Sharon McClain wins against Dan Shinoff and Del Mar Union School District; award is $388,537 plus interest

Sharon McClain

See all Sharon McClain posts.

Former Del Mar Union School District superintendent Sharon McClain won her case for wrongful termination/breach of contract.

McClain's attorney Dale Gronemeier successfully argued that the board didn't want to admit that it couldn't get along with its superintendents, and was worried about the political repercussions of buying out two different superintendents in two years, so it sought to trump up accusations against McClain and fire her for cause. The district was unable to convince the court that the firing was justified.

On October 3, 2012 the Court issued the following order (found on the Court's website):

COURT RULING: The Court finds judgment on the Amended Complaint(First Amended Complaint) for Sharon McClain Ed D and against Del Mar Union School District in the amount of: $388537.00 principal, $0 punitive damages, $0 attorney fees, $ interest, $0 prejudgment costs and $0 other costs. Interest is awarded from the time of breach at the rate of 7%.

The transcript pretty much explains the case.

But apparently somebody doesn't want the public to see the transcript. Who could that be, I wonder? I got a message today from the court reporter telling me I should erase the transcript from my website. But how did she get my private email address?


UPDATE October 9, 2012: EXCELLENT REPORTING BY THE DEL MAR TIMES

To its shame, U-T San Diego has not reported on the trial outcome in this case, although it published the details of the district's criticisms of McClain.

It appears that education commentator Marsha Sutton was unable to bring herself to write about the conclusion of this case, although she started out with a bang. I saw Marsha in court during the trial, but something seems to have stopped her from reporting about the outcome.

Fortunately, reporter Karen Billing takes up the slack in these situations:

Judge rules in favor of former Del Mar school district superintendent
By Karen Billing
Del Mar Times
October 9, 2012

While the trial ended Oct. 3 in the case of former Del Mar Union School District Superintendent Sharon McClain versus the district, the specifics of the judgment of the wrongful termination lawsuit won’t be known for weeks.

“I won,” McClain said. “I feel vindicated. … The most important thing was the vindication to me that they did the wrong thing. I’m glad it’s been proven that they were wrong.”

McClain said she will be owed two years and three months in back payments, plus retirement from the California State Teachers Retirement System (STRS).

McClain’s attorney, Dale Gronemeier, emailed this newspaper copy from the court’s statement of intended decision that said: “The Court finds in favor of plaintiff for breach of contract in the sum of $413,500, which includes the district’s STRS contribution plus $32,000 for the tax sheltered annuity less the consulting income earned mitigation of $56,963. The total award to plaintiff is $388,537 plus 7 percent interest from the time of breach.”

However, the district’s attorney Dan Shinoff said that the judge did not blanket order those two years and three months in compensation and he believes the amount owed to be more like $156,000.

“I think that the verdict was in her favor,” Shinoff said. “I think it’s our obligation as officers of the court to make sure we’re never ever critical of a decision that a judge makes, but that doesn’t mean there still aren’t issues capable of being viewed from a different perspective.”

The Del Mar school board met in closed session on Monday. Oct. 8, to discuss the case but no action was taken. President Scott Wooden said that they are awaiting the court’s judgment and nothing will happen until that point.

“We’d all like to see it resolved,” Wooden said.

... Doug Perkins and Comischell Rodriguez are the only current board members who were a part of the previous board that fired McClain.

[Maura Larkins comment: Doug Perkins voted to fire McClain, costing the district much time and money. Comischell Rodriguez was the only board member with the courage to vote against the firing.]

...The transcript of the case will be made available later this week...

Read more: Judge rules in favor of former Del Mar school district superintendent



THE BIZARRE REPORTING OF U-T SAN DIEGO

On October 9, 2012 I added the following to this post: "To its shame, U-T San Diego has not reported on the trial outcome in this case, although it published the details of the district's criticisms of McClain."

Later that day, at 6:28 p.m., U-T San Diego published the bizarre and false headline, "Suit settled in favor of former Del Mar Superintendent."

