D.A. Reviewing Board’s Vote on Simi School : Inquiry: Questioning is prompted by parents’ complaints that trustees failed to tell community they were voting on a possible campus closure.

The district attorney’s office is questioning whether the Simi Valley school board violated the state’s open meeting law when it first voted to consider closing an elementary school in February.

The inquiry was prompted by parents who complained that board members failed to tell the community they were voting on a possible school closure.

Instead, an agenda line read “Amended Section Five of Vision 2001 Goals,” a list of objectives for the 1994-95 school year that were developed at a January board retreat that few people attended--or even knew about.

Parents say the district and the Board of Education deceived them by taking action on a proposal that was not adequately publicized.

“We were not dutifully notified of what would be discussed,” said parent Nan Mostacciuolo, who authored the complaint. “We trusted our school district, but that trust was not shown. They deceived us.”

School officials said they have been careful to adhere to provisions of the Brown Act, which mandates how governing bodies conduct themselves.

“We try to do things very carefully and strive in any way to abide by the Brown Act,” said Mary Beth Wolford, superintendent for the Simi Valley Unified School District. “I think our agendas reflect that.”

Prosecutors sent a letter to Wolford on Tuesday inviting a written response to the allegation within 30 days.

“The complaint, if it is true, seems to indicate a problem,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. John Geb, who received a letter last week and then contacted the school district.

“In virtually every Brown Act (complaint) that we get, I automatically send out an advisory,” he said. “I like to hear both sides before I delve into it.”

Prosecutors will wait for a response from the school district before taking any further action, Geb said.

Wolford said she will respond within the requested time, but said the inquiry should not affect the school board’s plans to cast a final vote Tuesday on whether to close Sycamore School.

If the school board is ultimately found in violation of the Brown Act, it would have to retake the vote in question.

The elementary campus was one of three central Simi Valley schools that the board considered for closing. A school panel recommended last month shutting down the tiny campus and leasing it to save money. But parents have protested the plan vigorously, saying it will displace children and disrupt the close-knit neighborhood.

Since the board first voted to study closing a school in February, parents have accused trustees of dodging the public’s suggestions and making decisions behind closed doors--allegations most board members deny.

But Trustee Debbie Sandland said the prosecutors’ inquiry worries her because she believes the board acted improperly.

“I’m extremely concerned about it,” said Sandland, the only board member to express opposition to the closing. “I think we had an obligation to let this community know.”

Other school trustees, however, say they have done nothing wrong or dishonest. They argue the board has considered closing campuses for years because of sagging enrollment.

Now, they say, they are forced to consider shutting down a school before fall because of a looming $2.7-million deficit. Closing Sycamore would save about $200,000, officials said.

“I think the board has made every possible effort to make this open to the public,” Trustee Judy Barry said. “We still haven’t voted on it.”

Barry said the complaint was another effort by parents, who have filled community forums and board meetings in the past two months, to fight the proposed closure. “I think they are digging pretty deep to think we are violating the Brown Act,” she said.