The following letter describes a Brown Act violation in 2008 by the VUSD board.
October 17, 2008
Silvia Peters
(760) 941-5924
Board of Trustees
Re: Cure and Correct California Ralph M. Brown Act Violations.
Dear Chairman Gibson,
This letter is to call your attention to what I believe were substantial violations of
central provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act.
The natures of the violations are as follows:
On October 16, 2008 I attended a meeting of the Vista Unified School District
Board of Trustees “VUSD.” I pulled a card to speak on Agenda Action Item 13.
(Item 13 was Student Support Services, Section D. Approve Guajome Park
Academy’s Staff and Board Recommendations for Expulsion of Cases Numbered
W-14-2008/09 and W-18-2—8/09 & W-19-2008/09.)
When Chairman Gibson called my name to the podium, I began to speak for
about 60 seconds before Board Member David Hubbard abruptly interrupted me.
He asked what my comment had to do with expulsion. I said, that I was
commenting on expulsions. Before Board Member Hubbard abruptly interrupted
me I had just read VUSD’S Board Policy No. 5013 “Suspension and Expulsions,”
Section (3), which read: “It is the intent of the Board of Education that its policies
and regulations be consistent with current law. Any part of this policy, which is not
consistent with current law, shall be void.”
I asked whether VUSD knew if Guajome Park Academy had policies for
expulsions? If they knew what those policies were? If the policies were allied with
California law and If Guajome Park Academy had a legitimate Expulsion Board?
Board Member Hubbard asked what does this have to do with Section “C.” and
that Section C had to do with Readmission of Students who have been expelled
from other school districts? Board Member Hubbard told me that I had pulled a
card for “Section C.” Board Member Hubbard said we have already ratified the
item and you cannot speak on it any more. President of the Board Gibson
agreed. They both insisted that I had pulled the card for Section C.
If in fact I had pulled the card for Section C then why would the VUSD Board ratify
Section D before Section C?
I have addressed the issue of VUSD Board Member David Hubbard rude and
abrupt interruptions, when I have attempted to speak on the Vista Unified School
District Board of Trustees Meetings for many years.
I have addressed this same issue with regulatory agencies. Board Member David
Hubbard has continued this illegal conduct with complete disregard of California
State Open Meeting Laws. David Hubbard as Board Member and attorney has
given VUSD legal advice that is contrary to the law for over twelve years. David
Hubbard conspired with former superintendent Dave Cowles to defraud the
public, students and parents of the Vista Unified School District; with distorted
legal advised and recommendations that have bankrupt the Vista Unified School
District for over twelve years.
The Vista Unified School Board Members need to be reminded that the people of
the state of California have the right to criticize the policies, procedures, programs,
or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body. Baca
v. Moreno Valley Unified School District (1996) 936 F.Supp. 719.
“Thus, under the California Constitution, District’s Board may not censor speech
by prohibiting citizens from speaking, even if their speech is, or may be,
defamatory.” (at pg. 727)
The action to censor my First Amendment Right to Speak by this Board not only
violates the State Constitution, but it is also contrary to the Brown Act. This is
primary the reason why David Hubbard and the entire Vista Unified School District
Board of Trustees has and will continue to have a Permanent Injunction (See also
Leventhal v. Vista Unified School District (1997) 973 F.Supp. 951)
The Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code §54950 et seq.) provides that the
public has a right to address the VUSD School Board on any matter on the agenda
of the VUSD School Board Meeting before action is taken on that item
(Government Code §54954.3), (Section C comes before Section D) and to also
address the VUSD School Board on any subject within the subject matter
jurisdiction of the VUSD School Board Meetings that is, on subjects for which the
VUSD School Board has some ability to take action (Government Code §54954.
3).
The censoring of my First Amendment Right to Speak is a violation of my right
publicly to share my criticisms of school board policies with the VUSD Board of
Trustees and concerned community members pursuant to California Government
Code section 54954.3, a code section found in California's open meeting law,
commonly known as the Ralph M Brown Act). Cal.Govt.Code, §§ 54950 et seq.
As I have informed you before on many letters sent to the entire Vista Unified
School District Board of Trustees:
The Vista Unified School District has constantly been informed by community
members of its pervasive Brown Act violations and continues to ignore the public’s
request for open government, transparency and accountability. If by any chance
you did not read the prior letters, I will repeat once again the Vista Unified School
District and every Member of the Board of Trustees has a permanent injunction in
respect to Brown Act violations in the United States Court for the Southern District
of California in the universally known and quoted Leventhal v. Vista Unified School
District., School Board President David Hubbard, in his Official Capacity, et al.,
Defendants. 973 F. Supp. 951 (1997)
Therefore, pursuant to provisions (Government Code Section 54960.1.), I demand
that the Vista Unified School District Board of Trustees cure and correct the
illegally taken actions mentioned above.
As a consequence, I am giving you a final formal written demand letter (§ 54960.1
(c)(1); County of Del Norte v. City of Crescent City (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 965, 978;
Bell v. Vista Unified School Dist.(2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 672, 684.)
In addition:
I suggest that you take the advice from a true professional instead of Board
Member Hubbard. Including a crash course on the California Ralph M. Brown Act
for all the members of the Vista Unified School District Board of Trustees panel.
So as to enhance your further involvement as representatives of the California
Ralph Brown Act. Subsequently, that you may develop a deeper understanding of
members of the public rights to attend and participate in public meetings that
should be open for public participation for all members of the community.
[Government Code Section 54954.3. (a)]
A crash course on open and public meeting law as based on the Ralph M. Brown
Act for all VUSD Members of the Board of Trustees and VUSD subcommittees.