But this lawsuit is most definitely NOT settled.

Why would anyone want the public to believe it was settled?  I think the answer is clear. Schools want to maintain the fiction that when they settle, it isn't because they violated the law, it's just to avoid legal fees, even though they never did anything wrong. The opposite is true. The system is set up so that lawyers, rather than wronged employees and students, receive the largesse of school insurer SDCOE-JPA (San Diego County Office of Education). 

A reasonable person would conclude that the court had actually overseen a settlement of the case. The word "trial" does not occur anywhere in the U-T article. The article refers to "legal proceedings" and mentions the name of the judge, and includes a recitation of board complaints against McClain.

The name of Dan Shinoff is entirely missing from the U-T article. Interestingly, the Union-Tribune completely failed to cover the sexual harassment lawsuit of former CVESD board member Patrick Judd, former superintendent of Mountain Empire Unified School District, although the Union-Tribune had endorsed Mr. Judd repeatedly.



MAURA LARKINS NOTE: 30 DAYS MIGHT REALLY MEAN 30 DAYS

Jack Sleeth and Dan Shinoff don't seem to believe that a law requiring 30 days notice actually means 30 days notice is required. We can all be skeptics, can't we?

pages 18-22 of the trial transcript

THE COURT:

LET ME ASK YOU ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU DO THAT AND I'M GOING TO ASK THE DISTRICT THE SAME QUESTION. WHY DIDN'T THEY GIVE HER 30 DAYS' NOTICE? THAT'S SOMETHING I NEVER UNDERSTOOD FROM THE FIRST PHASE OF THIS TRIAL.

MR. GRONEMEIER:

MY ANSWER BEFORE AND MY ANSWER NOW IS THEY MUST HAVE GOTTEN BAD ADVICE...THAT'S THE BEST GUESS I CAN MAKE. I'VE ASKED THAT QUESTION, AND THEY'VE REFUSED LET ANYBODY ANSWER IT [in depositions]...

MR. SLEETH:

I THINK THE OTHER REASON IS WE INTERPRETED THAT PARTICULAR PROVISION DIFFERENTLY AND YOU HEARD OUR ARGUMENT... YOU HEARD OUR ARGUMENT THAT THE 30 DAY NOTICE DIDN'T APPLY TO MATERIAL BREACHES OF CONTRACT...

MR. SHINOFF:

THE DISTRICT SIMPLY HAD A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION ...

THE COURT:

WELL, OKAY...I SUPPOSE THE ANSWER IS THAT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY AND THE SUPERINTENDENT HAD DETERIORATED TO THE POINT WHERE THE DISTRICT WAS WILLING TO TAKE THE RISK THAT THE 30 DAYS MIGHT REALLY MEAN 30 DAYS.




UPDATE OCT. 10, 2012

INVASION OF THE...BROWN ACT?
STUTZ LAW FIRM ADVISES: CALL US "WHEN THE BROWN ACT INVADES"

From the Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz website:
Robert Mahlowitz Presents “Dragged Into Closed Session”

Attorney Robert Mahlowitz will present “Dragged Into Closed Session: The Ins and Outs of California’s Brown Act & Personnel Discussions” at the Fall Training Institute for the Association of Chief Human Resource Officers/Equal Employment Officers (ACHRO/EEO). The event will be held at Harrah’s Lake Tahoe October 24-26.

HR Professionals are often called upon to appear in closed session with their Boards to discuss personnel issues. Limited budgets may restrict access to legal counsel when HR Administrators have concerns about whether matters have been properly noticed, what notice has been provided to an employee and what to do when the employee wants a public airing of the discussion. Concerns also arise about potential personal liability for violation of the Brown Act. For 30 years, Stutz Artiano has served as legal counsel to community college and school districts in California and we will share insights to empower senior HR/EEO professionals for those times when the Brown Act invades.

