Gilroy
– Two months after the list of possible names for the new Las
Animas School were whittled down to four choices, questions still
linger over whether the name selection process was valid.
Gilroy – Two months after the list of possible names for the new Las Animas School were whittled down to four choices, questions still linger over whether the name selection process was valid.
The confusion concerns whether a Citizens Advisory Committee created by the Gilroy Unified School District board and appointed by district administrators was required to follow California open meeting laws spelled out in the Ralph M. Brown Act. Though the committee invited public comment and recommendations for a short time during the selection process, the Brown Act would have required them to invite the public to all meetings.
The Brown Act requires any committee formed by a publicly elected body, including a school board, to operate in full public view. That means posting agendas in advance of meetings, recording minutes of meetings, and making all documents used at the meetings accessible to the public.
“I checked with our legal counsel, and I was told that committee was not subject to Brown Act laws,” GUSD Superintendent Edwin Diaz said. “According to Government Code, Section 54952-B, no formal action was taken to appoint this particular committee by the school board. There was no vote, so there was no obligation to follow requirements of the Brown Act.”
The remark echoed assurances given to school board members Thursday night, when Trustee Javier Aguirre raised questions about whether the Brown Act had been violated during the name selection process.
Diaz’s arguments put trustees’ fears to rest, but one of California’s leading open government advocates remains unconvinced.
Terry Francke, general counsel for Californians Aware, a non-profit First Amendment rights watchdog group, said the committee was required to follow Brown Act laws.
“The critical question is not whether the board appointed the members – it’s whether the creation of the committee was pursuant to board policy,” he said.
Board policy 7310 states a facility can be named two ways. First, the board can make a motion and select a name on its own. Otherwise, a Citizens Advisory Committee is to be formed to make recommendations to the board.
Because a board policy already states the committee should be formed if the board does not select a name on its own, the committee is automatically subject to the Brown Act, Francke said.
The appropriate level of public involvement in the naming process for the new school was not the only point of confusion. Some board members were working from an old copy of policy 7310, which stated that people must be deceased for five years before facilities can be named after them. The specification would exclude the names of the two people on the short list, Trustee Denise Apuzzo pointed out. Yet another version of the policy, dating from 2002, is posted on the GUSD Web site. The current version was approved in April 2004.
Diaz said having three different versions of the policy in circulation is “irritating.”
