CUSD, LaConte: Guilty as Charged

The other candidates in the school board election, Hilary LaConte and Sam Mowbray, do not play political games. They say what they mean, and mean what they say, based on actual facts. We may disagree with some of their positions, but we know they are responsible community leaders who don't resort to tricky campaign strategies driven by political expediency.

- Dave Nemer, letter to Claremont Courier, 9/19/11

J'ACCUSE!

CUSD Board Member
Steven Llanusa

Last Saturday's Claremont Courier had an article by Landus Rigsby, who covers the public schools beat.   The headline, "Board sidetracked by Brown Act violation allegation," implied that CUSD Board Member Steven Llanusa's complaints about open governance violations by the board have distracted the other board members and CUSD Interim Superintendent Gloria Johnston from the more important work of running the school district.

Rigsby's article focused on a complaint Llanusa had made to the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office about an alleged Brown Act violation by the CUSD Board and Johnston at their May 19, 2011, meeting.  The Brown Act is a California sunshine law that's supposed to guarantee transparency in government.

In the article, Johnston indicated that the entire complaint was a waste of the district's time and money.  She also claimed that the DA's response "indicated that there was no reason to pursue further action..."  Rigsby quoted Johnston:

"I feel it's very important for me to clear my reputation in terms of being in charge of or violating the Brown Act in closed session," Ms Johnston said.  "I have in front of me both letters that you have submitted to the district attorney's office, Mr. Llanusa, and neither of them indicate that a substantial violation took place."

Additionally, the article quoted Board President Beth Bingham:

[Bingham] agreed with Ms. Johnston's suggestion that the district attorney's response eliminated the need to pursue further action.

Board Vice President Jeff Stark went even further, stopping just short of calling Llanusa a liar:

CUSD Board VP
Jeff Stark

...Jeff Stark described Mr. Llanusa's recollection of the May 19, 2011 meeting as "incorrect."

"You keep saying there was a Brown Act violation, but clearly the letter from the district attorney does not agree with that," Mr. Stark said.  "So again, Steven, maybe it's an misinterpretation of what the district attorney is saying.  Maybe it's a misinterpretation of what happened in closed session.  But my mmory of that session is dramatically different."

So if Rigsby's article is to be believed, Llanusa's Brown Act complaints are baseless, and his accusations about the CUSD board's disregard for open government laws are not much more than a meaningless distraction caused by a whiney incompetent, which is how the four other board members like to portray Llanusa.

The Rigsby article also helps buttress claims by CUSD board supporters like Dave Nemer that the board, other than Llanusa, have achieved a sort of organizational perfection unmarred by things like Brown Act violations.   This is no small matter since one of the issues that's arisen in the current CUSD board election is the board's lack of transparency, at least as it's perceived in some parts of the community.

Long and short, if Rigsby reporting is at all accurate, Llanusa's full of more crap than a Christmas goose as far as his allegations go.


DA TO CUSD: STRAIGHTEN UP AND FLY RIGHT

Now, we've disagreed with Llanusa on many things and certainly haven't supported him in the past.  But in this case, we've found evidence that not only does Llanusa appear to be right about CUSD's contempt for open government law, but that the district attorney's office has in fact warned the CUSD board about their behavior.

A year ago, at the board's October 7, 2010, meeting, the board went into closed session to discuss what was listed on their agenda as a "Superintendent's Evaluation--Update" as well as a labor negotiation conference.  A complaint was filed with the Public Integrity Division of the district attorney's office alleging that the closed session was a ruse under which the board went beyond the claimed labor negotiation discussion and the evaluation of then-Superintendent Terry Nichols.  The complaint alleged that in closed session the board also discussed budgetary matters and district goals - things that by law are supposed to be considered in open, not closed, session.

CUSD Board Agenda for 10/7/10

(Click to Enlarge)

CUSD Board Member
Hilary LaConte

We should also note that the alleged Brown Act violation occurred under the watch of then-Board President Hilary LaConte, who is currently running for reelection to the board.  LaConte, like Jeff Stark, has publicly scoffed at the idea that the CUSD board is lacking in transparency and is completely open and above board.