[Government Code Section 54950., 54950.5. 54952.] May I suggest at minimally
that VUSD subcommittee panel members be provided with a current copy of the
Brown Act [Government Code Section 54952.7]. Due to the multiple roles the
panel members hold with other VUSD subcommittee assignments and other
public agencies, perhaps a workshop presentation by Terry Franke from The
Californians Aware. 2218 Homewood Way Carmichael, CA 95608 Phone: 916-
487-7000 Fax: 916-487-7999 would better serve your efforts of compliance with
the law as well as to ensure and protect the community's rights to bring forward
public criticism of policies, procedures, programs, or services. The Californians
Aware organization is considered the experts in the area of open meeting laws,
public record law, and First Amendment.
As Government Code section 54950 "Declaration of Intent" indicates:
"The people of the state (Vista Unified School District Board of Trustees) do not
yield their sovereignty to the agencies, which serve them. The people, in
delegating 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. The people
insist on remaining
informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."
As provided by Section 54960.1 you have 30 days from the receipt of this demand
to either cure or correct the challenged actions or inform me of your decision not to
do so. If you fail to cure or correct as demanded, such inaction may leave me no
recourse but to seek a judicial invalidation of the challenged actions pursuant to
Section 54960.1, in which case I would seek the award of court costs and
reasonable attorney fees pursuant to Section 54960.5.
Respectfully yours,
Silvia Peters
October 17, 2008
Silvia Peters
(760) 941-5924
Board of Trustees
Re: Cure and Correct California Ralph M. Brown Act Violations.
Dear Chairman Gibson,
This letter is to call your attention to what I believe were substantial violations of
central provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act.
The natures of the violations are as follows:
On October 16, 2008 I attended a meeting of the Vista Unified School District
Board of Trustees “VUSD.” I pulled a card to speak on Agenda Action Item 13.
(Item 13 was Student Support Services, Section D. Approve Guajome Park
Academy’s Staff and Board Recommendations for Expulsion of Cases Numbered
W-14-2008/09 and W-18-2—8/09 & W-19-2008/09.)
When Chairman Gibson called my name to the podium, I began to speak for
about 60 seconds before Board Member David Hubbard abruptly interrupted me.
He asked what my comment had to do with expulsion. I said, that I was
commenting on expulsions. Before Board Member Hubbard abruptly interrupted
me I had just read VUSD’S Board Policy No. 5013 “Suspension and Expulsions,”
Section (3), which read: “It is the intent of the Board of Education that its policies
and regulations be consistent with current law. Any part of this policy, which is not
consistent with current law, shall be void.”
I asked whether VUSD knew if Guajome Park Academy had policies for
expulsions? If they knew what those policies were? If the policies were allied with
California law and If Guajome Park Academy had a legitimate Expulsion Board?
Board Member Hubbard asked what does this have to do with Section “C.” and
that Section C had to do with Readmission of Students who have been expelled
from other school districts? Board Member Hubbard told me that I had pulled a
card for “Section C.” Board Member Hubbard said we have already ratified the
item and you cannot speak on it any more. President of the Board Gibson
agreed. They both insisted that I had pulled the card for Section C.
If in fact I had pulled the card for Section C then why would the VUSD Board ratify
Section D before Section C?
I have addressed the issue of VUSD Board Member David Hubbard rude and
abrupt interruptions, when I have attempted to speak on the Vista Unified School
District Board of Trustees Meetings for many years.
I have addressed this same issue with regulatory agencies. Board Member David
Hubbard has continued this illegal conduct with complete disregard of California
State Open Meeting Laws. David Hubbard as Board Member and attorney has
given VUSD legal advice that is contrary to the law for over twelve years. David
Hubbard conspired with former superintendent Dave Cowles to defraud the
public, students and parents of the Vista Unified School District; with distorted
legal advised and recommendations that have bankrupt the Vista Unified School
District for over twelve years.
The Vista Unified School Board Members need to be reminded that the people of
the state of California have the right to criticize the policies, procedures, programs,
or services of the agency, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body. Baca
v. Moreno Valley Unified School District (1996) 936 F.Supp. 719.
“Thus, under the California Constitution, District’s Board may not censor speech
by prohibiting citizens from speaking, even if their speech is, or may be,
defamatory.” (at pg. 727)
The action to censor my First Amendment Right to Speak by this Board not only
violates the State Constitution, but it is also contrary to the Brown Act. This is
primary the reason why David Hubbard and the entire Vista Unified School District
Board of Trustees has and will continue to have a Permanent Injunction (See also
Leventhal v. Vista Unified School District (1997) 973 F.Supp. 951)
The Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code §54950 et seq.) provides that the
public has a right to address the VUSD School Board on any matter on the agenda
of the VUSD School Board Meeting before action is taken on that item
(Government Code §54954.3), (Section C comes before Section D) and to also
address the VUSD School Board on any subject within the subject matter
jurisdiction of the VUSD School Board Meetings that is, on subjects for which the
VUSD School Board has some ability to take action (Government Code §54954.
3).
The censoring of my First Amendment Right to Speak is a violation of my right
publicly to share my criticisms of school board policies with the VUSD Board of
Trustees and concerned community members pursuant to California Government
Code section 54954.3, a code section found in California's open meeting law,
commonly known as the Ralph M Brown Act). Cal.Govt.Code, §§ 54950 et seq.
As I have informed you before on many letters sent to the entire Vista Unified
School District Board of Trustees:
The Vista Unified School District has constantly been informed by community
members of its pervasive Brown Act violations and continues to ignore the public’s
request for open government, transparency and accountability. If by any chance
you did not read the prior letters, I will repeat once again the Vista Unified School
District and every Member of the Board of Trustees has a permanent injunction in
respect to Brown Act violations in the United States Court for the Southern District
of California in the universally known and quoted Leventhal v. Vista Unified School
District., School Board President David Hubbard, in his Official Capacity, et al.,
Defendants. 973 F. Supp. 951 (1997)
Therefore, pursuant to provisions (Government Code Section 54960.1.), I demand
that the Vista Unified School District Board of Trustees cure and correct the
illegally taken actions mentioned above.
