54.4 F
Thousand Oaks

School Board Moved Quickly to Restrict Public Access, Emails Show

The Conejo Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) surprised parents on Sept. 27 of this year, when it met in a special 10 a.m. Monday meeting announced just 72 hours in advance. Their intention was to vote on whether or not to meet in person or move the board meetings back to Zoom during the month of October. Six weeks into the school year, while thousands of children and teachers are meeting in person every day, the district voted to restrict their public meetings.

According to superintendent Mark McLaughlin and trustee Karen Sylvester, it wasn’t in response to increased COVID cases or deaths. It was because they couldn’t control whether a parent might try to attend a meeting without wearing a face mask.

The Conejo Guardian obtained email exchanges regarding the Sept. 27 vote through a public records request. The emails on Sept. 22 show quick correspondence between McLaughlin and senior staff, as well as Sylvester, in which the board discussed using the recent passage of Assembly Bill 361 to remain virtual. McLaughlin even shared with Thousand Oaks City Manager Andrew Powers an example from the City of Los Altos, which quickly adopted AB 361.

With the support of CVUSD trustees, McLaughlin called a special meeting with AB 361’s adoption as the only item on the agenda. An early-morning email on Sept. 23 alerted the Conejo Valley High School principal, office manager and custodian about the special meeting. Sheri Fehlman, assistant to McLaughlin, wrote, “Good Morning! I just wanted to give you a heads up that a Special Board Meeting has been scheduled on Monday, 9/27/21, at 10:00 a.m. in the Board Room. It should be short – only 1 item to discuss. We are not letting the public in, so I don’t expect anyone else to show. Thanks!”

The district has not said why it delayed announcing the meeting until 72 hours before it was held. Furthermore, McLaughlin received an email from Amanda Ragatz, executive assistant at the Ventura County Office of Education, late afternoon on Sept. 22, which read, “We are in the process of coordinating a workshop to better understand the requirements of this bill.”

Nevertheless, CVUSD pressed on and voted 5-0 to hold meetings virtually. All six phoned-in comments from the public expressed opposition to the proposal. Likewise, the board received 12 emails opposing the move. To each, Gorback replied with this statement, “As you know and might even have been a part in, there have been a group who have protested the indoor mask mandate, therefore indicating that if allowed to attend they would not comply. Now our students are in school because without difficulty they are complying with the indoor mask mandate. But we cannot dictate whether the public complies with the mask rule, as we can control our students compliance with those protocols on campus.”

AB 361 was passed by the state legislature and signed by Governor Newsom on September 16, so public agencies could meet virtually. Similar executive orders they have operated under in the previous 18 months were expiring. Because Newsom hasn’t lifted the state of emergency, his orders and AB 361 have been used to bypass public protections outlined by the Ralph M. Brown Act – the right of the public to receive ample advance notice of meetings and, most importantly, the right to participate and attend in person.

Supporters of AB 361 state, “The provisions of this bill are operative only in circumstances when it is unsafe for the members of the legislative body of the local agency to meet in person.” But opponents of AB 361, which include ACLU California Action, Californians Aware and the First Amendment Coalition, say “deleting fundamental and longstanding public protections should be extremely rare and highly circumscribed.”

Shaila Nathu, assistant general counsel for Californians Aware, told the Conejo Guardian, “Californians Aware is concerned about and paying close attention to the impact of AB 361 on public meetings. For members of the public, teleconferencing is a convenient option but should be in addition to, not at the expense of, the right to physically attend meetings held in-person. We remain concerned about bodies that may try to use AB 361 to limit physical access, not due to emergencies but merely to avoid the public scrutiny in-person attendance brings.”

The board extended closed meetings through November and will vote again on November 16 about extending it further.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related

Latest