide support via our own messages to the BOT and other elected officials should the BOT adopt its historical stance of stonewalling whenever challenged.

Here is the timeline guidance from the Attorney General:

FOR FILING A SUIT TO VOID AN ACTION TAKEN BY A BODY
An action is taken that a district attorney or interested person believes is in violation of:
• general open meeting requirement (§ 54953)
• agenda requirements for regular meetings (§ 54954.2)
• safe harbor notice provisions for closed sessions (§ 54954.5)
• procedures for new taxes and assessments (§ 54954.6)
• requirements for special meetings (§ 54956)
• requirements for emergency meetings (§ 54956.5)
Complainant must make written demand to the body to cure or correct within:
A. 30 days of the action if it were in open session, but in violation of agenda requirements.
B. 90 days of the action in all other situations.
Once the body receives demand, it has 30 days to cure or correct the violation.
If the body fails to cure or correct within this 30-day period, interested person may file suit to void the action.
The action must be filed within 15 days of:
A. Receipt of decision to cure or correct or refusal to do so.
B. End of 30-day period to cure or correct.

I am so glad there is a person with Mr.Peter Carpenter’s knowledge and use of the law and who goes after what he knows and does not hold back.
As to the “MOM” who asked such a typical “looking the other way” question, which almost the entire County is guilty of doing all of the time no matter what the issues are in whatever situation.
Carpenter’s simple response is succint, real and people do not want to hear their appointed Board of Trustees broke the law or, perhaps have done so in the past as well.
This entire area is ready for a shakeup for the amount of corruption which exists among privileged groups who do bad things.

Mom –

Honestly, what did I say that was offensive to you? How did I put you down?

I only pointed out that the Board acted in secret when there was no need to do so. There was not a single reference to you…

With all that is going on your hometown, why on earth are you pursuing this piddling issue, with a lawyer no less?

Do you realy think that some other outcome will come out of this? Is their pick that bad?

Sorry, but all signs point to this being a personal vendetta of some kind.

I would thank Peter for taking the time to pursue this issue. I am unfortunately one of those who wishes they had more time to assure that our government acted in a transparent and accountable manner. Frankly, it seems to me that all the decisions taken could have been easily done in an open forum (as at least one interpretation of the law requires). It seems rather standard that at best, this BoTs pushes the limits of the laws. Given that we the public will be asked to pay the salaries (and fund the retirements) of our employees (the government), I would expect that there will be only an increasing amount of demand for accountability. In this information age there is really no excuse for the old cronyism of the past. If the appointment of Superintendent was done in a rigorous manner and came up with the current result, I don’t think there would be any concerns. As it is, one needn’t be a “birther” to imagine a scenario where there was collusion between Gemma and Lianides with Gemma’s retirement announcment leaving the BOT with little time to find a replacement and Lianides being the only one who could deal with the pending financial disasters left in Gemmas wake. It could also be that with Gemma leaving, Lianides threatened to leave if he weren’t given the job. Given the impact of the decision on the district, it would seem to me that having such knowledge in the public domain would be informative albeit not very flattering to either Gemma or Lianides. Let me be clear, I am talking imaginary scenarios, but the picture painted by the BOTs actions is one of lack of transparency which implies there is something to hide. It is rare that hiding something in this manner serves the public interest.

What was the final outcome to Mr. Carpenter’s complaint?

wh0cd7163 [url=http://viagrasoft24.us.org/]viagra soft[/url] [url=http://cialis20mg247.us.org/]cialis discount[/url] [url=http://avodart24.us.org/]Avodart Online[/url]