As a consequence, I am giving you a final formal written demand letter (§ 54960.1
(c)(1); County of Del Norte v. City of Crescent City (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 965, 978;
Bell v. Vista Unified School Dist.(2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 672, 684.)
In addition:
I suggest that you take the advice from a true professional instead of Board
Member Hubbard. Including a crash course on the California Ralph M. Brown Act
for all the members of the Vista Unified School District Board of Trustees panel.
So as to enhance your further involvement as representatives of the California
Ralph Brown Act. Subsequently, that you may develop a deeper understanding of
members of the public rights to attend and participate in public meetings that
should be open for public participation for all members of the community.
[Government Code Section 54954.3. (a)]
A crash course on open and public meeting law as based on the Ralph M. Brown
Act for all VUSD Members of the Board of Trustees and VUSD subcommittees.
[Government Code Section 54950., 54950.5. 54952.] May I suggest at minimally
that VUSD subcommittee panel members be provided with a current copy of the
Brown Act [Government Code Section 54952.7]. Due to the multiple roles the
panel members hold with other VUSD subcommittee assignments and other
public agencies, perhaps a workshop presentation by Terry Franke from The
Californians Aware. 2218 Homewood Way Carmichael, CA 95608 Phone: 916-
487-7000 Fax: 916-487-7999 would better serve your efforts of compliance with
the law as well as to ensure and protect the community's rights to bring forward
public criticism of policies, procedures, programs, or services. The Californians
Aware organization is considered the experts in the area of open meeting laws,
public record law, and First Amendment.
As Government Code section 54950 "Declaration of Intent" indicates:
"The people of the state (Vista Unified School District Board of Trustees) do not
yield their sovereignty to the agencies, which serve them. The people, in
delegating 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. The people
insist on remaining
informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."
As provided by Section 54960.1 you have 30 days from the receipt of this demand
to either cure or correct the challenged actions or inform me of your decision not to
do so. If you fail to cure or correct as demanded, such inaction may leave me no
recourse but to seek a judicial invalidation of the challenged actions pursuant to
Section 54960.1, in which case I would seek the award of court costs and
reasonable attorney fees pursuant to Section 54960.5.
Respectfully yours,
Silvia Peters
More VUSD links
California's Brown Act
(regulating notice and conduct of public
entity board meetings)
(regulating notice and conduct of public
entity board meetings)
2008 Violation of Brown Act by Vista
Unified School District
Unified School District
2010 Violation
May 10, 2010 meeting
May 10, 2010 meeting
Leventhal v. Vista Unified School Dist., 973 F. Supp. 951 (1997)
The judge in this case put VUSD under a permanent injunction:
"Defendants ...are hereby permanently enjoined
and restrained from enforcing the prohibitions on
any "criticism, complaint or charge against an
employee of the District" contained in Vista
Unified School District Bylaw No. 9002, §§ B and
C."
Nancy LEVENTHAL; Margaret C. O'Neill, Plaintiffs,
v.
VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; School Board President David Hubbard, in
his
Official Capacity, et al., Defendants.
United States District Court,
S.D. California.
MOSKOWITZ, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for PERMANENT
INJUNCTION ... the Court adopts its order of June 18,1997 and applies that
order to Defendant David Hubbard and to the new Defendants--Jenny
Vervynck, Lance Vollmer, Linda Rhoades and Barbara Donovan, sued in their
official capacity ...
Plaintiffs challenge School Board Bylaw No. 9002 (the "Bylaw") under:
--the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,
--Article I, §§ 2, 3 and 7 of the California Constitution,
--and the state's Brown Act, Cal. Gov't Code §§ 54954.3 and 54960,
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
The Bylaw permits the Board President to "terminate a presenter's address"
at an open Board meeting "if a presenter persists, after a warning, to engage
in improper conduct or remarks."
The Bylaw acknowledges *954 that state law grants the public the right "to
directly address the Board on items of interest to the public that are within
the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board," but limits those rights "with
respect to presenting a complaint or charge against an employee of the
District." Under the Bylaw, "[c]omplaints against an individual employee will
not be heard at open Board meetings unless the individual employee
consents." ......
... Because she had concerns over Gyves's fiscal administration of the
District, his supervisory skills, and his prior performance as superintendent
of another school district, Leventhal also questioned aloud whether the Board
had adequately investigated Gyves prior to hiring him.
As soon as Leventhal mentioned Gyves's qualifications, Board President
Hubbard interrupted her, stated that Leventhal was "moving into a personnel
issue," and, pursuant to the Bylaw,
informed her that her criticisms could not be made in a public Board meeting.
According to Leventhal, after Hubbard's interruption, she
"respectfully--but not voluntarily--terminated [her]
comments about the hiring of Dr. Gyves, rather than face
the indignity of further censorship and disruption of the
proceedings...."
... Leventhal then spoke, remarking that "it is totally inappropriate to have a
community member who is using their free speech rights to speak ... lectured
and have judgments made about them publicly."
Hubbard responded to Leventhal, explaining that while criticisms of the Board
and the District were permissible, "I'm not going to allow this to
turn into a situation where members of the public engage
board members in personal attacks.... [I]f that's an
abridgment of First Amendment rights, then I'll wait for a
court of law to tell me that." ..........
The judge in this case put VUSD under a permanent injunction:
"Defendants ...are hereby permanently enjoined
and restrained from enforcing the prohibitions on
any "criticism, complaint or charge against an
employee of the District" contained in Vista
Unified School District Bylaw No. 9002, §§ B and
C."