We would normally be inclined to leave matters at that.  After all, what occurs in closed session stays in closed session.  Even if a violation occurred, who could ever prove it?

Well, now comes a public response from the LADA's Public Integrity Division to the complaint, presumably from Steve Llanusa (the complaintant is unnamed), regarding that 10/7/10 closed session meeting.  The DA's response, dated 9/29/11 and received by the school district on 10/7/11, belies the claims of openness by the board and its supporters and supports Llanusa's accusations completely.

Here is the DA's response (click on the small "S" at the lower left-hand corner of the image to see a larger view):
LADA ltr 9-29-11


Some key points from the letter:

If, as alleged, the discussions included budgetary considerations and prospective goals of the District, then such discussions in closed session violated the law....

[Evidence Supporting the Allegations - .ed]
We obtained written documents that reportedly reflect matters that were considered in closed session. Copies of the documents are attached. They include what appears to be a presentation slide entitled "CUC Strategic Planning", dated October 6, 2010, and a typed memo with a caption of "Needed Support from the Board". These matters exceed the permissible boundaries of a closed session performance evaluation and do not have anything to do with labor negotiations.  The memo makes suggestions about communications between the Superintendent, the Board, and other groups. It addresses board goals, and public support for possible bond funding....

Unagendized, closed session discussion of such matters violates the Brown Act....

Even if the matters were only presented and not discussed, such consideration is still illegal.....

Similarly, closed session discussions regarding budget issues, proposed expenditures of stimulus money, the possibility of bond revenues, identification of programs or positions to cut, under the guise of Labor Negotiations or Performance Evaluations are simply impermissible.

[CUSD: Don't Use Closed Session to Duck the Public]

We recognize that the issues faced by legislative bodies like your board are difficult, especially in times of financial uncertainty. Such matters often generate controversy and disagreement that is minimized when the discussions are conducted outside the public's view. However, the Brown Act does not permit closed session consideration of matters simply because they are controversial or difficult; rather, permissible closed session topics are narrowly defined and limited to very specific matters for which the public's interest is best served by closed session consideration, such as the range of acceptable terms for a real estate transaction or labor negotiation that is in the works, or the candid communication between the legislative body and its attorney, or the forthright and frank evaluation of an employee who serves at the pleasure of the legislative body itself.

[Warning to Board:  Watch Yourselves in the Future]

In the absence of any objective evidence such as a recording of the closed session discussions, the scope of discussions that occurred in closed session cannot be conclusively proven. However, the impermissible expansion of closed session discussions to include matters that are not expressly authorized for closed session consideration is troubling. We therefore express to you our deep concern about such conduct, to the extent that it has occurred. We urge you to review the circumstances that are described herein, and demonstrate your commitment to compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the Brown Act, by limiting any closed session consideration to those matters properly agendized, and expressly permitted by law. By so doing, you encourage public confidence in the integrity of your agency, and the decision making process, which is vital.

The DA's letter certainly gives Board Member Llanusa new credibility when it comes to Brown Act complaints against the CUSD board. It also detracts enormously from the credibility of the four non-Llanusan CUSD board members and their supporters with respect to their claims of perfection when it comes to transparency, openness, and integrity. The DA's response of 9/29/11 belies the board members' quotes in Saturday's Courier and is especially troubling considering that the school district received the DA's letter weeks before Landus Rigsby's article.

One would expect the school board, having been caught and reprimanded so recently, would display at least a little contrition. Instead, they go on the attack and act as if they, not Llanusa, were the victims. If the school board were as honorable as they claim, they would admit their errors and work publicly to correct them. But they seem incapable of admitting any wrong, even when confronted with the evidence of their misdeeds. Hilary LaConte, the presiding board member at the time of the 10/7/10 incident takes no responsibility and simply seeks to glide through her reelection campaign as if nothing happened.

