Tuesday, September 9, 2014

CalAware's Terry Francke says EUSD Board violated Brown Act

The EUSD boozefest was not just an outrageous abuse of taxpayer money; it was also illegal, according to public advocate Terry Francke.

Seaside Courier:
One of California’s most respected open government advocates, attorney Terry Francke, has weighed in on the controversy about the Encinitas Union School Board’s recent three-day retreat at La Quinta Resort in the Palm Springs area.

“When the majority of a local legislative body attends a meeting dealing with its agency's issues, even though it may neither discuss nor act upon matters connected with those issues, its mere presence to obtain information presented at the meeting is sufficient to trigger the open meeting requirements of the Brown Act, as the Court of Appeal concluded in Frazer vs. Dixon Unified School District…,” Francke wrote Monday in an email to EUSD Superintendent Tim Baird.

53 comments:

  1. Thank you Lynn for following up on this issue. As a citizen of Encinitas, and parent, I thank you. I know you have been maligned many times on this blog, even by me, and I want to take this opportunity to also give you kudos when they are deserved. This is well deserved.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lynn is actually one of the best people to ever get involved in local topics. Although I use to disagree with her being so vocal, it is so apparent how needed this was and what a positive, powerful effect it has had on our community. When you think of a former mayor that is no more, prop A, and other important issues remember Lynn and others like her are to thank.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ahh hhaaaa haaaa haaaa. Good one!

      Delete
    2. By the way, how are the talks coming between the council sub-committee of Gaspar and Kranz with Lynn Marr and her husband?

      Did they decide that Marr/Braun is in violation of city code?

      Will the results come back to the council and the public at large?

      Anyone know?

      Delete
  3. Call the Brown Act Police! Obviously what they did is wrong, but has anyone ever been punished for violation the Brown Act?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Judge jury and executioner Lynn Autumn SpringtimeSummertime Winter solstice will never let them forget they are in violation of the brown act.

      Delete
  4. I would imagine they just get a slap on the hand and tell them not to do it again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The community needs to vote for Jen Hamler! Any other vote in that race will be wasted!

    ReplyDelete
  6. They broke the law - Carol Skiljan, Marla Strich, Emily Andrade and Greg Sonken.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Andrade lives in Lakeside and has a daughter living in an Encinitas condo she owns. She doesn't even live in the school district.

    Stritch is a toady for Skiljan, she doesn't dare make a move without Skiljan's okay. Remove Stritch and force Skiljan to do all the dirty work herself.

    Their next Bond Proposition is planned for just after the New Year. Baird was brought in from Ojai under dark clouds of controversy: why? Selling school district properties like snake oil on Ojai: sound familiar? You can look it up: Ojai school district.

    Now that they've spent all the $ from the last Prop P, they will tell you,"But its about the kids!" Yeah, the kids in Palm Springs whose parents got big tips from Baird. Couzens cleans his pool when the market is slow: ask him about Baird's plan.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Skijan and Sonken made Baird hired their daughters as teachers within the district - passing over more quality teachers. ITS NOT FAIR!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for trying, Ralph.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Sor0LXiSZg

      Delete
    2. Terry Francke is Emily Francke's father. Does that flavor of nepotism reduce their credibility, too?

      http://calaware.org/activities/press-releases/calaware-announces-departure-of-executive-director

      Delete
    3. Father and daughter started a non-profit together? And that's a bad thing?

      Delete
    4. The original poster's argument was that Baird was corrupt when he hired someone ELSE's daughters to teach in the district, and that somehow invalidates his other supervisory decisions. This is nonsense. If the bar is set there, fairness demands that the standard be applied universally.

      Calaware's non-profit status could be considered irrelevant when one considers that both Franckes drew salaries from Calaware. There is plenty of evidence that Calaware collects attorney fees when they win a case, presumably the general counsel and their webmaster were renumerated at least in part from those funds.

      Pushing the logic in the original post, one could argue that CalAware's actions amount to racketeering. That is, of course, ridiculous.

      I think Calaware and Tim Baird each do good work. Both should be subject to fair criticism, and not have to waste their time on unsubstantiated allegations of nepotism and other unfalsifiable allegations of impropriety.

      Delete
    5. Your reasoned argument and respectful tone are wasted here.

      Come back when you are willing to throw tantrums and stomp your feet.

      Delete
  9. I will vote against Skijan and Sonken as I always have. Like the City needs to fire Vina. The District needs to fire Baird.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1. Was Francke acting as a representative of Calaware when he made this statement?

    2. Is there any evidence that a disclosable decision was actually made at this meeting?

    3. At what point does Francke's action enter into the realm of nuisance interference of EUSD business? Is there an inverse to the SLAPP law?

