Q: A group of parents circulated a petition to remove my autistic son from a public school.
They submitted this petition to a Board of Education member. There were a series of email exchanges between the parents and Board member.
At the parents’ email requests, the Board Member arranged a meeting with himself, the Superintendent, and a large group of parents in a forum at the school district’s office to discuss my son, and behaviors resulting from his disability.
This group of parents included parents from the PTA Board at the school site. Invited to this group forum were also the school principal and the director of Special Education. Would this constitute a subcommittee of a governing body?
We were not invited, nor informed of this meeting. We made a public records request to obtain information, minutes, agenda, etc. from this meeting–nothing.
Two weeks following this meeting we received a letter of prior notice denying all options of a public education–moving my son from 100% general education to 100% non-public school–no continuum of Least Restricted Educational (LRE) placement offered.
A month following this letter, the district filed Due Process against us to force this placement.
We believe that at this public meeting–that we were denied information and access to–a decision was made to remove our son from public education.
Did the Board of Ed member violate policy by meeting in a public forum to discuss our son’s disability, while continuing to deny us all information?
A: Under the Brown Act, “legislative bodies” are defined to include “a commission, committee, board or other body of a local agency created by charter, ordinance, resolution or formal action of a legislative body.” Gov’t Code § 54952(b).
Also, “advisory committees, composed solely of the members of the legislative body that are less than a quorum of the legislative body are not legislative bodies, except that standing committees of a legislative body, irrespective of their composition, which have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction, or a meeting schedule fixed by charter, ordinance, resolution, or formal action of a legislative body are legislative bodies for purposes of this chapter.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 54952(b).
If the meeting that you mention in your email was that of a “committee” that is subject to the Brown Act, it would either have to have been a group that was created by formal action of the legislative body, or one that would be considered a “standing committee of the legislative body.”
It does not seem that the group was one that was formally created by the legislative body. You might argue that the group that attended the meeting had “continuing subject matter jurisdiction” of the legislative body’s business, if, indeed, the school board is responsible for making such enrollment decisions (as opposed to giving the school administrators themselves the power to make such decisions).
However, in the end, it is unlikely that the group could be considered as having continuing subject matter jurisdiction, even if it did share its sentiments with decisionmakers at the school. See, e.g., Taxpayers for Livable Communities v. City of Malibu, 126 Cal.App.4th 1123 (2005) (Brown Act did not apply to meeting by two sole members of city council’s standing committee for land use and planning with Coastal Commission concerning proposed Local Coastal Program).
As to whether the board members violated any school board policies regarding meetings, that would depend on the school board’s bylaws.
If there were any records that were produced in connection with these meetings, then they should be made available to you per the Public Records Act, which presumes that “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics” are open to the public and must be disclosed unless a specific provision of the Act or other law exempts them from disclosure. Gov’t Code § 6252(e).
If the board member has any notes from this meeting, or if the school has any records, then it seems that these must be disclosed.
You might consider following up with the school and asking them whether any records exist with respect to the meeting. If there are such records, but they are not disclosing them, then they must state which exemption applies to those records, and why the records fall within that exemption.
Bryan Cave LLP is general counsel for the First Amendment Coalition and responds to FAC hotline inquiries. In responding to these inquiries, we can give general information regarding open government and speech issues but cannot provide specific legal advice or representation.
One Comment
And also I think there is a FERPA violation here discussing your child\’s private details in a meeting without you present. Perhaps a 504 ADA , Office for Civil Rights complaint among possibly others as well.
Comments are closed.