Nancy LEVENTHAL; Margaret C. O'Neill, Plaintiffs,
v.
VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; School Board President David Hubbard, in
his
Official Capacity, et al., Defendants.
United States District Court,
S.D. California.
MOSKOWITZ, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for PERMANENT
INJUNCTION ... the Court adopts its order of June 18,1997 and applies that
order to Defendant David Hubbard and to the new Defendants--Jenny
Vervynck, Lance Vollmer, Linda Rhoades and Barbara Donovan, sued in their
official capacity ...
Plaintiffs challenge School Board Bylaw No. 9002 (the "Bylaw") under:
--the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,
--Article I, §§ 2, 3 and 7 of the California Constitution,
--and the state's Brown Act, Cal. Gov't Code §§ 54954.3 and 54960,
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
The Bylaw permits the Board President to "terminate a presenter's address"
at an open Board meeting "if a presenter persists, after a warning, to engage
in improper conduct or remarks."
The Bylaw acknowledges *954 that state law grants the public the right "to
directly address the Board on items of interest to the public that are within
the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board," but limits those rights "with
respect to presenting a complaint or charge against an employee of the
District." Under the Bylaw, "[c]omplaints against an individual employee will
not be heard at open Board meetings unless the individual employee
consents." ......
... Because she had concerns over Gyves's fiscal administration of the
District, his supervisory skills, and his prior performance as superintendent
of another school district, Leventhal also questioned aloud whether the Board
had adequately investigated Gyves prior to hiring him.
As soon as Leventhal mentioned Gyves's qualifications, Board President
Hubbard interrupted her, stated that Leventhal was "moving into a personnel
issue," and, pursuant to the Bylaw,
informed her that her criticisms could not be made in a public Board meeting.
According to Leventhal, after Hubbard's interruption, she
"respectfully--but not voluntarily--terminated [her]
comments about the hiring of Dr. Gyves, rather than face
the indignity of further censorship and disruption of the
proceedings...."
... Leventhal then spoke, remarking that "it is totally inappropriate to have a
community member who is using their free speech rights to speak ... lectured
and have judgments made about them publicly."
Hubbard responded to Leventhal, explaining that while criticisms of the Board
and the District were permissible, "I'm not going to allow this to
turn into a situation where members of the public engage
board members in personal attacks.... [I]f that's an
abridgment of First Amendment rights, then I'll wait for a
court of law to tell me that." ..........
Permanent injunction against Vista Unified
School District re free speech
School District re free speech
School Reform
Public records
Brown Act
Brown Act
One of the problems with Brown Act
enforcement in schools is that the
press too often keeps quiet about
deeply serious violations.
Shamefully, the reporters who keep
secrets have the nerve to hop up on
a soapbox and write stories like the
following one.
The story below was written by
Marsha Sutton who recently
excoriated the superintendent of Del
Mar School District for responding to
a public records request for invoices
from lawyer Dan Shinoff, but in this
story Marsha makes a big deal out of
a notice being thirteen minutes late
in another district.
For years Sutton has refused to
write about the vast number of
school secrets that her pal Shinoff
keeps, including the mysterious
Bate-stamped documents in my
case which Stutz law firm has
refused for years to produce, and
now claims to have lost. The most
courageous education reporting in
San Diego is being done by Voice of
San Diego, which has started to
reveal the truth about the
relationship between school
attorney Dan Shinoff and some
school officials.
See Marsha's interview with Dan
Shinoff
Another Brown Act
blunder for SD Unified
By Marsha Sutton, SDNN
June 15, 2010
Even after admitting that the Brown Act had
been violated before, they’ve done it again.
The notice for the special closed session
meeting for San Diego Unified School District’
s Board of Education, now scheduled for
Wed., June 16 at 6:30 p.m., was sent out
Tuesday at 6:43 p.m. – less than 24 hours in
advance.
At least the district is doing better this time –
only 13 minutes late. Here is the notice:
—– Original Message —–
From: Viorato Josefina
To: undisclosed recipients
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 6:43 PM
Subject: Notice and Call of Special Meeting,
June 16, 2010, 6:30 pm
PLEASE NOTE: Notice and Call of Special
Closed Session Meeting—Wednesday, June
16, 2010 at 6:30 p.m., Room 2249, regarding
appointment/employment of superintendent.
Thank you.
Josefina Viorato
Confidential Administrative Assistant II
Board Services
4100 Normal Street, Room 2231
San Diego, CA 92103
Last week, in two separate violations, the
district was nearly six hours late – distributing
the notice around 4 p.m. for a meeting
scheduled for 10 a.m. the next morning. And
the second violation came the same day –
notifying the public at 7:23 p.m. for a 4 p.m.
meeting the following day.
The Brown Act clearly states that there needs
to be 24 hours’ notice for special meetings,
and SDUSD general counsel Mark Bresee
even concurred after being called on it before.
And yet here we are again, less than two
weeks later, with the same violation.
Does anyone even care about following the
law at the San Diego Unified School District?
Is it too much to ask that the folks in charge
do slightly more than thumb their noses at
these relatively minor constraints, giving
hardly more than a passing nod at the public’
s right to know?
Some may say it’s making a mountain out of
a molehill – what’s a few minutes among
friends, eh?
I’m inclined to agree in some ways. Thirteen
minutes one way or the other does not an
issue make, in and of itself.
But what rankles is that this repeated pattern
of complete disregard for the law, even in the
most minor of matters, portends a much
larger problem with rules and legalities. If it’s
so acceptable to ignore legislation that is
easy to follow, how can the public have any
assurance that proper behavior is insisted
upon in matters less visible and of much
greater significance?
This new meeting was called because the
board wasn’t prepared to announce its three
final candidates for superintendent when it
said it would, even though the district has
been announcing for a week that the three
finalists would be named on June 15.
