We Believe What We Want to Believe

It's been several days now since Thanksgiving, and more than a week since the five-year-olds from Mountain View Elementary School ran a gantlet of soccer-parents and protesters to join their fellow-five-year-olds at Condit Elementary for punkin pie. And the discussion is running down a bit.

Saturday's Courier had good if belated coverage of the event--one of the problems inherent in a biweekly print newspaper. What especially caught our eye was the disclaimer at the bottom (of the online edition only, curiously) which read,

CUSD superintendent David Cash called the COURIER to clarify the school board’s role in this matter. He said any decision on this event has been made by the Condit and Mountain View school administrations. [our emphasis]This is especially odd since the letter sent to the parents on November 21, following the November 20 School Board meeting where, as we are informed below by member La Conte, no action was taken, but you better believe there was plenty of backroom scuffling, shuffling, backing and filling by District staff, very definitely referred to a wider circle than just the Condit and Mountain View school administrations:
"...In hearing both [?!] views [we are surprised to learn there were only two; the beauty of an educated mind able to synthesize!] and due to the timing of this event and the desire to be sensitive to this issue we (the District Cabinet members and principals) have made the decision to conduct the feast without costume...." [ditto emphasis]
Also, those of you who watch the TV news may remember the memorable clip of Assistant Superintendent Devon Freitas (not, we emphasize, assistant Condit principal, or third deputy office manager at Mountain View) stating,
"Out of respect for the Native-American heritage we have made the decision to ask the children not to dress up."
Again, this is Assistant Superintendent of the Claremont Unified School District, Devon Freitas, saying this in her official capacity. She could have said, "the principals made the decision", but she didn't. [We won't even go into the issue of Chief Cash sending a squaw of his tribe to do battle, rather than coming out and engaging the press himself. If the protesters want an indication of disrespect, this is it. (don't e-mail us; we know that the term "squaw" is considered demeaning in some quarters, even though it is a perfectly serviceable and descriptive word)]

We believe what we want to believe.

The Courier did a good job getting "Viewpoint" pieces from CUSD Superintendent David Cash and CUSD Board member Hilary La Conte.

Cash's piece is online here. We suppose we are missing the whole point again, as usual, but one sentence jumps out at us. Where Cash describes, in the second paragraph, his meeting with Principal Northrop of Condit, he admits, "I did not read the email in its entirety". Certainly this is a statement against interest, but the relevance escapes us except as it is indicative of Cash's propensity to make snap decisions. Or his lack of interest in the goings-on at his schools.

We believe what we want to believe.

Hilary La Conte's "Viewpoint" piece does not appear to be online, appearing only on page 7 of the November 29, 2008 number of the Courier. We will only reproduce her first substantive paragraph, 'cause it contains an obvious misstatement. Buy the paper to read the rest, or get a copy from the School District.
"It became personally stressful as our School Board was lambasted for a decision that we did not make. At our Board meeting on November 20, we heard from many parents about the issue of costuming students for a kindergarten Thanksgiving celebration. The missing fact for most news outlets is that the Board is bound by the Brown Act. Under the Brown Act we cannot have discussion or take action about anything unless it is an agenda item. This was not an agenda item. Had we even thought it appropriate to have a discussion, we could not."
La Conte is right that the school board did not decide to strip the kindergartners of their costumes. Being Certified Claremont Process Wonks we, too, winced when we heard that on TV or radio, or read it somewhere. To be clear: there was no decision by the School Board.

Leave it to the elected official, though, to willfully mis-read and mis-interpret the Brown Act, and, doubtless on advice of counsel, to use it as an umbrella to hide under or behind. In fact, the Brown Act allows brief comments by board members and referral to or comments by staff:
54954.2 (a) (2): No action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda, except that members of a legislative body or its staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights under Section 54954.3. In addition, on their own initiative or in response to questions posed by the public, a member of a legislative body or its staff may ask a question for clarification, make a brief announcement, or make a brief report on his or her own activities. Furthermore, a member of a legislative body, or the body itself, subject to rules or procedures of the legislative body, may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda.
So La Conte quotes the first line of the government code and ignores the rest. This is pretty much in keeping with Cash's "not read[ing] the email in its entirety."

We believe what we want to believe.

But there's more. It turns out, golly, that the Board could have taken action. Section 54952.2 (b) allows the school board to take action on an item, by 2/3 vote, when there is a need to take immediate action and that the need for action came to the attention of the board after the agenda was posted [read the whole section to keep us honest; we are condensing]:
54594.2 (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the legislative body may take action on items of business not appearing on the posted agenda under any of the conditions stated below... [Namely,]

54594.2 (b) (2) Upon a determination by a two-thirds vote of the members of the legislative body present at the meeting, or, if less than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote of those members present, that there is a need to take immediate action and that the need for action came to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda being posted as specified in subdivision (a).
We believe what we want to believe.