San Mateo District Attorney Collaborates with Redwood City School District to Violate Open Meetings Act

By on

Redwood City School District (RCSD) has recently held TWO Closed Session meetings to discuss the election contest (Robell v. Church). Both closed sessions violate the Brown Act (Gov Code 54956.9).

"The law is crystal clear," Robell said. "There is no attorney-client privilege in public meetings outside of defined exceptions. A public agency can only have a closed session to discuss litigation when it's suing someone, being sued, or has credible exposure to be sued."

What is even more utterly outrageous is the fact that Robell gave a heads-up to both the RCSD School Trustees as well as the San Mateo District Attorney before the most recent 8/9/23 school board meeting where a closed session to discuss Robell v. Church was on the agenda. See correspondence to them here:

Email to District Attorney

Email to RCSD Trustees

As anyone can see, instead of enforcing the law as written, the DA apparently just went along with the school's bond counsel. See Robell's email to the DA below suggesting they are NOT doing their job as overseers. This is not only a constitutional violation (not conducting business in public) but also a coordinated effort where the DA is protecting the district at all costs!

Timeline / Statement of Facts:

May 24, 2023:  RCSD conducts first closed session to discuss "Anticipated Litigation" with no details whatsoever despite Brown Act requirements governing closed session items. This meeting was the last one held prior to the issuance of bonds.

August 9, 2023: RCSD conducts second closed session which the agenda says is to discuss Robell v. Church, Gov Code 54956.9, subd. (d)(1).

Note subd. (d)(1) is an exception allowing a closed session when "Litigation, to which the local agency is a party, has been formally initiated."  But as stated in correspondence to the district and the DA, RCSD was NEVER a party to Robell v. Church. The case was adjudicated on 5/10/23. 

Just prior to going into closed session, Trustee Cecilia Marquez read a statement prepared by district counsel:

"Before we move onto oral communication, I do have to say something, which is before we ask for public comment on closed session for agenda item 3.1, I wanted to clarify that based on advice of the district’s legal counsel, the board has agendized this item to receive advice from the legal counsel regarding a currently pending case of Robell v. Church which directly impacts the district's interest as it seeks to invalidate a district bond measure and the associated significant exposure to litigation against the district."

The only "significant exposure to litigation against the district," when the election is invalidated, will have been caused by the district's reckless conduct (egged on by the advisors who helped the district win the election using public moneys who want to have their payday) in issuing bonds and spending the proceeds prior to a final appellate judgment. For example, will property taxpayers be forced to repay bonds that the district recklessly issued?

Then, after coming out of closed session, Trustee Cecilia Marquez stated:

"We received an update on litigation."

Wow! These comments were orchestrated legal mumbo-jumbo. It's crystal clear a closed session was NOT authorized pursuant to 54956.9 subd. (d)(1) since:

a) the case has been adjudicated, and 
b) the district is NOT a party to the case. 

Do the district and DA both think it's ok to disregard the Brown Act and hide information from the public?
 
Robell is considering a demand to make the content of both closed sessions public.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

By on
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 6...
Read more
By on
April 3, 2023  Press Release - For immediate release Contact: Christopher Robell (650) 245-7395    c hris_robell@yahoo.com     Blog: ballotlabel.blogspot.com Redwood City Voter Seeks to Invalidate Local Bond Measures  On March 29, 2023, Christopher Robell filed election contests in the Superior Court of San Mateo County to set aside the Measure S (Redwood City Elementary School District's $298 million bond) and Measure W (Sequoia Union High School District's $591.5 million bond) elections. The issue: the Measure S & W ballot labels, which are the 75-word ballot questions that are often the only thing voters read before they vote, were misleading and not in compliance with the law. Mark Church, Registrar-Recorder of San Mateo County, is the elections official for both elections but did not reject these measures.  Historically, there has been an ongoing problem of the unsuspecting public being misled by municipal bond advisors who write the ball...
Read more

Press from "Redwood City Pulse"

By on
 The local Redwood City Pulse publication covered the appeal: https://www.rwcpulse.com/top-story/redwood-city-resident-keeps-up-legal-fight-against-county-elections-chief-7472232 8/30/23 Redwood City Pulse Article re: Appeal So many problems with the Magistrate's conclusions.  She provided no statutory analysis regarding how she reached her conclusions. Instead, she searched for (or used County Counsel's) statutes that seemed to support a desired conclusion without context. For example, she claims that as long as the amount of the bonds is included in the ballot question, the election cannot be invalidated.  At the trial, I asked if it would therefore be ok for the tax proponents to promise to solve world peace and world hunger as long as the bond amount is disclosed? She said that was a hypothetical. That is completely ridiculous and doesn't make sense. And, as Judge Judy would say, if it doesn't make sense, it's not true.  So how did she arrive at this prepostero...
Read more