Brown Act Allegation Probed

The district attorney’s office is investigating a citizen’s complaint that county Board of Education members violated the state open-meeting law during a luncheon with attorneys early this year.

In a letter to the board, Deputy Dist. Atty. Mary C. Peace asked board members to respond within 30 days to a complaint lodged by Ojai lawyer and frequent board critic Rudolph Petersdorf.

Board President Marty Bates called the allegation “frivolous,” but declined to discuss specifics because the letter involves possible litigation.

But county schools Supt. Charles Weis and Trustee Al Rosen said the luncheon could well have violated the Brown Act, which requires public governing bodies to conduct business in public view.

“The case has a good argument, very frankly,” Weis said before a board meeting Monday.

Petersdorf’s complaint concerns a Jan. 22 Sacramento luncheon among Bates, board member Wendy Larner and attorneys that trustees hired to review board policies.

That policy overhaul would cede some power from the superintendent to the five-member panel. The conservative-dominated school board approved spending $30,000 for the policy review last year after a number of high-profile clashes with the more moderate Weis on issues including AIDS education and applying for federal grants.

The tab for the policy review had reached more than $36,000 by Monday. Upset at the cost overrun, Bates has asked for a discount on the attorneys’ fees.

Moderate trustees Rosen and John McGarry were angered by the Sacramento luncheon, which took place without their knowledge.

According to Rosen, Larner and Bates should not have met with attorneys before the full body determined a direction for the review, which critics say is part of an ongoing power struggle between Weis and the board majority.

By the time all five board members first met with the Sacramento lawyers two months later, the attorneys had modeled their draft document on that of the San Diego school system. Unlike Ventura County, San Diego schools have an appointed--not elected--superintendent.

Petersdorf’s complaint, dated Aug. 8, alleges that this chain of events suggests that Bates and Larner--speaking for the whole board--gave the attorneys instructions to mimic San Diego’s policies without notifying other board members or members of the public.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Peace’s letter asks trustees questions about what instructions were given at the luncheon and why the law firm based Ventura County’s draft document on the San Diego policy.

Petersdorf’s “argument is conceivable,” Weis said. “If the board had asked me for my advice on that [luncheon], I would have advised them against it.”

Specifically, Weis said, the board members could have violated the Brown Act by not posting a meeting agenda, by holding a meeting outside the board’s jurisdiction or by authorizing one or more board members to act on behalf of the whole panel.

Bates, though, said he has three legal opinions to the contrary. He added, “If this is proven to be frivolous, this [board] has the right to receive legal compensation from the accuser.”