And perhaps she's right. If no one says anything and the truth is buried, then nothing really did happened, even if it did. As we've said before, Jeff Stark had it right all along: That's the way things have always been done in Claremont.

Send in the Clowns - UPDATED

"This really is not a circus."

- Claremont Mayor Pro Tem Ellen Taylor, speaking at last week's City Council meeting during a discussion on the Base Line Rd. affordable housing project.

WRONG. Queen Ellen had it exactly backwards. This and every contentious issue that's come before the Claremont City Council since at least 1988 is a full-on three-ring circus.

Call it Cirque du Claremonsters.

We've called this thing a train wreck before. We just didn't know it was a circus train.

Saturday's Claremont Courier had an article by reporter Tony Krickl about last Tuesday's City Council meeting. As the article noted, the Claremonsters are not content to let the matter die and move on. [UPDATE: The Courier article is online now.]

Led by Ellen Taylor, Claremont League of Women Voters president and Claremont Police Commissioner Barbara Musselman (aka, Miss Personality), and Claremont Human Services Commissioner Andy Winnick, the increasingly small faction of Claremont 400 members backing the Base Line Rd. project were arguing that the city should question the legality of the L.A. County decision to not allow county funding of affordable housing projects within 500 feet of a major highway - a move that effectively killed the Base Line Rd. site as a viable affordable housing location.

During the meeting, Queen Ellen ordered her loyal retainer, city attorney Sonia Carvalho, to see if the L.A. County Community Development Commission (CDC) violated California's Brown Act sunshine law in making that decision. Taylor and company also hinted a dark conspiracy of county representatives who wanted to thwart the Claremonsters' affordable housing plans.

Such is the Claremont 400's outsized self-image of their town that they imagine that a county of over 10 million people would choose to scheme and skulk around in backrooms in order to single out one very small town of 35,000 people on the county's far eastern fringe.

The same group headed by Taylor has made similar arguments regarding the USC School of Medicine study that was published in the Lancet medical journal last year. That study formed the basis of the county funding policy change. Using Taylor's twisted reasoning, the USC researchers, using their evil prescience, knew 11 years ago that they would have to conduct their study in order to put a halt to the Base Line Rd. project.

Taylor, Musselman, and Winnick would have us believe that the researchers then falsely obtained grant money and 11,000 test subjects in order to justify their spurious findings, which they then handed over to the L.A. County CDC to cut off the funding for the Base Line project.

All of this kooky thinking really explains many of the Claremonsters' past actions. They actually believe that Claremont is the center of the universe. No wonder Claremont Heritage's map of the town (pictured at left) seems to lack a proper sense of scale.

We've preached the need for humility before, and the affordable housing issue certainly illustrates how the absence of that quality causes us no end of trouble.

So, now, instead of focusing on finding a viable alternative for the project they say is vital to Claremont, Queen Ellen and her court want to spend staff time and resources proving their odd, conspiratorial theories, mostly because they cannot admit they were wrong.

Citizen Michael John Keenan had the best commentary on this red herring. Keenan and remarked on the Brown Act question. He brought up the City Council's closed session decision last year to spend $1 million from the city's General Fund reserve to make up for the $1 million state of California grant that was denied Claremont for the purchase of Johnson's Pasture.

Keenan was basically saying, "Claremonsters who live in glass houses...." You go, Michael!

Look for more silly council behavior in April, when Queen Ellen succeeds current Mayor Peter Yao.

* * *

There were more than a few notable absences at last Tuesday's meeting. Claremont 400 candidate-to-be, Planning Commissioner Bob Tener, has apparently gotten off the Base Line project train. No dummy he, Tener knows a dog when he sees one, and he no doubt doesn't want to be too closely associated with a loser. Wouldn't want to imperil your run at a council seat, would you, Bob?

The League of Women Voters point person on the Base Line project, Karen Vance, was also not at the meeting.

