Watchdog Group Says La Mesa-Spring Valley Dodged Bullet on Brown Act

An open-meeting advocacy group says it would have filed suit against the La Mesa-Valley School District had the school board approved a motion by Emma Turner on Tuesday night.

The motion—defeated 4-1—would have allowed discussion of whether the school board should urge lawmakers in Sacramento to place on the June ballot a proposal by Gov. Jerry Brown to extend certain state taxes.

During the open-comment period, former school board candidate Jay Steiger had asked the board to take up the issue immediately under Brown Act provisions allowing for consideration of “pressing” issues. 

When a Google News Alert informed Californians Aware that the item might have been addressed without the required public notice, the group’s Richard McKee wrote schools Superintendent Brian Marshall:

This morning, I would assume you are most thankful for 4 of 5 board members.  We would have sued LMSVSD immediately for such an obvious Brown Act violation had Ms. Turner’s position prevailed on considering the addition of a resolution to the agenda.  

Likewise, Jay Steiger has clearly indicated his ignorance of the law by asserting that the Brown Act would allow the consideration of this agenda addition.  It doesn’t come anywhere close, and even the Board discussion, considering the pros and cons of some type of resolution, is a violation.   

Brown Act education now could save your district considerable expense and embarrassment in the future.  I encourage you to reach out to your district’s legal counsel now. 

In response to McKee’s note, which was copied to La Mesa Patch, Marshall replied: “Thank you for your e-mail.  It was very shaky ground and the board made the right decision.”

Board member Bill Baber on Tuesday night raised the issue of a Brown Act violation before he joined three others—Rick Winet, Penny Halgren and Bob Duff—in rejecting the effort to open discussion of the resolution.

Steiger maintains that he wasn’t calling the situation an emergency, as reported here Wednesday morning. Instead, he cited a need for “immediate action.”

“I am a huge supporter of open government and accountability,” Steiger wrote Wednesday,  “but I am a bit mystified by CalAware’s rather forceful reaction.”

Steiger said nobody was “attempting any sort of devious subterfuge.  My only intent was to most strongly suggest the board debate a resolution of support for the governors idea of a special election to let the voters decide the question of revenue extensions to protect K-12 funding in the state budget.”

Steiger also said:

This position is endorsed by the California School Boards Association and has been adopted by boards across the state, including the local Cajon Valley and Lemon Grove boards.  I have been suggesting this to the LMSVSD board for several weeks and the legislative deadline is quickly approaching. 

This said, the article did mention “emergency” rather than “immediacy” as the justification and it was noted by myself and Supt. Marshall that my request was to raise debate under “immediacy.” I would certainly agree that the issue did not qualify as an emergency and perhaps this is what triggered the CalAware response.

In reply to La Mesa Patch queries, McKee of CalAware also made the distinction between an emergency and decisions requiring immediate action:

An emergency (GC sect. 54956.5) is defined to be dire conditions: a work stoppage, crippling activity, disaster, mass destruction, terrorist activity—”so immediate and significant that requiring a legislative body to provide one-hour notice before holding an emergency meeting under this section may endanger the public health, safety, or both.”  

This is often confused with sect. 54954.2(b)(2)—addition of an item of business to an already posted agenda.  However, this addition of an item to an agenda requires (i) there is a need for immediate action and, importantly, (ii) ”the need for action came to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda being posted.”  

Neither of these requirements could be satisfied by the board.  The district has known about these budgetary issues for some time, and there was no need for immediate action.  They could have posted a special meeting with just 24 hours notice and considered the resolution then.