    ReplyDelete
  11. So will the Marrs' be filing a lawsuit against EUSD?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Another tree going down in the next two weeks.

    126 Jasper St.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 10:44, I hope you're wrong. That Cypress looks fine and is green from top to bottom. In fact, it's always looked like two seahorses from almost any vantage point. I'll call the city later and get back to EU. I can see the one at Leucadia Blvd needing to go WHEN it needs to go, but not this one yet. This looks like one I'd tie myself to.

      Delete
    2. 12:30 AM
      The notice is on the city website with a number to call. Find out which tree.

      Delete
  13. Obviously there is no accountability in local civic servants. If this is a violation of the Brown Act, what are the repercussions? Apparently none. They realize that they can do what they want and it will blow over - no wonder these cliques run the show.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Go it in for the Marrs, eh? Lynn hasn't posted in a long time, so what's your beef? Petty snipes show a similar personality.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Lynn has been posting plenty. She has a very distinctive style.

    She's paused throwing public firebombs at the people who own 1/3 of her house while the door is open to settlement. Just posting anon for a while.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Just in case anyone wants to go. I know I won't be there. But you do get a chance to see Teresa and Lisa, and that's something! Don't forget to bring your money.



    Please Join Us For An Exciting
    Campaign Launch Party

    Honorary Hosts
    Councilmember Teresa Barth
    Councilmember Lisa Shaffer
    Sally Foster
    Mim Michelove
    Jennifer Bechtel Amundsen
    Darius and Susanne Degher
    Kathleen and Dennis Lees
    Rachelle and Michael Collier
    Kicking-Off the Campaign
    In Support Of
    Tony Kranz
    for
    Mayor of Encinitas

    Enjoy the music of
    The Degher Family
    Darius, Cleopatra and Cordelia
    (Bring a blanket or portable chair if you wish to enjoy the lawn seating in our back yard but there will be plenty of room to stand and mingle.)
    Thursday, September 11th,
    5:30 – 7:30pm

    At the Home of
    Tony & Cynthia Kranz
    1086 Hygeia Avenue,
    Encinitas, California

    Contribute and RSVP by clicking here!
    Suggested Minimum Contribution $100.
    Contribute $250 to become a Sponsor
    ($35 for limited income Seniors and Students)

    If you have already contributed any amount,
    please come as our guest and
    let us know that you are attending:
    (760) 634-8280 or
    send an email: meet@tonykranz.com

    Contributions by check
    to be made payable to
    Kranz for Mayor 2014
    1086 Hygeia Avenue
    Encinitas, CA 92024
    www.tonykranz.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about a rebate?

      Delete
    2. Sure to be lots to drink. And a whopping six supporters.

      Delete
    3. What is arrogant is the suggested price crap- really.

      Suprised to see Rachelle Collier and Michelle Mlove backing this

      Shaffer Barth and Kranz have no transparency- they lied on prop a, they mislead in newsletters, they tell untruths- (Shaffer said a tax hike was a "good deal" on video) then in the newsletter claimed she didn't, they know Vina lied to them at the March 12 council meeting withholding financial information and did nothing to hold him accountable-

      the three have also increased debt taking money away from projects that would benefit the community. All three are poor role models of financial responsiblity, stewards of the environment and not the kind of people we want our kids to grow up to be-

      And then to have it on the somber day of 9/11 to boot- recommended donation- a swift kick in the ass

      Delete
  17. I just had a Quesarito, a Chalupa, and two Cheesy Crunch Gorditas.

    Time for a major violation of the Brown Act.

    We're talking felony, with special circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Why don't you address the post you think is Lynn's, 11:28? You know, with facts?

    ReplyDelete
  19. No one, but the Marrs, owns 1/3 of the Marrs home. Lynn hasn't been "posting plenty."

    10:33 and 11:28, it is apparent you are the same petty commentator with a personal grudge.

    You have a distinctive style, though you sometimes, presumably when sober, may attempt to disguise it. Your grudge gives you away, every time.

    Why distract from the topic of EUSD's Brown Act violations through Superintendent Baird and the Board of Trustees? I hope this continues to get more media coverage. Too many public officials count on voter apathy and ignorance to get reelected.

    The Brown Act has no teeth in this county because Bonnie Dumanis abuses her discretion in not enforcing the law, when complaints have been made. Jim Bond had the attitude, if we were doing something wrong, "we'd be sued." Well when Kevin Cummins did that, with the help of Californians Aware, regarding another section of open government law, Government Code related to the California Public Records Act, rather than the Brown Act, the City did everything in its power to resist following the letter and intent of that law.

    The City's misbehavior and violations of the law have been enabled by a District Attorney who doesn't enforce the law, and some judges who aren't willing to hold public officials, particularly elected officers, to task.

