RCSD's Alarming Secrecy to Hide Plans to Float Bonds Before the Appeal Deadline

Did Redwood City School District (RCSD) meet in secret to hide its intent to float bonds subject to the election contest before the appeal window was closed?

FACTS:

2/15/23:  RCSD Board authorized the issuance and sale of Series A bonds ($90 million)  

3/29/23: I filed the Statement of Contest with the San Mateo Superior Court

5/9/23:  Judge Healy ruled to dismiss the election contest case.  But DWK (the district's bond counsel) knew I have 60 days to file an appeal.

5/24/23: RCSD Board had a closed session, simply titled "Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation". There was no other information given to the public as to what this was about. Zero. 

But what really happened behind closed doors (with DWK, the district's bond counsel attending) was a calculated, deliberate strategy by DWK (the district's bond counsel who attended the closed session) to float the Series A bonds despite the fact they were subject to the Election Contest where the 60 day right to appeal the lower court's decision hadn't yet expired. 

In other words, the bond counsel wanted to go ahead and float the bonds knowing the deadline for me to file an appeal had not yet expired.  Why? Because they want to make the Court think twice about overturning elections, and they know if bonds are floated, it is hard to "undo". But if they choose to make it hard, that is their own doing, right?

They obviously didn't want me to know about their intent to float bonds, hence called a Closed Session meeting with an opaque reference to "anticipated litigation" even though they aren't suing me and I am not suing them (nor would either of us reasonably anticipate litigation against each other).  This is an election contest where County Counsel is a named party, not the district. So this Closed Session is not permitted according to the Brown Act. 

The only anticipated litigation where the district may be impacted is, ironically, as a result of the reckless decision they made at this very meeting:  to float bonds before the 60 day appeal deadline. I honestly have no idea how the district or anyone could "undo" the bond issuance assuming I prevail on appeal or at the supreme court.

After closed session, the report out to the public was "The School Board received information from the district attorneys and will move forward with the recommendations". Present at the meeting were bond counsel (Bill Tunick and Janet Mueller from DWK). The bond counsel is paid a success fee only when bonds are issued.

Are you angry yet? You should be.

On 6/21/23, I reviewed the RCSD board agenda and watched the meeting that night. The agenda included minutes from the 5/24 board meeting (showing bond counsel in attendance). The district mentioned during the budget discussion they anticipated Series A bonds being settled June 28th. This is when I learned of the nefarious plans and reckless actions the district pursued.

On 6/25/23, I sent a letter to alert various authorities (including the SEC, CA Attorney General, CA State Treasurer) about the alarming secrecy and reckless behavior:

Letter to Authorities re: Bond Issuance

I only received a response from the CA Attorney General who said I should address the concerns with the local district or (board appointed) Citizens Bond Oversight Committee. Gee, do you think that will be effective?

On 8/9/23, RCSD held another Closed Session meeting referencing "Robell v. Church" and anticipated litigation. Despite emails to the DA and the District highlighting the fact there is no basis for a Closed Meeting (since the district isn't suing me, and I'm not suing the district), they proceeded to meet in closed session. Laws be damned!