* * *

Saturday's Courier also carried a "My Side of the Line" op-ed piece by Courier editor Rebecca JamesCourie, who didn't mince words on the Base Line Rd. issue:

Let’s take the blinders off and direct staff to look for other viable locations. The old COURIER site certainly has our vote. Although we were loath to give it up, we consider the location to be ideal for affordable housing. Youngsters could walk to school, parents could walk to markets and the need for transportation would be minimal. Not to mention they would be right by the Metrolink to take them to other locations.

As far as the Baseline Road site is concerned, write the check! Please write the check, give it to the redevelopment agency and get on with it! Let the police department have their much-needed and larger facility. We have truly given this project too much of our time. It has become a political volleyball that has been tossed around for so long that it has become ridiculous. The idea of affordable housing is certainly relevant. Let’s make it workable.

Hear, hear! We would also add that if the city does go forward with a citizen's committee to look at alternatives to the Base Line Rd. project, they must take care to select a committee that includes people who were opposed to the Base Line Rd. project.

The Claremonsters have falsely claimed that the project opponents were NIMBYs (shorthand for Not In My Backyard). The 400 loves to pin the NIMBY label on anyone who questions one of their project. Now that the 400 have lost, though, they should forfeit the right to have exclusive control over the choice of an alternative. They screwed up the last one, what would lead us to believe they can be trusted to do any differently this time around?

Moreover, the equation the Claremonsters posit, opposition to the Base Line site = opposition to ANY affordable housing, is a lie. A number of Base Line opponents have expressed a desire to participate in the alternatives committee, and they should be welcomed into the process.

Let's see the 400 put their money where their mouths are. If the "process" is really fair and open, anyone who wants should be allowed to participate. Maybe then we can forestall the faulty decision-making that has plagued us for far too long.

Are They High?

The smoke from medical marijuana dispensary controversy may have spilled over to the Claremont Unified School District's meeting last Monday night. At least, that's the only explanation we can find for some of the things the school board does - they're stoned!

Apparently, the Claremont Board of Education has decided to ban peanut butter sandwiches from Claremont schools. Or so reported the Daily Bulletin yesterday.

This action is being taken in order to protect the 49 peanut-allergic district students (out of 6,858 total K-12 enrollees) from the possibility of anaphylactic shock. The board not only wants to ban peanut products from Claremont schools, but they want to discourage students from bringing their own peanut products to school.

Now, we understand the seriousness of peanut allergies and the potential for serious complications and even death, but come on! P & J sandwiches are the All-American lunch, not to mention an inexpensive, semi-healthful food. So we have to ask, "Are they high?"

This is really the Claremont 400 at their hysterically Orwellian best - thought speak! food crime! The school district has always been the 400's playground, and they've beaten down any criticism by declaring anyone who questions the Board of Education's wisdom as anti-kid: "Why do they hate children?"

This really is the reducio ad absurdum though. The Claremont 400, in particular its five Board of Education members, seem to have too much time on their hands. Not content to contemplate the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin, they've taken up the latest educational fad - the peanut-free school. According to the Bulletin, one district representative (and 400 member) gave the reasoning: "'It's the only sensible thing for us to do,' said board member Mary Caenepeel."

We have a better idea. Why not just supply all students with self-enclosing plastic bubbles to protect them from all possible risks - falls, second-hand smoke, Ebola virus, etc....

_______________________


In more absurd CUSD action, Will Bigham in today's Bulletin writes that the school board apparently violated the Brown Act during Monday night's meeting.

Of course, this comes as no surprise to long-time school board observers. The Claremont 400 has had little respect for the Brown Act and has fairly consistently sought to conduct its business behind closed doors. In its heyday controlling the city council, the 400's actions earned Claremont a Black Hole Award in October 2000 from the California First Amendment Coalition.

That philosophy no doubt informed the decision to remove the faculty advisor from Claremont High School's student paper, the Wolfpack, as we noted yesterday. One good thing about these small-town Savonarolas' actions - through their attempts at hiding their business from the public eye and at controlling what news gets out, they're helping shape the resolve of a few future journalists and artists who are now students under this absurdist regime.

