L.A. Unified Held Illegal Closed Session, Cooley Says

Signaling renewed interest in the school district’s handling of the Belmont Learning Complex, the district attorney’s office has accused the Los Angeles school board of violating the state open-meetings law by taking a recent action without public input.

The board, in a closed meeting last month, gave Supt. Roy Romer permission to explore proposals for opening or selling the half-finished high school near downtown.

In a letter sent to Romer and the school board Thursday, Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley alleged that the board met in an “unauthorized closed session,” depriving the public of information to which it is entitled.

“It is clear that these actions violate various provisions” of state law, Cooley wrote.

District officials said they acted legally when they met behind closed doors Dec. 12.

Since assuming office in December, Cooley has taken an aggressive tack on Belmont, establishing a task force to reexamine allegations that former school district officials violated environmental laws in developing the high school. Cooley’s predecessor, Gil Garcetti, had concluded that there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

During his campaign, Cooley criticized Garcetti’s handling of the Belmont case and said he believed that there was corruption associated with the project, which was abandoned by the Board of Education a year ago because of concerns about environmental hazards. The school site is atop a former oil field that contains explosive methane gas and toxic hydrogen sulfide.

Cooley wants the school board to discuss the matter in open session after posting it on an agenda. If the board refuses, the district attorney’s office could file a civil lawsuit or criminal charges, a Cooley aide said.

Experts on California’s open-meetings law--known as the Brown Act--said it is uncommon for a district attorney to enforce the statute.

“It is extremely rare, and it’s about time,” said Terry Francke, general counsel to the California First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit advocacy group. “It’s refreshing to see a district attorney taking the Brown Act this seriously.”

Allegations of Brown Act abuses typically are lodged by citizens. In this case, Local 11 of the Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union filed a lawsuit last month, asking a Superior Court judge to overturn the school board’s decision.

“This is the first time in the corrupt history of Belmont that an agency with law enforcement powers has called the district to account,” said David Koff, a research analyst for Local 11, which has long opposed the Belmont project.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Susan Chasworth said public agencies are allowed to discuss issues behind closed doors only in special cases that involve litigation, personnel, real estate negotiations or other sensitive matters. She said Romer’s proposal--to have the private sector submit bids to clean up the property and possibly build the school--did not fall under those categories.

“In our opinion, the exceptions that would allow for closed sessions don’t apply to their decision to have the private sector submit bids for the completion of Belmont,” she said.

On its Dec. 12 closed-door agenda, the school district listed the Belmont item under “existing litigation.”

Hal Kwalwasser, the district’s general counsel, said that in discussing Romer’s proposal, the school board also touched on confidential matters involving a pending lawsuit over Belmont.

“We think we’re in compliance with the Brown Act. We disagree fundamentally with the D.A.,” he said. “The board discussed matters that were intimately related to the pending litigation. It would have been impossible to have a reasonable discussion about this subject without discussing the litigation.”