Apparently, the board just wasn’t quite ready.
But that’s another issue entirely – and one
worthy of its own critical examination. I’m still
stuck on the process and seeing that it’s
followed appropriately.
Since the legislation has no teeth, apparently
public agencies like the San Diego Unified
School District feel they can get away with
breaking the law – until someone in some
position of authority is willing to make an
issue of it.
This is a matter of ethics and integrity – and
with San Diego Unified we’re not seeing a
whole lot of either of late.
enforcement in schools is that the
press too often keeps quiet about
deeply serious violations.
Shamefully, the reporters who keep
secrets have the nerve to hop up on
a soapbox and write stories like the
following one.
The story below was written by
Marsha Sutton who recently
excoriated the superintendent of Del
Mar School District for responding to
a public records request for invoices
from lawyer Dan Shinoff, but in this
story Marsha makes a big deal out of
a notice being thirteen minutes late
in another district.
For years Sutton has refused to
write about the vast number of
school secrets that her pal Shinoff
keeps, including the mysterious
Bate-stamped documents in my
case which Stutz law firm has
refused for years to produce, and
now claims to have lost. The most
courageous education reporting in
San Diego is being done by Voice of
San Diego, which has started to
reveal the truth about the
relationship between school
attorney Dan Shinoff and some
school officials.
See Marsha's interview with Dan
Shinoff
Another Brown Act
blunder for SD Unified
By Marsha Sutton, SDNN
June 15, 2010
Even after admitting that the Brown Act had
been violated before, they’ve done it again.
The notice for the special closed session
meeting for San Diego Unified School District’
s Board of Education, now scheduled for
Wed., June 16 at 6:30 p.m., was sent out
Tuesday at 6:43 p.m. – less than 24 hours in
advance.
At least the district is doing better this time –
only 13 minutes late. Here is the notice:
—– Original Message —–
From: Viorato Josefina
To: undisclosed recipients
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 6:43 PM
Subject: Notice and Call of Special Meeting,
June 16, 2010, 6:30 pm
PLEASE NOTE: Notice and Call of Special
Closed Session Meeting—Wednesday, June
16, 2010 at 6:30 p.m., Room 2249, regarding
appointment/employment of superintendent.
Thank you.
Josefina Viorato
Confidential Administrative Assistant II
Board Services
4100 Normal Street, Room 2231
San Diego, CA 92103
Last week, in two separate violations, the
district was nearly six hours late – distributing
the notice around 4 p.m. for a meeting
scheduled for 10 a.m. the next morning. And
the second violation came the same day –
notifying the public at 7:23 p.m. for a 4 p.m.
meeting the following day.
The Brown Act clearly states that there needs
to be 24 hours’ notice for special meetings,
and SDUSD general counsel Mark Bresee
even concurred after being called on it before.
And yet here we are again, less than two
weeks later, with the same violation.
Does anyone even care about following the
law at the San Diego Unified School District?
Is it too much to ask that the folks in charge
do slightly more than thumb their noses at
these relatively minor constraints, giving
hardly more than a passing nod at the public’
s right to know?
Some may say it’s making a mountain out of
a molehill – what’s a few minutes among
friends, eh?
I’m inclined to agree in some ways. Thirteen
minutes one way or the other does not an
issue make, in and of itself.
But what rankles is that this repeated pattern
of complete disregard for the law, even in the
most minor of matters, portends a much
larger problem with rules and legalities. If it’s
so acceptable to ignore legislation that is
easy to follow, how can the public have any
assurance that proper behavior is insisted
upon in matters less visible and of much
greater significance?
This new meeting was called because the
board wasn’t prepared to announce its three
final candidates for superintendent when it
said it would, even though the district has
been announcing for a week that the three
finalists would be named on June 15.
Apparently, the board just wasn’t quite ready.
But that’s another issue entirely – and one
worthy of its own critical examination. I’m still
stuck on the process and seeing that it’s
followed appropriately.
Since the legislation has no teeth, apparently
public agencies like the San Diego Unified
School District feel they can get away with
breaking the law – until someone in some
position of authority is willing to make an
issue of it.
This is a matter of ethics and integrity – and
with San Diego Unified we’re not seeing a
whole lot of either of late.
... in the March 20, 1997 Board meeting...According to Bristol, Gyves denied that he had endorsed the
proposal, "attack[ing]" Bristol's credibility and referring to her remarks as
"bizarre" and "about typical of the accuracy of your statements historically."
Bristol states that Hubbard, the Board President, made no effort to restrain
Gyves's comments, "despite the fact that Mr. Hubbard has repeatedly silenced
several members of the public who have attempted to criticize Dr. Gyves and
various Board members at recent Board meetings."
Bristol concludes, "Based on Mr. Hubbard's continuing enforcement of Bylaw No. 9002, I now refrain from
speaking
openly at public Board meetings about my concerns and criticisms regarding the District
Superintendent's qualifications and performance."...
III. Ban on criticism of employees in open meetings:
Bylaw No. 9002 §§ B and C [5] Plaintiffs' primary claims challenge the Bylaw's restrictions on raising
"complaints" or "charges" against District employees at open Board meetings. [FN4] Bylaw, §§ B & C.
As explained below, the Court finds the criticism provisions to be violative of
core First Amendment values...
Because it concerns the government's ability to limit private expression in a public
context, this case is governed by the public forum doctrine.
Although the doctrine's roots
can be traced back to dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S.
496, 515, 59 S.Ct. 954, 963-64, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (1939), the modern categorical approach
began with Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 103 S.Ct. 948, 74 L.Ed.2d
794 (1983).