    Remember, Dan Dalager was only brought to Court by the DA on three counts of conflict of interests charges (which he was able to plea bargain down to one conviction) after he was voted out of office, with Kristin Gaspar replacing him in 2010.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Lynn posting about Lynn in the third-person is both funny and a little sad.

    Lynn, we don't care, but you are not fooling anyone.

    Say what you want. But if you deny, accuse, and piss people off, I might give enough of a crap to expose you through a simple JStylo analysis (Google it).

    ReplyDelete
  21. CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - CCP Section 425.16. (in part)

    "(a) The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process. To this end, this section shall be construed broadly.

    (b) (1) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim."

    ReplyDelete
  22. You are pathetic, with your grudge, obsession and personal vendetta, 1:44. The topic posted by WC on this thread is about EUSD's open government law violations.

    Stop trying to distract from the importance of governmental officials' misbehavior by targeting a non-government individual by name. WC and others can recall that you before stated that Lynn should post annonymously if she doesn't want you to call her out, by name. You insisted she was commenting out of ego.

    Yet when she stops posting by name, you assume that everyone who agrees that some of our local government officials are not being transparent, and are not obeying the letter and intent of the law, must be her, by default.

    You're wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Cory Briggs, Attorney in San Diego (one of the 3 that brought down Filner) is also now on the case. The Coast News (online) just reported the story. They have also reached out to Baird and say they will have an update if and when Baird responds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, 2:00! Good news about more investigation of repeated open government violations, and more media coverage, through the Coast News.

      Delete
    2. Ah yes, Cory Briggs. The Orly Taitz of San Diego county.

      I guess there weren't enough building code violations committed over the summer? Boat payment's due?

      Delete
    3. Why don't you stop trying to attack the watchdogs, the activists and the messengers and start trying to understand the facts and opinions being presented/debated?

      Delete
    4. Cory Briggs is an opportunist, not a watchdog.

      Delete
  24. Are we allowed to respond to other commenters?

    My first post on this thread was in response to a claim made by 10:53: "Lynn hasn't posted in a long time"

    Lynn, I have no problem with you posting anon, although I was not the person who recommended you do so.

    Just don't lie about not posting. Most of us know your style. Again, you aren't fooling anyone, so the misdirection serves no purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yep, without a doubt, several of these postings are by the infamous Lynn. You can not deny her writing style. It doesn't change even though she posts Anon. You can't fool us Lynn.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Lynn has an obsession about the Brown Act. One has to wonder why.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Lynn didn't lie; that assumption or implication is twisting the truth. What was said was, "Lynn hasn't been posting plenty." Lynn has several times admitted to WC and anonymously, that she's posting anonymously, now, and posting much less. She has said part of this is to deflect a particular frequent commentator's obsession with her.

    Obviously, public officials should set a good example in abiding by open government laws, and all laws, respecting individual property rights, and civil liberties, including citizens' Constitutionally guaranteed rights of privacy.

    At the same time, public officials, and elected officers should be transparent in their actions, acting, respectfully, as public servants, not egotistic, self-serving, conflicted bureaucrats.

    Crap Master (Crappy Marvy) has an obsession with Lynn. One has to wonder why.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I hate to get back on topic, I promise it will a be temporary respite.

    Thanks for the link 9:12. I have no problem reading the verbiage of the actual statute. I hope you don't mind that I ignore what a panel of lawyers say, their ilk tend to be very suave when pushing their own agendas.

    Though I don't know for sure that they had a quorum, I'll go along with your assertion that this was a legislative body as defined in the statute. I think there are a few of key unanswered questions, but in my mind none of them warrant the conniption you and others are raising about this retreat. Key among these are questions of the agenda, and what exactly was communicated between members:

    "(c) Nothing in this section shall impose the requirements of this
    chapter upon any of the following:

    (5) The attendance of a majority of the members of a legislative
    body at a purely social or ceremonial occasion, provided that a
    majority of the members do not discuss among themselves business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body of the local agency.

    54952.6. As used in this chapter, "action taken" means a collective
    decision made by a majority of the members of a legislative body, a
    collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a
    legislative body to make a positive or a negative decision, or an
    actual vote by a majority of the members of a legislative body when
    sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution,
    order or ordinance."

    In my mind, this comes down to is whether the fact that a supposed quorum of like-minded co-workers were skulking off to establish and execute a secret education agenda.

    From my reading of the reports and Tim Baird's on the record responses, it seem more likely that this was a group of co-workers doing team building and blowing off steam in preparation for a new school year. I also believe that your approach definitely enters the realm of a nuisance, in that there is no evidence that any decisions were made, or that there was an action agenda or actionalble decisions made. By your logic, should the board members cluster together around the Ruth's Chris table during the EEF fundraiser, a SWAT team should be called in to enforce the Brown act.

