DA Checks Charge That School Board Violated Brown Act : Education: An activist complains that some Centinela Valley Union High School District members conducted public business in private.

The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office is evaluating complaints alleging that Centinela Valley Union High School District trustees have violated laws that require school boards to meet in public.

The complaints were filed in March and early this month by community activist Nancy Marthens, who alleges that the trustees have been making decisions in private--in violation of the state’s Ralph M. Brown Act--since they were elected to the school board last November.

In addition, former board members Ann Birdsall and Aleta Collins said in interviews that board President Ruth Morales twice tried to discuss issues in private session that legally should have been discussed in public. Although Birdsall and Collins mentioned the incidents in public sessions, they said, neither of them ever formally complained about the matter.

Morales and the current trustees, who have been under fire by some parents and community activists for the way they have handled allegations of racism in the district, deny that they have ever violated open meeting laws and instead claim that they are being harassed by ousted board members and others who harbor political grudges.

Deputy Dist. Atty. James Hickey, who handles Brown Act violation complaints, said this week: “We’re evaluating the material to determine if indeed a criminal violation has occurred. We haven’t made the final call of whether we’re going to further investigate.”

Local governing bodies may privately discuss only those issues exempted from the Brown Act, including personnel matters, litigation and contract negotiations. Intentional violations of the law are considered misdemeanors, and elected officials found guilty may be jailed or fined.

Last year, the Lassen County Board of Supervisors became the first governing body ever charged under the 37-year-old Brown Act. However, the charges were dismissed in April.

Because investigators must prove an elected official knowingly violated the law’s requirements before a criminal case is filed, it is far more common for citizens and news organizations to pursue alleged Brown Act violations in civil court, Hickey said. There, they may seek an order invalidating an action by a governing body or prohibiting future unlawful actions.

Marthens, who wrote both complaints, said in an interview last week that she did not want to spend money to pursue civil remedies until the district attorney’s office decides whether to file criminal charges.

In her initial complaint, which was accompanied by a petition signed by 13 people, including Birdsall, Marthens accused the board of violating the Brown Act eight times between Nov. 28, 1989, and Jan. 23, 1990. A supplemental complaint filed July 7 alleged additional violations in May.

Among the complaints are allegations that the board made policy decisions in private, sought additional legal services without discussing the issue in public, improperly discussed issues that were not previously posted on the agenda and refused to describe in sufficient detail items to be discussed in closed session.

For example, the complaint alleges that on Nov. 28, immediately after the three new trustees were sworn in, Morales announced the board “would like to become more active in the business of the whole school district.” Marthens said it was unclear when and where the board made that decision, since this was its first public meeting.

Marthens said in her complaint that the board’s actions indicate a “conspiracy to violate the Brown Act.” In a letter to the board dated Jan. 30, which was attached to the complaint, Marthens also said trustees have violated “the spirit and intent of the law” and “have established a pattern” of violations under school board policy, the state Education Code and the state Government Code.

The trustees and their attorney, Larry Frierson, say none of the board’s actions have violated the Brown Act.

When the former board was in office, “I remember on numerous occasions finding the board members in a threesome, but I never once heard anyone accuse the old board of violating the Brown Act,” Trustee Pam Sturgeon said. “I breathe, and they’re telling me I’m violating the Brown Act. The information I’m getting from the California School Boards Assn. is we have not violated the Brown Act or anything else.”

The association’s president, Maureen DiMarco, has been advising school board members on several issues facing the district, but spokesman Michael Fallon said DiMarco declined to comment about what advice, if any, she or other association members have provided regarding the Brown Act.

In the most recent complaint, Marthens alleged that Sturgeon had polled her colleagues on the telephone regarding a letter she wanted to send in response to a threatened student walkout in May. Marthens said Sturgeon had told her and others of this. Students had staged a series of walkouts in March to protest the resignation of a popular black principal and allegations of racism.

In the May 4 letter, which was addressed to Supt. McKinley Nash, Sturgeon told him that he was “directed to instruct the administrative and security staff at both schools about their responsibilities in maintaining control and order.”

Sturgeon said in an interview last week that the letter “wasn’t a letter of direction, but basically a letter reminding him (Nash) of what our policies are.” She also said she called not to get her colleagues’ approval but to let them know she had already sent it.

But Marthens, Birdsall and community activist Virginia Rhodes, all of whom were present during the conversation, said in interviews that Sturgeon told them she had called her fellow trustees to get a consensus that the letter should be sent.