In Perry, the Court identified three distinct types of fora:
first, "traditional" public fora--"places which by long tradition or government fiat have
been devoted to assembly and debate;"
second, "limited" public fora-- "public property which the State has opened for use
by the public as a place for expressive activity;" and
third, "nonpublic" fora--property not dedicated in any significant way to free or open
communication.
proposal, "attack[ing]" Bristol's credibility and referring to her remarks as
"bizarre" and "about typical of the accuracy of your statements historically."
Bristol states that Hubbard, the Board President, made no effort to restrain
Gyves's comments, "despite the fact that Mr. Hubbard has repeatedly silenced
several members of the public who have attempted to criticize Dr. Gyves and
various Board members at recent Board meetings."
Bristol concludes, "Based on Mr. Hubbard's continuing enforcement of Bylaw No. 9002, I now refrain from
speaking
openly at public Board meetings about my concerns and criticisms regarding the District
Superintendent's qualifications and performance."...
III. Ban on criticism of employees in open meetings:
Bylaw No. 9002 §§ B and C [5] Plaintiffs' primary claims challenge the Bylaw's restrictions on raising
"complaints" or "charges" against District employees at open Board meetings. [FN4] Bylaw, §§ B & C.
As explained below, the Court finds the criticism provisions to be violative of
core First Amendment values...
Because it concerns the government's ability to limit private expression in a public
context, this case is governed by the public forum doctrine.
Although the doctrine's roots
can be traced back to dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S.
496, 515, 59 S.Ct. 954, 963-64, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (1939), the modern categorical approach
began with Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 103 S.Ct. 948, 74 L.Ed.2d
794 (1983).
In Perry, the Court identified three distinct types of fora:
first, "traditional" public fora--"places which by long tradition or government fiat have
been devoted to assembly and debate;"
second, "limited" public fora-- "public property which the State has opened for use
by the public as a place for expressive activity;" and
third, "nonpublic" fora--property not dedicated in any significant way to free or open
communication.
Under this categorical system, the state's ability to regulate speech
depends on the nature of the forum. The government's power to
restrict expression in traditional public fora, the Perry Court
explained, is extremely limited: "reasonable time, place and manner
regulations are permissible, and a content- *957 based prohibition
must be narrowly
drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest."
The Court imposed similar restraints on speech in limited public fora:
"Although a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open
character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the same
standards as apply in a traditional public forum." Id. In nonpublic fora,
the government may restrict expression only if the regulation is
reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.
...the maintenance of the opportunity for free
political discussion to the end that
government may be responsive to the will of the
people and that changes may be
obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential
to the security of the Republic, is a
fundamental principle of our constitutional system.
[I]t is a prized American privilege to
speak one's mind, although not always with perfect
good taste, on all public institutions,
and this opportunity is to be afforded for vigorous
advocacy no less than abstract
discussion.
...Defendants contend that these concerns are outweighed by the
District's interest in
protecting the privacy and property rights of its employees...
[8] Before examining the Defendants' contentions,
it is important to remember that even
if the Brown Act sanctioned the Bylaw, First
Amendment speech guarantees would
trump the statute.
It is no defense to suggest that since the Brown Act created the
Board
meetings, the Brown Act can also authorize unconstitutional
limitations on those
meetings.
The essence of the public forum doctrine is the notion that although
the
government need not devote its property to expressive activity, once
it does it is bound by
the strictures of the First Amendment.
[9] That said, the Brown Act provides little support
for the District's position.
Although §54957 allows public employees to demand that a
governing body air complaints about the employee in public, it does
not grant the employees the right to force the conflict behind closed
doors.
Similarly, while the Brown Act permits governing bodies to hold
closed
sessions about personnel matters, nowhere does it grant those
bodies the exceedingly
broader authority to silence public speech that may also touch upon
related employment
issues. As noted above, the sections of the Brown Act and the
Education Code that
require the Board to hold public meetings grant the public a right to
speak "on any item
of interest to the public ... that is within the subject matter
jurisdiction" *959 of the
Board, without exception. Cal. Gov't Code § 54954.3(a) (emphasis
added); Cal.
Educ.Code § 35145.5 (emphasis added).
The preamble to the Brown Act sets forth the primary purposes of
the Act as a whole:
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies
which serve them.
The people, in delegating authority, do not give
their public servants their right to decide
what is good for the people to know and what is
not good for them to know. The people
insist on remaining informed so that they may
retain control over the instruments they
have created.
Cal. Gov't Code § 54950. In San Diego Union v. City Council, 146
Cal.App.3d 947, 954,
196 Cal.Rptr. 45 (1983), the court balanced the same two Brown Act
provisions (the
"personnel exception" of § 54957 and the "sunshine law" of § 54953)
apparently in
conflict in the instant case.
Citing the statute's preamble, the court concluded that it "must
construe the 'personnel exception' narrowly and the
'sunshine law' liberally in favor of openness."
The court explained, "Public visibility breeds
public awareness which in turn fosters public activism politically and
subtly encouraging the governmental entity to permit public
participation in the discussion process."
Thus, while the Brown Act authorizes a school board to discuss
personnel matters in closed session, it does not preclude the public
from raising such matters at open Board meetings. Once the matter
has surfaced in public, the Board and the employee still may
adjudicate the matter in closed session.
While the Court recognizes the privacy and
property interests of the District's
employees, the District's asserted interests pale in
comparison to the expressive rights of
the public...
Alternatively, the Bylaw fails even under the more deferential
standard of
review applied to speech restrictions in nonpublic fora. As mentioned
above, regulations in nonpublic fora will survive a constitutional
challenge only if they are "reasonable in light of the purpose served
by the forum and are viewpoint neutral."
