Gilroy Unified School District trustees
– including newly elected Denise Apuzzo and Francisco Dominguez
– should be up in arms about the recent Brown Act violations
committed by the committee charged with naming the new elementary
school that will replace Las Animas School.
Gilroy Unified School District trustees – including newly elected Denise Apuzzo and Francisco Dominguez – should be up in arms about the recent Brown Act violations committed by the committee charged with naming the new elementary school that will replace Las Animas School.
The Brown Act, California’s open meetings law, requires that committees appointed by legislative bodies – the school naming committee was appointed by the school board, a legislative body – must follow the Brown Act’s rules. That means posting agendas, allowing for public comment and creating minutes that reflect the votes of every member.
Instead, the committee kept its deliberations secret, apparently under the direction of a misguided administrator.
“We talked about it collectively and we decided to not release the (list),” Rob Mendiola, GUSD facilities director and member of the committee told The Dispatch during the process. “So, I think we’re better off not to list the names at this point. We’re making progress and that’s as much as we should say.”
Mendiola should know better, and shouldn’t cause his bosses – GUSD Superintendent Edwin Diaz and the school trustees – such grief over a matter that should clearly be an open book for our community.
After all, the school district enthusiastically urged the public to be a part of the process. To slam the door and usher the public out when the “party” is in full swing is not only arrogant, it’s foolish.
Given the school district’s commitment to communication, accountability and transparency, it’s difficult to understand the logic of such self-inflicted wounds.
Trustees should make it a point at the next meeting to direct that every administrator brush up on Brown Act rules. Moreover, the district should adopt a “sunshine” ordinance so that the commitment to open communication actually becomes a board policy.
If administrators are keeping this minor of a decision from the public, it causes us to wonder what else is happening behind closed doors that the residents and parents ought to know about.
This isn’t just an oversight to be dismissed with a shrug and a halfhearted “oops.” The handling of the naming of this school is symptomatic of the GUSD culture. It’s not enough to give lip service to accountability, transparency and communication. Deeds must back up those words.
If trustees are truly committed to changing the GUSD culture, they should speak to the matter publicly, share their serious concerns and then take action: Pass a “sunshine” policy that send a clear message about open communication to the public and to the staff.