[Maura Larkins comment: Stutz provided legal counsel to MiraCosta College throughout the Victoria Richart paroxysm, and to Grossmont-Cuyamaca during the Omero Suarez scandal.

I'm shocked! Did attorney Mark Bresee give bad legal advice to the Rio School District board? The District Attorney seems to suspect so

DA says Rio board may have broken open-meetings law
By Cheri Carlson
June 10, 2011

The Rio School District board appears to have broken state law that prohibits trustees from discussing or taking action on issues outside of a meeting, the District Attorney's Office said this week.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

Special Assistant District Attorney Michael Schwartz said his office received a complaint that the board held a serial meeting to hire its legal counsel. Such an action would violate the state's open-meetings law — called the Brown Act.

But in another letter this week, the DA's Office dismissed a list of other allegations against the Rio board. The allegations, which included charges of bribery and conflict of interest, were brought by two board members against the three-member board majority.

The violation appears to have taken place before the Rio board's Feb. 10 closed-session meeting, according to a letter Schwartz sent to trustees this week.

Attorney Mark Bresee appeared to have acted as an intermediary by getting a consensus from three trustees that he advise them about Superintendent Sherianne Cotterell's termination, the letter states. Bresee has since been hired as the board's general counsel.

"The District Attorney has the authority to bring a civil lawsuit to stop or prevent threatened violations of the Brown Act," Schwartz wrote. He asked the district to respond to the concerns, so the DA's Office can determine if it needs to bring such an action.

Board President Eleanor Torres said Friday that Bresee is expected to provide additional information to the DA's Office soon. She expects that information will clear up any concerns.

However, if it is determined that a violation occurred, the board will make sure the issue is properly addressed and remedied, Torres said.

Bresee declined to comment while the matter is still under review.

Under the Brown Act, a majority of a board members cannot discuss or take action on board business outside of a meeting. That's the case if trustees speak directly to each other or through an intermediary, the DA's Office said.

In this case, Torres had contacted Bresee to discuss issues regarding Cotterell and asked him to come to the Feb. 10 meeting, which he did. Bresee was not the board's attorney at the time, but another lawyer at his firm worked for the district on other issues and referred Torres to him.

Bresee appears to have then confirmed with Trustees Henrietta Macias and Ramon Rodriguez that they also wanted him at the Feb. 10 meeting to discuss the superintendent's contract, officials said.

The Rio board did not take action at a public meeting to hire Bresee as its general counsel until the end of March.

At a March 2 special meeting, Macias, Torres and Rodriguez voted to terminate Cotterell's contract without cause.

Trustee Tim Blaylock voted against the move. And Trustee Mike Barber, who also supported Cotterell, was unable to attend the meeting because of a prior commitment.

Blaylock and Barber brought their concerns to the DA's Office.

In the separate letter to trustees this week, Schwartz addressed eight other allegations the two trustees had brought forward, saying that "no violations have been established that would warrant action by the District Attorney's Office."

On Friday, Torres said that none of the allegations were warranted. "They (Blaylock and Barber) are wasting so much time and effort on a whole lot of different agencies' parts," she said.

Blaylock, who said he wants to make sure the board governs properly, said he appreciated that the DA's Office looked into the concerns. "I think he (Schwartz) took his time. He investigated, and he did a thorough job," Blaylock said.

Blaylock, however, said he continues to have concerns. Other cases could be reopened should more information become available, he said.

Torres said she hopes the board will be able to move forward and work together. "It just comes to a point when it has to stop," she said. "Let's go forward."

"It's quite clear that there are differing opinions of members of the board," Schwartz said Friday.

The DA's Office isn't taking any position on issues such as what trustees should vote for or vote against, who they should hire or fire, he said. "Our concern is that the process be done correctly, and the right for the public to participate be honored."

- vcstar.com

Here is a case in which Mark Bresee gave advice to Chula Vista Elementary School District.

