Archive » April 17, 2008

Uh, oh. There they go, again.

The Santa Ynez Valley Union High School Board just seems to be driven to play fast and loose with the Brown Act, the law that is supposed to control how such agencies do business. The Brown Act outlines how public meetings must be conducted, and when, how and why some of that business can be moved behind closed doors.

 

In the recent past, the board has been, well, lax in observing the niceties of public meeting procedure, especially the use of closed meetings in questionable circumstances surrounding the placement of the high school’s principal, Norm Clevenger, on administrative leave.

Now they appear to have abused the law again — more seriously this time, we think — for no apparent reason. They did it in connection with the appointment of a new principal who will run the high school next year, Suzanne Nicastro.

Nicastro, by all accounts, is an excellent choice for principal. Her appointment was a bit of a surprise to us, because we expected Mark Swanitz, a Goleta principal, to be named to the post. We were mistaken about that.

 

But we’re not mistaken about the requirements of the Brown Act, which, among other things, declares that whenever anyone whose presence is not required in a meeting room being used for a closed meeting by a legislative body — that’s the technical definition of what a school board is — may not be there. If such a person is there, the general public and the press also must be permitted to be there, and if they are not, any actions taken in the meeting are null and void.

Another proscription of the Brown Act is that a legislative body may only discuss or act upon something in a closed session that has been explicitly and accurately described in the announcement of the closed meeting.

How might the school board have violated the law on these points?

The board did not say that it was adjourning to closed session to negotiate a contract with Nicastro, so her presence was not materially necessary to the board’s closed session actions. It is immaterial that she had an interest in the proceedings, according to the Brown Act and to California’s attorney general. Therefore, she could not be there. Yet she was. And by her own description, she did not negotiate anything, she was merely there to be anointed. How do we know this, beyond what she told us? We believe the board already had made up its mind to hire her, so there was nothing to talk about. That’s why, after four newspapers had reported that she had been selected, she was invited to be there — to be introduced to the community.

 

In addition, next year’s high school superintendent, Paul Turnbull, was in the closed session. There was no need for him to be there, although he said he was there to advise and consult with the board. That’s dandy, but that kind of advice and consultation, especially by someone who has not yet assumed office and is therefore not an employee of the school district, ought to take place in an open session.

This isn’t just the way we feel about it. There are published opinions by the California attorney general that say the same thing.

 

In case you haven’t read our story about the school board meeting elsewhere in this issue, the board retired to closed session, leaving the public and press outside the closed doors. When the doors opened an hour and a half later, two extra people were discovered to be in the room with the board members. They had not entered by the door that blocked public access, and they had not been present during the public session.

Now, the Brown Act prescribes cures for such transgressions. Those cures, however, are little more than a slap on the wrist. But these are bad deeds — a public agency’s governing board appears to be breaking the law.

They should stop and think before they do it again. In this particular case, it is clear that they decided on these actions beforehand. Someone had to arrange for the incoming superintendent and the incoming principal to be present. One lives in the Santa Barbara area and the other in Lompoc. They weren’t just sauntering by.

 

That means that a prohibited conversation must have taken place among board members to make those arrangements. Those five people weren’t surprised to learn their new hires were waiting outside to enter the chamber. The law says they can’t have that conversation except in a public meeting.

Moreover, secret communication designed to bring about something that is, in its nature, not lawful is called a conspiracy. If that’s what we have here, they should adjust the way they do things in the future, because no matter how trivial the underlying unlawful behavior, conspiring to engage in it is a felony.

We hope the board wakes up and realizes that, in its zeal to serve this community, which we believe it wants to do, it has appeared to walk on the laws on which the community relies for protection from arrogance and misanthropy, and that it has bruised the good will of the people it is supposed to serve. That’s why a part of the community is trying to recall all five members of the board.

 

That’ll be 2 cents, please.