...As the Supreme Court explained in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376
U.S. 254,
84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964):
The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to
the end that
government may be responsive to the will of the people and that
changes may be
obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of
the Republic, is a
fundamental principle of our constitutional system. [I]t is a prized
American privilege to
speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all
public institutions,
and this opportunity is to be afforded for vigorous advocacy no less
than abstract
discussion. Id. at 269, 84 S.Ct. at 720 (internal quotations and
citations omitted).
CONCLUSION
...The Court declares that the prohibitions
on any criticism, "complaint or charge
against an employee of the District"
contained in Vista Unified School District
Bylaw No. 9002, §§ B and C, violate the
Plaintiffs' rights secured under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States
Constitution.
Defendants David Hubbard, Jenny Vervynck, Lance
Vollmer, Linda
Rhoades and Barbara Donovan, acting in their official
capacity as members of the School
Board of the Vista Unified School District, and their
agents, successors... and employees who have received
notice of this order, are hereby permanently
enjoined and restrained from
enforcing the prohibitions on any criticism,
"complaint or charge against an employee
ofthe District" contained in Vista Unified
School District Bylaw No. 9002, §§ B and C...
depends on the nature of the forum. The government's power to
restrict expression in traditional public fora, the Perry Court
explained, is extremely limited: "reasonable time, place and manner
regulations are permissible, and a content- *957 based prohibition
must be narrowly
drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest."
The Court imposed similar restraints on speech in limited public fora:
"Although a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open
character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the same
standards as apply in a traditional public forum." Id. In nonpublic fora,
the government may restrict expression only if the regulation is
reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.
...the maintenance of the opportunity for free
political discussion to the end that
government may be responsive to the will of the
people and that changes may be
obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential
to the security of the Republic, is a
fundamental principle of our constitutional system.
[I]t is a prized American privilege to
speak one's mind, although not always with perfect
good taste, on all public institutions,
and this opportunity is to be afforded for vigorous
advocacy no less than abstract
discussion.
...Defendants contend that these concerns are outweighed by the
District's interest in
protecting the privacy and property rights of its employees...
[8] Before examining the Defendants' contentions,
it is important to remember that even
if the Brown Act sanctioned the Bylaw, First
Amendment speech guarantees would
trump the statute.
It is no defense to suggest that since the Brown Act created the
Board
meetings, the Brown Act can also authorize unconstitutional
limitations on those
meetings.
The essence of the public forum doctrine is the notion that although
the
government need not devote its property to expressive activity, once
it does it is bound by
the strictures of the First Amendment.
[9] That said, the Brown Act provides little support
for the District's position.
Although §54957 allows public employees to demand that a
governing body air complaints about the employee in public, it does
not grant the employees the right to force the conflict behind closed
doors.
Similarly, while the Brown Act permits governing bodies to hold
closed
sessions about personnel matters, nowhere does it grant those
bodies the exceedingly
broader authority to silence public speech that may also touch upon
related employment
issues. As noted above, the sections of the Brown Act and the
Education Code that
require the Board to hold public meetings grant the public a right to
speak "on any item
of interest to the public ... that is within the subject matter
jurisdiction" *959 of the
Board, without exception. Cal. Gov't Code § 54954.3(a) (emphasis
added); Cal.
Educ.Code § 35145.5 (emphasis added).
The preamble to the Brown Act sets forth the primary purposes of
the Act as a whole:
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies
which serve them.
The people, in delegating authority, do not give
their public servants their right to decide
what is good for the people to know and what is
not good for them to know. The people
insist on remaining informed so that they may
retain control over the instruments they
have created.
Cal. Gov't Code § 54950. In San Diego Union v. City Council, 146
Cal.App.3d 947, 954,
196 Cal.Rptr. 45 (1983), the court balanced the same two Brown Act
provisions (the
"personnel exception" of § 54957 and the "sunshine law" of § 54953)
apparently in
conflict in the instant case.
Citing the statute's preamble, the court concluded that it "must
construe the 'personnel exception' narrowly and the
'sunshine law' liberally in favor of openness."
The court explained, "Public visibility breeds
public awareness which in turn fosters public activism politically and
subtly encouraging the governmental entity to permit public
participation in the discussion process."
Thus, while the Brown Act authorizes a school board to discuss
personnel matters in closed session, it does not preclude the public
from raising such matters at open Board meetings. Once the matter
has surfaced in public, the Board and the employee still may
adjudicate the matter in closed session.
While the Court recognizes the privacy and
property interests of the District's
employees, the District's asserted interests pale in
comparison to the expressive rights of
the public...
Alternatively, the Bylaw fails even under the more deferential
standard of
review applied to speech restrictions in nonpublic fora. As mentioned
above, regulations in nonpublic fora will survive a constitutional
challenge only if they are "reasonable in light of the purpose served
by the forum and are viewpoint neutral."
...As the Supreme Court explained in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376
U.S. 254,
84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964):
The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to
the end that
government may be responsive to the will of the people and that
changes may be
obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of
the Republic, is a
fundamental principle of our constitutional system. [I]t is a prized
American privilege to
speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all
public institutions,
and this opportunity is to be afforded for vigorous advocacy no less
than abstract
discussion. Id. at 269, 84 S.Ct. at 720 (internal quotations and
citations omitted).
CONCLUSION
...The Court declares that the prohibitions
on any criticism, "complaint or charge
against an employee of the District"
contained in Vista Unified School District
Bylaw No. 9002, §§ B and C, violate the
Plaintiffs' rights secured under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States
Constitution.
Defendants David Hubbard, Jenny Vervynck, Lance
Vollmer, Linda
Rhoades and Barbara Donovan, acting in their official
capacity as members of the School
Board of the Vista Unified School District, and their
agents, successors... and employees who have received
notice of this order, are hereby permanently
enjoined and restrained from
enforcing the prohibitions on any criticism,
"complaint or charge against an employee
ofthe District" contained in Vista Unified
School District Bylaw No. 9002, §§ B and C...