New employer of former SDUSD general counsel Mark Bresee is sued for Brown Act violations

Rio school board sued over alleged Brown Act violations
By Cheri Carlson
Ventura County Star
June 3, 2011

Attorney William Grimm has filed suit in Ventura County Superior Court, alleging the Rio School District board broke state law in several closed-door meetings leading up to Sherianne Cotterell's removal as superintendent.

Grimm, who is married to Cotterell, wants the court to order trustees to follow California's open meetings law — the Brown Act. He also wants the court to declare null and void the split board's March 2 action to terminate Cotterell's contract without cause.

Cotterell was given 60 days' notice of the termination following the board's 3-1 vote that night.

The board majority has demonstrated a complete disregard for laws and policies, Grimm said this week in an email response to questions.

"They have done so because no one stands up to them," he said. "It is time they are held accountable. The court needs to send a message to the board majority that they are not above the law."

Rio officials disagreed. "The district denies that any violations of the Brown Act occurred, and we intend to vigorously contest the lawsuit," said attorney Mark Bresee, who represents the Rio board.

Discussions the board had in closed session were consistent with what was listed on the agendas, he said. "I obviously can't and won't discuss what the board discussed in closed session, because I'm legally bound to maintain the confidentiality of that."

Regarding the March 2 action, Bresee said "public employee discipline, dismissal, release" was listed on the agenda. People commented on the issue, the board took action to dismiss and release the superintendent, and reported that action after the closed session ended, as required by law, he said.

Under the Brown Act, trustees are allowed to meet behind closed doors to discuss a limited number of issues, including personnel. They must, however, disclose on the agenda what they generally will consider in the meeting and allow the public to comment.

Grimm said that didn't happen.

Agendas for closed sessions from Feb. 10 to March 2 included items for the superintendent's evaluation and employee discipline, dismissal or release. But those descriptions were inadequate and misleading, according to the suit.

Trustees did not disclose that they were considering potential litigation and should not have discussed compensation behind closed doors, according to Grimm's complaint.

The day after the Feb. 10 meeting, the board's attorney contacted Cotterell's representative and proposed terms for her to resign in return for about 10 months of salary, about $137,500, the suit states.

Under her contract, the maximum cash settlement for the board to end Cotterell's employment without cause likely would equal 18 months of pay, or about $247,500.

On Feb. 14, Cotterell gave the district a counter-proposal, including an explanation of her position and four potential claims she was considering filing against the district. The complaint did not provide details of that counter-proposal.

The board then met in closed session Feb. 17. According to the suit, the board discussed and rejected Cotterell's settlement offer and proposed compensation package.

The district also made a counter-offer, including a waiver to any claims the superintendent might bring against the district, the complaint states.

Bresee said there were several inaccuracies in the suit. He also disagreed that the board wrongly discussed compensation in closed session. There are times when a board may consider financial settlements in a closed session, he said.

Cotterell's contract specifically addresses the issue of a settlement if her contract is terminated without cause, he said.

To label something as potential litigation, the Brown Act requires a legal opinion that significant exposure to litigation exists, he said. He did not believe that existed at the time.

Bresee said the district will file a response to Grimm's court complaint within 30 days.

Rio trustees met again Feb. 24 and March 2, when trustees announced they had voted 3-1 to exercise the "no-cause" termination clause of Cotterell's contract. Trustee Tim Blaylock voted against the move, and Trustee Mike Barber, who also supported Cotterell, was absent.

Board President Eleanor Torres and trustees Henrietta Macias and Ramon Rodriguez voted in favor of the move. The vote came about three months after four new trustees were sworn in after being elected to the five-member board.

At a meeting last week, Blaylock told other trustees that he plans to bring forward proposals to increase public access regarding board business.

He, too, thinks violations have occurred in open and closed sessions over the past several months, including trustees taking action on issues in closed session that aren't adequately described on agendas, he said. Other trustees have disputed those claims.