    I am not sure who you are, but I have long suspected what others have stated here. Your writing style is consistent, and your personal agenda is obvious. I'd like to hear you address whether you believe that the La Quinta retreat might possibly have been held well within the spirirt of the law, and what your position would be should that be shown to be the case.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Don't throw out your shoulder slapping yourself on the back. Get it? SLAPP?

    God, I'm so funny, informative, and well-researched. I think I'll post a few more affirmations of my own brilliance...

    ReplyDelete
  30. You are again taking the law out of context. EUSD business was discussed. A quorum of elected Trustees were present. The meeting was not properly notice; it wasn't open to the public; it does not fit with the exemptions provided. You can argue, rationalize and try to justify till the cows come home about "action taken," but the retreat was not exempt from open meeting requirements.

    I am not the only one posting here, at length, including commenting about SLAPP lawsuits, or ANTI-SLAPP motions. Why does it matter who is who. Focus on what is said. You started out okay, then you closed with more targeted personal remarks, making incorrect assumptions.

    The La Quinta retreat was not within the letter or intent of the Brown Act. That's my position, because I have researched the law, have consulted with respected professionals, and because I can read the plain English contained in the Brown Act, reading the pertinent sections in their entirety, not taking one part, only, out of context.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Despite many temptations, I have not in any way, attacked you personally. Plain English? Screw you Lynn, or whoever the hell you really are.

    You still haven't answered the central question of my last reply. If it were readily apparent that Tim Baird and the rest of the board were acting in good faith and not trying to pull one over on you and/or the voters/parents/taxpayers of Encinitas, would you still be pursuing this line of attack? I suspect so, which makes me wonder, what skin do you have in this game?

    ReplyDelete
  32. 6:39/8:818,

    Ironically, while I wrote the original post to which you responded, I didn't write the 2:39 post (although I agree with the legal analysis). And I don't know who Lynn is, either (but she obviously bothers you).

    You're right. I have an agenda. Guilty as charged. But we ALL have an agenda for posting on this site. Why else would we post? Whether its to advance a goal, belief, political position, or just to make me feel empowered, you're right, I have an agenda. YOU DO TOO. I have no problem with being accused of having an agenda.

    Turning to your last paragraph, the point here is that, based on my analysis as well as independent analyses of several other people who are attorneys/experts in this area of the law (I'm certainly not), if a majority of the Board attended an EUSD retreat over 100 miles outside the district without telling the public about it, that is a problem and a violation of the Brown Act. Whether Dr. Baird and the participating board members acted in good faith or with the worst of intentions, the conclusion remains the same -- the retreat was a violation of the Brown Act. If they unknowingly violated the Brown Act, fine. Say so. And agree not to make the same mistake again. And do better to learn the parameters of the Brown Act.

    What is being lost here is the Brown Act has a purpose. It is a statute that is to be broadly construed for the purpose of encouraging open government and allowing public participation. That includes school boards.

    In Dr. Baird's most recent attempt to defend the retreat (by my count, he has made at least three, first trying to shoe horn the retreat into the conference exception (that exception doesn't apply, see my original post), then likening the retreat to the Board's attendance at a PTA meeting, and now apparently saying it's like the Board attending a Back to School night (both PTA meetings and Back to School Nights are heavily attended by the parents and public, are they not, and aren't they also scheduled and the public/parents told about those meetings way ahead of time?) And in his most recent attempt, he invoked the "spirit" of the Brown Act. But the "spirit" of the Brown Act is exactly why this is an issue that needs to be corrected. If a majority of school board members convene with 30 or so high level district management/administrators to discuss models of learning or whatever other district business they discussed (it's district business, how is it not district business if the only people there were top level administration, management, and board members from the district?), then the public should be allowed to participate.

    Here's an idea. If the administration wants to hold a private, team-building retreat, do it without a majority of the Board present. But if a majority of the Bd is going to participate, they need to do so in a manner that follows the law.

    Of course, it's a whole different question whether it's wise/appropriate for the administration to spend thousands of $$ of taxpayer money on a retreat, whatever its purpose and irrespective of the Brown Act issue. But the purpose of this thread is the Brown Act so I'll keep this comment on point.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "We all have agendas" is a (second) lame evasion of the question. Absent and proof that harm was done, what is the point of pushing Brown act enforcement over this? It seems like a bunch of busybodies with chips on their shoulders are trying to win political points or to micromanage the EUSD budget. Both are complete wastes of time that distract EUSD from its mission.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Baird is defiant and claims this was a back to school event. Let's see the receipts for the booze, meals and rooms - most parents have to spend money on supplies and clothes. The entire cost of this event should be deducted from Baird's paycheck. Baird is trying to seep it under the carpet - he needs to be censured or fired.

    ReplyDelete