Under the terms of the Brown Act, Marthens wrote, Sturgeon should have called an emergency session to address the threatened walkout and posted a notice of the meeting. The board also should have voted in public on whether the letter should be written, she said.

Frierson, the board’s attorney, refused to comment directly on Sturgeon’s letter but said the board has been acting in accordance with the letter of the law.

But former trustees Birdsall and Collins say their experiences on the school board gave them reason to be concerned that school business is not being discussed in the open.

During their tenure on the board, Collins and Birdsall said, Morales had twice tried to discuss issues during closed sessions that should have been presented in public.

On both occasions, they said, they refused to participate and mentioned the incident during the open session.

Birdsall also said Morales had called her at home twice during her tenure--once in 1985 and once in 1987--to poll her on a vote. But in both instances, Birdsall said, she refused to discuss the issue on the telephone.

“She called me to see if I would change my mind on a deal or if I would vote a certain way, and I said, ‘No, I’m not going to discuss this with you because I feel that’s a violation of the Brown Act,’ ” Birdsall said.

Although the Brown Act does not specifically prohibit polling, phone calls to inquire about a vote could be deemed improper if a decision were reached over the telephone, said Assistant Atty. Gen. Eugene Hill.

“There’s nothing wrong with calling a person up and saying, ‘How are you voting on this?’ ” Hill said. “But to the extent it starts to represent decision-making, then you start to get into” Brown Act violations, he said.

Morales declined to discuss the allegations by Birdsall and Collins.

Although allegations of Brown Act violations have dogged the board since it was seated in November, Marthens was the first person to file a formal complaint. The election, in which three challengers replaced three incumbent trustees who had been strong supporters of Nash, was considered a major upset.

The campaign was marked by allegations that white teachers had been harassing minority administrators--charges that exacerbated racial tension in the fast-changing district. In 1989, more than half the students were Latino; 14.8% were Anglo; 18.4% black, and 8% Asian. In 1980, 45.6% of the students were Anglo.

Tensions came to a head immediately after the election as rumors began circulating that the new board members planned to fire Nash and other black administrators in the district to satisfy the predominantly Anglo teachers union, which had backed two of the challengers.

The teachers said during the campaign that Nash and Crowe were using allegations of racism to deflect legitimate criticisms. On the day of their swearing in, the board members--four of whom are Latino--denied they had any plans for an administrative shake-up.

But in early March, when Crowe announced he was resigning because of a lack of support from the trustees, some people interpreted his action as proof that the board planned to dislodge black administrators. His announcement sparked massive student walkouts March 5 and 6.

After months of declining to speak about Crowe’s status in the district, the board finally voted 3 to 1 last week to reassign him to a teaching position, with Sturgeon voting against the reassignment. (One trustee was ill.)

The political backdrop may be significant because sometimes the Brown Act is invoked as a way to satisfy political gripes, Hill said.

“The extent to which the constituency is satisfied or unsatisfied with the way the board operates can find expression in complaints about the Brown Act . . . and could be political.”

But Rhodes, who signed the petition requesting a criminal investigation, said politics had nothing to do with the allegations. “Things have come out at the meetings (that) have not been discussed in public forums,” she said. “I think they are using their closed sessions for things other than they are allowed to use them for.”

Even if the board can show it has fulfilled the minimum standards set out by the Brown Act, she said, it has still engaged in practices that have created a perception that deals are being made in the back room and that the board is trying to avoid public scrutiny.

Rhodes and Marthens have complained that the school board has not been videotaping its meetings, a break with past practice. Sturgeon said the board stopped taping meetings because of a breakdown in the equipment. Although the board is trying to negotiate an agreement with the city of Lawndale to buy new video equipment, critics say the board could have done more in the meantime to ensure its meetings were taped.

Critics have also attacked a decision by the trustees in May to scale back the number of board meetings from two a month to one, the minimum required by law. The board made that decision after several meetings were disrupted by the audience and had to be adjourned early. But some critics said the disruptions were caused by the board’s own actions and that meeting less frequently was not an appropriate response to criticism.

BACKGROUND The Ralph M. Brown Act of 1953, the first in a series of so-called “sunshine” laws in California, requires school districts, city councils and other local governing bodies to hold their meetings in public. Under the state law, citizens have a right to be notified about what actions are to be considered, to address their elected officials during meetings and to be present when votes are cast. Governing bodies are permitted to meet privately only to discuss issues that are exempt from the law, including personnel matters, litigation and property negotiations.