It's not the first time a Rio school board has faced a lawsuit over alleged Brown Act violations after firing a superintendent. In 2003, Yolanda Benitez was fired in a 3-2 decision, with Macias as one of the majority votes.

Benitez later sued and won a large settlement from the district after courts ruled the board had broken the Brown Act.

San Diego schools admits to error in alerting media of two meetings

San Diego schools admits to error in alerting media of two meetings
June 7, 2010
by donal brown
First Amendment Coalition

After a prompting from a reporter, the San Diego Unified School District acknowledged that they had to post and notify the media of all meetings 24 hours in advance. The Board of Trustees had posted notices for two meetings properly but failed to give the media adequate notice.

Tri-City Hospital pays $300,000 for alleged Brown Act violations

See all Tri-City Healthcare posts.

HOSPITAL: Tri-City settles Brown Act lawsuit filed by former executives
Hospital agrees to pay $300,000, but admits no violation
By PAUL SISSON
February 25, 2010

Tri-City Medical Center has settled a lawsuit brought by a group of former hospital executives who alleged Tri-City violated the state's open meeting law, called the Brown Act, when four hospital board members put the executives on paid leave during a hastily called closed-door meeting in December 2008.

Ray Artiano, an attorney for the seven executives, said Thursday afternoon that Tri-City settled the case for $300,000, which will cover attorney's fees. The executives ---- who were later fired by Tri-City ---- have also filed a wrongful termination lawsuit that is still working its way through the courts.

Courtney Berlin, a spokesperson for Tri-City, confirmed the settlement in the Brown Act lawsuit this week. She said in an e-mail that it doesn't admit "any error on the part of our Board or any violation of the Brown Act."

"In order to preserve the company's resources, we felt it was appropriate to settle the matter," Berlin said.

Four of seven Tri-City board members voted during a special meeting on Dec. 8, 2008, to sideline the seven executives and call in an accounting firm to conduct a forensic investigation of the public hospital's books. Tri-City's former chief executive Arthur Gonzalez was put on leave during the same meeting.

In February 2009, the seven sued Tri-City's board, alleging it had violated several aspects of public meetings law.

The suit asked a Superior Court judge to declare the decision invalid, but more than one year later there had been no ruling in the case. Artiano said that when the suit was filed, there was some hope among the executives that a decision would come quickly and could result in them being reinstated.

In the intervening months, Gonzalez settled with the hospital district and found a new job running a large hospital system in Minneapolis.

In the wrongful termination lawsuits, the remaining executives are seeking more than $1 million each. Lawyers on both sides are now arguing whether the case belongs in federal or state court.

Artiano's clients include Doreen Sanderson, Tri-City's former vice president of human resources; Allen Coleman, former vice president of strategic services; Robert Wardwell, former chief financial officer; Daniel Groszkruger, former director of information systems; Ondrea Labella, former director of patient business services; Suellyn Ellerbe, former chief operating officer and chief nurse executive; and Terry Howell, former vice president of performance improvement.

Their salaries ranged from $194,000 to $325,000 per year.

While Artiano acknowledged that Tri-City has admitted no culpability with regard to open meetings law violations, he said the fact that the hospital settled means something.

"We thought the amount was sufficient to make a point, and now we will focus on the wrongful termination cases," Artiano said.

Prosecutors decide that possible Brown Act violation should not be prosecuted

In San Diego we have a case similar to this Lake County case. Attorney Leslie Devaney, who is representing seven administrators who were fired by Tri-City Healthcare, reported to District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis that that the four board members she is suing are guilty of a criminal Brown Act violation. If Bonnie Dumanis continues her usual tactics, it will be a very long time before the charges are dropped. This will, of course, work to the advantage of Leslie Devaney's clients.


Clear Lake: Rare prosecution for Brown Act violation dropped
Lake County News
August 6, 2009
By Elizabeth Larson

Saying that the remedies were civil, the Lake County district attorney dropped a misdemeanor charge of violating the Brown Act brought when a Clearlake City Council member allegedly violated the confidentiality of a closed session by discussing an evaluation of the city administrator. -DB


CLEARLAKE – The Lake County District Attorney’s Office is dropping a misdemeanor charge of violating the Brown Act against a Clearlake City Council member.

