OC Grand Jury
Grand Jury finds CUSD closed meeting violated Brown Act
Feb 01, 1991
1990-1991 Orange County Grand Jury,
Examination of CUSD Mello-Roos Election
"A meeting
to discuss clandestine 'incentive pay' cannot be
reconciled with any of the above listed Code
sections [the Brown Act]. Neither can a decision
to employ a political consulting firm to assist in
the efforts to pass Measure A. Therefore, it is
the opinion of the Grand Jury that the closed door
meeting held on March 6, 1989, was highly
improper."
Not only was the subject matter discussed found to be illegal express advocacy (i.e., incentive pay for school principals who succeeded in obtaining favorable voter results), the closed meeting at which this was discussed was found to be a violation of the Brown Act, as well.
Not only was the subject matter discussed found to be illegal express advocacy (i.e., incentive pay for school principals who succeeded in obtaining favorable voter results), the closed meeting at which this was discussed was found to be a violation of the Brown Act, as well.
Grand Jury condemns CUSD's attempts to cover up express advocacy under the guise of "informational" activity
Feb 01, 1991
1990-1991 Orange County Grand Jury,
Examination of CUSD Mello-Roos
Election
“In the opinion of the Grand Jury, it would appear that the District is far from inexperienced in conducting political campaigns and, in fact, the District’s behavior in this case shows a carefully planned and often secretive effort to push the law to the limit. Moreover, the District did not willingly file its reports when notified of the obligation. It did so under protest. Finally, the fact that the District attempted to conceal its advocacy under the guise of “informational” activity, evidences a more sophisticated approach than just an innocent mistake.”
“In the opinion of the Grand Jury, it would appear that the District is far from inexperienced in conducting political campaigns and, in fact, the District’s behavior in this case shows a carefully planned and often secretive effort to push the law to the limit. Moreover, the District did not willingly file its reports when notified of the obligation. It did so under protest. Finally, the fact that the District attempted to conceal its advocacy under the guise of “informational” activity, evidences a more sophisticated approach than just an innocent mistake.”