|
 |
||
|
CUSD Update, Oct. 12 According to the Orange County District Attorney, the Capo school board repeatedly violated the Brown Act by illegally discussing a wide range of issues during closed-session meetings. The OC Register reported the news on Oct. 9, saying the illegal discussions could lead to a civil lawsuit. Following are links to relevant documents: District Attorney’s letter: Investigation report: http://www.cusdrecall.com/page68/pa...DA%20Report.pdf The report found evidence of illegal discussions by examining a six-month period beginning in July 2005. Four of the trustees named in the findings are still on the board: Sheila Benecke, Marlene Draper, Mike Darnold and Duane Stiff. All four will be up for reelection in November 2008 if they decide to run again. Benecke and Draper are currently targeted in a recall effort. The DA’s recent investigation revealed a pattern. Closed-session agendas listed “Evaluation of Superintendent,” but the discussions involved numerous key issues the trustees wished to keep from public view, including significant cost overruns of the administration building, which opened in 2006. The DA indicated no criminal charges will be filed as a result of the investigation. However, the district will be required to confess to the alleged violations or face further legal action. To admit guilt, trustees would need to take a formal vote to accept the DA’s findings of Brown Act violations. A CUSD resident said, “The old trustees have claimed for as long as possible that former Supt. Fleming or legal advisors led them astray. If you believe that, the district’s very high-priced attorneys didn’t have a clue about open-meeting laws. The old trustees were choosing, over and over again, to follow bad advice instead of using their own common sense.” On the same day the OC Register published news of the DA’s report, the trustees called a special closed-session meeting for Sat., Oct. 13 – with the familiar agenda item, “Evaluation of the Superintendent.” The superintendent has been on the job for less than two months. Perhaps someone on the board had a sudden, urgent need to discuss Interim Supterintendent Woodrow Carter’s performance, but doesn’t this sound like the same pattern of behavior cited in the investigation? The news of the meeting drew a response from a CUSD parent: “If this special meeting is truly an evaluation of Carter after he’s been on the job only a few weeks, he’s in serious trouble.” If the real reason for calling the meeting is to discuss the DA’s report, why would the district not say so? It seems a little late to risk another violation of the Brown Act – a precise repetition of the DA’s findings – just to save face. |
||