Councilman Roy Simons, 83, was arraigned on the single misdemeanor charge on July 20, and was set to return to court at 8:30 a.m. Aug. 17 before Judge Stephen Hedstrom in Lake County Superior Court’s Southlake Division.

But on Thursday Chief Deputy District Attorney Richard Hinchcliff sent a motion to the south county court seeking to have the charge against Simons dropped.

Deputy District Attorney Trang Vo had filed the case against Simons, but Hinchcliff determined that the remedies were largely civil and that the case shouldn’t proceed...

Lompoc School District violates Brown Act to hire personnel manager

"I held them in high regard until today." I know how Sue Schuyler feels. I could have said the same thing about Patrick Judd, Cheryl Cox, Pamela Smith, Bertha Lopez and Larry Cunningham at one time.

It's amazing how people will surrender their ethics and honesty to get a tiny bit of power. It's all the more shocking when it's such a TINY bit of power.



Lompoc: Ex-school board members accuse board of violating Brown Act
First Amendment Coalition
June 23, 2009

Two ex-members of the Lompoc Unified School District school board say that the council majority acted precipitously in a June 2008 by a motion to hire a particular candidate for interim personnel director. The action contributed to board turmoil and a series of charges and denials among board members past and present. -DB

The Lompoc Record
June 23, 2009
By Bo Poertner

During a closed meeting of the Lompoc Unified School District Board of Education in June 2008, two of the members expected only to discuss the possible hiring of an interim personnel director.

Instead, former board members Bob Campbell and Ken Ostini said, they were surprised by the suddenness of a motion to hire Marilyn Corey, who had been interim personnel director in 2002, and the existence of a proposed contract to pay Corey $500 per day.

The actions of the board majority — Sue Schuyler, Anne Bossert and Kris Andrews — were highly inappropriate and perhaps violated California’s open meetings law, according to Campbell and Ostini, both of whom declined to seek re-election in November.

Andrews, Schuyler and Bossert deny that they violated the Brown Act and are reacting strongly to the accusation.

Although Corey wasn’t hired for that position, the discussion at the meeting a year ago threw the board into a tailspin, symptomatic perhaps of the turmoil it has been engulfed in for the past couple of years as it has made deep, painful budget cuts and controversial personnel moves.

It quickly became apparent, Campbell said, that the board majority had been discussing personnel moves privately and reaching a majority consensus outside of a board meeting — a clear violation of the Brown Act.

The board had not advertised to fill the position being vacated by Personnel Director Ragan Fife, and other options had not been discussed, he said.

One of those options, Campbell said, was a suggestion from Superintendent Frank Lynch that Lynch, Fife and Assistant Superintendent for Educational Services Tanya Opfermann share the personnel director’s responsibilities temporarily to save money.

“I was just kind of stunned,” Campbell said. “I remember saying, ‘Now, wait a minute here. We’re getting way ahead of things here.’”

Ostini said he was shocked as well.

“I was very surprised that all of a sudden, boom, it just sort of hit us,” he said. “This is the first I’ve seen this contract and we’re getting ready to approve this, and we’ve been sitting here five minutes?”

“The damage that these three school board members have done in the last 18 months will take years to repair, or to heal,” Campbell said. “It’s just no way to operate.”

Andrews, Schuyler and Bossert have a much different interpretation of events.

“Nothing was set in advance. Nothing was agreed to. There is no pattern of collusion, no agreement, no nothing,” Andrews said.

“We would have never done something like this,” Schuyler added. “I’m really disappointed in these two men. I held them in high regard until today...

Vista Unified School District holds a tense board meeting regarding Lindamood-Bell and teacher union influence

The North County Times is to be appreciated for its coverage of school issues in north county that the San Diego Union Tribune doesn't cover. I'm not sure if the SDUT is simply not interested in the issues, or if it wants to protect school officials from embarrassment.

