The Siege

How to Ignore the Brown Act When No One is Watching

The perp-walks we witness by politicians who’ve breached our nation’s laws and the public trust are the politicos’ comeuppance for habits usually beginning way back when. But where and how could such misbegotten behaviors have started you might wonder?

Well, step right up to a possible breeding ground right here at SMC where under the challenged guidance of Assistant Dean of Student Life Deyna Hearn and Student Activities Advisor Benny Blaydes (both of whose next link up the chain of command is Dr. Robert “Bobbie” Adams, vice-president of student affairs), the so-called “leadership” of Associated Student President Sadia Afolabi and Vice-President Jeff Jensen, plus that of other directors, has ill-served the SMC student body by undermining their rights through consistent violations of the Ralph A. Brown Act.

The preamble to the Act (California Government Code Sections 54950-54963) states that:

“In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

“The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”

This “sunshine” legislation was passed by the California State Legislature back in 1953 (and amended a number of times since) to protect the public’s right to access and participation in their governmental bodies. Although critics bemoan the lack of teeth within the legislation for its enforcement, the Brown Act has, nevertheless, been critical in protecting the right of the people to witness and take part in the business entrusted to their elected representatives.

The Brown Act evolved as a consequence of investigative reporting done in late 1951 by journalist Mike Harris for the San Francisco Chronicle and was published as a 10-part series titled “Your Secret Government” the following spring. Harris’ expose’ revealed the widespread abuse of state laws requiring open meetings and the legislation was passed to end such practices.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that the Brown Act is cited in the Associated Students Constitution (Article I, Section 6-4) as a governing directive, those in charge of the Office of Student Life (not including the indefatigable Amelia Trejo and Tia Jones, without whom the office would cease to function) have failed to honor their obligations to protect the student body’s right to witness so many of the deliberations of A.S governmental bodies. This willful abuse occurs even in the face of relentless criticisms throughout the year from SMC student government watchdogs, Nehasi Lee and this author – both SMC students – regarding repeated violations of the people’s trust.

During the fall semester, it was not uncommon for Hearn to usher the public (generally, Nehasi and I since few, if any, other students attend these meetings) out of the room, ostensibly for training and other talks, after the “official” agenda was concluded in an A.S. board meeting. There’s only one catch – these sessions were a violation of the Brown Act.

(It has been clear for most of the year that Hearn, Blaydes, and the student directors have remained amazingly ignorant about not only the Brown Act, but also basics of Robert’s Rules of Parliamentary Procedure, and even specifics of their own A.S. constitution. On more than one occasion during the spring semester Jensen confessed to me that it has largely been due to my incessant and increasingly escalated criticisms that all parties concerned have begun to address these deficiencies. The fact that I started videotaping their meetings seems to have had enduring affects as well.)

The Brown Act allows only very narrowly construed reasons for such “closed meetings.” Those reasons are:

• personnel (to discuss the appointment, employment, complaints about, and/or dismissal of a specific employee
• pending litigation (and only if an open discussion “would prejudice the position of the agency”)
• labor negotiations (very limited parameters and school districts are covered by the Rodda Act, Govt. Code 3540)
• property negotiations (also very limited parameters)

Furthermore, such meetings must be agendized and posting requirements are the same as for regular meetings. Additionally, following said closed meetings, the board must disclose any actions taken. So-called “workshops,” “study sessions,” team building, working on group dynamics and retreats – if any is privately held – is illegal. (This author sent a note to Hearn this last January just before the board of directors was about to have yet another illegal retreat – their historic habit by Hearn’s own admission. Because she received my note in time, Hearn was able to post and agendize the retreat as required by law.)

But Hearn, Blaydes, Afolabi, Jensen and crew still don’t get it.

The Brown Act (Section 54953) further states:

“All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.”

After advising Hearn, Blaydes, and the board (with a note to interim president Tom Donner, Adams, and Corsair Editor in Chief Aaron Howell on Nov. 28) on a number of occasions of the illegality of their closed sessions, this author, after seeking legal advice, refused to leave Business 111 after the A.S. board of director’s final fall meeting. Despite threats from Blaydes of dire consequences to me, I advised the board that I wouldn’t leave unless an SMC police officer made the request. When an officer arrived, I willingly complied, although such request violated my rights.

Since I know, on good authority, that Hearn and Blaydes regularly obsess about finding a way to eliminate my presence and participation on this campus, it is telling that their only response to my refusal to leave the meeting has not been any punitive measure against me (because there are no grounds), but to have no further illegal closed sessions of the assembled board of directors immediately following A.S. meetings.

But deliberations about the people’s business continue unabated within the Office of Student Life, out of the eye of the public and in violation of the law. Often directors have unwittingly admitted as much, even this spring, in spite of repeated warnings from me.

