Today in History: December 16, the Boston Tea Party
-
The Boston Tea Party took place as American colonists boarded a British
ship and dumped more than 300 chests of tea into Boston Harbor to protest
tea taxes.
10 hours ago
17 comments:
Violating the open meeting law isn't something to take lightly. It stinks. Regardless of how the current school board performs, I won't be voting for any of them again. It's a big deal.
Richard,
I'll have an opinion piece about this incident in the coming edition. I'm actually quite kind to everyone involved, despite the blatant violation of the Brown Act. This is what they call a learning opportunity. It's also a good time for the board to develop a policy for future board replacements. I think they should consider involving the public beyond simply following the Brown Act.
As for this being sensational, I didn't notice anything exaggerated or lurid in the story, unless I missed something.
I added the potential criminal penalties to the end of Elaine's article, but I think it's highly unlikely that the DA would do so.
Jack: The last paragraph listing potential crime I thought was over the top. There is a process to agendizing potential public meetings. It does not start or end with the board. The process that was overlooked was staff. This is the same with all of our county public boards. To lay blame and potential criminal prosecution on the board seems harsh.
Richard,
Actually, for legal purposes, it does stop and end with the board.
Sure, the board oversees a superintendent who oversees a staff who puts up the agendas. But the Brown Act only applies to the board members. Staff members can sit around all day in private meetings and discuss board policy. In fact, some of them do!
But board members have to follow the Brown Act. We would have been remiss in our duties if we hadn't included the potential penalties for violating the Brown Act.
Of course, even though board members clearly broke the law, there won't be any legal penalties, just an article in the paper.
Sentence them to community service.
Richard Marks tries to shrug off responsibility and blame staff?
You really are lost Richard.
I just want to clarify which part of the news report is "sensational." Apparently it's the last paragraph - the simplistic explanation of the possible legal consequences of violating state law.
8:28pm,
Staff is the one who write and post notice of public meetings, not the board. The board had no idea that the public was not notified in proper manner. I have belonged to enough boards to know this can and does happen at time innocently, as in this case. To make more of this oversight seems harsh. The article implies of illegal activity done on purpose. This is not the case.
Where does the buck stop if not with the board? Shifting the blame is lame. Thankfully, there is a solution. On the next ballot, look for the word "incumbent" and avoid.
Richard,
I've been attending various public meetings for about 20 years. The first thing I do before going to a meeting is to read the agenda. While at the meeting I look at the agenda so I can keep track of what's happening. Did the board members ever ask each other where the agenda was? I'm curious about that.
First you claimed the story was sensational, but when questioned about it you couldn't point to any specific language that was lurid or exaggerated.
Now you're saying that the article "implies" that they intentionally violated the law. Which part of the article state's this?
Also, if you were an editor and discovered that a board or city council held a secret meeting and violated the Brown Act, would you not report on it? Should we ignore it?
I wish I could view the whole article here-- in full-- to understand the details and make up my own mind.
Jack: I am not going to argue with someone who buys ink by the gallon. No, you should not ignore the story, but this was an innocent overlook by staff. No malice intended.
My wife Robin was notified timely and went to a meeting that should have been noticed to the public. Please call her and other board members to get their story. Have you called any of the board members?
Richard,
I used very similar language in this week's column, noting that there is no evidence of malice.
If you look back on all these comments, we don't seem to disagree on anything.
The article was newsworthy, it needed to be reported, it wasn't sensational and, as far as I know, there aren't any factual errors.
We seems to be in agreement. My reporter contact several board members and communicated with at least two NHUHSD staff members. FYI.
At least we now know one thing for sure. Stupidness extends to the whole Marks household, not just Richard. Being stupid isn't a crime or immoral, but its a disqualification for decisionmaking.
You got a nasty troll, Richard.
Blaming lower level staffers for the responsibilities of the board is as ridiculous as Ron Paul saying he knew nothing of the racist dribble in his little-read newsletters. Intent does not rtelieve one of resposibility. The Board is responsible, the board should be held to account. The reason these things continually happen is that there is no teeth in the law. If someone actually had to answer for this I can guarantee you that there would be someone checking to see that all rules are followed.
3:50 and 12:31
Shut your fucking mouths! You disgusting freaks, a freak of nature! Burn in hell motherfuckers.
Post a Comment