Brown Act "expert" causes
problems with special meetings
[Maura Larkins' note: It seems that most lawyers who
advertise themselves as "Brown Act experts" are
actually offering the service of being able to help
officials get away with Brown Act violations.]
Town unhappy with report
Wasco citizens pack council meeting on grand jury statement
by Felix Doligosa, Jr., Californian staff writer
WASCO -- Residents yelled "the city is unhappy" in a packed City
Council meeting Tuesday night as discussion turned to a grand jury
report that accuses council members and the mayor of having too
many 'special meetings.'
"It's been quite a rocky two weeks and it's getting to a point where we
need a resolution," said Tilo Cortez Jr., vice mayor and council
member for the city.
A grand jury report stated that the council has "far too many 'special
meetings'" that leave a perception the city does not want public input.
On Jan. 24, the mayor, Danny Espitia, and one or two council
members met to vote on the appointment of an assistant city manager,
fire the city attorney and hire a new law firm, according to the grand jury
report. The meeting was announced Jan. 23, according to the report.
The grand jury report also said Councilman and former Mayor Fred
West Jr. met with the former finance director to discuss his taking on
the job as interim city manager. An unsigned contract showed up on
the former director's desk, according to the grand jury.
The grand jury report recommends that the City Council get additional
training on the Ralph M. Brown Act. The state law allows very limited
closed-door meetings concerning public business, according to the
report.
The report also recommended that Wasco residents get more involved
in City Council meetings, the council stop having special meetings
unless it is an emergency and that Espitia should stop voting until the
city receives an opinion from the Attorney General of California.
Espitia said he does not want to forward the report to the attorney
general because there are lies in it.
"The grand jury was misinformed," he said. "It's wrong. They never
interviewed me."
The grand jury said in the report that it interviewed the mayor.
When Cortez asked if the report was telling the truth, Espitia replied,
"So we can agree the grand jury can make another mistake."
Dozens of citizens filled the seats and some stood in the aisles as
they argued with council members.
"This is just not right," said Wasco resident Susana Rios...
[Bonifacio "Bonny"]Garcia has made about $83,000 in
four months as the city attorney, said Councilwoman Cherylee
Wegman. The grand jury report said Garcia makes about four to five
times more than the previous attorney.
Garcia said he would be happy to have an evaluation of his work
another time.
"We have to talk about what's on the agenda," said Wegman who tried
to direct discussion toward the grand jury report. "It's the law."
After hearing pleas from the audience, the City Council voted to
postpone discussion of the alleged Brown Act violations and the hiring
of Garcia until a public meeting on July 3.
Bakersfield California, June 20, 2007
Link
problems with special meetings
[Maura Larkins' note: It seems that most lawyers who
advertise themselves as "Brown Act experts" are
actually offering the service of being able to help
officials get away with Brown Act violations.]
Town unhappy with report
Wasco citizens pack council meeting on grand jury statement
by Felix Doligosa, Jr., Californian staff writer
WASCO -- Residents yelled "the city is unhappy" in a packed City
Council meeting Tuesday night as discussion turned to a grand jury
report that accuses council members and the mayor of having too
many 'special meetings.'
"It's been quite a rocky two weeks and it's getting to a point where we
need a resolution," said Tilo Cortez Jr., vice mayor and council
member for the city.
A grand jury report stated that the council has "far too many 'special
meetings'" that leave a perception the city does not want public input.
On Jan. 24, the mayor, Danny Espitia, and one or two council
members met to vote on the appointment of an assistant city manager,
fire the city attorney and hire a new law firm, according to the grand jury
report. The meeting was announced Jan. 23, according to the report.
The grand jury report also said Councilman and former Mayor Fred
West Jr. met with the former finance director to discuss his taking on
the job as interim city manager. An unsigned contract showed up on
the former director's desk, according to the grand jury.
The grand jury report recommends that the City Council get additional
training on the Ralph M. Brown Act. The state law allows very limited
closed-door meetings concerning public business, according to the
report.
The report also recommended that Wasco residents get more involved
in City Council meetings, the council stop having special meetings
unless it is an emergency and that Espitia should stop voting until the
city receives an opinion from the Attorney General of California.
Espitia said he does not want to forward the report to the attorney
general because there are lies in it.
"The grand jury was misinformed," he said. "It's wrong. They never
interviewed me."
The grand jury said in the report that it interviewed the mayor.
When Cortez asked if the report was telling the truth, Espitia replied,
"So we can agree the grand jury can make another mistake."
Dozens of citizens filled the seats and some stood in the aisles as
they argued with council members.
"This is just not right," said Wasco resident Susana Rios...
[Bonifacio "Bonny"]Garcia has made about $83,000 in
four months as the city attorney, said Councilwoman Cherylee
Wegman. The grand jury report said Garcia makes about four to five
times more than the previous attorney.
Garcia said he would be happy to have an evaluation of his work
another time.
"We have to talk about what's on the agenda," said Wegman who tried
to direct discussion toward the grand jury report. "It's the law."
After hearing pleas from the audience, the City Council voted to
postpone discussion of the alleged Brown Act violations and the hiring
of Garcia until a public meeting on July 3.
Bakersfield California, June 20, 2007
Link
Guajome Park Academy
GPA connection with SIA tech
GPA connection with SIA tech
Conflict of Interest SIA
tech
Shirk case
Peters v. GPA
VUSD v. Dr. B.J. Freeman
GPA is finally investigated
Secrecy v. Free Speech
| Vista USD/Guajome Park sues student for exposing teachers who changed grades |
2 students expelled for
changing grades at Rancho
Bernardo HS in Poway while
changing grades at Rancho
Bernardo HS in Poway while
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report