As a former petitioner in two Brown Act lawsuits, I have some familiarity with these cases. Normally, one who detects a Brown Act violation begins by, not suing, but rather issuing a “demand of cure and correct.” Accordingly, the CUSD board would be asked to fix its error by holding open sessions, redoing what it did (and should not have done) in closed session. If they fail to do that, or if they fail to do it adequately, a lawsuit comes next.
Evidently, Martin Wisckol of the Register has made the same point, but he now assures us that the petitioner in this case (represented by attorney Jim Lacy) has indeed filed a lawsuit. (See Total Buzz: lawsuit against CUSD.)
According to this morning’s LA Times (Capistrano Unified is Sued for Alleged Violation of Open-Meetings Law):
An outspoken retired teacher sued the Capistrano Unified School District on Monday, accusing its trustees and superintendent of conspiring to curtail his ability to speak at public school board meetings.
Ron Lackey… attends every board meeting and regularly speaks on agenda items related to district spending.
In the suit, filed in Orange County Superior Court in Santa Ana, Lackey alleges that the district violated the state's open-meetings law by discussing inappropriate matters — including how to silence him — during a closed-session meeting. He is seeking a declaration that the trustees violated the Brown Act, wants an order requiring the board to videotape future closed meetings, and wants to be reimbursed for his attorney's fees.
…..
The state's Brown Act allows elected officials to meet in closed-session in strictly limited circumstances, such as employee evaluations and labor negotiations.
A July 30, 2005, meeting was held to discuss Fleming's performance evaluation. But a document summarizing the meeting lists topics such as the school-year calendar, parental fundraising and advertising on school buses.
The first item on the minutes, labeled "School Board Meeting Conduct Protocol," notes "In general board members want to start to limit Ron Lackey and the amount of items he can address. Suggest that the board go back to only allowing members of the public to address two items as stated in board policy."
Fleming said the items listed were potential topics of his plan for the upcoming school year, and as such are allowed to be discussed in closed session because they could form the basis for his next evaluation.
Trustee Duane E. Stiff said he had never witnessed any Brown Act violations. "I have no idea what [Lackey] is talking about," Stiff said….
• Stiff’s “no idea” guff is pretty darned familiar. We got similar guff from John Williams and his pals during our successful Brown Act lawsuits against the SOCCCD back in 1997-98. When we asked them to "cure and correct," they totally blew us off.
• I do believe that our own (SOCCCD) board of trustees was the first to be required by a court to “tape” its closed sessions, owing to trustees’ “persistent and defiant” misconduct, as the judge put it. The taping order was a result of the second of our Brown Act lawsuits. (Those cases concerned, among other things, the appointment of Raghu Mathur as interim, then permanent, Irvine Valley College President.)
• Guess what? Our board (which, by then, included attorney Don "sue us!" Wagner) defied the order! Our side chose not to pursue the matter.
• Evidently, the CUSD’s attorney is none other than Dave Larsen. He was the high-priced lawyer (of the firm Rutan and Tucker) who defended the SOCCCD during my successful 1st Amendment lawsuit against Chancellor Sampson. (Sampson and the district had illegally sought to silence a "vigorous critic,” namely, Dissent’s Chunk Wheeler.)
