SB 1003 amends the Brown Act and adds section 54960.2 to the Government Code, which prohibits a district attorney or any interested person from filing an action to determine the applicability of the Brown Act to past actions of a legislative body unless the following conditions are met: (1) the district attorney or interested person submits a cease and desist letter that clearly describes past action of the legislative body and the nature of the alleged violation, and (2) within 30 days from receipt of the letter, the legislative body fails to issue “an unconditional commitment to cease, desist from, and not repeat the past action that is alleged to violate” the Brown Act.
The cease and desist letter, pursuant to SB 1003, is in addition to the
traditional cure or correct remedy for alleged continuing violations, which continues to exist under the
Brown Act. Public agencies should familiarize themselves with the new
requirements, which include prescribed timelines for presenting
allegations to the legislative body, and for the legislative body to
respond.
For more information, read the entire KMTG Legal Alert.
Meghan Covert Russell
Showing posts with label Brown Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brown Act. Show all posts
Monday, November 5, 2012
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Deciding When to Allow Members of the Public to Place Items on the School Board Meeting Agenda
A California appellate court has ruled that a school board did not abuse its discretion when it refused to place an item on its agenda where the proposed item did not directly relate to school district business. The court held the school district had discretion to refuse an item proposed by a parent to change an activity at a middle school from one promoting anti-bullying awareness for gay, bisexual, lesbian and transgender students to an “all inclusive anti-bullying day.” (Mooney v. Garcia (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, Cal.App. 6 Dist., June 26, 2012).
The Education Code allows members of the public to place an item on the governing board’s agenda where that item is directly related to district business. However, school districts do retain discretion to determine whether that item is “directly related to school district business” within the meaning of the Education Code. If the Governing Board determines that the agenda item is not directly related to school district business, then the district may refuse to allow the item to be placed on that meeting’s agenda.
For more information please see our Legal Alert.
Meghan Covert Russell
The Education Code allows members of the public to place an item on the governing board’s agenda where that item is directly related to district business. However, school districts do retain discretion to determine whether that item is “directly related to school district business” within the meaning of the Education Code. If the Governing Board determines that the agenda item is not directly related to school district business, then the district may refuse to allow the item to be placed on that meeting’s agenda.
For more information please see our Legal Alert.
Meghan Covert Russell
Monday, August 6, 2012
Brown Act Refresher: Serial Meetings
There are so many complex ins and outs to the law, that's why we've
decided to start posting "Refreshers" on some of the most common laws
that school districts encounter, including the Brown Act, the California
Public Records Act, conflicts of interest, discipline/dismissals, and
leave. These posts are intended to draw your attention to provisions of
the law that might be overlooked or forgotten -- sometimes we just need
a little refresher!
Brown Act Mistake: Using email to debate rather than update.
Why This Is A Problem: Using email communication to debate an issue, rather than discussing the issue in open (or closed) session, may constitute a serial meeting. Serial meetings are a series of communications, each of which individually involves less than a quorum, but when viewed as a whole, involve a majority of the board's members. Serial meetings can be done in person, over the phone, or via email communication. Serial meetings violate the Brown Act if they are done for the purpose of developing a concurrence as to action to be taken, including discussing or debating issues. The intent of the Brown Act is for board deliberation and action to be taken openly, and serial meetings violate this goal of transparency.
Brown Act Solution: Email should be used to update board members, but should never be used to discuss or debate issues. Discussion meant to develop a concurrence should instead be made in an open meeting (or closed session when legally appropriate).
Meghan Covert Russell
Brown Act Mistake: Using email to debate rather than update.
Why This Is A Problem: Using email communication to debate an issue, rather than discussing the issue in open (or closed) session, may constitute a serial meeting. Serial meetings are a series of communications, each of which individually involves less than a quorum, but when viewed as a whole, involve a majority of the board's members. Serial meetings can be done in person, over the phone, or via email communication. Serial meetings violate the Brown Act if they are done for the purpose of developing a concurrence as to action to be taken, including discussing or debating issues. The intent of the Brown Act is for board deliberation and action to be taken openly, and serial meetings violate this goal of transparency.
Brown Act Solution: Email should be used to update board members, but should never be used to discuss or debate issues. Discussion meant to develop a concurrence should instead be made in an open meeting (or closed session when legally appropriate).
Meghan Covert Russell
Friday, July 13, 2012
Brown Act Refresher: Make Sure to Post Agendas on the District Website!
There are so many complex ins and outs to the law, that's why we've decided to start posting "Refreshers" on some of the most common laws that school districts encounter, including the Brown Act, the California Public Records Act, conflicts of interest, discipline/dismissals, and leave. These posts are intended to draw your attention to provisions of the law that might be overlooked or forgotten -- sometimes we just need a little refresher!
AB 1344, which went into effect on January 1, 2012, changes some of the requirements of the Brown Act. AB 1344 requires local educational agencies that maintain a website to post the agenda of a regularly scheduled meeting at least 72 hours in advance on their website (and 24 hours in advance for special meetings). Although AB 1344 doesn't change the timeline for posting notice, it requires that if a district has a website, that agendas must be posted on that website.
The full text of AB 1344 can be found here.
Meghan Covert Russell
AB 1344, which went into effect on January 1, 2012, changes some of the requirements of the Brown Act. AB 1344 requires local educational agencies that maintain a website to post the agenda of a regularly scheduled meeting at least 72 hours in advance on their website (and 24 hours in advance for special meetings). Although AB 1344 doesn't change the timeline for posting notice, it requires that if a district has a website, that agendas must be posted on that website.
The full text of AB 1344 can be found here.
Meghan Covert Russell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)