D.A. says school board violated the law on public meetings

By Joann Groff  joann@theacorn.com

More than six months after a hectic Conejo Valley Unified School District School Board meeting led to claims that the board had violated the Ralph M. Brown Act, the county district attorney's office has issued an official ruling.

The school board did violate the Brown Act May 8 when it illegally took a vote to censure trustee Mike Dunn even though the discussion wasn't on the agenda, according to a letter from Mike Schwartz, Ventura County special assistant district attorney.

During time set aside for board member comments at that meeting, then-school board president Dolores Didio brought up the newly approved board protocols, specifically a rule stating that trustees shouldn't work independently to gather information. She went on to say that Dunn broke this promise by contacting local schools on his own to discuss possible school closures.

According to the letter, Didio then said, "Therefore, as president of the board of education, I am requesting of the other members of the board, to censure Mr. Dunn and his actions as stated in the protocols. Would you please give your vote aloud."

All the board members stated, "Aye" or "I agree."

Schwartz said the board violated several sections of the Brown Act during this incident, based chiefly on the fact that the vote was not on the agenda and that the public was not given the opportunity to comment on the item either before or after the vote.

"Your counsel describes the proceedings of May 8 as a 'colloquy' that did not constitute a vote because a roll call was not taken using electronic buttons and because the vote was not announced by the clerk," Schwartz said. "She asserts that president merely indicated an intention to seek censure. This description is at odds with the minutes and audio recording of the meeting."

Schwartz said that a later censure on June 5 was in compliance with the Brown Act, but did not "cure" the events that took place on May 8. Because of the apparent change in behavior, Schwartz said, the district attorney's office wouldn't take any legal action against the board, but would review any future claims carefully.

Dunn said he would be pleased with an admission of guilt by the board, an apology and a pledge to never violate the Brown Act again, but that seems unlikely. Superintendent Mario Contini maintains that Didio didn't mean to take a vote for censure.

"(Her) intention was to find out if other board members wished to have consideration of censure on the agenda at the following meeting and not to call for a vote on May 8," Contini wrote in a letter to the Acorn. "This is supported by the fact that no board member pressed the electronic button to vote as they always do on action items. Also, the recording secretary did not report out a vote as she always does on action items.

"However, it was an emotional and stressful moment and the choice of words used certainly did not reflect that intention," Contini added.

There was one other situation discussed in the assistant district attorney's letter regarding a May 11 letter Didio sent to Assemblywoman Audra Strickland (R-Thousand Oaks). That letter stated that CVUSD and the board of education strongly supported Assembly Bill 333, which addresses the creation and maintenance of school libraries.

"Since the president of the board does not have the authority to speak for the entire board in support or in opposition to legislation, it appears that Mrs. Didio overstated her own personal support of the bill as being the support of the board," Schwartz wrote.

Although the action was inappropriate, it was not a violation of the Brown Act and thus unenforceable by the district attorney's office, Schwartz said.

"I am confident that the board will accept the district attorney's findings," Contini said. "His letter gave clear and helpful guidance. He also recognized in his letter that the board has already taken steps to avoid this in the future."