On one such occasion early this spring, I had called Director of Financial Support Jonathan Michaeli and requested that the A.S. agenda for their next meeting include the consideration that certain filing deadlines for the then-upcoming A.S. elections be extended since the ICC was in such a state of disarray, with only a handful of clubs yet installed. Historically, the ICC, as a focal point of the most active, on-campus, would-be student leaders, has been the pool from which came many A.S. officeholders. Michaeli agreed with me when I suggested that a deadline extension would allow the ICC to more actively participate in the elections and better benefit the student body. He liked the idea and said he’d get back to me.

Two days later, within hours before posting the upcoming agenda, Michaeli called and informed me that, “After discussing your agenda suggestion with some advisors and the other directors, we’ve decided not to include it on our agenda. You are more than welcome to bring it up during public comment.” Let it be known that the public comment portion of an A.S. meeting has been, under Afolabi, an exercise in pointlessness. More importantly, Michaeli admitted, with no awareness whatsoever, to the board’s failure to deliberate this question in view of the public. When I brought it up to Hearn a few days later, she cut me off when she finally understood where I was going. From her perspective, the ship had sprung an unwanted leak, and to the least desirable listener – me.

Only 407 students, it should be known, out of approximately 30,000 students voted in the recent A.S. elections. And a large percentage of candidates ran unopposed.

Many such violations could be recounted.

Just the latest violation of the Brown Act was on display during the recent May 2, ICC meeting, where a desperate group of advisors and ICC officeholders (ICC Chairwoman Victoria Pregler and ICC Vice-Chair Adel Morad) faced an agenda which included changes to procedures for the installation of continuing clubs (from one semester to another – fall to spring, or spring to fall) and the automatic rollover of ICC allotments (money given by the ICC to each installed club). Club reps almost unanimously approved of the suggested changes. But after struggling for a number of meetings (the ICC meets every other week) to get the ICC officeholders to place these items on the agenda (and only after prevailing to do so by outmaneuvering numerous ICC chairwomen – we’ve had three so far this spring – and their allies in their ongoing public efforts to keep these club-empowering procedures from open consideration), Hearn, Pregler and Morad resorted to scare tactics, long-winded and inaccurate distortions, and assurances that these changes were unnecessary since the advisors could be trusted to implement some of the ideas on their own. Really. They said that.

Not only did they publicly admit to extensive illegal behind-the-scenes deliberations, but the advisors also, once again, acknowledged their role in creating rules and procedures - an authority not delegated to them. Advisors are merely that – advisors. Nowhere are they given unilateral rule or procedure making authority for the student constituency.

Why doesn’t the board commit itself to open deliberations, in every respect? They could discuss the Brown Act, parliamentary procedure, and everything else in the open. After all, the parties in question are a part of the “Office of Student Life.” That kind of covers everything, doesn’t it?

The board could also abide by the Brown Act by making available copies (without the public always having to shout out, “Are there any copies for the us to see?”) of any and all documents supportive of, or informing about, items on the agenda.

Meetings this year too often were held in Cayton Center’s room 206, which is little more than an over-sized closet and doesn’t accommodate many bodies. Not exactly in the spirit of making meetings open. Now that one of the room’s walls has been taken down, the board can’t hide its gatherings there anymore, out of the view of a larger public view. But there remains the problem of the inaudible voices of directors in larger rooms. How about investing in a sound system?

And here’s an important one. Throughout the last few months, I have taken the opportunity to askmost directors, especially Afolabi and Jensen, if they knew what a “serial meeting” is. (It’s essentially a daisy-chain kind of communication – “A” talks about a subject to “B,” “B” to “C,” “C “to “D,” and so on – and is specifically disallowed by the Brown Act.) I’ve yet to have one of them answer in the affirmative. How could they avoid engaging in a serial meeting, if they don’t know what it is?

Things could be so much different if the administration or the college’s board of trustees intervened and put a stop these outrageous violations and if they hired qualified advisors to give effective direction to the students. But will they? Do they even care?

***** One final note. I enthusiastically invite those who feel aggrieved, who believe themselves libeled by this series to bring a lawsuit for their imagined injuries. That way, everyone could be subpoenaed to testify under oath in court. Then the gates now shut to discovery regarding the full extent of violations could be publicly disclosed, and the principle of informed consent could be serviced. Feel free to inquire here, at The Siege, for the address of where to serve your summons and complaint.

Up next:

Part Three – How to Suppress the Spirit of a Campus Community

This entry was posted on Monday, May 8th, 2006 at 1:32 am and is filed under Political, SMC Governance, SMC Community, In Loco Parentis, Associate Student Board of Directors, Board of Trustees, Inter-Club Council, Clubs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.