Proposed Rule Targets Comments by Trustees : Moorpark: A bylaw would bar school board members from discussing confidential or privileged information in public.

Moorpark school board members may have to watch what they say in public or face sanctions from fellow members.

A proposal before the Moorpark School District Board of Education would forbid members from discussing confidential or privileged information in public.

Introduced at a meeting Tuesday at the request of the district superintendent, the measure shocked at least two board members.

“It’s astounding,” one of them, Clint Harper, said after the meeting. “It would limit the ability of a publicly elected official to communicate with the public.”

The biggest flaw in the proposed bylaw, said Tom Baldwin, another member, is that its definition of confidential and privileged information may be too broad. Already, the district marks information as confidential when it should be made public, he said.

“The problem here is we’re throwing the blanket over too much,” Baldwin said. “This is what the Brown Act is all about, to prevent this kind of thing.”

The Ralph M. Brown Act is a state law requiring open meetings of public bodies for most business.

What’s more, Baldwin said, he feared that one provision of the proposed bylaw would make members personally liable for comments they make, leaving them without protection from school district lawyers.

Board President Greg Barker said the proposed rule would not stifle debate, but would simply protect against reckless leaks of sensitive information.

For example, Barker said, a leak could sabotage district negotiations on the sale or purchase of property agreed upon in a closed session.

“That type of disclosure could hurt the district financially and would be irresponsible,” he said. “I just don’t see how this rule would infringe on a member’s freedom of speech.”

The impetus for the proposal came after board members--including Harper--revealed certain matters related to closed-door negotiations with the teachers’ union, Harper said.

He said Thomas Duffy, the district superintendent, was upset, feeling that Harper was breaking ranks and undermining the district’s position by airing the information in public.

“I see this as an attempt to try and get us all in line,” Harper said. “It’s totally contrary to my ideals as a publicly elected official.”

Duffy did not return telephone calls seeking comment.

The California School Board Assn. has an outline of similar rules it provides for school districts throughout the state, said Brian Lewis, a spokesman for the group.

The rules are not intended to cause the withholding of information about the purpose or subject of a closed-session proceeding.

Board member David Pollock of Moorpark said the rules were “standard operating procedure” for school boards.

“It has nothing to do with what Clint [Harper] said about the negotiations,” Pollock said.

Moorpark’s proposed by-law, a “Non-disclosure of Confidential or Privileged Information” rule, has three parts:

* First, “No board member shall disclose to the public information which is properly identified as confidential or privileged. . . .”

Information can be released if “disclosure is authorized by a board member or employee who has been delegated by the board the authority to allow disclosure.” The board recently voted to give Duffy the sole authority to speak for the school district, Harper said.

* Second, violation of the rule “shall be interpreted as unprofessional conduct and outside of the scope of office.”

* Third, any member who leaks confidential or privileged information for financial gain is guilty of a misdemeanor.

No decision on the proposed rules has been made, but the board is expected to discuss the proposal again at a meeting late next month.