But the NCT article about last Thursday's Vista Unified School District (VUSD) board meeting doesn't mention that school attorney Daniel Shinoff made a rare appearance at the open session, sitting with the board until late at night (about 11:30 p.m.). Perhaps Mr. Shinoff and his supporters wanted to prove that he's not cowering in shame after the recent Voice of San Diego article about him. (It's too bad the taxpayers have to pay so much for his time if it was just a publicity stunt.) On the other hand, perhaps the board wanted him to be there to defend them from angry parents.

The article below fails to mention the fact that a large number of parents were at the meeting to voice their concern about an issue other than class size: the Lindamood-Bell program.

Many parents want the Lindamood-Bell program to continue, but the teachers union and parents of advanced students want to get rid of it. It seems that teachers don't want to do the training for the program, and neither do they want people who have done the training--but do not have teaching credentials--operating the program. Many parents object to the district's turning down a large federal grant for Lindamood-Bell, particularly since the program is designed to help students with problems in reading and English learners.

VISTA: Complaint alleges 3 school board trustees held secret meeting
Trio says they didn't violate state law
North County Times
By STACY BRANDT
March 6, 2009

VISTA ---- A complaint filed Friday accuses three Vista Unified School District trustees of violating state open meetings laws, then voting to reverse an earlier board decision to increase class sizes.

The accusation came to light Thursday when Trustee Jim Gibson questioned whether three of his fellow board members ---- Carol Herrera, Elizabeth Jaka and Angela Chunka ---- met privately a week earlier with teachers union leaders to discuss the issue.

Gibson said the private meeting took place just after the Vista school board held its public meeting Feb. 26 and voted the first time on the class-size proposal. The board's approval of the plan meant that as many as 120 teachers would be laid off.

The three trustees said they were at Herrera's home after the meeting, but did not discuss the vote. Herrera said that she left the room when the other two arrived, realizing it would be a violation of state law to talk about district business.

"I knew that it was inappropriate, if only by perception and appearance," she said Friday.

Silvia Peters, a community activist who frequents Vista Unified meetings, filed the complaint Friday with the district board. She threatened to take the matter to court if the board didn't resolve it within 30 days.

"This kind of stuff has got to stop," Peters said Friday. "What they're doing is limiting public participation."

Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, said the get-together wouldn't violate the state's open meeting law, known as the Ralph M. Brown Act, unless the three trustees discussed district matters...

Terry Francke says Katherine Nakamura needs to obey the Brown Act

The SDUSD board doesn't like to appear as if it doesn't care about ethics. So it turns to its lawyers to point the way toward creating an image of upstanding behavior. And the lawyers are only too happy to talk anytime the board wants.

President Katherine Nakamura apparently doesn't want Luis Acle's election ethics violations to tarnish her own reputation. She turned to the board's lawyer, Jose Gonsales. I know that many school attorneys believe that their job is to help cover up for their clients. I don't know Mr. Gonsales, however. It appears that he's an expert at getting away with violating the Brown Act.

Here's the story from Voice of San Diego:
"President Katherine Nakamura said trustee Luis Acle's fine from the city Ethics Commission would be discussed by the board with its legal counsel in a closed meeting Monday.

"Terry Francke, general counsel for the open government advocates Californians Aware, said that it the school board's plan to discuss Acle behind closed doors "doesn't sound like it fits any of the lawful closed sessions listed in the Brown Act," which sets forth rules for public meetings.

"'There's no litigation involving the school district as a party that is either ongoing or threatened,' he said. If Acle faces litigation, 'that's a personal liability, not one of the district.'

"And Acle's future isn't a personnel matter, he said...Acle's ethics violations stem from an unsuccessful City Council run, not his campaign for school board."


-- EMILY ALPERT
Thursday, July 17 -- 7:38 pm