Brown Act

The Ralph M. Brown Act is a so-called sunshine law created by the state of California in 1953. The law governs public access to records and the public's right to speak at meetings of certain local level deliberative bodies. It is also supposed to limit governmental secrecy.

However, enforcement of the law has always been a problem, as this Wikipedia entry explains. So, it wasn't surprising to see that not much happened when writer Will Bigham at the Daily Bulletin recently observed that the Claremont City Council may violated the Brown Act in a June meeting.

Claremont had no worries, right? Who the heck cares about the Brown Act? No one enforces it. There's no Brown Act Police, other than the gadflies buzzing around City Hall, and the Claremont 400 is there to swat those pests

But wait! In today's San Gabriel Valley Tribune comes news involving the Los Angeles District Attorney's Public Integrity Unit. Yes, Claremonsters, there is such a thing; and, no it's not an oxymoron. The DA's office has sued the City of Covina over a possible Brown Act violation.

Thanks to the reader who forwarded this story.

Government Secrets

Will Bigham today had an article in the Bulletin about a Claremont City Council meeting in June that may have violated a California open meeting law, the Brown Act.

The Brown Act allows for local governmental agencies to meet in closed session only for very specific reasons, such as discussing ongoing real estate acquisitions or personnel matters.

Last month, the Claremont City Council went into closed session to hear an informational report on the Doubletree property on Foothill Blvd. There were no specific negotiations to discuss. A Brown Act expert was quoted in the article:

"The statute is very specific. It only applies to the terms and conditions of a specific transaction," said Peter Scheer, executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition. "What they are talking about is conceptual planning and strategy.

"If they were discussing instead the specific price to acquire the property, so that it could then perhaps turn around and sell that property to another private party, then they could do that in closed session. But they can't have exploratory discussions about possible approaches or strategies."

The Claremont 400 has never had much respect for the Brown Act, and would generally prefer less or no interaction with the general public--it just gets too messy and inefficient. And, the public are amateurs at this local government game, unlike the 400. Besides, it's not as if Claremont is part of California or part of the United States. It's not as if things like the Brown Act apply to us.

The 400 is a nation unto itself. Those who were around in 2001 will recall Measure A, the anti-conflict of interest law sponsored by a group called the Oaks Project. Claremont voters passed Measure A by a margin of 55% to 45%.

Yet, the Claremont City Council and City Attorney Sonia Carvalho, acting as the U.S. Supreme Court, said the measure was unconstitutional and refused to implement it. The measure, versions of which also passed in the cities of Pasadena, San Francisco and Santa Monica, was subsequently upheld in court, and all the hysteria raised by the Claremont 400 dissipated.

Incidentally, the 400 have had other run-ins with the California First Amendment Coalition (CFAC). See the CFAC's press release on Claremont's 2000 Black Hole Award.

Councilmembers Sam Pedroza and Peter Yao were okay with the closed session and saw no violation in their views. City Attorney Carvahlo, of course, will come up with a legal rationale to backup whatever the council majority wants, even if she is wrong, as she was regarding Measure A. Carvahlo seems to see herself serving the council majority (the Claremont 400) rather than the people of Claremont.

The article also quoted former Claremont City Councilmember Jackie McHenry:

Former Councilwoman Jackie McHenry, said that during her time on the council, members often held closed sessions on topics she felt should have been discussed openly.

"If the people heard what went on in closed session they'd be amazed," McHenry said. "I wish we did not have closed session - closed session is supposed to be for the protection of the public."

McHenry said that during closed sessions, council members would often discuss off-topic things, such as their opinions of specific journalists, and would make off-the-cuff remarks about members of the public.

But, the 400 are okay with that, after all membership should have it's privileges, laws or no laws. The question is, is this just a philosophy or a pathology? Read up on Solipsism Syndrome for more insight into the 400.