Subject: Procedural/Brown Act Failure at the Last WCCUSD Board Meeting
From: Charley Cowens <charley@cowens.net>
Date: 2/10/2012 3:59 PM
To: Charles Ramsey <charamsey@comcast.net>, Antonio Medrano <amedrano3@sbcglobal.net>, Madeline Kronenberg <mkronen@aol.com>, Tony Thurmond <tony@tonythurmond.com>, Elaine Merriweather <elainemerriweather@gmail.com>, Bruce Harter <bharter@wccusd.net>
CC: "Joseph A. Ovick, Ed.D." <jovick@cccoe.k12.ca.us>, Pamela Mirabella <carlyon636@aol.com>, Scott Bolen <sbolen@contracostada.org>, Sheri Gamba <SGamba@wccusd.net>

On Feb. 1, 2012, a complete failure in the procedural integrity of the West Contra Costa Unified School District School Board occurred. If what occurred wasn't a violation of the Brown Act, the Brown Act is pointless as way of protecting transparency and accountability in government. The video for the meeting is online at <http://richmond.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=15&clip_id=2807> the City of Richmond/KCRT site.

The Contra Costa Taxpayers Association had made a nomination for their designee on the WCCUSD Citizens Bond Oversight Committee on Nov. 1st, 2011. Finally, for the Feb. 1, 2012 meeting of the School Board, the nomination was placed in the consent calendar by staff, but for rejection.

At the Board meeting, the item (C.11) was pulled. At 7:01pm, consideration of the item was started. It included comments by 11 members of the public and all 4 of the Board members present. (Board President Charles Ramsey was absent during the whole item.) A motion was made by Madeline Kronenberg to accept the staff recommendation to reject the nominee. At 7:43pm, the motion failed by a 2-2 vote. At 7:44pm, direction was given to Superintendent Harter to bring the issue back at the next meeting. Almost all audience members present to speak on the item then left.

At 8:07pm, Mr. Ramsey arrived. At 8:20, Mr. Ramsey (now chairing) interrupted the current agenda item, Budget Update, to announce his intention to reopen the previous C.11 agenda item on the specious premise that somehow a tie vote meant it could be reopened if a member not present showed up at any time later in the meeting. The actual agenda item was then permitted to resume.

At 8:23pm, at the end of the Budget Update item, Mr. Ramsey started to redo C.11 by fiat. After a discussion, a fictitious motion to "redeliberate" was suggested by the Sheri Gamba acting as parliamentarian. Ms. Kronenberg, the mover of the previous failed motion on C.11, made the motion to "redeliberate". It passed at 8:27pm.

Note: There is, of course, a motion to reconsider in parliamentary procedure. But, it must be moved by someone from the prevailing side, which would be a no vote in a tie vote (not Madeline Kronenberg in this case). Also, the motion to reconsider must be made when the original motion could be made. For the Board, being a Brown Act body, that would be back under the original C.11 or properly agendaized at the next meeting.

After the motion to "redeliberate" passed, a discussion ensued that consisted almost completely of Mr. Ramsey making attacks on the nominee (who was not present because the nominee had assumed the topic was done for the night). A motion to accept the staff recommendation to reject the nominee then passed at 8:40pm.

This motion was not a legal motion, so it is null. "Confirming" it as a consent item at the next meeting would simply aggravate the original violation by treating it as a legal act. The only way to begin to resolve the illicit concurrence caused by redoing the agenda item is to publicly acknowledge that what was done was wrong, then reagendaize the nomination as an action item (since it's in dispute).

In later e-mails, I will discuss the other aspects of this issue including the specific charges in the "trial" of the nominee.

Charley Cowens
Local Resident
Kensington, CA