On-campus meeting an apparent violation of Brown Act; COC officials contend open-meeting law doesn’t apply
College of the Canyons officials contend that Friday’s private staff meeting with new Acting Chancellor David Andrus held at the Performing Arts Center did not violate the Brown Act, despite all four board members being present.
The meeting was scheduled for 10 a.m. Friday and staff were noticed on Wednesday, according to a staff member at the college. According to Andrus, named acting chancellor last week by the Santa Clarita Community College District board of trustees, which oversees COC, the meeting was for him to outline what his goals are and to reassure staff that he will be listening to them as far as what they think the college should be doing better.
Andrus added that he also touched on the recently conducted climate survey, in which multiple employees said there were concerns over retaliation for speaking up about problems.
According to the email sent to staff by Andrus, which was not circulated to the public, the meeting was an invite “to join me and board of trustees President Edel Alonso this week for a conversation about what is ahead for College of the Canyons.” It was sent to full-time faculty, adjunct faculty, classified staff and administrators, according to Eric Harnish, spokesman for the college.
The Signal requested attendance at the PAC but a reporter was turned away at the door. Harnish described it as a “family meeting.”
In an email, Harnish said a meeting such as the one conducted Friday morning is a function that happens “regularly on campus” and falls under the Brown Act’s exception allowing the board to attend “a purely social or ceremonial occasion.”
“A majority of the board will often attend staff appreciation lunches, kick-off events for a new academic year, or holiday gatherings, where a large number of staff attend, and the chancellor speaks,” Harnish wrote in the email. “Today’s event was similar in nature, with all employees being invited to attend and the newly appointed acting chancellor making remarks and answering questions.”
In a recording of a portion of the meeting provided by Harnish, Andrus said he wanted to record his speech but not the question-answer session that followed.
“Out of respect of all of you,” Andrus said in the meeting, “I wanted to create a space for all of you to ask questions upon the conclusion of my remarks so that you can do so in a comfortable environment.”
Andrus was appointed by the board following Dianne Van Hook’s placement on administrative leave last week. Van Hook had been the head of the college since 1988, with her leave effective as of Monday, the same day Andrus officially took over as acting chancellor.
“I can assure you that we did not make this decision lightly, that it was made after a long and serious deliberation and in consultation with legal counsel,” Alonso said in the meeting. “The board is confident it was the right decision with a clear vision for what is best for the future of this district.”
Alonso requested that she and other board members not be asked why Van Hook was placed on leave as doing so would be the equivalent of asking them to break the law. Alonso said the Brown Act does not allow for the board to comment on personnel matters, no matter which employee is being discussed.
Joan MacGregor, a member of the board until Aug. 5 when she is expected to officially resign, was seen leaving the PAC shortly after 11 a.m. on Friday. Harnish confirmed that all four board members were present at the meeting.
The fifth seat remains vacant following the resignation of Chuck Lyon last month.
Alonso and fellow board member Jerry Danielsen referred all comments on Friday to Harnish and declined to comment on the matter. Requests for comment on Friday from the other two board members — Sebastian Cazares and MacGregor — were not returned.
The Ralph M. Brown Act, typically shortened to just the Brown Act, governs open meetings for local government bodies in California.
According to Government Code Section 54952.2, “‘meeting’ means any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and location, including teleconference location as permitted by Section 54953, to hear, discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.”
Section 54953 of the government code reads: “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.”
Special meetings are allowed to be called, according to Government Code Section 54956, though those still need to be publicly noticed at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
An attorney familiar with the state’s open meeting law said it appears as if the college violated the Brown Act.
Annie Cappetta, a First Amendment attorney and legal fellow with the First Amendment Coalition, an organization that “protects and promotes a free press, freedom of expression and the people’s right to know,” said Friday that, based on the description of the meeting and the wording in Andrus’ invitation to staff, it does constitute a potential violation of the Brown Act.
“The Brown Act prevents any congregation of a majority of members of a legislative body to discuss board matters,” Cappetta said in a phone interview, adding that simply hearing items within the board’s jurisdiction would qualify.
“Even if the board was not deliberating or taking action on any college business, meeting on college business would violate the Brown Act,” she continued.
Cappetta said a potential violation of the Brown Act could lead to a lawsuit by a community member who was not afforded the opportunity to hear or weigh in on public matters. The District Attorney’s Office would also be able to sue a public agency for a potential Brown Act violation.
Should a public agency be found to be in violation, Cappetta said there are two remedies: cure and correct, or cease and desist. The former would have whatever action was taken during the illegal meeting rescinded and possibly taken again, but in open session to satisfy the requirements of the Brown Act. Cappetta said this likely would not be applicable in this situation since it appears no action was taken by the board.
The latter would have the agency receive a cease and desist letter that would inform the agency that the Brown Act was violated and to stop whatever was done that caused the agency to be reported.
Multiple employees of the college who were at Monday’s meeting declined to comment as they were leaving the PAC.
However, James Ortega, who works in the admissions department, said much of the talk focused on how new leadership does not mean that everything is changing following 36 years of Van Hook’s leadership. He added that some things do need to be changed after talking to other employees, something he said Andrus touched on in the meeting.
“I’ve never spoken to him so I don’t know much, but all I know is that people seem to really like him, seem to think he’s gonna do a good job with helping that part of it, kind of healing people from past issues,” Ortega said.
